Professional Documents
Culture Documents
N. Subramanian
The bond between concrete and reinforcement bars is very Since plain bars do not provide mechanical interlock many
important to develop the composite behaviour of reinforced codes from other advanced countries prohibit their use in
concrete. Bond strength is influenced by several factors such reinforced concrete and allow their use only for lateral spirals,
as bar diameter, cover of concrete over the bar, spacing of bars, stirrups and ties smaller than 10 mm in diameter. However,
there is no such restriction in the Indian code.
transverse reinforcement, grade and confinement of concrete
around the bars, aggregates used in concrete, type of bars and Traditionally, design for bond required the consideration
coating applied on bars, if any, for corrosion prevention. In of both flexural (local) bond stress, uf , and development
the Indian code on concrete structures which was revised in the (anchorage) bond stress, uav. It was later realised that the
year 2000, the provisions regarding development length exact value of flexural bond stress could not be accurately
remained unchanged. Many of the above parameters are not computed owing to the unpredictable and non-uniform
considered in the revised code. Hence in this paper, the Indian distribution of actual bond stress. It was also found that
localised bond failures can and do occur and they do not
code provisions are compared with those of American code
impair the ultimate load carrying capacity of beams, provided
provisions (which consider all these parameters). The effect of the bars are adequately anchored at their ends. Thus, in the
high strength concrete, self consolidating concrete and fibre limit state design, the focus shifted from checking the flexural
reinforced concrete on the development length is also discussed. bond to the development of required bars stresses through
A formula for inclusion in the Indian code is also suggested provision of adequate anchorage at simple supports and at
based on recent research. bar cut-off points. Special checking of anchorage length is
required in the following cases:
Keywords: Development length, reinforcement, code provisions, • in flexural members that have relatively short length
bond strength, lap splices
• at simple supports and points of inflection
Bond in reinforced concrete refers to the adhesion between
the reinforcing steel and the surrounding concrete. The bond • at points of bar cut-off
between steel and concrete ensures strain compatibility (the
strain at any point in the steel is equal to that in the adjoining • at cantilever supports
concrete) and thus composite action of concrete and steel.
Bond in reinforced concrete is achieved through the following • at beam-column joints in lateral load (wind and
mechanisms1: earthquake) resisting frames
• chemical adhesion due to the products of hydration • for stirrups and transverse ties and
• frictional resistance due to the surface roughness of • at lap splices.
the reinforcement and the grip exerted by the concrete
shrinkage. Several failures have occurred due to the non-provision
of adequate anchorage lengths, especially at cantilever
• mechanical interlock due to the ribs provided in
deformed bars.
Modification factors are also specified for Ldh to account Review of recent research
for:
Globally, there is an increased usage of high strength concrete
(i) favourable confinement conditions provided by (HSC) and high-performance concrete (HPC) with
increased cover (for side cover not less than 60 mm, compressive strength of 70 to 120 MPa. Yet the bulk of
it is equal to 0.7) knowledge on bond and anchorage behaviour between steel
and concrete that is used in practice is from the experience on
(ii) favourable confinement provided by transverse ties reinforced concrete elements having much lower concrete
or stirrups to resist splitting of concrete (0.8) 11
strength . For higher strength concrete, a higher degree of
(iii) more reinforcement provided than required by elastic and more stiffer bond behaviour is expected due to
12
analysis. After multiplying the development length, the improved strength and the higher modulus of elasticity .
Ldh , by the applicable modification factors, the The average bond strength is increased in HSC as the porosity
resulting development length must not be less than is reduced due to the addition of much finer material such as
the larger of 8 db or 150 mm. Fig 2 shows Ldh and the fly ash and silica fume. However, a more brittle bond
13
standard hook details for all standard bar sizes. behaviour has been reported in HSC . Though the bond
characteristics of the normal concrete are reasonably well
Thus, the ACI code gives directly the anchorage length of established, the bond characteristics of HPC using
different bends and hooks as a function of the bar size and supplementary cementition materials like GGBS, fly ash and
14-16
strength of bars and concrete. Whereas the IS code specifies silica fume have not been studied in detail . In a recent
the anchorage value of bends and hooks as a multiple of the paper, Balasubramanian et al have shown that the addition of
bar diameter. The anchorage value of bends and hooks slag (up to 50 percent as cement replacement material) did
allowed by IS 456 is as high as 2.5 times the anchorage value not result in any reduction in the bond strength
17
given by ACI code for smaller diameter bars and about 0.85 characteristics .
times the ACI code value for larger diameter bars10. Besides,
straight extension of bars beyond the standard hook is Azizinamini et al studied the effect of HSC on bond and
allowed by IS 456 to be included as additional anchorage found that the average bond stress at failure, normalised
= f c ...(10)
db c + K tr Development of bond strength of reinforcement steel in
1.63
db self-consolidating concrete (which are cast without applying
24
any vibration) was studied by Chan et al . They observed
where , that as compared to NSC, SCC exhibits significantly higher
bond strength and less significant top-bar effect.
6.26 tr td Atr '1/ 2
Ktr = fc ...10(a) Harajli and his associates conducted analytical and
sn
experimental investigations to evaluate the bond strength of
tr = 9.6 Rr + 0.28 ≤1.72 ...10(b) 25,26
steel reinforcements in plain and fibre-reinforced concrete .
t d = 0.03 db + 0.22 …10(c) They also found that for plain unconfined NSC or HSC,
'1/ 4
normalising the bond strength to fc leads to a more
For conventional bars, the average value of Rr is 0.0727. accurate representation of the effect of concrete strength on
'1/ 2
development/splice strength in comparison with fc . Fibre
For conventional reinforcement, reinforcement in the region of the splice/development length
played a role similar to ordinary transverse reinforcement in
6td Atr '1/ 2 that it restricted the growth of the splitting cracks and
Ktr = fc ...10(d)
sn increased the splitting bond strength. They also proposed
the same design equation as that proposed by Zuo and
Darwin, Equation (10) with an additional term in Ktr to account
Though the format of Equation (10) is similar to that of 20
for the effect of fibres .
Equation (6) of ACI – 02 code, the application of Equation
(10) differs from Equation (6) in three ways: Suggested formula
(i) Equation (6) distinguishes 19 mm diameter and Based on the recent research on high performance concrete
smaller bars from larger bars using the g term, and the above discussions, the Equation (10), proposed by
20,21
leading to 20 percent drop in development/splice Darwin et al is recommended for the Indian code . The
length for the smaller bars, present Indian code formula considers only the diameter,
yield stress and grade of concrete as variables. Whereas the
(ii) The Ktr term in Equation (6) includes the yield strength proposed formula considers the diameter, cover, spacing of
of the transverse reinforcement, fyt , even though bar, grade of concrete and transverse reinforcement as
test results show that, fyt has no effect on bond variables. Hence, it is supposed to truly represent the bond
strength behaviour of reinforcement. To account for coating, type of
(iii) The development length, L d , calculated using aggregate and reinforcement location, the β, λ and α factors
Equation (6) must be increased by 30 percent for as suggested by the ACI code could be incorporated in
class B splices (splices in which the area of steel Equation (10).
provided is less than two times the area of steel Though the development lengths predicted by Equation
required or where more than 50 percent of the steel (10) are higher than the Indian code formula, Table 3 and
is spliced). A comparison of this equation is made in Appendix A, it gives a realistic estimate of bond behaviour,
Table 3 for cc = 1.5 db. since it incorporates all the factors affecting the bond strength.
It is to be noted that the ACI committee 408 has also accepted
27
this equation .
19. DARWIN, D., ZUO, J., THOLEN, M.L., and IDUN, E.K. Development length criteria
Recent research has shown that the best fit for for conventional and high relative rib area reinforcing bars, ACI Structural
' 1/ 4 ' 1/ 2
experimental results is provided by fc and not fc as Journal, July-August 1996, Vol.95, No.4, pp.347-359.
given in ACI code. Hence the Equation (10), proposed by
20. ZUO, J., and DARWIN, D. Splice strength of conventional and high relative rib
Darwin et al which is supposed to truly represent the bond area bars in normal and high-strength concrete, ACI structural Journal, July-
behaviour of reinforcement bars is proposed for the Indian August 2000, Vol.97, No.4, pp. 630-641.
code. The ACI committee 408 has also accepted this equation. 21. DARWIN, D. Private communications, May 2003
Effect of high strength, high performance concrete, self- 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,
consolidating concrete and fibre reinforced concrete on the No.3, pp. 314-320.
bond strength of reinforcements are also discussed. With few
modifications, the suggested formula could be applied to take 23. HAMAD, B.S., and MIKE, J.A. Experimental investigation of bond strength of
hot – dip galvanised reinforcement in normal and high-strength concrete,
into account the confinement offered by fibre reinforcement ACI Structural Journal, 2003, Vol.100, No.4, pp. 465-470.
also.
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,
References 2003, Vol.100, No.4, , pp. 490-498.
1. PILLAI, S.U., AND MENON, D. Reinforced Concrete Design, Tata McGraw Hill
Company Ltd., New Delhi, 2nd edition, 2003. 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,
2. ______Indian standard code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete, 2002, Vol. 99, No.4, pp.509-517.
IS 456:2000, Fourth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
26. HAMAD, B.S., H ARAJLI, M.H., AND JUMAA, G. Effect of fibre reinforcement on
3. PRAKASH RAO, D.S. Detailing of reinforced concrete structures, Proceedings of bond strength of tension lap splices in high-strength concrete, ACI Structural
the IABSE Conference on Structural Concrete, Stuttgart, Germany, 1991, Journal, 2001,Vol.98, No.5, pp. 638-647.
pp. 819-824.
27. ______Bond and development of straight reinforcing bars in tension,
4. JAIN, R. Detailing for bond, shear and torsion - comparison of codes, Civil ACI 408R-03, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
Engineering and Construction Review, 2001, Vol.14, No.8, pp. 38-46. 2004, pp. 49.
= 1198 mm
L d = db σ s
4 τbd Though in the above example M20 grade concrete has been
considered for comparison, the suggested formula is applicable
20 × 90.87 × 415 to concretes of grade up to about 100 MPa whereas the Indian
= Code formula was based mainly on concrete having strength less
4 × 1.21 × 1.6
than 40 MPa.
= 940 mm