Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Youai Gan
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accord une licence non
exclusive licence aiIowing the exclusive permettant la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, dismbute or sel1 reproduire, prter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thse sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fiim, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
lectronique.
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Background
Scope
Plan of Study
References
List of Figures
Fig. 2-1 Specimen details in pull-out test before the 1970's
Fig. 2-2 Specimen details in pull-out test d e r the 1970's
Fig. 2-3 (a) Splitting mode of thin cover.
Fig. 2-3 (b) Splitting mode of thick cover.
Fig. 2-4 Load-slip curves.
Fig. 2-5 Details of the beam tested by Lutz.
Fig. 2-6 Bond stress distribution in constant moment region near a crack.
Fig. 2-7 Longitudinal variation in stresses along steel-concrete interface.
Fig. 2-8 Separation between concrete ahd bar near a pnmary crack.
Fig. 2-9 Ratio of crack widths at the steel and at the concrete surface.
Fig. 2-10 Tension and bond stress distribution for eccentric pull-out tests.
Fig. 2-1 1 Bar tension and bond stress distributions in beam at a crack.
Fig. 2-12 Effect of concrete strength on eccentric pull-out tests.
Fig. 2-13(a) Details of specimens and loads.
Fig. 2-13(b) Relationship between bond and steel stress for ail three
specimens.
Fig. 2-14 Types of specimens tested by Morita.
Fig. 2-15 Bond stress distribution in pull-out specimen type 1.
Fig. 2-16 Bond stress distribution in pull-out specimen type 2.
Fig. 2-17 Bond stress distribution in pull-out specimen type 3.
Fig. 2-1 8 Local bond stress versus local slip relationship in pull-out test.
Fig. 2-19 Test specimen used by other researchers for studying bond
behavior.
Fig. 2-20 Test specimen used by Jiang for studying bond behavior.
Fig. 2-21 Local bond stress and local slip relationship.
Fig. 2-22 Average characteristic bond stress versus lug inclination.
Fig. 2-23 The bars profiles a to d.
Fig. 2-24 Average bond stress-slip characteristic for bars of senes a to d.
Fig. 2-25 Effect of concrete strength and cover thickness on slip.
Fig. 2-26 Bond slip versus specirnen size.
Fig. 2-27 Bond slip of square specimen versus steel stress.
Fig. 2-28 Bond stress-slip relationship.
Fig. 2-29 Bond stress-slip curve for beam and pull-out specimen.
Fig. 2-30 Bond stress distribution in the specimen.
Fig. 2-3 1 Bond stress and slip relationship proposed by Hayashi et al.
Fig. 2-32 Coefficient of local maximum bond stress deterioration.
Fig. 2-33 Bond stress distribution along 25 mm plain round bar.
Fig. 2-34 Bond stress distribution for 25 mm cold-worked nbbed bar.
List of Figures
Fig. 4-1 Finite element mesh of a specimen used b veriQ the TRIX.
Fig. 4-2 Distribution of tensile force in bar under load =20 kN
(linkage element)
List of Figures
Fig. 4-93 Bond slip at the south bottom of Wall-2 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-94 Bond slip at the north bottom of Wall-2 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-95 Bond stress at the south bottom of Wall-2 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-96 Bond stress at the north bottom of Wall-2 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-97 Steel stress at the south bonorn of Wall-2 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-98 Steel stress at the north bottom of Wall-2 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-99 Bond slip at the south bottom of Wall-3 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-100 Bond slip at the north bottom of Wall-3 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-101 Bond stress at the south bottom of Wall-3 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-102 Bond stress at the north bottom of Wall-3 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-1 03 Steel stress at the south bottom of Wall-3 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-104 Steel stress at the north bottom of Wall-3 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-105 Bond slip at the south bottom of Wall4 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-106 Bond slip at the north bottom of Wall-4 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-107 Bond stress at the south bottom of Wall-4 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4- 108 Bond stress at the north bottom of Wall-4 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-109 Steel stress at the south bottom of Wall4 (Model 2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-1 10 Steel stress at the north bottom of Wall4 (Model2, contact
element).
Fig. 4-1 11 Deflection of Wall-1 after failure (assurning perfect bond).
Fig. 4-1 12 Deflection of Wall-1 after failure (linkage element, Mode! 2).
List of Figures
Fig. 4-1 13 Deflection of Wa Fter fai Lure (linkage elernent, Model 3).
Fig. 4-1 14 Deflection of Wa Fter fai Lure (linkage element, Model4).
Fig. 4- 115 Deflection of Wa Fter fai Lure (contact element, Model 2).
Fig. 4-1 16 Deflection of Wa Fter fai lure (contact element, Model3).
Fig. 4- 1 17 Deflection of Wa Eter fai lure (contact element, Model 4).
Fig. 4-1 18 Deflection of Wa Rer fai Lure (assuming perfect bond).
Fig. 4-1 19 Deflection of Wa Rer fai Lure (linkage element, Model 2).
Fig. 4-120 Deflection of Wa Eter fai lure (linkage element, Mode1 3).
Fig. 4-1 2 1 Deflection of Wa !ter fai lure (linkage element, Model 4).
Fig. 4-122 Deflection of Wa Rer fai Lure (contact element, Model 2).
Fig. 4-1 23 Deflection of Wa Rer fai lure (contact element, Model 3).
Fig. 4-1 24 Deflection of Wa Fter fai lure (contact element, Model 4).
Fig. 4-1 25 Deflection of Wa fier fai lure (assum ing perfect bond).
Fig. 4-126 Deflection of Wa Fter fai .ure (linkage element, Model 2).
Fig. 4-127 Deflection of Wa 3er fai ure (linkage element, Model 3).
Fig. 4-128 Deflection of Wa 3er fai ure (linkage element, Model 4).
Fig. 4-129 Deflection of Wa 3er fai,.ure (contact element, Model 2).
Fig. 4-130 Deflection of Wa 3er fai s r e (contact element, Model 3).
Fig. 4- 13 1 Deflection of Wa !ter fai .ure (contact element, Model 4).
Fig. 4- 132 Deflection of Wa 3er fai ure (assuming perfect bond).
Fig. 4- 133 Deflection of Wa 3er fai ure (linkage element, Model 2).
Fig. 4-134 Deflection of Wa 3er fai .ure (linkage element, Model 3).
Fig. 4-135 Deflection of Wa 3er fai ure (linkage element, Model 4).
Fig. 4-136 Deflection of Wa 3er fai ure (contact element, Model 2).
Fig. 4-137 Deflection of Wa 3er fai ure (contact element, Model 3).
Fig. 4-1 38 Deflection of Wa 3er fai ure (contact element, Model 4).
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Confining pressure in experiments of Figure 2-48 (a)
Table 2-2 Confining pressure in experiments of Figure 2-49 (a)
Table 5-1 Comparison of ultimate loads of walls fiom test data and FE
analysis 0.
BOND STRESS AND SLIP MODELING IN
NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Bond stress is the shear stress acting parallel to an embedded bar on the
surface between the reinforcing bar and the concrete. Bond slip is the
relative displacement between the bar and the concrete. Reinforced
concrete depends on the combined action of the concrete and its
embedded reinforcement for satisfactory operation as a construction
material. This action is produced by the interaction between both of its
components, plain concrete and reinforcing bars. The transfer of forces
across the interface between these two materials is completed by bond
action behveen them, so bond plays a very important role in most aspects
of reinforced concrete behavior. To better understand bond behavior, there
have been a number of studies specifically aimed at examining behavior
of bond stress-slip by way of both expenment and theory. Several laws to
describe the behavior have been developed on experimental ground.
Constitutive laws between the local bond stress and the local bond slip on
the interface have been formulated for theoretical analysis purposes.
The finite element method has been widely used for analyzing the
response of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures. niere are two
distinct ways of representing cracks in a finite element procedure. The
discrete crack mode1 represents cracks as interslement discontinuities.
There is restriction on the crack propagation direction depending on the
mesh layout. The smeared crack approach represents cracks as a change in
the material property of the element over which the cracks are assumed to
be smeared. In the simplified analysis of reinforced and prestressed
concrete stmctures, complete compatibility between concrete and
reinforcement or prestressed tendons is usually assurned. It means that
perfect bond is presurned. For models with smeared steel, the perfect bond
relationship is the easiest to adopt since it simply involves overlaying the
constitutive matrix of the steel elements with concrete elements. For the
models with discrete reinforcement elements, perfect bond also represents
a very easy solution, since the displacements of the nodal points are the
sarne for both concrete elements and reinforcement elements. Actually,
this assumption is only valid in regions where only low transfer stresses
between the two components exist. In the regions where high transfer
stresses occur between the interfaces of the two components, especially
for the regions near cracks, there are different strains in concrete and
reinforcement. As result of this, relative displacements, which are called
bond slips, occur between concrete and reinforcement. Because bond
stresses are related to bond slips between the two components, the
assumption of petfect bond in a cracked region would require infinitely
high reinforcement strains to explain the crack widths. It would also cause
significant error in the predicted load-deflection response, stresses and
strains of the reinforced structures when the bar slip is large.
Most of the work done in the past to understand bond behavior
focussed on experimental and analytical study of concrete prism
specimens with an embedded steel bar. In most cases, the model was
used to explain the behavior of the specimens fiom which the model was
derived. This does not constitute real verification of the model.
Theoretical methods proposed by some researchers are only applicable
for very simple members such as concrete prism with an embedded steel
bar, and can not be used for reinforced concrete structures. However,
little work has been done towards verimg the bond stress-slip models
obtained fiom experimental investigations for reinforced concrete
structures and studying the effects of bond slip on behavior of reinforced
concrete structures. Such a study is vital in verifjring bond stress-slip
models and investigating behavior of reinforced concrete structures.
1.2 Scope
The scope of this thesis is to study the bond stress-slip models under
both rnonotonic loading and cyclic loading; to verie these models by
comparing analytical response with the experimental results of reinforced
concrete shear walls; to study the effects of bond slip on reinforced
concrete shear walls; and to provide a kind of method of nonlinear finite
element analysis for reinforced concrete structures when bond slip is
considered.
2.1 Introduction
Many researchers have studied bond by performing experiments on
strain-gaged reinforcing bars embedded in a variety of concrete
specimens. In these tests, the axial strain in the bars was measured
directly, but bond stresses could only be detennined indirectly from the
slope of the steel strain curve, while the bond slips were determined fkom
displacements obtained by numerical integration of the difference of
strains between steel bar and concrete in the interface.
Study of bond behavior between steel bar and surrounding concrete
began in the 1960s. Most of the studies perfonned in 1960s and 1970s
were experimental investigations under monotonic loading. Study of bond
behavior under cyclic loading has been done since 1980s. Because there
exist many variables that affect the bond stress and bond slip relationship,
and because measurement of bond stress and bond slip is difficult and
sensitive to experimental errors, it is very difficult to get a generally
applicable law from experimental investigations. Some researchers
developed the theoretical method to study bond behavior by analytical
models based on some assumptions since 1980s.
The bond stress between the reinforcing bar and its surrounding
concrete is very complicated. It is dependent on the slip between the steel
bar and the concrete, and the stress in the reinforcing bar as well as many
other factors. Two alternative basic hypotheses have been used in the Fast;
in one bond stress is considered to be a linear function of slip ( Ngo and
Scordelis, 1967), while in the other it is considered to be a nonlinear
relationship between bond stress and slip.
Early experimental studies of bond were concerned with determining
bond failure strengths and the influence of surface deformations on them
by push-in test. Later some researchers found that bond failure occurs at a
higher stress for a push-in test than for the normal pull-out test. The
explanation for this is simple: firstly, the compressive axial stress
developed in the bar during a pushin test causes an increase in bar
diameter because of Poisson's effect, which, in tum, causes an increase in
the radial pressure between bar and concrete. Since friction is an
important element in bond, this increase in pressure leads to an increased
bond strength; secondly, cracking is an important reason to cause
degradation of bond strength. Because there is no cracking in a push-in
test, this leads to the increase of bond strength.
In the ordinary pull-out test, the test specimen is typically a cylinder or
prism with a bar embedded in it. Before the 19709s9the bar was pulled
fi-om one side while the concrete was held by the reaction pressure on the
same end as shown in Fig. 2-1. Since the bar is in tension and concrete in
compression, differential strains force a relative slip at very low steel
stresses. This is different to what occurs in an actual structure. The most
senous weakness of this pull-out test is that the concrete in compression
eliminates transverse tension cracking. After the 19709s, the method of
pull-out test was improved. A specimen is pulled firom both sides of the
bar (Fig. 2- 2).
Fig. 2-1 Specimen details in pull-out test before the 1970's.
Most researchers believe that there are different relationships for local
bond stresses versus local bond slips at different points of the interface of
the steel bar and the concrete. Since the properties of the interface will not
be different, this change can only corne fiom stress effects. Some
researchers (Morita, 1985; Narnmur and Naaman, 1989; Edward and
Yannopoulos, 1979) thought that the relationship is a material property
and, therefore, independent of location. They thought that there exists a
unique bond slip relationship which depends only o n matenal properties
and steel geometry.
bond stress can act only close to this slipping portion. Bond resistance is
thus an ultimate bond stress.over a short length where adhesion is about to
fai1.
Deformed bars change this behavior. Adhesion and fiction still assist,
but the primary resistance has been changed to mechanical interlocking
for superior bond properties. With deformed bars, a pull-out specimen
nearly always fails by splitting; the concrete splits into two or three
segments rather than failing by crushing against the lugs or by shearing on
the cylindrical surface which the lugs-tend to strip out. Splitting results
from the wedging action of the lugs against the concrete. It should be
noted that a split on one face of a concrete member does not represent .
complete failure. When stimps are present, significant bond resistance
remains.
Clear cover over a reinforcing bar will be significant in connection with
splitting resistance. Thin cover can be easily split like Fig. 2-3 (a); a thick
cover can greatly delay splitting if bars are not closely spaced laterally. If
a number of bars are closely spaced with thick cover in a beam, a splitting
failure will occur as shown in Fig. 2-3@).
Lutz and Gergely (1967) investigated the mechanics of bond and slip.
For deformed bars, initially, chemical adhesion combined with
mechanical interaction prevents slip. Afier adhesion is destroyed, as slip
occurs, the rib of a bar restrains this movement by bearing against the
concrete between the ribs. Friction, which would occur after the slip of
plain bars, does not occur here because of the presence of the ribs.
Slip of a deformed bar can occur in two ways: (1) the ribs c m push the
concrete away from the bar (wedging action), and (2) the ribs can cmsh
the concrete.
Tests indicate that the movement of the ribs is about the same for al1
ribs with a face angle greater than about 40 degrees. In bars with ribs
having face angles near 90 degrees, the ribs can not push concrete
outward (no wedging action). The friction between the rib face and the
concrete is suficient to prevent relative movement at the interface when
face angles are larger than 40 degrees. The slip is due almost entirely to
tlie crushing of the porous concrete paste in front of the ribs if the rib face
angles are larger than about 40 degrees. Bars with ribs having face angles
less than about 30 degrees exhibit a markedly different load slip
relationship. Here the friction between the rib face and the concrete is not
sufficient to prevent relative movement. Thus, slip is due mainly to the
relative movement between the concrete and the steel bar dong the face of
the rib, and secondarily to some crushing of the concrete.
For the usual case of good fictional properties and a nb face angle
greater than 40 degrees, slip occurs by progressive crushing of the porous
concrete paste structure in front of the rib.
The slip resistance on reloading is considerably higher than the slip
resistance initially, as shown in Figure 2-4.
Lutz et al also experime&ally investigated the cracking effects on the
bond stress distribution in concrete beams. The details of the beam used in
tlie test are shown in Fig. 2-5. Before cracking, the bar adheres chemically
to the concrete. This adhesion acts until slip or movement of the steel
relative to the adjacent concrete occurs. Tests showed that adhesion would
be lost in tension rather than in shear. Before slip and cracking occur,
tension can exist on the interfae between the bar and concrete as a result
of the large Poisson's ratio of the steel and concrete (Poisson ratios of 0.3
and 0.15 for the steel and concrete, respectively). Due to the loading, no
bond stresses exist between the concrete and reinforcing bar in the middle
third of the bearn. In the outer thirds of the beam, because there is no slip,
the steel and concrete elongate the sarne amount over any given length,
but due to the difference in the elastic moduli of the two materials, a
larger change in stress occurs in the steel than in the concrete, leading to
bond stresses.
O 2 4 6 8 10
distance dong bar liom loaded end(in.j
--Radial stress
.= 80 - --Circumferential stress
-ss --Bondstress
--Longitudinal stress
crack
O 1 2
1 xld
if the steel stress is high relative to the bond stress (in the flexural region),
while splitting would occur fust when the bond stress is large relative to
the steel stress (in the anchorage region). Fig. 2-9 shows the ratio of the
crack width adjacent to the bar to the one at the concrete surfaces. A large
variation in the crack widths occurs fiom the bar to the concrete surface
with increasing steel stress. .
P~~.IMIYor
surfa crack
Fig. 2-8 Separation between concrete and bar near a primary crack.
0.6 -
O
3 0.5 - -
ws width of crack at bar surhce
f WC - wvidth of crack at concrete surface
0.3
1t,
O 20 40 60 80 100
*el a r e s at free ends ( ksi )
Fig. 2-9 Ratio of crack widths at the steel and at the concrete surface.
2.3.3 Loads
Loads c m be subdivided into monotonic and cyclic loads. Monotonic
loading implies that slip is always increasing. Cyclic loading implies slip
reverses in direction many times during the load history. Cyclic loading i s
divided into two general categories. The first category is low-cycle
loading or low-cycle, high-stress loading. That is loading containing few
cycles but having a large range of bond stress. The second category is
high-cycle loading or fatigue loading.
The bond behavior under cyclic loading can further be divided
according to the type of stress applied. The first is unidirectional loading,
which implies that the bar stress does not change sense ( tension to
compression) during a loading cycle. The second is stress reversal, where
the bar is subjected alternatively to tension and compression.
O 2 4 6 8 10
distance along bar from loaded end (in.)
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
distance along bar from crack-in.
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
distance fiom foaded end - in.
stress in each case was not significantly different, but they occurred at
different locations. It was seen that the bar cut-off point occurred in a zone
of rapidly changing moment in one bearn, whereas the crack in the other
beam was in a zone of constant moment. The bar cut-off specimen (Beani
a) is different from others because horizontal shearing stresses exist at the
level of the bar, while there are no shearing stresses in others. These
differences probably caused the non-similarity of the bond stress
distribution for the two beam tests. When bars are cut off in a tension
zone, a flexural crack f o m s prematurely at the discontinuity. The sudden
change in bar stress produces large bond stress locally and causes
splitting.
-
Or free end
-
- pullout
beam a
beam b
-200 4
-300 J
distance along bar-in.
Monta and Fujii (1985) developed a bond stress-slip mode1 used iii
finite element analysis. They conducted extensive tende tests using
deformed bars of 51 mm, 25 mm, 19 mm, 7 mm and 3 mm diameters to
investigate the efTect of bar size upon slip behavior. The following
equation was obtained fiom regression analysis of the test data :
z = 888*(Nd)
''sO @g/cm2) (2- 1
where z is the local bond stress, A is the local bond slip, and d is the
diameter of the steel bar. Using equation (2-l), stress distributions were
calculated numerically. The results indicate that if the distance fiom the
loaded end is normalized with respect to bar diameter, the stress
distributions are almost identical for bar diameters of 3 mm to 51 mm.
This means that the extent of the intemal cracking zone is probably
proportional to the bar diameter.
The other basic aspect of bond behavior is the occwence of radial
forces caused by wedging action of the ribs. Due to this action, interna1
longitudinal cracks occur in the vicinity of the bar. With the increase of
the slip, splitting of the surrounding concrete develops along the bar axis.
The local bond behavior is strongly affected by development of these
longitudinal cracks. The peak stress of local bond is ofien dependent on
the resisting capacity against splitting of entire concrete cover. The
provision of transverse reinforcement is effective only to sustain the bond
up to a large slip.
Morita et al (1985) investigated the effect of location on the
development of bond stress and bond slip (specimen is shown in Fig. 2-
14). Figures 2-15 to 2-17 show the bond stresses along the bar axis at
several loading stages for specimens type 1, type 2 and type 3. The
reduction of bond stress transfer in the neighborhood of primary cracks at
the pull-out end (the region of about 5d) is clearly demonstrated, while at
the push-in end, bond stress transfer near the primary crack is much more
effective throughout the load application. Fig. 2-18 shows the bond stress
versus bond slip relationship at some locations. The closer the location to
the loaded end, the more deteriorated the bond resistance in pull-out tests.
-c- P=99ton
-
+el23 ton
P=149 ton
Free
end
O i/ 7 t
O 20 40 60 80
didance from pulled end ( cm )
-
-P=51
P=99 ton
ton
Pushed
end
O 20 40 60 80
didance frorn free end (cm)
h h end
Fig. 2- 18 Local bond stress versus local slip relationships in pull-out test.
Nilson (1972) studied the spacing and width of cracks, and the
distribution of concrete stresses in partially cracked members. Usually,
bond stress-slip relationships were studied using pull-out specimens of the
type s h o w in Figure 2-19. This type of test is intended to simulate
conditions in the tension zone of a concrete beam between primary
flexural cracks and beiow the neutral axis. With this type of specimen, it .
profile a
Y)
II) profile b
C
er profile c
II)
profile d
"
Ot O 0.1 0:2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
slip (mm)
The crack width specified in various codes is the crack width at the
surface of concrete, and it differs significantly fiom the crack width at the
steel-concrete interface. Experirnental evidence shows that the ratio of the
crack width at the concrete face to that at the steel-concrete interface
varies with the steel stress (shown in Fig. 2-7).
Mirza and Houde (1979) showed that crack formation is inherently
subjected to a greater experimental scatter than other properties of
concrete. The crack spacing can Vary between 1 to 2 times the minimum
crack spacing. If one considers the influence of the crack spacing, it is
normal to expect the crack spacing to be 50 per cent larger or smaller than
the average measured value. The crack spacing was principally govemed
by the concrete cover thickness and was approximately equal to 3c (cover
thickness).
(1) f i 3 0 0 0 psi
( 2 ) fc=6000 psi
O IO 20 30 40 50
end sips (0.0001 in.)
-t-fs=15 ksi
+f s--30 ksi
+f s=45 ksi
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
square specimen size (in)
O 1 2 3
bond slip (0.001 in)
beam
pull
O 2 4 6 8 10 12
bond slip (0.0001 in)
Fig. 2-29 Bond stress-slip curve for beam and pull-out specimen.
The bar slip increased almost linearly with the steel stress and with the
value of the ratio (AC~AS)'" between 45 and 60.Beyond this value, the
larger concrete area imposes a greater. restraint on the steel bar, thereby
causing a decrease in the slip at the steel concrete interface.
Slip has been considered to result from a gradua1 deterioration of the .
O S 10 15 20 25
distance from fme end (cm)
slip (mm)
a b c
Fig. 2-3 1 Bond stress and slip relationship proposed by Hayashi et al.
(stress unit: kgkm2)
Figure 2-3 l a is derived fiom the relationship between bond stress and
slip at some distance from a crack. Therefore, the bond deterioration near
the crack is not considered. The second model (2-3 1b) considers the bond
deterioration near cracks. Where the bond stiffness changes, bond
stiffnesses are multiplied by a,which is determined by the response at
the distance fiom the crack. For the third model (2-31c), the maximum
bond stress of the basic bond stress slip relationship is limited to 40
kg/cm2 (4 MPa). The relationship between a and the distance from the
crack proposed here is illustrated in Fig. 2-32. When L is larger than 4 bar
diameter, a is equal to 1.
Kankam (1997) investigated the relationship of bond stress, steel
stress and slip in reinforced concrete for mild steel, cold-worked steel and
hot-rolled steel bars.
a
For the ribbed bars (Figures 2-34 and 2-35), as the tensile load
increased, the form of the distribution curve generally changed slightly.
Nevertheless, it was impossible to describe the curves by any simple
consistent fonn. In general, there was; with increasing load, a consistent
increase in the bond stress at almost al1 points.
2.5 -,
Slifl.04 mm Slip=.OS min
Fig. 2-36 Bond stress-steel stress relationship for plain round bar.
From Fig. 2-36, it c m seen that the bond stresses decreased linearly
with the increase of steel stress when the bond slip was constant.
Fig. 2-37 is a typical curve of the fundamental relationship of bond
stress versus bond slip for different steel stresses for the 25 mm plain
round bar. In the early stages of relatively low slip, the curve showed a
linear increase of the bond stress with the slip, but later the relationship
changed to nonlinear following large increases in the slip. As the
reinforcing bar continued to slip, causing its surface aspenties to corne in
contact with different points of the surrounding concreta, the bond stress
at any given value of the slip was less for greater values of the steel stress.
This decrease in the bond stress would be expected due to the radial
contraction of the bar and cocsequent reduction of the confining pressure
of the surrounding concrete. The following empirical equation for bond
stress-slip relationship was proposed by Kankam:
T=(~Q-kfs)~o-8 (2-7)
b,kl are constants that depend on certain parameters such as concrete
strength, bar size, surface texture of bar, and type of loading; f, is steel
stress.
The authors proposed following values for and kl :
l~=4l.7
k* =0.2
O 2 4 6
slip (0.01 ml$
given arnount of slip increased in magnitude with the distance from the
loaded ends of the specimens. At each position, the bond stress increased
with local slip. Near the center of the embedded bar, the relationship wa
first linear when the local slip was small, but became nonlinear as the slip
increased. At al1 other positions, the local relationship was generally
nonlinear.
O
I
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
slip (0.01mm)
The initial dope of the bond stress versus slip curve was diflerent for
each of the positions and, in fact, increased consistently fkom the loaded
ends to the center of the embedded bar. The authors proposed the
following equation of local bond stress and bond slip for nbbed bars:
Cold-worked ribbed bar: T = ( ~ ~ - O . S X ) A ~ - ~ (2-9)
Hot-rolled ribbed bar: T=(~S-O.~X)A~-~ (2- 1O)
O 2 4 6 8
dip (0.Olmm)
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
siip (0.01mm)
Nikon (1968) studied the spacing, width of cracks, and the distribution
of concrete stress in partially cracked members. In spite of the
considerable scatter of experimental data, Nikon recognized a definite
trend and fitted the following equation by using the least square's
method:
6 2*+1.986*10
~ 3 . 6 0 6 ~ 1 0 ~ ~ - 5 . 3 59A 10 12 3
A (2-1 1)
where r is the nominal bond stress in psi and A is the local bond slip in
inches. Differentiation of both sides of equation (2-9) with respect to A,
yields:
12 2
dr/d~=3.606*10~-10.712*10~~+5.985*10
A (2-1 2)
which represents the stifiess of the concrete layers transfemng the forces
to the steel bar.
Later, Nikon (1972) reported results obtained using embedded gages to
measure the concrete strain distribution in tension specimens. The
concrete displacement curve was derived directly by intergrating the
concrete strains measiued at points at a distance of 0.5 inch from the bar.
The following bond stress slip relationship was proposed:
t=3 100(1.43~+1
SO)Afc (2- 13)
where the bond stress r<(1.43x+1.50)f, ;
and x is the distance fkom the loaded end in inches, and P, is the concrete
strength in psi .
The typical pull-out tests that many researchers have used are
nonuniform in the local bond stress distribution along the reinforcement.
In these tests, the actual bond stress varies significantly along the
embedment length, and results were reported as the average bond stress
versus slip measured at one end of the specimen. Abrishami and Mitchel .
bond stress versus slip response which capture the key behavioral features
of these two types of bond failure mechanisms, and derived analytical
solutions of both pull-out failures and splitting failures in pull-out tests,
push-in tests, and a combination of pull-out and push-in tests. The
predicted bond stress distribution is dependent on the length of
embedment, bar size, concrete properties, and the size of the specimen. As
the length of the specimen decreases, the bond stress becomes more
unifonn. Because of this, early attempts by the other researchers to
determine bond strength under nearly uniform bond stresses involved
short embedment lengths. However, these short embedment lengths gave
rise to umealistically high bond strength results. On the other hand, the .
use of a longer embedment length in a simple pull-out test gives a large
variation between the maximum and minimum bond stress. Hence, taking
the average bond strength for these specimens is not representative of the
actual bond strength.
9 1
O Y
O 1 2 3 4
Average slip (mm)
O Y ,
O 1 2 3 4
Average dip (mm)
awrage slip
awrage slip
mainly on the bond strength between the WWF longitudinal wires, the
anchorage effects of the transverse wires, and the shear strength of welds
between the transverse and longitudinal wires. M e r the first slippage of
the longitudinal wires, the load is resisted only by the transverse wires and
the welds between the transverse and longitudinal wires.
The contribution of the adjacent longitudinal wires to the pull-out
resistance was very small, and the majority of the pull-out specimens failed
by bond between the wires and concrete.
Some researchers (Esfahani and Orangun, 1998; Thompson, 1968)
investigated the bond stress between concrete and reinforcing bars in
splices in beams. The test parameters included concrete compressive .
O 1 2 3 4 5 6
slip (mm)
5 10
confining pressure (MPa)
O 2 4 6 8 10 12
dip (mm)
-2 -1 O 1 2
log of rate of slip rs
(b)
Fig. 2-49 Effect of rate of slip on the local bond stress-slip relationship.
0.034 0.02
2.4.2 Bond Stress and Slip Under Cyclic Loading
Bond behavior under cyclic loading is affected by the following factors:
1. Concrete compression strength.
2. Cover thickness and bar spacing.
3. Bar size (bar diameter).
4. Anchorage length.
5. Geometry of bar deformations (ribs).
6. Steel yield strength.
7. Amount and position of transverse steel.
8. Casting position and vibration.
9. Strain (or stress) range.
1 0. Type and rate of loading (strain rate).
11.Temperature.
12.Surface condition-coating.
It has been pointed out that the influence of many of foregoing
parameters on bond resistance is only qualitatively understand. Parameters
(1)-(3), (6)-(9, and (12) appear to be the ones mostly affecting bond
under monotonic loading, while (9), -(IO) and the value of maximum
imposed bond stress, in addition to previous parameters, are very
important under cyclic loading conditions.
Tassios and Koroneos (1984) investigated local bond stress-slip
relationship by an optical experimental method (the Moire method) in
rnonotonic and cyclic loading. They proved that the point of maximum
local bond stress moved towards to loaded end with an increase of load
(Fig. 2-52).
Fig. 2-5 1 Specimen tested by Tassios.
Fig. 2-58 Local bond stress-lacal slip relationship under cyclic loading .
slip
Fig. 2-59 Relationship of bond stress versus slip under cyclic loading.
slip
Figure 2-61 shows bond stress-slip hysteresis loops derived fiom cyclic
loading tests of specimens with one 25 mm deformed bar and confinement
reinforcement. It is first pointed out that, as in the case of repeated loading,
the residual slip during unloading @ranch EF in Figure 2-61 ) is quite
large, which may be attributed to the fact that the elastic part of slip
consists of the concrete deformation only, which is just a small portion of
the total slip. Whenever the sign of the bond stress reverses, the slope of
the curve remains significant up to a level of stress (ri); this increased
stifhess is due to friction between the bar and the surrounding concrete.
When the frictional resistance is overcome, the bar begins to slip in the
opposite direction (with respect to that of initial loading OAE) until the
ribs of the bar again corne into contact with the surrounding concrete (point
1in Figure 2-61). It is understood that the foregoing applies when the level
of Loading is such that concrete lugs between the adjacent ribs (see also
Figure 2-61) have been ground, thus creating gaps between the side face of
the ribs and the surrounding concrete.
Reloading in the opposite direction (branch IAIE1in figure 2-61) is now
taking place at a significantly increased slope and the path followed is
similar to that of monotonie loading. However, if the maximum previously
attained (absolutz) value of bond stress is higher than 70-80% of r, ,the
new envelope (OAIBiCl in Figure 2-61) has reduced ordinates with respect
to original one (OABC). This reduction in available bond resistance is
inore pronounced as the values of slips between which cyclic takes place
increase, and also as the number of cycles increases.
Whenever at a certain point the sign of loading changes (in a
deformation-controlled test, when the sign of the applied slip changes), the
unloading and friction branches (IKLPIiIN) are similar to the previous ones
(EFGHI). Further loading is now taking place dong a new envelope
(OA'B'C') whose ordinates are reduced with respect to the initial one
(OABC). If the level of loading is hi& enough for shear cracks to fonn in
concrete lugs between adjacent ribs, only a portion of these lugs can
contribute to the resistance of the system. Hence, the envelope OA'BfCf
has lower ordinates than the previous one (OA'iBfIC'i). Moreover, if
unloading takes place at a point along the descending branch of the bond
stress-slip curve which corresponds to a pronounced deterioration of
concrete lugs due to shear, the fictional resistance (rfu) will be higher than
previous value (rr ), since at this stage the interface between the bar and the
surrounding concrete is rougher. This characteristic may be verified if the
corresponding branches of the two loops in Figure 2-61 are cornpared.
It is seen fiom the foregoing discussion of the bond degradation
mechanism under cyclic loading that most of the damage occurs during the
first loading cycle. During subsequent cycles, a gradua1 smoothing of crack
interface occurs, causing a reduction of mechanical interlock and fiction
forces.
Eligehausen et ai (1983) studied experimentally the behavior under
cyclic loading of specimens with 25 mm diarneter deformed bars, having a
clear length of 5d and hooks at their ends. The typical local bond stress-slip
curves for a hooked bar specimen are shown in Fig. 2-62. It is clearly seen
that the available bond resistance under rnonotonic loading remains almost
constant, even for very large values of slip, in contrast to what happens in
bars without hooks. Furthemore, during successive reversed loading cycles
a significant drop of bond resistance is observed for values of the slip lower
than the previously attained peak. M e r this value is reached, bond
resistance is soon recovered, and the corresponding curve at large values of
slip lies quite close to the rnonotonic loading curve, even afier 10 loading
cycles.
Figure 2-61 shows bond stress-slip hysteresis loops derived fiom cyclic -
-4 O 4 8 12 16 20
Slip ( mm )
2.5.2 The Solution of the Constitutive Equation of Bond Stress and Slip
Because the measurement of local bond stress and local slip along a
stressed reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete is difficult and very
sensitive to expenmental errors, there has been a wide variation in deduced
bond stress versus bond slip relationships derived from the results of
various experiments. Some researchers developed analytical models based
on various assumptions.
Shah et al (1 98 1) assumed bond stress distribution as:
D 2 ~ d 2 x~= e +Be-'
" +C (2-25)
where x is the distance fiom the loaded end of the specimen to any section.
From this assumption, it is obvious that the relationship of local bond
stress versus local slip is a function of the distance of the section fiom the
cracked face.
For the pull-out specimen in Figure 2-63, Shah et al solved the
differential equation (2-25) by boundary conditions:
A= ~ e +Be-'
* +cx2/2 +Dx +E (2-26)
the five constants A-E are related to cross sectional dimensions A, and 4,
total perimeter of steel bars, constitutive relationships of steel bar and
concrete, the transfer length L,and the length of segment or crack spacing.
The above assumption rnakes the location of the peak bond stress close
to the center of the transfer length. Test results show that peak bond stress
occurs at the section closer to crack face than to the other end of transfer
length. The relationship between bond stress and local slip is not unique
but varies from location to location. Based on these test results, Yang and
Chen (1988) assumed the following relationship for bond stress versus
slip:
T(X) = KA(x) +(ex2 +D) +Ecos(x/~*x&) (2-27)
where K is the bond constant which is the bond stress per unit slip; C, D,
and E are constants to be determined by boundary conditions; L, is the
transfer length, and x is the distance from the loaded end of the specimen
or the cracking spacing to any section.
Yang et al employed the boundary conditions to determined the
theoretical solution of equation (2-24) as following:
~ (c
A(y)=ZA{ch(cy) - ( ~ ~ )ch / 2) +p2[ch(c )-11 [l -cos(yd2)] -1 )
(2-28)
t(y)=ZAK {ch(cy) -ch(c )+[ch(c ) -1] cos(yd2)) (2-29)
where y=x/Lb (2-30a)
a 4 ( l+np)l(dE,) (2-30b)
c=(a~)'.'~, (2-3Oc)
p=(2/x)c (2-30d)
ZA={sh(c) -ch(c) +p[ch(c) -11) QU (2-30e)
eo is the steel strain at loaded end of the specimen or cracking face of the
actual structure.
Fig. 2-64 Slip distribution along the bar.
Fig. 2-64 and 2-65 show the curves o f A and T of the Yang and Chen
theoretical solution, respectively, with a L t =0.3 mm and c=2,3,4. It can
be seen that the peak values always occur near y=0.7 and move slightly
toward y=l with very weak dependence to an increasing c. Figure 2-66
shows the cornparison of solution of Yang and Chen with the solution of
the Somayaji and Shah method.
Fig. 2-66 Cornparison of bond stress distribution between Yang and Samayaji.
2.7 The Analysis of Bond Stress and Slip by Finite Element Method
Ngo and Scordelis (1967) were the fust to use the finite element
method to analyze reinforced concrete structure accounting for bond-slip
effects using a linear relationship between bond stress and bond slip. Later
in 1968, Nilson studied the nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete by
finite element method. Nilson considered nonlinear bond stress-slip
relationships, nonlinear material properties, and the influence of
progressive cracking. A third degree polynomial was employed as the
relationship of bond stress versus slip. That is:
6 2
s=3606*103~-5356*10A +1986*109A3 (2-34)
Shava et al (1989) developed a elastic-plastic cracking constitutive
model for the analysis of reinforced concrete by considering the
nonlinearities due to tensile cracking, aggregate interlock, plasticity in
compression, yielding of steel, bond stress and slip, and tension stiffening.
Mehlhom et al (1985) developed one- and two-dimensional
isopararnetric contact elements and used these elements to analyze the
reinforced structures.
Shiro and Morita (1987) thought that the bond model used in linkage
elements requires quite cumbersome calculations to determine the global
behavior and did not include the mechanism of stress transfer by wedging
action. They assumed that the concrete deformation due to interna1
secondary cracking occurs at the interface and it was involved as a part of
the local slip of the bond model. They proposed a combined link element
which consists of the slip link element ( linkage element) and wedge link
element to account for wedging action.
Keuser et al (1987) investigated the properties of the elements and the
quality of the results which are affected by the displacement function of
the elements, the density of the element mesh, and bond stress-slip
relat ionship.
The quality of the results depends strongly on the design of the element
mesh and the stiffnesses of individual elements. For the evaluation of an
element stiffness matrix, two basic assumptions are made; one conceming
the displacement function and other regarding material behavior.
Differences between an exact solution and results of an finite element
analysis are caused by the fact that finite elements actually model only part
of the solution with the same or a lower order than the displacement
function used for the finite elements. Higher order effects are only
approximated.
The influence of the displacement function is investigated by an energy
consideration.
For a loading structure, the intemal energy in the contact area of steel
and concrete is:
3.1 htrodunt'ion
Accurate prediction of the nonlinear response of reinforced concrete to
loads using the finite element method is dependent on the knowledge of
several complex phenomena such as the behavior of concrete and steel,
relationship of bond stress versus slip at the steel-concrete interface,
aggregate interlock at the cracks and time-dependent phenomena such as
creep and shrllikage.
There are two basic approaches on which the bond stress-slip modcl are
applied: (1) rnicroscopic analysis of the stress state in the neighborhood of
the reinforcement (Gajer and Dux in 1990, Ingraffea et al in 1984), and (2)
macroscopic analysis of the global behavior of a member or a structural
assemblage (Ngo and Scordels, 1967; Nilson, 1968; Keuser and Mehlhorn,
1987).
In rnicroscopic analysis, the stress transfer mechanism by bond should
be treated as the local contact in front of bar ribs, not as the one
dimensional bond-slip at the interface. The interface slip is due to cmshing
of concrete within the limited zone in fiont of ribs, and can be derived fiom
material properties and the configuration of the bar. It is essential to mode1
appropriately the radial action of bond, as well as shear transfer parallel to
the axis of the bar. Stress States in the concrete, especially in the
neighborhood of the reinforcement, should be evaluated accurately, and
initiation and propagation of interna1 cracks, both longitudinal splitting and
cone-shaped cracks, should be followed analytically.
Thus, the local bond stress versus the local slip relationship cm be
denved as the result of the analysis. Therefore, the bond stress-slip
relationship depends on the local stress state and in general varies from
location to location.
In macroscopic analysis, the bond stress versus the slip relationship may
be directly modeled by determining the constitutive law of a one- or two-
dimensional bond element using experimental data or the results of
microscopie analysis. The stress state of the concrete near the bar is not
more realistic, but it is a fictitious one to sirnplifi the behavior.
Reinforcement can be introduced in a finite element mesh in three ways.
In the first method, steel is represented as discrete bar or beam elements
connecting the nodes of the finite element mesh. In the second method (the
embedded steel element), steel is placed anywhere in the finite element
mesh by embedding the steel bar element within the concrete element and
enforcing displacement compatibility through interpolation and
transformation. In the third method (the smeared steel element), a
composite steel concrete material matrix is employed, and this requires a
minimum number of elements and nodes. Third method can be employed
advantageously in structures where steel is distributed throughout. The
drawback of the latter two representations is that bond stress and slip can
not be modeled. The discrete bar elernents can mode1 bond stress and slip
through the provision of linkage elements or special bond-slip elements.
The stress strain curve usually employed for steel is either elastic-perfectly
plastic or elastic-hardening .
The nonlinearity due to bond stress-slip is usually modeled either by
using linkage elements or by special contact elernents. The parameters for
these elements are obtained fiom experimental bond stress-slip
relationships.
Tension stiffening of concrete can be modeled in two ways. In the fust
method, it is assumed that the tensile stress in concrete reduces gradua-lly
to zero &er tensile cracking. In the second method, a modified stress
strain curve for concrete is used. The dowel action of steel can be modeled
by using a normal stifhess for bond-slip elements. Aggregate interlock is
usually modeled by assuming a positive shear modulus after cracking.
In the finite element method, the elements are connected to each other
at the nodal points. The adjacent elements have identical displacements at
the common nodes; referred to as the displacement compatibility. If the
bond slip between concrete and reinforcement is taken into account, the
condition of displacement compatibility will not be satisfied. Special
interface elements will have to be used in conjunction with the discrete
concrete elements and reinforcement elements, while constitutive laws will
be required to mode1 bond stress and slip between these two components.
In finite element analysis, the linkage element, developed by Ngo and
Scordelis in 1967, has been used most commonly for modeling bond-slip
behavior. This element connects one node of a concrete element with one
node of an adjacent bar element. The linkage element has no physical
dimensions, so two connected nodes have identical coordinates before slip
occurs in the interface between steel bar and concrete. For plane stress
problems, a linkage element consists of two springs, one parallel and the
another one normal to longitudinal axis of the reinforcing bar.
Compared with the linkage element, the contact element (also called
bond-zone element), which was developed by de Groot et al in 1981, is
completely different. The most important differences are that contact
element has the dimension along the steel-concrete interface (it does not
have physical dimension in other two directions) and it provides a
continuous contact surface between - steel bar and concrete. The contact
surface between the steel bar and the concrete in the immediate vicinity of
the steel bar is modeled by a bond stress-slip law which considers the
special properties of the bond zone.
matrix form
deformed
element
undefked i
element .
mandn lk
Substituting Eq. 3-4 into Eq. 3-2, the following relationship between the
displacements of any point and the relative displacements of two double
nodes in a contact element is got:
{f) =N(a)=PJl [Al -' {A} (3-5)
Substituting Eq. 3-2 into Eq. 3-5, the relationship between the
displacements of any point and the displacements of two double nodes in a
contact element is obtained:
{f) =N[AI -' ICI( 8 1 (3-6)
In the local coordinate system, the relationship between contact stress
and relative displacements in a contact element is
(3-7)
where [G] is the constitutive law matrix between contact stresses and
relative displacements in the contact interface in the local coordinate system.
($1 is the initial stress vector in a contact interface in the local coordinate
system.
I f one considen the special case in which the contact behavior in the two
coordinate directions is independent of each other, the constitutive law
matrix will be
-
O
Gtt-
(3-9)
Substituting Eq. (3-6) into Eq. (3-9), one obtains:
n P= j W~ r r 6 1 * [cT([AI- ' ) T ~ T [ ~ -l~ [CI
~ ~( 6[) ~ ~
The sum of the potential energy for z structure with n contact elements is :
+ 2 (6)
1=1
1
i T [ ~ ] Tvol
T O
([A] i 'OTIN] {a ) i dvi 2
r=l
(O) i T{~}m
i
+ 2 {d)iT[clT Id
I=I
T O
([A] i-')T[~]{a ) i dvi- 2
i=l
(d) i T ( p ) i
wliere {p), i and {p) i are the nodal load vectors for the contact element i in
the local and global coordinate system. (P) is the nodal loading vector of
the whole structure in global coordinate system. {dli is the nodal
displacement vector of the element in the global coordinate system.
(d) i =
and {D) is the nodal displacement vector of the whole structure in the
global coordinate system.
-
Dl
D2
.....
{Dl= DI
Di+1
......
Dm1
Dn
-
NOW let [BIi = N [A], [Cl
Then @3]iT=[clT([~]
i )
-1 T
mT
The element stifhess matrix of the element K in the local coordin
[SI i and [SI are the element stifiess matrix o f the element i and the
stiffness matrix o f the whole structure in the global coordinate system.
From above equation, it c m be shown that:
3.3 Linkage Element
A linkage element is required at each node to connect between steel bar
elements and concrete elements. The element has no physical dimensions.
It connects two nodes with identical coordinates and can be conceptually
thought of as consisting of two linear springs. One is parallel to the steel
bar axis and another is normal to bar axis. Both nodes occupy the sarne
coordinate in space before loading, but they undergo relative displacement
by the deformation of the linkage springs, resulting in different coordinates
after loading. The component of linkage force in the direction of the bar
axis gives the bond force, and the normal component of linkage force gives
the radial splitting force.
concrete
concrete
I
reinforcing bar
Fig. 3-2 Linkage element.
The relative displacements at nodes i j are :
or fd=[Kl{ A1 (3-33)
Thus the strain energy per unit volume is :
u=%{ G } ~{A )=i/2{s)T[c]T[~~
[CI {) (3 -34)
The potential energy expression of element k is :
npk=u-(p}mkT (6 }k=x{}? [c]~[K][cI (6)t -{p)mkT ( 6 )k (3-3 5 )
The sum of the potential energy for a structure with n linkage elements is:
where {dli and {D) are the nodal displacement vectors of element i in the
local coordinate system, and of the overall structure in the global system,
respectively. {ph) and (pli are the nodal loading vectors of linkage
element i in the local coordinate system and global coordinate system,
respectively.
Letting XiddDi =O for i=1,2 .... n.
One obtains the stifbess matrix of element k in the local coordinate
system as following:
[SI, =
O -Kt O
3.4 Temperature Changes, Prestrains and Support Displacements
The effects of temperature changes, prestrains and support
displacements are considered as following:
Firstly, one calculates the strains (initial strains) of the concrete element
and the steel element at the interface due to temperature changes,
prestrains and support displacements. Then one calculates the nodal initial
dis?lacements due to the initial strains. Assuming the initial nodal
displacements are (Do), the stifiess equation of the whole structure can
3.5 Transformation Matrix
As shown in Figure 3-2, the relationship between the displacements
{6Ic the nodal forces (RIk in local coordinate system, and between the
displacements (dlr and the nodal forces {FIi, in global coordinate system ,
are :
{6)k=[T]k {d)k (3-47a)
{R)k =[T]k {F)k (3-47b)
so Tm1,
{~I~=[TI~ (3-48a)
and {F)l~=[T]i, {R)k (348b)
where [Tlk is the transformation matrix of elemtnt k.
I
Fig. 3-3 Relation of local coordinate
and global coordinate system.
3.6 Material Properties
The Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) was proposed by
Vecchio and Collins (1986) for predicting stresses, strains and deformation
response of reinforced concrete subjected to in-plane shear and normal
stresses. The theory presented new constitutive laws for modeling the
material response of concrete and steel reinforcement, based on the results
of 30 reinforced concrete panels tested in pure shear or in combinations of
shear and normal loads. The theory has yielded excellent agreement with
many experimental results tested by many researchers. Vecchio (1989)
developed a nonlinear finite element program (TRIX) for plane stress
analysis of reinforced concrete membranes according to the formulations
of the MCFT. In the program, cracked reinforced concrete was treated as
an orthotropic material using a smeared, rotating crack modeling approach.
The solution procedure used was based on a secant-stifThess formulation,
giving good numerical stability. Vecchio and other researchers improved
the mode1 of material properties after that and produced the 1999 version
TRIX99. In tliis thesis, the bond element was implemented into the
TRIX99 nonlinear finite element program for considering the slip between
steet reinforcement and concrete.
El
Eo Ep 2%
( a ) Compression response.
( b ) Tension response.
Fig. 3-10 Hysteresis model for concrete.
D
Fig. 3- 1 3 Relationship of local bond stress and slip.
(AB and CD are unloading and reloading curve)
The factor P4 considers local damage of the concrete in the bond zone
caused by the development of secondary cracks. The influence of the
strain cs of the steel bar and the ratio of the yield stress f, to ultimate
strength f, of the steel bar are considered to express the damage of the
bond near the crack. The directions of the steel bar and the crack are also
considered by the test result. Multiplying these two influencing factors
leads to Eq. 3-84 to consider the effects of bond damage.
p 4 1 =1- (f&ni) (&o/Esy)
7 -
cracks
steel bar
Fig. 3-18 Angle between the steel bar and the crack of the concrete.
P42
Fig. 3-1 9 Influence of angle between steel b;u and the crack
and distance between the linkage element to a nearest crack on Bq2 .
Fig. 3-20 The bond stress and slip relationship of Eiigehausen Model.
Fig. 3-21 The bond stress and slip relationship of Model 3 (Harjli).
3.7.2.5 Model of Bond Stress and Slip Relationship With Partial Confining
Pressure
The local bond stress and slip relationship is shown in Figure 3-23. It is
defined as:
~lsp=~ls+(~~-~ls)P
~ 2 s p = ~ 2 s (~3-72s)P
f
rrsp=~+(~rrrJP
A1sp=A1s +(Ar Al n ) P
A2sp=AzS+(A3A2s)p
A3Sp=A3
Fig. 3-24 The bond stress and slip relationship under cyclic
loading proposed by Eligehausen et al .
(3-1 53)
Di=l-e a (3- 154)
a=-l .z(E~/Eo)'.' (3455)
where Aim is the maximum absolute value of the bond slip reached during
the first half-cycle loading of cycle i if the present loading stage is in the
second half-cycle loading of cycle i ,and is the maximum absolute value of
the bond slip in the second half-cycle loading of cycle i-l (previous loading
cycle ) if the present loading stage is in the first half-cycle loading of cycle i
. t h is the absolute value of the bond stress corresponding to bond-slip
Ah.
For pull-out failure, t l i , rzi and ru are bond stresses corresponding to
bond slips Ai ,A2 and A3 in the cycle i , respectively. They are calculated
as:
TI^ =72i = ~ (1-Di
l ) (3-1 56)
Tfi =tf(1-Di ) (3-157)
For splitting failure without confining pressure, 7 i i , T l i and ra are bond
stresses corresponding to bond slips Ais , AZr and A3, in the cycle i ,
respectively. They are calculated as:
~ l =Tls
i (l-Di ) (3.158)
~ 2 =TZ=
i (1-Di ) (3- 159)
tfi=rfs (1-Di ) (3-160)
For splitting failure with partial confining pressure, Tli , rzi and TG are
bond stresses corresponding to bond slips AI, ,A2, and A3, in the cycle i ,
respectively. They are calculated as: *
Vi
2 O '
C
Y)
w
E
-5 1
O
p -10
-1 5
-20
-25
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 O 2 4 6 8 10
slip (mm)
4 -2 Experiment Details
4.2.1 Dimensions and Reinforcement Arrangement of the Specimens
A set of four specimens of low-rise reinforced concrete walls was
designed and tested by Eun Hee Choi and Sasha Kurmanovic under
guidance of Professor J.F.Bonacci at the University of Toronto. The main
difference between the four walls was in the design of boundary elements.
Wall- 1 had uniformly distributed web reinforcament without boundary
elements. Concentrated vertical reinforcement was added near the vertical
edges of Wall-2 and Wall-3, but only Wall-3 had transverse (horizontal)
hoops enclosing the concentrated vertical reinforcement. Wall- 1, -2, and -3
had a rectangular cross section for the wall web. Wall4 had a small flange
on each side; the area of concentrated reinforcement was the same as in the
Wall-3 (showri in Figure 4.6).
A top and a bottom beam were designed for each wall. The vertical
reinforcement in the walls was anchored to the top and bottom beams to
achieve the full yielding capacity. The bottom beam was 3500 mm long,
500 mm deep, and 500 mm thick, and the top beam was 2325 mm long,
300 mm deep, and 400 mm thick.
The dimensions and reinforcing bars -ofthe four specimens are s h o w in
Figures 4.7 to 4.1 1 .
Four different types of bars were used to meet the guidelines of the AC1
and CSA Standard. A list of the bars and their characteristics are presented
in Table 4-5 and Figure 4-13.
* assumes perfect bond between the concrete and the steel bars.
Figures 4-87 to 4-92 give the bond slip, bond stress and steel stress at
the outside bottom of the web of Wall-1 for Model 2 using contact
elements. Very small slips are seen in the first three cycles. From cycles 4
to 7 (the peak top deflections of the wall are 2 mm to 4 mm), there are
apparent bond slips. The bond slips are large fkom cycles 7 to 9 (the peak
top deflection of the wall is 10 mm). The peak values of the bond stresses
do not change much fiom cycles 4 to 9. Actually, the peak values of the
bond slips in these cycles lie between Al and A2 , and the bond strength in
these peak values is constant (the horizontal branch FTI of bond stress-slip
curve) for Model 2. In the results coming from Models 3 and 4 , the peak
values of bond stresses decrease gradually from cycle 7 due to peak bond
slips that are larger than Al .
The steel stresses in the three outside vertical bars at the bottom reach
the yield stress during the 6th cycle (the peak top deflection is 4 mm).
Dunng the 8th cycle (the peak top deflection was 10 mm), the steel stresses
in the outside four vertical bars exceeded the yield stress and the stresses in
other vertical steel bars ranged between 40% and 92% of yield stress at the
bottom of the web except for three vertical bars in the middle of the web.
The steel stresses in the outside vertical bars at the bottom web dropped
133
significantly before failure due to bond damage, and the steel stresses in
the inside vertical bars near the horizontal middle of the web were very
large (the largest steel stress is about 1:2 f,). When the wall was about to
fail, the crack width was very large (the largest crack was more than 10
mm). There were large slips (over A2 ) in a zone of near 40% height of the
web at the tensile side, bond stresses were very small, and the steel stresses
dropped suddenly. The wall-then failed.
The maximum concrete compressive stress, at the compressive side of
the wall, was fd= f l when the failure was about to occur. The deflection of
Wall-1 after failure are shown in Figure 4-1 11 to 4-1 17 for assuming
perfect bond and bond-slip Models 2 to 4 and two bond elements. Wall-1
failed due to two factors: large steel bar slips (at the zone near the base of
the web when assuming perfect bond; at the zone near 40% height of the
web wall for Models 2 , 4 ; and at the zone near one-third height of the web
wall for Model 3 in tensile side), and concrete crushing at the compression
face. The computed failure mode was a combination of bond slip and
concrete crushing failure.
* Assumes perfect bond between the concrete and the steel bars.
The computed load-deflection of Wall-2 (at the top of the wall) is
plotted in Figures 4-38 to 4-46 for the five bond models and two types of
elements. Load-deflection envelope computed assuming perfect bond, and
computed using bond-slip Model 2 with contact elements is compared to
the test data in Figure 4-47. The experimentally observed response is given
in Figure 4-48. The convergence of the Model 1 is very poor for large
slips/deflections (deflections larger than 4 mm for linkage elements and 6
mm for contact elements), hence, the ultimate loads and other results
obtained f'kom Model 1 are not reliable. For the other three models, the
results fiom the two types of bond elements show no obvious difference.
The loads calculated assuming perfect bond (i.e., no bond slip) are larger
by about 17% compared to those attained fiom the test. The wall fails
earlier in the analytical models than in the test. The load deflection curves
derived fiom Model 2 agree best with the experimental curves.
The analytical hysteretic loops follow the same trend as the observed
experimental data and successfully represented the amplitude of the
measured data except for the last cycle. The only notable discrepancies
between calculated and observed behavior are the degree of pinching
evident in the load-deflection hysteresis and failure cycle.
The bond slip envelopes for Wall-2 are plotted in Figure 4-8 1 and 4-82
for Model 2. It is evident in the figures that, in the first three cycles, the
slips are very small and the shear wall works as if there is perfect bond
between steel bars and surrounding concrete. The maximum slips are 0.82
mm and 0.87 mm, and minimum slips are -2.88 mm and -2.93 mm for
linkage and contact elements, respectively. The large active slips occur at
the top of the boaom bearn and large negative slips occur in the web zone
near one-third height of the wall up the bottom, due to large concrete
cracks (the largest crack is about 6 mm). When the outside concrete of the
bottom web is uncracked or when cracks are small, the maximum slips
occur at the interfaces between outside tensile steel bars and surrounding
concrete at the bottom of the web. As the cracks of the outside concrete of
the bottom web become large, the maximum slips move toward the
interfaces between the inside tensile steel bars and the surrounding
concrete at bottom of the web. The slip envelopes of Model 2 are the same
for the linkage and contact elements.
Figures 4-93 to 4-98 give the bond slip, bond stress and steel stress at
the outside bottom of the web of Wall-2 for Model 2 using contact
elements. In the fourth and fifth cycles (the peak top deflection of the wall
is 3.5 mm), there are obvious bond slips. The bond slips are large in cycles
6 and 8 (the peak top deflection of the wall is about 7 mm). The peak
values of the bond stresses do not change much fiom cycles 4 to 8, except
during cycle 7 when the peak values of the bond slips in these cycles lie
between Ai and A2 , and the bond strength in these peak values is constant
(the horizontal branch of bond stress and slip c w e ) for Model 2. In
cycle 7 , the maximum (or minimum) slip is less than that of the previous
cycle, so bond stresses are very small. In cycle 8, the bond stresses in most
elements of the web are smaller than in cycle 6 for the large bond slips. In
the results obtained fkom Models 3 and 4 , the peak values of the bond
stresses decrease greatly in cycle 8 due to peak bond slips larger than Ai .
For Model 2, the steel stresses of the three outside vertical bars at the
bottom of the web reach the yield stress during cycles 6 and 8. For Models
3 and 4, the steel stresses of the outside vertical bars at the bottom drop
due to large slips (the peak slips are larger than AI). When the wall is on
the verge of failing, the steel stresses of the inside vertical bars are very
large (the Iargest steel stress was about 1.1 fy), and there are large slips in
the section at one-third height of the web (over A2 ). Bond stresses are very
small, the steel stresses drop suddenly, and then the wall fails .
In al1 loading stages, the compressive stresses in the concrete are less
than the compressive strength of the concrete. The deflections of the Wall-
2 after failure are shown in Figures 4-1 18 to 4-124 for the various bond
models and bond elements. The computed failure of Wall-2 is due tu large
slips and concrete shear damage at the base of the web when assuming
perfect bond, and at a section at about one-third-height of the web for al1
other bond-slip models.
4.3.3 Shear Wall-3
The element mesh used to mode1 Wall-3 is s h o w in Figure 4-23. The
ultimate loads acting at top of the wall are given in Table 4-9 for the
various analyses and test data. From Table 4-9, it can be seen that the
ultimate loads calculated using al1 bond-slip models, except Model 1, are
reasonably similar to the experimental results, with the differences ranging
fiom 0.0% to 5.5% . Model 2 gives ultirnate loads which agree to within
0.0% for the contact elements and 1.9% for the linkage elements. In
general, the contact elements give better ultimate loads than do the linkage
elements. The ultimate load calculated assuming perfect bond is about 23%
larger than that obtained in the experiment.
* assumes perfect bond between the concrete and the steel bars.
The computed load-deflection responses of Wall-3 (at the top of the
wall) are plotted in Figures 4-49 to 4-57 for the five bond-slip models and
the two types of element. The load-deflection envelopes computed
assuming perfect bond, and computed using bond-slip Model 2 with
contact elements, are plotted against the test result in Figure 4-58. Plotted
in Figure 4-59 is the experimental load-deflection response. The
convergence of Model 1 is very poor for large slipddeflections (deflections
larger than 3 mm), so ultimate loads and other results coming fiom Model
1 are not reliable. For the other three models, the results fiom the two types
of bond elements have some apparent differences. The predictions usine
contact elements give better results; the analytical results agree very well
with test data except for the failure cycle. The loads calculated assuming
perfect bond are about 20% larger than those attained fiom the test. The
wall fails earlier in the analytical models than in the test. The load
deflection curves for Wall-3 derived fiom Model 2 best agree with the
experimental curves.
The calculated hysteretic response exhibits the same trend as the
measured data and successfully represents the amplitude of the measured
data except for the last cycle. The only notable discrepancy between the
calculated and measured behavior is the degree of pinching evident in the
load deflection hysteresis.
The bond slip envelopes for Wall-3 are plotted in Figures 4-83 and 4-84
for Model 2 . It is seen in these figures that slips are very small and the
shear wall works as if there is perfect bond between the steel bars and the
surrounding concrete in the first three cycles. The maximum slips are about
0.24 mm and 1.08 mm, and minimum slips are -3.16 mm and -2.73 mm
for linkage elements and contact elements, respectively. The largest active
slips occur at the top of the bottom bearn and the largest negative slips
occur at the one-third height of the web wall due to large cracks (the widest
crack was 5.6 mm) at the tension side of the web.
Figures 4-99 to 4-104 give the bond slip, bond stress and steel stress at
the outside bottom of the web of Wall-3 for Model 2 with contact
elements. During cycles 4 and 5 (the peak top deflection of the wall is 3
mm), there is some apparent bond slip. The bond slips are large during
cycles 6 to 8. The peak values of the bond stresses do not change f?om
cycles 6 to 8, while the peak values of the bond slips in these cycles lie
between Ai and A2 , and the bond strength in these peak values is constant
(the horizontal branch F r , of bond stress-slip c u v e ) for Model 2. In the
8th cycle, the bond stresses in most elements in the web are very small due
to the large bond slips. In the results obtained fkom Models 3 and 4 , the
peak values of bond stresses decrease gradually fiom cycle 6 due to peak
bond slips being larger than AI .
The steel stresses in the outside vertical bars at the bottom web reach
the yield stress in the sixth cycle, and exceed it during the seventh cycle.
The steel stresses of the outside vertical bars at the bottom decrease greatly
when the wall is at the point of failure in the 8th cycle. For Models 3 and 4,
the steel stresses of the outside vertical ban at the bottom cirop earlier and
to a greater extent. When the wall is failing, large slips occur in the zone
near the one-third height of the web. Bond stresses are very small, and the
steel stresses &op suddenly.
At al1 loading stages, the compressive stress in the concrete is less than
the concrete compressive strength. The cracks and defiections of Wall-3
are shown in Figures 4-126 to 4-130 assurning perfect bond and bond-slip
Models 2 to 4, and two bond elements. The computed failure of Wall-3 is
due to large bond slips and concrete shear damage at the base of the web
when assuming perfect bond, and at about one-third height of the web for
al1 other bond-slip models.
4.3.4 Shear Wall4
The element mesh used to mode1 Wall4 is shown in Figure 4-24. The
ultimate loads acting at the top of the wall are given in Table 4-10 for
analytical and test results. From the ultimate loads of Table 4-10, it can be
seen that the correlation between the ultimate loads calculated using TRIX
and experimental results is good; the differences range fiom 1.7% to 3.2%
for al1 models except Model 1. Models 2 and 4 give ultimate loads that
agree exceptionally well with the test data; differences of 1.8% and 1.7%
for the linkage elements, and 2.6% and 2.4% for the contact elements,
respectively, for Models 2 and 4. The ultimate load calculated assuming
perfect bond is about 26% larger than the experimental result.
132
surrounding concrete. During cycles 2 and 3 (the peak top deflections of
the wall are 1 mm), there are apparent bond slips. During cycles 4 and 5
(the peak top deflections of the wall are between 4 mm and 5 mm), there
are large bond slips. The peak values of the bond stresses do not change
from cycle 4 until the wall is about to fail, while the peak values of the
bond slips in these cycles lie between Ai and A2 . n e bond strength in
these peak values is constant (the horizontal brmch r=rl of bond stress-slip
curve) for Model 2. When the wall is about to fail in the 8th cycle, the
bond stresses in most elements of the .web are very small for the large
bond slips. In the results obtained fkom Models 3 and 4, the peak values of
bond stresses decrease gradually from cycle 6 due to peak bond slips that
are larger than Ai .
The stresses in the outside vertical bars at the bottom tension side
reach the yield stress during the first half-cycle of cycle 6, and exceed it in
the second half-cycle of cycle 6 and first half-cycle of cycle 7. The steel
stresses at the bottom of outside vertical bars decrease greatly in the second
half-cycle of cycle 7. For Models 3 and 4, the steel stresses at the bottom
of outside vertical bars drop more rapidly. When the wall is near failing,
large slips occur at the mid-height of the web for Models 2 and 4 using
linkage elements, and at the bottom of the web for d l models using contact
elements and Model 3 (over A2 ) using linkage element. The bond stresses
are very small, and the steel stresses drop suddenly. The wall fails due to
large slips and shear damage.
The maximum compressive stress in the concrete is less than the
compressive strength during al1 loading stages. The computed deflections
of Wall-4 after failure are shown in Figures 4-132 to 4-138 for the various
bond models and bond elernents. The computed failure of Wall4 is due to
large slips and concrete shear damage- at the mid-height of the web for
Models 2 and 4 using linkage elements, and at the bottom of the web for
the other bond-slip Models and bond elements. If assuming perfect bond,
Wall4 fails due to concrete cnishing at the compression side, at the base of
the web.
The computed load-deflection responses of the four test specimens are
plotted in Figure 4-71 to 4-74 for Model 2 with contact bond elements and
assuming perfect bond under monotonic loading. The ultimate loads acting
at the top of the walls are given in Table 4-1 1. When displacements are
small, the differences between the results obtained from the two models
(assuming perfect bond, and Model 2 with contact elements) are small
because of the small bond slips. When displacements are larger, the
differences in the results are greater because of larger bond slips. When the
walls are near failing, the differences in the results fiom the two models
become smaller. The ultimate loads under rnonotonic loading are larger
than those under cyclic loading for both models, but the differences are
small. The ratios of the ultimate loads calculated assuming perfect bond to
those calculated using bond-slip Model 2, under rnonotonic loading, are
slightly smaller than those calculated under cyclic loading.
Table 4-1 1. Compatison o f ultimate loads for the four test walls
calculated assuming perfect bond and-bond-slip Model 2 with
contact bond elements under monotonie loading( kN )
Wall- 1 Wall-2 Wall-3 Wall4
Perfect bond 430 76 1 802 867
Mode1 2 + contact 408 647 659 703
PerfectModel2 1 .O54 1.176 1.217 1.233
-est data
-m-- mode11
,-mode1 2
m o d e 1 3
m o d e 1 4
-test data
+mode1 1
+mode1 2
m o d e 1 3
-x- mode14
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O
Cycle
Cycle
fin
msh
-7 -6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 O 1 2 3 4 5
R'spiacernent (mm)
-12 -10 -8 -6 4 -2 O 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement (mm)
-8 -6 4 -2 O 2 4 6 8
Oisplacement (mm)
- -6 4 -2 O 2 4 6 8
Dispiacement (mm)
-2 O 2
R'splacement (mm)
-2 O 2
Displament (mm)
-PB
+CB2
+Test
-16 -12 -8 4 O 4 8 12 t6 20
Displacement ( mm )
-6 -4 -2 O
Displacement (mm)
-1 0 -8 -6 4 -2 O 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
-12 -1O -8 -6 -4 -2 O 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm)
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 O 2 4 6 8
DispiacemeM (mm)
-PB
+C82
+Test
Displacement ( m m )
-10 -8 4 -2 O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
-10 -8 -6 4 -2 O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
'splacement (mm)
-10 4 4 4 -2 O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Dispiacemecit (mm)
Displacernent (mm)
O 5 10 15
Displacement ( mm )
L
1
(
u
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cycle
4 5 6
Cycle
Fig. 4-80 Bond slip envelope of Wall-1 ( Model 4, contact elements)
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cycle
4 S
Cycle
3 4
Cycle
Fig. 4-84 Bond slip envelope of Wall-3 ( Model 2, contact elements)
3 4
Cycle
Fig. 4-85 Bond slip envelope of Wall4 ( Model 2, linkage elements)
2
1
1.6
1.2 t
I
A
E
E
u
0.8 1
.-
0 0.4
V)
-0.4
-0.8 -
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Cyc le
Fig. 4-86 Bond slip envelope of Wall-4 ( Model 2, contact elements)
4 5 6
Cycle
4 5 6
Cycle
Fig. 4-90 Bond stress at the north bottom of the Wall-1
(Model 2, contact elements).
Fig. 4-91 Steel stress at the south bottom of Wall-1
(Model 2, contact elements)
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cycle
Fig. 4-92 Steel stress at the north bottom of Wall-1
(Model 2, contact elements)
O 1 4 5
Cycle
4 5
Cycle
4 5
Cycle
Fig. 4-95 Bond stress at the south bottom of Wall-2
(Model 2, contact elements)
' 1
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cple
Fig. 4-96 Bond stress at the north bottom of Wall-2
(Model 2, contact elements)
-500 ' I
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cycle
Fig. 4-97 Steel stress at the south bottom of Wall-2
(Model 2, contact elements)
4 5
Cycle
Fig. 4-98 Steel stress at the north bottom of Wall-2
(Model 2, contact elernents)
4
Cycle
Fig. 4-99 Bond slip at the south bottom o f Wall-3
(Model2, contact elements)
Cycle
-5 J
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Cycle
Fig. 4-102 Bond stress at the north bottom of Wall-3
(Model 2, contact elements)
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Cycle
Fig. 4-1 03 Steel stress at the south bottom of Wall-3
(Model 2, contact elements)
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cycle
4
Cycle
Fig. 4-1 10 Steel stress at the north bottom of W a l l 4
(Mode1 2, contact elements)
Fig. 4- 1 1 1 Deflection of Wall-1 after failure (assuming perfect bond)
Fig. 4- 1 12 Deflections of Wall-1 after failure (linkage elements, Mode1 2)
Fig. 4-1 13 Deflections of Wall-1 after failure (linkage elements, Mode1 3)
Fig. 4- 1 14 Defiections of Wall- l afier failure (linkage elements, Mode1 4)
Fig. 4-1 15 Deflections of Wall-1 afier failure (contact elements, Mode1 2)
Fig. 4- 1 16 Deflections of Wall- 1 after failure (contact elements, Mode1 3)
Fig. 4- 1 17 Deflections of Wall- 1 afier failure (contact elements, Mode1 4)
Fig. 4-1 18 Deflection of Wall-2 after failure (assuming perfect bond)
Fig. 4-1 19 Deflections of Wall-2 afier failure (linkage elements, Mode1 2)
Fig. 4-120 Deflections of Wall-2 afier failure (linkage elements, Mode1 3)
Fig. 4-1 2 1 Deflections of Wall-2 after failure (linkage elements, Mode1 4)
Fig. 4-1 22 Deflections of Wall-2 after failure (contact elements, Mode1 2)
Fig. 4-123 Deflections of Wall-2 after failure (contact elements, Mode1 3)
Fig. 4- 124 Deflections o f Wall-2 after failure (contact elements, Model4)
Fig. 4- 125 Deflection of Wall-3 after failure (assuming perfect bond)
Fig. 4-1 26 Deflections of Wall-3 after failure (linkage elements, Model2)
Fig. 4-127 Deflections of Wall-3 afier failure (linkage elements, Mode1 3)
Fig. 4-1 28 Deflections of Wall-3 afier failure (linkage elements, Mode1 4)
Fig. 4-1 29 Deflections of Wall-3 afier failure (contact elements, Model2)
Fig. 4-130 Deflections of Wall-3 after failure (contact elements, Mode1 3)
Fig. 4- 13 1 Deflections of Wall-3 afier failure (contact elements, Mode1 4)
Fig. 4- 1 3 2 Deflection of Wall-4 after failure (assuming perfect bond)
Fig. 4-1 33 Deflection of Wall-4 after failure (linkage element, Mode1 2)
Fig. 4-1 34 Deflections of Wall-4 afier failure (linkage elements, Mode1 3)
Fig. 4-1 35 Deflection o f Wall-4 after failure (linkage element, Mode1 4)
Fig. 1-136 Deflections of Wall-4 after failure (contact elements, Mode1 2)
Fig. 4-137 Deflections of Wall-4 afier failure (contact elements, Mode1 3)
Fig. 4-1 38 Deflections of Wall-4 after failure (contact elements, Mode1 4 )
CNAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Discussion
For the four examined walls, during the first two cycles (peak
deflections not more than 1 mm), bar slips were negligible and the shear
walls behaved as if there was perfect bond between the steel bars and the
surrounding concrete.
Large positive slips occwed above the bottom beam and large negative
slips occurred at the section from one-third to one-half the height of the
web due to large cracks in the tension zone of the web. When the outside
concrete of the bottom web was uncracked or when cracks were srnall, the
maximum slips occurred at the interfaces between outside tension steel
bars and the surrounding concrete near the bottom regions of the web. As
the cracks on the outside concrete of the bottom web became larger, the
maximum slips moved toward the interfaces between inside tension steel
bars and the surrounding concrete at the base of the web.
The differences between the perfect bond mode1 and the experimental
data increased with the increase in stifniess of the wdl. The larger the
stiffness of the wall, the more significant the difference.
The damage index D of the bond resistance due to cyclic loading was
small. It was very close to zero for many of the elements, and about 8% to
20% only for a small number of the elements. It should be emphasized that
the damage index D does not compute accurately in the models used in this
paper. Due to the lack of experimental data on the reduction of bond
resistance under unidirectional cyclic loading, it is assumed that the
damage of bond resistance occurs under reversed cyclic loading only.
Actually, the damage of bond resistance also occurs under unidirectional
cyclic loading. Although the loading history of al1 four walls is reversed
cyclic loading, the slips are unidirectionai cyclic for a certain number of
elements; for example, the elements in the horizontal middle of the web.
This factor is very important for predicting the load-deflection response
accurately when top deflections are large, because the bond resistance in
the outside web of the tension side is very small in this situation. To
analyze the reinforced concrete structures more accurately for large slips
under cyclic loading, it is recommended that experimental research be
undertaken in order to obtain test data under unidirectional cyclic loading.
It is noted that Wall-2 and Wall-3 achieved the sarne ultimate load
during testing, and Wall4 with a barbell-shaped cross section had a
ultimate load slightly higher than that of a rectangular section with the
same amount and detailing of web and boundary reinforcement. Choi
concluded fiom the above data that the horizontal hoops did not affect the
shear strength of the wall, and the flange of the cross section only aflected
the shear strength slightly. It is this author's contention that his conclusions
were incorrect. Because the loading histories were different, the responses
of Wall-2, Wall-3 and Wall4 are not comparable. Actually, the effect of
the reinforcement hoops is considered in the theoretical models by
enhancement of the bond resistance and concrete strength in the area of the
hoops, and the ultimate loads predicted by finite analysis were very close
to those observed in the experiments. This indicates that the hoops
influenced the response of the walls. As for the function of the web
flanges, they affected the response greatly when uncracked, and the effect
become smaller when cracked. However, they still had the efFect of
undertaking compression at the compressive side of the wall.
For al1 four shear walls modeled by bond-slip Models 2 to 4, the
analytically computed hysteretic responses showed the same trends as
measured experimentally, and the computed ultimate lateral loads
correlated very closely to those experimentally recorded, as shown in
Table 5-1. The stifniess of the walls is diminished by increasing the
number of cycles of reversed cyclic bading. Residual deflections upon
unloading are significant and cumulative. Excellent agreement of the
Models 2, 3 and 4 with test results is observed for al1 experimental walls.
There are only two apparent differences between analytical responses with
experimental results. Firstly; the experimental load-deflection curves show
more pinching in the hysteretic loops than those of finite element analysis.
Secondly, the al1 four walls failed one cycle earlier in theoretical analysis
than in experiment. These may be related to two factors. First, the
hysteretic models used for the compression and tension response of
concrete are preliminary, and currently under further development.
Secondly, the hysteretic models of the bond stress-slip relationship may be
inaccurate. It is noted that the bond stress-slip relationship shows wide
scatter in experimental investigations, even under rnonotonic loading. Of
course, the hysteretic mode1 of the bond stress-slip relationship shows
even greater scatter under cyclic loading. It is very dificult to predict bond
stresses and slips of a reinforced concrete structure accurately at present.
The darnage of bond resistance is underestimated due to ignoring the
reduction of bond resistance under unidirectional cyclic slips. It results in a
computed response that is stiffer than seen in the actual structure, therefore
the ultimate loads occur earlier and the structures fail earlier than obsewed
in the experiment.
Table 5-1 Cornparison of ultimate loads of walls
fiom test data and FE analysis ( kN )
1 FE Analysis 1 Test data 1
Wall ink ka& Element Contact Element
Model 2 Model 4- Model 2 Mode14
Wall-1 load 408 403 404 403 400
FE/Test 1.020 1.008 1.O10 1.008
Wall-2 load 643 624 64 1 633 640
FE/Test 1.O08 0.974 1.003 0.989
Wall-3 load 64 1 627 652 632 640
FE/Test 1.O02 0.980 1.019 0.988
Wall4 load 692 69 1 698 696 680
FE/Test 1.018 1.017 1.O26 1.O24
Total FE/Test 1.012 0.995 1.015 1 1.002
Model 2 gives the closest fit to the experimental data. Model 4 also
gives excellent agreement with the data observed in experiment. The
analyses using Model 1 are convergent only when the slips are very small;
this model is not recommended for theoretical modeling of the bond stress-
slip relationship.
The analytical responses computed using contact elements match
slightly better with the experimental data than those cdculated using
linkage elements. The linkage element is not well behaved because its
constant displacement function can not model the non-constant slip field.
The contact element, with a linear displacement function, c m model the
linear slip field exactly. Also, it gives a better approximation of the
nonlinear slip field than does the lnkage element.
5.2. Conclusions
This thesis studied the bond stress-slip relationship under both
rnonotonic loading and cyclic loading. It presented formulations for four
types of bond-slip models and two types of bond-slip elements for use in
finite element analysis. These formulations were implemented into the
finite element program TRIX99. The thesis compared results kom
different analytical models and bond elements for a series of four
reinforced concrete shear walls. The bond-slip Model 2 (by Eligehausen et
al) and Model 4 (proposed by the author of this thesis), in conjunction
with contact elements, is recommended for use in analysis of reinforced
concrete structures.
The thesis documents a reliable analytical tool. The results of the
validation studies demonstrate that the analytical models are capable of
reproducing most of the important aspects of the measured cyclic
responses of reinforced concrete walls with a variety of cyclic loading
histones and wall configurations. The degradation of bond resistance is
included in the finite element program.
The analytical results obtained using the modified program T m 9 9
show excellent correlation with the experimental measurements of the
reinforced concrete walls with different cross sections and reinforcement
arrangements. The prograrn is able to successfully compute the load-
deflection values of the walls under cyclic loading. The proposed finite
element formulation provides an efficient method for evaluating the
rnonotonic and cyclic response of the reinforced concrete structures.
Although this study is restricted to 2-D prablems, the bond-slip element
can easily be adapted to 3-D problems and added to 3-D finite element
programs.
Due to the lack of experimental data on t!e reduction of bond resistance
under unidirectional cyclic loading, the darnage of bond resistance is
considered only under reversed cyclic loading in this thesis. To analyze the
reinforced concrete structures more accurately for large slips under cyclic
loading, more experimental research is needed in order to obtain the
unidirectional experimental data.
REFERENCES
AC1 Committee 408,1966. "Bond Stress- The State of The Art", AC1
Journal, Vol. 63 ,No. 11 ,November, pp. 1161-1188.
AC1 Committee 408, 1991. "Abstract of: State-of-the-art-report: Bond under
Cyclic Loads", AC1 Materials Journal, Vol. 88, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 669-
673.
Abrishami, H. H., and Mitchell, D., 1992. "Simulation of Uniform Bond
Stress," AC1 Material Joumal, Vol. 89, No. 2, pp. 161-168.
Abrishami, H. H. and Mitchell, D., 1996. "Analysis of Bond Stress
Distributions in Pull-out Specimens", Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 122, No. 3, March , pp. 255-26 1.
Allwood, R. J. and Bajarwan, A. A., 1996. "Modeling Nonlinear Bond-Slip
Behavior for Finite Element Analysis of Reinf'orced Concrete Structures",
AC1 Structural Journal, VOL 93, No. 5, September-October, pp. 538-544.
7
Alsiwat, J. M. and Saatcioglu, M., 1992. "Reinfocement Anchorage Slip
under Monotonic Loading", Journal of ~hucturalEngineering, ASCE, Vol.
118, No. 9, Sept., pp. 242 1-2438.
Ayoub, A. and Filippou, F. F., 1999. "Mixed Formulation of Bond-Slip
Problems Under Cyclic Loads", Journal of Structnial Engineering, Vol.
125, No. 6, June, pp. 661-671.
Ayyub, B. M., Mutairi, N. A. and Chang, P., 1994. "Bond Strength of
Welded Wire Fabric in Concrete Bridge Decks", Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 8, August, pp. 2520-2531.
Azizinzmini, A., Stark, M., Roller, J. J., and Ghosh, S.K., 1993. "Bond
Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in High-Strength Concrete",
AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 5, Sep.-Oct., pp. 554-56 1.
243
Chajes, M. J., Finch, W. W., Januszka, T. F., and Thomson, T. A. , 1996.
"Bond and Force Transfer of Composite Material Plates Bonded to
Concrete", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 2, March-Apnl, pp. 208-
218.
Channakeshava, C. and Sundara, R. I., 1988. "Elasto-Plastic Cracking
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete ", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
114, No. 11, Nov., pp. 2421.2438.
Charles K. K., 1997. "Relationship of Bond Stress, Steel Stress, and Slip in
Reinforced Concrete", Joumal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 1,
Jan., pp. 79-85.
Cook, R. A., Doerr, G. T. and Klingner, R. E., 1993. "Bond Stress Mode1
for Design of Adhesive Anchors", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 5,
September-October, pp. 5 14-524.
Edwards, A. D., and Yannopoulos, P. J., 1979. "Local Bond-Stress to Slip
Relationships for Hot Rolled Deformed Bars and Mild Steel Plain Bars,"
AC1 Journal, Vol. 76, No. 3, March, 1979, pp. 405-420.
Eligeliausen, R., Popov, E., and Bertero, V., 1983. "Local Bond Stress-Slip
Relationship of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitations", Report No.
UCBEERC-83/23, Earthquake Engineering Center, University of
California, Berkeley.
Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. v., 1998. "Bond Between Normal
Strength and High-Strength Concrete (HSC) and Reinforcing Bars in
Splices in Beams", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 95, No. 3, May-June, pp.
272-280.
Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V., 1998. "Local Bond Strength of
Reinforcing Bars in Normal Strength and High-Strength Concrete", AC1
Structural Joumal, Vol. 95, No. 2, March-April, pp. 96-106.
Fillippou, F. C., Popov, E. P. F. and Bertero, V., 1983. "Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Joints under Cydic Excitations," Vol. 109, No. 1 1,
Nov., pp. 2666-2684.
Fillippou, F. C., 1986. "A Simple Model for Reinforcing Bar Anchorage
under Cyclic Excitations", Journal Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112,
No. 7, July, pp. 1639-1659 .
Fillippou, F. C . , Popov, E. P. F. and Bertero, V., 1983. "Effects of Bond
Deterioration on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Joints",
UCBEERC-83/19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
Cd ifomia, Berkeley.
Filippou, F. C., Popov, E. P. F., and Bertero, V., 1986. "Analytical Studies
of Hysteretic Behavior of R C Joints7', Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 7, July, pp. 16054622.
Gajer, G., and Dux, P. F., 1990. "Crack Band Based Model for FEM
Analysis of Concrete Structures", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
116, No. 6, June, 1696-1714.
Gambarova, P. G., and Rosati, G. P., and Zasso, B. , 1989. "Steel-to-
Concrete Bond After Concrete Spiitting: Test Results", Materials and
Structures, Vol. 22, pp. 35-47.
Giuriani, E., Plinari, G. and Schumm, C., 1991. "Role of Stimps and
Residual Tensile Strength of Cracked Concrete on Bond", Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE,Vol. 117, No. 1, Jan., pp. 1-18.
Harnoush, S. A. and Salami, M. R., 1990. "Interfacial Strain Energy
Release Rate of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Based on Bond Stress-Slip
Relationship", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 6, November-
December, pp. 678-686.
Harajli, M. H. and Mukaddam, M. A., 1988. "Slip of Steel Bars in Concrete
Joints under Cyclic Loading", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 114, No. 9, Sept., pp. 20 17-2035.
Hayashi, S and Kokusho, S., 1985. ""BondBehavior in the Neighborhood of
the Crack", Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
ASCE, pp. 364-373.
Hota, S., and Naaman, A. E., 1997. "Bond Stress-Slip Response of
Reinforcing Bars Embedded in FRC Matrices under Monotonie and Cyclic
Loading", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5, September-October , pp.
525-537.
Ingraffea, A. R., Gerstle, W. H., Gergely, P. and Saouma, V., 1984.
"Fracture Mechanics of Bond in Reinforced Concrete", Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE ,Vol. 110, No. 4, Apnl ,pp. 87 1-890.
Inoue, N., Koshika, N., and Suzuki, N., 1985. "Analysis of Shear Wall
Based on Collins Panel Test", Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, ASCE, pp. 288-300.
Ismail, M. A. F., and Jirsa, J. O., 1972. "Bond Deterioration of Reinforced
Concrete Subject to Low Cycle Loads", AC1 Joumal, Vol. 69, No. 6, June,
pp. 334-343.
Jiang , D. H., Shah, S. P. and Anderian, A. T., 1984. " Study of the
Transfer of T e n d e Forces by Bond", AC1 Journal, Vol. 81, No. 3, May-
June, pp. 251-259.
Kent, D. C . and Park, R., 1971. "Flexural Members with Confined
Concrete", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. 7, July,
pp. 1969-1990.
Keuser, M., Mehlhom, G. and Cornelius, V., 1983. "Bond Between
Prestressed Steel and Concrete - Computer Analysis Using ADINA",
Computer & Structures ,Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 669-676.
Keuser, M. and Mehlhom, G., 1987. "Finite Element Models for Bond
Problems", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 10,
October, pp. 2 160-2173.
Lutz, L. A. and Gergely, P., 1967. "Mechanics of Bond and Slip of
Defonned Bars in Concrete", AC1 Joumal , Vol. 64 , No. 11, November
pp. 711-721.
Mehlhom, G. and Keuser, M. 1985. "Isoparametnc Contact Elements for
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures", Finite Element Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Structures, ASCE, pp. 329-347.
Mina, S. M., and Houde, J., 1979. "Study of Bond-Slip Relationships in
Reinforced Concrete", AC1 Joumal, Vol. 76, No. 1, January, pp. 19- 46.
Morita, S., and Fujii, S.," Bond-slip Models In Finite Element Analysis",
Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, ASCE, 1985,
pp. 348-363.
Mirza, S. A., 1987. "Bond Strength Statistics of Flexural Reinforcement on
Concrete Beams", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 84, No. 5, September-
October, pp 383-391.
Monti, G., Fillippou, F. C. and Spacone, E., 1997. "A Finite Element for
Anchored Bars under Cyclic Load Reversais", Journal Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 5, May, pp. 614-623.
Morsi, M. E., Kianoush, M .R. and Tso, W. K., 1998. ''Nonlinear Analysis
of Cyclically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Structures", AC1 Structural
Journal, Vol. 95, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 725-739.
Naaman, A. E., Namur, G. G., Alwan, G. M. and Najm, H. S., 1991. "Fiber
Pullout and Bond Slip I : Analytical Study", Joumal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 9, Sept., pp. 276992790.
Naaman, A. E., Namur, G. G., Alwan, G. M., and Najm, H. S., 1991. "Fiber
Pullout and Bond Slip II : Experimental Validation", Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 9, Sept., pp. 279 1-2800.
Narnmur, G. J. and Naaman, A. E., 1989. ""Bond Stress Mode1 for Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Based on Bond Stress-Slip Relationship", AC1
Materials Journal , Vol. 86, No. 1, January-Febmary, pp. 45-57.
Neuenhofer, A., and Fillippou, F. C., 1997. "Evaluation of Nonlinear Frame
Finite Element Models", Journal Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 123,
No. 7, July, pp. 958-966.
Ngo, D. and Scordelis, A. C., 1967. "Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Beams", AC1 Joumal, Vol. 64, No. 3, March, pp. 152- 163.
Nilson, A. H., 1968. 'Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete by the
Finite Element Method", AC1 Journal Vol. 65, No. 9, September, pp. 757-
766.
Nilson, A. H., 1972. " Intemal Measurement of Bond Slip ," AC1 Journal,
Vol. 69, No. 7, July, pp. 439-441.
Niwa, J., Chou, L. L., Shima, H., and Okamura, H., 1985, 'Wonlinear
Spring Element for Bond-Slip Relationship of a Deformed Bar", Finite
Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, ASCE, pp. 374-383
Perry, E. S. and Thompson, J. N., 1968. "Bond Stress Distribution on
Reinforcing Steel in Beams and Pull-out Specimens", AC1 Journal, Vol.
65, No. 9, September, pp. 865-874.
Pochanart, S. and Hannon, T., 1989. "Bond-Slip Model for Generalized
Excitations Including Fatigue", AC1 Materials Journal, Vol. 86, No. 5,
September-October, pp. 465-474.
Rhem, G., and Eligehausen, R., 1979. "Bond of Ribbed Bars under High
Cycle Repeated Loads", AC1 Journal, Vol. 76, No. 2, Feb., pp. 297-309.
Russo, G., Zingone, G. ar.d Romano, F., 1990. "Analytical Solution for
Bond-Slip of Reinforced Bars in R. C. Joints", Journal of Structura1
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 2, Feb., pp. 336-355.
Russo, G., Zingone, G. and Romano, F., 1990. "Analytical Solution for
Bond-Slip of Reinforcing Bars in R. C. Joints", Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 2, Feb., pp. 336-355.
Schnobrich, W. C., 1985. "The role of Finite Element Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Structures", Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, ASCE, pp. 1- 12.
Scordelis, A. C., 1991. "Past, Present and Future Developments", Finite
Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures II, ASCE, pp. 656-
666.
Scott, R.H., and Gill, P. A. T., 1987. "Short-Term Distribution of Strain and
Bond Stress dong Tension Reinforcement", Journal of Stmctural
Engineering, Vol. 65B(2), June, pp. 39-43.
Scott, B. D., Park, R. and Priestley, M. J. N., 1982. "Stress-Strain Behavior
of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hooks at Low and High Strain Rates",
AC1 Journal, Vol. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 13-27.
Shirai, N., 1985, "Applicability of Smeared-Type Reinforced Concrete
Model Based upon Anisotropic Constitutive Law", Finite Element Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Structures, ASCE, pp. 384-400
Sittipunt, C. and Wood, S. L., 1995. "Muence of Web Reinforcement on
the Cyclic Response of Structural Walls", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 92,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 745-756.
Somayaji, S. and Shah, S. P., 1981. "Bond Stress Versus Slip Relationship
and Cracking Response of Tension Members", AC1 Journal, Vol. 78, No.
3, May-June, pp. 217-225.
Soretz, S. and Holzenbein, H., 1979. " Influence of Rib Dimensions of
Reinforcing Bars on Bond and Bendability", AC1 Journal, Vol. 76, No. 1,
January, pp. 111-126.
Soric, Z. and Tallin, L. G., 1989. "Bond Stress /Deformation in Pull-out
Masonry Specirnens", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115,
No. 10, Oct., pp. 2588-2602.
Soroushian, P., Obasaki, K. and Marikunte, S. , 1991. "Analytical Modeling
of Bonded Bars under Cyclic Loads", Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1, Jan., pp. 48-60.
Soroushian ,P., and Choi, K. B., 1989. "Local Bond of Deformed Bars with
Different Diameters in Confined Concrete", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 86,
NO.2, pp. 217-222.
Tassios, T. P. and Yannopoulos, P. J., 1981. "Analytical Studies on
Rzinforced Concrete Members Under Cyclic Loading Based on Bond
Stress-Slip Relationships", AC1 Joumal, Vol. 78, No. 3, May-June, pp.
206-2 16.
Tassios, T. P. and Koroneos, E. G., 1984. "Local Bond-Slip Relationships
by Means of the Moire Method, AC1 Joumal, Vol. 81, No. 1, January-
February, pp. 27-34.
Tsubaki, T., 1985. "Shear Transfer Across Interface in Boundary Element
Analysis of Concrete Structures", Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, ASCE, pp. 265-276.
Vecchio, F. J., 1999. ccTowards Cyclic Load Modeling of Reinforced
Concrete", AC1 Stnictnial Journal, Vol. 96, No. 2, March-Apd, pp. 193-
202.
Vecchio, F. J., 1992. "Finite Element Modeling of Concrete Expansion and
Confinement", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 9,
Sept., pp. 2390-2398.
Yang, S. and Chen, J., 1988. "Bond Slip and Crack Width Calculations of
Tension Members", AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 85, No. 4, July-August ,
pp. 4 14-422
Yankelevsky, D. Z., 1985. "Bond Action Between Concrete and Deformed
Bar- A New Model", AC1 Journal, Vol. 82, No. 2, March - April, pp. 154-
161.
Yankelevsky, D. Z., 1985. "New Finite Element for Bond-Slip Analysis",
Vol. 111, No. 7, July, pp. 1535-1 542.