Title: Development Length Criteria for Conventional and High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars

Author(s): David Darwin, Jun Zuo, Michael L. Tholen, and Emmanuel K. ldun

Publication: Structural Journal

Volume: 93

Issue: 3

Appears on pages(s): 347-359

Keywords: bond (concrete to reinforcement); bridge specifications; build-ing codes; deformed reinforcement; development; lap connections; rein-forcing steels; relative rib area; reliability; splicing; structural engineering.

DOI: 10.14359/9694

Date: 5/1/1996

Abstract:
Statistical analyses of 133 splice and development specimens in which the bars are not confined by transverse reinforcement and 166 specimens in which the bars are confined by transverse reinforcement are used to develop an expression for the bondforce atfailure as a function of concrete strength, cover, bar spacing, development/splice length, transverse reinforcement, and the geometric properties of the developed/spliced bars. Results are used to formulate design criteria that incorporate a reliability-based strength reduction (oI) factor that allows the calculation of a single value for both development and splice length for given material properties and member geometry. As with earlier studies, the analyses demonstrate that the relationship between bond force and development or splice length 1d is linear but not proportional. Thus, to increase the bond force (or bar stress) by a given percentage requires ’ l/2 more than that percentage increase in 1,. f c does not provide an accurate rep-resentation of the effect of concrete strength on bond strength over the fill range of concrete strengths in use today; development/splice strengths are underestimated for low-strength concretes and overestimated for high-strength concretes. '1/4 provides an accurate representation of the effect of concrete strength on bond strength for concretes with compressive strengths between 2500 and 16,000 psi (17 and 110 MPa). lhe most accurate representation of the effect of transverse reinforcement on bond strength obtained in the current analysis includes parameters that accountfor the number of transverse reinforcing bars that cross the develop spliced bar, the area of the transverse reinforcement, the number of bars developed or spliced at one location, the relative rib area of the developed/spliced bar, and the size of the developed/spliced bar. The yield strength of transverse re-inforcement does not play a role in the effectiveness of the transverse reinforcement in improving development/splice strength. Depending on the design expression selected, for conventional and high relative rib area bars that are not confined by transverse reinforcement, development lengths average 2 to 14 percent higher and splice lengths 12 to 22 percent lower than those obtained using ACI 318-95. For conventional reinforcing bars confined by transverse reinforce-ment, development lengths average 5 percent lower to 16 percent higher than those obtained using ACI 318-95, while splice lengths average 11 to 27 percent lower than those obtained using ACI 318-95. For high relative rib area reinfor-ing bars confined by transverse reinforcement, development lengths average 3 to 17 percent lower than those obtained using ACI 318-95, while splice lengths average 25 to 36 percent lower than those obtained using ACI 318-95. When confined by transverse reinforcement, high relative rib area bars require development and splice lengths that are 13 to 16 percent lower than required by conventional bars.