Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures -

Assessment, Durability, Monitoring and Retrofitting of Concrete Structures- B. H. Oh, et al. (eds)
ⓒ 2010 Korea Concrete Institute, Seoul, ISBN 978-89-5708-181-5

Bearing angle model for bond of reinforcing bars to concrete

O.C. Choi & H.J. Choi
Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea
G.H. Hong
Hoseo University, Asan, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT: Experimental studies have demonstrated that bond strength increases with an increase in the
relative rib area bars under high confinement, but under low confinement, bond strength is independent of de-
formation pattern. This study is intended to explain the nature of the wedging action of reinforced bars as they
interact with concrete during bond failure. Analytical expressions to predict bond resistances for splitting fail-
ure of cover by fracture and shearing failure are derived, in which the bearing angle is a key variable. As the
bearing angle is decreased, the splitting bond resistance decreases while the shearing bond resistance in-
creases. In the case of bars at a moderate level of confinement, the bearing angle is decreased to decrease the
splitting resistance and to increase the shearing resistance. The bearing angle model is useful to better under-
stand bond mechanisms between reinforcing bars and concrete.

1 INTRODUCTION With this information as background, this study is

During the late 1950s and the 1960s, researchers
observed two phenomena accompanied by the slip of
ribbed bars: (1) concrete is split by the wedging ac-
tion of the ribs and (2) concrete between the ribs is
crushed (Rehm 1957, Lutz & Gergely 1967). Re-
searchers observed that the ribs act as wedges and
the concrete in front of the ribs crushes gradually,
resulting in a pullout-type failure and found that the
concrete in front of the ribs undergoes gradual
crushing, followed by a pullout failure (Fig. 1).
A number of researchers have derived analytical
expressions for bond mechanisms in splitting failure
intended to explain the nature of the wedging action
of ribbed bars as they interact with concrete during
bond failure. Analytical expressions to determine
bond resistances for splitting and shearing failures
are derived and used to predict bond strength. The
roles of the bearing angle, which is the key variable
in the expressions, are explored. The bearing angle
model is proposed for analyzing the bond behavior
of ribbed reinforcing bars to concrete and improving
the understanding of bond mechanisms of reinforc-
ing steel in concrete structures.
face angle of crushed concrete( α )

(Tepfers 1979, Cairns 1979). Bond between steel bars lodged crushed concrete

and concrete has been idealized in finite element A rib face angle
rib spacing

analyses. For the case of splitting failure, analytical

diameter of bar

studies of interfacial bond have been performed to pre-

dict the bond strength of ribbed reinforcing bars (Choi
& Lee 2002), and in this paper, the fracture of con- rib
rib height
crete cover on bond behavior is addressed. A

The rib geometry of deformed bars governs bond SECTION A-A

behavior and is instrumental in guaranteeing ade-
quate bond resistance. The influence of deformation
pattern on bond performance has been studied and
bond resistances have been observed to vary with
the rib characteristics (Tefers 1979, Skorobogatov &
Edwards 1979). Studies by Tholen & Darwin (1996)
have demonstrated that bond strength increases with
an increase in the relative rib area bars under high
confinement, but under low confinement, bond
strength is independent of deformation pattern.
Figure 1. Flattened rib face angle by concrete crouching
(Tepfers 1979).
2 BOND RESISTANCES IN SPLITTING AND
SHEARING RAILURE
2.1 Bond resistance in splitting failure
Wedging action by the rigid steel rib of deformed
bars makes it possible to resolve bond forces into
 J = − D ( hstress
normal , T ) ∇h σ
n and tangential shear stress τ, (1) as explicitly
tance of dFaccounts
x below for
the the
rib, evolution
and exertsof a hydration
bursting
shown in Figure 2. The resultant of normal compo- reaction
force andconcrete
on the SF content.
around This sorption
the bar. Figure isotherm
2 shows
Thealong
nents proportionality coefficient
the bar is what places D(h,T) is called
the surrounding reads
the force, hr cot α exerted by σr on one rib over a
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear
concrete in tension. When a reinforcing barfunction
in ten- short length of the bar circumference. The compo-
of theP,relative
sion concrete humidity h and
under the temperature
bearing side ofT a(Bažant
rib is nent of force in the x-direction
⎡ and the summation
⎤ of
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires
placed in a state of tri-axial compression, with the the component force on the⎢ perimeter
we (h α c α s ) = G (α c α s )⎢ − 1 is given⎥ by
+
that the variation in time of the water mass per unit σ ∞ − α )h ⎥
, , , 1
major principal stress, the bearing stress, q , on the 1
(g α
volume
rib acting of concrete
parallel to (water
the content w)Normal
bar axis. be equaltoto thethe π ⎢
⎣ e c c ⎥⎦ 10
1
(4)
divergence
bearing stress,of the
themoisture flux J stress σr acts ra-
minor principal Fx = ∫ π 2 dFx = σr cot αhrdb (4)
dially around the bar. The method of analysis (pre-
− ⎡ (g α
∞ − α )h ⎤
2
K (α c α s ) e
⎢
,
c c − ⎥ 10
1
1
sented here is a slightly revised and condensed form)
− ∂wbeen previously by Choi & Lee (2002)(2)
⎢ ⎥
1

has = ∇ •usedJ to Equation (6) is substituted⎣ in to Equation (4),

⎦ result-
∂t ing in the final equation to predict bond resistance,
evaluate the bond strength in splitting. The bond
force
Theequal
waterto content
the sumwofcan thebebearing stressason
expressed thea sum
sin- where isthe
which first term
expressed (gel isotherm) represents the
as follows.
gle rib area T , is given by
of the evaporable water w (capillary water, water physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
e
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable term
Tsplit = (capillary
Fxπ tan α
(1 +isotherm)
µ cot α )
+ Arrepresents the capillary
c
T = Ar σq
(chemically bound) water wn (Mills 1966, (1) water. This expression
(1 − µ tan α )is valid
sin αonly
(cos αfor
− µlow
sin αcontent
) (5)
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to of SF. The coefficient G1 represents the amount of
assume
in whichthat
Ar =the evaporable
projected area ofwater is a function
rib parallel of
to the bar where per
water Fx isunit
thevolume
confiningheldforce
in thebygelfracture
pores atof100%
con-
A r = π
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration, αc, and
axis, approximated by d b h r where h r is the relative humidity, and it can
crete cover or transverse reinforcement. be expressed (Norling
degree ofribsilica
average fume
height, σqreaction, , i.e. won
= bearingαsstress e=we(h,αc,αs)
the bar rib Mjornell 1997) as
= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm
acting parallel to the bar axis. The frictional force
2.2 Bond resistance ins shearing failure
(Norling the
between Mjonell 1997).
concrete andUnder this on
the steel assumption and
the inclined G (α α c )= k α c+k α s (5)
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one
surface of the rib may be represented using the c s bars
Deformed
1
,
vg bear
c against
vg s the concrete in front of
obtains
Mohr-Coulomb relation. the ribs, thus increasing shearing stress on the con-
wherekey.
crete and ksmay
kcvgShear vg arecause
material parameters.
failure, and the From
potential the
∂w ∂h maximum
failure plane amount
can beofestablished
water per unit volume
for such that
cases can
along
− e + ∇ • ( D ∇h) =db/2∂we α& +
∂w
e α& + w& db
(3) fill all shear
which pores stresses
(both capillary
are high,pores and gelinpores),
as shown Figureone 3.
∂h ∂t h ∂α dc
∂α s n
can calculate
The location of as onefailure
K1shear obtainssurface along the possi-
c s
θ

hr ble shear crack depends on the rib geometry and the

σq hr

where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/desorption dθ levels of vertical force (confining ⎡
⎢
force)
⎛ ∞ and
c c
⎞ ⎤hori-
⎜ g α − α ⎟h ⎥ 10

isotherm
σ θ
(also called moisture capacity). The zontal force w −(bond α sforce).
c + α s s − G ⎢⎢ − e
Failure occurs when
0.188
⎝0.22
⎠
⎥ the 1
1

governing equation (Equationσ 3) must be completed (6)

0 1
r shear strength of the concrete key is overcome. ⎥From
K (αforce
α ) =boundary conditions, ⎣an angle α is ⎦made
by appropriate boundaryτ and initial conditions.P
the
1 c s
,

⎜ g α − α ⎟h
⎛ ∞ ⎞

The relation between the amount σθ of evaporable along the shear failuree surface,
⎝ c cwhere⎠ −
10
the tangential
1
1

water and relative humidity is called ‘‘adsorption stresses and the radial stresses are in equilibrium.
isotherm” if measured with increasing relativity Based
Theonmaterial
a studyparameters
by Birkelandkcvg &andBirkeland
ksvg and (1966),
g1 can
humidityσ and ‘‘desorption isotherm”
n
α in the opposite for cracks in monolithic concrete,
be calibrated by fitting experimental data shearrelevant
strength to
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al. 1994), in should not be assumed greater
free (evaporable) water content in concrete at than 0.2f ′c A c as
the following,
Figure 2. Stresses ‘‘sorption
acting on ribisotherm” will1979).
of bar (Cairns be used with shown
variousinagesEquation (6). & Cusatis 2009b).
(Di Luzio
reference to both sorption and desorption conditions.
BySuppose
the way, that ifthethe hysteresis
stresses along anof interface
the moisturewith V '
n = 0.2 f c Ac
2.2 Temperature evolution (6)
isotherm would be taken into account, two different
an angle of α , defined as bearing angle, are in equi-
relation,with
librium evaporable
the slidingwaterstress
vs relative
by σq andhumidity, must
the normal Note that,
where Ac is at
theearly
area age, since the
of cracked chemical reactions
surface.
be used
stress by according
σn. The stress to the
σq sign of thebyvariation of the
, is given associated
The area of cracked surface Ac and
with cement hydration SF reaction
defined by the
relativity humidity. The shape of the sorption are exothermic, the temperature
area of a cone with the angle of α , field is not uniform
isotherm
σ q = ⎛ for (1 +HPC
µ cotisα )influenced bycmany parameters, ⎞ for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
⎜⎜ σr those that influence
especially + extent and rate⎟ of (2)
the temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be
⎝ (1 − µ tan α ) sin α (cos α − µ sin α ) ⎟⎠
chemical reactions and, in turn, determine pore described in concrete, at least forConcrete
temperature not
structure and pore size distribution (water-to-cement exceeding 100°C (Bažant & Kaplan 1996), by
ratio, cement
Equation (3) ischemical
substitutedcomposition,
into Equation (1) SFtocontent,
obtain Fourier’s law, which reads
r
i
b

P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
s
h
e
a
r
c
r
a
c
k

curing time and method, temperature, mix additives,

etc.).
T = AIn ⎛ the(1literature
+ µ cot α )various formulationsc can⎞⎟ (3)be q = − λ∇Th α min

(7)
found to⎜⎜⎝σdescribe +
r

the sorption isotherm of normal

r
(1 − µ tan α ) sin α (cos α − µ sin α ) ⎟⎠
r α
c
r
u
s
h
e
d
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in the present where q is the heat flux, T is the absolute
Sr

paper σtheacts
where
semi-empirical
radically
expression
around
proposed
the bar axis on theit
by temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity;
Bar
in this
Norling r Mjornell (1997) is adopted because T
concrete cover. The radial stress σ acts over a dis-
r Figure 3. Shear cracks by the concrete key between bar ribs.

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 πdb hr condition. Normally, D (h, Tweaker
J = −the ) ∇h mode of the two
Ac = (7) failures, splitting and shearing failure, is considered
sin α
The proportionality
to govern bond strength, but both failures coefficient
control D(h,T)
The concrete in contact with the bearing side of a moisture permeability and it isoccur
bond strength because two failures appears to a nonlinea
rib is in a state of triaxial compression and is sub-
simultaneously. In of these
the relative
cases, humidity
the bearingh and temperature
angle is
jected to very high compression from the confining & Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
decreased to decrease in the splitting resistance and
force Fx. This triaxility of stress increases the shear that the variation
increase in the shearing resistance.inAs timetheofbearing
the water mas
strength of the concrete. The high compression is al- volume of concrete (water then,
angle reaches a certain value of the angle, content thew) be eq
so beneficial to increase the shear strength, since the divergence
concrete key is sheared off.ofThethe moisture
bearing is fluxdeter-
J
mined so that the splitting resistance can be equal to
high compressive stress modifies the magnitude and
the shearing resistance,
∂w = ∇and finally the resistance it-
direction of principal stress and increases the crack-
self becomes bond− strength
∂t
• JTbond. Thus,
ing load. Two parameters accounting for the in-
creased shear strength from the tri-axial state and the
Tsplit = T = T The water content w can be expressed a
high compression, κ1 and κ2 are proposed. shear bond (9)
Using Equation (6) and (7) and the two parameters, of the evaporable water we (capillary wa
the bond resistance in shearing failure is proposed by vapor,
Equation (9) can and adsorbed
be solved for the water)
bearingand
anglethe non-e
α . The solution for the bearing angle to determinen (Mil
(chemically bound) water w
0.2 f 'cπdb hr bond strength byPantazopoulo
the bearing angle& Mills
model1995). It is reas
is sche-
Tshear = κ1κ 2 matically illustrated in Figure 4. As in cases of is a fu
assume that the evaporable water
moderate or highrelative humidity, h, degree of hydration
sin α (8) confinement, when the splitting
degree of silica fume reaction,
resistance is higher than the shearing resistance,αsthe , i.e. we=w
where κ1 = triaxial state parameter and κ2 = high = age-dependent sorption/desorption
splitting resistance decreases with decreasing the
compression parameter. Information on these two bearing angle. As (Norling Mjonell
in cases of low1997). Under this assum
confinement,
quantities shall be obtained from the results of future when the shearing by substituting
resistance isEquation 1 into
higher than the Equati
analytical or experimental studies. obtains
splitting resistance, the shearing resistance tends to
be minimized and the splitting resistance tends to
∂w ∂the
h + bearing angle∂was we
∂as
− e e αhigh
& + α&s + w
be maximized keeping
3 BEARING ANGLE MODEL ∇ • ( D ∇h ) =
possible. ∂h ∂t h ∂α c
∂α
c s
The friction coefficient µ is one of the key variables to
determine the bond resistance. Bond resistance in- where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/
isotherm (also called moisture capac
Splitting Bond Strength

creases as the friction coefficient increases. The contri-

bution from cohesion to bond resistance is small and governing equation (Equation 3) must be
diminishes as bars slip. The confinement force Fx , pro- by appropriate boundary and initial conditi
vided by fracture of concrete cover or transverse rein- T The relation between the amount of e
n
forcement, is proportional to the bond force. The ca- T water m and relative humidity is called ‘‘
pacity of the confinement force is made up of the T isotherm”
l
if measured with increasing
splitting resistance by concrete cover or by transverse humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in th
reinforcement, thus the confinement force has a limita- case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
tion. When the confinement is determined by the struc- the following, ‘‘sorption
α
isotherm” will be
ture itself, the bearing angle is the only variable in reference
α α
to both sorption
3 2 1
and desorption c
Equation (5) corresponding to the change of bond re- By the way,
Bearing if the hysteresis of the
Angle(α)
sistance. The bearing angle of the failure surface of the Figure 4. Schematicisotherm would beof taken
for determination into account,
bond strength by two
concrete in front of the ribs may be varied. bearing angle model relation, evaporable water vs relative humi
(different confinement).
As in Equation (8), the shearing resistance is ob- be used according to the sign of the varia
tained by the concrete key which would be sheared relativity humidity. The shape of the
off, forming a cone with a length equal to several 4 DISCUSSIONS isotherm for HPC is influenced by many p
times the rib height. The bearing angle is, again, the especially those that influence extent and
key variable since the length of the cone is a func- The bearing angle chemical
model isreactions
proposed and, in turn, determ
for analyzing
tion of the bearing angle. The bearing angle tends to the bond behaviorstructure
of ribbed and pore size bars
reinforcing distribution
to con- (water-
be decreased to a smaller value, to increase the crete. Bearing angleratio,
maycement
be reduced chemical
so thatcomposition,
splitting SF
shearing bond resistance. There might be a lower curing time and method, temperature,
strength is maintained to be less than pullout mix
limit on the bearing angle and the minimum value of etc.).angle
strength. The bearing In theis determined
literature various
so that formulatio
the
the bearing angle can be obtained by the ratio of the splitting resistancefound to describe the sorption re-
can be equal to the shearing isotherm
rib spacing to the rib height. sistance and theconcrete
resistance(Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
itself becomes bond
Bond strength is determined along the interface at strength. Bearingpaperangle the semi-empirical
is only expression
a single variable to pro
a state of resistance equilibrium under any failure Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted b
relate failure modes.

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 D (Confinement
J = −1.
Table h, T )∇h effects for bars with the same rib height.
(1) explicitly accounts for the evolution of hydration
Cases Crushing Shape reaction
Modeand SF α content. This
Fx sorption isotherm
Bond Strength
The proportionality coefficient D(h,T) is called reads
Low Conf. permeability and it is a nonlinear function
moisture Splitting High Low Low
of the relative humidity h and temperature T (Bažant ⎡ ⎤
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires we (h α c α s ) = ⎢
G1 (α c , α s )⎢1 − 1 ⎥
+
that the variation in time of the water mass per unit ∞
, ,

10(g α
Med ⎢⎣ e Med1 c Med
− α c )h ⎥⎥
volume
Med Conf.of concrete (water content w) be equal to the Splitting ⎦ (4)
divergence of the moisture flux J ⎡ 10(g α ∞ − α c )h ⎤
K1 (α c , α s )⎢e 1 c − 1⎥
− ∂wConf.
High = ∇•J (2) Pullout Low ⎢⎣ High High ⎥⎦
∂t

The water content where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the
Table 2. Rib height forcan
effects w barsbe expressed
with as the sum
high confinement. physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
of the
Cases evaporable water w e (capillary
Crushing Shape water, water term (capillary
Mode α
isotherm) represents
Bondthe capillary
Strength
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable water. This expression is valid only for low content
(chemically
Low Conf. bound) water wn (Mills 1966, of SF. The coefficientHigh
Splitting
G1 represents
Lowthe amount of
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
assume that the evaporable water is a function of relative Splitting
humidity, andMed it can be expressed (Norling
Med Conf.humidity, h, degree of hydration, αc, and
relative Mjornell 1997) as
Med
degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=we(h,αc,αs)
= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm
(Norling
Conf. Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and G (α c αPullout c s (5)
High
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one 1 s ) = k vg α c c + kLow
,
vg α s s High

obtains
where kcvg and ksvg are material parameters. From the
As confinement increases, bearing angles reduced
∂w ∂h ∂w ∂w maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
REFERENCES
− e e α& + pullout
e α& +resistance
w&n fill all pores (both capillary pores and gel pores), one
as illustrated in Table 1. When
+ ∇ • ( D ∇h ) =
is
∂h ∂t bearinghangle ∂decreases
(3)
constant, α
c
c
∂α s
as confinement
s in- canPrecast
Birkeland, P. W.KandasBirkeland,
calculate 1 one obtains
H. W., 1966, “Connections in
Concrete Construction,” Journal of American Con-
creases. When splitting resistance is constant, bearing
crete Institute, V. 63, No. 3, pp. 345-368.
angle increases as pullout resistance increases as in
where ∂we/∂h is the
Table 2. Behavior
slope of the sorption/desorption
matches experimental observations
Cairns, J., 1979, “An Analysis of the ⎡
⎢ 10⎜ g α
⎛
Ultimate
1 c
− α ⎟h ⎥
⎞ ⎤
∞ Strength
c
of
isotherm (also called moisture capacity). The
that high rib face angle is flattened by crushed concrete
w0 − 0.188
Lapped Joints
c s + 0.22α s − G
of αCompression ⎢1 − e
⎝
Reinforcement,”
s 1 ⎢ Mar., pp. 19-27.
⎠
Magazine
⎥

governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed ⎦ (6)

of Concrete Research, V. 31, No. 106, ⎥
wedge. The bearing angle model is useful to simulate K1(α c ,O.
Choi, α )C. ⎣
= and Lee, W. S., 2002, “Interfacial Bond Analysis
by appropriate boundary and initial conditions.
ribbed bars-concrete interface behavior and response.
s
of Deformed Bars to Concrete,”10⎜ g α
⎛ ∞
α ⎟hStructural Journal, V.
−ACI
⎞
1 c c ⎠ −1
The relation between the amount of evaporable 99, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. e ⎝750-756.
water and relative humidity is called ‘‘adsorption Clark, A. P., 1949, “Bond of Concrete Reinforcing Bars,”
isotherm” if measured with increasing relativity
5 CONCLUSIONS
The material
Journal parameters
of American Concrete and ksV.
kcvgInstitute, vg and g1 can
46, Nov., pp.
humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in the opposite be calibrated
161-184. by fitting experimental
Darwin, D. and Graham, E. K., 1993, “Effect of Deformation
data relevant to
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al. 1994), in
Analytical expressions to determine the bond resistances
freeHeight
(evaporable)
and Spacingwater on Bond contentStrengthin ofconcrete
Reinforcingat
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be used with
for splitting and shearing failures are derived where the
various ages (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).
Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V.90, No. 6 Nov-Dec., pp.
reference to both sorption and desorption conditions.
bearing angle is a key variable. As the bearing angle is 646-657.
By the way, if the hysteresis of the moisture Lutz, L. A. and Gergely, P., 1967, “Mechanics of Bond and
2.2SlipTemperature
decreased, the splitting bond resistance decreases while
isotherm would be taken into account, two different of Deformedevolution
Bars in Concrete,” ACI Journal, Pro-
the shearing bond resistance increases. In the case of bars
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must
at a moderate level of confinement, which represents the
Note that, at early age, since the chemical reactions
ceedings, V. 64, No. 11, Nov., pp. 711-721.
Rehm, G., 1957, “The Fundamental Law of Bond,” RILEM-
be used according to the sign of the variation of the
practice, the bearing angle is decreased to decrease the
associated
Symposiumwith cement
on Bond hydration
and Crack and SF
Formation reaction
in Reinforced
relativity humidity. The shape of the sorption
splitting resistance and to increase the shearing resis-
areConcrete,
exothermic, the temperature
Vol. II, Stockholm, pp. 491. field is not uniform
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many parameters,
tance, until reaching a certain value of angle. Bearing an-
for non-adiabatic
Skorobogatov, S. M. systems
and Edwards, evenA.if D., the1979,
environmental
“The Influ-
especially those that influence extent and rate of the
gle model is useful to simulate ribbed bars-concrete inter-
temperature
ence of the is constant.
Geometry Heat conduction
of Deformed Steel Bars on canTheir
be
chemical reactions and, in turn, determine pore
face behavior and response.
described
Bond in
Strengthconcrete,
in at
Concrete,” least
The for temperature
Institute
neers, Proceedings, Vol. 67, Part 2, June, 327-339.
of Civil not
Engi-
structure and pore size distribution (water-to-cement exceeding
Tepfers, 100°C“Cracking
R., 1979, (Bažantof Concrete
& Kaplan Cover1996),
along An-by
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF content, Fourier’s law, which
chored Deformed reads Bars,” Magazine of Concrete
Reinforcing
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Research, V. 31, No. 106, Mar., pp. 3-12.
etc.). In the literature various formulations can be q = − λ∇
Tholen, M.T L. and Darwin, D., 1996, “Effects of Deformation (7)
found to describe the sorption isotherm of normal
This research was supported by a grant (code 09F07)
Properties on the Bond of Reinforcing Bars," SM Report,
concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in the present
from Technology innovation Program funded by
No. 42, University of Kansas, page 370.
where q is the heat flux, T is the absolute
paper the semi-empirical expression proposed by
Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity; in this
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it
Korean government.

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010