Materials and Structures

DOI 10.1617/s11527-007-9307-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Bond-slip behavior of self-compacting concrete and vibrated

concrete using pull-out and beam tests
Fernando Menezes de Almeida Filho Æ
Mounir K. El Debs Æ Ana Lúcia H. C. El Debs

Received: 13 February 2007 / Accepted: 10 September 2007

RILEM 2007

Abstract This paper analyzes the bond behavior of Notation

an innovative construction material, self-compacting s0.01 Bond stress for slippage of 0.01 mm
concrete (SCC), in comparison to vibrated concrete in test, MPa;
(VC), using pull-out and beam tests according to the s0.1 Bond stress for slippage of 0.1 mm
Rilem procedures. The main analyzed parameters in test, MPa;
were the concrete compressive strength, the steel bar s1.0 Bond stress for slippage of 1.0 mm
diameter, the concrete type and the test adequacy to in test, MPa;
provide a value for bond strength. Also, a compar- sm Average bond stress in test,
ison between Code provisions and empirical MPa;
equations was done. According to the results, SCC su Ultimate bond stress in test, MPa;
and VC specimens presented similar behavior. The su, beam Bond strength in beam test, MPa;
equations results showed a satisfactory approach su, pull-out Bond strength in pull-out test, MPa;
compared to the experimental ones, but as expected /s Steel bar diameter, mm;
Code provisions were very conservative. Based on du Vertical displacement of the beam
the obtained results, it could be concluded that the specimen for failure load, mm;
same parameters adopted for VC can be extended Pu, pull-out Maximum applied load in
for SCC. pull-out test, kN;
Pu ,beam Maximum applied load in beam
Keywords Bond strength
test, kN;
Self-compacting concrete
Vibrated concrete
ld Development length, mm;
Pull-out
Beam test fc Concrete compressive strength,
MPa;
su Maximum slip for failure load in
pull-out test, mm;
su,1 Maximum slip for failure load in
beam test for LVDT1, mm;
F. M. de Almeida Filho
M. K. El Debs
su,2 Maximum slip for failure load in
A. L. H. C. El Debs (&) beam test for LVDT2, mm;
Estruturas, Escola de Engenharia de Sao Carlos, Av.
su, pull-out Slip failure in pull-out test, mm;
Trabalhador Sãocarlense, 400, Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo
13566-590, Brazil su,beam Average result for the slip failure
e-mail: analucia@sc.usp.br in beam test, mm.

1 Introduction
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) is an innovative
construction material that has been used in civil
engineering and it could be defined as a mixture that
can be cast in any place of the formwork, just through
the accommodation due to its own weight [1, 2]. SCC
is capable to flow inside the formwork, passing
through the reinforcement and filling it out without
the use of compacting equipments. Like this, the use
of SCC increases the productivity, reduces the labor
and improves the final quality of the structure [3].
According to the literature, SCC also appears to
improve the bond strength, due to its filling ability
when involving the reinforcement. This improvement
was not significant, but the experimental data proved
self-compacting concrete presents, at least, the same
behavior of vibrated concrete (VC) [4–6].
Most guidelines for the use of SCC [7–9] empha-
sizes on ranges and recommendations regarding the
fresh properties of the material but little is discussed
regarding its hardened properties. In all cases, the
behavior of SCC in the hardened state is considered
at least as good as the VC of equivalent strength.
However, the application of SCC is expected to
improve the flexural behavior due to its superior
filling capability, which could also increase the bond
between the reinforcement and concrete and, with
this capability, could indirectly increase the confine-
ment effect, but there is still an absence of data about
this subject to provide a consistent conclusion [4].
For low-compressive strength, when SCC is com-
pared to VC, it possesses similar bond strength, with
some peculiarities in its behavior [4, 10–12]. Besides,
in places with high reinforcement rate, the fresh
properties of SCC turns it a better choice than VC
[13]. For high-strength concrete, however, there is a
lack of information to support the same conclusions.
Usually, there are two main experimental test
methods used to study the bond behavior of steel bars
embedded in a concrete matrix: direct pull-out tests
on a bar embedded in a concrete cube at varying
heights, and the pull-out of single bar placed in small
beam specimen tested in bending [14].
According to ACI 408R-03 [15], there are several
specimens arrangements to evaluate the bond behav-
ior, being these specimens divided in two types: pull-
out specimens and beam specimens. The beam
specimens, due its similarities with current structural
Materials and Structures
elements subjected to bending, certainly provide a
better estimative of the bond strength. The ACI
proposed pull-out specimens incorporate transverse
reinforcement to prevent splitting failure of the
concrete prism. The presence of this reinforcement
induces two different failure modes: pull-out or
yielding of the bar. The main expected behavior is
the pull-out of the bar, but since it usually occurs at
lower stress level, compared to the yielding of the bar
or the splitting failure, it seems more desirable the
failure occurring by the yielding of the steel bar in-
order-to provide the structure the needed ductility.
Besides, the use of the transverse reinforcement hides
one of the main purposes of this test, which is to
evaluate the reduction of the development length due
the confinement [4]. Pull-out specimens without
reinforcing steel, on the other hand, show the
influence of the concrete compressive strength and
the bar diameter and, because of that, many authors
do not use transverse reinforcement in pull-out tests.
The behavior of the specimens of high-strength
concrete during the tests can also be affected by the
concrete cover splitting that occurs due to the internal
cracking provoked by the stress transference in the
interface between the steel bar ribs and the adjacent
concrete. The longitudinal cracking that appears is
due to the compressive forces radiating out in an
inclination that varies with rib surface. These strains
from inside to outside turn the slip of the steel bar
very small, compared to similar specimens with low-
compressive strength concrete (this is why pull-out
and beam tested specimens of high-compressive
strength concrete presented no apparent slip). This
cracking failure in normally reinforced beams results
in smaller anchorage capacity than bond slip failure
does, becoming very important to consider this kind
of failure [16]. Also, these compressive forces in turn
produce tensile stresses in the surrounding concrete
and cause successive splitting cracks followed by
some critical splitting surface line between the steel
bar and the surface of the concrete element. The final
collapse takes place when these cracks propagate all
along the anchorage zone (bonded zone), and
depending on the reinforcement arrangement and its
location relative to the concrete surface, these
splitting lines can form different patterns [16].
Similarly to the VC, the study of the bond strength
between SCC and steel bars can be done through the
same procedures: pull-out tests at varying heights in
Materials and Structures

mock-up structural elements and pull-out of single 100

bars placed in small prismatic specimens, using the

Cumulative passing (% )
80
Rilem procedure [17]. The pull-out tests, very easy to
perform, were the first considered in this study to 60 Silicious sand
evaluate the bond strength. But since the beam tests Crushed stone

are more reliable, and they also reflect the influence 40

of the flexure, they were also considered, and among
the several types of beam tests proposed to evaluate 20

the bond strength, the Rilem standard test seemed to

0
be the best choice for this study purpose. 0,1 1 10 100
Sieve size (mm)

2 Research significance Fig. 1 Aggregate grading for SCC and VC mixtures

This paper presents a study of the behavior of beams

Table 1 Mix design for VC and SCC mixes (per cubic meter)
and pull-out specimens through an experimental pro-
gram. The main objective was evaluating the load Material VC1 VC2 SCC1 SCC2
versus displacement and load versus slip behavior and Cement (kg) 365.3 488.3 338.8 365.1
the bond strength, regarding the influence of the Sand (kg) 883.9 766.6 854.8 815.3
following parameters: concrete compressive strength Gravel (kg) 942.3 942.4 919.1 876.7
(30 and 60 MPa), concrete type (VC and SCC), and bar Water (kg) 260.8 227.0 273.6 146.1
diameter (10 and 16 mm). Also, it is expected with this Superplasticizer (%) – – 0.4% 0.75%
research to evaluate the bond strength of specimens
Filler (kg) – – 101.6 146.1
with VC and SCC. Also, to compare the tests results
Silica fume (kg) – – – 36.5
with those given by several Codes provisions, evaluat-
ing if the bond strength of SCC can be appropriately
predicted by the existing equations obtained for VC.
Table 2 Properties of fresh
Tests SCC1 SCC2
VC and SCC mixes
3 Experimental program Slump test
Slump flow 67.5 62.0
3.1 Materials (cm)
T50 (s) 1.0 1.0
The used cement was CP-V (initial high-strength L-Box test
cement). The used sand (quartz origin) had specific T60 (s) 1.0 1.0
weight of 2.63 kg/dm3 and crushed stone (basaltic RB 0.95 0.9
origin) had specific weight of 2.83 kg/dm3, with V-Funnel
nominal size of 19 mm, and compressive strength of Tv (s) 1.5 2.0
346.5 MPa. The superplasticizer used was based on Tests VC1 VC2
carboxylate chains, which density was 1.1 kg/dm3 Slump test
with 20% of solid content. Figure 1 shows the Slump (cm) 24 9
aggregate grading for SCC and VC mixes.
Table 1 show the mix design and Table 2 shows
the fresh properties for SCC and VC mixes. made without any agent to increase the cohesion,
Table 3 shows the needed values to achieve the resulting in low values for the funnel-V tests, and
required fresh properties of the SCC. Those values producing a SCC highly flowable with no signs of
are the average of the data obtained in several segregation (evidenced by a non-uniform coarse
researches [18], and the experimental results of this aggregate distribution and/or a separation of the
research are in accordance with the established components at the perimeter zone). Besides, the
ones. The used superplasticizer was a carboxilate cylinders tested under splitting tension were visually
 Materials and Structures

Table 3 Specifications of Table 4 Hardened properties for SCC and VC mixes at day
Tests Value
acceptance for SCC mixes test
[18] Slump test
Hardened VC1 VC2 SCC1 SCC2
Slump flow (cm) 62–72 properties (7 days) (14 days) (7 days) (14 days)
T50 (s) –
fc (MPa) 32.02 50.20 30.10 53.3
L-Box test
COV (%) 2.19 2.33 4.31 3.72
T60 (s) –
Ec (GPa) 27.24 34.31 27.87 36.70
RB [0.80
COV (%) 2.32 0.21 2.78 1.61
V-Funnel
fct (MPa) 2.182 3.92 2.450 4.99
Tv (s) \8.0
COV (%) 9.17 0.53 24.88 9.91

examined and a uniform distribution of the coarse
aggregate along the height of the specimen was
observed, again indicating no segregation, as Fig. 2
shows.
Unlike the usual VCs, the VC1 series presented a
high value in the slump tests, caused by the very high
water/cement ratio that was used to achieve the
compression strength intended for this series with the
available high quality cement.
Table 4 shows the hardened properties of SCC
mixes and VC mixes. For each VC and SCC series,
nine concrete cylinders (100 mm · 200 mm) were
made in order to obtain the compressive strength,
splitting tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity
at the day of the test, being three specimens for
each mechanical property and all specimens (beam
and pull-out) were cast from the same batch of
each mix. All specimens remained in a humidity
chamber (90% \ RH \ 95%) until the time of
testing. The pull-out and beam tests were planned
to be tested at 28 days, but due to several activities
at the Laboratory, the tests were performed at
7 and 14 days, as shown at Table 4. However,
according to Fig. 3, the compressive strength pre-
sented by the mixes (VC and SCC) were practically
the same along the time considered for the tests,
meaning that the influence of the concrete age was
not significant.

Fig. 2 Behavior presented

by the SCC mixtures,
showing no sign of
segregation
Materials and Structures

80 The deformation rates were calculated dividing the

70
bar diameter by 1,000, according to [4] for achieving
Compressive strength (MPa)

similar results as Rilem recommendations.

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15
Time (days)
Fig. 3 Concrete compressive strength variation (VC and SCC
mixes) through time
Figure 3 shows the increase of compressive
strength through time for each mix design.
The position and the inclination of the bars during
the cast have significant influence in the bond
resistance and, like this, the specimens cast in the
vertical direction present larger bond resistance than
the ones with horizontal cast. So, for this research, the
pull-out specimens were cast in the vertical direction
and the beam specimens were cast in the horizontal
direction (as practice). Two different ribbed bar
diameters were used, one with 10 mm and the other
with 16 mm, both with yield strength of 500 MPa.
The beam specimens and the pull-out specimens were
submitted to a monotonic displacement with a rate of
0.01 mm/s for 10 mm steel bar, and a rate of
0.016 mm/s for the 16 mm steel bar [4], until failure
or maximum displacement permitted by the
equipments.
The tests were performed with full instrumentation
until the failure of the specimen or until the end of the
LVDT cursor length, and, in this case, the results beyond
this point were not considered in the analysis. All results
were obtained from the displacements measured by the
VC1
LVDT placed on the edge of the steel bar.
VC2 The tests were divided according to the concrete
SCC1 type, concrete compressive strength and bar diameter.
SCC2
Table 5 summarizes the experimental program.
20 25 30 Where ‘‘P’’ refers to pull-out specimen; ‘‘B’’ refers
to beam specimen; ‘‘SCC’’ and ‘‘VC’’ refers to SCC
and VC, respectively; C30 and C60 refers to concrete
compressive strength of 30 and 60 MPa, respectively;
and B10 and B16 refers to the steel bar diameter of 10
and 16 mm, respectively.
3.2 Pull-out specimens
Figure 4 shows the pull-out specimen geometry,
based in the recommendation established by [17]
and the pull-out specimen during tests at the universal
test machine.
The instrumentation was the same of Rilem
recommendation, where one LVDT was placed at
the top of the steel bar to measure the slip between
the steel bar and the concrete cylinder. Figure 5
shows the test set-up for the pull-out specimens.
3.3 Beam specimens
The beam geometry was based in the recommenda-
tion established by [17]. Figure 6 shows the geometry

Table 5 Pull-out and beam

Pull-out specimen Beam specimen Concrete type Design concrete Bar diameter
specimens nomenclature
compressive strength (mm)

P-SCC-C30-B10 B-SCC-C30-B10 SCC 30 MPa 10

P-SCC-C30-B16 B-SCC-C30-B16 SCC 16
P-VC-C30-B10 B-VC-C30-B10 VC 10
P-VC-C30-B16 B-VC-C30-B16 VC 16
P-SCC-C60-B10 B-SCC-C60-B10 SCC 60 MPa 10
P-SCC-C60-B16 B-SCC-C60-B16 SCC 16
P-VC-C60-B10 B-VC-C60-B10 VC 10
P-VC-C60-B16 B-VC-C60-B16 VC 16
 Materials and Structures

Fig. 4 Pull-out models

specimen geometry for
10 mm (a) and for 16 mm
(b) steel bar, and pull-out
specimen at test (c)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5 Pull-out test set-up

Piston support

Instron's piston

Load
direction Load cell

Pull-out specimen LVDT

Test support

Machine grips

Instron's plate support

Reaction slab

of the beam specimen and the beam specimen during
tests at the universal test machine.
Figure 7 shows the test set-up for the beam
specimens, where the two displacement transducers
placed in the edge of the bar. The data from these
LVDT were used to determine the slip of the steel bar.
Figure 8 shows the reinforcement detail used in the
beam specimens, according to Rilem recommendation.
4 Analysis of results
4.1 Initial remarks
The recommendation considered in the Rilem provi-
sion [17] is to quantify the bond stress for the
slippages for 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0 mm of the end of the
steel bar. The determination of the average bond
Materials and Structures

Cross section
Dimensions φ < 16 mm φ > 16 mm strength is calculated by the mean of these three
G A (cm) 37.5 56.0 results.
D B (cm) 65.0 110.0
Centroid of C (cm) 18.0 24.0 The determination of the bond stress for each
5 compressive force D (cm) 13.0 19.0 slippage varies according to the test and the bar
F E (cm) 32.5 51.0
Hydraulic jack
F (cm) 10.0 15.0 diameter. The equations below were used for deter-
G (cm) 3.0 4.0 mining the bond strength in the test.
E
Steel hinge Spreader beam For pull-out specimens:
P
D LVDT Bonded Bonded LVDT s¼ : ð1Þ
zone zone C p
ld
/
5 φ
For beam specimens
A 5 10 φ
rs
B s¼ : ð2Þ
40
Longitudinal section
From the Rilem recommendation, the following
provision are to be used to calculate the stress in the
reinforcement.
P
rs ¼ k
: ð3Þ
As
The parameter ‘‘k,’’ in Eq. 3, varies according to
the bar diameter, where it assumes 1.25 for
/s \16 mm and assumes 1.50 for /s ‡ 16 mm.
The average bond stress (sm) is determined by the
Fig. 6 Beam geometry for 10 mm and 16 mm bar diameter
and specimen during test
mean of the bond stress calculated for slippages of

Fig. 7 Beam test set-up

Piston support

Instron's piston

Load
direction Load cell

Instron's hinge

Steel hinge
Spreader beam
Beam specimen

LVDT LVDT

Support beam

Instron's plate support

Reaction slab
 Materials and Structures

Fig. 8 Reinforcement Beam specimen with 10 mm steel bar Beam specimen with 16 mm steel bar
detail for each beam 58 2
specimen 35.5 2

8
6

24
18

16
12

5
37.5 10 60 15

Steel bar type I Steel bar type III Steel bar type IV Steel bar type VI
(φ = 8,0 mm) (φ = 6,3 mm) (φ = 12,5 mm) (φ = 10 mm)
33.5 8 56 13

5.6

8.9
16
3.2

22
5.08
Steel bar type II
(φ = 6,3 mm) Steel bar type V
(φ = 10 mm)
33.5
56

IV
III B A
I B A
II
V

B' A'
A-A' B-B' B' A'
cross section cross section VI
4 φ 8,0 mm 4 φ 8,0 mm A-A' B-B'
cross section cross section
2 φ 12,7 mm 2 φ 12,7 mm
4 φ 6,3 mm 4 φ 6,3 mm 4 φ 6,3 mm

2 φ 10 mm 4 φ 10 mm 2 φ 10 mm

4 φ 8,0 mm 4 φ 8,0 mm
φ 10 mm φ 10 mm
3,0 mm spacing
between steel bar 2 φ 12,7 mm 2 φ 12,7 mm
and concrete
3,0 mm spacing
between steel bar
and concrete

0.01 (s0.01), 0.1 (s0.1), and 1.0 mm (s1.0), according to
Rilem recommendation (Eq. 4).
s0:01 þ s0:1 þ s1:0
sm ¼ : ð4Þ
3
4.2 Analysis of results
For the specimens cast with SCC1 and VC1 mixes,
all pull-out and beam specimens had slip failure, as
expected. However, a few pull-out specimens had
splitting failure due to the bar size (16 mm). Figure 9
shows the bond stress versus slip result for the pull-
out and beam specimens for VC1 and SCC1 mixes.
According to results, both specimens (pull-out and
beam) presented similar behavior for the bond stress
and for the slip. Also, the post-peak were very
similar. The presented behavior by the SCC mixes
was better than the other with VC, which could mean
that the presence of filler, associated with the
superplasticizer, improved the bond behavior. Also,
as pull-out tests presented almost the same results as
beam tests; this may proof that for normal strength
concrete, the evaluation of bond strength can be made
by pull-out tests, thought beam tests are difficult to
make and spend much labor time.
For the specimens cast with SCC2 and VC2 mixes,
all pull-out and beam specimens had splitting failure,
as expected. Figure 10 shows the bond stress versus
slip result for the pull-out and beam specimens for
VC2 and SCC2 mixes.
According to test results, both specimens (pull-out
and beam) did not present similar behavior for the
bond strength and for the slip due to the different
types of failure occurred in the pull-out specimens
(splitting) and in the beam specimens (yield of the
steel bar), as in the previous series. For the pull-out
specimens, there was a linear behavior until failure
(splitting of the concrete cylinder). The beam spec-
imens presented linear behavior until the ductile
branch. After this value (which represents the
ultimate bond strength) the tests continued with the
yielding of the steel bar, until failure of the steel bar
or the suspension of the test due to high-vertical
Materials and Structures

Fig. 9 Bond stress versus 20 20

slip curves for the pull-out P-SCC-C30-B10 B-VC-C30-B10
and beam specimens for P-SCC-C30-B16 B-VC-C30-B16

Bond stress (MPa)

Bond stress (MPa)

15 P-VC-C30-B10 15 B-SCC-C30-B10
VC1 and SCC1 mixes P-VC-C30-B16 B-SCC-C30-B16

10 10

5 5
Pull-out specimens Beam specimens

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Fig. 10 Bond stress versus 25 25

slip curves for the pull-out Beam models
25

and beam specimens VC2 20 20

Bond stress (MPa)

20
Bond stress (MPa)

15
and SCC2 mixes
10
15 15
5

0
10 10 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

P-VC-C60-B10 B-VC-C60-B10
P-VC-C60-B16 B-VC-C60-B16
5 P-SCC-C60-B10 5
B-SCC-C60-B10
P-SCC-C60-B16 B-SCC-C60-B16
0 0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5

Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

displacement. This ductile behavior was caused by
the yielding of the steel bar, which, in some cases,
resulted in rupture at the middle of the bar, as Fig. 11
shows.
Table 6 shows the results of the pull-out speci-
mens for all mixes.
Table 7 shows the results of the beam specimens
for all mixes.
Fig. 11 Beam failure presented in the SCC2 and VC2 mixes
in some specimens, after high vertical displacement
Where ‘‘COV’’ corresponds to the coefficient of
variation, expressed in percentage.
Table 8 shows the comparison between the results
from the tests.
According to Table 8, the experimented bond
strength was almost the same. For the slip, there was
a high difference between the results that can be
explained by the difference between the tests (beam
and pull-out). Also, the tests performed with SCC
showed a good approach between the bond strength
results, what was clearly important despite the
difference of behavior between the tested specimens
(flexure and pull-out). On other hand, the tests
performed with VC showed a very different
behavior.
Figure 12 shows the distribution of all tests
performed.
According to Fig. 12, the beam specimens had less
slip than the pull-out ones with similar characteristics
(concrete compressive strength, concrete type, and
bar diameter). Also, the beam specimens presented,
in some cases, lower bond strength than the measured
by the pull-out specimens.
Both pull-out and beam specimens lead to similar
results, but the primary nature of each test is very
 Materials and Structures

Table 6 Test results for pull-out specimens from all mixes

Pull-out specimen s0.01 (MPa) s0.1 (MPa) s1.0 (MPa) su (MPa) sm (MPa) Pu (kN) su (mm)

P-SCC-C30-B10 3.59 6.33 14.21 14.34 8.05 22.52 0.960

COV (%) 29.78 19.64 4.28 4.34 9.91 4.34 7.83
P-SCC-C30-B16 2.05 3.37 12.85 12.93 6.09 52.01 1.059
COV (%) 28.92 27.52 4.23 4.93 7.19 4.93 9.49
P-VC-C30-B10 3.39 4.93 11.20 11.56 6.48 18.36 1.05
COV (%) 38.47 28.56 3.37 1.78 12.89 6.85 15.96
P-VC-C30-B16 2.80 3.82 10.11 10.75 5.48 42.36 1.64
COV (%) 26.48 3.86 2.92 0.12 1.71 3.00 13.28
P-SCC-C60-B10 0.14 1.63 14.00 18.11 5.25 28.45 1.65
COV (%) 64.03 36.44 2.95 16.13 5.02 16.13 16.68
P-SCC-C60-B16 0.59 1.38 12.85 19.23 4.94 77.34 1.84
COV (%) 56.00 62.12 6.53 4.15 13.30 4.15 6.85
P-VC-C60-B10 1.70 3.60 13.11 17.05 6.14 26.78 1.64
COV (%) 25.15 5.50 12.21 12.92 9.13 12.92 8.27
P-VC-C60-B16 0.50 1.37 11.90 21.94 4.59 88.22 2.20
COV (%) 30.42 75.12 19.79 5.67 25.43 5.67 7.27

Table 7 Test results for beam specimens from all mixes

Beam specimen s0.01 (MPa) s0.1 (MPa) s1.0 (MPa) su (MPa) sm (MPa) Pu (kN) du (mm) su,1 (mm) su,2 (mm)

B-SCC-C30-B10 4.86 7.47 11.15 11.45 7.83 28.77 3.98 0.283 0.513
COV (%) 89.27 63.82 17.34 19.13 47.02 19.13 0.00 5.52 23.01
B-SCC-C30-B16 5.17 8.90 11.50 11.58 8.53 33.76 3.76 0.08 0.49
COV (%) 10.31 8.48 4.73 4.43 2.91 0.80 2.22 56.93 64.49
B-VC-C30-B10 5.59 7.76 13.44 13.44 8.93 62.07 6.47 0.38 1.42
COV (%) 37.66 46.22 0.80 0.80 20.85 4.43 2.75 37.12 2.57
B-VC-C30-B16 5.75 10.35 13.14 13.20 9.75 70.77 7.32 0.75 0.76
COV (%) 6.65 11.87 5.82 5.57 8.12 5.57 0.11 9.30 30.88
B-SCC-C60-B10 13.44 16.49 16.86 16.86 15.60 42.35 27.08 0.093 0.099
COV (%) 0.80 2.87 1.78 1.78 1.42 1.78 15.17 41.05 52.85
B-SCC-C60-B16 10.61 16.10 17.25 17.25 14.66 41.58 29.87 0.025 0.111
COV (%) 0.10 1.38 2.80 2.80 1.63 5.45 2.06 152.97 5.10
B-VC-C60-B10 13.29 16.30 16.55 16.55 15.38 92.48 40.96 0.289 0.140
COV (%) 4.04 5.93 5.45 5.45 5.21 2.80 10.87 60.05 7.91
B-VC-C60-B16 10.51 15.84 16.93 16.95 14.70 90.84 42.95 0.660 0.04
COV (%) 3.54 11.31 6.36 6.24 9.93 6.24 2.25 114.85 127.79

different (pull-out specimens had the bar pulled from
the concrete prism and beam test had the bar pulled
by the bending produced by the load and its
application is perpendicular to the bar slip, on the
contrary to the pull-out specimen, which is in the
same direction), what has to be taking into account.
In the tests performed in this study for normal
compressive strength (SCC1 and VC1 mixes) the
results were similar for both specimens. However, for
SCC2 and VC2 mixes the results were quite different
due the high concrete compressive strength fragile
behavior. As mentioned before, the nature of each
Materials and Structures

Table 8 Comparison
Pull-out specimen Beam specimen su, pull-out/su, beam su, pull-out/su, beam
between the results from
beam and pull-out tests P-SCC-C30-B10 B-SCC-C30-B10 2.412 1.103
P-SCC-C30-B16 B-SCC-C30-B16 1.129 1.118
P-VC-C30-B10 B-VC-C30-B10 3.319 0.864
P-VC-C30-B16 B-VC-C30-B16 2.164 0.798
P-SCC-C60-B10 B-SCC-C60-B10 12.771 0.923
P-SCC-C60-B16 B-SCC-C60-B16 7.684 1.074
P-VC-C60-B10 B-VC-C60-B10 19.000 0.950
P-VC-C60-B16 B-VC-C60-B16 3.112 1.257

Fig. 12 Bond strength 25

versus slip distribution for P-VC-C30-B10
P-VC-C30-B16
beam and pull-out tests
Pull-out results P-VC-C60-B10
20
P-VC-C60-B16
Bond strength (MPa)

B-VC-C30-B10
B-VC-C30-B16
15 B-VC-C60-B10
B-VC-C60-B16
P-SCC-C30-B10
10 P-SCC-C30-B16
P-SCC-C60-B10
P-SCC-C60-B16
B-SCC-C30-B10
5
Beam results B-SCC-C30-B16
B-SCC-C60-B10
B-SCC-C60-B16
0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5
Slip (mm)

test is different mainly due to the confinement, and
the splitting of the concrete cover only occurred in
the pull-out specimens, while the beam specimens did
not present this failure due to the reinforcement
surrounding the bonded zone.
The results from pull-out and beam specimens
from SCC1 and VC1 mixes can be seeing at Fig. 13.
Soretz [19] also performed tests on these two
specimens according to [17]. The tests carried out by
that author had the objective of evaluating if both test
methods leaded to the same bond properties of the
steel bar. As main conclusions, there were no
significant differences between both specimens’
results of the bond strength, for concretes with the
same compressive strength.
In the same way, the results at Fig. 13 showed, for
SCC1 and VC1 mixes, that the difference between
them were not significant, which means that both
procedures can be used in determining the bond
strength without transverse reinforcement surround-
ing the bonded zone.
Figure 14 shows the comparison between the
results of the SCC2 and VC2 mixes beam and pull-
out tests.
5 Comparison with code recommendations and
predicting equations
In the literature there are several analytical and
numerical models which try to represent the bond
stress response in the steel-concrete interface. In
these models, most of them based in experimental
results, several parameters were studied: concrete
compressive strength, concrete cover, steel bar
diameter, embedment length, and others, and, these
tests provided equations to calculate the average bond
strength by means of linear or non-linear regressions
from experimental results. Table 9 shows some of the
empirical equations that try tries to represent the bond
behavior and the Code provisions used for evaluating
the bond strength without transverse reinforcement.
 Materials and Structures

Fig. 13 Comparison 20 20
between pull-out and beam
tests results from SCC1 and

Bond stress (MPa)

Bond stress (MPa)
15 15
VC1 mixes

10 10

5 5
B-SCC-C30-B16
B-SCC-C30-B10 P-SCC-C30-B16
P-SCC-C30-B10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)
20 20

B on d s t r e s s ( MPa )
Bond stress (MPa)

15 15

10 10

5 5
B-VC-C30-B10 B-VC-C30-B16
P-VC-C30-B10 P-VC-C30-B16

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

Fig. 14 Comparison 25 25
B-SCC-C60-B10
between pull-out and beam P-SCC-C60-B10
tests results from SCC2 and 20 20
Bond stress (MPa)
Bond stress (MPa)

VC2 mixes
15 15
20

10 15
10
10

5
5 5
0
B-SCC-C60-B16
P-SCC-C60-B16
-0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

0 0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5

Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

25 25
B-VC-C60-B10
P-VC-C60-B10
20 20
Bo nd str es s (MPa)
Bond stress (MPa)

15 15

15

10 10
10

5
5 5
0 B-VC-C60-B16
P-VC-C60-B16
-0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

0 0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5

Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

The influence of the transverse reinforcement is According to Oragun et al. [20] the presence of
considered as a sum with the bond strength without transverse reinforcement increases the ductility of the
reinforcement with the increase of the bond strength anchorage. The equations varies, mainly, by the
by the amount of stirrups in the bonded zone. spacing between bars ‘‘s’’ which is the average
Materials and Structures

Table 9 Bond strength predicting equations without transverse reinforcement

Author Bond strength equation Units
h

i pffiffiffiffi
Oragun et al. [20] su ¼ 1:22 þ 3:23
/c þ 53
/lds
fc (Psi units)
c
s
pffiffiffiffi
Kemp [21] su ¼ h232:2 þ 2:716


/s
fc
i pffiffiffiffi (Psi units)
c /s
Chapman and Shah [22] su ¼ h3:5 þ 3:4

/s þ 57

 ldi
fc (Psi units)
c /s pffiffiffiffi
Harajli [23] su ¼ h1:2 þ 3
/ þ 50

 ld
fc
i (Psi units)
s
c /s pffiffiffiffi
Al-Jahdali et al. [24] su ¼ 0:879 þ 0:324
/s þ 5; 79
ld
fc (S.I. units)
Barbosa [25] su ¼ 19:36
s0;51 (fc \ 50 MPa) su ¼ 32:58
s0;48 (fc ‡ 50 MPa) (S.I. units)
NBR 6118 [26] CEB-FIB [27] su ¼ 2:25
g1
g2
fctd (S.I. units)
EUROCODE 2 [28]

spacing between the ties along the development
length or splice length (bonded zone); by the area of
the transverse reinforcement or tie ‘‘Atr’’; by the bar
diameter and by the bar strength ‘‘fyt.’’
Some of these equations represent the bond stress
versus slip behavior and others represent the bond
strength in function of established parameters, like
concrete cover (c)—steel bar diameter (/s) and steel
bar diameter (/s)—development length (ld). In this
program, these ratios were the same for all tested
specimens. Figure 12 shows the variation of the
bond strength with the concrete compressive
strength of the equations at Table 9 with the test
results.
Those equations [20–24] were evaluated for VC
with normal and high compressive strength (range
between 20 and 50 MPa). Also, those equations had
a constant result, because their variation is deter-
mined by the concrete compressive strength, the
concrete cover—steel bar diameter ratio and the
steel bar diameter—development length ratio. Those
results were made from experimental tests with
different concrete compressive strength and making
a non-linear regression to obtain those expressions.
Figure 15 shows the comparison of the test results
with the prediction equations.
According to the results, the beam specimens were
well represented by [20, 23], but the formulation
presented by [22] overestimated the bond strength.
The pull-out specimens presented bond strength
values higher than the beam results, and almost of
all equations predicted values below the experimental
response, bringing a safety response. The formulation
developed by [21] brought conservative values, in the
same way of the normative recommendations. The
equation from [24] had a good approach for the beam
results and for pull-out specimens, presented conser-
vative results (Table 9).
The Code provisions [26–28] were clearly conser-
vative in determining the ultimate bond stress,
because they adopts for the loss of bond, both
adhesion and friction failures, which means the slip
value around 0.1 mm (service loads) results in loss of
bond and failure of the structural element.
Figure 16 shows the prediction model of the bond
stress with the correspondent slip of the steel bar
adopted by [29–30].
The determination of the bond stress for the
correspondent slip is made by the following equations
Huang et al. [29] and CEB-FIP 195–197 [30].

a
s
s ¼ smax
s1 For 0 £ s £ s1
s ¼ smax
 For s1 \ s £ s2
ss2
s ¼ smax  ðsmax  su Þ
s3 s2 For s2 \ s £ s3
s ¼ su For s3 \ s
Tables 10 and 11 show the parameters for the
equations from Huang et al. [29] and CEB-FIP 195–
197 [30].
Figures 17 and 18 show the bond stresses versus
slip behavior of equations [25, 29, 30] compared to
the beam and pull-out experimental results, respec-
tively. Those equations provide an estimation of the
bond stress with the steel bar slip.
The results at Fig. 17 show that the prediction
equation of [25, 30] clearly overestimate the bond
strength of the pull-out test. The equation given by
 Materials and Structures

Fig. 15 Bond stress versus 30

concrete compressive B-VC-C30-B10
Beam specimens B-VC-C30-B16
strength curves for the bond 25
B-SCC-C30-B10

B o n d s t r e ng t h (M P a )
strength equations and tests B-SCC-C30-B16
20 B-VC-C60-B10
B-VC-C60-B16
B-SCC-C60-B10
15 B-SCC-C60-B16

Oragun et al. (1977)

10 Kemp (1986)
Harajli (1994)
5 Chapman & Shah (1987)
Al-Jahdali et al. (1994)
NBR 6118 (2003)
0 Ceb-Fip (1999)
20 30 40 50 60 Eurocode (2002)

Compressive strength (MPa)

30
P-VC-C30-B10
Pull-out specimens P-VC-C30-B16
25 P-SCC-C30-B10
Bond strength (MPa)

P-SCC-C30-B16
P-VC-C60-B10
20 P-VC-C60-B16
P-SCC-C60-B10
15 P-SCC-C60-B16

Oragun et al. (1977)

10 Kemp (1986)
Harajli (1994)
5 Chapman & Shah (1987)
Al-Jahdali et al. (1994)
NBR 6118 (2003)
0 Ceb-Fip (1999)
Eurocode (2002)
20 30 40 50 60
Compressive strength (MPa)

Table 10 Established values for the prediction equation of

Ceb-Fip 195/197 [30], considering good bond conditions
τ máx Confined concrete Non confined concrete
Bond stress

s1 1.0 mm 0.6 mm
s2 3.0 mm 0.6 mm
s3 Distance between ribs 1.0 mm
τu a 0.4 0.4
pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
smáx 2:5
fc 2:0
fc
su 0.40smáx 0.15smáx
s1 s2 s3
Slip Table 11 Established values for the prediction equation of
Huang et al. [29], considering good bond conditions
Fig. 16 Prediction model for the bond strength [29–30]
High strength concrete Normal concrete strength

s1 0.5 mm 1.0 mm
[29] gave the best approach for the pull-out results for
s2 1.5 mm 3.0 mm
SCC1 and VC1 mixes. The beam specimens were
s3 Distance between ribs Distance between ribs
also better represented by [29], mostly for 16 mm
a 0.3 0.4
steel bar. According to these results, the beam
smáx 0.40 fcm 0.40 fcm
specimens presented high adhesion nearly the max-
su 0.40smáx 0.40smáx
imum bond strength that was followed by the slip of
Materials and Structures

Fig. 17 Bond stress versus 30 30

slip curves of the equations Ceb-Fip 195-197 (1990) Ceb-Fip 195-197 (1990)
25 Huang et al. (1996) 25 Huang et al. (1996)
compared with beam and

Bond stress (MPa)

Barbosa (2001) Barbosa (2001)

Bond stress (MPa)

B-SCC-C30-B10
pull-out test results for VC1 20 B-VC-C30-B10 20
B-SCC-C30-B16
B-VC-C30-B16
and SCC1 mixes
15 Beam specimens 15 Beam specimens

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

30 30
Ceb-Fip 195-197 (1990) Ceb-Fip 195-197 (1990)
25 Huang et al. (1996) 25 Huang et al. (1996)
Barbosa (2001)

Bond stress (MPa)

Barbosa (2001)
Bond stress (MPa)

P-SCC-C30-B10 P-SCC-C30-B16
20 P-VC-C30-B10 20
P-VC-C30-B16

15 Pull-out specimens 15 Pull-out specimens

10 10

5 5

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

Fig. 18 Bond stress versus 30 30

slip curves of the equations
25 25
compared with beam and Bond stress (MPa)
Bond stress (MPa)

pull-out test results for VC2 20 20

and SCC2 mixes
15 15
Beam specimens Beam specimens

10 Ceb-Fip 195-197 (1990) 10 Ceb-Fip 195-197 (1990)

Huang et al. (1996) Huang et al. (1996)
Barbosa (2001) Barbosa (2001)
5 B-SCC-C60-B10 5
B-SCC-C60-B16
B-VC-C60-B10 B-VC-C60-B16
0 0
0,0 0,3 0,6 0,9 1,2 1,5 0,0 0,3 0,6 0,9 1,2 1,5

Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

30 30

25 25
Bond stress (MPa)

Bond stress (MPa)

20 20

15 15
Pull-out specimens Pull-out specimens
10 Ceb-Fip 195-197 (1990) 10 Ceb-Fip 195-197 (1990)
Huang et al. (1996) Huang et al. (1996)
Barbosa (2001) Barbosa (2001)
5 5
P-SCC-C60-B10 P-SCC-C60-B16
P-VC-C60-B10 P-VC-C60-B16
0 0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0

Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

the steel bar and, the prediction equations [29, 30] do satisfactory represented by [25], being under the
not take into account this adhesion, well observed in experimental result. The model based on [25, 30]
equation model at Fig. 16. overestimated the bond strength value. For the beam
According to Fig. 18, the behavior of the pull-out specimens, the predicted behavior by the equations
specimens of this mixes (VC1 and SCC1) was were bad represented, especially for the bar slip. Only

the formulation of [29] had similar value for the bond
strength. In the same way, the results at Fig. 17
shows similar behavior by the equations, where for
low-concrete compressive strength (SCC1 and VC1
mixes) the formulation presented by [29] showed a
good approach to the test result, but for high-concrete
compressive strength (SCC2 and VC2 mixes) none of
the Code provisions have a good approach.
6 Conclusions
This paper described the use of SCC, varying
compressive strength, steel bar diameter and test
procedure, to evaluate the bond behavior. Similar
specimens cast with VC were made to establish a
basis of comparison. Also, a comparison between the
tests results, Code recommendations and empirical
equations was made. According to the results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
a. The behavior presented by pull-out and beam
tests using SCC mixes was similar to the
presented by VC mixes, and, in some cases,
even better;
b. For SCC1 and VC1 mixes, the comparison
between the pull-out and beam specimens
showed that the presented results were quite
near, demonstrating that for this level of concrete
strength, both specimens, pull-out and beam,
achieves similar results;
c. For SCC2 and VC2 mixes, the comparison
between the pull-out and beam specimens
showed that the presented results were quite
different; However, the bond strength was very
similar, despite the difference presented in slip;
d. For SCC1 and VC1 mixes, the pull-out series
with SCC presented better behavior than the
same with VC, which may be explained by the
use of filler, which provides a better bond
between concrete and steel bar;
e. The comparison with Code provisions and equa-
tions concluded that the same procedures adopted
for VC can be used for SCC, which means that
bond properties of SCC are similar of the VC.
Regarding the tests performance, the both tests
(pull-out and beam) presented low variability, becom-
ing reliable test; however, the beam tests was a very
difficult test to be made and, as a recommendation,
Materials and Structures
must be reserved for special cases. So, the pull-out
tests must be used in usual cases, because of its
simplicity and good accuracy, since some care must
be taken for the usual parameters (development
length, concrete cover, bar diameter, etc.) for a correct
evaluation of the real case.
Acknowledgements To CAPES and to FAPESP for the
financial support. Also, the technical staff at the Structures
Laboratory of the Structures Engineering Department and to
the Laboratory of Advanced Materials Based in Cement, and to
the companies Holcim, Elkem, Ciminas, and Brasil Minas S/A
for the material donation for this research.
References
1. Bartos PJM (2000) Measurement of key properties of fresh
self-compacting concrete. In: Measurement, testing and
standardization: future needs in the field of construction
materials, Paris
2. Okamura H (1997) Self-compacting high-performance
concrete. Concrete Int 19(7):50–54
3. Gomes PCC (2002) Optimization and characterization of
high-strength self-compacting concrete. Doctoral Thesis,
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
4. Almeida Filho FM (2006) Contribution to study of the bond
between steel bars and self-compacting concrete. Doctoral
Thesis, Universidade de São Paulo (in Portuguese)
5. Domone PL (2007) A review of the mechanical properties
of self-compacting concrete. Cement Concrete Comp
29:1–12
6. Isa MM, Aguado A (2003) Comportamento da aderência
entre o concreto auto-adensável de alta resistência e a ar-
madura. In: V Simpósio EPUSP sobre Estruturas de
Concreto, São Paulo-Brazil (in portuguese)
7. Efnarc (2002) Specifications and Guidelines for self-com-
pacting concrete. 2002, http://www.efnarc.org/pdf/Sand
GforSCC.PDF
8. The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete:
Specification, Production and Use, 2005, http://www.
efnarc.org/pdf/SCCGuidelinesMay2005.pdf
9. The Concrete Society (2005) Self-compacting concrete: a
review. Technical Report No. 62, UK, http://www.
concrete.org.uk
10. Dehn F, Holshemacher K, Weibe D (2000) Self-com-
pacting concrete time development of the material
properties and the bond behavior. In: LACER, No. 5
11. Holshemacher K, Dehn F, Weibe D (2002) Bond in high-
strength concrete—influence of rebar position. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 6th international symposium on utilization
of high-strength/high-performance concrete, Leipzig, Ger-
many, pp 289–298
12. Almeida Filho FM, De Nardin S, El Debs ALHC (2005)
Evaluation of the bond strength of self-compacting con-
crete in pull-out tests. In: Proceedings of the 2nd North
American conference on the design and use of self-con-
solidating concrete and fourth international RILEM
Materials and Structures
symposium on self-compacting concrete, Chicago, October
30–November 2 2005
13. Chan YW, Chen YS, Liu YS (2003) Development of bond
strength of reinforcement steel in self-consolidating con-
crete. ACI Struct J 100(4):490–498
14. Domone PL (2007) A review of the hardened mechanical
properties of self-compacting concrete. Cement Concrete
Comp 29:1–12
15. ACI 408R-03 (2003) Bond and development of straight
reinforcing bars in tension. American Concrete Institute,
PO Box 9094, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, USA
16. Losberg A, Olsson P (1979) Bond failure of deformed
reinforcing bars based on the longitudinal splitting effect of
the bars. ACI J Proc 76(1):5–17
17. Rilem-Fip-Ceb (1973) Bond test for reinforcing steel:
1-Beam test (7-II-28 D). 2-Pullout test (7-II-128): tentative
recommendations. Mater Struct 6(32):96–105
18. Hwang SD, Khayat KH, Bonneau O (2006) Performance-
based specifications of self-consolidating concrete used in
structural applications. ACI Mater J 103(2):121–129
19. Soretz S(1972) Comparison of beam tests and pull-out
tests. Mater Struct 5(28):261–264
20. Oragun CO, Jirsa JO, Breen JE (1977) A reevaluation of
test data on development length and splices. ACI J 74(3):
114–122
21. Kemp EL (1986) Bond in reinforced concrete: behavior
and design criteria. ACI J 83(1):50–57
22. Chapman RA, Shah SP (1987) Early-age bond strength in
reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J 84(6):501–510
23. Harajli MH (1994) Development/splice strength of rein-
forcing bars embedded in plain and fiber reinforced
concrete. ACI Struct J 91(5):511–520
24. Al-Jahdali FA, Wafa FF, Shihata SA (1994) Development
length for straight deformed bars in high-strength concrete.
ACI Special Publication (SP-149), 149:507–522
25. Barbosa MTG (2001) Evaluation of the behavior of the
bond in ordinary and high strength concrete. Doctoral
Thesis, COPPE/UFRJ (in Portuguese)
26. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards NBR 6118:
Design of Concrete Structures. Rio de Janeiro, 2003. (in
Portuguese)
27. Ceb-Fip (1999) Structural Concrete—Bulletin No. 1. Paris,
France
28. Eurocode 2 (2002) Design of concrete structures—Part 1:
general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee
of Standardization, Brussels
29. Huang Z, Engström B, Magnusson J (1996) Experimental
investigation of the bond and ancorage behaviour of
deformed bars in high strength concrete. Report 94:4,
Chalmers University of Technology, 1996
30. Ceb-Fip (1990) Comité Euro-International du Béton
(Model Code 1990). Lausane, France