Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper compares the development length requirements of several international codes for 500 MPa steel reinforcing bars with test results obtained from eighteen reinforced concrete beams. These beams were designed specifically to allow the pull out of bars in the tension zone before bar yielding in order to determine the anchorage capacity and hence the development length necessary to obtain yield. After introducing the background to development length requirements and summarizing eight different international code provisions, this paper reports the results of the eighteen beam tests and compares these results with the code provisions. Following the development length comparison among the international standards, several conclusions are drawn. Of all the approaches examined in this paper, AS3600-2001 is always the most conservative one and has the worst correlation with the test data in most conditions, while AASHO has the lowest factors of safety for the smaller bars. These factors are considered reasonable and appropriate. ACI318-05 and ACI Committee 408 are more conservative and provide worse agreement for the larger bars. CEB-FIP Mode Code 1990 and Eurocode 2 always follow a similar trend and have lower, appropriate factors of safety, and also provide a better agreement with the test data in most conditions. GB50010-2002 has the similar factors of safety to CEB-FIP Mode Code 1990 and Eurocode 2. However, it doesn't provide good agreement with the test data for larger diameter bars. Of all the approaches examined here, AS3600-2009, which brings the Australian Standard into line with FIP Mode Code 1990 and Eurocode 2, provides better consistent agreement with the test data and is a significant improvement on the method provided in AS3600-2001. All current codes appear to be over conservative for small diameter bars.

Keywords

development length 500 MPa steel bar testing program code requirements

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AASHTO (2004). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

ACI 318-02 (2002). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

ACI 214R-02 (2002). Evaluation of Strength Test Results of Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

ACI 408R-03 (2003). Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

ACI 318R-05 (2005). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

ASTM A 615/A 615 M-04 (2004). Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM A 706/ A 706M-04 (2004b). Standard Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Bournonville

Dahnke

Darwin

(2004). Statistical Analysis of the Mechanical Properties and Weight of Reinforcing Bars, SL Report, University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS.

GB50010-2002 (2003). Code for Design of Concrete Structures, China Building Industry Press, Beijing, China. (in Chinese).

10.

CEB-FIP (1990). CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, Thomas Telford, London, UK.

11.

Darwin

Idun

E.K.

Zuo

Tholen

M.L.

(1998). “Reliability-based strength reduction factor for bond”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 95, No. 4, pp. 434–443.

12.

Ellingwood

Galambos

T.V.

MacGregor

J.G.

Cornell

C.A.

(1980). Development of a Probability Based Criterion for American National Standard A58, US Department of Commerce, NBS Special Publication, Washington, D.C.

13.

Eurocode 2 (2004). Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General Rules for Buildings, The European Standard, Brussels, Belgium.

14.

Gilbert

R.I.

(2007). “Comparing tensile reinforcement anchorage in US, European and Australian Standards”, Concrete in Australia, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 33–40.

15.

Gilbert

R.I.

(2009). “Development length and lapped splice length for deformed bars in tension-changes to Section 13 of AS3600”, Concrete in Australia, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 23–30.

16.

Deeks

A.J.

Liu

(2010). “Comparison of Chinese and Australian 500MPa reinforcing steels”, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 113–120.

17.

Mao

D.L.

(2004). Experimental Study on Bond-Anchorage Properties of HRB500 Steel Bars, Master Thesis, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. (in Chinese)

18.

AS 3600-2001 (2001). Concrete Structures, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.

19.

Tepfers

(1973). A Theory of Bond Applied to Overlapped Tensile Reinforcement Splices for Deformed Bars, Division of Concrete Structures, Chalmers Teknisica Hogskola (Chalmers University of Technology), Goteborg, Sweden.

20.

Zuo

Darwin

(1998). Bond Strength of High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars, SM Report, University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS.

21.

Zuo

Darwin

(2000). “Splice strength of conventional and high relative rib area bars in normal and high strength concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 4, pp. 630–641.

Evaluation of the Adequacy of Development Length Requirements for 500 MPa Reinforcing Bars

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References