Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
The excellent mechanical performance of epoxy resins has encouraged their wide-spread application in civil engineering. This paper
deals with the prediction of the interfacial shear strength between the steel bar surface and concrete surface of steel rods bonded into
concrete. The pull out test is used in order to determine the ultimate force and the shear stress of steel–concrete specimens. The
relationship between the ultimate force, the diameter and the length embedded into the concrete are investigated by experimental test.
After discussing some theoretical models, a theoretical model is also proposed in this work in order to estimate the shear distribution and
the critical shear stress at the instance that the first cracks appear and of the ultimate failure of steel/concrete structure. A comparison
between the test and the theoretical results is provided.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0143-7496/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2007.02.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
102 L. Bouazaoui, A. Li / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 28 (2008) 101–108
Concrete
2. Materials
X
Three materials, steel bar, concrete and epoxy resin, are
used in this work. The steel bar used was a type S275. 2R
Three diameters 12, 16 and 20 mm of steel bar were selected
with five different embedded lengths (100, 150, 200, 250
and 300 mm). The yield strength and Young’s modulus of
the steel bar obtained by test was fy ¼ 340 MPa and F
Es ¼ 198,000 MPa, respectively. The initial state of the
Fig. 2. Geometry of pull out model.
surface was smooth. The surface of the steel bar was then
treated by mechanical sandblasting.
The concrete specimen was a cylinder, which had a by the following formula:
diameter of 160 mm and a length of 320 mm. The concrete
had an average compressive strength at 28 days of 40 MPa. 2f 0c
0 ¼ , (2)
The measured tensile strength was 3.3 MPa and the elastic Ec
modulus Ec was 37,800 MPa. The steel bar was embedded
in the centre of the concrete cylinder. The relationship with Ec being the elastic modulus of concrete.
between strain and stress is presented in Fig. 1. In the When the concrete reaches its ultimate compressive
elastic region, the relationship for concrete can be strength, the strain e0 depends only on the compressive
described by the following formula [13]: strength f0 c and the strain value is equal to 0.003. The
" tensile stress of concrete ft is calculated as ft ¼
2 #
0 2c c 0.6(1+0.1fc).
fc ¼ fc , (1) The selected adhesive is an epoxy resin with two
0 0
components. The measured elastic tensile modulus of
where fc is the compressive stress, f0 c is the average epoxy adhesive is Ea ¼ 3600 MPa and its tensile strength
compressive strength of concrete at 28 days. ec is the is sa ¼ 22 MPa.
concrete strain and e0 is the strain corresponding to The geometry of the pull out test is shown in Fig. 2. The
the ultimate compressive strength which is determined diameter and the height of concrete were 160 and 320 mm,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Bouazaoui, A. Li / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 28 (2008) 101–108 103
respectively. The steel rod diameter was varied from 12 to use this formula, because the constant b normally cannot
20 mm. The adhesive thickness is 1 mm. be determined directly.
If it can be assured that the shear stress in the adhesive t Li has simplified this model by applying some
does not vary according to the immersed length of steel bar conditions [15]. The bond strength is ignored; instead the
in the concrete, then the shear stress can be determined by average bond, tav, is assured constant along the debonded
t ¼ F/(pdL), with F being the load applied, d the diameter part of the fibre and the stress distribution along the
of the steel bar and L the length of steel immersed in the debonded part of the fibre is assumed linear. So, the
concrete. following expression to determine the pull out curve can be
It is also admitted that Hooke’s law is valid for steel obtained:
behaviour. The relationship between the applied force F sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and the strain es can be described by F ¼ EsesAs, with Es the E f d 3f tav d
Pf ¼ p ; d d0 , (5)
elastic modulus and As the area of steel bar. 2
To study this relationship between the shear stress, the
steel diameter and the embedded steel length in the 2L2f tav
concrete, three steel diameters (12, 16 and 20 mm) and d0 ¼ , (6)
Ef df
three (140, 210 and 280 mm) or five (100, 150, 200, 250 and
where d0 corresponds to the displacement when maximum
300 mm) lengths of embedded steel in the concrete were
load occur and the debonding is completed along the
used.
embedded length of the fibre. df is the fibre diameter.
The average bond strength, tav, is calculated as
3. Theoretical model
p
tav ¼ max . (7)
Many theoretical models regarding the pull out of fibres pd f Lf
from a brittle matrix are in the literature. These models are In 1985, Piggott [16] proposed a debonding model which
based on either interfacial fracture energy or shear stress allows estimating the axial strain ef in the embedded region
analysis and have proven insightful. However, the wide use of the fibre at a distance x from the resin surface and given
and application of these models to experimental data are at by the following:
best limited. This is partially due to difficulties in
sinh½nðLe xÞ=r
developing micro-scale samples with good experimental f ¼ app , (8)
reproducibility and the appropriate recording of the failure sinhðnsÞ
events, especially for small and sometimes for large-scale where
samples. Em 1 1
n2 ¼ , (9)
E f lnðR=rÞ ð1 þ nm Þ
3.1. Models in literature
Em is the matrix tensile modulus, Ef is the fibre tensile
In 1969, Outwater and Murphy proposed a model based modulus, R is the effective radius of the interface, r is the
on the fracture energy of unidirectional laminates [12]. The fibre radius, nm is the matrix Poisson’s ratio, Le is fibre
relationship between the debonding of the fibre, the tension embedded length and s is the fibre aspect ratio Le/r.
in the fibre and the fracture energy of the laminate is shown The interfacial shear stress can be estimated by
as the following: n cosh½nðLe xÞ=r
2 t ¼ E f app . (10)
p dC 2 sinhðnsÞ
G¼ , (3)
2pd da
where G is the opening mode fracture energy, p is the 3.2. Proposed model
tensile load on the fibre, d is the fibre diameter and dC/da is
the compliance of structure as a function of crack length. In this work, a cylindrical steel rod of diameter 2r is
In 1982, Laws presented another model based on the bonded and embedded in a matrix of cylindrical concrete
shear lag theory [14]. According to this theory, a pull out (Fig. 2). The steel rod embedded length is L. r and R
curve can be determined by the bond strength ts and the represent the radius of the steel rod and concrete,
frictional slip resistance tf. The load–displacement respectively. L0 is the free length of the steel rod.
curve during the elastic stage before debonding can be It is assumed that the steel rod, adhesive and the concrete
expressed as are elastic and isotropic. The longitudinal direction is
parallel to the steel rod axis.
bE f Af sinhðbLf Þ
Pf ¼ d, (4) The applied external stress sF is assumed to be parallel to
coshðbLf Þ 1 the steel rod axis. Under the action of this external stress,
where Lf is the embedded length; Ef and Af are the Young’s the steel rod and the adhesive deform elastically. For an
modulus and the cross-section area of the fibre, respec- element dx of the test specimen (Fig. 3), the difference of
tively; and d is the displacement. However, it is difficulty to displacements du between the steel rod us and the adhesive
ARTICLE IN PRESS
104 L. Bouazaoui, A. Li / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 28 (2008) 101–108
for three steel diameters. These curves show that the 4.3. Influence of bonded surface
ultimate load Fmax increases according to the embedded
length of steel in concrete. On the other hand, this increase With an aim of analysing the relationship between
is very linear. From the test results, the curves give the the loading and the bond area of the embedded surface
following relationship: of the steel rod in to the concrete, the curve of ultimate
loading vs. embedded surface bond area was plotted
F max ¼ aL þ 21, (25)
(Fig. 6). Based upon the experimental results, the curve
where Fmax is in kN, L is in mm and a is a constant. of load vs. embedded surface bond area shows that the
For the steel rod diameter d ¼ 12 mm, a ¼ 0.04; for increase in resistance according to embedded surface is not
d ¼ 16 mm, a ¼ 0.066; for d ¼ 20 mm, a ¼ 0.104. These linear.
results show that in relation to the length, L, the slope of
curve increases linearly according to the steel rod diameter. 4.4. Comparison between the steel/concrete specimens with
adhesive joint and without adhesive joint
4.2. Influence of steel rod diameter
In order to study the effectiveness of adhesive joint in
Fig. 5 shows the influence of steel rod diameter on the improving the interfacial shear stress between the steel
ultimate load of the test specimen. It can be observed that surface and the concrete surface, the experimental test was
for a constant length L embedded in concrete, the increase carried out on the specimen that had no adhesive in the
in force is also linear according to the steel rod diameter. joint. In this case, the steel rod was embedded directly into
For three lengths of the steel rod embedded in concrete, the the concrete. The diameters of steel rod and the embedded
results obtained by tests give a relationship between the length in concrete were 12, 100, 200 and 300 mm,
ultimate load and the diameter as follows: respectively (Fig. 7). It is noted that the ultimate load
F max ¼ k1 d þ k2 , (26) increased significantly for the structure having an adhesive
in the joint. The role of adhesive joint to increase the
where d is the diameter of steel rod. k1 and k2 depend on the adhesive strength between the steel surface and the
embedded length L: k1 ¼ 0.075L and k2 ¼ 0.05L+22. concrete surface is considerable.
This relationship is similar compared to the relationship
between the ultimate load of the test-specimen and the steel 4.5. Force–strain curves
rod length embedded in concrete.
The curves in Fig. 8 present the evaluation of strain in
60 steel according to the loading. Fig. 8 shows that the steel
d = 20 mm has not yielded prior to the failure of structure. For a
50
F(kN) = 0.104 L+21 length embedded in the concrete of 300 mm, the beginning
d = 16 mm
40 F(kN) = 0.066L+21
of a yield region was detected. It is obvious that the strain
increases linearly in steel according to the loading. On the
F (kN)
30 d = 12 mm
F(kN) = 0.04 L+21
other hand, the slope of the curve varied according to the
20 steel rod length embedded in concrete. In the case of a
10
given load, Fig. 8 shows that the strain in steel length
embedded in concrete of 300 mm is greater. At the moment
0 of failure, for the specimen with 300 mm of length, the
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
L (mm)
maximum strain was 2000 mm/m. Then, the maximum
50 F = 0.0006S2+0.5S+23
60
L = 280 mm 40
50
F (kN)
40 L = 210 mm 30
F (kN)
30 L = 140 mm 20
20
10
10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 40 80 120 160 200
d (mm) S (cm2)
Fig. 5. Ultimate load–steel rod diameter curves. Fig. 6. Load–embedded steel rod surface relationship.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
106 L. Bouazaoui, A. Li / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 28 (2008) 101–108
40 35
35 30 L = 200 mm
with adhesive
30 25
L = 100 mm
L = 300 mm
20
F (kN)
25
F (kN)
20 without adhesive 15
15 10
10 5
5 0
0 2 4 6 8
0 Slip (mm)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
L (mm) Fig. 9. Load–slip between the steel and concrete surfaces (d ¼ 12 mm).
Fig. 7. Comparison of ultimate load for the structures with and without
adhesive joint between the steel rod and concrete surfaces (d ¼ 12 mm).
40
h = 15 mm
40 30
h = 85 mm
F (kN)
20
30 L = 300 mm
L =1 50 mm
10
F (kN)
L = 100 mm
20
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
10
Strain (μm/m)
Fig. 8. Force–strain curves for the steel rod diameter 12 mm. steel–concrete interface and failure of the steel rod. It is
known that the steel rod is in tension. The concrete is
acting in tension and shear. The adhesive joint is assumed
to be acting in shear. It is then significant to know if the
stress calculated by using the Hooke’s law is 396 MPa. This stress in the material is in tension or in shear in order to
value is more than that of yield strength of steel rod, determine the mode of failure. Assuming that the tensile
340 MPa. stress in steel is higher than the tensile stress and shear
Fig. 9 shows the evolution of the slip between the steel stress in the concrete and in the adhesive joint, the failure
rod and the concrete according to the applied load. In this will occur in the steel. In the case where the strength of the
case, the relative slip increases according to the embedded steel is sufficient, failure of the interface is produced by the
length of the steel rod. The curves show that the value of ruin of the concrete or the slip of the steel rod. The
maximum slip is approximately 3 mm for a 100 mm appearance of either of these two modes of failure depends
embedded length and 5 mm for a 300 mm embedded length. on the relationship between the values of tensile stress in
Two strain gauges are installed on the steel surface at the steel rod and the tensile and shear stress in the concrete.
position of h ¼ 15 and 85 mm from the concrete surface, in For the first specimen (rod diameter 12 mm), the mode of
order to measure the strain variation during the loading. failure of the test specimen is due to the slip between the
The results are shown in Fig. 10. The experimental values adhesive surface and steel surface. For the other specimens,
show that the strain in steel at the position of 85 mm is it is observed that the failure was due to cracks in the
more than that at the position of 15 mm from the concrete concrete (Fig. 11). Their crack length is between 200 and
surface for a given load. It can therefore be assumed that 230 mm.
the steel near the concrete surface resists the tensile force The direction of propagation of the first cracks PO and
and shear force. PQ (Fig. 11) in the concrete was perpendicular compared
to the axis of steel rod. As the loading was increased,
4.6. Modes of failure longitudinal cracks PRS appeared at the interface between
the steel surface and concrete surface. Then the cracks
In this configuration of specimen, the failure occurred in propagated at the same time, longitudinally and transver-
the three principal regions: in the concrete, at the sally until failure of specimen occurred.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Bouazaoui, A. Li / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 28 (2008) 101–108 107
O Q
P
Table 1
Theoretical and test results
d (mm) L (mm) F (kN) sf (MPa) tc(c) (MPa) tav (Eq. 7: t (Eq. 10: tc (Eq. 23) tmax (Eq. 24) tmax/sf
Laws–Li) (MPa) Piggott) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
4.7. Comparison of test and theoretical results The interfacial shear stress values tc estimated by using
Eq. (23) varied between 4.46 and 6.11 MPa. More
Table 1 shows the test results and the estimated shear importantly shear stress values t estimated by using
stress by using theoretical models. F is the ultimate force. Eq. (10), varied between 5.6 and 10.1 MPa. In the case of
tf is normal tensile stress acting on the steel. The average diameter 12 mm, the value of t is almost two times more
shear stress tav is estimated by Eq. (7). tc is interfacial shear than that of tc. As increasing the steel rod diameter, the
stress between the steel rod and the adhesive obtained by difference between these two shear stresses decreases. For
using Eq. (23). The maximum shear stress tmax is calculated the steel diameter 20 mm, the difference between the two
by using Eq. (24). Shear stress t is calculated by using shear stresses is less significant. The maximum shear stress
Eq. (10) for x ¼ 0. tc(c) represents the interfacial shear tmax obtained by using Eq. (24) is varied between 5.9 and
stress between the steel surface and the concrete surface 15.1 MPa for all steel rod diameters. As increasing the steel
without adhesive joint. rod diameter, the value of maximum shear stress decreases.
The test results show that the ultimate force and normal It is due to the value of tensile stress sf in steel that varies
tensile stress increase according to the embedded length for also with steel diameter. However, the ratio tmax/sf in
a given steel diameter. The maximal shear stress obtained Table 1 shows that the value is about constant, 0.05. So,
by theoretical calculus also increases according to the the maximum shear stress depends also on the tensile stress
embedded length. However, the values of average shear of steel rod. It is interesting to indicate that the interfacial
stress, tav and tc obtained by the theoretical models, shear stress tc(c), between the steel and the concrete surfaces
decrease according to the embedded length. without adhesive joint, is very small. Therefore, the effect
In comparison with the values of average shear stress tav, of adhesive in improving the shear stress between the steel
the values obtained by Eqs. (23) and (10) are very different. and the concrete surfaces is clearly significant.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
108 L. Bouazaoui, A. Li / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 28 (2008) 101–108
5. Conclusion [3] Kim JK, Baillie C, Mai Y-W. Interfacial debonding and fiber pull-out
stresses. Part I: critical comparison of existing theories with
experiments. J Mater Sci 1992;27(31):43–54.
The test and theoretical results obtained by this work
[4] Zhou LM, Kim JK, Mai Y-W. Interfacial deboning and fiber pull-out
give the following conclusions: stresses. Part II: a new model based on the facture mechanics
approach. J Mater Sci 1992;27(31):55–66.
The connections assured by an adhesive joint between [5] Hsuch CH. Interfacial debonding and fiber pull-out stresses of fiber-
the steel surface and the concrete surface provided reinforced composites. VII. Improved analysis for bonded interfaces.
higher joint strengths. The adhesive joint appeared to Mater Sci Eng 1992;A154:125–32.
[6] Zhandarov SF, Pisanova EV. The local bond strength and its
significantly improve the shear and tensile stress determination by fragmentation and pull-out tests. Compos Sci
distribution along the interface between the steel surface Technol 1997;57:957–64.
and the concrete surface. [7] Yue CY, Looi HC. Factors which influence the reliability of the
The ultimate force depended linearly on the diameter assessment of interfacial bonding in fibrous composites using the pull-
and the embedded length of the steel rod. On the other out test. Int J Adhes Adhes 2001;21:309–23.
[8] Wang C. Fracture mechanics of single-fiber pull-out test. J Mater Sci
hand, the ultimate force increased parabolically accord- 1997;3:483–90.
ing to the bonded surface. [9] Kelly A. Interfacial effects and the work of fracture of a fibrous
The first cracks in the concrete appeared at the composite. Proc R Soc 1970;A319:95.
embedded end of steel rod and then propagated [10] Banholzer B, Brameshuber W, Jung W. Aanlytical simulation of pull-
out tests—the direct problem. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27-1:93–101.
transversally and longitudinally.
[11] Greszczuk LB. Theoretical studies of mechanics of the fiber–matrix
The average shear stress estimated did not describe the interface in composites. In: Interface in composites. Philadelphia, PA:
distribution of shear stress well. The proposed model in American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 452; 1969.
this work shows that the critical shear stress at the p. 42–58.
instance of the first cracks in concrete was about [12] Outwater JO, Murphy MC. On the fracture energy of unidirectional
4.5–6.1 MPa and the ratio between the maximum shear laminates. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual technical conference on
reinforced plastics/composites division. The Society of the Platics
stress and the applied tensile stress was about 0.05 for Industry Inc., Section 11-C, 1969. p. 1–8.
steel rod diameter 12 mm. [13] ASTM C 24-91a. Standard test method for comparing concretes on
the basis of the bond developed with reinforceing steel. Philadelphia,
PA: Americain Society for Testing and Materials, 1991.
References [14] Laws V. Micromechanical aspects of the fibre-cement bond.
Composites 1982;13:145–54.
[1] Chapman RA, Shah SP. Early-age bond of glass fiber rods embedded [15] Li VC. Post-crack scaling relations for fiber reinforced cementitious
in concrete and cement grout. RILEM Mater Struct 1987;26:167–75. composites. J Mater Civil Eng 1990;4(1):41–57.
[2] Gao Y-C, Mai Y-W, Cotterell B. Fracture of fiber-reinforced [16] Piggott MR. Load bearing fibre composites. Oxford, UK: Pergamon
materials. J Appl Math Phys (ZAMP) 1988;39:550. Press; 1980.