ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 99-S28
Corrosion Cracking and Bond Strength Modeling for
Corroded Bars in Reinforced Concrete
by Dario Coronelli
A model for the prediction of bond strength is proposed with reference
to corroded bars. Different confinement situations are considered, and
the role of the interface pressure caused by bar expansion is studied.
With reference to the ultimate bond stress (bond ultimate capacity),
the model is shown to reproduce some of the most documented test
results available in the literature very well. Initial bond increase
and the final bond deterioration are also modeled, and the residual
bond at corrosion levels beyond cover cracking is shown to remain
substantial, on the condition that sufficient confinement is provided by
the stirrups. Finally, the model makes it possible to study bond
mechanics under both mechanical and environmental actions, as
required by the assessment of safety in existing deteriorated structures.
Keywords: anchorage; bond; concrete; corrosion; cracking.
INTRODUCTION
The effects of a severe environment on reinforced concrete
(RC) structures have been investigated thoroughly in the past
two decades, and now modeling the material and structural
behavior with the primary objective of predicting the structural
effects of different deterioration levels is becoming feasible.
In the case of bar corrosion, there is a strong interaction
between the mechanical behavior of the reinforcement and
the environment, since bar cross-section reductions, volume
changes in the reinforcement, concrete cover cracking, and
modifications to the steel-concrete interface occur.
When a pullout force is applied to a bar, equilibrium re-
quires the development of bond stresses on the surface of the
bar until bond breakdown takes place. In ribbed bars, bond
failure may be caused by the splitting of the cover or by the
shearing-off of the concrete keys between bar ribs (splitting
and pullout failures, respectively). The former type of fail-
ure may be activated by corrosion product expansion, which
may partly or completely exhaust the hoop strength of the
cover, which then may split.
Low levels of corrosion that precede the cracking of the
cover (precracking stage) cause an increase in bond capacity
of the bars because of the increase in friction between the
corroded bar and the concrete, and the pressure build-up
around the bar. The appearance of cracks at the member
surface is considered by most authors to be a critical event
for bond, because the confinement around the bar is impaired
and bond efficiency decreases. Different trends of bond
deterioration for increasing corrosion levels beyond cover
cracking (postcracking stage) have been measured in the
numerous experimental studies devoted to the subject (Fig. 1).
These differences have been attributed to the different test
setup and specimens used (Table 1). The need has been declared
for a common standard test procedure that would be able to
compare different experimental campaigns (FIB 2000). The
variety of experimental specimens, however, allows for a
study of the influence of different parameters. Until now,
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002
TECHNICAL PAPER
no mechanical model has been developed to interpret the
test results; a key parameter is the confinement provided
by transverse steel and concrete cover. Corresponding to
different confinement situations, the three following behaviors
are observed:
1. Strong bond deterioration in the postcracking stage occurs
for bars without any confinement stirrups (Clark and Saifullah
1993; Auyeung, Balaguru, and Chung 2000; Mangat and
Elgarf 1999) (Fig. 1(a));
2. A sizeable residual bond strength though has been
measured in specimens with transverse steel reinforcement
(Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia 1994; Cabrera and Ghoddoussi
1992) (Fig.1(b)); and
3. Bond strength may still be adequate after cover cracking
in tests with transverse steel and efficient concrete cover
(Al Sulaimani et al. 1990), and may even moderately increase
when skin reinforcement confining the bar is also provided
(Berra, Castellani, and Coronelli 1997) (Fig. 1(b)).
With regard to these issues, there is a still a question as to
the extent to which the cracked cover can exert a sizeable con-
finement on an anchored bar. To answer this, the development
of the interface pressure associated with the confinement
around and along a bar needs further investigation.
Other effects that corrosion has on bond strength are a
reduction of the friction coefficient and of the initial chemical
adhesion between the steel and the concrete, the reduction of
the bearing area of the ribs, and the change of the actual rib
orientation (FIB 2000). These effects should all be imple-
mented into suitable models that predict bond strength at
different corrosion levels.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The aim of this study is to investigate and model the
anchorage capacity of a corroded bar with reference to bar
position, cover thickness and splitting, and transverse reinforce-
ment. These problems have been widely investigated for
nondeteriorated structures (FIB 2000), and design equations
are included in most codes, for example, ACI 318M-95
(ACI Committee 318 1995). These equations, however,
must be modified to include corrosion effects to assess the
anchorage capacity and judge whether bond failure may
become critical in a deteriorating structure. This represents
one of the mandatory verifications for the professional per-
forming the analysis of residual structural capacity.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 3, May-June 2002.
MS No. 01-089 received March 8, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includ-
ing the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the March-April 2003 ACI Structural Jour-
nal if received by November 1, 2002.
267

Dario Coronelli is an assistant professor in the Department of Structural Engineering
at the Technical University of Milan, Milan, Italy, where he received his PhD in struc-
tural engineering in 1998. His research interests include strength and ductility of
normal and high-performance concrete members, residual capacity of corroded
reinforced concrete structures, and seismic response of reinforced concrete frames.
Fig. 1—Bond strength for increasing corrosion levels:
(a) tests with no transverse steel; and (b) tests with trans-
verse steel compared with tests with transverse steel and
skin reinforcement.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
The studies on bond modelling in corroded bars are not
very numerous to date. Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia
(1994) derived an empirical relation for bond strength from an
extensive experimental campaign. According to these authors,
the higher the corrosion level after cover cracking, the smaller
the concrete contribution to bond. The transverse-steel contri-
bution remains unaffected, thus ensuring a substantial residual
value to bond strength. The model, however, does not consider
the initial bond increase in the precracking stage, and the
predicted bond values are declared by the authors to be reliable
only for bars in corner positions. As a result, no information
is given for different bar arrangements.
More recently, Noghabai (1996) studied the development
of corrosion-induced splitting cracks spreading radially from
a bar, and the interface pressure was also evaluated by means
of finite elements. This pressure was added to that produced
268
by bond action, since adding the two pressures is necessary
to assess the efficiency of the concrete cover with reference to
both the environmental actions and the loads. The unavoidable,
unfavorable effects that concrete splitting has on bond,
however, were not investigated.
With regard to corrosion-loading interaction, no mechan-
ical models for bond have been proposed thus far, to the
author’s knowledge.
BOND-STRENGTH MODEL
When an anchorage is loaded up to failure, the first radial
cracks develop in the direction where the cover thickness is
a minimum (primary splitting). These first cracks do not
correspond to a splitting failure, which is characterized by
the propagation of a new set of cracks that penetrate the cover
in a different direction, and the reaching of the bursting
capacity of the anchorage (final splitting). Both the primary
and final splitting cracks must be considered to determine
bond splitting failure. These definitions are included in the
Swedish Handbook for Concrete Design (Betonghandboken
1990), following the studies by Tepfers (1973) on anchorage
ultimate bond strength, and are herein extended to consider
the effects of corrosion.
In this paper, the corrosion-product expansion inside the
cavity occupied by the bar, and the ensuing crack formation,
are modelled first, that is, prior to the loading of the bar and
to the development of bond (as is generally the case in lab-
oratory tests). Conditions of uniform attack are considered, as
caused by the artificial corrosion processes used in various
experimental campaigns, to reproduce the effects produced
by carbonation in field conditions.
Bar-concrete pressure
Crack width calculation—Because the corrosion-product
expansion controls the opening of the splitting cracks around
the bar, a relation between the depth X of the corrosion attack
and the total crack width Wcr can be established, as proposed,
for instance, by Molina, Alonso, and Andrade (1993)
W cr = Σ i u i corr = 2 π t (1a)
with
t = (νrs – 1)X (1b)
where
ui corr= opening of each single radial crack;
νrs = ratio between the volumes of corroded and virgin
steel (νrs = 2 in this paper, and hence the origi-
nal layer of virgin steel becomes twice as thick
when rusted).
Equation (1) is established assuming that all corrosion
products accumulate around the corroded bar. Because the
corrosion products tend to penetrate into the cracks and
reach to the external surface of the cover, a modified version
of Eq. (1) is used herein. The relation between the corrosion
attack X and the thickness t is calculated by equating the total
volume of the oxides formed per unit length of the bar
(thickness = νrs X (Fig. 2(a)) to that of the layer around the
bar (thickness X + t) plus that within the cracks (Fig. 2(b))
2 π r b ν rs X = 2 π r b ( X + t ) + 2 π tc (2a)
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002
and hence
r b ( ν rs – 1 )
t = ------------------------- X (2b)
rb + c
where
c = extension of the crack across the cover; and
rb = bar radius.
As for the number and pattern of the corrosion cracks, these
are determined on the basis of the experimental evidence
(refer, for instance, to Berra, Castellani, and Coronelli
[1997] and Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia [1994]). Typical
crack patterns for different bar positions are shown in Fig. 3.
Corrosion cracks the smaller cover first. These primary
splitting cracks are shown together with the final splitting
cracks in Fig. 3(a); the latter propagate on loading the bar
to bond failure, and correspond to the cracking of the
thickest cover. Figure 3(b) shows a frequent situation in
Fig. 2—Corrosion depth X and bar expansion t.
Fig. 3—Corrosion-crack patterns: (a) corrosion cracks
smaller cover; and (b) corrosion cracks both sides.
Fig. 4—Beam model for concrete cover.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002
tests—a bar confined by equal cover on both sides; this
occurs for corner bars as in this figure, or, for example, when
the bar is placed in a central position in the cross section. In
such cases, the primary crack pattern coincides with that of
the final cracks. The final stage is attained when these cracks
reach their full propagation.
Once the crack width corresponding to a given corro-
sion level is evaluated by Eq. (1) and (2), this quantity is
used to calculate the corresponding pressure at the bar-
concrete interface.
Pressure development in confined concrete—The concrete
cover is modeled as a beam, with the cross section defined
by the cover in the two orthogonal directions (Fig. 4(a)).
The beam is loaded by a distributed force representing the
resultant of the pressure caused by the expansion of the
corrosion products, and rests on evenly spaced supports
that represent the confinement exerted by the surrounding
concrete (Maeda, Otani, and Aoyama 1995). The beam is
also restrained by evenly spaced rods that model the legs
of the stirrups.
The concrete confinement model is shown in Fig. 4(a).
Fcmax is the force necessary to initiate the crack along the
portion of the cover pertaining to each node
max
Fc = β f ct c min b (3)
where
fct = concrete tensile strength;
cmin = cover thickness; and
b = distance between two nodes.
As for β, this factor takes into account the nonuniform
distribution of the hoop stresses in the cover at the onset of
cracking (Tepfers 1973). No crack opening takes place until
the cracking force is exceeded, and thus the spring acts
initially as a fixed support. Once the support reaction in a
point exceeds the cracking force, the crack starts to open and
the spring is activated. The cohesive forces transmitted
across the crack model the restraining action of the cracks
(the splitting cracks develop a sizeable, cohesive strength
across their interface as long as the crack width is limited). A
bilinear relation is herein adopted for evaluating Fc as a func-
tion of crack opening (Maeda, Otani, and Aoyama 1995)
269
 Fig. 5—Corrosion crack patterns in beams (Berra, Castellani, and Coronelli 1997).

F c ( u ) = β bc min f ct  1 – 0.85 ------ for 0 < u ≤ w1

T
u
(4a) s = [ u 1 ,ϕ 1 ,u 2 ,ϕ 2 ,… ,u n ,ϕ n ] (6b)
 w 1
2
b b b
wc – u P = F cl – pr b ---, – pr b ------ ,…, F ci + F st – pr b --- , (6c)
F c ( u ) = β bc min fct0.15 -----------------
- for w1 < u ≤ wc (4b) 2 12 2
wc – w1
2 T
b
where – pr b ------, …, F n, W n
w1 = crack opening determined on the basis of the concrete 12
fracture energy; and
wc = crack opening for zero stress transfer across the where
crack. K = elastic stiffness matrix of the beam;
As for the confining action of the stirrups, another model ui, ϕi = crack width and rotation at each node;
proposed by Giuriani, Plizzari, and Schumm (1991) is adapted Fi ,Wi= nodal force and moment applied at each node due
for the evaluation of a linear relation between the force to the distributed pressure p, and the restraining ef-
acting in a leg that bridges an open crack and the crack width fects of the concrete Fci and the stirrups Fst.
The bending moment is checked at each node, for each
a corrosion level. As soon as the beam cracks in bending in one
F st ( u ) = A st E s ------ u (5) of the nodes (cover cracking), the beam stiffness decreases by
d st
a factor α smaller than 1:
where
Ast = stirrup leg cross section area; ( EI ) cracked = α EI (7)
dst = stirrup diameter;
Es = steel elastic modulus; and The value of α varies according to whether the presence of
a = parameter defining the bond of a stirrup leg to the skin reinforcement improves the cover flexural behavior
surrounding concrete (a = 0.1 for normal-strength (that is, reinforcement parallel to the main bar, acting as a
concrete and smooth bars). flexural reinforcement inside the cover beam), or the cover
When the yielding force is reached, Fst takes this constant consists of plain concrete:
value for increasing crack width. 1. In the former case, there is still a residual stiffness (α =
Each nodal displacement coincides with the local width of 0.5), and the cover still acts as a beam confining the bar;
the splitting crack u. The crack opening coincides with the 2. In the latter case, the cover loses its flexural stiffness
elastic deformation of the beam, and is not constant in the (α = 0). The cover beam cannot determine any further increase
cover portion astride a stirrup leg. Because splitting crack of corrosion pressure.
width is related to the corrosion level (Eq. (2)), corrosion is As a matter of fact, many studies confirm the presence of
modeled by means of the displacement imposed at the mid- both longitudinal and transverse cracks in the cover around a
span node between two stirrups (Fig. 4(b)). The inverse corroded bar. In particular, these assumptions are supported
solution of the beam subject to bending yields the pressure p by the experimental observations of Berra, Castellani,
acting on the bar and on the concrete. It is then possible to and Coronelli (1997) (Fig. 5). A correspondence is shown
evaluate the distribution of the crack opening for each between the development of the splitting cracks along the
corrosion level X (Fig. 4(b)) by solving the following set embedment length (Fig. 5(a) and (b)) and the cracking of the
of equilibrium equations cover in bending for increasing corrosion levels (for exam-
ple, passing from X = 200 µm [Fig. 5(a)], to X = 300 µm
Ks + P = 0 (6a) [Fig. 5(c)]. Hence, primary splitting corresponds to the

270 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002

Fig. 6—Evaluation of pressure at bar-concrete interface for
each corrosion level.
initial crack pattern, and the cover is active to transfer
pressure on the bar for an increasing width of the corrosion
crack. This situation ends when the longitudinal cracks
propagate and the cover bending cracks form, if no skin
reinforcement is placed.
A summary of the procedure followed by the model up to
this point is given in Fig. 6.
Assessment of bursting capacity of anchorage—Once the
primary cracks have opened and propagate, it is necessary to
determine when the final cracking of the cover takes place,
max
that is, reaching the maximum bursting capacity p fin . As
recalled at the beginning of the description of the model,
this occurs as the cracks corresponding to the final pattern
max
reach their full propagation. The term p fin is evaluated
with the limit analysis method proposed by Tepfers (1973)
for noncorroded bars.
max
If the corrosion pressure remains lower than p fin , the
bursting capacity will be reached when the bar is loaded, and
the bond breakdown takes place.
max
If the corrosion pressure reaches p fin , the splitting
strength is exhausted by the expansion of the oxides. From
this stage onward, the stirrups and the concrete remaining
around the bar still develop some residual confining action.
This confinement is activated when bar ribs tend to dip into
the concrete embedment and develop a wedging action on
the concrete, up to bond failure. Hence, a residual confine-
max
ment pressure p res is still present. The corrosion expansion
has changed the confinement capacity around the bar by
cracking the concrete and preloading the stirrups. The value
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002
Fig. 7—Evaluation of bond strength for each corrosion level.
max
of p res is calculated by summing a contribution given by
the stirrups and one by the concrete around the bar. The
former is measured by the value of the pressure given by
the stirrup confinement at the point of cracking. The latter
is evaluated from the tests by Baldwin and Clark (1995),
measuring the residual force needed to pull out a bar after
its bond strength has been exceeded and the concrete cover
has split.
To summarize, attention must be paid to the value of
pmax(X), which is the confinement pressure at bond failure, for
each corrosion level. A scheme of the procedure to determine
pmax is shown in Fig. 7. The evaluation of the corresponding
bond capacity is shown in the following.
Bond capacity of anchored bar
A model proposed by Cairns and Abdullah (1996) for
splitting bond failure is modified to consider corroded bars.
Bond strength for noncorroded bars in the original formulation
is evaluated as
max o
τ bu = kp + τb (8)
where pmax is the maximum pressure at bond failure, and with
o
τ b = nA r f coh[ cot δ + tan ( φ + δ ) ] / ( π d b s r ) (9a)
k = nc r tan ( φ + δ ) / π (9b)
271
 Fig. 8—Comparison of test results and model: (a) bars without transverse steel confinement;
(b) bars with transverse steel confinement, corner position; (c) bars with transverse
steel confinement, central position; and (d) bars with transverse steel confinement and
skin reinforcement.
where
n = number of transverse ribs at section;
sr = rib spacing;
Ar = rib area in the plane at right angles to bar axis;
cr = coefficient, depending on the rib shape and area;
δ = orientation of the ribs;
φ = friction angle between steel and concrete; and
fcoh = adhesion strength.
The first term to the right of Eq. (8) is the component of
bond strength related to the splitting of the cover (splitting
component), while the second term τbo , a function of the
interface cohesion, is defined as the non-splitting component.
As a result, bond strength for splitting failure is a function
of rib orientation and area, as well as of the friction and
adhesion properties at the interface. As anticipated, this
model is herein modified to include the effects of corrosion.
Because of bar oxidation, both the friction and the adhesive
stresses acting on the inclined rib faces undergo a quanti-
tative evolution, which may be described by changing the
adhesion fcoh and the friction angle φ in Eq. (9). Seemingly,
the corrosion-induced modification of rib area Ar is modeled
through the reduction of rib height hr. Finally, the transfer of
bond stresses along the bar surface between the ribs is
considered: this surface is now rusted, and therefore a
pressure p(X) acts at the interface. By considering the friction
coefficient of rusted steel µ(X), an additional contribution to
bond capacity is calculated. To summarize, bond strength
can be formulated as follows
272
max o
τ bu = k ( X ) p ( X ) + τ b ( X ) + µ ( X ) p corr ( X ) (10)
As for the mechanical properties of the oxides, the findings
of various authors are summarized in FIB (2000). At low
corrosion levels, oxides are firm and adhere to the bar surface;
at high corrosion levels, the interphase between the steel and
the concrete is flaky and weak. The friction coefficient is
close to 0.3, and the adhesion strength is close to the tensile
strength of concrete. Youlin (1992) carried out a series of
friction tests that showed a 10% reduction of the friction
coefficient for corrosion levels close to 100 µm, and adhesion-
strength values close to 0.8 MPa. The friction coefficient and
the adhesion strength are given linear formulations, which
are based on the above-mentioned values, but the formu-
lations make it possible to introduce the corrosion depth
X when its value exceeds the value Xcr associated with
cover through-cracking (X, Xcr in mm)
µ = tan φ = B – C ( X – X cr ) (11)
f coh = D – E ( X – X cr ) (12)
An increase of friction at low levels of corrosion is not
considered in this paper because it occurs when X is close to
10 to 15 µm, that is, when usual covers have not yet cracked.
The changes in the geometric characteristics of the bar ribs
affect Ar and cr in Eq. (10). The coefficient cr is taken equal
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002
Table 1—Bond tests for corroded bars—specimen characteristics
Embedment length/ Cover to bar Stirrup Skin No. of tests per
Specimen type Bar diameter, mm bar diameter diameter ratio c/d diameter/spacing, mm reinforcement Type of test corrosion level
Al Sulaimani et al. 12 12 2.5 6/50 No Beam 1
Almusallam et al. 12 8.5 5 None No Beam 1
Auyeung, Balaguru, and
19 7 to 9 4 None No Pullout 1
Chung
Berra, Castellani, and
Coronelli 14 10 2 to 3 6/100 Yes Beam 2

Cabrera and Ghoddoussi 12 16 2 8/40 No Beam 1

Clark and Saifullah 8 13 0.5 to 2 None No Beam 4
Mangat and Elgarf 10 10 1 None No Beam 4
Rodriguez, Ortega, and
Garcia 16 13 1.5 to 2.5 8/70 to 6/100 to 0 No Beam 16

to 0.8 for crescent-shaped ribs. The change in the rib area is
considered reducing its height hr of a quantity equal to the
corrosion attack X.
The model parameters regarding the deteriorating inter-
face friction and cohesion have been estimated from the
experimental results by Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia
(1994); a description of the tests, together with statistical
information on the results and the estimation of the parameters
in Eq. (11) and (12), is provided in Appendix A.
A flowchart of the steps followed by the model to evaluate
bond strength is given in Fig. 7.
COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS
The bond-strength values calculated by means of Eq. (10)
reproduce the results of four experimental studies very well,
as shown in Fig. 8, for bond strength. Also, the role played
by the corrosion-induced pressure (which cannot be directly
measured) is highlighted. The test results consider three
confinement situations:
1. Bars with no transverse steel confinement;
2. Bars with transverse steel confinement (either in a central
or corner position) (Fig. 3); and
3. Bars with transverse steel confinement and skin re-
inforcement.
1. Bars with no transverse steel confinement—The results
by Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia (1994) for specimens
with no stirrups (Type 3 specimens; refer to Appendix A)
show strong bond deterioration for all levels of corrosion
considered in the tests (Fig. 8(a)). The model shows an ini-
tial bond-strength increase, followed by a sharp decrease,
with the whole process being governed by the evolution of
the pressure p(X); the initial increase was not measured by
Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia, who considered only cor-
rosion levels in the post-cracking stage. The increase,
however, was shown in similar tests that also covered low-
er corrosions levels (Clark and Saifullah 1993). The resid-
ual bond strength depends on the first and second terms in
Eq.(10) because the corrosion-induced pressure becomes
negligible. In particular, for corrosion levels beyond the
propagation of the cracks, that is, when the cover is split
max
along the whole length, p res is due to the confining effect of
the concrete still remaining around the bar at bar pullout (Ta-
ble 2).
2. Bars with transverse steel confinement (either in a cen-
tral or corner position)—The results by Rodriguez, Ortega,
and Garcia (1994) (Fig. 8(b)) for bars with transverse steel
confinement (Type 1 specimens; refer to Appendix A) ex-
hibit a remarkable residual bond strength, as is also evi-
denced by comparison with the results without stirrups
Table 2—Bursting capacity of anchorage
max max
Specimen type p fin , MPa p res ,* MPa
Rodriguez, Ortega, and 7.7 —
Garcia, Type 1
Rodriguez, Ortega, and
7.0 —
Garcia, Type 2
Rodriguez, Ortega, and
7.0 3.0
Garcia, Type 3
Al Sulaimani et al. 8.5 —
Berra, Castellani, and
Coronelli
15.8 —
*Only for specimens where final cracking is reached during corrosion phase.
(Fig. 8(a)). The corrosion pressure is evaluated by the mod-
el, from primary cracking (Point A in Fig. 8(b)) up to
cracking of the cover in bending (Point B in Fig. 8(b)).
The contribution given by the stirrups to the bond strength
for all corrosion levels is considered in the bursting ca-
max
pacity of the anchorage p fin (Table 2).
The results from a second experimental study (Al Sulaimani
et al. 1990) regarding bars confined with stirrups (6 mm stir-
rups with 50 mm spacing [Table 1]) have been analyzed. The
bars were in a central position in a beam specimen, as shown
in Fig. 3(a), with the lowest cover-to-bar diameter ratio of 2;
this determines the cracking of this cover first (primary split-
ting). The variation of corrosion pressure for increasing crack
opening is shown in Fig. 8(c). The bond strength beyond pri-
mary cracking remains larger than the noncorroded value. The
maximum bursting capacity of the anchorage is not reached
max
(pmax in Eq. (10) is the same as for the noncorroded bar p fin ),
and the corrosion pressure gives a supplementary contribution
to bond strength via the friction mechanism (the third term in
Eq. (10)). The cover cracking in bending does not take place
for the corrosion levels considered; the corrosion pressure ini-
tially decreases after primary cracking (Point A in Fig. 8(c))
and then rises steadily. The model predicts the end of this in-
crease to occur beyond X = 300 microns due to cracking in
bending. Bond deterioration occurs for high corrosion levels,
due to the degradation of the interface and of the ribs’ height
and inclination.
3. Bars with transverse steel confinement and skin reinforce-
ment—The test results by Berra, Castellani, and Coronelli
(1997) (Fig. 8(d)) with heavy confinement (Table 1) (6 mm
stirrups with 100 mm spacing and skin reinforcement; bar
position as in Fig. 3(a)) have been modeled considering only
a partial stiffness loss after cover cracking (α = 0.5 in
Eq.(7)). Note that the pressure and associated bond strength
increase at all corrosion levels, after cover cracking. Bond

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002 273

strength is calculated by considering the final splitting
max
pressure p fin (Table 2), followed by the limit analysis model
proposed by Tepfers (1973). This is in accordance with the
experimental evidence, showing that the corrosion cracks
form through the thinnest cover (c/db = 2, primary split-
ting), whereas bond failure is controlled by the opening of
the splitting cracks through the thickest cover (c/db = 3,
final splitting).
Interpretation and discussion of results
The residual bond strength depends on whether primary
cracking, or even the complete breakout of the cover, has
been reached.
Precracking stage—For the lowest corrosion levels,
preceding the development of primary cracks, pressure
builds up around the bar. In addition, an increase in steel-
concrete friction occurs with the development of initial
corrosion products. This explains the initial bond im-
provement that many experimental studies have shown
for corrosion levels prior to the so-called cracking stage
(that is, primary cracking).
Primary cracking—As mentioned previously, the develop-
ment of the first splitting cracks does not mean that the con-
finement around the bar is severely impaired. A significant
confinement is still developed by the sound part of the cover
and by the stirrups around the bar, if any, providing a signifi-
cant residual bond strength. As further corrosion takes place,
the swelling of the oxides induces tensile stresses in the stirrup
legs around the bar as long as the concrete cover is active.
The pressure around the bar may still increase, and bond may
even be higher than for noncorroded bars, as observed by a
number of authors.
The pressure increase will end when the concrete cover
cracks in bending, losing stiffness. Also it will be limited
if the stirrups’ yielding is reached—an event that could be
favored by the cross-sectional loss of the stirrup legs that are
also corroding. In conditions of severe pitting, the confine-
ment could drop in a brittle way, as the bars may have lost
ductility. In all cases, the bond increase will end when final
cracking of the cover occurs.
Final cover cracking—Progressive corrosion causes damage
in the cover, up to when the final crack pattern is reached,
with the concrete cover cracked to a point that it no longer
provides confinement to the bars or has even popped out.
The bars are subject to the residual confinement developed
by the surrounding concrete left in place and the stirrups.
This gives some residual bond strength that is already pro-
gressively decreasing, a further decrease as bar rib height
and the interface strength are progressively reduced by
corrosion. This situation corresponds to the bond deterioration
process described by many authors.
In all three stages, the model and the experimental evidence
show that the stirrups and the skin reinforcement contribute
to bond strength. The stirrups and the skin reinforcement,
however, corrode more slowly than the main reinforcement
in the accelerated-corrosion tests because only the main bars
are connected to the electrical current. In a real situation, the
carbonation or chloride intrusion front, or both, penetrate the
concrete, and the confining reinforcement is affected first,
with higher cross-sectional losses than in the main reinforce-
ment. Consequently, the investigated specimens do not fully
correspond to the actual situation. The contribution of the
stirrups and skin reinforcement to bond, however, is not
negligible (though it is partly reduced because of corrosion).
274
For instance, when pitting corrosion occurs, some of the
stirrups may be even cut through. Hence, the bond strength
at these locations would be close to that of a bar with no
transverse reinforcement, but the confinement is not
completely lost because other stirrups remain active. When
carbonation takes place, the reduction of confinement will be
more uniform and progressive because of the more generalized
corrosion: reduced stirrup cross sections should be con-
sidered, but the confinement would still be sizeable. To
guarantee the in-time effectiveness of the confinement,
materials such as glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRPs),
as well as stainless steel and carbon fiber-reinforced polymers
(CFRPs) could be used for the skin reinforcement (with
some limitations in the latter two due to galvanic currents
and corrosion of black steel).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A model has been developed to predict both the pressure
around a corroded bar (which plays a fundamental role, but
cannot be measured) and the bond strength at the onset of
pullout in an anchorage. This approach reproduces well-
documented experimental results in the literature and provides
an interpretation of the differences among these, based on
the understanding, from a mechanical viewpoint, of the
phenomena taking place for increasing corrosion levels:
primary and final cracking of the concrete cover; the evo-
lution of internal corrosion pressure; progressive confinement
loss; and interface deterioration.
The different behavior of corroded bars with and without
transverse steel is analyzed. Bond degradation is shown to be
caused by the loss of confinement in specimens with no
stirrups, and by the simultaneous deterioration of steel-
concrete interface; these critical situations may markedly affect
structural behavior when transverse steel is not provided, for
instance, in RC slabs.
Two main conclusions may be drawn for bars confined by
stirrups as in ordinary RC beams. It is a well-known fact that
bond strength of corroded bars increases as long as the cover
is not cracked. This is because of the pressure building up
around the bar, and the increase of friction at the interface. A
new aspect shown by the interpretation of test results through
the model is that considerable bond strength remains available
as long as only the primary corrosion cracks have formed
across the thinner cover. The confinement around the bar is
not impaired, and the corrosion pressure build-up gives some
contribution to bond strength through the friction mechanism
between the bar surface and the surrounding concrete. Bond
strength, after the initial increase that precedes cracking, may
remain greater than that for the non-corroded bars, up to rather
high corrosion levels. This finding prevents making excessively
conservative assessments when considering bond deterio-
ration that starts at the beginning of the cracking stage. Bond
deterioration begins when the final cracking takes place—
when the cover is split and cracked in bending, or even
delamination has occurred. In these conditions, the amount
of bond deterioration depends on the interface degradation
and the modification of the rib profile becoming the domi-
nant factors. The stirrups provide some residual confining
action, together with the concrete remaining around the bar.
The beneficial effect of transverse steel confinement is that
it limits and delays bond deterioration, but it is still unavoid-
able at high corrosion levels.
The proposed model is, first of all, helpful in understanding
the role that corrosion has on the many aspects of bond,
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002
and quantitatively evaluating the residual bond strength. In “Effect of Reinforcement Corrosion on Bond Strength,” Construction and
addition, the model is a further step in extracting indications Building Materials, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 123-129.
Al-Sulaimani, G. J.; Kaleemullah, M.; Basumbul, I.A.; and Rasheeduzzafar,
of the safety level of a deteriorated structure by the type and 1990, “Influence of Corrosion and Cracking on Bond Behavior and
width of visible cracks. Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87,
This analysis opens the way to the study of the structural No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 220-231.
behavior of RC members, taking into account the deterio- Auyeung, Y.; Balaguru, P.; and Chung, L., 2000, “Bond Behavior of
ration of bond action and the possibility of bond failure in the Corroded Reinforcement Bars,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 97, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr., pp. 214-220.
anchorage zones. Baldwin M. I., and Clark L. A., 1995, “The Assessment of Reinforcing
Bars with Inadequate Anchorage,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 47,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No. 171, June, pp. 95-102.
This research is based on an experimental program developed between Berra, M.; Castellani A.; and Coronelli D., 1997, “Bond in Reinforced
1992 and 2000 by ENEL-P.I.S, Hydraulic and Structural Research Centre Concrete and Corrosion of Bars,” Structural Faults and Repair, Proceed-
and the Technical University of Milan, conducted by Alberto Castellani, ings of the 7th International Conference, Engineering Technics Press, Edin-
Technical University of Milan, and Mario Berra, ENEL. The author wishes burgh, UK, V. 2, pp. 349-356.
to gratefully acknowledge their supervision and help throughout the numerous Betonghandboken, 1990, Concrete Design Handbook, Second Edition,
years of activity. This research project was also partly funded by MURST K. Cederwall, M. Lorentsen, and L. Ostlund, eds., AB Svensk Byggtjanst,
(Italian Ministry of University and Scientific and Technological Research) Stockholm, Sweden, 791 pp.
Project: “Safety of High-Performance Structures.” Finally, the author wishes Cabrera, J., and Ghoddoussi P., 1992, “The Effect of Reinforcement
to thank Pietro G. Gambarova of the Technical University of Milan for the Corrosion on Strength of Steel/Concrete Bond,” Bond in Concrete, Pro-
advice regarding, and revision of, the final manuscript. ceedings of the International Conference, Riga-Latvia, pp.10-11 to 10-24.
Cairns, J., and Abdullah, R. B., 1996, “Bond Strength of Black and
NOTATION Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement–A Theoretical Approach,” ACI Materials
A = rib area Journal, V. 93, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 362-369.
a = constant defining bond of stirrup leg to surrounding concrete Clark, L. A., and Saifullah, M., 1993, “Effect of Corrosion on Reinforce-
Ar = rib area in plane at right angles to bar axis ment Bond Strength,” Structural Faults and Repair, Proceedings of the 5th
Ast = cross-sectional area of stirrup leg International Conference, Engineering Technics Press, Edinburgh, UK,
b = distance between two contiguous rigid-elastic supports pp. 113-119.
c = concrete cover thickness FIB, 2000, “Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete,” State-of-the-Art
cr = coefficient depending on rib shape and area Report, Bulletin 10, Aug., 427 pp.
d = stirrup spacing Giuriani, E.; Plizzari, G. A.; and Schumm, C., 1991, “Role of Stirrups
db = bar diameter and Residual Tensile Strength of Cracked Concrete on Bond,” ASCE
dst = stirrup leg diameter Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 117, No. 1, Jan., pp. 1-17.
EI = elastic bending stiffness of cover beam Maeda, M.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., 1995, “Effect of Confinement on
Es = steel elastic modulus Bond Splitting Behavior in RC Beams,” IABSE Structural Engineering
Fc = cohesive force across cracked portion of cover pertaining to International, V. 3, pp. 166-171.
each node Mangat, P. S., and Elgarf, M. S., 1999, “Bond Characteristics of Corrod-
Fcmax = cracking strength of portion of cover pertaining to each node ing Reinforcement in Concrete Beams,” RILEM Materials and Structures,
fcoh = adhesion strength V. 32, Mar., pp. 89-97.
fct = concrete tensile strength Molina F.; Alonso, C.; and Andrade, C., 1993, “Cover Cracking as a
Fi = force acting at i-th node of beam Function of Bar Corrosion: Part 2—Numerical Model,” RILEM Materials
Fst = force acting in stirrup leg bridging open crack and Structures, V. 26, pp. 532-548.
hr = rib height Noghabai, K., 1996, “Environmental Effects on Bond in R/C Structures,”
K = elastic stiffness matrix of beam Durability of Building Materials and Components, Proceedings of the 7th
n = number of transverse ribs at section International Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, May, pp. 605-614.
P = vector of nodal forces and moments Rodriguez, J.; Ortega, L.; Garcia, A., 1994, “Corrosion of Reinforcing
p, pcorr = pressure developed by corrosion product expansion Bars and Service Life of R/C Structures: Corrosion and Bond Deterioration,”
max
p = maximum pressure at bond failure Concrete across Borders, Proceedings, Odense, Denmark, V. II, pp. 315-326.
max
p fin = bursting capacity corresponding to final cracking Tepfers, R., 1973, “A Theory of Bond Applied to Overlapped Tensile
max
p res = residual confinement pressure beyond the final cracking Reinforcement Splices for Deformed Bars,” Publication 73:2, Chalmers
rb = bar radius University of Technology, Goteborg, 328 pp.
s = vector of beam nodal displacements and rotations Youlin, L., 1992, “Experimental Study of Bond-Anchorage Properties for
sr = rib spacing Deformed Bars in Concrete,” Bond in Concrete, Riga, Latvia, pp. 1-9 to 1-18.
t = actual thickness of corrosion products
corr
ui , ui = crack opening
w1 = crack opening determined on basis of concrete fracture energy APPENDIX I
wc = crack opening for zero stress transfer across crack The model constants in Eq. (11) and (12), related to the
Wcr = total crack width friction and cohesion at the deteriorating interface, have
Wi = moment acting on i-th node of beam
been derived from some well-known experimental results
X = depth of corrosion attack
Xcr = corrosion depth at onset of primary cracking (Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia 1994). The specimens are
α = beam stiffness reduction factor at cracking concrete cubes, 300 mm per side, reinforced with four bars
β = cover splitting strength factor in their corners: two bars are in the top part of the specimen,
δ = orientation of ribs with reference to casting of the concrete, and two in the
φ = friction angle between steel and concrete
ϕi = nodal rotation
bottom. The loading condition is a pullout force applied in
µ = friction coefficient between steel and concrete turn to each bar, thus each specimen is used for four bond
τbo = adhesive bond strength contribution tests. Each specimen is constrained within a reactive frame,
τbu = bond strength reproducing part of a beam submitted to constant shear
νrs = ratio between volumes of corroded and virgin steel force (beam test). This type of test is common to all the
studies quoted in this paper and is used to calibrate the
REFERENCES model or to make comparisons (Table 1). Lastly, the beam
ACI Committee 318, 1995, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318M-95) and Commentary (318RM-95),” American
test reproduces realistic bond behavior and leads to strength
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 371 pp. values that can be adopted in the design and assessment of
Almusallam, A. A.; Al-Gahtani, A. S.; Aziz, A.; and Rasheeduzzafar, 1996, concrete structures.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002 275

Table A.1—Materials and specimen characteristics Table A.3—Estimate of parameters
(Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia 1994) Parameter Estimated value Standard deviation 90% confidence limits
Concrete Stirrup Steel yield B 0.37 0.03 0.31/0.43
No. of strength fc, Cover, Main diameter/ strength fy, C 0.26 0.18 –0.03/0.56
Type specimens MPa mm bars spacing MPa
D 3.41 1.55 0.86/5.96
1 12 40 24 4φ16 φ8/70 mm 590
E 21.21 7.95 8.16/34.26
φ6/100
2 12 40 24 4φ16 590
mm
3 12 40 24 4φ16 — 590

Table A.2—Corrosion level and bond strength

(tests by Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia 1994)
Corrosion Bond strength,
Specimen Bar No. of level X, Average bond standard
type position tests mm strength, MPa deviation, MPa
8 0 5.33 0.1
Top cast 7 0.153 5.17 0.17
4 0.264 4.59 0.1
Type1
8 0 6.30 0.35
Bottom
5 0.142 5.82 0.42 (a) (b)
cast
4 0.228 4.71 0.43 Fig. A.1—Model results compared with experimental tests
8 0 5.55 0.69 by Rodriguez, Ortega, and Garcia (1994): (a) Type 2 speci-
Top cast 7 0.139 4.78 0.12 mens, top-cast bars, bond strength values calculated by
8 0.338 3.57 0.18 model, and scatterplot for tests; and (b) Specimen Types 1,
Type 2
8 0 6.47 0.43 2, and 3 standardized residuals between experimental and
Bottom
6 0.139 5.27 0.18 predicted bond strength values.
cast
8 0.351 4.02 0.42
C, D, and E. The estimates for the parameters, standard
8 0 5.65 0.36
deviations, and 90% confidence limits are given in Table A.3.
Top cast 4 0.152 2.54 0.29
The fitting of the experimental results is shown in Fig. A.1.
7 0.377 1.25 0.14 The goodness-of-fit of the model is measured by chi-square
Type 3
8 0 6.36 0.32 fitting. A set of 32 experimental results was used. Consid-
Bottom
cast
6 0.163 1.94 0.28 ering ν = 28 degrees of freedom, a value of χ2 of 21.24 was
5 0.376 1.43 0.29 obtained as the sum of squares of weighted residuals, cor-
responding to a probability α greater than 0.9 for the fit.
In addition, since χ2 ≤ ν indicates a good fit, the results
The main variables are the level of corrosion (three levels: obtained are satisfactory. The residuals between the experi-
the first with no corrosion, the second and third corresponding mental and predicted bond strength for specimen Types 1, 2
to crack widths of 0.5 to 1 mm and 1.5 to 2 mm, respectively), and 3 values do not show any particular trend (Fig. A.1(b)).
cover-diameter ratio, amount of stirrups, and bar position (top- The values have been standardized on the basis of their esti-
or bottom-cast). The data concerning the materials, concrete mated standard deviation (approximately 0.3 MPa), and ap-
cover, and stirrups are given in Table A.1. Table A.2 shows pear to be randomly distributed at about 0 with more than
the average values of corrosion attack for each corrosion lev- 95% of their standardized values between –2 and +2. Note
el, and bond strength. The total number of results for each that the scatter of the test results is relatively large, which is
type of specimen should have been 48, but a few tests typical of bond tests. As a result, the confidence intervals ob-
were not successful, due to concrete failure before bar tained for the parameters are rather large.
pullout. The comparison of the model and experimental results in
The four parameters in Eq. (11) and (12) have been identi- Fig. 8(c) and (d) (Al Sulaimani et al. 1990; Berra, Castellani,
fied using the least-square method. The model (Eq. (10)) is and Coronelli 1997) shows residuals within 4% of the experi-
formulated by means of a nonlinear function of Parameters B, mental values for the first study and 10% for the second.

276 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2002