29 NOVEMBER 2013 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL

Point of View
Serviceability, limit state, bar anchorage and lap lengths
in ACI318:08 and BS8110:97: A comparative study
Ali S. Alnuaimi and Iqbal Y. Patel
This paper presents a comparative calculation study
of the defection, control of crack width, bar anchorage
and lap lengths of reinforced concrete beams using the
ACI 318 and BS 8110 codes. The predicted defections
by the ACI code were larger than those by the BS. In
both the codes, the short-term deflection decreases
with the increase in the dead-to-live load ratio but the
long-term defection increases. In addition, the limits on
the maximum bar spacing to control crack width vary
signifcantly in the two codes. While the BS code predicts
a constant bar spacing regardless of the concrete cover,
the ACI reduces it with the increase in cover thickness. In
both codes, the tension anchorage length decreases with
the increase in concrete strength. The tension anchorage
and lap lengths vary with the values of the term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
. The BS code requires a greater anchorage
length in compression than the ACI code does. The
compression lap length requirement in the BS is more
than that in ACI code for the concrete of compressive
strength less than 37 MPa and the former stipulates
longer lap lengths for higher concrete strengths.
In the absence of a national design code, the structural
engineers in Oman use the ACI 318 and BS 8110
structural design codes to calculate defections, crack
width, and anchorage and lap lengths.
1,2
They fnd these
codes useful for complying with the legal stipulations
there. However, designers and project owners frequently
compare the stipulations in the two codes seeking points
of similarities and differences. Yet, no comprehensive
work of this kind is available in literature, though
several researchers have used these codes for estimating
defection, crack control and lap length development
in reinforced concrete constructions. The following
highlights the fndings of select researchers.
Nayak and Menon, conducted experimental investigation
on six one-way slabs, monitored their short-term
defection and compared the existing provisions given
in IS 456:00, BS 8110, ACI 318 and Euro-code 2 with
the experimental results.
3,4,5
They found considerable
disparities among the three codes. The AC I318 and Euro
Code 2 generally predicted acceptable defection at the
least and largest defection points respectively whereas
the BS and IS codes gave an acceptable intermediate
value. Santhi et al compared the total defection including
the creep and shrinkage for a two-way slab using AC
I318:00, BS 8110:97 and IS 456:00 and found that the total
defection based on ACI 318:00 and BS 8110:97 were
almost similar for the different slab thicknesses studied
while the IS 456:00 gave much larger defection in most
of the cases.
6

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL NOVEMBER 2013 30
Point of View
Bacinskas et al statistically investigated the accuracy
of the long-term defection predictions made by the
various design codes including Eurocode 2, ACI 318,
ACI 435, SP 52-101 and the fexural layered deformation
model proposed by Kaklauskas.
7,8
They found that the
Eurocode 2 overestimates the long-term defection while
ACI 318 and ACI 435 underestimate it. The SP 52-101
slightly overestimates the defection and has the lowest
standard deviation among the various code methods
studied. Lee and Scanlon conducted parametric study
on the control of defection of reinforced concrete slabs,
and compared the various design provisions in the ACI
318:08, BS 8110:97, Euro-code 2 and AS 3600:01.
9,10
They
concluded that although the minimum thickness values
are easy to apply, limitations need to be placed on the
applicability of current ACI 318:08 values due to the
assumption that the slab thickness is independent of
applied dead and live loads and no limits are specifed
on the applicable range of span lengths. They proposed a
unifed equation. Bischoff and Scanlon came to a similar
conclusion.
11

Bacinskas et al developed a model for calculating the
long-term defection of cracked reinforced concrete
beams considering creep, shrinkage and the tension-
stiffening.
12
They compared the ACI 318 and Eurocode
2 provisions with 322 experimental results. Their fnding
was that the defections predicted by the ACI 318 were
strongly dependent on the loading duration but the
results had high variations. However, the predicted
defections by the Eurocode 2 and the proposed model
were quite similar and independent of the loading
duration.
Subramanian suggested simple formulae, involving
the clear cover and calculated stress in reinforcement
at service load, to control crack width.
13
He criticised
the provision made in the Indian code IS 456:00 for
crack width calculation and commended the ACI 318:02
provisions. Alam et al criticised the Euro code 2 for under
estimating the crack width and crack spacing due to
neglecting the structural member size infuence which
they found had signifcant effect.
14

Khan et al compared the value of bar development
lengths obtained using ACI 318:99, BS 8110:85 and
IS 456:00. IS code gave the development length 8
percent and 11 percent more than that by BS and ACI
codes respectively. The development length obtained
in compression using IS code was 3.5 percent and 17
percent more than that used by BS and ACI codes
respectively.
15
Subramanian compared the IS 450:00
provisions for the development length with the ACI
code. He suggested a formula to improve the existing
IS provision.
16,4
The formula includes factors such as
bar diameter, concrete cover spacing of bars, transverse
reinforcement, grade and confinement of concrete
around the bars, type of aggregate, type of bars and
coating applied on bars, if any.
Haitao et al compared the experimental test results of lap
length development from eighteen reinforced concrete
beams with eight international codes requirements.
17

They found that all the codes were conservative in
specifying lap length development for small diameter
bars and that ACI 318:05 and ACI Committee 408
provided the worst agreement for large diameter bars.
Chul et al studied the experimental results of 72 test
specimens for compressive lap splices using concrete
compressive strengths of 80 and 100 MPa.
18
The effect
of concrete strength, splice length and transverse
reinforcement were assessed. They proposed a simple
equation, which provides shorter lengths than the ACI
318:08 does. Sarki et al reviewed the BS 8110 and Euro-
code 2 recommendations on steel bar lap lengths and
concluded that the British code gave the best safety
indices in all the cases they evaluated.
19

It is clear from these references that most of the research
work compare experimental results with the codes
requirements or proposed models. But no comprehensive
work was found in the literature comparing the ACI
318:08 and BS 8110:97 codes in terms of defection,
control of crack width, and anchorage and lap lengths for
different conditions including live-to-dead load ratios,
concrete strength, area of reinforcement, and bar type or
diameter. Accordingly, a comparative study with these
parameters was conducted on single-span, continuous
rectangular reinforced concrete beams.
Control of defection
ACI 318:08 provisions for defection calculation
ACI 318:08 has two approaches for controlling defection.
The frst indirect approach consists of setting suitable
upper limits on the span-depth ratio. In the second
approach, the defections are controlled directly by
limiting the computed defections to the values specifed
in the code (Table 9.5 (b)). In this study, the second
approach was adopted as follows:
Short-term defection
The initial or short-term defection
i
is calculated using
Equation 1. The PCA notes explain the details in this
Continued on page 35
35 NOVEMBER 2013 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL
Point of View
regard particularly the ACI 318:05 sections 9.5.2.2 and
9.5.2.3:
20
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (1)
where, M
a
= service moment, I
e
is the effective moment of
inertia, and K = defection coeffcient given in Table 1.
M
o
= Simple span moment at mid-span
M
a
= Service support moment for cantilever or mid-span
moment for simple and continuous beams
For each load combination (i.e. dead + live) the defection
is calculated using an effective moment of inertia i.e. (I
e
)
d
,
(I
e
)
d+l
and (I
e
)
sus
with the appropriate service moment
M
a
. The incremental defection caused by the addition
of load, such as the live load, is then computed as the
difference between the defections computed for any
two-load combination. Therefore, immediate defection
due to the live load is given by Equation 2:
(
i
)
l
= (
i
)
d+l
(
i
)
d
...... (2)
This calculated deflection should be less than the
allowable deflection given in Table 9.5 (b) of ACI
318:08.
Long-term defection
According to section 9.5.2.5 of the ACI 318:08, an
additional long-term defection due to the combined
effects of shrinkage and creep from sustained loads is
given by Equation 3:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (3)
where,
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
= multiplier for the long-term effect. As per
section 9.5.1 of ACI 318:08; the sustained load includes
dead load and that portion of the live load which is
sustained. Equation 4 gives total defection:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (4)
This computed total defection should not exceed the
limits given in Table 9.5 (b) of ACI 318:08.
BS 8110-2:85 provisions for defection calculation
BS 8110-2 is based on the calculation of a sections
curvature subjected to the appropriate moments, with an
allowance for creep and shrinkage effects.
21
Defections
are calculated from these curvatures. In BS 8110-2, a
reduction in the applied moment causing defection is
made, as in reality the concrete below neutral axis can
carry limited tension between cracks. Its effect, called the
tension stiffening, can be looked upon as a reduction of
moment causing defection expressed as (M - M), where
M is the moment carried by the tension in concrete.
Short-term curvatures
The curvature of a section is the larger value obtained
by considering the section either un-cracked or cracked
as appropriate.
The curvature of the short-term defection for un-cracked
section is given by Equation 5:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (5)

The curvature for the cracked section is given by
Equation 6:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (6)

where, M = applied moment, E
c
= modulus of elasticity
of concrete, I
g
= gross moment of inertia, M
c
is the
moment of resistance of concrete in tension, and M-M
c

is the moment causing defection.
Long- term curvature
In calculating the long-term curvatures, the effects of
creep and shrinkage are considered.
Equation 7 gives the long-term curvature due to
permanent load:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (7)

Equation 8 gives the curvature due to shrinkage:
Support type K
Cantilever 2.4
Simple beams 1.0
Continuous beams

Table 1. Defection coeffcient K (PCA Table 10.3)

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL NOVEMBER 2013 36
Point of View
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (8)

where;
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
= modular ratio as per section 3.6 of BS 8110-2,
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
= free shrinkage strain as per clause 7.4 of BS 8110-
2, S
s
= the frst moment of area of reinforcement about
Neutral Axis and I= the moment of inertia either for
un-cracked or cracked section depending on whether the
curvature due to loading is derived from the un-cracked
or cracked section.
Total long-term curvature = long-term curvature due to
the permanent load plus short-term curvature due to the
non-permanent load plus the shrinkage curvature given
in section 3.6 of BS 8110-2:85.
Calculation of defection from curvature
The defection is given by Equation 9:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (9)

Defection limits
Table 2 shows the total defection limits in the ACI and
BS codes.
Crack width control
ACI 318:08 provisions to control crack width
The section 10.6.4 of ACI 318 does not purport to predict
crack width and gives a simple equation which directly
limits the maximum reinforcement spacing as shown in
Equation 10.
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (10)
where; s is the maximum centre-to-centre spacing
of fexural tension reinforcement nearest to extreme
tension face, f
s
is the calculated stress in reinforcement
at service load and c
c
is the clear cover from the nearest
surface in tension to the surface of fexural tension
reinforcement.
BS 8110-2:85 provisions to control crack width
Two approaches are given for the control of crack width
in BS 8110-2:85. The frst approach is deemed-to-satisfy
approach, in which the maximum spacing of bar is
limited to control the cracking. The other approach
requires actually calculating the crack width and keeping
it within the limit.
Section 3.12.11.2.4 of BS 8110:97-1 specifes the clear
spacing between bars in tension as shown by Equation
11:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (11)

where; f
s
is service stress in the reinforcement and d
b
is
the bar size.
Design surface crack width w is given by section 3.8.3
of BS 8110-2 as shown in Equation 12:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (12)

where; a
cr
= distance from the compression face to the
point at which the crack width is being calculated,
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4

= average strain, C
min
= minimum cover to the tension
steel, h = overall depth of the member and x = depth of
the neutral axis.
Anchorage length
ACI 318:08 provisions for anchorage length
Anchorage length in tension

For normal weight concrete, the anchorage length in
tension is specifed by section 12.2.3 of the ACI 318:08
as shown in Equation 13:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (13)

where;
t
= reinforcement location factor (Taken as =1
for the bottom reinforcement),
e
= coating factor (taken
= 1 for uncoated reinforcement),
s
= reinforcement size
factor (taken = 0.8 for d
p
20 mm dia and = 1.0 for d
p
>
20 mm dia), c
b
= bar spacing or cover dimension = the
Situation
Defection limits
ACI BS
Members supporting non-structural
elements that are not likely to be
damaged by large defection
Span/240 Span/250
Members supporting non-structural
elements that are likely to be
damaged by large defection
Span/480 Span/500
20mm
Table 2. Limits of total defection using ACI and BS
codes
37 NOVEMBER 2013 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL
Point of View
smaller of 1) distance from centre of bar being developed
to nearest surface and 2) one half the centre-to-centre
spacing of bars being developed, and K
tr
= transverse
reinforcement index =
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
where; A
tr
= total area of
all transverse reinforcement which is within the spacing,
S = maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement
within l
d
(centre-to-centre), and n = number of bars
being developed. The code permits to use K
tr
= zero as a
design simplifcation even if transverse reinforcement is
present. The term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
cannot be taken greater
than 2.5 to safeguard against pull-out type failure. To
simplify computation of l
d
, preselected values for the
term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
are chosen to as shown in section
12.2.2 of ACI 318;08.
Anchorage length in compression
The anchorage length in compression is given by section
12.3.2 of the ACI 318:08; as shown in Equation 14:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
...... (14)

For f
c
> 32 MPa, (0.043f
y
)d
b
governs the length.
British Code (BS 8110:97) provisions for
anchorage length
Section 3.12.8.3 of the BS 8110:97 specifes anchorage
length in tension and compression as given by Equation
15:
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4 ...... (15)
where;
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
= is the bar size, f
s
= is the ultimate tensile or
compressive stress in reinforcement (0.95f
y
) and f
bu
=
the ultimate anchorage bond stress =
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
with
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
=
bond coeffcient = 0.5 for bar Type 2 in tension and =
0.63 in compression.
Lap length
ACI 318:08 provisions for lap length
Lap length in tension
Section 12.15.1 of the ACI 318:08 specifes the tension
lap lengths for class A and class B splice as 1.0l
d
and
1.3l
d
respectively but not less than 300 mm. Section
12.15.2 of CAI318:08 specifes tension lap splice
condition. Since in practice class B splice condition is
more common it was considered in this research.
Lap length in compression
Section 12.16.1 of the ACI 318:08 specifes the compression
lap length as 0.071f
y
d
b
for f
y
420MPa and 0.13f
y
24
for f
y
> 420MPa but not less than 300 mm in both cases.
These values are applicable for 21 < f
c
70 MPa (normal
strength concrete). For f
c
21 MPa, lap length shall be
increased by one-third.
BS 8110:97 provisions of lap lengths
Lap length in tension
As per section 3.12.8.13 of BS 8110:97; in general the lap
length in tension = 1.0 times tension anchorage length.
Lap length in compression
Section 3.12.8.15 of BS 8110:97 specifes the lap length
in compression = 1.25 times compression anchorage
length.
Results and discussion
Defection
From the equations presented above, it can be seen that
the BS method does not use I
eff
as does the ACI method.
Instead, E
c
I for short-term and long-term loadings are
calculated separately using appropriate E
c(short-term)
and
E
c(long-term)
. Further, in the ACI code, long-term defection
is calculated with the combined effect of creep and
Beam
No.
Service
DL,
kN/m
Service
LL,
kN/m
DL:LL
ratio
Ult. mom.
M
u
,
kN/m
Service
M
d
,
kN/m
Service
M
l
,
kN/m
Service
M
sus
,
kN/m
Tension
steel, A
s
,
mm
2
BR1.0 25 25 1.0 600 200 200 250 2754
BR1.3 25 20 1.3 536 200 160 240 2376
BR1.7 25 15 1.7 472 200 120 230 2029
BR2.5 25 10 2.5 408 200 80 220 1706
Table 3. Applied loads and provided reinforcement for simply supported beam using ACI and BS (Span, L = 8m)
THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL NOVEMBER 2013 38
Point of View
shrinkage, whereas in the BS code, defections due to
creep and shrinkage are calculated separately. The ACI
and BS limits on defection, for the same situations, are
close to each other.
Table 3 shows the applied loads and provided
reinforcement for simply supported beams using ACI
and BS codes having a span length (L) of 8m and
subjected to uniformly distributed loads with different
DL:LL ratios. Figures 1 and 2 show the total calculated
and allowable defections for the beams in Table 3. It is
assumed that the beam is supporting non-structural
elements that are not likely to be damaged by a large
defection. The beam was 350x750 mm with an effective
depth of 625 mm. The characteristic compressive strength
of concrete f
cu
was 30 MPa and the cylinder compressive
concrete strength f
c
was 24 MPa. The yield strength of
steel was taken as 460 MPa. It was assumed that 25% of
the live load as permanent. The time dependent factor for
sustained load, , as required in the ACI code, was taken
as 2.0 (i.e. factor for a period of 5 years or more). The 30
year creep coeffcient, , as required by the BS code, was
taken as 2.0 for ambient relative humidity of 60% and
age of loading as 14 days. The 30 years free shrinkage
strain,
cs
, as required in BS code, was taken as 0.000027
for ambient relative humidity of 60%. From Figure 1, it is
clear that the predicted short-term defection from both
codes, decreases with the increase of the dead load to
the live load ratio. Contrarily, the long-term defection
increases with increasing dead load to live load ratio.
Figure 2 shows that the predicted total defection is
almost constant for each code with a small drop when
the dead load to live ratio was 2.5. The maximum
allowable defections are constant for each code with
values of ACI being 4.2 per cent larger than that of the
BS. The predicted defections using ACI code are more
than those using BS code for short-term, long-term and
total defections. The differences between the ACI and
BS results in short-term, long-term and total defections
increase with the increase in dead load to live load
ratio the maximum values being 8.58, 20.68 and 27.51
per cent respectively for the given conditions. These
differences are attributed to the different approaches
adopted in ACI and BS for calculating EI, as discussed
earlier. The differences in the long-term case increase
at a larger rate than those in the short-term case. This
large difference could be attributed to the fact that in
the ACI code, a combined effect of creep and shrinkage
is considered, whereas in the BS code these effects are
calculated separately. This has in-turn affected the total
defection with difference increasing as the dead load
to live load ratio increases from 24.36 to 27.51 per cent.
While comparing the total predicted defection with
the defection limits (Figure 2), it was found that, in
the ACI code, the estimated defection is larger than
allowable limits, which means that the ACI limits can
be violated by the ACI equations used in estimating
the total defection. The BS code estimated defections
remain within the allowable limits. This indicates that
the ACI limits should always be observed for possible
violation.
Control of crack width
As pointed out earlier, ACI code does not give explicit
crack width calculation. The control of cracking is
deemed satisfactory as long as the limit on the bar spacing
is satisfed. The BS code furnishes two approaches, a
deemed-to-satisfy approach and the calculation of crack
width. In deemed-to-satisfy approach, the maximum
bar spacing is controlled in a similar way as in the
ACI code. It was shown in Equation 10 that the ACI
procedure is a function of service stress and concrete
cover, whereas the BS provision given in Equation 11 is
39 NOVEMBER 2013 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL
Point of View
a function of service stress and bar size. Figure 3 shows
the effect of concrete cover on the bar spacing using
these equations. The values used were
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
, f
y
=
460 MPa, and d
p
= 20 mm. It is clear that the limits on
the maximum spacing between bars vary signifcantly
between ACI and BS codes. The BS code has a constant
spacing regardless of the concrete cover, whereas the
ACI bar spacing reduces with the increase in the concrete
cover thickness. The difference between the two codes
decreases as the concrete strength increases (Figure 3).
With the given data, the highest difference is 57.8% when
concrete strength is 30 MPa and the lowest is 0.6 %when
the concrete strength is 70 MPa.
Anchorage length in tension
From Equations 13 and 15 for anchorage length in
tension, it can be seen that both the ACI and BS codes
equations are the functions of concrete and reinforcement
yield strengths and bar diameter. However, the ACI
equation is more detailed and takes into account the
location of reinforcement, coating factor, bar spacing,
effects of small cover, and confnement provided by
transverse reinforcement. Table 4 shows the deduced
equations of tension anchorage
length using both the codes for
different values of f
c
which is
taken as 0.8 of f
cu
(using
t
=
e

= 1.0, and
s
= 0.8 for d
p
20mm
Dia and = 1.0 for d
p
>20mm Dia).
In the case of ACI, pre-selected
values of the term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4

were adopted which were 1.0, 1.5
and 2.5. The resulting anchorage
length in tension, (Table 4), are
plotted in Figure 4. It can be seen
that in both the codes, the tension
anchorage length decreases with
the increase in concrete strength.
When the term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
has a
value of 1 and 1.5, ACI requires more tension anchorage
length than the BS does; varying from 14.1 to 114 percent
respectively for concrete strength change from 30 to 40
MPa. Whereas, when the term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
has a value
of 2.5, BS requires more anchorage length; varying from
16.8 to 46 per cent for concrete strength change from 30
to 40 MPa. In this regard it clear that the ACI provision
Code f
cu
, MPa
30 35 40
d
b
20 d
b
>20 d
b
20 d
b
>20 d
b
20 d
b
>20
ACI
(ClassB)
(c
b
+K
tr
/d
b
)=1.0 (0.146f
y
)d
b
(0.185f
y
)d
b
(0.135f
y
)d
b
(0.169f
y
)d
b
(0.126f
y
)d
b
(0.158f
y
)d
b
(c
b
+K
tr
/d
b
)=1.5 (0.097f
y
)d
b
(0.121f
y
)d
b
(0.09f
y
)d
b
(0.113f
y
)d
b
(0.084f
y
)d
b
(0.105f
y
)d
b
c
b
+K
tr
/d
b
)=2.5 (0.058f
y
)d
b
(0.073f
y
)d
b
(0.054f
y
)d
b
(0.068f
y
)d
b
(0.040f
y
)d
b
(0.050f
y
)d
b
BS (0.087f
y
)d
b
(0.087f
y
)d
b
(0.09f
y
)d
b
(0.09f
y
)d
b
(0.076f
y
)d
b
(0.076f
y
)d
b
Table 4. Equations for anchorage length in tension, using both ACI and BS codes
THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL NOVEMBER 2013 40
Point of View
is more conservative since in most cases it requires a
longer anchorage length than the BS.
Anchorage length in compression
From the Equations 14 and 15 for compression anchorage
length, it can be seen that both codes equations are
functions of concrete and steel strengths and bar size.
Table 5 shows equations and calculated values for the
anchorage length in compression, as a multiple of bar
size, using both ACI and BS codes, for different values of
f
c
. It can be seen that the BS code requires approximately
40 per cent more anchorage length in compression than
the ACI code.
Lap length in tension
As discussed earlier, ACI and
BS codes take into account bar
coating factor, effect of small
cover and location of bars.
However, ACI further considers
the effect of close bar spacing
and confi nement provi ded
by transverse reinforcement.
Table 6 was prepared based
on the equations of tension lap
length in both codes for different
values of f
c
. The reinforcement
location factor was taken as 1.0
and reinforcement assumed as
uncoated. In the case of ACI, pre-
Concrete strength
f
cu
, MPa
Equation of anchorage length in
compression, l
dc
Anchorage length
in compression, l
dc
% Diff. of
l
dc
ACI BS ACI BS
30 (0.049f
y
)d
b
(0.069f
y
)d
b
23d
b
32d
b
40.5
35 (0.045f
y
)d
b
(0.071f
y
)d
b
21d
b
29d
b
40.5
40 (0.043f
y
)d
b
(0.060f
y
)d
b
20d
b
27d
b
38.6
Table 5. Equations for anchorage length in compression, using both ACI and BS codes, as multiple of bar size
f
y
= 460MPa, f
c
=0.8f
cu
f
cu
, MPa
30 35 40
d
b
20 d
b
>20 d
b
20 d
b
>20 d
b
20 d
b
>20
ACI
(ClassB)
(c
b
+K
tr
/d
b
)=1.0 (0.190f
y
)d
b
(0.24f
y
)d
b
(0.176f
y
)d
b
(0.22f
y
)d
b
(0.164f
y
)d
b
(0.205f
y
)d
b
(c
b
+K
tr
/d
b
)=1.5 (0.126f
y
)d
b
(0.158f
y
)d
b
(0.117f
y
)d
b
(0.146f
y
)d
b
(0.109f
y
)d
b
(0.136f
y
)d
b
c
b
+K
tr
/d
b
)=2.5 (0.075f
y
)d
b
(0.094f
y
)d
b
(0.070f
y
)d
b
(0.088f
y
)d
b
(0.052f
y
)d
b
(0.065f
y
)d
b
BS (0.087f
y
)d
b
(0.087f
y
)d
b
(0.090sf
y
)d
b
(0.09f
y
)d
b
(0.076f
y
)d
b
(0.076f
y
)d
b
Table 6. Equations for lap length in tension
selected values of term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
are adopted which
are 1.0, 1.5 and 2.5. Figure 5 shows resulting lap length in
tension, as a multiple of bar size, using both ACI and BS
codes. It can be seen that when the term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
is
1 or 1.5, ACI needs more lap length; varying from 48.4
to 178.2 percent. When the term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
is 2.5, BS
asks for 12.3 percent more lap length than ACI when the
diameter of bar 20 mm but ACI required 11.3 percent
more lap length when the diameter of bar >20 mm.
41 NOVEMBER 2013 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL
Point of View
Lap length in compression
The provision of compression lap length discussed
earlier suggests that in the ACI code, the compression
lap length is a function of bar size and yield strength
of steel and is independent of the concrete strength.
Whereas, in BS code, the compression lap length is equal
to 1.25 times the compression anchorage length. Table 7
gives the equations for lap length in compression, as a
multiple of bar size, using both ACI and BS codes and
Figure 6 shows the resulting values, for the different
grades of concrete. It can be seen that for concrete having
f
cu
= 30 MPa, BS required 10.5 per cent more lap length
than the ACI whereas for the higher concrete grades,
the differences of lap length is negligible as it varies
from -4.5% to 2.3%. It is clear that BS code requires
more compression lap length than does the ACI code till
concrete compressive strength is 37 MPa, beyond that,
ACI requires more compression lap length.
Concluding remarks
The predicted short-term defections from both
ACI and BS codes, decrease with the increase in
the dead load to the live load ratio; ACI values
being larger than the BS by a maximum 8.58
per cent for the given conditions. Contrarily,
the long-term defections increase with increase
in the dead load to live load; ACI values being

larger for a maximum of 20.68 per cent for the

given conditions.
In both codes, the total defection decreases with
the increase in the dead-to-live load ratio with
the ACI values being larger than the BS values
with a maximum 27.51 per cent for the given
conditions.
The values of the defection limits in both ACI and
BS codes are close to each other regardless of the
dead-to-live load ratios with the values of ACI
being 4.2 per cent larger than those of the BS.
The ACI estimated total defection is always larger
than the ACI limits for the given conditions. This
implies that the limits should always be observed
for possible violation.
The differences in short-term defections estimated
by ACI and BS could be attributed to the different
approaches adopted in ACI and BS code for
calculating EI. In ACI, the effective moment of
inertia, I
eff
, is used, whereas the BS procedure
calculates EcI for short term and long term
loading using separate Ec(short term) and Ec(long
term).
The differences in the long-term deflections
estimated by ACI and BS could be attributed to
the fact that in ACI consider combined effect of
creep and shrinkage, whereas in BS the effect of
creep and shrinkage is calculated separately.
Limits on maximum spacing of bars to control
crack width in rectangular beams vary highly
between ACI and BS codes. The BS code has a
constant value regardless of the concrete cover
while the ACI bar spacing reduces with the
increase in the concrete cover to reinforcement.
ACI code allows more spacing than BS code does
for low grades of concrete and difference in values

Concrete strength
f
cu
, MPa
Equation of lap length
in compression
Lap length
in compression
% Diff. of
compression
lap length
ACI BS ACI BS
30 (0.078f
y
)d
b
(0.086f
y
)d
b
36d
b
40d
b
10.5
35 (0.078f
y
)d
b
(0.089f
y
)d
b
36d
b
37d
b
2.3
40 (0.078f
y
)d
b
(0.075f
y
)d
b
36d
b
34d
b
-4.5
Table 7. Lap length in compression as a multiple of bar size in ACI and BS codes
f
y
= 460MPa, f
c
=0.8f
cu
THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL NOVEMBER 2013 42
Point of View
between two codes decreases as the concrete cover
thickness increases.
In both the codes, the required tension anchorage
and lap lengths decrease with the increase in
concrete strength.
The ACI code lap length in compression is
constant regardless of the concrete strength while
the BS code length decreases with the concrete
strength.
For the term 1
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
< 2.5, ACI code
equations result in more tension anchorage and
lap lengths than the BS. Whereas, when the term
C
d
K

l
l
li
+ 4O
S
A
n
li
c
=
=
I
I
M
L
e
5
2
2
48
3
K

a
i
)
) )
d+1 d i
i i )
))
1
= -
(cp+sh) = )
sus i
)
) lolaI =
cp sh i
)
1
+ +
c
=
I
M
L
g
1
i
c
=
I
M-M
L
c
1
i
c
c (Ionglein)
=
=
=
=
=

M-M
3a

1.1
L
L
1+2
+
c
1
i
c
ci
cc
=
=

L
KL
S 1
1
i
i
cs
c
l
s
2
e s

1O64OO 84OOO
3OOnn
3OOnn
( O.O43
O.24
= - 2.5c

d
d
dc
- C
c
l
l
l
l l
li
s
s
s
c
s

47OOO
a
+
f
h - x
d
d
d d
l
s
s
v
n
y
y
y
y
s
lu
l e s
c
c
cu
ci nin
(
4
has value of 2.5, BS code equation
result in more tension anchorage and lap lengths
than the ACI. In most cases, the ACI is more
conservative by requiring a longer anchorage
length.
BS code asks for more compression anchorage
length than ACI code does.
BS code demands more compression lap length
than ACI code until concrete compressive cube
strength is 37 MPa, beyond which ACI requires
more compression lap length than BS code.
Based on the above it can be stated that the
provisions in the ACI code are more conservative
than those in the BS code for both short- and
long-terms deflections, which give the ACI
provision a superior reliability. However, the
ACI limits for deflection are violated by the
results of the ACI equations, which allow the
limits to always dictate the length. On the other
side, the BS Code is more conservative in terms
of bar spacing to limit crack width, anchorage
and lap lengths. Therefore, it is not easy to give
preference to one code over the other. However
it is a fact that SI units are becoming more and
more enforced internationally, building material
and references available in Oman are mostly in SI
units. Therefore in order to unify the knowledge
of the code requirements among municipality
and site engineers, it is recommended to use the
BS code as a frst choice until a national code is
established.

References
_______American Concrete Institute (ACI318:08), Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, 2008, Farmington
Hills, MI, USA.
_______British Standard Institution (BS8110:97 Part-1), Structural Use of
Concrete, Code of Practice for design and construction,1997, London, UK.
Nayak S.K. and Menon D., Improved procedure for estimating short term
defections in RC slabs, The Indian Concrete Journal, July 2004, v78, n7, p19-
25.
_______Indian standard code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete for
general building construction, IS 456:2000, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India.
Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, general rules and rules for buildings,
BS EN 1992.
Santhi A.S., Prasad J. and Ahuja A.K., Effects of creep and shrinkage on
the defection of RC two way Flat plates, Asian journal of Civil Engineering
(Building and Housing), 2007, v8, n3, p267-282.
Bacinskas D., Gribniak V. and Kaklauskas G., Statistical analysis of long-
term defections of RC beams, Creep, Shrinkage and Durability, Mechanics
of Concrete and Concrete Structures, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK,
2009, ISBN 978-0-415-48508-1.
Kaklauskas G., Flexural layered deformation model of reinforced concrete
members, Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, v56, n10, p575-584.
Lee Y. H. and Scanlon A., Comparison of one-and two-way slab minimum
thickness provisions in building codes and standards, ACI structural Journal,
March-April 2010, v107, n2, p157-163.
Scanlon A. and Lee Y. H., Unifed span-to-depth ratio equation for non-
pre-stressed concrete beams and slabs, ACI Structural Journal, Jan-Feb 2006,
v103, n1, p142-148.
Bischoff P. H. and Scanlon A., Span-depth ratios for one-way members
based on ACI318 defection limits, ACI Structural Journal, Sep- Oct 2009,
v106, n5, p617-625.
Bacinskas D. Kaklausks G., Gribniak V., Sung W. P. and Shih M. H., Layer
model for long-term defection analysis of cracked reinforced concrete
bending members, Mech. Time-Depend Mater, 2012, v16, p117127, DOI
10.1007/s11043-011-9138-9.
Subramanian N., Controlling the crack width of fexural RC members, The
Indian Concrete Journal, November 2005, v79, n11, p31-36.
Alam Y. S., Lenormand T., Loukili A., and Region J. P., Measuring crack
width and spacing in reinforced concrete members, Fracture Mechanics of
Concrete and Concrete Structures -Recent Advances in Fracture Mechanics of
Concrete - B. H. Oh, et al.(eds), 2010, Korea Concrete Institute, Seoul, ISBN
978-89-5708-180-8.
Khan M. S., Reddy A. R., Shariq M. and Prasad J., Studies in Bond strength
in RC Flexural Members, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and
Housing), 2007, v8, n1, p89-96.
Subramanian N., Development length of reinforcing bars need to revise
Indian code provisions, The Indian Concrete Journal, August 2005, v79, n8,
p39-46
Haitao L., Xiaozu S., Andrew d. J., Evaluation of adequacy of development
length requirements for 500MPa reinforcing bars, Advances in Structural
Engineering, June 2011, v14, n3, p367-378.
Chul C. S., Ho L. S. and Bohwan O., Compression splices in high-strength
concrete of 100MPa and less, ACI Structural Journal, November- December
2011, v108, n6, p715-724.
Sarki Y. A., Murana A. A., and, Abejide S. O., Safety of Lap Lengths Prediction
in Reinforced Concrete Structures, World Journal of Engineering and Pure and
Applied Science, 2012, v2, n3, pp 98 -106.
Notes on ACI318:05, Requirements for structural Concrete with Design
applications, ACI Building code, 2005, Edited by: Mahmoud E. Kamara and
Basile G. Rabbat, Portland Cement Association, 5420 Old Orchard Road,
Skokie, Illinois 60077-1083.
_______British Standard Institution (BS8110:85 Part-2), Structural Use of
Concrete, Code of Practice for Special Circumstances, 1985, London, UK.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
43 NOVEMBER 2013 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL
Point of View
Ali S. M. Alnuaimi holds an MSc in structural
engineering from the University of Southern
California, USA and PhD in structural
engineering from the University of Glasgow,
UK (Title of thesis: Direct design of reinforced
and partially pre-stressed concrete beams for
combined torsion, bending and shear). He is an
Associate Professor at the Department of Civil and
Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, Sultan
Qaboos University, Oman. He has published 29 journal
papers and 28 conference papers. Before being an academic
he worked as structural engineer and Director of projects at
Sultan Qaboos University for fve years. Currently, he is also
the chair of the projects committee at Sultan Qaboos
University. Dr. Alnuaimis main research interests are
structural design and analysis, estimating construction cost,
and administration of contracts.
Iqbal Y. Patel holds an MSc in Civil Engineering
from Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. He is a
structural engineer at Muscat Municipality,
Oman. He has more than 25 years of experience
in structural design of concrete and steel
structures along with Project Management
experience. He is profcient with American
concrete and steel design codes ACI318, AISC360 as well as
structural design software STAAD, ETABS, SAP, SAFE and
familiar with ASCE7, UBC, IBC. Prior to this he worked as a
civil and structural engineer in India, Saudi Arabia, and in
private companies in Oman.