1/10

BOND-SLIP BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS

Halil SEZEN1 Jack P. MOEHLE2

1
Civil & Environmental Engineering & Geodetic Science, The Ohio State University
470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210-1275 USA
2
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley
1301 South 46th St., Richmond, CA 94804-4698 USA

Keywords: bond-slip model, reinforced concrete, seismic, bond stress, development length

ABSTRACT

Experimental research indicates that elongation and slip of the tensile reinforcement at the beam-
column interface could result in significant fixed-end rotations that are not included in the flexural
analysis. These additional rotations at beam-column fixed ends can increase the total member lateral
displacement significantly. This paper presents examples of experimental cyclic end rotations and
resulting lateral displacements due to longitudinal bar slip for the four full-scale reinforced concrete
column specimens tested at the University of California, Berkeley. The columns were subjected to
constant and varying axial loads, and uni-directional lateral load resulting in contraflexure at column
midheight. Test results showed that the contribution of bar slip deformations to total member lateral
displacement was considerably large and almost constant throughout the tests.
Based on experimental results and previous theoretical investigations, an analytical procedure is
developed to characterize the bond-slip behavior. The procedure is used to compute column end-
rotations and corresponding lateral displacement due to longitudinal bar slip at beam-column
interfaces under monotonic lateral load. The relation between the bending moment and longitudinal
bar slip at the interface is obtained from the moment-curvature analysis using a fiber cross-section and
uniaxial material properties. A bi-uniform relationship is adopted to model the bond stress distribution
along the development length of the anchored reinforcing bar. The proposed bond-slip model is
evaluated using column test results and compared with other analytical models. Calculated lateral
load-slip displacement relations are compared with the measured cyclic test results.

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Longitudinal bar slip at the end of reinforced concrete members results in additional member end
rotation that is not part of flexural deformations. The contribution of these member end-rotations to
total lateral deformations can be relatively large. Experimental results from four double-curvature
columns tested by [13] indicated that, in some cases, the bar slip deformations may be as large as
flexural deformations. Figure 1 shows the contribution of flexure, longitudinal bar slip, and shear
displacement components to the total member lateral displacement for the columns tested by [13]. For
all columns, slip deformations contributed between twenty five and forty percent of the total lateral
displacement. The contribution of slip deformations did not appear to vary too much with increasing
lateral displacement or damage in the column. The results suggests that if the deformations resulting
from longitudinal bar slip are ignored in the analysis or member modeling, the predicted member
deformations may be significantly smaller or the predicted lateral member stiffness may be larger than
the existing member stiffness.
Numerous researchers have investigated the anchorage behavior of reinforcing bars
experimentally, and a number of analytical bond-slip models have been developed over the years.
One of the most widely used bond stress-slip relationships proposed by [3] and [4] is based on an
experimental program at the University of California, Berkeley (Figure 2 i). Within last twenty years,
various refined computer models were proposed to implement this model, and a few similar models
were developed to represent bond-slip deformations in reinforced concrete members under monotonic
and cyclic loads ([8], [5], [6], [11], and [14]). A detailed analysis of bar slip under monotonic loading
and a description of available analytical procedures for force-slip deformation relationships are
summarized by [2].
By assuming an average uniform bond stress, ub along the development length, ld of a reinforcing
bar, from equilibrium of forces in the bar: Fbar = fsAs = ubpbld. Substituting the bar perimeter, pb=πdb and
As=πdb2/4 yields
 2/10

fs d b
ld = (1)
4u b
Using a uniform bond stress along the development length of a reinforcing bar, [10] modeled bar
slip deformations at the beam-column interface. The assumed uniform bond stress was 0.54 fc′ MPa
(6.5 fc′ in psi units). Based on the assumption of linearly decreasing bar stress with the distance from
the interface and zero stress at the distance of development length, and using Eq.(1), the slip or the
elongation of the reinforcing bar over the development length is given by

2 2
ε s ld fs l d f d fs d b
slip = = = s b = (2)
2 2E s 8E s u b 4.3E s fc′

This model is expected to be more representative of the elastic range as it uses the elastic
modulus of elasticity for steel. Based on experimental results, [12] and [7] demonstrated that at the
beam-column interface, the strains in the reinforcing bar could be much larger than the yield strain
causing columns to experience significant fixed-end rotations. Based on experimental results from
bridge column tests, [7] proposed the bi-uniform bond stress-slip model shown in Figure 2 ii. In this
model, for slip values less than the slip corresponding to the yield strain in the bar, the uniform bond
stress is approximated as 1 fc′ MPa (12 fc′ psi). For slip values exceeding the slip at yield, the bond
stress capacity is 0.5 fc′ MPa (6 fc′ psi).
The analytical procedure proposed by [2] predicts the monotonic force-deformation relationship of
a reinforcing bar embedded in concrete. The numerical procedure includes calculation of the
displacement due to slippage of the bar with nonlinear strain distribution (Figure 2 iii). According to this
model, four regions are developed along a reinforcing bar in tension, namely, elastic region with length
Le; yield plateau region with length Lyp; strain-hardening region with length Lsh; and pullout-cone region
with length Lpc. In the model, an elastic uniform bond stress, ue is assumed along the length of the bar
except for the pullout-cone region. In addition to elastic uniform bond stress, a frictional uniform bond
stress, uf is assumed in the yield plateau and strain-hardening regions. The elastic uniform bond
stress, ue is adopted from [1] and is equal to 0.86 fc′ MPa (10.4 fc′ psi) for the specimens tested by
[13]. The uniform frictional bond stress, uf is based on the results of an experimental investigation
carried out by [11]. The slip is calculated by integrating the axial strains over the length of the bar,
which is the area under the strain diagram shown in Figure 2 iii.

( )
slip = ε s Lpc + 0.5(ε s + ε sh ) Lsh + 0.5 ε sh + ε y Lyp + 0.5ε y Le (3)

2 PROPOSED BOND-SLIP MODEL

To calculate the member deformations resulting from longitudinal bar slip, it is essential to
estimate the relation between the bending moment and section rotation at the beam-column interface.
Once the rotation at member ends is known, the member lateral displacement can be calculated
easily. A brief summary of the proposed model developed to calculate monotonic force-slip
deformation relations is presented here.

2.1 Reinforcing Bar Slip

A large crack opening at the beam-column interface may lead to an increase in the axial strain in
the longitudinal bar crossing the crack. As a result of bond deterioration between steel and concrete,
and penetration and accumulation of axial strains along the tensile reinforcement inside the joint, the
extension and slip of the reinforcing bar at the interface can be significant. The slip resulting from
accumulated axial strains in the bar embedded in the joint can be calculated by integrating the strains
over the portion of the bar between the interface and the point with no axial strain. Using a bilinear
strain distribution shown in Figure 3, the slip is determined from Eq.(4).
 3/10

ld
ε s ld
slip = ε dx ∫
0
=
2
εs ≤ ε y

l dy l dy + l d′ (4)
l′ε y ldy
∫
slip = ε dx +
0
∫
l dy
ε dx =
2
+ d (ε s + ε y )
2
εs > ε y

2.2 Development Length

The development lengths over the elastic and inelastic portions of the bar (ld and l’d, respectively,
Figure 3) are based on the assumption of bi-uniform bond stress distribution, and calculated from
equilibrium of forces in the bar. The elastic and inelastic development lengths are calculated from
Eq.(1) and from the following equation, respectively.

l d′ =
(fs − fy ) d b (5)
4u b′

As illustrated in Figure 3, for all strains exceeding εy, in Eq.(5) the elastic strain increment is
approximated as the difference between the current stress in the bar and the yield stress (i.e., fs-fy). It
should be noted that the model proposed here results in zero inelastic slip if the stress, fs does not
increase while the strain increases along the yield plateau of the steel stress-strain relation. This
behavior seems unrealistic. Therefore [13] suggests a modest strain-hardening (e.g., at least one
percent) when the strain in the bar is within the yield plateau of the stress-strain relation.

2.3 Bond Stress-Slip Relationship

Using equilibrium at first yielding in the longitudinal bar and assuming a linear strain distribution
along the bar, by inserting Eq.(1) into Eq.(4) for ld (similar to derivation of Eq.(2)), the average uniform
2
bond stress at yielding, uby can be calculated in terms of slip, u by = f y d b /(8E s slip) .
The slip was measured at the ends of twelve column specimens tested by [8] and [13]. Using the
measured slip values at yield displacement, uniform bond stresses, uby are calculated. The calculated
bond stresses are normalized by fc′ and presented in Figure 4. For the twelve columns considered,
the average bond stress is 0.95 fc′ MPa (11.4 fc′ psi), and the standard deviation is 0.2 fc′ MPa
(2.5 fc′ psi). In this study, a uniform bond stress of 1.0 fc′ MPa is assumed in the elastic range (Figure
3). In the portion of the reinforcing bar over which the yield strain is exceeded, a uniform bond stress
of 0.5 fc′ MPa is used as suggested by [7].

2.4 Deformations due to Bar Slip

If Eqs.(1) and (5) are substituted into Eq.(4) for the elastic and inelastic development lengths, and
using the assumed average bi-uniform bond stresses, the slip is given by

ε s fs d b
slip = εs ≤ εy
8 fc′

slip =
ε s fs d b
+
(ε s + ε y )(fs − fy ) d b εs > ε y
(6)

8 fc′ 4 fc′

In the proposed model, the rotation due to bar slip is assumed to be concentrated at the ends of a
column in the form of rigid body rotation (Figure 5). It is assumed that the section would rotate about
its neutral axis. As illustrated in Figure 6, which is the close-up view of the beam-column interface
shown in Figure 5, the section rotation due to bar slip can be calculated by dividing the bar slip by the
width of the open crack, which is the difference between the depth of the section, d, and the neutral
axis depth, c.

slip
θ slip = (7)
d −c
 4/10

Substitution of Eq.(6) into Eq.(7) yields

ε s fs d b
θ slip = εs ≤ ε y
8 fc′ (d − c )
(8)
ε s fs d b
θ slip = [ε y fy + 2(ε s + ε y )(fs − fy )] εs > ε y
8 fc′ (d − c )

As illustrated in Figure 5, if the slip rotation at the top and bottom of a double-curvature column is
known, total lateral displacement due to bar slip can be calculated from

(
∆ slip = θ slip,top + θ slip,bottom L ) (9)

3 COMPARISON OF MODELS AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The moment-curvature analysis of the column cross-section used in [13] is carried out using
uniaxial material models and a fiber cross-section model. The longitudinal steel and concrete were
modeled using the data from steel coupon tests and concrete cylinder tests [13]. The reinforcing bar
stress-slip relations from Eq.(2) ([10]), Eq.(3) ([2]), and the proposed model (Eq.(6)) are compared in
Figure 7. For steel strains smaller than the yield strain, all models use the same elastic slip equation
given in Eq.(4) where ld is calculated from Eq.(1). The only difference between the three models is the
magnitude of the assumed average elastic bond stress, ub, which is 0.54 fc′ , 0.86 fc′ and 1.0 fc′ MPa
in [10], [2], and the proposed models, respectively. After the first yielding in the bar, the difference
between the bar stress-slip behavior from [2] and the proposed models is the result of different
assumptions for the development lengths and the average bond stresses in the inelastic portion of the
bar.
In the fiber section moment-curvature analysis, the stress in the tension reinforcement can be
monitored and recorded as a function of moment. Then, using the analysis results and following the
analytical procedures presented above, the section moment-bar slip relations can be obtained under
different axial loads. Figure 8 shows the moment-slip relations under two different axial loads. Note
that the slip from [10] (Eq.(2)) is a function of moment and can be calculated without moment-
curvature analysis. The moment-slip relations from all three models are most similar in the elastic
range under zero axial load. Because the model developed by [10] is largely based on the
assumptions of elastic material behavior, the slip is smaller in the inelastic range. The difference
between the other two models is a result of assumed inelastic development lengths and average bond
stresses. The effect of axial load on the section behavior is included in the moment-curvature analysis.
Under higher axial loads, the axial strain in the tension reinforcement decreases resulting in smaller
slip as illustrated in Figure 8.
The calculated development length was slightly smaller than the actual embedment length in the
column specimens tested by [13] indicating that Eq.(8) can be evaluated using the test results from
[13]. The neutral axis depth of the cross-section (c in Figure 6), reinforcing steel stress, fs and strain, εs
are obtained as a function of section moment from the cross-section moment-curvature analysis. In
Figure 9, the monotonic moment-slip rotation relations calculated from Eq.(8) are compared with the
hysteretic moment-slip rotation relations measured at the top and bottom of a specimen tested by [13].
Using the computed moment-slip rotation relations, the monotonic lateral load-slip displacement
relations are calculated from the proposed model (Eq.(9)). The calculated and measured lateral load-
slip displacement relations compare relatively well for the four column specimens tested by [13]
(Figure 10).

4 CONCLUSIONS

Test results from [13] show that the contribution of bar slip deformations to total member lateral
displacement could be significant. In addition to flexural deformations, bar slip deformations should be
considered in modeling and analysis of reinforced concrete members. A monotonic bond-slip model is
proposed and compared with other analytical models. Calculated lateral load-bar slip displacement
relations compared reasonably well with the measured test results.
The bond-slip model proposed in this paper is different from similar monotonic models proposed in
[2], [7], and [10]:
 5/10

• [10] appears to represent elastic behavior relatively well. The proposed model uses the same
approach for modeling elastic bond-slip behavior using a larger bond stress.
• In addition to different inelastic development lengths and elastic bond stresses used by [2] and
the proposed model, the bond stress distribution over the inelastic portion of the bar is
represented differently in the two models. In the proposed model, the inelastic bond stress is
reduced and is equal to one half of the elastic bond stress. On the other hand, the inelastic
bond stress in [2] is increased and equal to the summation of elastic bond stress and a
frictional bond stress.
• The proposed model and [7] use the same bond stress-slip model. However, in [7] the
member end rotation includes the effect of slip in both compressive and tensile longitudinal
reinforcement. According to [7], the slip rotation is the difference in the slips in compressive
and tensile longitudinal bars divided by the distance between the bars. The proposed model
considers the slip deformations in the tensile reinforcement only, and the slip rotation is
calculated from Eq.(7).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was funded by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center through
the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation. The
experiments by [13] were carried out in the research laboratories of PEER at the University of
California, Berkeley.

NOTATION

c = neutral axis depth, d = depth of cross-section, db = bar diameter, Es = modulus of elasticity of

reinforcing bar, fc′ = specified compressive concrete strength, fs = stress in reinforcing bar, fy = steel
yield stress, L = column length, ld = elastic development length, l’d = development length over the
inelastic portion of the bar, ldy = development length corresponding to reinforcing bar yielding at
interface, slip = amount of reinforcing bar slip at beam-column interface, ub = elastic uniform bond
stress, u’b = inelastic uniform bond stress, uby = average uniform bond stress at first yielding, ∆ total =
total member lateral displacement, ∆ y = member lateral displacement at first yielding of longitudinal
reinforcement, εs = strain in reinforcing bar, εy = yield strain, and θ slip = member end rotation due to
longitudinal bar slip.,

REFERENCES

[1] ACI Committee 408. 1979. Suggested Development, Splice, and Standard Hook Provisions for
Deformed Bars. Concrete International, American Concrete Institute, July 1979, Vol. 1, No.7.
pp. 44-46
[2] Alsiwat J. M., and Saatcioglu M. 1992. Reinforcement Anchorage Slip under Monotonic
Loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.118, No.9, Sept. 1992. pp. 2421-2438
[3] Ciampi V., Eligehausen R., Bertero V. V., and Popov, E. P. 1982. Analytical Model for
Concrete Anchorages of Reinforcing Bars under Generalized Excitations. Technical Report
UCB/EERC-82/23. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley. Nov. 1982. 121 pages
[4] Eligehausen R., Popov E. P., and Bertero V. V. 1983. 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. 169 pages
[5] Filippou F. C., Popov E. P., and Bertero V. V. 1986. Analytical Studies of Hysteretic of R/C
Joints. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 112, No.7, July 1986. pp. 1605-1622
[6] Hawkins N. M., Lin I., and Ueda T. 1987. Anchorage of Reinforcing Bars for Seismic Forces.
ACI Structural Journal, Vol.84, No.5, Sept.-Oct. 1987. pp. 407-418
[7] Lehman D. E., and Moehle J. P. 2000. Seismic Performance of Well-confined Concrete Bridge
Columns. PEER-1998/01. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley. 316 pages
[8] Lynn A. C. 2001. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns. Ph.D.
Thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California, Berkeley.
 6/10

[9] Morita S., and Kaku T. 1984. Slippage of Reinforcement in Beam-Column Joint of Reinforced
Concrete Frame. Proceedings, 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San
Francisco. Vol. 6. pp. 477-484
[10] Otani S., and Sozen M. A. November 1972. Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete
Frames during Earthquakes. Structural Research Series No. 392, University of Illinois, Urbana.
551 pages
[11] Pochanart S., and Harmon T. 1989. Bond-slip Model for Generalized Excitations Including
Fatigue. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 86, 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989. pp. 465-474
[12] Saatcioglu M., Alsiwat J. M., and Ozcebe G. 1992. Hysteretic Behavior of Anchorage Slip in
R/C Members. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. Vol.118, No.9, Sept. 1992. pp. 2439-
2458
[13] Sezen, H. 2002. Seismic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Building Columns.
Ph.D. Thesis. University of California, Berkeley
[14] Soroushian P., and Choi K. -B. 1989. Local Bond of Deformed Bars with Different Diameters in
Confined Concrete. ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 86, No.2, March-April 1989. pp. 217-222

100 100 100 100

percentage of displacement

Specimen−1 Specimen−2 Specimen−3 Specimen−4

80
flexure 80 80 80

60 60 60 60

40
shear 40 40 40

20 20 20 20
slip
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
∆total / ∆y ∆total / ∆y ∆total / ∆y ∆total / ∆y
80
∆slip 40
∆slip+shear 60 60
displacement (mm)

60
∆slip+shear+flexure 30

40
flexure
40
40
20
shear
20 20 20
10
slip
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
∆total / ∆y ∆total / ∆y ∆total / ∆y ∆total / ∆y

Fig. 1. Contribution of flexure, shear and slip displacements to total displacement

 7/10

(i)

(ii) (iii)

Fig. 2. Bond stress-slip model proposed by: i) [4], ii) [7], and iii) stress, strain, and bond stress
distribution by [2]

Fig. 3. Column deformations due to bar slip and computer model

 8/10

normalized unit bond stress at yield (uby/√fc‘) (MPa)

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2 mean + std. dev.

1 mean = 0.95

0.8 mean − std. dev.

0.6

0.4

0.2

2CLD12M
2CHD12
2CMH18

3CMH18

3CMD12

2CVD12
3SMD12
3CLH18

2CLH18

2CLD12
3SLH18

2SLH18

Fig. 4. Calculated bond stresses at yield level

Fig. 5. Column deformations due to bar slip and computer model

Fig. 6. Illustration of slip rotation and forces at the beam-column interface

 9/10

80

70

60

bar stress, fs (ksi)

50

40

30

20

10 Proposed Model
Otani and Sozen (1972)
Alsiwat and Saatcioglu (1992)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
slip (in.)

Fig. 7. Calculated reinforcing bar stress-slip relations (1 ksi = 6.895 MPa, 1 in.=25.4 mm)

4500

4000

3500

3000
moment (k−in.)

2500

2000

1500

1000 Proposed model, P=150 kips

Alsiwat and Saatcioglu (1992), P=150 kips
500 Proposed model, P=0
Alsiwat and Saatcioglu (1992), P=0
Otani and Sozen (1972)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
slip (in.)

Fig. 8. Comparison of moment-slip relations (1 k-in.= 0.113 kN m, 1 kip = 4.448 kN, 1 in.=25.4 mm)

5000 5000
measured
model
moment (k−in.)

moment (k−in.)

0 0

Specimen−1 (top) Specimen−1 (bottom)

−5000 −5000
−0.01 −0.005 0 0.005 0.01 −0.01 −0.005 0 0.005 0.01
slip rotation slip rotation

Fig. 9. Example of calculated and measured moment-slip rotation relations (1 k-in.= 0.113 kN m)
 10/10

Specimen−1 Specimen−2
50 50
lateral load (kips)

lateral load (kips)

0 0

−50 −50
experiment
model
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
slip displacement (in.) slip displacement (in.)

Specimen−4
Specimen−3
50 50
lateral load (kips)

lateral load (kips)

0 0

−50 −50

−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 0 1 2 3 4
slip displacement (in.) slip displacement (in.)

Fig. 10. Lateral load-slip displacement relations (1 kip = 4.448 kN, 1 in.= 25.4 mm)