See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273331267

Modified steel bar model incorporating bond-slip effects for embedded

element method

Article  in  Construction and Building Materials · April 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.027

CITATIONS READS

16 286

2 authors:

M. Dehestani Seyed Sina Mousavi Ojarestaghi

Babol Noshirvani University of Technology École de Technologie Supérieure
53 PUBLICATIONS   531 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mechanical Properties of Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate Concrete Exposed to Elevated Temperatures due to Fire View project

bond-slip View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Seyed Sina Mousavi Ojarestaghi on 16 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Construction and Building Materials 81 (2015) 284–290

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Modified steel bar model incorporating bond-slip effects for embedded

element method
M. Dehestani ⇑, S.S. Mousavi
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

h i g h l i g h t s

 A simple embedded element is introduced to consider interactional effect.

 The elastic modulus of steel and its yield stress is reduced in model.
 Effects of various parameters pertaining to concrete and steel were examined.
 Elastic modulus of the steel is reduced to consider the bond-slip effects.
 The model can be used in complex structures with simplicity.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The interaction between the steel bar and concrete is one of the most important issues that control the
Received 19 November 2014 efficiency of the composite behavior. Accurate evaluation of the interaction between the reinforcement
Received in revised form 22 January 2015 and the surrounding concrete can lead to more reliable finite element models. The implementation of
Accepted 18 February 2015
a modified steel bar model in embedded elements to consider the bond-slip phenomenon is presented
in this study. The procedure includes the addition of equivalent bond strain to the strain of the steel
bar. This leads to a decrease in the effective stiffness of steel bar in the layered model. Validation of
Keywords:
the modified steel bar model with existing experimental results demonstrates that the model is capable
Steel bar
Embedded element
to consider the bond effects in embedded elements for use in analysis of reinforced concrete structure. A
Bond-slip effect comprehensive parametric study is accomplished to obtain the influence of parameters such as concrete
Effective bond strain and steel properties, bar diameter, reinforcement ratio and confinement conditions on modification
Transmission length factors. Results revealed the significant effect of bond-slip on total behavior of the member.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In construction, steel reinforced concrete (RC) is widely used as
a structural material in the world. The interaction between the
reinforcement and the surrounding concrete has important effect
on design procedure, and therefore is of great interest to research-
ers. This phenomenon strongly influences the behavior of rein-
forced concrete members and controls the structural efficiency of
a RC element. Bond stresses between the reinforcing bars and con-
crete is a function of slip, which is associated with the difference
between the strains in concrete and the reinforcing bar. The
Bond-slip diagram demonstrates the variation of the bond stress
with respect to slip in the interaction boundary between two
⇑ Corresponding author at: Postal Box: 484, Babol Postal Code: 47148-71167,
Iran. Tel./fax: +981132331707.
E-mail addresses: dehestani@gmail.com (M. Dehestani), seyedsina.m@gmail.
com (S.S. Mousavi).
materials. A numerical model that can closely simulate the interac-
tion effect is required for proper evaluation of concrete–bar inter-
action. Presence of the bar in the concrete enhances the strength
and stiffness of the composite element.
There are two common types of element used in the modeling
of the composite behavior. In an accurate model denoted by ‘‘dis-
crete element’’, the concrete and steel parts are considered
separately. In the other model called ‘‘embedded element’’, the
reinforcing bar is considered as an additional axial component like
stiffening fiber embedded in concrete element and its nodal dis-
placements are consistent with those of the concrete elements
[1]. This model assumes perfect bond between concrete and bar
with no slip.
Although the discrete model is more precise than the embedded
model, using this type of model leads to restrictions on mesh gen-
eration and also increase in the number of required mesh. There-
fore, the convergence of the model is very time-consuming and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.027
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Dehestani, S.S. Mousavi / Construction and Building Materials 81 (2015) 284–290
the procedure is not applicable for large systems. In contrast, the
embedded element needs less time and is applicable for larger
and more complex structures.
Until now, different methods have been employed for consider-
ing bond-slip effects in finite element analysis. Ngo and Scordelis
[2] have used bond-link model to account for bond-slip in FE ana-
lysis for which a node of concrete is connected to a node of steel
rebar and the link element has no physical dimension. In the other
work, Groot et al. [3] have defined an area between concrete and
steel bar, called bond- zone, to consider the bond-slip property.
Different kinds of interactions such as translation and rotation
can be considered in this method. This method is not appropriate
for complex systems with large number of nodes, which lead to
increase in the degree of freedom for the whole model.
Kwak and Filippou [4] have proposed a modified model to
develop bond-link element. In their model, the stiffness of the rein-
forcing steel element has been reduced due to the bond-slip effect
with no double nodes for defining bond element. Although the
method was simple, some of the influential parameters cannot
be considered in their method. Monti et al. [5–7] have used the
force-based fiber element presented by Spacone et al. [8] to consid-
er the bond-slip effect in reinforcing bar model. The sum of the
steel strain and the anchorage slip strain was used as the fiber sec-
tion strain. However, the effective strain of bond has not been pre-
cisely computed in this model and also the location of cracks has
been neglected. Kwak and Kim [9] have presented modified steel
bar model in analysis of RC frame under cyclic load. In this model,
the strength and elastic modulus of steel reinforcing bar were
modified. The procedure of the computation was accurate. Howev-
er, the method needs much computational effort to be implement-
ed for complex systems.
Zhou et al. [10] have used embedded bond-slip model for soil–
nail interaction. In their study, two user-defined 4-node plane
interface elements were defined along the soil–nail contact.
Although with this new method, the shear deformation along the
soil–nail interaction can be obtained in the normal and tangential
directions, but the number of nodes and also the degrees of
freedom increased which lead to much time for processing.
1.1. Research significance
Although the bond effects on the mechanical behavior of
embedded model were studied in some papers, a simple method
to be used in common finite element software has been rarely
employed in previous works.
In this study, a modified steel bar model is developed to consid-
er the bond-slip effects in the embedded element. This modified
simple embedded element can be used in large complex composite
structures to obtain reliable and precise results in finite element
model. According to the simplicity of the method, a comprehensive
parametric analysis is employed to determine the influence of
various effective parameters.
2. Modified steel bar model
Relative displacement between concrete and steel bar can make
the composite behavior more ductile. In fact, displacement of the
RC members is controlled by the bond behavior. In this field, Cash-
ell et al. [11] have shown that a relatively high bond stress causes
the member to fail at an early stage whereas a lower bond results
in a substantially larger failure displacement. Therefore, it is essen-
tial to develop an efficient new model to consider the bond-slip
effects in finite element modeling. The stress–strain relation of a
steel rebar is usually shown by a bilinear curve with an explicit
yield stress, fy. Many stress–strain models for steel bar embedded
285
in concrete have been proposed based on experimental and analy-
tical methods. Belarbi and Hsu [12] have described a linear stress
strain relationship of steel bar model from experimental data in
which the real yield strength of steel bar embedded in concrete,

f y can be obtained from:

fy
¼ ð0:93  2BÞ ð1Þ
fy
1:5
where the effective yield stress is a function of B ¼ ðf cr =f y Þ =q. In
this equation, q is the reinforcement ratio and fcr represent the ten-
sile cracking stress of concrete at cracking strain of about 8  105.
In addition to the yield stress, the stress–strain relationship is
modified is this study. To this aim, the equivalent strain of bond-s-
lip effect is added to the strain of steel reinforcing bar. As shown in
Fig. 1, the total deformation of steel rebar is assumed to be sum of
its own mechanical strain, and the displacement related to the slip.
In order to describe the principles of method, consider a rein-
forced concrete member in bending. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the dis-
tance between two adjacent cracks in the member is denoted by Sr.
The concrete located between the bending cracks participates in
the tensile strength of the cross section. However, in the cracked
section, the concrete has no effect on the tensile strength and the
tension force is entirely transferred to the steel reinforcing bar.
So according to Fig. 2(b), the stress concentration occurs at the
cracked section. There is no bond stress between concrete and
rebar at the cracked section, which causes the strain and also the
stress concentration. According to the principle features of the
modified embedded model, the modified elastic modulus of steel
reinforcing bar can be written as:

fy
Es ¼ ð2Þ
es þ ðd=lÞ
where fy⁄ is the effective yield stress of the steel bar which can be
obtain from Eq. (1), es is the strain of the steel bar corresponding
to the stress of fy⁄ in steel bar model and d is the maximum slip
of the steel bar. In Eq. (2), l is the transmission length of bond
strength between the steel bar and the surrounding concrete. As
depicted in Fig. 3, the maximum slip of the steel rebar in RC mem-
bers depends on the failure conditions [13–15], which is a function
of several important parameters such as steel diameter, concrete
cover of reinforcement and confinement conditions of reinforce-
ment. Nevertheless, in CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [16], the slip at
peak of bond-slip curve corresponding to the maximum bond stress
was described by parameter S1, which has 2 constant values,
0.6 mm for unconfined concrete and 1.0 mm for confined concrete.
A more precise estimation of the maximum slip has been presented
by Wu and Zhao [17] who expressed the slip at peak of bond-slip
curve as:
0:7315 þ K
d¼ ð3Þ
5:176 þ 0:3333K
where
Fig. 1. Steel rebar in concrete.
286 M. Dehestani, S.S. Mousavi / Construction and Building Materials 81 (2015) 284–290

where es and ec are steel and concrete strains, respectively. As

shown in Fig. 2(c), concrete and steel bar have same strain at the
middle distance. Therefore, according to Eq. (7), there is no slip at
the middle point of the member. It can be deduced that the maxi-
mum slip, d, is related to the half of the distance between two adja-
cent cracks. Thus, the transmission length l can be determined
from:
SrðminÞ ¼ 2l ð8Þ
where Sr(min) is the length between two adjacent cracks, which is
equivalent to the minimum crack spacing. Eq. (9) shows the average
spacing of flexural cracks given by CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [16].
2 db
Srm ¼  ð9Þ
3 3:6qeff

where qeff is effective reinforcement ratio and can be obtained

from:
As
qeff ¼ ð10Þ
Ac;eff
Fig. 2. Behavior of RC member under bending: (a) tension segment; (b) stress
distribution; (c) strain distribution. where Ac,eff is the effective concrete area in tension which is usually
obtained by a simplified approaches, such as those in Eurocode 2
[20] or CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [16]. For rectangular cross
K ¼ K co þ 33K st ð4Þ sections:

C Ac;eff ¼ 2:5ðh  dÞb ð11Þ

K co ¼ ð5Þ
db where h is total depth of cross section, d is effective depth of cross
where C and db are concrete cover and bar diameter, respectively. section and b is width of cross section. An extended formula for Ac,eff
Also, it is well recognized in the literature [13,18,19], that stirrups can be developed by taking into consideration the size effect, which
provide confinement for concrete and may significantly increase was proposed by Bergner [21].
the bond strength. The effect of stirrups has been considered by Ac;eff ¼ mðh  dÞb ð12Þ
Kst in Eq. (4). Kst is given by:
In which:
Ast1 8
K st ¼ ð6Þ > h=ðh  dÞ 0 6 h=ðh  dÞ 6 5
CSst <
m¼ 3:33 þ 0:33h=ðh  dÞ 5 < h=ðh  dÞ 6 35 ð13Þ
where Ast1 is the area of one leg of the stirrup, C is the minimum >
:
concrete cover and Sst is the stirrup spacing [17]. 15 35 < h=ðh  dÞ
The relative displacement between steel rebar and concrete can Borosnyoi and Balazs [22] have evaluated the ratio between the
be obtained by: minimum and the average crack spacing between 0.67 and 0.77.
Z x Now, the minimum crack spacing can be obtained and eventually
dðxÞ ¼ ðes  ec Þdx ð7Þ the transmission length is given by:
0
0:67
l¼ Srm ð14Þ
2
According to the method, the modified stress–strain relation-
ship for steel is finally constructed by considering the bond-slip
effect. In the modified model, the effective yield stress of steel
bar is obtained from Eq. (1) and the elastic modulus is replaced
with modified elastic modulus given by Eq. (2). The modified stress
strain relationship of steel bar is shown in Fig. 4. The hardening
stiffness of the steel bar model, denoted by Esp , is calculated by a
coefficient of elastic modulus, a. The values of a are different and
depend upon the yield strength and elastic modulus of the steel
type. Different values have been suggested in codes. In FEMA 356
[23], it has been suggested that the hardening modulus of steel
can be obtained from:
Esp ¼ 0:03Es ð15Þ

However, the results of a parametric study on the hardening

Fig. 3. Bond-slip behavior for RC structures (also shown by different papers
[13–15]).
stiffness revealed that variation of the hardening stiffness has neg-
ligible effect on the behavior of structure. Based on the proposed
procedure, the modified elastic modulus of steel reinforcing bar
is a function of several parameters and can be expressed as:
E ¼ E ðf y ; f c ; q; Es ; C; db ; Sst ; Ast Þ ð16Þ
 M. Dehestani, S.S. Mousavi / Construction and Building Materials 81 (2015) 284–290
Fig. 4. Modified stress–strain relationship for steel reinforcing bar in RC member.
In fact, the modified embedded model is capable to consider key
parameters such as strength of materials and geometric specifica-
tions of member.
3. Validation of the method
In order to validate the proposed method, the response of rein-
forced concrete slabs under monotonic loading is considered. Two
reinforced concrete slabs tested by Cashell et al. [24,25] are select-
ed for validating the embedded bond-slip model in finite element
program. The first specimen is a two-way concrete slab with area
of 2250 mm  1500 mm and depth of 60 mm. The reinforcement
is positioned at mid-depth of the section. The shorter bars are
placed deeper than those across the long span. In this test, an
assembly of four large steel sections provided vertical support
and the steel sections were positioned on four large concrete
blocks at each corner. The slab was free to move both axially and
rotationally at the edges. This specimen was subjected to a mono-
tonic loading, which was applied to the slab through 12 points. The
second specimen is a lightly reinforced concrete strip, which was
supported vertically on rollers and hence was free to move both
axially and rotationally at two ends. The specimen dimensions
were 1400 mm  600 mm  60 mm and loading was applied at
the middle of the specimen upper surface through closely spaced
points. The reinforcement also was placed at the mid-depth of
the slab. The configurations of tests for validation specimens are
illustrated in Fig. 5. The details of each validation specimens such
as the reinforcement ratio (q), compressive (f0 c) and tensile (fct)
Fig. 5. Validation specimens: (a) first specimen (R-F60-D6-A); (b) second specimen (UR10).
287
strength of concrete, bar diameter (D), yield strength (fsy) and ulti-
mate strain (esu) of steel reinforcement are given in Table 1.
The transmission length given by Eq. (14), the effective yield
stress of steel and the modified elastic modulus of steel reinforce-
ment determined based on the proposed method for validation
specimens are listed in Table 2. It is also introduced a coefficient,
b, which is called reduction factor and is defined as the ratio of
modified elastic modulus to initial elastic modulus.
b ¼ E =E ð17Þ
The finite element software ABAQUS is employed for modeling
of validation specimens. Isotropic plasticity condition is assumed
for steel material. The density and Poisson’s ratio were chosen as
7850 kg/m3 and 0.3, respectively. Concrete damaged plasticity
(CDP) model is used to describe concrete behavior. CDP model con-
sists of compressive and tensile behavior, defined separately in
terms of plasticity and damage parameters. It assumes that the
main two failure mechanisms are tensile cracking and compressive
crushing of the concrete material [1]. Table 3 shows the input para-
meters for CDP model used in validation study. The density and
Poisson’s ratio of concrete were taken as 2400 kg/m3 and 0.15,
respectively. The method described above is used to model two
validation tests conducted by Cashell et al. [24,25]. The numerical
results of these models are presented in Fig. 6. The experimental
results and results pertaining to models in which the bond behav-
ior was not considered are also shown in Fig. 6. A good agreement
between the experimental results and results of the numerical
model proposed in this study indicates the efficiency and accuracy
of the method. It is clear from Fig. 6 that the bond behavior plays
an important role in general behavior of the reinforced structural
member and should be considered as well in numerical models.
The modified embedded model combines the advantages of the
embedded element method and consideration of the bond behav-
ior in the analysis. It should be noted that small difference between
the results of the proposed model and the experimental results ori-
ginate from many factors such as the self-weight of the loading
arrangement and the stiffness of the loading arm of test machine.
4. Parametric study
Due to simplicity of the method, it is possible to investigate the
influence of different effective parameters on the reduction factor,
b. The reduction factor takes values between zero and one. The
reduction factor of one indicates no slip between concrete and
rebar. Models for bonds with greater slips require greater reduc-
tion in the elastic modulus of the steel reinforcing bar. Various
parameters affect the bond strength and behavior between con-
crete and rebar in RC members. Therefore, different reduction fac-
tors should be used in numerical models to consider the effects of
these parameters. The influences of parameters such as strengths
of steel and concrete, reinforcement ratio (q), rebar diameter (d)
and concrete cover are investigated subsequently.
288 M. Dehestani, S.S. Mousavi / Construction and Building Materials 81 (2015) 284–290

Table 1 0.60
Details of validation specimens.
0.55
Specimen q (%) D (mm) f0 c (MPa) fct (MPa) fsy (MPa) esu 0.50
Fc=20MPa
R-F60-D6-A q1 = q2 = 0.24 6 32.0 2.1 553 0.040 0.45
UR10 0.24 6 40.4 2.4 553 0.041
E*⁄E Fc=30MPa
0.40 Fc=40MPa
0.35 Fc=50MPa
Fc=60MPa
0.30
0.25
Table 2 350 450 550 650
Transfer length and modified elastic modulus of steel for validation specimens.
fy (MPa)
Specimen Transmission Effective Elastic Modified b (%)
length l (mm) yield modulus of elastic Es⁄ = bEs Fig. 7. Reduction factors with respect to steel yield stresses for various concrete
stress bare steel modulus characteristic strengths.
fy⁄ (MPa) Es (MPa) Es⁄ (MPa)
R-F60- 310.175 404.36 200000 119765.206 59.88
D6-A Table 4
UR10 310.175 383.36 200000 117189.962 58.59 Properties of control model.

Specimen q (%) D (mm) C (mm) f0 c (MPa) fct (MPa) fsy (MPa)

Control model q1 = q2 = 0.30 8 30 30.0 2.0 400
Table 3
Concrete damage plasticity parameters.

Dilation angle Flow potential rb0/rc0a Kc b Viscosity parameter

(w) eccentricity (e) (l)
30 0.1 1.16 0.666 0.00001 90 0.75Fy
a 80 1.00Fy
The ratio of initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress to initial uniaxial com-
pressive yield stress. 70 1.25Fy
b
The ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the 1.50Fy
60
compressive meridian.
50
Force (KN)
40
(a) 90 30
80 20
70 10
Force (KN)

60
0
50
0 20 40 60 80
40
Displacement (mm)
30 FE with bond-slip
20 FE with no bond-slip
Fig. 8. Load–displacement responses for various steel yield stresses.
Experiment
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 Reduction factor is higher for steel rebar with higher yield stresses.
displacement (mm) However, the reduction factor for a steel rebar with specified yield
stress take lower values when surrounding concrete has higher
(b) 16 characteristic strengths. This effect diminishes for steel rebar with
14 higher yield stresses.
In order to determine the influence of proposed parameters on
12
behavior of a structural member, properties of a control model is
Force (KN)

10
used in several models to study the effect of variation in yield
8 stress of steel, compression strength of concrete, rebar diameter,
FE with bond-slip
6 concrete cover and reinforcement ratio on load–displacement
FE with no bond-slip
4 response. The properties of control model are given in Table 4.
Experiment
2 Fig. 8 presents the load–displacement responses of the slab for
various yield stresses of steel. The other properties are kept con-
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 stant. Responses indicate the important and significant role of steel
strength on total behavior. Fig. 9 presents the reduction factors
displacement (mm)
with respect to concrete characteristic strengths for various steel
Fig. 6. Load–displacement response for (a) R-F60-D6-A, (b) UR10.
yield stresses. The load–displacement response of slab for various
concrete strengths is shown in Fig. 10. The results indicate that
increase of 50 percent for steel yield stress caused an 8 percent
As expressed in Eq. (3), the yield stress of steel bar and the con- increase in the resistance of the slab and the amount equal to 50
crete characteristic strength have no effects on the equivalent bond percent increase in concrete characteristic strengths caused 20
strain. However, the effective yield stress of steel bar surrounded percent increase in strength of slabs. Results show that the elastic
by concrete given by Eq. (1) is a function of steel and concrete region of concrete is smaller than that of steel and the non-linear
strength. Fig. 7 shows the effects of variation of steel yield stress behavior of concrete begins much earlier than steel. Therefore,
on reduction factor for different concrete characteristic strengths. the behavior of slabs is affected by concrete more than steel before
 M. Dehestani, S.S. Mousavi / Construction and Building Materials 81 (2015) 284–290 289

Fy=450MPa 100
0.61 Fy=500MPa 90 0.75D
Fy=553MPa 1.00D
0.56 80
Fy=600MPa 1.25D
70
0.51 60 1.50D

0.46 Force (KN) 50

E*/E
40
0.41
30
0.36 20
10
0.31
0
13 23 33 43 53 63
0 20 40 60 80
fc (MPa)
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 9. Reduction factors with respect to concrete strengths for various steel yield
Fig. 12. Load–displacement responses for various rebar diameters.
stresses.

100 0.92 d=6.0mm

90 0.75Fc d=8.0mm
80 1.00Fc 0.82 d=10mm
70 1.25Fc
0.72 d=12mm
60 1.50Fc
Force (KN) 50 E*/E 0.62
40
30 0.52
20
0.42
10
0 0.32
0 20 40 60 80 3 13 23 33 43 53
Displacement (mm) C (mm)
Fig. 10. Load–displacement responses for various concrete characteristic strengths.
Fig. 13. Reduction factors with respect to concrete cover for various rebar
diameters.

C=10mm
0.95
C=20mm 90 0.75C
0.85 C=30mm 1.00C
80
0.75 C=40mm 70 1.25C
60 1.50C
0.65
E*/E 50
0.55 Force (KN)
40
0.45 30
20
0.35 10
0.25 0
4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5 14.5 0 20 40 60 80
D (mm) Displacement(mm)

Fig. 11. Reduction factors with respect to rebar diameters for various concrete Fig. 14. Load–displacement responses of slab for various cover of concrete with
cover. constant height.

failure range of loading. So, total behavior of the slab is not affected
significantly by the variation of the yield stress of steel. The com-
parison results between Figs. 7 and 9 show that the reduction fac-
tor is more affected by the influence of variations in steel yield
stress compared to concrete strength.
As shown in Fig. 11, the reduction factor takes higher values as
the bar diameter increases. It is evident that, with increase in bar
diameter, the slip at peak of bond-slip curve decreases. As shown
in Fig. 12, 50 percent of increase in bar diameter increased the
strength of slab 17 percent.
Increase in concrete cover causes an increase in the slip at max-
imum bond stress and also the transmission length. However, the
equivalent bond strain of the steel bar takes lower values as the
concrete cover increases. The reduction of equivalent bond strain
affects the reduction factor, which has been illustrated in Fig. 13.
As shown in Fig. 14, increase in concrete cover, when the height
of the slab remains constant means to locate the reinforcement
mesh in upper level and thus the strength of slab is decreased.
Effect of reinforcement ratio on reduction factor is presented in
Fig. 15. Reinforcement ratio has direct influence on the effective
yield stress and the equivalent bond strain. Increase in reinforce-
ment ratio is accompanied by reduction in the transmission length
as stated by Eq. (14). It is evident from Eq. (3) that the reinforce-
ment ratio has no effect on the slip at maximum bond stress.
Fig. 16 demonstrates that total behavior of the slab is not affected
significantly by the variation of the reinforcement ratio and
increase of 50 percent for reinforcement ratio caused a 9 percent
increase in the resistance of the slab.
It should be noted that since the analysis is sensitive to varia-
tions in different parameters, a comprehensive experimental study
290 M. Dehestani, S.S. Mousavi / Construction and Building Materials 81 (2015) 284–290

0.48 Acknowledgement

0.43 Author would like to appreciate the faculty members of Civil

Engineering Department of Babol University of Technology in Iran
E*/E 0.38 for their helpful assistances.

0.33 References

[1] Hibbitt D, Karlsson B, Sorensen P. ABAQUS analysis user’s manual; 2004:

0.28 Pawtucket, USA.
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 [2] Ngo D, Scordelis AC. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams. In
ACI Journal Proceedings (Vol. 64, No. 3). ACI; 1967, March.
Reinfocement Ratio
[3] Groot DA, de Kusters GMA, Monnier T. Numerical modelling of bond slip
behaviour. Heron 1981;26(1b).
Fig. 15. Reduction factors for various reinforcement ratios. [4] Kwak HG, Filippou FC. A new reinforcing steel model with bond-slip. Struct
Eng Mech 1995;3(4):299–312.
[5] Monti G, Filippou FC, Spacone E. Analysis of hysteretic behavior of anchored
reinforcing bars. ACI Struct J 1997;94(3).
90 0.75R.R [6] Monti G, Filippou FC, Spacone E. Finite element for anchored bars under cyclic
80 load reversals. J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):614–23.
1.00R.R
[7] Monti G, Spacone E. Reinforced concrete fiber beam element with bond-slip. J
70 1.25R.R
Struct Eng 2000;126(6):654–61.
60 1.50R.R [8] Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF. Fibre beam-column model for non-linear
50 analysis of R/C frames: Part I. Formulation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
Force(KN)
40 1996;25(7):711–26.
30 [9] Kwak HG, Kim JK. Implementation of bond-slip effect in analyses of RC frames
under cyclic loads using layered section method. Eng Struct
20
2006;28(12):1715–27.
10 [10] Zhou YD, Cheuk CY, Tham LG. An embedded bond-slip model for finite element
0 modelling of soil–nail interaction. Comput Geotech 2009;36(6):1090–7.
0 20 40 60 80 [11] Cashell KA, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Ultimate behavior of idealized
Displacement(mm) composite floor elements at ambient and elevated temperature. Fire Technol
2010;46(1):67–89.
[12] Belarbi A, Hsu TT. Constitutive laws of concrete in tension and reinforcing bars
Fig. 16. Load–displacement responses for various reinforcement ratios (R.R).
stiffened by concrete. ACI Struct J 1994;91(4).
[13] Harajli MH, Hamad BS, Rteil AA. Effect of confinement on bond strength
between steel bars and concrete. ACI Struct J 2004;101(5).
[14] Harajli MH, Hout M, Jalkh W. Local bond stress-slip behavior of reinforcing
is needed to examine effective parameters. This issue is suggested
bars embedded in plain and fiber concrete. ACI Mater J 1995;92(4).
for future work. [15] Harajli Mohamed H. Effect of confinement using steel, FRC, or FRP on the bond
stress-slip response of steel bars under cyclic loading. Mater Struct
2006;39(6):621–34.
5. Summary and concluding remarks [16] Comité euro-international du béton. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Design Code
(No. 213–214). FIB-Féd. Int. du Béton; 1993.
A new modified embedded model considering interactional [17] Wu YF, Zhao XM. Unified bond stress-slip model for reinforced concrete. J
Struct Eng 2012;139(11):1951–62.
effect between concrete and steel bar has been developed for rein- [18] Xu YL. Experimental study of anchorage properties for deformed bars in
forced concrete structures. The new model combines the advan- concrete [Thesis (PhD)]. Tsinghua University; 1990.
tage of embedded element technique and the bond effect of the [19] Esfahani MR, Kianoush MR. Development/splice length of reinforcing bars. ACI
Struct J 2005;102(1).
reinforcing bar in finite element method. In this method the elastic [20] Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1: General Rules and Rules for
modulus of steel as well as its yield stress is reduced to consider Buildings. European Committee for Standardization; 1991.
slippage of steel rebar in concrete bulk. [21] Bergner H. Rissbreitenbeschra¨ nkung zwangbeanspruchter Bauteile aus
hochfestem Normalbeton. Deutscher Ausschuss fu¨ r Stahlbeton, Heft 482;
Due to simplicity of the method, it can be used in a comprehen-
1997.
sive parametric study to determine the effects of various para- [22] Borosnyói A, Balázs GL. Models for flexural cracking in concrete: the state of
meters such as concrete and steel properties, reinforcement ratio the art. Struct Concr 2005;6(2):53–62.
and confinement on bond behavior. Results shows that Elastic [23] Federal Emergency Management Agency. ‘‘Prestandard and Commentary for
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: FEMA-356’’; 2000.
modulus of the steel reinforcing bars should be reduced in embed- [24] Cashell KA, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Failure assessment of lightly reinforced
ded elements to consider the bond-slip effects. Parametric study floor slabs. I: experimental investigation. J Struct Eng 2011;137(9):977–88.
demonstrates that for every RC structure with different strength [25] Cashell KA, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Experimental and analytical
assessment of ductility in lightly reinforced concrete members. Eng Struct
of materials and geometric specification, a reduction factor is used 2010;32(9):2729–43.
which represents the efficiency of the proposed model.

View publication stats