Effect of Contamination on Reinforcing Bar-Concrete Bond

Abdeldjelil Belarbi, P.E., F.ASCE1; David N. Richardson, P.E., M.ASCE2;

Matthew K. Swenty, P.E., M.ASCE3; and Lawrence H. Taber, P.E.4

Abstract: Current specifications require the removal of reinforcing bar contaminants that reduce bond prior to placing concrete. This
study focused on the interactions of contaminant type, bar size, epoxy coating, concrete strength, and test method 共beam and direct
pullout兲. The majority of the beam tests showed the bond strength was not significantly affected, with certain exceptions. However, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

direct pullout tests revealed a significant reduction of bond strength in most situations. Although the bond strength was still greater than
that required by code, it is recommended that specifications for removal of contaminants should not be relaxed until further study is
performed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲CF.1943-5509.0000091
CE Database subject headings: Bonding; Construction management; Specifications; Reinforced concrete; Bars; Contaminant.
Author keywords: Bond strength; Construction specifications; Reinforced concrete; Reinforcing bars; Reinforcing bar placement;
Contaminants; Slippage; Splatter.

Introduction
A good bond between reinforcing bars and concrete is crucial for
structural strength and serviceability performance. Reinforcement
may become contaminated in a variety of ways during the con-
struction process. Specifications and guidelines such as ACI 301-
05, ACI 318–08, and ACI 311-07 关American Concrete Institute
共ACI兲 2005, 2007, 2008兴 require or recommend that the reinforc-
ing bar be cleaned of bond-reducing contaminants prior to placing
the concrete. Presently, the inspector has to exercise judgment as
to the perceived significance of any bond reduction. Contamina-
tion removal is time consuming, costly, and may be unnecessary
共Suprenant and Malisch 1998兲.
Research has shown that bond strength typically increases
with increases in concrete cover, cover-to-bar size 共C / db兲, bar
size-to-embedment length 共db / le兲, concrete compressive strength,
optimum bar rib characteristics, concrete consolidation, and de-
creases in bar size. Epoxy coating tends to lower bond strength.
The effect of rust, up to a certain degree, has been shown to not
significantly reduce bond strength; subsequently, specifications
regarding rust have been relaxed 共Johnston and Cox 1940; ACI
1 resistance at this point will come from the presence of the ribs.
Chair and Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Cullen Distinguished Profes-
sor, Dept. of Civi and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Houston,
4800 Calhoun Road, N127 Engineering Bldg. 1, Houston, TX 77204-
4003 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: abelarbi@uh.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental
Engineering, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, CE126 1870
Miner Circle, Rolla, MO 65409. E-mail: richardd@mst.edu
3
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Virginia Tech Univ., 102 Patton Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061.
4
Lead Structural Engineer, Black & Veatch Corporation, Kansas City,
MO.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 13, 2009; approved
on October 2, 2009; published online on November 6, 2009. Discussion
period open until November 1, 2010; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Perfor-
mance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 24, No. 3, June 1, 2010. ©ASCE,
ISSN 0887-3828/2010/3-206–214/$25.00.
408 关American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲 1966兴; Kemp et al. 1968;
Goto 1971; Orangun et al. 1977; Bazant and Sener 1988; Darwin
et al. 1994; Castro 1996; Mo and Chan 1996; Fu and Chung
1998兲.
The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of
three common contaminants 共water-based bond breaker, water-
based release agent, concrete splatter兲 on bond strength of rein-
forced concrete for two bar sizes, two levels of concrete strength,
and for uncoated and epoxy coated conditions. Additionally, two
test methods 共beam and direct pullout兲 were evaluated.
Principle of Bond between Reinforcing Bar and
Concrete
Bond behavior involves bond stresses, transfer mechanisms, and
the failure mode. Bond strength is attributed to four factors: 共1兲
chemical adhesion of the concrete to the steel; 共2兲 friction at the
bar-concrete interface from mill scale, rust, and other surface ir-
regularities; 共3兲 bearing against the rib faces; and 共4兲 shear acting
along a cylindrical concrete surface between adjacent ribs. As
force is applied to a deformed bar, the adhesion will break and
friction will act where adhesion has failed. However, the primary
Setting aside issues of concrete cover over the bar, if the rib
height-to-rib spacing ratio is greater than about 0.10–0.15, the
shearing action on the cylindrical concrete surface between ribs
will govern and the bar will pull out. If the ratio is less than the
critical value, the concrete will be crushed in front of the rib,
sometimes forming a wedge. The uncrushed concrete may ride
over the wedge, contributing to splitting failure of the surround-
ing concrete, or, with sufficient cover, the bar may pull through
the concrete. Also, secondary cracks may open at the rib tips.
When deformed bars are subjected to tension, the reactive
force at the ribs acts at an angle that is primarily a function of the
rib configuration. The force that is transmitted to the concrete has
two components. One acts parallel to the bar and is responsible
for breaking the adhesion resistance and overcoming the frictional
resistance at the bar surface, crushing the concrete against the

206 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.

 222
db LVDT
Bonded
51 Area
7.5 db
15 db
PVC Tubing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
LVDT
305
Rebar
Fig. 1. Direct pullout test specimen
ribs, and shearing the concrete between the ribs at a plane be-
tween the tops of the ribs. The perpendicular component is re-
sponsible for creation of circumferential stress. If the clear cover
is smaller than the zone of significant circumferential stress, the
cracks will reach the concrete member surface and the bond will
fail by splitting. If there is sufficient cover to prevent splitting,
and/or if the rib spacing is relatively short, then the cylindrical
shearing mode of failure may govern, causing a shearing type of
failure rather than splitting.
Both types of failure are progressive in nature, starting at the
loaded end where stress is highest and moving toward the free
end. After primary cracks are formed, bond stress adjacent to the
crack will increase, causing the concrete to pull away from the
steel 共adhesion failure兲, again creating a perpendicular component
which induces circumferential stress in a zone around the bar.
Thus, there is an interplay between concrete strength, bar size,
and concrete cover 共ACI 408 关American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲
1966兴; Kemp et al. 1968; Goto 1971; Park and Paulay 1975;
Orangun et al. 1977; Bazant and Sener 1988; Setareh and Darvas
2007兲.
Bond Test Methods
When testing the steel-concrete bond strength, several methods
are commonly used. One method is the direct pullout test speci-
fied in RILEM 7-II-128 共RILEM 1994b兲. This test uses moder-
ately large clear cover around the bar and ultimately gives direct
measurement of bond strength excluding any cover failure. Other
types of pullout tests 共Suprenant and Malisch 1998兲 have given
way to these newer anchorage methods because of concerns with
additional confinement provided by the reaction plate used in the
test. As shown in Fig. 1, the reinforcing bar is only bonded to the
top one-half of the specimen in the RILEM test. A PVC tube is
placed around the reinforcing bar to eliminate the issue of the
confining pressure provided by the frictional restraint at the reac-
tion plate. This type of test is performed to evaluate direct bond
strength and does not represent the stress conditions of a reinforc-
ing bar in a flexural beam or slab. However, it is useful for com-
parative purposes.
A beam test avoids adding confinement and better simulates
the embedment in the tension zone of concrete beams or slabs
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010 / 207
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.
Fig. 2. Beam test specimen
with a smaller clear cover. During the test, both the reinforcing
bar and concrete are in tension. The RILEM beam test 共Fig. 2兲
involves a simply supported beam with a gap in the middle, al-
lowing for easy calculations of the tension force and average
bond stress.
Because of the differences in the testing methods and effects
of the two methods, both direct pullout and flexure testing meth-
ods were chosen for this study. One of the primary purposes of
using the RILEM beam method was to investigate practical ap-
plications. This flexural test simulates the conditions in a beam or
slab that have a relatively small clear cover as commonly seen in
practice
In the second phase of the program, bond strength was tested
using the RILEM 7-II-128 direct pullout test. Overall, failure by
both direct pullout and flexure provided a basis for making a
comparison between the effects of the contaminants under differ-
ent failure conditions as encountered in different types of struc-
tures. The purpose of the research was to study the effects of
contaminants on bond stress and bar slip. The stipulated embed-
ment lengths in the RILEM test method were used because they
prevent excessive bar stresses. Bar stress was not a variable under
study. Additionally, the RILEM methods keep db / le constant, so le
was not a variable in this study.
Experimental Program
Four common variables were studied: surface coating condition
共epoxy coated and uncoated兲, reinforcing bar size 关13 mm 共#4兲
and 22 mm 共#7兲兴, concrete compressive strength 关28 MPa 共4,000
psi兲 and 48 MPa 共7,000 psi兲兴, and contaminant type 共release
agent, bond breaker, and concrete splatter兲. Instead of the 48 MPa
共7,000 psi兲 concrete strength, a 70 MPa 共10,000 psi兲 strength level
would have provided a better indication of the effect of concrete
strength. However, to maintain both strength and workability with
the materials used, admixtures would have been necessary. To
avoid any possible unforeseen chemical interactions with the con-
taminates, no admixtures were used. A limited survey of the con-
struction industry identified the three common contaminants used
in this study.
The first phase of the test program consisted of 32 beam tests,
with three replicate specimens per test for a total of 96 specimens.
The contaminants were applied along the entire bar embedment
length, simulating the worst-case situation. The specimens were
batched in groups of 12 with the type of contaminant being the
only variable per batch.
The second phase of the program consisted of direct pullout
tests with the same variables as the flexure test phase with one
exception. Concrete splatter was only used on the 48 MPa 共7,000
psi兲 concrete cases because the results of the first testing phase
showed that the effects of splatter were insignificant at the lower
 strength. Thus, 28 tests of three rectangular prisms per test were
made for a total of 84 specimens. The specimens were batched in
sets of nine and 12 for the lower and higher strength concrete
mixtures, respectively. Again, the only variable per batch was the
contaminant type, and the contaminants were applied to the entire
embedment length.
The specimen identification code consists of four characters.
The first character is the surface coating condition, either epoxy
coated 共C兲 or uncoated 共U兲. The second character is the reinforc-
ing bar size, either four for 13 mm 共#4兲 or seven for 22 mm 共#7兲.
The third character is the nominal 28-day compressive strength,
either four for 28 MPa 共4,000 psi兲 or seven for 48 MPa 共7,000
psi兲. The fourth character is the type of contaminant applied to the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reinforcing bar: C for control 共no contaminant兲, S for concrete
splatter, B for bond breaker, and F for form release agent.
Test Specimens
The direct pullout test program followed the same procedures as
the appropriate RILEM standard but deviated slightly from the
provided dimensions 共RILEM 1994a兲. Fig. 1 shows the configu-
ration of the pullout test specimens. The hatched section is a
continuous section of reinforcing bar that ran vertically through
the center of the concrete. Only the top one-half of the reinforcing
bar within the specimen was bonded to the concrete. The other
one-half of the reinforcing bar was encircled by a piece of PVC
pipe approximately 6.3 mm 共1/4 in.兲 larger in inside diameter than
the reinforcing bar 关32 mm 共1 1/4 in.兲 and 19 mm 共3/4 in.兲 for the
22 mm 共#7兲 and 22 mm 共#4 bars兲, respectively兴. The total length
of the concrete specimen was 15 times the diameter 共db兲 of the
tested reinforcing bar 共15db兲, of which 7.5db was chosen as the
embedment length.
A previous study had shown that 10db embedment caused ex-
cessive bar stresses in pullout testing; however, 10db was used in
the beam portion of the present study, so a 7.5db length was
chosen as a compromise between the RILEM standard 5db and
10db. The cross section of the concrete specimen is a square mea-
suring 222 mm 共8.75 in.兲 on each side. This resulted in a fairly
large cover over the bar, with cover-to-bar size ratios 共C / db兲 for
the 13 mm 共#4兲 and 22 mm 共#7兲 bars of 8.25, and 4.07, respec-
tively. The reinforcing bar protruded 51 mm 共2 in.兲 from the top
of the specimen and extended 305 mm 共12 in.兲 from the reaction
end. The specimens were cast on their sides in three even layers
of concrete. The specimens were cured for 24 h under plastic,
then until the 28th day in a moist room at 100% relative humidity
and 20⫾ 2 ° C. Finally, the specimens were brought out to the
RILEM-recommended ambient room temperature and relative hu-
midity prior to testing 共approximately 20° C and 60% humidity兲.
The time interval in the laboratory environment ranged from 14 to
80 days.
The beam test specimens used in this study were fabricated
using the RILEM standard as a guideline, as shown in Fig. 2.
Each specimen was a flexural beam separated in the middle with
the reinforcing bar crossing the gap. The two rectangular prisms
were joined together with a steel hinge in the compression zone
and the reinforcing bar in the tension zone. The reinforcing bar
was embedded into the cross-sectional center of each prism for a
length of 10 times its diameter 共10db兲, as specified by RILEM.
PVC tubing was provided outside the 10db length to prevent the
concrete from bonding to the steel along the nonembedded por-
tion of the reinforcing bar. The cover over the bar was 50 mm 共2
in.兲, which is commonly seen in practice. This level of cover gave
a C / db for the 13 mm 共#4兲 and 22 mm 共#7兲 bars of 4.0 and 2.29,
208 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.
respectively. “P” denotes the force applied. The size of the beam,
casting position, concrete cover, and additional reinforcement was
as specified by RILEM, as noted earlier and in Fig. 2. The speci-
mens were cast on their sides in three even layers of concrete. The
specimens were cured for 72 h under plastic, then for 25 days at
60% relative humidity and 20⫾ 2 ° C, in accordance with the
RILEM test method.
Materials
All concrete mixtures consisted of Type I portland cement, 14.3
mm 共9/16 in.兲 nominal maximum size, clean, crushed limestone,
and natural sand. Different sources of Type I cement and reinforc-
ing steel were used for the two test programs, but the specifica-
tions were the same for each. The reinforcing steel was Grade 60
as per ASTM A615-96A/A615M-96a 共ASTM 1997a兲. The epoxy
coating was applied by commercial coating facilities per ASTM
A775-96 共ASTM 1997b兲. For the beam tests, the average rein-
forcing bar yield stress for both bar sizes was determined to be
443 MPa 共64.2 ksi兲 and the average tensile strength was 713 MPa
共104 ksi兲. Reinforcing bar used in the pullout test phase for both
bar sizes had an average yield stress of 492 MPa 共71.3 ksi兲 and an
average tensile strength of 760 MPa 共110 ksi兲. All uncoated rein-
forcing bar was free from any rust, unwanted contaminants, or
coating damage. The bar rib configurations were somewhat dif-
ferent in the two study phases. The beam bar ribs were perpen-
dicular to the axis of the bar, while the pullout bar ribs had a 60°
included angle. The rib height-to-spacing ratio for the pullout
phase bars was 0.10 and was 0.08 for the beam bars.
The bond breaker was a water-based lifting agent used in
tilt-up construction. The form release agent was a surface consoli-
dating water-based form release agent used in precast and site-
cast concrete applications. The concrete splatter had the same
mixture proportions as the mortar portion of the concrete in the
specimen, simulating a multiple lift placement where this type of
contamination often occurs.
The method of applying these contaminants was intended to
simulate worst-case field conditions. The form release agent and
bond breaker were applied using a brush 30 min prior to placing
the concrete. The concrete splatter was dropped 共or splattered兲
onto the bar while slowly rotating the bar to ensure complete
coverage. The concrete splatter was applied approximately 18 h
before placement of concrete. From a series of trial batches in
which the setting time was varied, 18 h was chosen as the worst-
case situation because at this point the splatter has hardened suf-
ficiently to resist being knocked off but is not yet mature enough
to achieve a good chemical bond to the steel.
Test Setup and Procedure
The beam tests were conducted using a 500 kN 共110 kip兲
servovalve-controlled machine. All loads were applied using ram
stroke displacement control to better observe the failure and post-
failure behavior of the specimen. The free-end slip was measured
using LVDTs placed on each end of the reinforcing bar. The
RILEM procedure does not require elastic rebar elongation cor-
rection because of the positioning of the LVDT relative to the
unbonded portion of the bar at the LVDT end of the beam. The
only movement measured is the end of the unstressed portion of
the bar, and the only movement occurring is the bar being drawn
into 共and through兲 the beam. There is no stress in the unbonded
bar length at the LVDT beam end, thus no elastic deformation is
being measured and no correction is necessary. Both halves of the
 beams were tested under a symmetric four-point loading per the
RILEM specification. The LVDTs were attached securely to the
beam, assuring that only relative slip between the reinforcing bar
and concrete was measured. As one side of the beam failed, a
restraint device was placed 共not shown in Fig. 2兲 on that end of
the reinforcing bar to prevent further slip and to allow the other
one-half to reach failure. In this manner, two replicates were ob-
tained from one beam.
Most of the pullout specimens were tested using a servovalve-
controlled loading machine. A LVDT was placed on top of the
specimen to measure movement of the reinforcing bar relative to
the top surface of the concrete. A second LVDT was attached to
the bottom of the steel cage with the reaction end placed against
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a steel plate attached to the reinforcing bar. The displacement-
controlled method provided smooth stress versus displacement
curves for the first six sets of specimens.
For the last two sets of specimens 关22 mm 共#7兲 reinforcing bar,
48 MPa 共7,000 psi兲 concrete兴, the servovalve-controlled machine
could not be used to apply the failure load due to physical limi-
tations; a universal testing machine was used to apply the load. In
this case, a load-control method was used to apply loads, and the
movement of the reinforcing bar relative to the top of the speci-
men was measured with a dial gauge.
Test Results
Concrete Compressive Strength
The compressive strength of the concrete was determined accord-
ing to ASTM C39-01 共ASTM 2002兲. Average strengths for the
beam tests cast with the nominal 28 MPa 共4,000 psi兲 mixture and
for the nominal 48 MPa 共7,000 psi兲 mixture were 33 MPa 共4,780
psi兲, and 46 MPa 共6,710 psi兲, respectively. The ranges were 31.5–
32.7 MPa and 42.9–51.1 MPa. For the pullout tests, the corre-
sponding average strengths were 33 MPa 共4,860 psi兲 and 52 MPa
共7,500 psi兲. The ranges were 30.5–39.8 and 48.1–54.0 MPa.
Beam Test Results
Average bond stress-slip curves were generated for each beam.
The general shape of the curves depended on the type of failure.
Two failure modes were observed: splitting and shearing, with the
majority of failures 共76 out of 90兲 being splitting; two-thirds of
the 13 mm 共#4兲 bars and all of the 22 mm 共#7兲 bars failed in this
manner. In Table 1, the failure mode “both” indicates that with the
particular set of three replicates, some specimens failed by split-
ting and some by shearing. An example of each type of failure
curve is shown in Fig. 3. The results in Table 1 were expected
because cover did not scale with bar diameter: larger bars with
small cover 共C / db = 2.29兲 typically produced failure by splitting,
while specimens with smaller bars 共C / db = 4.0兲 failed by shearing
or splitting. Splitting failure is characterized by a small amount of
slip that produces the splitting, followed by further slip, and fi-
nally a complete loss of bond 共MacGregor 2009兲.
Shearing only occurred in a limited number of 13 mm 共#4兲 bar
tests. This failure is characterized by an increasing amount of slip
until the bar pulls out of the concrete and the bond stress is
considerably reduced. It is shown in Fig. 3 that the flatness of the
average bond stress, slip curve beginning at about 5 mm 共0.2 in.兲
of slip. While no post examination was recorded, it would have
shown that shearing at the extremity and crushing at the face of
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010 / 209
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.
the lugs was occurring. The amount of slip associated with split-
ting failure is considerably less than observed in a shearing fail-
ure.
The results of the beam tests are summarized in Fig. 4 and in
Table 1. The bond strengths shown in Figs. 4 and 5 have been
normalized by dividing bond stress by the square root of com-
pressive strength. It should be noted that the main differences in
the bond strength were due to differences in C / db, which dictated
failure models 共splitting versus shearing兲. Also, from Fig. 4, it is
evident that 13 mm 共#4兲 bars show higher bond strengths com-
pared to that of 22 mm 共#7兲 bars. Both 13 mm 共#4兲 and 22 mm
共#7兲 bars were tested under the same embedment length ratio of
10db. The relative effect of contaminants for both 13 mm 共#4兲 and
22 mm 共#7兲 bars may have been seen if the failure modes were
the same. However, as tested, many of the specimens failed in
bond splitting because the tests better simulate the case of a beam
or slab in terms of moderate concrete cover than pullout tests.
Additionally, despite a constant db / le, bar stresses were higher in
the 13 mm 共#4兲 tests than in the 22 mm 共#7兲 tests, causing a
difference in bond stress. No direct comparison of bond strength
between the two bars sizes is possible due to the two failure
modes: splitting versus shearing.
As shown in Fig. 4, bond strength results of the contaminated
13 mm 共#4兲 bar tests were all greater than 12.4 MPa 共1,800 psi兲
and 5.9 MPa 共850 psi兲 for the 13 mm 共#4兲 and 22 mm 共#7兲 bar
tests, respectively. For the conditions of the tests 共concrete com-
pressive strength, bar coating type, bar yield stress, normal weight
concrete, bottom-of-beam bar position, bar sizes, concrete cover,
and assumed transverse reinforcing index conservatively assumed
as zero兲, knowing bar diameters and steel yield strength, the cor-
responding greatest average bond stresses 共calculated from equi-
librium using calculated embedment lengths 共as per ACI 318-05
Eq. 12-1 of Section 12.2.3兲 were 6.2 MPa 共895 psi兲 and 4.6 MPa
共670 psi兲 for the 13 mm 共#4兲 and 22 mm 共#7兲 bar tests, respec-
tively. Thus, bond strengths reported herein were greater than the
bond stresses implied by the specified development lengths.
Direct Pullout Test Results
Bond strengths for each set of direct pullout tests are summarized
in Fig. 5 and Table 2. The effects of the testing variables were
more pronounced than in the beam testing program. Unlike the
beam tests, most of the direct pullout specimens failed by a shear-
ing mechanism. A few of the 22 mm 共#7兲, 48 MPa 共7,000 psi兲
specimens, and none of the 13 mm 共#4兲 specimens experienced a
bond splitting failure mechanism. The reason for the different
failure mechanism of the larger bar-stronger concrete tests may
have been the change from a displacement-control to a load-
control testing method. The load-control method produced a
greater loading rate during the failure interval resulting in sudden
failure and may have contributed to splitting.
The stress-slip curves were plotted for every direct pullout
specimen. An illustrative example of the shearing failure mecha-
nism is seen in Fig. 6. The predomination of the shearing failure
mode meant that the bond interface was being tested, probably
because of the large clear cover depth 共distance to edge兲. Suffi-
cient concrete covered the bars, forcing most of the bonds to fail
instead of the clear cover failing. Additionally, bond strengths for
22 mm 共#7兲 bars tended to be higher than for the 13 mm 共#4兲 bars
because of greater bar embedment lengths. As shown in Fig. 5,
bond strength results of the contaminated 13 mm 共#4兲 and the 22
mm 共#7兲 bar tests were all greater than 11.7 MPa 共1,700 psi兲.
Looking at both the beam and pullout data, there is a trend of
 Table 1. Beam Test Results
Significance
Bar size Concrete strength Bar stress Bond strength Strength change
Pullout id 关mm共#兲兴 共MPa兲 Surface condition Contaminant Failure mode 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 90% 95%
C47C 13共#4兲 46.3 Epoxy Control Splitting 636 15.9 — — —
C47B 13共#4兲 46.3 Epoxy Bond breaker Both 568 14.2 ⫺10.7 Yes No
C47F 13共#4兲 46.3 Epoxy Release agent Both 564 14.1 ⫺11.4 Yes No
C47S 13共#4兲 46.3 Epoxy Splatter Splitting 612 15.3 ⫺3.8 No No
U47C 13共#4兲 51.1 Uncoated Control Both 644 16.1 — — —
U47B 13共#4兲 51.1 Uncoated Bond breaker Both 581 14.5 ⫺9.8 Yes No
U47F 13共#4兲 51.1 Uncoated Release agent Both 559 14.0 ⫺13.1 Yes Yes
U47S 13共#4兲 51.1 Uncoated Splatter Splitting 653 16.3 1.4 No No
C44C 13共#4兲 32.3 Epoxy Control Both 623 15.6 — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C44B 13共#4兲 32.3 Epoxy Bond breaker Splitting 540 13.5 ⫺13.3 Yes Yes
C44F 13共#4兲 32.3 Epoxy Release agent Both 541 13.5 ⫺13.2 Yes Yes
C44S 13共#4兲 32.3 Epoxy Splatter Shear 628 15.7 0.8 No No
U44C 13共#4兲 32.7 Uncoated Control Splitting 563 14.1 — — —
U44B 13共#4兲 32.7 Uncoated Bond breaker Shear 500 12.5 ⫺11.3 No No
U44F 13共#4兲 32.7 Uncoated Release agent Both 547 13.7 ⫺2.9 No No
U44S 13共#4兲 32.7 Uncoated Splatter Splitting 589 14.7 4.5 No No
C77C 22共#7兲 42.9 Epoxy Control Splitting 286 7.2 — — —
C77B 22共#7兲 42.9 Epoxy Bond breaker Splitting 255 6.4 ⫺11.0 No No
C77F 22共#7兲 42.9 Epoxy Release agent Splitting 270 6.7 ⫺5.9 No No
C77S 22共#7兲 42.9 Epoxy Splatter Splitting 300 7.5 4.8 No No
U77C 22共#7兲 44.8 Uncoated Control Splitting 278 6.9 — — —
U77B 22共#7兲 44.8 Uncoated Bond breaker Splitting 271 6.8 ⫺2.5 No No
U77F 22共#7兲 44.8 Uncoated Release agent Splitting 308 7.7 ⫺11.0 No No
U77S 22共#7兲 44.8 Uncoated Splatter Splitting 312 7.8 12.2 No No
C74C 22共#7兲 31.5 Epoxy Control Splitting 256 6.4 — — —
C74B 22共#7兲 31.5 Epoxy Bond breaker Splitting 255 6.4 ⫺0.4 No No
C74F 22共#7兲 31.5 Epoxy Release agent Splitting 238 6.0 ⫺7.0 No No
C74S 22共#7兲 31.5 Epoxy Splatter Splitting 235 5.9 ⫺8.0 No No
U74C 22共#7兲 35.2 Uncoated Control Splitting 268 6.7 — — —
U74B 22共#7兲 35.2 Uncoated Bond breaker Splitting 257 6.4 ⫺3.9 No No
U74F 22共#7兲 35.2 Uncoated Release agent Splitting 252 6.3 ⫺6.0 No No
U74S 22共#7兲 35.2 Uncoated Splatter Splitting 290 7.3 8.3 No No

predominant failure types: for C / db = 8.25, all failures were of the
shearing type; for C / db of about 4.0, there was a mixture of
shearing and splitting types; for C / db of 2.29, all failures were
splitting. Bond strength increased as compressive strength, C / db,
and db / le increased. The trend for bar size as an isolated variable
was conflicted by other factors.
Statistical Analysis of Data
The statistical significance of the effects of the contaminants was
investigated by use of Dunnett’s t test and a least-squares model.
Dunnett’s t test compares a set of means against a control group
mean. The significance levels chosen for this test were ␣ = 0.05
and 0.10. Tables 1 and 2 show the results of the Dunnett’s t test at
95% and 90% confidence levels for the beam and pullout tests,
respectively.
An inspection of the bond stress results for the beam tests
shows that the bond strength was greater for: 共1兲 13 mm 共#4兲 bars
共all 32 tests兲 as compared to 22 mm 共#7兲; 共2兲 higher compressive
strength mixture 共31 out of 32 tests兲; 共3兲 control compared to
bond breaker 共eight out of eight tests兲; 共4兲 control compared to
form release agent 共seven out of eight tests兲; 共5兲 concrete splatter
compared to control 共six out of eight tests兲; and 共6兲 uncoated
reinforcing bar compared to epoxy coated 共22 out of 32 tests兲. In
comparison, the results of the direct pullout tests reveal that the
bond strength was greater for: 共1兲 22 mm 共#7兲 bars 共11 out of 14
tests兲; 共2兲 higher compressive strength concrete 共11 out of 12
tests兲; 共3兲 control compared to all three contaminants 共28 out of
28 tests兲; and 共4兲 plain reinforcing bar compared to epoxy coated
共10 out of 14 tests兲.
The effect of form release agent on bond strength using beam
testing resulted in an overall average of 8% loss across all vari-
ables. Two of eight tests were significantly different at the 95%
confidence level. Strength losses were 13% in both significant
cases. Direct pullout specimen testing resulted in an overall 16%
loss across all variables. Four of eight tests were significantly
different at the 95% confidence level. In the four significant cases,
strength losses were 16–28%.
The effect of bond breaker on bond strength using beam test-
ing resulted in an overall 9% loss across all variables. One of
eight tests was significantly different at the 95% confidence level.
In that case, strength loss was 13%. Direct pullout specimen test-
ing resulted in an overall 23% loss across all variables. Five of
eight tests were significantly different at the 95% confidence
level. Strength losses were 22–40%.

210 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.

 Bond Slip (mm)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2500

Bond Splitting 16
2250
(Drop in Bond
2000 14
Strength)
1750 12

Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (psi)

1500
10
Bond
1250
Pullout 8
1000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6
750
4
500

250 2

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Bond Slip (in)
Fig. 3. Example bond stress-slip curve from the beam tests

The effect of concrete splatter on bond strength using beam
testing resulted in an overall 2% change across all variables. None
of eight tests were significantly different at the 95% confidence
level. Direct pullout specimen testing resulted in an overall 13%
loss across all variables. Two of four tests were significantly dif-
ferent at the 95% confidence level. Strength losses were 22–42%.
For the direct pullout results, an analysis of the effect of coat-
ing of the reinforcing bar showed that for each contaminant treat-
ment, the difference in bond strength loss between coating types
averaged 11%. The epoxy coated tests resulted in larger losses in
four of 10 cases. Thus it appears that the effect of epoxy coating
itself was relatively small and did not consistently increase or
decrease the bond strength.
From the distribution of the beam data shown in Fig. 4, the 22
mm 共#7兲 reinforcing bars gave a lower bond stress 共average 54%兲
than the 13 mm 共#4兲 bars, due to insufficient cover. For the direct
pullout test program, Fig. 5 shows a small 共10%兲 increase in bond
strength for the 22 mm 共#7兲 bar tests mainly due to the longer
embedment length provided for larger bars, plus cover did not
govern failure as in most of beam tests. In comparing the results

35
C: Coated
U: Uncoated
30 First # (4 vs. 7) = bar size
Second # (4 vs. 7) = concrete strength
Normalized Bond Strength

25

20

15

10

0
U44 C44 U47 C47 U74 C74 U77 C77

Control Release Agent Bond Breaker Concrete Splatter

Fig. 4. Bond strength test results from the beam tests

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010 / 211

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.

 45
C: Coated
U: Uncoated
40 First # (4 vs. 7) = bar size
Second # (4 vs. 7) = concrete strength

35

Normalized Bond Strength 30

25

20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

15

10

0
U44 C44 U47 C47 U74 C74 U77 C77

Control Release Agent Bond Breaker Concrete Splatter

Fig. 5. Bond strength test results from the direct pullout tests

Table 2. Pullout Test Results

Significance
Bar size Concrete strength Bar stress Bond strength Strength change
Pullout id 关mm共#兲兴 共MPa兲 Surface condition Contaminant Failure mode 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 90% 95%
C47C 13共#4兲 54.0 Epoxy Control Shear 668 22.3 — — —
C47B 13共#4兲 54.0 Epoxy Bond breaker Shear 499 16.6 ⫺25.2 Yes Yes
C47F 13共#4兲 54.0 Epoxy Release agent Shear 482 16.1 ⫺27.8 Yes Yes
C47S 13共#4兲 54.0 Epoxy Splatter Shear 592 19.7 ⫺11.5 No No
U47C 13共#4兲 53.0 Uncoated Control Shear 594 19.8 — — —
U47B 13共#4兲 53.0 Uncoated Bond breaker Shear 354 11.8 ⫺40.2 Yes Yes
U47F 13共#4兲 53.0 Uncoated Release agent Shear 540 18.0 ⫺8.8 No No
U47S 13共#4兲 53.0 Uncoated Splatter Shear 451 15.0 ⫺24.0 Yes Yes
C44C 13共#4兲 32.8 Epoxy Control Shear 449 15.0 — — —
C44B 13共#4兲 32.8 Epoxy Bond breaker Shear 379 12.6 ⫺15.7 Yes No
C44F 13共#4兲 32.8 Epoxy Release agent Shear 354 11.8 ⫺21.5 Yes Yes
U44C 13共#4兲 31.2 Uncoated Control Shear 497 16.6 — — —
U44B 13共#4兲 31.2 Uncoated Bond breaker Shear 387 12.9 ⫺22.5 Yes Yes
U44F 13共#4兲 31.2 Uncoated Release agent Shear 362 12.1 ⫺27.3 Yes Yes
C77C 22共#7兲 48.1 Epoxy Control Splitting 691 23.0 — — —
C77B 22共#7兲 48.1 Epoxy Bond breaker Splitting 540 18.0 ⫺21.8 Yes Yes
C77F 22共#7兲 48.1 Epoxy Release agent Both 614 20.5 ⫺11.2 No No
C77S 22共#7兲 48.1 Epoxy Splatter Shear 401 13.4 ⫺42.1 Yes Yes
U77C 22共#7兲 51.2 Uncoated Control Splitting 677 22.6 — — —
U77B 22共#7兲 51.2 Uncoated Bond breaker Both 577 19.2 ⫺14.6 No No
U77F 22共#7兲 51.2 Uncoated Release agent Both 641 21.4 ⫺5.1 No No
U77S 22共#7兲 51.2 Uncoated Splatter Both 550 18.3 ⫺18.7 No No
C74C 22共#7兲 30.5 Epoxy Control Shear 422 14.1 — — ——
C74B 22共#7兲 30.5 Epoxy Bond breaker Shear 364 12.1 ⫺13.6 Yes No
C74F 22共#7兲 30.5 Epoxy Release agent Shear 354 11.8 ⫺15.9 Yes Yes
U74C 22共#7兲 39.8 Uncoated Control Shear 575 19.2 — — —
U74B 22共#7兲 39.8 Uncoated Bond breaker Shear 414 13.8 ⫺27.9 Yes Yes
U74F 22共#7兲 39.8 Uncoated Release agent Shear 476 15.9 ⫺17.5 Yes No

212 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.

 Bond Slip (mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2250 6

2000 14

Ultimate Bond Strength (Mpa)

1750 12

1500
10
Bond Stress (psi)

1250 8

1000
6
750
Bond
Pullout 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

500
2
250

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Bond Slip ( In.)

Fig. 6. Illustrative bond stress-slip curve in a direct pullout test

of all control tests, the effect of greater concrete compressive
strength resulted in an 8% increase in bond strength in the beam
study. In the direct pullout study, the increase was 37%.
A comparison of the means of the control specimens in the
beam tests using Dunnett’s t test showed that the following were
significantly different at the ␣ = 0.05 level: bar size 共uncoated兲 and
bar size 共coated兲. The Dunnett’s t test comparison of the means of
the control specimens of the direct pullout tests showed that the
effect of concrete strength was significant at the ␣ = 0.05 level.
Least-squares model analysis verified the significance of these
variables.
In Table 1, the significantly different beam treatment combi-
nations are the 13 mm 共#4兲 bar, epoxy coated, 28 MPa 共4,000 psi兲
concrete strength contaminated with bond breaker or form release
agent, and 13 mm 共#4兲 bar, uncoated, 48 MPa 共7,000 psi兲 con-
crete strength contaminated with form release agent. This trend
shows a possible interaction of the form release agent or bond
breaker contaminants with the smaller bar size, weaker concrete,
and epoxy bar coating. A least-squares model verified the signifi-
cance of that interaction.
In Table 2, the direct pullout tests had a large number of sig-
nificantly different tests so a least-squares model was used to find
possible interactions. The interactions of all three contaminants,
the bar size, and the concrete strength were significant when try-
ing to predict bond strength at a significance level of 0.05.
With the significance level of ␣ = 0.10, Table 1 shows three
additional beam tests identified as significantly different, for a
total of six. All were for 13 mm 共#4兲 bars. For the direct pullout
case, three additional tests were found to be significantly different
resulting in a total of 14 out of 20 significantly different tests.
Conclusions
An examination was made of the effects of three common con-
taminants 共water-based bond breaker, water-based release agent,
concrete splatter兲 on bond strength of reinforced concrete for two
bar sizes, two levels of concrete strength, and for plain and epoxy
coated conditions. The following conclusions are drawn from the
experimental and statistical studies of this investigation:
1. All of the beams with 22 mm 共#7兲 bars and approximately
two-thirds of the beams with 13 mm 共#4兲 bars failed by
splitting. The amount of slip associated with this failure is
considerably less than observed in a shearing failure. Shear-
ing failure occurred in about one-half of the 13 mm 共#4兲 bar
beam specimens;
2. The direct pullout tests tended to fail in the shearing failure
mode. The thick clear cover around the reinforcing bar pre-
vented splitting failures;
3. The C / db influenced the type of failure mechanism, which
impacted whether the contaminants were seen to be detri-
mental. The difference between the mechanisms is that in the
direct pullout test, forces are applied parallel to the bond.
The beam tests have forces as seen by a flexural beam or slab
that are more typical in practice than in the pullout test. Fail-
ures by splitting in a beam test showed a much smaller bond
strength reduction than a comparable test in a direct bond
pullout method;
4. For the beam tests, bond strength was greater for the follow-
ing:
a. 13 mm 共#4兲 bars;
b. Higher compressive strength mixture;
c. Control compared to bond breaker;
d. Control compared to form release agent;
e. Concrete splatter compared to control; and
f. Plain reinforcing bar compared to epoxy coated.
5. In the results of the pullout tests, bond strength was greater
for the following:
a. 22 mm 共#7兲 bars;
b. Higher compressive strength concrete;
c. Control compared to all three contaminants; and
d. Plain reinforcing bar compared to epoxy coated.
6. The beam tests exhibited an average loss in bond strength of
8% due to the presence of form release agents or bond
breaker contaminants. However, in 13 out of 16 contamina-
tion tests, a comparison of the means analysis showed that
the bond strength was not significantly affected by the form
release agents or bond breaker contaminants. None of the
beam results were significantly affected by the concrete
splatter. However, as the data indicates, as bar size and con-

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010 / 213

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.

 crete strength decrease and the bar surface is epoxy coated,
the reinforced concrete may be more susceptible to a loss of
bond strength caused by bond breaker and form release agent
contaminants, regardless of the failure mode observed: split-
ting versus shearing;
7. The direct pullout tests exhibited an average loss in bond
strength of 21% due to all three contaminants. Nine of the 16
pullout tests performed with the form release agent or bond
breaker were significantly affected by the contaminant. Two
of the four concrete splatter sets were also significantly af-
fected;
8. A comparison of the means of the control specimens showed
that:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 06/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a. For beam tests, the effect of bar size 共coated and un-
coated兲 was significant; and
b. For pullout tests, the effect of concrete strength was
significantly different.
9. The interaction of the form release agent contaminant with
bar size, concrete strength level, and coating condition was
significant. For the direct pullout tests, the interaction of all
three contaminants, the bar size, and the concrete strength
were significant when trying to predict bond strength;
10. The pullout tests showed that contaminants can decrease
bond strength significantly. The beam tests showed that at
commonly used levels of cover, the concrete member may
fail before the effect of the contaminants can assert them-
selves. Additionally, contaminants were applied to all the
bars with 100% coverage. This would be considered the
worst-case scenario. Whether this much contamination
would occur under actual field conditions is considered un-
likely. Even with 100% coverage, contaminants were ineffec-
tive in certain conditions; and
11. A universal statement cannot be made about bond contami-
nants for every scenario at this time. Although certain con-
taminants lowered bond strength significantly, in the case of
the beam specimens the bond strengths were still greater than
that required by ACI 318-08. However, it is recommended
that specifications for cleaning of contaminants should not be
relaxed until further research and analysis is performed.
Recommendations for Future Research
One purpose of this research was to provide a credible basis for
future research to be performed. The goal is to eventually gather
enough data for the possible development of appropriate recom-
mendations that consider altering the current requirements of
cleaning contaminated steel reinforcing bar prior to placement of
concrete. Studies that focus on other types of contaminants, set-
ting times, amount of contaminant coverage, reliability studies,
concrete admixtures, embedment lengths, factors of safety, and a
comparison of code-required bond strength for a variety of sce-
narios should be undertaken.
Acknowledgments
For their help with funding, the writers thank the University
Transportation Center at Missouri University of Science and
214 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2010
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010.24:206-214.
Technology, McCarthy Construction, Associated General Con-
tractors, Site Advancement Foundation, Industry Advancement
Fund, Southern Illinois Construction Advancement Program, St.
Louis Construction Training and Advancement Foundation, and
the Erectors and Riggers Association of St. Louis.
References
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共1966兲. “Bond stress-the state of the
art.” American Concrete Institute (ACI) Journal Proceedings, 63共11兲,
1161–1190.
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2005兲. “Standard specifications for
structural concrete.” 301-05, Farmington Hills, Mich.
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2007兲. “ACI manual of concrete
inspection.” SP-2(07), Farmington Hills, Mich.
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2008兲. “Building code requirements
for structural concrete 共ACI 318-08兲 and commentary.” 318-08, Farm-
ington Hills, Mich.
ASTM. 共1997a兲. “Standard specification for deformed and plain billet-
steel bars for concrete reinforcement.” A615/A 615M-96a, West Con-
shohocken, Pa., 301–305.
ASTM. 共1997b兲. “Standard specification for epoxy-coated steel reinforc-
ing bar.” 775-96, West Conshohocken, Pa., 301–305.
ASTM. 共2002兲. “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylin-
drical concrete specimens.” C39-01, West Conshohocken, Pa., 21–25.
Bazant, Z. P., and Sener, S. 共1988兲. “Size effect of pullout tests.” ACI
Mater. J., 85共5兲, 347–351.
Castro, P. 共1996兲. “Influence of coatings on bar-concrete bond.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng., 8共4兲, 212–214.
Darwin, D., Hadje-Ghaffari, H., Choi, O., and McCabe, S. 共1994兲. “Bond
of epoxy-coated reinforcement: Cover, casting position, slump, and
consolidation.” ACI Struct. J., 91共1兲, 59–68.
Fu, X., and Chung, D. 共1998兲. “Effects of water-cement ratio, curing age,
silica fume, polymer admixtures, steel surface treatments, and corro-
sion on bond between concrete and steel reinforcing bars.” ACI Mater.
J., 95共6兲, 725–734.
Goto, Y. 共1974兲. “Cracks formed in concrete around deformed tension
bars.” ACI J., 68共4兲, 244–251.
Johnston, B., and Cox, K. 共1940兲. “The bond strength of rusted deformed
bars.” ACI J., 37, 57–72.
Kemp, E., Brezny, F. and Unterspan, J. 共1968兲. “Effect of rust and scale
on the bond characteristics of deformed reinforcing bars.” ACI J.,
65共9兲, 743–756.
MacGregor, J. 共2009兲. Reinforced concrete-mechanics and design, 3rd
Ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Mo, Y., and Chan, J. 共1996兲. “Bond and slip of plain rebars in concrete.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 8共4兲, 208–211.
Orangun, C. O., Jirsa, J. O., and Breen, J. E. 共1977兲. “A reevaluation of
test data on development length and splices.” American Concrete In-
stitute (ACI) Journal Proceedings, 74共3兲, 114–122.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. 共1975兲. “Chapter 9: Bond and anchorage.” Rein-
forced concrete structures, Wiley, New York, 392–425.
RILEM. 共1994a兲. “RC5: Bond test for reinforcing steel. 1. Beam test.”
RILEM technical recommendations for the testing and use of con-
struction materials, 7-II-28 D, E & FN Spon, London, 96–101.
RILEM. 共1994b兲. “RC6: Bond test for reinforcing steel. 1. Pull-out test.”
RILEM technical recommendations for the testing and use of con-
struction materials, 7-II-128, E & FN Spon, London, 102–105.
Setareh, M., and Darvas, R. 共2007兲. “Chapter 3: Special topics in flex-
ure.” Concrete structures, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle
River, N.J., 194–195.
Suprenant, B., and Malisch, W. 共1998兲. “How clean must rebar be?”
Conc. Constr., 43共6兲, 517–523.