Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In this study, a design equation for the development length of hooked with two 90-degree hooked bars, and reported that the bond
reinforcing bars was developed theoretically considering the effects strength of the hooked bars was significantly affected by the
of bond stress distribution and hook anchorage. A non-uniform side cover loss, embedment length, and transverse reinforce-
bond stress distribution model with the hook anchorage effect was ment ratio. Jirsa et al.7 proposed a straight development length
proposed, from which a design equation was derived. The proposed
including the radius of the hook, considering the hook-con-
method was applied to 493 existing test specimens to predict the
tribution as a factor, which is similar to the methods of
development length or the average bond stress of the reinforcing
bars. The predicted results were compared with the existing test current design codes. Johnson and Jirsa8 evaluated the effect
results and the predictions of current design codes including ACI of the hooked bar spacing in 36 beam-wall specimens with
318, Eurocode 2, and Model Code 2010. The results showed that 90-degree hooked bars. From testing seven beam-column
the proposed model predicted the test results with reasonable preci- joint specimens with 90-degree hooked bars, Soroushian et
sion (average ratio of the test results to predictions = 1.17, and al.9 reported that the pullout strength of hooked bars increased
coefficient of variation = 0.196). with the increase in bar diameter and concrete confinement,
though it was not affected by concrete compressive strength.
Keywords: bearing force; bond strength; bond test; development length;
On the basis of the test results, a spring model was proposed
hooked bar.
to consider the contribution of the hook. Joh and Shibata10
reported that the effect of transverse reinforcement was not
INTRODUCTION
significant when the side concrete cover of hooked bars was
At exterior beam-column joints and at the ends of flex-
sufficient. Ramirez and Russell11 proposed a modified coef-
ural members, hooked reinforcing bars are generally used
ficient of concrete cover for the ACI 3181 model. Sperry et
to reduce the development length. Current design codes
al.12 tested 337 beam-column joint specimens with 90- and
including ACI 318-14,1 Eurocode 2,2 and Model Code 20103
180-degree hooked bars, and proposed an empirical equa-
specify hooked bar development lengths on the basis of
tion for development length, which uses 4√fc′ rather than
existing test results. To evaluate the bond strength of 90- and
√fc′ to consider the effect of concrete strength. Further, they
180-degree hooked bars, a beam-end test or a beam-column
proposed the effective coefficients of transverse reinforce-
joint test is typically used (refer to Fig. 1). However, because
ment, concrete cover, location of hooked bars, and center-to-
the number of existing studies is limited, current design
center spacing of hooked bars. Costa et al.13 developed two
codes limit the application range of the design equations,
discrete models for straight and hook lengths considering
considering the allowable material properties, minimum
the bar bond stress-slip relationship of Model Code 2010,3
concrete cover, and details of transverse reinforcement and
hooked bar slip, and pullout failure mode. In Eurocode 22
hooks. Recently, the use of high-strength concrete, high-
and Model Code 2010,3 the development length is defined
strength reinforcing bars, and large-diameter reinforcing
by the average bond strength. The average bond strength is
bars has been increasing. Thus, the development length of
defined as a function of the reinforcing bar diameter, yield
such hooked bars needs to be accurately evaluated, and a
strength of the reinforcing bar, concrete strength, and rein-
large number of test results are required to verify the effects
forcing bar placement details, while the safety factors of the
of the new design parameters. From this view point, a theo-
reinforcing bar and concrete are considered.
retical model needs to be considered to develop a rational
Hwang et al.14 developed a non-uniform bond stress distri-
design method or to guide the direction of future experi-
bution model for the development length of a straight rein-
mental and theoretical studies.
forcing bar, considering the variation of bar bond strength
Various studies have been performed to evaluate the
along the development length. When the relative deforma-
hooked bar development length. Minor and Jirsa4 tested 80
tion between the reinforcing bar and concrete increases,
specimens with hooked bars of hook angle 0 to 180 degrees
local bond failure occurs, which causes non-uniform bond
and without transverse reinforcement. The results showed
stress distribution along the development length.
that the 90-degree hook was better than the 180-degree hook
in reducing bar-slip. Marques and Jirsa5 tested 22 beam-
column joint specimens with two hooked bars of 90- and
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 6, November-December 2017.
180-degree standard hooks and transverse reinforcement. MS No. S-2017-023.R1, doi: 10.14359/51700918, received February 10, 2017, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2017, American Concrete
They proposed a design equation addressing the contribu- Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
tions of the straight development length and the hook inde- obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
pendently. Pinc et al.6 performed 16 beam-column joint tests is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE where fy is yield strength of the hooked bar; db is bar diam-
A design equation was proposed to predict the devel- eter; fc′ is concrete compressive strength; λ is coefficient of
opment length of hooked bars. In the proposed method, concrete type (= 0.75 to 1.0); ψe is coefficient of epoxy-coated
unlike existing design equations and methods, the effect bars (= 1.0 to 1.2); ψc is coefficient of concrete cover (= 0.7
of non-uniform bond stress distribution (that is, the length to 1.0); and ψr = coefficient of confining bars (= 0.8 to 1.0).
effect) was considered separately from the effect of unit In Eurocode 2,2 the basic development length of a hooked
bar-bond strength. Thus, the length effect can be addressed, bar is defined as follows
regardless of the material strength and bar diameters, which
enhances the accuracy of the prediction of the development f y db
length, particularly for high strength reinforcing bars and ld = α1α 2 α 3 ≥ lb (in MPa and mm) (2a)
4 f bd
concrete. Thus, the proposed model can be used to develop
new design equations or to guide the direction of future α2 = 0.7 ≤ 1 – 0.15(cd – 3db)/db ≤ 1.0 (2b)
experimental and theoretical studies.
α 3 = 0.7 ≤ 1 − K ( ∑ Atr − 0.25 As ) As ≤ 1.0 (2c)
EXISTING DESIGN METHODS
In ACI 318-14,1 Eurocode 2,2 Model Code 2010,3 and fbd = 2.25η2[0.7(0.3)(fc′)2/3] (in MPa and mm) (2d)
Sperry et al.,12 the development length ld of hooked bars is
defined as a function of bar diameter, bar yield strength, and where α1 is coefficient of bar shape (= 0.7 to 1.0); α2α3 ≥
concrete compressive strength. Additionally, the effects of 0.7; cd is min (cso, csi); cso is thickness of the side cover
concrete cover, bar spacing, and transverse reinforcement concrete; csi is one-half of the center-to-center bar spacing;
are considered (Fig. 2). lb is max (0.3dbfy/(4fbd), 10db, 100 mm); K is coefficient of
In ACI 318-14,1 the development length of a hooked bar arrangement of the transverse bars (= 0 to 0.1); ∑Atr is total
is defined as follows cross-sectional area of transverse bars within the develop-
ment length; As is the maximum of the cross-sectional areas
of the bars; and η2 is coefficient of diameter of the bar (=
ld =
(f y )
− 60 f mbd db
≥ lm 0 (in MPa and mm) (3a)
4 f mbd
fmbd = (αmc2 + αmc3)fbd0 < 2.5fbd0 < √fc′ (in MPa) (3b)
α mc 2 = (cd db ) (cm cd )
0.15
(3d)
f y db1.5 ψ e ψ sr ψ m ψ o
ld = 0.25 ≥ 8db and 152.4 mm (6 in.)
60.3 f c′ λ
(in MPa and mm) (4a) Fig. 3—Bearing and bond stress distribution along hook length.
f y db1.5 − 34.2 ∑ Atr n the concrete increases in the inner zone of the hook, the bond
ψ sr = 1.5
> 0.7 (4b) stress in the outer zone decreases, and kickout stress occurs in
fyd b
the hook tail. In the 180-degree hooked bar, bond and bearing
stresses occur in the inner zone of the hook, which is similar
1 to that of the 90-degree hooked bar. In the hooked bars,
ψm = ≥ 1.0 (4c)
0.17 csi db + 0.485 bearing of the hook increases the pullout resistance. Thus, the
anchorage effect of the hook needs to be considered to eval-
where ψsr = 1.0 in the case of cso < 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) and cb < uate the development length of the hooked bar.
63.5 mm (2.5 in.); cb is thickness of the rear cover concrete Figure 4 shows an equivalent straight bar model with a
at the hook; and ψo is coefficient of hooked bar placement spring (that is, bearing of hook), which is used to describe
(= 1.0 to 1.25). the pullout resistance of a hooked bar. The equivalent
development length l (Fig. 4(b)) is defined as the sum of
PROPOSED METHOD FOR BAR the straight length ls and the length of the hook (Fig. 4(a)).
DEVELOPMENT LENGTH The tension force of a hooked bar is resisted by the damaged
Equivalent straight bar model and undamaged bond stresses and the bearing force of the
Figure 3 shows the bond and bearing stress distributions hook. To consider the bearing force and deformation of the
in the 90- and 180-degree hook anchorage. Under tension hook, a spring model with bearing strength Fh and stiffness
force of the bar, the bearing stress along the inner radius of Kh is used. In the present study, for simplicity, the following
the 90-degree hook increases the relative deformation (or assumptions were used for both 90- and 180-degree hooked
slip) between the reinforcing bar and concrete, and ultimately bars: 1) the contribution of the hook tail to the development
causes concrete crushing. As the compressive deformation of length is not significant15; 2) only the 90-degree hook length
πdb2 d σ s
4 dx = τ ( x ) ( πdb ) (7)
εs – εc = ds/dx (8)
2
= (l1 + 2l2 + 2l3 ) l1τ1 + (l2 + 2l3 ) l2 τ 2 + l32 τ 3 + ∆ h
Es d b
(9)
s = Δs – Δc (10)
1 db f y τu fy
fs = 2τ1πr + (3τ 2 + τ 3 ) ls + ≤ f y (19a) fs = [ 3.4ld + 4.0db ] + ≤ f y for db > 25.4 mm (1 in.)
db 4.6r + 1.7 db db 22.4
(20b)
0.4
τ s
τ1 = u l1 (in MPa and mm) (19b)
1.4 s1 0.91α d f c′
τu = (in MPa and mm) (20c)
α m1α m 2 α m 3
τ u 1 − ( sl1 s1 )
1.4
τ2 = ≤ τ u (in MPa and mm) (19c) where ld is the development length measured from the crit-
1.4 1 − ( sl1 s1 ) ical section to the outside of the hook.
Using fs = fy in Eq. (20), the development length ld for the
4 − C1 {4πr τ1 + 6ls τ 2 } τu yield strength of a hooked bar can be directly estimated from
τ3 = τ u ≥ (19d) the reinforcing bar stress without iterative calculations.
4 + C1ls τ u 2
fy
0.91α d f c′ ld = − 0.9 db for db ≤ 25.4 mm (1 in.) (21a)
τu = (in MPa and mm) (19e) 3.7 τ u
α m1α m 2 α m 3
fy
sl1 Fh Fh db2 3 ld = − 1.2 db for db > 25.4 mm (1 in.) (21b)
= = ≤ 1 (in MPa and mm) (19f) 3.6τ u
s1 s1127 f c′db−2 3 6.96 f c′
COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST RESULTS
3π 2 db3 f y db f y AND PREDICTIONS
Fh = = (in MPa and mm) (19g)
32 (3πr − 4ri ) As 4.6r + 1.7 db To verify the validity of the proposed method, it was applied
to existing test specimens for hooked bars (refer to Fig. 1(a)).
Table 2 presents the test parameters. The ranges of the param-
sl1 db5 3 fy
= ≤1 Use r depending on hooked bar diameter db
s1 32r + 11.8db f c′
τ2 = ≤ τu
1.4 1 − ( sl1 s1 )
τ2/τu 0.714 0.816 0.887 0.947 1.00
l/db 5 10 15 20 25
C1 for fc′ =
8.28 × 10–6 1.66 × 10–5 2.48 × 10–5 3.31 × 10–5 4.14 × 10–5
20 MPa
ls
C1 =
(
4 1 − 0.003 f c′ Es db ) C1 for fc′ =
40 MPa
9.56 × 10–6 1.91 × 10–5 2.87 × 10–5 3.83 × 10–5 4.78 × 10–5
C1 for fc′ =
1.09 × 10–5 2.17 × 10–5 3.26 × 10–5 4.34 × 10–5 5.43 × 10–5
60 MPa
C1lsτu 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.3 0.5
τ3/τu for
0.987 0.935 0.871 0.631 0.500
sl1/s1 = 0.0
4 − C1 {4πr τ1 + 6ls τ 2 } τu
τ3 = τu ≥ τ3/τu for
4 + C 1l s τ u 2 0.98 – 0.02r/ls 0.92 – 0.08r/ls 0.85 – 0.17r/ls 0.56 – 0.47r/ls 0.500
sl1/s1 = 0.5
τ3/τu for
0.98 – 0.02r/ls 0.91 – 0.11r/ls 0.83 – 0.22r/ls 0.500 0.500
sl1/s1 = 1.0
1 db f y
fs = 2τ1πr + (3τ 2 + τ 3 ) ls + ≤ fy Use τ1, τ2, and τ3
db 4.6r + 1.7 db
Notes: αd is coefficient related to reinforcing bar diameter (=1.1 for D19 bars or less, 1.0 for D22 to D29 bars, and 0.9 for D32 bars or greater;) αm1αm2αm3 is coefficient related to
concrete cover and transverse reinforcement; fc′ is concrete compressive strength; db is reinforcing bar diameter; fy is reinforcing bar yield strength; Es is elastic modulus of reinforcing
bar (=200,000 MPa); l is development length; r is radius of hooked bars (=3.5db for db ≤ 25.4 mm, otherwise 4.5db); ls is straight bar length; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
eters are as follows: the development length ld = 50.8 to 860 mm sum of the bearing strength based on the flexural yielding of
(2.0 to 33.9 in.), hooked bar diameter db = 12.7 to 43.0 mm the hooked bar and the bond strength along the hook length.
(0.5 to 1.7 in.); concrete strength fc′ = 16.6 to 113.9 MPa (2.4 Figures 8 and 9 compare the test results (including the straight
to 16.5 ksi); and yield strength of the reinforcing bar fy = 410 to length) with the bar stress predictions of the existing design codes
897 MPa (59.5 to 130.0 ksi).5,6,8,11,12,21-24 For the 410 specimens and the proposed method. Figure 8 shows the ratios of the test
with 90-degree hooked bars and 83 specimens with 180-degree strength to the prediction for the specimens without transverse
hooked bars, the tensile strengths fs of the hooked bars were reinforcement. In the figure, the specimens were classified as
calculated according to the given development lengths. Table 3 90-degree hooked bars and 180-degree hooked bars. Generally,
compares the predictions of the existing design methods and the Eurocode 2,2 Model Code 2010,3 and the Sperry et al.12 model
proposed method with the test results. In Eurocode 22 and Model underestimated the strengths of the hooked bars. Although safety
Code 2010,3 for direct comparison with the test results, safety factors were not included in the design equations, the prediction
factors were not considered. results were relatively conservative. Particularly, as the devel-
First, Fig. 7 compares the hook anchorage strength of opment length-to-diameter ratio ld/db increases, the fib Model
90-degree hooked bars (that is, without straight length) in Code 20103 significantly underestimated the strength of the
existing wall-beam test specimens8 with the bar stress predic- hooked bars. The ACI 3181 equation was developed on the basis
tion of the proposed method. In the test, only the bar hook of old test results. Thus, as presented in Table 3, the ACI 3181
without the straight part was embedded in the concrete. Thus, predictions were not accurate for the recent test results including
the anchorage strength of the 90-degree hook can be esti- the test results of Lee and Park,22 Peckover and Darwin,23 and
mated. In the prediction of the proposed method (Eq. (19)), Sperry et al.12 (averages of 1.22 to 1.75 and SD. of 0.26 to 0.40).
τ2 = τ3 = 0 was used (Fig. 6). In Fig. 7, the predictions agree For this reason, in Fig. 8, the ACI 3181 predictions showed rela-
with the test strengths, showing an average ratio = 0.98 and tively large average value of 1.31 and COV value of 0.315. On
coefficient of variation (COV) = 0.200. This result indicates the other hand, the proposed models in Eq. (19) and (20) showed
that the hook anchorage strength can be estimated from the better predictions (the average ratio = 1.14 and 1.18, and COV
Notes: ls is splice length; db is reinforcing bar diameter; fc′ is concrete compressive strength; fy: reinforcing bar yield strength; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
= 0.202 and 0.212, respectively). However, despite the accuracy Figure 10 compares the predictions and test results for all
of the predictions, the proposed method gave unsafe predictions specimens. The Sperry et al.12 model showed the average ratio =
for a significant number of the test results. Thus, a safety factor is 1.53 and COV = 0.228, and the stress ratio ftest/fs = 1.0 to 1.8 for
required for actual applications of the proposed method. the majority of test specimens. The proposed model in Eq. (19)
Figure 9 shows the strength ratio of the hooked bar specimens showed the average ratio = 1.17 and COV = 0.196, and ftest/fs =
with transverse reinforcement. In the specimens with transverse 0.8 to 1.6. The proposed model in Eq. (20) showed the average
reinforcement, the correlation between the predictions and test ratio = 1.21 and COV = 0.208, and ftest/fs = 0.8 to 1.6.
results was similar to that of the specimens without transverse In the proposed method, a safety factor is required for
reinforcement shown in Fig. 8. The prediction of the proposed safe design of actual structures. In the present study, a safety
methods in Eq. (19) and (20) was better than other design factor ϕ = 0.7 was recommended for Eq. (19) and (20).
methods, showing the average ratio = 1.20 and 1.24, and COV = For the detailed method
0.183 and 0.195, respectively.
(22b)
φτ u φf y
fs =
db
[ 3.4ld + 4.0db ] +
22.4
≤ f y for db > 25.4 mm (1 in.)
(22c)
Fig. 8—Bar stress ratio of hooked bar test specimens without transverse bars.
Fig. 9—Bar stress ratio of hooked bar test specimens with transverse bars.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was financially supported by National Key Research
Fig. 10—Comparison of test results and predictions for Program of China (2016YFC0701400) and National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant No. 51650110500 and 51338004). The authors are
existing hooked bar test specimens. grateful to the authorities for their supports.