STUDY REPORT ON:

IMPLICATION OF
UNBONDEDNESS
TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents
TABLE OF CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................ 2
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. 3
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 3
PREFACE ............................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 4
REINFORCED CONCRETE - A STRUTURAL MATERIAL .................................................................................. 4
WHAT IS BOND STRESS? ............................................................................................................................. 4
ANCHORAGE OR DEVELOPMENT LENGTH .................................................................................................. 4
FLEXURAL BOND ......................................................................................................................................... 5
NATURE OF THE BOND RESISTANCE ........................................................................................................... 5
BOND STRENGTH ........................................................................................................................................ 6
STATE OF STRESS IN THE SURROUNDING CONCRETE ................................................................................ 6
PULL OUT TEST ............................................................................................................................................ 7
UNBONDEDNESS IN RC STRUCTURES ............................................................................................................. 9
Effect of High Strength Web Reinforcement: ............................................................................................. 9
Corrosion on the surface of steel reinforcement: .................................................................................... 10
Exposure of reinforced concrete section in elevated temperature: ........................................................ 12
Reinforcement polluted in oil: .................................................................................................................. 13
Flexure Behavior of Beam: ........................................................................................................................ 14
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
BIBLOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................... 19
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 The generation of anchorage and flexural bond .............................................................................. 5

Figure 2 The stresses between two ribs of a deformed bar ........................................................................... 6
Figure 3 Deformed concrete between transverse cracks of a tension member ............................................ 7
Figure 4 Section through reinforcing bar and concrete, showing separation that occurs ............................. 7
Figure 5 Various bond test methods............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6 Design details of cantilever bond test specimen ............................................................................ 10
Figure 7 Schematic representation of impressed current test setup ........................................................... 11
Figure 8 Cantilever bond test loading arrangement ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 9 Circuit setup for accelerated corrosion .......................................................................................... 12
Figure 10 Experimental Program .................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 11 Beam Details according to failure modes ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 12 The crack pattern in beams .......................................................................................................... 18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparison of Moment Capacity of Beams .................................................................................... 16
Table 2 Stiffness and Ductility....................................................................................................................... 17
OBJECTIVE
 To present reader the fundamental concept and understanding of bond stresses and the
behavior of rebar when unbonded in reinforced concrete.

INTRODUCTION

REINFORCED CONCRETE - A STRUTURAL MATERIAL

Reinforced concrete is a composite material in which concrete’s relatively low tensile strength
and ductility are counteracted by the inclusion of reinforcement having higher tensile strength or
ductility. Steel bar (the reinforcement) is embedded in concrete in such a manner that tow
materials act together in resisting forces. The utility of reinforced concrete as a structural
material is derived from combination of concrete and reinforcing bars. Maintaining composite
action require transfer of load between the concrete and steel, through essential bond
between them.

WHAT IS BOND STRESS?

Since the external load is very rarely applied to the reinforcement, steel can receive its share of
load only from the surrounding concrete. “Bond stress” is the name assigned to the shear stress
at the bar-concrete interface which, by transferring load between the bar and the surrounding
concrete, modifies the steel stress. This bond, when efficiently developed, enables the two
materials to form a composite structure. The attainment of satisfactory performance in bond is
the most important aim of the detailing of reinforcement in structural components.
Bond forces are measured by the rate of change in the reinforcing bars. Bond stress will not exist
unless the steel stress change between any two sections. Bond stress 𝑢customarily defined as a
shear force per unit area of bar surface, is given by,
𝑞 ∆𝑓𝑠 𝐴𝑏 𝑑𝑏
𝑢 = ∑𝑜 = ∑𝑜
= ∆𝑓𝑠
4
Where,
𝑞 = change of bar force over unit length
∑ 𝑜 = Nominal surface area of a bar of unit length
𝑑𝑏 = Nominal diameter of the bar
∆𝑓𝑠 = Change of steel stress over unit length
𝐴𝑏 = Area of the bar

ANCHORAGE OR DEVELOPMENT LENGTH

Bar must extend distance 𝑙𝑑 beyond any section at which it is required to develop a given force,
the distance 𝑙𝑑 being required to transmit the bar force to the concrete by bond. If the average
bond stress, 𝑢 assumed to be uniformly distributed over this length, is specified, then
consideration of equilibrium, Fig.1, yields the following relationship.
𝑇 = 𝐴𝑏 𝑓𝑠 = 𝑢 ∑ 𝑜 𝑙𝑑
𝑑
Then the development length becomes, 𝑙𝑑 = 4𝑢𝑏 𝑓𝑠
To specify safe value for the anchorage bond stress𝑢 pertaining bent length to be calculated
from equation above.

FLEXURAL BOND
Bond force ∆𝑇 is developed along the flexural reinforcement in the shear span of any beam (Fig.
1). If it is assumed that the bond stresses 𝑢 are uniformly distributed between any two sections,
close to each other, the equilibrium of a short length of bar (Fig.1) requires that ∆𝑇 = 𝑢 ∑ 𝑜 ∆𝑥.
However ideal beam action require that the internal tension force 𝑇 must vary at the same rate
as the external bending moment, 𝑀. Therefore,
∆𝑀 𝑉 𝑉 𝑽
∆𝑇 = = ∆𝑥 then 𝑢 ∑ 𝑜 ∆𝑥 = 𝑗𝑑 ∆𝑥 and 𝒖 = 𝒋𝒅 ∑ 𝒐 (9.3)
𝑗𝑑 𝑗𝑑

The above equation indicates that when the rate of change of external bending moment (i.e., the
shear force) is high, the flexural bond stress can also exhibit high intensity.

Figure 1 The generation of anchorage and flexural bond

NATURE OF THE BOND RESISTANCE

The bond resistance of a plain bar is often thought of as chemical adhesion between mortar
paste and bar surface. However; even low stresses will cause sufficient slip to break the adhesion
between the concrete and the steel. Once slip occurs, further bond can be developed only by
means of friction and by the wedging action of small dislodged sand particles between the bar
and the surrounding concrete. The frictional resistance depends on the surface conditions of
steel. Typical surface profiles for plain round bars under different conditions of rusting are given
byRehm8 . When plain round bars are subjected to standard load tests, failure occurs when the
adhesion and frictional resistance is overcome, and the bars usually pull out from the encasing
concrete.
Deformed bars have greatly increased bond capacity because of the interlocking of the ribs with
the surrounding concrete. The bond strength developed between two ribs of a bar is associated
with the following stress:
 1. Shear Stress𝑣𝑎 , developed through adhesion along the surface of the bar.
2. Bearing stress𝑓𝑏 , against the face of rib.
3. Shear stress 𝑣𝑐 acting on the cylindrical concrete surface between adjacent ribs.
Each term can be identified in Fig.2

Figure 2 The stresses between two ribs of a deformed bar

As the load is being increased, the adhesion along the bar surface inevitably breaks down. The
remaining frictional shear strength is very small in comparison with the bearing strength
developed around the ribs; therefore 𝑣𝑎 can be ignored for the practical purpose.

One of the most important aspects of bond performance is its effect on crack development. This
is closely related to the bond slip characteristics of a particular type of bar in various situations.
Generally speaking, the smaller the slip associated with a usable bond force, the better the
quality of the bond.

BOND STRENGTH
Bond strength was a more serious problem when only plain reinforcing bars were used. Bars
with a deformed surface provide an extra element of bond strength and safety. On the other
hand, the behavior of deformed bars, in particular the introduction of high-strength steels and
large diameter bars, presented some new problems.

STATE OF STRESS IN THE SURROUNDING CONCRETE

The stress conditions in the surrounding concrete fluctuate along an embedded bar and affect
the bond performance. The bond or anchorage strength of a bar cannot be obtained from the
simple summation of the bond strength of a given number of individual ribs.
Stress in the concrete, surrounding a deformed bar, leads to cracks and deformation of the
concrete (Fig. 3). The bond stress 𝑢transmitted to the concrete, subjects the cover thickness of
concrete to eccentric tension. The deformations of the concrete resulting from the stresses so
generated tend to pull the concrete away from this steel. In plain bars the bond stress can be
expected to disappear completely where separation between steel and concrete occurred. With
the deformed bars, bond forces have to be transmitted in the area solely rib bearing. This is
indicated in (Fig.4). Some of the tension in the concrete is lost when a primary crack opens near
the surface of the bar and the surrounding concrete.

Figure 3 Deformed concrete between transverse cracks of a tension member

Figure 4 Section through reinforcing bar and concrete, showing separation that occurs

PULL OUT TEST

Traditionally the bond performance of various reinforcing bars, embedded in concrete of

different strengths, has been determined from pull out tests. Generally the bars were pulled
from the surrounding concrete in such a way that transverse compression against the bars was
also induced. This transverse compression as a beneficial effect on the bond strength and was
not therefore typical of situations encountered in structures. For this reason various forms of
test specimens have been proposed to eliminate transverse compression. Representative test
arrangements are depicted in (Fig.5). In these tests the bond strengths is expressed in terms of
average bond stress developed by the pull out force around the embedded surface. The peak
bond stress value, which have been determined in some studies are known to be well in excess
of the mean stress.
Figure 5 various bond test methods
UNBONDEDNESS IN RC STRUCTURES
Unbondedness in a reinforced concrete section can occur due to following causes;
1. Effect of high strength web reinforcement.
2. Corrosion on the surface of steel reinforcement.
3. Exposure of reinforced concrete section in elevated temperature.
4. Reinforcement polluted in oil.
5. Flexure Behavior of Beam.

Effect of High Strength Web Reinforcement:

When a bending shear force is applied, splitting bond failure may occur in such a way that the
covering concrete around deformed bar is split by the wedge action of the reinforcing steel node
and bearing strength deteriorate accordingly. In this failure the bonding force between
reinforcing steel and the surrounding concrete is lost by splitting action.
The main reinforcement’s stress is thus not transmitted to the concrete, and as a result the truss
mechanism, which is an essential component of any reinforced concrete structure, is no longer
maintained.
𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐚𝐠𝐢 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐬𝐲𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐚 𝟏, discussed the features of splitting bond failure and the effect of
stirrups on bearing strength and on splitting bond failure. In this project;
i. Three series of beams were tested in which the cross section, concrete strength and
amount of main reinforcement, strength of reinforcement are varied.
ii. High strength steel was used as stirrups. The stirrups diameter and spacing were
changed, to vary % steel ratio of web reinforcement (𝜌𝑤 ).
iii. Load was applied in one direction loading of the bending and shears in the ant
symmetric moment mode. All test specimens were loaded in the same pattern in
such a way that a unidirectional force less than or equal to 2⁄3 of the ultimate
bearing strength was applied twice, then the load was increased until the specimen
failed.
iv. In every series of the beams the yield strength of the stirrup was the same.
v. The main reinforcement was not yielded in any test specimen.
vi. In the measurement the vertical displacement of the beam’s centre point was
measured.
Conclusion: Takagi and Matsybara 1concluded that,
a. High strength bars are not specifically effective as reinforcement to prevent splitting
bond failure in the member.
b. The bond stress in splitting bond failure increases with 𝜌𝑤 but it does not depend on
the strength of the web reinforcement.
c. Ultimate shear force in splitting bond failure of member is large for the same value of
𝜌𝑤 if high strength of web reinforcement is used and the web reinforcement yields.
Corrosion on the surface of steel reinforcement:
Steel corrosion of reinforced bars leads to cracking, reduction of bond strength, reduction of
steel cross section and loss of serviceability life of concrete. The factors which alter the rate of
corrosion include; availability of Oxygen, humidity level, permeability of concrete, chloride
content, temperature and depth of carbonation. These factors if controlled can limit the damage
caused by corrosion.
Structures built in the vicinity of coastal areas, especially create an aggressive environment for
corrosion attack on the reinforcing bars.
𝐀𝐥𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝟐 performed an experimental investigative study in the department of civil
engineering at KFUPM, Saudi Arabia, on the effect of reinforcement corrosion on the bond
strength between steel and concrete. The bond behavior of reinforced concrete elements,
including the ultimate bond strength, free-end slip, and the modes of failure in pre-cracking,
cracking and post cracking stages was studied.
For the experimental work, concentric pull out testis widely used by the researchers because
of its simplicity. The bond beam test(termed as Cantilever Bond Test Specimen) produces a
bond stress situation similar to that existing in the actual flexural members. Test specimen is
shown in Fig.6.

Figure 6 Design details of cantilever bond test specimen

Conduct of Test: The specimen were partially immer4sed in water in a glass fiber tank in such
a manner that the reinforcement was totally above the water resulting in the formation of
products due to reinforcement corrosion(Fig.7).Tests were conducted using a specially
designed loading frame, fixed to the base (Fig.8). After conduct of the bond test, the
specimens were broken and the weight loss due to corrosion of the un-sleeved portion of the
bar was determined by cleaning it with the Clark’s solution (ASTM G1-76). In this way the
degradation in the rib profile was determined by measuring the rib weight.
Conclusion:
a. The ultimate bond strength increases by about 17% and rebar slip decreases in the
early stages of reinforcement corrosion.
b. At corrosion level of 12% the failure mode changes from splitting to continuous
slippage of the bar. It is at this corrosion level that the interactive effect of loss of rib
profile and the loss of confinement causes a sharp change in the mode of failure.
 c. A sharp reduction in bond strength is observed at critical values of crack width of 0.3
mm and the rib profile loss of 25%.

Figure 7 Schematic representation of impressed current test setup

Figure 8 Cantilever bond test loading arrangement

𝐒𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐛𝐢 𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐥3 made investigation in to the deterioration of the bond between concrete and
reinforcement using a series of beam-type pullout specimens. The specimens were designed
to allow investigation into cover depths of 20 mm and 50 mm and bar diameter of 12 mm
and 20 mm. 24 specimens of concrete with reinforcing steel bar were cast with differing
cover level and different bar diameters.

Experimental Setup: Fig.9 shows the scheme of experimental set up for this research. The
corrosion in the sample was accelerated by setting up a potential difference between the
reinforcing bars and a nearby cathode. All mixes were made of Ordinary Portland Cement.
Fine aggregate was natural siliceous sand, crushed Basalt was also used. The NaCl solution
was also mixed at 10% of the cement content.
Corrosion in the samples was accelerated by setting up a potential difference between the
reinforcing steel bar and a nearby cathode. The bond properties were studied by conduction
direct pull out test of horizontal reinforcing bars embedded in the specimens, protruding
from the vertical surface on the side of the specimens. After casting, the specimens were
sealed with wet burlap and stored in a temperature controlled environment. All specimens
were de-molded after 24 hours and transferred to the laboratory for testing.
 Figure 9 Circuit setup for accelerated corrosion

Conclusions:
a. Increase of level of corrosion led to a reduction in the bond strength of steel
reinforcing bars.
b. The bond strength of top bars was 25% lower than bottom bars for specimens
without any corrosion, and 30% for bars with severe corrosion; however no
significant difference in case of moderate corrosion.
c. Increase of the cover from 20 mm to 50mm resulted in an improvement of the bond
strength.
d. Increase of the diameter of the bar led to the reduction to the bond strength.

Exposure of reinforced concrete section in elevated

temperature:
Reinforced concrete structures are vulnerable to high temperature conditions such as those
during a fire. The exposure of reinforced concrete structural elements to high temperatures
during an aggressive fire lead to significant loss in tits structural capacity due to the reduction in
the strength of the concrete, possible plastic deformation of embedded steel and most
importantly loss of bond between reinforcing steel and concrete.
At elevated temperature, the mechanical properties of concrete and reinforcing bars as well as
the bond between rebar and the concrete may significantly deteriorate. The changes in the
bonding behavior may influence the flexibility or the moment capacity of the reinforced concrete
structures. The bond strength degradation is required for structural design of fire safety and
structural repair after fire.
𝐀𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐢 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝟒 performed a research study in which bond constitutive relationship are
developed for normal and high-strength concrete (NSC, HSC)subjected to fire, with the
intension of providing efficient modeling and to specify the fire performance criteria for
concrete structures exposed to fire. Although many experiments in this field have been
conducted, the results have mostly been reported in the form of the satirical model or the
percentage of bond strength reduction without a thorough understanding of the mechanics
behind the changing bond-slip behavior of reinforced concrete elements under normal loads.
Researchers,Aslani and Samali4 collected experimental results database from various
published investigations because this data base is an effective tool for studying the
applicability of the various high temperature behaviors for model development. Only those
investigations are used that are sufficiently consistent with the applied testing methodology.
 Models are developed for the following purposes,
i. Effect of high temperature on Normal and High Compressive Strength, with different
types of aggregates.
ii. Effect of High temperate on the bond strength with different type of embedment
length and cooling regions.
iii. Effect of High temperate on the bond strength versus compressive strength with
different type of embedment length.
iv. Bond-stress slip curve.

Conclusions: The major conclusions reached are,

a. The proposed bond strength relationship at elevated temperature (between 100 𝐶 𝑜
to 800 𝐶 𝑜 ) are useful for air and water cooling procedures.
b. The proposed bond strength relationship at elevated temperature is related to the
diameter of the steel bar, embedded length, compressive strength of the concrete
and concrete cover by using bond strength relationship at ambient temperature.

Reinforcement polluted in oil:

Practically the concrete is usually cast in forms made from wood or steel. These forms are oiled
to avoid their adhesion with the hardened concrete material. The reinforcing steel bars may be
polluted with the oil when they placed over or inside the form. This pollution may affect the
bond between the steel bars and concrete and consequently the strength of reinforced concrete
member will decrease.
𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐢𝐝𝐨𝟒investigated bond strength of the oil polluted steel bars with 28
days compressive strength of concrete.
Experimental Wok: Total 72 pull pout cylindrical specimens were made in two groups, based
upon embedded length of the bar; each group consists of 36 specimens. Surface area of the
embedded bars was polluted by coating them with oil by a brush in three degrees,
i. Bars having no pollution
ii. Half of the embedded length surface area is polluted longitudinally.
iii. Entire embedded surface area is polluted longitudinally.

Before pouring concrete in the mould of pull out test, the internal surfaces of these moulds
were oiled and the bottom of the concrete was isolated from the mould by a cylindrical sheet
made from cork with a hole at centre of concrete specimen base to fix the reinforcing bars
vertically. Fresh concrete was poured into the mould in five layers of the specimen height.
Pull out Test was performed by a hollow Hydraulic Machine.
Conclusions: Based upon the test results of experimental work the conclusions are,
a. Pollution of steel bar with oil does not affect the bond strength if the embedded
length of steel bar is increased and the bar diameter id decreased.
b. Embedded length is inversely affect the deterioration of the bond strength due to the
bar pollution.
 c. “Splitting” is the predominant mode of failure for all tested specimens.
d. For specimens of large embedded bar length, no general trend is observed for the
relation between the deterioration of bond strength and the bar diameter of the
polluted bars.
e. In general, the loss in the bond strength increases when the degree of the bar
pollution increases.
f. No slip failures occur in testing all the polluted and non-polluted steel bars
throughout bond test.
g. For the polluted and non-polluted steel bars, it can be stated that small bar sizes has
greater bond strength than the large bar sizes if the embedded length is small.

Flexure Behavior of Beam:

Flexural strength of a reinforced concrete beam is directly proportional to the transfer of load
from concrete to the reinforcement in tension zone of the beam. This transfer of load needs
perfect bond between concrete and main reinforcing steel. Effect on unbounded steel
reinforcement in a beam on its flexural behavior is investigated by many researchers.
𝐌𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝟓 made a study on the effect of the unbounded length of the tensile reinforcement on
the behavior and reduction of flexural capacity of concrete beams. The loss of bond had been
artificially introduced in the longitudinal reinforcement close to the support and with varied
length.
Experimental Program: A test series of six beams had been designed in order to investigate
the influence of bond loss along the longitudinal reinforcement close to the support, on the
behavior of this series under flexural static loading. The unbounded length was accurately
created using a plastic tube with inner diameter slightly larger than the longitudinal
surrounded by these tubes. The ends of the plastic tubes were sealed with silicon and also
surrounded with plastic tape. This method was chosen to simulate the unbounded length
due to corrosion.
For beams with stirrups the un-bonded length varied from two spaces between stirrups close
to each support. The bond was available at all intersections between stirrup and longitudinal
reinforcement.
Conclusion: The results were compared with their reference beams with different degree of
bond loss in the longitudinal tension steel; following conclusions are drawn.
a. The cracking load was significantly reduced with about 50% in the beam with 24%
un-bonded length in comparison with the reference beam. This reduction increased
to 67% when the un-bonded length increased to 73%.
b. A moderate reduction in the load carrying capacity was observed in the beams with
significant bond loss.
c. The predominant mode of failure of tested beams is flexural failure except in the
beams without stirrups, which exhibited shear failure. The cracks, to a large extent,
appeared only in the bonded zone of the tension reinforcement.
 d. Generally, increasing the un-bonded length along the tensile steel reinforcement
reduces the number of cracks and at the same time increases the width of the
cracks.

𝐒. 𝐅. 𝐀. 𝐑𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐪𝐢 𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝟔made investigation to understand the effect of loss of cover and

flexural bond on flexural strength of RC beams, the load carrying capacity of RC beams with
exposed tension rebar, effects of varying the de-bonded length of rebar on flexural strength
of RC beam. Behavior of nine (9) RC beams (including two control beams) after un-bonding
and exposing flexural reinforcement has been studied which were intestinally designed and
detailed to observe flexural and shear failure. Experimental results are compared in terms of
beam behavior with respect to flexural capacity and failure mode.
Experimental Program: Experiment Program is highlighted in Fig. 10. Concrete was made of
OP Cement in the ration 1:2:4 with w/c ratio as 0.5. Deformed bars of 𝑓𝑦 504 MPa are used
for main reinforcement and 330 Mpa has been used for hanger and transverse shear
reinforcement. PVC pipes have been used to wrap rebar before pouring of concrete so that
the flexural bars remain un-bonded after casting of concrete. Detail of the beams is shown in
Fig.11. All beams of Group A, group B and group C have been tested to failure under third
point loading. Table 1 and 2 show the test results. Pictorial views of cracks in beams are
shown in Fig.12.

Figure 10 Experimental Program

 Beam Detail for Flexure Mode of Failure

Beam Detail for Shear Mode of Failure

Detail of Beam having exposed bar

Figure 11 Beam Details according to failure modes

Table 1 Comparison of Moment Capacity of Beams

 Table 2 Stiffness and Ductility

Conclusion: Following conclusions have been drawn from this study.

a. The unbondedness on constant shear region does not affect the flexural capacity of
beam significantly.
b. The unbondedness in and exposed reinforcement in constant moment region
influences the flexural capacity of beam.
c. The unbondedness in constant shear region cause flexural mode of failure in beam
detailed to be failed in shear.
d. The serviceability performance of beams with un-bonded and exposed reinforcement
is less as initial stiffness is reduced.
e. It is possible especially in repair work to expose rebar up to significant length without
affecting the flexural capacity of beam but need to prop/support the beam during
repair to avoid excessive deflections.
f. It may also conclude that loss of bond up to significant length due to corrosion of
rebar cause serviceability problem without affecting the flexural capacity.
Figure 12 the crack pattern in beams
BIBLOGRAPHY

1 Takagi, H.,Matsubara, H., “Ultimate shear force of RC beam failed in

bonding splitting”, Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference,
Rotterdam
2 Almusallam, Abdullah, A.,Al-Gahtani, Ahmad S., Aziz, Abdur
Rauf.,Rasheeduuzzafar. “Effect of reinforcement corrosion on bond
strength”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 10, No.2, 1996.
3 Sonebi, Mohammad., Davidson, Richard., Cleland, David., “Bond
between Reinforcement and Concrete- Influence of Steel Corrosion”,
International Conference on Durability of Building Material and
Components, Portugal, 2011
4 Albarawary, Ismaeel H. Musa., Hido, James H., “Bond Strength of
Concrete With The Reinforcement Bars Polluted with Oil”, European
Scientist Journal, February 2013.l
5 Mousa, Magada, I., “Effect of bond loss of tension reinforced concrete
beams”, HBRC Journal, 2016
6 Rafeeqi, S. F. A., S.U. Khan, N.SZ. Zafar, T. Ayub., “Implication of
Unbondedness in Reinforced Concrete Beams”,
7 Park, R., Paulay, T., “Reinforced Concrete Structures”, John Wiley &
Sons, N York.
, 1975.
8 Rehm. G., “The Basic Principles of the Bond between steel and
concrete”, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1968