ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 104-S72
Behavior of Corroded Bar Anchorages
by S. P. Tastani and S. J. Pantazopoulou
An analytical model is developed to describe the mechanics of
corrosion-induced bond strength degradation and its implications
on development capacity of bar anchorages. The model is a
frictional construct whereby bond strength is estimated from
the coefficient of friction and the normal confining pressure along
the anchorage. Both variables are evaluated considering the relevant
design parameters (cover, shrinkage, and transverse reinforcement)
and the effects of iron depletion. The model is used to interpret the
behavior of corroded anchorages as documented in published
experiments. To supplement model calibration with data representative
of long anchorages, two series of flexural specimens designed to
fail in anchorage after yielding are tested after being conditioned in
accelerated corrosion to a predefined damage level in the anchorage
zones. The effects of corrosion on bond strength are also considered in
CFRP-patch repaired anchorages. The model correlates the exper-
imental evidence obtained from the various alternative test
arrangements and successfully reproduces the magnitude and
parametric sensitivity of corrosion-induced bond degradation.
Keywords: anchorage; assessment; bond; corrosion; cover; cracking; FRP
jacket; modeling.
INTRODUCTION
Corrosion of steel reinforcement has a detrimental influence
on stiffness, ductility, and deformation capacity of exposed
reinforced concrete (RC) members and it may significantly
compromise their dependable strength.1 For this reason,
corrosion is a critical parameter in assessment of residual
strength and service-life of old RC construction. In quantifying
the residual strength and deformation capacity of an affected
structural member, three primary effects need be considered:
1) reduction in bar diameter (bar section loss) owing to iron
depletion; 2) embrittlement of steel and the ensuing loss of
dependable deformation capacity; and 3) the manifold
implications on bond and the development capacity of the
reinforcement, which include:
• An effective reduction of the coefficient of friction on
the bar surface, as the gradually increasing rust layer
promotes separation and facilitates slippage between
bar and concrete2;
• Interruption of the chemical adhesion of concrete on
the bar surface by the interpolated rust layer. This is
particularly evident after the bar is stressed, therefore
contracting laterally due to Poisson’s effect. Confining
pressure due to drying shrinkage of concrete may be
enhanced by a small amount of rust deposited on the
bar. Therefore, for low corrosion level, a slight increase
of bond may be seen before bond failure,3,4 a phenomenon
that is more pronounced for smooth bars5;
• Reduction in rib height of ribbed bars, thereby loosening
mechanical interlock with concrete; and
• Cracking or even spalling of the cover, owing to the
expansive tendency of iron upon oxidation. Cover damage
corrupts bond along the bar, thereby reducing or even
eliminating the so-called beam action mechanism of
756
TECHNICAL PAPER
behavior6 and weakening the flexural stiffness and moment
resistance of the member. Once bond along the shear span
is degraded, reliance on the arching action to transfer the
loads to the supports increases. This has several
implications for safety, as development of the yield force
of the reinforcement (the tie of the arch) depends greatly on
the anchorage details of the bar near the support (usually a
cut-off point for flexural reinforcement).
The effect of corrosion on bond mechanics is the subject
of the present investigation. To evaluate the influence of rust
accumulation on bond strength, analytical modeling and
correlation with experimental testing have been pursued.
The proposed model refers to the basic frictional construct
that underlies the ACI 3187 guidelines and accounts for the
influences of corrosion penetration and rust buildup on
the coefficient of friction and the normal pressure acting
on the bar.
The predictive capability of the model is evaluated
through comparison with published test results from the
literature. Reported bond strengths vary substantially
between different investigations. The large range of values is
interpreted with reference to the different test setups and the
influence these have on the mechanics of bond. To analytically
reproduce this variability, it is necessary to properly represent
the actual state of stress generated by the support and loading
conditions in the concrete cover and along the anchorage in
the analysis.8 For model calibration with data concerning
longer anchorages that are more representative of the field,
two series of RC specimens, cantilever beams, and simply
supported slabs are included in the experimental part of the
present study. Before mechanical load testing, specimens are
subjected to accelerated electrochemical corrosion up to a
predefined level of mass loss. Parameters of the experimental
study are the post-corrosion residual bond strength and
deformation capacity defined as functions of corrosion mass
loss. The efficacy of a repair scheme that included replacement
of the spalled concrete cover with a cement-based grout and
subsequent jacketing with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer
(CFRP) wraps in the anchorage zones is assessed by reloading
the specimens after repair.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Quantifying the dependable bond strength of corroded
reinforcement is an essential step in the assessment of
affected RC structures exposed to aggressive environments.
The primary contribution of the paper in this direction is
formulation and calibration of a simple analytical model for
bond strength of corroded reinforcement. The model is based
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 6, November-December 2007.
MS No. S-2006-344 received August 21, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the September-
October 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2008.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
 confining pressure are released. Beyond that point, further
S. P. Tastani is a Research Engineer and an Adjunct Lecturer in the Department of
Architecture at Demokritus University (DUTh), Thrace, Greece. She received her Civil ingress of the aggressive agents necessary to sustain corrosion,
Engineering Diploma, MSc, and PhD from DUTh. Her research interests include bond of such as oxygen, vapor, and chlorides, is greatly facilitated,
reinforcement (steel and FRP bars), reinforcement corrosion, and use of FRPs in seismic leading to widening of cracks and eventual spalling of the
repair/upgrading of reinforced concrete structures.
cover concrete.
S. J. Pantazopoulou, FACI, is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at The simplest model representing the stress transfer
Demokritus University. She received her PhD and MSc in structural engineering from
the University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, and an Engineering Diploma
between steel and concrete is the so-called frictional
from the National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece. She is a member of concept. This model also forms the basis of the ACI 3187
ACI Committees 341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges; 374, Performance-Based requirements for bond and anchorage. Bond strength fb,
Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings; 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement;
and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete quantified herein as an average shear stress acting on the
Structures, and 445, Shear and Torsion. Her research interests include the mechanics of lateral surface of the bar is, apart from initial adhesion fadh,
reinforced concrete and earthquake design of reinforced concrete structures. proportional to the normal confining pressure mobilized on
the bar over the anchorage. From free body equilibrium of a
diametric slice (Fig. 2(a)) of the bar of length Lb, the
on the frictional concept for interface action and maintains
resultant lateral shear force on the bar surface F equals
the format of the code expressions for bond and development
0.5πDb fbLb. The normal force N acting on the diametric
capacity while accounting for the primary variables known
plane of the bar equals σnDbLb, where the normal confining
to affect behavior of corroded anchorages. The paper
pressure σn comprises contributions from the hoop stresses
includes experimental corroboration and calibration of the
of the concrete cover σc, the reaction of stirrups as they cross
primary behavioral aspects of the model. Due to its
the splitting plane σst (calculated as the average normal
simplicity and familiar format, the model can be easily
compressive stress in reaction to the stirrup tensile forces),
implemented within a practical framework of assessment
and any transverse compressive stress field σconf existing in
where the residual strength, deformation capacity, and
the anchorage zone. Considering that F = μN +
failure hierarchy of individual structural members need to be
0.5πDb fadhLb, where μ is the coefficient of friction, it
estimated from basic principles.
follows that
CORROSION-BOND INTERACTION
AND BASIS OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE 2μ 2μ
f b = ------σ n + f adh = ------ ( σ c + σ st + σ conf ) + f adh (1a)
Corrosion products have several times the volume of the π π
parent metal (two to six times as large9). Oxides are deposited
on the bar surface generating bursting pressure on the perimeter The common expression for the familiar frictional equation in
of the hole occupied by the bar, similar to the radial component design codes7 has the form
of bond in an uncorroded ribbed stressed bar. As in the case
of bond, pressure owing to rust build-up is resisted by hoop fb = βσn + fadh (1b)
tension in the cover. Bursting pressures owing to either bond
or rust build-up compete for the same strength reserve,
namely the splitting capacity of the concrete surrounding the Thus, the values of the term β taken from the international
bar. In the absence of transverse reinforcement, the tensile literature correspond to the product 2μ/π. Generally, μ
strength of concrete sets an upper threshold in the magnitude
of attainable expansive pressure, marked by progressive
cracking of the cover. The process of crack penetration
through the cover concrete has been modeled numerically.10
It was shown that the resistance curve of the ring of the
concrete surrounding the bar, given in terms of pressure
versus the radial displacement of interior boundary, is a
characteristic property that depends primarily on the
external-to-internal-ring-diameter ratio and the tensile
strength of concrete (Fig. 1). In this context, any displacement
of the interior boundary owing to rust accumulation exhausts
part of the available cover resistance. Thus, in corroded bar Fig. 1—Response of concrete cover under radial displacement
anchorages, only the residual part of the resistance curve is imposed by corrosion.
available for the bond mechanism.
As corrosion progresses, a fraction of the rust is deposited
in the layer of concrete around the bar filling the pores and
the cover cracks, whereas any soluble corrosion products
may migrate away from the interface layer staining the
exposed surface.9,10 Radial cracks initiate in the interior
boundary of the cover and propagate outwards with rust
build-up.11 Radial pressures that are sustained by hoop
stresses in the exterior uncracked part of the cover act to
confine the rust layer that is trapped between the bar and the
concrete cover. This confining action effectively compacts
the rust layer. Compacted rust has mechanical behavior
similar to that of cohesionless granular materials.2 Upon Fig. 2—(a) Schematic depiction of frictional model; and (b)
through splitting of the cover, hoop stresses and radial modeling stirrup pressure along spacing s.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007 757

decays with slip or crack opening. Stirrups produce a passive
confining pressure over the anchorage, but unless they have
a rather small diameter, they rarely reach yielding. Note that
in unconfined anchorages, slip is approximately twice the
radial displacement12 of the internal bar boundary imposed
by the displacing ribs. Thus, upon attainment of bond
strength at a nominal slip value of 0.1 mm (0.0039 in.), the
corresponding radial displacement is 0.05 mm (0.002 in.).
(This result was obtained from local bond tests13 with an
embedded length Lb = 5Db, cover c = 1.5Db and bar diameter
Db = 19 mm [0.748 in.].) The corresponding hoop strain
equals the radial displacement divided by the radius to the
point considered; thus, at the internal and external boundaries
(free surface) the strain is 0.05 mm/9.5 mm = 0.0053 and
0.05 mm/38 mm = 0.0013. In the presence of confining
pressure, radial displacement is greatly restrained. For
pressures in the order of 0.25fc′ , cover splitting is entirely
suppressed and failure occurs by pullout.13
Recently, a new technique for upgrading inadequate
anchorages/splices by externally bonding FRP sheets (EB-FRP)
orthogonal to the direction of reinforcement has been developed
(FRP patch repairs). The technique has been shown to
perform well, successfully enhancing anchorage strength and
controlling bond degradation beyond attainment of strength,
both for common and for corroded anchorages.14 In detailing
this repair method, the effective transverse strain εf,eff on the
nearest surface of the cover is used to evaluate the sheet
stress. For the example considered, εf,eff = 0.0013 > εcr, that
is, the cover is split through. This value may be considered as
the effective strain of EB-FRP jacket restraining the
anchorage when a moderately high level of frictional resistance
may be relied upon (μ ≈ 0.7 – 1).7 Due to the kinematic
relationship between slip, splitting crack width, and friction,
higher values for εf,eff would correspond to lower μ values.
Using the format of the code expression7 (in metric units) the
average bond strength is calculated from Eq. (1a) as follows
2μf ′ A st α fst, y 2tf E f ε f, eff⎞
------ × ( σ c + σ st + σ f ) = -----------t- ⎛ c + --------------------
f b = 2μ - + ------------------------
π πD b ⎝ f t ′N b s f t ′N b ⎠
c Ast f st, y t f E f ε f, eff
⇒ f b = 0.29 ------ f c′ + 0.19 --------------- + 1.15 ------------------
Db Db Nb s Db Nb
where contributions from concrete cover, stirrups, and EB-FRP
jackets have been considered. In Eq. (2), the implicit values
for the parameters are μ = 0.9 (that is, in Eq. (1b), β ≈ 0.6), and
ft′ = 0.5 f c ′ ; c is the concrete cover; Nb is the number of bars
restrained by the stirrup legs included in Ast (Ast is the cross-
sectional area of stirrups crossing the splitting plane); and tf
and Ef are the EB-FRP jacket thickness and modulus of
elasticity, respectively. The coefficient α averages stirrup-
induced confining pressures over the spacing s; note that
confining pressure exerted on the bar by a single stirrup layer
is maximum at the stirrup location and decays with transverse
distance (Fig. 2(b)). Whereas the core of the cross section
may be effectively confined over the entire stirrup spacing,
most of the bar length is outside the stirrup influence (dashed
line). Herein, a parabolic distribution is assumed for the
confining pressure over the bar. This corresponds to a
uniform effective confining pressure acting on the longitudinal
bar over the entire spacing of successive stirrups s approximately
equal to 1/3 of the peak value (hence, α = 0.33 in Eq. (2)).
758
Equation (2) refers to anchorages that usually fail by splitting
where the confining contribution of stirrups is limited due to
sparse spacing. For this, it is necessary to impose an upper
limit of σc + σst ≤ 0.25fc′ .13 Although this is a crude
representation of the local stress concentrations around the
ribs that engage in concrete, in a general sense, the simple
frictional model properly identifies the significance of many
important design parameters for bond, and may be easily
adapted to the conditions of a corroding reinforcing bar.
PROPOSED ANALYTICAL MODEL
The simplest method to introduce the effect of corrosion
on the bond capacity fb is to apply a reduction coefficient
λ(X) on Eq. (2) with an increasing level of corrosion such as
fbcor = λ(X)fb; X is the percent loss of bar radius (referred to
as depth of corrosion penetration). A number of models are
listed in the literature to represent this trend3,15-17 obtained
by fitting experimental bond data. In all cases, bond decays
with increasing X; however, the validity of the models is
limited when tested with experimental measurements that
have not been used in their initial derivation. The discrepancy
between models is mostly owing to the great variety of specimen
form and test setup used by the individual investigators. Note
that bond is usually measured indirectly, that is, it is reduced
from the global response of the specimen and testing hardware
behaving as a complete structure. Unaccounted for friction
between specimen and test hardware, as well as the presence
of diagonal compression stress fields in the vicinity of the
anchorage are known to superficially enhance the bond
capacity.18 Auyeung et al.3 and Hussein et al.4 collected data
from direct tension pullout tests (that is, most adverse bond
conditions [Fig. 3(a)]). Cabrera16 used conventional
pullout tests (very favorable bond conditions [Fig. 3(c)]).
Rodriguez et al.15 examined short beam-end tests, and Stanish
et al.17 tested simply supported slabs (bond is favored by the
pressure at the support in the anchorage region [Fig. 3(b)]).
A common drawback in all available empirical models is
that a single variable, namely λ(X) is used to account for
different sources of bond degradation, that is, the reduced
(2)
capacity of the cracked cover and the attenuation of the frictional
properties of the bar-concrete interface due to corrosion. An
alternative approach consistent with the original frictional
bond model (Eq. (1a)) is proposed herein, where degradation
of all relevant mechanisms is explicitly addressed
Fig. 3—Test setups used in bond testing. Concrete is: (a) in
direct tension; and (b) and (c) in compression.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
 cor 2 res 2 Hoop strains, being tensile and attaining their peak value
fb = --- μ ( X )σ n + f adh ( X ) = --- μ ( X )
π π
[ σ c ( X ) + σ shr ( X ) + σ st ( X ) + σ conf ] + f adh ( X )
In the proposed model, the coefficient of friction μ as well
as the various terms in Eq. (3) that represent normal pressures on
the bar surface are functions of corrosion intensity measured
by X. The term σshr is the shrinkage stress that is modeled for
simplicity as a compressive radial stress. The component of
bond attributed to initial adhesion fadh degrades rapidly with
either slip or corrosion. For smooth bars, it may represent a
sizeable fraction of the total resistance, but for ribbed bars, it is
considered insignificant and is only included in Eq. (3) for
completeness. Terms entering Eq. (3) are defined in the
following sections with regard to the principal design variables
as well as with reference to X using simplified mechanistic
constructs and physical argument.
Calculating crack front in cover Rcr due
to rust build-up
Radial cracks run through part of the cover of corroded
bars, owing to accumulation of the expansive rust products.
An important parameter controlling the normal stress
components in Eq. (3) is the residual uncracked cover
thickness, which can be relied upon to support bond action.
The radius of the crack front Rcr is related to the radial
displacement ur,o of the internal boundary of the cover ring
(around the bar hole) imposed by rust build-up. The variable
ur,o is calculated from the depth of corrosion penetration X,
and the volumetric ratio of rust to parent iron αrs. For the
definition of the associated boundary-value problem, the
following considerations are made.
Strain-displacement relationships for cover ring—In
axisymmetric problems of continuum mechanics, the strain-
displacement relations are expressed in polar coordinates: εr =
dur /dr and εθ = ur /r where ur is the radial displacement and r is
the radius from the line of axisymmetry (Fig. 4(a)). If smeared
strain definitions are adopted, these relations hold for the
state of strain in the cracked cover concrete. For a known
displacement of the interior boundary of the cover ring, the
radius of the crack front may be evaluated from these relations
by setting the hoop strain equal to the cracking strain of concrete,
that is, εθ = εcr = ft′/Ec and hence, Rcr = ur,cr /εcr .
The exact variation of the radial displacement from the value
ur,o at the internal boundary Rb, to ur,cr at the crack front Rcr , is
generally unknown and may only be obtained from a complete
solution of the associated nonlinear boundary-value problem.10
Herein, it is assumed that the radial displacement decays from
the peak ur,o value according to
u r = u r, o – ε r ( r – R b ) ; R b ≤ r ≤ R cr
where εr is the radial compressive strain resulting from the
residual radial stress σnres that acts on the internal boundary
(thus, for simplicity, εr is taken constant in the cracked part
of the ring). As corrosion proceeds, the radial stress attenuates
from its peak value (which represents the stress capacity of
the ring σn) following an inelastic path with a slope equal to
the initial concrete elastic modulus Ec (Fig. 4(b)). The radial
strain is then
max res
εr = εr – ( σn – σn ) ⁄ Ec
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
(3) at the internal boundary, result in gradual propagation of
radial cracks outwards through the cover. Thus, the
uniaxial concrete compression stress-strain law suffices
to relate the radial strain εrmax at the internal boundary
with the corresponding stress σn (for example,
Hognestad’s parabola) considering that Poisson effects are
diminished after cracking.
Translation of internal boundary due to rust accumulation
ur,o—The volume of rust ΔVr is related to the volume of
depleted metal ΔVs and to the depth of corrosion penetration
X (X = ΔDb/Db) through ΔVr = αrs × ΔVs. The volume ratio
αrs is usually taken as 2, but higher values are possible if the
rust is fully hydrated.10 Assuming uniform corrosion on the
bar surface (as opposed to pitting), deposition of the rust
volume ΔVr around the bar surface and in the radial cracks
of the cover requires a radial displacement of the internal
concrete boundary by
2 2
u r, o = ( 1 – α rs )R b ( 2X – X ) ⁄ ( R b + R cr ) (6)
For a given X, the radius of the crack front Rcr is evaluated
by substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (4); setting the radial
displacement ur,cr = εcrRcr, it may be shown
2 2
ε cr + 4 ( ε cr + ε r ) ( 1 – α rs ) ⎛ 2X – X ⎞ + ε r – ε cr
⎝ ⎠
R cr = R b -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (7)
2 ( ε cr + ε r )
An initial estimate for the depth of corrosion penetration
Xcrit associated with cracking is obtained from Eq. (6) by
setting ur,o = εcrRb and Rcr = Rb: thus, Xcrit = 1 – [1 – 2εcr /
(1 – αrs)]0.5.
Second-order translation of internal boundary due to
compaction of accumulated rust un,o—The real increase in
the radial displacement of the internal concrete boundary
un,o not only depends on the rust volume stored in the pores
and in the space within cracks, but it is also affected by the
degree of compaction experienced by the rust layer as a
result of the normal pressure generated by the several
mechanisms described previously. Rust behaves as a
cohesionless granular material. Its stress-strain law has the
form shown in Fig. 4(c) (unloading of rust due to degradation
of the σnres is determined by the tangent slope at σn). A perti-
nent mathematical model of this behavior has been formulated
by Lundgren2 where the relationship between the actual radial
displacement un,o, the rust strain εcor (radial compaction of the
rust layer), and the radial displacement due to free (uncom-
pacted) rust deposition ur,o is as follows (Fig. 4(a))
(4)
Fig. 4—(a) Thick-walled cylinder model of cover and corrosion
indexes; (b) stress-strain law of concrete cover under radial
compression and unloading path when radial pressure is
(5) reduced; and (c) stress-strain response of rust.
759
 u n, o = u r, o – ε cor ( X × R b + u r, o )
An initial estimate of ur,o was obtained from Eq. (6) for
X = Xcrit. Up to this value, the ring capacity σn acting on the
intact concrete cover is calculated using the basic mechanics
of the ring model as detailed in the following sections.
Pressure σn acts both on the cover and on the rust layer as the
latter builds up around the bar. Using the constitutive model
of compacted rust (Fig. 4(c)), the rust compaction strain εcor
is evaluated from σn. The actual (corrected) radial displace-
ment of the internal boundary un,o is then estimated from Eq.
(8). From this revised value of the internal boundary transla-
tion, all relevant parameters of the problem are recalculated
(for example, the crack front Rcr from Eq. (4) after setting
ur,cr = εcrRcr and εr = εrmax and the residual normal pressure
on the bar).
In a stepwise calculation algorithm given in each step, the
displacement of the internal boundary un,o and the radial
strain εr for a depth of corrosion penetration X, an increment
(i)
in penetration by ΔX will lead to calculation of the new u n, o
as follows
(i) (i) (i) (i)
u n, o = u r, o – ε cor [ ΔX × R b + ( u r, o – u n, o ) ]
Equation (9) actually estimates the accumulated radial
displacement considering the additional compaction of the
new rust layer associated with ΔX. If the σnres(i) is less than
the achieved maximum value σn, then unloading both
cracked concrete and rust is assumed (along the unloading
paths shown in Fig. 4(b) and (c), respectively).
Capacity of cover ring σc
The concrete cover contribution σc in Eq. (3) is the normal
pressure on the interior boundary of the hole occupied by the
bar that would be required to split the cover (Fig. 1 and 4(a)).
Assuming either fully elastic or fully plastic behavior for the
ring,19 its capacity to radial pressure is calculated as σc =
ζ ft′(c/Db) (ζ = 1, 2, respectively). If radial cracks due to
corrosion have propagated to the crack front Rcr , then the
residual capacity of the cracked ring is estimated accordingly as
( C c – R cr )
σ c ( X ) = σ c -----------------------
- + A ( ε θ, o );
c stresses along an assumed diametric plane, would be more
R cr
1 actual cover would exceed the minimum dimension used in
A ( ε θ, o ) = ------
Db ∫ σc ( εθ, o )dr
Rb
The first term of Eq. (10) denotes the remaining pressure
capacity supported by the uncracked part of the cover ring.
Quantity A(εθ,o) is the residual pressure resistance supported
by the cracked part of the ring. Its magnitude depends on the
post-fracture characteristics of the stress-strain law of
concrete in tension that defines its fracture energy.10 This
term is calculated when hoop strains at the internal boundary
εθ,o = un,o/Rb exceed the cracking strain εcr.
Effect of drying shrinkage σshr
Drying shrinkage is accounted for as an isotropic (volume)
contraction with a magnitude that depends on the conditions
and duration of exposure. Accounting for that contraction as
a uniform prestrain, the rust volume required to split the
760
(8) cover is effectively increased, whereas shrinkage enables
increased bond resistance for small amounts of rust deposition.
In the thick-walled cylinder analogy, shrinkage generates
compressive stresses in the radial direction σshr as the
embedded bar restrains the length change of concrete, acting
as a rigid inclusion. In design codes, shrinkage is interpreted
as an isotropic contraction by εshr; based on CEB-MC
1990,20 εshr = –0.0003 ≈ –3εcr for humid atmospheric
conditions. Thus, the radial stress σshr is taken equal to the
modulus of elasticity of concrete times the isotropic strain
εshr: σshr = Ec × εshr = –3ft′. Consistent with the assumption
of isotropy of shrinkage, a compressive strain equal to εshr is
also resolved in the hoop direction. This strain being
compressive delays the onset of tensile hoop stresses due to
corrosion penetration up to an internal radial displacement
lim lim
equal to u n, o = εshrRb ( u n, o is the necessary quantity for
complete elimination of hoop compressive strains in the
cover). After hoop strain exceeds the cracking limit, that is,
(un,o/Rb) – εshr ≥ εcr , initiation of cover cracking is inevitable.
Beyond that stage, as radial cracks propagate through the cover
thickness, shrinkage stress is assumed to reduce proportionately
with cover resistance, that is, σshr(X) = –3ft′(Cc – Rcr)/c.
(i – 1) The depth of corrosion penetration Xshr that would cause a
(9) lim
radial displacement of the internal boundary by u n, o may be
calculated from the model considering that no radial cracking
lim
may occur up to that point (that is, u n, o /Rb = εshr). Based on
analysis of several case studies, 3,4,15,16 it was found that
Xshr ≈ 0.001; this quantity is insensitive to cover thickness
and concrete quality.
The concrete contribution σconc to bond strength
composed of the tensile strength of concrete cover σc(X) and
the shrinkage-generated pressure σshr(X) is a lower bound
value because it is based on the assumption of symmetric
conditions around the ring (central bar in the cover ring):
σconc(X) = σc(X) + σshr(X). In actual circumstances, the ring
radius is defined by the smallest cover thickness to the free
surface of the member. Depending on the actual geometry of
the cover (whether the bar is centrally or eccentrically placed
in the cross section), the estimated crack propagation represents
cracking in the thinner part of the cover only, whereas a large
fraction of the thicker part of the cover may remain
uncracked. Thus, the normal pressure in the inside boundary
of the ring, calculated from the force resultant of hoop
(10)
favorable in an unsymmetric condition where part of the
the ring model (Fig. 5(a)). To account for this increase in the
estimated ring capacity, a geometric factor B ≤ 1 is introduced in
the terms representing the cover ring contribution; the factor
B accounts for the area ratio of thin to thick cover areas
(Fig. 5(a)). The resulting enhanced concrete contribution
term is estimated from
total
σ conc ( X ) = σ conc ( X ) + B × Δ σ conc (11)
= ( 1 – B ) × ( σ c ( X ) + σ shr ( X ) ) + B × ( σ c + σ shr )
In Eq. (11), the term Δσconc is the local pressure increase
(over the σconc value, which is the minimum value assuming
a uniform cover equal to the minimum thickness as shown in
Fig. 5(a)) in the thicker part of the bar cover, that is, B ×
Δσconc = B(σc + σshr – σc(X) – σshr(X)).
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
Bursting pressure attained by stirrups σst
Stirrups are the first to be affected by corrosion owing to
their proximity to the exposed surface, whereas the section
loss is more dramatic for the transverse reinforcement as it is
usually fabricated from small-diameter bars. Thus, the
confining force is lowered by the apparent reduction of the
cross-sectional area of the stirrups, estimated as Astcor =
Ast(1 – X)2. The depth of corrosion penetration X in the
stirrup reinforcement is not necessarily the same as that
occurring in the main bars.
The interior boundary hoop strain (εθ,ο = un,o/Rb) also
represents the initial strain experienced by the hoops or stirrups
confining the primary reinforcement, as stirrups are usually in
contact with the longitudinal bars. With reference to Eq. (3),
where the stirrup stress is denoted by σst(X), stirrups may be
considered as being prestressed due to the rust product
accumulation up to a stress of Es(un,o/Rb). Therefore, the
available radial confining pressure exerted by the corroded
transverse reinforcement when bond action is mobilized
along the anchorage length is21
cor cor
A st αf st, y
σ st ( X ) = ----------------------
-;
Db Nb s
cor ⎧ ( f – E s u n, o ⁄ R b ) ; u n, o ⁄ R b ≤ ε st, y
f st, y = ⎨ st, y
⎩o ; u n, o ⁄ R b > ε st, y
Effect of transverse compressive stress field in
anchorage σconf
The bond capacity of the anchorage may be superficially
enhanced by unaccounted for friction between specimen and
test hardware and by the presence of compression stress
trajectories that intersect the anchorage (for example, near
supports). Such sources of strength need to be considered
particularly in correlating with experimental results, as they
may effectively enhance the normal stress σn over the
anchorage and delay crack propagation. In the case of an
inclined compressive stress field, the normal pressure σconf
confining the anchorage is estimated from the stress resultant
perpendicular to the bar axis, assuming a uniform distribution
over the anchorage (Fig. 3(b) and (c)). This stress is transferred
from the internal boundary to the crack front as σconf × Rb /Rcr.
From the established solution of a hollow thick-walled
cylinder subjected to a uniform imploding pressure σconfRb/Rcr
on the inner boundary19 with ri = Rcr, the calculated
compressive hoop stress is σθ|r = Rcr = σconfRb(Cc2 + Rcr2)/
[Rcr × (Cc2 – Rcr2)]. The associated hoop strain εθ,conf|r = Rcr
is also compressive and is obtained by dividing the hoop
stress with the initial modulus of concrete Ec. This strain
delays crack propagation thereby enhancing the anchorage
strength. Its effect can be seen in Eq. (7), if εcr is replaced by
εcr – |εθ,conf |r = Rcr |.
Modeling adhesion fadh(X)
The adhesion component of bond is the shear capacity of
the interfacial layer (in the order of 1 MPa [0.145 ksi]),
which disintegrates for small values of slip (that is, in excess
of 0.02 mm [0.0008 in.]), as the chemical links between
concrete and steel break down. Corrosion destroys chemical
adhesion. As corrosion products accumulate between the
two materials, chemical bonding is eliminated, even for very
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
small amounts of interpolated rust. In the proposed model, it
is assumed that fadh(Xshr) = 0.
Modeling coefficient of friction μ
The coefficient of friction μ is taken to be a decaying function
with increasing corrosion intensity, reduced from an ideal
initial reference value μmax that is representative of the type
of bar under consideration (either ribbed or smooth)
μ = g ( X ) × μ max (13)
The function g(X) is qualitatively described based on
experimental observation (Fig. 5(b)). Even in uncorroded
concrete, the coefficient of friction of a ribbed bar is considered
max
to degrade from its peak value μ r with increasing slip. In
the case of corrosion, rust products accumulating around the
bar prevent direct contact between concrete and reinforcement.
Being rather cohesionless and longitudinally unconfined,
rust offers adverse conditions for friction; as the thickness of
the rust layer increases, longitudinal sliding is facilitated
further, and the coefficient of friction is drastically reduced.
A lower bound of frictional resistance is that of a smooth
(12) res
corroded bar μ sm ; a ribbed bar is bound to degrade to that
level upon complete depletion of the ribs (that is, when the
depth of corrosion penetration equals the rib height hr).
res
Thus, μr|Xu = hr/Rb = μ sm . Values for the various terms
defined previously have been quantified indirectly through
max res
tests published in literature2,7: μ r ≈ 0.7 – 1, μ sm ≈ 0.1 – 0.2.
For intermediate levels of rib depletion, linear interpolation is
used for the coefficient of friction as illustrated in Fig. 5(b). The
initial increase of friction coefficient with corrosion penetration
is owing to the effect of drying shrinkage that would have to
be overcome before the cover may develop hoop tension.
Based on the available experimental data,3,4,16 this effect
may be accounted for by increasing the value of μ through a
multiplier in the range of 1 to 1.2 up to a critical depth of
penetration Xshr (Fig. 5(b)).
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The international experimental database on bond of
corroded anchorages comprises mostly short anchorage
specimens. To supplement model development with data
from longer anchorage lengths, two groups of RC specimens
were tested in the present study, that is, beam-end specimens
(B-group) and slab-strips (S-group). The B-group comprised
six prismatic specimens 850 mm (33.46 in.) long, having a
250 mm (9.84 in.) square cross section (Fig. 6(a)). The
concrete had an average compressive strength of 21 MPa
(3.04 ksi) at 28 days (at the time of testing, it had increased
to 28 MPa [4.06 ksi]). Two steel bars with a diameter of Db
= 14 mm (0.55 in.) and specified yield strength of fy = 500 MPa
Fig. 5—(a) Definition of B; and (b) variation of µ with X.
761
(72.5 ksi) were cast in each specimen. The bars were placed
in the axis of symmetry of the beam cross section, with a
clear cover of c = 20 mm (0.79 in.). The required anchorage
length was estimated as Lb = fyDb/(4fb) = 415 mm (16.34 in.)
(≈30Db, where the nominal bond strength was taken as per
EC-222 as fb = 2.25 ft′). The remaining 415 mm (16.34 in.) of
the total embeddment length was provided with a bond
breaker. To preclude premature shear failure, auxiliary
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement was used (four
bars of Db = 10 mm [0.39 in.] placed at the corners); only
vertical stirrup links with a diameter of 5 mm (0.20 in.) were
provided to avoid any confining influence by closed stirrups
in the end regions of the test bars. The specimens were
loaded as a cantilever beam with one bar pulled out. The test
bar was gripped externally using a tendon anchorage wedge
that was bearing under the seating plate; the latter was
adjusted on the loading frame. To preclude lateral sliding
and out-of-plane rotation, two pin supports were fixed on the
frame (one on each section side [Fig. 6(a)]). Tip displacement
Δtip was obtained as the sum of deflection owing to flexural
curvature and deflection owing to bar pullout from the fixed
support Δsp (Fig. A1 in the Appendix*). These values were
obtained from horizontal and vertical DTs placed at the top
of the specimen and near the support region, respectively
(Fig. 6(a)).
The S-group consisted of four one-way slab-strips with a
cross-sectional height, width, and total length of 150 mm
(5.91 in.), 330 mm (12.99 in.), and 1200 mm (47.24 in.),
respectively (Fig. 6(b)). Concrete compressive strength was
32 MPa (4.64 ksi) at 28 days (at the time of first testing, the
strength had increased to 40 MPa [5.80 ksi]). A single layer
of two Db = 14 mm (0.55 in.) steel bars with fy = 500 MPa
(72.5 ksi) was used as longitudinal reinforcement with a
clear cover of c = 30 mm (1.18 in.). Specimens were tested
under four-point loading. Reinforcement was covered with a
bond breaker in the central region of constant bending
moment (400 mm [15.75 in.]) so as to control the bond
demand over the bar development length. The available
anchorage was 360 mm (14.17 in.) (that is, ≈26Db) and
occurred in the shear span; the bar was terminated 40 mm
(1.57 in.) beyond the support.
In the specimen identification code (Table A1 in the
Appendix), the first character marks the specimen type (B-
or S-group), the second is the specimen number in the group,
while the last two characters refer to the conditioning (c for
corroded specimens and R for repairs with FRP jackets).
Corrosion conditioning of specimens
Both groups of specimens were connected to an electro-
chemical corrosion cell for a period of 2-1/2 to 3 months so as to
generate accelerated rust production in the laboratory. One
specimen of each group was left uncorroded to be used as a
control (B0 and S0 [Table A1 in the Appendix]). Specimens
were immersed in a water solution containing 3% per weight
NaCl with bars acting as the anode of the circuit. A steel
mesh was used as a cathode, placed at the bottom of the
corrosion basin. Bars and steel mesh were connected in
parallel to the power supply with the salt solution completing
the circuit; a power of 6 Volts was impressed at the circuit
ends. The electrical current was monitored at 12-hour intervals.
To promote accumulation of expansive corrosion products,
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. You may request a hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
762
that is, to achieve complete hydration of rust, a 3-day cycle
of wetting/drying was used during conditioning (1/2 day of
wetting up to the middepth of the bars followed by 2-1/2 days
of drying, where the water level was lowered well under the
specimen’s bottom face).
Both bars in the S-group were subjected to electrochemical
corrosion. In one specimen of the B-series, both longitudinal
bars were connected to the power supply (B5cR and B6cR in
the Table A1 in the Appendix); this specimen was placed
sideways in the corrosion basin so as to achieve simultaneous
corrosion of both bars. In all other specimens of the B-group,
only one of the two cast bars was corroded. The mass of iron
consumed over the time period was estimated by the total
amount of current that flowed through the electrochemical
corrosion cell using Faraday’s Law. Values for the measured
accumulated current Icorr and the estimated depth of corrosion
penetration X are given for all specimens in Table A1 (in
the Appendix).
The duration of corrosion conditioning was similar for the
two groups of specimens, but the different concrete strengths
and cover-to-bar-diameter ratios (c/Db) produced different
degrees of damage with regards to mass loss and cracking.
For the B-group (c/Db = 1.43), cracks 2 mm (0.08 in.) wide
spread throughout the concrete cover and anchorage length;
in some cases, the network of cracks extended through the
height of the section (Fig. A2(a) in the Appendix). By the
end of the conditioning period of the S-group with c/Db =
2.14, visible longitudinal cracks 0.5 to 1 mm (0.02 to 0.04 in.)
wide had developed directly over the bars in the anchorage
zones only. Apparently, the bond breakers that were placed
in the middle noncorrosive zone (Fig. A2(b) in the Appendix)
inhibited the flow of oxygen starving the corrosion mechanism,
effectively protecting the bar against rusting in that zone.
Mechanical load testing
Both groups of specimens were designed to fail in the
anchorage after flexural yielding. The test setup and
instrumentation are illustrated in Fig. 6. Load was applied
monotonically in load increments (up to yielding) of 1 kN
(0.11 kips) with continuous monitoring of deformations;
displacement control was used beyond yielding.
Beam-end specimens
The B-group was tested up to various levels of lateral load
with critical thresholds being: 1) yielding of longitudinal
Fig. 6—Dimensions (in mm) and test setup of specimens
tested: (a) beam-end (B-group); and (b) slab (S-group).
(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
reinforcement; and 2) the extent of mechanical damage in
the anchorage zone at cover spalling; the aim was the reuse
of specimens for testing various repairing techniques.
Figure A1 (in the Appendix) plots the load-displacement
curves obtained during the first loading stage before repair,
that is, the c series marked by circles and triangles with no
connecting lines (also included in the same figure are the
results after the repair, as mentioned in the following).
The term cR in the specimen label marks experimental
curves obtained from the post-repair loading tests. Loading
of Specimen B1c (X = 10.9%) was stopped at 15 kN (3.37 kips)
before yielding of the corroded bar, with limited cracking
(the yield load of the control Specimen B0 was estimated
both analytically and experimentally as 21 kN [4.72 kips]).
Testing of Specimens B2c and B3c (X = 6.8 and 9.6%) was
stopped just near visible yielding (at approximately 17 kN
[3.82 kips]). Nevertheless, a substantial level of damage,
including spalling of the cover, was only seen in Specimen
B2c. Specimen B4c with a similar degree of corrosion as
Specimens B3c and B1c failed abruptly, developing only
25% of the strength of Specimen B0; the embedded bar
yielded and subsequently fractured near the support region in
the specimen block (it sustained a low yield load due to local
bar section loss) without widening of the existing longitudinal
cracks or formation of any new cracks associated with bond
action. For Specimens B5c and B6c with a low degree of
corrosion penetration (X = 2.96 and 3.7%), testing was
terminated at higher load (up to 83% of the failure load of
Specimen B0). At that stage, transverse cracks had developed
in the lower half of the anchorage length whereas the main
longitudinal crack owing to corrosion had widened (excessive
damage in the case of Specimen B5c).
In most specimens, corrosion impaired the flexural
stiffness of the members as a result of partial breakdown of
bond. Due to lack of bond, it is not possible to mobilize
tension stiffening of concrete and crack widths become
excessive; in that case, pullout due to slip may govern the
total lateral deformation.14 Exceptions to the experimental
trends are the responses of Specimen B5c and B6c that also had
the lowest degree of corrosion; also, Specimen B3c had a very
similar stiffness to Specimen B0 with lower yield point.
Comprehensive results of the preloading stage for the
B-group are also given in Table A1 (in the Appendix).
Average bond stress fb was obtained assuming uniform
distribution along the anchorage length and was evaluated
from statics of the cantilever’s critical section using the
measured peak load P.
Slab-strip specimens
Bond was measured indirectly in the S-group (the developed
bar force was obtained from the statics of the constant
moment region) and it was affected by the arching of the
compression strut near the support. From the three corroded
elements of this group (in all cases X ≈ 4%), Specimen S3c and
the control Specimen S0 were loaded to failure. Peak loads
were of similar magnitude (121 and 126.5 kN [27.2 and
28.4 kips], respectively), but the mode of failure was
different. A large flexural crack opened in the constant
moment region of Specimen S0, extending deep in the
compression zone where it curved and became almost
horizontal as the load increased (Fig. A3(a) in the
Appendix). (Note that the single crack is owing to fact that
the bar was unbonded in that region.) Near failure, the crack
was approximately 3 mm (0.12 in.) wide. A flexure-shear
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
crack also opened in the shear span near the point of loading;
eventually failure was controlled by this crack that also
branched towards the support (the photo in Fig. A3(a) in the
Appendix was taken after load removal). Specimen S3c
failed abruptly in the anchorage zone due to corrosion
precracking with part of the concrete cover exploding away
(Fig. A3(b) in the Appendix). Specimens S1c and S2c were
loaded up to 65% of the measured strength of Specimen S3
so that they could be reused after repair (Fig. A3(c) in the
Appendix). Peak load and the resulting bond stresses are
listed in Table A1 (in the Appendix).
The influence of specimen type and particularly the
confining action of the supports over the bar is assessed by
comparison of the test results of the uncorroded specimens of
the two series (the uncorroded Specimens B0 and S0 reached
average bond capacities of 5.61 MPa (0.81 ksi) and 7.07 MPa
(1.03 ksi), respectively (Table A1 in the Appendix), that is, a
20% difference in strength. This difference persisted system-
atically in comparisons of similarly corroded specimens of the
two groups as well (owing to the different specimen forms).
Influence of repair on anchorage capacity
After the first loading phase, all damaged specimens were
repaired in the anchorage zones by CFRP patches externally
bonded over the anchorage length and transversely to the
longitudinal axis of the members. In all cases, the FRP jacket
was anchored laterally along the height of the cross section
forming a U-shape (no mechanical anchorage was used).
The intent in this repair alternative was to mobilize passive
confining of the anchorage zone with consequently favorable
influence on bond resistance. Nominal mechanical properties of
the jacket materials were as follows. For the CFRP tensile
strength: 3500 MPa (508 ksi), strain at failure 1.5%, and
sheet thickness of 0.13 mm (0.0051 in.); and for the resin
modulus of elasticity: 3800 MPa (552 ksi) and shear strength
of 30 MPa (4.35 ksi).
Repair was done as follows: in cases of excessive cover
damage (Specimens B2cR and B5cR), before application of
the CFRP jacket, the concrete fragments and the rust were
removed and replaced by a low strength mortar (water-
cement ratio of 0.7). For all other members with controlled
cracking, CFRP plies were just glued to the free surface
without any particular preparation (that is, the corners were
not chamfered and cracks were not sealed) except for careful
cleaning. During repair, the S-type specimens were turned
upside down with respect to their testing position, so that
cracks were closed having a favorable effect on the anticipated
effectiveness of the jacket.
The repaired specimens were reloaded monotonically to
failure. The contribution of CFRP jacketing on bond resistance
in the case of the S-group was clearly favorable. Stiffness
increased up to 20% of the initial value of the corroded
specimens due to crack closure upon repair, whereas the mode
of failure was ductile (in Fig. A3(c) in the Appendix, label R
in the plot corresponds to the post-repair response). Measured
bond strength fb = 6.7 MPa (0.97 ksi) was reduced by only 5%
from the value of the control Specimen S0 (Table A1 in
the Appendix).
In the B-group, corrosion damage and preloading effects
on bond resistance and on the stiffness of load-displacement
response were almost nonrecoverable (post-repair response
curves are plotted in Fig. A1 (in the Appendix) by the series
of symbols with connecting lines). By combining cover
replacement with CFRP patching (Specimens B2cR and
763
B5cR), it is possible to develop the available flexural
strength (attained at the prerepair loading). Failure for all
specimens was marked by excessive slip of reinforcement
owing to the preloading effects on the anchorage, the
unrecoverable loss in rib height, and the fact that the rust
layer was not removed before casting the new cover. Using
CFRP patching alone was not as effective as in the case of
the S-group, particularly in cases that had sustained a high
level of preloading: Specimens B3cR and B6cR could not
sustain more than 63% of the preload threshold and failed in
a similar manner as Specimen B2cR. Specimens B1cR,
which had the lowest degree of mechanical damage (only
few narrow cracks near the support due to the low level of
prerepair loading, whereas the anchorage had experienced
the least damage from bar slip) and was repaired by CFRP
layers without cover replacement demonstrated the most
favorable performance. Its ultimate load reached 80% of the
Specimen B0 strength, with pronounced yielding before
failure and unaffected initial stiffness. Measured bond strength
fb was lower in most cases (except for Specimen B1cR) than
the bond stress value attained during the first loading cycle
(Table A1 in the Appendix).
VERIFICATION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL
For a given depth of initial corrosion penetration, the
residual bond strength may be calculated from Eq. (3), with
the proposed values for the frictional coefficient and the
calculated values of the normal stress components. In the
following paragraphs, the performance of the analytical
model is explored through correlation with reported
measurements from relevant tests published in the
literature3,4,15-17 as well as with the results of the experimental
program conducted in the framework of the present study. In
total, five different series of tests were considered for model
verification. Typical characteristics of the specimens and
relevant references are as follows:
1. Short embedment length, concentric bar arrangement,
and tension pullout test setup3,4 (Fig. 3(a));
2. Short embedment length, eccentric bar arrangement,
and beam tests15 (Fig. 3(b));

Fig. 7—Model correlation. Data from: (a) conventional pullout tests; (b)
direct tension; (c) beam-end ((a), (b), and (c) concern short anchorages);
(d) slab strips; and (e) data from current test program ((d) and (e) concern long
anchorages).

764 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

 3. Short embedment length, concentric bar arrangement,
and pullout tests16 (Fig. 3(c));
4. Long embedment length, eccentric bar arrangement,
and slab-strip tests (data from present experimental program,
as well as from Stanish et al.17) (Fig. 3(b)); and
5. Long embedment length, eccentric bar arrangement,
beam-end tests (data from present experimental study
[Fig. 3(b)]), and consideration of patch-FRP repairs.
Figures 7(a), (b), and (c) present the behavior of the model
when applied to Specimen Series 1 through 3.3,4,15,16 A
common characteristic of these cases is the short embedded
length of the test bar (4 – 7Db). Stress conditions in the
surrounding concrete vary depending on the test setup and
support hardware. Overall, the model is in good agreement
with the experimental data or with the empirical equations
included in Fig. 7 that summarize subgroups of test results.
In the case of conventional pullout tests16 of Fig. 7(a), the
model is in good agreement with the experimental data in the
low range of X values, whereas it becomes rather conservative
for higher levels of corrosion penetration. The influence of
the reacting confining pressure σconf owing to the test setup
(Fig. 3(b) and (c)) was considered in the correlation as specified
by Eq. (3). Datapoints circled with the dashed line concern a
special concrete mixture containing fly ash.
The model best reproduces the data of the direct tension
pullout test3,4 as illustrated in Fig. 7(b). In this type of test,
longitudinal concrete stresses are tensile in the vicinity of the
anchorage, thus they are more consistent with the stress-state
surrounding the anchorage in the tension zone of an actual
beam. For the beam-end test series15 (Fig. 7(c)) with and
without stirrups, the model produces a lower bound trend
(according to Rodriguez et al.,15 stirrups were uncorroded).
Parameter B was set equal to 0.75 taking into account the
eccentric bar arrangement.
In the case of long anchorages (Fig. 7(d) and (e)), the
model correlates well with the values of bond strength (in the
present study, bond strength was measured upon failure of
repaired specimens in the second test phase [Fig. 7(e)]). In
the correlation, contribution of the FRP jacket (from Eq. (2))
and influence of the inclined compression field due to
support reaction were accounted for through Eq. (3) by means
of the reacting normal pressure σconf + σf (in the case of
data17 of Fig. 7(d): σf = 0). For Specimen Series 4, Parameter B
was taken as 0.75 (side-to-bottom-cover ratio ≈ 2).
In the B-series of specimens (Series 5, Fig. 7(e)), the
composite material did not mobilize sufficient restraining
pressure σf, as this would require significant hoop strains
at the external boundary. Herein, replacement of corrosion-
cracked cover as a repair option was analytically modeled by
using an intact cover. Thus, only the coefficient of friction μ
was reduced as a function of X to account for corrosion-
induced deterioration of the bar surface (herein, σconf = 0
because the inclined compression field affected the tail-end of
the unbonded bar). In modeling the S-specimens without cover
replacement (Fig. 7(e), black line), the combination of confining
pressures in the anchorage zones exerted from the support and
from the FRP jacket acted favorably to sustain bond strength up
to severe values of X, preventing widening of the existing cover
cracks (B = 0.75) in the analysis.
In all cases, the model consistently reproduced the
experimental trends and the varying degree of influence
of corrosion on bond strength owing to the stress-state of the
concrete in the anchorage zone and the boundary conditions
provided by the test setup.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
CONCLUSIONS
Two series of RC specimens (slabs and beam-end specimens)
were conditioned under accelerated corrosion and subsequently
tested under mechanical load so as to investigate bond
performance of corroded bar anchorages. Some of the damaged
anchorage zones were repaired with partial cover replacement.
All specimens were wrapped with a CFRP patch and retested to
failure. Test results showed that corrosion affects the mechanics
of bond and can result in explosive spalling failure at the
anchorage. The efficiency of CFRP patching was controlled by
several parameters such as the extent of corrosion damage, the
extent of cover damage due to preload, the state of stress in the
vicinity of the anchorage, and by whether the damaged cover
was replaced before jacketing.
To interpret the test results, a mechanical model was
developed from first principles based on the frictional
concept, whereby bond strength was estimated from the
coefficient of friction and the normal confining pressure
along the anchorage. Both variables were evaluated considering
the relevant design parameters (cover, shrinkage, and transverse
reinforcement) and the effects of iron depletion (bar diameter
loss). The model’s ability to accurately predict deterioration of
bond strength with progressive corrosion penetration was
established through extensive correlation with data from
several published studies as well as with the data of the
present experimental investigation. In all cases, the model
consistently reproduced the experimental trends and the
varying degree of influence of corrosion on bond strength
owing to the stress-state of the concrete in the anchorage
zone and the boundary conditions provided by the test setup.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was conducted in the Laboratories of Demokritus University,
Greece. Funding was provided by GSRT (Hellenic General Secretary for
Research and Technology) through the PENED 2001 program. The composite
materials (SikaWrap 230C and Sikadur 330) were donated by SIKA Hellas.
NOTATION
Ast/stcor = cross sectional area of transverse reinforcement, reduced value
due to corrosion
B = factor that accounts for area ratio of thin to thick cover areas
c/Cc = clear concrete cover thickness and cover measured from bar center
Db/Rb = bar diameter and radius
Ec/s/f = modulus of elasticity for concrete, steel, and FRP
fadh
cor
= adhesion
fb /b = bond strength and reduced value due to corrosion
fc′/ft′ = compressive/tensile strength of concrete
fst,y/fy = yield stress of transverse and longitudinal reinforcement
Icorr = total current that flowed through electrochemical cell during
corrosion
Lb = anchorage length
Nb = number of tension longitudinal bars enclosed by stirrups
Rcr = radius of crack front
r = radius from line of axisymmetry
s = stirrup spacing
tf = FRP jacket thickness
ur,cr = radial displacement at crack front
ur,o/n,o = radial displacement, value also affected by rust compaction of
internal boundary
X = depth of corrosion penetration
αrs = volumetric ratio of rust to parent iron
Δtip/sp = total displacement and displacement owing to bar pullout at
top of B specimens
ΔVr = volume of rust products
ΔVs = volume of steel loss
εcor = radial compressive strain of rust
εcr = cracking strain of concrete
εf,eff = effective strain of the externally-bonded FRP sheet
εshr = shrinkage strain
εst,y = yield strain of stirrups
εr = radial compressive strain of concrete
765
εθ = hoop tensile strain of concrete
εθconf = hoop compressive strain due to confining pressure σconf
μr /sm = friction coefficient: for ribbed bar, for smooth bar
σc = maximum normal pressure for cover splitting
σconf /f = confining pressure by transverse compressive stress field, by
FRP jacket
σn/nres = maximum normal pressure due to frictional bond mechanism
and residual value
σshr = shrinkage stress
σst = confining pressure due to stirrups
ζ = factor that considers concrete ring response (1 for fully elastic
and 2 for fully plastic)
REFERENCES
1. Li, C. Q., and Zheng, J. J., “Propagation of Reinforcement Corrosion
in Concrete and its Effects on Structural Deterioration,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 57, No. 5, 2005, pp. 261-271.
2. Lundgren, K., “A Model for the Bond Between Corroded Reinforcement
and Concrete,” Proceedings from Bond in Concrete—from Research to
Standards, Budapest, Hungry, 2002, pp. 35-42.
3. Auyeung, Y.; Balaguru, P.; and Chung, L., “Bond Behavior of Corroded
Reinforcement Bars,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2000,
pp. 214-220.
4. Hussein, N.; Yang, Y.; Kawai, K.; and Sato, R., “Time Dependent
Bond Behaviour of Corroded Bars,” Proceedings from Bond in Concrete—
from Research to Standards, Budapest, Hungry, 2002, pp. 166-173.
5. Cairns, J.; Du, Y.; and Johnston, M., “Residual Bond Capacity of
Corroded Plain Surface Reinforcement,” Proceedings from Bond in Concrete—
from Research to Standards, Budapest, Hungry, 2002, pp. 129-136.
6. MacGregor, J., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design,
Prentice-Hill Inc., 1997, 939 pp.
7. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp.
8. Tastani, S., and Pantazopoulou, S., “Experimental Evaluation of the
Direct Tension-Pullout Bond Test,” Proceedings from Bond in Concrete—
from Research to Standards, Budapest, Hungary, 2002, pp. 268-276.
9. Martin-Perez, B., “Service Life Modelling of R.C. Highway Structures
Exposed to Chlorides,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1998, 164 pp.
766
10. Pantazopoulou, S., and Papoulia, K., “Modelling of Cover-Cracking
Due to Reinforcement Corrosion in R.C. Structures,” Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, V. 127, No. 4, 2001, pp. 342-351.
11. Li, C. Q., “Reliability Based Service Life Prediction of Corrosion
Affected Concrete Structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 130, No. 10, 2004, pp. 1570-1577.
12. Lura, P.; Plizzari, G.; and Riva, P., “3D Finite-Element Modelling of
Splitting Crack Propagation,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 54,
No. 6, 2002, pp. 481-493.
13. Malvar, J., “Bond of Reinforcement under Controlled Confinement,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 593-601.
14. Harajli, M. H., “Bond Strengthening of Steel Bars Using External
FRP Confinement: Implications on the Static and Cyclic Response of R/C
Members,” Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, SP-230, C.
Shield, J. Busel, S. Walkup, and D. Gremel, eds., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, pp. 579-596.
15. Rodriguez, J.; Ortega, L.; Casal, J.; and Diez, J., “Assessing
Structural Conditions of Concrete Structures with Corroded Reinforcement,”
Proceedings from Concrete in the Service of Mankind: Concrete Repair,
Rehabilitation and Protection, R. K. Dhir and M. R. Jones, eds., E&FN
Spon, 1996, pp. 65-78.
16. Cabrera, J. G., “Deterioration of Concrete Due to Reinforcement
Steel Corrosion,” Elsevier Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 8, 1996,
pp. 47-59.
17. Stanish, K.; Hooton, R.; and Pantazopoulou, S., “Corrosion Effects
on Bond Strength in Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1999, pp. 915-921.
18. CEB Task Group 2.5, “Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete,” FIB Bulletin
10, International Federation for Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2000, 427 pp.
19. Tepfers, R., “Cracking of Concrete Cover Along Anchored
Deformed Reinforcing Bars,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 31,
No. 106, 1979, pp. 3-12.
20. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, “Design Code,” Comité Euro-International
du Béton, Thomas Telford Publications, London, UK, 1993, 437 pp.
21. Tastani, S., and Pantazopoulou, S., “Recovery of Seismic Resistance
in Corrosion-Damaged R.C. through FRP Jacketing,” International Journal
of Materials and Product Technology, V. 23, No. 3/4, 2005, pp. 389-415.
22. Eurocode 2, “Design of Concrete Structures (EC-2),” European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2002, 227 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007
 APPENDIX

a)

highlighted cracks
b)

non-corrosive zone (bond breaker)

Fig. A1 - Cracking pattern at the bottom face of corroded specimens: a) Beam-end and b) Slab.

1
 : Δtip : Δsp
30 30 30
Load (kN)
B0
25 25 25
B0 B0
20 20 20 c
c
c
cR
15 15 15
cR cR
10 10 10

5 5 5
B1: X =10.9 (%) B2: X =6.8 (%) B3: X =9.6 (%)
0 0 0
30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
30 0 30 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
c
Load (kN)

c
25 25 25
B0 B0 B0
20 20 20
B6: X=3.7 (%)
15 15 15
B4: X =10.2 (%)
10 10 10
cR
5 5 5 cR
c B5: X=2.96 (%)
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
displ. (mm) displ. (mm) displ. (mm)
Fig. A2 - Experimental load – displacement curves (B-group). Circles mark total cantilever tip displacement;
Triangles mark cantilever tip displacement due to slip of the bar at the support. c labels pre-repair corroded response
(series without connecting lines), R labels post-repair response (series with connecting lines) [1 kN = 0.225 kip ; 1
mm = 0.0394 in.]. 2
 150
a) c)
S3c
120

Load(kN)
90
S1c
highlighted flexural crack 60 S2c
S1cR
b)
30 S2cR
S0
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Deflection (mm)

Fig. A3 - Failure of the a) control (S0) and b) corroded (S3c) specimen. c)

Performance of repaired slabs upon reloading [1 kN = 0.225 kip ; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.].

3
Table A1: Comprehensive results of the experimental program.

Spec. Corrosion§ Preloading stage Reloading stage Deflection*

ID Icorr (Α) / X (%) P(kN)/ fb(MPa) P (kN) / fb (MPa) ∆y / ∆ult(mm)
B0 0/0 27.83 f / 5.61 27.83 f / 5.61 29.74 / 104.5
Beam- end specimens

B1cR 12.1 / 10.9 14.85 / 3.19 22.26 / 4.48 23.58 / 54.35

B2cR 7.73 / 6.81 16.34 / 3.28 15.18 / 3.05 33.54 / 33.54
(B – group)

B3cR 10.71 / 9.58 17.11 / 3.44 9.87 / 1.98 21.92 / 21.92

B4c 11.35 / 10.18 6.98f / 1.40 6.98f / 1.40 23.30 / 23.30
B5cR 3.42 / 2.96 23.27 / 4.69 22.26 / 4.48 37.61 / 39.63
B6cR 4.27 / 3.71 20.78 / 4.18 13.16 / 2.64 29.81 / 29.81

S0 0/0 126.47f / 7.07 126.47f / 7.07 7.5 / 9.5

(S – group)
Slab tests

S1cR 12.49 / 4.60 78.57 / 4.37 119.57 / 6.69 5.71 / 10.82

S2cR 9.88 / 3.61 76.79 / 4.27 120.0 / 6.71 5.28 / 9.08
S3cR 10.99 / 4.03 121.36 f / 6.79 121.36 f / 6.79 ---
Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in. fb is an average measure of bond stress. For values
obtained prior to anchorage failure (as in the cases of preload) the actual bond stress distribution is
not uniform.
§
: Duration of corrosion process: 75 and 85 days for the B and the S group respectively. Mass loss
∆Ms was defined from the Faraday’s law and corrosion penetration X from ∆Ms=X(2-X)Ms.
f
: Failure load.
*
: For the B-group are given values from the tip displ. whereas for the S-group the middle deflection
at the corresponding loading of the 5th col.

32