Splice Length of Reinforcing Bars Calcul PDF

SPLICE LENGTH OF REINFORCING BARS CALCULATED IN
DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES
GAZI NAVID HASAN
CHOTON DAS
S.M. FAHAD HASAN SUMON
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
141 – 142, LOVE ROAD, TEJGAON INDUSTRIAL AREA, DHAKA – 1208
DECEMBER – 2015
i
SPLICE LENGTH OF REINFORCING BARS CALCULATED IN
DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES
A Thesis / project
Submitted by
Gazi Navid Hasan Student No: 11.02.03.065

Choton Das Student No: 11.02.03.060
S.M. Fahad Hasan Sumon Student No: 11.02.03.077
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Under the Supervision of
Dr. S. Reza Chowdhury

Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
DECEMBER – 2015
ii
APPROVED AS TO STYLE AND CONTENT
BY
___________________________________________
Dr. S. Reza Chowdhury

Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
DECEMBER – 2015
iii
DECLARATION
The work performed in this thesis for the achievement of the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Civil Engineering is “Splice Length of Reinforcing Bars Calculated in Different Design Codes.”
The whole work is carried out by the authors under strict and friendly supervision of Dr. S Reza
Chowdhury, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ahsanullah University of Science and
Technology, Dhaka – 1208, Bangladesh.
Neither this thesis nor any part of it is submitted or is being simultaneously submitted for any
degree at any other institutions.
Signature of the Students
___________________________
Gazi Navid Hasan

11.02.03.065
___________________________
Choton Das
11.02.03.060
___________________________
S.M. Fahad Hasan Sumon

11.02.03.077
iv
Dedicated to
ALMIGHTY ALLAH, PARENTS AND FAMILY
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First we want to thank Almighty Allah through whom all things happen in this world. According
to his plan we the human beings live and perform our duties. So, we want to convey our
profound gratitude to Almighty Allah for enabling us to complete the thesis smoothly.
We would like to express our special and sincere gratitude and profound appreciation to our
supervisor Dr. S. Reza Chowdhury, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ahsanullah
University of Science and Technology for his constant guidance, sincere instruction, valuable
suggestion, encouragement and extra instruction through the period of this study. Without his
encouragement we would have been not able to finish the project in time. Most importantly he
was the one who had created the interest among us to learn about new Civil Engineering
researches which will really help us in future.
We would also like to take the opportunity to thank our departmental head Prof. Dr. Md.
Mahmudur Rahman, honorable teachers and our class mates who helped us to complete the
thesis without any problem. Without their help it would have been difficult for us to complete the
project.
We want to express our gratefulness to our parents and our family members who encourages
us all the time. Finally our heartiest thanks to all who are related to this thesis.
vi
ABSTRACT
Due to practical limitations, the actual structure must be built piece-by-piece, story-by-story, and
connected together. Just as it is physically impossible to place all concrete in one continuous
operation, it is impossible to provide full-length, continuous reinforcing bars throughout any
sizeable structure. Splices of reinforcing bars are unavoidable. Properly designed splices are a
key component in a well-executed design. A lap is when two pieces of rebar are overlapped to
create a continuous line of rebar. The length of the lap varies depend on concrete strength, the
rebar grade, size, and spacing. There are two types of splicing. One is contact and the other one
is non contact. Contact splices in which the bars touch and are wired together are preferred
because they are more secure against displacement during construction. Non-contact lap-spliced
bars should not be spaced too far apart. In this study tension and contact lap splices are
considered. Various design codes have provided many laws to calculate lap splice length. In this
study we reviewed ACI (2002), BNBC (1993), AASHTO (2007), CEBFIP Model (1990) and
EURO Code 2(2003) design codes and compared the variation of lap splice length. In this thesis
parametric study was performed where compressive strength of concrete (f’c), yield strength of
the reinforcing bars (fy) and bar diameters were the parameter. After analyzing the sample
calculations and graphs it is concluded that among all codes, ACI code recommends the larger
splice length for12mm Φ bar. CEB - FIP MODEL recommends larger splice length for larger
bars than 12mm Φ bar. AASTHO and BNBC design codes recommend smaller lap splice lengths
(ls). Lap splice length (ls) increases when the bar diameter (db) increases. AASTHO and BNBC
design codes also exhibit same splice length for 36 mm Φ bar or smaller. It is also found from
that bars of higher yield strength (fy) requires larger lap splice length (ls). It is also observed that
lap splice length (ls) decreases when the concrete strength (f’c) increases.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE ii
DECLARATION iv
DEDICATION v
ACKNOWLWDGEMENT vi
ABSTRACT vii
TABLE OF CONTENT viii
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF TABLES xx
LIST OF SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS xxv
Chapter 1 INTTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 2
1.2 Objective 3
1.3 Methodology 3
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Concrete and Reinforced Concrete 5
2.3 Reinforced Concrete Member 7
2.3.1 Reinforced Slab 7
2.3.2 Reinforced Beam 7
2.3.3 Reinforced Column 8
9
2.4 Lap Splice
9
2.4.1 Background of Lap Splice
9
2.4.2 Lapping
9
2.4.3 Types of lapping
10
2.4.3.(a) Contact Splices
viii
10
2.4.3.(b) Types of Contact Splices
12
2.4.3.(c).Non Contact Lap Splice
12
2.5 Lap Splices in Horizontal Rebar
13
2.6 Lap Splices in Vertical Rebar
13
2.7 Footing Dowel
13
2.8 Lap Splices in Tension
14
2.9 Lap Splices in Compression
15
2.10 Mechanical Splices
15
2.11 Tension-Compression Mechanical Splices
16
2.12 Different Types of Coupler
16
2.12.1 Taper-Lock Standard Coupler
17
2.12.2 Installation Taper-Lock Standard Coupler
19
2.12.3 Transitional Coupler
20
2.12.4 Positional Coupler
21
2.12.5 Flange Coupler
21
2.12.6 Cold-Swaged Threaded Coupler
22
2.12.7 Combination Grout-Filled/Threaded Coupler
22
2.12.8 Mechanical Lap Coupling Sleeve with Shear Screws
23
2.12.9 Grout-Filled Coupling Sleeve
24
2.12.10 Shear Screw Coupling Sleeve
2.12.11 Steel-Filled Coupling Sleeve 24
2.12.12 Taper-Threaded Coupler 24
2.12.13 Compression-Only Mechanical Splices 25
2.13 Welded Splices 26
2.13.1 Indirect butt splice 26
2.13.2 Types of Lap 26
ix
2.13.2.(a) Welded Splice 26
2.13.2.(b) Thermite welding 26
2.14 Advantages of Mechanical Splices 27
2.15 Column splice 30
31
2.16 Parameters Influencing Lap Splice
31
2.16.1 Lap Splice Length Depends on The Following Factors
32
2.16.1.(a) Concrete Strength
32
2.16.1.(b) Vertical Bar Location
35
2.16.1.(c) Bond force
36
2.16.1.(d) Failure Mode
36
2.16.1.(e) Cover Distance
37
2.16.1.(f) Bar Spacing
37
2.16.1.(g) Transverse Reinforcement
37
2.17 Lap Splicing Problems
40
2.18 Code Limits on Lap Splicing
40
2.19 Sesmic Behavior of Bridge Column Non-contact Lap Splices
2.20 Contact Lapped Splices under Cyclic Loading 41
2.21 Contact Tensile Lap Splices Vs Noncontact Tensile Lap Splices 43
2.22 Effect of Tension Lap Splice on the Behavior of High Strength Concrete (HSC) 44
Beams
2.23 Lap Splices in Tension (ACI 12.14) 45
Chapter 3 REVIEW OF DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES 47
3.1 Introduction 48
x
3.2 Design provisions 48
3.3 ACI code (2002) 48
3.4 CEB-FIP Model Code (1990) 50
3.5 Euro code 2 (2003) 51
3.6 BNBC Code (1993) 52
3.7 AASHTO (2007) 53
3.8 Parametric study for splice length 54
Chapter 4 CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS 56
4.1 Introduction 57
4.2 Case Study 57
4.3 Sample Calculation 58
4.4 Case – 1: Different f’c & fy 64
4.5 Case – 2: f’c is fixed & fy is variable 85
4.6 Case – 3: fy is fixed & f’c is variable 120
Chapter 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 136
5.1 Results and Discussions 137
5.1.1 Results and Discussions of Case – 1 (Different f’c & fy) 137
5.1.2 Results and Discussions of Case – 2 (f’c is fixed but fy is variable) 139
5.1.3 Results and Discussions of Case – 3 (fy is fixed but f’c is variable) 141
Chapter 6 CONCLUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 143
6.1 Conclusion 144
6.2 Recommendation 145
REFERENCES 146
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 2.1: Reinforced Concrete Slab 7
8
Fig 2.2: Reinforced Beam
8
Fig 2.3: Reinforced Column
Fig 2.4: Contact lap splice 10
Fig 2.5: Trench Mesh laps 10
Fig 2.6: Square Mesh Lap 11
Fig 2.7: Reinforcing Bar Lap 11
12
Fig 2.8: Non Contact Splices
Fig 2.9: Lap splices in horizontal rebar 12
13
Fig 2.10: Lap Splices in vertical rebar
13
Fig 2.11 : footing Dowel
Fig 2.12: Cold-swaged coupling sleeve 15
Fig 2.13: Taper-Lock Standard Coupler 16
Fig 2.14: Tapper Lock Standard Coupler 17
xii
Fig 2.15: Step 1 17
Fig 2.16: Step 2 17
Fig 2.17: Step 3 18
Fig 2.18: Step 4 18
Fig 2.19: Transitional Coupler 19
Fig 2.20: Positional Coupler 20
Fig 2.21: Flange Coupler 21
Fig 2.22: Cold-Swaged Threaded Coupler 22
Fig 2.23: Grout-Filled/Threaded Coupler 22
Fig 2.24: Coupling Sleeve with Shear Screws 23
Fig 2.25: Grout-Filled Coupling Sleeve 23
Fig 2.26: Shear Screw Coupling Sleeve 24
Fig 2.27: Steel-Filled Coupling Sleeve 24
Fig 2.28: Taper-Threaded Coupler. 25
Fig 2.29: Bolted Strap Coupling Sleeve. 25
Fig 2.30: Lap Splice 27
Fig 2.31: Mechanical Splice 28
Fig 2.32: Lap Splice 29
xiii
Fig 2.33: Mechanical Splice 29
Fig 2.34: Column Splice 31
Fig 2.35 : Range of Relative Intercept Obtained for Dummy Variables Analysis for 32
Experimental Bond Force
Fig 2.36 : Rebar location 33
Fig 2.37 : Spacing “s” for rebars being developed 35
Fig 2.38 : (a) Cracked concrete segment 36
Fig 2.38 : (b) bond stress acting on reinforcing bar 36
Fig 2.38 : (c) variation of tensile force in reinforcing bar 36
Fig 2.38 : (d) variation of bond force along the bar 36
Fig 2.39: (a) Side cover and half the bar spacing both less than bottom cover 37
Fig 2.39: (b) Side cover = bottom cover, both less than half the bar 37
Fig 2.39: (c) Bottom cover less than side cover and half the bar spacing 37
Fig 2.40: 1. Lap splices additional rebar in the lap zone 39
Fig 2.40: 2. Mechanical splices ideal balance of steel and concrete 39
Fig 2.41: Lap splices in tension 46
Fig 3.1: Cmin = min (a/2, C1, C2) 50
Fig 3.2: Beam column joint 55
Fig 4.1: Cross – section of the column. 61
xiv
Fig 4.2: Cross – section of the column. 62
Fig 4.3: ls / db vs db (mm) for various design codes when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274 MPa 64
Fig 4.5: ls / db vs db (mm) for various design codes when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274 MPa 66
xv
Fig 4.24: ls / db vs db (mm) for AASTHO design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 85
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.25: ls / db vs db (mm) for ACI design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa 86
and 500 MPa
Fig 4.26: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 87
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.27: ls / db vs db (mm) for EURO design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 88
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.28: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB- FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 89
274MPa, 410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.33: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB - FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 15 MPa & fy = 94
Fig 4.34: ls / db vs db (mm) for AASTHO design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 95
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.35: ls / db vs db (mm) for ACI design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 96
410MPa and 500 MPa
xvi
Fig 4.36: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 97
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.37: ls / db vs db (mm) for EURO design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 98
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.38: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 99
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
and 500 MPa
xvii
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.53: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 30 MPa & fy = 114
410MPa and 500 MPa
and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 4.58: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 35 MPa & fy = 119
Fig 4.59: ls / db vs db (mm) for AASTHO design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa, 120
15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67 MPa, 30MPa and 35 MPa
Fig 4.60: ls / db vs db (mm) for ACI design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa, 15MPa, 121
20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67 MPa, 30MPa and 35 MPa
Fig 4.61: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa, 122
Fig 4.62: ls / db vs db (mm) for EURO design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa, 123
Fig 4.63: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 124
10MPa, 15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67 MPa, 30MPa and 35 MPa
xviii
410MPa and 500 MPa
Fig 5.3: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa, 15MPa, 142
xix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Development length in tension according to ACI (2002) 49
Table 3.2: Classes of tension lap splices: ACI code (2002) 49
Table 3.3: Values of co – efficient αb : CEB – FIP Model Code 51
Table 3.4: Values of co – efficient αb :Eurocode 2 51
Table 3.5: Classes of tension lap splices; AASHTO (2007) 53
Table 3.6: Parameters 55
Table 4.1: ls / db for various design codes when f’c = 10MPa & fy = 274 MPa 64
Table 4.3: ls / db for various design codes when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274 MPa 66
Table 4.6: ls / db for various design codes when f’c = 30 MPa & fy = 274 MPa 69
xx
Table 4.22: ls / db for AASTHO design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is variable 85
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.23: ls / db for ACI design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is variable (274 86
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.24: ls / db for BNBC design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is variable 87
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.25: ls / db for EURO design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is variable 88
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.26: ls / db for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy 89
is variable (274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.32: ls / db for AASTHO design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is 95
variable (274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
xxi
Table 4.33: ls / db for ACI design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is variable 96
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.34: ls / db for BNBC design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is variable 97
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.35: ls / db for EURO design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is variable 98
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.36: ls / db for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy 99
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.41: ls / db for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c is fixed (23.9 MPa) & fy 104
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.46: ls / db for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c is fixed (26.67 MPa) & 109
fy is variable (274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
xxii
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
(274 MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
Table 4.57: ls / db for AASTHO design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is variable 120
(10MPa, 15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67MPa, 30.5MPa & 35MPa)
Table 4.58: ls / db for ACI design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is variable 121
Table 4.59: ls / db for BNBC design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is variable 122
Table 4.60: ls / db for EURO design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is variable 123
Table 4.61: ls / db for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c 124
is variable (10MPa, 15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67MPa, 30.5MPa & 35MPa)
xxiii
Table 4.64: ls / db for BNBC design code when fy is fixed (410MPa) & f’c is variable
127
Table 5.2: ls / db for BNBC design code when f’c is fixed (10MPa) & fy is variable (274 139
MPa, 410MPa & 500MPa
xxiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATION
fy = Yield Strength of the Reinforcement

f’c = Compressive strength of Concrete
ld = Development Length
db = Bar Diameter
Gf = Fracture Energy of Concrete
Ψt = Rebar Location Factor
Ψs = Rebar Size Factor
Ψe = Rebar Epoxy Factor
λ = lightweight-aggregate concrete factor
cb = Concrete Cover
= Transverse Reinforcement Index
= total Cross-sectional Area
s = maximum center-to-center spacing (in) of transverse bars within ld
n = number of bars being developed along the plane of splitting
ls = Splice Length of Reinforced Bars
β =Coating Factor
α = Reinforcement Location Factor
fyd = Design Yield Strength of the Bar
fyk = Characteristics Yield Strength of Reinforcement
Ab = Area of Single Bar
Ф = diameter
BNBC = Bangladesh National Building Code
ACI = American Concrete Institute
AASTHO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation
xxv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Reinforced concrete frames constructed in the early 1970s or before were generally designed and
detailed to resist much lower lateral forces than those required today. As a result, building
columns were often considered as compression members and lap splices were designed to
transmit only compressive forces. The splice length specified in these columns was often short
(20 or 24 longitudinal bar diameters) and had little confinement. The typical construction
practice was to locate column splices just above the slab in each floor where large moment
reversals can be expected to occur during strong ground motion. Because of the limited tensile
capacity of the splices, the section at the base of the column is often susceptible to premature lap
splice failure before yielding of the longitudinal bars. Even if yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcing bar is developed, splice failure can still occur shortly after yielding.
A lap is when two pieces of rebar are overlapped to create a continuous line of rebar. The length
of the lap varies depend on concrete strength, the rebar grade, size, and spacing. There are two
types of splicing. One is contact and the other one is non contact. Contact splices in which the
bars touch and are wired together are preferred because they are more secure against
displacement during construction. Non-contact lap-spliced bars should not be spaced too far
apart. In this study contact lap splice is considered.
When the length of reinforcement bar has to be extended in reinforced concrete structural
member, splicing is used to join two reinforcement bars to transfer the force from one bar to the
joining bar. The forces are transferred from one bar to the other through bonds in concrete. Force
is first transferred to the concrete through bond from one bar and then it is transferred to the
other bar forming the splice through bond between it and concrete. Thus concrete at the point of
splicing is subjected to high shear and splitting stresses which may cause cracks in concrete.
Splicing of reinforcement bars can be carried out by three ways and they are – Lapping of bars,
Welded joints and Mechanical joints.
A tension splice is simply a splice that is dealing with bars in tension. A compression splice is
simply a splice that deals with bars in compression. Where reinforcing bars of two sizes are lap-
spliced in tension, industry practice is to use the larger of the tension lap splice length for the
smaller bar, or the tension development length for the larger bar. When bars of different sizes are
lap-spliced in compression, the lap splice length must be the larger of the compression
development length of the larger bar or the compression lap splice length of the smaller bar.
Reinforced concrete (RC) has been gaining popularity era by era. In RC construction, the
development length of reinforcing bars is very important for developing the tensile strength of
the bar. Inadequate development length will induce less stress in the bars as compared to its
strength. Therefore a minimum length of bar is required for developing the stress from zero to its
yield stress. It means that if the minimum length is not provided, premature bond failure may
occur which lead to member failure. The premature bond failure often happens in the structures
erected in seismic prone region requiring a proper development length, and due to the shortage of
2
sufficient development length leads the structures to collapse. Different design codes have
proposed different formulas for determining development length. In the present study the authors
attempted to calculate the development lengths using the code ACI (2002), BNBC (1993),
AASHTO (2007), CEBFIP Model (1990) and EURO Code 2(2003) and conduct a parametric
study. In the parametric study, yield strength of reinforcing bars, compressive strength of
concrete and bar diameter meter have been used as basic parameters. In selecting the
compressive strength of concrete, a wide range of strength has been taken into consideration. The
compressive strength of concrete was used 10 MPa, 15 MPa, 20.5 MPa, 23.9 MPa, 26.67 MPa,
30 MPa and 35 MPa, while the yield strength of the reinforcing bars were used 274 MPa, 410
MPa and 500 MPa. In this study it is found that each code recommends different length of
development length.
1.2 Objective
Specific goals of study:
 To compare the lap splice length recommended by various design codes.
 To do the parametric study where compressive strength of concrete (f’c) , yield

strength of the reinforcing bars (fy) and bar diameters will be the parameter.
1.3 Methodology
In this study we followed ACI (2002), BNBC (1993), AASHTO (2007), CEBFIP Model (1990)
and EURO Code 2(2003) design codes. By the help of these codes, lap splice lengths for
different bar diameters are found. Both spread sheet calculation and graphical analysis have been
performed here. Results are shown in graphical forms.
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This study is concerned with the lap splice length required for the different bar diameters under
the provision of various design codes. Lap splice length is provided in column to transmit lateral
compressive forces. So the literature review related to tension lap splice length is discussed in
this chapter.
2.2 Concrete and Reinforced Concrete
Concrete is a stone like materials obtained by permitting a carefully proportioned mixture of

cement, sand and gravel or other aggregate and water to harden in forms of the shape and
dimensions of the desired structure. The bulk of the materials consist of fine and coarse
aggregate. Cement and water interact chemically to bind the aggregate particles into a solid
mass. Additional water, over and above that needed for this chemical reaction is necessary to
give the mixture the workability that enables into feel the forms and surround the embedded
reinforcing steel prior to hardening.
Most use of the term "concrete" refers to Portland cement concrete or to concretes made with
other hydraulic cements, such as cement found. However, road surfaces are also a type of
concrete, "asphaltic concrete", where the cement material is bitumen.
In the second half of nine – tenths century, to use steel with its high tensile strength to reinforce
concrete, chiefly in those places where its low tensile strength would limit the carrying capacity
of the member. The reinforcement, usually round steel rod with appropriate surface deformations
to provide interlocking, is placed in the forms in advance of the concrete. When completely
surrounded by the hardened concrete mass, it forms an integral part.
Modern reinforced concrete can contain varied reinforcing materials made of steel, polymers or
alternate composite material in conjunction with rebar or not. Reinforced concrete may also be
permanently stressed (in compression), so as to improve the behavior of the final structure under
working loads. In the United States, the most common methods of doing this are known as pre-
tensioning and post-tensioning.
For a strong, ductile and durable construction the reinforcement needs to have the following
properties at least:
 High relative strength
5
 High toleration of tensile strain
 Good bond to the concrete, irrespective of pH, moisture, and similar factors
 Thermal compatibility, not causing unacceptable stresses in response to changing
temperatures.
 Durability in the concrete environment, irrespective of corrosion or sustained stress for
example.
Advantages of reinforced concrete
 Reinforced concrete also has greater compressive strength as compared to most other
materials used for construction besides good in tension.
 It has better resistance to fire than steel and capable of resisting fire for a longer time.
 It has long service life with low maintenance cost
 In some types of structures, such as dams, piers and footings, it is the most economical
structural material
 It can be cast to take the shape required , making it widely used in pre-cast structural
components
 It yields rigid members with minimum apparent deflection
 Yield strength of steel is about 15 times the compressive strength of structural concrete
and well over 100 times its tensile strength
 By using steel, cross sectional dimensions of structural members can be reduced e.g. in
lower floor columns
 Less skilled labor is required for erection of structures as compared to other materials
such as structural steel.
Disadvantages of reinforced concrete
 It needs mixing, casting and curing, all of which affect the final strength of concrete
 The cost of the forms used to cast concrete is relatively high
 It has low compressive strength as compared to steel (the ratio is about 1:10 depending
on material) which leads to large sections in columns/beams of multistory buildings
Cracks develop in concrete due to shrinkage and the application of live loads
6
2.3 Reinforced Concrete Member
Concrete, invented by Eugene Freyssinet in 1928. It can be used to produce beams, columns
floors or bridges with a longer span than is practical with ordinary reinforced concrete. Usually
reinforced concrete is mainly based on the use of steel reinforcement bars, rebar, inside poured
concrete.
2.3.1 Reinforced Slab
A concrete slab is common structural element of modern buildings. Horizontal slabs of

steel reinforced concrete, typically between 4 and 20 inches (10 and 50 centimeters) thick, are
most often used to construct floors and ceilings, while thinner slabs are also used for exterior
paving. Sometimes these thinner slabs, ranging from 2 inches (5.1 cm) to 6 inches (15 cm) thick,
are called mud slabs, particularly when used under the main floor slabs or in crawl spaces.
In many domestic and industrial buildings a thick concrete slab, supported on foundations or
directly on the subsoil, is used to construct the ground floor of a building. These can either be
"ground-bearing" or "suspended" slabs. In high rise buildings and skyscrapers, thinner, pre-cast
concrete slabs are slung between the steel frames to form the floors and ceilings on each level.
On the technical drawings, reinforced concrete slabs are often abbreviated to "r.c.c. slab" or
simply " r.c.c".
Fig 2.1: Reinforced Concrete Slab.
2.3.2 Reinforced Beam

A structural member of reinforced concrete placed horizontally to carry loads over openings.
Because both bending and shear in such beams induce tensile stresses. Steel reinforcing
7
tremendously increases beam strength. Usually beams are designed under the assumption that
tensile stresses have cracked the concrete and the steel reinforcing is carrying all the tension.
Fig 2.2: Reinforced Beam.
2.3.3 Reinforced Column

A reinforced concrete column is a structural member designed to carry compressive loads,
composed of concrete with an embedded steel frame to provide reinforcement. For design
purposes, the columns are separated into two categories: short columns and slender columns.
Fig 2.3: Reinforced Column
8
2.4 Lap Splice
2.4.1 Background of Lap Splice:
The structural analysis of reinforced concrete structures subjected to various external loads and
internal forces is generally predicated on the assumption that the individual structural members
behave monolithically, as a unit. Due to practical limitations, the actual structure must be built
piece-by-piece, story-by-story, and connected together. Just as it is physically impossible to
place all concrete in one continuous operation, it is impossible to provide full-length, continuous
reinforcing bars throughout any sizeable structure. Splices of reinforcing bars are unavoidable.
Properly designed splices are a key component in a well-executed design.
Because splices are essential to the monolithic behavior of the finished structure, the Licensed
Design Professional (LDP) should be familiar with the practical limitations of furnishing and
installing reinforcing bars. These limitations occur during manufacture, fabrication and
transportation to the jobsite and installation at the jobsite. Most steel mills produce reinforcing
bars to a standard maximum stock length of 60 feet [18.3 m]. Longer lengths generally require
special arrangements with the fabricator and mill. The absolute maximum length varies from mill
to mill.
Steel reinforcing fabricating shops, using the stock on hand, are normally limited to bar lengths
of 60 feet [18.3 m]. Bending equipment and its location in the shop may also impose limitations
on the length of bent bars.
When shipping bars by truck, physical limitations for maximum length and width must be
considered. Maximum length, in addition to mill and fabricating shop limits, is based on the
number of bars involved, the route from the fabrication shop to the jobsite, the availability of
trucking equipment as well as material handling limitations at the jobsite.
2.4.2 Lapping:
A lap is when the pieces of rebar are overlapped to create a continuous line of rebar. The length
of the lap varies depend on concrete strength and the rebar grade size.
A lap is when two pieces of rebar are overlapped to create a continuous line of rebar. The length
of the lap varies depend on concrete strength, the rebar grade, size, and spacing. There are two
types of splicing. One is contact and the other one is non contact. Contact splices in which the
bars touch and are wired together are preferred because they are more secure against
displacement during construction. Non-contact lap-spliced bars should not be spaced too far
apart. In this study contact lap splice is considered.
2.4.3 Types of lapping

There are two types of lapping. They are contact and non contact.
9
2.4.3.(a).Contact Splices: Contact splices in which the bars touch and are wired together are
preferred because they are more secure against displacement during construction.
Fig 2.4: Contact lap splice
2.4.3.(b).Types of Contact Splices:
 Trench mesh laps
Where trench maps are joined end to end, they need to be overlapped by at least 500 mm.
Where they overlap at T or L intersections the overlap should be the width of the trench mesh.
Fig 2.5: Trench Mesh laps.
10
 Square mesh lap
Square mesh lap has to be overlapped by at least 225 mm.
Fig 2.6: Square Mesh Lap.
 Reinforcing bar lap
Reinforcing bar laps need to be overlapped by at least 500 mm.
Fig 2.7: Reinforcing Bar Lap.
11
2.4.3.(c).Non Contact Lap Splice: Non Contact splices in which the bars do not touch and are
not wired together. Non-contact lap-spliced bars should not be spaced too far apart.
Fig 2.8: Non Contact Splices.
With a noncontact splice, transfers of forces from one spliced bar to the other occurs through the
surrounding concrete, and transverse reinforcement is typically required to provide satisfactory
splice performance.
2.5 Lap Splices in Horizontal Rebar : In traditional construction methods, contact lap splices are
more commonly used because it offers the most reliable method of ensuring the lapped sections are
secure against displacement, especially during concrete pours.
Fig 2.9: Lap splices in horizontal rebar
12
2.6 Lap Splices in Vertical Rebar: For the same reason as horizontal rebar, contact lap splices
are also more commonly used in traditional construction methods. Vertical rebar can be further
secured if it is slid through a staggered pattern of horizontal rebar. The slots in the webs have
been designed to accommodate this.
Fig 2.10: Lap Splices in vertical rebar.

2.7 Footing Dowel: Footing dowels connects the wall to the footing .This prevents wall
movement at the wall/footing joint caused mainly by soil loads. In residential construction, the
vertical rebar in the wall itself does not contribute to the strength of the wall/footing connection
and hence is not required to splice with the footing or match the spacing of the footing dowels. In
cases, where lap splice may be required, non-contact lap splices are permitted.
Fig 2.11 : footing Dowel
2.8 Lap Splices in Tension
In a tension lap splice the force in the reinforcing bars is transferred to the concrete by bond
which in turn transfers the force back to the adjacent reinforcing bars resulting in a continuous
line of reinforcement. As a result of this interaction the length of the lap splice varies depending
on concrete strength, grade of steel reinforcement, bar size, location and spacing. CRSI’s
13
Reinforcing Bars: Anchorage and Splices manual includes tables of required tension lap splice
lengths based on these variables.
Tension splices should be confined with transverse reinforcement and if possible, located in
zones of low tensile stresses, such as inflection points (i.e., location of curvature reversal with
zero flexural moment). This is intended to mitigate splice failure at the end of the splice resulting
from splitting stresses in the concrete and associated loss of cover due to the outwardly radial
force transfer between the bar and the concrete.
Tension lap splices are designated as Class B splices with a splice length of 1.3 x ℓd
(development length), except where Class A splices (1.0 x ℓd) are permitted, according to
Section 12.15.2 of ACI 318.
Tension splices are further divided into Contact lap splices and Non-Contact lap splices. The
former is a type of lap splice in which the bars touch and are wired together – are preferred
because they are more secure against displacement during construction while the latter is a type
of lap splice where the spacing between the bars should not exceed a maximum of 1/5 of the lap
length, but not more than 6 inches [150 mm].
For lap splice design and construction, ACI 318 requires the Engineer to indicate locations and
lengths of all lap splices on the structural drawings.
Where reinforcing bars of two sizes are lap-spliced in tension, ACI 318 requires the lap splice
length to be the larger of the tension lap splice length for the smaller bar, or the tension
development length for the larger bar. The current ACI 318 does not permit tension lap splices of
#14 and #18 bars. For these sizes, mechanical or welded splices must be used. Although it isn’t
common, in compression only, #14 and #18 bars can be lap spliced to #11 bars and smaller.
Lap splices of bundled bars should be based on the lap splice length recommended for individual
bars of the same size, and individual splices within the bundle should not overlap each other. The
length of lap should be increased 20 percent for a 3-bar bundle and 33 percent for a 4-bar bundle.
Lap splices of bundled bars should be securely wire-tied together to maintain the alignment of
the bars and to provide minimum concrete cover.
2.9 Lap Splices in Compression
In a compression lap splice, the force transfer mechanism occurs primarily through bearing at the
end of the bar. Given this type of transfer and the fact that no splitting stresses are present due to
the compression nature of the force in the bar, this type of splice requires much shorter lengths as
compared to tension lap splices. When bars of different sizes are lap-spliced in compression, the
lap splice length must be the larger of the compression development length of the larger bar and
the compression lap splice length of the smaller bar.
14
2.10 Mechanical Splices
There are two basic categories of mechanical splices:

• Tension-compression, which can resist both tensile and compressive forces, and
• Compression only, which are also known as “end-bearing” mechanical splices and transfer
compressive force from bar to bar.
The designs of mechanical splices are proprietary. These splices are supplied by a number of
manufacturers across the United States. Most mechanical splices can be supplied as uncoated,
epoxy coated or galvanized to match the bars they are coupling. The various types of mechanical
splices available include the types described in the following sections.
2.11 Tension-Compression Mechanical Splices
 Cold-Swaged Coupling Sleeve – The cold-swaged coupling sleeve uses a hydraulic

swaging press with special dies to deform the sleeve around the ends of the spliced
reinforcing bars to produce positive mechanical interlock with the reinforcing bars. Bars
to be spliced are inserted equal distances into the sleeve. Bars may be shear-cut, flame-
cut, or saw-cut, however, a bar-end check is recommended. Bars of different sizes can be
spliced with this system. This mechanical splice can also be used for joining reinforcing
bars to structural steel members. Longer sleeves are required for splicing epoxy-coated
reinforcing bars. Figure 2 illustrates a typical cold-swaged coupling sleeve.
Fig 2.12: Cold-swaged coupling sleeve.
15
2.12 Different Types of Coupler
2.12.1 Taper-Lock Standard Coupler
Fig 2.13: Taper-Lock Standard Coupler
Used to join any bar-to-bar connection of the same size, where one bar can be rotated. This
simplifies rebar splicing in areas where rebar congestion prevents the use of long lap splices.
Engagement of the bar within the coupler is simplified by the taper thread which aids in
alignment.
Features and Benefits
• The compact design of the coupler ensures suitability for use in confined situations where space
is restricted or where the loss of cover must be minimized
• Reduces engineering design time
• Eliminates rebar congestion
• Approved for use in fatigue applications
16
Fig 2.14: Tapper Lock Standard Coupler
2.12.2 Installation Taper-Lock Standard Coupler
STEP 1: The coupler is normally supplied fixed to the reinforcing bar, ready to be installed and
cast in concrete.
Fig 2.15: Step 1
STEP 2: After casting the concrete and when ready to extend, remove the thread protector from
the coupler. Position the continuation bar in the sleeve and rotate the bar into the coupler.
Fig2.16: Step 2
17
STEP 3: Continue to screw the bar into the coupler until hand tight.
Fig 2.17: Step 3
STEP 4: Using a wrench, rotate the bar a quarter turn. Inspect the connection to be sure it meets
5 lb-ft.
Fig 2.18: Step 4
18
2.12.3 Transitional Coupler
Used to join two reinforcing bars of different sizes. It is commonly used for economic designs
and columns where the diameter of the rebar reduces as the columns extend up the structure.
Fig 2.19: Transitional Coupler
• Allows for the connection of two different size bars
19
2.12.4 Positional Coupler:
Used to join two bars of the same size where neither bar can be rotated. Typical applications are
hook bar connections and column to slab connections.
Fig 2.20: Positional Coupler
• Rebar never has to be rotated
• Adjustability of coupler allows it to be a closer between two fixed bars
20
2.12.5 Flange Coupler
The tapper lock simplifies the forming process by eliminating the need to cut or drill the
formwork. It is used for segmental pours, precast application and future application.
Fig 2.21: Flange Coupler
FEATURES AND BENEFITS
• Provides a safer working environment by eliminating protruding rebar ends through formwork
• Eliminates the need to cut or drill formwork
2.12.6 Cold-Swaged Threaded Coupler
The colds-waged threaded coupler consists of pre-threaded male and female components, which
are swaged onto the reinforcing bars using a swaging press with special dies. No special
preparation is required on the bar ends. Splicing of the bars is completed by installing one pre-
threaded component into the other. A three-piece position coupler is available for splicing bent
bars that cannot be rotated. Optional details include transition couplers for splicing different bar
sizes, couplers used to connect bars to structural steel members and couplers with flanges having
21
nail holes. Threads are sealed and protected for future extension applications. Figure 3 shows a
cold-swaged threaded coupler, with the top illustration showing the two components before they
are screwed together and the bottom illustration showing them attached.
Fig 2.22: Cold-Swaged Threaded Coupler.
2.12.7 Combination Grout-Filled/Threaded Coupler
Primarily used for precast construction, this type of mechanical splice combines two common
mechanical splicing techniques. One end of the sleeve is attached and secured to a reinforcing
bar by means of threading. The splice is then completed when the other bar end is inserted into
the sleeve and the space between the bar and the sleeve is filled with high-strength grout. The
wide mouth opening of the sleeve allows for minor bar misalignment. The wide mouth also
allows for transitioning between different bar sizes. Figure 4 illustrates a combination grout-
filled/threaded coupler, with the bar on the left threaded and the bar on the right grouted in place
within the coupler.
Fig 2.23: Grout-Filled/Threaded Coupler.
2.12.8 Mechanical Lap Coupling Sleeve with Shear Screws
This coupling sleeve consists of ductile iron sleeve with two internal wedges. Two series of
cone-pointed screws are arranged along the sleeve length, opposite a wedge-shaped profile in the
sleeve. Each reinforcing bar extends out of the sleeve by approximately one bar diameter. No
special bar end preparation is required. As the screws are tightened, they indent into the surface
22
of the bars, and wedge the bars into the converging sides of the sleeve profile. Screws are
recommended to be tightened using a suitable impact wrench. The heads of the screws shear off
at a prescribed tightening torque. Bar sizes #3 through #6 plus bars of different sizes either
uncoated or epoxy-coated can be spliced using this coupling sleeve. Figure 5 shows two types of
mechanical lap coupling sleeves. The illustration on the top shows a mechanical lap coupling
sleeve with shear screws, and the illustration at the bottom shows a mechanical lap coupling
sleeve with wedge.
Fig 2.24: Coupling Sleeve with Shear Screws.
2.12.9 Grout-Filled Coupling Sleeve
The double furs-tram-shaped coupling sleeve is filled with a cement based, non-shrink, and high
early strength grout. Reinforcing bars to be spliced are inserted into the sleeve to meet at the
center of the sleeve. The space between bar and sleeve is filled with no shrink grout to transfer
stress between the external deformations on the bar and internal deformations in the sleeve. No
special end preparation of the bars is required. The relatively wide sleeves also can accommodate
minor bar misalignments, and combinations of different size bars. Figure 6 illustrates a typical
grout-filled coupling sleeve.
Fig 2.25: Grout-Filled Coupling Sleeve.
23
2.12.10 Shear Screw Coupling Sleeve
This type of mechanical splice, as shown in Figure 7, consists of a coupling sleeve with shear
head screws which are designed to shear off at a specified torque. The reinforcing bars are
inserted to meet at a stop at the center of the coupling sleeve and the screws are tightened. The
tightening process embeds the pointed screws into the bars. The heads of the screws shear off at
a prescribed tightening torque. The screws are recommended to be tightened using a pneumatic
impact wrench. For making a splice between two fixed bars, coupling sleeves without a center
stop are available. This sleeve can be slipped completely onto one bar and subsequently
repositioned over the two bar ends.
Fig 2.26: Shear Screw Coupling Sleeve.
2.12.11 Steel-Filled Coupling Sleeve
The steel filled coupling sleeve is a mechanical splice in which molten metal or “steel filler”
interlocks the grooves inside the sleeve with the deformations on the reinforcing bar. Special
details permit use as end anchorages or connections to structural steel members. Shear-cut,
flame-cut, or saw-cut ends of the bar can be used as the “steel filler” fills the space between the
ends of the bars, however, a bar-end check is recommended.
Fig 2.27: Steel-Filled Coupling Sleeve.
2.12.12 Taper-Threaded Coupler
This is a mechanical splice consisting of a taper-threaded coupler that joins two reinforcing bars
with matching taper threads. The coupler is installed by turning the bar or sleeve with wrenches
to the manufacturer’s specified torque. For splicing bent or curved bars, special three-piece
24
position couplers are used. Adaptations permit use for end anchorages in concrete or connections
to structural steel members. Bar ends require taper threading over a specified length.
Fig 2.28: Taper-Threaded Coupler.
2.12.13 Compression-Only Mechanical Splices
This type of splice utilizes a bolted strap coupling sleeve.
Fig 2.29: Bolted Strap Coupling Sleeve.
25
2.13 Welded Splices
In general, manual arc welding in the field recommended. However, if necessary, field-welded
splices are accomplished by electric arc welding prepared ends of the reinforcing bars together.
Welding should conform to AWS D1.4/ D1.4M, Structural Welding Code Reinforcing Steel
(2011). The “weldability” of steel is established by its chemical composition. Usage of low-alloy
reinforcing bars conforming to ensure the chemistry for weldability. The most widely used type
of reinforcing bars is carbon-steel conforming to ASTM A615 (2012), but its chemistry must be
verified prior to attempting to weld these types of bars.
It is recommends against connecting crossbars by small arc welds, known as “tack welds.” Tack
welding is a factor associated with fatigue crack initiation and brittle failure of reinforcing bar
assemblies.
There are two types of lap welded splices and they are Direct and indirect butt splices, and lap-
welded splice.
2.13.1 Indirect butt splice:
A splice is where both bars are welded to a common splice member such as a plate, angle or
other shape. The bars are nearly aligned; bar ends are separated no more than 3⁄4 inch; and the
cross section of the bars is not welded.
2.13.2 Types of Lap –
2.13.2.(a) Welded Splice: There are two types: direct and indirect. A direct type is one in which
the bars are in contact and welded together; single or double lap joints can be used; they are
suitable only for small bars, preferably #5 or smaller. Double lap joints would be preferred if
eccentricity of the splice is a consideration. In an indirect type, the bars are welded to a common
splice plate; there is a space between the bars.
2.13.2.(b) Thermite Welding: It is a process in which the ends of the bars are fusion welded.
Refractory molds are assembled on the bars and sealed in place. Heat- generating powders are
filled into a separate cavity in the molds. The powders are ignited and burn with enough heat to
form superheated molten steel. The steel flows through the gap between the bars and some flows
into a second cavity beyond the bars, preheating them. Subsequent flow completes the process.
added to the percentage of carbon (C). Fractions of the percentages of alloying elements which
enhance weldability, i.e., molybdenum (Mo) and vanadium (V) are subtracted. Not all of these
elements are necessarily present in any given heat of steel.
Welding is thus finding increasing importance for splicing concrete reinforcing bars. Three
welding processes are used for the majority of welding splices; however, several of the other
processes can be used. There is a mechanical splice similar to welding which utilizes medium-
26
strength metal cast metallic grout around the ends of the bars enclosed within a steel sleeve
having internal grooves.
The welding processes most commonly used are the shielded metal arc welding process, the gas
metal arc welding process, and the thermit welding process.
The lap welded splice is made by overlapping the two bars alongside each other and welding
together. For butt splices when the bars are in the horizontal position the single groove weld is
most often used with a 45° to 60° included angle. Double groove welds can be made in the larger
size bars. When the bars are to be welded with the axis vertical a single or double bevel groove
weld is used with the flat side or horizontal side on the lower bar. On occasion, the reinforcing
bar may need to be welded to other steel members and a variety of weld joints can be used.
Welders must be qualified. A direct butt splice or indirect butt splice specimen is used. The gas
metal arc welding process will make the weld in approximately one-half the time required for
shielded metal arc covered electrodes. In either case, however, or with the flux-cored arc welding
process, the welds will develop strengths equal or exceeding the specified yield strength of the
reinforcing steel bars.
Welding is highly recommended as the way to splice reinforcing bars since the concrete will fail
at values substantially below the yield strength of the reinforcing bars. This means that the
strength of the welds will exceed the requirements for most applications. In any case, the welded
splices will exceed the strength of lapped and wired splices. It will also exceed a strength level of
the cast metal splices which are sufficiently strong to withstand the strength level of the
reinforced concrete composite structure.
2.14 Advantages of Mechanical Splices
Mechanical butt splices are mechanical connections between two pieces of reinforcing steel that
enable the bars to behave in a manner similar to continuous lengths of reinforcing steel bars.
Mechanical splices join rebar end-to-end, providing many of the advantages of a continuous
piece of rebar. Years ago, arc welding was the only method of achieving continuity. Today, a
myriad of mechanical splices are available to ensure that a precise, reliable connection can be
quickly and easily made.
Fig 2.30: Lap Splice
27
Lap splices double the number of bars leading to rebar congestion which can restrict the flow of
larger aggregates.
Fig 2.31: Mechanical Splice.
Mechanical couplers reduce rebar congestion and improve concrete consolidation.
Mechanical butt splices are more reliable than lap splices because they do not depend on
concrete for load transfer. Further, mechanical butt splices are stronger than lap splices: ACI
requirements for mechanical splices are at least 25% higher than typical design strengths for lap
splices. Mechanical butt splices provide superior strength during load transfer. Superior cyclic
performance and greater structural integrity during manmade, seismic or other natural events are
other advantages of mechanical butt splices.
From the structural perspective, the most important benefit of using mechanical butt splices is to
ensure load path continuity of the structural reinforcement independent of the condition or
existence of the concrete. Additionally, mechanical butt splices reduce congestion of the
reinforcing concrete by eliminating laps.
Laps double the steel/concrete ratio and create problems while placing the bar and during
concrete consolidation. Elimination of laps also frees space for post tensioning operations.
From the design perspective, mechanical butt splices can be relied upon to improve steel-to
concrete ratios, which assist in delivering a consistent ratio under 8%. When using laps, working
with small diameter reinforcing bars may require the use of larger column dimensions to
accommodate a greater quantity of bars. Using mechanical butt splices allows the option of using
larger diameter rebar in a smaller column, while minimizing congestion. Reduced column size
results in a more efficient optimum use of floor space – an extremely beneficial economic and
design consideration.
Efforts to evaluate the comparative costs of using lap splicing and mechanical butt splicing in
concrete construction show that the reputation of butt splices for adding substantial cost to a
construction budget is unfounded. A recent study conducted by Cagley & Associates of two
28
structures showed that the additional cost of mechanical splicing, when integrated as a part of the
original design, is less than 0.2 percent. Further, only column steel was considered. According to
the authors, had beam steel been mechanically spliced and included in the compression, the
comparative costs would have been equal.
Fig 2.32: Lap Splice
Mechanical splicing does away the tedious calculations needed to determine proper lap lengths,
and their potential errors. Because mechanical splices do not overlap, less rebar is used, reducing
materials costs. Mechanical splices also are fast to install with no specialized labor. Easier
placement of the bars saves valuable crane time, and helps to keep labor costs to a minimum
while maintaining or accelerating project schedules.
Fig 2.33: Mechanical Splice
Mechanical splices offer other economic benefits. While not mandated by the new Federal safety
standards, they clearly meet the continuity of load path objectives sought in the new
29
requirements. Trends toward tougher buildings, increased geography impacted by seismic zone
mapping, and tenant desires for safer structures may also impact the potential value of building.
Inclusion of mechanical splices today may predate load path continuity requirements.
Clearly, mechanical splices offer numerous advantages. The negligible short-term perceived
economics of lap splicing are far outweighed by the many structural and economic benefits of
mechanical splicing, including continuity of reinforcing steel and structural integrity. With many
different types of mechanical splices on the market, designers can easily incorporate them into
future plans.
2.15 Column splice
Column splices are used to join individual lengths of columns in line. Because of limitations on
the size of components which can be transported, columns are typically delivered to site in
lengths of not more than three stories. In multi-storey construction it is therefore necessary to
join individual lengths. These connections are referred to as column splices and various details
can be used.
Column splices are required to transmit compressive stresses between the connected lengths. The
structural actions in a column splice involve the transmission of compression stresses from the
upper length of column to the lower.
A variety of splice details are possible: welding, capping plates, and splice plates.
The connection can be achieved by welding in which case the compression forces are transmitted
directly from the member above to the member below. A welded connection like this is usually
used only in the fabricators shop.
An alternative is to use shop-welded capping plates to each column length. These are bolted on
site to locate the plates together. A considerable advantage is that different cross-sectional sizes
can be accommodated. Splice plates are also common; they require no welding in the fabrication
shop and provide some tolerance during erection. Packing plates can be used where the column
cross-sections are not the same size.
The connections using capping or splice plates are more likely to be used on site because they
are quicker to erect, require no weld inspection, and they are therefore cheaper. Tolerance
problems between the two shafts are also avoided, as the end plates can be used as spreaders, or
packing plates can be inserted under the flange plates and the web if necessary.
Aspects other than structural characteristics should also be considered. With some care, the
connection can be detailed so that it can be accommodated within the net column section,
providing a flush surface and minimizing the overall size of the clad column.
Splice plates are unlikely to be acceptable as an exposed joint and is not suitable for circular
hollow section columns. Welded splices are suitable for use in a truss which is fully fabricated in
30
the shop. It is much better than splice or end plates for exposed roof trusses because there are no
obstructions to trap water and cause corrosion.
Fig 2.34: Column Splice
2.16 Parameters Influencing Lap Splice
Development length is the shortest length needed for reinforcing bar so that the stresses induced
in the bar can increase from zero to the yield strength of the bar. The development length is a
function of the bar size, yield strength, concrete strength and other factors such as coating of the
bar. Also, the development length of a bar is dependent to whether the bar is in tension or
compression. Tension development lengths are larger than compression development lengths
because in compression, the reinforcing bar gets some help from the concrete, while in tension it
does not. The development length depends on the following factors.
2.16.1 Lap Splice Length Depends on The Following Factors

 Concrete Strength.
 Steel yield stress.
 Shape of the bar end.
 Shape of the bar surface.
 Bar location.
 Bond force.
31
 Failure mode.
 Transverse reinforcement.
2.16.1.(a) Concrete Strength
Development length is usually fails by splitting, and splitting failure depends on the tensile
strength of concrete. The tensile strength of concrete is a function of f’c. The choice of f’c1/4 in
place of the more traditional fck1/2 or fck2/3 (where f’c is the specified compressive strength and fck
is the characteristic strength to represent the contribution of concrete strength to bond strength is
based on the analysis summarized in Fig. 4. the relative scatter (relative intercept) was
minimized using a power of 0.24. For practical purposes, a value of 0.25 was adopted.
An explanation as to why the ¼ power of compressive strength provides superior results to those
produced by higher powers is presented by Darwin et al. Their research indicates that, while the
tensile strength of concrete increases at a rate that is ≥ f’c the fracture energy of concrete Gf , the
energy per unit area required to propagate a crack once it has formed, is nearly independent of f’c
. The overall result is that the influence of compressive strength on bond strength is less than
normally considered in design.
Fig. 2.35. Range of relative intercept obtained for dummy variables analysis for experimental
bond force, normalized with respect to f’c for optimized bond strength expressions versus the
power p of f’c for bars without confining transverse reinforcement. (Ref. David Darwin, 2005).
2.16.1.(b) Vertical Bar Location
Vertical bar location relative to beam depth has been found to have an effect that a substantial
depth of concrete is placed bellow those bars, there is a tendency for excess water, often used in
the mix for workability, and for entrapped air to rise to the top of the concrete during vibration.
32
( {
In which ( ) shall not be taken greater than 2.5
= development length (in)
= Yield strength of the tension rebars (psi)
= Compressive strength of Concrete (psi); fc’ shall not exceed 100 psi
= bar diameter (in)
According to ACI 318-08, Section 12.2.4
1. Ψt is a rebar location factor that accounts for the position of rebars in freshly placed concrete.
Where the horizontal rebars so placed that more than 12 inch of fresh concrete is cast in the
member below he development length or splice, use Ψt = 1.3 (ACI 12.2.4). This condition
contributes to the formation of entrapped air and moisture underneath of the rebars, resulting in
partial loses of bond between concrete and rebars.
For other reinforcement, use Ψt = 1.0
Fig 2.36 : Rebar location
33
2. Ψe is rebar coating factor reflecting the effects of epoxy coating. Studies show that bond
strength between rebar and concrete is reduced because of the coating prevents adhesion and
friction between the rebar and concrete.
For epoxy coating bars having cover less than 3db or clear space between bars less than 6 , use
Ψe = 1.5
Ψt x Ψe shall not be greater than 1.7 (ACI 12.2.4)
3. Ψs is a rebar size factor.
For #6 or smaller rebar, use Ψs = 0.8
For #7 or larger rebar, use Ψs = 1.0
4. λ (lamda) is a lightweight-aggregate concrete factor.
Normal-weight concrete is used, use λ=1.0
Sand-lightweight concrete is used, use λ=0.85
All-lightweight concrete is used, use λ=0.75
For lightweight-aggregate concrete when the average splitting tensile strength fct is not
specified, use λ=1.3
When is specified, use
λ= /[6.3 ] ≤ 1.0
5. The variable represents the bar spacing or concrete cover (in). The value of cb will be the
smaller of either the distance from the center of bar to the nearest concrete surface (cover) or
one-half the center-to-center spacing of bars being developed (spacing).
The rebar spacing “s” will be the actual center-to-center rebar spacing if adjucent rebars are all
being developed at the same location.
However, if an adjucent rebar has been developed at another location, the spacing “s” to be used
will be greater than the actual spacing to the adjucent rebars. This case, “s” should be the shortest
center-to-center distance between two rebars being developed at the same location.
34
Fig 2.37 : Spacing “s” for rebars being developed
6. = Transverse reinforcement index.
= total cross-sectional area (sq.in) of all transverse reinforcement that is within thespacing s
and that crosses the potential plane of splitting through the rebar being developed.
s = maximum center-to-center spacing (in) of transverse bars within ld.
n = number of bars being developed along the plane of splitting.
= 0 can be used for a design simplification.
2.16.1.(c) Bond force
Development length depends on bond strength or bond force between the reinforcing bar and the
surrounding concrete. Bond forces between reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete may
vary due to variations in the force carried along the length of a bar. This is illustrated in Fig. 1,
where the bond force per unit length is shown to be highest where the rates of change in the bar
force is highest; bond forces are not uniform along the length of reinforcement but, rather, can
vary in a nonlinear manner. The key point of bond design is, therefore, not to limit the peak bond
force, but to ensure that bars are adequately anchored when developed or spliced.
35
Some design codes (CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 and Euro code 2(2003) invoke the concept of
bond stress, the stress at the interface between steel and concrete, suggesting that bond strength
is a material property. Bond force, rather than stress, however, provides a more general
representation of the response of members and correctly represents bond strength as a structural
property, based on both the constituent material properties and member geometry. Expressing
bond strength in terms of force also makes it easier to visualize the effects of the key parameters.
2.16.1.(d) Failure Mode
Bond failure usually occurs in two different forms. In the first kind bond failure is governed
bysplitting of the concrete, as illustrated in Fig. 2, when the cover bc is greater than one-half of
the clearspacing between bars si c splitting failures of the type shown in Fig. 2(a) predominate,
with the keyn cracks running from the bars, perpendicular to the concrete surface. For closer bar
spacing and higher covers, the cracks tend to form in the plane of the bars, as shown in Fig. 3b.
Transverse reinforcement that crosses splitting cracks will increase bond strength. If the cover or
transverse reinforcement is increased sufficiently, a pullout failure will occur in which the
concrete between the transverse ribs on the bars fails by shear or crushing. Increasing the cover
or transverse reinforcement beyond that required to cause a pullout failure will provide little, if
any, additional bond capacity.
Fig 2.38 : (a) Cracked concrete segment,(b) bond stress acting on reinforcing bar,(c) variation of
tensile force in reinforcing bar; and (d) variation of bond force along the bar (adapted from
Nilson et al., 2005)
2.16.1.(e) Cover Distance
Cover conventionally the distance measured from the centre of the bar to the nearest concrete
face and measured either in the plane of the bars or perpendicular to that plane-also influences
splitting. Clearly, if the vertical or horizontal cover is increased, more concrete is available to
resist the tension resulting from the wedging effect of the deformed bars, resistance to splitting is
improved, and development length requirement decreases.
36
2.16.1.(f) Bar Spacing
With the increase of bar spacing, more concrete surrounding per bar would be available to resist
horizontal splitting. In beams, bars are typically spaced about one or two bar diameter meters
apart. On the other hand, for slabs, footings and certain other types of member, bar spacing are
typically much greater, and the required development length is reduced.
Fig 2.39: (a) Side cover and half the bar spacing both less than bottom cover. (b)
Side cover = bottom cover, both less than half the bar. (c) Bottom cover less than side cover and
half the bar spacing.
2.16.1.(g) Transverse Reinforcement
Such as that provided by stirrups, improves the resistance of tensile bars to both vertical or
horizontal splitting failure because the tensile force in the transverse steel tends to prevent
opening of actual or potential crack. The effectiveness of such transverse reinforcement depends
on its cross sectional area and spacing along the development length.
2.17 Lap Splicing Problems
For almost 100 years, construction practices in the building of concrete structures have focused
on the use of steel reinforcement to transfer tension and shear forces. Lap splicing has become
the traditional method of connecting the steel reinforcing bars, largely due to a misconception
that lap splicing is “no-cost” splicing.
37
Lap splicing requires the overlapping of two parallel bars. The overlap load transfer mechanism
takes advantage of the bond between the steel and the concrete to transfer the load. The load in
one bar is transferred to the concrete, and then from the concrete to the ongoing bar. The bond is
largely influenced by deformations (ribs) on the surface of the reinforcing bar.
Continuing research, more demanding designs in concrete construction, new materials, hybrid
concrete/structural steel designs and other changes in the construction industry are calling for the
use of alternatives to lap splicing. From the standpoint of function, laps perform well on bar sizes
#6 and #8 of 40KSI yield steel and 3,000 lb. concrete, with a structure of 15 stories considered a
high-rise. Today, buildings taller than 15 stories are increasingly common. A “high-rise” of
reinforced concrete in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia recently topped over 100 stories and at least a
half dozen other 85-plus story buildings are under construction or planned.
The use of higher strength concrete, which is more prone to splitting, also is on the increase.
Compounding this problem, calculation within the ACI code results in shorter lap lengths with
high strength concrete.
Over the years, many structural engineers, architects and specifies have noted that lap splicing
has few advantages and many disadvantages. ACI R21.3.2.3 states that lap splices are not
considered reliable under conditions of cyclic loading into the elastic range. Further, there is a
question as to the effectiveness of laps with larger bars: #8, #9, #10 and #11. These are major
structural elements in the frame of a reinforced concrete structure, and any question regarding
their efficacy is cause for concern.
Over the years, to counter these concerns, the required lap lengths in the ACI 318 Building Code
have become longer and longer. ACI 12.14.2.1 has prohibited the use of lap splices in bar sizes
#14 and #18. Laps are also prohibited on bar sizes in tension tie members (ACI 12.15.5) and
within joints and locations of flexural yielding (ACI 21.3.2.3).
Concerns about lap splicing go to the very principles that are the basis for lap splicing. Lap
splicing requires concrete to take tension and shear loads, though concrete is notoriously poor in
handling tension and shear.
As a result of load transfer, the steel bars may be either in axial tension or axial compression.
The overlap transfer method generates additional forces in the concrete which tend to push the
bars apart, so concrete cover must be strong enough to overcome this “bursting” force. Bursting
force can cause spalling of the concrete cover and splice failure. Because of bursting force for
larger size reinforcing bars, additional transverse reinforcement is required by most design codes.
To design a correctly engineered lap splice, certain parameters must be considered (ACI 12.2).
These include:
 Grade of Steel: the higher the yield stress the greater the lap length.
38
 Surface Condition of The Bar: epoxy-coated bars require up to 50% longer laps than
black bars.
 Size of the Bars: the larger the bar the longer the lap.
 Grade of Concrete: the lower the concrete strength the longer the lap required.
 Location of the Splice: efficiency is dependent on bar location, position in the structural
member, edge conditions and spacing.
 Design Load: the lap length required for bars in tension is much longer than for the same
size bars in compression. A lap design for compression load will not perform as a full
tension splice. In the event of unanticipated forces to a structure, lap splices may fail.
As a result, some rules must be followed for the design and execution of lap splices:
 Lap splices must be located at appoint minimum stress.

 Only a limited number may be joined in one section.
 Additional transverse reinforcement is necessary for larger bar sizes. In the area of overlap
connections (lap zone), a double number of bars are present which increases rebar congestion
and can restrict the flow and proper distribution of larger aggregates, causing difficulties in
the efficient vibration of the concrete. This “strainer effect” is one of the major causes for
forming rock pockets and contributes to poor quality concrete. While the ACI Code stipulates
a steel to concrete ratio under 8%, it is difficult to follow this regulation and achieve a
balanced design because of the additional rebar in the lap zone.
(1) (2)
Fig 2.40: 1. Lap splices additional rebar in the lap zone.
2. Mechanical splices ideal balance of steel and concrete.
39
Because lap splices develop their strength from concrete cover, deterioration of concrete will
inevitably lead to splice failure. One disadvantage of lap splices is that they offer poor cyclic
performance in the inelastic range. In Snow Belt and coastal regions, corrosion of rebar can lead
to delaminating and spalling of the concrete cover. Without proper cover the lap splice becomes
ineffective and the load path breaks.
Loss of load path continuity can be tragic. A classic example is the Alfred p. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City, which was destroyed by bomb in 1995. This building was well
designed and built to standard requirements. Rebar were properly placed, concrete of correct
strength, etc., but a catastrophic failure of the structure resulted from the removal of one column.
In a reinforced concrete structure, there was no requirement for making bottom bars continuous
from span to span. If support is removed, the girder fails. The progressive collapse occurred due
to lack of continuity of reinforcing steel: the lapped splices failed. According to FEMA
investigators, “65% to 85% of the collapse might have been avoided if continuity of
reinforcement had been maintained.” Continuous reinforcement can be achieved either through
the use of one continuous length of rebar or through mechanical butt splicing.
Lap splices, then, can be considered structurally less reliable and design-constructive, with many
“hidden” costs. As a result, usage of mechanical splices is on the rise.
2.18 Code Limits on Lap Splicing
Research work on reinforcing steel long ago convinced the American Concrete Institute to
prohibit lap splices for #14 and #18 bars because bar forces are so large they can split the
concrete and destroy the effectiveness of the lap splice. ACI 318-95, “Building Code
Requirements Concrete”, now also forbids lap splices in tension tie members (section 12.15.5)
and in plastic hinge regions (section 21.3.2).
The model code bodies (BOCA, ICBO and SBCCI) adhere to the same limitations. According to
Cagely and Apple, these decisions by responsible code bodies bring into question the lap splice
principle, which calls for concrete to transfer loads in tension and shear. Concrete is notably poor
in both of these properties.
2.19 Sesmic Behavior of Bridge Column Non-contact Lap Splices
Inadequate shear strength, or inadequate flexural ductility, of concrete columns have caused
severe damage to bridges in recent Californian and Japanese earthquakes. In general, those
columns were constructed in the 1960's and prior to the implementation in the mid 1970's of
improved seismic design methods for bridges. By contrast, columns designed in accordance with
the improved methods, or columns strengthened by jacketing, performed well in those same
earthquakes. Much of southern Illinois can expect severe earthquakes and in that area many
bridge columns were constructed in the 1960's. Those columns are vulnerable to seismic damage
because of inadequate length lap splices at their bases.
40
Two of the major hazards often found in bridge columns constructed prior to the mid-1970's are:
(1) inadequate confinement reinforcement for the plastic hinge zones that can develop at the top
and bottom of such columns during an earthquake; and (2) inadequate lap length for the splices
connecting the longitudinal reinforcement of the column to dowel bars protruding from the pile
cap and/or crash wall to which the column is connected.
2.20 Contact Lapped Splices under Cyclic Loading
The behavior of lapped splices under cyclic loading is different from that for splices under
monotonic loading or repeated unidirectional loading. For reinforced concrete structures
subjected to monotonic loads the main concern is to provide structures with adequate strength.
The displacements that can be achieved along with that strength are of less concern. However, in
the case of structures built to resist seismic loads a satisfactory level of structural ductility must
be provided in addition to ensuring sufficient strength. Thus, the displacements than can be
achieved for repeated loadings in both tension and compression to stresses beyond those for bar
yield become of more importance than the strength. The total energy that the splice can absorb
and dissipate becomes the primary concern.
Some of the earliest research work, relevant to splice behavior under repeated and reversed
cyclic loading, was carried out at Cornell University by Fagundo et al (1979). Their work
centered mainly on the influence of load history and the effects of varying levels of confinement
on the strength and ductility of lapped splices in constant moment zones in beams. The
subsequent series of investigations completed at Cornell University consisted of six phases. Five
phases were for contact splices and only one for noncontact splices. In these investigations the
ability of a specimen to withstand, without failure, a minimum of fifteen reversing load cycles
beyond yield was considered indicative of satisfactory performance without any specific
minimum strain or stress consideration.
For the first four phases of the work on contact splices, including the studies by Fagundo et al
(1979), together with those by Tocci et al (1981) and Sivakumar et al (1982), a total of sixty-
eight large beam and column-type specimens with lapped splices, subjected to high-level
repeated or reversed cyclic flexural loads, were tested to failure. Splice lengths were initially
based on the suggested provisions of ACI Committee 408 (1979), in which the effects of
concrete strength, cover, and transverse reinforcement are all explicitly considered. The splice
lengths ranged from 24 to 45 bar diameters. The amount of transverse reinforcement ranged
generally from about one-third to twice the amount suggested by the A.C.I Committee 408
(1979) provisions.
The conclusions from those four phases of the investigation were summarized by Lukose et al
(1982) as follows:
41
1). Repeated loading, and the number of load cycles, have little effect on the performance of lap
splices if the load level is below about 75 percent of the monotonic capacity. On the other hand,
the rate of bond deterioration increases rapidly, even after only a few cycles of repeated load,
once loads exceed 95 percent of the yield load. Above yield, splice performance is determined
predominantly by the total number of cycles of load application. With yield penetration into the
splice region, the force transfer capacity of the yielded portions can not increase until strain
hardening begins in the main reinforcing bars;
2). Multiple stirrups at splice ends are effective only for monotonic loading cases, where damage
is confined to these locations. With cyclic inelastic loads, yield penetrates into the splice past the
heavily reinforced ends and will proceed at an accelerated rate if internal confinement is poor. In
these cases, uniformly spaced stirrups are needed for adequate splice resistance. The rate of
increase of stirrup strain with main bar strain in repeated cyclic tests can be significantly reduced
by adopting a larger total area of stirrups. That condition can be achieved either by using closer
stirrup spacing, (preferable), or larger diameter stirrups.
3.) The effect of cover is important in determining the type of splitting pattern. Certain splitting
patterns are more desirable than others, and in this respect, cover variations can result
indifferences in splice strength. For monotonic loads, bond resistance depends on concrete
tensile strength and therefore on the cover. However, the influence of this factor is less for cyclic
loads. In that case, the considerable amount of cover cracking evident before failure makes cover
resistance an unreliable factor. The cover is an essential part of the load transfer mechanism in
the splice region, and a minimum clear cover of at least 1.5 db was found to be sufficient to
achieve the required load transfer characteristics;
4). For #6 and #8 reinforcing bars, under the action of high-intensity reversed cyclic loads, a
clear spacing of at least 4 db between splices was found adequate to prevent a plane of splitting
from developing across the plane of the splices.
5). The onset of splitting does not constitute failure. Loads can be carried beyond this point,
through confinement afforded by the stirrups, up to the stage where splitting along two
perpendicular faces results in a cover spalling mechanism; and
6). Splices can be made successfully in regions where flexural yielding or severe stress reversals
are anticipated. Most codes for seismic areas do not permit lapped splices in these regions,
suggesting that splices are unreliable in these situations.
In the fifth stage of the investigation, Panashahi et al (1987) studied the performance of
compression lapped splices in columns and beams under inelastic cyclic loading. Five columns,
(two concentrically loaded specimens and three eccentrically loaded specimens), and four beams
were tested to failure. From that study on compression lap splices, it was concluded that:
42
1). Inelastic cyclic loading induces progressive deterioration of the force transfer mechanism.
The existence of residual compression stresses in steel bars, combined with bond and end
bearing deterioration, results in a large amount of yield penetration along the splice length. Thus,
the effective length over which bond resistance can occur becomes less than the lap length;
2). As yielding penetrates along the spliced bars, the bond, (and the radial bursting), stresses over
the central, elastic, portion of the splice increase. Consequently, the bond stress distribution
along the elastic portion of the spliced bar approaches a uniform state;
3). Inelastic cycling of a compression splice strains the end bearing concrete significantly. This
can have a detrimental effect on the contribution of the end bearing to the strength of a
compression splice; and
4). The concrete outside the splice region is subjected to a high intensity cyclic loading in
compression when the splice is loaded repeatedly into inelastic range. Therefore, for satisfactory
performance of the concrete outside the splice region, adequate confining reinforcement is of
vital importance for the seismic design of compression splices.
2.21 Contact Tensile Lap Splices Vs Noncontact Tensile Lap Splices
There is little or no difference in strength and performance between spaced, (noncontact), and
contact splices under monotonic loading. Researchers, such as Chamberlain (1952, 1958) and
Chinn, et al (1955) used both pull out and full-scale beam specimens with contact and noncontact
splices and found no significant differences in performance. In order to explain the behavior of
lap splices in general, and especially, noncontact lap splices, Goto and Otsuka (1979) showed
(Fig. 1.3) that there is diagonal cracking of the concrete between two spaced splice bars. The lap
length and spacing of the bars affects the angle of cracking.
In addition, in the final stage of the series of investigations at Cornell University, Sagan et al
(1988) tested forty-seven full-scale flat plate tension specimens, subject to in-plane loadings, to
determine the effects on strength and behavior of the noncontact spacing of the spliced bars, bar
size, concrete strength, splice length, and transverse steel area and spacing. The specimens had
splice bar spacing’s ranging from direct contact to 8 bar diameters clear spacing for both spliced
#6 and #8 bars, concrete compressive strengths ranging from 21.4 to 42.1 MPa (3,100 to 6,100
psi), and splice lengths of30 and 40 bar diameters. The typical tension specimen contained two
lap splices and modeled a half wall thickness. The major conclusions reached from that
investigation were:
1). The spliced bar spacing affects the number of inelastic load cycles that can be attained before
failure, but it does not affect the ultimate strength of a splice. The ultimate load that can be
carried by a splice is independent of the spliced bar spacing for spacing’s of up to 152mm
(6inches) clear for monotonic loading. For repeated loading up to the yield strength of the splice
43
bars, (which was a testing limitation and the ultimate load), the ultimate load was also
independent of the spliced bar spacing for spacing’s of up to 8 bar diameters for both #6 and #8
bars; and
2). Noncontact lap splice design should consider the effects of the added confinement provided
by the additional concrete between the spaced bars, the reduction in the tensile strength of the
concrete because of the compression force transfer stresses in the concrete between the bars, and
the reduction in the effective lap length of the splice (see Fig. 1.4). As a result of the
development of diagonal cracks between spliced bars, the overall lap splice length, ls, is
determined by adding to the effective lap length leff the splice bar clear spacing, Sp, multiplied by
0.75, that is
=leff+0.75Sp
Reff. [Seismic behavior of bridge column non-contact lap splices]
2.22 Effect of Tension Lap Splice on the Behavior of High Strength Concrete (HSC) Beams
In the recent years, many research efforts have been carried out on the bond strength between
normal strength concrete (NSC) and reinforcing bars spliced in tension zones in beams. Many
codes gave a minimum splice length for tension and compression reinforcement as a factor of the
bar diameter depending on many parameters such as concrete strength, steel yield stress, shape of
bar end, shape of bar surface and also bar location. Also, codes gave another restriction about the
percentage of total reinforcement to be spliced at the same time. Comparatively limited attention
has been directed toward the bond between high strength concrete (HSC) and reinforcing bars
spliced in tension zones in beams. HSC has high modulus of elasticity, high density and long
term durability.
Adequate bond between concrete and reinforcing in a splice is an essential requirement in the
design of reinforced concrete structure. In the last 15 years, concrete with compressive strength
compressive strength exceeding 70 MPa and ranging up to 120 MPa has been achieved
consistently and utilized in bridges and high rise building construction. This concrete was
described as high strength concrete since it has higher strength than the usual normal-strength
concrete (NSC) that has been produced for almost a century with 28-days strength in the range of
20–40MPa.
Effect of the studied parameters on the splice length in high strength concrete beams will be
discussed. Also the effect of changing parameters on the following results is presented:
1. Crack propagation, crack pattern, and failure mode.

2. Cracking load and ultimate failure load.
3. Load-deflection relationship.
4. Equivalent uniform bond stress.
5. Ductility measure, stiffness measure, and strength measure.
44
Splice length had no effect on both crack pattern and failure mode expect that increasing splice
length prevents splitting cracks to occur. No longitudinal cracks were observed for beams with
splice length 40 times bar diameter except beam with top casting position. It was also noticed
that bar diameter and reinforcement ratio had no effect on either crack pattern or failure mode
except that for reinforcement ratio of 0.424%, there was splitting crack for splice length 30 times
bar diameter on contrary for reinforcement ratio o.295% for the same splice length.
Based on comparison of modes of failure, cracking, ultimate loads and load–deflection curves of
HSC beams with spliced bars in the constant moment region tested in this study, the following
conclusions can be made:
(1) The development length required achieving bond stress between tension deformed steel and
HSC should be larger than 30times bar diameter for concrete having strength between 65 and
93N/mm
(2) At different load levels top cast beams showed greater average crack width than bottom cast
beams for the same splice length, bar diameter, and reinforcement ratio.
(3) Splice length, bar diameter, and reinforcement ratio had no effect on both crack pattern and
failure mode.
(4) Bottom casting position has higher cracking and ultimate load compared to top casting
position.
(5) The splice length up to 30times bar diameter decreased the moment capacity of beam. The
splice length of 40 times bar diameter results in the same capacity of the beam without any
splice.
(6) Bottom casting position leads to larger beam stiffness than top casting position. No effect on
the ductility was noticed due to changing the casting position.
(7) The ductility is increased by increasing the splice length.
(8) Different bar diameters have no effect on the ductility.
[Ahmed El-Azab, Hatem M. Mohamed, Engineering Consultant Group, Cairo, Egypt

Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt]
2.23 Lap Splices in Tension (ACI 12.14)
Splices for No.11 bars and smaller are usually made simply by lapping the bars in a sufficient
distance to transfer stress by bond from one bar to the other. The lapped bars are usually placed
in contact and lightly wired so that they stay in position as the concrete is poured.
45
Fig 2.41: Lap splices in tension.
• ACI 12.14.2.1. Lap splices should not be used for bars larger than No.11 bars.
• Required lap for tension splices, may be stated in terms of development in tension ld. Find db
According to code, use the modification factors (reduction for excess reinforcement should not
Be applied because that factor is already accounted for in the splice specification).
• Two classes of lap splices are specified by the ACI Code. The minimum length ls not less than
12 inches is:
Class A: ls = 1.0ld
Class B: ls = 1.3ld ACI Sect. (12.15)
The work sheet provided in the next page of tension lab splices.
46
CHAPTER 3
REVIEW OF DIFFERENT
DESIGN CODES
47
Chapter 3
REVIEW OF DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES
3.1 Introduction
A review of provisions of different design codes for development lengths of reinforcing bars
used in reinforced concrete structures has been presented. The reviewed codes are ACI (2002),
BNBC (1993), AASHTO (2007), CEB-FIP Model (1990) and EURO Code 2(2003).
Development length is calculated for particular strength of concrete and reinforcing bars. A
parametric study has been conducted for selected parameters. It has been found from the study
that the BNBC code recommends the largest value of the development length for 22mm diameter
and larger diameter meter bars as compared with the requirements of the other codes, while the
EURO code recommends the smallest value. The EURO code and CEB-FIP Model code
recommends almost the similar development lengths.
In the parametric study, yield strength of reinforcing bars, compressive strength of concrete and
bar diameter have been used as basic parameters. A specific beam-column joint of a building
frame has been taken into consideration for the study. In selecting the compressive strength of
concrete, a wide range of strength has been taken into consideration. The compressive strength of
concrete was used 10 MPa,15 MPa, 20.5 MPa, 23.9 MPa, 26.67 MPa, 30 MPa and 35 MPa,
while the yield strength of the reinforcing bars were used 274 MPa, 410 MPa and 500 MPa.
3.2 Design provisions
The design codes reviewed in this study for tension development length of members in
reinforced concrete structures are ACI (2002), CEB-FIP Model (1990), EURO Code 2 (2003),
BNBC (1993) and AASHTO (2007). To allow direct comparison of design equations, the
expressions are written using notation similar to that used in ACI 318-02.
3.3 ACI code (2002)
According to ACI (2002) the splice length of reinforced bars in tension is classified as a class A
& a class B. The class A requires a lap of 1.0 d l , and a class B splice requires a lap of 1.3 d l ,
where, d l is the development length of bars in tension. The development length is expressed as
follows
( (for case-I and case-II, 20 mm Φ and smaller bars) 1(a)
=( (for case-I and case-II, 22 mm Φ and larger bars) 1(b)
48
=( (for other case, 20 mm Φ and smaller bars) 1(c)
=( (for other case, 22 mm Φ and larger bars) 1(d)
Each of the above cases is presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Development length in tension according to ACI (2002)
Special Cases 20 mm Φ and smaller bars 22mm Φ bar and larger bars
Clear spacing of bars being
developed or spliced ≥ db,
( =(
clear cover ≥ db, and stirrups
or ties throughout the ld
Clear spacing of bars being
developed or spliced ≥ 2db, Same as above Same as above
and clear cover ≥ db
Other cases
=( =(
where, α is reinforcement location factor, 1.3: for Horizontal reinforcement so placed that more
than 12 in. of fresh concrete is cast in the member below the development length or splice and
1.0: for other reinforcement ; β is coating factor ,1.5: for Epoxy –coated bars or wires with cover
less than 3 or clear spacing less than 6 , 1.2: for all other epoxy coated bars or wires, 1.0: for
Uncoated reinforcement; λ is lightweight aggregate concrete factor 1.3: when lightweight
aggregate concrete is used, 1.0: when normal weight concrete is used. In either case, a minimum
splice length of 12 in. applies. The classification is illustrated in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Classes of tension lap splices: ACI code (2002)
Maximum percent of As spliced within required lap length

Ratio 50 100
≥2 A B
≤2 B B
49
3.4 CEB-FIP Model Code (1990)
The CEB-FIP model code (1990) provisions for splice length are calculated by multiplying by ld
the factor αb given in Table 3.3
ls = (2)
Where db is the diameter of the bar; ŋ=1.0 for db ≤ 32mm, ŋ= 100/(132-db) for db >32mm; each
term in parentheses of Eq.(2) is limited to the range of 0.7 to 1.0; fyd is design yield strength of
the bar in Mpa. Fyd = (fyk/1.15), where fyk is characteristics yield strength of reinforcement, it is
the value that is exceeded by 95% of all possible test results, often described as the 5% fractures
value. In US practice, fyk = 1.06fy, where fy is the minimum specific yield strength; fck is the
characteristic compressive strength of concrete. fck = f ʼc – 2.75 Mpa; cmin = (a/2,c1,c2) from figure
3.1; ∑Astr,min is the cross sectional area of the minimum transverse reinforcement = 0.25 As for
beams and 0 for slabs; Ab is the area of a single bar being developed or spliced, with the
maximum bar diameter; k = 0.10 for a bar confined at a corner bend of a stirrup or tie, k = 0.05
for a bar confined by a single leg of a stirrup or tie, and k = 0 for a bar that is not confined by
transverse reinforcement. The value of ld in Eq. (2) may be multiplied by 0.7 ≤ (1 – 0.04p) ≤ 1.0
where p is the transverse pressure in Mpa at the ultimate limit state along the development length
perpendicular to the spitting plane. The effect of the bar placement for top-cast reinforcement is
included by ld by 0.7 for bars with an inclination of less than 45° with the horizontal that are both
(1) more than 250 mm from the bottom and (2) less than 300 mm from the top of a concrete layer
during placement. As in ACI (2002), ld may be multiplied by the ratio of (As required) / (As
provided), but unlike ACI (2002), this ratio may also be applied when calculating the splice
length ls. Splice lengths in tension are limited as shown in Equation 3.
ls,min = max ( ) (3)
Fig 3.1: Cmin = min (a/2, C1, C2)
50
Table 3.3
Values of co – efficient αb : CEB – FIP Model Code
Maximum percent
of As lapped at one ≤20 25 33 50 ≥50
section
αb 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
*Defined as lap splices with mid lengths within 0.65ls on either side of the mid length of the
splice under considerations.
Table 3.4
Values of co – efficient αb :Eurocode 2
Maximum
percent of As
lapped at one <25 33 50 >50
section
αb 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
*Defined as lap splices with mid lengths within 0.65ls on either side of the mid length of the
splice under considerations. **Intermediate values may be determined by interpolation.
3.5 Euro code 2 (2003)
The splice length provisions of Euro code 2 have many similarities to those of CEB-FIP Model
Code. The splice length is determined the ld by the factor αb given in table 3.4.The ld is
expressed as
ls = (4)
Where fsd is the design stress of the bar at the position from where anchorage is measured at the
ultimate limit state = fyd (As required)/ (As provided). The other terms are as defined for CEB
FIP Model Code 1990, except that the value of fck used here is limited to a maximum of 60MPa
unless it can be demonstrated that the average bond strength increases above this limit, and
Atr,min in for splice length is taken as Ab(fsd/fyd) , where Ab is the area of the largest bar being
spliced.
αb = ( ρ 1 ρ
/25)1/2 ≤ 1.5, where 1 is the percentage of reinforcement lapped within 0.65ls of the
centre of the lap length. Splice length in tension is limited as shown in equation 5.
51
Ls,min = max ( ) (5)
3.6 BNBC Code (1993)
The minimum splice length in tension for BNBC (1993) provision is class A or class B splice.
Class A splice required a length of 1.0ld as well as class B required a length of 1.3ld . Where the
term ld represents development length of deformed bars in tension and determined as the product
of the basic development length ldb and the applicable modification factors, which are expressed
as
Basic Development Length
ls = (for 36mm Φ bar or smaller) (6)
ls = (for 45mm Φ bar) (7)
ls = (for 55mm Φ bar) (8)
Where fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement in Mpa; f’c is the compressive strength of
concrete in Mpa; and Ab is the area of an individual bar in mm2.
a) The basic development length is further multiplied by: 1.0
For all bars satisfying any one of the following conditions:
i) Bars in beams or columns with minimum cover not less than 40 mm, transverse
reinforcement satisfying tie requirements ,minimum stirrup requirements of sec 6.2.7.4(d)
and 6.2.7.4e (ii) along the development length ,and with clear spacing of not less than 3db.
ii) Bars in beams or columns with minimum cover not less than 40 mm (for primary
reinforcement) and enclosed within transverse reinforcement Atr along the development length
satisfying Atr ≥ (dbsn/40)
iii) Bars in the inner layer of slab or wall reinforcement and with clear spacing of not less than
3d.
iv) Bars in the inner layer of slab or wall reinforcement and with clear spacing of not less than
3db..
b) For bars with a cover of db or less or with a clear spacing of 2db or less: 2.0
52
c) For other bars not satisfying (a) or (b) above: 1.4
d) 0.8 for 35 mm ϕ bar and smaller,with clear spacing not less than 5db ,and with at least 2.5db
clear from face of member to edge of bar.
e) 0.75 for reinforcement enclosed within spiral reinforcement not less than 6 mm diameter and
not more than 100 mm pitch.
However, the basic development length multiplied by the previous factors shall not be taken less
than (0.375dbfy/√f’c)
The basic development length also is multiplied by the following factors:
1.3 for Top horizontal reinforcement so placed that more than 300 mm of concrete is cast in the
member bellow the bar; 1.5 for Epoxy coated reinforcement with cover less than 3db or clear
spacing less than 6db ; 1.2 epoxy coated bars for all other conditions. The product of factor for
top reinforcement and the factor for epoxy coated reinforcement not need to be taken greater
than 1.7.
The development length may be reduced by the factor (As required/ As provide) where
reinforcement in a flexural member is in excess of that required by analysis except where
anchorage or development for fy is specially required.
3.7 AASHTO (2007)

The minimum lap splice length in tension according to AASHTO (2007) provisions is class A,
Class B or class C splice. Class A splice is required a length of 1.0l d, class B is required a length
of 1.3ld and a class C is required a length of 1.7ld. Where the term ld is the development length of
deformed bars in tension and determined as the product of the basic development length ldb and
the applicable modification factors, which are expressed bellow. The class of lap splice for
deformed bars in tension is specified in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5
Classes of tension lap splices; AASHTO (2007)
Maximum percent of As spliced within required lap length

Ratio
50 75 100
≥2 A A B
≤2 B C C
53
The tension development length ld in mm can be calculated by the following equations. But the
tension splice length shall not be less than 300 mm.
ls = (for 36mm Φ bar or smaller) 9(a)
but not less than 0.06dbfy
ls = (for 43mm Φ bar) 9(b)
ls = (for 57mm Φ bar) 9(c)
where, Ab is the area of bar (mm2), fy yield strength of reinforcing bars in MPa, f’c Compressive
strength of concrete at 28 days, unless another age is specified in MPa, and db diameter of the bar
in mm. The development lengths given in Eq. (9) are multiplied by one or more factors: 1.4 for
horizontal or nearly horizontal reinforcement placed with more than 300mm of fresh concrete
cast below the reinforcement (top-bar factor); ldb = (34fy/√f’c) for low – density concrete, where
fct is the splitting tensile strength of concrete; 1.3 for concrete in which all aggregate is
lightweight or 1.2 for sand-lightweight concrete ,where fct is not specified; 1.5 for epoxy-coated
bars with cover less than 3db or clear spacing less than 6db , or 1.2 for epoxy-coated bars not
covered by the previous criterion. The product obtained when combining the factor for top
reinforcement with the factor for epoxy coated bars need not be taken greater than 1.7 under the
assumption that the reduced contact area, because of concrete settlement, and the lower
coefficient of friction for epoxy-coated bars are not fully additive. In addition, development or
splice lengths may be multiplied by 0.8 for reinforcement being developed in the length under
consideration when it is spaced not less than 150mm center-to-center, with not less than 75mm
clear cover measured in the direction of spacing, (As required)/(As provided) when anchorage of
the full yield strength of the reinforcement is not required or when reinforcement in flexural
members is in excess of that required by analysis, and 0.75 when reinforcement is enclosed
within a spiral composed of bars of not less than 6mm in diameter and spaced at not more than a
100mm pitch. The AASHTO provisions recognize no other cases in which confining
reinforcement contributes to bond strength.
3.8 Parametric study for splice length
Figure 3.2 shows a beam-column joint in a continuous building frame which will be used in the
calculation of CEB - FIP MODEL & EURO design codes. Column dimensions are 300 mm x
525 mm, longitudinal bars are subjected to tensile stress for all load combinations. Transverse
reinforcement is used at 100 mm spacing.
54
Fig 3.2: Beam column joint
Table 3.6
Parameters
Concrete compressive strength 10MPa, 15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67MPa,
30MPa, 35MPa
Yield Strength of Reinforcing Bars 274MPa, 410MPa, 500MPa
Bar Diameter 12mm, 16mm, 20mm, 22mm, 25mm, 28mm,

32mm and 36mm
55
CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDY & ANALYSIS
56
Chapter 4
CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
Parameter used in the analysis and the results obtained are presented in graphical manner in this
chapter. Lap splice length under the provision of various design codes are reviewed here.
Variation in the lap splice length for different design codes are shown in graphical form. Sample
calculation for each code is shown here.
A parametric study has been conducted for selected parameters. It has been found from the study
that the BNBC code recommends the largest value of the development length for 22mm diameter
and larger diameter meter bars as compared with the requirements of the other codes, while the
EURO code recommends the smallest value. The EURO code and CEB-FIP Model code
recommends almost the similar development lengths.
For analysis and comparison purpose different parameters like concrete strength (f’c), yield
strength (fy), bar diameter (db) are changed. In one case fy was fixed and f’c was varied and in
other case f’c was fixed and fy was changed.
4.2 Case Study
 Case 1 : To determine the variation of ls / db for different design codes

for different f’c and fy.

when f’c remains fixed and fy is changed.

when fy remains fixed and f’c is changed.
57
4.3 Sample Calculation:
The calculation of splice length as per the ACI (2002), BNBC (1993), AASHTO (2007), CEB-
FIP Model (1990), and EURO Code 2(2003) .The splice length requirement is calculated based
on the following data. Compressive strength of concrete is 10 MPa, 15 MPa, 20.5 MPa, 23.9
MPa, 26.67 MPa, 30 MPa, and 35 MPa. Tensile strength of reinforcing bars is 274 MPa, 410
MPa, 500 MPa, Diameter of bar 12 mm, 16 mm, 20 mm, 22 mm, 25 mm, 28 mm, 32 mm and 36
mm.
Cover to reinforcement = 50mm

Side cover = 50mm
Spacing of reinforcement (Tie spacing) = 125mm
Area of transverse reinforcement, Atr = 78.53 in2
Normal weight concrete is used.
1MPa = 146.34 Psi
Assume,
i) Excess reinforcement = = 1.0 = 1.0
ii) Splice is being of same diameter of bars, covering 50mm, 50% reinforcement is
spliced.
iii) The term (1- 0.04P) = 1.0
*** One calculation of each design code is shown here with 36 mm Φ bar,
f’c = 10MPA & fy = 274MPa are the parameters.
BNBC (1993) :
Calculation for 36mm Φ bar
Now,
Yield strength, fy = 274 MPa
Concrete Strength, f’c = 10 MPa
Area of the reinforcement, Ab = 1017.87 mm2
Modification factor = 1.0
58
Now,
ls = =
= 1763 mm
But,
Minimum development length, ls(min) = =
= 1169 mm
ls = 1.3 ld = 1.3*1763 = 2291mm
(ls/db) = (2291/36)
= 63.69
AASTHO (2007) :
Now,
Area of the reinforcement, Ab = 1017.87 mm2
Modification factor = 1.0
Now,
ls = =
= 1763 mm
But,
Minimum development length, ls(min) = = = 1169 mm
ls = 1.3 ld = 1.3*1763 = 2291mm
(ls/db) = (2291/36) = 63.69

59
ACI (2002) :
Now,
Yield strength, fy = 274 MPa = 40000 Psi
Concrete Strength, f’c = 10 MPa = 1463 Psi
α = 1.0
β = 1.0 (for uncoated reinforcement)
γ = 1.0 (for uncoated reinforcement)
50% reinforcement is spliced, and = 1.0

So, B class splice is used.
For 22 mm Φ bar or larger diameter bars,
=( = * 36 * 1.3
= 2447.11 mm
Now,
(ls / db) = (2447.11 / 36)
=67.97mm
CEB – FIP Model (1990) :
Where,
ŋ = 1.00 for db ≤ 32mm,
ŋ= for db ≤ 32mm
60
ŋ= = = 1.04
cmin = min (a/2, c1, c2)
Fig 4.1: Cross – section of the column.
a = (300 – 2*10 – 2*50 – 2*36 ) = 108 mm
cmin = min (54, 50, 50)
cmin = 50mm
k = 0.1
Ab = Area of the largest bar being spliced = 1017.87 mm2
∑ A str = 0.25 * * (12)2 = 113.097 mm2
∑ A str ,min = 0.25 * * (36)2 = 1017.87 mm2
fyk = 1.06 fy = 1.06 * 274 = 290 MPa
fyd = = = 252.55 MPa
fck = f ’c – 2.75 = 10 – 2.75 = 7.25 MPa
61
Now,
ls =
–
= (1.15 – 0.15 * ) ( 1 – 0.1 * ) * (1.041) * * 36
= 2272.8 mm
Again,
αb = 1.8 (50% reinforcement is to be spliced)
So,
= = = 113.64
Euro (2003) :
Where,
ŋ = 1.00 for db ≤ 32mm,
ŋ= for db ≤ 32mm
ŋ= = = 1.04
cmin = min (a/2, c1, c2)
Fig 4.2: Cross – section of the column.

62
a = (300 – 2*10 – 2*50 – 2*36 ) = 108 mm
cmin = min (54, 50, 50)
cmin = 50mm
k = 0.1
Ab = Area of the largest bar being spliced = 1017.87 mm2
∑ A str = 0.25 * * (12)2 = 113.097 mm2
∑ A str ,min = 0.25 * * (36)2 = 1017.87 mm2
fyk = 1.06 fy = 1.06 * 274 = 290 MPa
fsd = = = 252.55 MPa
fck = f ’c – 2.75 = 10 – 2.75 = 7.25 MPa
Now,
ls =
–
= (1.15 – 0.15 * ) (1 – 0.1 * ) * (1.041) * * 36
= 2250.2 mm
Again,
αb = 1.8 (50% reinforcement is to be spliced)
So,
= = = 112.51
63
4.4 Case – 1: for different f’c & fy
4.4.1 Data tables and graphs prepared from the calculation ( as sample calculation shown above )
required for case-1 are given below :
Table 4.1: ls / db for various design codes when f’c = 10MPa & fy = 274 MPa
f’c = 10 MPa fy = 274 MPa
ls / d b
Bar BNBC AASTHO ACI EURO CEB –
(mm) FIP
12 32.49 32.49 54.38 53.1 54.01
16 32.49 32.49 54.38 72.11 73.14
20 35.39 35.39 54.38 83.8 84.83
22 38.92 38.92 67.97 88.05 89.08
25 44.23 44.23 67.97 92.04 94.17
28 49.54 49.54 67.97 97.02 98.15
32 56.62 56.62 67.97 105.98 107.11
36 63.69 63.69 67.97 112.51 113.64
ls/db vs db(mm) for f'c = 10MPa & fy = 274MPa

120
100
80
ls/db
60 BNBC
AASTHO
40 ACI
EURO
CEB - FIP
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
Fig 4.3: ls / db vs db (mm) for various design codes when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274 MPa
64
f’c = 15 mpa fy = 274 mpa
ls / d b
Bar (mm) BNBC AASTHO ACI EURO CEB – FIP
12 26.53 26.53 44.59 36.98 38.07
16 26.53 26.53 44.59 50.40 51.56
20 28.89 28.89 44.59 58.62 59.79
22 31.78 31.78 55.74 61.65 62.79
25 36.12 36.12 55.74 65.25 66.38
28 40.45 40.45 55.74 68.05 69.19
32 46.23 46.23 55.74 75.80 76.91
36 52 52 55.74 80.88 81.99

90
80
70
60
50
ls /db
BNBC
40 AASTHO
ACI
30 EURO
CEB-FIP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
65
Table 4.3: ls / db for various design codes when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274 MPa
f’c = 20.5 MPa fy = 274 MPa

ls / d b
Bar(mm) BNBC AASTHO ACI EURO CEB – FIP
12 22.69 22.69 38.15 28.65 29.73
16 22.69 22.69 38.15 39.15 40.27
20 24.7 24.7 38.15 45.58 46.7
22 27.19 27.19 47.68 48.09 49.04
25 30.9 30.9 47.68 50.73 51.84
28 35.02 35.02 47.68 52.98 54.03
32 39.54 39.54 47.68 59.01 60.06
36 44.49 44.49 47.68 63.15 65.27
ls/db vs db(mm) for f'c = 20.5MPa & fy = 274MPa

70
60
50
40
ls/db
BNBC
AASTHO
30 ACI
EURO
20 CEB-FIP
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
Fig 4.5: ls / db vs db (mm) for various design codes when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274 MPa
66
f’c = 23.9 MPa fy = 274 MPa

ls / d b

12 21.02 21.02 35.33 25.30 26.45
16 21.02 21.02 35.33 34.72 35.83
20 22.89 22.89 35.33 40.44 41.55
22 25.18 25.18 44.16 42.52 43.63
25 28.6 28.6 44.16 45.03 46.12
28 32.04 32.04 44.16 47.02 48.07
32 36.6 36.6 44.16 52.30 53.44
36 41.2 41.2 44.16 56.33 57.45

70
60
50
40
ls / d b
BNBC
AASTHO
30
ACI
EURO
20 CEB-FIP
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
67
f’c = 26.67 mpa fy = 274 mpa

ls / d b

12 19.89 19.89 33.44 23.16 24.37
16 19.89 19.89 33.44 31.90 33
20 21.67 21.67 33.44 37.15 38.27
22 23.84 23.84 41.8 39.05 40.19
25 27.09 27.09 41.8 41.09 42.49
28 30.34 30.34 41.8 43.01 44.29
32 34.67 34.67 41.8 47.99 49.23
36 39 39 41.8 52.91 54.09

60
50
40
BNBC
ls /db
30
AASTHO
ACI
EURO
20
CEB-FIP
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
68
Table 4.6: ls / db for various design codes when f’c = 30 MPa & fy = 274 MPa

ls / d b

12 18.8 18.8 31.53 21.04 22.34
16 18.8 18.8 31.53 29.01 30.25
20 20.43 20.43 31.53 33.90 35.09
22 22.48 22.48 39.41 35.55 36.85
25 25.54 25.54 39.41 37.67 38.95
28 28.6 28.6 39.41 39.45 40.7
32 32.7 32.7 39.41 44.01 45.13
36 36.77 36.77 39.41 48.88 50.02

60
50
40
ls / d b
30 BNBC
AASTHO
ACI
20 EURO
CEB-FIP
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
69
f’c = 35 mpa fy = 274 mpa

ls / d b

12 17.37 17.37 29.19 18.77 19.96
16 17.37 17.37 29.19 25.86 27.04
20 18.92 18.92 29.19 30.06 31.36
22 20.8 20.8 36.49 31.71 32.93
25 23.6 23.6 36.49 33.52 34.81
28 26.5 26.5 36.49 35.02 36.29
32 30.3 30.3 36.49 39.05 40.34
36 34.04 34.04 36.49 43.40 44.67

50
45
40
35
30
ls/db
BNBC
25 AASTHO
ACI
20 EURO
CEB-FIP
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
70

ls / d b

12 48.62 48.62 81.92 79.56 80.82
16 48.62 48.62 81.92 108.13 109.45
20 52.95 52.95 81.92 124.75 126.93
22 58.25 58.25 102.41 132.07 133.29
25 66.2 66.2 102.41 139.80 140.91
28 74.13 74.13 102.41 144.72 146.87
32 84.72 84.72 102.41 149.15 150.44
36 95.31 95.31 102.41 155.73 156.84

180
160
140
120
100
ls /db
BNBC
80
AASTHO
ACI
60
EURO
CEB-FIP
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
71

ls / d b
Bar(mm) BNBC AASTHO ACI EURO CEB - FIP

12 39.7 39.7 66.89 55.79 56.96
16 39.7 39.7 66.89 75.01 77.15
20 43.23 43.23 66.89 87.19 89.47
22 47.56 47.56 83.61 92.78 93.96
25 54.04 54.04 83.61 97.05 99.33
28 60.53 60.53 83.61 101.23 103.53
32 69.17 69.17 83.61 104.85 106.05
36 77.82 77.82 83.61 108.25 110.56

120
100
80
BNBC
ls /db
60
AASTHO
ACI
EURO
40
CEB-FIP
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
72
f’c = 20.5 MPa fy = 410 MPa

ls / d b

12 33.96 33.96 57.22 42.13 44.49
16 33.96 33.96 57.22 58.02 60.25
20 36.98 36.98 57.22 68.62 69.87
22 40.68 40.68 71.52 71.12 73.38
25 46.23 46.23 71.52 75.23 77.57
28 51.78 51.78 71.52 79.55 80.85
32 59.17 59.17 71.52 81.51 82.82
36 66.57 66.57 71.52 84.15 86.34

100
90
80
70
60
BNBC
ls /db
50
AASTHO
ACI
40
EURO
30 CEB-FIP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
73
f’c = 23.9 mpa fy = 410 mpa

ls / d b

12 31.45 31.45 52.99 38.23 39.58
16 31.45 31.45 52.99 51.35 53.61
20 34.25 34.25 52.99 60.95 62.17
22 37.68 37.68 66.24 63.05 65.28
25 42.81 42.81 66.24 67.88 69.02
28 47.95 47.95 66.24 70.75 71.94
32 54.8 54.8 66.24 72.45 73.69
36 61.65 61.65 66.24 75.55 76.82

90
80
70
60
50 BNBC
ls /db
AASTHO
40 ACI
EURO
30
CEB-FIP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
74
f’c =26.67 MPa fy = 410 MPa

ls / d b

12 29.77 29.77 50.12 34.19 36.46
16 29.77 29.77 50.12 48.12 49.38
20 32.42 32.42 50.12 55.05 57.27
22 35.67 35.67 62.71 58.92 60.14
25 40.53 40.53 62.71 61.23 63.58
28 45.39 45.39 62.71 64.06 66.27
32 51.88 51.88 62.71 66.59 67.88
36 58.36 58.36 62.71 69.53 70.77

80
70
60
50
BNBC
ls /db
40 AASTHO
ACI
30 EURO
CEB-FIP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
75

ls / d b

12 28.07 28.07 47.3 30.18 31.47
16 28.07 28.07 47.3 44.07 45.33
20 30.57 30.57 47.3 51.36 52.6
22 33.63 33.63 59.12 53.04 55.21
25 38.21 38.21 59.12 56.07 58.36
28 42.8 42.8 59.12 59.55 60.83
32 48.91 48.91 59.12 60.04 62.31
36 55.03 55.03 59.12 63.78 64.96

70
60
50
40
BNBC
ls /db
AASTHO
30 ACI
EURO
CEB-FIP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
76

ls / d b

12 25.99 25.99 43.79 28.69 29.88
16 25.99 25.99 43.79 39.15 40.46
20 28.3 28.3 43.79 45.79 46.93
22 31.1 31.1 54.74 47.07 49.28
25 35.4 35.4 54.74 50.95 52.09
28 39.63 39.63 54.74 53.07 54.30
32 45.29 45.29 54.74 54.39 55.63
36 50.95 50.95 54.74 56.80 57.98

70
60
50
40
BNBC
ls /db
AASTHO
30 ACI
EURO
CEB-FIP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
77

ls / d b

12 59.29 59.29 98.99 97.25 98.56
16 59.29 59.29 98.99 131.18 133.49
20 64.57 64.57 98.99 153.55 154.8
22 71.03 71.03 123.74 160.28 162.56
25 80.72 80.72 123.74 170.55 171.86
28 90.4 90.4 123.74 178.01 179.13
32 103.32 103.32 123.74 181.72 183.48
36 116.23 116.23 123.74 189.05 191.28

250
200
150
ls /db
BNBC
AASTHO
100
ACI
EURO
CEB-FIP
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
78

ls / d b

12 48.4 48.4 80.83 67.13 69.47
16 48.4 48.4 80.83 91.95 94.09
20 52.75 52.75 80.83 107.01 109.12
22 57.997 57.997 101.03 113.29 114.59
25 65.91 65.91 101.03 120.02 121.14
28 73.81 73.81 101.03 125.03 126.27
32 84.36 84.36 101.03 128.07 129.34
36 94.9 94.9 101.03 133.61 134.84

160
140
120
100
BNBC
ls /db
80 AASTHO
ACI
60 EURO
CEB - FIP
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
79
f’c = 20.5 MPa fy = 500 MPa

ls / d b

12 41.41 41.41 69.14 53.04 54.26
16 41.41 41.41 69.14 72.19 73.49
20 45.10 45.10 69.14 84.02 85.22
22 49.6 49.6 86.42 88.23 89.49
25 56.38 56.38 86.42 93.35 94.6
28 63.14 63.14 86.42 97.41 98.6
32 72.16 72.16 86.42 99.91 101
36 81.16 81.16 86.42 104.16 105.3

120
100
80
BNBC
ls /db
60
AASTHO
ACI
EURO
40
CEB - FIP
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
80
f’c = 23.9 MPa fy = 500 MPa

ls / d b

12 38.35 38.35 64.03 47.11 48.27
16 38.35 38.35 64.03 64.19 65.38
20 41.77 41.77 64.03 74.65 75.82
22 45.95 45.95 80.04 78.51 79.62
25 52.21 52.21 80.04 83.01 84.17
28 58.47 58.47 80.04 86.41 87.7
32 66.83 66.83 80.04 88.55 89.87
36 75.18 75.18 80.04 92.51 93.69

100
90
80
70
60
BNBC
ls /db
50 AASTHO
ACI
40
EURO
CEB - FIP
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
81
f’c = 26.67 MPa fy = 500 MPa

ls / d b

12 36.31 36.31 60.61 43.13 44.47
16 36.31 36.31 60.61 59.01 60.23
20 39.54 39.54 60.61 68.65 69.85
22 43.5 43.5 75.77 72.01 73.35
25 49.43 49.43 75.77 76.27 77.54
28 55.36 55.36 75.77 78.71 80.82
32 63.23 63.23 75.77 81.63 82.79
36 71.17 71.17 75.77 84.12 86.3

100
90
80
70
60
BNBC
ls /db
50 AASTHO
ACI
40
EURO
CEB - FIP
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
82

ls / d b

12 34.23 34.23 57.15 39.59 40.8
16 34.23 34.23 57.15 54.21 55.28
20 37.28 37.28 57.15 62.97 64.11
22 41.01 41.01 71.44 66.14 67.33
25 46.6 46.6 71.44 70.02 71.18
28 52.19 52.19 71.44 73.02 74.19
32 59.65 59.65 71.44 73.79 75.99
36 67.11 67.11 71.44 77.03 79.22

90
80
70
60
50 BNBC
ls /db
AASTHO
40 ACI
EURO
30 CEB - FIP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
83

ls / d b

12 31.69 31.69 52.91 34.15 36.44
16 31.69 31.69 52.91 48.07 49.35
20 34.52 34.52 52.91 56.07 57.23
22 37.97 37.97 66.14 58.99 60.1
25 43.15 43.15 66.14 62.39 63.54
28 48.32 48.32 66.14 64.04 66.22
32 55.23 55.23 66.14 66.51 67.64
36 62.13 62.13 66.14 69.59 70.72

80
70
60
50
BNBC
ls /db
40 AASTHO
ACI
30 EURO
CEB - FIP
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
84
4.5 Case – 2: f’c is fixed & fy is variable
Table 4.22: ls / db for AASTHO design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is variable (274
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
AASTHO
Bar Diameter (mm) Yield Strength , fy (MPa)
274 410 500
12 32.49 48.62 59.29
16 32.49 48.62 59.29
20 35.39 52.95 64.67
22 38.92 58.25 71.03
25 44.23 66.2 80.72
28 49.54 74.13 90.4
32 56.62 84.72 103.32
36 63.69 95.31 116.23
ls/db vs db (mm)
140
120
100
80
ls/db
AASTHO, fy=274 MPa

60 AASTHO, fy=410 MPa
AASTHO, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.24: ls / db vs db (mm) for AASTHO design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa,
410MPa and 500 MPa
85
Table 4.23: ls / db for ACI design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is variable (274 MPa,
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
ACI
274 410 500
12 54.38 81.92 98.99
16 54.38 81.92 98.99
20 54.38 81.92 98.99
22 67.97 102.41 123.74
25 67.97 102.41 123.74
28 67.97 102.41 123.74
32 67.97 102.41 123.74
36 67.97 102.41 123.74
ls/db vs db (mm)
140
120
100
80
ls/db
ACI, fy=274 MPa
60 ACI, fy=410 MPa

ACI, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.25: ls / db vs db (mm) for ACI design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa and
500 MPa
86
Table 4.24: ls / db for BNBC design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is variable (274 MPa,
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
BNBC
274 410 500
12 32.49 48.62 59.29
16 32.49 48.62 59.29
20 35.39 52.95 64.67
22 38.92 58.25 71.03
25 44.23 66.2 80.72
28 49.54 74.13 90.4
32 56.62 84.72 103.32
36 63.69 95.31 116.23
ls/db vs db (mm)
140
120
100
80
ls/db
BNBC, fy=274 MPa

BNBC, fy=410 MPa
60
BNBC, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.26: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa
and 500 MPa
87
Table 4.25: ls / db for EURO design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is variable (274 MPa,
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
EURO
274 410 500
12 53.1 79.6 97.25
16 72.11 108.13 131.18
20 83.8 124.75 153.55
22 88.05 132.07 160.28
25 92.04 139.8 170.55
28 97.02 144.72 178.01
32 105.98 149.15 181.72
36 112.51 155.73 189.05
ls/db vs db (mm)
200
180
160
140
120
ls/db
100 EURO, fy=274 MPa

EURO, fy=410 MPa
80 EURO, fy=500 MPa
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.27: ls / db vs db (mm) for EURO design code when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa
and 500 MPa
88
Table 4.26: ls / db for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c is fixed (10 MPa) & fy is
ls / d b
CEB – FIP MODEL
274 410 500
12 54.01 80.82 98.56
16 73.14 109.45 133.49
20 88.83 126.93 154.8
22 89.08 133.29 162.56
25 94.17 140.91 171.86
28 98.15 146.87 179.19
32 107.11 150.44 183.48
36 113.64 156.84 191.28
ls/db vs db (mm)
250
200
150
ls/db
CEB, fy=274 MPa

CEB, fy=410 MPa
100 CEB, fy=500 MPa
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.28: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB- FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 10 MPa
& fy = 274MPa, 410MPa and 500 MPa
89
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
AASTHO
274 410 500
12 26.53 39.7 48.4
16 26.53 39.7 48.4
20 28.89 43.23 52.75
22 31.78 47.56 57.99
25 36.12 54.04 65.91
28 40.45 60.53 73.81
32 46.23 69.17 84.36
36 52 77.82 94.9
ls/db vs db (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
ls/db

AASTHO, fy=410 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
410MPa and 500 MPa
90
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
ACI
274 410 500
12 44.59 66.89 80.83
16 44.59 66.89 80.83
20 44.59 66.89 80.83
22 55.74 83.61 101.03
25 55.74 83.61 101.03
28 55.74 83.61 101.03
32 55.74 83.61 101.03
36 55.74 83.61 101.03
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
ls/db
60 ACI, fy=274 MPa

ACI, fy=410 MPa
ACI, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
500 MPa
91
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
BNBC
274 410 500
12 26.53 39.7 48.4
16 26.53 39.7 48.4
20 28.89 43.23 52.75
22 31.78 47.56 57.99
25 36.12 54.04 65.91
28 40.45 60.53 73.81
32 46.23 69.17 84.36
36 52 77.82 94.9
ls/db vs db (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
ls/db
50 BNBC, fy=274 MPa

BNBC, fy=410 MPa
40 BNBC, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
and 500 MPa
92
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
EURO
274 410 500
12 36.98 55.79 67.13
16 50.4 75.01 91.95
20 58.62 87.19 107.01
22 61.65 92.78 113.29
25 65.25 97.05 120.02
28 68.05 101.23 125.03
32 75.8 104.85 128.07
36 80.88 108.25 133.61
ls/db vs db (mm)
160
140
120
100
ls/db
80 EURO, fy=274 MPa

EURO, fy=410 MPa
60 EURO, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
and 500 MPa
93
ls / d b
CEB – FIP MODEL
274 410 500
12 38.07 56.96 69.47
16 51.56 77.15 94.09
20 59.79 98.47 109.12
22 62.79 93.96 114.59
25 66.38 99.33 121.14
28 69.19 103.53 126.27
32 76.91 106.05 129.34
36 81.99 110.56 134.84
ls/db vs db (mm)
160
140
120
100
ls/db
80 CEB, fy=274 MPa

CEB, fy=410 MPa
60 CEB, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.33: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB - FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 15 MPa
94
Table 4.32: ls / db for AASTHO design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is variable (274
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
AASTHO
274 410 500
12 22.69 33.96 41.41
16 22.69 33.96 41.41
20 24.7 36.38 45.1
22 27.19 40.68 49.6
25 30.9 46.23 56.38
28 35.02 51.78 63.14
32 39.54 59.17 72.16
36 44.49 66.57 81.16
ls/db vs db (mm)
90
80
70
60
50
ls/db
AASTHO, fy=274 MPa

AASTHO, fy=510 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.34: ls / db vs db (mm) for AASTHO design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274MPa,
410MPa and 500 MPa
95
Table 4.33: ls / db for ACI design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is variable (274 MPa,
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
ACI
274 410 500
12 38.15 57.22 69.14
16 38.15 57.22 69.14
20 38.15 57.22 69.14
22 47.68 71.52 86.42
25 47.68 71.52 86.42
28 47.68 71.52 86.42
32 47.68 71.52 86.42
36 47.68 71.52 86.42
ls/db vs db (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
ls/db
50 ACI, fy=274 MPa

ACI, fy=410 MPa
40
ACI, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.35: ls / db vs db (mm) for ACI design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa
and 500 MPa
96
Table 4.34: ls / db for BNBC design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is variable (274
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
BNBC
274 410 500
12 22.69 33.96 41.41
16 22.69 33.96 41.41
20 24.7 36.38 45.1
22 27.19 40.68 49.6
25 30.9 46.23 56.38
28 35.02 51.78 63.14
32 39.54 59.17 72.16
36 44.49 66.57 81.16
ls/db vs db (mm)
90
80
70
60
50
ls/db
BNBC, fy=274 MPa

40 BNBC, fy=410 MPa
BNBC, fy=410 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.36: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa
and 500 MPa
97
Table 4.35: ls / db for EURO design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is variable (274
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
EURO
274 410 500
12 28.65 42.13 53.04
16 39.15 58.02 72.19
20 45.58 68.62 84.02
22 48.09 71.12 88.23
25 50.73 75.23 93.35
28 52.98 79.55 97.41
32 59.01 81.51 99.91
36 63.15 84.15 104.16
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
ls/db
60 EURO, fy=274 MPa

EURO, fy=410 MPa
EURO, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.37: ls / db vs db (mm) for EURO design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa
and 500 MPa
98
Table 4.36: ls / db for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c is fixed (20.5 MPa) & fy is
ls / d b
CEB – FIP MODEL
274 410 500
12 29.73 44.49 54.26
16 40.27 60.25 73.49
20 46.7 69.87 85.22
22 49.04 73.38 89.49
25 51.84 77.57 94.6
28 54.03 80.85 98.6
32 60.06 82.82 101
36 65.27 86.34 105.3
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
ls/db
60 CEB, fy=274 MPa

CEB, fy=410 MPa
CEB, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.38: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 20.5 MPa
99
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
AASTHO
274 410 500
12 21.02 31.45 38.35
16 21.02 31.45 38.35
20 22.89 34.25 41.77
22 25.18 37.68 45.95
25 28.6 42.81 52.21
28 32.04 47.95 58.47
32 36.6 54.8 66.83
36 41.2 61.65 75.18
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db

AASTHO, fy=410 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
410MPa and 500 MPa
100
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
ACI
274 410 500
12 35.33 52.99 64.03
16 35.33 52.99 64.03
20 35.33 52.99 64.03
22 44.16 66.24 80.04
25 44.16 66.24 80.04
28 44.16 66.24 80.04
32 44.16 66.24 80.04
36 44.16 66.24 80.04
ls/db vs db (mm)
90
80
70
60
50
ls/db
ACI, fy=274 MPa

40 ACI, fy=410 MPa
ACI, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
and 500 MPa
101
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
BNBC
274 410 500
12 21.02 31.45 38.35
16 21.02 31.45 38.35
20 22.89 34.25 41.77
22 25.18 37.68 45.95
25 28.6 42.81 52.21
28 32.04 47.95 58.47
32 36.6 54.8 66.83
36 41.2 61.65 75.18
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db
40 BNBC, fy=274 MPa

BNBC, fy=410 MPa
30 BNBC, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.41: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when f’c = 23.9 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa
and 500 MPa
102
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
EURO
274 410 500
12 25.3 38.23 47.11
16 34.72 51.35 64.19
20 40.44 60.95 74.65
22 42.52 63.05 78.51
25 45.03 67.88 83.01
28 47.20 70.75 86.41
32 52.3 72.45 88.55
36 56.33 75.55 92.51
ls/db vs db (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
ls/db
50 EURO, fy=274 MPa

EURO, fy=410 MPa
40 EURO, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.42: ls / db vs db (mm) for EURO design code when f’c = 23.9 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa
and 500 MPa
103
ls / d b
CEB – FIP MODEL
274 410 500
12 26.45 39.58 48.23
16 35.83 53.61 65.38
20 41.55 62.17 75.82
22 43.63 65.28 79.62
25 46.12 69.02 84.17
28 48.07 71.94 87.7
32 53.44 73.69 89.87
36 57.45 76.82 93.69
ls/db vs db (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
ls/db
50 CEB, fy=274 MPa

CEB, fy=410 MPa
40 CEB, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
104
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
AASTHO
274 410 500
12 19.89 29.77 36.31
16 19.89 29.77 36.31
20 21.67 32.32 39.54
22 23.84 35.67 43.5
25 27.09 40.43 49.43
28 30.34 45.39 55.36
32 34.67 51.88 63.23
36 39 58.36 71.17
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db

AASTHO, fy=410 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
410MPa and 500 MPa
105
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
ACI
274 410 500
12 33.44 50.12 60.61
16 33.44 50.12 60.61
20 33.44 50.12 60.61
22 41.8 62.71 75.77
25 41.8 62.71 75.77
28 41.8 62.71 75.77
32 41.8 62.71 75.77
36 41.8 62.71 75.77
ls/db vs db (mm)
90
80
70
60
50
ls/db
ACI, fy=274 MPa

40 ACI, fy=410 MPa
ACI, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
and 500 MPa
106
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
BNBC
274 410 500
12 19.89 29.77 36.31
16 19.89 29.77 36.31
20 21.67 32.32 39.54
22 23.84 35.67 43.5
25 27.09 40.43 49.43
28 30.34 45.39 55.36
32 34.67 51.88 63.23
36 39 58.36 71.17
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db
40 BNBC, fy=274 MPa

BNBC, fy=410 MPa
30 BNBC, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.46: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when f’c = 26.67 MPa & fy = 274MPa,
410MPa and 500 MPa
107
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
EURO
274 410 500
12 23.16 34.19 43.13
16 31.9 48.12 59.01
20 37.15 55.05 68.65
22 39.05 58.92 72.01
25 41.09 61.23 76.27
28 43.01 64.06 78.71
32 47.99 66.59 81.63
36 52.91 69.53 84.12
ls/db vs db (mm)
90
80
70
60
50
ls/db
EURO, fy=274 MPa
40 EURO, fy=410 MPa

EURO, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.47: ls / db vs db (mm) for EURO design code when f’c = 26.67 MPa & fy = 274MPa,
410MPa and 500 MPa
108
ls / d b
CEB – FIP MODEL
274 410 500
12 24.37 36.46 44.47
16 33 49.38 60.23
20 38.27 57.27 69.85
22 40.19 60.14 73.35
25 42.49 63.58 77.54
28 44.29 66.27 80.82
32 49.23 67.88 82.79
36 54.09 70.77 86.3
ls/db vs db (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
ls/db
50 CEB, fy=274 MPa

CEB, fy=410 MPa
40 CEB, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
109
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
AASTHO
274 410 500
12 18.8 28.7 34.23
16 18.8 28.7 34.23
20 20.43 30.57 37.28
22 22.48 33.67 41.01
25 25.54 38.21 46.6
28 28.6 42.8 52.19
32 32.7 48.91 59.65
36 36.77 55.03 67.11
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db

AASTHO, fy=410 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
410MPa and 500 MPa
110
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
ACI
274 410 500
12 31.53 47.3 57.15
16 31.53 47.3 57.15
20 31.53 47.3 57.15
22 39.41 59.12 71.44
25 39.41 59.12 71.44
28 39.41 59.12 71.44
32 39.41 59.12 71.44
36 39.41 59.12 71.44
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db
40 ACI, fy=274 MPa

ACI, fy=410 MPa
30 ACI, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
500 MPa
111
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
BNBC
274 410 500
12 18.8 28.7 34.23
16 18.8 28.7 34.23
20 20.43 30.57 37.28
22 22.48 33.67 41.01
25 25.54 38.21 46.6
28 28.6 42.8 52.19
32 32.7 48.91 59.65
36 36.77 55.03 67.11
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db
40 BNBC, fy=274 MPa

BNBC, fy=410 MPa
30 BNBC, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
and 500 MPa
112
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
EURO
274 410 500
12 21.04 30.18 39.59
16 29.01 44.07 54.21
20 33.9 51.36 62.97
22 35.55 53.04 66.14
25 37.67 56.07 70.02
28 39.45 59.55 73.02
32 44.01 60.04 73.79
36 48.88 63.78 77.03
ls/db vs db (mm)
90
80
70
60
50
ls/db
EURO, fy=274 MPa

40 EURO, fy=410 MPa
EURO, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
and 500 MPa
113
ls / d b
CEB – FIP MODEL
274 410 500
12 22.34 31.47 40.8
16 30.25 45.33 55.28
20 35.09 52.66 64.11
22 36.85 55.21 67.33
25 38.95 58.36 71.18
28 40.7 60.83 74.19
32 45.13 62.31 75.99
36 50.02 64.96 79.22
ls/db vs db (mm)
90
80
70
60
50
ls/db
CEB, fy=274 MPa

40 CEB, fy=410 MPa
CEB, fy=500 MPa
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.53: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 30 MPa
114
MPa, 410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
AASTHO
274 410 500
12 17.37 25.99 31.69
16 17.37 25.99 31.69
20 18.92 28.3 34.52
22 20.8 31.1 37.97
25 23.6 35.4 43.15
28 26.5 39.63 48.32
32 30.3 45.29 55.23
36 34.04 50.95 62.13
ls/db vs db (mm)
70
60
50
40
ls/db
AASTHO, fy=274 MPa

AASTHO, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
410MPa and 500 MPa
115
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
ACI
274 410 500
12 29.19 43.79 52.91
16 29.19 43.79 52.91
20 29.19 43.79 52.91
22 36.49 54.74 66.14
25 36.49 54.74 66.14
28 36.49 54.74 66.14
32 36.49 54.74 66.14
36 36.49 54.74 66.14
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db
40 ACI, fy=274 MPa

ACI, fy=410 MPa
30 ACI, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
500 MPa
116
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
BNBC
274 410 500
12 17.37 25.99 31.69
16 17.37 25.99 31.69
20 18.92 28.3 34.52
22 20.8 31.1 37.97
25 23.6 35.4 43.15
28 26.5 39.63 48.32
32 30.3 45.29 55.23
36 34.04 50.95 62.13
ls/db vs db (mm)
70
60
50
40
ls/db
BNBC, fy=274 MPa
30 BNBC, fy=410 MPa

BNBC, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
and 500 MPa
117
410 MPa & 500 MPa)
ls / d b
EURO
274 410 500
12 18.77 28.69 34.15
16 25.86 39.15 48.07
20 30.06 45.79 56.07
22 31.71 47.07 58.99
25 33.52 50.95 62.39
28 35.02 53.07 64.04
32 39.05 54.39 66.51
36 43.4 56.8 69.59
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db
40 EURO, fy=274 MPa

EURO, fy=410 MPa
30 EURO, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
and 500 MPa
118
ls / d b
CEB – FIP MOEL
274 410 500
12 19.96 29.88 36.44
16 27.04 40.46 49.35
20 31.36 46.93 58.23
22 32.93 49.28 60.1
25 34.81 52.09 63.54
28 36.29 54.3 66.22
32 40.34 55.63 67.64
36 44.67 57.98 70.72
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50
ls/db
40 CEB, fy=274 MPa

CEB, fy=410 MPa
30 CEB, fy=500 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.58: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when f’c = 35 MPa
119
4.6 Case – 3: fy is fixed & f’c is variable
Table 4.57: ls / db for AASTHO design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is variable
ls / d b
Bar AASTHO
Diameter Concrete Strength, f’c (MPa)
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 32.49 26.53 22.69 21.02 19.89 18.8 17.37
16 32.49 26.53 22.69 21.02 19.89 18.8 17.37
20 35.39 28.89 24.7 22.89 21.67 20.43 18.92
22 38.92 31.78 27.19 25.18 23.84 22.48 20.8
25 44.23 36.12 30.9 28.6 27.09 25.54 23.6
28 49.54 40.45 35.02 32.04 30.34 28.6 26.5
32 56.62 46.23 39.54 36.6 34.67 32.7 30.3
36 63.69 52 44.49 41.2 39 36.77 34.04
ls/db vs db (mm)
70
60
50
AASTHO, f'c=10 MPa
40 AASTHO, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
AASTHO, f'c=20.5 MPa

30 AASTHO, f'c=23.9 MPa
20
AASTHO, f'c=30 MPa
AASTHO, f'c=35 MPa
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.59: ls / db vs db (mm) for AASTHO design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa,
120
Table 4.58: ls / db for ACI design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is variable (10MPa,
15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67MPa, 30.5MPa & 35MPa)
ls / d b
Bar ACI
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 54.38 44.59 38.15 35.33 33.44 31.53 29.19
16 54.38 44.59 38.15 35.33 33.44 31.53 29.19
20 54.38 44.59 38.15 35.33 33.44 31.53 29.19
22 67.97 55.74 47.68 44.16 41.8 39.41 36.49
25 67.97 55.74 47.68 44.16 41.8 39.41 36.49
28 67.97 55.74 47.68 44.16 41.8 39.41 36.49
32 67.97 55.74 47.68 44.16 41.8 39.41 36.49
36 67.97 55.74 47.68 44.16 41.8 39.41 36.49
ls/db vs db (mm)
80
70
60
50 ACI, f'c=10 MPa

ACI, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
40 ACI, f'c=20.5 MPa

ACI, f'c=23.9 MPa
30 ACI, f'c=26.67 MPa

ACI, f'c=30 MPa
ACI, f'c=35 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.60: ls / db vs db (mm) for ACI design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa, 15MPa,
121
Table 4.59: ls / db for BNBC design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is variable (10MPa,
ls / d b
Bar BNBC
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 32.49 26.53 22.69 21.02 19.89 18.8 17.37
16 32.49 26.53 22.69 21.02 19.89 18.8 17.37
20 35.39 28.89 24.7 22.89 21.67 20.43 18.92
22 38.92 31.78 27.19 25.18 23.84 22.48 20.8
25 44.23 36.12 30.9 28.6 27.09 25.54 23.6
28 49.54 40.45 35.02 32.04 30.34 28.6 26.5
32 56.62 46.23 39.54 36.6 34.67 32.7 30.3
36 63.69 52 44.49 41.2 39 36.77 34.04
ls/db vs db (mm)
70
60
50
BNBC, f'c=10 MPa

40 BNBC, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
BNBC, f'c=20.5 MPa
30 BNBC, f'c=23.9 MPa

BNBC, f'c=26.67 MPa
BNBC, f'c=30 MPa
20
BNBC, f'c=35 MPa
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.61: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa, 15MPa,
122
Table 4.60: ls / db for EURO design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is variable (10MPa,
ls / d b
Bar EURO
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 53.1 36.98 28.65 25.30 23.16 21.04 18.77
16 72.11 50.40 39.15 34.72 31.90 29.01 25.86
20 83.8 58.62 45.58 40.44 37.15 33.90 30.06
22 88.05 61.65 48.09 42.52 39.05 35.55 31.71
25 92.04 65.25 50.73 45.03 41.09 37.67 33.52
28 97.02 68.05 52.98 47.02 43.01 39.45 35.02
32 105.98 75.80 59.01 52.30 47.99 44.01 39.05
36 112.51 80.88 63.15 56.33 52.91 48.88 43.40
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
EURO, f'c=10 MPa
EURO, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
60 EURO, f'c=20.5 MPa

EURO, f'c=23.9 MPa
EURO, f'c=26.67 MPa
40 EURO, f'c=30 MPa
EURO, f'c=35 MPa
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.62: ls / db vs db (mm) for EURO design code when fy = 274 MPa & f’c = 10MPa, 15MPa,
123
Table 4.61: ls / db for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when fy is fixed (274MPa) & f’c is
variable (10MPa, 15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67MPa, 30.5MPa & 35MPa)
ls / d b
Bar CEB – FIP MODEL
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 54.01 38.07 29.73 26.45 24.37 22.34 19.96
16 73.14 51.56 40.27 35.83 33 30.25 27.04
20 84.83 59.79 46.7 41.55 38.27 35.09 31.36
22 89.08 62.79 49.04 43.63 40.19 36.85 32.93
25 94.17 66.38 51.84 46.12 42.49 38.95 34.81
28 98.15 69.19 54.03 48.07 44.29 40.7 36.29
32 107.11 76.91 60.06 53.44 49.23 45.13 40.34
36 113.64 81.99 65.27 57.45 54.09 50.02 44.67
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
CEB, f'c=10 MPa
CEB, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
60 CEB, f'c=20.5 MPa

CEB, f'c=23.9 MPa
CEB, f'c=26.67 MPa
40 CEB, f'c=30 MPa
CEB, f'c=35 MPa
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.63: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when fy = 274 MPa
& f’c = 10MPa, 15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67 MPa, 30MPa and 35 MPa
124
ls / d b
Bar AASTHO
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 48.62 39.7 33.96 31.45 29.77 28.07 25.99
16 48.62 39.7 33.96 31.45 29.77 28.07 25.99
20 52.95 43.23 36.98 34.25 32.42 30.57 28.3
22 58.25 47.56 40.68 37.68 35.67 33.63 31.1
25 66.2 54.04 46.23 42.81 40.53 38.21 35.4
28 74.13 60.53 51.78 47.95 45.39 42.8 39.63
32 84.72 69.17 59.17 54.8 51.88 48.91 45.29
36 95.31 77.82 66.57 61.65 58.36 55.03 50.95
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
AASTHO, f'c=10 MPa
AASTHO, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db

AASTHO, f'c=35 MPa
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
db (mm)
125
ls / d b
Bar ACI
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 81.92 66.89 57.22 52.99 50.12 47.3 43.79
16 81.92 66.89 57.22 52.99 50.12 47.3 43.79
20 81.92 66.89 57.22 52.99 50.12 47.3 43.79
22 102.41 83.61 71.52 66.24 62.71 59.12 54.74
25 102.41 83.61 71.52 66.24 62.71 59.12 54.74
28 102.41 83.61 71.52 66.24 62.71 59.12 54.74
32 102.41 83.61 71.52 66.24 62.71 59.12 54.74
36 102.41 83.61 71.52 66.24 62.71 59.12 54.74
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
ACI, f'c=10 MPa
ACI, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
60 ACI, f'c=20.5 MPa

ACI, f'c=23.9 MPa
ACI, f'c=26.67 MPa
40 ACI, f'c=30 MPa
ACI, f'c=35 MPa
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
126
ls / d b
Bar BNBC
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 48.62 39.7 33.96 31.45 29.77 28.07 25.99
16 48.62 39.7 33.96 31.45 29.77 28.07 25.99
20 52.95 43.23 36.98 34.25 32.42 30.57 28.3
22 58.25 47.56 40.68 37.68 35.67 33.63 31.1
25 66.2 54.04 46.23 42.81 40.53 38.21 35.4
28 74.13 60.53 51.78 47.95 45.39 42.8 39.63
32 84.72 69.17 59.17 54.8 51.88 48.91 45.29
36 95.31 77.82 66.57 61.65 58.36 55.03 50.95
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
BNBC, f'c=10 MPa
BNBC, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db

BNBC, f'c=23.9 MPa
BNBC, f'c=26.67 MPa
40 BNBC, f'c=30 MPa
BNBC, f'c=35 MPa
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
127
ls / d b
Bar EURO
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 79.56 55.79 42.13 38.23 34.19 30.18 28.69
16 108.13 75.01 58.02 51.35 48.12 44.07 39.15
20 124.75 87.19 68.62 60.95 55.05 51.36 45.79
22 132.07 92.78 71.12 63.05 58.92 53.04 47.07
25 139.80 97.05 75.23 67.88 61.23 56.07 50.95
28 144.72 101.23 79.55 70.75 64.06 59.55 53.07
32 149.15 104.85 81.51 72.45 66.59 60.04 54.39
36 155.73 108.25 84.15 75.55 69.53 63.78 56.80
ls/db vs db (mm)
180
160
140
120
EURO, f'c=10 MPa
100 EURO, f'c=15 MPa

ls/db
EURO, f'c=20.5 MPa

EURO, f'c=26.67 MPa
60 EURO, f'c=30 MPa
EURO, f'c=35 MPa
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
db (mm)
128
ls / d b
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 80.82 56.96 44.49 39.58 36.46 31.47 29.88
16 109.45 77.15 60.25 53.61 49.38 45.33 40.46
20 126.93 89.47 69.87 62.17 57.27 52.6 46.93
22 133.29 93.96 73.38 65.28 60.14 55.21 49.28
25 140.91 99.33 77.57 69.02 63.58 58.36 52.09
28 146.87 103.53 80.85 71.94 66.27 60.83 54.30
32 150.44 106.05 82.82 73.69 67.88 62.31 55.63
36 156.84 110.56 86.34 76.82 70.77 64.96 57.98
ls/db vs db (mm)
180
160
140
120
CEB, f'c=10 MPa
100 CEB, f'c=15 MPa

ls/db
CEB, f'c=20.5 MPa

80 CEB, f'c=23.9 MPa
CEB, f'c=26.67 MPa
60 CEB, f'c=30 MPa
CEB, f'c=35 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.68: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when fy = 410 MPa
& f’c = 10MPa, 15MPa, 20.5MPa, 23.9MPa, 26.67 MPa, 30MPa and 35 MPa
129
ls / d b
Bar AASTHO
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 59.29 48.4 41.41 38.35 36.31 34.23 31.69
16 59.29 48.4 41.41 38.35 36.31 34.23 31.69
20 64.57 52.75 45.10 41.77 39.54 37.28 34.52
22 71.03 57.997 49.6 45.95 43.5 41.01 37.97
25 80.72 65.91 56.38 52.21 49.43 46.6 43.15
28 90.4 73.81 63.14 58.47 55.36 52.19 48.32
32 103.32 84.36 72.16 66.83 63.23 59.65 55.23
36 116.23 94.9 81.16 75.18 71.17 67.11 62.13
ls/db vs db (mm)
120
100
80
AASTHO, f'c=10 MPa
AASTHO, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db

AASTHO, f'c=35 MPa
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
db (mm)
130
ls / d b
Bar ACI
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 98.99 80.83 69.14 64.03 60.61 57.15 52.91
16 98.99 80.83 69.14 64.03 60.61 57.15 52.91
20 98.99 80.83 69.14 64.03 60.61 57.15 52.91
22 123.74 101.03 86.42 80.04 75.77 71.44 66.14
25 123.74 101.03 86.42 80.04 75.77 71.44 66.14
28 123.74 101.03 86.42 80.04 75.77 71.44 66.14
32 123.74 101.03 86.42 80.04 75.77 71.44 66.14
36 123.74 101.03 86.42 80.04 75.77 71.44 66.14
ls/db vs db (mm)
140
120
100
ACI, f'c=10 MPa

80 ACI, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
ACI, f'c=20.5 MPa

ACI, f'c=23.9 MPa
60
ACI, f'c=26.67 MPa
ACI, f'c=30 MPa
40
ACI, f'c=35 MPa
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
131
ls / d b
Bar BNBC
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 59.29 48.4 41.41 38.35 36.31 34.23 31.69
16 59.29 48.4 41.41 38.35 36.31 34.23 31.69
20 64.57 52.75 45.10 41.77 39.54 37.28 34.52
22 71.03 57.997 49.6 45.95 43.5 41.01 37.97
25 80.72 65.91 56.38 52.21 49.43 46.6 43.15
28 90.4 73.81 63.14 58.47 55.36 52.19 48.32
32 103.32 84.36 72.16 66.83 63.23 59.65 55.23
36 116.23 94.9 81.16 75.18 71.17 67.11 62.13
ls/db vs db (mm)
140
120
100
BNBC, f'c=10 MPa

80 BNBC, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
BNBC, f'c=20.5 MPa

BNBC, f'c=23.9 MPa
60
BNBC, f'c=26.67 MPa
BNBC, f'c=30 MPa
40
BNBC, f'c=35 MPa
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
db (mm)
132
ls / d b
Bar EURO
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 97.25 67.13 53.04 47.11 43.13 39.59 34.15
16 131.18 91.95 72.19 64.19 59.01 54.21 48.07
20 153.55 107.01 84.02 74.65 68.65 62.97 56.07
22 160.28 113.29 88.23 78.51 72.01 66.14 58.99
25 170.55 120.02 93.35 83.01 76.27 70.02 62.39
28 178.01 125.03 97.41 86.41 78.71 73.02 64.04
32 181.72 128.07 99.91 88.55 81.63 73.79 66.51
36 189.05 133.61 104.16 92.51 84.12 77.03 69.59
ls/db vs db (mm)
200
180
160
140
EURO, f'c=10 MPa

120
EURO, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db

EURO, f'c=23.9 MPa
80
EURO, f'c=26.7 MPa
60 EURO, f'c=30 MPa

EURO, f'c=35 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
133
ls / d b
(mm) 10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 98.56 69.47 54.26 48.27 44.47 40.8 36.44
16 133.49 94.09 73.49 65.38 60.23 55.28 49.35
20 154.8 109.12 85.22 75.82 69.85 64.11 57.23
22 162.56 114.59 89.49 79.62 73.35 67.33 60.1
25 171.86 121.14 94.6 84.17 77.54 71.18 63.54
28 179.13 126.27 98.6 87.7 80.82 74.19 66.22
32 183.48 129.34 101 89.87 82.79 75.99 67.64
36 191.28 134.84 105.3 93.69 86.3 79.22 70.72
ls/db vs db (mm)
250
200
CEB, f'c=10 MPa

150
CEB, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
CEB, f'c=20.5 MPa

CEB, f'c=23.9 MPa
100 CEB, f'c=26.67 MPa
CEB, f'c=30 MPa
CEB, f'c=35 MPa
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 4.73: ls / db vs db (mm) for CEB – FIP MODEL design code when fy = 500 MPa & f’c =
134
From Fig 4.3 to Fig 4.23, it is concluded that among all codes ACI code recommends the larger
splice length for12mm Φ bar. For ACI design code lap splice length (ls) remains constant for 20
mm Φ bar and smaller bars and 22mm Φ bar and larger bars. CEB - FIP MODEL recommends
larger splice length for larger bars than 12mm Φ bar. AASTHO and BNBC design codes
recommend smaller lap splice lengths (ls). Lap splice length (ls) increases when the bar diameter
(db) increases. AASTHO and BNBC design codes also exhibit same splice length for 36 mm Φ
bar or smaller.
It is also found from case – 2 (f’c is fixed but fy is variable) that bars of higher yield strength (fy)
require larger lap splice length (ls).
From case – 3 (fy is fixed but f’c is variable) it is observed that lap splice length (ls) decreases
when the concrete strength (f’c) increases.
135
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
136
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Results and Discussions:
After analyzing the sample calculations and graphs from previous chapter, it is concluded that
among all codes ACI code recommends the larger splice length for12mm Φ bar. CEB - FIP
MODEL recommends larger splice length for larger bars than 12mm Φ bar. AASTHO and
BNBC design codes recommend smaller lap splice lengths (ls). Lap splice length (ls) increases
when the bar diameter (db) increases. AASTHO and BNBC design codes also exhibit same splice
length for 36 mm Φ bar or smaller.
It is also found from case - 2 (f’c is fixed but fy is variable) that bars of higher yield strength (fy)
require larger lap splice length (ls).
From case – 3 (fy is fixed but f’c is variable) it is observed that lap splice length (ls) decreases
when the concrete strength (f’c) increases.
5.1.1 Results and Discussions of Case – 1 (Different f’c & fy)
Sample calculations had been performed in the previous chapter. Results found from calculation
are shown in a table below:
F’c = 10 MPa Fy = 274 MPa
ls / d b
Bar BNBC AASTHO ACI EURO CEB –
(mm) FIP
12 32.49 32.49 54.38 53.1 54.01
16 32.49 32.49 54.38 72.11 73.14
20 35.39 35.39 54.38 83.8 84.83
22 38.92 38.92 67.97 88.05 89.08
25 44.23 44.23 67.97 92.04 94.17
28 49.54 49.54 67.97 97.02 98.15
32 56.62 56.62 67.97 105.98 107.11
36 63.69 63.69 67.97 112.51 113.64
137
120
100
80
ls/db
60 BNBC
AASTHO
ACI
40 EURO
CEB - FIP
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db(mm)
Figure 5.1 exhibits ACI code recommends the larger splice length for12mm Φ bar. CEB - FIP
MODEL recommends larger splice length for larger bars than 12mm Φ bar. AASTHO and
BNBC design codes recommend smaller lap splice lengths (ls). Both AASTHO and BNBC
design codes recommend same value for bars having diameter of 36 mm or smaller. CEB – FIP
MODEL and EURO design code give almost identical values. Lap splice length (ls) increases
when the bar diameter (db) increases. For ACI design code lap splice length (ls) remains constant
for 20 mm Φ bar and smaller bars and 22mm Φ bar and larger bars.
138
5.1.2 Results and Discussions of Case – 2 (f’c is fixed but fy is variable):
A sample table is given below for discussing Case – 2
Table 5.2: ls / db for BNBC design code when f’c is fixed (10MPa) & fy is variable (274 MPa,
410MPa & 500MPa
ls / d b
BNBC
Bar Diameter
(mm) Yield strength (fy), (MPa)
274 410 500
32.49 48.62 59.29

12
32.49 48.62 59.29
16
35.39 52.95 64.67
20
38.92 58.25 71.03

22
44.23 66.2 80.72
25
49.54 74.13 90.4
28
56.62 84.72 103.32
32
63.69 95.31 116.23
36
139
ls/db vs db (mm)
140
120
100
80
ls/db
BNBC, fy=274 MPa

BNBC, fy=410 MPa
60 BNBC, fy=500 MPa
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
Fig 5.2: ls / db vs db (mm) for BNBC design codes when f’c = 10 MPa & fy = 274MPa, 410MPa
and 500 MPa
It is also found from case - 2 that bars of higher yield strength (fy) require larger lap splice length
(ls). Here the result of only BNBC design code is shown but other design codes also show the
same results.
140
5.1.3 Results and Discussions of Case – 3 (fy is fixed but f’c is variable):
A sample table is given below for discussing Case – 3
ls / d b
Bar BNBC
Diameter
(mm) Concrete Strength ( f’c ), (MPa)
10 15 20.5 23.9 26.67 30 35
12 32.49 26.53 22.69 21.02 19.89 18.8 17.37
16 32.49 26.53 22.69 21.02 19.89 18.8 17.37
20 35.39 28.89 24.7 22.89 21.67 20.43 18.92
22 38.92 31.78 27.19 25.18 23.84 22.48 20.8
25 44.23 36.12 30.9 28.6 27.09 25.54 23.6
28 49.54 40.45 35.02 32.04 30.34 28.6 26.5
32 56.62 46.23 39.54 36.6 34.67 32.7 30.3
36 63.69 52 44.49 41.2 39 36.77 34.04
141
ls/db vs db (mm)
70
60
50
BNBC, f'c=10 MPa

40
BNBC, f'c=15 MPa
ls/db
BNBC, f'c=20.5 MPa

BNBC, f'c=23.9 MPa
BNBC, f'c=30 MPa
BNBC, f'c=35 MPa
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
db (mm)
It is also found from case - 3 that the relationship between concrete strength (f’c) and lap splice
length (ls) is inversely proportional. So, when the concrete strength (f’c) increases then lap splice
length (ls) decreases. Here the result of only BNBC design code is shown but other design codes
also show the same results.
142
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
143
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
The primary objective of this study involves reviewing lap splice length under different design
codes. Variation of lap splice length of different design codes has been also compared here.
Parametric study has been performed here. Parameters have been changed in different cases for
completing the analysis.
Main findings are given below:
 After analyzing the sample calculations and graphs from this

chapter, in case -1 (for different f’c & fy) it has been concluded that
among all codes ACI code recommends the larger splice length
for12mm Φ bar. CEB - FIP MODEL recommends larger splice
length for larger bars than 12mm Φ bar. AASTHO and BNBC
design codes recommend smaller lap splice lengths (ls). Lap splice
length (ls) increases when the bar diameter (db) increases. AASTHO
and BNBC design codes also exhibit same splice length for 36 mm
Φ bar or smaller. For ACI design code lap splice length (ls) remains
constant for 20 mm Φ bar and smaller bars and 22mm Φ bar and
larger bars.
 It has been also found from case – 2 (f’c is fixed but fy is variable)
that bars of higher yield strength (fy) require larger lap splice length
(ls).
 From case – 3 (fy is fixed but f’c is variable) it has been observed that
lap splice length (ls) decreases when the concrete strength (f’c)
increases.
144
6.2 Recommendation
As the study is performed only for tension lap splice length, there are also many scopes for
further study covering other possible cases. In this case following may take concern:
 In this project, only parametric study has been performed. In

future lab based experiment can be performed.
 In future, compression lap splice length can be considered.
 Lap splice length in reinforced concrete model of stone aggregate

is concerned in this study. Some studies for brick aggregate will be
highly appreciable.
145
REFERENCES
1. Bangladesh National Building Code BNBC-1993. Housing and building Research

Institute. Darussalam, Mirpur, Dhaka 1218.and Bangladesh Standard and Testing
Institution. 16/ATejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka1208.ISBN 984-30-0086-2, 1993.
2. ACI 408R-03, (2004)“Bond and development of straight reinforcing bars in tension”,

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2004, pp. 49.
3. Nilson H A, Darwin D and Dolan W C (2005) “Design of Concrete Structures” (13th

Edition), TATA, McGraw-Hill Company Ltd, New Delhi.
4. Hassoun N.M.,“ Structural Concrete(Theory and Design)”, Addison –Wesley Publishing

Company, Inc. United States of America.
5. BalaS, K., Krishnamurthy, T. S., G. Krishnan, S., Kumar B, B.M., and Kumar, Girish,
(2004). “Bond characteristics of slag-based HPC”, The Indian Concrete Journal, August
2004, Vol. 78, No. 8, pp. 39-44
6. Darwin D, (2005). “Tension development length and lap splice design for reinforced
concrete members” Published online 12 October 2005 in Wiley Inter Science
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/pse.206
7. Darwin D, Barham S, Kozul R and Luan S.(2001).“Fracture energy of high strength

concrete”. ACI Materials Journal 2001: 98(5): 410–417.
8. Darwin D, McCabe SL, Idun EK and Schoenekase SP.(1992).“Development length

criteria: bars not confined by transverse reinforcement”. ACI Structural Journal1992:
89(6): 709–720.
9. AASHTO.LRFD bridge specifications, 3rdedn.(2004).”American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials”: Washington, DC, 2004.
10. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures (1990). Committee Euro-International du
Beton, c/o Thomas Telford:London, UK.
11. Subramanian N, (2005).“Development length of reinforcing bars — Need to revise

Indian Codal provisions” The Indian Concrete Journal, 2005.
12. ACI 318 – 05 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, October, 2004.
13. ASTM International - ASTM A706 (2009), Standard specification for Low – Alley Steel
Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (ASTM A706/A706M-09b),
ASTM International , West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 6pp.
146
14. FANELLA, D.A. and RABBAT, B.G., ed., Notes on ACI – 318-02, Building code
requirements for structural concrete with design applications, Portland Cement
Association, Illinois, Eighth Edition, 2002.
15. American Welding Society – AWS D1.4 (2011), Structural Welding Code – Reinforcing
Steel (AWS D1.4/ D1.4M: 2011), American Welding Society, Miami, Florida, 85 pp.
16. ASTM International – ASTM A615 (2012), Standard Specification for Deformed and
Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (ASTM A615/A615M-12), ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 6pp.
17. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute – CRSI (2008), Reinforcing Bars: Anchorages and
Splices, 5th Edition, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI), Schaumburg, Illinois,
64 pp.
18. Wight, J.K., and MacGregor, J.G. (2012), Reinforced Concrete – Mechanics and Design,
6th Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1176 pp.
19. De Vial, C., “Performance of Reinforcement Lap Splices in Concrete Masonry”, MSc.
Thesis, Thesis, Washington State University, Washington DC. 2009.
20. Standard Method of Detailing Structural Concrete: A Manual for Best Practice, third
edition, Institution of Structural Engineers, London, UK, 2006, 188 pp.
21. Zuo, J., and Darwin, D., “Splice Strength of Conventional and High Relative Rib Area
Bars in Normal and High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 4, July-
Aug. 2000, pp. 630-641.
22. Park, R. and Paulay, T., "Reinforced Concrete Structures", John Wiley and Sons, New
York, 1975
23. A. Ahmed. Effect of tension lap splice on the behavior of high strength concrete (HSC)
beams’’, (M.Sc. thesis) 1990, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.
24. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Improving Building Performance

Through Multi-Hazard Mitigation, ASCE-FEMA, August, 1995.
25. Mechanical Butt Splices vs. Lap Splicing, study conducted by Cagley and Associates,
Rockville, MD.C546W
147

Splice Length of Reinforcing Bars Calcul PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Splice Length of Reinforcing Bars Calcul PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPLICE LENGTH OF REINFORCING BARS CALCULATED IN

DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES

GAZI NAVID HASAN

S.M. FAHAD HASAN SUMON

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

141 – 142, LOVE ROAD, TEJGAON INDUSTRIAL AREA, DHAKA – 1208

DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES

Gazi Navid Hasan Student No: 11.02.03.065

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

Under the Supervision of

Dr. S. Reza Chowdhury

AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

141 – 142, LOVE ROAD, TEJGAON INDUSTRIAL AREA, DHAKA – 1208

Dr. S. Reza Chowdhury

AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

141 – 142, LOVE ROAD, TEJGAON INDUSTRIAL AREA, DHAKA – 1208

Signature of the Students

Gazi Navid Hasan

S.M. Fahad Hasan Sumon

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.20 Contact Lapped Splices under Cyclic Loading 41

2.21 Contact Tensile Lap Splices Vs Noncontact Tensile Lap Splices 43

2.23 Lap Splices in Tension (ACI 12.14) 45

Chapter 3 REVIEW OF DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES 47

3.3 ACI code (2002) 48

3.4 CEB-FIP Model Code (1990) 50

3.5 Euro code 2 (2003) 51

3.6 BNBC Code (1993) 52

3.7 AASHTO (2007) 53

3.8 Parametric study for splice length 54

Chapter 4 CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS 56

4.2 Case Study 57

4.3 Sample Calculation 58

4.4 Case – 1: Different f’c & fy 64

4.5 Case – 2: f’c is fixed & fy is variable 85

4.6 Case – 3: fy is fixed & f’c is variable 120

Chapter 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 136

5.1 Results and Discussions 137

Chapter 6 CONCLUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 143

6.1 Conclusion 144

6.2 Recommendation 145

Fig 2.1: Reinforced Concrete Slab 7

Fig 2.4: Contact lap splice 10

Fig 2.5: Trench Mesh laps 10

Fig 2.6: Square Mesh Lap 11

Fig 2.7: Reinforcing Bar Lap 11

Fig 2.9: Lap splices in horizontal rebar 12

Fig 2.12: Cold-swaged coupling sleeve 15

Fig 2.13: Taper-Lock Standard Coupler 16

Fig 2.14: Tapper Lock Standard Coupler 17

Fig 2.16: Step 2 17

Fig 2.17: Step 3 18

Fig 2.18: Step 4 18

Fig 2.19: Transitional Coupler 19

Fig 2.20: Positional Coupler 20

Fig 2.21: Flange Coupler 21

Fig 2.22: Cold-Swaged Threaded Coupler 22

Fig 2.23: Grout-Filled/Threaded Coupler 22

Fig 2.24: Coupling Sleeve with Shear Screws 23

Fig 2.25: Grout-Filled Coupling Sleeve 23

Fig 2.26: Shear Screw Coupling Sleeve 24

Fig 2.27: Steel-Filled Coupling Sleeve 24