Concrete Construction
Tension development length and
lap splice design for reinforced
concrete members
David Darwin
University of Kansas, USA
Summary
The key factors that govern development
(anchorage) and splice performance of
reinforcing bars in tension are described. The
bond design provisions of the AASHTO
(American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) LRFD (Load and
Resistance Factor Design) Bridge Design
Specifications, the American Concrete Institute
Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05), ACI Committee 408,
CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, and Eurocode 2 are
summarized and compared with test results. In
terms of the key factors, the bond strength of
bars not confined by transverse reinforcement is
proportional to the concrete compressive
strength to the 14 power. The contribution of
transverse reinforcement to bond strength
increases with the area of the transverse
reinforcement per bar and the relative rib area
and diameter of the bar being developed or
spliced and has been found to be proportional to
Key words: anchorage; bond; concrete; development length; reinforcement; reinforced concrete; relative rib area; splice
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
Published online 12 October 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pse.206
Background
Design development lengths1 can differ by more than
100%, depending on the code or specification used for
design. The same is true for lap splice lengths. Fig. 1
illustrates the magnitude of the differences that arise
among different codes. The figure shows the
relationships between bar stress and development
length for ASTM A 615[1] bars with a nominal
diameter of 25 mm in 30 MPa concrete based on the
design provisions of the American Association for
State Highway and Transportation Officials
1
The term development length is synonymous with anchorage
length.
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
the concrete compressive strength to a power
between 34 and 1.0. For deep members or for high-
slump (conventional and superplasticized)
concrete, the effect of bar placement may be
greater than accounted for in current design
provisions. Of the five design procedures
compared in this paper, those developed by ACI
Committee 408 provide the best match with test
results for both developed and spliced bars. For
developed bars, the other four design procedures
result in a high percentage of tests for which the
test to calculated strength ratios (T/C) are less
than 1.0, with the greatest percentage of low T/C
values resulting from the AASHTO
requirements. The relative safety of the latter
four design procedures improves for lap splices.
A provision in ACI 318-05 that allows a 20%
reduction in development and lap splice length
for bars smaller than 19 mm appears to be unsafe
and should be removed or modified.
(AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2004)[2],
the American Concrete Institute Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05)[3],
ACI Committee 408[4], the CEB-FIP Model Code
1990[5], and Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1)[6]. For
comparison, the clear cover is taken as one bar
diameter and the spacing between bars is taken as two
bar diameters. The wide differences shown in Fig. 1,
with AASHTO at the low end and ACI Committee 408
at the high end, provide strong evidence that one or
more of the design provisions is inaccurate and that
both the margin of safety and economy of
construction may vary, depending on the code.
The goal of this paper is to summarize the current
understanding of development and splice
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
 TENSION DEVELOPMENT LENGTH 211

600

500
Bar Stress, MPa

400

300

200 ACI 318

ACI 408
AASHTO
100 CEB-FIP
Eurocode 2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Development length, mm

Fig. 1 Relationship between bar stress and development length

based on the design provisions of ACI 318-05, ACI Committee
408, AASHTO, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, and Eurocode 2 for
ASTM A 615 No. 25 bars in 30 MPa concrete. No confining
transverse reinforcement, clear cover ¼ one bar diameter, bar
spacing ¼ two bar diameters

performance and compare the five design provisions

shown in Fig. 1 using recently compiled development
and splice test results[4].

Basic aspects of bond

Bond forces develop between reinforcing bars and the
surrounding concrete due to variations in the force
carried along the length of a bar. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 Variation of steel and bond forces in reinforced concrete
Fig. 2, where the bond force per unit length is shown member subjected to pure bending: (a) cracked concrete segment;
(b) bond stresses acting on reinforcing bar; (c) variation of tensile
to be highest where the rate of change in the bar force force in steel; and (d) variation of bond force along bar (adapted
is highest; bond forces are not uniform along the from Nilson et al.[7])
length of reinforcement but, rather, can vary in a
highly nonlinear manner. The key point of bond
design is, therefore, not to limit the peak bond force,
but to ensure that bars are adequately anchored when
developed or spliced.
Some design codes (CEB-FIP Model Code 1990[5]
and Eurocode 2[6]) invoke the concept of bond stress,
the stress at the interface between steel and concrete,
suggesting that bond strength is a material property.
Bond force, rather than stress, however, provides a
more general representation of the response of
members and correctly represents bond strength as
a structural property, based on both the constituent
material properties and member geometry[4].
Expressing bond strength in terms of force also makes
it easier to visualize the effects of the key parameters.

FAILURE MODE
Bond failure, in general, takes one of two different
forms. For most structural members, bond failure is
governed by splitting of the concrete, as illustrated in
Fig. 3. When the cover cb is greater than one-half of
the clear spacing between bars csi, splitting failures of
the type shown in Fig. 3a predominate, with the key Fig. 3 Bond cracks: (a) csi4cb, (b) csi5cb (adapted from ACI
cracks running from the bars, perpendicular to the Committee 408[4])

Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
212
concrete surface. For closer bar spacings and higher
covers, the cracks tend to form in the plane of the bars,
as shown in Fig. 3b. Transverse reinforcement that
crosses splitting cracks will increase bond strength.
If the cover or transverse reinforcement is increased
sufficiently, a pullout failure will occur in which the
concrete between the transverse ribs on the bars fails
by shear or crushing. Increasing the cover or
transverse reinforcement beyond that required to
cause a pullout failure will provide little, if any,
additional bond capacity.
BOND STRENGTH
Member geometry
The bond strength of reinforcing steel is affected by
both material properties and member geometry. Bond
strength increases as the development or splice length
increases, as well as with increasing cover, bar
spacing, and transverse confining reinforcement. For
a given geometry (development [or splice] length,
cover, and bar spacing) and concrete strength, larger
reinforcing bars mobilize higher bond forces. These
relationships are illustrated in Fig. 4 for bars that are
not confined by transverse reinforcement. The figure
shows the total bond force Ab fs normalized with
respect to the concrete compressive strength (based on
150
300 mm cylinders) fc0 to the 14 power as a function
of the product of the development or splice length ld
times (cmin þ 0:5db ), where cmin is the smaller of the
minimum clear cover (cb or cso) or a dimension that
is slightly greater (on average by 6.4 mm) than
one-half of the clear spacing between bars csi (i.e.
cmin ¼ minimum [cb, cso, csi þ 6:4 mm]). Ab and db are
the bar area and diameter, respectively, and cb, csi, and
cso are defined in Fig. 5; fs is the bar stress. Fig. 4
shows the results of a dummy variables analysis[8] by
Darwin et al.[9] in which the data are separated by bar
size (db ranges from No. 3 ¼ 9.5 mm to No.
14 ¼ 43.0 mm). The figure demonstrates that, while the
relationship between the bond force Ab fs and
Fig. 4 Bond strength Abfs normalized with respect to fc0 1=4 versus
the product of the development/splice length and the cover to the
center of the bar ld ðcmin þ 0:5 db Þ[9], (1 in2 ¼ 645 mm2 )
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
A
t
2csi 2csi
c
b
cso
Fig. 5 Beam cross section showing definition of cb, csi, and cso
(adapted from ACI Committee 408 [4])
ld(cmin þ 0:5db ) is linear, Ab fs is not proportional to
ld(cmin þ 0:5db ), that is, the best-fit lines do not pass
through the origin.
The need to increase csi by 6.4 mm suggests that,
because splitting cracks between bars do not line up
precisely, they tend to behave as if they were longer
than one-half of the spacing between bars, requiring
greater energy and, thus, greater bond force to
propagate[10–14].
Another aspect of member geometry that affects
bond strength is the value of cso or csi relative to cb.
Defining cs ¼ minimum (cso, csi þ 6:4 mm),
cmin ¼ minimum (cb, cs), and cmax ¼ maximum (cb, cs),
bond strength is observed to increase (up to a point)
as cmax deviates from cmin[10–16]. For bars not confined
by transverse reinforcement, that increase may be
approximated by a factor equal to
0:1ðcmax =cmin Þ þ 0:941:25[11–14]. While this factor need
not necessarily be used in the design, it is important to
consider this effect in the initial formulation of design
expressions that are based on or calibrated to tests.
Otherwise, bond strength will tend to be
overestimated for the case when cb ffi cs .
Concrete strength
The choice of fc0 1=4 in place of the more traditional
0 1=2 2=3
fck or fck (where fc0 is the specified compressive
strength[2,3] and fck is the characteristic strength[5,6]) to
represent the contribution of concrete strength to
bond strength is based on the analysis summarized in
Fig. 6, in which optimal bond equations were
developed for different powers of fc0 [13]. The test
results were then categorized based on concrete
strength and plotted to determine the scatter obtained
for each power of fc0 . As shown in Fig. 6. the relative
scatter (relative intercept) was minimized using a
power of 0.24. For practical purposes, a value of 0.25
was adopted.
An explanation as to why the 14 power of
compressive strength provides superior results to
those produced by higher powers is presented by
Darwin et al.[17]. Their research indicates that, while
the tensile
pffiffiffiffi strength of concrete increases at a rate that
is 5 fc0 , the fracture energy of concrete Gf, the energy
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225

Fig. 6 Range of relative intercept obtained for dummy variables
analysis for experimental bond force, normalized with respect to
f 0 Pc , for optimized bond strength expressions versus the power p
of fc0 for bars without confining transverse reinforcement[13]
per unit area required to propagate a crack once it has
formed, is nearly independent of fc0 . The overall result
is that the influence of compressive strength on bond
strength is less than normally considered in design.
Transverse reinforcement
Transverse reinforcement that crosses planes of
potential splitting cracks, shown in Fig. 5, increases
the bond strength of reinforcement. The contribution
of transverse reinforcement to bond strength Ts has
been found to depend on the total amount of
transverse reinforcement within the development or
lap splice length and the number of bars confined by
the transverse reinforcement. Ts is also affected by the
geometry of the transverse ribs on the bars, the bar
size, and the concrete strength. Zuo & Darwin[13,14]
demonstrated that the contribution of transverse
reinforcement to bond strength may be represented as
NAtr 0 P
Ts ¼ K1 tr td fc (1)
n bond force because the plastic behavior will reduce
where K1 is a constant, tr a factor that depends on the
relative rib area Rr of the reinforcement, td a factor
that depends on the diameter db of the developed or
spliced bar, N the number of transverse stirrups or ties
within the development or splice length, Atr the area
of each stirrup or tie crossing the plane of potential
splitting, n the number of bars being developed or
spliced along the plane of splitting, and p the power of
fc0 , between 0.75 and 1.00. In the case shown in Fig. 5,
illustrating a two-leg stirrup confining three spliced
reinforcing bars in the same plane, Atr is two times the
area of the stirrup At and n ¼ 3 if cso or the effective
value of csi is less than cb. Alternatively, Atr ¼ At and
n ¼ 1 if cso and the effective value of csi are greater
than cb.
tr ¼ 9:6Rr þ 0:28 (2)
td ¼ 0:03db þ 0:22 (3)
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TENSION DEVELOPMENT LENGTH 213
The relative rib area of a bar Rr is defined as
Rr ¼
projected rib area normal to bar axis
nominal bar perimeter
center-to-center rib spacing
(4)
In European practice[6], the minimum value for Rr is
0.056 for bars with diameters of 12 mm or larger. In US
practice, no minimum is specified, but values of Rr
typically range from 0.057 to 0.087[18], with an average
value of approximately 0.073. Tests by Darwin et al.[11,12]
and Zuo & Darwin[13,14] verify the relationship given in
eq. (1) for values of Rr as high as 0.14.
Eq. (1) shows that the contribution of transverse
reinforcement increases with the increasing concrete
strength. Zuo & Darwin[13,14] found that the most
likely value of the power p in eq. (1) is 0.80,
considerably higher than the power representing the
contribution of concrete strength to the bond strength
of bars without transverse reinforcement. For design
purposes, they chose p ¼ 34. The yield strength of the
transverse reinforcement does not play a role in
determining Tb because very few transverse bars yield
during development or splice failure[19–21]. The
relative rib area and diameter of the bar, as reflected
by tr and td, respectively, appear in the relationship
because developed and spliced bars act as wedges as
they slip with respect to the concrete. Increases in Rr
and db increase the wedging action and, thus, cause
greater splitting, which mobilizes higher clamping
forces in the transverse reinforcement.
Yielding of developed bars
Most relationships used in reinforced concrete design
are based on tests. Because of concerns, on one hand,
that long development or splice lengths may prevent a
bond failure from occurring, and on the other, that a
bond failure just as a bar yields will result in a lower
bond strength, tests are often performed so that bond
failure occurs prior to yielding. Evaluations of a large
database by Darwin et al.[9,22] and Zuo & Darwin[13,14]
indicate that, on average, yielding reduces bond
strength by only about 2% for bars that are not confined
by transverse reinforcement and increases the bond
strength by about 10% for bars that are confined by
transverse reinforcement when compared to higher
strength steel bars (with similar embedment lengths)
that do not yield. They theorized that yielding may
actually increase bond strength by increasing the length
of the bar over which bond slip occurs, allowing a
greater portion of the bar to remain in contact with the
concrete prior to a bond failure, thus mobilizing a
greater region of concrete to carry the bond force.
CASTING POSITION
It is widely observed in tests and recognized in design
provisions that bond strength will decrease as the
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
214
depth of plastic concrete below a bar increases. This
decrease results from the settlement of concrete
around the bar subsequent to initial consolidation,
along with the accumulation of bleed water below the
bar, leaving a region of the bar surface that is not in
contact with the concrete. It is also recognized by
some design codes[5,6] and supported by research[23,24]
that bars near the upper surface of a placement (top-
cast) exhibit reduced bond strength compared to bars
cast with a similar depth of concrete below but a
greater depth of concrete above the bars. This upper
surface effect is a result of settlement cracking,
cracking parallel to and above a bar caused by
concrete subsidence around the reinforcement.
The effect of the placement depth below
reinforcement is accounted for by what is often
referred to as the ‘top-bar’ factor, which is used to
increase development and splice length. A factor of
1.3 is used by the ACI Building Code[3] and ACI
Committee 408[4]. A factor of 1.4 is used by the
AASHTO Bridge Specifications, and a factor of 1:0=0
:7 ¼ 1:43 is used by the CEB-FIP Model Code[5] and
Eurocode 2[6]. These values are appropriate for top-
cast members with depths of placement on the order
of 0.6 to 1.0 m for concrete slumps up to about
130 mm. The effect of casting position, however, can
be significantly worse as either the depth of the
member or the concrete slump increase, with the
greatest effect observed for bars near the upper
surface. This is demonstrated in Fig. 7, which shows
that the relative strength of bars cast with 1.8 m of
concrete below the steel can drop by as much as 60%
for concrete slumps on the order of 215 mm. Similar
results have been obtained for both vibrated and
nonvibrated high-slump (conventional or
superplasticized) concrete. As shown in Fig. 8, the
relative bond strength dropped by 30–60% for top-cast
(upper surface) bars with 900 mm of high-slump
(230 mm) plastic concrete below the reinforcement
compared to bottom-cast bars in the same specimens
with a cover cb of 50 mm.
Fig. 7 Bond strength as a function of bar location within a wall
specimen. High slump ¼ 812 in (215 mm). Low slump ¼ 3 in
(75 mm)[23] (1 ksi ¼ 6:89 MPa, 1 in ¼ 25:4 mm)
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
Fig. 8 Bond efficiency ratio versus concrete depth below the bar
for lower temperature concrete [53 8F (12 8C)]. REG ¼ concrete
without a superplasticizer. SP ¼ superplasticized concrete[24]
(1 in ¼ 25:4 mm)
BAR SURFACE CONDITION
Coatings on the surface of a bar that reduce the
friction between the steel and concrete can have a
negative impact on bond strength[18,25–33]. For this
reason, design codes require minimal levels of
cleanliness for the bar, restricting the presence of dirt
or oil. Mild amounts of rust have been shown to have
little effect on bond strength, while thick rust reduces
the bond by separating the base metal from the
surrounding concrete[25].
Epoxy coatings, used to improve the corrosion
resistance of reinforcement, have a negative impact on
bond because they reduce the coefficient of friction
between the steel and the concrete[33,34]. In most cases,
test results demonstrate the need to increase
development and lap splice lengths by approximately
50% for epoxy-coated bars compared to the lengths
required for uncoated bars. Tests of bars with
relative rib areas Rr in excess of 0.10, however,
show that an increase on the order of 20% is
satisfactory for high relative rib area
reinforcement[10–14,35].
Design provisions
The bond design provisions of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications[2], the ACI Building
Code (ACI 318-05)[3], ACI Committee 408[4], CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990[5], and Eurocode 2[6] will be
compared with splice and development tests of
straight reinforcing bars. To allow direct comparison
of design equations, the expressions are written
using notation similar to that used in
ACI 318-02[36].2
2
The notation used in ACI 318-02 is somewhat cleaner, using fewer
subscripts, than that in ACI 318-05.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225

AASHTO
The design provisions in the AASHTO Bridge
Specifications[2] for development and lap splice length
of straight reinforcement in tension represent design
procedures that have been in use the longest. Based
on the results of pullout tests[37], they are very similar
to those used in the ACI Building Code prior to 1995.
The main AASHTO design equations express
development length ld in mm as a function of bar size.
0:02Ab fy
For No: 36 and smaller bars ld ¼ pffiffiffiffi (5a)
fc0
but not less than ld ¼ 0:06db fy (5b)
25fy
For No: 43 bars ld ¼ pffiffiffiffi (5c)
fc0
34fy
For No: 57 bars ld ¼ pffiffiffiffi (5d)
fc0
in which Ab is the area of the bar in mm2, fy the steel
yield strength in MPa, fc0 the concrete compressive
strength based on 150
300 mm cylinders in MPa,
and db the diameter of the bar in mm. The bar sizes
are those specified in ASTM A 615[1] and A 706[38] and
represent the approximate bar diameter in mm. The
nominal values of db used in design differ by a few
tenths of a millimeter from the approximate
diameters.
The development lengths given in eq. (5) are
multiplied by one or more factors: 1.4 for horizontal or
nearly horizontal reinforcement placed with more
than 300 mm of fresh concrete castp below
ffiffiffiffi the
0
reinforcement (top-bar factor); 0.58 fc =fct 51:0, where
fct is the splitting tensile strength of the concrete; 1.3
for concrete in which all aggregate is lightweight or
1.2 for sand-lightweight concrete, where fct is not
specified; 1.5 for epoxy-coated bars with cover less
than 3db or clear spacing less than 6db, or 1.2 for
epoxy-coated bars not covered by the previous
criterion. The product obtained when combining the
factor for top reinforcement with the factor for epoxy-
coated bars need not be taken greater than 1.7 under
the assumption that the reduced contact area, because
of concrete settlement, and the lower coefficient of
friction for epoxy-coated bars are not fully additive. In
addition, development or splice lengths may be
multiplied by 0.8 for reinforcement being developed
in the length under consideration when it is spaced
not less than 150 mm center-to-center, with not less
than 75 mm clear cover measured in the direction of
spacing, (As required)/(As provided) when anchorage
of the full yield strength of the reinforcement is not
required or when reinforcement in flexural members
is in excess of that required by analysis, and 0.75
when reinforcement is enclosed within a spiral
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TENSION DEVELOPMENT LENGTH 215
Table 1 Classes of tension lap splices: AASHTO bridge
specifications
ðAs providedÞ Maximum percent of As spliced
Ratio within required lap length
ðAs requiredÞ
........................................
50 75 100
........................................................................
52 A A B
52 B C C
........................................................................
composed of bars of not less than 6 mm in diameter
and spaced at not more than a 100 mm pitch. The
AASHTO provisions recognize no other cases in
which confining reinforcement contributes to bond
strength. The minimum value of ld is 300 mm.
Lap splice lengths in tension may not be less than
300 mm or 1:0ld ; 1:3ld ; or 1.7ld for Class A, B, and C
splices, respectively, as defined in Table 1.
ACI BUILDING CODE (ACI 318-05)
The design provisions in the ACI Building Code
(ACI 318-05)[3] for bond and development of straight
reinforcement in tension are based on the analysis of
splice and development tests by Orangun et al.,[15,16].
The principal design equation expresses development
length as
9 fy abgl
ld ¼ pffiffiffiffi   db (6)
10 fc0 c þ Ktr
db
in which c is the smaller of the distance from the
center of the bar to the nearest concrete surface or one-
half of the center-to-center spacing of the bars,
Ktr ¼ Atr fyt =ð10:34snÞ, Atr is the area of each stirrup or
tie crossing the potential plane of splitting adjacent to
the reinforcement being developed, spliced, or
anchored, fyt the yield strength of transverse
reinforcement, s the spacing of transverse
reinforcement, and n the number of bars being
developed or spliced. The term ðc þ Ktr Þ=db is limited
to a maximum of 2.5 based on an assumed upper limit
of confinement for a splitting failure.
The ACI Building Code is the only one of the five
design documents compared in this paper that
includes the yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement fyt in the calculation of development
length. The inclusion of fyt does not appear to be
appropriate based on the observation that very few
transverse bars yield during development or splice
failure[19–21] as described earlier during the discussion
of the effect of transverse reinforcement on bond
strength. The test data used to develop eq. (1) show no
correlation between bond strength and fyt.
Because of a lack of tests using concrete with fc0
greater than p 69ffiffiffiMPa
ffi at the time of the analysis[15,16],
the value of fc0 used in eq. (6) is limited to 8.3 MPa.
Bar placement, epoxy coating, and the use of
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
216
Table 2 Classes of tension lap splices: ACI Building Code (ACI
318-02
........................................
ðAs providedÞ
Ratio Maximum percent of As spliced
ðAs requiredÞ within required lap length
........................................
50 100
.........................................................................
52 A B
52 B B
.........................................................................
lightweight aggregate are accounted for by factors a, b
and g where a ¼ 1.3 for reinforcement placed so that
more than 300 mm of fresh concrete is cast below the
bar and 1.0 for other reinforcement, b ¼ 1:5 for epoxy-
coated reinforcement with cover less than 3db and
clear spacing less than 6db, 1.2 for other epoxy-coated
reinforcement, and 1.0 for uncoated reinforcement,
with ab41:7, and l ¼ 1:3 forplightweight
ffiffiffiffi concrete, 1.0
for normal concrete, or 0.55 fc0 =fct 51:0 for
lightweight concrete when the split cylinder strength
fct is specified.
Eq. (6) also includes a reinforcement size factor g of
0.8 for No. 19 and smaller bars and 1.0 for No. 22 and
larger bars. As will be demonstrated later in this
paper, g ¼ 0:8 is unconservative.
As with the AASHTO Bridge Specifications, ACI
318 permits the use of the ratio (As required)/(As
provided) when reinforcement in flexural members
exceeds that required by analysis, except when
anchorage or development for yield strength is
specifically required or reinforcement is designed for
certain seismic applications. The minimum value of ld
is 300 mm.
Lap splices are classified as shown in Table 2, with
splice lengths of 1.0ld and 1.3ld for Class A and Class
B splices, respectively. The splice length may not be
reduced by the ratio (As required)/(As provided) and
must be at least 300 mm. The extra length required for
Class B splices is used to encourage designers to
stagger the location of splices, rather than increase
strength, because developed bars and lap splices with
the same length have been observed to exhibit similar
bond strengths[11,12,15,16]. As will be demonstrated later
in this paper, however, the increase in strength that is
provided by the increased splice length is needed
based on comparisons with test results.
ACI COMMITTEE 408
Extending work by Zuo & Darwin[13,14], ACI
Committee 408 developed provisions for
development length and lap splice design[4].
Development length is expressed as
 
fy
 48o abl
fc0 1=4
ld ¼   db (7)
co þ Ktr
1:5
db
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
where c ¼ cmin þ 0:5 db , o ¼ 0:1ðcmax =cmin Þþ 0:941:25,
cmax is the maximum (cb, cs), cmin the minimum (cb, cs),
cb the bottom cover, cs the minimum (cso,
csi þ 6:4 mm), cso the side cover, and csi the one-half of
the bar clear spacing (cb, csi, and cso are defined in
Fig. 5), and ðcoþKtr Þ=db44:0. Ktr ¼ð6:26tr td Atr =snÞf0 1/2 c ,
tr ¼ 9:6Rr þ 0:2841:72, and td ¼ 0:03db þ 0:22. For
conventional reinforcement (average Rr ¼ 0:0727), Ktr
¼ ð6td Atr =snÞ fc0 1=2 . fc0 1=4 and fc0 1=2 are treated as having
units of MPa and are limited to maximum values of
3.25 and 10.5 MPa, respectively, because the data used
to develop eq. (7) were limited to concrete with a
maximum strength of 110 MPa.
For reasonspffiffiffidiscussed
ffi earlier in the paper, fc0 1=4 ,
0
rather than fc , is used to represent the effect of
concrete compressive strength on bond strength. fc0
also appears in the Ktr term, recognizing the fact that
transverse reinforcement becomes progressively more
effective as concrete strength increases[13,14], as
discussed for eq. (1). Eq. (7) may be simplified by
setting o ¼ 1:0 and dropping the 6.4 mm term from
the definition of the cs. a, b, and l and the term
for excess reinforcement are used as they are for
ACI 318, except that based on observations by
Zuo & Darwin [13,14], b ¼ 1:5 for all conventional
epoxy-coated bars. The value of ld in eq. (7) is used for
both development and lap splice lengths. The
minimum value for both development length ld and
lap splice length ls is equal to the smaller of 300 mm
and 16db. Eq. (7) was developed using a reliability-
based approach calibrated to produce a probability of
failure in bond equal to 20% of that in flexure based
on procedures described by Darwin et al.[39] using a
value for the reliability index of 3.5 for bond,
compared to a value of 3.0, typically used for
bending[40]. The reliability index represents the
number of standard deviations by which the mean
margin of safety (strength–load) exceeds zero.
CEB-FIP MODEL CODE 1990
The CEB-FIP 1990 provisions[5] are based on research
by Tepfers[41], modified to match earlier design
provisions3. The provisions are presented using terms
that are compatible with those used in ACI 318-02[36].
Using that terminology, development length may be
expressed as
 
1 cmin
ld ¼ 1:1520:15
1:228 db
 
SAtr 2SAtr;min Zfyd
12K d
2=3 b
(8)
Ab f
ck
where Z ¼ 1:0 for db 432 mm; ¼ 100=ð132  db Þ for
db 432 mm; each term in parentheses is limited to the
range of 0.7–1.0; K ¼ 0:10 for a bar confined at a
corner bend of a stirrup or tie, k ¼ 0:05 for a bar
3
Personal communication from Ralejs Tepfers, 12 April 2005.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
 TENSION DEVELOPMENT LENGTH 217

confined by a single leg of a stirrup or tie, and k ¼ 0 concrete layer during placement. As in ACI 318-05, ld
for a bar that is not confined by transverse may be multiplied by the ratio of (As required)/
reinforcement; SAtr is the area of transverse (As provided), but unlike ACI 318-05, this ratio may
reinforcement along ld; SAtr;min ¼ 0:25Ab for beams also be applied when calculating the splice length ls.
and 0 for slabs; Ab is the area of the largest bar being For lap splices, ls is calculated by multiplying ld by the
developed or spliced; and fyd the design yield factor ab given in Table 3.
strength. fyd ¼ fyk =1:15, where fyk is the characteristic Development and splice lengths in tension are
yield strength, which is taken as the value that is limited as shown in eqs. (9) and (10), respectively:
exceeded by 95% of all possible test results, often " #
described as the 5% fractile value. Based on 0:3 Z fyd
ld;min ¼ max db ; 10db ; 100 mm (9)
tests of over 20 000 heats of steel, in US practice, 1:228 f 2=3
ck
fyk ffi 1:06fy , where fy is the minimum specified yield
strength[42]. " #
The term fck is the characteristic compressive 0:3ab Zfyd
ls;min ¼ max db ; 15db ; 200 mm (10)
strength, the strength below which 5% of all possible 1:228 f 2=3
ck
strength measurements are expected to fall. For the
CEB-FIP Model Code, fck is taken as 8 MPa below the
average strength. In US design[2,3], fc0 represents the 9% Table 3 Values of coefficient ab: CEB-FIP Model Code
fractile compressive strength. Thus, for application Maximum percent
with eq. (8), fck should be less than fc0 . Based on US of As lapped at
practice, it is appropriate to take the average strength one section* 420 25 33 50 450
......................................................................
as approximately 5.25 MPa greater than the specified ab 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
strength fc0 [43], resulting in characteristic strength ......................................................................
* Defined as lap splices with midlengths within 0.65ls on either side of the midlength
fck ¼ fc0  2:75 MPa. of the splice under consideration.
The value of ld in eq. (8) may be multiplied by
0:74ð1  0:04pÞ41:0, where p is transverse pressure
in MPa at the ultimate limit state along the Table 4 Values of coefficient ab: Eurocode 2
development length perpendicular to the splitting Percent of As lapped
plane. The effect of bar placement for top-cast at one section* 525 33 50 450
reinforcement is included by dividing ld by 0.7 for .........................................................................
ab* * 1 1.15 1.4 1.5
bars with an inclination of less than 458 with the .........................................................................
* Defined as lap splices with midlengths within 0.65ls on either side of the midlength
horizontal that are both (1) more than 250 mm from of the splice under consideration.
the bottom and (2) less than 300 mm from the top of a ** Intermediate values may be determined by interpolation.

Table 5 Test/calculated (T/C) ratios for developed bars

Bars not confined by transverse reinforcement
.........................................................................................................................................................
AASHTO ACI 318 ACI 408 CEB-FIP Eurocode 2
Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8) Eq. (11)
......................................................................................................................................................
Max 1.98 2.37 1.56 2.01 1.96
Min 0.43 0.62 0.84 0.34 0.48
Average 1.01 1.23 1.22 1.11 1.15
Stdev 0.29 0.28 0.14 0.33 0.26
COV 0.29 0.23 0.11 0.29 0.22
Percentage
with T/C5 1.0 48 17 7 34 27
Percentage
with T/C41.8 1 3 0 2 1

Bars confined by transverse reinforcement

.........................................................................................................................................................
AASHTO ACI 318 ACI 408 CEB-FIP Eurocode 2
Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8) Eq. (11)
Max 2.48 2.19 1.71 2.48 2.42
Min 0.62 0.70 0.90 0.48 0.68
Average 1.23 1.23 1.27 1.40 1.43
Stdev 0.35 0.30 0.18 0.37 0.30
COV 0.29 0.24 0.14 0.27 0.21
Percentage
with T/C5 1.0 28 23 6 14 6
Percentage
with T/C41.8 8 6 0 12 10
......................................................................................................................................................

Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
218 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

EUROCODE 2 taken as Ab(fsd/fyd), where Ab is the area of the largest

The development length provisions of Eurocode 2[6] bar being developed or spliced. For lap splices, ld is
have many similarities to those of CEB-FIP Model multiplied by ab ¼ ðr1 =25Þ1=2 41:5; where r1 is the
Code 1990. Development length is expressed as percentage of reinforcement lapped within 0.65ls of
  the center of the lap length. The values of ab are given
1 cmin in Table 4 and are noticeably lower than those
ld ¼ 1:1520:15
1:26 db required by CEB-FIP[5].
  Development and splice lengths in tension are
SAtr 2SAtr;min Z fsd limited as shown in eqs (12) and (13):
12K d
2=3 b
(11)
Ab f " #
ck
0:3 Zfsd
ld;min ¼ max db ; 10db ; 100 mm (12)
where fsd is the design stress of the bar at the position 1:26 f 2=3
ck
from where anchorage is measured at the ultimate
limit state, ¼ fyd (As required)/(As provided). The " #
other terms are as defined for CEB-FIP Model Code 0:3ab Zfsd
1990, except that the value of fck used in eq. (11) is ls;min ¼ max db ; 15db ; 200 mm (13)
1:26 f 2=3
ck
limited to a maximum of 60 MPa unless it can be
demonstrated that the average bond strength Eqs (12) and (13) are similar to eqs (9) and (10) for the
increases above this limit, and Atr,min for splices is CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, except for the differences

60

AASHTO
50 ACI 318
ACI 408
Number of Tests

40

30

20

10

0
Below 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.7 - Above
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8
(a) Test / Calculated

60

CEB-FIP
50
Eurocode

40
Number of Tests

30

20

10

0
Below 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.7 - Above
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8
(b) Test / Calculated

Fig. 9 Test/calculated strength ratios based on development lengths for bars not confined by transverse reinforcement. (a) AASHTO,
ACI 318-05 and ACI 408; and (b) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 and Eurocode 2

Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225

in the values of ab and the use of fsd, which includes
the effect of (As required)/(As provided), in place of
fyd in the first term within the brackets.
Comparison of design provisions with
test results
ACI Committee 408 Database 10-2001[4] is used to
compare the relative accuracy of the five design
provisions. The comparisons cover two cases: (1)
developed bars and (2) lap splices for which 50% of
the bars are lapped and for which (As provided)/
(As required) ¼ 1.0. Approximately 80% of the
database consists of splices in which 100% of the bars
were lapped at the same location. The balance consists
primarily of development tests, plus some splice tests
in which a portion of the bars were spliced. Concrete
strength ranged from 17 to 110 MPa, as measured
using standard cylinders with a nominal ratio of
height to diameter of 2.0. Except as described in the
next paragraph, all of the test results are used for
comparisons with the design provisions because it has
been demonstrated that bond strength is essentially
the same for developed and lap spliced bars,
independent of the number of bars developed or
spliced at one location[9,13–16, 22]. For the splice
comparisons, splice length factors of 1.3, 1.3, 1.0, 1.8,
and 1.4 are used for AASHTO, ACI 318, ACI 408,
CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, and Eurocode 2,
respectively. The appropriate criteria in CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990 and Eurocode 2 are used
for Atr,min.
The comparisons are limited to bottom-cast bars.
For this category, ACI Committee 408 Database
10-2001 includes 193 tests in which the bars were not
confined by transverse reinforcement and 284 tests
in which the bars were confined by transverse
reinforcement. However, to limit the comparisons to
realistic development and splice lengths, only those
tests with a development or lap splice length greater
than the larger of 300 mm or 16db are used. The
resulting database includes 157 tests in which the bars
were not confined by transverse reinforcement and
163 tests in which the bars were confined by
transverse reinforcement.
For the comparisons, the design expressions were
solved for fy or fyd, which were treated as the
calculated bar stress to be compared to the value of fs
obtained in the test. Bar stresses in the tests were
calculated based on the moment in the test specimen
at the peak load using moment-curvature
calculations, as described by ACI Committee 408[4].
A subset of the database had been used to develop the
expression that served as the precursor[15,16] for the
design equation used in ACI 318-05, while the full
database was used to develop the design expressions
of ACI Committee 408. Overall, the database includes
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TENSION DEVELOPMENT LENGTH 219
a greater range of concrete strengths and steel stresses
at failure than were available when the other design
equations were formulated. Database 10-2001 is
available from the American Concrete Institute and
from members of ACI Committee 408.
The results of the comparisons are shown in Table 5
and Figs 9 and 10 for developed bars and Table 6 and
Figs 11 and 12 for spliced bars. The tables and figures
show the test/calculated (T/C) strength ratios
obtained in the comparisons. The tables give the
maximum, minimum, and average values for the
ratios, along with the standard deviations, coefficients
of variation, and percentages of tests for which T/C is
less than 1.0 or greater than 1.8. The figures present
histograms showing the distribution of the T/C ratio.
Comparisons can be made in terms of the relative
accuracy of the design expressions with respect to the
test results, the relative safety as represented by the
percentage of tests with T/C less than 1.0, and the
relative economy based on tests with T/C greater
than 1.8.
DEVELOPED BARS
Comparisons of the database with the development
length equations are presented in Table 5 and Figs 9
and 10. The comparisons show that the design
expressions developed by ACI Committee 408
provide the best match and the least scatter, as well
as the fewest number of tests with T/C ratios less
than 1.0. The ACI Committee 408 provisions have
minimum T/C values of 0.84 and 0.90 for bars not
confined and confined by transverse reinforcement,
respectively. These values compare to 0.43 and 0.62
for AASHTO, 0.62 and 0.70 for ACI 318-05, 0.34 and
0.48 for CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, and 0.48 and 0.68
for Eurocode 2. With 48% of the tests with a T/C ratio
less than 1.0, the AASHTO provisions provide the
lowest relative safety, followed by the CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990 with 34%, Eurocode 2 with 27%, ACI 318-
05 with 17%, and ACI 408 with 7% for bars not
confined by transverse reinforcement. The similarity
in the basic equation between the CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990 and Eurocode 2 suggests that the improved
relative safety of the Eurocode 2 results from the
principal difference between the two}the limit on the
maximum concrete strength to 60 MPa for use in bond
calculations in Eurocode 2. The bond provisions of
ACI 318-05 and ACI Committee 408 also have limits
on compressive strength, equal to 69 and 110 MPa,
respectively. The limit affects the comparison for ACI
318, but not for ACI Committee 408, because the
upper limit of the compressive strength in the
database is 110 MPa. The large percentage of
tests with T/C51.0 for the AASHTO provisions
indicates the need to modify these provisions to
obtain a satisfactory level of safety for development
bars.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
220 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

40
AASHTO
ACI 318
Number of Tests
30 ACI 408

20

10

0
Below 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.7 - Above
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8
(a) Test /Calculated

40

CEP-FIP
Eurocode
30
Number of Tests

20

10

0
Below 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.7 - Above
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8
(b) Test /Calculated

Fig. 10 Test/calculated strength ratios based on development lengths for bars confined by transverse reinforcement: (a) AASHTO, ACI
318-05 and ACI 408; and (b) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 and Eurocode 2

The improved match obtained by the ACI
Committee 408 provisions with the data can be
ascribed to several factors. First, the database used for
the comparisons is the database used to develop these
provisions. But more importantly, the database is
broader than available during the formulation of the
other design equations, providing a greater range in
concrete strength and allowing the ACI Committee
408 provisions to more accurately represent the effect
of fc0 on bond strength. Further, the ACI Committee
408 provisions include the factor
o ¼ 0:1ðcmax =cmin Þ þ 0:941:25, which, as explained
earlier (see Member Geometry), helps prevent the
overestimation of bond strength when the cover
and bar spacing dimensions are approximately
equal.
The bars confined by transverse reinforcement have
fewer cases where the T/C ratios are less than 1
compared to those for bars without transverse
reinforcement, except for ACI 318-05 for which 23% of
test results have T/C ratios less than 1.0. The other
design provisions produce T/C ratios less than 1.0 as
follows: AASHTO 28%, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990
14%, Eurocode 2 6%, and ACI 408 6%.
The provision in ACI 318-05 that allows the use of
the bar size factor g ¼ 0.8 for No. 19 and smaller bars is
a principal reason for the high percentage of low T/C
ratios. If g is set to 1.0 for all bar sizes, the percentage
of tests with T/C less than 1.0 drops from 17 and 23%
for bars without and with confining transverse
reinforcement, respectively, to 13% for both cases,
providing strong support for modifying that
provision in the ACI Building Code.
Relatively few comparisons produce T/C ratios in
excess of 1.8, with a maximum value of 12% for
CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 for bars confined by

Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
 TENSION DEVELOPMENT LENGTH 221

transverse reinforcement. All provisions, however,
except for those of ACI Committee 408, had at least
two tests with T/C in excess of 1.8.
SPLICES
The comparisons, based on splices for which 50% of
the bars are spliced at the same location and (As
provided)/(As required) ¼ 1.0, are presented in Table
6 and Figs 11 and 12. For these splices, all provisions,
with the exception of those of ACI Committee 408,
require an increase in splice length over that required
for development. The overall scatter in the results, as
represented by the coefficient of variation, remains
unchanged from the values shown in Table 5, with the
exception of Eurocode 2, which shows a slight
increase in the coefficient of variation for bars
confined by transverse reinforcement.
In terms of relative safety, the increase in length
results in a corresponding decrease in the number
of tests with a T/C ratio less than 1.0 and is quite
acceptable, except for the AASHTO provisions for
which 22% of the tests for bars not confined by
transverse reinforcement have a value of T/C less
than 1.0.
In terms of economy, the required increases in
splice length result in significant percentages of
splices with T/C ratios in excess of 1.8. These values
remain equal to zero for the provisions of ACI
Committee 408, but for bars without and with
confining transverse reinforcement, respectively, they
equal 9 and 26% for AASHTO, 23 and 24% for ACI
318-05, 66 and 87% for CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, and
29 and 76% for Eurocode 2.
The higher percentages of tests with T/C ratios less
than 1.0 for developed bars and greater than 1.8 for
spliced bars for the other provisions compared to
those of ACI Committee 408 must be assigned, at least
in part, to a lower level of ‘realism’ compared to that
provided by the ACI 408 design criteria. The greater
realism of the ACI Committee 408 design procedures
may be linked to two aspects of those provisions: (1)
the inclusion of the o factor, which accounts for the
added bond strength obtained for a given value of
cmin with a larger value of cmax, and (2) the powers of
fc0 used to characterize the contribution of concrete
strength to bond both with and without confining
transverse reinforcement. Considering that the
provisions of ACI Committee 408 were adjusted, as
described earlier, using a reliability-based approach to
produce a probability of failure equal to 20% of that in
flexure, it is instructive to compare the splice lengths
provided by the different codes. Fig. 13 shows bond
stress as a function of splice length for the five design
procedures for splices without confining transverse
reinforcement, as did Fig. 1 for development length.
The line representing the ACI Committee 408
provisions does not change from that shown in Fig. 1.
The splice lengths for the other design provisions
increase for a peak bar stress of 520 MPa (the
maximum design value available for US reinforcing
steel[1]). The values provided by ACI 318-05, ACI
Committee 408, and the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990
are very similar, as might be expected based on Table

Table 6 Test/calculated (T/C) ratios for splices with 50% of the bars lapped and (As provided)/(As required) ¼ 1.0
Bars not confined by transverse reinforcement
.........................................................................................................................................................
AASHTO ACI 318 ACI 408 CEB-FIP Eurocode 2
Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8) Eq. (11)
......................................................................................................................................................
Max 2.58 2.37 1.56 3.62 2.74
Min 0.56 0.62 0.84 0.60 0.67
Average 1.32 1.23 1.22 2.00 1.62
Stdev 0.38 0.28 0.14 0.59 0.36
COV 0.29 0.23 0.11 0.29 0.22
Percentage
with T/C5 1.0 22 3 7 6 4
Percentage
with T/C41.8 9 23 0 66 29

Bars confined by transverse reinforcement

.........................................................................................................................................................
AASHTO ACI 318 ACI 408 CEB-FIP Eurocode 2
Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8) Eq. (11)
......................................................................................................................................................
Max 3.22 2.85 1.71 4.47 3.77
Min 0.80 0.91 0.90 0.86 1.09
Average 1.60 1.60 1.27 2.52 2.15
Stdev 0.46 0.39 0.18 0.67 0.50
COV 0.29 0.24 0.14 0.27 0.23
Percentage
with T/C5 1.0 4 1 6 1 0
Percentage
with T/C41.8 26 24 0 87 76
......................................................................................................................................................

Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
222 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

60

AASHTO
50 ACI 318
ACI 408
Number of Tests

40

30

20

10

0
Below 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.7 - Above
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8
(a) Test /Calculated

60

50
CEB-FIP
Eurocode

40
Number of Tests

30

20

10

0
Below 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.7 - Above
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8

(b) Test /Calculated

Fig. 11 Test/calculated strength ratios based on splice lengths for bars not confined by transverse reinforcement. 50% of bars spliced at
one location, (As provided)/As required) ¼ 1.0: (a) AASHTO, ACI 318-05 and ACI 408; and (b) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 and Eurocode 2

6. The value based on the AASHTO provisions still
appears to be inadequate. The value for Eurocode 2
lies between the values for AASHTO and ACI 318-05,
but is perhaps not representative (at least for beams)
because the comparison is based on no transverse
reinforcement, which is required for beams by
Eurocode 2. For structural slabs, in which
transverse reinforcement is not required for splices,
the Eurocode 2 splice requirements appear to be
inadequate.
SAFETY
The comparisons presented in Tables 5 and 6 and
Figs 1 and 9–13 indicate that the development lengths,
and in some cases splice lengths, produced by the
bond provisions of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications[2], ACI 318-05[3], CEB-FIP Model Code
1990[5], and Eurocode 2[6] are less than values that
would be obtained had those design provisions been
based on the data used by ACI Committee 408[4] to
formulate its design provisions. The question then
arises, why are there no failures if the design
procedures are unconservative?
The fact that very few failures are attributed to a
lack of bond strength is the result of several factors.
First, all design codes include provisions with
significant safety margins on both the design loads
and member strength that are used when
proportioning reinforced concrete structural
members. Second, the real development length
available in many reinforced concrete members
exceeds that required by design. Third, design criteria
for splices are usually quite conservative and include
not only an increased splice length, but also
limitations on splice locations and requirements for

Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
 TENSION DEVELOPMENT LENGTH 223

50
AASHTO
ACI 318
40
Number of Tests ACI 408

30

20

10

0
Below 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.7 - Above
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8
(a) Test /Calculated

50

CEP-FIP
40 Eurocode
Number of Tests

30

20

10

0
Below 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.7 - Above
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8

(b) Test /Calculated

Fig. 12 Test/calculated strength ratios based on splice lengths for bars confined by transverse reinforcement. 50% of bars spliced at one
location, (As provided)/As required) ¼ 1.0: (a) AASHTO, ACI 318-05 and ACI 408; and (b) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 and Eurocode 2

600

500
additional confining transverse reinforcement.
Overall, however, the comparisons presented in this
Bar Stress, MPa

400
paper provide strong evidence that the code bodies
300 should carefully evaluate current development and
splice length requirements.
200 ACI 318
ACI 408
AASHTO
100 CEB-FIP
Eurocode 2 Conclusions
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 The information presented in this paper demonstrates
Splice length, mm a number of points relative to design provisions for
Fig. 13 Relationship between bar stress and splice length based tension development length and lap splice design of
on the design provisions of ACI 318-05, ACI Committee 408, reinforced concrete members.
AASHTO, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, and Eurocode 2 for ASTM
A 615 No. 25 bars in 30 MPa concrete. No confining transverse
reinforcement, clear cover ¼ one bar diameter, bar
spacing ¼ two bar diameters, 50% of bars lapped, and 1. The bond strength of bars not confined by
(As provided)/(As required)=1.0. transverse reinforcement appears to increase in

Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225
224
proportion to the concrete compressive strength to
the 14 power.
2. The contribution of transverse reinforcement to
bond strength is a function of the area of the
transverse reinforcement per bar being developed
or spliced, the relative rib area and diameter of the
bar being developed or spliced, and the concrete
compressive strength to a power between 34 and 1.0.
3. For deep members or for concrete placed with a
high slump, the effect of bar placement, usually
represented by the ‘top-bar’ factor, may be greater
than accounted for in design provisions.
4. Yielding of a developed or spliced bar does not
appreciably affect bond strength.
5. For similar geometry and concrete strength, bond
strength is essentially the same for developed and
lap spliced bars, independent of the number of bars
developed or spliced at the one location.
6. Of the five design provisions compared in this
paper, those developed by ACI Committee 408
provide the best match with test results for both
developed and spliced bars. For developed bars,
the other four design provisions result in a high
percentage of tests for which the test to calculated
strength ratios (T/C) are less than 1.0, with the
greatest percentage of low T/C values resulting
from the AASHTO provisions. The relative safety
of the latter four design codes improves for lap
splices.
7. The provision in ACI 318-05 that allows a 20%
reduction in development and lap splice length for
bars smaller than 19 mm appears to be unsafe and
should be removed or modified.
References
[1] ASTM A 615/A 615M-04a. Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain
Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement West Conshohocken. PA: ASTM International,
2004.
[2] AASHTO. LRFD bridge design specifications, 3rd edn. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, 2004.
[3] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05). Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute, 2005: 430.
[4] ACI Committee 408. Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in
Tension (ACI 408R-03). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2003: 49.
[5] CEB-FIP. Model Code for Concrete Structures 1990. Comite Euro-
International du Beton, c/o Thomas Telford: London, UK.
[6] PrEN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures}part 1:
general rules and rules for buildings European Standard prEN 1992-1-1. Brussels:
European Committee for Standardization, 2003: 226.
[7] Nilson AH, Darwin D & Dolan CW. Design of Concrete Structures, 13th
edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2004: 779.
[8] Draper NR & Smith H. Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd edn. New York:
Wiley, 1981: 241–249.
[9] Darwin D, Zuo J, Tholen ML & Idun EK. Development length criteria
for conventional and high relative rib area reinforcing bars. SL Report, University of
Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS, May 1995: (95-4): 70.
[10] Darwin D, McCabe SL, Idun EK & Schoenekase SP. Development
length criteria: bars not confined by transverse reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal
1992: 89(6): 709–720.
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
[11] Darwin D, Tholen ML, Idun EK & Zuo J. Splice strength of high
relative rib area reinforcing bars. SL Report, University of Kansas Center for
Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS, May 1995: (95-3): 58.
[12] Darwin D, Tholen ML, Idun EK & Zuo J. Splice strength of high
relative rib area reinforcing bars. ACI Structural Journal 1996: 93(1): 95–107.
[13] Zuo J & Darwin D. Bond strength of high relative rib area reinforcing
bars. SM Report, University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS, 1998:
46: 350.
[14] Zuo J & Darwin D. Splice strength of conventional and high relative rib
area bars in normal and high strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal 2000: 97(4):
630–641.
[15] Orangun CO, Jirsa JO & Breen JE. The strength of anchored
bars: a reevaluation of test data on development length and splices. Research
Report, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin. 1975:
154-3F: 78.
[16] Orangun CO, Jirsa JO & Breen JE. Reevaluation of test
data on development length and splices. ACI Journal Proceedings 1977: 74(3):
114–122.
[17] Darwin D, Barham S, Kozul R & Luan S. Fracture energy of high-
strength concrete. ACI Materials Journal 2001: 98(5): 410–417.
[18] Choi OC, Hadje-Ghaffari H, Darwin D & McCabe SL. Bond of
epoxy-coated reinforcement to concrete: bar parameters. SM Report, University of
Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS, July 1990: (25): 217.
[19] Maeda M, Otani S & Aoyama H. Bond splitting strength in
reinforced concrete members. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute 1991: 13:
581–588.
[20] Sakurada T, Morohashi N & Tanaka R. Effect of transverse
reinforcement on bond splitting strength of lap splices. Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute 1993: 15: 573–580.
[21] Azizinamini A, Chisala M & Ghosh SK. Tension development length
of reinforcing bars embedded in high-strength concrete. Engineering Structures 1995:
17(7): 512–522.
[22] Darwin D, Zuo J, Tholen ML & Idun EK. Development length criteria
for conventional and high relative rib area reinforcing bars. ACI Structural Journal 1996:
93(3): 347–359.
[23] Luke JJ, Hamad BS, Jirsa JO & Breen JE. The influence of casting
position on development and splice length of reinforcing bars. Research Report,
Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of Engineering Research, University of
Texas at Austin, TX. June 1981: (242-1): 153.
[24] Brettmann BB, Darwin D & Donahey RC. Bond of reinforcement to
superplasticized concrete. ACI Journal, Proceedings 1986: 83(1): 98–107.
[25] Kemp EL, Brezny FS & Unterspan JA. Effect of rust and scale on the
bond characteristics of deformed reinforcing bars. ACI Journal Proceedings 1968: 65(9):
743–756.
[26] Mathey R & Clifton JR. Bond of coated reinforcing bars in concrete
Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1976: 102(1): 215–229.
[27] Johnston DW & Zia P. Bond characteristics of epoxy coated reinforcing
bars. Report, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 1982: (FHWA-NC-
82-002): 163.
[28] Treece RA & Jirsa JO. Bond strength of epoxy-coated reinforcing bars.
ACI Materials Journal 1989: 86(2): 167–174.
[29] Choi OC, Hadje-Ghaffari H, Darwin D & McCabe SL. Bond of
epoxy-coated reinforcement: bar parameters. ACI Materials Journal 1991: 88(2):
207–217.
[30] Hadje-Ghaffari H, Choi OC, Darwin D & McCabe SL. Bond of
epoxy-coated reinforcement to concrete: cover, casting position, slump, and
consolidation. SL Report, University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence,
KS, June 1992: (92-3): 42.
[31] Hadje-Ghaffari H, Choi OC, Darwin D & McCabe SL. Bond of
epoxy-coated reinforcement to concrete: cover, casting position, slump, and
consolidation. ACI Structural Journal 1994: 90(1): 59–68.
[32] Cleary DB & Ramirez JA. Epoxy-coated reinforcement under repeated
loading. ACI Structural Journal 1993: 90(4): 451–458.
[33] Idun EK & Darwin D. Epoxy-coated reinforcement: coefficient of friction
and rib face angle. ACI Structural Journal 1999: 96(4): 609–615.
[34] Cairns J & Abdullah R. Fundamental tests on the effect of an epoxy
coating on bond strength. ACI Materials Journal 1994: 91(4): 331–338.
[35] Tan C, Darwin D, Tholen ML & Zuo J. Splice strength of epoxy-coated
high relative rib area bars. SL Report, University of Kansas Center for Research,
Lawrence, KS, 1996: (96-2): 69.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225

[36] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02). Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute. 2002: 443.
[37] Nilson AH. Design of Concrete Structures, 12th edn. New York:
McGraw-Hill. 1997: 780.
[38] ASTM A 706/A 706M-04a. Standard Specification for Low-Alloy Steel
Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International. 2004.
[39] Darwin D, Idun EK, Zuo J & Tholen ML. Reliability-based strength
reduction factor for bond. ACI Structural Journal 1998: 95(4): 434–443.
[40] Ellingwood B, Galambos TV, MacGregor JG & Cornell CA.
Development of a Probability Based Criterion for American National Standard A58.
David Darwin PhD, PE,
Deane E. Ackers Distinguished Professor,
Department of Civil, Environmental and
Architectural Engineering,
University of Kansas, 1530 W. 15th Street, Room 2142,
Lawrence, KS 66045-7609, USA,
E-mail: daved@ku.edu
Copyright & 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TENSION DEVELOPMENT LENGTH 225
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, NBS Special Publication, 1980:
577: 222.
[41] Tepfers R. A Theory of Bond Applied to Overlapped Tensile Reinforcement
Splices for Deformed Bars. Goteborg, Sweden: Division of Concrete
Structures, Chalmers Teknisica Hogskola (Chalmers University of Technology),
1973; (73:2): 328.
[42] Bournonville M, Dahnke J & Darwin D. Statistical analysis of the
mechanical properties and weight of reinforcing bars. SL Report, University of Kansas
Center for Research, Lawrence, KS, 2004: (04-1): 194.
[43] ACI Committee 214. Evaluation of Strength Test Results of
Concrete (ACI 214R-02). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
2002: 20.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2005; 7:210–225