ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 104-S03
Bond Characteristics of High-Strength Lightweight Concrete
by David W. Mitchell and H. Marzouk
Future construction of concrete floating platforms for offshore oil
exploration off the east coast of Canada will lead to a substantial
increase in the use of high-strength lightweight (HSLW) concrete.
HSLW concrete has been extensively used in Norway and other
parts of Europe. HSLW concrete with its high durability and light-
weight characteristics is a very much sought after material in the
construction of concrete floating platforms.
The main objective of this investigation is to determine the bond
strength characteristics of HSLW concrete. The experimental program
consisted of testing 72 pull-out and push-in specimens to evaluate the
bond behavior under monotonic and cyclic loading using 25 and
35 mm (No. 8 and No. 11) deformed reinforcement embedded in high
strength of 80 MPa (11.6 ksi) lightweight concrete.
The static and cyclic test results indicated that HSLW concrete
behaves very similar to high strength normalweight concrete. The
bond strength of HSLW was equal to or slightly larger than similar
specimens made of high strength normalweight concrete (HSNW)
at the same lab. The bond stress versus displacement curve indicated
a sharp linear ascending portion followed by a steep descending
portion indicating a brittle failure, which is characteristic of high-
strength concrete. The ACI 318 code increases the minimum
development length of lightweight concrete by 30%. The ACI
recommendation of this increase is unjustified for high-strength
concrete made of lightweight aggregates.
Keywords: bond; high-strength concrete; lightweight aggregate.
INTRODUCTION
While much research has been performed on the bond
characteristics of normal strength normalweight concrete,
little has been done on high-strength concrete, especially
high-strength lightweight (HSLW) aggregate concrete. In
addition, much of the research and development in the area
of HSLW concrete was performed as part of technical studies
associated with the construction of specific structures, mainly
offshore concrete platforms. As a result, much of the
research pertaining to the structural behavior of HSLW
concrete is confidential between the various research
institutions and the oil companies.
Several research workers, such as Clark,1 used the pullout
test to study the effect of various reinforcing bar patterns in
normal strength concrete. It was concluded that the most
effective deformation pattern was one where the shearing
area is less than 10 times the deformation bearing area, with
the shearing area defined as the perimeter of the bar multiplied
by the deformation spacing. Eligehausen et al.2 conducted
one of the main comprehensive investigations on the bond-
slip relations using the pull-out test. The results of this
investigation defined the bond behavior of deformed bars
under monotonic and cyclic loading. Primary and secondary
cracks were observed in research by Kollegger and Mehlhorn.3
From studying the contact surface between the concrete and
reinforcement steel, it was concluded that complete
compatibility between concrete and steel is based on steel
stress, bond stress, and concrete stress.
22
TECHNICAL PAPER
Esfahani and Rangan4 carried out testing to determine the
effects of rib face angle on the bond capacity in high-strength
concrete. The results indicated that the bond strength of bars
with rib face angles between 23 and 27 degrees is significantly
lower than bars with rib face angles between 40 and 47 degrees.
Azizinamini et al.5 closely examined the bond performance
and tension development length of reinforcement steel in
high-strength concrete. From these tests, it was concluded
that increasing the development length was not the most
efficient way to increase bond capacity in high-strength
concrete. Bond behavior of high-strength normalweight
concrete (HSNW) under cyclic loading was examined by
Alavi-Fard and Marzouk.6
Structural lightweight concrete is generally considered to
be concrete with compressive strength in excess of 17.5 MPa
(2530 psi) and unit weight of 1950 kg/m3 (3290 lb/yd3) or
less. In recent decades, however, HSLW has gained popularity,
especially among those designers who strive to design and
construct structures from concrete that would traditionally
be built in structural steel, such as long span bridges and
floating oil platforms. With this increased use of HSLW
concrete, it is of the utmost importance that design engineers
understand the mechanical properties of HSLW concrete.
The main intention for issuing the Eurocode 2,7 “Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete with Closed Structure,” is that it becomes
the standard for the design of structures to be used throughout
Europe. The advantages of using lightweight in a marine
environment were illustrated by Fidjestol.8 Recently, a good
seismic review was conducted on the advantageous behavior of
high-performance structural lightweight concrete.9 Bond
behavior of HSNW concrete was investigated in similar
research at the same lab by Alavi-Fard and Marzouk.10
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The bond strength between HSLW concrete and steel
reinforcement is an important factor in designing any rein-
forced concrete structure under various kinds of loading. The
experimental result of testing the bond strength of HSLW is
very valuable because the number of published experimental
data in this area is still very limited. HSLW concrete has
been used extensively in marine applications and offshore
construction of concrete platforms in the North Sea and
recently in the construction of the Hibernia platform and the
proposed Hebron platform in the Atlantic. Over the last
decade, interest in the actual performance of marine HSLW
concrete has grown, including its durability, mechanical
properties, and structural performance.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 1, January-February 2007.
MS No. 05-314 received December 6, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
December 2007 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2007.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007
David W. Mitchell is Manager or ITT, FLYDT of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
He received his bachelor of engineering (civil) degree and his master of engineering
(civil) degree from Memorial University of Newfoundland in 1993 and 2002, respectively.
His research interests include the area of bond characteristics of high-strength light-
weight aggregate concrete.

ACI member H. Marzouk is Chair of Civil Engineering Department at Ryerson

University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He received his MSc and PhD from the University
of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. He is a member of ACI Committees 209, Creep
and Shrinkage in Concrete, and 213, Lightweight Aggregate and Concrete. His
research interests include structural and material properties of high-strength concrete,
lightweight high strength, creep, and finite element analysis.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
A structural steel frame at the structures lab of Memorial
University of Newfoundland was used for the experimental
programs. The frame was designed, fabricated, and erected
as part of previous experimental work on high-strength
concrete and other offshore investigations at the Structures
Laboratory of Memorial University of Newfoundland. The
current test program on HSLW concrete was very similar to
Fig. 1—Test setup.
the program using HSNW concrete conducted at the same
lab using the same test set-up, the same specimen size, and
the same casting position by Alavi-Fard and Marzouk.10 The
current experimental investigation consisted of constructing
36 specimens for each for 25 and 35 mm (No. 8 and No. 11) bars.
A photograph of the test set up is shown in Fig. 1. The
dimensions and configuration of the tested specimens is
shown in Fig. 2. The loading frame was equipped with an
electro-hydraulically controlled testing actuator capable of
applying loads of +670 kN (150 kips). The instrumentation
for the test setup consisted essentially of an actuator with a
load cell attached to measure the load being applied. The
movement at the loaded end of the bar was measured using
the linear variable differential transducer (LVDT) built into
the actuator, whereas the movement at the free end of the bar
was measured using a linear potential differential transducer
(LPDT), which was mounted externally using a magnetic
mounting apparatus.
The load being applied and the corresponding displacements,
along with the strain gauge readings, were continuously
scanned and recorded by the data acquisition system in addition
to being displayed on the monitor. A summary of the test
program is presented in Table 1 to 3. Two bar sizes were Fig. 2—Dimensions of bond test specimen.
used in constructing the specimens. The tested specimen has
a standard coarse thread on one end of the bar to be attached
to the loading frame. The diameter of the tested bars was 25 and (810 and 826 lb/yd3) using 12% silica fume by weight and a
35 mm (No. 8 and No. 11) with a yield strength of 400 MPa water-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.30. A non-chloride water-
(58 ksi) steel confirmed to the Canadian metric standard reducing agent, retarder, and high-range water-reducing
CSA-G40.20-M92. The test specimen shown in Fig. 2 admixture were used in the mixture. The coarse aggregate
represented the confined region of a joint in high-strength for this experiment consisted of a lightweight aggregate that
concrete structures. The dimensions of tested specimen were was imported from North Carolina. It consisted of rotary-
250 mm (10 in.) in length, 15d (tested bar diameter) in width, kiln-dried, high-quality, lightweight aggregates at 590 to
and 5d to 7d in thickness. The bond length is located at the 600 kg/m3 (996 to 1012 lb/yd3). The maximum size of this
middle of the specimen and the rest of the specimen is lightweight aggregate was 19 mm (3/4 in.) with a specific
debonded by the use of two small PVC pipes at the end of gravity of 1.45 and a dry density of 960 kg/m3 (1620 lb/yd3).
each specimen. The test setup, specimen size, number of The fine aggregates consisted of 810 kg/m3 (1376 lb/yd3) of
specimens, and testing parameters were similar to the bond fine sand. The target compressive strength ranged between
investigation conducted on normal strength concrete by 75 and 85 MPa (10,875 and 12,435 psi). The average
Eligehausen et al.2 compressive strength of all batches was 83.1 MPa (12,049 psi).
The concrete was batched over a 2-week period using the
CONCRETE MIXTURE DESIGN 0.1 m3 (0.13 yd3) capacity drum mixer. Three cylinders were
The proportions to produce 1.0 m3 (1.3 yd3) of HSLW taken from each batch. These cylinders, along with the test
concrete for the experimental portion of this research are as specimens, were covered in polyethylene and moist cured
follows. The cement content ranged between 480 and 490 kg/m3 for 28 days.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 23

Table 1—Summary of monotonic test for 25 mm (No. 8) bar
Investigation Specimen Concrete Rate of Peak load Bond Bond stress Normalized Peak load
Series parameter Type of testing file no. strength, MPa loading Pmax, kN length, mm Umax , MPa test results slip, mm
HSLW 252 83.1 1.50 204.87 104 24.87 5.700 11.7
HSLW 254 83.1 1.50 191.58 101 23.95 5.489 11.9
HSLW 255 83.1 1.50 202.91 99 25.88 5.930 12.6
HSLW 256 83.1 1.50 188.54 106 22.46 5.146 14.8
Monotonic in
HSLW 2514 83.1 1.50 192.67 100 24.33 5.575 13.3
tension
HSLW 2515 83.1 1.50 193.98 100 24.49 5.613 11.3
HSLW 2516 83.1 1.50 216.41 100 27.32 6.262 10.4
HSLW 25b1 83.1 1.50 146.95 97 19.13 4.383 5.9
HSLW 25b2 83.1 1.50 152.83 100 19.30 4.422 7.2
1 Load history HSLW 2520 83.1 1.50 240.82 133 22.86 5.239 9.0
HSLW 2521 83.1 1.50 205.55 111 23.38 5.358 8.0
HSLW 2522 83.1 1.50 236.25 111 26.87 6.158 5.8
HSLW 2523 83.1 1.50 203.81 115 22.38 5.128 5.0
Monotonic in HSLW 2524 83.1 1.50 240.60 133 22.84 5.234 8.0
compression HSLW 2525 83.1 1.50 284.15 121 29.65 6.795 9.0
HSLW 2526 83.1 1.50 268.25 109 31.07 7.121 6.7
HSLW 2527 83.1 1.50 192.27 126 19.27 4.415 4.7
HSLW 2528 83.1 1.50 255.19 117 27.54 6.311 6.5
HSLW 25b5 83.1 1.50 212.73 109 24.64 5.647 5.0
HSLW 258 83.1 1.50 205.96 99 26.27 6.019 15.7
HSLW 2513 83.1 1.50 111.46 88 15.99 3.665 3.4
Rate of pullout HSLW 257 83.1 7.5 180.92 104 21.97 5.033 5.9
2 Rate of loading (monotonic)
HSLW 2510 83.1 0.150 188.54 104 22.89 5.245 15.0
HSLW 2511 83.1 0.150 175.26 89 24.86 5.698 9.2
HSLW 2517 83.1 0.150 193.55 105 23.27 5.334 3.4
Note: 1MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 225 lb; 1 mm = 0.04 in.

Table 2—Summary of monotonic tests for 35 mm (No. 11) bar

Investigation Specimen Concrete Rate of Peak load Bond Bond stress Normalized Peak load
Series parameter Type of testing file no. strength, MPa loading Pmax, kN length, mm Umax , MPa test results slip, mm
HSLW 35a0 83.1 1.50 333.98 122 24.40 5.591 7.5
HSLW 35a2 83.1 1.50 227.94 87 23.35 5.351 4.6
HSLW 35a3 83.1 1.50 313.95 102 27.43 6.287 5.5
HSLW 35a4 83.1 1.50 255.60 87 26.19 6.001 5.0
HSLW 35a5 83.1 1.50 323.09 104 27.69 6.345 6.7
Monotonic in
tension HSLW 35a7 83.1 1.50 281.73 92 27.29 6.254 5.3
HSLW 35a8 83.1 1.50 260.83 89 26.12 5.986 4.2
HSLW 35a9 83.1 1.50 255.60 92 24.76 5.674 0.1
HSLW 3511 83.1 1.50 260.17 99 23.42 5.367 2.8
HSLW 35b0 83.1 1.50 223.81 100 19.95 4.571 3.2
HSLW 35b1 83.1 1.50 212.27 100 18.92 4.335 3.1
3 Load history HSLW 3513 83.1 1.50 307.01 102 26.83 6.147 3.8
HSLW 3514 83.1 1.50 315.50 105 26.78 6.137 3.5
HSLW 3515 83.1 1.50 304.40 108 25.12 5.757 3.2
HSLW 3516 83.1 1.50 254.32 108 20.99 4.810 4.9
HSLW 3517 83.1 1.50 298.74 97 27.45 6.290 3.8
Monotonic in HSLW 3518 83.1 1.50 274.35 94 26.01 5.961 4.2
compression HSLW 3519 83.1 1.50 292.64 96 27.17 6.226 3.2
HSLW 3520 83.1 1.50 297.05 100 26.48 6.067 5.5
HSLW 3521 83.1 1.50 303.74 104 26.03 5.965 3.5
HSLW 3522 83.1 1.50 239.51 98 21.78 4.992 2.5
HSLW 35b2 83.1 1.50 221.66 107 18.46 4.231 3.0
HSLW 35b3 83.1 1.50 221.88 107 18.48 4.235 19.3
HSLW 352 83.1 1.50 256.03 91 25.08 5.746 1.8
of pullout HSLW 355 83.1 1.50 270.19 99 24.32 5.574 3.0
4 Rate of loading Rate
(monotonic) HSLW 35a6 83.1 7.5 303.50 90 30.06 6.888 6.3
HSLW 356 83.1 0.150 201.38 117 15.34 3.515 0.0
Note: 1MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 225 lb; 1 mm = 0.04 in.

24 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007

Table 3—Summary of cyclic test
Specimen file Concrete strength, Rate of Peak load Bond length, Bond stress Normalized
Series Investigation parameter Type of testing no. MPa loading Pmax, kN mm Umax , MPa test results
HSLW 2518 81.3 1.50 186.80 106 22.25 5.099
2 Rate of loading Cyclic 25M HSLW 2519 81.3 1.50 129.97 110 14.92 3.419
HSLW 2512 81.3 75 178.33 99 22.74 5.212
HSLW 357 81.3 1.50 186.80 104 16.01 3.668
HSLW 358 81.3 1.50 129.97 94 12.32 2.824
2 Rate of loading Cyclic 35M
HSLW 359 81.3 75 178.33 102 15.58 3.571
HSLW 3510 81.3 0.150 0.00 104 0.00 0.000
Note: 1MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 225 lb; 1 mm = 0.04 in.

TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

Tension specimens
The bond stress versus slip curves show that the initial,
nearly linear ascending portion of the curve represents
approximately 7 to 8% of the total slip. This coincides with
previous work reported by Hoff11 on HSLW concrete, which
showed that the slope on the initial ascending portion of the
curve is steeper and more linear than that of normal strength
concrete. Upon reaching the ultimate load, there is a sharp
descending portion to approximately 40% of the maximum
stress value showing that the concrete is now cracked. The
effects of friction and mechanical interlock usually engage
and the load decreases more gradually for the remaining
portion of the curve. The slip continues to increase, indicating
further crushing of the concrete until the bar can no longer
withstand any load. The bond energy, taken to be the area Fig. 3—Normalized bond stress-slip for 25 and 35 mm
under the curve, is less for HSLW concrete than it is for high- (No. 8 and 11) bars under tension.
strength concrete reported by Alavi-Fard and Marzouk.10
While the initial portions of the stress-strain curve are very
similar, the decreased shear strength of the lightweight
aggregate as compared with normalweight aggregate tends
to lower the curve in its final stages, thereby decreasing the
area under the curve. The maximum load, along with the
calculated bond stress and slip, are tabulated in Table 1 and
2 for 25 and 35 mm (No. 8 and No. 11) bars, respectively.
Figure 3 shows a comparison of the bond stress versus slip
for 25 and 35 mm (No. 8 and No. 11) deformed reinforcement
under monotonic loading in tension. The graph indicates that
the maximum bond stress for a 35 mm (No. 11) bar is lower
than the maximum bond stress for a 25 mm (No. 8) bar. The
maximum slip for HSLW concrete can be approximated to
be five times the slip corresponding to the maximum load.
Fig. 4—Normalized bond stress-slip for 25 and 35 mm
Compression specimens
(No. 8 and 11) bars under compression.
A total of 22 specimens were tested in compression at the
standard loading rate of 1.50 mm/minute (0.059 in./minute),
10 samples using 25 mm (No. 8) bar and 12 samples using compression versus tension indicating that the bond energy
35 mm (No. 11) bar. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the is less under compression.
bond stress versus slip curves for 25 and 35 mm (No. 8 and
No. 11) using standard Canadian deformed reinforcement Effect of rate of loading
under monotonic loading in compression. The graph indicates The rate at which the load is applied was believed to have
that the maximum bond stress for a 25 mm (No. 8) bar is a significant effect on the maximum bond stress. One sample
greater than for a 35 mm (No. 11) bar. The slope for the was tested in tension for each bar size at three loading rates:
ascending portion of the compression test is higher than that the standard load rate (1.50 mm/minute [0.059 in./minute]),
of the tension test indicating that the bond strength is greater 50 times greater than the standard rate (75 mm/minute
in compression than it is in tension for a given bar size. The [2.95 in./minute]) and 10 times less than the standard rate
maximum slip under compression is approximately five (0.15 mm/minute [0.0059 in./minute]). The test results for
times the peak load slip, however, when compared to the the various loading rates are plotted in Fig. 5 and 6 for bar
maximum slip under tension, the maximum slip under sizes 25 and 35 mm (No. 8 and No. 11), respectively.
compression is approximately 50% the slip under tension. For the 25 mm (No. 8) specimens, increasing the rate at
Therefore, the area under the curve is less for a bar in which the load was applied does not appear to have a direct

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 25


Fig. 5—Normalized bond stress-slip for 25 mm (No. 8) bar
under tension at different loading rates.
Fig. 6—Normalized bond stress-slip for 35 mm (No. 11) bar
under tension at different loading rates.
affect on the maximum bond stress. The ascending portion of
the curves for each loading rate is nearly identical followed by
a steep descending portion after the maximum bond stress was
achieved. For the 35 mm (No. 11) specimen, however, there
does appear to be a trend that is directly related to the rate of
loading. The lower the loading rate, the steeper the ascending
portion of the curve, but the maximum bond stress is less.
Effect of cyclic loading
The effect of cyclic loading on the reinforcement in
concrete structures is to gradually reduce the bond and to
extend the yielding of the bar to within the development
length region. This effectively reduces the amount of devel-
opment length available to develop the yield strength of the
bar resulting in pull-out of the reinforcement. One sample
was tested under cyclic loading for each bar size subjected to
the three loading rates of 1.5 mm/minute (0.059 in./minute),
75 mm/minute (0.0295 in./minute), and 0.15 mm/minute
(0.0059 in./minute). The loading history was displacement
controlled with the first 10 cycles set at ±3.75 mm (0.148 in.)
and the remaining five cycles set at ±7.50 mm (0.295 in.).
The first level of ±3.75 mm (0.148 in.) was set such that the
initial response of the bond strength could be studied without
severe damage to the bond strength, while the second level
of ±7.50 mm (0.295 in.) was selected to be close to the
maximum slip associated with the maximum bond stress.
26
Fig. 7—Normalized bond stress-slip for 25 mm (No. 8) bar
under cyclic loading.
Fig. 8—Normalized bond stress-slip for 35 mm (No. 11) bar
under cyclic loading.
The bond behavior under cyclic loading for 25 and 35 mm
(No. 8 and No. 11) reinforcement is tabulated in Table 3 and
shown in Fig. 7 and 8, respectively. It can be seen from these
plots that the bond was not severely damaged during the first
stage of cyclic loading, while increasing the displacement in
the second stage of loading causes a rapid deterioration of
bond strength.
The bond behavior of HSLW concrete under cyclic
loading can be summarized as follows. During the initial
loading stages of ±3.75 mm/minute (0.148 in./minute), there
was not a significant reduction in the maximum bond stress.
The first cycle at ±7.50 mm/minute (0.295 in./minute) saw a
significant reduction in the maximum bond stress. This was
due to the slip that takes place immediately after the bond
was broken and before the ribs of the reinforcement reseated
on the concrete. The amount of slip depends on the amount
of microcracking and inelastic deformation in the vicinity of
the ribs. The bond stress continued to deteriorate more
gradually due to frictional forces and aggregate interlock.
Lastly, the bond stress decreased to a minimum as the effects
of the frictional forces and aggregate interlock diminish.
Bond comparison of HSLW and HSNW concrete
The load required to pull a reinforcing bar out of a concrete
block will obviously increase as the length of a bar cast into
the block increases. When the embedded length becomes
long enough, the bar will yield in tension before it pulls out
of the block. The minimum embedded length required to
develop the yield force of the bar is called the minimum
required development length. The development length
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007
Table 4—Comparison of average bond stress for 25 mm (No. 8) bar in HSLW and HSNW concrete
HSLW HSNW
Series Investigation parameter Type of testing Specimen file No. 25M Normalized bond stress, MPa Specimen file No. 25M Normalized bond stress, MPa
HSLW 252 5.700 1HNM-19-1 6.958
HSLW 254 5.489 1HNM-19-1A 6.194
HSLW 255 5.930 1HNM-19-1B 5.415
HSLW 256 5.146 1HNM-19-1C 5.763
HSLW 2514 5.575 — —
Monotonic in HSLW 2515 5.613 — —
tension
HSLW 2516 6.262 — —
HSLW 25b1 4.383 — —
HSLW 25b2 4.422 — —
Mean bond 5.391 Mean bond 6.083
Standard deviation = Standard deviation =
C.L. = 0.393 C.L. = 0.564
0.601 0.576
1 Load history HSLW 2520 5.239 1HNM-19-2 5.356
HSLW 2521 5.358 1HNM-19-2A 5.498
HSLW 2522 6.158 1HNM-19-2B 5.919
HSLW 2523 5.128 1HNM-19-2C 7.072
HSLW 2524 5.234 — —
HSLW 2525 6.795 — —
Monotonic in
compression HSLW 2526 — — —
HSLW 2527 4.415 — —
HSLW 2528 6.311 — —
HSLW 25b5 5.647 — —
Mean bond 5.587 Mean bond 5.961
Standard deviation = Standard deviation =
C.L. = 0.492 C.L. = 0.660
0.794 0.674
HSLW 258 6.019 6HNM-6-2 5.919
HSLW 2513 3.665 6HNM-6-3 4.243
HSLW 257 5.033 — —
HSLW 2510 5.245 — —
Rate of pullout
2 Rate of loading HSLW 2511 5.698 — —
(monotonic)
HSLW 2517 5.334 — —
Mean bond 5.166 Mean bond 5.081
Standard deviation = C.L. = 95% confidence level Standard deviation =
0.743 C.L. = 0.595 0.838 C.L. = 0.948

requirements are used by all North American codes to indicate
the bond strength of concrete. The ACI 318-0512 code expresses
the bond strength of concrete as a function of the square root
of concrete compressive strength. In most European design
codes, the bond strength of concrete is proportional to the
cubic root of the compressive strength. The test results of the
current investigation indicated that the bond strength of high-
strength concrete, from 70 to 95 MPa (10,150 to 13,775 psi) is
more appropriately proportional to the cube root rather than
the square root as indicated by Alavi-Fard and Marzouk.10
Therefore, the test results were normalized with regard to the
cube root of the compressive strength.
The mean bond stress along with the standard deviation
and a 95% confidence level for HSLW and HSNW for the
specimens under monotonic loading in tension and
compression were compared. The measured bond stress was
normalized with respect to the cubic root of the compressive
strength and the results are tabulated in Table 4 and 5. For all
cases of 25 mm (No. 8) bar in HSLW concrete, the results
indicate within a 95% confidence limit, the mean normalized
bond stress will be in the range of 5.18 to 5.773 MPa (751 to
837 psi), whereas the mean normalized bond stress for 25 mm
(No. 8) bar in HSNW10 concrete were in the range of 5.354 to
6.314 MPa (776 to 915 psi). Similarly, for all cases of 35 mm
(No. 11) bar in HSLW concrete, the results indicate that the
mean normalized bond stress will be in the range 5.266 to
5.868 MPa (763 to 850 psi), whereas the mean normalized
bond stress for 35 mm (No. 11) bar in HSNW10 concrete will
be in the range of 4.182 to 4.832 MPa (606 to 700 psi). The
test results indicated that the use of lightweight aggregates
for high-strength concrete reduced the bond values by
approximately 6 to 10%. The current ACI 31812 code, however,
reduces the bond by 30% for the use of lightweight aggregates.
The results show a relatively steep ascending portion of
the curve followed by a steep descending portion after the
maximum bond stress level is attained. Albeit, the reduction
in bond capacity in the descending portion of the graphs is
significantly more for HSLW than for HSNW. Alavi-Fard
and Marzouk10 reported a 30 to 40% decrease in the bond
stress during the sharp descending portion of the curve for
HSNW, whereas the decrease in bond stress for the
descending portion of the HSLW curve is closer to 50 to
60%. This can be attributed to the fact that the lightweight
aggregates do not exhibit the same aggregate interlock
characteristics of normalweight aggregate. This translates
into HSLW concrete being even more brittle and having

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 27

Table 5—Comparison of average bond stress for 35 mm (No. 11) bar in HSLW and HSNW concrete
HSLW HSNW
Series Investigation parameter Type of testing Specimen file No. 35M Normalized bond stress, MPa Specimen file No. 35M Normalized bond stress, MPa
HSLW 35a0 5.591 1HNM-19-1 5.458
HSLW 35a2 5.351 1HNM-19-1A 4.499
HSLW 35a3 6.287 1HNM-19-1B 3.462
HSLW 35a4 6.001 1HNM-19-1C 4.341
HSLW 35a5 6.345 — —
HSLW 35a7 6.254 — —
Monotonic in HSLW 35a8 5.986 — —
tension
HSLW 35a9 5.674 — —
HSLW 3511 5.367 — —
HSLW 35b0 4.571 — —
HSLW 35b1 4.335 — —
Mean bond 5.615 Mean bond 4.440
Standard deviation = Standard deviation =
C.L. = 0.393 C.L. = 0.694
0.642 0.708
1 Load history HSLW 3513 6.147 1HNM-19-2A 4.511
HSLW 3514 6.137 1HNM-19-2B 4.415
HSLW 3515 5.757 1HNM-19-2C 3.908
HSLW 3516 4.810 — —
HSLW 3517 6.290 — —
HSLW 3518 5.961 — —
HSLW 3519 6.226 — —
Monotonic in
compression HSLW 3520 6.067 — —
HSLW 3521 5.965 — —
HSLW 3522 4.992 — —
HSLW 35b2 4.231 — —
HSLW 35b3 4.235 — —
Mean bond 5.568 Mean bond 4.278
Standard deviation = Standard deviation =
C.L. = 0.492 C.L. = 0.299
0.794 0.265
HSLW 352 0.000 6HNM-6-1 4.711
Rate of pullout HSLW 352 5.647 6HNM-6-2 5.008
2 Rate of loading (monotonic) HSLW 35a6 0.000 6HNM-6-3 4.756
HSLW 356 0.000 — —

much less energy absorption capacity than HSNW concrete.
Therefore, the load carrying capacity of HSLW concrete
after the maximum load is reached is less than for HSNW.
A comparison of the test where the rate of loading was
varied indicates that increasing or decreasing the loading rate
has minimal effect on the overall bond capacity of the bar.
This concurs with the work on HSNW concrete6,10 that
indicated that changing the rate of loading had no significant
effect on the overall bond capacity of the bar.
Analysis of the results for the cyclic test conclude that
cyclic loading does not have significant affect on the bond
strength provided that the maximum cyclic displacement is
less than the peak load slip in a static test. However, once the
displacement exceeds this peak load slip, then a serious rapid
deterioration of the bond capacity occurs. A similar conclusion
was reported in research on HSNW concrete.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The experimental investigation consisted of testing 36 speci-
mens, each for a 25 and 35 mm (No. 8 and No. 11) bar. To
facilitate a direct comparison with the previous work at the
same lab by Alavi-Fard and Marzouk6,10 on HSNW concrete
for which the same specimen size, casting position, and test
setup was used. The test program consisted of both mono-
tonic and cyclic testing for each bar size. In addition, under
the monotonic test, the effect of loading in tension was
compared to compression, as well as varying the rate at
which the load was applied. Similarly, the rate of loading
was varied in the cyclic test to investigate the effect of
increasing the rate of loading.
The following conclusions can be summarized from these
tests of HSLW concrete:
1. The test results revealed that HSLW concrete behaves
in a manner very similar to HSNW concrete;
2. The maximum bond stress for HSLW concrete is within
10% that of HSNW concrete for the 25 mm (No. 8) bar. The
maximum bond stress for HSLW concrete is greater than for
HSNW concrete for the 35 mm (No. 11) bar. The behavior of
HSLW concrete, however, is more brittle than NSLW concrete;
3. The maximum slip value associated with bond failure
was approximately five times the slip value corresponding to
the maximum bond stress. The shape of the stress-displacement
curve for HSLW and HSNW concrete is very similar;
4. The bond slip curve begins with a sharp, nearly linear
ascending portion of the curve, followed by a steep
descending portion indicating very brittle behavior. The
decrease in bond stress for the descending portion of the
lightweight concrete curve, however, is 50 to 60% as compared

28 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007

with 30 to 40% for the normalweight concrete. This behavior
can be attributed to the weak interlock characteristics of light-
weight aggregate compared to the same aggregate of normal-
weight aggregate; and
5. It is believed by the authors that the 30% increase of the
development length placed by the ACI 318-05 code on light-
weight concrete through the use of a concrete density factor
is not justified on HSLW concrete.
REFERENCES
1. Clark, A. P., “Comparative Bond Efficiency of Deformed Concrete
Reinforcing Bars,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 43, No. 11, 1946, pp. 381-400.
2. Eligehausen, R.; Popov, E. P.; and Betero, V., “Local Bond Stress-Slip
Relationships of Deformed Bar under Generalized Excitations,” Report
No. UCB/EERC-83/23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley,
Calif., 1983, 185 pp.
3. Kollegger, J., and Mehlhorn, G., “Nonlinear Contact Problems—A
Finite Element Approach Implemented in ADINA,” Computers & Structures,
V. 21, No. 1, 1985, pp. 69-80.
4. Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V., “Reinforcing Steel—Concrete Bond
in Normal and High Strength Concrete,” International Conference on High
Performance High Strength Concrete, Perth, Australia, 1998, pp. 367-378.
5. Azizinamini, A.; Ghosh, S. K.; Roller, J. J.; and Stark, M., “Bond
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007
Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in High Strength Concrete,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1993, pp. 554-561.
6. Alavi-Fard, M., and Marzouk, H., “Bond Strength of High Strength
Concrete Pull Out Cyclic Loading,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
V. 29, Mar.-Apr. 2002, pp. 191-200.
7. European Committee for Standardization, “Document on Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete with Closed Structure,” Eurocode 2, Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2000.
8. Fidjestol, P., “Lightweight Concrete in the Marine Environment,”
High Performance Structural Lightweight Concrete, SP-218, J. Ries and
T. Holm, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2004,
pp. 51-68.
9. Kowalsky, M. J., and Dwairi, H. M., “Review of Parameters Influencing
the Seismic Design Lightweight Concrete Structures,” High Performance
Structural Lightweight Concrete, SP-218, J. Ries and T. A. Holm, eds.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2004, pp. 29-50.
10. Alavi-Fard, M., and Marzouk, H., “Bond Behaviour of High Strength
Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 56, No. 9, Nov. 2004,
pp. 545-557
11. Hoff, G. C., “High Strength Lightweight Aggregate Concrete for
Arctic Applications,” Parts 1 through 3, Structural Lightweight Aggregate
Concrete Performance, SP-136, T. A. Holm and A. M. Vaysburd, eds.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1992, pp. 1-245.
12. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.