Title no. 95-S25


Bond between Normal Strength and Hlqh-Btrenqth Concrete (HSC) and Reinforcing Bars in Splices in Beams

by M. Reza Esfahani and B. Vijaya Rangan

This paper presents the second part of a study on bond. It reports on the influence of several parameters on bond in splices. The parameters covered are concrete strength, splice length, concrete cover, ratios between side cover, bottom cover, and the spacing between the spliced bars, rib face angle of the reinforcing bar, and admixtures in the concrete mix. The study was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, an analytical equation was developed to calculate the bond strength of splices in normal strength concrete. The mean value of test/calculated proposed equation is 1.007 with a standard values indicate a significant improvement bond strength for the of 0.084. These of the bond deviation

Bond strength of splices in beams has been studied by many researchers. 1-17 A complete review of past research is given elsewhere.l" RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Earlier tests on splices have shown that the bond stress varies along the splice length.6,IO In this paper, the bond stress distribution over the splice length is taken into account to develop an analytical model for the strength of tensile splices. The local bond equation proposed in the first part of the study'? is used as the maximum bond stress at the end of the splice lengths. The influence of the ratios between side cover, bottom cover, and spacing between the spliced bars is included in the model. The model is compared with the test results on normal strength and high strength concrete. The results of the research can be used as a basis to formulate design rules for stress development in splices. LOCAL BOND In the first part of this study reported elsewhere.'? local bond was studied. The partly cracked thick cylinder theory due to Tepfers'' was modified to account for the variation of the bursting angle, plastic deformation of the tensile concrete in the concrete cylinder, and the confining effect of the concrete surrounding the cylinder in beam sections. Based on test results, the following equations to calculate the cracking bond strength (i.e., bond strength when the concrete cover cracks) of short length specimens were proposed. For concrete with compressive strength less than 50 MPa, C/db + 0.5 4.9 C/ db + 3.6

in the calculation

strength when compared to other proposed equations. The second stage of the research involved tests on twenty two beams made of high-strength concrete (HSC). In each beam, the tensile steel was spliced in the constant moment zone. The test strengths are compared with the calculated values. Good correlation between calculated and test strengths of splices in the case of HSC is found. Keywords: beams; bond (concrete to reinforcement); high-strength

concretes; reinforced concretes; reinforcing steels; splices.

INTRODUCTION Adequate bond between concrete and reinforcing bars in a splice is an essential requirement in the design of reinforced concrete structures. In spite of many studies on bond, a theoretical model which could appropriately show the influence of different parameters and agree with the test results has not been presented. In addition, available analytical models have been calibrated using test data obtained from specimens made of normal strength concrete with compressive strength less than 50 MPa (7250 psi). The increasing demand for high strength concrete (HSC) with compressive strength greater than 50 MPa (7250 psi) in the construction industry requires the available bond models to be reevaluated. The aim of this paper is to develop an analytical model for the calculation of bond strength between normal strength and high strength concrete and reinforcing bars in lap splices in beams. The model shows good correlation with numerous test results available in the literature as well as with those obtained from the tests of 22 splices in beams made of HSC reported in the paper.

-, =



ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No.3, May-June 1998. Received April 25, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 1998, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright. proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the March-April 1999 ACI Structural Journal if received by November I, 1998.


ACI Structural Journal/May-June


Perth.. Darwin et al. db is the bar diameter. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (3). + 0. Reese Structural Research Award. The results of specimens made ofHSC (50 and 75 MPa [7250 and 10875 psi]) and bars with rib face angle between 23 to 27 deg showed that the right hand side of Eq.a linear relationship between bond stress and slip has been used by Tepfers.S(x) (4) In Eq. accounts for the deformation properties of the reinforcing bars and the difference between the bonding actions in pull-out specimens and splices. era. Iran.55Ji:. Iran. i. the factor 8_6 should be replaced by 7. (2) should be multiplied approximately by 0. (1) or (2).1R2o and ACI 318-B. He is currently a lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering. In the following. 2-Bond stress versus slip relationship 273 . ex Cs "I Fig. I=Concrete covers u s Fig. a theory based on. Perth. For the splices used in practice. Therefore.5 8." in Eq. K is not a constant and decreases with increasing bond stress. The bonding action in short length splices may not be the same as the bonding action in pull-out tests.M. Eq. Curtin University of Technology. To account for these two factors. (1) and (2). and his PhD from the School of Civil Engineering at Curtin University of Technology.3.5 fet (2) = K. Western Australia. Reza Esfahani obtained his MSc from the Department of Civil Engineering. Therefore. Uc is given by Eq. (1) and (2) are used as the maximum cracking bond stress at the ends of the splice lengths. Tehran. a constant value for K may be assumed." Also. Western Australia. wherefc' is the compressive strength of concrete expressed in MPa. Other recommendations for considering the spacing between spliced bars such as (Cs+ db)/2 and (C~ + 2db)/2proposed by ACI 408. C is the minimum of CX' CY' and Csl2in beam sections (Fig. Mashhad. FACI. different deformation properties of the reinforcing bars may result in different bond strengths.6 C/ db + 5.21 respectively. (1) and (2) are modified as follows: (3) where ucs is the cracking bond strength in short length splices. The comparison of the test results and calculatedvaluesl'' showed that using (Cs + db)/2 instead of ACI Structural Journal / May-June'1998 where K is the secant modulus (Fig. Vijaya Rangan. Csl2 yields the least scatter for the test/calculated bond strengths. Rangan is coauthor of a textbook on reinforced concrete and has received ACl's Raymond C. He is a member of joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441. the relationship between the bond stress u(x) and the slip S(x) between steel and concrete is given by u(x) For concrete with compressive strength equal to or greater than 50 MPa (HSC). Because the bond stress-slip relationship is nonlinear. However. andfct is the tensile strength of concrete taken as equal to 0. Reinforced Concrete Columns. Losberg/? has shown that the bond stress distribution along an anchored bar is not significantly influenced by the variations in the value of K. ' BONDSTRENGTHOFSPUCES Cracking bond strength of short length splices Equations (1) and (2) were developed using results obtained from short reinforcing bars embedded in concrete blocks in pull-out tests. 1). Tehran University. Dr. To account for the distribution of bond stresses over the splice length. B. and".e. According to Tepfers' theory. is a professor and head of the School of Civil Engineering. 2). can be appropriate alternatives. the bond stresses are not uniform along the bond length. in the present analysis C is defined as the minimum of CX' CY' and (Cs + db)/2. Eq. C is the minimum cover.I3 have pointed out that Cs!2 is not always a satisfactory parameter to include in bond strength calculation.? Accordingly. Uc is the cracking bond stress. Equation (2) was obtained based on the results of specimens made of HSC (50 and 75 MPa) and bars with rib face angle between 40 to 47 deg. and is also a member of the Concrete Structures Committee of Standards Australia. Bond stress distribution over splice length Equation (3) applies to short length splices in which the distribution of the bond stresses over the bond length is almost uniform.85.

(10) can be written as (11) For the case of CmedlC = 1.For two different steel types.. U(x) = acoshUx) where jcrsoAs 2rcdb 1 sinhULl2) . 3. longitudinal cracking may not develop over the splice length before failure. When CmedlC> 1.' small K An expression for O)/\If was evaluated using the test results available in the literature.P K is proportional to the compressive strength of the concrete. M becomes a = x . t. Eq. When ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1998 •J Fig. . splitting bond failure may occur when umax reaches ucs' and the bond stress distribution over the splice length is similar to the curve corresponding to a large K value in Fig. Eq.!. (8).~" .? In SI units. the second larger) of CX' Cy' and (Cs + db)/2. -= (12) . < 1 (8) (6) ExpressK as rfc' and As as rcb}14and takeEs=21Ox loJMPa Substituting these values. (11) becomes 0) x -LI2 0. crso is the tensile stress in the reinforcing bar. 3.2 _ umax U M- . and develops gradually towards the center of the splice.8fcube the value of K becomes: . the equivalent uniform bond stress um at failure (bond strength) can be written as follows: Um = (10) where 0) is a function of M. (6) is shown in Fig. Umax (x = U2) = a. The bond stress distribution as given by Eq..l'' In a beam splice test. where r depends on the type of reinforcing bar . using the conversion factor fe' = 0.J K~db . K = rfe'.cosh(jLl2) and umin(x = 0) = a. the 'value of M is far greater than unity. Ks40 and Ks60 (Swedish Standard) the value of K was given by Tepfers.e. and umin is significantly smaller than umax' In general. (3) and rearranging. min we have = Tepfers" derived the following equation for the bond stress distributions in splices.. i.25f/ is in terms of MPa.AsEs M= COSh( 0. (8). 3.e. therefore (7) Umin 1 umax = coshULl2) s1 where K is expressed as Nzmm! whenfe' Defining M = cosh(jLl2). and Fig.. is the stress In the bar at failure.According to Tepfers. It should be noted that in this case Umax > ucs' According to Eq..e..0022L Jr ~: ) (9) As is the area of reinforcing bar. 3. for Ks40 for Ks60 K = 3f/ (5) K = 4... In this case. Bond strength of splices From Eq.. A study of test data 18 showed that the bond stress distribution is influenced by the ratio CmedlC. When CmedlC = 1. For long length splices with high-strength concrete and small size bars. uminlumax is close to unity (i.. at bond failure. Es is the elastic modulus of steel.. where Cmed is the median value (i. the bond stress distribution is almost uniform) when M is close to unity.. and L is the splice length. and L is the splice length. (6). the value of um at bond failure is given by U Umax splice centre (13) where As is the area of tensile steel being spliced. the cracking of the concrete cover may start at the end of the splice length where umax acts.. This occurs for short length splices with low strength concrete and large size bars.0 . At failure the bond stress distribution may be similar to the curve corresponding to a small K value in Fig. 3-Bond 274 stress distribution . Using Eq. umax is equal to the cracking bond strength Ucs' Substituting for ucs from Eq.

(14).e. Beam no. For the case of CmedlC >1.3 23.49 97 143. the experimental work reported here focused on tensile splices in HSC beams. 5.17 Therefore. .jM) Cmin (14) Uc is given by Eq. between load points) were spliced (Fig. (1) or (2).3 23.07. Y20 and Y24.3 23.85 + 0. The tensile bars in the constant moment zone (i. The configuration of ribs in the longitudinal direction and rib face angles with respect to bar axis for the bars are given in Fig. the bond strength was studied by normalizing the test values with respect to Um(CmedIC= 1)' Complete details of the analysis of test data for both cases of CmeiC = 1 and CmedlC > 1 are given elsewhere.3 19. None of the beams failed in shear..3 23. 58 40 59 58 56 56 59 56 . ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1998 275 . [5]).16. 4. Table 2 gives the details of the mixes and the compressive strengths of the concrete. The measured yield strengths of Y20· and Y24 bars were 510 MPa (74 ksi) and 460 MPa (67 ksi). This region did not contain any stirrups.3 19.3 23.) concrete cylinders were manufactured to measure the concrete strength.P These data were used to develop Eq. I MPa = 145 pSI. 4).4 mm the measured value of Is was not reported.) and the width of beams varied (Table 1). The maximum size of the aggregate was 7 mm (0. Both the bars in the tensile zone were spliced (Fig. failure was due to bond Tests on tensile splices in beams made of HSC with compressive strength greater than 50 MPa (7250 psi) are limited.3 23.3 23.3 23. it was calculated from the test bending moment using the conventional fully cracked transformed section analysis of the beam crosssection. The relative rib area R(see Notation section) for both the bars was approximately 0. Test specimens In all.3 23. were used as longitudinal tensile reinforcement.203 202 200 202 203 550 230 19. The shear spans of the beams were provided with stirrups. = 25.3 19.3 19. The beams were manufactured in timber molds. respectively. Therefore.024. 4). EXPERIMENTAL WORK Test data on tensile splices in beams made of normal strength concrete with compressive strength less than 50 MPa (7250 psi) are available in the literature.l'' After many trials. 48 99 145 39 33 21 70 40 67 100 99 b 0-1 0-2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 66 66 66 98 66 98 66 98 98 73 98 66 73 66 76 76 76 76 76 76 73 73 260 340 206 200 300 298 402 382 230 231 230 273 273 271 203 .3 19. 22 rectangular beams were made and tested.3 23.28 in.12-.3 23. the value of r in Eq.3 19. The overall depth was 350 mm (14 in.3 23.3 23.3 19.3 23. MPa of test beams L db c. ~ • • The relative rib area of the reinforcing bars used in those test beams was close to that of Ks40 Swedish bar. nun Cy c. Only test results with the following limitations were considered in the study: 1 tests with two: or more splices and all reinforcing bars spliced at the same section splice located close to the bottom of the beam tensile stress in the reinforcing bar at failure was less than the yield stress. (9) was taken equal to three (see C (1.). Concrete was placed directly from the truck mixer into the molds .Table 1-Details fe'. Concrete was supplied by a commercial ready-mix plant. Both are standard deformed reinforcing bars used in Australian practice. 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 40 65 65 24 35 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 300 400 200 300 400 200 200 200 200 200 200 300 300 Note: See Notation section for explanation of symbols. I in.3 30 41 24 24 25 25 24 25 29 55 82 29 54 81 42 45 51 26 41 28 53 54 27 27 24 24 24 24 24. For each casting fifteen 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in. The details of test beams are given in Table 1 and Fig. cu. The symbols in Table 1 are defined in the Notation section. Two types of bars.88 + 0. the following expression was obtained for the bond strength of splices: um where = Uc 1 + 11M ( 0.

= 25.59 kglm3 The test beams were simply supported over a span of 2300 mm (90.P/2 P/2 I BeamsOland 02 600 OtherBeams 700 1100 900 600 700 all dimensions are in mm Elevation 104 splice length. = 25. Ilb/yd3 = 0.4 mm) Y24 .) (Fig.32 Splices were located at the bottom side of the molds during casting. 11.4. mm 150 150 150 100 85 Cement.6 in. 12 MPa (No.6. Concrete was vibrated thoroughly during casting. the specimens were allowed to air dry in the laboratory prior to testing.36 0. the molds were opened and the beam specimens were covered in wet Hessian and plastic sheet for one week.3. of days) 66 (41 days) 76 (34 days) 66 (35 days) 98 (35 days) 73 (34 days) i: of concrete Slump. 01. After 24 hr.· 2.36 0. 4-Test beams (Note: 1 in.7. After one week.02 13 to 18 1. 10. A 2500 kN (562 kips) capacity test machine applied the load. About five hr after casting.5. The laboratory temperature ranged from 8 to 20 C over the curing period. 19." / >< Y20 ' Fig.34 0.28 0.9 8. 4). 1 in.4 mm. kglm3 400 400 400 520 480 Silica fume.20 Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi. ~I Plan Fig.r'Ihe load from the test machine Test setup and test procedure 276 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1998 . 5-Configuration of ribs of Y20 and Y24 reinforcing bars Table 2-Details Beam no. concrete surface was covered in plastic. kg/m3 40 40 40 40 40 w/c 0.

where ue is given by Eq.2 66 58 51.6 62 73.30 7. 10.9 50.101. Table 3 presents the test values at failure.. (13).-kip = 0.79 4.051.113 kN.158) and (1.101.2 76.P these values are (2. was then calculated by Eq. respectively.2 78.98 9.6 79. At each increment of load.413) and (1. 12.343). In Beams 01.. These stresses correlated well with the values calculated by the transformed section analysis. As before.86 8.9 112 67. strain gages were attached to the tensile bars in the maximum bending moment region.6 kips). MPa 447 503 209 199 253 257 308 293 232 272 319 213 312 316 339 379 334 413 397 355 459 288 Beam no.was transferred through a stiff steel girder onto the test beam in the form of two equally concentrated loads. was taken as 203 x 103 MPa (29. at the ends and at the mid-length of the splice.8 56. 6.1 63. the bond strength).91 5. but are available elsewhere. Therefore.00 7. given in Table 3.467.side of the beam. The output data were recorded by the data acquisition system.1 48 60. Two LVDTs were located at the center span for measuring the mid-span deflection.28 Note: I in. I e.47 4.13· (3) ACI 318 Code provisions= (4) Australian Standard AS 3600 provisions= (5) Equation (14). bond strength of test beams was 277 .07 4. which measured the applied load. For Eq. The system was reset before the start of the test.135). 11.. Is is the tensile stress in the splice.47 5. 0. In some beams. 0.435 ksi) and the modulus of elasticity of concrete Ee was given by23 COMPARISON OF TEST AND CALCULATED BOND STRENGTHS Test beams with concrete compressive strength less than 50 MPa (7250 psi) In all. j is the lever arm coefficient and d is the effective depth. The load was increased gradually in increments of about 2. 17. where As is the area of tensile steel.2 51.8 u. 01 02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 kNm 74. the beam was examined for cracks. the maximum difference was less than 10 percent. MPa 8. the data acquisition system was checked by "exercising" the test beam by applying a small load.02 4. = MmaJAsjd. and u is the equivalent uniform bond stress (i. The bond strength u. the modulus of elasticity of steel E. (14) predicts the bond strength of tensile splices most accurately with least scatter. two LVDTs for deflection measurement.95 9. the results of 13 other beams reported in the literature16. viz. Longitudinal crack widths along the splice length were measured by measuring the increase in the width of the bottom .5 kN (0.43 4. were connected to an electronic data acquisition system.8 56. Two LVDTs were used to measure the increase in the beam width at each section. In this analysis. All specimens failed in bond due to splitting of concrete cover over the splice length in a brittle manner. IS The test beams' contained two or more spliced bars in the tensile zone and the value of C/db was equal to or greater than unity.e. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1998 Test beams with concrete compressive strength greater than or equal to 50 MPa (7250 psi) In addition to the results of 22 beams tested by the authors.56 6. I MPa = 145 psi Test results Complete details of all test data are not given here due to space limitations.65 6. Table 3. The value of Is was calculated from the relation j.007 with a standard deviation of 0. The value ofj was calculated by performing a conventional fully cracked transformed section analysis of the beam cross-section. 16. 02. (14). the mean value of UteslUeale is 1.47 8.D.2 57.17 were studied. the strain gage outputs.86 7.06 9. where Mmax is the maximum bending moment including the moment due to self-weight of the beam and the loading system.91 5.) oftest-versuscalculated bond strengths are summarized in Table 4. (1) The mean value and standard deviation (S. The comparison shows that Eq. The duration of each test was about 15 min. All observed cracks were marked.7 (2) Expression proposed by Darwin et al.// 3320JJ: + 6900 (15) and Ee are expressed in terms of MPa.9 70. The measurement was made at three sections. Is.14 5.80 8. The bond strengths ofthose 66 test beams were calculated by the following: (1) Expression proposed by Orangun et al. 0. the values of Is given in Table 3 were considered to be acceptable.? and Darwin et alP are (1. The measured outputs from these strain gages at failure were converted to stresses using the measured stress-strain relation of reinforcing bars .0.1 66. = In Eq. and 19. and the load cell. respectively. 2.6 83. For the provisions of the ACI Code24 and the Australian Standard.88 6. The mean value and the standard deviation for the expressions proposed by Orangun et al. Six LVDTs for crack width measurement. Prior to each test.084. strain gages were attached to the tensile bars in the maximum moment region. (15). IS Only failure loads are discussed in this paper. test bond strengths of 66 beams were collected from the literature.Test results at failure Mmax.

mean S.753 0.599 0.132 p.852 0.966 0.649 1.233 2. mean S.287 0. mean S.189 3.069 0. the limit used ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1998 pn sp Lru AR are wa: ofl firs 278 AC .559 2. The mean value and standard deviation of test-versus-calculated bond strengths Utest/ucalc are summarized in Table 5. mean 0.908 0.307 - 0. (14) where Uc is given by Eq.405 2. mean S.130 0.971 C( ACI Code24 0.305 0. mean S.D.8 0. mean S.158 1.124 1.13 0.871 0.742 0. the mean value is 1.97 0.128 0. mean S. Hwang et al.417 0.7 S. Orangun et al? S.D.87 0. 4 Treece et aI. (14) and Eq.513 0.437 1.316 0.101 b B p: Table 5-Comparison Investigator Azizinarnini et No.068.249 1.067 .620 2.157 et al.006 0.11 Hester et aI.222 0.343 1.099 1.000 0.178 0.73 0. of beams of test and calculated bond strengths.995 0.065 1. (2).3 0.101 2.114 0. in Specimens AB83-11-15-57.066 0.935 0.314 0.478 0.17 have indicated that the lower bond strength of Azizinamini et al.351 2. mean S.128 0.045 0.bars. 3 Azizinamini et al.' Chamberlirr' All results 0.D.112 1.178 0.202 1.042 0.16 1.!? All tests fu C( CC at nc cc sn a~ arc calculated by different proposals.141 1.952 0.071 0.D.013 Darwin et al.068 1.D. 16 9 14 8 4 35 Authorsl8 (Y24 bar) Authorsl8 (Y20 bar) Hwang et ai.Table 4-Comparison Investigator Ferguson et al.136 0.066 0.052 1. For those beams the mean value of Utes!ucalc is 0.171 1.998 0.D.15 1. 5 Ferguson et al.182 0.D.046 1.901 ft! .687 0.061 0.213 1.06 0.15 1.392 0.146 0.16 beams was possibly due of the presence of large amount of silica fume in the concrete mixes.076 0.142 0.084 1.986 0.341 No.046 0.16 Rezansoff et al.133 2.08 0. mean S.045 with a standard deviation of 0. mean S.127 0.079 1.303 0.D.024 0.23 0. te w at.16 0.079 1.930 0.202 2.D.::: 0 5 MPa Eq.351 0.104 1. mean S.254 o a o s Co 1.147 2.04 0.576 0.083 1. the exact reason is not clear as the investigators have not reported the details of either the concrete mixes or the reinforcing. mean 0. For the beams with Y24 bars with rib face angle less than 30 deg.467 1.D.594 2.121 1.39 2. (14) and Eq.063 0.078 1.47 0.986 with a standard deviation of 0. (1) 0.175 1.85 times the values given by Eq.00 2.103 Australian Standard25 0.009 0.166 0. Orangun Darwin et alP 0.D.007 IT CI 11 ACI Code24 0.980 0. 16 were somewhat different from the other test beams.568 0. AB89-11-15-80.051 2.07 1. It is seen that the average bond strength of those beams was about 25 percent less than that of other beams.122 1.52 0.D.951 0.071.753 with a standard deviation of 0. mean S.D.033.D.071 0.D.053 1. mean " S. and AB83-8-15-41 tested by Azizinarnini et al.091 1. 16 the value of M is much larger than 500.135 1. The beams tested by Azizinamini et al.1 1. However.246 ·2.727 0.235 1. of tests 15 4 4 9 6 6 1 7 7 6 1 66 1 t a I 11 Ferguson et al. As seen in Table 5.204 0.107 0.325 0. 9 of test and calculated bond strengths.037 0.D.D.365 0.473 2.025 1.002 0.048 1.113 1. 15 Thompson et al.060 0.123 0. (2) 0. the mean value of Utes!ucalc for the beams with Y24 barsis 0.088 0. For the specimens with Y20 bars. Uc was taken as 0. Also.14 Choi et alP Chinn et al.413 2.069 0.129 1.269 2.053.100 with a standard deviation of 0.11 1.5.115 1.808 2. the bond strength was calculated by Eq.1 0.033 0.471 2. For the beams tested by the authors.077 Australian Standard25 0. (2) for specimens with Y20 bars.15 1.985 0.216 0.149 ft! < 50 MPa Eq. 1. mean S. mean S.081 1. The mean value of Utes!ucalc of the beams tested by Hwang et alP is 1.

and McCabe. 112.2. 1993. (14) is 0. 90. respectively. the first author was sponsored by the Ministry of Culture and Higher Education. side cover. Chinn. and deformation properties of bar. Tepfers.. (9) maximum bending moment at failure relative rib area JJ:' projected rib area normal to the bar axis nominal bar perimeter x center-to-center rib spacing r Klfc'. 1992. The bond stress Uc when the concrete cover cracks is a function of minimum cover. S. During the course of the study. No. 1. 1955. 76.901. Tepfers.249) and (0. Hadje-Ghaffari. and Schoenekase. and the type of reinforcing bar. R A. Government of Iran. 3. and (Cs + db)/2 (C < Cmed < Cmax) maximum of CX' Cy. 0. Salamizavaregh. Oct. No. cover to reinforcement. CONCLUSIONS The results of a study on bond strengths of tensile splices in beams have been reported. The bond stress distribution along the splice length and the strength of splices is influenced by a bond strength parameter M given by Eq. M. Ferguson. 3. Cy.210 psi). 73:2.. M. reinforcing bar area width of beam minimum concrete cover taken as the smallest of CX' c. 32. pp.. No. P." ACI JOURNAL. In this parameter. bar diameter. H. 10.. "Lapped Splices in Reinforced Concrete Beams.559) and (2. cmed = cmax = db Ee fb fer fc' s. 1993. The test parameters included concrete compressive strength. 114-122. (14). Darwin. 13. and Olsson.. x form the splice center bond stress when the concrete cover cracks (in short length pull-out specimens) bond stress when the concrete cover cracks (in short length splices) equivalent uniform bond stress at failure (bond strength) bursting angle S u(x) I. tensile strength of concrete. spacing between bars.204).-Apr.. pp. P. Proceedings. July 1969. REFERENCES NOTATION As b C. V. S. L. 15. Feb. Center for Highway Research.-Dec.. J. V. Nov.. 7.31 pp. No. 1979. In all beams." ACI JOURNAL. V. S. 4. Center for Highway Research. the mean value of UtestlUcalc for Eq. pp. and Breen.. No...07 slip between concrete and reinforcing bar bond stress at a distance. Idun." ACI Materials Journal.. July-Aug. 89-102. Chalmers University of Technology. taken equal to 0. Darwin. L. Mar." ACI JOURNAL.8. Is K L M Mmax= R side cover bottom cover spacing between the spliced bars median of c.2. A. (14). 1965. (14) predicted the bond strength of tensile splices most accurately with least scatter." ACIJOURNAL. and Meinheit. The reinforcing steel and concrete were supplied by Smorgon ARC and CSR Readymix in Perth. the mean value of UtestlUcalc is 1.-Feb. E. Jan.620).. and Briceno.. 1063-1078." ACI JOURNAL. pp. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research work was supported by an Australian Research Council Large Grant. whereas for HSC these values are 0. 0. V. 0. No. No." ACI Structural Journal. J. Ferguson. "Bond Strength of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing the development of Eq. J. V. 135-142. V. V. the tensile bars in the pure bending moment zone were spliced. McCabe. Eq. Proceedings.. C." Publication No. M. "Bond of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement: Splices. V. Jirsa.3. "A Theory of Bond Applied to Overlapped Tensile Reinfor~ement Splices for Deformed Bars. 2.. "Tensile Lap Splices under Static Loading: A Review of the Proposed ACI 318 Code Provisions. P. "Spacing of Spliced Bars in Beams. M. V.. 1989. The experimental component of the study comprised testing of 22 rectangular simply supported beams made of high-strength concrete (HSC) with compressive strength in the range of 66 to 98 MPa (9570 to 14. The first author is grateful for the financial support of these sponsors. No. Treece.6. 1958. Breen. and Breen.55 concrete compressive strength of the standard cylinder specimen tensile stress in the reinforcing bar modulus of displacement splice length bond strength parameter given by Eq. Based on the study. 88. M. 1971.1. pp. Eq. E. R.. 1977. (14) predicts the bond strength of tensile splices with least scatter. V. 167-174. 5-18. A.. 1. S. and the bar spacing on bond strength.4. "Behaviour of Multiple Lap Splices in Wide Sections. S. 113-3. For normal strength concrete. No. Therefore.-Apr. 0. Western Australia.2. 201-214. J. The mean value of Utes/ucalc and the standard deviation for the expressions proposed by Orangun et al. Ferguson. 52. 2. E. Choi. D. and Jirsa. J. N.132. 9.084. J. Orangun." Research Report No. A. The minimum cover is taken as the smallest of bottom cover....128.007 with a standard deviation of 0..328 pp. 11. "Lapped Splices for High Strength Reinforcing Bars. C. 14. O. 1991.. 0. Losberg. splice length. "A Reevaluation of Test Data on Development Length and Splices. These contributions are gratefully acknowledged. 207-217. [14]) for the bond strength that applies to all grades of concrete.? and Darwin et al. Goteborg. 1973. University of Texas at Austin. 76. S. A.971 with a standard deviation of 0. 6. E. Jan." ACI Structural Journal.. 86. Proceedings. B. respectively. Cx cy c. Chamberlin. L. For all 35 beams (Table 5). Ferguson. E. pp. Again. 4. University of Texas at Austin. Mashhad.. 113-2. 54. The study involved the development of an expression (Eq. taken as 3 when R is close to 0.. P. ''Tensile Lap SplicesPart 2: Design Recommendation for Retaining Wall Splices and Large Bar Splices. Thompson. D. the following conclusions aredrawn: 1. Rezansoff. pp.'3 are (1. "Iensile Lap Splices-Part 1: Retaining Wall. C.. K. 12. bottom cover. D. and by the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.013. No..." Magazine of Concrete Research. 1979. pp. 0. 90. Mar.1. 709-720.. Iran. T. (Cs + db)/2 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1998 279 . a parameter CmedlC is introduced in Eq. Varying Moment Zone. Type. D.. and Krishnaswamy. "Bond of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement: Bar Parameters.. C. The mean value of Utes/ucalc and the standard deviation for the provisions of the ACI Code24 and Australian Standard= are (2. 74. 89. V." ACI JOURNAL." ACI Structural Journal. 0.971 and 0. No. (14). Cmed is the median cover such that C < Cmed < Cmax' where C is the smallest cover and Cmax is the largest cover. and Sparling.128. In order to account for the effect of ratios between side cover.. R. and (Cs + db)l2. Hester. N. 1. P.2. 689-698. "Bond Failure of Deformed Reinforcing Bars Based on the Longitudinal Splitting Effect of the Bars.. Mar. 8. . 0. P. 5.. 62. "Development Length Criteria: Bars Not Confined by Transverse Reinforcement. Proceedings. Apr.103. 9. The measured bond strength of tensile splices in 66 normal strength concrete beams and 35 high-strength concrete beams is well-predicted by Eq. (9).. the analysis of these specimens is not included in Table 5. 227-248. "Bond Stress Along Lapped Reinforcing Bars. and McCabe." ACI Materials Journal. No. Darwin. 374-384. pp. Feb. J. respectively.. and (Cs + db)/2 bar diameter modulus' of elasticity of concrete modulus of elasticity of steel radial bursting (splitting) stress tensile strength of concrete. and Thompson. Division of Concrete Structures.." Research Report No. pp. Jirsa. Sept. When compared to other proposals. pp. pp. Akanni. V. September 1980.

. "Bond Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in High-Strength Concrete. B. Dec. Lee. Mar. V. and Lee. "Properties of High Strength Concrete Subject to Short-Term Loads. and Rangan. V. E. J. Carrasquillo. 1994. 22. Transfer of Force and Stress Distribution in Anchorages and Points of Curtailment in Reinforcement. 1998. 24. 171-178. Roller. No. Stark. 78. A. Azizinamini. V. and Rangan. Sept. 1196.-Apr. 3 pp.. Perth. V. Y. 155 pp. 3 pp. Michigan. Detroit. Losberg. H.315 pp... 1963. North Sydney. 554-561. "Local Bond Strength of Reinforcing Bars in Normal Strength and High-Strength Concrete.2. pp. M.3. May-June 1981. R. Vol.halmers University of Technology. Nilson. No. Detroit.. pp..-Oct." draft document issued for review purposes.1R-90.. C. ACI Committee 318. and Slate. ' 19. 18. 12. Australian Standard for Concrete Structures. and Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension.. and Ghosh. J. (in Swedish). A.. 1996. Y. No. Goteborg. Curtin University of Technology. Western Australia." ACI Structural Journal. 96-106." Concrete International. S. Hwang.49 pp." ACI Structural Journal. Development of Bars in Tension. 1994. S. V.. pp. 76-128. K.. American Concrete Institute. 16. 1992. V. M. R 1. 1993. A." ACI Structural Journal. Subcommittee B.." ACI JOURNAL. ACI Committee 408. 91. American Concrete Institute. 17. 1 I j 280 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1998 . pp. pp. "Code Change CB~23.5.. C. 1990. 294-302. "Effect of Silica Fume on the Splice Strength of Deformed Bars of High-Performance Concrete. ACI Committee 318. S. 20. Mar. 25. M.16. 90. No. 23. 95. Splices. Suggested Development. AS 3600 Standards Australia. "Studies on Bond between Concrete and Reinforcing Bars. "Proposed Revisions to Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89) (Revised 1992) and Commentary-ACI 318R-89 (Revised 1992). 21. May-June 1994. Esfahani. B. R. J. Esfahani. ACI 408." Research Report No. Michigan.