×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Reduction of Development Length ok?

Reduction of Development Length ok?

Reduction of Development Length ok?

(OP)
I have got a question about concrete development length, and whether I can reduce the development length if the tension in my steel is less than the maximum tension that my steel reinforcement can take.  Reference is ACI 318-05
Section 15.6.2 - "Calculated tension or compression in reinforcement at each section shall be developed on each
side of that section by embedment length, hook (tnesion only) or mechanical device, or a combination thereof.

Say the tension in my steel bar is only 37% of the full tensile capacity of the bar.  Is it right to say that my
development length for that particular bar can only be 37%, esp. if I have no space to develop my length further?

Thanks.

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

It's actually based on the ratio of req'd steel to provided steel (See 12.2.5).  We don't determine stresses in steel bars (typically), we simply analyze the section to determine if it has adequate capacity.  

If your analysis shows that you have twice as much steel as is necessary for your ultimate loads, then you can cut the development length in half, with certain limitations.

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

The limitations StructuralEIT is talking about are those cases where the full yield strength of the bar needs to be developed.  Examples would be tension ties (actually need 125% of yield), shear friction reinforcement, and shrinkage & temperature reinforcement.  For a footing you would probably only have to worry about T&S steel if it governed.  If this is a problem, use smaller diameter bars to get shorter lengths.

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

You can use hooks or nuts to achieve development if you're really up against a wall.

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

(OP)
ACI 318-05 Section 12.5.3 does provide for a reduction of the development length when 90 degree hooks are used.  StructuralEIT, how do we know that the ratio refers to required steel versus provided steel, and not actual tensile capacity of steel, versus allowable tensile capacity of steel?   

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

6 on one hand, half a dozen on the other.

The ratio is the same thing - unless the required area of steel is governed by something other than strength.  

With concrete you are dealing with factored loads, not allowable loads.  So technically you don't have an "allowable" capacity of the steel.

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

great point by POB. adding/subtracting As is non-linear, so if you double your As you don't double your capacity.  

Here's an example, using a spread sheet I have, I found that for a demand of 50 k-ft (with abritary dims)...

I need 1.4in^2 of steel.  So if I provided 2.8 in^2 I could reduce my Ld by 1/2 (according to ACI 12.2.5).  

However, if I calculate the capacity with 2.8 in^2 it is 87.5 kip-ft...So if you ratioed capacities by EIT's method you could only reduce Ld by by 43%.  

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

(OP)
Thanks for the support, NS4U and for the practical example you provided.  Even though a reduction of 50% (NS4U's example with area of steel) and a reduction of 43% (NS4U's example with steel capacities) are reasonably close, they are not exactly the same, and the variance may be even more if the dimensions are different.

So, it still comes back to the question of do we take the ratio to the required steel versus provided steel, or actual tensile capacity of steel versus factor capacity of steel?  Or do we do both, and just go with the one that is more conservative.

Thanks for all the feedback and discussion topics, everyone.

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

Both 12.2.5 and 12.5.3 use the ratio:

As(required) / As(provided) as the reduction coefficient.

This is based upon, historically, the stress in the bars as the older codes used to use circumferential contact area on the bar surface as the measure of development.

NS4U, your example appears to be relating bending moment in a beam.  This is not the way to look at it.  The ratio of bending moments is based on moment capacity which is based on depth, beam configuration, concrete compressive stress, etc.  

ACI does not recognize reductions in development length based on moment.  Only based on area of steel (thus the As ratio).

 

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

JAE, I agree, I was merely pointing out that it is not as simple as ratioing the capacities.  

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

sorry i meant to say... it is not as simple as ratioing the capacity to the demand.  

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

yep
 

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

I don't think it's good practice to limit the development length. If the steel were ever overloaded, you would be promoting a non-ductile failure mode. Especially if you have seismic loads. I would avoid 12.2.5 and find a way to fully anchor the steel.

RE: Reduction of Development Length ok?

In the British Standard (BS8110) there is a table for the ultimate anchorage bond lengths and lap lengths.

But there is also a clause which allows you to calculate the length of anchorage required for a specified force in the bars. A modification factor is then used to calculate the length of tension/compression lap required (there is also a minimum length beyond which the lap cannot be reduce).

Is there anything like this in the US codes.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources