ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 93-S49
The Performance of Epoxy-Coated Shear Reinforcement
by Jonathan C. McGormley, Douglas B. Cleary, and Julio A. Ramirez
This paper addresses the performance of epoxy-coated stirrups in
reinforced concrete beams under bending and shear. A review of
previous work in bond and detailing of stirrups is presented. The
results of an experimental program are described. From these
results several conclusions are found, supported by ultimate failure
load, deflection, stirrup strain, crack pattern, and crack width
data. All beams reinforced with epoxy-coated stirrups as well as
those with uncoated stirrups failed at higher than calculated shear
capacities from those in ACI 318-89 (Revised 1992)1 and the
proposed AASHTO LRFD 1993 Bridge Specifications.2
Keywords: anchorage (structural); crack width and spacing; detailing;
epoxy resins;reinforced concrete; reinforcing steels; shear stress; stirrups.
INTRODUCTION
Epoxy coating of reinforcement has been used as a method
of corrosion protection for nearly 20 years. This added dura-
bility has its trade-offs in the form of reduced bond strength.
Studies performed by Johnson and Zia,3 Treece and Jirsa,4
and others5 to examine the behavior of epoxy-coated longi-
tudinal reinforcement have demonstrated this deficiency.
Anchorage tests of epoxy-coated hooked bars by Hamad et al.6
revealed that uncoated hooked bars developed greater
anchorage capacities and resulted in less slip than epoxy-
coated hooked bars. These tests were based on No. 7 and No.
11 hooked bars in beam-column joints. They recommended
that the modification factor of 1.2 be used when determining
the basic development lengths for epoxy-coated longitudinal
bars in tension. As a result of these studies, ACI Committee
3181 included a series of modification factors for deter-
mining straight development lengths and anchorage of bars
detailed using standard hooks. These modification factors
were to be applied to all bars in tension including both longi-
tudinal and transverse reinforcement, even though only the
longitudinal bars were studied.
Presently, epoxy-coated stirrups are being used as shear
reinforcement in precast pretensioned bridge girders. Indiana
Bridge Specifications7 require that only epoxy-coated rein-
forcement be used in the bridge deck. Thus, the horizontal
shear reinforcement in composite precast pretensioned girder
construction, which is provided by extending the girder stirrup
reinforcement into the deck, must be epoxy-coated as well.
It is more practical to simply use epoxy-coated stirrups than
to epoxy-coat only the stirrup extensions into the deck.
However, to date there has been very limited research8 on
the performance of epoxy-coated stirrups in beams. The
findings from Clarke’s research consisting of two beam tests
only show a reduction in ultimate capacity with epoxy-coated
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996
TECHNICAL PAPER
stirrups. The two beams failing in shear achieved capacities
of 60.7 kips for the beam using uncoated stirrups and 56.0
kips for the companion beam using epoxy-coated stirrups.
Choi and others9 have investigated the bond of epoxy-coated
reinforcement and have concluded that for coatings between
5 and 12 mils in thickness, deformation patterns control bond
behavior in No. 6 and larger bars while epoxy-coating thick-
ness becomes more critical in No. 5 and smaller bars. Since
most stirrups consist of smaller bar sizes, epoxy coating may
have a more significant impact on anchorage and crack
patterns as well as crack width at service load levels.
Work by Anderson and Ramirez10 demonstrated the effect
various forms of anchorage can have on the shear behavior
of concrete beams. In their study, narrow beam specimens (8
x 20 in.), where the stirrup anchorage detail was the variable,
reached failure at loads in excess of the current ACI Code1
requirements; however, from the mode of failure and final
crack patterns, they concluded that straight embedment
length of U-stirrups should be avoided and that free ends of
U-stirrups should be anchored by standard hooks bent within
the confined concrete core. These tests were carried out
using uncoated stirrups. In ACI 318-89, the practice of
anchorage of stirrups by means of straight embedment was
eliminated. However, this detailing is still used in stirrups
for precast pretensioned bridge girders. Since epoxy
coating reduces the adhesion and friction between the steel
and the concrete, it is likely that the structural performance
of prestressed beams with coated, straight stirrups will be
different from that of similar beams reinforced with
uncoated, straight stirrups.
Work by Choi et al.9 suggested that epoxy-coated longitu-
dinal reinforcement produces wider cracks during service
loads. Cleary11 also presented similar results. Beams rein-
forced with epoxy-coated stirrups are likely to experience
fewer but wider diagonal tension cracks. As the concrete is
subjected to shear stress above its diagonal tensile capacity,
it transfers the stress to the stirrup reinforcement on
cracking. The lower adhesion and friction of epoxy-coated
steel could result in the formation of larger cracks in beams,
thus increasing the strain in the stirrup legs, particularly at
service load levels.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, September-October 1996.
Received June 3, 1994, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 1996, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of
copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
will be published in the July-August 1997 ACI Structural Journal if received by
March 1, 1997.
531
ACI member Jonathan C. McGormley is a structural engineer with Wiss, Janney,
Elstner Associates, Northbrook, Illinois. He received his BSCE from the University of
Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1992, and his MSCE from Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, in 1994.
ACI member Douglas B. Cleary is a structural and coastal engineer with the Federal
Division of Black and Veatch, Kansas City, Missouri. He received a BSCE in 1987, an
MSCE in 1988, and a PhD in 1992 from Purdue University.
ACI member Julio A. Ramirez is a professor of structural engineering at Purdue Univer-
sity. He received a BSCE from Universidad Autonoma de Mexico (ITESO) in 1977, an MS
from the University of Texas at El Paso in 1979, and a PhD from the University of Texas
at Austin in 1983. He is chairman of joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and
Torsion, and a member of joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete, and
ACI Committee 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement.
Fig. 1—Typical Phase 1 and 2 test specimens.
The anchorage of free ends of epoxy-coated stirrups is
further complicated by the fact that they should be properly
anchored throughout their entire height. Belarbi12 reported
that stirrups experience the largest strains at the point where
the diagonal tension crack crosses them. Earlier work by
Kani13 demonstrated that the critical stirrup anchorage
condition exists where the failure crack intersects the stirrup.
Anderson and Ramirez’s9 experimental results further
confirmed Kani’s findings. They concluded that since the
diagonal tension crack crosses stirrups at different locations,
the stirrups must be required to mobilize their yield strength
at any location along their height. Failure of a stirrup to
achieve its yield will result in anchorage pullout and
premature shear failure.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Epoxy-coated stirrups are currently being used in precast
pretensioned bridge girders, and it is likely that where
epoxy-coated longitudinal bars are used, the stirrups will be
epoxy-coated as well. There is limited research concerning
the performance of epoxy-coated shear reinforcement. This
lack of information and the known reduction in bond
strength of epoxy-coated bars warrant an investigation into
the performance of epoxy-coated shear reinforcement. The
reduction in adhesion and friction between the epoxy-coated
reinforcement and the concrete could result in a reduction in
shear capacity due to improper anchorage of the free ends or
insufficient load redistribution, as well as larger crack widths
during service loads. Current ACI 318 shear design
requirements1 as well as stirrup anchorage details have not
been verified with tests of specimens reinforced with epoxy-
coated stirrups. The same lack of verification is found with
532
Fig. 2—Typical Phase 3 test specimens.
the proposed AASHTO LRFD 1993 Bridge Specifications2
based on a modified compression field approach.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
In this program, 12 beams were tested under concentrated
loading. The experimental program was divided into three
phases, each consisting of two sets of companion beams in
terms of stirrup detailing used. Of the four beams in each
phase, two beams had epoxy-coated stirrups for shear rein-
forcement while the remaining two beams had uncoated
shear reinforcement. The stirrups were No. 3 U-bars on 8-in.
centers in the longitudinal direction. The average epoxy
coating thickness on the No. 3 stirrups for Phases 1 and 2 was
9.8 ± 2.3 mils. Phase 3 coating thickness was 13.8 ± 1.7 mils.
Tensile flexural reinforcement was provided by four No. 9
bars (ρw = 0.0303). In addition, two No. 8 bars were placed
in the flexural compression zone of the beams. To eliminate
the flexural behavior as a variable in a shear study, all longi-
tudinal reinforcement was uncoated. The steel used was
Grade 60. All bar deformation patterns were a diagonal rib
pattern. Actual concrete compressive strengths ranged
between 5120 and 8215 psi as given in Table 1, Column 2.
Four different stirrup details were employed. Fig. 1 and 2
show a typical beam and the various stirrup details included
in the experimental program. The specimen identification is
“B” for uncoated stirrups or “E” for epoxy-coated stirrups.
The next two or three letters identify the type of stirrup
detailing used: U-stirrup (U), inverted (I), straight embed-
ment (S), and hooked anchorage (H). The phase number is
given as the last term. Beams BUH-1, EUH-1, BUIH-2,
EUIH-2, BUH-3, and EUH-3 met ACI code1 requirements
for development of web reinforcement. In the remaining
beams the stirrup legs were anchored by means of straight
embedment length. Although the current ACI code1 does not
allow this type of anchorage for the free ends of stirrups, it is
still a popular detail in precast pretensioned bridge girder
and cast-in-place bridge girder construction because of
manufacturing or construction convenience. This detailing
was also included in this study to establish a lower bound for
available anchorage, since the modification factor of 1.2
adopted by the code4 has not been experimentally verified
when applied to stirrup leg development lengths.
All the specimens were loaded as shown in Fig. 2. This
resulted in an a/d ratio of 3.27. The load was applied in
increments of approximately 2500 lb at each load point. For
the beams in Phase 1, monotonic loading continued incre-
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996
Table 1—McGormley, Cleary, and Ramirez
Vtest, Vtest,
Specimen fc′, psi Vtest, kips Vn (ACI) Vn (AASHTO) n* Mode of failure
BUS-1 6125 61.0 1.22 1.37 5.90 Shear compression
EUS-1 6260 67.0 1.34 1.50 6.42 Shear compression
BUH-1 6600 62.0 1.22 1.37 5.78 Shear compression
EUH-1 6440 69.0 1.37 1.53 6.51 Shear compression
BUIS-2 5120 71.0 1.47 1.65 7.52 Shear compression
EUIS-2 6995 70.0 1.37 1.53 6.34 Shear compression
BUIH-2 7250 75.0 1.45 1.63 6.67 Shear compression
EUIH-2 7320 72.0 1.39 1.56 6.38 Shear compression
BUH-3 7735 65.0 1.24 1.39 5.60 Shear compression
EUH-3 7980 70.0 1.33 1.49 5.94 Shear compression
BUIS-3 8215 60.0 1.13 1.28 5.02 Shear compression
EUIS-3 8135 60.0 1.13 1.29 5.04 Shear compression
*n = normalized average shear stress.

mentally until failure. In Phases 2 and 3, loading was applied

in cycles with an increasing peak load in each cycle. The
beams were loaded to failure after four cycles.
Strains and midspan deflections were recorded at each load
increment. Cracks were traced on the whitewashed beams to
follow actual patterns. Additionally, in Phases 2 and 3, crack
widths were measured at load increments following each
cycle. The cracks selected for monitoring were diagonal
tension cracks expected to become the failure crack.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Nominal strength
The failure shears listed in Column 3 of Table 1 indicate
that one-half of the beams using epoxy-coated stirrups
achieved higher capacities than their uncoated counterparts.
Therefore, epoxy coating did not clearly influence ultimate
load capacity within the bounds of scatter normally associ-
ated with shear tests. Fig. 3 shows typical midspan deflec-
tions for beams with similar stirrup detailing comparing
coated against uncoated performance. Larger deflections
were recorded initially in beams reinforced with epoxy-
coated stirrups. The difference increased with the additional
load cycles, but at failure loads the difference decreased.
A comparison of the test failure values to the ACI calcu-
lated capacities is presented as the ratio of the experimental
shear strength to the ACI shear strength for each beam in
Table 1, Column 4. It should be noted that the ACI code1
limits the yield strength of the deformed bar shear reinforce-
ment to 60 ksi. The yield strength of the uncoated and coated
stirrups and the longitudinal steel in this study exceeded 60 ksi.
A procedure based on a modified compression field theory
approach has been implemented for shear design in the
proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications.2 Using the
proposed design process, shear capacities were estimated for
each specimen. The results of a comparison between
proposed AASHTO capacities and test results is presented in
the form of a ratio of experimental results to calculated
capacities as seen in Table 1, Column 5. These ratios show the
AASHTO approach as being more conservative than the ACI
design method. As with the ACI code,1 a prescribed limit of
60 ksi is imposed on the yield strength of the reinforcement.
Both approaches result in conservative estimates of the shear
capacity of all specimens tested for nominal average shear
stresses up to 7.5 f c ′ as shown in Column 6 of Table 1.
Stirrup detailing
All test specimens exceeded their calculated shear
strengths according to the ACI code.1 Stirrup strain readings
Fig. 3—Deflection comparison between beams with similar
stirrup detail and different bar coating.
indicate that some slip of the stirrups did occur in 10 of the
12 beams. However, the slip did not prevent yielding of the
stirrups.
In one case, inspection of the stirrups after failure
revealed damage to the epoxy coating caused by apparent
slipping. Fig. 4 presents this damage along Stirrup Leg 4 in
Beam EUIS-3 with the free ends of the stirrup anchored by
means of straight embedment. There was no apparent epoxy
damage in any of the other five beams utilizing epoxy-coated
stirrups. The strain readings indicate that stirrups without the
epoxy coating are just as likely to slip along the anchorage
length as the epoxy-coated stirrups and that the stirrup detail
used has more effect on preventing slip to occur than does
the absence of epoxy coating. The torn epoxy further verifies
the presence of slip, particularly in details using straight
embedment. These observations are limited to No. 3 stirrups
for the anchorage details tested in this study.
The use of U-stirrups with 90-deg hooks, whether upright
or inverted, increased the shear capacities for all of the
beams whether using uncoated or epoxy-coated shear
reinforcement. Examination after failure of the beams
using U-stirrups with 90 deg hooks revealed that the
hooks had been opened.
An increased brittleness at failure was observed in the
Phase 2 beams with the stirrups anchored in the flexural
tension zone. Large portions of the tension side concrete

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996 533

Fig. 4—Epoxy coating damage in Beam EUIS-3 caused by slip.
Fig. 5—Loss of tension zone concrete in Beam EUIS-2.
disintegrated at failure, exposing the longitudinal steel. This
was noticeably different to the failures of Phases 1 and 3
beams that failed in a far less brittle manner. Fig. 5 shows the
tension side of Beam EUIS-2 after failure. Beams BUIS-3
and EUIS-3 also had inverted U-stirrups and did not fail in a
brittle mode. However, their failure loads were below those
of Phase 2, as shown by the normalized average shear stress
in Column 6 of Table 1.
Stirrup strains
Strain gages were placed at the midheight of each stirrup
leg for Phases 1 and 2 (see Fig. 1). Stirrups, at locations
where cracks crossed a gage, showed higher strains than
those where cracks crossed stirrups away from the gage. The
largest strains were found to occur in the stirrups where the
failure crack crossed the gage. In an attempt to record
maximum strain readings, strain gages were placed on each
stirrup leg in a pattern reflecting the expected failure crack
for beams in Phase 3. The locations were selected based on
the failure crack patterns observed in Phases 1 and 2. The xes
in Fig. 2 represent stirrup strain gage placement.
Beams BUH-1 and BUH-3 typify the varied stirrup strain
behavior of test specimens using the same reinforcement
detail. Fig. 6 shows the stirrup strains for the northeast side
of Beam BUH-1. Included is the failure crack pattern for the
534
Fig. 6—Stirrup strains and failure cracks for northeast
quarter of Beam BUH-1.
northeast quarter of the beam. From Fig. 6 the measured
strain readings at the stirrup midheight for Stirrup Legs 10
and 12 are found below the yield strain for No. 3 bars.
Measured strains in Stirrup Legs 4 and 6 reveal that the yield
strain was achieved. The gage on Stirrup Leg 8 was
damaged, so no readings were available.
The failure crack pattern for Beam BUH-1, presented in
Fig. 6, shows the diagonal shear cracks crossing Stirrups 10
and 12 near the stirrup ends. In contrast, cracks are shown
crossing Stirrups 4, 6, and 8 at the midheights, producing the
largest strain readings. The importance of anchorage length
is apparent when looking at these results since the failure
crack produces the largest strains at the intersection with the
stirrup leg. With the Phase 3 gage placement pattern, strains
were recorded on stirrup legs closer to the ultimate failure
crack. Fig. 7 presents the southwest side of Beam BUH-3
and the failure crack pattern for that portion of the beam as
well. Stirrup Legs 17, 19, 21, and 23 reached yield. From the
figure it appears that Stirrup Leg 25 is within the compres-
sion zone of the point load and therefore undergoes small
tensile strains. The crack diagram shows the failure cracks
crossing the stirrup legs near the gage locations.
Because stirrup strain behavior is highly influenced by
crack location relative to the gages, a comparison of average
strain readings was used. This was particularly useful when
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996
comparing strain measurements of beams using epoxy-coated
stirrups and those using uncoated stirrups.
Using a ratio of the average of all stirrup strains at a partic-
ular load for epoxy bars to an average of all stirrup strains for
uncoated bars at the same load, an E/U ratio was plotted versus
load for the beams in Phase 3. Fig. 8 shows that initially the E/
U ratio is about 1.65; with increased load, the ratio reduces to
1.35. Only the Phase 3 beams were examined because the
gage position better followed the failure crack.
As the load approached the ultimate shear capacity, no
definite difference in the rate of increase in stirrup strain for
either epoxy-coated or uncoated stirrups occurred. Strain
readings after initial diagonal cracking suggest beams
utilizing epoxy-coated stirrups will be associated with larger
crack widths as a result of increased stirrup strains. Larger
crack widths imply an increased exposure to environmental
conditions, opening the possibility for corrosion in the event
of coating failure. At failure, however, the type of end
anchorage detail determined the load-carrying capacity, with
the coating playing a diminished role.

Crack widths
Crack widths were measured on all Phase 2 and 3 beams,
beginning at the start of diagonal cracking and continuing at
various load increments for all cycles. Cracks were monitored
on both ends of the beams. In Phase 2, the crack monitored
was the crack predicted to be the ultimate failure crack.
Three points were measured on each crack, with the average
taken as the crack width at that particular location. The crack
behaviors were erratic as the beams redistributed applied
load. Cracks in Beam BUIS-3 remained very small (< 0.001
in.) before growing very wide just prior to failure (> 0.060
in.). The cracks in Beam BUH-3, on the other hand, grew
steadily with each incremental load to a width of 0.038 in.
before failure. Averaging the crack widths for an entire beam
seemed an appropriate means to form crack width compari-
sons between beams with epoxy-coated and uncoated stirrups. Fig. 7—Stirrup strains and failure cracks for northeast
Using a ratio of the average of all crack widths at a partic- quarter of Beam BUH-3.
ular load for epoxy bars to an average of all crack widths for
uncoated bars at the same load, an E/U ratio was plotted
versus load for all Phase 2 and 3 beams. Fig. 9 shows that
initially the E/U ratio is greater than 1 for all but the 3. Regardless of the end anchorage detail, epoxy-coated
companion pair of beams with the inverted stirrups and stirrups were associated with wider cracks in the beams. This
straight embedment for free ends in Phase 3. A more was determined from stirrup strain readings and average
comprehensive crack measurements program must be estab- crack width measurements.
lished to completely verify this observation. 4. The inverted stirrup details result in a more brittle and
explosive failure, at least at higher shear stress levels as
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS shown by the specimens in Phase 2. The beams with stirrup-
An investigation into the performance of epoxy-coated free ends anchored with 90-deg hooks achieved slightly
stirrups in beams was carried out using stirrups with various higher capacities than beams using stirrups with only straight
anchorage schemes for the free ends. A total of 12 beams embedment.
were tested utilizing both uncoated and coated No. 3 stirrups. 5. Measured stirrup strains indicate that a low number of
An examination of the test data reveals the following: slow load cycles with the largest average stress range of 44 ksi
1. Both ACI 318-89 (revised 1992)1 and the proposed in the stirrups resulted in larger slip to occur in the epoxy-coated
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications’2 calculated capaci- stirrups and larger midspan deflections. However, nearly all
ties were conservative when compared to test values of spec- beams, both uncoated and coated, had some stirrup legs slip
imens with coated and uncoated stirrups. prior to failure as the load redistributed internally.
2. Epoxy-coated stirrups for the size and anchorage
schemes tested had no negative impact on the ultimate shear RECOMMENDATIONS
strength of the beams within the bounds of scatter normally Based on findings from this exploratory study, the
associated with shear tests. The anchorage detail for the free anchorage of free ends of No. 3 epoxy-coated stirrups for
ends of the stirrups played a more significant role in terms of shear provided by current ACI requirements1 and the shear
failure capacity than the absence or presence of epoxy-coating strength provided by this reinforcement are adequate.
for the tests conducted in this study. Caution should be exercised in extending these findings to

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996 535

 Fig. 8—E/U ratio comparison of stirrup strains for Phase 3 beams.

Fig. 9—E/U ratio comparison of average crack widths for Phase 2 and 3 beams.

larger diameter bars used as shear reinforcement. Despite
conservative ultimate capacities when compared with ACI
and AASHTO, and based on the larger slip observed during
these tests for epoxy-coated stirrups in conjunction with the
earlier findings by Hamad et al.,6 it is recommended that
further testing of beams with No. 4 and 5 stirrups verify
current anchorage details for stirrup-free ends in larger bar
sizes. The observed larger slip, particularly at service load
levels, implies larger crack widths and increased exposure to
environmental conditions. Further work is also necessary to
determine the adequacy of some details for shear of epoxy-
coated longitudinal reinforcement, for example, anchorage
at simple supports and points of inflection.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work described formed part of the MS thesis of the first author under
the direction of the third author. The tests in Phase 1 were conducted by the
second author under the direction of the third author. The research was funded
with partial support from Purdue University, the Indiana Department of
Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of the sponsors.

536 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996

 CONVERSION FACTORS ing Bars,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 86, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1989, pp. 167-174.
1 in. = 25.4 mm 5. Mathey, R. G., and Clifton, J. R., “Bond of Coated Reinforcing Bars in
1 lb (mass) = 0.4536 kg Concrete,” Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil
1 lb (force) = 4.4482 N Engineers, V. 120, No. ST1, Jan. 1976, pp. 215-228.
1 psi = 6.895 Pa 6. Hamad, B. S.; Jirsa, J. O.; and D’Abreu de Paulo, N. I., “Anchorage
1 kip = 4448.2 N Strength of Epoxy-Coated Hooked Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,
No. 2, Mar-Apr. 1993, pp. 210-219.
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
7. “1993 Standard Specifications,” Indiana Department of Transporta-
1 kip-in. = 0.113 k
tion, 718 pp.
8. Clarke, J. L., “Tests on Fusion-Bonded Epoxy-Coated Steel,” Report
NOTATION No. RN1.025.01, British Cement Association, Slough, 1992, 23 pp.
a = length of shear span, in. 9. Choi, O.; Hadje-Ghaffari, H.; Darwin, D.; and McCabe, S., “Bond of
d = effective depth of concrete member, in. Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement: Bar Parameters,” ACI Materials Journal,
n = normalized average shear stress, Vtest /(bd) f c ′ V. 88, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1991, pp. 207-217.
ρw = tension steel reinforcement ratio 10. Anderson, N. S., and Ramirez, J. A., “Effect of the Detailing of Stir-
rup Reinforcement on the Ultimate Strength and Behavior of Reinforced
REFERENCES Concrete Members Failing in Shear,” CE-STR-87-2, Purdue University,
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced West Lafayette, 1987, 380 pp.
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318R-89/318-89) (Revised 1992),” Amer- 11. Cleary, D. B., “Bond of Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement under
ican Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1992, 353 pp. Repeated Loading,” CE-STR-92-13, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
2. “Proposed AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications,” Apr. 1993. 1992, 260 pp.
3. Johnston, D. W., and Zia, P., “Bond Characteristics of Epoxy-Coated 12. Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Stirrup Stresses in Reinforced Concrete
Reinforcing Bars,” Report No. FHWA-NC-82-002, Federal Highway Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1990, pp. 530-538.
Administration, Washington, D.C., 1982, 163 pp. 13. Kani, G. N. J., “Rational Theory for the Function of Web Reinforce-
4. Treece, R. A., and Jirsa, J. O., “Bond Strength of Epoxy-Coated Reinforc- ment,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 3, Mar. 1969, pp. 185-197.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996 537