Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296
DOI 10.1617/s11527-010-9700-y
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Impact of crack width on bond: confined
and unconfined rebar
David W. Law • Denglei Tang •
Thomas K. C. Molyneaux • Rebecca Gravina
Received: 14 January 2010 / Accepted: 14 December 2010 / Published online: 23 December 2010
 RILEM 2010
Abstract This paper reports the results of a research
project comparing the effect of surface crack width and
degree of corrosion on the bond strength of confined
and unconfined deformed 12 and 16 mm mild steel
reinforcing bars. The corrosion was induced by
chloride contamination of the concrete and an applied
DC current. The principal parameters investigated
were confinement of the reinforcement, the cover
depth, bar diameter, degree of corrosion and the
surface crack width. The results indicated that potential
relationship between the crack width and the bond
strength. The results also showed an increase in bond
strength at the point where initial surface cracking was
observed for bars with confining stirrups. No such
increase was observed with unconfined specimens.
Keywords Bond  Corrosion  Rebar  Cover 
Crack width  Concrete
D. W. Law (&)
School of the Built Environment, Heriot Watt University,
Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
e-mail: D.W.Law@hw.ac.uk
D. Tang
VicRoads, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
T. K. C. Molyneaux  R. Gravina
School of Civil, Environmental and Chemical
Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000,
Australia
1 Introduction
The corrosion of steel reinforcement is a major cause
of the deterioration of reinforced concrete structures
throughout the world. In uncorroded structures the
bond between the steel reinforcement and the
concrete ensures that reinforced concrete acts in a
composite manner. However, when corrosion of the
steel occurs this composite performance is adversely
affected. This is due to the formation of corrosion
products on the steel surface, which affect the bond
between the steel and the concrete.
The deterioration of reinforced concrete is charac-
terized by a general or localized loss of section on the
reinforcing bars and the formation of expansive corro-
sion products. This deterioration can affect structures in
a number of ways; the production of expansive products
creates tensile stresses within the concrete, which can
result in cracking and spalling of the concrete cover.
This cracking can lead to accelerated ingress of the
aggressive agents causing further corrosion. It can also
result in a loss of strength and stiffness of the concrete
cover. The corrosion products can also affect the bond
strength between the concrete and the reinforcing steel.
Finally the corrosion reduces the cross section of the
reinforcing steel, which can affect the ductility of the
steel and the load bearing capacity, which can ultimately
impact upon the serviceability of the structure and the
structural capacity [12, 25].
Previous research has investigated the impact of
corrosion on bond [2–5, 7, 12, 20, 23–25, 27, 29],
1288
with a number of models being proposed [4, 6, 9, 10,
18, 19, 24, 29]. The majority of this research has
focused on the relationship between the level of
corrosion (mass loss of steel) or the current density
degree (corrosion current applied in accelerated
testing) and crack width, or on the relationship
between bond strength and level of corrosion. Other
research has investigated the mechanical behaviour
of corroded steel [1, 11] and the friction character-
istics [13]. However, little research has focused on
the relationship between crack width and bond [23,
26, 28], a parameter that can be measured with
relative ease on actual structures.
The corrosion of the reinforcing steel results in the
formation of iron oxides which occupy a larger
volume than that of the parent metal. This expansion
creates tensile stresses within the surrounding con-
crete, eventually leading to cracking of the cover
concrete. Once cracking occurs there is a loss of
confining force from the concrete. This suggests that
the loss of bond capacity could be related to the
longitudinal crack width [12]. However, the use of
confinement within the concrete can counteract this
loss of bond capacity to a certain degree. Research to
date has primarily involved specimens with confine-
ment. This paper reports a study comparing the loss
of bond of specimens with and without confinement.
2 Experimental investigation
2.1 Specimens
Beam end specimens [28] were selected for this
study. This type of eccentric pullout or ‘beam end’
type specimen uses a bonded length representative of
the anchorage zone of a typical simply supported
beam. Specimens of rectangular cross section were
cast with a longitudinal reinforcing bar in each
corner, Fig. 1. An 80 mm plastic tube was provided
at the bar underneath the transverse reaction to ensure
that the bond strength was not enhanced due to a
(transverse) compressive force acting on the bar over
this length.
Deformed rebar of 12 and 16 mm diameter with
cover of three times bar diameter were investigated.
Duplicate sets of confined and unconfined specimens
were tested. The confined specimens had three sets of
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296
6 mm stainless steel stirrups equally spaced from the
plastic tube, at 75 mm centres.
This represents four groups of specimens with a
combination of different bar diameter and with/
without confinement. The specimens were selected in
order to investigate the influence of bar size,
confinement and crack width on bond strength.
2.2 Materials
The mix design is shown, Table 1. The cement was
Type I Portland cement, the aggregate was basalt
with specific gravity 2.99. The coarse and fine
aggregate were prepared in accordance with AS
1141-2000. Mixing was undertaken in accordance
with AS 1012.2-1994. Specimens were cured for
28 days under wet hessian before testing.
In order to compare bond strength for the different
concrete compressive strengths, Eq. 1 is used to
normalize bond strength for non-corroded specimens
as has been used by other researcher [8].
sffiffiffiffiffi
0 40
s ¼ sexptl ð1Þ
fc
where s0 is the bond strength for grade 40 concrete,
sexptl is the experimental bond strength and fc is the
experimental compressive strength.
The tensile strength of the U12 and U16 mm steel
bars was nominally 500 MPa, which equates to a
failure load of 56.5 and 100.5 kN, respectively.
2.3 Experiment methodology
Accelerated corrosion has been used by a number of
authors to replicate the corrosion of the reinforcing
steel happening in the natural environment [2, 3, 5, 6,
10, 18, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30]. These have involved
experiments using impressed currents or artificial
weathering with wet/dry cycles and elevated temper-
atures to reduce the time until corrosion, while
maintaining deterioration mechanisms representative
of natural exposure. Studies using impressed currents
have used current densities between 100 lA/cm2 and
500 mA/cm2 [20]. Research has suggested that
current densities up to 200 lA/cm2 result in similar
stresses during the early stages of corrosion when
compared to 100 lA/cm2 [21]. As such an applied
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296 1289

80mm plastic
tube over bar

300mm bonded length

top bar
bottom bar

TOP VIEW

300mm

200mm

SECTION

Formwork and reinforcement

Fig. 1 Beam end specimen

Table 1 Concrete mix design

Material Cement w/c Sand 10 mm washed 7 mm washed Salt Slump
aggregate aggregate

Quantity 381 kg/m3 0.49 517 kg/m3 463 kg/m3 463 kg/m3 18.84 kg/m3 140 ± 25 mm

current density of 200 lA/cm2 was selected for this
study—representative of the lower end of the spec-
trum of such current densities adopted in previous
research. However, caution should be applied when
accelerating the corrosion using impressed current as
the acceleration process does not exactly replicate the
mechanisms involved in actual structures. In accel-
erated tests the pits are not allowed to progress
naturally, and there may be a more uniform corrosion
on the surface. Also the rate of corrosion may impact
on the corrosion products, such that different oxida-
tion state products may be formed, which could
impact on bond.
The steel bars served as the anode and four mild
steel metal plates were fixed on the surface to serve as
cathodes. Sponges (sprayed with salt water) were
placed between the metal plates and concrete to
provide an adequate contact, Fig. 2.
When the required crack width was achieved for a
particular bar, the impressed current was discontin-
ued for that bar. The specimen was removed for
pullout testing when all four locations exhibited the
target crack width. Average surface crack widths of
0.05, 0.5, 1 and 1.5 mm were adopted as the target
crack widths. The surface crack width was measured
at 20 mm intervals along the length of the bar,
beginning 20 mm from the end of the (plastic tube)
bond breaker using an optical microscope. The level
of accuracy in the measurements was ±0.02 mm.
Measurements of crack width were taken on the
surface normal to the bar direction regardless of the
actual crack orientation at that location.
1290
Fig. 2 Accelerated corrosion system
Hand operated jack Restraints
Load Cell
Fig. 3 Pull-out test, 16 mm bar unconfined
Bond strength tests were conducted by means of a
hand operated hydraulic jack and a custom-built test
rig as shown in Fig. 3. The loading scheme is
illustrated in Fig. 4. A plastic tube of length 80 mm
was provided at the end of the concrete section
underneath the transverse reaction to ensure that the
bond strength was not enhanced by the reactive
(compressive) force (acting normal to the bar). The
specimen was positioned so that an axial force was
applied to the bar being tested. The restraints were
sufficiently rigid to ensure minimal rotation or
twisting of the specimen during loading.
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296
Fig. 4 Schematic of loading. Note: only test bar shown for
clarity
3 Experimental results and discussion
3.1 Visual inspection
Following the accelerated corrosion phase each
specimen was visually inspected for the location of
cracks, mean crack width and maximum crack width
(Sect. 2.3).
While each specimen had a mean target crack
width for each bar, variations in this crack width were
observed prior to pull out testing. This is due to
corrosion and cracking being a dynamic process with
cracks propagating at different rates. Thus, while
individual bars were disconnected, once the target
crack width had been achieved, corrosion and crack
propagation continued (to some extent) until all bars
had achieved the target crack width and pull out tests
conducted. This resulted in a range of data for the
maximum and mean crack widths for the pull out
tests.
The visual inspection of the specimens showed
three stages to the cracking process. The initial cracks
occurred in a very short period, usually generated
within a few days. After that, most cracks grew at a
constant rate until they reached 1 mm, 3–4 weeks
after first cracking. After cracks had reached 1 mm
they then grew very slowly, with some cracks not
increasing at all. For the confined and unconfined
specimens the surface cracks tended to occur on the
side of the specimens (as opposed to the top or
bottom) and to follow the line of the bars. In the case
of the unconfined specimens in general these were the
only crack while it was common in the cases of
confined specimens to observe cracks that were
aligned vertically down the side—adjacent to one of
the links, Fig. 5.
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296
Unconfined Confined
Fig. 5 Typical crack patterns
Fig. 6 Longitudinal cracking after pull-out
During the pull-out testing the most common
failure mode for both confined and unconfined was
splitting failure—with the initial (pre-test) cracks
caused by the corrosion enlarging under load and
ultimately leading to the section failing exhibiting
spalling of the top corner/edge, Fig. 6. However for
several of the confined specimens, a second mode of
failure also occurred with diagonal (shear like) cracks
appearing in the side walls, Fig. 7. The appearance of
these cracks did not appear to be related to the
presence of vertical cracks observed (in specimens
with stirrups) during the corrosion phase as reported
above.
The bars were initially (precasting) cleaned with a
12% hydrochloric acid solution, then washed in
distilled water and neutralized by a calcium hydrox-
ide solution before being washed in distilled water
again. Following the pull-out tests, the corroded bars
were cleaned in the same way and weighed again.
1291
Fig. 7 Diagonal cracking after pull-out
The corrosion degree was determined using the
following equation
ðG0  GÞ
CR ¼  100%
g0 l
where G0 is the initial weight of the steel bar before
corrosion, G is the final weight of the steel bar after
removal of the post-test corrosion products, g0 is the
weight per unit length of the steel bar (0.888 and
1.58 g/mm for U12 and U16 mm bars, respectively),
l is the embedded bond length.
Figures 8 and 9 show steel bars with varying
degree of corrosion. The majority exhibited visible
pitting, similar to that observed on reinforcement in
actual structures, Fig. 9. However, a small number of
others exhibited significant overall section loss, with
a more uniform level of corrosion, Fig. 8, which may
be a function of the acceleration methodology.
3.2 Bond stress and crack width
Figure 10 shows the variation of bond stress with
mean crack width for 16 mm bars and Fig. 11 for the
12 mm bars. Figures 12 and 13 show the data for the
maximum crack width.
The data show an initial increase in bond strength
for the 12 mm specimens with stirrups, followed by a
significant decrease in bond, which is in agreement
with other authors [12, 15]. For the 16 mm specimens
an increase on the control bond stress was observed
for specimens with 0.28 and 0.35 mm mean crack
1292 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296

Fig. 8 Corroded 12 mm bar with approximately 30% mass loss

Fig. 9 Corroded 16 mm
bar with approximately
15% mass loss

9 9
Confined Unconfined Confined Unconfined
8 8
7 7
Bond stress (MPa)

Bond stress (MPa)

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Mean crack width (mm) Maximum crack width (mm)
Fig. 10 Mean crack width versus bond stress for 16 mm bars Fig. 12 Maximum crack width versus bond stress for 16 mm
bars
10
9 Confined Unconfined
9
8 8 Confined Unconfined
Bond stress (MPa)

7
7
Bond stress (MPa)

6
6
5
4 5
3 4
2 3
1
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1
Mean crack width (mm) 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fig. 11 Mean crack width versus bond stress for 12 mm bars Maximum crack width (mm)

Fig. 13 Maximum crack width versus bond stress for 12 mm

widths, however, a decrease in bond stress was
bars
observed for at the mean crack width of 0.05 mm.
The 12 mm bars with stirrups displayed an
increase in bond stress of approximately 25% from 16 mm specimens. Other researchers [17, 24, 25]
the control values to the maximum bond stress. An have reported enhancements of bond stress of
increase of approximately 14% was observed for the between 10 and 60% due to confinement, slightly
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296 1293

higher to that observed in these experiment. How-
ever the loading techniques and cover depths have
not all been the same. Variations in experimental
techniques include a shorter embedded length and a
lower cover. The variation on the proposed empirical
relationship between bond strength, degree of cor-
rosion, bar size, cover, link details and tensile
strength predicted by Rodriguez [24] has been
discussed in detail in Tang et al. [28]. The analysis
demonstrates that there would be an expected
enhancement of bond strength due to confinement
of approximately 25%—corresponding to a change
of bond strength of approximately 0.75 MPa for the
16 mm bars (assessed at a 2% section loss). For the
12 mm bars the corresponding effect of confinement
is found to be approximately 35% corresponding to a
1.0 MPa difference in bond stress. The experimental
results (14 and 25%, above) are 60–70% of these
values.
Both sets of data indicate a relationship showing
decreasing bond strength with (visible surface) crack
width. A regression analysis of the bond strength data
reveals a better linear relationship with the maximum
crack width as opposed to the mean crack width
3.3 Corrosion degree and bond stress
It is apparent that (Fig. 14) for corrosion degrees less
than 5% the bond stress correlated well. However, as
the degree of corrosion increased there was no
observable correlation at all. This contrasts with the
relationship between the observed crack width and
bond stress, which gives a reasonable correlation,
even as crack widths increase to 2 and 2.5 mm. A
possible explanation for this variation is that in the
initial stages of corrosion virtually all the dissolved
iron ions react to form expansive corrosion products.
This reaction impacts on both the bond stress and the
formation of cracks. However, once cracks have been
formed it is possible for the iron ions to be
transported along the crack and out of the concrete.
As the bond has already been effectively lost at the
crack any iron ions dissolving at the crack and being
directly transported out of the concrete will cause an
increase in the degree of corrosion, but not affect the
surface crack width. The location, orientation and
10
9

(excluding the uncracked confined specimens), 8

Bond stress (MPa)

7
Table 2.
6
There was also a significantly better fit for the
5
unconfined specimens than the confined specimens. 4
This is consistent with the observation that in the 3
unconfined specimens the bond strength will be 2
related to the bond between the bars and the 1
concrete, which will be affected by the level of 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
corrosion present, which itself will influence the
Corrosion Degree (%)
crack width. In confined specimens the confining
steel will impact upon both the bond and the Fig. 14 Bond stress versus corrosion degree, 12 mm bars,
cracking. unconfined specimen

Table 2 Best fit

Unconfined Confined Unconfined Confined
parameters, crack width
12 mm 12 mm 16 mm 16 mm
versus bond strength
Mean crack width
R2 0.920 0.637 0.672 0.659
Slope (m) -3.997 -3.653 -2.999 -8.848
Intercept (b) 7.560 8.122 6.496 8.746
Maximum crack width
R2 0.937 0.855 0.714 0.616
Slope (m) -2.719 -2.968 -1.815 -5.330
Intercept (b) 7.805 8.403 6.707 9.636
1294
chemistry within the crack will control the relation-
ship between bond stress and degree of corrosion,
which will vary from specimen to specimen. Hence
the large variations in corrosion degree and bond
stress for high levels of corrosion.
Significantly larger crack widths were observed for
the unconfined specimens, compared to the confined
specimens with similar levels of corrosion and mass
lost. The largest observed crack for unconfined
specimens was 2.5 mm compared to 1.4 mm for the
confined specimens. This is as expected and is a
direct result of the confinement which limits the
degree of cracking.
3.4 Effect of confinement
The unconfined specimens for both 16 and 12 mm
bars did not display the initial increase in bond
strength observed for the confined bars. Indeed the
unconfined specimens with cracks all displayed a
reduced bond stress compared to the control speci-
mens. This is in agreement with other authors [16,
24] findings for cracked specimens. In cracked
corroded specimens Fang observed a substantial
reduction in bond strength for deformed bars without
stirrups, while Rodriguez observed bond strengths of
highly corroded cracked specimens without stirrups
were close to zero, while highly corroded cracked
specimens with stirrups retained bond strengths of
between 3 and 4 MPa. In uncorroded specimens
Chana noted an increase in bond strength due to
stirrups of between 10 and 20% [14]. However
Rodriguez and Fang observed no variation due to the
presence of confinement in uncorroded bars.
The data is perhaps unexpected as it could be
anticipated that the corrosion products would lead to
an increase in bond due to the increase in internal
pressures, caused by the corrosion products increasing
the confinement and mechanical interlocking around
the bar, coupled with increased roughness of the bar
resulting in a greater friction between the bar and the
surrounding concrete. However, these pressures
would then relieved by the subsequent cracking of
the concrete, which would contribute to the decrease
in the bond strength as crack widths increase. A
possible hypothesis is that due to the level of cover,
three times bar diameter, the effect of confinement by
the stirrups is reduced, such that it has little impact on
the bond stress in uncracked concrete. However, once
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296
cracking has taken place the confinement does have a
beneficial effect on the bond.
It may also be that the compressive strength of the
concrete combined with the cover will have an effect
on the bond stresses for uncorroded specimens. The
data presented here has a cover of three times bar
diameter and a strength of 40 MPa, other research
ranges from 1.5 to four times cover with compressive
strengths from 40 to 77 MPa.
3.5 Comparison of 12 and 16 mm rebar
The maximum bond stress for 16 mm unconfined
bars was measured at 8.06 MPa and for the
12 mm bars it was 8.43 MPa. These both corre-
sponded to the control specimens with no corrosion.
The unconfined specimens for both the 12 and
16 mm bars showed no increase in bond stress due
to corrosion. For the confined specimens the maxi-
mum bond stress for the control specimens were
7.29 MPa for the 12 mm bars and 6.34 MPa for the
16 mm bars. The maximum bond stress for both sets
of confined specimens corresponded to point of the
initial cracking. The maximum bond stresses were
observed at a mean crack width of 0.01 mm for the
12 mm bars and 0.28 mm for the 16 mm bars. The
corresponding bond stresses were, 8.45 and
7.20 MPa. Overall the 12 mm bars displayed higher
bond stresses compared to the 16 mm bars at all
crack widths. This is attributed to a different failure
mode. The 16 mm specimens demonstrate splitting
failure while the 12 mm bars bond failure.
3.6 Effect of casting position
There was no significant difference of bond strength
due to the position of the bar (top or bottom cast) once
cracking was observed, Fig. 15. For control speci-
mens, with no corrosion, however, the bottom cast
bars had a slightly higher bond stress than the top cast
bars. These observations are in agreement with other
authors [4, 11, 15, 22]. It is generally accepted that
uncorroded bottom cast bars have significantly
improved bond compared to top cast bars due to the
corrosion products filling the voids that are often
present under top cast bars as the corrosion progresses
[14]. The corrosion also acts as an ‘anchor’, similar to
the ribs on deformed bars, to increase the bond.
Overall, the mean value of bond stress for all bars
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296
9 •
8 Top Bottom
7 low levels of corrosion (less than 5%). However,
Bond stress (MPa)
6 at higher levels of corrosion no correlation was
5 discerned.
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Mean crack width (mm)
Fig. 15 Bond stress versus mean crack width for 12 mm bars,
top and bottom cast positions, confined specimen
(corroded and uncorroded) located in the top were
within 1% of the mean bond stress of all bars located
in the bottom of the section—for both unconfined and
confined bars. This is probably due to the level of
cover. The results reported previously are on speci-
mens with one times cover [14]. However, at three
times cover it would be anticipated that greater
compaction would be achieved around the top cast
bars. Thus the area of voids would be reduced and thus
the effect of the corrosion product filling these voids
and increasing the bond strength would be reduced.
4 Conclusions
• A relationship was observed between crack width
and bond stress. The correlation was better for
maximum crack width and bond stress than for
mean crack width and bond stress.
• Confined bars displayed a higher bond stress at
the point of initial cracking than where no
corrosion had occurred. As crack width increase
the bond stress reduced significantly.
• Unconfined bars displayed a decrease in bond
stress at initial cracking, followed by a further
decrease as cracking increased.
• Top cast bars displayed a higher bond stress in
specimens with no corrosion. Once cracking had
occurred no variation between top and bottom
cast bars was observed.
• The 12 mm bars displayed higher bond stress
values than 16 mm with no corrosion, control
specimens, and at similar crack widths.
1295
A good correlation was observed between bond
stress and degree of corrosion was observed at
Overall the results indicated a potential relationship
between the maximum crack width and the bond.
Results shown herein should be interpreted with
caution as this variation may be not only due to
variations between accelerated corrosion and natural
corrosion but also due to the complexity of the
cracking mechanism in reality.
References
1. Almusallam AA (2001) Effect of degree of corrosion on
the properties of reinforcing steel bars. Constr Build Mater
15:361–368
2. Almusallam AA, Al-Ghatani AS, Aziz AR, Rasheeduzza-
far (1996) Effect of reinforcement corrosion on bond
strength. Constr Build Mater 10(2):123–129
3. Alonso C, Andrade C, Rodriguez J, Diez JM (1998) Fac-
tors controlling cracking of concrete affected by rein-
forcement corrosion. Mater Struct 31:435–441
4. Al-Sulaimani GJ, Kaleemullah M, Basunbul IA, Rash-
eeduzzafar (1990) Influence of corrosion and cracking on
bond behavior and strength of reinforced concrete member.
ACI Struct J 87(2):220–231
5. Andrade C, Alonso C, Molina FJ (1993) Cover cracking as
a function of rebar corrosion: Part 1. Experimental test.
Mater Struct 26(9):453–464
6. Andrade C, Alonso C, Rodriguez J, Casal J, Diez JM
(1995) Relation between corrosion and cracking. Internal
report of Brite/Euram Project BE-4062, C.E.C.
7. Andrade C, Alonso C, Rodriguez J, Garcia M (1996) Cover
cracking and amount of rebar corrosion: importance of the
current applied accelerated tests. In: Fourth international
congress concrete in the service of mankind: concrete
repair, rehabilitation and protection, Dundee
8. Baldwin MI, Clark LA (1995) The assessment of rein-
forcing bars with inadequate anchorage. Mag Concr Res
37(171):95–102
9. Bhargava K, Ghosh AK, Mori Y, Ramanujam S (2007)
Models for corrosion induced bond strength degradation in
reinforced concrete. ACI Mater J 104(6):594–603
10. Cabrera JG (1996) Deterioration of concrete due to rein-
forcement steel corrosion. Cem Concr Compos 18(1):
47–59
11. Cairns J, Plizzari G, Du Y, Law DW, Franzoni C (2005)
Mechanical properties of corrosion damaged reinforce-
ment. Mater J 126(4):256–264
12. Cairns J, Du Y, Law DW (2006) Residual bond strength of
corroded and plain round bars. Mag Concr Res 58(4):
221–231
1296
13. Cairns J, Du Y, Law DW (2007) Influence of corrosion on
the friction characteristics of the steel/concrete interface.
Constr Build Mater 21(1):190–197
14. Chana PS (1990) A test method to establish realistic bond
stress. Mag Concr Res 42(151):83–90
15. Clark LA, Saifullah M (1990) Effect of corrosion on
reinforcement bond strength. In: Forde M (ed) Proceedings
fifth structural faults and repair. Engineering Technical
Press, Edinburgh, pp 113–119
16. Fang C, Lundgren K, Chen L, Zhu C (2004) Corrosion
influence on bond in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Res
34:2159–2167
17. Fang C, Lundgren K, Plos M, Gylltoft K (2006) Bond
behaviour of corroded reinforcement steel bars in concrete.
Cem Concr Res 36:1931–1938
18. Lee HS, Noguchi T, Tomosawa F (2002) Evaluation of the
bond properties between concrete and reinforcement as a
function of the degree of reinforcement corrosion. Cem
Concr Res 32(8):1313–1318
19. Li CQ, Yang Y, Melchers RE (2008) Prediction of rein-
forcement corrosion in concrete and its effect on concrete
and strength reduction. ACI Mater J 105(1):3–10
20. Maaddawy ET, Soudki K, Topper T (2005) Long-term
performance of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete
beams. ACI Struct J 102(5):649
21. Maddawy ET, Khaled AS (2003) Effectiveness of
impressed current technique to simulate corrosion of steel
reinforcement in concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 15(1):41–47
22. Mangat PS, Elgarf MS (1999) Bond characteristics of
corroding reinforcement in concrete beams. Mater Struct
32:89–97
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1287–1296
23. Molina FJ, Alonso C, Andrade C (1993) Cover cracking as
a function of rebar corrosion: Part 2. Numerical model.
Mater Struct 26(9):532–548
24. Rodriguez J, Ortega LM, Casal J (1994) Corrosion of
reinforcing bars and service life of reinforced concrete
structures: corrosion and bond deterioration. In: Interna-
tional conference on concrete across borders, Odense,
pp 315–326
25. Rodriguez J, Ortega LM, Casal J, Diez JM (1996) Corro-
sion of reinforcement and service life of concrete struc-
tures. In: Durability of building materials and components.
Proceedings of the seventh international conference, vol 1,
pp 117–126
26. Schiebl P, Raupach M (1997) Laboratory studies and cal-
culations on the influence of crack width on chloride-
induced corrosion of steel in concrete. ACI Mater J
94(1):56–62
27. Stanish K, Hooton RD, Pantazopoulou SJ (1999) Corrosion
effects on bond strength in reinforced concrete. ACI Mater
J 96(6):915–921
28. Tang D, Molyneaux TCK, Law DW, Gravina R (2008) The
influence of chloride induced corrosion cracks on the
strength of confined and unconfined reinforced concrete.
In: Proceedings structural faults and repair, Edinburgh
29. Vidal T, Castel A, Francois R (2004) Analyzing crack
width to predict corrosion in reinforced concrete. Cem
Concr Res 34(1):165–174
30. Yuan Y, Ji Y, Shah SP (2007) Comparison of two accel-
erated corrosion techniques for concrete structures. ACI
Struct J 104(3):344–347