Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Construction and Building

Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Bond strength of hot-dip galvanized hooked bars in high strength concrete structures
Bilal S. Hamad *, Ghaida K. Jumaa
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American University of Beirut (AUB), P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh Beirut 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon Received 12 March 2007; received in revised form 24 July 2007; accepted 27 July 2007 Available online 14 September 2007

Abstract In 2001, a multi-phase research program was started at the American University of Beirut (AUB) to evaluate the eect of steel galvanizing on bond strength of reinforcement in concrete structures. This paper reports on the fourth phase of the program designed to assess the eect of steel galvanizing on bond strength of hooked bars anchored in high strength concrete structures. Twelve specimens, each simulating the rigid connection of two cantilever beams to a column, were tested. The variables included bar size and the connement mode of the beam bars anchored in the column. Test results indicated that galvanizing caused a consistent reduction in bond strength of hooked bars ranging from 6% to 17% with an average of 13%. This is contrary to the results of the earlier phase of the AUB program which indicated strength concrete structures. Based on analysis of test results of all four phases of the AUB research program, design recommendations insignicant eect of steel galvanizing on bond strength of hooked bars anchored in normal are provided concerning the anchorage length of galvanized reinforcing bars in normal and high strength concrete structures. 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete; Hot-dip galvanizing; Corrosion; Bond (concrete to reinforcement); Hooked bar anchorage; High strength concrete; Bond strength

1. Introduction Galvanizing the reinforcing steel is a hot dipping process where the reinforcing bar is immersed in a zinc bath at a controlled temperature between 840 and 850 F (722 727.6 K). A metallurgical bond of zinciron alloy is developed between the zinc coating and the steel product that it protects. The reason for the extensive use of hot-dip galvanizing is the twofold nature of the coating. As a barrier coating, it provides a tough and metallurgically bonded zinc coating that completely covers the steel surface and seals the steel from the corrosive action of the environment. Additionally, the sacricial action of zinc protects the steel even where damage or minor discontinuity occurs in the coating.
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +961 3 333580; fax: +961 1 744462. E-mail address: bhamad@aub.edu.lb (B.S. Hamad).

In 20012002, a multi-phase research program on galvanized bars was started at the American University of Beirut (AUB) to evaluate experimentally the eect of hot-dip galvanizing on bond strength of reinforcement in concrete structures. The rst phase was designed to study the eect of hotdip galvanizing on the bond capacity of tension lap splices anchored in full-scale beam specimens designed to fail in bond splitting mode [1,2]. Twelve beams, each reinforced with deformed bars spliced at midspan in a constant moment region, were tested. The variables included bar size: 20, 25, and 32 mm; the intended concrete compressive strength: 28 MPa for normal strength concrete (NSC) and 60 MPa for high strength concrete (HSC); and whether the bars were black or galvanized. The zinc coating thickness was measured using a magnetic thickness gage and was found to be about 100 lm thick. Test results indicated no signicant eect of hot dip galvanizing on bond strength

0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.028

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

2043

of tension lap splices in NSC. The reduction in bond strength due to galvanizing ranged from 4% to 6%. However, a 1625% reduction in bond strength of galvanized bar splices relative to black bar splices was noted in the HSC specimens. The primary objective of the second phase was to nd a solution to eliminate the bond reduction of galvanized tension lap splices in high strength concrete by evaluating the potential positive eect of adding transverse reinforcement in the splice region [3]. Twelve full-scale beam specimens, identical to the HSC beams of Phase 1 except for the use of transverse reinforcement conning the splice region, were tested in positive bending. The main variables were bar size and the amount of transverse reinforcement conning the tension lap splices in the splice region. Test results indicated that there was a consistent increase in the ultimate load and bond strength of the black bar beams and the galvanized bar beams as the number of conning hoop stirrups in the splice region increased. Also, the bond strength of the conned galvanized bar splices relative to the unconned black bar splices increased as the amount of transverse reinforcement increased. On the other hand, the reduction in the ultimate strength of the galvanized bar beam as compared with its companion black bar beam was consistent regardless of bar size or the amount of transverse reinforcement conning the splice region. Therefore, it was recommended that galvanized bar splices should be conned with transverse reinforcement to make up for the loss in bond strength relative to black bar splices due to galvanizing. The objective of the third phase of the AUB research program was to evaluate experimentally the eect of hotdip galvanizing on bond performance of hooked bars anchored in NSC structures. Research reported on bond strength of epoxy-coated hooked bars indicated a 20% average loss in bond strength relative to black hooked bars [4]. Since hot-dip galvanizing is another technique to protect reinforcement against corrosion, it was important to check if galvanizing would result in a similar loss in bond strength. Twelve beam-column type specimens designed to fail in bond were tested [5]. The specimen simulated the rigid connection of two cantilever beams to a column. The variables were bar size: 16, 25, and 32 mm, the connement mode of the beam bars anchored in the column or whether the tensile bars of the beam were anchored within or outside the column reinforcement cage, and whether the bars were galvanized or not. The intended concrete compressive strength was 25 MPa. The tensile bars of the beams were anchored in the column using standard hooks. To ensure bond splitting failure before the steel yielded, the embedment depth of the tensile bars measured from the beam-column interface to the outside end of the hook, was chosen in all twelve specimens to be shorter than the basic development length ldh for a deformed bar terminating in a standard hook, as specied by the ACI Building Code ACI 318-02 [6]. Test results indicated that galvanizing caused a reduction in the stiness of the loaddeection

curve; i.e., greater deection for the same load. However, when the ultimate loads of the tested specimens were compared, it was found that regardless of bar size or the connement mode of the hooked bars, the eect of galvanizing on bond strength of hooked bars was small and insignicant [6]. This nding was noted before in Phase 1 of the AUB research program when black and galvanized tension lap splices anchored in NSC beam specimens were tested [1,2]. 2. Research signicance The signicance of the research reported in this paper is that up to date, there is no research reported in the literature on the eect of galvanizing on bond strength of hooked bars in HSC structures. It was important to check whether the insignicant eect of galvanizing on bond strength of hooked bars anchored in NSC, as indicated by test results of an earlier study [5], would hold if HSC is used. It was also signicant to combine the results of the research reported in this paper with results of the three earlier phases of the AUB research program on galvanized bars to recommend design provisions for anchorage and development length of galvanized reinforcing bars in normal and high strength concrete structures. 3. Experimental program Twelve beam-column type specimens were tested. The test specimen was designed to simulate the anchorage of two cantilever beams in a reinforced concrete column. The variables were the bar diameter of the beam tensile reinforcement: 16, 25, or 32 mm, whether the beam tensile reinforcing bars were black or galvanized, and the connement mode of the beam bars or whether the bars were anchored inside or outside the core or reinforcement cage of the column. For each bar size and for each connement mode, two companion specimens, identical except for whether the beam tensile bars were black or galvanized, were tested. The nominal or intended concrete compressive strength for all test specimens was 60 MPa. The test specimens are identied in Table 1. A four-part notation system was used to indicate the variables in each specimen. The rst part of the notation indicates if the bars are black or galvanized (B or G), the second part indicates the bar size used (16, 25, or 32 mm), the third part indicates that high strength concrete was used (H), and the fourth part indicates the connement mode of the tensile bars of the vertical elements using the letter (C) if the bars were conned or anchored inside the column core or reinforcement cage and the letter (U) if the bars were unconned or anchored outside the column core. The specimens with beam bars conned or anchored within the column core will be referred to as the conned specimens and the specimens with beam bars anchored outside the column core will be referred to as the unconned specimens.

2044 Table 1 Test parameters and test results Specimen notation Bar size db (mm) 16 16 25 25 32 32 16 16 25 25 32 32

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

Bar type

Specimen type Connedc Conned Conned Conned Conned Conned Unconnedd Unconned Unconned Unconned Unconned Unconned

Concrete strength at day of testing (MPa) 52.76 52.07 52.76 52.07 52.76 52.07 67.37 64.04 67.37 64.04 67.37 64.04

Measured ultimate load Pmax (kN) 97.96b 75.67 162.95 137.94 235.00 200.00 84.94 74.40 151.95 139.67 240.00 200.00

Deection of vertical elements d (mm) 10.49 13.79 16.50 20.03 15.10 15.73 5.87 7.64 12.85 14.24 13.60 14.45

0c Data normalized to f1=2 a

Ultimate load (kN) 97.96b 81.23 173.77 148.06 250.61 214.68 80.16 72.02 143.39 135.20 226.49 193.59

Steel stress fs (MPa) 560.63 464.89 429.09 365.60 392.71 336.41 458.76 412.18 354.07 333.85 354.91 303.36

Bond ratio 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.90 0.94 0.85

B16H-C G16H-C B25H-C G25H-C B32H-C G32H-C B16H-U G16H-U B25H-U G25H-U B32H-U G32H-U
a b c d

Black Galvanized Black Galvanized Black Galvanized Black Galvanized Black Galvanized Black Galvanized

Data was normalized at a common concrete strength of 60 MPa. The specimen reached this load and yielded. The load was not normalized at 60 MPa. Conned specimen implies that the reinforcing bars of the vertical element are anchored inside the reinforcement cage of the base. Unconned specimen implies that the reinforcing bars of the vertical element are anchored outside the reinforcement cage of the base.

3.1. Materials The reinforcing bars of each size were from the same heat of steel and had parallel deformation pattern and identical rib geometry. The bars met ASTM A615/ A615M-03a specications [7] and were Grade 60. The zinc coating thickness on the galvanized bars was measured using a magnetic thickness gage and was found to be about 100 lm thick. Two coupons of each bar size were tested using ASTM procedure to conrm the mill test report obtained from the supplier. The average yield stresses were 565 MPa for the 10-mm bars, 533 MPa for the 16-mm bars, 541 MPa for the 25-mm bars, and 523 MPa for the 32-mm bars. A non-air-entrained concrete mix was used to obtain the intended concrete strength of 60 MPa for the conned specimens. The mix was provided by a local ready-mix supplier. ASTM Type I Portland cement was used. The coarse aggregates were crushed limestone. The batching weights used for the conned specimens per cubic meter of concrete were: 480 kg cement, 780 kg aggregate (12.5 20 mm), 390 kg aggregate (512.5 mm), 575 kg and (0 5 mm), 139 liters of water, and 9.6 liters of superplasticizer. However, the 28-days concrete compressive strength for the conned specimens based on testing standard 150 300 mm (6 12 in.) cylinders was around 52 MPa as shown in Table 1. Therefore, another ready-mix supplier was asked to provide another mix to obtain the required nominal strength of 60 MPa for the unconned specimens. The batching weights per cubic meter of concrete were: 550 kg cement, 580 kg aggregate (1020 mm), 420 kg aggregate (510 mm), 270 kg crushed sand (0 5 mm), 430 kg natural sand (05 mm), 166 liters of water, and 10.4 liters of superplasticizer. The 28-days concrete

compressive strength for the unconned specimens exceeded 60 MPa. 3.2. Design of the specimens The test specimen consisted of two identical 30 30 cm vertical elements anchored in a 170 35 cm base. The specimen simulated the rigid connection of two cantilever beams to a column. Transverse reinforcement was designed and placed in all elements to avoid shear failure. In all 12 specimens, the longitudinal reinforcement of the base plate or column consisted of two layers of three 25-mm bars each. Whereas the bottom and top concrete cover to the longitudinal bars of the base was 3 cm, the side concrete cover was 3 cm in the conned specimens and (3 cm + beam bar size) in the unconned specimens. The test set-up allowed the application of two equal compressive loads at the tip of both identical vertical elements or beams subjecting them to combined exure and shear, and consequently subjecting the reinforcement on the inner face of the elements to tensile force. The two exterior face reinforcing bars of the vertical elements in all specimens were 10 mm bars anchored 15 cm into the base, and the two inner tension face reinforcing bars were either 16 or 25 or 32 mm bars anchored using standard hooks with 90 bends in the base column. Whereas the tension face concrete cover to the beam bars was 3 cm, the side concrete cover was either 5.5 cm in the conned specimens or 3 cm in the unconned specimens. Schematic views of the conned and unconned specimens of the three bar sizes tested are shown in Figs. 16. To ensure bond splitting failure before the steel yielded, the embedment depth of the tensile bars of the vertical elements in the base plate, as measured from the interface to

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

2045

5.5

30

30

30 clear cover

50

30 2

30

Anchored bars
2T16 30 2T10

B16H-C Anchored Bars: 2T16 Nominal f'c = 60 MPa

3 5.5 2T16 2T10 T10@10 70

Section 1-1 Cross-section of vertical element

1 2

1
30 5.5 T10@7.5

3 3T25 15 R = 4.8 15

Anchored bars
2T16 3T25 3 3 35 3 3T25

3 19.2

35

3 clear cover

170

Section 2-2 Cross-section of horizontal element Note: All dimensions are in cm

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the conned specimen with 16-mm hooked bars.

30

30

30 clear cover

50

30 2

30

B16H-U Anchored Bars: 2T16 Nominal f'c = 60 MPa


30 2T10

Anchored bars
2T16

2T16

2T10 T10@10

Section 1-1 Cross-section of vertical element

70

1 2

1
30 3

3 3T25 15 R = 4.8 15

T10@7.5

Anchored bars
2T16

3 3 19.2 3T25 3 clear cover 170 35 3 35

Section 2-2 Cross-section of horizontal element Note: All dimensions are in cm

Fig. 2. Schematic view of the unconned specimen with 16-mm hooked bars.

the outside end of the hook, was chosen in all twelve specimens to be shorter than the basic development length ldh for a deformed bar terminating in a standard hook, as specied by the ACI Building Code ACI 318-02 [6] p ldh 0:02bkfy = fc0 d b 1 where b is the coating factor, k is the lightweight aggregate concrete factor, fy is the yield strength of the anchored bars, fc0 is the concrete compressive strength, and db is the bar diameter. Both factors b and k are 1 in the study. Three specimens were cast at a time. From each concrete batch, several standard 150 300 mm (6 12 in.) cylinders

were cast to determine the concrete compressive strength. The specimens and the cylinders were covered with wet burlap to provide curing for 7 days after casting. 3.3. Test procedure The method of loading simulated the reaction conditions at a beam-column joint. A compressive force was applied at around 15 cm from the tip of the two identical cantilever vertical elements (refer to Fig. 7). The force was applied using two hydraulic rams having a capacity of 300 kN each and operated by a single hydraulic pump.

2046

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

5.5

30

30

30 clear cover

50

30 2

30

B25H-C Anchored Bars: 2T25 Nominal f'c = 60 MPa


30 2T10

Anchored bars
2T25 3 3

2T25

2T10 T10@7.5

5.5

Section 1-1 Cross-section of vertical element

70

1 2

1
30 5.5 T10@7.5

3 3T25 R = 7.5 15

Anchored bars
2T25 3T25 3 3 35 3 3T25

20 3

35 30

3 clear cover

170

Section 2-2 Cross-section of horizontal element Note: All dimensions are in cm

Fig. 3. Schematic view of the conned specimen with 25-mm hooked bars.

30

30

30

50

30

30

B25H-U Anchored Bars: 2T25 Nominal f'c = 60 MPa


30 2T10

Anchored bars
3 3 clear cover 2 2T25

2T25

2T10 T10@7.5

Section 1-1 Cross-section of vertical element

70

1 2

1
30 3

3 3T25 R = 7.5 15

T10@7.5

Anchored bars
2T25

20 3

3 35 35 3 3T25

30

3 clear cover

170

Section 2-2 Cross-section of horizontal element Note: All dimensions are in cm

Fig. 4. Schematic view of the unconned specimen with 25-mm hooked bars.

The compressive force was transferred uniformly to the faces of the vertical concrete elements by means of two steel beams. The load, applied by the hydraulic rams, was monitored by an electronic pressure transducer and was measured at the pump by a pressure gauge. To monitor the loaddeection history of the specimen, two linear variable dierential transducers (LVDTs) were mounted, one at the tip of each vertical element. The pressure transducer and the two LVDTs were hooked to a data acquisition system. The load was applied in increments of 10 kN. At each load stage, crack patterns were marked.

4. Mode of failure A view of the conned black hooked bar specimen B32H-C after failure is shown in Fig. 8. The hydraulic rams applying the compression loads on the vertical elements are also seen in Fig. 8. Also, a schematic drawing of the cracking pattern of the conned galvanized hooked bar specimen G32H-C is shown in Fig. 9. Numbers along each crack line indicate the load in kN at which the crack extensions were marked. Dotted lines indicate cracks that occurred after the specimen reached its ultimate load capacity.

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

2047

5.5

30

30

30 clear cover

50

30 2

30

B32H-C Anchored Bars: 2T32 Nominal f'c = 60 MPa


30 2T10

Anchored bars
2T32 3 3

2T32

2T10 T10@5

5.5

Section 1-1 Cross-section of vertical element

70

1 2

1
30 5.5 T10@7.5

3 3T25 15

Anchored bars
2T32 3T25 3 3 35 3 3T25

25 3

R =12.8

35

38.4 3 clear cover 170

Section 2-2 Cross-section of horizontal element Note: All dimensions are in cm

Fig. 5. Schematic view of the conned specimen with 32-mm hooked bars.

30

30

30 clear cover

50

30 2

30

B32H-U Anchored Bars: 2T32 Nominal f'c = 60 MPa


30 2T10

Anchored bars
2T32 3 3

2T32

2T10 T10@5

Section 1-1 Cross-section of vertical element

70

1 2

1
30 3 T10@7.5

3 3T25 15

Anchored bars
2T32

25 3

R =12.8

3 35 3 3T25 35

38.4 3 clear cover 170

Section 2-2 Cross-section of horizontal element Note: All dimensions are in cm

Fig. 6. Schematic view of the unconned specimen with 32-mm hooked bars.

As expected, cracks initiated in all tested specimens at the interface between the vertical elements and the base plate both along the embedded bars and along the interface plane parallel to the base. Longitudinal cracks propagated along the inner tension faces of the vertical elements close to the interface with the base plate and along the top surface of the base plate element at midspan. With increase in load, cracks which started at the interface propagated in the base element along the anchored hooked bars. Other cracks branched from this main vertical crack in a V-pat-

tern towards the interface on one side and towards the top surface of the base element between the vertical elements on the other side (refer to Fig. 8). The cracks also dened the failing concrete zone within the bend of the hooked bars. It should be noted that in each specimen only one of the two cantilever beams reached ultimate; i.e., there is only one ultimate strength result for each specimen. After reaching ultimate load and with further increase in the applied deections to the vertical elements, the main vertical cracks

2048

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

Fig. 7. View of the test set-up.

Fig. 8. Close-up view of the cracking pattern of the conned black hooked bar specimen B32H-C after failure.

along the depth of the anchored bars of both vertical elements in the base element, widened and bent towards the inside. The nal mode of failure was spalling of the side cover normal to the plane of the hook due to the crushing of the concrete at the inner radius of the bend due to the very high local compressive stress concentrations. The only dierence in the cracking pattern or the mode of failure of the galvanized hooked bar specimens and their companion black hooked bar specimens that could be attributed to galvanizing, was that the exural cracks on the vertical beam elements were fewer in the galvanized

hooked bar specimen than in the companion black hooked bar specimen. This applies to the three bar sizes tested and to the conned and the unconned specimens. 5. Test results To allow direct comparison of all specimens, the corresponding loaddeection data and steel stresses were normalized at a common concrete strength of 60 MPa. The adjustment was made by multiplying the load at each deection by (60/fc0 )1/2, where fc0 is the concrete strength

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

2049

G32H-C

210

60 70 120 170 20 50 215 190 190 80 130 80 210 140 130 50 140 90 140 100 120 190 40 140 100 100 20 140 120 80 50 60 90 80 210 40 60 170 100 80 120

Fig. 9. Schematic drawing of the cracking pattern of the conned galvanized hooked bar specimen G32H-C after failure.

Load (kN)

in MPa of the specimen under consideration at the day of testing. However, the data of specimen B16H-C with a concrete strength at the day of testing of 52.76 MPa was not normalized at 60 MPa because the specimen already yielded at the ultimate load reached. The steel stress at the recorded ultimate load of specimen B16H-C is 560.63 MPa, implying that the specimen yielded at a stress 5.2% greater than the value reported in Section 3.1. In all the other 11 specimens, the steel stresses at ultimate loads were less than the yield stress. The splitting mode of failure of all specimens indicated that the hooked bars reached their maximum capacity. The stress in the steel, fs, was calculated based on the maximum load obtained for each specimen. Results of the twelve specimens tested in the research program are presented in Table 1. The listed data includes the parameters of each specimen, the concrete strength at the day of testing, the ultimate load at failure (Pmax), the deection at the tip of the vertical beam element which reached ultimate strength (d), and the data normalized at fc0 = 60 MPa including the ultimate load (Pmax), steel stress (fs), and the bond ratio. The bond ratio is the normalized ultimate load of the galvanized hooked bar specimen divided by the normalized ultimate load of the companion specimen with black hooked bars but identical otherwise. However, the bond ratio for the 16-mm conned specimens was obtained by dividing the normalized ultimate load of the galvanized hooked bar specimen G16H-C by the un-normalized ultimate load of the companion specimen with black hooked bars which yielded (see Table 1). 5.1. Loaddeection behavior The loaddeection curves of the three pairs of companion conned specimens, identical except for galvanizing, are plotted on the same graph for the three tested bar sizes: 16, 25, and 32 mm (refer to Fig. 10). Similar curves for the six unconned specimens are shown in Fig. 11. The data

used in the plots was normalized at the common concrete strength of 60 MPa. There was no signicant eect of galvanizing on the stiness of loaddeection curves up to the initiation of the rst cracks at the interface between the vertical elements and the base plate at a load of around 20 kN. However, above that load level and up to ultimate load there was a reduction in the ultimate load capacity and the stiness of the loaddeection curve of the galvanized hooked bar specimen as compared with the companion black hooked bar specimen; i.e., greater deection for the same load. The above remarks apply for both the conned specimens and the unconned specimens (refer to Figs. 10 and 11) indicating no eect of the connement mode of the hooked bars on the relative loaddeection behavior of black and galvanized hooked bars. On the other hand, loaddeection curves of the six black hooked bar specimens, three conned specimens and three unconned specimens, are plotted on the same graph in Fig. 12. Similar curves for the six tested galvanized hooked bar specimens are shown in Fig. 13. For each of the three tested bar sizes, there was a consistent increase in the maximum load and the corresponding deection at the tip

280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


B16H-C G16H-C B25H-C G25H-C B32H-C G32H-C

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 10. Loaddeection curves of the companion conned black and galvanized hooked bar specimens.

2050
240 200

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052
240 200
B16H-U G16H-U B25H-U G25H-U B32H-U G32H-U
G16H-C G25H-C G32H-C G16H-U G25H-U G32H-U

Load (kN)

160 120 80 40 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Load (kN)

160 120 80 40 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

40

45

50

45

50

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 11. Loaddeection curves of the companion unconned black and galvanized hooked bar specimens.

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 13. Loaddeection curves of the six tested galvanized hooked bar specimens, three conned and three unconned.

280 240 200


B16H-C B25H-C B32H-C B16H-U B25H-U B32H-U

1.0

Bond Ratio (Galvanized/Black)

0.94 0.90 0.9 0.85 0.83 0.8

Confined Unconfined

Load (kN)

0.86 0.85

160 120 80 40 0 0 10 20 30 40

0.7

50

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 12. Loaddeection curves of the six tested black hooked bar specimens, three conned and three unconned.

0.6

16-mm

25-mm

32-mm

Size of the Hooked Bars


Fig. 14. Bond ratios of the conned and unconned bar specimens.

of the vertical beam elements of the conned bar specimen as compared to the unconned bar specimen (refer to Figs. 12 and 13, and Table 1). The increase in ultimate load ranged from 10% to 18% for the black hooked bar specimens and from 9% to 11% for the galvanized hooked bar specimens. This indicates the positive eect of connement of the anchored bars of the vertical elements within the column or base plate core on the ultimate strength and the ductility of the loaddeection behavior. 5.2. Bond strength The concrete splitting mode of failure of the twelve tested specimens indicates that the hooked bars of the vertical elements reached their ultimate bond capacity. Therefore, the anchorage strength of the hooked bar could be assumed to be directly proportional to the ultimate load capacity of the specimen. Based on this assumption and referring to the ultimate load values listed in Table 1 and the bond ratios listed in Table 1 and plotted in Fig. 14, it could be concluded that there was a consistent reduction in bond strength of the galvanized hooked bars relative to the companion black hooked bars. For the hooks that were conned within the reinforcement cage of the base element, the reductions were 17% for the 16-mm bars, 15% for the 25-mm bars, and 14% for the 32-mm bars. The corre-

sponding percentages for the hooked bars that were conned outside the reinforcement cage of the base element, the reductions were 10%, 6%, and 15%, respectively. The average bond ratio for the six pairs of tested companion black and galvanized hooked bar specimens, that were otherwise identical, is 0.87 indicating an average reduction in bond strength due to galvanizing of 13%. In the NSC study of the earlier phase of the AUB program, there was an insignicant average reduction in bond strength due to galvanizing of only 4% [5]. It could be concluded that the reduction in bond strength of hooked bars due to galvanizing is much more evident and signicant in HSC than in NSC. Similar trends were noted before in the rst two phases of the AUB research program where the bond strength values of black and galvanized tension lap splices were compared [13]. Reasons for these trends that were presented for tension lap splices do hold for hooked bars. In NSC, three factors have a negative eect on the bond between the galvanized bar and the surrounding concrete. First, the coating itself is expected to reduce the chemical adhesion and friction between the galvanized bars and concrete. Second, a reaction takes place between zinc and the wet cement paste which passivates the galvanized bar when it is embedded in concrete and makes it tolerable to higher

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052

2051

concentrations of chloride ions than black reinforcement. This reaction produces hydrogen on the surface of the galvanized bar. This may reduce the bond between the bar and the surrounding concrete. The third negative mechanism is the assumed retarding eect of the corrosion products of the reaction of zinc with the wet cement paste on cement hydration. This is analogous to the retarding eect of ZnO, which was described by Lieber [8]. The assumed result is weakening of the surrounding concrete. On the other hand, Zn reacts in the presence of moisture with alkali hydroxides to form zincates resulting in the formation of tightly adhered layer of calcium hydroxyzincate (CaZn(OH)4(H2O)2) at the interface. Calcium hydroxyzincate is a brous hydration product and its presence immediately adjacent to the bars is believed to increase the adhesion between the concrete and the reinforcing bars [9]. Therefore, the opposing mechanisms aecting positively and negatively the bond between galvanized bars and concrete in normal strength concrete could have resulted in the insignicant dierence in bond strength between black and galvanized hooked bars in normal strength concrete. However, it is assumed that in HSC much less amount of hydroxyzincates are formed as compared with NSC. This is attributed probably to the lower availability of moisture since the water/cement ratio in HSC was around 0.3 as compared with 0.57 in the earlier NSC study. The positive role of hydroxyzincates in contributing to the adhesion between the galvanized bar and the concrete is therefore reduced in HSC. This could have caused the more signicant reduction in bond strength of hooked bars anchored in HSC due to galvanizing.

3. There was a consistent reduction in bond strength of the hooked bars due to galvanizing regardless of bar size or the connement mode of the hooked bars. The reduction ranged from 6% to 17% with an average value of 13%. This is contrary to the small and insignicant difference in bond strength of black and galvanized hooked bars anchored in NSC structures as reported in an earlier phase of the research program [5]. 7. Design implications The eect of galvanizing on the bond strength characteristics of reinforcing bars was assessed in four phases of a research program that was conducted at the American University of Beirut (AUB). The rst two phases concentrated on tension lap splices in full-scale beams and the next two phases on hooked bars anchored in beam-column joints. In normal strength concrete specimens, the eect of galvanizing on bond strength of tension lap splices and hooked bars was insignicant regardless of the bar size tested. However, there was a signicant reduction due to galvanizing in the bond strength of tension lap splices anchored in high strength concrete beams, ranging from 14% to 25% for the dierent bar sizes and amounts of transverse reinforcement conning the splices. Also, the reduction due to galvanizing in bond strength of hooked bars anchored in high strength concrete structures, as reported in this paper, was signicant and ranged from 6% to 17%. It should be noted that in Phase 2, it was concluded that conning galvanized tension lap splices with stirrups would make up for the loss of bond strength of galvanized bars relative to black bars. Based on the results of the four phases of the AUB research program, the following design implications are concluded: 1. Galvanizing the reinforcing steel bars does not have significant implications on the development length and splice length design provisions of bars in building design codes. 2. Galvanized tension lap splices anchored in high strength concrete beams should be conned with transverse reinforcement to make up for the loss in bond strength due galvanizing. Although some recommendations were given by Hamad and Fakhran based on the scope of their study [3], however more test data is needed to support a general design recommendation. 3. Galvanized hooked bars anchored in high strength concrete beam-column connections must be conned with transverse reinforcement by extending the stirrups of the column within the beam-column joint region. Further research is required to support a general design recommendation. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the University Research Board at the American University of

6. Conclusions Six pairs of high strength concrete beam-column type hooked bar specimens were tested to assess the eect of hot-dip galvanizing on bond strength of hooked bars in HSC specimens. For each of three hooked bar sizes and two dierent connement modes, two companion specimens identical except for whether the hooked bars were black or galvanized, were tested. The nal mode of failure of all specimens was splitting and spalling of the concrete cover normal to the plane of the hook indicating that the hook reached its ultimate bond capacity. Based on the test results, the following conclusions are made: 1. Although the cracks of the galvanized hooked bar specimen were fewer than the cracks of the companion black hooked bar specimen for a given bar size, however no signicant dierence was noted in the nal mode of failure that could be attributed to galvanizing. 2. There was a reduction in the stiness of the loaddeection curve of the galvanized hooked bar specimen as compared with the companion black hooked bar specimen; i.e., greater deection for the same load.

2052

B.S. Hamad, G.K. Jumaa / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 20422052 [4] Hamad BS, Jirsa JO, DAbreu NI. Anchorage strength of epoxycoated hooked bars. ACI Struct J 1993;90(2):2107. [5] Hamad BS, Jumaa GK. Bond strength of hot-dip galvanized hooked bars in normal strength concrete structures. Const Build Mater J, in press, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.008. [6] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and commentary (ACI-318-02/ACI-318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan; 2002. [7] ASTM A615/A615M-03a. Standard specication for deformed and plain billet-steel bars for concrete reinforcement. 2004 Annual book of ASTM Standards, vol. 01.04, p. 31822. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA; 2004. [8] Lieber W. Einuss von zinkoksyd auf das erstarren und erhaten von Portland-zementen. Zem-Kalk-Gips (Weisbaden) 1967(3):915. [9] Koch R, Stuttgart RW. Eect of admixtures in concrete on the bond behavior of galvanized reinforcing bars. Betonwerk Fertigteil Technik; 54 (3): 6470.

Beirut for supporting this program. The assistance of Mr. Hilmi Khatib, Supervisor of the civil engineering testing laboratories at AUB, is greatly appreciated. References
[1] Hamad BS, Mike JA. Experimental investigation of hot-dip galvanized reinforcement in normal and high strength concrete. ACI Struct J 2003;100(4):46570. [2] Hamad BS, Mike JA. Bond strength of hot-dip galvanized reinforcement in normal strength concrete structures. Const Build Mater J 2005;19(4):27583. [3] Hamad BS, Fakhran MF. Eect of connement on bond strength of hot-dip galvanized lap splices in high strength concrete. ACI Struct J 2006;103(1):4856.