DOCTORAL THESIS

END ANCHORAGE AT SIMPLE SUPPORTS

IN
REINFORCED CONCRETE

Rizgar Salih Amin

(BSc. MSc.)

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements of London South Bank University
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

November 2009

i
 CONTENTS
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………….. v
Notation………………………………………………………………. vi
List of Tables………………………………………………………... x
List of Figures……………………………………………………….. xiii
List of Appendixes xx
Abstract……………………………………………………………… xix

Chapter One Introduction…………………………………… 1

Chapter Two Literature Review ……………………………. 6
2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………... 6
2.2 Code of practice recommendations …………………………….. 9
2.2.1 BS 8110 : 2005………………………………………….. 9
2.2.2 EC2 : 2004………………………………………….. 11
2.2.3 ACI 318 : 2005………………………………………….. 15
2.2.4 Commentary……………………………………………... 19

2.3 Straight Anchorages without Transverse Pressure……………… 40

2.3.1 Tepfers (1973) …………………………………………… 40
2.3.2 Orangun et al. (1977) …………………………..………… 42
2.3.3 Cairns/Cairns and Jones (1973) ……………………..…… 43
2.3.4 Morita and Fujii (1982) …………………………………. 49
2.3.5 Darwin et al. (1992)……………………………………… 50
2.3.6 Nielsen (1999)……………………………………………. 52

2.4 Straight Anchorages with Transverse Pressure…………………. 60

2.4.1 Untrauer and Henry (1965)……………………………... 60
2.4.2 Robins and Standish (1982, 1984) ……………………... 61
2.4.3 Navaratnarajah and Speare (1986 , 1987)………………. 63
2.4.4 Nagatomo and Kaku (1992) ……………………………. 64
2.4.5 Batayneh (1993) ………………………………………... 66
2.4.6 Cairns and Jones (1995) ………………………………... 69
2.4.7 Rathkjen (1972) ………………………………………... 70
2.4.8 Jensen (1982) ………………………………………….. 72
2.4.9 Ghaghei (1990) ………………………………………… 75
2.4.10 Regan (1997) …………………………………………… 77
2.4.11 Nielsen (1999)…………………………………………... 81
2.4.12 Magnusson (2001) ……………………………………... 86
2.4.13 Cleland et al. (2001) …………………………………… 100

2.5 Commentary and Conclusions on Straight Anchrages 104

2.6 Anchorages with End Hooks and Bends………………………... 120

2.6.1 Mylrea (1928)…………………………………………...... 120

ii
 2.6.2 Muller (1968)………………………………....................... 122
2.6.3 Hribar and Vasko (1969)……………………………......... 125
2.6.4 Minor and Jirsa (1975)……………………………............. 131
2.6.5 Marques and Jirsa ( 1975)………………………………… 135
2.6.6 Schiessl (1982)……………………………………………. 140
2.6.7 Soroushian et al. (1988)………………………………....... 143
2.6.8 Gulparvar (1997)……………………………………........ 146
2.6.9 Summary and Conclusions……………………………….. 149

Chapter Three : Comparisons between Experimental 152

and Calculated Bond Strengths………

3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………… 152

3.2 Anchorages without transverse pressure ……………………….. 152
3.3 Anchorages with transverse pressure …………………………… 165

Chapter Four : Tests of End Anchorages at Simple 174

Supports …………………………………
4.1 Test programme……………………………………………….. 174
4.2 Test specimens………………………………………………... 176
4.3 Materials and Fabrication…………………………………….. 183
4.3.1 Concrete ……………………………………………….. 183
4.3.2 Reinforcement…………………………………………. 183
4.3.3 Bar deformations………………………………………. 184
4.3.4 Fabrication……………………………………………... 184
4.4 Instrumentation and testing……………………………………. 184
4.5 Test results…………………………………………………….. 187
4.5.1 Ultimate loads…………………………………………... 187
4.6Cracking and modes of failure………………………………….. 197
4.6.1 Beams with straight bars………………………………... 197
4.6.2 Beams with bent and hooked bars……………………… 201
4.7 Overview of test results for anchorage strength……………… 203
4.7.1 straight bars…………………………………………….. 203
4.7.2 90  and 180  Bent 207
bars………………………………...
4.8 Strain measurements……………………………………………. 210
4.8.1 Strains at straight ends…………………………………. 210
4.8.2 Strains in 90  and 180  211
Bends……………………........
4.9 Slip……………………………………………………………… 219
4.9.1 Straight bar specimens …………………………………. 219
4.9.2 90  and 180  bent bar 223
specimens………………………...

Chapter Five : Development of Expressions for Anchorage 228

iii
 Strengths
5.1 Straight anchorages without transverse pressure or transverse 228
reinforcement …………………………………………………
5.1.1 Introduction……………………………………….. 228
5.1.2 Treatment of anchorage length……………………... 229
5.1.3 Treatment of cover and bar spacing …………….…. 234
5.1.4 Effects of relative rib areas and bar sizes………….. 244
5.2 Straight Anchorages with Transverse Pressure ………………… 257
5.2.1 Introduction…………………………………………… 257
5.2.2 Influence of transverse pressure………………………. 258
5.2.3 Treatments of cases of medium to high 261
transverse pressure……………………………………
5.2.4 Treatment of cases with low transverse pressure …… 268
5.2.5 Overall comparison of experimental and calculated 269
bond strengths for anchorages without transverse
reinforcement ………………………………………..
5.3 End anchorages with transverse reinforcement ……………….. 278
5.4 Applications of the proposed equations to other tests………... 287
5.4.1 Beam tests by Magnusson …………………………. 287
5.4.2 Pull-out tests by Untrauer and Henry ………………. 293
5.4.3 Pull-out tests by Batayneh………………................... 295
5.5 Specimens with 900 and 1800 bends at simple supports………... 399
5.5.1 Available test data………………..…………………. 399
5.5.2 Evaluation of design recommendations…………….. 301
5.5.3 A new approach to evaluate capacities of end 311
anchorages by bends at simple supports ……………...
5.5.4 Treatment of bent anchorages if pu is unknown…… 317
5.5.5 Conclusion ………………………………………….. 319

Chapter Six : Conclusions and Recommendations .………... 320

6.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………. 320
6.2 Proposals for future research ………………………………… 324
6.2.1 Straight anchorages…………………………………... 324
6.2.2 Bent bars……………………………………………… 329

References…………………………………………………………… 333
Appendixes………………………………………………………….. 340

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Paul Regan my PhD

supervisor and mentor. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to develop my
research under your direction and for your wholehearted support, guidance, friendship

iv
, patience and attention as the writing of this thesis progressed . Thank you for
understanding.

I also wish to acknowledge and thank my director of research Dr. Ivana Kraincanic ,
Prof. M.Nazha ( Head of Engineering Systems Department) and the previous directors
Dr. M.Datoo , Prof.M.Gunn and Prof. A. Parsa for their assistance during this
research.

I am most grateful to Prof. A.Parsa (my previous director) and Prof. N.Alford
(ex.Pro.Dean) for their insistence and seriousness towards my research and my second
phase of the experimental works would not have been possible without their support

I would particularly like to acknowledge the following staff, Chung Lam (Research
Degrees Administrator),Daren James(Course Director of Built Environment Extended
Degree),Concrete laboratory technicians, all FSBE’s IT technicians and Perry library
staff.

My sincere gratitude to my students Fatlum Azemi (undergraduate ) and Vassili kaffas

(postgraduate) for their help and assistance volunteered by them during the
experimental works in laboratory and special gratitude to my best friends Khalat
Hussain and Naser Buzhalla for their supports during this research.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my directors at work during this research
all of S.Lane, J.Lane and other directors in TWS, P.Cowton and other staff in
MacBains Cooper and to P.Hudgson , C.Mate, M.Regan and other staff in Trigram
Partnership for enabling me to work flexibility to support my research. Their
assistances and positive encouragements have undoubtedly contributed to this work.

I am indebted to my brothers: Kak Muhemmed (Head of my family) for your

consistency and wisdom, Homer who supported me find the mental strength to focus
on completing this research,

A big Thank you goes out to my sisters and brothers : Paneer, Fittum and Dr.Taha and
their partners Payman Muhammed and Dr.Taha Hamakhan for their encouragements
and for giving me confidence throughout this research.

I dedicate this work to my darlings my nephews and nieces: Kany, Yadgar, Ahmad,
Rast, Rand, Aya and Awan

Notation

1. S.I. Units have been used

-Force kN

v
 -Stress N / mm 2
-Length ,slip and Deflection mm
-Area mm 2

Latin lower case symbols

ab Dimension perpendicular to the plane of a bend , in BS8110.

ab   c s    or  s    and in EC2 ab   c s   / 2 or  s    / 2
aeff effective shear span from the centre of the load going to a support to the
centre of the support
ar clear spacing of ribs measured parallel to the bar axis
av clear shear span between a concentrated load and a support
b width of section or width of tension zone
c concrete cover to reiforcement
cb clear cover from a main bar to the tension face of a member ( bottom
cover)
cd design cover= least of cb , c s and s / 2
cD next least of cb , c s and s / 2
ce end cover to a bend or hook.
cm , cM lesser and greater of cb and c s
cs clear cover from a main bar to the side face of a member
c s lesser of c s and s / 2
d effective depth of a section
fb bond stress
f bc bond stress at which a splitting crack reaches a concrete surface
f bd design ultimate bond strength
f bd , 0 basic design ultimate bond strength to EC2
f bk characteristic bond strength
f bu ultimate bond stress

f buo calculated bond stress =

1  cd /   0.37  0.025c D / cd  10 /  lb /    0.4

f c (for limits see text)
fc cylinder crushing strength of concrete (150x300 mm cylinders) –
f c  0.8 f cu for f cu  75 N / mm 2 and f c  f cu  15 N / mm 2 in

conversions .
f cd design cylinder strength of concrete
f ck characteristic cylinder strength of concrete
f ct tensile strength of concrete
f ctd design tensile strength of concrete
f cu cube crushing strength of concrete ( 150mm cubes)- in conversions
f cu = cube strength of 100mm and 200mm cubes
fs stress in reinforcement

vi
 f sd bar stress at the loaded end of an anchorage
fy yield strength of reinforcement
f yt yield strength of transverse reinforcement in anchorage length
f yw yield strength of shear reinforcement
f calculated bond stress = 1.13  0.08b / n  10 /  l b /   
0.4
f c (for limits

see text)
h Overall depth of section
hr rib height
l span
l1 straight bonded lead length of a bent bar over a support
l2 length of curve and tail of a bent bar
l 2 , eff effective value of l2 (BS8110)
lb anchorage length ( bond length)
lbd design anchorage length
l b ,eff effective anchorage length
l b , rqd basic anchorage length (EC2)
lc inside length of curve in a bent bar
lp straight length of anchorage subject to transverse pressure
lt length of tail following a bend
n number of anchored main bars
p transverse pressure on an anchorage
pu ultimate value of p
r internal radius of a bend
s clear spacing of anchored main bars
sr centre to centre spacing of ribs
st centre to centre spacing of transverse reinforcement in an anchorage
length
x neutral axis depth
X horizontal cover measured to the centre of a bar
y vertical cover measured to the centre of a bar
z internal lever arm

Latin upper case symbols

As area of one main bar

Ast area of one transverse bar in an anchorage length, e.g. one leg of
a stirrup
Asv total area of shear reinforcement in a shear span
Es Elastic modulus of reinforcement
Fbt design ( applied) tensile force in a bar at the start of a bend
FR1 bar force developed in the lead length over a support, before a bend
FR 2 bar force developed in the curve and tail of a bend
FR 2 b value of FR 2 defined by bond
FR 2 value of FR 2 defined by bearing

vii
Fs force in a main bar
Fsd design force in main bar, that can be developed by an anchorage
Fsu ultimate force in a main bar at the loaded end of an anchorage
Fsv total force in shear reinforcement in a shear span
Ft total tensile force in main reinforcement
M bending moment
R reaction
T total tensile force in main reinforcement
V shear force
Vu ultimate shear force

Greek symbols

 angle between outer face of wedge and axis of bar

c 1  cd /   0.932  0.0632c D / c d 
1 EC2 coefficient for the form of the bar
2 EC2 coefficient for cover
3 EC2 coefficient for transverse reinforcement
5 EC2 coefficient for transverse pressure
 coefficient for bar size
 mc partial safety factor for materials (concrete)
1 EC2 coefficient for position/orientation of bar during casting
2 EC2 coefficient for bar size
 internal angle of friction
 effectiveness factor for concrete in compression  1.8 / f c
 effectiveness factor for concrete in tension  0.6  / lb / f c
b bearing stress in a bend
 bd design (resistance) value of  b
 bk characteristic value of  b
 bar diameter (main bar)

List of Tables
Chapter Two

Table 2.1 Parameters included in bond strength design by BS8110 , ACI-318 20

and EC2……………………………………………………………..

viii
Table 2.2 Ratios of f bd from f c to f bd from f ctd
21
…………………………..
Table 2.3 Results of comparisons by Darwin et al.…………………………… 51

Table 2.4 Summary of actual and predicted bond strengths(Nielsen)………….. 58

Table 2.5 Results of beam tests by Batayneh…………………………………. 68
Table 2.6 Data for Rathkjen’s beams without transverse reinforcement…….. 70
Table 2.7 Results of eqn.(2.48) for Jensen’s tests…………………………….. 73
Table 2.8 Data and results for tests by Ghaghei………………………………. 76
Table 2.9 Details and results of tests by Regan……………………………….. 78
Table 2.10 Geometry and detailing of the support and shear span( Mgnusson) 88
Table 2.11 Results of tests with direct and indirect supports ( Mgnusson) 90
Table 2.12 Data from beams with different lengths of support plates 90
( Mgnusson)…………………………………………………………
Table 2.13 Ratios of for middle and corner bars………………………............. 91
Table 2.14 Results for beams with bars in one layer and two layers………….. 93
Table 2.15 Beam-end tests by Magnusson……………………………………... 99
Table 2.16 Data for test results plotted in Fig.2.51……………………………. 115
Table 2.17 Effect of tail length on bar stresses at slip of 0.2mm ( Hribar and 130
Vasko)………………………………………………………………
Table 2.18 Effect of radius bar of bend on bar stressesat slip of 0.2mm for 131
bars with l t  0 ( Hribar and Vasko)……………………………….
Table 2.19 Summary of data for tests by Marques and Jirsa…………………... 137
Table 2.20 Summary of results of tests by Soroushian et al…………………... 144
Table 2.21 Ultimate bond stresses at anchorages ( N / mm 2 )for Gulparvar's 147
beams 4 and 6………………………………….................................
Table 2.22 Results of tests by Gulparvar………………………………............. 148

Chapter Three
Table 3.1 The effect of the shift rule on  f bu ,test / f bu , EC 2  for Ferguson and 161
Thompson tests…………………………………………………….
Table 3.2 Summary of statistical analyses of f bu ,test / f bu ,calc 163
For BS8110,EC2,Darwin et al and Morita and Fujii………………
Table 3.3 Data of specimens without transverse reinforcement from 165
literature…………………………………………………………….
Table 3.4 Summary of statistical analyses of f bu ,test / f bu ,calc for BS8110, 173
EC2, Batayneh and Nielsen
……………………………………………..

Chapter Four
Table 4.1 Beams Bs details……………………………………........................ 180
Table 4.2 Beams Bb details…………………………………………………… 181
Table 4.3 Beams Bh details………………………………………………….... 182

ix
Table 4.4 Tensile strengths of reinforcement…………………………………. 184
Table 4.5 Comparisons of lever arms…………………………………………. 189
Table 4.6 Test results, Beams Bs……………………………………………... 191-
192

Table 4.7 Test results ,Beams Bb……………………………………………... 193

Table 4.8 Test results , Beams Bh…………………………………….............. 194
Table 4.9 Summary of test details and results, Beams Bs…………………… 195
Table 4.10 Summary of test details and results, Beams Bb…………………… 196
Table 4.11 Summary of test details and results, Beams Bh…………………… 196
Table 4.12 Effect of anchorage length on bond strengths for beams with 204
bonded bars ………………………………………………..…….....
Table 4.13 Effect of transverse pressure on bond strengths for beams with 205
bonded bars…………………………………………………………
Table 4.14 Data and results for directly comparable beams with and without 206
stirrups………………………………………………………………
Table 4.15 Data and results for directly comparable beams with different 206
materials…………………………………………………………….
Table 4.16 Summary of results from strain gauges on 900 and 1800 bends……. 217
Table 4.17 Data for beams in a 200mm width ………………………………… 221
Table 4.18 Data for beams with single bar in a 150mm width 222
and cb  16mm and c s  67mm …………………………………....
Table 4.19 Beams with two bars in a 125mm width…………………………… 223
Table 4.20 Slips at 0.67 pu for beams with 90  and 180  224
bends………………..

Chapter Five
Table 5.1 Results of tests by Yerlici and Ozturan ……………………………. 232
Table 5.2 Results of tests by W.S.Atkins ……................................................. 240
Table 5.3 Cover parameters at minimum calculated bond strengths ………… 243
Table 5.4 Results of tests by Ahlborg and Den Hartigh ……………………… 247
Results of tests by Cairns and Jones of splices of 20mm 248
Table 5.5
bars……..
Table 5.6 Comparisons of experimental and calculated scale effects………… 249
Table 5.7 Experimental evidence on limits for f butest / f bucalc ………………… 251
Table 5.8 Summary of statistical analyses of f bu ,test / f bu ,calc for cases A,B 255
and
C………………………………………………………………………………….
Table 5.9 Properties of specimens in Figs 5.21 and 5.22……………………. 257
Table 5.10 Summary of data for test groups ………………………………….. 269
Summary of analyses by the proposed equations and existing 276
Table 5.11
equations EC2B and Andreasen…………………………………….
Table 5.12 Detail of the stirrup system ……………………………………….. 279

Table 5.13 Analysis of specimens with transverse reinforcement……………. 284-

285
Table 5.14 Summary of statistical f bu ,test / f bu ,calc for specimens with two bars 286
each in the bend of a stirrup………………………………………..
Table 5.15 Results of analysis for anchored bars in end region in NSC and 290-

x
 HSC beams by Magnusson………………………………………… 291
Summary of Ft ,test / Ft ,calc ratio for beams by Magnusson 292
Table 5.16
…………
Table 5.17 Summary of test/calculated ratios for tests by Untrauer and Henry 294
Table 5.18 Results of analysis for specimens by Untrauer and Henry 294
and the proposed method…………………………………………...
Table 5.19 *
Summary of f bu ,test / f bu and f bu ,test / f bu , 0 fro specimens with 294
p  0 by
Batayneh………………………………………………….
Table 5.20 Results of analysis for f bu ,test / f bu ,calc for tests with p  0 by 296-
Batayneh……………………………………………………………. 298
Table 5.21 Summary of results for f bu ,test / f bu ,calc for tests with p  0 by 298
Batayneh……………………………………………………………
Table 5.22 Comparison of test results to prediction by BS8110 ………………. 304
Table 5.23 Comparison of test results to prediction by BD 44/95……………... 306
Table 5.24 Comparison of test results to prediction by EC2…………………... 308
Table 5.25 Summary of mean values for Ftest / FR calc A and B 309
…………………
Table 5.26 Summary of Ftest / FR calc for beams with bonded and unbonded 310
leads ………………………………………………………………..
Table 5.27 Comparison of test to bond resistance calculated by proposals 1,2 313
and 3 for beams with 90  and 180  bends
………………………….
Table 5.28 Summary of mean values for Ftest / FRcalc for the proposed 314
methods
Table 5.29 Bar forces developed in anchorages-comparison between 316
calculated resistances and forces determined from measured strains
Table 5.30 Summary of comparisons of calculated and experimental strengths 319
of bent anchorages with bonded lengths……………………………

Chapter Six
Results of comparisons in terms of f bu ,test / f bu ,calc 321
Table 6.1
………………….

xi
 List of Figures
Chapter Two

Figure 2.1 : Equivalent anchorage length for standard bends and hooks 14
to EC2
………………………………………………………...
Figure 2.2 : Standard (minimum) hooks and bends to ACI-318 17
…………..
Figure 2.3 : Transverse reinforcement details in hooks and bends to ACI- 18
318……………………………………………………………
….
Figure 2.4 : Design ultimate bond stresses for bars with negligible 24
transverse reinforcement, comparisons of BS810,EC2 and
ACI-
318……………………………………………………………
…
Figure 2.5 : Effect of stirrups on bar stresses developed by various bond 27
lengths…………………………………………………………
...
Figure 2.6 : Comparisons of bearing stress limits in BS8110 and 31
EC2……...
Figure 2.7 : Comparisons of f btd from BS8110 and BD 44/95…….. 32
……….
Figure 2.8 : Design bar stresses calculated by BS8110……………... 35
……….
Figure 2.9 : Comparisons between EC2 and BS8110 for anchorages with 39
90  and 180  bends ………………………………………...
Figure 2.10 : Splitting pattern types by 41
Tepfers……………………………….
Figure 2.11 : Test arrangement and failure mode for specimen with 43
l b /   2.5 by Baldwin and Clark

………………………………
Figure 2.12 Forces and stresses in the failure model by 44
Cairns……………..
Figure 2.13 : Polygon of forces on a wedge ………………. 44
…………………
Figure 2.14 : Terminology for crescent shaped 45
ribs…………………………..
Figure 2.15 : Cairns and Jones - test 46
specimens………………………………
Figure 2.16 : Cairns and Jones – influence of relative rib area on bond 47
strength………………………………………………………
….
Figure 2.17 : Failure patterns of anchored bars(Morita and Fujii) 49

xii
 ……………
Figure 2.18 : Yield Locus, Displacement Directions and Internal 53
Work……..
Figure 2.19 : Geometry of a deformed 53
bar……………………………………
Figure 2.20: Displacement at failure and internal work in local mechanics 55
…
Figure 2.21: Relationships between f bu / f c and c /  by 56
Nielsen……………………….
Figure 2.22: Failure Mechanisms in 57
surrounds………………………………
Figure 2.23: Final results for different failure 58
mechanism……………………
Figure 2.24: Truss model for yielding 59
stirrups………………………………..
Figure 2.25 : Untrauer and Henry’s test 60
arrangements………………………...
Figure 2.26 : Relationship between the f bu / f c and p by Untrauer and 61
Henry…………………………………………………………
…
Figure 2.27 : Robins and Standish’s test arrangements 62
……………………….
Figure 2.28: Navaratnarajah and Speare’s test 63
arrangements…………………
Figure 2.29: Nagatomo and Kakus’ test 64
arrangements……………………….
Figure 2.30: Typical details of test specimen by 66
Batayneh..............................
Figure 2.31: Typical beam test arrangements by Batayneh 68
…………………..
Figure 2.32: Rathkjen’s test 70
arrangements……………………………………
Figure 2.33 : Relationships between f bu / f c and pu / f c for Rathkjen’s 71
tests ...........................................................................................
..
Figure 2.34: Jensen’s test 72
arrangements……………………………………...
Figure 2.35 : Relationships between f bu / f c and pu / f c for Jensen’s tests 74
Figure 2.36 : Ghaghei’s typical test 75
arrangements……………………………
Figure 2.37 : Relationship between the f bu / f cu and pu / f cu for 76
Ghaghei’s tests
…………………………………………………
Figure 2.38 : Test arrangements for Regan’s 77
slabs……………………………
Figure 2.39 : Relationship between the f bu / f cu and pu / f cu for lb /  80
=7.5 in tests by Regan…………………………………
Figure 2.40 : Corner mechanisms with centres of rotation on the side face 81
of beam for Nielsen and

xiii
 Andreasen………………………………
Figure 2.41 : The limitation of support pressure by concrete web 84
compression
Figure 2.42 : Beam specimens and typical cross section by Magnusson 89
……
Figure 2.43 : Effect of variations of transverse reinforcement and bearing 92
materials(Magnuson)
………………………………………………
Figure 2.44 : Magnusson’s strut-and-tie 95
model……………………………….
Figure 2.45 : Relationship between Ftest / FMC 90 and f c (Magnusson) 96
………..
Figure 2.46 : Details of beam-end specimens by 98
Magnusson………………...
Figure 2.47 : Local movements at 104
failure……………………………………..
Figure 2.48 : Cases of non-polar symmetric 106
restraints………………………...
Figure 2.49 : Movements in surrounds at failure according to 108
Nielsen……….
Figure 2.50 : Distributions of reactions across widths of 109
supports……………
Figure 2.51 : Splitting pattern types by 110
Tepfers……………………………….
Figure 2.52 : Comparison of different treatments of the relationship 114
between bond strength and concrete cylinder
strength…………………...
Figure 2.53 : Comparisons of test results with various formulations for 116
maximum bond
strength…………………………………………
Figure 2.54 : Mylrea’s test arrangements . 120
……………………………………
Figure 2.55 : Muller’s test 122
arrangements………………………………………
Figure 2.56 : Average bond stresses at 0.25mm loaded-end slip tests for 128
series 1,2 and 3 by Hribar and
Vasko…………………………...
Figure 2.57 : Ultimate bond stresses- tests by Hribar and 129
Vasko……………..
Figure 2.58 : Minor and Jirsa’s test 132
arrangements…………………………….
Figure 2.59 : Loaded end slips at f s  414 N / mm 2 - tests by Minor and 134
Jirsa
Figure 2.60 : Influence of bond length on bond strength in tests by Minor 135
and
Jirsa……………………………………………………………
..
Figure 2.61 : Marques and Jirsa’s test 136
arrangements…………………………

xiv
Figure 2.62 : Bond length for both bent and straight bar in Schiessl’s 141
approach………………………………………………………
…
Figure 2.63 : Results of all calculations 142
  8  28mm, f cu  25  55 N / mm 2
for ribbed bars in upper and lower position from
Schiessl……..
Figure 2.64 : Soroushian et al’s test 143
arrangements…………………………….
Figure 2.65 : Influence of transverse reinforcement on ultimate strength- 145
tests
by Soroushian et
al………………………………………………
Figure 2.66 : Detailing of beams by Gulparvar 146
……………………………….

Chapter Three
Figure 3.1 : Specimens and test arrangements 154-
……………………………… 157
Figure 3.2 : Histogram of number of results and some of main variables 158
Figure 3.3 : Relationship between f bu ,test / f bu ,calc and c m /  for 159
predictions by BS8110,EC2,Darwin et al and Morita and
Fujii……………
Figure 3.4 : Relationship between f bu ,test / f bu ,calc and lb /  for 160
predictions by BS8110,EC2,Darwin et al and Morita and
Fujii……………
Figure 3.5 : Relationship between f bu and   mm  for predictions by 162
BS8110,EC2,Darwin et al and Morita and
Fujii………………..
Figure 3.6 : Relationships between log  f bu ,test / A and log  f c  163
…………….
Figure 3.7 : Histogram of number of results and some of main variables 166
for specimens without transverse
reinforcement……………….
Figure 3.8 : Relationship between f bu ,test / f bk , BS 8110 and pu / f c 169
…………
Figure 3.9 : Relationships between f bu ,test / f bk , EC 2 and pu / f c 170
…………
Figure 3.10 : f bu ,test / f bk , EC 2 against pu / f c after relaxation of a limit of 170
 2 5  0.7 ……………………………………………………
Figure 3.11 : f bu ,test / f bu , Bat 3.6 against pu / fc for Batayneh's 171
eq.3.6…………
Figure 3.12 : f bu .,est / f bu , Bat 3.7 against pu / f c for Batayneh's 171
eq.3.7………..

xv
Figure 3.13 : Relationships between f bu .,test / f bu , N and pu / f c 172
…………….

Chapter Four
Figure 4.1 : End of the typical 175
beam…………………………………………
Figure 4.2 : Series Bs 177
details…………………………………………………
Figure 4.3 : Series Bb 178
details…………………………………………………
Figure 4.4 : Series Bh 179
details…………………………………………………
Figure 4.5 : Slip measurement instrumentation for specimens with straight 185
bars
……………………………………………………………..
Figure 4.6 : Slip measurement instrumentation for specimens with 900 185
and 1800
bends………………………………………………………
Figure 4.7 : Model showing calculation 187
parameters…………………………
Figure 4.8 : Crack patterns for beams with straight 197
anchorage…………….
Figure 4.9 : 197
Fig(4.9)Effect of transverse pressure on failure cracks.(Beams
Bs9 and Bs10)…………….…………………………………
Figure 4.10 : Cracking at failure, Beams Bs6, Bs7 and Bs8 without 198
transverse pressure
…………………………………………………..
Figure 4.11 : Cracking at failure, Bs14 with transverse pressure ………… 198

Figure 4.12 : Cracking at failure, Beams Bs31, Bs32, Bs33and Bs34 with 199
closely spaced bars…………………………………………….
Figure 4.13 : Cracking at failure, Beams Bs27, Bs28 and Bs29 with 200
transverse pressure
……………………………………………..
Figure 4.14 : Cracking at failure in Beams Bs23 and Bs26 with and without 200
fibre board pads………………….
………………………………
Figure 4.15 : Cracking at failure, Beams Bb3, Bb10 and Bb15…………... 201
…..
Figure 4.16 : Cracking at failure, Beams Bh8 with transverse 202
pressure………
Figure 4.17 : Cracking at failure top and side, Beam Bb12 and 202
Bh11………...
Figure 4.18 : Relation between f bu / f cu and c s /  when p  0 203
……………

xvi
Figure 4.19 : Relation between f bu / f cu and l b /  when p  0 …………. 203
Figure 4.20 : Influence of radius of bend on the bar stresses developed by 208
90  and 180  bent anchorages…………..
Figure 4.21 : Influence of side cover on the bar stresses 208
developed by 90  and 180  bent anchorages with r / 
=2.5….
Figure 4.22 : Ratios of strengths of partly debonded anchorages and 209
anchorages fully bonded over supports as functions of the
corresponding ratios of bond lengths …………………………
Figure 4.23 : Strain gauges on Bs5…………………………………………. 210
Figure 4.24 : Load-strain relationships for 210
Bs5……………………………….
Figure 4.25 : Strain gauges on 900 and 1800 bends.……………………… 211
Figure 4.26 : Force-strain relationships for specimens with 900 bent 212
bars……
Figure 4.27 : Force-strain relationships for specimens with 1800 bent bars 213
…
Figure 4.28 : Relationships between bond stresses and Load for Bh10- 215
Bh12...
Figure 4.29 : Relationships between bond stresses and Load for Bb12- 216
Bb15…………………………………………………………
…
Figure 4.30 : Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip 219
for beams with b  250mm , cb  c s  25mm and p  0 ……
Figure 4.31 : Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip 220
for beams with b  250mm , cb  25mm, c s  55mm and
p 0
Figure 4.32 : Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip 221
for beams with b  200mm ……………….
……………….......
Figure 4.33 : Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip 222
for beams with b  150mm
……………………………………..
Figure 4.34 : Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip 223
for beams with b  125mm ………………………………….
….
Figure 4.35 : P.( 30 / f cu ) and slip relationship for bent bars end with 90  225
and 180  bends………………………………………………
Figure 4.36 : Loads at which slips reached 0.1mm 226
……………………………

Chapter Five

xvii
  cm 
  0.5   c 
Figure 5.1 : f bu ,test fc
   0.92  0.08 M    / lb  230
/  cm  against
……
 cm 
  0.5   cM 
Figure 5.2 : f bu ,test f c     0.92  0.08 c   / lb  0.4
/ against 230
 m 
…..
Figure 5.3 : Yerlici and Ozturan’s test 232
arrangements………………………..
Figure 5.4 : Relationships between 233
f bu ,test / f c (1.0  c m /  )(0.932  0.0632 c M / c m ) and
 lb /   for Yerlici and Ozturan’s
data…………………………………...
Figure 5.5 : Relationship between f bu ,test f bu ,calc 2 and ( c m /  ) for 235
Chamberlin’s
tests………………………………………………
Figure 5.6 : Relationship between f bu ,test f bu ,calc 2 and ( c m /  ) for 235
Ferguson and Thompson’s
tests…………………………………………..
Figure 5.7 : Relation between f bu ,test f bu ,calc 2 and ( c m /  ) for 236
Batayneh’s
tests............................................................................................
..
Figure 5.8 : Relation between f bu ,test f bu ,calc 2 and ( c m /  ) for Kemp and 236
Wilhelm’s
tests………………………………………………….
Figure 5.9 : Influence of cover on bond strength in tests (for types S and P 237
) by
Batayneh…………………………………………………….
0.4
 c  l 
Figure 5.10 : Relationship between f bu ,test / f c 1.0  d   b  and 238
    
 c D / cd 
Figure 5.11 : Influence of c d /  on bond strengths in tests by Ferguson and 239
Thompson and
W.S.Atkins……………………………………
Figure 5.12 : Influence of c D / c d on bond strengths in tests by Ferguson 239
and Thompson and
W.S.Atkins……………………………………..
Figure 5.13 : Arrangement of testing by W.S.Atkins 240
…………………………
Figure 5.14 : Results of Chamberlin’s tests plotted against c s /  242
………….
Figure 5.15 : Results of tests by Chapman and Shah 243
…………………………
Figure 5.16 : Influence of relative rib areas on bond strengths in tests by 245
Darwin and Graham

xviii
 …………………………………………….
Figure 5.17 : Results of tests by Ahlborn and Den Hartigh 246
…………………..
Figure 5.18 : Influence of bar size on f butest / f bucalcA 254
………………………….
Figure 5.19 : Influence of bar size on f butest / f bucalcB 255
………………………….
Figure 5.20 : Influence of bar size on f butest / f bucalC 255
…………………………...
Figure 5.21 : Conditions at a support producing transverse pressure 257
…............
Figure 5.22 : Relationships between f bu f c and pu / f c for tests by 259
Batayneh and
Ghaghei…………………………………………..
Figure 5.23 : Relationships between f bu f c and pu / f c for tests by 260
Jensen and
Rathkjen……………………………………………
Figure 5.24 : Test results from Jensen plotted to show values of f c 261
…………

Figure 5.25 : Relationship between ( f  / f c ) and sectional parameters 263

with     l /   / 10 0.4
…………………………………………………….
Figure 5.26 : Relationship between ( f  / f c ) and sectional parameters 264
with     l /   / 8 0.4
 1.0
……………………………………………..
Figure 5.27 : Relationship between ( f  / f c ) and sectional parameters 265
with     l /   / 10  1.0
0.4

…………………………………….
Figure 5.28 : Relationship between ( f bu / f c ) and ( p u / f c ) for Jensen 271
Specimens……………………………………………………
…
Figure 5.29 : Relationship between ( f bu / f c ) and ( p u / f c ) for 272
Rathkjen
specimens……………………………………………………
….
Figure 5.30 : Relationship between ( f bu / f c ) and ( p u / f c ) for 273
specimens by Ghaghei, Regan and
Batayneh………………………………
Figure 5.31 : Relationship between ( f bu / f c ) and ( p u / f c ) for 274-
specimens by Amin 275
………………………………………………………..
Figure 5.32 : Typical specimens with transverse reinforcement for series 280
considered……………………………………………………
….

xix
Figure 5.33 : Relationship between f bu and f c for Jensen specimens with 281
and without transverse
reinforcement…………………………..
Figure 5.34 : Relationships between f b and p for specimens with and 282
without transverse reinforcement ……………………...
………..
Figure 5.35 : Beams and typical sections by 287
Magnusson……………………..
Figure 5.36 : Elevation and anchorage details for Bb and Bh 300
beams………….
Figure 5.37 : Dimensions of bars with 90  ( 180  bends) 302
ends…………...........

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Results of tests by Shin and Choi used in Fig.2.56……………. 341

Appendix 2

Table A1 Specimens without transverse pressure or transverse 342

reinforcement- summary of data and comparisons with
existing expressions for bond strengths ………………………
Table A2 Specimens with transverse pressure but without transverse
reinforcement- summary of data and comparisons with 348
existing expressions for bond strengths ………………………

xx
Appendix 3

Table A3 Bar strains ……………………………………………………. 357

Table A4 Load-slip measurements …………………….......................... 359
Table A5 Bar forces and bond stresses from strains measured on bent
and hookedbars………………………………………………… 366

Appendix 4
Table A6 Specimens without transverse pressure or transverse 370
reinforcement using proposed equations of ( 5.1 to 5.3)……….

Table A7 Data for beam-end specimens without transverse 377

reinforcement …………………………………………………
Table A8 Comparisons between experimental bond strengths and 384
strengths calculated from equations 5.8 to 5.22 …………….
Table A9 Comparison of experimental strengths and strengths calculated 388
(5.24) for beam-end specimens without transverse
reinforcement………………………….……………………..

Abstract

This thesis reports research on end anchorage at simple supports of reinforced

concrete members and treats both straight bars and bars with 900 and 1800 bends.

The most significant characteristics of straight anchorages at simple supports are their
generally short lengths and the presence of transverse pressure from the support
reactions. Published work in this area is rather limited. The only major research is that
by Danish authors, working in the field of plasticity, and the only code of practice

xxi
recommendations are those of Eurocode 2, which take account of the transverse
pressure but do not consider the effects of the short lengths involved.

Bends and hooks are widely treated in design codes, but their rules appear very
arbitrary and seem to lack published substantiation.

The approach adopted here is essentially empirical.

A data base of results from tests of anchorages without transverse pressure is

assembled and used to evaluate existing expressions for bond strength. An equation
by Darwin, MaCabe , Idun and Schoenekase is found to be the most reliable of those
considered and is modified in the light of the comparison. The most significant
change is that the influence of the ratio of the anchorage length to the bar size is

treated by a multiplying factor  lb /  

0.4
, instead of being treated as an additional
resistance independent of concrete strength , cover etc.

In overall terms the modified equation produces a modest improvement in the

correlation between calculated and actual strengths, but the above change and an
alteration to the way in which covers and spacings are treated do improve reliability in
areas which are important for end anchorages.

Sixty five tests were made on end anchorages in simply supported beams. The bars
had straight anchorages in thirty seven of the tests, 900 bends in thirteen and 1800
hooks in eleven. The main variables were concrete cover, anchorage length,
transverse pressure and internal diameters of bends. The results of these tests, together
with others from the literature are used to develop expressions for anchorage
capacities.

For straight ends the result is a bi-linear relationship between the ultimate bond stress
and the transverse pressure ( p ) . For p  0 the bond resistance is that of the
equation above and the gradient f bu / p is 2.0. For higher pressure f bu / p is 0.4. The
correlation with the 186 test results is with the ratios between experimental and

xxii
calculated strengths having a mean of 1.02 and a coefficient of variation of 14.7%.
These figures compare favourably with the 1.94 and 20% for EC2.

For anchorages with terminal bends and hooks , the bar force developed bonded lead
lengths over supports is calculated as for a straight bar with transverse pressure , and
the bond strength in the bend+tail is that for a straight bar without transverse pressure.
The bearing capacity of the lead is calculated as in BD44/95, which takes account of
spread of stress away from the inside of the bend being three-rather than two-
dimensional . The total capacity of an anchorage is the sum of the forces developed by
the lead length and the bend+tail , with the latter taken as the lesser of the values
determined by bearing and bond. All lengths used in the calculations are the real
dimensions and not effective lengths as used in some cases in BS8110 and bearing
stresses are checked in all cases.

For the anchorage failures of bent and hooked bars, all but five of which are from the
present tests the ratios of experimental to calculated strengths have a mean of 1.10
and a coefficient of variation of 15 % which compare with values of 1.60 and 17 %
for BS8110, 1.40 and 18 % for EC2. and 1.59 and 17% for BD44/95 The number
and range of the test results is too limited to properly confirm the reliability of the
present approach , but it does appear to the considerably more reliable than current
design methods and avoids the use of fictitious lengths and arbitrary omissions of
checks on bearing stresses .

xxiii