Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
(eds)
2010 Korea Concrete Institute, Seoul, ISBN 978-89-5708-181-5
ABSTRACT: The force transfer in reinforced concrete is provided by the concrete-to-steel bond. This phenomenon has widely been studied for conventional vibrated concrete (CVC). For self-compacting concrete
(SCC) however less test results are available. To fill in this lack and to develop adapted standards for predicting the bond of reinforcement in SCC, an experimental program has been set up. The bond strength of reinforcement bars with different diameters has been tested by means of beam-test specimens. During testing
the bond stress-slip response was recorded. From the test results it can be seen that the maximum bond
strength of SCC is slightly higher than for CVC when small bar diameters are studied. For larger bar diameters the difference becomes smaller. Comparison of the test data with bond models indicated that the bond
clauses underestimated the bond strength for SCC as well as for CVC. Therefore an adjustment of the bond
model has been made.
1 INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete is far from homogeneous. It is
built up of steel and concrete and the concrete itself is not homogeneous neither. Reinforced concrete elements are basically designed so that the
concrete can carry the compressive stresses and
the steel can resist the tensile stresses. Therefore a
good force transfer between the two materials is
necessary which can only be achieved by an interaction between both materials, which is provided
by bond between the reinforcement bars and the
concrete.
The bond has an important influence on the behaviour of reinforced elements in the cracked stage.
Crack widths and deflections are influenced by the
distribution of bond stresses along the reinforcement
bars and by the slip between the bar and the surrounding concrete.
Due to the importance of the interaction between
steel and concrete a lot of research has been done
in the past. In all these projects the main focus
was on the reinforcement bar, its geometrical
characteristics and how these characteristics influence the bond strength. With the appearance of
new concrete types, such as steel-fibre reinforced
concrete and high strength concrete, questions
arose about the bond strength achieved with these
concrete types, and the main focus of the research
on bond shifted to the concrete and its composition (Martin 2002).
The same questions can be formulated for selfcompacting concrete. A concrete type which, in
fresh state, has the ability to flow under its own
weight, fill the required space or formwork completely and produce a dense and adequately homogeneous material without a need for compaction (De
Schutter et al. 2007). The advantages are clear: no
need for vibration of the concrete, a higher quality of
the finished element, reduced construction times,
. The self-compactability is achieved by adding a
superplasticizer to the mixture and by reducing the
amount of coarse aggregates. Although selfcompacting concrete (SCC) is a relatively new material, already a lot of research has been done on the
durability and the workability of the concrete type
(De Schutter et al. 2008). Less studies have been focussing on the mechanical properties and more in
particular the bond aspects.
Some programs have been carried out to determine the force transfer between concrete and reinforcement in self-compacting concrete. These studies show that the bond strength of steel in SCC is not
lower than for conventional vibrated concrete
(CVC), and may be even higher in some cases
(Almeida et al. 2008, Chan et al. 2003, Zhu et al.
2004, Dehn et al. 2004). Nevertheless there is a great
scatter in the results.
To get a better insight in the difference in bond
strength between conventional vibrated concrete and
self-compacting concrete and to develop modified
models describing the bond stress-slip behaviour,
this research program has been set up.
Materials (kg/m)
SCC1
SCC2
CVC1
w I52,5
w
w
CEM
N
360
360
300
h + ( D h ) = e
e853
w
Sande0/4 mm
853
c
s
n 640 (3)
h
h t
Gravel 2/8 mm
462
c 263 s263
Gravel 8/16 mm
434
434
762
Limestone filler
240
300
the sorption/desorption
where
we/h is the slope of
Water
165
165
165
isotherm
(also
called
moisture
capacity).
The
Superplasticizer
3.6
3.0
governing
equation
(Equation
3)
must
be
completed
fccub (N/mm)
71.7
62.1
58.4
by
appropriate boundary and63.7
initial conditions.
fc (N/mm)
57.5
51.8
fct,flThe
(N/mm)
7.2 amount
6.8 of evaporable
6.2
relation between the
(N/mm)
5.0
4.4
4.1
f
ct,sp
water and relative humidity is called adsorption
&+
&+ &
180
180
100 30
12
c )h
60
130
50
650
800
28
26
100
20
10
10
10
180
10
60
185
50
10(g
K1 ( c , s )e 1 c
plastic tubes
150
50
TheThe
common
way to testcoefficient
the bond strength
proportionality
D(h,T) of
is rebars
called
in
concrete
is
by
means
of
pull-out
tests
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear (RILEM
function
1973).
The behaviour
types of specimens
is
of the relative
humidityofhthese
and temperature
T (Baant
quite
different
from
that
in
reinforced
elements
sub& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires
jected
bending. in time of the water mass per unit
that theto variation
The
beam
test specimen
suggested
RILEM
volume of concrete
(water content
w) be by
equal
to the
recommendation
part 1flux
(RILEM
1973) is more
divergence of theRC6
moisture
J
suitable to evaluate the bond strength of reinforced
elements
subjected to bending. The specimen, con(2)
w = of 2J half-beams, is loaded on top introducing
sisting
t
bending moments in the beam. In this way a more
realistic
stresscontent
distribution
and around
the sum
bar
The water
w caninside
be expressed
as the
is
created.
of the evaporable water w (capillary water, water
explicitly
for than
the 32
evolution
hydration
bars
equal accounts
to or larger
mm. Anofexample
is
reaction
content. (Fig.
This1).sorption isotherm
given
for aand
typeSF
I specimen
reads
The prescribed bond length is 10 times the bar diameter . However this leads to yielding, and in
some cases even rupture,
bar
of the reinforcement
(g
c )h
length of 5 times .
e 1 c
(4)
160
(1)
180
D ( h , T ) h
2J =EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAM
6 x 50
335
100
During
the tests,
the specimens
weregelloaded
fill all pores
(both capillary
pores and
pores),atonea
constant
rate
corresponding
to
an
increase
in steel
can calculate K1 as one obtains
stress of 30 N/mm per minute.
K ( c s ) =
g c c h
10
1
1
Frame
anchored on test floor
s + 0.22 s G
0.188
10
g c c h
(6)
Support
= T
(7)
P
As
32.0
28.0
24.0
(1)
(2)
The factor can be determined from the specimens dimensions and has a value of 1.25 for specimen type I (diameter 12 mm), 1.50 for specimen
type II (diameters 20 and 25 mm) and 1.75 for
specimen type III (diameters 32 and 40 mm).
Two values are of major interest: the ultimate
bond strength R and the so-called characteristic
bond strength M. The ultimate bond strength is defined as the bond stress corresponding to the ultimate load recorded during testing. The characteristic
bond strength is calculated as the mean value of the
bond stresses corresponding to a slip of 0.01 mm,
0.10 mm and 1.00 mm. Both values differ for the
two halves of the specimen.
2.4.1 Influence of the concrete type
The main goal of the study is to compare bond
strengths for self-compacting concrete with those for
conventional vibrated concrete. In figure 3 one of
Fs
d =
= s
l d . . 4.k
D (h, T )slip
h curves (mean of 4
the recorded bondJ =stress
measurements) is plotted for bar diameter 20 mm
and different concrete
In coefficient
table 2 the D(h,T)
Thecompositions.
proportionality
values of the characteristic
bond
strength
andit the
moisture permeability and
is aul-nonlinea
timate bond strength
arerelative
given for
all specimen
of the
humidity
h and types
temperature
as well as the standard
deviation
(DEV).
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
20.0
w h
e + ( D h) = we
h
h t
w
&c + e &s + w
c
s
M, exisotherm
for HPC
is influenced
by many p
cept for bar diameters
12 mm
for which
a significant
especially
those
that
influence
extent
and
difference between
the 2 concretes
isand,
noticed.
The determ
chemical
reactions
in
turn,
difference for thestructure
ultimateand
bond
R is some- (waterporestress
size
distribution
what larger. For ratio,
all tests
on
SCC2,
is
above
the
R
cement chemical
composition,
SF
ultimate bond stress
of
CVC1.
curing
time
and
method,
temperature,
mix
When the bond
stress-slip
ofvarious
the differetc.).
In the relations
literature
formulatio
ent concrete typesfound
are plotted
for
tests
on
specimen
to
describe
the
sorption
isotherm
with a reinforcingconcrete
bar of the
same
diameter,
it
can
be in th
(XiofetSCC1
al. 1994).
However,
seen that the bond
strength
is
larger
than
paper
the (as
semi-empirical
expression
pro
those of SCC2 and
CVC1Mjornell
was expected
dueadopted
to
Norling
(1997)
is
b
the higher compressive strength) at all stress levels,
16.0
Pantazopoulo
& Mills 1995). It is reasonable to
R ,n = R
assume that
the
evaporable water is a function of
fc
(3)
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration, c, and
degree of silica fume reaction, s, i.e. we=we(h,c,s)
Figure 4, R,n is sorption/desorption
plotted for all concrete
mixes
= Inage-dependent
isotherm
and
tested
bar
diameters.
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and
differences
in the normalized
ultimate2bond
by The
substituting
Equation
1 into Equation
one
strength
obtains for the conventional vibrated concrete and
the self-compacting concrete is largest for bar diameters of 12 mm. The difference becomes smaller
w
w
w h
e but
e + bar
for
the e results
&
&s + w&nfor self ( Ddiameters,
h ) =
higher
(3)
c +
h
h
t
compacting concrete are chigher ins all cases. There
are no significant differences between the normalized
ultimate
SCC1
and SCC2, exisa 40
thestrength
slope
ofofthe
sorption/desorption
wherein
we/hbond
cept
case
of
mm
reinforcement
bar.
isotherm
(also
called
moisture
capacity).
The
By increasing
the(Equation
bar diameter,
thebeslip
at ultigoverning
equation
3)
must
completed
mate
bond stress
su is increasing
in all
cases. No sigby appropriate
boundary
andnoticed
initial
conditions.
nificant
difference
can
be
between
the reThe
relation
between concrete
the amount
of evaporable
sults
for
self-compacting
and
the
results
for
water
and
relative
humidity
is
called
adsorption
conventional
concrete.
isotherm if vibrated
measured
with increasing relativity
explicitly
accounts
2.4.3
Crack
pattern for the evolution of hydration
reaction
andtheSFcrack
content.
This
sorptiononisotherm
After
testing
pattern
appearing
the surreadsof the specimen was recorded. No big differface
ences between the crack pattern for CVC1 and the
self-compacting concretes
no SCC1 and SCC2 were
10(g
c c )h so along
inforcing bar and the concrete
e was1 possible,
(4)
the bonding length.
)h
(g crack
patterns
An example of one of 10
the
c
1 c
K1 (inc ,Figure
) e 5.
1 of the
specimen is given
s
c s
vg c
vg s
e
w cover,
s + concrete
s G compressive
ameter, concrete
strength,
c
s
are incorporated.
(6)
K ( c s ) =
All equations have been
by
linear
or
established
g h
c
c
non-linear regression eon test results with varying parameters, but mostly for conventional vibrated concretes
compressive
strengths
beg1 can
Thewith
material
parameters
kcvg andinksvgtheandrange
tween
20 and by
50 fitting
MPa. Few
tests havedata
been
done on
be calibrated
experimental
relevant
to
high
concretes
compressive
strengths
free strength
(evaporable)
waterwithcontent
in concrete
at
above
MPa.
The compressive
strengths of the
various60ages
(Di Luzio
& Cusatis 2009b).
concretes used in this research project are all around
60 MPa or higher for the SCC1 mixture.
10
0.188
0.22
10
J = D ( h, T values
) h
the range of the measured
for larger bar diameters.
The bar diameter The
has also
an influencecoefficient
on the slip D(h,T)
proportionality
corresponding with
the
ultimate
bond
strength
moisture permeability and it as
is can
a nonlinea
be seen on the graphs.
Both models
however
have
of the relative
humidity
h and temperature
fixed values of this
slip value
regardless
the barmass
di- balanc
& Najjar
1972).
The moisture
ameter.
that the variation in time of the water mas
32.0
28.0
Figure 6. Prediction model for the bond stress slip relationship according to MC90 and Huang et al.
= 1
0 s s1
s1 < s s 2
s s2
= 1 ( 1 3 ).
s3 s 2
=3
(4)
(5)
s 2 < s s3
s3 < s
(6)
(7)
0.4
0.4
1
2.5 f c
2.0 f c
3
0.4 1
0.15 1
Table 4. Values for the prediction equations according to
Huang et al. (1996) for good bond conditions.
High strength concrete Normal strength concrete
0.5 mm
1.5 mm
distance betw. ribs
0.3
0.4. fcm
0.4 1
16.0
12.0
Ceb-Fip MC90
Huang
12 mm
20 mm
25 mm
32 mm
40 mm
8.0
4.0
The parameters in this model have been prescribed in the code for confined and unconfined
normal strength concrete with good or other bond
conditions. Huang et al. (1993) proposed values for
the parameters for normal and high strength concrete
under good bond conditions (Table 3 and 4).
s1
s2
s3
1
3
20.0
0.6 mm
0.6 mm
1.0 mm
0.4
0.4. fcm
0.4 1
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Slip [mm]
32.0
SCC2
28.0
24.0
Bond Strength [N/mm]
for
w h
e + ( D h) = we
h
h t
w
&c + e &s + w
c
s
20.0
Ceb-Fip MC90
Huang
12 mm
20 mm
25 mm
32 mm
40 mm
8.0
4.0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Slip [mm]
32.0
28.0
24.0
s
= 1.
s1
= J
24.0
20.0
16.0
12.0
Ceb-Fip MC90
Huang
12 mm
20 mm
25 mm
32 mm
40 mm
8.0
4.0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Slip [mm]
ck
(3)
c
s
n
different
h mixesin a bond
stress versus bar
h t concrete
c
s
diameter diagram. It shows an underestimation of
the ultimate bond strength in all cases, except for
is the(1996)
slope ofwhich
the sorption/desorption
where
we/h
the
Huang
model
is developed for
isotherm
(also
called
moisture
capacity).
high strength concrete. The predicted
valueThe
is
governing
equation
(Equation
3)
must
be
completed
sometimes only 40% of the recorded one. Some
by appropriate
boundary
and initial
conditions. from
models
give bond
strengths
independently
relation between
the amount
of evaporable
the The
bar diameter,
others seems
to predict
the trend
water
and
relative
humidity
is
called
adsorption
quite good but give values that are too low, e.g.
isotherm
with
increasing
relativity
the
models if
by measured
(Orangun et
al. 1977;
Harajli
1994).
humidity
and
desorption
isotherm
in
the
opposite
Therefore the coefficients out of the Oranguncase. Neglecting
difference (Xi
al. 1994),
in
model
have beentheir
re-determined
by et
linear
regresthe
following,
sorption
isotherm
will
be
used
with
sion based on the obtained results.
R [N/mm]
20,0
Harajli
15,0
we (h10,0
c s ) =
,
5,0
0,0
G1 ( c , s )1
(g
c
e
)h
(g
c
c
K15 ( c 25s ) e 35
45
[mm]
10
Huang
Orangun
+
MC90
c )h
10
(4)
(5)
15
25
35
45
w
s + s G e c
c weres almost
compacting concretes
identical,
but
the
(6)
coefficients
for
the
conventional
vibrated
concrete
K ( c s ) =
differed.
The new equations
hgiven in Table 6.
g are
c
c
0.188
0.22
10
R = [1.77+0.49. (c ) ]. f cm
SI
fcm
SI
= [1.87+0.35. (c ) ].
TemperatureR evolution
explicitly
accounts for the evolution of hydration
30,0
SCC2
reaction and SF content. This sorption isotherm
Eligehausen
25,0
reads
Esfahani
R [N/mm]
=Out
D (of
h, Tthis
)h it can be concluded that the models
(1)
R [N/mm]
= T
15,0
15,0
where
20,0
25,0
30,0
R,pred [N/mm]
(7)
Units
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SCC1
2,5
SCC2
CVC1
s1 [mm]
2,0
Harajli
1,5
Huang (HSC)
Oh
1,0
MC90
0,5
0,0
5,000
10,000
15,000 20,000
c 0 [mm]
(8)
Theequation
proportionality
coefficient
The new proposed
is plotted
in Fig- D(h,T)
moisture
permeability
and
it
ure 14 together with the obtained test results. is a nonlinea
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
w
t
0,5
s
now be used in the MC90 model (equation 4 till 7)
=
age-dependent
sorption/desorption
to replace the expressions for 1 and s1.
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
obtains
4 CONCLUSIONS
0,0
= D ( h , T ) h
s1 = c 0 .(0.0035c 0 + J0.006)
s1 [mm]
25,000
A regression analysis has been performed to determine a good relationship between the clear rib
spacing c0 of the tested reinforcing bar and the observed slip corresponding to the maximum bond
strength:
w concluw results,
Based on the obtained
the following
h
e & + we & + w
+ ( D h ) =
e
c
s
sions can be made: h t
h
c
s
a. The bond strength of self-compacting concrete
is as high as the bond strength for conventional vithe slope are
of the
sorption/
wherelarge
we/h
brated concrete when
barisdiameters
studisotherm
(also
called
moisture
ied. For smaller bar diameters, the bond strength of capac
governing
equation
(Equation
3) must be
SCC is slightly higher,
with
the largest
difference
by
appropriate
boundary
and
initial
conditi
occuring for the smallest bar diameters.
Theto relation
amount of e
b. For equal water
cement between
ratio the the
compreswater
and
relative
humidity
is called
sive strength of the powder-type self-compacting
isotherm
if
measured
with
increasing
concrete is higher (due to the limestone filler conhumidity
and
desorption
isotherm
tent), and so are the maximum and characteristic in th
bond strengths. case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
the following,tosorption
isotherm
c. The slip corresponding
the maximum
bondwill be
reference
to
both
sorption
and
desorption c
strength is increasing for increasing bar diameters.
=d. DAlmost
( h, T )hall models neglect the influence of the
(1)
s, i.e. we=we(h,c,s)
Properties and the Bond Behaviour, LACER, 5
= terial
age-dependent
sorption/desorption
isotherm
Desnerck,
P. & De Schutter,
G. & Taerwe, L. 2008.
Bond
(Norling
Mjonell
1997).
Under
this
assumption
and
Strength of Reinforcing Bars in Self-Compacting Concrete:
by Experimental
substitutingDetermination,
Equation 13rdinto
2 one
NorthEquation
American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete
obtains
(SCC2008), Chicago, USA
Harajli, MH. 1994. Development/splice strength of reinforcing
w fiber reinforced
bars
we embedded
and
ACI
h + ( Dinplain
e we concrete,
wn
) =
Structural
h
(3)
c
s
Journal,
91
(5),
511-520
h
h t
&+
&+ &
Harajli,
MH. accounts
2007. Numerical
bondevolution
analysis using
explicitly
for the
of experimenhydration
tally
derived
local
bond
laws:
A
powerful
method
for
reaction and SF content. This sorption isotherm
evaluating
the
bond
strength
of
steel
bars.
Journal
of
Strucreads
tural Engineering. 133 (5). 695-705
Huang, Z. & Engstrm, B. & Magnusson, J. 1996. Experimental investigation of the bond
of
and anchorage behaviour
(h, , University
) 1
weChalmers
+
Chalmers
c s ) = G1 ( c ,of sTechnology,
h (Pull-Out10(g
Martin, H. 2002. Bond Performance
of 1Ribbed
c Bars
c )and
e Composition
Consis(4)
Tests) Influence of Concrete
tency, Proceedings of the 3rd International
)h Symposium:
10(g
Bond in Concrete
from
Research
c
1 cto Standards,
K1 ( c , s ) e
1289-295,
Budapest
K ( c s ) =
,
1
1
s + 0.22 s G
0.188
10
10
g c c h
g c c h
1
(6)
= T
(7)