ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules
ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules
(OP)
I have had the argument put forward 'that the standard hook is one of the authorised method that can be substituted for the development length by the ACI 318M-02'
Referring to Clause 12.1.1.
I do not accept this argument where full tension strength of the member is required. For example, in the case of high moments in beam-column connection where anchorage is critical.
The argument that by hooking a bar one no longer needs to pay attention to the development length is ludicrous.
In BS 8110, it is clear that there is no substitute for the development of the tension bars with or without hooks. I do not believe the ACI is any different.
Is there anywhere in the ACI codes that clearly draws the distinction ?
Referring to Clause 12.1.1.
I do not accept this argument where full tension strength of the member is required. For example, in the case of high moments in beam-column connection where anchorage is critical.
The argument that by hooking a bar one no longer needs to pay attention to the development length is ludicrous.
In BS 8110, it is clear that there is no substitute for the development of the tension bars with or without hooks. I do not believe the ACI is any different.
Is there anywhere in the ACI codes that clearly draws the distinction ?





RE: ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules
RE: ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules
For the development of the full strength of the tension bars, I would say if you have to bend it to fit it in (which is common in my line of work), the hooked sections are a sub-component of the full length still required, not a substitute.
RE: ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules
RE: ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules
RE: ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules
RE: ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules
RE: ACI 318M-02 Anchorage rules