ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 114-S133

Development Length of Standard Hooked Bar Based on

Non-Uniform Bond Stress Distribution
by Hyeon-Jong Hwang, Hong-Gun Park, and Wei-Jian Yi

In this study, a design equation for the development length of hooked with two 90-degree hooked bars, and reported that the bond
reinforcing bars was developed theoretically considering the effects strength of the hooked bars was significantly affected by the
of bond stress distribution and hook anchorage. A non-uniform side cover loss, embedment length, and transverse reinforce-
bond stress distribution model with the hook anchorage effect was ment ratio. Jirsa et al.7 proposed a straight development length
proposed, from which a design equation was derived. The proposed
including the radius of the hook, considering the hook-con-
method was applied to 493 existing test specimens to predict the
tribution as a factor, which is similar to the methods of
development length or the average bond stress of the reinforcing
bars. The predicted results were compared with the existing test current design codes. Johnson and Jirsa8 evaluated the effect
results and the predictions of current design codes including ACI of the hooked bar spacing in 36 beam-wall specimens with
318, Eurocode 2, and Model Code 2010. The results showed that 90-degree hooked bars. From testing seven beam-column
the proposed model predicted the test results with reasonable preci- joint specimens with 90-degree hooked bars, Soroushian et
sion (average ratio of the test results to predictions = 1.17, and al.9 reported that the pullout strength of hooked bars increased
coefficient of variation = 0.196). with the increase in bar diameter and concrete confinement,
though it was not affected by concrete compressive strength.
Keywords: bearing force; bond strength; bond test; development length;
On the basis of the test results, a spring model was proposed
hooked bar.
to consider the contribution of the hook. Joh and Shibata10
reported that the effect of transverse reinforcement was not
INTRODUCTION
significant when the side concrete cover of hooked bars was
At exterior beam-column joints and at the ends of flex-
sufficient. Ramirez and Russell11 proposed a modified coef-
ural members, hooked reinforcing bars are generally used
ficient of concrete cover for the ACI 3181 model. Sperry et
to reduce the development length. Current design codes
al.12 tested 337 beam-column joint specimens with 90- and
including ACI 318-14,1 Eurocode 2,2 and Model Code 20103
180-degree hooked bars, and proposed an empirical equa-
specify hooked bar development lengths on the basis of
tion for development length, which uses 4√fc′ rather than
existing test results. To evaluate the bond strength of 90- and
√fc′ to consider the effect of concrete strength. Further, they
180-degree hooked bars, a beam-end test or a beam-column
proposed the effective coefficients of transverse reinforce-
joint test is typically used (refer to Fig. 1). However, because
ment, concrete cover, location of hooked bars, and center-to-
the number of existing studies is limited, current design
center spacing of hooked bars. Costa et al.13 developed two
codes limit the application range of the design equations,
discrete models for straight and hook lengths considering
considering the allowable material properties, minimum
the bar bond stress-slip relationship of Model Code 2010,3
concrete cover, and details of transverse reinforcement and
hooked bar slip, and pullout failure mode. In Eurocode 22
hooks. Recently, the use of high-strength concrete, high-
and Model Code 2010,3 the development length is defined
strength reinforcing bars, and large-diameter reinforcing
by the average bond strength. The average bond strength is
bars has been increasing. Thus, the development length of
defined as a function of the reinforcing bar diameter, yield
such hooked bars needs to be accurately evaluated, and a
strength of the reinforcing bar, concrete strength, and rein-
large number of test results are required to verify the effects
forcing bar placement details, while the safety factors of the
of the new design parameters. From this view point, a theo-
reinforcing bar and concrete are considered.
retical model needs to be considered to develop a rational
Hwang et al.14 developed a non-uniform bond stress distri-
design method or to guide the direction of future experi-
bution model for the development length of a straight rein-
mental and theoretical studies.
forcing bar, considering the variation of bar bond strength
Various studies have been performed to evaluate the
along the development length. When the relative deforma-
hooked bar development length. Minor and Jirsa4 tested 80
tion between the reinforcing bar and concrete increases,
specimens with hooked bars of hook angle 0 to 180 degrees
local bond failure occurs, which causes non-uniform bond
and without transverse reinforcement. The results showed
stress distribution along the development length.
that the 90-degree hook was better than the 180-degree hook
in reducing bar-slip. Marques and Jirsa5 tested 22 beam-
column joint specimens with two hooked bars of 90- and
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 6, November-December 2017.
180-degree standard hooks and transverse reinforcement. MS No. S-2017-023.R1, doi: 10.14359/51700918, received February 10, 2017, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2017, American Concrete
They proposed a design equation addressing the contribu- Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
tions of the straight development length and the hook inde- obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
pendently. Pinc et al.6 performed 16 beam-column joint tests is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017 1637

Fig. 1—Test methods for hooked bar bond strength.
In the present study, the existing non-uniform bond stress
distribution model proposed by Hwang et al.14 was modified
to derive a design equation for the hooked bar development
length, considering the effect of hook anchorage. To verify
the validity of the proposed method, the proposed method
was applied to existing 90- and 180-degree hooked bar test
specimens. The predictions of the proposed method were
compared with the test results.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A design equation was proposed to predict the devel-
opment length of hooked bars. In the proposed method,
unlike existing design equations and methods, the effect
of non-uniform bond stress distribution (that is, the length
effect) was considered separately from the effect of unit
bar-bond strength. Thus, the length effect can be addressed,
regardless of the material strength and bar diameters, which
enhances the accuracy of the prediction of the development
length, particularly for high strength reinforcing bars and
concrete. Thus, the proposed model can be used to develop
new design equations or to guide the direction of future
experimental and theoretical studies.
EXISTING DESIGN METHODS
In ACI 318-14,1 Eurocode 2,2 Model Code 2010,3 and
Sperry et al.,12 the development length ld of hooked bars is
defined as a function of bar diameter, bar yield strength, and
concrete compressive strength. Additionally, the effects of
concrete cover, bar spacing, and transverse reinforcement
are considered (Fig. 2).
In ACI 318-14,1 the development length of a hooked bar
is defined as follows
1638
Fig. 2—Effect of cover concrete on bond strength.
0.24 f y db  ψ e ψ c ψ r 
ld =   ≥ 8db and 152.4 mm (6 in.)
f c′  λ
(in MPa and mm) (1)
where fy is yield strength of the hooked bar; db is bar diam-
eter; fc′ is concrete compressive strength; λ is coefficient of
concrete type (= 0.75 to 1.0); ψe is coefficient of epoxy-coated
bars (= 1.0 to 1.2); ψc is coefficient of concrete cover (= 0.7
to 1.0); and ψr = coefficient of confining bars (= 0.8 to 1.0).
In Eurocode 2,2 the basic development length of a hooked
bar is defined as follows
f y db
ld = α1α 2 α 3 ≥ lb (in MPa and mm) (2a)
4 f bd
α2 = 0.7 ≤ 1 – 0.15(cd – 3db)/db ≤ 1.0 (2b)
α 3 = 0.7 ≤ 1 − K ( ∑ Atr − 0.25 As ) As ≤ 1.0 (2c)
fbd = 2.25η2[0.7(0.3)(fc′)2/3] (in MPa and mm) (2d)
where α1 is coefficient of bar shape (= 0.7 to 1.0); α2α3 ≥
0.7; cd is min (cso, csi); cso is thickness of the side cover
concrete; csi is one-half of the center-to-center bar spacing;
lb is max (0.3dbfy/(4fbd), 10db, 100 mm); K is coefficient of
arrangement of the transverse bars (= 0 to 0.1); ∑Atr is total
cross-sectional area of transverse bars within the develop-
ment length; As is the maximum of the cross-sectional areas
of the bars; and η2 is coefficient of diameter of the bar (=
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017
(132 – db)/100 ≤ 1.0). For the actual design, a partial safety
factor for concrete is used: In Eq. (2a), fbd/1.5 is applied to
estimate the development length ld.
In Model Code 2010,3 the basic development length of a
hooked bar is defined as follows

ld =
(f y )
− 60 f mbd db
≥ lm 0 (in MPa and mm) (3a)
4 f mbd

fmbd = (αmc2 + αmc3)fbd0 < 2.5fbd0 < √fc′ (in MPa) (3b)

fbd0 = 0.35η3η4√fc′ (in MPa and mm) (3c)

α mc 2 = (cd db ) (cm cd )
0.15
(3d)

αmc3 = kd(Kmtr – αt/50) ≥ 0 (3e)

K mtr = ∑ Atr ( st ndb ) ≤ 0.05 (3f)

where lm0 is max (0.3dbfy/(4fbd), 10db, 100 mm); η3 is coeffi-

cient of diameter of the bar (= (25/db)0.3 ≤ 1.0); η4 is coeffi-
cient of yield strength of the bar (= 0.68 to 1.2); kd is coeffi-
cient of the arrangement of the transverse reinforcement (= 0
to 20); αt is coefficient of the transverse bar diameter (= 0.5
for D25 to 1.0 for D50); cm is max (cso, csi); n = the number
of hooked bars; and st is center-to-center distance between
the transverse bars. A partial safety factor for the concrete is
considered: fbd0/1.5 in Eq. (3c).
In the study by Sperry et al.,12 the development length of a
hooked bar is defined as follows

f y db1.5  ψ e ψ sr ψ m ψ o 
ld = 0.25   ≥ 8db and 152.4 mm (6 in.)
60.3 f c′ λ
(in MPa and mm) (4a) Fig. 3—Bearing and bond stress distribution along hook length.

f y db1.5 − 34.2 ∑ Atr n the concrete increases in the inner zone of the hook, the bond
ψ sr = 1.5
> 0.7 (4b) stress in the outer zone decreases, and kickout stress occurs in
fyd b
the hook tail. In the 180-degree hooked bar, bond and bearing
stresses occur in the inner zone of the hook, which is similar
1 to that of the 90-degree hooked bar. In the hooked bars,
ψm = ≥ 1.0 (4c)
0.17 csi db + 0.485 bearing of the hook increases the pullout resistance. Thus, the
anchorage effect of the hook needs to be considered to eval-
where ψsr = 1.0 in the case of cso < 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) and cb < uate the development length of the hooked bar.
63.5 mm (2.5 in.); cb is thickness of the rear cover concrete Figure 4 shows an equivalent straight bar model with a
at the hook; and ψo is coefficient of hooked bar placement spring (that is, bearing of hook), which is used to describe
(= 1.0 to 1.25). the pullout resistance of a hooked bar. The equivalent
development length l (Fig. 4(b)) is defined as the sum of
PROPOSED METHOD FOR BAR the straight length ls and the length of the hook (Fig. 4(a)).
DEVELOPMENT LENGTH The tension force of a hooked bar is resisted by the damaged
Equivalent straight bar model and undamaged bond stresses and the bearing force of the
Figure 3 shows the bond and bearing stress distributions hook. To consider the bearing force and deformation of the
in the 90- and 180-degree hook anchorage. Under tension hook, a spring model with bearing strength Fh and stiffness
force of the bar, the bearing stress along the inner radius of Kh is used. In the present study, for simplicity, the following
the 90-degree hook increases the relative deformation (or assumptions were used for both 90- and 180-degree hooked
slip) between the reinforcing bar and concrete, and ultimately bars: 1) the contribution of the hook tail to the development
causes concrete crushing. As the compressive deformation of length is not significant15; 2) only the 90-degree hook length

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017 1639


Fig. 4—Equivalent straight bar model.
is considered as part of the equivalent straight bar length
regardless of the hook configuration (that is, including both
90- and 180-degree hooked bars); and 3) the effect of the
hook can be separated into two contributions: bond effect
and bearing effect.
Unit bar-bond strength
Figure 5 shows the typical bond stress-slip relationship of
a reinforcing bar embedded in ordinary concrete.16,17 In the
figure, the difference of the material deformations induces
the bond-slip, which indicates the relative displacement
between the concrete and reinforcing bar. On the basis of
existing bar-slip test results under monotonic push-pull
loading or cyclic loading,18 Eligehausen et al.16 proposed a
simplified monotonic envelop curve. In the study by Hwang
et al.,14 a simplified bond stress-slip relationship was applied
to the non-uniform bond stress distribution model for the
development length of straight reinforcing bars.
In Fig. 5(b), the peak bond stress τu and bond-slip s1 are
defined as follows
τ u = 0.91α d f c′ (in MPa) (5)
1640
Fig. 5—Local bond stress-slip relationship and bond
strength of unit bar length.
s1 = 0.3 f c′ 30 (in MPa and mm) (6)
where αd is 1.1 for D19 bars (that is, db = 19 mm [0.75 in.]) or
less, 1.0 for D22 to D29 bars, and 0.9 for D32 bars or greater.
The bond stress no longer exists at s3 = 1 mm (0.04 in.).16
When new concrete materials or reinforcing bars are used,
the unit bond stress-slip relationship of a reinforcing bar
should be redefined by pullout tests of the materials.14
Non-uniform bond stress distribution model
Figure 6(a) shows the proposed equivalent straight bar
model of a hooked bar, and Fig. 6(b) shows the non-uniform
bond stress distribution of the equivalent straight bar model.
The relative deformation between the reinforcing bar and
concrete increases along the length from the unloaded end to
the loaded end of the reinforcing bar. In the unloaded region
(that is, hook tail) of the hooked bar, the bond stress increases
as the relative deformation increases (refer to the ascending
branch in Fig. 5(b)). On the other hand, the bond stress at the
loaded end of the hooked bar decreases due to the local bond
damage because the relative deformation exceeds the defor-
mation corresponding to the peak bond strength (refer to the
descending branch in Fig. 5(b)). To describe the variation of
the bond stresses in the undamaged region (unloaded region)
and damaged region (loaded region), as shown in Fig. 6(c),
the bond stress distribution was simplified with three uniform
stresses: undamaged bond stress τ1 at hook length l1, undam-
aged bond stress τ2 at straight length l2, and damaged bond
stress τ3 at straight length l3. For simple calculation, τ1 is
assumed to be uniformly distributed along the hook length.
In the previous study, Hwang et al.14 compared the rigorous
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017
 bond stress models resulted in the same development length.
Thus, in the present study, the simplified bond stress distribu-
tion model was used to develop a simplified design equation.
For a reinforcing bar, the relationship between the bar
stress and bond stress can be expressed as follows

 πdb2  d σ s
 4  dx = τ ( x ) ( πdb ) (7)

where σs is tensile stress of the reinforcing bar. Considering

the bearing force Fh of the hook and the simplified bond stress
distribution shown in Fig. 6(c), and assuming elastic behavior
of the materials, the strain distributions of the reinforcing bar
and concrete can be defined as shown in Fig. 6(d) and 6(e).
The relative displacement s between the reinforcing bar
and concrete due to bar-slip can be defined from the differ-
ence of the strains, as follows

εs – εc = ds/dx (8)

The absolute displacement Δs of the reinforcing bar at the

loaded end (that is, at x = l) is calculated from the strain
distribution of the reinforcing bar in Fig. 6(d)

4τ 4  τ1l1 + τ 2 ( x − l1 ) 4  τ1l1 + τ 2 l2 + τ 3 ( x − l2 )

∆ s = ∫0l E d1
1 l + l2
xdx + ∫l11
Es d b
l + l3
dx + ∫l22
Es d b
dx + ∆ h
s b

2
= (l1 + 2l2 + 2l3 ) l1τ1 + (l2 + 2l3 ) l2 τ 2 + l32 τ 3  + ∆ h
Es d b 

(9)

where Δh is absolute displacement of the reinforcing bar at

the end of the straight part of the hooked bar (that is, at x =
l1); and Δs is defined as the sum of the deformations of the
reinforcing bars in the three straight regions and the defor-
mations of the spring (that is, hook).
At the loaded end (x = l), the relative displacement s
between the reinforcing bar and concrete is defined from
Eq. (8) (refer to Fig. 6(f))

s = Δs – Δc (10)

The peak bond stress τu is assumed to occur at x = l1 + l2

(refer to Fig. 6(b)), where the relative deformation su reaches
s1 (refer to Fig. 5(b)). Thus, τu can be calculated as follows
(refer to Fig. 6(f))

4τ1 4  τ1l1 + τ 2 ( x − l1 )

xdx + ∫l11 2 
l l +l
su = ∫01 dx + ∆ h − ∆ l2
Es d b Es d b
(11)
2
=
Es d b
(
l12 τ1 + 2l1l2 τ1 + l22 τ 2 + ∆ h − ∆ l2 ≈ s1 )
where ∆ l2 is absolute tensile deformation of the concrete at
x = l1 + l2. ∆ l2 is assumed to be the same as the overall defor-
mation of the concrete Δc at x = l, considering the small
distance between x = l1 + l2 and l.
Fig. 6—Proposed bond stress distribution model. Inserting Eq. (11) and ∆ l2 = Δc into Eq. (9) and (10), the
non-linear bond stress model in Fig. 6(b) with the average relative displacement s at the loaded end is defined as follows
bond stress model in Fig. 6(c). The result showed that the two

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017 1641

 2 In a hooked bar, the maximum tensile strength fs (in rein-
s=  2l1l3 τ1 + 2l2 l3 τ 2 + l32 τ 3  + s1 (12) forcing bar stress) can be defined as a function of τ1, τ2, τ2, l1,
Es d b 
l2, l3, and Fh (refer to Fig. 6(c))
As the relative displacement increases in the damaged
region (x = l1 + l2 to l), the bond stress τ3 decreases (refer 4
to Fig. 5(b)). For simplicity, the damaged bond stress τ3 is fs =
db
[ τ1l1 + τ 2l2 + τ3l3 ] + Fh (16)
defined as the average bond stress between the peak bond
stress τu and the bond stress τl corresponding to the relative In Eq. (16), the ratio of the undamaged length l2 to the
deformation s at the loaded end (x = l) straight length ls (= l2 + l3) needs to be selected to calculate
the maximum value of stress fs. In the present study, l2 was
s − s1 1 − C1 [ 4l1τ1 + 4l2 τ 2 + l3 τ u ] simplified as 0.75ls considering the result of the previous
τl = τu − τu = ≥ 0 (13a) study14 for the non-uniform bond stress distribution of
s3 − s1 1 τ u + C1l3
straight bars.

τ u + τ l 1 − 2C1 [l1τ1 + l2 τ 2 ] τ u Effect of cover concrete and transverse bars

τ3 = = ≥ (13b)
2 1 τ u + C1l3 2 When the thickness of cover concrete or the confinement
of transverse bars is sufficient, the bar bond strength can be
where C1 = l3/[(1 – s1)Esdb]. increased without splitting or blowout failure. In the existing
Similarly, in the equivalent length of the hook from x = 0 design codes, two or three coefficients are used to address the
to l1, the bond stress τ1 is defined as the average bond stress effects of concrete cover and transverse bars. In the present
between zero stress at x = 0 and the bond stress corresponding study, for better predictions, the coefficients of Eurocode 22
to the relative displacement sl1 = Δs1 + Δh at x = l1. In the were modified to address the effects of splitting or blowout
undamaged region from x = l1 to l1 + l2, the bond stress τ2 is failure under various test conditions. The peak bond strength
defined as the average bond stress between the bond stress τu in Eq. (5) was redefined as follows, considering the modi-
corresponding to the relative displacement sl1 = Δs1 + Δh at fied coefficients
x = l1 and the peak bond stress τu at x = l1+l2 (refer to Fig. 5(b))
0.91α d f c′
0.4 0.4 τu = (in MPa and mm) (17a)
1 s  s τ s  α m1α m 2 α m 3
τ1 = ∫0 l 1 τ u   ds = u  l1  (in MPa and mm) (14a)
sl1  s1  1.4  s1 
αm2 = 0.7 ≤ 1 – 0.1(cd/db – 1) ≤ 1.0 (17b)
τ u 1 − ( sl1 s1 ) 
0.4 1.4
1  s
τ2 =
s1
∫ τu ds =   α m 3 = 0.7 ≤ 1 − 0.3 ( ∑ Atr − 0.25 As ) As ≤ 1.0 (17c)
s1 − sl1 sl 1  s1  1.4  1 − ( sl1 s1 ) 

where αm1 is coefficient of the rear concrete cover (= 0.85 for
(in MPa and mm) (14b)
cb > db, otherwise 1.0); and αm2αm3 ≥ 0.7.
The relative displacement sl1 = Δs1 + Δh can be calculated
Effect of hook anchorage
by assuming zero deformation at x = 0 in Fig. 6(f)
When a hooked bar is subjected to a pullout force, the
hook can fail due to either concrete crushing or flexural
2τ1l12 Fh
sl1 = ∆ s1 + ∆ h = + (15a) yielding of the bar. Thus, the tensile strength of the hook
Es d b K h anchorage is determined as the lower between the bearing
strength Fc of the concrete and the flexural yielding strength
where Fh is the bearing force of the hook; and Kh is the bearing Ff of the reinforcing bar
stiffness of the hook (refer to section “Effect of hook anchorage”).
Equations (14a) and (15a) are coupled. Thus, to calcu- Fh = min(Fc, Ff) (18a)
late the average undamaged bond stress τ1 from the relative
displacement sl1, iterative calculations are required. In the Costa et al.13 and Mirzaei19 proposed the concrete bearing
present study, for simplicity and safe estimation, the average strength of a hook by performing a direct compression test
undamaged bond stress in the equivalent hook length was of bearing bars
simplified using the lowest value τ1= 0 at sl1 = 0 in Eq. (14a).
The lowest value was used for Eq. (15a). ri db 1.8 f c′
Using τ1= 0, sl1 in Eq. (15a) can be explicitly defined Fc = (18b)
As
as follows
where ri is inner radius of the hook (= 3db for db ≤ 25.4 mm
sl1 F
≈ h ≤ 1 (in MPa and mm) (15b) [1 in.], otherwise 4db).1 1.8fc′ was used to define the
s1 s1 K h minimum value of concrete bearing strength under the
confined condition.

1642 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017

 On the other hand, the bearing force causes bending
moment in the reinforcing bar. Thus, in the present study,
the flexural strength of the hook was considered
Sf y 3π 2 db3 f y
Ff = = (18c)
( r − r ) As 32 (3πr − 4ri ) As
where S is section modulus of the reinforcing bar (= πdb3/32);
r is centroid of bearing stress of the concrete (= 4ri /3π; refer
to Fig. 4(a)); and r is radius of the hook (= 3.5db for db ≤ 25.4 mm
[1 in.], otherwise 4.5db).1 In Eq. (18c), Ff ( r − r ) As indicates
the bearing moment applied by the bearing force.
From Eq. (18b) and (18c), according to the hooked bar
diameter, the ratio of the concrete bearing strength to flex-
ural strength of the reinforcing bar is defined as Fc/Ff = 123
fc′/fy for db ≤ 25.4 mm (1 in.) and 206 fc′/fy for db > 25.4 mm
(1 in.). Thus, the Fc/Ff is always greater than 1.0 (that is,
fy < 123 fc′), which indicates that the anchorage strength of a
hook is determined by the flexural strength of the reinforcing
bar: Fh = Ff.
In Eq. (15), the bearing stiffness of the hook is used. The
hook stiffness was defined by Costa et al.13 and Soroushian
et al.,20 as follows
K h = 127 f c′db−2 3 (in MPa/mm) (18d)
Summary of proposed method
The proposed method is summarized as follows, using
l2 = 0.75ls and l3 = 0.25ls in Eq. (13b), (14), (15), (16), (17),
and (18)
where C1 = ls /[4(1 − 0.003 f c′) Es db ]; and r is radius of the
hook (= 3.5db for db ≤ 25.4 mm [1 in.], otherwise 4.5db).
In the proposed method (Eq. (19a)), it is more convenient
to calculate the bar stress from an assumed development
length, rather than to calculate the development length from
the bar stress. Thus, in the process of finding the develop-
ment length corresponding to a given bar yield strength, an
iterative procedure is required. The values of design param-
eters are presented in Table 1. If new concrete materials or
re-bars are used, the unit bond strength τu should be defined
by performing pullout tests differently from Eq. (19e) for the
existing concrete materials or reinforcing bars.14
When the proposed method is applied to concrete
without fiber reinforcement (concrete strength fc′ = 16.6 to
113.9 MPa [2.4 to 16.5 ksi]), Eq. (19) can be further simpli-
fied using empirical values of design parameters which were
obtained from the comparison between the proposed method
and the test results. Considering the parameters of existing
test specimens, the average value of sl1/s1 in Eq. (19f) was
estimated as 0.912, which results in τ1 = 0.689τu and τ2 =
0.982τu in Eq. (19b) and (19c), respectively. Further, because
the contribution of the damaged bond stress τ3 is relatively
small, the minimum value τ3 = 0.5τu was used for τ3 in Eq.
(19d). Using the parameters, Eq. (19) can be simplified as
follows
τu f
fs =
db
[3.4ld + 3.1db ] + 17y.8 ≤ f y for db ≤ 25.4 mm (1 in.)
(20a)

1 db f y τu fy
fs =  2τ1πr + (3τ 2 + τ 3 ) ls  + ≤ f y (19a) fs = [ 3.4ld + 4.0db ] + ≤ f y for db > 25.4 mm (1 in.)
db 4.6r + 1.7 db db 22.4
(20b)
0.4
τ s 
τ1 = u  l1  (in MPa and mm) (19b)
1.4  s1  0.91α d f c′
τu = (in MPa and mm) (20c)
α m1α m 2 α m 3
τ u 1 − ( sl1 s1 ) 
1.4

τ2 =   ≤ τ u (in MPa and mm) (19c) where ld is the development length measured from the crit-
1.4  1 − ( sl1 s1 )  ical section to the outside of the hook.
 
Using fs = fy in Eq. (20), the development length ld for the
 4 − C1 {4πr τ1 + 6ls τ 2 }  τu yield strength of a hooked bar can be directly estimated from
τ3 =   τ u ≥ (19d) the reinforcing bar stress without iterative calculations.
 4 + C1ls τ u  2

 fy 
0.91α d f c′ ld =  − 0.9 db for db ≤ 25.4 mm (1 in.) (21a)
τu = (in MPa and mm) (19e)  3.7 τ u 
α m1α m 2 α m 3

 fy 
sl1 Fh Fh db2 3 ld =  − 1.2 db for db > 25.4 mm (1 in.) (21b)
= = ≤ 1 (in MPa and mm) (19f)  3.6τ u 
s1 s1127 f c′db−2 3 6.96 f c′
COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST RESULTS
3π 2 db3 f y db f y AND PREDICTIONS
Fh = = (in MPa and mm) (19g)
32 (3πr − 4ri ) As 4.6r + 1.7 db To verify the validity of the proposed method, it was applied
to existing test specimens for hooked bars (refer to Fig. 1(a)).
Table 2 presents the test parameters. The ranges of the param-

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017 1643

Table 1—Design parameters of proposed model
Equations Calculations

0.91α d f c′ α1α2α3 0.6 0.7 0.8  0.9 1.0

τu =
α m1α m 2α m 3 τu/(αd√fc′) 1.517 1.300 1.138 1.011 0.910

sl1 db5 3 fy
= ≤1 Use r depending on hooked bar diameter db
s1 32r + 11.8db f c′

0.4 sl1/s1 0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

τ u  sl1 
τ1 =
1.4  s1  τ1/τu 0.0 0.410 0.541 0.637 0.714

sl1/s1 0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

τ u 1 − ( sl1 s1 ) 
1.4

τ2 =   ≤ τu
1.4  1 − ( sl1 s1 ) 
  τ2/τu 0.714 0.816 0.887 0.947 1.00

l/db 5 10 15 20 25
C1 for fc′ =
8.28 × 10–6 1.66 × 10–5 2.48 × 10–5 3.31 × 10–5 4.14 × 10–5
20 MPa
ls
C1 =
(
4 1 − 0.003 f c′ Es db ) C1 for fc′ =
40 MPa
9.56 × 10–6 1.91 × 10–5 2.87 × 10–5 3.83 × 10–5 4.78 × 10–5

C1 for fc′ =
1.09 × 10–5 2.17 × 10–5 3.26 × 10–5 4.34 × 10–5 5.43 × 10–5
60 MPa
C1lsτu 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.3 0.5
τ3/τu for
0.987 0.935 0.871 0.631 0.500
sl1/s1 = 0.0
 4 − C1 {4πr τ1 + 6ls τ 2 }  τu
τ3 =   τu ≥ τ3/τu for
 4 + C 1l s τ u  2 0.98 – 0.02r/ls 0.92 – 0.08r/ls 0.85 – 0.17r/ls 0.56 – 0.47r/ls 0.500
sl1/s1 = 0.5
τ3/τu for
0.98 – 0.02r/ls 0.91 – 0.11r/ls 0.83 – 0.22r/ls 0.500 0.500
sl1/s1 = 1.0

1 db f y
fs =  2τ1πr + (3τ 2 + τ 3 ) ls  + ≤ fy Use τ1, τ2, and τ3
db  4.6r + 1.7 db

Notes: αd is coefficient related to reinforcing bar diameter (=1.1 for D19 bars or less, 1.0 for D22 to D29 bars, and 0.9 for D32 bars or greater;) αm1αm2αm3 is coefficient related to
concrete cover and transverse reinforcement; fc′ is concrete compressive strength; db is reinforcing bar diameter; fy is reinforcing bar yield strength; Es is elastic modulus of reinforcing
bar (=200,000 MPa); l is development length; r is radius of hooked bars (=3.5db for db ≤ 25.4 mm, otherwise 4.5db); ls is straight bar length; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

eters are as follows: the development length ld = 50.8 to 860 mm
(2.0 to 33.9 in.), hooked bar diameter db = 12.7 to 43.0 mm
(0.5 to 1.7 in.); concrete strength fc′ = 16.6 to 113.9 MPa (2.4
to 16.5 ksi); and yield strength of the reinforcing bar fy = 410 to
897 MPa (59.5 to 130.0 ksi).5,6,8,11,12,21-24 For the 410 specimens
with 90-degree hooked bars and 83 specimens with 180-degree
hooked bars, the tensile strengths fs of the hooked bars were
calculated according to the given development lengths. Table 3
compares the predictions of the existing design methods and the
proposed method with the test results. In Eurocode 22 and Model
Code 2010,3 for direct comparison with the test results, safety
factors were not considered.
First, Fig. 7 compares the hook anchorage strength of
90-degree hooked bars (that is, without straight length) in
existing wall-beam test specimens8 with the bar stress predic-
tion of the proposed method. In the test, only the bar hook
without the straight part was embedded in the concrete. Thus,
the anchorage strength of the 90-degree hook can be esti-
mated. In the prediction of the proposed method (Eq. (19)),
τ2 = τ3 = 0 was used (Fig. 6). In Fig. 7, the predictions agree
with the test strengths, showing an average ratio = 0.98 and
coefficient of variation (COV) = 0.200. This result indicates
that the hook anchorage strength can be estimated from the
sum of the bearing strength based on the flexural yielding of
the hooked bar and the bond strength along the hook length.
Figures 8 and 9 compare the test results (including the straight
length) with the bar stress predictions of the existing design codes
and the proposed method. Figure 8 shows the ratios of the test
strength to the prediction for the specimens without transverse
reinforcement. In the figure, the specimens were classified as
90-degree hooked bars and 180-degree hooked bars. Generally,
Eurocode 2,2 Model Code 2010,3 and the Sperry et al.12 model
underestimated the strengths of the hooked bars. Although safety
factors were not included in the design equations, the prediction
results were relatively conservative. Particularly, as the devel-
opment length-to-diameter ratio ld/db increases, the fib Model
Code 20103 significantly underestimated the strength of the
hooked bars. The ACI 3181 equation was developed on the basis
of old test results. Thus, as presented in Table 3, the ACI 3181
predictions were not accurate for the recent test results including
the test results of Lee and Park,22 Peckover and Darwin,23 and
Sperry et al.12 (averages of 1.22 to 1.75 and SD. of 0.26 to 0.40).
For this reason, in Fig. 8, the ACI 3181 predictions showed rela-
tively large average value of 1.31 and COV value of 0.315. On
the other hand, the proposed models in Eq. (19) and (20) showed
better predictions (the average ratio = 1.14 and 1.18, and COV

1644 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017

Table 2—Test parameters of existing test specimens
Specimens Number of tests Hook types, deg ld, mm db, mm fc′, MPa fy, MPa αm1αm2αm3
Marques and Jirsa 5
18 90 254 to 331 22.2 to 35.8 25.9 to 34.8 441 to 469 0.60 to 0.84
Pinc et al. 6
6 90 254 to 561 28.7 to 35.8 29.0 to 37.2 414 to 448 0.78 to 0.83
Johnson and Jirsa 8
30 90 51 to 178 12.7 to 35.8 16.6 to 37.6 466 0.60
Hamad et al.21 9 90 254 to 330 22.4 to 35.8 17.7 to 50.0 410 0.60 to 0.84
Ramirez and Russell11 11 90 165 to 394 19.1 to 35.8 61.5 to 113.8 435 to 565 0.60 to 0.78
Lee and Park 22
3 90 302 to 475 22.4 30.7 to 57.0 600 0.60 to 0.65
Peckover and Darwin 23
50 90 121 to 286 15.9 to 25.4 27.2 to 39.9 607 to 897 0.60 to 0.73
Sperry et al.12 270 90 97 to 660 15.9 to 35.8 31.0 to 111.6 579 to 848 0.60 to 0.92
Bae et al.24 13 90 430 to 860 43.0 44.4 to 73.1 619 0.70 to 0.76
Marques and Jirsa 5
4 180 254 to 333 22.4 to 35.8 27.6 to 30.3 441 to 469 0.72 to 0.83
Hamad et al. 21
2 180 254 to 330 22.4 to 35.8 26.9 to 49.7 410 0.63 to 0.84
Peckover and Darwin 23
14 180 222 to 295 15.9 30.5 to 31.2 897 0.60 to 0.71
Sperry et al.12 63 180 142 to 536 15.9 to 35.8 29.7 to 113.9 607 to 848 0.60 to 0.93
Total 493 90 and 180 51 to 860 12.7 to 43.0 16.6 to 113.9 410 to 897 0.60 to 0.93

Notes: ls is splice length; db is reinforcing bar diameter; fc′ is concrete compressive strength; fy: reinforcing bar yield strength; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Table 3—Comparison between test results and predictions

ftest/fs ftest/fs ftest/fs ftest/fs ftest/fs
Specimens (ACI 318-14) (Eurocode 2) (MC 2010) (Sperry model) (Proposed model)
Marques and Jirsa5 1.48 ± 0.20 2.20 ± 0.19 1.62 ± 0.22 1.91 ± 0.44 1.47 ± 0.11
Pinc et al. 6
1.05 ± 0.02 1.89 ± 0.04 1.50 ± 0.22 2.00 ± 0.20 1.43 ± 0.10
Johnson and Jirsa 8
1.78 ± 0.38 1.12 ± 0.24 0.79 ± 0.21 1.42 ± 0.31 1.07 ± 0.23
Hamad et al.21 1.01 ± 0.10 1.88 ± 0.24 1.20 ± 0.23 1.64 ± 0.44 1.27 ± 0.17
Ramirez and Russell 11
1.00 ± 0.12 1.24 ± 0.23 1.01 ± 0.09 1.53 ± 0.23 1.33 ± 0.19
Lee and Park 22
1.23 ± 0.26 1.42 ± 0.22 2.11 ± 0.30 1.46 ± 0.34 1.33 ± 0.23
Peckover and Darwin 23
1.53 ± 0.40 1.84 ± 0.50 1.90 ± 0.38 1.45 ± 0.37 1.21 ± 0.24
Sperry et al.12 1.22 ± 0.39 1.52 ± 0.45 1.53 ± 0.47 1.49 ± 0.30 1.12 ± 0.22
Bae et al.24 1.21 ± 0.22 1.43 ± 0.28 1.89 ± 0.26 1.69 ± 0.36 1.09 ± 0.16
Marques and Jirsa 5
1.37 ± 0.18 2.09 ± 0.18 1.48 ± 0.19 1.79 ± 0.37 1.39 ± 0.11
Hamad et al. 21
0.90 ± 0.23 1.56 ± 0.41 0.99 ± 0.11 1.38 ± 0.18 1.07 ± 0.02
Peckover and Darwin 23
1.75 ± 0.40 2.03 ± 0.47 2.65 ± 0.43 1.56 ± 0.23 1.30 ± 0.19
Sperry et al.12 1.32 ± 0.37 1.65 ± 0.44 1.63 ± 0.47 1.58 ± 0.39 1.19 ± 0.19
Min. to Max. 0.32 to 2.59 0.60 to 2.94 0.41 to 3.39 0.71 to 2.88 0.47 to 1.75
Average ± SD 1.31 ± 0.41 1.59 ± 0.48 1.56 ± 0.52 1.53 ± 0.35 1.17 ± 0.23
COV 0.317 0.305 0.345 0.228 0.196

Note: ftest/fs: average ± standard deviation (SD).

= 0.202 and 0.212, respectively). However, despite the accuracy
of the predictions, the proposed method gave unsafe predictions
for a significant number of the test results. Thus, a safety factor is
required for actual applications of the proposed method.
Figure 9 shows the strength ratio of the hooked bar specimens
with transverse reinforcement. In the specimens with transverse
reinforcement, the correlation between the predictions and test
results was similar to that of the specimens without transverse
reinforcement shown in Fig. 8. The prediction of the proposed
methods in Eq. (19) and (20) was better than other design
methods, showing the average ratio = 1.20 and 1.24, and COV =
0.183 and 0.195, respectively.
Figure 10 compares the predictions and test results for all
specimens. The Sperry et al.12 model showed the average ratio =
1.53 and COV = 0.228, and the stress ratio ftest/fs = 1.0 to 1.8 for
the majority of test specimens. The proposed model in Eq. (19)
showed the average ratio = 1.17 and COV = 0.196, and ftest/fs =
0.8 to 1.6. The proposed model in Eq. (20) showed the average
ratio = 1.21 and COV = 0.208, and ftest/fs = 0.8 to 1.6.
In the proposed method, a safety factor is required for
safe design of actual structures. In the present study, a safety
factor ϕ = 0.7 was recommended for Eq. (19) and (20).
For the detailed method

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017 1645

   For the simplified method
φ db2 f y
fs =  1 r + ( 2 + 3 ) ls +
2 τ π 3τ τ  ≤ f y (22a)
db  4.6r + 1.7 db  φτ u φf y
fs =
db
[ 3.4ld + 3.1db ] +
17.8
≤ f y for db ≤ 25.4 mm (1 in.)

(22b)

φτ u φf y
fs =
db
[ 3.4ld + 4.0db ] +
22.4
≤ f y for db > 25.4 mm (1 in.)

(22c)

In Eurocode 22 and Model Code 2010,3 by using the partial

safety factor of concrete, the bond strengths are decreased to
fbd/1.5 in Eq. (2d) and to fbd0/1.5 in Eq. (3c). Unlike other
design codes, safety factors are not used in the case of ACI
318-141 and the Sperry et al.12 model.
Figure 11 compares the prediction results with the safety
Fig. 7—Bar stress ratio of hook anchorage test specimens:
factors. When ϕ = 0.7 was used, the proposed models safely
hooked bar test specimens without straight length.

Fig. 8—Bar stress ratio of hooked bar test specimens without transverse bars.

Fig. 9—Bar stress ratio of hooked bar test specimens with transverse bars.

1646 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017

predicted the majority of the test results. Both of the proposed
methods in Eq. (22a) and Eq. (22b) (or Eq. (22c)) overesti-
mated the strengths of the nine test specimens among the
493 test specimens, and the failure ratios were 1.8%.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, a new design method was developed
to predict the development length of hooked bars. In the
proposed method, a hooked bar was idealized as an equiva-
lent straight bar restrained by the spring model of the hook.
The results of this study are summarized as follows:
1. For the equivalent straight bar, a non-uniform bar bond
stress distribution was used. The bond stress distribution
was simplified with three uniform bond stresses for the
bond-damaged and bond-undamaged regions of the straight
length and the undamaged region of the hook length.
2. For the spring model of the hook, unlike the existing
models, the hook strength was defined as the flexural strength
of the hooked bar rather than the concrete crushing strength.
3. Using the bond stress distribution, unit bond strength,
and bearing strength of the hook, the tensile strength of
the hooked bar was defined as a function of the develop-
Fig. 10—Comparison of test results and predictions for
existing hooked bar test specimens.
Fig. 11—Comparison of test results and predictions with safety factors.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017
ment length and hook radius. To address the effects of
cover concrete and transverse reinforcement on splitting or
blowout failure, the relevant coefficients specified in Euro-
code 2 were modified.
4. To verify the validity of the proposed method, it was
applied to 493 existing test specimens with 90- or 180-degree
hooked bars. The accuracy of the proposed method (average
= 1.17 and COV = 0.196) was better than or equivalent to
that of the existing design methods (average = 1.31 and
COV = 0.317 in ACI 318). When a strength-reduction factor
of 0.7 is used for the proposed method, the failure ratio of
existing test specimens is 1.8%, which indicates that the
proposed method can safely predict the development length
of hooked bars.
5. In the proposed model, the effects of unit bond strength,
bond stress distribution, and bearing resistance of the hook
were separately modeled. Such component models can be
used for future experimental and theoretical studies.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Hyeon-Jong Hwang is an Assistant Professor in the College
of Civil Engineering and Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory on Damage
Diagnosis for Engineering Structures at Hunan University, Changsha,
Hunan, China. He received his BE, MS, and PhD in architectural engi-
neering from Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. His research
interests include inelastic analysis and seismic design of reinforced concrete
and composite structures.
ACI member Hong-Gun Park is a Professor in the Department of Architec-
ture & Architectural Engineering at Seoul National University. He received
his BE and MS in architectural engineering from Seoul National University
and his PhD in civil engineering from the University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX. His research interests include inelastic analysis and the seismic
design of reinforced concrete structures.
Wei-Jian Yi is a Professor in the College of Civil Engineering at Hunan
University, where he received his BE, MS, and PhD. His research interests
include fundamental concrete structures and the seismic design of rein-
forced concrete structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was financially supported by National Key Research
Program of China (2016YFC0701400) and National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant No. 51650110500 and 51338004). The authors are
grateful to the authorities for their supports.
1647
 NOTATIONS
As = cross-sectional area of hooked bar, mm2 (in.2)
Atr = cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement, mm2 (in.2)
cb = thickness of rear cover concrete, mm (in.)
csi = one-half of center-to-center bar spacing, mm (in.)
cso = thickness of side cover concrete, mm (in.)
db = reinforcing bar diameter, mm (in.)
Fh = tensile strength of hook, MPa (psi)
fc′ = concrete compressive strength, MPa (psi)
fy = yield strength of reinforcing bar, MPa (psi)
K = coefficient of arrangement of transverse reinforcement
Kh = stiffness of hook, MPa/mm (psi/in.)
kd = coefficient of arrangement of transverse reinforcement
l = equivalent development length of hooked bar, mm (in.)
ld = development length of hooked bar, mm (in.)
ll = hook length, mm (in.)
ls = straight length of hooked bar, mm (in.)
n = number of hooked bars
r = radius of hook, mm (in.)
ri = inner radius of hook, mm (in.)
s = relative deformation between reinforcing bar and concrete, mm (in.)
s1 = bond-slip at peak bond stress, mm (in.)
st = center-to-center distance of transverse bars, mm (in.)
α1 = coefficient of bar shape
αd = coefficient of reinforcing bar diameter in proposed model
αm1 = coefficient of bar shape in proposed model
αm2 = coefficient of concrete cover in proposed model
αm3 = coefficient of transverse reinforcement in proposed model
αt = coefficient of diameter of transverse reinforcement
Δh = absolute deformation of reinforcing bar due to hook anchorage,
mm (in.)
Δs = absolute deformation of reinforcing bar at peak strength, mm (in.)
ϕ = safety factor
η2 = coefficient of reinforcing bar diameter in Eurocode 2
η3 = coefficient of reinforcing bar diameter in Model Code 2010
η4 = coefficient of yield strength of reinforcing bar
σs = tensile strength of reinforcing bar, MPa (psi)
τ1 = non-damaged bond stress at hook length, MPa (psi)
τ2 = non-damaged bond stress at straight length, MPa (psi)
τ3 = damaged bond stress at straight length, MPa (psi)
τu = peak bond stress, MPa (psi)
ψc = coefficient of concrete cover
ψe = coefficient of epoxy-coated bars
ψo = coefficient of hooked bars placement
ψr = coefficient of confining bars
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
2. BS EN 1992-1:2004, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures,”
British Standards Institution, London, UK, 2004, 225 pp.
3. fib, “fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010,” Ernst & Sohn,
Berlin, Germany, 2010, 420 pp.
4. Minor, J., and Jirsa, J., “Behavior of Bent Bar Anchorages,” ACI
Journal Proceedings, V. 72, No. 4, Apr. 1975, pp. 141-149.
5. Marques, J. L., and Jirsa, J. O., “A Study of Hooked Bar Anchorages in
Beam-Column Joints,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 72, No. 5, May 1975,
pp. 198-209.
6. Pinc, R.; Watkins, M.; and Jirsa, J., “The Strength of the Hooked Bar
Anchorages in Beam-Column Joints,” CESRL Report No. 77-3, Department
of Civil Engineering-Structures Research Laboratory, University of Texas
at Austin, Austin, TX, 1977, 67 pp.
1648
7. Jirsa, J. O.; Lutz, L. A.; and Gergely, P., “Rationale for Suggested
Development, Splice, and Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in
Tension,” Concrete International, V. 1, No. 7, July 1979, pp. 47-61.
8. Johnson, L. A., and Jirsa, J. O., “The Influence of Short Embedment
and Close Spacing on the Strength of Hooked Bar Anchorages,” PMFSEL
Report No. 81-2, Department of Civil Engineering-Structures Research
Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1981, 93 pp.
9. Soroushian, P.; Obaseki, K.; Nagi, M.; and Rojas, M., “Pullout
Behavior of Hooked Bars in Exterior Beam-Column Connections,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 3, May-June 1988, pp. 269-276.
10. Joh, O., and Shibata, T., “Anchorage Behavior of 90-Degree Hooked
Beam Bars in Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No. 1196, Elsevier Science Ltd.,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1996, 8 pp.
11. Ramirez, J. A., and Russell, B. W., “Transfer, Development, and
Splice Length for Strand/reinforcement in High-strength Concrete,”
NCHRP Report 603, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 99-120.
12. Sperry, J.; Al-Yasso, S.; Searle, N.; DeRubeis, M.; Darwin, D.;
O’Reilly, M.; Matamoros, A.; Feldman, L.; Lepage, A.; Lequesne, R.; and
Ajaam, A., “Anchorage of High-Strength Reinforcing Bars with Standard
Hooks,” SM Report No. 111, University of Kansas Center for Research,
Inc., Lawrence, KS, 2015, 243 pp.
13. Costa, R.; Providencia, P.; and Dias, A., “Anchorage Models for
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Quasi-Static Loading,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 3, May-June 2016, pp. 503-514. doi:
10.14359/51688759
14. Hwang, H. J.; Park, H. G.; and Yi, W. J., “Nonuniform Bond
Stress Distribution Model for Evaluation of Bar Development Length,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 4, July-Aug. 2017, pp. 839-849. doi:
10.14359/51689446
15. MacGregor, J. G., and Wight, J. K., Reinforced Concrete Mechanics
and Design, fourth edition, Prentice Hall, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
2006, 1111 pp.
16. Eligehausen, R.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., “Local Bond Stress-
Slip Relationships of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitations,”
Earthquake Engineering Research Council Report No. 82/23, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1983, 169 pp.
17. Ciampi, V.; Eligehausen, R.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., “Analyt-
ical Model for Concrete Anchorages of Reinforcing Bars under Generalized
Excitations,” Earthquake Engineering Research Council Report No. 83/23,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1982.
18. Viwathanatepa, S.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., “Effects of
Generalized Loadings on Bond of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Confined
Concrete Blocks,” Earthquake Engineering Research Council Report
No. 79/22, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1979, 304 pp.
19. Mirzaei, Y., “Post-Punching Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Slabs,” École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland,
2010, 230 pp.
20. Soroushian, P.; Obaseki, K.; and Rojas, M. C., “Bearing Strength and
Stiffness of Concrete under Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 84,
No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 179-184.
21. Hamad, B. S.; Jirsa, J. O.; and d’Abreu Paolo, N. I., “Anchorage
Strength of Epoxy-Coated Hooked Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 210-217.
22. Lee, J., and Park, H., “Bending—Applicability Study of Ultra-Bar
(SD 600) and Ultra-Bar for Rebar Stirrups and Ties (SD 500 and 600) for
Compression Rebar,” Korea Concrete Institute, Seoul, Korea, 2010, 504 pp.
(in Korean)
23. Peckover, J., and Darwin, D., “Anchorage of High-Strength Rein-
forcing Bars with Standard Hooks: Initial Tests” SL Report No. 13-1,
University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS, 2013, 47 pp.
24. Bae, M. S.; Chun, S. C.; and Kim, M. G., “Behavior of 550MPa
43mm Hooked Bars Embedded in Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of the
Korea Concrete Institute, V. 28, No. 5, 2016, pp. 611-620. (in Korean) doi:
10.4334/JKCI.2016.28.5.611
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2017