Bond Behaviour of Structural

Lightweight Concrete

Ayman Trad(&), Hassan Ghanem, and Raafat Ismail

Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon
a.trad@bau.edu.lb

Abstract. The European normative context (EN 1992-1-1) imposes additional

requirements for the use of lightweight aggregate concrete (LWC) in reinforced
and prestressed structural products. This results in structural terms, by a
reduction of the mechanical properties (tensile strength, modulus of elasticity)
and an increase of the concrete cover by 5 mm to ensure an equivalent bond
strength (EN 1992-1-1 Sect. 11.4.2). The aim of this study is to investigate if
this rule can be omitted for structural LWC with densities ranging from 1600 to
2000 kg/m3.
To achieve this objective, bond tests are conducted on 21 beam specimens. The
primary experimental variables are aggregate types (expanded clay/expanded
slate/normal weight aggregate), reinforcing bars diameters (U = 10 mm,
U = 14 mm) and embedment length. The load - slip responses, failure modes and
bond strengths of LWC and normal weight concrete (NWC) are compared.
Results indicate that tested LWC with densities greater than 1600 kg/m3 have a
similar behavior to that of NWC.
Durability properties for LWC was studied previously and shown good
performance in comparison with NWC, (Bello et al. 2013). These results prove
that the Eurocode rule for additional concrete cover in case of structural LWC
may be withdrawn.

Keywords: Bond
Lightweight concrete
Joist
Concrete cover

1 Introduction

The structural lightweight concrete (LWC) has emerged from the early 20th century.
Keeping an acceptable level of strength, lightweight concrete; relative to normal weight
concrete; (a) reduces the horizontal inertia actions on structures in seismic regions (Sari
and Pasamehmetoglu 2005), (b) has a favorable effect on the foundations of buildings
supported by soil with low bearing capacity and c) facilitates the conveyance of precast
concrete elements. These properties encourage the concrete industry to develop precast
concrete products like lightweight reinforced concrete joists which can be installed on
site by manipulation linked to their reduced weight. Over the years, researchers have
attempted to carry out comparison of the bond strength between LWC and NWC.
Chen et al. (2004), carried out experimental investigations on the LWC with
expanded clay aggregates. He found that in concrete with compressive strength below

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

D.A. Hordijk and M. Luković (eds.), High Tech Concrete: Where Technology
and Engineering Meet, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59471-2_71
596 A. Trad et al.

40 MPa, the bond strength of NWC was higher compared to expanded clay LWC but
the opposite was noticed when the compressive strength exceeded 40 MPa. This was
attributed to the aggregate strength which governed the bond strength at low com-
pressive strength level while the mortar strength influenced the bond strength of
concrete with higher compressive strength.
In case of LWC made with expanded shale aggregates, Mor (1993) found that the
bond strength of NWC obtained was 20–30% higher compared to that of LWC.
Yang et al. (2012) and Zhang et al. (2014) reported that the bond strength of LWC
made of shale ceramsite aggregate is comparable to that of NWC.
Orangun (1967), showed that the bond strength of sintered pulverized fuel ash
LWC could be similar or lower than that of NWC, depending on the type of test
specimens. In direct pull-out tests carried out, the bond strength of LWC was similar to
NWC whereas the maximum bond stress obtained in the beam tests showed that the
bond strength of NWC was higher.
In the investigation utilizing slag as lightweight aggregate, Mayfield and Louati
(1990) reported similar bond strengths of LWC made of pelletized blast furnace slag
aggregate and NWC of equivalent compressive strength.
Due to these contrasting findings regarding the bond strength comparison with
NWC, a specific experimental program is carried in a configuration close to the precast
joist. In this program, a comparison is made between the bond performance of rein-
forced concrete beams with the same concrete mechanical resistance but with different
nature of aggregates.

2 Description of the Bond Test

The experimentation retained for the bond strength of steel in concrete is generally a
“pull-out test” or a “beam-test”. In case of “beam test”, a beam of small dimensions
subjected to pure bending, consists of two parallelepipedal reinforced concrete blocks
interconnected at the bottom by the reinforcing steel, and at the top by a steel hinge
(Fig. 1 (a)). These provisions are interesting regarding the position of the tested steel
bar in tension zone. This test was chosen in our research because it is the most
representative for the studied elements (precast joists) and it’s more critical for the bond
strength regarding the results found by Orangun (1967).
According to the EN 1992-1-1 (Sect. 4.4.1.2(3)), the minimum concrete cover
requirement regarding the bond in case of separated bars is equal to the diameter of the
bar. To be closer to the studied case (precast joists), a modification was made to the
standard beam test (EN 10080). The concrete cover was reduced from 5 cm to a
diameter of the used bar. This modification induced an adjustment of the transverse
reinforcement used for the beam. The transverse stirrups are not closed any more. They
are opened in the lower part in order to move down the tested bar and to get the desired
concrete cover (Fig. 1 (b)).
The tested beam is loaded by simple flexure until complete bond failure of the
reinforcing steel occurs in both half-beams or until the reinforcing steel itself fails.
During loading, the slip of the two ends of the reinforcing steel is measured.
 Bond Behaviour of Structural Lightweight Concrete 597

Fig. 1. Beam-test specifications

The total force, Fa applied to the tested sample is given by the static equilibrium on
the beam: (Fa/2)  distance to the support = Force in steel bar  lever arm. The stress
in the steel bar (rs) is obtained by this equilibrium relation.

3 Mechanical Properties of the Concrete

The compressive strength (EN 12390-3) was carried out on 100 mm cube. The splitting
tensile strength (EN 12390-6) and the modulus of elasticity (ASTM C469-10) tests
were conducted on 160 mm diameter and 320 mm height cylinders. For each mix, a
total of six specimens were tested for the compressive strength and three samples for
splitting and modulus of elasticity. The average values are reported in Table 1.
According to the EN 1992-1-1; where the tensile strength is determined as the
splitting tensile strength fsp; an approximate value of the axial tensile strength, ft, may
be taken as: ft = 0.9 fsp.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the used concretes

Mix Cube compressive Modulus of elasticity Splitting tensile Axial tensile
strength fc (MPa) E (MPa) strength strength
fsp (MPa) ft (MPa)
NWC1 28.9 20 987 2.79 2.51
NWC2 25.0 20 246 2.27 2.05
LWC1 25.9 13 178 2.54 2.29
LWC2 25.2 12 881 2.35 2.11
LWC3 25.8 13 875 2.18 1.96

4 Bond Test Results

According to the EN 1992-1-1 (Sect. 8.4.4), the required embedment length to anchor
the stress rs in the steel bar is equal to: lb;req ¼ U4  frbds
Where: U is the diameter of the bar and fbd is the bond strength.
rs
Then, the experimental bond strength is: fbd ¼ U4  lb;req
598 A. Trad et al.

Since the tested concrete samples don’t have exactly the same compressive
strength, the concept of normalized bond strength ðfN Þ has been introduced. It is
obtained by dividing the bond strength value by the square root of the compressive
pffiffiffiffi
strength of the batch tested ðfN ¼ fbd = fc0 Þ. This criteria is found most often in the
literature (Hossain 2008; Valcuende and Parra 2009; Hassan et al. 2010; Harajli et al.
2002, Maree and Riad 2014, BS 8110 1997).
a- First set of tests: U ¼10 mm, lb ¼ 10 U and concrete cover = 10 mm
rs rs
For this campaign of tests, the experimental bond strength is: fbd ¼ U4  10U ¼ 40
For each type of concrete, three specimens were tested. The measured stress in the
steel bar and the bond stress are recorded in Table 2.

Table 2. Stress in steel bar and bond stress for 1st campaign of test
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average
NWC1 Load Fa (kN) 30.1 27.5 27.6 28.4
Stress in steel bar rs (MPa) 355 324 325 335
Bond strength fbd (MPa) 8.88 8.10 8.13 8.37
Normalized bond stress, fN 1.65 1.51 1.51 1.56
LWC1 Load Fa (kN) 28.0 30.0 27.7 28.6
Stress in steel bar rs (MPa) 330 354 327 337
Bond strength fbd (MPa) 8.25 8.85 8.18 8.43
Normalized bond strength, fN 1.62 1.74 1.61 1.66

For this first set, the results show a relatively better bond stress for the LWC1. The
mean normalized bond stress value for the LWC1 is 6% higher than that of NWC1.
The machinery test is piloted by an imposed force. Figures 2 and 3 show the failure
mode of the specimens. For the two types of concrete, the failure occurs in a similar
manner: splitting of the concrete along the bar.

Fig. 2. Splitting of concrete along the bar Fig. 3. Splitting of concrete along the bar
U10 mm – NWC 1 U10 mm – LWC 1

For each test, the slip at the right and at the left ends was measured. The slip
increases progressively at the two ends until the bond failure at one end. The dis-
placement at this end is blocked by a wrongheaded system. Then the displacement at
the second end continues to increase until the bond failure at the second end.
 Bond Behaviour of Structural Lightweight Concrete 599

30 35
25 30
20 25
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
15 20
Test 1 15
10
Test 2 10 Test 1
5 Test 2
Test 3 5
0 Test 3
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Fig. 4. Load-slip curves for the NWC 1 Fig. 5. Load-slip curves for the LWC 1 tests -
tests - bar U 10 mm bar U 10 mm

Figures 4 and 5 show the variation of the load in function of the slip for the NWC 1 and
LWC 1 respectively. Two curves are plotted for each test which corresponds to the
measurements at the left and right end of the tested specimen. Maximum slip values
between 0.10 and 0.17 mm were recorded for the NWC1, and between 0.08 and
0.19 mm for the LWC1. The interval of values is a little more extended in the case of
LWC1 but the difference is not significant.
In case of NWC1, the slope of the curves of the right and left displacement sensors
is closer than that of LWC1. This could indicate that NWC1 is a more homogeneous
materials than LWC1.
b- Second set of tests: U ¼ 14 mm, lb ¼ 10 U and concrete cover = 14 mm
For this second set of tests, the experimental bond strength is still the same as the
rs
previous one: fbd ¼ 40 . Results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Stress in steel bar and bond stress for 2nd campaign of test
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average
NWC1 Load Fa (kN) 46.0 44.1 46.2 45.4
Stress in steel bar rs (MPa) 289 277 290 285
Bond strength fbd (MPa) 7.23 6.93 7.25 7.13
Normalized bond stress, fN 1.34 1.29 1.35 1.33
LWC1 Load Fa (kN) 39.4 41.8 39.0 40.1
Stress in steel bar rs (MPa) 248 263 245 252
Bond strength fbd (MPa) 6.20 6.58 6.13 6.30
Normalized bond stress, fN 1.22 1.29 1.20 1.24

The results show a relatively better bond stress for the NWC1. The mean nor-
malized bond stress value for the NWC1 is 7% higher than that of LWC1.
A comparison between the two sets indicates that the bond stress decreases when
the diameter of the steel bar increases which was expected.
600 A. Trad et al.

Fig. 6. Splitting of concrete along the bar Fig. 7. Splitting of concrete along the bar
U14 mm – NWC 1 U14 mm – LWC 1

50 50
40 40
30 30
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
20 20
Test 1 Test 1
10 Test 2 10 Test 2
Test 3 Test 3
0 0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Fig. 8. Load-slip curves for the NWC 1 Fig. 9. Load-slip curves for the LWC 1 tests -
tests - bar U14 mm bar U14 mm

Concerning the failure mode and the load slip curves, the results indicate a beha-
viour similar to the 1st set of tests. See Figs. 6, 7, 8, 9.
c- Third set of tests: U ¼ 10 mm, lb ¼ 37:5 U and concrete cover = 10 mm
The bond stress, the values of maximum displacement until failure and the failure
mode for the two types of concretes noticed during the two preceding test sets were
very similar. In order to confirm this conclusion, a new set of tests was conducted by
changing the development length of the bar. For this campaign of tests, the experi-
rs rs
mental bond strength is: fbd ¼ U4  37:5U ¼ 150 :
Three types of concrete were tested. For each type three samples were made. The
measured stress in the steel bar and the bond stress are recorded in Table 4.
For this third set, comparing to NWC2, the results show a relatively better bond
stress level for the LWC2 and a relatively lower bond stress level for LWC3. The mean
normalized bond stress value for the NWC2 is 8% higher than that of LWC3 and 12%
lower than that of LWC2.
Comparing the third set of tests with the first two, it is perceived that the bond stress
decreases when the embedment length of the steel bar increases. As rationalized by
Yang et al. (2012) and Hossain (2008), the reduction in the bond strength caused by the
increase in the embedment length was due to the development of non-uniform bond
stress distribution along the bond length.
 Bond Behaviour of Structural Lightweight Concrete 601

Table 4. Stress in steel bar and bond stress for 3rd campaign of test
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average
NWC2 Load Fa (kN) 52.3 51.0 50.2 51.2
Stress in steel bar rs (MPa) 617 601 592 603
Bond strength fbd (MPa) 4.11 4.01 3.95 4.02
Normalized bond strength, fN 0.82 0.80 0.79 0.80
LWC2 Load Fa (kN) 55.0 57.3 59.9 57.4
Stress in steel bar rs (MPa) 648 676 706 677
Bond strength fbd (MPa) 4.32 4.51 4.71 4.51
Normalized bond strength, fN 0.86 0.90 0.94 0.90
LWC3 Load Fa (kN) 45.1 49.2 50.0 48.1
Stress in steel bar rs (MPa) 532 580 590 567
Bond strength fbd (MPa) 3.55 3.87 3.93 3.78
Normalized bond strength, fN 0.70 0.76 0.77 0.74

60 60 60
50 50 50
40 40 40
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

30 30 30
20 Test 1 20 20 Test 1
Test 1
10 Test 2 Test 2 Test 2
10 10
Test 3 Test 3 Test 3
0 0 0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Slip (mm) Slip (mm) Slip (mm)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. Splitting of concrete – (a) NWC 2, (b) LWC 2 and (c) LWC 3

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 11. Load-slip curves – (a) NWC 2, (b) LWC 2 and (c) LWC 3

Figure 10 show the failure mode of the specimens. For the three types of concrete,
the failure occur in a similar manner: splitting of the concrete along the bar and splitting
in the inside corner where a concentration of stress occur due to the flexure of the beam.
Concerning the load slip curves, the results shown in Fig. 11 indicate a behaviour
similar to the 1st and 2nd set of tests.
602 A. Trad et al.

5 Conclusions

The European normative context imposes, in case of LWC, an increase of the concrete
cover by 5 mm to ensure an equivalent bond strength (EN 1992-1-1 Sect. 11.4.2). The
literature review show that there are contrasting findings regarding the bond strength
comparison between LWC and NWC. Due to these contrasting findings, an experi-
mental program was carried in order to investigate if the concrete cover rule can be
omitted for structural LWC with densities ranging from 1600 to 2000 kg/m3. All the
bond tests performed indicate that there is no significant difference between the tested
concretes with dense or lightweight aggregates. These results proves that the Eurocode
rule for additional concrete cover in case of LWC (EN 1992-1-1 Sect. 11.4.2) may be
omitted for structural lightweight concrete with densities greater than 1600 kg/m3.

References
EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2 – Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1–1: General Rules and Rules
for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels (2004)
Bello, L., Francisco, P., Rougeau, P., Jacquemot, F.: Influence of curing conditions on the
mechanical and durability properties of concretes made with mineral lightweight aggregates,
fib Symposium, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 22–24 April, 2013
Sari, D., Pasamehmetoglu, A.G.: The effects of gradation and admixture on the pumice
lightweight aggregate concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 35, 936–942 (2005)
Chen, H.J., Huang, C.H., Kao, Z.Y.: Experimental investigation on steel-concrete bond in
lightweight and normal weight concrete. Struct. Eng. Mech. 17(2), 141–152 (2004)
Mor, A.: Steel-concrete bond in high-strength lightweight concrete. ACI Mater. J. 89(1), 76–82
(1993)
Yang, W., Yu, J., Wang, Y.: Study on the effect of bond-anchoring factor on bond behavior
between deformed bar and shale ceramic concrete. Adv. Mater. Res. 403, 444–448 (2012)
Zhang, D., Yang, W.: Experimental research on bond behaviors between shale ceramsite
lightweight aggregate concrete and bars through pullout tests, J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 27(9)
(2014)
Orangun, C.O.: The bond resistance between steel and lightweight-aggregate (Lytag) concrete.
Build. Sci. 2(1), 21–28 (1967)
Mayfield, B., Louati, M.: Properties of pelletized blastfurnace slag concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 42
(150), 29–36 (1990)
EN 10080: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete - Weldable reinforcing steel – General,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels (2009)
EN 12390-3: Testing hardened concrete — Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels (2002)
EN 12390-6: Testing hardened concrete — Part 6: Tensile splitting strength of test specimens,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels (2000)
ASTM C469: Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of
Concrete in Compression, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA (2010)
Hossain, K.M.A.: Bond characteristics of plain and deformed bars in lightweight pumice
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 22, 1491–1499 (2008)
 Bond Behaviour of Structural Lightweight Concrete 603

Valcuende, M., Parra, C.: Bond behaviour of reinforcement in self-compacting concretes. Constr.
Build. Mater. 23, 162–170 (2009)
Hassan, A.A.A., Hossain, K.M.A., Lachemi, M.: Bond strength of deformed bars in large
reinforced concrete members cast with industrial self-consolidating concrete mixture. Constr.
Build. Mater. 24, 520–530 (2010)
Harajli, M., Hamad, B., Karam, K.: Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars embedded in plain
and fiber concrete. J. Mater. Civil. Eng. 14(6), 503–511 (2002)
Farghal Maree, A., Hilal Riad, K.: Analytical and experimental investigation for bond behaviour
of newly developed polystyrene foam particles lightweight concrete. Eng. Struct. 58, 1–11
(2014)
BS 8110: British Standards BSI: structural use of concrete, Part 1: Code of practice for design
and construction. BSI, GB, p. 168 (1997)