Cite this article Research Article Keywords: beams & girders/concrete

Rezaiee-Pajand M, Karimipour A and Attari M Paper 1900078 structures/design methods & aids
A precise splice-length model for reinforced concrete structures. Received 04/04/2019;
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings, Accepted 18/02/2020
https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.19.00078
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Structures and Buildings

A precise splice-length model for reinforced

concrete structures
Mohammad Rezaiee-Pajand PhD Mohammad Attari MSc
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran (Orcid:0000-0002-8808-0011) Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
(corresponding author: rezaiee@um.ac.ir)
Arash Karimipour MSc
Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Various mathematical expressions have been proposed to evaluate or check the lapped length in spliced
bars subjected to tension in reinforced concrete members. In this work, 284 tests on spliced bars were assessed
in an attempt to improve the previous formulas, with the aim of proposing a new model to predict the lapped
length, the transverse reinforcement spacing and the bond stress distribution in concrete beams with different
compressive strengths. A genetic algorithm was used to optimise the proposed formulation. For both normal-
and high-strength concrete, different bond-stress profiles were developed to predict the resistance provided
by bonded embedment. The results clearly show that the proposed bond stress profiles lead to a more
accurate evaluation of the lapped length in spliced bars than the expression proposed by the American Concrete
Institute.

Notation 1. Introduction
Ab area of longitudinal reinforcing bar The ductility and flexural capacity of reinforced concrete (RC)
At area of transverse reinforcing bar beams are reduced if there is insufficient lapped length. In
C minimum of [Cx, Cy, (Cs + db)/2] addition to providing sufficient lapped length to provide the
Cb bottom side cover of reinforcing bars embedment with adequate capacity and to guarantee structural
Cmax maximum value of Cs or Cb (Cmax/Cmin = 3.5) ductility, the beam should be reinforced with suitable transverse
Cmed median of [Cx, Cy, (Cs + db)/2] reinforcement. According to Azizinamini et al. (1999a), sufficient
Cmin minimum value of Cs or Cb (Cmax/Cmin = 3.5) transverse reinforcement should be provided over the lapped
Cs0 lateral side cover of reinforcing bars length in order to attain sufficient flexural strength. Azizinamini
Cs spacing between spliced bars et al. (1999a, 1999b) also concluded that providing enough trans-
Cx side cover verse reinforcement is necessary for the proper resistance and
Cy bottom cover ductility of the beam. By examining the effect of different par-
db bar diameter ameters on the ductility of lap-spliced concrete beams, it was
fc′ compressive strength of concrete found that adequate transverse reinforcement should be provided
fR factor to include the effect of relative rib area along the lapped length to offer sufficient ductility.
on bond strength
fy yield strength of transverse reinforcement Azizinamini et al. (1999a) presented equations to calculate the
L lapped length required development length and lapped length of reinforcing
lc support width bars, which were based on previous studies on normal-strength
ld development length concrete (NSC). By modifying these previous equations, they
M additional parameter proposed a new formula for determining the lapped length of
Mu maximum flexural moment high-strength concrete (HSC). Moreover, they presented an
P applied load appropriate equation for determining the effect of transverse
R relative rib area = projected rib area normal to reinforcement on the bond–slip and the behaviour of RC
bar axis/(normal bar perimeter
centre-to-centre beams with a lapped length. In another study (Azizinamini
rib spacing) et al., 1999b), they modified the previous equation to compute
S spacing of transverse reinforcement the required lapped length to satisfy adequate ductility and
T maximum tensile strength bond strength. As a result, the American Concrete Institute
u bond strength (ACI, 2014) model for determining the lapped length for con-
uc maximum bond strength distribution cretes of strength greater than 70 MPa was improved.
ucalc calculated bond strength Azizinamini et al. (1999b) concluded that adequate ductility
utest measured bond strength can be obtained using a minimum lapped length.

1
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
Bond–slip is an important factor in controlling both the devel-
opment length and the lapped length, and it is commonly
determined using a pull-out test. Based on the stress distri-
bution along the lapped length and using pull-out tests,
Tepfers (1973) suggested an equation to determine both the
development length and the lapped length. Tepfers performed
various tests on more than 300 spliced beams, and the exper-
imental results showed good agreement with the theory.
Considering both NSC and HSC, Zuo and Darwin (2000)
studied the effect of high relative rib area bars on the
development/spliced length and compared the obtained results
by Tepfers with outcomes based on the formula suggested by
ACI committee 408 (ACI, 2014). They concluded that the ACI
formula could not provide accurate development and lapped
lengths for each relative rib area bar.
Mander et al. (1988) proposed a new model based on the tie
method to determine the slip in RC beams. This model con-
tained an interface element that characterised the interface
between concrete and rebars using truss elements. According
to their investigation, the proposed model was suitable for
large-scale computations, they provided a valued alternative to
the no-slip relation hypothesis and correctly captured crack
propagation in RC beams.
In other research, Khalil et al. (1999) presented a new method
for modelling reinforcement and the bar–concrete interface.
New formulations were derived for special elements represent-
ing the steel–concrete interface. In particular, a thin isopara-
metric element was recommended to model bond–slip
characteristics. The outcomes were noted to reflect a softer
overall response attributable to the slip effect.
Brunesi et al. (2015) studied both the local and global
performance of a precast concrete sandwich panel using the
finite-element method with three-dimensional brick elements
and two-dimensional interface elements. Shear, tension and com-
pression conditions were applied to the models and geometrical
non-linearities were considered using the large-displacement
large-strain formulation. For the material characteristics, the
von Mises yielding criterion for steel elements and a classical
total strain crack model for concrete were considered. A bond–
slip constitutive law was also applied to reproduce the steel
profile–concrete layer interaction. The constitutive models were
first calibrated based on preliminary pull-out tests for steel and
concrete. According to the results obtained, the structural be-
haviour was then quantified under various loading conditions
with the aim of assessing performance during production, trans-
port, construction and service conditions.
Luo and Li (2012) optimised the design of bonded steel–
concrete beams. The steel beam was embedded in concrete
with no significant slip. They considered the bond–slip
between concrete and steel in a steel–concrete composite beam
connected by adhesives rather than metal connectors and
2
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari
presented an example of the design optimisation of a single-
span adhesive-bonded steel–concrete beam.
Dominguez et al. (2005) assessed the crack distribution in RC
beams using a model of bond and slip of the reinforcement.
Using a RC model subjected to traction forces, including
bonding to a classical band damage model of concrete, the
crack patterns in RC beams were numerically predicted. The
outcomes of this work indicated that the effect of concrete
heterogeneities in numerical analysis could directly affect the
configuration of the crack pattern (Chaboki et al., 2018, 2019a,
2019b; Farokhpour Tabrizi et al., 2019; Ghalehnovi et al., 2019)
In another study, Darwin et al. (1996) considered the effects of
both the relative rib area and the concrete cover on the behav-
iour of RC beams with a lapped length. In this research, 83
specimens with different rebar diameters and concrete covers
were fabricated and tested. The main purpose of the inves-
tigation was to determine the effect of relative rib area
and concrete cover on the increase in bond strength provided
by confining reinforcement. The results showed that the
maximum values of the development length and the lapped
length modification factor, used for epoxy-coated reinforce-
ment, may be reduced by 20% as a result of using epoxy-
coated reinforcement. The bond effect of epoxy-coated
reinforcement was also considered in other studies (Choi et al.,
1991; Hester et al., 1993; Treece and Jirsa, 1989).
Cross-section dimensions are another essential factor in deter-
mining the lapped length. Thompson et al. (1979) investigated
both the development length and the lapped length in narrow
beam sections. Other variables were also evaluated, such as the
concrete cover, transverse reinforcement and casting direction.
According to the results, modification of the design equation
for the strength of splices in wide sections was not needed.
Investigators have demonstrated that relationships among
different parameters can be obtained by minimising the error
using a genetic algorithm (GA). Mahmoudi et al. (2011) used
a GA to determine a relationship for Chaboche kinematic
hardening and many other studies have been carried out to
find accurate equations using GAs (González-Taboada et al.,
2016; Jian, 2016; Karimipour and Esfahani, 2017; Sobolev
and Amirjanov, 2010). Furthermore, researchers have
presented several ways of parameter determination for different
tests (Rezaiee-Pajand and Sinaie, 2009).
In the work presented in this paper, the effects of different
parameters were considered with the aim of determining a
more accurate evaluation of the lapped length in spliced bars
by minimising the related errors. Various effects due to the
concrete coating, lapped length, cross-section, reinforcement
ratio, concrete strength and bond stress were evaluated. The
amount of transverse reinforcement needed for a lapped length
while providing sufficient ductility was determined. The aimed
 Structures and Buildings
of this work was to derive a proper formula that can be used
for both NSC and HSC. The results obtained using the
proposed formula were compared with those from the
ACI408R-04 (ACI, 2014) specification. The comparison
clearly demonstrated the superiority of the new formula.
2. Concept of genetic programming (GP)
Developed by Koza (1992) with the aim of generating novel
solutions for complex problems, GP is an extension of the con-
ventional GA method. Unlike a GA, which uses a string of
numbers to represent the solution, GP automatically creates
several computer programs (CP) with a parse tree structure to
solve the problem being considered. The process of solving the
problem with GP is equivalent to searching a space of possible
CPs to find the fittest individual CP (Koza, 1992). The gener-
ated CP is based on the Darwinian concept of survival and
reproduction of the fittest, as well as appropriate mating of the
CPs. As demonstrated in Figure 1, the problem is solved using
Darwinian genetic operations such as reproduction, cross-over
and mutation. The initial population consists of randomly
generated CPs that are composed of functions and terminals
appropriate to the characteristics of the problem. If the
functions and terminals selected are not appropriate for the
problem, the desired solution cannot be achieved.
As already stated, the CPs are composed of functions and term-
inals. The functions can be standard arithmetic operators,
Start
Generate initial
random population
Evaluate fitness of each
individiual in the
population
Gen = Gen + 1
Termination criteria Yes
End
satisfied
No
Apply genetic operations
Reproduction Cross-over Mutation
New population
Figure 1. Flowchart of GP
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari
+
/ –
× sin x z
x y z
Figure 2. A typical expression tree
trigonometric, logarithmic or power functions ( f = {/,
, + , − ,
sin, cos, log 2, power, …} and/or any mathematical functions,
logical functions or user-defined operators. Depending on the
nature of the problem investigated, the CP might be Boolean-
valued, integer-valued, real-valued, complex-valued, vector-
valued, symbolic-valued or multiple-valued (Koza, 1992). A
typical expression tree representing the CP is shown in Figure 2.
In this example, the function set (F) is composed of multipli-
cation, division addition, subtraction and the sine function,
F = {
, /, − , sin}. The terminal set (T ) is composed of N = 3
variables (T = {x, y, z}). In order to solve the problem with an
appropriate representation (Koza, 1992), the functions and
terminals must fulfil two important properties – closure and
sufficiency. The closure property includes protection of the
function set and the terminal set against all possible argument
values (e.g. protection of negative square root). The sufficiency
property is the selection of appropriate functions and terminals
to solve the problem at hand. Genetic operations used in GP
are composed of reproduction, cross-over and mutation. The
reproduction operation involves selecting, in proportion to its
fitness, a CP from the current population of programs and
allowing it to survive by copying it into the new population.
Several different types of reproduction operations are com-
monly used in GP (e.g. proportionate fitness reproduction or
roulette wheel algorithm, tournament selection and lexico-
graphic parsimony pressure selection). In this study, lexico-
graphic parsimony pressure selection was used, which is a
multi-objective method similar to tournament selection. This
particular method optimises both fitness and parse tree size.
To lessen the number of individuals, the tree with fewer nodes
is selected as the fittest when two individuals are equally fit.
Silva and Almeida (2003) reported that this technique was
effective in controlling bloat, which is a phenomenon consist-
ing of excessive code growth without a corresponding improve-
ment in fitness. The theory of parsimony pressure is discussed
in detail by Poli and McPhee (2013). The standard method of
controlling bloat is to set up a maximum depth on trees in the
proposed GP model. The cross-over operation involves choos-
ing random nodes in two-parent trees and swapping respective
branches to create two new offspring. The cross-over operation
3
 Structures and Buildings
Parent I
+ –
/ –
× Sin x z / exp
x y z x
Cross-over operation
Offspring I
+
/ –
x 2 x z
/ exp
× Sin
y 
x z
Figure 3. Cross-over operation in GP
is illustrated in Figure 3. In the mutation operation, ‘a random
node is selected from the parent tree and substituted by a
new random tree created with the terminals and the functions
available’ (Silva and Almeida, 2003: p. 273). This is known as
tree mutation. However, Koza (1992) stated that mutation
plays a minor role in GP and it can therefore be disregarded in
most cases.
3. Research significance
In previously published works, different equations were pro-
posed to predict the lapped length in spliced bars by consider-
ing different parameters – compressive strength, transverse
reinforcement spacing, rebar diameter and so on. These
models were based on linear regression and generally have
poor agreement with experimental outcomes. In this work, an
attempt was made to try and increase the accuracy of models
to forecast lapped length, transverse reinforcement spacing and
the bond stress distribution by considering different par-
ameters. To reach this goal, a GA was used.
4. Governing equations
Various related formulas available in the literature are now
briefly introduced. These formulas were used as basic
equations to develop new models. In this study, a goal function
that includes previous formulas was defined. A GA was then
applied to minimise the goal function with the aim of
4
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari
Parent II L
Rebar
Abfs
+ ×
u
z z
Bond stress distribution
2 y
uc
Figure 4. Bond stress distribution
Offspring II
–
obtaining more accurate models to predict the lapped length,
+ × transverse reinforcement spacing and the bond stress
distribution.
z z
The bond strength between reinforcement and concrete (both
NSC and HSC) is obtained using (ACI408R-04 (ACI, 2014);
y
Esfahani and Kianoush, 2005)

1 þ ð1=MÞ Cmed
u ¼ uc p ffiffiffiffiffi
ffi 0:88 þ 0:12
1:85 þ 0:024 M C
1:  
At Ab
1 þ 0:015
CS
where uc is the maximum bond stress distribution and M is the
additional parameter. It is assumed that this distribution is
formed according to Figure 4. In Equation 1, Cmed is the
average of Cx, Cy and (Cs + db)/2 and C is the minimum of Cx,
Cy and (Cs + db)/2 (Cx and Cy are the lateral and lower side
cover on the reinforcement (in mm), respectively, Cs is the dis-
tance between the lapped length (in mm), db is the diameter of
the reinforcement (in mm)). Furthermore, At is the area of
transverse reinforcement and S is the spacing of the transverse
reinforcement (in mm) (Karimipour, 2017).
The stress in the transverse reinforcement depends on the
cracking pattern of the concrete cover. In fact, tension force is
transferred from the concrete to the transverse reinforcement
after cracking. For a large ratio of cover to reinforcement
diameter (C/db), the transferred force is high. Therefore, if the
amount of transverse reinforcement is insufficient, boundary
resistance is not provided and the beam fails suddenly. If C/db
is high, it is necessary to increase the amount of transverse
reinforcement (At/S) to provide bond strength. Therefore, the
ratio (At/S)/(C/db) was evaluated to determine the appropriate
amount of transverse reinforcement. The ratio (At/S)/(C/Ab)
can also be used to determine the sufficient amount of trans-
verse reinforcement. A sufficient amount of transverse
reinforcement should be applied over the lapped length and
the bond strength can be calculated by using Equation 1.
These results are presented in Table 1. The relationships
 Structures and Buildings A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

Table 1. Previous results for the lapped length of spliced bars confined with transverse reinforcement
Specimen f0c: MPa L: mm dd: mm At/s: mm C/db utest/ucalc AtAb/CS: mm2 (At/S)/(C/db): mm2

Darwin et al. (1996)

2.1-8S0 36.75 610 25.4 0.82 1.33 1.19 12.28 0.62
3.4-8C0 35.77 610 25.4 0.47 2.00 0.96 4.65 0.23
3.5-8C0 26.67 711 25.4 0.8 1.00 1.16 15.96 0.80
4.1-8S0 28.63 610 25.4 1.25 1.25 1.33 19.88 1.00
5.1-8SH0 29.33 610 25.4 0.82 1.25 1.37 13.05 0.65
5.4-8SH0 29.33 610 25.4 0.82 1.25 1.25 13.05 0.65
5.5-8C0 29.33 610 25.4 0.47 1.41 0.95 6.63 0.33
6.1-8SH0 29.54 610 25.4 1.66 0.92 1.46 35.93 1.80
6.4-8C0 29.54 406 25.4 0.35 1.34 0.95 5.20 0.26
8.1-8N0 26.81 610 25.4 1.66 0.95 1.63 34.76 1.74
9.3-8N0 29.61 610 25.4 0.23 1.82 1.04 2.56 0.13
10.3-8N0 29.75 660 25.4 0.22 1.80 1.05 2.39 0.12
10.4-8N0 29.75 508 25.4 1.25 1.92 1.27 12.97 0.65
11.2-8N0 30.66 457 25.4 1.11 1.88 1.35 11.74 0.59
12.1-5N0 28.84 254 15.9 1.00 1.33 1.08 9.31 0.75
12.3-5N0 28.84 254 15.9 0.28 2.07 1.01 1.69 0.14
13.2-5N0 28.77 305 15.9 0.23 2.10 1.02 1.38 0.11
14.5-5N0 29.4 305 15.9 0.47 1.94 1.11 3.01 0.24
15.2-11N0 36.75 686 35.8 1.66 1.14 1.67 40.91 1.46
15.3-11N0 36.75 1016 35.8 0.7 1.08 1.29 18.33 0.65
16.4-11B0 36.26 1016 35.8 0.28 1.31 1.11 6.02 0.21
17.4-11B0 32.97 965 35.8 0.59 1.32 1.28 12.54 0.45
17.5-11B0 32.97 762 35.8 1.16 1.35 1.33 24.18 0.86
18.4-11B0 32.90 1016 35.8 0.42 1.33 1.24 8.91 0.32
Rezansoff et al. (1993)
1a 27.30 750 25.2 0.25 1.02 1.41 4.89 0.25
3a 27.30 750 25.2 0.25 1.01 1.32 4.97 0.25
4a 27.80 900 29.9 0.14 0.99 1.25 3.34 0.14
1b 26.20 750 25.2 0.25 1.02 1.35 4.89 0.25
3b 26.20 750 25.2 0.25 1.01 1.21 4.97 0.25
4b 25.70 1125 29.9 0.14 0.99 1.21 3.34 0.14
6 25.00 560 25.2 0.71 1.01 1.26 13.9 0.70
7 25.00 375 25.2 2.14 1.01 1.46 42.16 2.13
8 25.00 300 25.2 2.01 1.50 1.1 26.47 1.34
9 26.80 850 29.9 1.18 0.99 1.57 28.06 1.20
10 28.20 560 29.9 2.51 0.99 1.90 59.75 2.55
Ferguson and Breen (1965)
8F30b 18.30 762 25.4 0.18 1.50 1.05 2.42 0.12
8F36c 19.20 914 25.4 0.15 1.47 0.99 2.05 0.10
8F36h 13.40 914 25.4 0.32 1.59 0.99 4.02 0.20
8F36j 12.70 914 25.4 0.32 1.50 1.17 4.26 0.21
11R36a 21.10 1290 35.0 0.42 1.47 1.35 7.95 0.29
Ferguson and Briceno (1969)
14S3 21.10 762 42.9 0.79 1.42 1.17 18.72 0.56
18S2-4 legs 18.30 1524 57.2 0.61 1.33 1.37 20.47 0.46
18S3-4 legs 32.50 1829 57.2 0.22 1.33 1.11 7.56 0.17
Thompson et al. (1979)
8.15.4/2/2.6/6S5 24.60 381 25.4 0.56 2.00 1.37 5.59 0.28
11.20.4/2/2.6/6S5 23.80 508 35.8 0.56 1.42 1.16 11.11 0.40
11.20.4/2/2.6/6S2.9 25.30 508 35.8 0.97 1.42 1.37 19.16 0.68
11.30.4/2/2.6/6S5 21.40 762 35.8 0.56 1.42 1.22 11.11 0.40
Hester et al. (1993)
B1-8N3-16-2-U 41.90 406 25.4 0.35 1.97 1.17 3.55 0.18
B2-8C3-16-2-U 43.40 406 25.4 0.35 1.81 0.94 3.85 0.19
B3-8S3-16-2-U 42.10 406 25.4 0.35 1.97 0.97 3.55 0.18
B4-8S3-16-2-U 45.10 406 25.4 0.35 1.97 0.96 3.55 0.18
B4-8S3-16-3-U 45.10 406 25.4 0.53 1.97 1.03 5.32 0.27
B5-8C3-16-2-U 38.40 406 25.4 0.35 1.97 0.99 3.55 0.18
B5-8C3-16-3-U 38.40 406 25.4 0.53 1.97 0.92 5.32 0.27
B6-8C3-223/4-3-U 40.90 578 25.4 0.37 1.97 0.95 3.74 0.19
B6-8C3-223/4-4-U 40.90 578 25.4 0.49 1.97 0.94 4.99 0.25
B7-8C3-16-3-U 36.70 406 25.4 0.53 1.97 1.11 5.32 0.27

5
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

2.0 studies and models of concrete failure have demonstrated that

an increase in aggregate dimensions increases the stiffness of
the concrete (Rezansoff et al., 1993). Zuo and Darwin (2000)
suggested a relation for calculating the boundary resistance
1.5 and lapped length. Based on the stress distribution, the follow-
ing formula was proposed to predict the maximum tensile
utest /ucalc

y = 0.3356x + 1 strength
R2 = 0.526
 
1.0 T 1 þ ð1=MÞ Cmed
¼ uc pffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:88 þ 0:12
πdb L 1:85 þ 0:024 M C
2:  
At Ab
1 þ 0:015fR
CS
0.5
0 1 2 3
(At /S)/(C/db) where fR is a factor to include the effect of relative rib area on
bond strength, Ab is the area of the longitudinal reinforcing
Figure 5. Relationship between utest/ucalc and (At/S)/(C/db) bar (in square inches) and L is the lapped length (in inches).
Cmin and Cmax are, respectively, the minimum and maximum
amount of Cs and Cb (Cmax/Cmin = 3.5) (in inches). Cs is the
2.0 minimum of Csi + 0.25 and Cs0 (in inches). Csi is 1/2 of clear
spacing between bars, Cs0 and Cb are, respectively, the lateral
side and bottom side cover on the reinforcement (in inches).
Furthermore, tr and td are based on the rebars’ diameter. The
1.5 value of M depends on the lapped length. So, the sufficient
lapped length for tensile force T can be calculated as
utest /ucalc

y = 0.00.153x + 1
R2 = 0.6086
T
3: L ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi
1.0 a f c0

where
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 ðC=db Þ þ 0:5
4: a ¼ 7:2db
At Ab/CS ðC=db Þ þ 3:6

Figure 6. Relationship between utest/ucalc and AtAb/CS

between utest/ucalc and (At/S)/(C/db) and utest/ucalc and AtAb/CS
are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively (Esfahani and
Kianoush, 2005).
It should be noted that Equation 1 is based on Tepfers’ partly
cracked thick-cylinder theory and displacement theory
(Tepfers, 1973). According to these theories, it is required that
the value of the bond strength should be equal to the
maximum value of bond stress distribution (uc), the bond
stress along the lapped length. Results obtained from these the-
ories show that the maximum bond uc and the distributions of
bond stress in NSC and HSC are different (Esfahani and
Rangan, 1998).
As an outcome, a sufficiently large amount of transverse
reinforcement should be applied over the lapped length.
Equation 5 is proposed to calculate the amount of transverse
reinforcement (Esfahani and Kianoush, 2005).
 
At 67C 1:63M=½0:88 þ 0:12ðCmed =CÞ
5: ¼
S fR Ab M þ1
This equation guarantees the splice capacity for the applied
force T. So, the maximum limit is required because the trans-
verse reinforcement is limited by the bond stress. Furthermore,
the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement is required
to provide the ductility of RC beams.

Due to an increase in concrete bond stress, it has been 5. Formula for lap-spliced length using a GA
shown that the normalised boundary resistance increases A GA is an optimisation heuristic scheme based on the theory
over a short lapped length (Treece and Jirsa, 1989). Other of natural evolution. The GA technique thus reflects the

6
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

2.5 2.0

2.0 1.5
y = 0.0169x + 1.0146
R2 = 0.9066
1.0
1.5
utest /ucalc

Error

utest /ucalc
utest /ucalc (Table 1)
0.5 utest /ucalc (Equation 6)
1.0

0
0.5

–0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
–1.0
At Ab/CS 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Sample number
Figure 7. Relationship between utest/ucalc and AtAb/CS using the
proposed formula Figure 8. Comparison of experimental results (Table 1) and
results obtained using Equation 6

process of natural selection, where the fittest individuals are

selected for reproduction in order to produce the next gener-
ation. The main goal of this work was to obtain a more accu- increases the accuracy of the proposed model
rate equation and so a GA was used to minimise errors and 8
> At Ab
suitable coefficients were found. In this study, a new, more >
> 0:7836 R , 0:11
utest < CS
accurate and simpler formula for calculating the lapped length
8: ¼
was achieved using a GA. Based on cross-section and ucalc > >
>
: 0:5391 At Ab
reinforcement ratio, a relationship between utest/ucalc and R  0:11
CS
AtAb/CS was obtained. The proposed formula is shown in
Figure 7 and takes the form

! According to Equation 6, this relationship can be written as

utest 0:78 At Ab
6: ¼ 0:0036 þ
ucalc 8=10
fR CS  
1:18
u ¼ ð1:12  0:6uc Þ
1 þ 0:4
M
9:   ! 0 1
As shown in the figure, the proposed formula showed good Cmed 0:01 @ 0:78 A At Ab

0:2
 0:64
0:0036 þ 8=10
agreement with the experimental results. The values of utest/ C fR CS
ucalc were obtained using the new formula. To propose the
coefficient of the suggested formal, the results of previous
investigation are used. Good agreement was found between the
fitting curve and the data, with R 2 = 0.9. This is due to the The results obtained using Equation 9 and the test results are
low scatter of the results. It is worth emphasising that the pro- compared in Figure 9. As can be seen in the figure, the calcu-
posed equation produced very little error. Figure 8 shows the lated values of u were in good agreement with the experimental
error between the experimental results (Table 1) and the results results.
from the proposed formula.
As shown in Figure 10, the scatter was relatively large, but a
The value of fR is calculated as good R 2 value (0.73) was obtained. Therefore, according
to the proposed formula, the values of bond strength
  between the rebars and concrete were quite high. Conversely,
At Ab 0:85=½0:88 þ 0:12ðCmed =CÞ
7: fR ¼ ¼ 67 the relationship proposed by Esfahani and Kianoush
CS ½0:52ðM þ 1Þ=M (2005) provided low accuracy when compared with the exper-
imental results. Using that equation produced an error
of around 40% between the experimental and numerical
Considering fR = 1 for R < 0.11 and fR = 1.6 for R ≥ 0.11 in results, while formula proposed in this work produced errors
Equation 6, yields Equation 8. Considering two values for fR of 26%.

7
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

6 6.0

5.5
5
5.0

4.5

u (Equation 10)
4
4.0

u 3 3.5

Error 3.0
2 u (Equation 7) 2.5 y = 1.072x + 0.3133
u (test) R2 = 0.7315
2.0
1
1.5
2.0 2.4 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
0 u (Table 1)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sample number Figure 10. Correspondence of results obtained from Equation 10
and laboratory results
Figure 9. Comparison of experimental results (Table 1) and
results obtained from Equation 9

Considering the value of fR, Equation 8 can be simplified as

8     ! 
>
> 1:18 Cmed 0:01 At Ab
>
> ð1:12  0:6u Þ 1 þ 0:2
 0:64 0:7836 R , 0:11
>
< c
M 0:4 C CS
10: u¼     ! 
>
> Cmed 0:01
>
> ð  Þ þ
1:18
0:2

At Ab
R  0:11
>
: 1:12 0:6u c 1 0:64 0:5391
M 0:4 C CS

Equation 10 can be used for both NSC and HSC if the proper M can be written as
uc is considered. In fact, the following mathematical formu-
lations for the maximum value of the bond stress distribution sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
(uc)should be used for NSC and HSC, respectively. f0
14: M ¼ cosh 0:0022L 3 c
db
ðC=db Þ þ 0:5 pffiffiffiffiffi0
11: uc ¼ 2:7 fc
ðC=db Þ þ 3:6
Equation 13 can be considered for both NSC and HSC by
using Equations 11 and 12 (Esfahani and Kianoush, 2005). To
ðC=db Þ þ 0:5 pffiffiffiffiffi0 use Equation 10, the following relation can be found
12: uc ¼ 4:7 fc
ðC=db Þ þ 5:5
T
15: ¼ ð0:6uc  1:12Þa1 a2
πdb L
Using the maximum tensile force, Equation 10 can then be
written as

8     ! 
>
> 1:18 Cmed 0:01 At Ab
>
> ð0:6u  1:12Þ 1 þ 0:2
þ 0:64 0:7836 R , 0:11
>
<
c
M 0:4 C CS
T
13: ¼     ! 
πdb L >>
>
> 1:18 Cmed 0:01 At Ab
> ð0:6uc  1:12Þ 1 þ 0:4
: 0:2
þ 0:64 0:5391 R  0:11
M C CS

8
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

according to parameters a1 and a2, defined as In Equation 23, a1 is the stress distribution along the lapped
length. According to the results shown in Table 1, the quantity
 
1:18 of 0.72 is proposed for the multiplication of a1a2. Therefore,
16: a1 ¼ 1þ
M 0:4 Equation 23 can be written as

8   !    ! 
>
> Cmed 0:01 At Ab Cmed 0:01 At Ab
>
> 0:2 þ 0:64 0:7836 ¼ 0:1567 þ 0:5015 R , 0:11
>
< C CS C CS
17: a2 ¼   !    ! 
>
>
>
> Cmed 0:01 At Ab Cmed 0:01 At Ab
> 0:2
: þ 0:64 0:5391 ¼ 0:1087 þ 0:3450 R  0:11
C CS C CS

The maximum tensile force in the reinforcement can be calcu-

fs db
lated using 24: L ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi

a f c0  3:23

18: T ¼ ð0:6uc  1:12Þa1 a2 πdb L

Substituting Equation 11 in Equation 17, the maximum tensile ðC=db Þ þ 0:5

25: a ¼ 4:657
force is given by ðC=db Þ þ 3:6

   
ðC=db Þ þ 0:5 pffiffiffiffiffi0
19: T ¼ 0:6 2:7 f c  1:12 a1 a2 πdb L
ðC=db Þ þ 3:6 If the lapped length is calculated using Equation 24, enough
transverse reinforcement for sufficient ductility should be sup-
plied along the lapped length. The amount of transverse
Equation 19 can then be written as reinforcement needed is
 pffiffiffiffiffi 
20: T ¼ a3 f c0  3:52 a1 a2 db L !
At
3:15
¼ 0:72  0:54C 0:42 0:0003 þ 0:74
s Ab
 

0:46
26:
0:0001 þ 3:77fR0:91
0:79 þ 0:16
ðC=db Þ þ 0:5 M
21: a3 ¼ 5:08
ðC=db Þ þ 3:6  0:024 !
C

1  1:38
Cmed

According to Equation 17, both the development and the

lapped length can be calculated as
The fitted curve in Figure 11 shows the goodness of fit with
T fs Ab the experimental results. As shown in the figure, Equation 26
22: L ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi
¼ pffiffiffiffiffi
showed 99% agreement with the experimental results, which is
a3 f c0  3:52 a1 a2 db a3 f c0  3:52 a1 a2 db
outstanding. The closeness of the points to the line represents
almost perfect agreement between the proposed equation and
the experimental results. In Equation 26, fR = 1 for R < 0.11
Putting πd2b/4 into Equation 22, this relation can be and fR = 1.6 for R ≥ 0.11. As shown in Figure 11, the proposed
simplified as formula provides sufficient transverse reinforcement over the
lapped length in splice bars. On the other hand, the relation
fs πdb suggested by Esfahani and Kianoush (2005) produced a high
23: L ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi

4 a3 f c0  3:52 a1 a2 error. As a result, it does provide for sufficient transverse

reinforcement for concrete beams with a wide range of

9
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

2.5 To validate the presented formulations and check their accu-

racies, two examples are now presented.
2.0
At/S (Equation 48)

6. Example 1
1.5 Extensive experimental results reported by previous investi-
gators were compared with the results of proposed formulas.
1.0 Varying amounts of all parameters (such as relative rib area,
concrete cover, beam length, concrete strength, rebar yield
y = 0.9769x + 0.0074 strength and transverse reinforcements) were considered.
0.5 Furthermore, the experimental results, from 284 tests on
R2 = 0.9949
reinforced NSC and HSC, were compared with previous and
0 the proposed formulas.
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
At /S (experiment) As shown in Figure 12, Equation 26 provided a very good
agreement with the experimental results. The proposed
Figure 11. Correspondence of results obtained using Equation 27 formula provided for evenly spaced closed stirrups, placed in
and laboratory results the splice region. Figure 12 shows that the proposed formula
produced very little error. On the contrary, the formula pro-
posed by Esfahani and Kianoush (2005) did not properly
compressive strength. According to the value of R, Equation
26 can be written as

8 !    !
>
>
11:876 0:46 C 0:024
>
> 0:72  0:54C 0:42
0:00113 þ 0:79 þ 1  1:38 R , 0:11
>
At < A0:74
b
M 0:16 Cmed
27: ¼ !    !
s >
>

>
> 18:214 0:46 C 0:024
> 0:72  0:54C
:
0:42
0:00173 þ 0:74 0:79 þ 0:16 1  1:38 R  0:11
Ab M Cmed

It should be noted that Equation 27 results in a sufficient anticipate the amount of transverse reinforcement needed
amount of transverse reinforcement along the lapped length. or their spacing in RC beams with lapped lengths in spliced
For design, this equation can be simplified as Equation 31. bars.

Taking
3.0
28: α ¼ 0:72  0:54C 0:42
Absolute error
2.5 At /S (Equation 26)
At /S (experimenal)
0:46 2.0
29: β ¼ 0:79 þ
M 0:16
At /S

1.5

 0:024 ! 1.0
C
30: γ¼ 1  1:38
Cmed
0.5

8 ! 0
>
> 11:876 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
>
> α 0:00113 þ A0:74 βγ R , 0:11
>
At <
Sample number
b
31: ¼ !
s >
> Figure 12. Comparison of results obtained using Equation 26
>
> 18:214
>
: α 0:00173 þ 0:74 βγ R  0:11 and test results for calculating both the development and the
Ab
lapped length

10
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

At /S (Equation 26) At /S (experiment) At /S (equation 5) determine the effects of transverse reinforcement on the splice
2.0 strength, closed stirrups were spaced equally within the splice
1.8 regions.
1.6
1.4 As shown in Table 2, the proposed formulas for calculating
1.2 both the development and the lapped length, and also the
At /S

1.0 amount of transverse reinforcement, showed good agreement

0.8 with the actual specimens. Figures 15 and 16 show the errors
0.6 obtained using the proposed equations and the models provided
0.4 in ACI408R-04 (ACI, 2014) for the development length/splice
0.2 length ratio and the amount of transverse reinforcement,
0 respectively. As shown in the figures, the ACI equations resulted
0 5 10 15 20 25
in much larger errors than the proposed formulas.
Sample number

Figure 13. Comparison of results obtained in the present study 8. Conclusion

and the test results of Darwin et al. (1996) for calculating the Using a new boundary resistance equation, a novel method was
transverse reinforcement proposed to determine the lapped length and the amount of
transverse reinforcements along a beam’s lapped length based
on 284 laboratory results. To find general and comprehensive
Load Load relations, all the parameters affecting the lapped length and
Spliced bars
transverse reinforcement were considered with high precision.
The following conclusions were drawn from this study.

(a) The proposed relationship for determining bond strength

Pinned support
Roller support
(a)
P P
ld
lc
L transverse reinforcements provided sufficient ductility for
(b)
Figure 14. (a) Schematic illustration of test apparatus;
(b) Schematic illustration of spliced test specimens
According to Figure 13, Equation 26 provided good agreement
with the experimental results, with an average error of 1.001
and a standard deviation of 0.002. Based on the obtained
results, Equations 24 and 31 can be used to calculate the
lapped length and the amount of transverse reinforcement for
both NSC and HSC.
7. Example 2
The lapped length for simply supported beams under various
loads was calculated using the proposed and previous formulas
(Darwin et al., 1996). The geometry of the specimens is shown
in Figure 14(a) and Table 2. The lapped length, beam length
and position of the lapped bars are shown in Figure 14(b). To
showed good agreement with the experimental results
(Equation 9).
(b) Considering the effect of different parameters and
transverse reinforcement, the formula suggested for
calculating lapped length was consistent with the
experimental results and determined the lapped length
with reasonable accuracy (Equation 23).
(c) The new relationship for calculating the amount of
transverse reinforcement (average error of 1.001 and
standard deviation of 0.002) showed good agreement
with the experimental results and the calculated
the RC beams (Equation 31).
(d) Numerical comparisons demonstrated that the proposed
scheme showed high precision in comparison with
other models.
(e) The proposed equation can be used for both NSC and
HSC by considering newly defined parameters
(Equation 23). These parameters are different for NSC
and HSC. The concrete strengths affect uc and this
parameter is then used in the suggested formula.
( f ) The proposed bond strength model, which considers
the effect of transverse reinforcement, improved the
bond strength calculation meaningfully (Equation 19).
Based on 284 experimental outcomes, the mean
value of the measured/calculated ratio of bond strengths
was found to be 1.001, with a standard deviation of
0.015. For all cases, the new equation correlated very well
with the experimental results.
(g) To predict the lapped length in spliced bars with the
suggested model requires providing a nominal amount of

11
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Table 2. Development and lapped length calculated using the ACI formula, this study and experimental results
12

Structures and Buildings

Calculated Experimental Rebar Section Section Beam Support
Number of lap-spliced lap-spliced diameter, width, height, length, width, f0c: Mu: At/s:
Specimen rebars, n length, ld: mm length, ld: mm db: mm b: h: l: m lc: m MPa P: kN kN.m mm

Experimental specimen (Karimipour, 2017)

2.1-8S0 2 610 610 25.4 307.8 395.2 4.8 1.8 36.2 216.9 137.2 0.82
3.1-8C0 2 610 610 25.4 308.3 413.0 4.8 1.8 35.2 193.5 122.8 0.47
3.5-8C0 3 711 720 25.4 309.1 410.7 4.8 1.8 26.2 264.8 167.1 0.80
4.1-8S0 2 610 615 25.4 308.8 393.4 4.8 1.8 28.2 216.2 136.8 1.25
5.1-8SH0 3 610 615 25.4 462.8 395.4 4.8 1.8 28.9 337.4 213.3 0.82
5.4.8SH0 2 610 618 25.4 307.8 392.7 4.8 1.8 28.9 202.9 128.5 0.82
5.5-8C0 2 610 613 25.4 307.8 396.2 4.8 1.8 28.9 159.1 101.2 0.47
6.1-8SH0 3 610 615 25.4 309.3 409.4 4.8 1.8 29.1 322.5 203.0 1.66
6.4-8C0 2 406 410 25.4 307.5 392.4 4.8 1.8 29.1 124.3 79.4 0.35
8.1-8N0 3 610 615 25.4 308.1 412.2 4.8 1.8 26.4 356.4 224.0 1.66
9.3-8N0 2 610 610 25.4 309.6 409.4 4.8 1.8 29.2 191.6 121.6 0.23
10.3-8N0 2 660 655 25.4 307.5 408.7 4.8 1.8 29.3 204.1 129.3 0.22
10.4-8N0 2 508 510 25.4 306.5 411.2 4.8 1.8 29.3 214.9 136.0 1.25
11.2-8N0 2 457 460 25.4 309.6 409.7 4.8 1.2 30.2 214.5 135.8 1.11
12.1-5N0 4 254 260 15.8 306.5 395.2 4.8 1.2 28.4 140.6 79.9 1.00
12.3-5N0 3 305 310 15.8 308.3 393.7 4.8 1.2 28.4 113.2 64.7 0.28
13.2-5N0 3 305 310 15.8 307.6 393.7 4.8 1.2 28.3 131.2 74.7 0.23
14.5-5N0 2 305 310 15.8 308.1 392.4 4.8 1.2 28.9 94.5 54.5 0.47
15.2-11N0 2 686 695 35.8 307.6 409.4 4.8 1.8 36.2 411.5 258.4 1.66
15.3-11N0 2 1016 1022 35.8 305.8 411.2 4.8 1.8 36.2 411.1 258.4 0.70

Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

reinforced concrete structures
A precise splice-length model for
16.4-11B0 2 1016 1022 35.8 458.7 406.4 4.8 1.8 35.7 406.5 256.7 0.28
17.4-11B0 2 965 970 35.8 458.9 408.7 4.8 1.8 32.3 439.0 276.9 0.59
17.5-11B0 2 762 770 35.8 459.4 408.7 4.8 1.8 32.3 389.2 245.7 1.16
18.4-11B0 2 1016 1020 35.8 459.2 412.2 4.8 1.8 32.4 446.1 281.4 0.42
ACI408R-04 (ACI, 2014)
2.1-8S0 2 538 610 25.4 307.8 395.2 4.8 1.8 36.2 216.9 137.2 1.30
3.1-8C0 2 405 610 25.4 308.3 413.0 4.8 1.8 35.2 193.5 122.8 1.57
3.5-8C0 3 599 720 25.4 309.1 410.7 4.8 1.8 26.2 264.8 167.1 1.00
4.1-8S0 2 628 615 25.4 308.8 393.4 4.8 1.8 28.2 216.2 136.8 1.29
5.1-8SH0 3 641 615 25.4 462.8 395.4 4.8 1.8 28.9 337.4 213.3 1.37
5.4.8SH0 2 584 618 25.4 307.8 392.7 4.8 1.8 28.9 202.9 128.5 1.21
5.5-8C0 2 436 613 25.4 307.8 396.2 4.8 1.8 28.9 159.1 101.2 0.78
6.1-8SH0 3 717 615 25.4 309.3 409.4 4.8 1.8 29.1 322.5 203.0 0.95
6.4-8C0 2 351 410 25.4 307.5 392.4 4.8 1.8 29.1 124.3 79.4 0.25
8.1-8N0 3 817 615 25.4 308.1 412.2 4.8 1.8 26.4 356.4 224.0 1.08
9.3-8N0 2 460 610 25.4 309.6 409.4 4.8 1.8 29.2 191.6 121.6 1.44
10.3-8N0 2 491 655 25.4 307.5 408.7 4.8 1.8 29.3 204.1 129.3 1.63
10.4-8N0 2 503 510 25.4 306.5 411.2 4.8 1.8 29.3 214.9 136.0 1.89
11.2-8N0 2 499 460 25.4 309.6 409.7 4.8 1.2 30.2 214.5 135.8 1.85
12.1-5N0 4 276 260 15.8 306.5 395.2 4.8 1.2 28.4 140.6 79.9 0.30
12.3-5N0 3 242 310 15.8 308.3 393.7 4.8 1.2 28.4 113.2 64.7 0.63
13.2-5N0 3 278 310 15.8 307.6 393.7 4.8 1.2 28.3 131.2 74.7 1.08
(continued on next page)

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari

0.40
At/s:

1.32
1.27
1.21
1.12
1.22
1.11
1.25
mm

ACI formula
0.35 Equation 24

0.30
54.5
258.4
258.4
256.7
276.9
245.7
281.4
kN.m
Mu:

0.25

Error
0.20
411.5
411.1
406.5
439.0
389.2
446.1
94.5
P: kN

0.15

0.10
MPa

28.9
36.2
36.2
35.7
32.3
32.3
32.4
f0c:

0.05

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Support
width,
lc: m

ld /lc
1.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8

Figure 15. Error in lapped length calculated based on ACI408R-

04 (ACI, 2014) formula and the proposed equation (Equation 24)
length,
Beam

l: m

4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8

7
Section
height,

392.4
409.4
411.2
406.4
408.7
408.7
412.2
h:

ACI formula
6
Equation 26

5
Section
width,

308.1
307.6
305.8
458.7
458.9
459.4
459.2
b:

4
Error

3
diameter,
db: mm
Rebar

15.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8

0
length, ld: mm
Experimental

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

lap-spliced

310
695
1022
1022
970
770
1020

db /S

Figure 16. Error in the amount of transverse reinforcement

calculated based on the ACI408R-04 (ACI, 2014) formula and the
proposed equation (Equation 26)
length, ld: mm
lap-spliced
Calculated

305
819
831
754
848
747
852

transverse reinforcement over the spliced bars. This

technique yields adequate ductility for beams with
spliced bars. The proposed method agreed very well with
the experimental results. In further studies, the resistance
Number of

and ductility of beams with spliced bars could be

rebars, n

checked using the proposed values of L and At/S.

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Table 2. Continued

REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2014) ACI408R-04: The Reinforced
15.2-11N0
15.3-11N0
16.4-11B0
17.4-11B0
17.5-11B0
18.4-11B0
14.5-5N0

Concrete Design Handbook. ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA,

Specimen

pp. 318–314.
Azizinamini A Pavel R Hatfield E and Ghosh SK (1999a) Behavior of lap-
spliced reinforcing are embedded in high-strength concrete. ACI
Structural Journal 96(5): 826–836.

13
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
Azizinamini A Darwin D Eligehausen R Pavel R and Ghosh SK (1999b)
Proposed modifications to ACI 318-95 tension development and
lap splice for high-strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal 96(6):
922–927.
Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Deyanova M, Pagani C and Zambelli S (2015)
Numerical simulation of hollow steel profiles for lightweight
concrete sandwich panels. Computers and Concrete 15(6): 951–972.
Chaboki HR, Ghalehnovi M, Karimipour A and De Brito J (2018)
Experimental study on the flexural behaviour and ductility ratio of
steel fibres coarse recycled aggregate concrete beams. Construction
and Building Materials 186: 400–422.
Chaboki HR, Ghalehnovi M and Karimipour A (2019a) Study of the
flexural behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete beams. Concrete
Research Quarterly Journal 12(3): 45–60.
Chaboki HR, Ghalehnovi M and Karimipour A (2019b)
Investigation of flexural behavior of concrete beams made of
recycled aggregate. Concrete Research Quarterly Journal 186:
236–248.
Choi OC, Hadje-Ghaffari H, Darwin D and McCabe SL (1991) Bond of
epoxy-coated reinforcement: bar parameters. ACI Materials
Journal 88(2): 207–217.
Darwin D, Tholen ML, Idun EK and Zuo J (1996) Splice strength of high
relative rib area reinforcing bars. ACI Structural Journal 93(1):
95–107.
Dominguez N, Brancherie D, Davenne L and Ibrahimbegović A (2005)
Prediction of crack pattern distribution in reinforced concrete by
coupling a strong discontinuity model of concrete cracking and a
bond-slip of reinforcement model. Engineering Computations
22(5/6): 558–582.
Esfahani MR and Kianoush MR (2005) Development/splice length of
reinforcing bars. ACI Structural Journal 102(1): 22–30.
Esfahani MR and Rangan B (1998) Local bond strength of reinforcing
bars in normal strength and high-strength concrete (HSC). ACI
Structural Journal 95(2): 96–106.
Farokhpour Tabrizi M, Karimipour A and Ghalehnovi M (2019)
Investigation of the effect of steel fibers on failure extension of
recycled aggregate concrete beams with lap-spliced bars. Sharif
Journal of Civil Engineering 18(12).
Ferguson PM and Breen JE (1965) Lapped splices for high
strength reinforcing bars. ACI Journal Proceedings 62(9):
1063–1078.
Ferguson PM and Briceno EA (1969) Tensile Lap Splices – Part 1:
Retaining Wall Type, Varying Moment Zone. Center for Highway
Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA,
Research Report No. 113-2.
Ghalehnovi M, Karimipour A and de Brito J (2019) Influence of steel
fibres on the flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams
with lap-spliced bars. Construction and Building Materials 229:
116853.
González-Taboada I, González-Fonteboa B, Martínez-Abella F and Luis
Pérez-Ordóñez J (2016) Prediction of the mechanical properties of
structural recycled concrete using multivariable regression and
genetic programming. Construction and Building Materials 106:
480–499.
Hester CJ, Salamizavaregh S, Darwin D and McCabe SL (1993) Bond of
epoxy-coated reinforcement: splices. ACI Structural Journal 90(1):
89–102.
Jian CL (2016) Evaluation of ultimate conditions of FRP-confined
concrete columns using genetic programming. Computers &
Structures 162(1): 28–37.
Karimipour A (2017) Investigation of Lap-Spliced Reinforcing Bars in
Steel Fibres’ Concrete (SFC) Under Static and Cyclic Loading.
Master’s thesis, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
(in Persian).
Karimipour A and Esfahani MR (2017) The effect of steel fibers on
flexural cracking of fiber in reinforced concrete beams
14
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [28/10/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A precise splice-length model for
reinforced concrete structures
Rezaiee-Pajand, Karimipour and Attari
with lap-spliced bars. Ferdowsi University Journal of Civil
Engineering 31(3).
Khalil AAH, Fawzy TM, Taher SEF and Abdellah GA (1999)
New special finite elements for modelling reinforcement
and steel-concrete interface. Engineering Computations 16(5):
619–629.
Koza JR (1992) Genetic Programming: On the Programming of
Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, USA.
Luo Y and Li A (2012) Design optimization of bonded steel-concrete
composite beams. Engineering Computations 9(1): 23–30.
Mahmoudi AH, Pezeshki-Najafabadi SM and Badnava H (2011)
Parameter determination of Chaboche kinematic hardening
model using a multi-objective genetic algorithm. Computational
Materials Science 50(3): 1114–1122.
Mander JB, Priestley MJN and Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain
model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering
114(8): 1804–1826.
Poli R and McPhee NF (2013) Parsimony Pressure Made Easy: Solving
the Problem of Bloat in GP in Theory and Principled Methods for
the Design of Metaheuristics. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Rezaiee-Pajand M and Sinaie S (2009) On the calibration of the
Chaboche hardening model and a modified hardening rule for
uniaxial ratcheting prediction. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 46(16): 3009–3017.
Rezansoff T, Akanni A and Sparling B (1993) Tensile lap splice under
static loading: a review of the proposed ACI 318 code provisions.
ACI Structural Journal 90(4): 374–384.
Silva S and Almeida J (2003) GPLAB – A genetic programming
toolbox for MATLAB. In The Nordic MATLAB Conference,
Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 273–278.
Sobolev K and Amirjanov A (2010) Application of genetic algorithm
for modelling of dense packing of concrete aggregates.
Construction and Building Materials 24(8): 1449–1455.
Tepfers R (1973) A Theory of Bond Applied to Overlapped Tensile
Reinforcement Splices for Deformed Bars. Division of Concrete
Structures, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden,
Publication No. 73:2.
Thompson MA, Jirsa JO, Breen JE and Meinheit DF (1979) Behavior of
multiple lap splices in wide sections. ACI Journal Proceedings
76(2): 227–248.
Treece RA and Jirsa JO (1989) Bond strength of epoxy-coated
reinforcing bars. ACI Materials Journal 86(2): 167–174.
Zuo J and Darwin D (2000) Splice strength of conventional and high
relative rib area bars in normal and high-strength concrete.
ACI Structural Journal 97(4): 630–641.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.