Professional Documents
Culture Documents
N. Subramanian
at cantilever supports
at lap splices.
39
Table 1: Design bond stress in limit state method for plain bars
in tension
Grade of
concrete
M 20
M25
M30
M35
M 40 and
above
Design bond
stress, bd , MPa
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.17
1.37
1.54
1.71
1.87
db s
4bd
(1)
where
db = nominal diameter of bar
s = stress in the bar at the section considered at
design load (for fully stressed bars, s = 0.87
fy), and
bd = design bond stress as per Table 1
bd = 0.16 f ck 3
...(2)
M15
M20
M25
M30
M35
M40
47
40
38
33
29.7
IS working stress
60
45
40
36
33
30
BS 8110*
Type I deformed
Type 2 deformed
67
54
58
46
52
42
47
38
44
35
41
33
DIN 1045
Bond class I
Bond class II
42
85
33
66
27
54
53
94
46
81
41
73
38
66
35
61
32
57
IS limit state
AS 3600
Good bond
Poor bond
40
6
most of the parameters affecting the bond strength . The
American code provisions are based on the work of Orangun,
Jirsa and Breen7. They derived the following best-fit equation
to estimate the average bond stress (bond strength, U) that
develops along the bar development/splice length at bond
failure.
U
fc'
= 1.22 + 3.23
cm
d
+ 53 b
db
Ld
...(3)
'
c
= 1.2 + 3
cm
d
U
+ 50 b + tr
db
Ld
fc'
...(4)
where,
U
f
'
c
= Ktr =
Atr f y
500 sdb
3.0
...(5)
where,
'
U and fc are in psi
L d = development/splice length
c
2.5.
db
9f
Ld =
10 f ' c + K tr
c
db
d 300 mm
b
...(6)
where,
L d = development length, mm
db = nominal diameter of bar or wire, mm
fy = specified yield strength of bar or wire, MPa
fc' = specified compressive strength of concrete,
MPa
= reinforcement location factor
= 1.3 for horizontal reinforcement so placed
that more than 300 mm of fresh concrete is
41
Grade of concrete
M25
M30
M35
M40
All bars
47
40
38
33
29.7
< 19
> 22
48
60
43.2
54
39.4
49.3
36.5
45.6
34.2
42.7
<19
> 22
72
90
64.8
81
59.2
74
54.7
68.4
51.2
64
All bars
60
55
52
49
47
ACI 318
cc = 1.5 db
ACI 318
cc = 1.0 db
Equation (10)
cc = 1.5 db
M20
f c'
1.8 fct but not less than 1.0 when fct (split
Atr f yt
10 sn
where,
Atr = total cross-sectional area of all transverse
reinforcement which is within the spacing s
and which crosses the potential plane of
splitting through the reinforcement being
developed, mm2
fyt = specified yield strength of transverse
reinforcement
s = maximum spacing
Excess reinforcement
The ACI code allows for reduction in development length by
the ratio [(A st required)/(A st provided)] when excess
reinforcement is provided in a flexural member. However,
this reduction does not apply when the full fy development is
required as for tension lap splices, development of positive
moment reinforcement at support and for development of
shrinkage and temperature reinforcement. This reduction is
also not permitted for reinforcement in structures located in
regions of high seismic risk. Similar recommendation is
available in the Indian code9.
Bars in compression
Shorter development lengths are required for bars in
compression than in tension since the weakening effect of
flexural tension cracks in the concrete are not present. Hence,
for deformed bars in compression, the following equation is
given in the ACI code.
42
c + K tr
db . However, the development lengths, Ld ,
0.02 d b f y
fc'
0.0003 d b f y or 200 mm
...(7)
Bundled bars
Increased development length for individual bars within a
bundle, whether in tension or compression, is required when
3 or 4 bars are bundled together. The additional length is
required because the grouping makes it more difficult to
mobilise resistance to slippage from the core between the
bars8. The ACI code gives a modification factor of 1.2 for a
three-bar bundle and 1.33 for a four-bar bundle. For the
factors of Equation (6) which are based on bar diameter, db , a
unit of bundled bar must be treated as a single bar of a
6
diameter derived from the total equivalent area . In the Indian
code, the development length is increased by 10 percent for
two bars in contact, 20 percent for three bars in contact and
33 percent for four bars in contact which are similar to ACI
code.
L dh =
0.24 f y db
fc'
...(8)
where,
= 1.2 for epoxy coated reinforcement
= 1.3 for lightweight aggregate concrete.
For other cases, and are equal to 1.0.
Modification factors are also specified for Ldh to account
for:
(i) favourable confinement conditions provided by
increased cover (for side cover not less than 60 mm,
it is equal to 0.7)
(ii) favourable confinement provided by transverse ties
or stirrups to resist splitting of concrete (0.8)
(iii) more reinforcement provided than required by
analysis. After multiplying the development length,
L dh , by the applicable modification factors, the
resulting development length must not be less than
the larger of 8 db or 150 mm. Fig 3 shows Ldh and the
standard hook details for all standard bar sizes.
Thus, the ACI code gives directly the anchorage length of
different bends and hooks as a function of the bar size and
strength of bars and concrete. Whereas the IS code specifies
the anchorage value of bends and hooks as a multiple of the
bar diameter. The anchorage value of bends and hooks allowed by IS 456 is as high as 2.5 times the anchorage value
given by ACI code for smaller diameter bars and about 0.85
Lap splices
IS 456 suggests the value for lap length (as a multiple of
development lengths) only for bars stressed less than 50
percent of their capacity and only if less than 50 percent of
bars are spliced at a section. On the other hand, ACI code
classifies lap splices into two categories depending on the
magnitude of tensile stress in the reinforcement and the
percentage of bars spliced at the section and gives the lap
length for each category as a multiple of development length
(1.0 Ld or 1.3 Ld). Both the codes require splice length equal to
development length when more than 50 percent of bars are
spliced at a section and stressed to less than 50 percent of the
capacity due to flexure at a section. IS 456 stipulates that the
splice length of tension bar should be increased up to a factor
of 2.0 (splices in tension member shall be enclosed by spirals
of 6 mm diameter bars or more and with a pitch of 100 mm
or less). On the other hand, as per ACI code, splices in tension
tie members are required to be made with full mechanical or
welded splice with 750 mm stagger between adjacent splices.
The American code also stipulates that in the calculation of
development length for splices, the factor for excess Ast must
not be used and the minimum lap length must be 300 mm.
43
0.1 cmax
50.26
+ 0.9
'1/ 4
c
Ld
f
min
...(9)
= c
c + K tr
db
1.63
db
For design purposes, the above equation may be simplified
to
fy
Ld
db
' 1/ 4
c
1.63
50.26
c + K tr
db
...(10)
where ,
6.26 tr td Atr '1/ 2
fc
Ktr =
sn
tr = 9.6 Rr + 0.28 1.72
t d = 0.03 db + 0.22
...10(a)
...10(b)
10(c)
...10(d)
44
4 f y db
3f
' 2 / 3 0.8
c
c (1 + 0.08K tr 0.6 )
....(11)
Suggested formula
Based on the recent research on high performance concrete
and the above discussions, the Equation (10), proposed by
Darwin et al is recommended for the Indian code20,21. The
present Indian code formula considers only the diameter,
yield stress and grade of concrete as variables. Whereas the
proposed formula considers the diameter, cover, spacing of
bar, grade of concrete and transverse reinforcement as
variables. Hence, it is supposed to truly represent the bond
behaviour of reinforcement. To account for coating, type of
aggregate and reinforcement location, the , and factors
as suggested by the ACI code could be incorporated in
Equation (10).
Though the development lengths predicted by Equation
(10) are higher than the Indian code formula, Table 3 and
10. KALYANARAMAN, V. Special design requirements: A Comparison of IS: 4561978 with ACI 318-77, Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Civil Engineering
Division, 1984, Vol.65, pp. 76-81.
11. YERLICI, V.A. and OEZTURAN, T. Factors affecting anchorage bond strength in
high performance concrete, ACI Structural Journal, 2000, Vol. 97, No.3,
pp. 499-507.
12. RASHID, M.A. Consideration in using HSC in RC flexural members: A review,
The Indian Concrete Journal, May 2004, Vol. 78, No. 5, pp. 20-28.
13. EZELDIN, A.S., and BALAGURU, P.N. Bond behaviour of normal and highstrength fibre reinforced concrete, ACI Materials Journal, 1989, Vol. 86, No. 5,
pp. 515 -524.
14. AZIZINAMINI, A. Bond performance of reinforced bars embedded in high
strength concrete, ACI Structural Journal, 1993,Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 554-561.
15. GJROV Effect of condensed silica fume on the steel concrete bond, ACI Materials
Journal, 1990, Vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 573-580.
16. HAMAD, B.S. Bond strength of reinforcement in high performance concrete:
Role of Silica fume, casting position and superplasticiser dosage, ACI
Materials Journal, 1998, Vol. 95, No. 5, pp. 499-511.
17. B ALASUBRAMANIAN , K., K RISHNAMURTHY , T. S., G OPALAKRISHNAN , S.,
BHARATHKUMAR, B.M., and KUMAR, GIRISH Bond characteristics of slag-based
HPC, The Indian Concrete Journal, August 2004, Vol. 78, No. 8, pp. 39-44.
18. AZIZINAMINI , A., C HISALA , M., R OLLER , J.H., A ND G HOSH , S.K. Tension
development length of reinforcing bars embedded in high-strength concrete,
Engineering Structures, 1995, Vol.17, No.7, pp.512-522.
19. DARWIN, D., ZUO, J., THOLEN, M.L., and IDUN, E.K. Development length criteria
for conventional and high relative rib area reinforcing bars, ACI Structural
Journal, July-August 1996, Vol.95, No.4, pp.347-359.
20. ZUO, J., and DARWIN, D. Splice strength of conventional and high relative rib
area bars in normal and high-strength concrete, ACI Structural Journal, JulyAugust 2000, Vol.97, No.4, pp. 630-641.
21. DARWIN, D. Private communications, May 2003
22. MILLER, G.G., KEPLER, J.L., and DARWIN, D. Effect of epoxy coating thickness
on bond strength of reinforcing bars, ACI Structural Journal, 2003, Vol.100,
No.3, pp. 314-320.
23. HAMAD, B.S., and MIKE, J.A. Experimental investigation of bond strength of
hot dip galvanised reinforcement in normal and high-strength concrete,
ACI Structural Journal, 2003, Vol.100, No.4, pp. 465-470.
24. CHAN, Y.W., CHEN, Y.S., and LIU, Y.S. Development of bond strength of
reinforcement steel in self-consolidating concrete, ACI Structural Journal,
2003, Vol.100, No.4, pp. 490-498.
25. HARAJLI, M.H. and MABSOUT, M.E. Evaluation of bond strength of steel
reinforcing bars in plain and fibre-reinforced concrete, ACI Structural Journal,
2002, Vol. 99, No.4, pp.509-517.
26. HAMAD, B.S., HARAJLI, M.H. and JUMAA, G. Effect of fibre reinforcement on
bond strength of tension lap splices in high-strength concrete, ACI Structural
Journal, 2001,Vol.98, No.5, pp. 638-647.
4. JAIN, R. Detailing for bond, shear and torsion - comparison of codes, Civil
Engineering and Construction Review, 2001, Vol.14, No.8, pp. 38-46.
45
415
50.26
20
0.8 )0.25
(
= 20
1.63 1.61
= 1198 mm
L d = db s
4 bd
=
20 90.87 415
4 1.20 1.6
= 940 mm
As per the suggested formula
td = 0.03 db + 0.22 = 0.03 x 20 + 0.22 = 0.82
Ktr = 6td Atr fc' 0.5 = 6 0.82 50.26 (20 0.8 )0.5 = 2.18
sn
85 3
c + K tr = 30 + 2.18 = 1.61 < 2.5. Hence adopt 1.61.
db
20
fy
Ld =
c
c + K tr
1.63
db
46
0502035370
MR Y GANGADHARA RAO
ASST RESIDENT ENGR
(HIGHWAYS)
C/O H PURUSHOTTAM
9TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR
TUMKUR 572 103
KARNATAKA
0602002354
MR. M. MOHAMMED SHERIF
DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ELECTY.BOARD
RESEARCH ORGANISATION
PALLOM
KOTTAYAM 686 007
KERALA
0404006386
MR R SUBRAMANIAN
PROJECT MANAGER
GAMMON INDIA LTD
DMRC VIADUCT PKG -II
(KOHAT ENCLAVE TO RITHALA)
PB NO.8566, ASHOK VIHAR
DELHI 110 052
0501046357
A S WAZIR
CHIEF ENGR
P W (R&B) DEPT
C/O H NO.40 CHOUGAN
SLATHIAN
JAMMU 180 004
0302007366
MR. N. SHARMA
VIKRAM CEMENT
VIKRAM NAGAR
DISTT: NEEMUCH
KHOR 458 470
MADHYA PRADESH
0801006432
MR RAMESH JOSHI
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD
MAYFAIR, 2ND FLOOR
1-8-303/34, S P ROAD
SECUNDERABAD 500 003
0302005995'
MR. V K L RAO
C/o C PRAKASAM
WHOLE SALE HANDLOOM
CLOTH MERCHANTS
NR RLY STATION
GOLLAPROLU - 533 445
ANDHRA PRADESH
1502002826
MR. ANIL KAPOOR
VICE PRESIDENT (MKTG.)
RAJSHREE CEMENT
B-201/203, 2ND FLOOR
MAYFAIR COMPLEX
1-3-303/84 S P RD
SECUNDERABAD 500 003
0301005796
MR SHAILESH DESAI
CONSULTING ENGR
314, SAHJANAND COMPLEX,
B/H BHAGAWATI CHAMBER,
C G RD, SWASTIK CHAR RASTA,
NAVRANGPURA
AHMEDABAD 380 009