ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL

COMMITIEE REPORT
ACI408.2R

Title no. 88-M68

Abstract of:
State-of-the-Art-Report:
Bond under Cyclic Loads
reported by ACI Committee 408
Denis Mitchell,
Chairman

Roberto Leon'
Secretary
Mohammad R. Ehsani
Peter Gergely*
James 0. Jirsa*
John F. McDermott
Kenneth H. Murray
Morris Schupack

David Darwin*
Fernando E. Fagundo
Neil M. Hawkins
Le Roy A. Lutz*
Jack P. Moehle
Telvin Rezansoff*
Parviz Soroushian

William C. Black
Rolf Eligehausen*
Narendra K. Gosain
David W. Johnston
S. Ali Mirza
Mikael P. J. Olsen
*Member, Subcommittee on Repeated Load Effects.
and Chairman, Subcommittee on Repeated Load Effects.

1Editor

This state-of-the-art report summarizes the most recent background

on bond behavior under cyclic loads. The report provides a background to bond problems, discusses the main variables affecting bond
performance, and describes its behavior under cyclic loads. Two general types of cyclic loads are addressed: high-cycle (fatigue) and lowcycle (earthquake and similar) loads. The behavior of straight anchorages, hooks, and splices is included. Design recommendations are
provided for both high- and low-cycle fatigue, and suggestions for
further research are given.
Keywords: anchorage; bond; development length; cyclic loads; fatigue; seismic
loads; hooks; splices; design recommendations; bar slip; bond models.

SCOPE

The purpose of this document is to review the current state-of-the-art on bond, with particular emphasis
on bond under cyclic loading. Two general types of cyclic loads are addressed: high-cyclic (fatigue) and lowcyclic (earthquake and similar) loads. The behavior of
straight anchorages, hooks, and splices under both load
regimes is discussed. The report is intended to serve
both designers and researches, and is organized into
eight chapters. Chapters 1, 2, and 3 present background information on bond under cyclic loading and
should be of interest to all readers. Chapters 4, 5, and
6 deal with results of research and development of analytical bond models, and should be of use primarily to
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and
Commentaries are intended for guidance in designing, planning, executing, or inspecting construction and in preparing
specifications. Reference to these documents shall not be made
in the Project Documents. If items found in these documents
are desired to be part of the Project D~uments, they should
be phrased in mandatory langua_ge and incorporated into the
Project Documents.

ACI Materials Journal I November-December 1991

researchers. Chapter 7 presents a review of current design guidelines, from both the U.S. and abroad, dealing with bond under cyclic loads, and should be of
particular interest to designers. Chapter 8 provides a
summary of the research results and research needs.
The document is meant also to serve as an introduction
for designers to the basic mechanisms involved in bond,
the variables that effect them, and the differences between behavior under cyclic and non-cyclic loads. An
extensive reference list, including similar reports, 1 is
provided for readers desiring additional details. Bond
behavior of prestressing tendons and behavior under
shock or impact loading are not addressed in this report.

BOND STRESS

"Bond stress" refers to the stress along the bar-concrete interface which modifies the' steel stress along the
length of the bar by transferring load between the bar
and the surrounding concrete. Bond stresses in rein-

ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 6, November-December 1991.

This is a brief abstract of the proposed new report, "State-of-the-Art Report: Bond under Cyclic Loading," ACI 408.2R. A copy of the manuscript of
the proposed new report is available from ACI headquarters for $5 (prepaid).
Discussion of the new report closes July I, 1992. Pertinent discussion and the
response by the committee will be published in the September-October 1992
AC/ Materials Journal.
Copyright 1991, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or
by any means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by any
electronic or mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound
or visual reproduction or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

669

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0
s[mm]

1--25 db--i

I UNCONFINED CONCRETE IN TENSION

2 CONFINED CONCRETE
3 UNCONFINED CONCRETE IN COMPRESSION
Fig. I- Typical bond stress versus slip curve for monotonic loading
T

..!.,.I

MONOTONIC
LOADING

Fig. 2-Cracking under cyclic loads

forced concrete members arise from two distinct situations. The first is anchorage or development where bars
are terminated. The second is flexural bond or the
change of force along a bar due to a change in bending
moment along the member.
The efficiency of bond can be conveniently quantified by looking at bond stress versus bar slippage curves
that represent the change in local stress in the bar ub
versus the total movement of the bar relative to the
surrounding concretes (Fig. 1). The slips represents the
rigid body motion of the bar with respect to some fixed
point in the surrounding concrete. Bond stress, as used
in this report, refers to an average bond stress computed along a length of bar at least 15 diameters long,
and not to the local stress at an individual bar deformation or at a point along the interface between bar
and concrete. The limit of 15 bar diameters is somewhat arbitary and constitutes a lower bound to typical
anchorage lengths, but it is the values of average bond
stress over typical anchorage lengths that are of importance in design. For monotonically increasing slips,
values for maximum bond (a strength measured over
short distances) are reported in the literature to vary
from about 1500 to 3000 psi (10.3 to 20.7 MPa). Average values of bond stress for use in design range from
560 to 800 psi (3.8 to 5.5.MPa). The values of slip at
maximum bond stress show considerable scatter, de-

pending primarily on the deformation pattern, 2 but

typically maximum bond stress will be reached at values of slip of 0.01 to 0.1 in. (0.25 to 2.5 mm).

670

ACI Materials Journal I November-December 1991

LOADS

Loads on structural members can be subdivided into

monotonic and cyclic loads. Monotonic loading implies
that some parameter, in this case slip, is always increasing. Cyclic loads imply that the same parameter
reverses in direction many times during the load history. Cyclic loadings are divided into two general categories. The first category is the so-called "low-cycle"
loading, or a load history containing few cycles (less
than 100) but having large ranges of bond stress (ub, >
600 psi). The bond stress range ub, is the difference between the average bond stresses at the maximum and
minimum load, taking into account the direction of the
loading. Low-cycle loadings commonly arise in seismic
and high wind loadings. The loading is also referred to
as "low-cycle, high-stress" loading. The second category is the so-called "high-cycle" or fatigue loading,
which is a load history containing many cycles (typically thousands or millions), but at a low bond stress
range (ub, < 300 psi). Bridge members, offshore structures, and members supporting vibrating machinery are
often subjected to "high-cycle" or fatigue loading.
High-cycle loadings are considered a problem at service

load levels, while low-cycle loading produce problems

at the ultimate limit state.
The bond behavior under cyclic loading can further
be subdivided according to the type of stress applied.
The first is repeated or unidirectional loading, which
implies that the bar stress does not change sense (tension to compression) during a loading cycle, as is the
usual situation for fatigue loading. The second is stress
reversal, where the bar is subjected alternatively to tension and compression. Stress reversals are the typical
case for seismic loading.

'

' .

(a) Adhesion

'

FAILURE MODES

Under monotonic loading, two types of bond failures are typical. The first is a direct pullout of the bar,
which occurs when ample confinement is provided to
the bar. The second type of failure is a splitting of the
concrete cover when the cover or confinement is insufficient to obtain a pullout failure. Failure loads under
low-cycle loading are very similar to those under monotonic loading, but cracking occurs in both directions
with cycling (Fig. 2) and fatigue failures of both reinforcing bar and concrete need to be considered.

(b) Bearing

COMPONENTS OF BOND RESISTANCE

Although the concept of average bond stress is convenient, the force transfer is a combination of resistance due to adhesion v., mechanical anchorage due to
bearing of the lugs Vb, and frictional restance Jij (Fig.
3). Adhesion is related to the shear strength of the steelconcrete interface, and is primarily the result of chemical bonding. Mechanical anchorage arises from bearing forces perpendicular to the lug face as the bar is
loaded and tries to slide. These bearing forces, in turn,
give rise to frictional forces along the bar-concrete interface. The latter forces are an important component
when failure is governed by splitting.
Under monotonic loading, typical values for adhesion range from 70 to 150 psi (0.48 to 1.03 MPa}, while
those for friction range from 60 to 1450 psi (0.41 to
10.0 Mpa). It has generally been assumed that under
monotonic loads, adhesion can be broken due to service loads or to shrinkage of the concrete, and that
bearing against the lugs is the primary load-transfer
mechanism at loads near ultimate. However, recent
data comparing the performance of plain and epoxycoated reinforcing bars under monotonic loads indicate
that adhesion may play a much greater role in anchorage failures governed by splitting of the concrete cover.
Under cyclic loads, most of the bond stresses are
transferred mechanically by bearing of the bar deformations against the surrounding concrete. The tensile
and compressive strength of the concrete, the geometry
and spacing of the deformations, cover and spacing,
and amount of transverse reinforcement play a dominant role in controlling the bond behavior for this
loading case.
The bond stress-slip response of a bar loaded by lowcycle loads is shown in Fig. 4. 2 The initial part of the
curve follows the monotonic envelope. If the load is re-

versed after the bond stress exceeds about half of its

ultimate value, a significant permanent slip will remain
when tl}e bar is unloaded. If loading in the opposite direction occurs, then the bar must experience some rigid
body motion before beginning to bear in the opposite
direction. As cycling progresses, the concrete in front of
the lugs is crushed and sheared. When the load is re-

ACI Materials Journal I November-December 1991

671

(c) Fr.iction
Fig. 3-Components of bond resistance

---MONOTONIC
LOADING

-I

2
s [mm]

Fig~

4-Bond behavior under low-cycle loads

Force

-I

Pullout

vvv-v-v

I!

fi(

loads. 4 The high-cycle fatigue equations are generally

for use in offshore structures, bridges, and foundations
of vibrating machinery. The low-cycle ones are generally for use in sc;ismic design. Only two examples, one
for fatigue and one for seismic loading, are cited subsequently
High-cycle loading (fatigue)

Slip

Fig. 5-Bond under high-cycle loads

versed, large slip occurs before the bar lug bears against
the concrete and bond stresses increase. The main differences between monotonic and cyclic loads are that in
the latter, adhesion is assumed to be lost after the first
cycle, and the friction component (flat portion of the
curve) decreases with cycling. In framed structures, the
loss of bond in beam-column joints can lead to large
drifts if the joints have been subjected to inelastic load
reversals because of these horizontal portions (near zero
stiffness) of the bond stress-slip curves.
Under high-cycle loads, the behavior is very dependent on the stress and/ or strain amplitude and the number of cycles of load applied. 3 Fig. 5 shows a typical
curve for this case. Four separate regimes can be identified. First, large slips occur with constant loading (A),
the slip then decreases (B), and stabilizes (C), and finally it increases rapidly with cycling until failure (D).
FACTORS AFFECTING BOND STRENGTH
UNDER CYCLIC LOADS

The main factors affecting bond behavior under cyclic loads are:
1. Concrete compressive strength
2. Cover and bar spacing
3. Bar size
4. Anchorage length
5. Rib geometry
6. Steel yield strength
7. Amount and position of transverse steel
8. Casting position, vibration, and revibration
9. Strain (or stress) range
10. Type and rate of loading
11. Temperature
12. Surface condition (coatings)
The influence of these factors on bond strength and
failure mechanism is understood only qualitatively in
many cases. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the report deal with
some of the research behind the observations just listed,
and an extensive list of references (more than 160 citations) is attached to suplement the discussion.

Some design recommendations for the allowable

bond stress in straight anchorages in structures subjected to high-cycle fatigue can be given. Because tests
have shown that either the concrete or steel will fail in
fatigue before the bond fatigue limit is reached, most
design equations refer to the stress range in concrete or
steel rather than to any bond stress limit. For example,
ACI 215R-745 recommends that the stress range .fc, in
concrete should not exceed 0.50 J: when the minimum
stress is zero, or a linearly reduced stress range as the
minimum stress !min is increased

.fc,

0.4Jc + 0.47Jmin

(1)

The relationship does not incorporate the number of

cycles as a variable, but it is assumed valid in the infinite life region of the S-N curve, where N is greater
than one million cycles. ACI 215R-74 also recommends
that for straight deformed bars, the stress range should
not exceed 21 ksi.
Low-cycle loading (seismic loads)

The following recommendations apply to the anchorage of bars in beam-column joints for structures
subjected to cyclic loads resulting from earthquakes.
Committee 352 (ACI 352R-85) has issued the following
recommendations for the anchorage in beam-column
joints subjected to large load reversals: 6
1. For hooked anchorages in exterior joints
(2)

2.For straight anchorages terminating in exterior

joints
(3)

3. For straight anchorages in interior joints, tests

have shown that satisfactory behavior can be obtained
when

(4)
In all cases, the provisions are intended for well-confined concrete sections.
CONCLUSIONS
Monotonic loading

Chapter 7 contains a description of code-proposed

equations to design anchorages subjected to cyclic
loads, intended to suplement those for monotonic

Under static monotonically increasing loads, the

most important factors that affect bond behavior are
the concrete strength, yield strength of flexural steel,
bar size, cover, transverse reinforcement, casting posi-

672

ACI Materials Journal I November-December 1991

DESIGN APPROACHES

tion, coatings, compaction of the concrete, and bar

spacing. 7 The ACI Committee 408 (ACI 408-79)
method produced results closr to the experimentally
observed results than the current ACI 318-83 method.
Cyclic loading

All parameters that are of importance under monotonic loading are also of importance under cyclic loading. In addition, however, bond stress range, type of
loading (unidirectional or reversed, strain or load controlled), and maximum imposed bond stress are of
great importance under cyclic loads. The following
conclusions can be made from the data currently available.
High-cycle fatigue

1. From the various studies it appears that the most

significant effect of high-cycle repeated loads is to reduce the bond at failure. Stress ranges in excess of 40
percent of the yield strength of the reinforcement in
anchorages consistent with ACI 318-83 (ACI 381-83)
recommendations appear to reduce bond strength.
Studies show that these losses can be as high as 50 percent of the static ultimate pullout bond strength.
2. Reversed cyclic stresses tend to deteriorate bond at
a higher rate and to precipitate early failures. This occurs at a samller number of cycles or at lower loads
than monotonic statically applied stresses. An important factor in high-cycle fatigue is the fatigue strength
of the concrete itself; internal damage (propagation of
microcracks with repeated loading) to the concrete is
the most important parameter affecting bond strength
in this case.
3. The mechanism governing failure is a progressive
crushing of the concrete in front of the deformations.
Test data indicate very similar behavior under both fatigue and sustained loading.
4. Bond failures under fatigue loading are unlikely if
current provisions for anchorage lengths under monotonic loading (ACI 318) and the limits for concrete and
steel fatigue (ACI 215) are followed.

1. The higher the load amplitude, the larger the additional slip, especially after the first cycle. Some premanent damage seems to occur if 60 to 70 percent of
the static bond capacity is reached. For design considerations, a damage threshold can be suggested at 50
percent of the bond strength (400 psi).
2. When loading a bar to an arbitrary bond stress or
slip value below the damage threshold (about 60 percent of ultimate) and unloading to zero, the monotonic
stress slip relationship for all practical purposes can be
attained again during reloading. This behavior also occurs for a large number of loadings, provided that no
bond failure occurs during cyclic loadings.
3. Loading a bar to a bond stress higher than 80 percent of its ultimate bond strength will result in significant permanent slip. Loading beyond the slip corresponding to the ultimate bond stress results in large
losses of stiffness and bond strength.
4. Bond deterioration under large stress ranges
(greater than 50 percent of ultimate bond strenght)
cannot be prevented, except by the use of very long anchorage lengths (at least a factor of 1.5 on the development lengths currently used) and substantial transverse reinforcement (two to three times that required by
the current codes). Even in this case, bond damage near
the most highly stressed areas cannot be totally eliminated.

REFERENCES
I. Comite Euro-International Du Beton, "State-of-the-Art Report:

The problem of low-cycle loading gives rise to bond

deterioration, particularly at the internal joints of the
moment resisting frames. Similarly, cyclic loading
places severe demands on the strength and ductility of
splice regions. The various observations about the lowcycle loading can be summarized as follows:

Bond Action and Bond Behavior of Reinforcement," Bulletin No.

151, Paris, Dec. 1981.
2. Eligehausen, R.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V.. "Local Bond
Stress-Slip Relationships of Deformed Bars Under Generalized Excitations," Report No. UCB/EERC 83-23, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Oct. 1983.
3. Rehm, G., and Eligehausen, R., "Bond of Ribbed Bars Under
High-Cycle Repeated Loads," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 76,
No.2, Feb. 1979. pp. 297-310.
4. ACI Committee 408, "Suggested Development, Splice, and
Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension," Concrete International: Design & Construction, V. 1, No.7, July 1979,
pp. 44-46.
5. ACI Committee 215, "Considerations for Design of Concrete
Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 71, No. 3, Mar. 1974, pp. 97-121.
6. ACI Committee 352, "Recommendations for Design of BeamColumn Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures," ACI
JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No.3, May-June 1985, pp. 266-284.
7. Orangun, C. 0.; Jirsa, J. 0.; and Breen, J. E., "Re-evaluation
of Test Data on Development Length and Splices," ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 74, No.3, Mar. 1977, pp. 114-122.

ACI Materials Journal I November-December 1991

673

Low-cycle loading