.

4
Chapter Four
Tests of End Anchorages at Simple Supports

4.1 Test programme

Sixtyfive tests were made on anchorages of main bars at simple supports. They were
carried out in two phases .The first in 2003 included forty beams and the second in 2005
comprised twentyfive beams.
The tests formed three series :
Series Bs with straight bar anchorages ( 20 beams in phase one and 17 beams in
phase two )
Series Bb with anchorages using 900 bends ( 11 beams in phase one and 4beams in
phase two )
Series Bh with anchorages using 1800 bends ( 9 beams in phase one and 4 beams in
phase two )
In the first phase the beams of series Bs had a cross-section 250 mm square with two
T16 bars as main steel. In the second phase the cross-sections were 125,150 and 200
mm wide by 200 mm deep with two T16 bars in the 125 and 20 mm widths and one
T16 in the 150 mm width.

The beams of series Bb and Bh had cross-sections 250 mm square with two T16 bars as
main steel in first phase .In the second phase the cross-sections were 150 x 200 mm
with one or two T20 main bars.

The beams were simply supported over a span, which was between 400 and 1000 mm ,
and subjected to concentrated loads at midspan. With only 4 exceptions there was no
shear reinforcement in the shear span leading to the support, at which failure was
intended to occur. The other shear span was generally provided with either shear
reinforcement or a superior anchorage for the main bars to avoid failure.

In the early tests, the shear cracking of the critical shear span was relied upon to
produce bar forces at the support equal to those at midspan. While this appeared to be

174
successful at high loads it meant that no meaningful slip data could be obtained for
lower bar forces .The beam detail was thus changed to one in which the main bars were
exposed in the critical shear-span, over the length between the centre of the span and the
inner edge of the support. The cut-outs were 45 and 36 mm deep for 16 mm bars with
25 and 16 mm cover and 50 mm deep for 20 mm bars. The support ends of the cut-
outs were tapered , as in Fig. 4.1 , to represent the ends of shear cracks and to avoid
concrete over the support being pulled out, because at a sharp end of support a crack
before failure reduces the bond length while the inclined end of the cut-out helps the full
anchorage length remain bonded .

The lengths of the inclined ends of the cut-outs are not included in the anchorage
lengths given , because this part is out of the compressive strut field .

Fig.4.1 End of a typical beam

In series Bs, the main variables were the side cover of the main bars, the anchorage
length at the support, and the effective shear span, variation of which altered the ratio of
the bond stress to the transverse pressure at the support. To obtain zero transverse
pressure, the bars in some beams were debonded over the support plate and anchored in
an extension of the beam beyond the plate . For tests with transverse pressure, the bars
were not debonded over the support, which extended to the beam end.

In series Bb and Bh, the main variables were the side cover and the internal diameters of
the bends of the bars. Tests were made with and without transverse pressure on the lead
length. In the latter case the lead over the support was debonded up to the centre of the
support. In all cases the bends commenced at the centre of the support.

175
In all three series there was a variation of the concrete strength in the range
27 ≤ f cu ≤ 50 .6 N / mm 2 .

4.2 Test specimens

Fig 4.2 illustrates the five types of specimen used in series Bs:
Type I : beams with bars not exposed in the critical shear span and bonded
over the support.
Type II : beams with the bar (or bars) exposed in the critical shear span and
debonded over the support.
Type III : beams with bars exposed in the critical shear span and bonded
over the support .
Type IV : beams with the bar (or bars) exposed in the critical shear span ,
bonded over the support and with stirrups at the support.

Figs 4.3 and 4.4 illustrate the six types of specimen used in series Bb and Bh:

Type V : beams in series Bb with bars not exposed in the critical shear span but
debonded over the support (and anchored beyond it ).
Type VI : beams in series Bb with the bar (or bars) exposed in the critical shear span
and bonded over the support .
Type VII : beams in series Bb with the bar (or bars) exposed in the critical shear span
and debonded over part of the support.
Type VIII : beams in series Bh with bars not exposed in the critical shear span and
debonded over the support (and anchored beyond it ).
Type 1X : beams in series Bh with the bar (or bars) exposed in the critical shear span
and bonded over the support .
Type X: beams in series Bh with the bar (or bars) exposed in the critical shear span
and debonded over part of the support .

176
 100
b
A

h
cb
A
T16
cs

Section A-A
(a) type I

100 b b
A

16
stirrups T6

h
h
cb
67
A
cs
T16

Section A-A
(b) type II

100 b
A

sealed plastic tube stirrups T6

preventing bond

h
cb

A
lt T16
cs

(c) type III Section A-A

100 b
b
A
16

stirrups T6
h
h
cb

67
A
T16 cs

(d) type IV Section A-A

Fig(4.2) Series Bs details

177
 ce r 100 b
2T6 A

lt stirrups T6

h
cb
A T16

350 350 300

cs

sealed plastic tube

(e) type V 90° bend

preventing bond
Section A-A

ce r b
2T6 A 100
b

45
lt stirrups T6

h
cb
cb
A T16 or T20
cs cs
350 350

(f) type VI 90° bend Section A-A

ce r A 100
b
2T6 b

sealed plastic tube

45

lt preventing bond stirrups T6

cb h
cb

A
T16 or T20
cs cs
350

(g) type VII 90° bend Section A-A

Fig(4.3) Series Bb details

178
 ce r lt 100
b
2T6 A

r stirrups T6

h
r

cb
A T16 cs
350 350 300
sealed plastic tube
preventing bond

(h) type VIII 180° bend Section A-A

ce r lt A 100 b
b

stirrups T6

45
r

h
r

Cb
cb
A T16 or T20
T16 or T20 Cs
cs
350 350

(i) type IX 180° bend Section A-A

ce r lt 100 b
A
b
sealed plastic tube
stirrups T6

45
r preventing bond

h
r

cb
cb

A T16 or T20
cs cs
350 350

Section A-A
(j) type X 180° bend

Fig(4.4) Series Bh details

The details of the beams of series Bs are listed in Table 4.1.Although ,for beams type I ,
the anchorage lengths were intended to be only the lengths beyond the supports,
movements of the plastic tubes, used for debonding, resulted in the anchorages of beams
Bs1 and Bs2 containing both lengths with and without transverse pressure. The
locations of the tubes were determined by breaking away the concrete cover after
failure. Beam Bs3 may have been similarly affected but, as no anchorage failure
occurred, the length l p with transverse pressure was not determined. The fixing of the
tubes was improved for subsequent specimens. Therefore Bs1,Bs2 and Bs3 were not
considered in this programme and the useful beams start from Bs4.
The data for the beams with bent and hooked bars are given in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

179
 Table (4.1) Beams Bs details

Length
cs
Beam Typ No. of
b a eff cb ( lp lb Stirrups
No e Of support
(mm ) (mm ) (mm ) mm ( mm ) ( mm ) at support
bars (mm )
)
Bs4 I 2 250 325 25 25 150 150 150
Bs5 III 2 250 325 25 25 160 100
Bs6 III 2 250 325 25 25 240 100
Bs7 III 2 250 325 25 25 320 100
Bs8 III 2 250 325 25 55 160 100
Bs9 III 2 250 325 25 55 240 100
Bs10 I 2 250 325 25 55 150 150 150
Bs11 II 2 250 325 25 25 100 100 100
Bs12 II 2 250 325 25 55 100 100 100
Bs13 II 2 250 325 25 25 150 150 150
Bs14 II 2 250 325 25 55 150 150 150
Bs15 II 2 250 475 25 25 150 150 150
Bs16 II 2 250 475 25 55 150 150 150
Bs17 III 2 250 325 25 25 240 100
Bs18 III 2 250 325 25 55 240 100
Bs19 II 2 250 325 25 25 100 100 100
Bs20 III 2 250 325 25 25 100 100
Bs21 II 2 200 425 25 25 95 95 100
Bs22 II 2 200 300 25 25 150 150 150
Bs23 II 2 200 300 16 25 150 150 150
Bs24 IV 2 200 425 25 25 100 100 100 2T6mm
Bs25* II 2 200 300 25 25 150 150 150
Bs26* II 2 200 300 16 25 150 150 150
Bs27 II 1 150 400 16 67 100 100 100
Bs28 II 1 150 200 16 67 100 100 100
Bs29 II 1 150 400 16 67 150 150 150
Bs30 IV 1 150 400 16 67 150 150 150 2T6mm
Bs31 II 2 125 425 25 25 100 100 100
Bs32 II 2 125 400 25 25 150 150 150
Bs33 II 2 125 200 25 25 150 150 150
Bs34 IV 2 125 400 25 25 150 150 150 2T6mm
Bs35 II 2 200 425 25 25 100 100 100
Bs36 II 2 200 425 25 16 100 100 100
Bs37 II 2 200 300 25 16 150 150 150
*All beams were supported directly on steel plates except Bs25 and Bs26 in which fibre boards were
sandwiched between the plates and the beams.
Note : Length of loading plate = 100 mm in all cases.
Beams Bs4 to Bs20 were tested in 2003 and had h =250 mm and beams Bs21 to
Bs37 were tested in 2005 and had h =200 mm .
In beams Bs8 and Bs9 the ends of cutaway sections were vertical.

180
 Table (4.2) Beams Bb details

Length of
Beam a eff b cs ce ab lb r lt
Type n (mm ) (mm ) (mm ) (mm ) ( mm ) ( mm ) (mm ) support
No
(mm ) (mm )

Bb1 V 2 315 250 25 60 41 155.4 40 80 100

Bb2 V 2 325 250 55 60 71 155.4 40 80 100
Bb3 V 2 325 250 55 44 71 155.4 40 80 100
Bb4 VI 2 325 250 25 44 41 230.4 40 80 150
Bb5 VI 2 325 250 55 44 71 230.4 40 80 150
Bb6 V 2 325 250 25 44 41 310.4 40 160 150
Bb7 VII 2 325 250 55 44 71 155.4 40 80 150
Bb8 VI 2 325 250 25 49 41 261.7 60 80 150
Bb9 VI 2 325 250 55 49 71 261.7 60 80 150
Bb10 VI 2 325 250 25 34 41 285.4 75 80 150
Bb11 VI 2 325 250 55 34 71 285.4 75 80 150
Bb12 VI 1 350 150 65 55 85 269.2 50 100 150
Bb13 VII 1 350 150 65 55 85 194.2 50 100 150
Bb14 VI 2 350 150 35 55 55 269.2 50 100 150
Bb15 VII 2 350 150 35 55 55 194.2 50 100 150
Note:-Beams Bb1 to Bb11 were tested in 2003 and had h =250 mm and the main bar
diameter =16 mm .
-Beams Bb12 to Bb15 were tested in 2005 and had h =200 mm and the main bar
diameter =20 mm .
-In Bb1 to Bb3 the bars were debonded over the support and the bends began at
the outer edge of the support.
-In beams Bb7,Bb13 and Bb15 the bars were debonded over the half of support .
Also see notes below table 4.3

181
 Table (4.3) Beams Bh details
Length
a eff ab lb r lt of
n b cs ce
(mm ) ( mm ) ( mm ) (mm ) support
Beam No Type
(mm ) (mm ) (mm ) (mm )
(mm )
Bh1 VIII 2 325 250 25 60 41 230.8 40 80 100
Bh2 VIII 2 325 250 55 60 71 230.8 40 80 100
Bh3 VIII 2 325 250 55 44 71 230.8 40 80 100
Bh4 IX 2 325 250 25 44 41 305.8 40 80 150
Bh5 IX 2 325 250 55 44 71 305.8 40 80 150
Bh6 IX 2 325 250 25 49 41 368.7 60 80 150
Bh7 IX 2 325 250 55 49 71 368.7 60 80 150
Bh8 IX 2 325 250 25 34 41 415.7 75 80 150
Bh9 IX 2 325 250 55 34 71 415.7 75 80 150
Bh10 IX 1 350 150 65 55 85 363.4 50 100 150
Bh11 X 1 350 150 65 55 85 288.4 50 100 150
Bh12 IX 2 350 150 35 55 55 363.4 50 100 150
Bh13 X 2 350 150 35 55 55 288.4 50 100 150
Note:
-Beams Bh1 to Bh9 were tested in 2003 and had h =250 mm and the main bar
diameter =16 mm .
-Beams Bb10 to Bb13were tested in 2005 and had h =200 mm and the main bar
diameter =20 mm .
-In Bh11 and Bh13 the bars were debonded over the half of support
-In beams Bh1 to Bh3 the bars were debonded over the support and the bends
began at the outer edge of the support
cb = 25 mm except in Bb2 and Bh2. in which cb =55 mm .

a b = side cover+ ϕ.

4.3 Materials and fabrication

4.3.1 Concrete
The mix proportions of the dry constituents of the concrete were kept constant as
follows in parts by weight.

182
Cement (OPC) 1.00
Natural sand (5 mm down) 2.00
Thames gravel aggregate (5-10mm) 3.00

The water/cement ratio was varied from 0.50 to 0.55 to produce a range of concrete
strengths. The cube strengths given were obtained at the times of the testing of the
beams.

4.3.2 Reinforcement
Three sizes of reinforcement were used in the test specimens -16 mm and 20 mm
diameter for main steel and 6mm diameter for all other reinforcement .All three sizes
were of type 2 deformed steel to BS 4449 (1997) and the 16 mm were obtained in two
deliveries.

Strength characteristics obtained from 3 random samples of each size are given in the
Table 4.4. The tests were made in a servo-controlled test machine (Dartec universal)
mm diameters were tested in 2003 and 2005
with under position control. Bars with 16
while bar with 6 mm was tested in 2003 and bar with 20 mm diameter was tested in
2005.

Table ( 4.4) Tensile strengths of reinforcement

Yield strength (N/mm2) Yield strength (N/mm2) Ultimate
Bar type and size (2003) (2005) strength
(mm) Individual Average Individual Average (2005’s)
(N/mm2)

183
 552
H6 559 543
517
522 550
H 16 518 521 547 560 651
522 584
532
H20
532 535 650
542

4.3.3 Bar deformations

Bar deformations were measured on three small samples of each of the T16 and T20
mm bar types and the relative rib area f R was determined as approximately 0.08 for

both sizes.

4.3.4 Fabrication
The beams were cast in plywood formwork with adjustable stop ends to provide the
various lengths required.

The concrete was mixed in a simple pan mixer and placed in the forms in three layers,
compacted by an internal poker vibrator. Three 100 mm cubes were made with each
batch of concrete. They and the beams were cured under polythene sheet for 2 days and
then stored in the laboratory until testing at 14 days.

4.4 Instrumentation and testing :

For the straight bar specimens free-end slips were measured by displacement
transducers mounted on fittings attached to the projecting ends of the bars and reading
onto the end faces of the beams as shown in Fig.4.5 .

184
 Slip measurement cable connected
to control system machine
Machined surface

steel base beam

LVDT for slip measurement
steel roller Steel plates to stop the
inner end of rods from moving

Side Elevation

Support plate
Seel roller

Slip measurement cable connected

to control system machine

Front Elevation

Fig(4.5) Slip measurement instrumentation for specimens with straight bars

For the specimens with bent or hooked bars small steel rods were welded to the bars at
10mm from the starts of their curved lengths and projected beyond the beam ends as in
Fig.4.6 .These small attachments were debonded from the welds outward. Slips of the
bars at the inner ends of the bends were measured by displacement transducers mounted
from plates glued to the end faces of the beams and reading onto caps fixed to the rod
ends by grub screws. This instrumentation was used only in the 2003 tests.

Magnetic pedestal for LVDT

support frame and bolts
Slip measurement cable connected Machined surface
to control system machine
Steel base beam
LVDT for slip measurement
Steel plates to stop the
Bar welded to bend or hook inner end of rods from moving
for slip measurement
Side Elevation
steel roller

support plate Steel plate glued to beam end

Plastic tube to debond rod steel roller part of frame holding LVDT
inside beam

4 mm steel rod
welded to the side
of the bar at the
start of the curve
Front Elevation
The attachements
of the rods to bars

Fig(4.6) Slip measurement instrumentation for specimens with 900 and 1800 bends.

185
In two of the early tests, strains of the main bars in their end anchorages were measured
by pairs of strain gauges bonded at opposite ends of bar diameters at the beginning of
the anchorage length.

In beams (for tests in 2005) with bent and hooked bars, strains of the main bars at the
starts and at positions along their end anchorages were measured by pairs of strain
gauges bonded at opposite ends of bar diameters.

Finally deflections were measured by a displacement transducer mounted from the base
beam of the test frame and reading on to the top surface of the beam near midspan .Due
to the considerable amount of steel plate packing used under the loading actuator, the
positioning of this transducer was difficult and rather variable and the results are not
reproduced here.

The tests were made in a steelwork frame from which an Instron servo- actuator was
mounted. The test specimens were supported via steel plates and rollers on the
machined top face of a base beam within the length of the frame and loaded by the
actuator through steel packing on top of the loading plate. In two tests (Bs25 and Bs26)
soft fibre board pads were placed between the reaction plates and the undersides of the
beams.

The actuator was manually operated in its displacement control mode with continuous
monitoring of the applied load and the outputs from the transducers and any strain
gauges. Brief pauses were made at load increments of 10 kN to allow the beams to be
inspected and any crack development to be marked on them.

Loading was continued monotonically to the maximum load which was generally the
failure load. Some early tests were terminated without failure because it was believed
that the jack capacity was 250kN. Then it was found that its capacity was 500kN. From
then on loading was continued until either anchorage failure or yield of the main steel.

Each test took 20-30 minutes.

186
4.5 Test results
4.5.1 Ultimate loads
Nearly all the beams with straight bars failed in bond by splitting at their anchorages. In
the beams with hooks and bends most of the failures were by splitting due to the bearing
stresses within the curved parts of the bars. The ultimate loads and results derived from
them are given in tables 4.6 to 4.8 at the end of this section.

Ultimate bar forces at supports have been calculated on the basis of the model of a
critical shear span shown in Fig.4.7. Shear reinforcement is included in the model
although it was present in only 8 beams, all of which had bent or hooked bars. It is
represented by a single tie, located at the centre of the effective shear span and with an
area equal to that of the two stirrups present in each of the beams in question. The tie is
assumed to have yielded at failure.

aeff
asv asv P

Fc
z

Ft

Asv
shear reinforcement

Vu
Fig(4.7) Model showing calculation parameters

From the model, for a support at which n bars are anchored, the force per bar is:

1 Vu .a eff a 
Fsu =  − Fsv . sv  …………………..(4.1)
n z z 

where Fsv is the force in the shear reinforcement at yield.

z is the internal lever arm at the section of the maximum moment

187
For z to be determined, an estimate of the neutral axis depth is required and should take
account of the tied arch behaviour, developed from the start where the bars were
unbonded in the shear span, or from shear cracking onward in the few beams where the
bars were bonded. Where stirrups were present, Asv was small and tied arch behaviour
still predominated.

In a tied arch, the depth of the compression zone at midspan , prior to the yield of the
main steel is less than that for beam action ,due to the increased total elongation of the
main steel and the reduced shortening of the top surface.

One possible estimate of the depth of the compression stress block is the flexural value
corresponding to yield of the main bars and crushing of the concrete .Using the BS 8110
ultimate stress for concrete this gives:

0.9 x = nA s f y / 0.67 f cu b …………………..(4.2)

and z = d − 0.45 x

However for high ratios of reinforcement, at which the main bar forces are well below
yield, equation (4.2) can significantly overestimate x .For such cases there is an
approach for unbonded beams given by Regan(57) and summarized here it results in :

 x   xo  xo / d 
 −   …………………..(4.3)
d   d  0.5 + x o / d 

 xo  k  4 
Where   =  1 + −1 with k = 1167 ρs / f cu
 d  2 k 

and ρ s = nAs / bd

As for BS8110 , z = d − 0.45 x

Table 4.5 summarises the values of z obtained using equations (4.2) and (4.3) for
different groups of beams, and also the lever arms found via the results from strain
gauges on the T20 bars in series Bb and Bh. The strain gauge data are presented in
section 4.8.

188
 Table (4.5) Comparisons of lever arms
ρ d z (mm )
Beam nos.
(%) ( mm ) eqn .( 4.2 ) eqn .( 4.3) From strain
Bs5 0.74 217 199 202 212
Bs6-20 0.74 217 194-201 198-202 -
Bs 21-26 and 35-37 1.20 167 141-150 149-158 -
Bs 12 and 13 , Bh10 and 11 1.27 165 144-146 149-150 150
Bs 27-30 1.52 176 161-163 157-158 -
Bs 31-34 1.92 167 128-136 146-148 -
Bb 14 and 15 , Bh12 and 13 2.54 165 114-128 141-144 147

Note: 1) variation of z within a group arises from variations of f cu

2) single approximate values are given for given for z found from strain
measurements .

For the lower ratios of reinforcement, the differences between the lever arms obtained
by the two methods of calculation are small and, with ρ = 1.27 % , the simpler flexural
approach agrees satisfactorily with the strain gauge results. For the two highest values
of ρ , the differences between the methods of calculation are significant and with
ρ = 2.54 % , z from equation (4.3) is much closer to the value from the strains. Thus in
tables 4.6-4.8, the flexural method (4.2) has been used for ρ up to and including
ρ = 1.52 % while equation (4.3) has been used for ρ ≥ 1.92 % .

Tables 4.6-4.8 include values for f bu the ultimate average bond stress, pu the ultimate

bearing pressure, f bu / f cu and pu / f cu

f bu = Fsu / πφl b …………………..(4.4)

π
For bars with 90  bends lb = lt + ( r + ϕ / 2 ) + l1
2
For bars with 180 
bends lb = lt + π ( r + ϕ / 2) + l1

Where l1 is the lead length on the support before the bend .

The transverse pressure:
Vu
pu = ………………..
b.l1

(4.5)

189
where b.l1 =area of support

The beams’ details and results are summarized in tables 4.9-4.11 for easy use.

190
 Table (4.6) Test results, Beams Bs
f cu Vu Mu z Fsu f bu pu f bu pu Mode
Beam No.
 N  ( kN ) ( kN .m ) ( mm ) ( kN )  N   N 
f cu f cu of
 2   2   2  failure
 mm   mm   mm 
Bs4 35.3 99.50 32.34 199.3 81.12 10.76 2.65 (1.81) 0.45 Shear in the other shear span
Bs5 34.6 50.45 16.40 199.0 41.20 5.13 0.00 0.87 0.00 anchorage
Bs6 28.0 94.50 30.71 194.7 78.87 6.54 0.00 1.24 0.00 anchorage
Bs7 27.0 84.00 27.30 193.9 70.40 4.38 0.00 0.84 0.00 anchorage
Bs8 27.0 72.50 23.56 193.9 60.76 7.56 0.00 1.45 0.00 anchorage
Bs9 27.0 115.00 37.38 193.9 96.39 7.99 0.00 1.54 0.00 anchorage
Bs10 28.0 111.50 36.24 194.7 93.06 12.35 2.97 2.33 0.56 anchorage
Bs11 29.9 75.00 24.38 196.1 62.14 12.37 3.00 2.26 0.55 anchorage
Bs12 29.9 116.00 37.70 196.1 96.11 19.13 4.64 3.50 0.85 anchorage
Bs13 34.4 62.50 20.31 198.9 51.07 6.78 1.67 1.24 0.28 anchorage
Bs14 34.4 103.50 33.64 198.9 84.58 11.22 2.76 1.91 0.47 anchorage
Bs15 34.4 45.00 21.38 198.9 53.74 7.13 1.20 1.22 0.20 anchorage
Bs16 33.0 49.00 23.28 198.1 58.75 7.80 1.31 1.36 0.23 anchorage
Bs17 33.0 92.50 30.06 198.1 75.88 6.29 0.00 1.10 0.00 anchorage
Bs18 33.0 125.00 40.63 198.1 102.54 8.50 0.00 (1.48) 0.00 did not fail
Bs19 39.5 65.00 21.13 201.2 52.50 10.45 2.60 1.66 0.41 anchorage
Bs20 39.5 82.50 26.81 201.2 66.63 13.26 0.00 2.11 0.00 anchorage
Bs21 50.6 42.50 18.06 150.4 60.04 12.58 2.24 1.98 0.31 anchorage
Bs22 36.6 61.75 18.53 144.1 64.30 8.53 2.06 1.41 0.34 anchorage
Bs23 31.9 73.50 22.05 149.7 73.66 9.77 2.45 1.73 0.43 anchorage
Bs24 39.2 46.70 19.85 145.6 68.17 13.57 2.34 2.17 0.37 anchorage
Bs25 33.7 67.50 20.25 142.1 71.25 9.45 2.25 1.63 0.39 anchorage
Bs26 38.0 65.00 19.50 144.9 67.29 8.93 2.17 1.45 0.35 anchorage

191
 f cu Vu Mu z Fsu f bu pu f bu pu Mode
Beam No.
 N  ( kN ) ( kN .m ) ( mm ) ( kN )  N   N 
f cu f cu of
 2   2   2  failure
 mm   mm   mm 
Bs27 38.5 27.00 10.80 161.5 66.89 13.31 1.80 2.15 0.29 anchorage
Bs28 38.5 88.00 17.60 161.5 109.01 21.70 5.87 3.50 0.95 anchorage
Bs29 43.2 40.00 16.00 163.1 98.13 13.02 1.78 1.98 0.27 anchorage
Bs30 43.2 47.50 19.00 163.1 116.53 15.46 2.11 (2.35) 0.32 yield
Bs31 43.2 32.00 13.60 147.8 45.99 9.15 2.56 1.39 0.39 anchorage
Bs32 39.8 47.15 18.86 147.1 64.13 8.51 2.51 1.35 0.40 anchorage
Bs33 34.2 91.50 18.30 145.6 62.85 8.34 4.88 1.43 0.83 anchorage
Bs34 39.9 56.00 22.40 147.1 76.16 10.11 2.99 1.60 0.47 anchorage
Bs35 31.9 22.50 9.56 140.7 33.99 6.77 1.13 1.20 0.20 anchorage
Bs36 35.9 24.00 10.20 143.6 35.51 7.07 1.20 1.18 0.20 anchorage
Bs37 41.0 65.00 19.50 146.5 66.54 8.83 2.17 1.38 0.34 anchorage

Note : Values in parenthesis are for failures not in anchorages or beams that did not fail.

192
Table (4.7) Test results ,Beams Bb

193
 Beam f cu
Table (4.8) Test
 N  z
No. Fu f bu pu Mode
d Vu Mu f bu pu
( mm ) mm 2  ( mm ) ( kN ) ( kN .m ) ( kN )  N   N  f cu f cu of results , Beams
 2   2  failure
 mm   mm  Bh
Bb1 217 35.3 198.0 113.0 35.6 71.8 9.20 0.00 1.55 0.00 anchorage
dBb2 f cu
187 z
35.3 168.0Vu 125.0 M u40.6 98.8 (12.66) f bu 0.00 p u(2.13) 0.00 did not fail
Bb3 217 38.3 199.5 83.5 27.1 68.0 8.72 0.00 1.41 0.00 anchorage
Beam ( Bb4
mm )
 N
217  (
38.3 mm )199.5( kN125.0
) ( kN .m )
40.6 Fu
101.8 8.80 N  
3.33 N 
1.42 f0.54
bu pu
anchorage Mode
Bb5 
217 38.3 199.5 125.0 40.6 101.8 
(8.80) 3.33  (1.42)
2  0.54 did not fail of
No.
Bb6  mm
217
2
38.3 199.5 125.0 40.6 ( kN ) (6.53) mm 2
101.8 3.33  mm(1.06)
 f cu
0.54
f cu
did not fail
Bb7 217 38.1 199.4 125.0 40.6 101.9 13.05 3.33 2.11 0.54 anchorage failure
Bb8 217 28.0 193.0 124.0 40.3 104.4 7.94 3.31 1.50 0.62 anchorage
Bh1 217 35.9 198.31 125.0 40.6 84.3 7.28 0.00 1.21 0.00 anchorage
Bb9 217 28.0 193.0 138.0 44.9 116.2 (8.83) 3.68 (1.67) 0.70 yield
Bh2 187 35.9 168.31 125.0 40.6 98.6 (8.50) 0.00 (1.42) 0.00 did not fail
Bb10 217 28.0 193.0 117.5 38.2 98.9 6.90 3.13 1.30 0.59 anchorage
Bh3 217 38.1 199.38 100.0 32.5 81.5 7.03 0.00 1.14 0.00 anchorage
Bb11 217 28.0 193.0 144.0 46.8 121.2 (8.46) 3.84 (1.60) 0.73 yield
Bh4 217 38.1 199.38 90.0 29.3 73.4 4.78 2.40 0.77 0.39 anchorage
Bb12 165 39.9 144.1 54.0 18.9 131.2 7.76 2.40 1.23 0.38 anchorage
Bh5 217 38.1 199.38 133.5 43.4 108.8 7.08 3.56 1.15 0.58 anchorage
Bb13 165 40.7 144.5 37.0 13.0 89.6 7.35 1.64 1.15 0.26 anchorage
Bh6 217 28.9 193.76 107.5 34.9 90.2 4.87 2.87 0.91 0.53 anchorage
Bb14 shear and
Bh7 217 16528.9 44.6193.76 90.0
130.5 31.5
42.4 109.4 (5.91) 4.00 3.48 0.60
(1.10) 0.65 yield
143.9 109.5 6.47 0.97 anchorage
Bh8 217 28.9 193.76 115.0 37.4 96.4 4.62 3.07 0.86 0.57 anchorage
Bb15 165 37.8 142.3 52.5 18.4 64.6 5.30 2.33 0.86 0.38 anchorage
Bh9 217 28.9 193.76 130.0 42.3 109.0 (5.22) 3.47 (0.97) 0.64 yield
Bh10 165 40.7 144.5 44.0 15.4 106.6 4.67 1.96 0.73 0.31 anchorage
Bh11 165 44.6 146.3 33.5 11.7 79.9 4.41 1.49 0.66 0.22 anchorage
Bh12 165 32.6 140.6 67.5 23.6 84.0 3.68 3.00 0.64 0.53 anchorage
Bh13 165 37.8 142.1 62.5 21.9 77.0 4.25 2.78 0.69 0.45 anchorage

194
Note : z are the greatest values of eqs. 4.2 and 4.3 as in table (4.5)

195
 Table (4.9) Summary of test details and results, Beams Bs
f cu f bu pu
cs Mode
Beam  N   N  N 
Type b cb lb  2   2   2  of
(  mm   mm   mm 
No n (mm ) (mm ) mm ( mm ) failure

)
Shear in the
Bs4 I 2 250 25 25 150 35.3 10.76 2.65 other shear
span
Bs5 III 2 250 25 25 160 34.6 5.13 0.00 anchorage
Bs6 III 2 250 25 25 240 28.0 6.54 0.00 anchorage
Bs7 III 2 250 25 25 320 27.0 4.38 0.00 anchorage
Bs8 III 2 250 25 55 160 27.0 7.56 0.00 anchorage
Bs9 III 2 250 25 55 240 27.0 7.99 0.00 anchorage
Bs10 I 2 250 25 55 150 28.0 12.35 2.97 anchorage
Bs11 II 2 250 25 25 100 29.9 12.37 3.00 anchorage
Bs12 II 2 250 25 55 100 29.9 19.13 4.64 anchorage
Bs13 II 2 250 25 25 150 34.4 6.78 1.67 anchorage
Bs14 II 2 250 25 55 150 34.4 11.22 2.76 anchorage
Bs15 II 2 250 25 25 150 34.4 7.13 1.20 anchorage
Bs16 II 2 250 25 55 150 33.0 7.80 1.31 anchorage
Bs17 III 2 250 25 25 240 33.0 6.29 0.00 anchorage
Bs18 III 2 250 25 55 240 33.0 8.50 0.00 did not fail
Bs19 II 2 250 25 25 100 39.5 10.45 2.60 anchorage
Bs20 III 2 250 25 25 100 39.5 13.26 0.00 anchorage
Bs21 II 2 200 25 25 95 50.6 12.58 2.24 anchorage
Bs22 II 2 200 25 25 150 36.6 8.53 2.06 anchorage
Bs23 II 2 200 16 25 150 31.9 9.77 2.45 anchorage
Bs24* 39.2 anchorage
IV 2 200 25 25 100
* 13.57 2.34
Bs25* II 2 200 25 25 150 33.7 9.45 2.25 anchorage
Bs26* II 2 200 16 25 150 38.0 8.93 2.17 anchorage
Bs27 II 1 150 16 67 100 38.5 13.31 1.80 anchorage
Bs28 II 1 150 16 67 100 38.5 21.70 5.87 anchorage
Bs29 II 1 150 16 67 150 43.2 13.02 1.78 anchorage
Bs30* 43.2 yield
IV 1 150 16 67 150
* 15.46 2.11
Bs31 II 2 125 25 25 100 43.2 9.15 2.56 anchorage
Bs32 II 2 125 25 25 150 39.8 8.51 2.51 anchorage
Bs33 II 2 125 25 25 150 34.2 8.34 4.88 anchorage
Bs34* 39.9 anchorage
IV 2 125 25 25 150
* 10.11 2.99
Bs35 II 2 200 25 25 100 31.9 6.77 1.13 anchorage
Bs36 II 2 200 25 16 100 35.9 7.07 1.20 anchorage
Bs37 II 2 200 25 16 150 41.0 8.83 2.17 anchorage
*All beams were supported directly on steel plates except Bs25 and Bs26 in which fibre
boards were sandwiched between the plates and the beams.
** beams with stirrups within anchorages

Table (4.10) Summary of test details and results, Beams Bb

Beam b cs r f cu pu f bu Mode
Type n ce lb of
No (mm ) (mm ) (mm )  N  N  N  failure
(mm )(mm )  2  2  2 
 mm  mm  mm 
Bb1 V 2 250 25 60 155.4 40 35.3 0.00 9.20 anchorage

195
 Bb2 V 2 250 55 60 155.4 40 35.3 0.00 (12.66) did not fail
Bb3 V 2 250 55 44 155.4 40 38.3 0.00 8.72 anchorage
Bb4 VI 2 250 25 44 230.4 40 38.3 3.33 8.80 anchorage
Bb5 VI 2 250 55 44 230.4 40 38.3 3.33 (8.80) did not fail
Bb6 V 2 250 25 44 310.4 40 38.3 3.33 (6.53) did not fail
Bb7 VII 2 250 55 44 155.4 40 38.1 (3.33) 13.05 anchorage
Bb8 VI 2 250 25 49 261.7 60 28.0 3.31 7.94 anchorage
Bb9 VI 2 250 55 49 261.7 60 28.0 3.68 (8.83) yield
Bb10 VI 2 250 25 34 285.4 75 28.0 3.13 6.90 anchorage
Bb11 VI 2 250 55 34 285.4 75 28.0 3.84 (8.46) yield
Bb12 VI 1 150 65 55 269.2 50 39.9 2.40 7.76 anchorage
Bb13 VII 1 150 65 55 194.2 50 40.7 (1.64) 7.35 anchorage
shear and
Bb14 VI 2 150 35 55 269.2 50 44.6 4.00 6.47
anchorage
Bb15 VII 2 150 35 55 194.2 50 37.8 (2.33) 5.30 anchorage

Table (4.11) Summary of test details and results, Beams Bh

Beam b cs ce lb r f cu pu f bu Mode
Type n of
No (mm ) (mm )(mm ) (mm ) (mm )  N  N  N 
 2  2  2 
failure
 mm  mm  mm 
Bh1 VIII 2 250 25 60 230.8 40 35.9 0.00 7.28 anchorage
Bh2 VIII 2 250 55 60 230.8 40 35.9 0.00 (8.50) did not fail
Bh3 VIII 2 250 55 44 230.8 40 38.1 0.00 7.03 anchorage
Bh4 IX 2 250 25 44 305.8 40 38.1 2.40 4.78 anchorage
Bh5 IX 2 250 55 44 305.8 40 38.1 3.56 7.08 anchorage
Bh6 IX 2 250 25 49 368.7 60 28.9 2.87 4.87 anchorage
Bh7 IX 2 250 55 49 368.7 60 28.9 3.48 (5.91) yield
Bh8 IX 2 250 25 34 415.7 75 28.9 3.07 4.62 anchorage
Bh9 IX 2 250 55 34 415.7 75 28.9 3.47 (5.22) yield
Bh10 IX 1 150 65 55 363.4 50 40.7 1.96 4.67 anchorage
Bh11 X 1 150 65 55 288.4 50 44.6 (1.49) 4.41 anchorage
Bh12 IX 2 150 35 55 363.4 50 32.6 3.00 3.68 anchorage
Bh13 X 2 150 35 55 288.4 50 37.8 (2.78) 4.25 anchorage
Note : Values of pu in parenthesis for both tables 4.10 and 4.11 are for bend parts that
were bonded over the support

4.6 Cracking and modes of failure

4.6.1 Beams with straight bars

The anchorage failures of beams with straight anchorages were by splitting.

Five different types of failure surface developed at straight bar anchorages as the results
of variations in the width of sections and number or numbers of bars as shown in
Fig.4.8.

196
 (a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Fig(4.8) Crack patterns for beams with straight anchorage

Types (a) ,(b) and (c) have some variations of supplementary cracking and of course
variations in the angle of the surface.

Generally beams with two bars with and without transverse pressure in
200 mm and 250 mm wide sections developed type (a) .It can be seen
for those with transverse pressure a little difference in failure surface
tended to be more steeply inclined toward the side edge of the end
face as shown in Figs.4.9 and 4.10.

Bs9, cb =25mm, c s =55mm, lb =240mm and Bs10, cb =25mm, c s =55mm, l b

p =0 =150mm,p>0

Fig(4.9)Effect of transverse pressure on failure cracks.(Beams Bs9 and Bs10)

197
 Bs6, cb = c s =25mm, l b =235mm Bs7- cb = c s =25mm, l b =320mm

Bs8, cb =25mm, c s = 55mm, l b =160mm

Fig(4.10)Cracking at failure, Beams Bs6, Bs7 and Bs8 without transverse

pressure

In beams Bs14 with mm side cover, the cracks on the end face seem unpopular
particularly as the vertical crack misses the bar. On the side face the crack seems to
have been a much more ordinary one as in Fig.4.11.

Beam Bs14, cb =25mm, c s =55mm, l b =150mm

Fig(4.11) Cracking at failure, Bs14 with transverse pressure

198
Beams with two bars in a 125 mm wide section developed horizontal
side to side cracks between bars and to the edge or inclined to the
end face as in type (b) and (c) .

In beams Bs31 and Bs34 the failure surfaces are type (b). In Bs 32
and Bs33 the the failure surfaces are type (c) but in Bs33 the failure
complicated by shear cracking. These are shown in Fig.4.12.

Bs31 cb = c s =25mm, l b =150mm Bs34, cb = c s =25mm, l b =150mm

Bs32 - cb = c s =25mm, l b =150mm Bs33- cb = c s =25mm, l b =150mm

Fig(4.12)Cracking at failure, Beams Bs31, Bs32, Bs33and Bs34 with closely spaced
bars

Beams with one bar in a 150 mm wide section developed failure

surface as types (d) and ( e) as in Bs27, Bs28 and Bs29 shown in
Fig.4.13.

199
 Bs27, cb = 16mm, c s =67mm, l b =100 Bs28, cb =16mm, c s =67mm, l b =100mm

Bs29 cb = 16mm, c s =67mm, l b =150mm

Fig.(4.13)Cracking at failure, Beams Bs27, Bs28 and Bs29 with
transverse pressure

Beams Bs25 and Bs26 with two bars in a 200 mm wide sections
supported through fibre boards were sandwiched between the plates and the beams
developed the same type (a) similar to those with 200 mm and 250 mm wide
sections as in Fig.4.14.

Bs23- cb =16mm, c s = 25, l b =150mm Bs26- cb = 16mm c s = 25, l b =150mm with fibre board

pad
Fig(4.14)Cracking at failure in Beams Bs23 and Bs26 with and without fibre board pads

200
4.6.2 Beams with bent and hooked bars

With two bent and hooked bars in 250 mm wide sections and in 150 mm
wide sections there were some signs of cracking following the curves of the bars, as
in Bb3, Bb10 and Bb15, shown in Fig.4.15, but, where anchorage failures occurred,
they seemed to have been due to expansion of the compressed concrete in the bend
pushing the cover outward with the concrete cracking as in Bh8 and being almost fan-
shaped as in Bh12 -see Fig.4.16.

EMBED PBrush

Beam Bb10 - EMBED Equation.3 cb = 25mm,

EMBED Equation.3 c s =25mm, EMBED Equation.3

lb =285.4mm

Beam Bb3 - EMBED Equation.3 cb = 25mm,

EMBED Equation.3 c s =55mm, EMBED Equation.3

lb =155.4mm

201
 Beam Bb15- cb = 25mm, c s =35mm lb =194.2mm

Fig(4.15)Cracking at failure, Beams Bb3, Bb10 and Bb15

Beam Bh8 - cb = c s =25mm, lb =415.7mm

Fig(4.16) Cracking at failure, Beams Bh8 with transverse pressure

In the beams with single bars(and c s / ϕ =3.25) the failure in Bb12 and Bh11 was by a
longitudinal split and additional damage at one corner due to opening up of the 90 
bend as shown in Fig. 417. .

Bb12, cb =25mm, c s =65mm, lb =249.2mm

202
 Bh11, cb = 25mm, c s =65mm, lb =268.4mm
Fig(4.17)Cracking at failure top and side, Beam Bb12 and Bh11
4.7 Overview of test results for anchorage strength

4.7.1 Straight bars

For the tests with debonded bar over the supports the Figs 4.18 and Fig.4.19 show that
the f bu / f cu increased as c s / ϕ (or c s ) increased and decreased as l b / ϕ increased

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0

Fig.(4.18) Relation between f bu / f cu and c s / ϕ when p = 0

203
 4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Fig.(4.19)Relation between f bu / f cu and l b / ϕ when p = 0

There is a reasonably clear influence from l b / ϕ on the bond strength, which is well
predicted by Darwin et al equation , with the sole exception of Bs5 the experimental
strengths are far above Darwing’s predictions (mean f bu ,test / f bu , Darwin =1.7 if Bs5 is
excluded) and the reason for this appears to be in the absence of the transverse pressure
tests with considerable unbonded lead lengths are likely to give misleadingly high bond
strengths particularly if the concrete around the lead lengths is subjected to transverse
pressure (applied or resulting from friction) . Finally the results are not used further.

For tests with bonded bar over the supports the high bond strengths are obtained due to
the transverse pressure from the reaction and shorter anchorage length.

For the remaining beams , they were designed to provide test results for failures at low
transverse pressures ( low f b / ϕ ) with variations of all the other influential parameters,
except bar type and size.

The resulting number of combinations of variables mean that very few tests could be
repeated the variations of individual parameters were restricted, e.g. there were only two
values of l b / ϕ . In these circumstances the scope for graphical presentations of results
is very limited.

Tables 4.12 and 4.13 show the effect of anchorage length and transverse pressure on
bond strengths respectively .

Table (4.12) Effect of anchorage length on bond strengths for beams with bonded bars

204
 Beam nos.( ) and f bu / f cu Ratios of f bu / f cu
Constant
parameters l b / ϕ = 6.25 l b / ϕ = 9.4 for different l b / ϕ

cb = 25, c s = 25
(35)-1.20 1.02
p (15)-1.22
= 0.18 , b = 200 / 250 mm (21)-1.98 1.62
fb
cb = 25, c s = 25 (13)-1.24 1.34 or 1.82
(19)-1.66
p (22)-1.41 1.18 1.60
= 0.25 , b = 200 / 250 mm (11)-2.26
(23)-1.63 1.02 1.39
fb
c b = 25 , c s = 55
(14)-1.91 1.83
p (12)- 3.50
= 0.25 , b = 200 / 250 mm (10)-2.33 1.50
fb
c b =16 , c s = 67
p (27)-2.15 (29)-1.98 1.09
= 0.14 , b = 150 mm
fb
cb = 25, c s = 25
p (31)-1.39 (32)-1.35 1.03
= 0.28 , b = 125 mm
fb
In all case , f bu / f cu is higher at l b / ϕ = 6.25 than at l b / ϕ = 9.4 , but the ratio of
the resistance is very variable. In four of the five sets it is less than 1.1 for one pair of
results.

Table (4.13) Effect of transverse pressure on bond strengths for beams with bonded bars
Beam nos( ) and f bu / f cu Ratios of
f bu
for
f cu
Constant p p p p p
= 0.14 = 0.18 = 0.25 = 0.28 = 0.59 different
parameters fb fb fb fb fb
p
fb
cb = 25, c s = 25
lb (35)-1.18 (19)-1.66 1.41 or 1.92
= 6.25
ϕ (21)-1.98 (11)-2.26 0.84 1.14
b = 200 / 250 mm
cb = 25, c s = 25
lb (13)-1.24 1.02
= 9 .4 (17)-1.22 (22)-1.41 1.16
ϕ (25)-1.63 1.34
b = 200 / 250 mm
c b = 25 , c s = 55
lb (14)-1.91
1.40
= 9 .4 (16)-1.36 (10)-2.33
ϕ 1.71
b = 200 / 250 mm

205
c b =16 , c s = 67
lb
= 6.25 (27)-2.15 (28)-3.50 1.63
ϕ
b = 150 mm
cb = 25, c s = 25
lb
= 9.4 (32)=1.35 (33)-1.43 1.06
ϕ
b = 125 mm

In all case but one, f bu / f cu increases with increasing p / f b with the greatest
increases being where the side cover was large and the smallest being in the last set
where p / f b for both sets was higher than elsewhere.

Table 4.14 compares results from otherwise similar beams with and without 2T6
stirrups at the supports. The provision of stirrups had a positive effect , even in the
beams with single bars. The greater influence in beams Bs21,24 and first group of
beams could well be due to their shorter anchorage lengths increasing the ratio of stirrup
reinforcement.

Table(4.14) Data and results for directly comparable beams with and without stirrups
f cu cs
Ratio of
Beams b a eff lb Vu
f bu f bu / f cu
Stirrups  N  (mm ) ( mm
No.  2 
(m m ) ϕ f cu with/without
 mm  ) (kN )
stirrups
Bs21 50.6 200 25 425 6.25 42.50 1.98
Bs35 31.9 200 25 425 6.25 22.50 1.20 1.37
Bs24 2T6 39.2 200 25 425 6.25 46.70 2.17
Bs29 43.2 150 67 400 9.40 40.00 1.98
1.18
Bs30 2T6 43.2 150 67 400 9.40 47.50 2.35
Bs32 39.8 125 25 400 9.40 47.15 1.35
1.19
Bs34 2T6 39.9 125 25 400 9.40 56.00 1.60

Table 4.15 compares the results for beams with fibre-board pads between the concrete
and the steel plates with those for otherwise similar beams without fibre-board. Beams
with smaller bottom cover and fibre-board showed less resistance than that supported
directly on steel. However the results are too few to allow any conclusion to be drawn.

Table(4.15) Data and results for directly comparable beams with different materials
Beams Support f cu b cb cs a eff Vu f bu Ratio of
( )
( mm ) ( mm ) ( mm ) ( kN )
No. material  N  mm
f cu f bu / f cu
 2  with/without
 mm 

206
 fibre-board
Bs22 Steel 36.6 200 25 25 300 61.75 1.41
Fibre 0.87
Bs25 board
33.7 200 25 25 300 67.50 1.63

Bs23 Steel 31.9 200 16 25 300 73.50 1.73

Fibre 1.19
Bs26 board
38.0 200 16 25 300 65.00 1.45

4.7.2 90  and 180 

Bent bars

The tests explored the effects of four factors likely to influence the performances of end
anchorages involving bends:
1) the angle through which bars are bent ( 90  or 180  )
2) the internal radius of bend ( 2.5ϕ to 4.7ϕ)
3) the side cover ( 1.56 ϕ to 3.44 ϕ)
4) the bonded lead length over the support (zero or half the length of the support)

There were also limited variations of bar size (16 or 20 mm ), tail length beyond the
bend (generally 5ϕ but 10 ϕ in one beam) , bottom cover (generally 1.56 ϕ but
3.44 ϕ in two beams) and concrete strength ( f cu =28.0 to 44.6 N / mm 2 ).

To provide a simple overview of the results, they are presented here in terms of the
∗
ultimate stresses f su of the bars at the anchorages with an allowance made for the

influence of concrete strength - f su∗ = f su (30 / f cu ) 2 / 3 - with f su calculated as in

section 4.5 .The factor allowing for the influence of concrete strength is based on its
tensile strength, as the anchorage failures were predominantly by splitting.

Fig.4.20 shows the results for specimens with bonded lead lengths and various values of
( r / ϕ ) .The 90  bends gave strengths higher than those for 180  hooks and , for both
details , with c s / ϕ =1.56 , the ultimate strength increased when ( r / ϕ ) was increased
from 2.5 to 3.75 , but there was little further effect for r / ϕ =4.7. Only one result is

207
plotted for c s / ϕ =3.44 because the other five specimens did not fail at their
anchorages.

Fig.4.21 plots f su against c s / ϕ for specimens with bonded lead lengths and r / ϕ
∗

=2.5. Here again the strengths of the bars with 90  bends are greater than those for
180  hooks and strength increases with increasing c s / ϕ .

600 bends
hooks
500

400
hooks
300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Fig.(4.20) Influence of radius of bend on the bar

stresses developed by 90  and 180  bent anchorages

600
bends hooks
500

400
bends
300
hooks

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Fig.(4.21) Influence of side cover on the bar stresses

developed by 90  and 180  bent anchorages with r / ϕ =2.5

208
There were two types of specimens without bonded lead lengths. In one, used in the
series with 20 mm bars and also in beam Bb7, the bars were debonded along the first
half of the length of the support plate and the bend began at the centre of the support. In
the other which was used in the earliest tests, the bars were debonded over the full
lengths of the support plates and the bends (and bond) began at the outer edges of the
supports. In the beams in question, Bb1 and Bb3 and Bh1 and Bh3, the bars were
bonded in the shear spans and stirrups were present.

The model of Fig.4.9 has been used to evaluate the bar forces at the anchorages.
Fig.4.22 plots the ratios of the strengths in these beams which are represented in detail2

and 3 (in terms of f su∗ ) to those in beams where the bars were bonded over the full
length of the support which are represented in detail 1 against the corresponding ratios
of bonded anchorage lengths. For groups 1(detail3/detail1) and 2(detail2/detail1) the
strengths are approximately proportional to the anchorage lengths. The results could be
interpreted in terms of bond strengths, but from the appearances of the failures it seems
more likely that the relevant effect of the debonding was to increase the forces at the
starts of the bends.

0.75

ratio of Detail 1
anchorage 0.5
strengths
0.25

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Detail 2
ratio of bond lengths

Detail 3

Fig.(4.22) Ratios of strengths of partly debonded anchorages and anchorages fully

bonded over supports as functions of the corresponding ratios of bond lengths

209
4.8 Strain measurements

4.8.1 Strains at straight ends

The strains of the main bars in Bs5 were measured at the outer ends of the debonded
lengths. Each bar had two gauges - one at the top and the other at the bottom as shown
in Fig.4.23. The averages of the four measured strains in table (A3) were used to plot
the load-strain relationship in Fig. 4.24.

steel bar

strain gauges

debonding plastic tube

Fig(4.23) Strain gauges on Bs5

The strains were very low until the midspan section cracked in flexure .Once the
relevant cracking occurred the strains rose rapidly toward ‘cracked section’ values and
then increased almost linearly with increasing load.

There are two lines drawn in Fig.4.24. The full line is the experimental load-strain
relationship. The broken line is a calculated one, corresponding to strains calculated for

the lever arm given in table 4.5 and E s = 200 kN / mm 2 . The experimental results are
almost the same to the calculated one except in the early loading.

210
 120

100

80

(Load)(kN)
60

40

20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Strain x106

Note: the broken line shows strains calculated from the lever arm given in

Table 4.5 and E s = 200 kN / mm

2

Fig(4.24) Load-strain relationships for Bs5

4.8.2 Strains in 90  and 180 
Bends

In the 2005 series strain gauges were placed on the bent and hooked bars at the
locations shown in Fig.4.25.

D
D
C
B B
A A

D
D sealed plastic tube sealed plastic tube
preventing bond C preventing bond
B B
A A

a) 900 bends b) 1800 bends

Fig(4.25)Strain gauges on 900 and 1800 bends.

The strains referred to here are the averages from the two gauges at each location. The
strain results in table (A3) at positions A,B , C(only in 1800 bends ) and D were used to
plot the load-strain relationships shown in Figs.4.26 and 4.27.The strains measured at

211
position B in Bb15 and Bh13 differed from strains at A ,probably due to some cement
grout having entered the tubes.

Bb12
120
D B
A
100

80
Load(kN)

60

40 D
B
20
A
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
6
Strainx10

120
Bb13

100
A
D B
Load(kN)

80

60
sealed plastic tube
D preventing bond
B
40
A
20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
6
Strain x10

Bb14
200
180
D B A
160
140
Load(kN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0 D
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 B
Strain x10
6
A

212
 Bb15
120
D B A
100
Load(kN)

80

60 sealed plastic tube

40
D preventing bond
B
20 A

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
6
Strain x10

Fig(4.26)Load-strain relationships for specimens with 900 bent bars

Bh10
120

100 D B A

80
Load(kN)

60 D
40
C B
20
A
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
6
Strain x10

Bh11
120

100
D C
A
Load(kN)

80

60
D
40
sealed plastic tube
20
C preventing bond
B
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 A
-6
Strain x10

213
 Bh12
140 D
C B A
120
100

Load(kN)
80
60
D
40
20 C B
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 A
6
Strain x10

140 Bh13
D C B
A
120

100
Load(kN)

D
80 sealed plastic tube
60 preventing bond
C B
40 A
20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
6
Strain x10

Fig(4.27) Load-strain relationships for specimens with 1800 bent bars

Note: the strain gauges in position B in beam Bh11 failed to give results.
The bar forces Fs A to Fs D at the gauge locations were calculated as Fs = E s ε s AS ,

with E s = 200 N / mm , ε s = the average of the measured strains and AS =the nominal
2

area of a bar. The forces developed in part-lengths of the anchorages were then found,
as for example FAB = FsA − FsB and the corresponding average bond stresses were
calculated as below (see table A5).

(a) 90 0 bends :

For 90 0 bends
π
l AB = l1 and l BD = rm
2
ϕ
where rm = r +
2
Average bond stress in AB, f b , AB = FAB / πϕ l1 ……..……..
(4.6)

214
Average bond stress in BD, f b , BD
2
(
= FBD / π ϕ rm / 2 ) ……..……..
(4.7)
Average bond stress in the tail, f b , t = Ft /(π ϕ l t ) ……..……..
(4.8)

(b) 180 0
bends

For 180 0
bars:
π
l AB = l1 and l BC = l BD = rm
2
Average bond stress in AB, f b , AB = FAB / πϕl h ..…....……..
(4.9)
Average bond stresses in BC and CD and BD
f b , BC = FBC / (π 2
ϕ rm / 2 ) .…..……..
(4.10)
f b , CD = FCD / (π 2
ϕ rm / 2) .…..……..
(4.11)
f b , BD = FBD / π 2ϕ rm .…..……..
(4.12)
Average bond stress in the tail, f b ,t = Ft /(π ϕ lt ) …..……..
(4.13)
For bars debonded up to the centre of the support - as above but FA and FB should be
equal.

Figs. 4.28 and 4.29 show the resulting bond stresses plotted against the loads and tables
4.16 summarises the bond stresses ( f bu ) at maximum load in the different parts of the
anchorages and also gives the maximum bond stresses in lead lengths ( f b max, AB ) and

the ultimate steel stresses f su at the bonded end and the bond stresses (f bu , m )
averaged for the full anchorage lengths.

215
 14

12

10

0
0 50 100 150
Load (kN)

Bh10
14

12

10

0
0 50 100 150
Load (kN)

Bh11
14

12

10

0
0 50 100 150

Load (kN)

Bh12
Fig(4.28) Relationships between bond stresses and load for Bh10-Bh12

216
 14

12

10

0
0 50 100 150
Load (kN)

Bb12
14

12

10

0
0 50 100 150
Load (kN)

Bb13
14

12

10

0
0 50 100 150
Load (kN)

Bb14
14

12

10

0
0 50 100 150

Load (kN)

Bb15
Fig(4.29) Relationships between bond stresses and load for Bb12-Bb15

Table (4.16) Summary of results from strain gauges on 900 and 1800 bends
No. Beam Stresses ( N / mm 2 ) derived from strains

217
 of f su f bu , m f bu , AB f bu , BD f bu , BC f bu ,CD f bu ,tail f b max, AB
no.
Bars
Bb12 386 7.17 1.93 11.99 - - 6.58 11.29
Bb13(d) 285 7.34 (0.97) 5.52 - - 8.33 (1.04)
1 Bh10 298 4.10 5.20 5.50 - - 0.98 8.50
Bh11(d) 253 4.38 - - - 2.94 1.35 -
Bb14 367 6.82 11.39 7.05 - - 3.17 11.72
Bb15(d) 176 4.53 (8.29) 3.63 - - 3.56 (2.29)
2 Bh12 262 3.61 8.91 2.89 4.44 1.34 0.99 9.25
Bh13(d) 224 3.88 (4.33) 3.55 3.34 3.76 1.26 (4.33)
Note : 1) f bu , AB values are given in parenthesis for ‘‘debonded’’ lead lengths.
2) Some values of f bu are missing for Bh11, where gauges at B malfunctioned.

It can be seen from table 4.16 that the method of debonding the lead lengths of some of
the beams had problems. The small values of lead bond stresses in Bb13 could be due to
bond just outside the plastic tubing as the gauges were outside it. However the bond
stress of 4.33 N / mm 2 in the lead of Bh13 is a clear indication that grout had entered
the tube. The stresses for this beam are not plotted in Fig.4.28 and its test result is not
used in chapter 5. The lead bond in Bb15 was intermediate between those of Bb13 and
Bh13. The result is retained in chapter 5.

In the beams with bonded leads, the bond stresses in them were in all cases the highest
in the anchorages until fairly close to failure. Their development with increasing bar
forces was similar in the four beams up to bar forces of about 50 kN (
f s = 160 N / mm 2 ). For higher loads those in the beams with 90  bends reached values

higher than those with 180 

bends. Toward failure the bond stresses decreased ,
relatively slightly in the beams with 2 bars and more dramatically where there were
single bars. The maximum bond stresses in the lead lengths were about 2.5 times
BS8110 characteristic values for the 90  bends and 2.0 times BS8110 values for the
180 
bends, which suggests a significant positive effect from the transverse pressure.

The bond stresses in the bends were generally the next highest in the anchorages,
although in Bb13 with a debonded lead the tail stresses were higher. The stresses in the
bends increased rapidly where there were significant losses of lead bond stresses and
reached a surprisingly high 11.99 N / mm 2 in Bb12. They were generally higher in 90 
bends than 180 
bends.

218
Tail end bond stresses were generally the lowest, except in Bb13. They were however
significant for 90  bends but remained very small at all stages for 180 
bends.

4.9 Slip

In the following, bond-slip characteristics are presented in terms of relationships

between f b / f cu and slip. The basic data for most specimens , from which the graphs
below have been constructed , are given in table (A4) but those for Bs22 were lost due
to computer errors.

219
4.9.1 Straight bar specimens

In the straight bar specimens slips were measured at the free end of one bar only.

Specimens with two bars in a 250mm width

The relationships between f b / f cu and free-end slip show that for anchorages without
transverse pressure
- the free-end slip was insignificant up to f b / f cu ≈ 0.8 .

- there was very little free-end slip (generally  0.1mm )

before the maximum load and the failures were brittle.

- in the presence of transverse pressure ,the slip remained minimal for f b / f cu up

to about 1.0, while the slip at maximum load was increased particularly where the side
cover was 55 mm rather than 25 mm . post-peak ductility was also improved in most
cases.
2.50

2.25 BS11,lb=100mm

2.00 BS13,lb=150mm
1.75
BS15,lb=150mm
1.50
BS19,lb=100mm
1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Slip (mm )

Fig.(4.30) Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip

for beams with b = 250 mm , cb = c s = 25 mm and p  0

220
 Bs12 with lb=100
4.50
4.25
4.00 Bs14 with lb=150
3.75
3.50 Bs16 with lb=150
3.25
3.00
2.75 Bs10 with lb=150
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

Slip (mm )

Fig.(4.31)Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip

for beams with b = 250 mm , cb = 25 mm , c s = 55 mm and p  0

Specimens with two bars in a 200mm width

Relationships between f b / f cu and free-end slip are plotted in Fig.4.32 for beams
with two bars in a 200 mm width as in Table 4.17.The figure shows that:

- the free-end slip was insignificant up to f b / f cu ≈1.5 .

- Stirrups in the anchorage zone provided a confinement that increased both the peak
bond stress and the corresponding slip and also improved post-peak ductility.

-the free-end slip with c s =25 mm was greater than that for c s =16mm at maximum
load when l b / ϕ =6.3
in beams
Bs21 and Bs36 respectively. However with c s =16 mm the failure was more brittle
in
Bs36 than in the other beams. While in the beam with l b / ϕ =9.4 slip was
greater and the failure was more ductile when c s =25 mm .
- the slip at maximum load was greater in Bs23 than in Bs37 ,but this could be due to
the higher transverse pressure and reduced bottom cover in Bs23.

221
 Table ( 4.17) Data for beams in a 200mm width
Beam a eff cb cs lb / ϕ p u / f cu Stirrups
No. (mm )
(mm ) ( mm )
Bs21 425 25 25 6.3 0.31 -
Bs23 300 16 25 9.4 0.43 -
Bs24 425 25 25 9.4 0.37 2T6
Bs35 425 25 25 6.3 0.32 -
Bs36 425 25 16 6.3 0.20 -
Bs37 300 25 16 9.4 0.34 -

2.50
Bs21
2.25 Bs23
2.00 Bs24
1.75 Bs35
Bs36
1.50
Bs37
1.25
1.00

0.75
0.50
0.25

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Slip

Fig.(4.32)Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip

for beams with b = 200 mm

Specimens with a single bar in a 150mm width

Relationships between f b / f cu and free-end slip are plotted in Fig.4.33 for beams
with a single bar in a 150 mm width as in Table 4.15. The figure shows that:

- the free slip was insignificant up to f b / f cu ≈1.5 in all beams.

- the stirrups in the anchorage region of Bs30 seem to have very little effect on either
strength or ductility , however there is a positive effect of stirrups on the bond strength
as shown in table 4.18. Bs28 with a shorter shear span reached a higher maximum load
and higher slip at peak stress .

Table ( 4.18) Data for beams with single bars in a 150 mm width

222
 and cb = 16 mm and c s = 67 mm
Beam a eff lb / ϕ f b / f cu Stirrups
No. (mm )
Bs27 400 6.3 2.15 -
Bs28 200 63 3.50 -
Bs29 400 9.4 1.98 -
Bs30 400 9.4 2.35 2T6

3.50
3.25 Bs27
3.00
2.75 Bs28
2.50 Bs29
2.25
2.00
Bs30
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5

Slip

Fig.(4.33)Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip

for beams with b = 150 mm

Specimens with two bars in a 125mm width

Relationships between f b / f cu and free-end slip are plotted in Fig.4.34 for beams
with two bars in a 125 mm width as in Table 4.19.The figure shows that :

- the free-end slip was insignificant up to f b / f cu ≈1.5

- for specimens without stirrups the slip at failure was much greater in Bs33 , where
there was a shorter shear span than in the other beams in the same group.
- the presence of stirrups had a clear influence on slip in Bs34 as the
slip at peak stress was higher than in all the other beam.
- Bs31 and Bs32 achieved similar bond strength , while from the slip measurements
Bs32 with the longer anchorage length was somewhat more ductile in the post-peak
phase. This is another case where f b / f cu produces misleading impressions as shown
in table 4.19.

223
 Table ( 4.19) Beams with two bars in a 125 mm width

cs fb / f cu Stirrups
Beam lb / ϕ
No.
a eff cb (
(mm ) (mm ) mm
)
Bs31 425 25 25 6.3 1.39 -
Bs32 400 25 25 9.4 1.35 -
Bs33 200 25 25 9.4 1.43 -
Bs34 400 25 25 9.4 1.60 2T6

2.5
2.3
2.0 Bs31

1.8 Bs32
1.5 Bs33
1.3
Bs34
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Slip

Fig.(4.34)Relationships between relative bond stress f b / f cu and slip

for beams with b = 125 mm

4.9.2 900 and 1800 Bent bar specimens

The slips were measured on the bent bars where the movements occurred at the starts of
the bends . The slips considered here are the average values for the two bars in each
beam except for Bb4 and Bb5, where slips were measured on only one bar. The results
for the first three beams of each type (Bb1-3 and Bh1-3) are not included as their main
bars were bonded in the shear span and the forces at the starts of the bends are unknown
at stages prior to shear cracking.

Table 4.20 gives some basic data for the beams and includes the slips at loads equal to
0.67 Pu which is beyond the SLS loading for crack control. The maximum slip in any
of the beams with bonded lead lengths at the supports is only 0.058 mm , which shows
that the use of bent end anchorages is unlikely to pose any problem of serviceability.
Table (4.20) Slips at 0.67 Pu for beams with 90  and 180  bends

224
Beam cs r f cu Failure f su Slip (mm ) Note
No. ( mm ) ( mm )  N  mode  N  at
 2   2 
 mm   mm  0.67 Pu
Bb4 25 40 38.3 anchorage 507 0.054
Bb5 55 40 38.3 no failure 507 0.057
Bb6 25 40 38.3 no failure 507 0.058 l t = 160 mm
Bb7 55 40 38.1 anchorage 504 0.189 debonded lead
Bb8 25 60 28.0 anchorage 520 0.044
Bb9 55 60 28.0 yield 578 0.037
Bb10 25 75 28.0 anchorage 492 0.032
Bb11 55 75 28.0 flexure 603 0.018
Bh4 25 40 38.1 anchorage 365 0.003
Bh5 55 40 38.1 anchorage 541 0.028
Bh6 25 60 28.9 anchorage 449 0.020
Bh7 55 60 28.9 yield 544 0.021
Bh8 25 75 28.9 anchorage 480 0.018
Bh9 55 75 28.9 yield 543 0.043

Fig.4.35 shows slip plotted against P. 30 / f cu where P is the applied load. All the

beams were 250 mm square with cb = 25 mm , l t = 80 mm in all beams except Bb6,

and a eff . = 325 mm . All the bars were exposed in the shear span and fully bonded over
the support except in Bb7 where they were debonded up to the centre of the support.
The figures show that, once slip began , the movement for a given load generally
decreased as the radius of bend increased. It also decreased as the side cover increased.
The influence of the angle of bend is uncertain since the 90  bends were stiffer for
c s = 25 mm , but the 180  bends were stiffer for c s = 55 mm .

300

250

200 Bb4,r=40
Bb6,r=40 , lt=160 and did not fail
150
Bb8,r=60
100 Bb10,r=75

50

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Slip

a) c s = 25 mm , lt = 80 mm

225
 300

250

200
Bb5,r=40 and did not fail
150
Bb7,r=40 and p=0 at lead
length and failed in anchorage
100 Bb9,r=60 and did not fail

Bb11,r=75 failed in flexure

50

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Slip

b) c s = 55 mm and l t = 80 mm
300

250
Bh4 with r=40
200 Bh6 with r=60
Bh8 with r=75
150

100

50

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Slip

d) c s = 25 mm and l t = 80 mm all failed at their anchorage

300

250

200 Bh5 w ith r=40

and failed in
anchorage
150 Bh7 w ith r=60
and yield
100
Bh9 w ith r=75
and yield
50

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Slip

d) c s = 55 mm and l t = 80 mm
Fig.(4.35) P.( 30 / f cu ) and slip relationship for bent bars end with 90  and 180 
bends
Fig.4.36 shows the values of P. 30 / f cu at slips of 0.1mm for c s = 25 mm and
c s = 55 mm averaged for 90  and 180  bends, plotted against the radius of bend. For

c s = 25 mm the load increases more or less linearly with r , while for c s = 55 mm the

rate of increase reduces with increasing radius. If projected backward to r = 0 , the lines
would intersect the r-axis at significant loads.

226
 300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Fig.(4.36) Loads at which slips reached 0.1mm

There are probably two factors that are responsible for the influence of the radius of
bend. One is the reduction of the bearing pressure on the concrete as r increases, and
the other is the increase of the bond length. The former is probably the more important
as the strain measurements reported in section 4.8.2 show relatively low bond stresses in
the tail lengths and the additional tail length in beam B6 had little effect.

The influence of the side cover is probably also the result of two effects which are an
increase in the bond developed in the lead length and greater restraint to the
deformation produced by the bearing stresses within the bend. The influence of the
bond in the lead length is apparent in the difference between the performance of Bb5
with a bonded lead and Bb7 in which the lead length was debonded-see Fig.4.35-. This
amounts to about 75 kN displacement on the P 30 / f cu axis for equal slips. 75 kN

would be a credible value for the P 30 / f cu at r = 0 for c s = 25 mm in Fig.4.36.

As indicated in table 4.20 many of the ultimate bar stresses were 500 N / mm 2 or more
and these were generally achieved at slips of the order of 0.2 or 0.3 mm . Although the
condition of a lead length is not identical to that of a straight anchorage, the bond
stress/free-end slip relationships reported in 4.9.1 suggest that the lead length bond
stresses could be close to their maxima at movements of this order.

r (mm )227
228