Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995

DOI 10.1617/s11527-015-0628-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Bond behaviour of reinforcing bars in UHPFRC

Experimental investigation

Pierre Marchand . Florent Baby . Aghiad Khadour . Thomas Battesti .

Philippe Rivillon . Marc Quiertant . Hong-Hai Nguyen . Grégory Généreux .
Jean-Paul Deveaud . Alain Simon . François Toutlemonde

Received: 27 February 2015 / Accepted: 4 May 2015 / Published online: 21 May 2015
Ó RILEM 2015

Abstract This paper deals with the experimental
determination of the bond behaviour between ultra-high
performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) and
reinforcing bars (rebars). An experimental campaign
has been carried out to assess the bond behaviour
considering different rebar diameters, different embed-
ment lengths and different concrete covers. A relation-
ship between bond strength, compressive strength and
rebar diameter has been drawn from the results of this
campaign and results found in the literature. Thanks to
an original instrumentation method using Fiber-Optic
Sensor, the local constitutive law linking the local
relative displacement between UHPFRC and rebar and
the bond stress has been determined and compared with
the law proposed by fib Model Code 2010.
Keywords Ultra high performance fibre reinforced
concrete (UHPFRC)  Ultra-high performance
concrete (UHPC)  Bond stress  Development length 
Pull-out
1 Introduction
Ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC) is a class of cementitious-based composite

P. Marchand (&)  F. Baby  A. Khadour  P. Rivillon

M. Quiertant  F. Toutlemonde e-mail: philippe.rivillon@cstb.fr
Université Paris-Est - IFSTTAR,
H.-H. Nguyen
77447 Marne la Vallée Cedex 2, France
e-mail: hong_hai.nguyen@cstb.fr
e-mail: pierre.marchand@ifsttar.fr
F. Baby G. Généreux  J.-P. Deveaud
e-mail: florent.baby@ifsttar.fr CEREMA-DTecITM-CTOA-DGOI, 110 rue de Paris,
77171 Sourdun, France
A. Khadour
e-mail: gregory.genereux@cerema.fr
e-mail: aghiad.khadour@ifsttar.fr
J.-P. Deveaud
M. Quiertant
e-mail: jean-paul.deveaud@cerema.fr
e-mail: marc.quiertant@ifsttar.fr
F. Toutlemonde A. Simon
e-mail: francois.toutlemonde@ifsttar.fr Eiffage TP, 93300 Neuilly sur Marne, France
e-mail: alain.simon@eiffage.com
T. Battesti  P. Rivillon  H.-H. Nguyen
Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment,
77447 Marne la Vallée Cedex, France
e-mail: thomas.battesti@cstb.fr
1980
materials designed to exhibit excellent mechanical and
durability properties, including sustained post-crack-
ing tensile strength [2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 24, 29, 32, 33, 35].
Thanks to these improved material properties, thin and
durable structural elements can be produced.
In most cases, UHPFRC is applied in association
with prestressing to take main load effects and more
seldom using rebars. In this last case, a safe account-
ing for contribution of rebars to structural ductility has
to be ensured. Composite action between concrete and
reinforcing steel cannot occur without bond. There-
fore, the bond performance of rebars plays a major
role in the behaviour of reinforced concrete structures
when subjected to static and dynamic loads, especial-
ly for crack width control. A high bond value will lead
to small cracks, close from each other, while a lower
bond value will lead to larger cracks. Insufficient
bond can generate sudden failure with very low
ductility. As explained in [12, 13, 23, 28], the bond
behaviour is governed by different factors such as the
geometry of the bar (relative rib area fR), the strength
of the concrete, the thickness of the concrete
surrounding the rebar, the confinement conditions
due to stresses perpendicular to the axis of the bar and
due to the presence of transverse reinforcement
(rebars or fibers). It can also be possibly affected by
a size effect.
The use of steel fiber reinforced concrete is known
to improve the mechanical properties, control the
crack formation and increase the ductile behaviour of
the concrete. Thus it was found that such enhanced
properties lead to an increase in the bond between steel
fiber reinforced concrete and deformed steel bar [8, 11,
15, 18, 21, 30]. Concerning the bond behaviour of
rebar embedded into UHPFRC, some experimental
programs have been carried out previously [1, 7, 17,
19, 22, 26, 31, 36]. However, for these programs
mainly based on direct tensile tests on reinforced
UHPFRC members, strain monitoring of rebars was
not carried out, and only the average bond stress along
the anchorage length could be directly estimated.
From these tests, local bond stress-slip laws have been
deduced, using some model assumptions.
Nevertheless, the easiest way to obtain the local
‘‘bond stress-slip’’ law is to measure directly the strain
for each abscissa along the rebar in the anchorage
zone. To reach this aim, it was necessary to find an
original method, satisfying two main criteria:
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
– the first one is to have the less intrusive method
system as possible: the measurement device
should not modify the bond behaviour between
rebar and concrete, as is the case with traditional
strain gauges;
– the second one is the capacity to measure the strain
all along the rebar with a very high resolution
(equivalent gauge length should be about 1 mm).
Measurement with Fiber-Optic Sensor (FOS) fixed to
a grooved rebar was considered the most relevant
solution to meet these requirements.
Previous studies conducted in the laboratory have
demonstrated the efficiency of FOS systems to
evaluate with accuracy the strain profile along several
axis of a tested reinforced concrete specimen [16]. The
technique used consisted in a FOS directly embedded
into concrete. Here, we have chosen to introduce the
FOS inside the rebar, as our purpose was to directly
measure the strain of the rebar.
The measurement method was developed in a first
step of the experimental program and is described in
the following references: [20, 25]. The reliability of
the technique relies on different technical aspects:
– the FOS coating was chosen very thin and with a
relatively high stiffness;
– the embedment was ensured by placing the FOS in
a groove machined along the rebar and filled with a
very fluid glue (bubbles should be avoided) which
becomes very rigid after setting;
– out of the glued zone, where the FOS separates
from the rebar, the FOS had to be protected to
resist the concreting phase, the formwork removal,
and the different handling operations of the
specimen before the pull-out test.
Qualification of this FOS implementation process
included direct tensile tests and bending tests on bare
bars, where the distributed measurement of the FOS
could be easily compared to strain gauges measure-
ment. Preliminary pull-out tests on bars embedded in
UHPFRC elements, and bending tests on reinforced
UHPFRC beams have also been carried out. Thanks to
this equipment with FOS used for each specimen, a
local ‘‘bond stress-slip’’ law has been determined for
the tested UHPFRC in each considered configuration
(different rebar diameters, embedment lengths and
concrete covers).
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
2 Description of the experimental program
In order to investigate the bond behaviour of a rebar
embedded into UHPFRC, pull-out tests that consist of
the extraction of a bar partially embedded in a concrete
block were carried out.
2.1 Test parameters
Only one type of UHPFRC mix was used in this study.
This UHPFRC is commercially available in Europe
[9, 34]. It comprises polypropylene fibers in addition
to 2.5 % vol. steel fibers. Table 1 provides details of
this UHPFRC mix. Pull-out specimens were con-
structed with rebars, available on the French market
(characteristic yield strength, fyk = 500 MPa).
Since concrete cover is known to have a significant
influence on bond characteristics, it was deemed as
necessary to measure bond characteristics of rebars
embedded in UHPFRC thick and thin elements.
Covers of 20 and 30 mm were chosen for thin
elements and around 190 mm for thick specimens.
For each configuration of confinement, two rebars
nominal diameters (8 and 12 mm for thin elements and
12 and 16 mm for thick specimens) and also two
embedment lengths were tested (4–8 times the rebar
diameter for thin configurations and 2.5–8 times the
rebar diameter for thick configurations).
2.2 Test setup
The test scheme is shown in Fig. 1a. The specimens
instrumentation consists of:
(i) a FOS embedded into the rebar,
(ii) two linear voltage displacement transducers
(LVDTs) (C1 and C2 in Figure 1b) to measure
the rebar relative displacement compared to
the UHPFRC block on top side,
(iii) one LVDT (Dp in Fig. 1b) on bottom side.
The test setup was slightly different for thin and thick
elements. For thick elements, a total of four single
UHPFRC test blocks containing six embedded rebars
were cast. For each test, the tensile load was applied
thanks to a hydraulic jack with tripod in order to avoid
or at least limit an eventual bending of the steel rebar
(see Fig. 1c).
1981
For thin elements, a total of twenty eight UHPFRC
plates containing one embedded rebar were cast. The
pull-out tests were carried out thanks to a testing
machine associated to a rigid assembly in order to
avoid a global movement of the plate (see Fig. 1d).
The specimen instrumentation was the same for
both thin and thick elements.
2.3 Specimens fabrication
For thick elements, rebars have been embedded in
UHPFRC blocks. The bottom of the rebars has been
placed in a small plastic box fixed to the formwork to
keep this part out of concrete and protect the FOS. The
top of the rebar was also strongly fixed, to maintain the
rebar as vertically as possible. The anchor length has
been adjusted with bond breakers as shown in Fig. 1e.
The concrete was poured directly from concrete
bucket into the formwork.
For thin elements, timber formworks have been
fabricated. The bottom of the formwork was drilled to
let the rebar go through. The rebar was strongly fixed
to prevent any movement during concreting. The
UHPFRC was poured direcly in the formwork using a
small bucket or with a special sheet, as shown in
Fig. 1f.
Figure 1g shows a picture of the rebars, with
indication of the spacing between ribs. Figure 1h and 1i
show two examples of rebars instrumented with a FOS
and 1j shows a section of a grooved rebar with FOS
inside.
For both thick and thin elements, rebars have been
placed vertically and concrete has been poured
vertically, to ensure an homogeneous bond condition
around the rebars.
2.4 Loading procedures
During experimental campaign, three kinds of loading
have been applied (see Fig. 2):
– Monotonic Loading (ML),
– Stepwise Loading with descents (SL),
– Stepwise Loading with three quasi-static Cycles at
each step (CL).
Monotonic loading was used for each configuration to
obtain a reference value (maximum strength) for the
estimation of the different steps of loading.
1982 Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995

Table 1 Materials UHPFRC mix

characteristics
Premix 2296 kg/m3
Superplasticizer 38 kg/m3
Steel straight fibers 195 kg/m3 (2.5 % in volume)
Lf = 20 mm
/f = 0.3 mm
Polypropylene fibers 1.5 kg/m3
Lf = 12 mm
/f = 18 lm
Water 207 kg/m3
Curing regime Exterior then lab conditions
Dynamic slump test (DIN Cone after mixing) 598 mm
UHPFRC characteristics in compression

Age 28 days Age of

tests
Curing regime Lab Lab
Compressive
strengtha
Mean value fcm 191 MPa 205 MPa
Characteristic value fck 183 MPa 184 MPa
Young’s modulus 57.9 GPa 62.4 GPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.22 –
Steel reinforcement characteristics

Rebar diameter 8 mm 12 mm 16 mm
Rib height am (mm) 0.60 0.72 1.33
Rib spacing c (mm) 6.40 6.79 9.5
b &0.055 &0.056 &0.074
Relative rib area fR
Grooved No Yes No Yes No Yes
Young’s modulus (GPa) 181.4 174.0 188.4 186.9 190.5 id.
Yield strength fy (MPa) 518.9 id.
Proof Stress at 0.2 % (MPa) 615.2 591.3 532.1 516.0
a
Measured on 110 9 220 Ultimate stress (MPa) 650.4 618.4 590.5 577.4 624.5 id.
mm cylinder
b Ultimate strain (%) 2.36 2.35 4.37 6.37 8.8 id.
Determined according to
EN 15630-1 [10] Type of steel Cold worked Hot rolled

Different kinds of loading procedures have been
applied to assess its influence on the final results. In
particular, the quasi-static Cycles were done to
assess the capacity of the anchorage under repeated
loading.
Data acquisition with traditional measurements
(LVDTs, load cells, strain gauges) was performed
continuously during the whole test duration. The
situation was different for FO measurement, as the
acquisition lasts a few seconds, it was necessary to
maintain the load or the jack displacement during
thirty seconds to a constant value (time to perform
the acquisition, name and save the data file) (see
Fig. 2).
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995 1983

Fig. 1 Pull-out test setup (a) (b)

and specimens: a setup
general scheme;
b instrumentation; c picture
of setup on a thick element;
d picture of setup on a thin
element; e picture of thick
element during casting;
f picture of a thin element
during casting; g surface
configurations of tested
rebars; h /12 mm rebar
instrumented with a FOS;
i /16 mm rebar
instrumented with a FOS;
j cross section of a groove
containing a FOS, observed
with a microscope

(c) (d) (e)

(f) (g)

(h) (i) (j)

1984
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2 Applied loadings: a Monotonic loading (ML); b Step-
wise loading with descents (SL); c Stepwise loading with three
quasi-static cycles at each step (CL)
2.5 Materials properties
For the UHPFRC, characterization tests included:
– Compressive tests in order to determine the
compressive strength, the Young’s modulus and
the Poisson’s ratio (see Table 1).
– Four point bending tests on unnotched cast prisms
with dimensions 100 9 100 9 400 mm in order to
determine the limit of linearity under tension,
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
according to the [3] procedure. The characteristic
value of limit of linearity is 9.13 MPa. The
corresponding mean value is 10.65 MPa.
– Three point bending tests on notched cast prisms
with dimensions 100 9 100 9 400 mm in order to
determine the post-cracking behavior under ten-
sion (with a ‘‘stress—crack opening’’ approach) at
material scale, according to the [2, 3] procedure.
The average and characteristic ‘‘r-w’’ relationships
have been obtained respectively from the average
curve ‘‘bending stress (BS)—Measured crack opening
(wmeasured)’’ and from the characteristic curve
‘‘BS-wmeasured’’ derived from three point bending tests
on notched cast prisms (Fig. 3). The inverse method
described in [2, 3] has been applied to average and
characteristic curves ‘‘BS-wmeasured’’ for each
UHPFRC. Then the obtained ‘‘r-w’’ curves have
been corrected to connect it to the elastic-phase curve
(before cracking). Indeed the notch created for the
three point bending tests induces a stress concentration
which can disturb the behavior of the cementitious
matrix. Thus the values of the limit of linearity
obtained from the four point bending tests on
unnotched cast prisms have been chosen [2, 3]. The
‘‘r-w’’ curves have also been smoothed using a
moving third degree polynomial interpolation with an
interval of crack openings equal to 0.05 mm. The
smoothing method is the following:
(i) for each crack opening w, we want to
obtain the corresponding stress r. We
then consider every experimental points
with wi 2 ½w  dw; w þ dw, with dw =
0.05 mm.
(ii) we calculate the third degree polynomial P
which interpolates the best the experimental
points wi.
(iii) we deduce the value of r with r = P(w).
As for the rebar, the r-e relationship has been
experimentally determined for each kind of rebar (see
Table 1). The influence of the groove on the
mechanical properties has been studied in testing bars
with and without groove. The loss of strength is about
5% for 8 mm diameter rebars, 2% for 12 mm diameter
rebars and negligible for 16 mm diameter rebars. The
rigidity is reduced in about the same proportion for
each diameter.
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
14
Tensile stress (MPa)
12
10
8
6
Mean curve
4
2
Charact curve
0
0 0,5 1 1,5
Crack width (mm)
Fig. 3 Average and characteristic ‘‘r-w’’ relationships ob-
tained with inverse analysis [2, 3] for the tested UHPFRC
3 Experimental results: description and analysis
In this part, the experimental results are presented and
analyzed. In a first approach based on the results
derived from the external instrumentation of the
specimens (load and displacement measurements),
first quantitative figures on the UHPFRC bond
capacity are deduced and compared to results from
literature. Then FOS results are used to grasp the local
bond behaviour of reinforcing bars in UHPFRC. Thus
local ‘‘Bond Stress-Slip’’ curves for rebars embedded
in UHPFRC are obtained. FOS results are also used to
identify the influence of load cycles repetition on the
local bond behaviour of rebars in UHPFRC.
3.1 Anchor length and maximum bond stress
identified from pull-out tests
Table 2 presents experimental results for thin and thick
specimens.
For thin elements, yielding of the rebar has been
obtained in all configurations, except for the smaller
cover (20 mm), higher rebar diameter (12 mm), and
shorter embedment length (4 /). The ultimate load has
exhibited very low scatter, which corresponds to the
average tensile strength calculated over the rebar
cross-section. Only in the case with cover less than
1.7 /, concrete splitting has been observed, which
corresponds to having reached the tensile strength of
UHPFRC in a reduced thickness zone, possibly
affected by a concreting defect (Fig. 4). For short
embedment length, even if failure has occurred by
yielding of the rebar, a slip between UHPFRC and
reinforcement has been registered on bottom face. It
1985
induces that bond between UHPFRC and rebar is
effective in the whole embedment length. This
assumption is confirmed by the linear strain profile
along the reinforcement (measured by FOS) close to
the ultimate load (see Sect. 3.2). Thus, when slip
between UHPFRC and rebar is noticed on bottom face,
the maximum average bond stress over the embed-
2 2,5 3 ment length can be considered as the bond strength.
For thick elements, the type of failure depends on
the embedment length: slip or pull-out failure when
embedment length equals 2.5 / and rebar failure when
it equals 8 /. For short embedment length, the
maximum bond strength is equal to 53.2 MPa on
average for 12 mm diameter rebars and 57.7 MPa for
16 mm diameter rebars.
In order to assess more precisely the influence of
confinement on bond characteristics, these experimental
results are compared with data from literature. Table 3
presents experimental studies dealing with bond be-
haviour of rebars in UHPFRC. In considering only data
for which a global slip of the rebar has been observed,
inducing that maximum bond strength can be estimated
from the average bond strength over the embedment
smax
length, the curve p ffiffiffi ¼ f ð/c Þ is drawn in taking into
fc
account results from the present dedicated program
and literature (Fig. 5). smax , fc , c and / are respectively
the bond strength, the UHPFRC compressive strength,
the concrete cover and the rebar diameter.
It can be noted that the point at the bottom left on
Fig. 5b is given by Saleem et al. [31] and corresponds
to a very long embedment length (18 /). In this case, it
seems that the bond strength smax cannot be reached on
the whole embedment length.
With all these results, the following idealized curve
is proposed, corresponding to the limit of observed
debonding failure:
smax
p ffiffiffi ¼ 3:5 c c
4 / if / 4
fc
smax ð1Þ
p ffiffiffi ¼ 3:5 if c
/ 4
fc
where smax and fc are in MPa.
The mean value of compressive strength at the age
of test has been considered here to plot the graph
(fc ¼ fcm ), but for a design purpose, the characteristic
value at 28 days should be used (fc ¼ fck ).
Table 2 Test results
1986

Spec. type Rebar Spec. Conc. Embed. Spec. Load Max Equiv. Type of Regist. Average
diam. thickness cover length name typea load stress failureb slip bond stress
kN MPa mm MPa

Thin 8 mm 48 mm 20 mm 4/ 48-4-1 SL 30.8 613 F?PF 0.76 38.3

48-4-2 CL 29.8 592 F No –
8/ 48-8-3 CL 30.7 611 F No –
48-8-4 SL 31.3 623 F No –
48-8-5 ML 31.4 625 F No –
48-8-6 CL 31.2 621 F No –
68 mm 30 mm 4/ 68-4-1 ML 30.6 610 F No –
68-4-2 SL 30.4 605 F No –
68-4-3 CL 30.7 611 F No –
68-4-4 CL 30.4 605 F No –
8/ 68-8-5 SL 30.8 613 F No –
68-8-6 SL 30.8 613 F No –
68-8-7 CL 31.3 622 F No –
68-8-8 CL 31.2 621 F No –
12 mm 52 mm 20 mm 4/ 52-4-1 SL 59.6 527 Sp?PF 0.54 32.9
52-4-2 CL 66.2 585 F?PF 0.17 36.5
8/ 52-8-3 ML 66.4 587 F No –
52-8-4 SL 66.5 588 F No –
52-8-5 CL 67.2 594 Sp?F?PF 0.35 37.1
52-8-6 CL 63.5 561 Sp?F No –
72 mm 30 mm 4/ 72-4-1 ML 66.1 584 F?PF 1.00 36.5
72-4-2 SL 66.6 589 F?PF 0.55 36.8
72-4-3 CL 66.2 586 F?PF 0.40 36.6
72-4-4 CL 66.2 585 F?PF 0.62 36.6
8/ 72-8-5 CL 65.8 582 F No –
72-8-6 CL 65.8 582 F No –
72-8-7 SL 66.2 585 F No –
72-8-8 ML 66.2 586 F No –
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
Table 2 continued
Spec. type Rebar Spec. Conc. Embed. Spec. Load Max Equiv. Type of Regist. Average
diam. thickness cover length name typea load stress failureb slip bond stress
kN MPa mm MPa

Thick 12 mm – 194 mm 2.5/ 194-2.5-1 SL 61.8 546 PF 10.7 54.6

194-2.5-2 SL 62.4 552 PF 7.2 55.2
194-2.5-3 CL 59.3 524 PF 7.7 52.4
194-2.5-4 CL 57.9 512 PF 1.1 51.2
194-2.5-5 CL 59.6 527 PF 8.9 52.7
194-2.5-6 ML 60.5 535 PF NCc 53.3
8/ 194-8-1 SL 66.4 587 F No –
194-8-2 SL 65.8 582 F No –
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995

194-8-3 CL 66.4 587 F No –

194-8-4 CL 67.0 592 F No –
194-8-5 CL 64.9 574 F No –
16 mm – 192 mm 2.5/ 192-2.5-1 CL 118.2 588 PF 2.3 58.8
192-2.5-2 CL 118.8 591 PF 7.1 59.1
192-2.5-3 SL 122.2 608 PF 8.3 60.8
192-2.5-4 CL 119.3 594 PF 1.3 59.3
192-2.5-5 SL 115.9 577 PF 2.8 57.7
192-2.5-6 ML 100.9 502 PF 7.5 50.2
8/ 192-8-1 ML 132.4 659 F No –
192-8-2 SL 133.4 663 F No –
194-8-3 CL 132.4 658 F No –
192-8-4 CL 130.9 651 F No –
192-8-5 CL 131.9 656 F No –
192-8-6 SL 133.4 663 F No –
a
ML monotonic loading, SL stepwise Loading with descents, CL stepwise loading with 3 quasi-static cycles at each step
b
Sp concrete splitting, F rebar failure, PF pull-out failure, rebar slip
c
Not measured
1987
1988
Fig. 4 Splitting observed on thin element with small concrete
cover
3.2 Shape of strain curves along the rebars
in the embedment length
For the rebars with an embedment length of 8/, the
shape of the strain curve is exponential, whether for
thin elements or thick element specimens, as shown on
Fig. 6a, b.
For the rebars with an embedment length of 4 / (thin
elements) or 2.5 / (thick elements), the shape of the
strain curve tends to be linear, as shown on Fig. 6c, d.
The waving observed in the length of the rebar
under pure tension (Lt in Fig. 1a), and to a lesser extent
in the embedment length, has a period which corre-
sponds approximately to the spacing of the rebars ribs.
This can be explained by the fact that the FOS is not
centered in the rebar but is glued in a groove created at
the periphery of the rebar. Hence, the strain seen by the
FOS is the strain close to the surface of the rebar and is
consequently affected locally by the ribs.
3.3 Influence of the loading method
Table 2 giving the main results of the tests shows no
influence of the way the specimen has been loaded. In
particular it does not exhibit any effect of the quasi-
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
static cycles. This can also be highlighted by the strain
curves obtained with FOS measurements. As shown
on Fig. 7a, b, the strain curves are strictly identical
before and after the cycles.
3.4 Local ‘‘Bond Stress-Slip’’ curves of rebars
embedded in UHPFRC
When a load is applied to the rebar, a relative
displacement between UHPFRC and the rebar occurs.
Assuming that the deformation of the concrete is very
small in the vicinity of the rebar, the relative
displacement d is almost equal to the displacement
of the rebar itself dS . Throughout the rest of the
document, we will use this hypothesis to consider the
two displacements d and dS as equal. Thanks to FOS
giving the longitudinal strain eðxÞ along the rebar (x
refers to the abscissa along the rebar), and the LVDT
sensor located at the free end of the rebar giving
displacement Dp below the end of the anchorage zone
(see Fig. 1b), the local displacement of the rebar can be
obtained very easily by adding the displacement Dp to
the integrate of strain (Fig. 8a). As for the bond stress
sðxÞ, it is quite proportional to the derivative of the
strain along the rebar eðxÞ. Indeed, there is an easy
relationship between the strain eðxÞ and the stress rðxÞ:
rðxÞ ¼ f ðeðxÞÞ ð2Þ
where f is the material constitutive law of the rebar
(obtained through characterization tests). Writing the
mechanical equilibrium of an infinitesimal length dx
of the rebar:
p:/:dx:sðxÞ ¼ As ½rðx þ dxÞ  rðxÞ ð3Þ
As dr
dx ðxÞ / dr
ð4Þ
sðxÞ ¼ ¼ ðxÞ
p:/ 4 dx
where As refers to the cross-sectional area of the rebar
Hence, sðxÞ can be deduced from the strain eðxÞ along
the rebar (Fig. 8b). However, as the curves eðxÞ
obtained with FOS measurements are quite irregular
(FOS measures the longitudinal strain at the surface of
the rebar), it is necessary to smoothen the curve before
deriving eðxÞ or rðxÞ. For this purpose we use the
smoothing method described in Sect. 2.5 (moving
polynomial interpolation with polynomial of order 3
fitted on interval ½x  dx; x þ dx with dx = 20 mm)
(Fig. 8c).
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995 1989

Table 3 Pull-out tests on rebar embedded into UHPFRC: details on considered experimental campaigns drawn from literature
Ref. Conc. type Vf /f Lf Comp Rebar Rebar Embed. Conc. Bond
strength type diam length cover strength
fcm
% mm mm MPa mm MPa

[5] – 1 0.2 13 155a FeB44K 14 3.2/ 1.5/ 20.0

2/ 27.0
18 3.3/ 1.5/ 17.5
2/ 25.0
[26, 27] DuctalÒ FM 2 0.2 13 160b – 4 2/ 4.5/ 42.0
165b 3.25/ 4.5/ 48.0
[19] BSIÒ Ceracem 2.5 0.3 20 191c – 12 1.7/ 6.2/ 61.0
2.5/ 6.2/ 59.3
20 2/ 3.5/ 65.7
2.5/ 3.5/ 55.4
2.5/ 3.5/ 54.5
[36] – 1 0.2 13 197d – 16 1/ 4.2/ 66.7
2/ 68.2
2 202d 1/ 74.6
2/ 70.9
3 207d 1/ 76.3
2/ 71.8
d
4 185 1/ 68.3
2/ 71.1
[31] – 2 0.2 13 166a HSS 10 8/ 1.3/ 15.2
10/ 16.2
12/ 17.8
22 8/ 0.59/ 12.2
10/ 10.6
12/ 9.9
174a 18/ 4.6
a
Method of measurement not indicated
b
Measured on 100 mm cube
c
Measured on 70 x 140 mm cylinder
d
Measured on 100 x 200 mm cylinder

In each abscissa of the rebar where strain has been
measured with FOS and for each load value where data
have been recorded, we thus obtain a couple of local
values ðd; sÞ. Figure 9a shows all these points ðd; sÞ
obtained at different abscissa x along the rebars, for
different loading values and for different thick element
specimens.
For high load values leading to slipping (in the case
of short embedment length), the curves eðxÞ drawn
from FOS measurement are generally too difficult to
smoothen and then to derive. The variation of
displacement due to the rebar deformation becomes
negligible compared to the displacement Dp , if Dp is
sufficiently high (we consider this is the case in this
study if Dp [ 0.03 mm). Hence we can consider the
displacement constant along the embedment length;
moreover as the bond stress tends to be constant along
the embedment length, we can complement the points
1990 Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995

(a) (b)

Fig. 5 Experimental points and proposed idealized curve for normalized maximum bond stress versus normalized cover thickness:
a only with points drawn from this experimental campaign, b with points drawn from this experimental campaign and from literature

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 6 Strain curves for different configurations displaying 4-2 (thin elt, / ¼ 12 mm and LE ¼ 4/); d 194-2.5-5 (thick elt,
Embedment length LE for: a 72-8-5 (thin elt, / ¼ 12 mm and / = 12 mm and LE ¼ 2:5/)
LE ¼ 8/); b 194-8-5 (thick elt, / ¼ 12 mm and LE ¼ 8/); c 52-

shown above with the couple of global values with F the force applied to the rebar, / the rebar
ðDp ; sm Þ, where sm is the average bond stress along diameter and LE the embedment length.
the embedment length, namely: When considering all the local and global values
obtained experimentally out of thick elements, using
F FOS results and Dp results, it is possible to obtain the
sm ¼ ð5Þ
p:/:LE set of ðd; sÞ couples shown on Fig. 9b, c.
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
(a)
Fig. 7 Strain curves before and after cycles for different configurations: a 48-4-2 (thin elt, / ¼ 8 mm and LE ¼ 4/); b 194-8-5 (thick
elt, / ¼ 12 mm and LE ¼ 8/)
(a)
(c)
Fig. 8 Method to obtain local ‘‘Bond Stress-Slip’’: a determining dðxÞ; b determining sðxÞ; c smoothing of curves eðxÞ before
determining and deriving rðxÞ
As shown in Fig. 10, there is a good adequation
between both values for displacement Dp higher than
0.03 mm.
If the smoothing method described in Sect. 2.5 is
used, the curve displayed on Fig. 11 is obtained. In this
figure three phases can be distinguished in the
anchorage mechanism:
1 quasi elastic phase. UHPFRC surrounding the
rebar behaves linearly under the pressure of the
rebar ribs.
1991
(b)
(b)
2 micro-cracking. UHPFRC surrounding the rebar
displays micro-cracking which leads to a decrease
of stiffness.
3 slipping (debonding). The bond stress is roughly
constant while the rebar slips in the concrete,
leading to a pull-out failure. The minimum
observed length of this slipping regime is about
0.5 mm in this study, as the load is maintained
constant up to displacement of at least 0.6 mm
(see Fig. 9c).
1992 Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 9 a Local values of ðd; sÞ for thick elements using only FOS results; b Local and global values of ðd; sÞ for thick elements using
FOS and Dp results; c Local and global values of ðd; sÞ for thick elements with a bigger scale for abscissa

60

50

40
τ (MPa)

30
Local values
20 Global values

10

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
δ (mm)

Fig. 10 Local values and global values of ðd; sÞ for thick Fig. 11 ðd; sÞ curve after smoothing
element 192-2.5-4

3.5 Comparison with model code

s0 ¼ smax ðd=d1 Þa for 0  d  d1
In this part, experimental results obtained in this s0 ¼ smax for d1  d  d2
campaign are compared with the local bond-stress slip s0 ¼ smax  ðsmax  sf Þ ðdðdd 2Þ
3 d2 Þ
for d2  d  d3
proposed by the fib Model Code [13] and a modifica- s0 ¼ sf for d3  d
tion of the formula proposed by the Model Code is
ð6Þ
proposed. pffiffiffiffiffiffi
The formula proposed by the Model Code is the with smax ¼ 2:5 fcm , d1 = 1.0 mm, d2 = 2.0 mm,
following : d3 = clear distance between ribs, a ¼ 0:4 and sf ¼
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
(a)
Fig. 12 a Local bond-slip relationships AfMC1 and AfMC2 compared to experimental ðd; sÞ values; b Local bond-slip relationships
AfMC1 and AfMC2 compared to ðd; sÞ curve after smoothing
0:40smax in the case of pull-out failure mode and in the
case of good bond condition.1
If we try to fit the fib Model Code formula with our
results, it is necessary to increase the value of smax up
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
to smax ¼ 3:9 fcm (the factor 3:5 proposed in Sect. 3.1
being a safe value). The values of d1 and d2 have to be
reduced respectively from 1.0 to 0.1 mm and from 2.0
to 0.6 mm. The local bond-slip relationship obtained
is called AfMC1 (Adapted fib Model Code no1).
A better fit can be obtained by adapting the first
term of equation 6.
  b 
s0 ¼ smax 1  d1dd 1
for 0  d  d1 ð7Þ
with b ¼ 3: The new local bond-slip relationship
obtained is called AfMC2 (Adapted fib Model Code
no2). AfMC1 and AfMC2 are compared with ex-
perimental results in Fig. 12a, b.
Parameters d3 and sf corresponding to the descend-
ing branch are rather difficult to assess given the
scattering of the results for large value of d. Conse-
quently, we have only focussed on the first two
equations proposed by fib Model Code.
4 Conclusions
This article presents the main results of a pull-out test
campaign carried out on rebars embedded in UHPFRC
with different diameters, different embedment lengths
and different concrete covers to assess the ability of
1
d, d1 , ... are respectively noted s, s1 , ... in Model Code.
1993
(b)
UHPFRC to transfer force from rebar into concrete in
different conditions.
Influence of concrete cover on the embedment
length has been described in a graphic expressing the
bond stress as a function of the compressive strength
and of the ratio of the bar diameter with respect to the
concrete cover. Such results can be used to determine
the anchorage length in different configurations.
No influence of the loading method (cycled load or
not) has been observed.
Thanks to the original instrumentation of rebars
with FOS, a local stress-displacement law has been
derived and compared to fib Model Code formula. The
results displayed in this article confirm that when
designing UHPFRC structures, embedment length
shorter than for ordinary concrete can be considered.
Acknowledgments The works detailed in this paper were
carried out within BADIFOPS research project, aiming at
developing ductile solutions of UHPFRC structures for
earthquake-resistant applications, where optical fibers SHM can
be fruitfully applied. BADIFOPS is a French-State sponsored
project (2011–2014) within ‘‘Design and Build for Sustainable
Growth’’ program of the Civil Engineering Department Unit of
the Ministry in charge of Sustainable Growth (Grant no 10 MGC
S010). Partners are Eiffage Company, CSTB (research center for
buildings), Ifsttar (public works research institute) and Sétra, now
CEREMA (Highways Agency).
References
1. Aarup B, Karlsen J, Lindström G (2008) Fiber reinforced
high performance concrete for in-situ cast joints. Proceed-
ings of international symposium on high performance
concrete, Orlando, Florida, USA, September, ACI
SpringJournal
1994
2. AFGC-SETRA (2002) Ultra high performance fibre-rein-
forced concretes, interim recommendations, p 152, SETRA,
Bagneux, France
3. AFGC (2013) Ultra-high performance fibre-reinforced
concretes. Recommendations. p 357, Paris, France
4. Behloul M (1996) Analyse et modélisation du comporte-
ment d’un matériau à matrice cimentaire fibrée à ultra
hautes performances. Dissertation, p 182, E.N.S. Cachan,
France, in French
5. Cattaneo S, Rosati G (2000) ‘‘Bond and splitting in high
performance fiber reinforced concrete’’, 5th RILEM sym-
posium on fibre-reinforced concretes. BEFIB 2000:567–576
6. Chanvillard G, Rigaud S (2003) Complete characterization
of tensile properties of DUCTALÒ UHPFRC according to
the French recommendations. Proceedings of the 4th inter-
national RILEM workshop (HPFRCC4), pp 21–34
7. Dancygier AN, Katz A (2008) The combined effect of
concrete strength and geometric parameters on concrete-
reinforcement bond. 8th international symposium on uti-
lization of high strength and high-performance concrete,
Tokyo
8. Dancygier AN, Katz A, Wexler U (2010) Bond between
deformed reinforcement and normal and high-strength
concrete with and without fibres. Mater Struct 43:839–856
9. Dutalloir F, Thibaux T, Cadoret G, Birelli G (1998) Un
nouveau béton très hautes performances : le BSI—Premiére
application industrielle/B.S.I. : a new, very high perfor-
mance concrete. Initial industrial application. In La tech-
nique française du Béton, AFPC-AFREM, XIIIe congrés de
la FIP, Amsterdam, pp 25–32
10. EN 15630–1 (2010) European Standard—steel for the re-
inforcement and prestressing of concrete—test methods—
Part 1 : reinforcing bars, wire rod and wire
11. Ezeldin SA, Balaguru PN (1989) Bond behavior of normal
and high strength fibre reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J
86:515–524
12. fib Bulletin no72—Bond and anchorage of embedded rein-
forcement: background to the fib model code for concrete
structures 2010. (2014)
13. fib model code for concrete structures. (2010)
14. Graybeal B (2011) Ultra-high performance concrete. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, FHWA-HRT-11-038, pp 8
15. Harajli MH, Hout MA, Jalkh W (1995) Local bond stress-
slip behavior of reinforced bars embedded in plain and fibre
concrete. ACI Mater J 92:343–353
16. Henault JM, Quiertant M, Delepine-Lesoille S, Salin J,
Moreau G, Taillade F, Benzarti K (2012) Quantitative strain
measurement and crack detection in RC structures using a
truly distributed fiber optic sensing system. Constr Build
Mater 37:916–923
17. Holschemacher K, Weiße D, Klotz S (2004) Bond of rein-
forcement in ultra high strength concrete, international
symposium on ultra high performance concrete. Interna-
tional symposium on UHPFRC, Kassel, Germany,
pp 375–388
18. Hota S, Naaman AE (1997) Bond stress-slip response of re-
inforcing bars embedded in FRC matrices under monotonic
and cyclic loading. ACI Struct J 94(5):525–537
19. Jungwirth J (2006) Zum tragverhalten von Zug-
beanspruchten Bauteilen aus Ultrahochleistungs-
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
Faserbeton. Thèse de doctorat N 3429, Ecole Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne
20. Khadour A, Baby F, Herrera A, Taillade F, Marchand P,
Rivillon P, Simon A, Quiertant M, Toutlemonde F (2013)
Distributed strain monitoring of reinforcement bars using
optical fibers for SHM, CONSEC13—Seventh international
conference on concrete under severe conditions—Environ-
ment and Loading, 23–25 September, Nanjing, China
21. Kim B, Doh JH, Yi CK, Lee JY (2013) Effect of structural
fibres on bonding mechanism changes in interface between
GFRP bar and concrete. Compos Part B 45:768–779
22. Leutbecher T (2007) Rissbildung und Zugtragverhalten von
mit Stabstahl und Fasern bewehrtem Ultrahochfesten Beton
(UHPC). University of Kassel, Thesis
23. Metelli G, Plizzari A (2014) Influence of the relative rib area
on bond behaviour. Mag Concr Res 66(6):274–294
24. Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW (1996) Characterization of high
performance fiber reinforced cement composites -HPFRCC.
In: Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW (Eds) High performance
fiber reinforced cement composites 2, E&FN Spon, London,
pp 1–24
25. Quiertant M, Baby F, Khadour A, Marchand P, Rivillon P,
Billo J, Lapeyrere R, Toutlemonde F, Simon A, Cordier J,
Renaud JC (2012) Deformation monitoring of reinforce-
ment bars with a distributed fiber optic sensor for the SHM
of reinforced concrete structures. 9th international confer-
ence on NDE in relation to structural integrity for nuclear
and pressurized components, Seattle, Washington, USA
26. Reineck KH, Greiner S (2004) Test on ultra-high perfor-
mance fibre reinforced concrete for designing hot-water
tanks and UHPFRC-Shells. International symposium on
UHPFRC, Kassel, Germany
27 Reineck KH, Greiner S (2004) Dichte Heißwasser-
Wärmespeicher aus ultrahochfestem faserfeinkornbeton.
Forschungsbericht zum BMBF-Vorhaben 0329606 V, re-
search report. Institut für Leichtbau Entwerfen und Kon-
struieren(ILEK), Universität Stuttgart, Germany
28. Rehm, G (1961) The fundamentals of bond between steel
reinforcement and concrete, Deutscher Ausschuss fur
Stahlbeton. Heft 138, Willhelm Ernstand Sohn, Berlin,
pp 59
29. Richard P, Cheyrezy M (1995) Composition of reactive
powder concretes. Cement Concr Res 25(7):1501–1511
30. Rostásy FS, Hartwich K (1988) Bond of deformed rein-
forcing bar embedded in steel fiber reinforced concrete. Int J
Cem Compos Lightweight Concr 10(3):151–158
31. Saleem MA, Mirmiran A, Xia J, Mackie K (2013) Devel-
opment length of high-strength steel rebar in ultrahigh
performance concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 25(8):991–998
32. Spasojević A (2008) Structural implications of ultra high
performance fibre-reinforced concrete in bridge design’’.
Thèse de doctorat N 4051, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale
de Lausanne
33. Toutlemonde F , Resplendino J (2011) Designing and
building with UHPFRC: state of the art and development.
ISTE-Wiley, New York
34. Toutlemonde F, Simon A, Rivillon P, Marchand P, Baby F,
Quiertant M, Khadour A, Cordier J, Battesti T (2013) Re-
cent experimental investigations on reinforced UHPFRC for
applications in earthquake engineering and retrofitting.
UHPFRC 2013—Designing and Building with UHPFRC:
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:1979–1995
from innovation to large-scale realizations, Marseille,
France, October 1–3, pp 597–606
35. Walraven J (2009) High performance fiber reinforced con-
crete: progress in knowledge and design codes. Mater Struct
42:1247–1260
1995
36. Yoo DY, Shin HO, Yang JM, Yoon YS (2014) Material
and bond properties of ultra high performance fiber re-
inforced concrete with micro steel fibers. Compos Part B
58:122–133