×
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

Development Lenghts
3

Development Lenghts

Development Lenghts

(OP)
Sirs,

Good Morning!

Regarding development lengths, is it okay to ignore ldh for hooked bars but still hook it and let it equal to Ld for straight bars?

For more details please see attachment

Thank You in advance

RE: Development Lenghts

I have seen this detail in many drawings in India and but it seems research done shows that the extension of the tail is not beneficial. If you follow ACI provisions, then what you have said is not allowed.

It’s no trick to get the answers when you have all the data. The trick is to get the answers when you only have half the data and half that is wrong and you don’t know which half - LORD KELVIN

RE: Development Lenghts

(OP)
may i ask if which reasearch studied this? thanks slick

RE: Development Lenghts

I would say no. There is a certain minimum length on the hook, after that you are not gaining anything, just wasting bar.

RE: Development Lenghts

No. The stress profile along the bar and the mode of failure between straight and bent bars is different. That's why they have different requirements.

RE: Development Lenghts

That seems counterintuitive.

If it requires an Ld to develop a straight bar, then if you have the same length of straight bar and put a bend in it, one would think it would be at least as strong.

The only reason that I can think of is that the bar is 'pulling away' from the concrete at the outside of the radius... but, then it's pushing against the inside of the radius.

Can anyone explain why it would not be as strong?

Dik

RE: Development Lenghts

The failure is partly due to the compressive stress failure (crushing) at the bend. I think the MacGregor text book has a fairly detailed explanation.

RE: Development Lenghts

Thanks... some light reading for the weekend coming up...

RE: Development Lenghts

If you want to develop extra bar development over that which a standard cog allows, you have to design the cog for it. The radius of the bend must be increased to reduce the compression/bearing stresses in the bend and then the bonus you get from the cog is lost and the bar is treated as a normal bar for development. BS8110 and I thing Eurocode 2 give design methods for this. The increase in capacity is dependant on the radius of the curve in the cog.

RE: Development Lenghts

Do you have information on the increased radii?

Dik

RE: Development Lenghts

The dimensions in the hook and lap tables are intended to provide full capacities in all cases where coverage requirements are met, subject to stated limitations of course. There is not enough information in the posted detail to ensure that.

Take the extreme case in the detail. If you ignore ldh entirely you have the potential for the hook to be turned down immediately after the bar passes the face of the support. That can't work and would result in minimum coverage and the hook pulling through the face of the support and possibly from the face of the beam before reaching full capacity. This would also happen with thin walls and columns where ldh could not be observed.

I could see the detail working in some scenarios. Perhaps where there was supplemental reinforcement under the hook or where a reasonable ldh was "unofficially" observed.

RE: Development Lenghts

The detail could also work if you assigned some reduced resistance to the hook based on the actual provided ldh.

RE: Development Lenghts

The papers I posted talks in detail about this "lead in" length from the face of the column and it's effect on development length.

RE: Development Lenghts

yes, "lead in" that's a better term since ldh refers to a constant number.

RE: Development Lenghts

CAB... generally have a horizontal bar between the hook and the concrete face that precludes 'breakout'... does that have an impact on the Ldh value?

Dik

RE: Development Lenghts

Dik,

I assume that question was for me.

BS8110 has a formula for bearing stress in the curve which is dependant on the radius and the force in the bar in clause 3.12.8.25.2. You can rearrange the formula to give a minimum radius for the amount of development of the bar required.

AS3600 says that the bar can be considered to develop stress around a curve (ignore cog benefit and treat it as a normal length of bar) if the radius of the bend is greater than 10 times the bar diameter. But really this should be related to concrete strength etc as BS8110 does.

RE: Development Lenghts

Quote:

AS3600 says that the bar can be considered to develop stress around a curve (ignore cog benefit and treat it as a normal length of bar) if the radius of the bend is greater than 10 times the bar diameter. But really this should be related to concrete strength etc as BS8110 does.


On the list for the next revision?

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Development Lenghts

Thanks, rapt... can you *.pdf the formula and post it?

Dik

RE: Development Lenghts

Slickdeals... just finished reading the articles you posted... excellent source of information.

Dik

RE: Development Lenghts

dik,

Sorry, I am away on holidays and no longer have access to a copy. The local engineering library should ahve a copy!

If you search on Bing for BS8110 + 3.12.8.25.2, it comes up!

RE: Development Lenghts

@dik,

IMO I don't think the supplemental reinforcement can be said to reduce the ldh for a "standard hook" since ldh is a defined constant. But if you are using some modified configuration that includes supplemental reinforcement then I certainly agree than a "standard hook" should not always be necessary in order to obtain a reduced "lead in" as it was called.

We do this sort of thing all the time in anchor bolt design when Appendix D is not suitable for anchorage in small piers. The codes/standards should not prevent an engineer from using alternate rational methods such as strut and tie, etc.

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