Bond Characteristics of Reinforced TMT Bars in Self Compacting Concrete and Normal Cement Concrete - ScienceDirect

11/2/2017 Bond characteristics of reinforced TMT bars in Self Compacting Concrete and Normal Cement Concrete - ScienceDirect
View ScienceDirect over a secure connection: switch to HTTPS

Outline Download PDFDownload Export
Outline
Abstract
Keywords
1. Introduction
2. Significance of the work
3. Result and discussion
4. Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Show full outline
Figures (7)
Show all figures
Tables (7)
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Show all tables
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016815001039 1/14
Alexandria Engineering Journal

Volume 54, Issue 4, December 2015,
Outline Pages 1155-1159
Download PDFDownload Export
open access
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Bond characteristics of reinforced TMT bars in Self Compacting

Concrete and Normal Cement Concrete
Nipun Verma, Anil Kumar Misra
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.06.011 Get rights and content

Open Access funded by Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University
Under a Creative Commons license
Abstract
In its simplest form, it can be said that the resistance to separation of mortar and concrete from
reinforcing steel (or other materials) with which it is in contact is called bond strength. These
days different kinds of concrete are manufactured, all with different properties. But bond
strength is something which is essentially a well sort after quality for any RCC structure or
element. Bond strength can be easily found out by standard pull-out test machine. But in this
work, the bond strength was measured using Universal testing machine (UTM) with some
modified arrangements. The bond between the concrete and steel reinforcement was
investigated for two different kinds of concretes. Using reinforcing bars bond strengths were
measured using Self Compacting Concrete (SCC) specimen and Normal Cement Concrete
(NCC) specimen. Castings of SCC specimens were carried out without compaction, while the
normal concrete specimens were casted with substantial compaction and vibration. The study
revealed that SCC specimens generated higher bond to reinforcing bars in comparison with
NCC specimens. Secondly, the correlation between bond strength and compressive strength of
NCC is more consistent. Thirdly, the results obtained with UTM were compared with the results
obtained with standard pull-out test machine and they were found in permissible limits.
Keywords
Self-Compacting Concrete; Bond strength; Pull-out test machine; UTM; Compaction
1. Introduction
Concrete is the structural material that is extensively used globally. Generally plain concrete
system does not have the ability to carry load in tension, once the cracks develop in its cement
matrix. To improve the tensile cracking and prevent concrete failure, reinforcement using steel
bars is carried out within the concrete mass. Concrete reinforcement increases the flexural
behavior and loading capacity of concrete and Thermo Mechanically Treated (TMT) bar
enhances the bond strength between reinforcements and concrete. Steel works well as
reinforcement for concrete because it bonds well with concrete and this bond strength is
proportional to the contact surface of the steel to the concrete. The bond strength greatly varies
with changes in mix design and grade of cement used and by providing intensive heat curing,
high early bond strength can be achieved [1]. There is strong influence of various types of
surface preparation such as wire brushed, acid etched, grooved, grooved-wire brushed and
grooved-acid etched on bond strength [2]. Moreover, concretes compressive strength, bar
diameter, concrete cover, embedded length, and pre-flexural crack length also affect the bond
strength [3]. There are 3 ways in which cement concrete is bonded to a steel reinforcement: (i)
adhesion between concrete and steel bars, (ii) mechanical Interlock through ribs of steel bar
and (iii) chemical reaction between steel and concrete [4]. There are several other factors that
directly or indirectly influence the bond strength. A comparative study of the bond strength of
reinforcing steel between a high-volume fly ash concrete (HVFAC) and conventional concrete
(CC) has revealed that HVFAC possesses comparable bond strength as CC [5].
Studies show [6,7] that TMT bar is the appropriate material for reinforcing concrete structures
and has the ability to bond well with concrete. Generally the design of RC structures is based
on the assumption of full interaction through concrete and reinforcement interface that is
without physical slip and it is reasonable in load bearing capacity analysis, however becomes
unacceptable when serviceability of RC structures is considered [8]. A study [9] represents
exponential bond stress distribution function and developed an analytical procedure for
prediction of deformation and progressive cracking of tensile RC specimens. There is size
effect on crack spacing in RC elements using the concept of stress transfer [10] and stress
transfer algorithm can be used for parametrical analysis of tension stiffening in tensile RC
members. The bond between concrete and development length of reinforcing steel is essential
for composite action in reinforced concrete construction.
In the present study, to evaluate the advantages of SCC quantitatively, an experimental

program was conducted to measure the bond strength of reinforcing bars in SCC as well as in
normal concrete. Several variables are examined, including age of concrete, size and shape of
reinforcing bars, (W/C) ratios and type of concrete materials. In the experimental program, the
SCC specimens were cast by non-vibration practice, while the Normal Cement Concrete (NCC)
specimens were cast by conventional procedures with substantial amount of compaction. To
investigate the characteristics of bond development, reinforcing bar pull-out tests were
conducted at various ages of concrete, starting from the setting time of concrete to 28 days.
Further study also demonstrates to carryout pull-out test using UTM machines. Generally
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) is available in majority of the laboratories. The method of
using UTM for pull-out test has been explained here in this paper. Samples with various
parameters were first tested with the standard equipment and then were tested on UTM for the
pull-out test. Results were compared. It is explained, how the UTM can be modified and used
for testing the bond strength between steel and concrete up to a fairly accurate degree.
2. Significance of the work

This work has major significance in construction works related to reinforced concrete and
selection of materials and their specification. The experiments performed for measuring the
bond strength of reinforcing bars can be used for the evaluation of the feasibility using SCC in
place of normal concrete. Moreover there are several other relevant structural performances,
but in this paper, more emphasis has been given on bond strength and investigation is made in
view of the extension of design rules from Normal Cement Concrete (NCC) to SCC.
2.1. Materials and methods

The bond properties of reinforcing bars in SCC were studied by conducting direct pull-out test
of reinforcing bars embedded in SCC specimens and also in NCC specimens and the results
are compared. UTM was modified to conduct the pull-out tests.
2.1.1. Materials
OPC 33 grade cement (IS: 269-1989) and silica fume (IS: 15388-2003) were used as
cementitious materials. Tables 1 and 2 show the chemical and physical properties of OPC 33
grade cement used in the study. Natural River sands (Yamuna River, New Delhi) and crushed
gavels (Faridabad, Haryana) were used as fine and coarse aggregates respectively. The
characteristics of the aggregates are given in Table 3. The super-plasticizer used was
polycarboxylic acid-based with relative density of 1.5 and the mixture proportions of SCC and
NC are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 respectively.
Table 1. Chemical properties of cement OPC 33 grade.
S. no. Composition Amount
1 L.S.F. 0.661.02
2 SO3 Max 3.5%
3 L.O.I Max 5.0%
4 MgO Max 6.0%
5 Insoluble residue Max 5.0%
6 Chloride Max 0.1%
7 Alkali content Outline Download PDFDownload

Max .05% Export
Table 2. Physical properties of cement OPC 33 grade.
S. no. Property Value
1 c (3 day) Min 16 MPa
4 Fineness Min 225 m2/kg
5 Autoclave Expansion Min 0.80%
6 Setting Time-Vicat Min 30 min
fc = Compressive strength.
Table 3. Characteristics of aggregate materials used in the study.
S. no. Properties Unit Amount
1 Gravel (G) absorption % 0.7
2 Sand (S) absorption % 1.2
3 Fineness Modulus (FM) 2.44
4 Maximum aggregate size (Dmax) mm 20
5 Aggregate Density kg/L 2.73
6 S/(G + S) 0.63
7 G/S 0.58
Table 4. Mix proportions of Self Compacting Concrete.
S. no. Material Unit (W/C)
0.40 0.50 0.60
1 Water L 0.55 0.69 0.82
2 Cement kg 1.25 1.25 1.25
3 Silica Fume kg 0.12 .12 0.12
4 Gravel kg 3.22 3.22 3.22
5 Sand kg 3.05 3.05 3.05
6 Superplasticizer L 0.073 0.052 0.030
Table 5. Mix proportions of Normal Concrete.
S. no. Material Unit (W/C)
0.40 0.50 0.60
1 Water L 0.55 0.69 0.82
2 Cement kg 1.25 1.25 1.25
3 Gravel kg 3.22 3.22 3.22
4 Sand kg 3.05 3.05 3.05
5 Superplasticizer L 0.055 0.040 0.025
2.1.2. Pull-out test using UTM machine

Pull-out tests were carried out using the Universal Testing Machine by changing the position of
the cube. Cube was placed in such a manner that pull-out test can be performed effectively.
Cube was placed below the deck as shown in Fig. 1. The length of reinforcement was
increased to 600 mm where 150 mm was embedded in the cube. The bars were passed
through the hole present in the deck and then clamped at the jaws present at the top. Hence
proper tensile forces were transferred uniformly through the cube.
Download high-res image (120KB) Download full-size image
Figure 1. Positions of concrete cube for measuring bond stress in UTM.
2.2. Procedure of Pull-out test on UTM

After completion of curing period of cubes, they were attached to the UTM machine as shown
in Fig. 4. The reinforcing bar was held by the jaws present on the upper deck. Before loading,
the system was brought in equilibrium by adjusting the distance between the upper deck and
middle deck with the help of Non-Loading motor. This was done to nullify the effect of self-
weight of the cube. The rate of loading of UTM was set to 2250 kg/min. Then loading was
started and recording of loads was carried out. The machine automatically stops when no
resistance is offered by the specimen to the tensile force being applied i.e. when specimen has
failed, as shown in Fig. 2. After completion of test, samples were removed from the test setup,
and physical verification of crack and type of slip were observed. This same procedure was
done for all samples each of SCC and NCC with 16 mm diameter TMT bar , for curing period of
3, 7 and 28 days. The pull-out load is then converted into bond stress based on the embedment
length and reinforcing bar perimeter.
Figure 2. Failed specimen samples attached to UTM.
where
= Bond stress
V = Shear force at any section
d = Effective depth of the section
O = N = total perimeter of all bars in tension at the section
Equation gives the flexural bond stress in the tension reinforcement at any section.
2.3. Casting of specimens

The Normal Cement Concrete (NCC) specimens were casted using conventional construction
practice. Specimens were casted in 150 mm cube molds with embedded reinforcing bars of
diameter 16 mm (ribbed) in each specimen. The SCC specimens were casted in one lift.
Neither external nor internal vibration was applied. The embedded length of reinforcing bars in
specimens was 150 mm to avoid an unplanned force transfer between the reinforcing bar and
the concrete in the unbonded area. The reinforcement bars were placed concentrically and the
concrete was cast parallel to the loading direction. The specimens were cured in water for 3, 7,
and 28 to avoid changes in the curing conditions and 2 specimens for each concrete age.
3. Result and discussion

Self-compacting concrete is gaining attention worldwide owing to its ability to compact without
the need for either internal or external vibration even in areas of highly congested
reinforcement such as beam-column joints. Since last two decades, several researches have
been conducted on Self-compacting concrete and now application of SCC has gained
momentum. In the present study, bond stress corresponding to the maximum pull-out load that
can be regarded as the bond strength or ultimate bond strength was conducted. The slow
development of compressive strength and bond strength in SCC at early age is generally due
to the retarding effect of the superplasticizer used. Further bond strength varies with changes in
mix design and grade of cement used and curing conditions. From the results the success of
the results in case of prevention of plastic shrinkage was found to be more than 95%. However
test results in case of compressive strength presented some ambiguity.
The bond strength of Normal Cement Concrete (NCC) at 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 water-cement ratio
was less compare to the Self Compacting Concrete (SCC). The maximum bond strength of NC
and SCC was recorded at 0.4 water-cement ratio (28 days) that is 8.05 MPa and 10.52 MPa
respectively, while the minimum bond strength was recorded at a 0.6 water-cement ratio
(3 days) that is 2.22 and 2.85 for NCC and SCC respectively. Tables 6 and 7 show the results
of bond stress for NC and SCC, while Figs. 3 and 4 show the bond stress of reinforcing TMT
bars in SCC and NCC conducting pull-out test on modified UTM. The comparison of bond
stress at 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 water-cement ratio of NCC and SCC on modified UTM is shown in
Figs. 57. The bond strength value decreases with increase in W/C ratio. The findings
demonstrate that UTM machines can be used for Pull-out test by simple modification with 100%
accuracy and without heavy expenditure.
Table 6. Bond stress of Normal Concrete at different W/C ratio for 3, 7 and 28 days.
Water-cement ratio 3 days 7 days 28 days
0.4 5.072 6.22 8.05
0.5 3.55 4.70 5.85
0.6 2.22 2.90 3.60
Table 7. Bond stress of Self Compacting Concrete at different W/C ratio for 3, 7 and 28 days.

Water-cement ratio 3 days 7 days 28 days
0.4 7.28 7.3 10.52
0.5 4.24 5.56 5.52
0.6 2.85 3.42 3.29
Figure 3. Bond stress of Normal Cement Concrete at varying water-cement ratio.
Figure 4. Bond stress of SCC at varying watercement ratio.
Figure 5. Comparison of bond stress at 0.4 W/C ratio for SCC and NCC.
4. Conclusion
Outline
Study demonstrates the following conclusions: Download PDFDownload Export
Owing to retarding effect of superplasticizer admixtures in the SCC mix, at early ages
the development of bond strength is slow. Thus in the application of SCC more attention
is required for construction safety.
Escalation in the dosage of superplasticizers in SCC decreases the total required water
within the mix, but the test results revealed that this relationship is not linear.
The relationship between bond strength and compressive strength of normal concrete is
more consistent than SCC.
Owing to the improvement of bond strength in SCC, application of SCC instead of

normal concrete in construction can produce significant advantages. Use of carboxylic
acid-based type of superplasticizer in SCC can produces more uniformity.
The bond strength in NCC is maximum for 0.4 W/C ratio for 3, 7 and 28 days, while the
bond strength in SCC is maximum for 0.4 W/C ratio for 3, 7 and 28 days.
The bond strength for SCC increases rapidly as compared to NCC for 0.4 W/C ratio and
bond strength for SCC almost equals the bond strength value for NCC for 0.5 and 0.6
W/C ratio for 7 and 28 days.
Modified UTM machine can be used for measuring the bond stress and it is easily and
economically feasible.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the faculty members of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, ITM University for providing working facilities and continuous encouragement. We
would also like to thank Mr. Rajpal, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Mr. Sohan lal and Mr. Sanjay Sharma Lab
Assistant in the department for their continuous support and help.
Recommended articles Citing articles (3)
References
[1] A. Castel, S.J. Foster

Bond strength between blended slag and Class F fly ash geopolymer concrete with steel
reinforcement
Cem. Concr. Res., 72 (2015), pp. 48-53
Article PDF (999KB)
R. Mirmoghtadaei, M. Mohammadi, N.A. Samani, S. Mousavi

[2] The impact of surface preparation on the bond strength of repaired concrete by metakaolin
containing concrete Outline Download PDFDownload Export
Constr. Build. Mater., 80 (2015), pp. 76-83
Article PDF (3MB)
[3] A.M. Diab, H.E. Elyamany, M.A. Hussein, H.M. Al Ashy

Bond behavior and assessment of design ultimate bond stress of normal and high strength concrete
Alexandria Eng. J., 53 (2) (2014), pp. 355-371
Article PDF (2MB)
[4] X. Fu, D.D.L. Chung

Improving the bond strength between steel rebar and concrete by ozone treatment of rebar and
polymer addition to concrete
Cem. Concr. Res., 27 (5) (1997), pp. 643-648
Article PDF (404KB)
[5] M. Arezoumandia, M.H. Wolfeb, J.S. Volzc

A comparative study of the bond strength of reinforcing steel in high-volume fly ash concrete and
conventional concrete
Constr. Build. Mater., 40 (2013), pp. 919-924
[6] I. Chakrabarti, T. Bhattacharyya, M.D. Maheshwari, T. Venugopalan, A.K. Chakravorty

High strength rebars for the Indian construction industry
Tata Search, 2 (2006), pp. 395-403
[7] IS: Indian Specification for High Strength Deformed Steel Bars and Wires for Concrete Reinforcement, 1786.
[8] G. Kaklauskas, V. Gribniak, R. Jakubovskis, E. Gudonis, D. Salys, R. Kupliauskas

Serviceability analysis of flexural reinforced concrete members
J. Civ. Eng. Manag., 18 (1) (2012), pp. 24-29
[9] S. Somayaji, S.P. Shah

Bond stress versus slip relationship and cracking response of tension members
ACI J., 78 (3) (1981), pp. 217-225
[10] A.P. Fantilli, B. Ciaia, The divine proportion in the bond between steel and concrete, in: Proceedings of The
4th Bond in Concrete Conference: Bond, Anchorage, Detailing, 1720 June, 2012, Brescia, Italy, 2012, pp.
3138.
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
Copyright 2015 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
Recommended articles
Split Tensile Strength on Self-compacting Concrete Containing Coal Bottom Ash
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 195, 2015, pp. 2280-2289
Download PDF View details
Self-compacting Concrete, Protecting Steel Reinforcement under Cyclic Load: Evaluation of Fatigue Crack Beh
Procedia Engineering, Volume 160, 2016, pp. 207-213
Bond strength of deformed bars in large reinforced concrete members cast with industrial self-consolidating con
Construction and Building Materials, Volume 24, Issue 4, 2010, pp. 520-530
View more articles
Citing articles (3)
About ScienceDirect Remote access Shopping cart Contact and support

Terms and conditions Privacy policy
Cookies are used by this site. For more information, visit the cookies page.
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect is a registered trademark of Elsevier
B.V.

Bond Characteristics of Reinforced TMT Bars in Self Compacting Concrete and Normal Cement Concrete - ScienceDirect

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bond Characteristics of Reinforced TMT Bars in Self Compacting Concrete and Normal Cement Concrete - ScienceDirect

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/2/2017 Bond characteristics of reinforced TMT bars in Self Compacting Concrete and Normal Cement Concrete - ScienceDirect

View ScienceDirect over a secure connection: switch to HTTPS

Show full outline

Show all figures

Show all tables

Alexandria Engineering Journal

Bond characteristics of reinforced TMT bars in Self Compacting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.06.011 Get rights and content

In the present study, to evaluate the advantages of SCC quantitatively, an experimental

2. Significance of the work

2.1. Materials and methods

Table 1. Chemical properties of cement OPC 33 grade.

S. no. Composition Amount

2 SO3 Max 3.5%

3 L.O.I Max 5.0%

4 MgO Max 6.0%

5 Insoluble residue Max 5.0%

6 Chloride Max 0.1%

7 Alkali content Outline Download PDFDownload

Table 2. Physical properties of cement OPC 33 grade.

S. no. Property Value

1 c (3 day) Min 16 MPa

2 c (7 day) Min 22 MPa

3 c (28 day) Min 33 MPa

4 Fineness Min 225 m2/kg

5 Autoclave Expansion Min 0.80%

6 Setting Time-Vicat Min 30 min

Table 3. Characteristics of aggregate materials used in the study.

S. no. Properties Unit Amount

1 Gravel (G) absorption % 0.7

2 Sand (S) absorption % 1.2

3 Fineness Modulus (FM) 2.44

4 Maximum aggregate size (Dmax) mm 20

5 Aggregate Density kg/L 2.73

Table 4. Mix proportions of Self Compacting Concrete.

S. no. Material Unit (W/C)

0.40 0.50 0.60

Outline Download PDFDownload Export

1 Water L 0.55 0.69 0.82

2 Cement kg 1.25 1.25 1.25

3 Silica Fume kg 0.12 .12 0.12

4 Gravel kg 3.22 3.22 3.22

5 Sand kg 3.05 3.05 3.05

6 Superplasticizer L 0.073 0.052 0.030

Table 5. Mix proportions of Normal Concrete.

S. no. Material Unit (W/C)

0.40 0.50 0.60

1 Water L 0.55 0.69 0.82

2 Cement kg 1.25 1.25 1.25

3 Gravel kg 3.22 3.22 3.22

4 Sand kg 3.05 3.05 3.05

5 Superplasticizer L 0.055 0.040 0.025

2.1.2. Pull-out test using UTM machine

Outline Download PDFDownload Export

Download high-res image (120KB) Download full-size image

Figure 1. Positions of concrete cube for measuring bond stress in UTM.

2.2. Procedure of Pull-out test on UTM

Outline Download PDFDownload Export

Download high-res image (250KB) Download full-size image

Figure 2. Failed specimen samples attached to UTM.

V = Shear force at any section

d = Effective depth of the section

O = N = total perimeter of all bars in tension at the section

2.3. Casting of specimens