ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 109-S22
Behavior of Lap-Spliced Plain Steel Bars
by M. Nazmul Hassan and Lisa R. Feldman
Fifteen lap splice specimens reinforced with plain steel bars were
tested under four-point loading to investigate bond resistance
as a function of development length and bar diameter. Three of
these specimens were instrumented with both steel and concrete
strain gauges to examine bond loss within the lap splice length.
All of the specimens failed in bond. Splice specimens reinforced
with plain bars are capable of resisting maximum loads that are
approximately 60% of those recorded for two similar specimens
that were reinforced with deformed bars. An analysis of 11 of the
splice specimens tested shows that CEB-FIP Model Code provi-
sions for average bond stress underestimates the prediction of the
maximum load by 16% on average. A flexural analysis conducted
for the instrumented specimens showed that strain compatibility
did not exist for much of the loading range.
Keywords: bond; lap splice; plain reinforcement; shear (beams); slip; stress.
INTRODUCTION
Steel reinforcing bars have markedly evolved since the
wide-scale introduction of reinforced concrete construction
in the late 19th century.1 As a result, the evaluation of histor-
ical reinforced concrete structures may reveal the existence
of construction details that do not meet current standards for
adequate development length, reinforcing bars with defor-
mation patterns that do not conform to current specifica-
tions, and/or plain reinforcement (that is, reinforcement with
no deformations). This paper addresses the latter topic.
Plain reinforcement does not possess lugs or other surface
deformations and so cannot transfer bond forces by mechan-
ical interlock. Instead, bond is transferred through adhe-
sion between the concrete and the reinforcement before slip
occurs and by the wedging action of small particles that
break free from the concrete upon slip.2 Current editions of
the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,3 CAN/CSA
A23.3-04,4 the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications,5 and
ACI 318-086 do not provide guidance for the evaluation and
rehabilitation of concrete members reinforced with plain
bars. An unfortunate legacy has therefore been created: there
are many historical structures reinforced with plain bars
that are still in service, yet the evaluation of their structural
capacity poses a challenge for practicing engineers.
Much of the existing research related to the bond of plain
reinforcement has focused on bond stress distributions in
pullout specimens.2,7,8 An additional research investiga-
tion of bond stresses in concrete beams showed that bond
loss causes shear to be resisted by arch action.9 Such work
provides valuable insight into bond behavior and bond
strength variability; however, current Canadian and Amer-
ican code provisions3-6 express bond in terms of develop-
ment length rather than definable bond stresses. These provi-
sions are based largely on splice specimens because they
offer a relatively simple and economic means of providing a
realistic stress state in the concrete surrounding the longitu-
dinal reinforcing bars.10
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012
TECHNICAL PAPER
The CEB-FIP Model Code11 continues to provide design
guidelines for plain reinforcement. The design bond stress
ubd for reinforcing bars is specified as
ubd = η1 η2 η3 fctd (1)
where h1 is a factor that addresses the reinforcing type;
h2 accounts for bond conditions, including bar inclina-
tion, top bar effect, and the formwork system used; and
h3 accounts for bar size. The design tensile strength of
concrete fctd is calculated in accordance with the CEB-FIP
Model Code.11 Based on the values of h1 prescribed, Eq. (1)
suggests that the bond of plain bars is 44% that of deformed
bars when all other parameters are held constant.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Plain reinforcing bars are regularly encountered in histor-
ical structures, and criteria for assessing their bond strength
are necessary. The results of an experimental investigation of
splice specimens reinforced with plain bars are presented to
provide a relationship for development length as a function
of bar size and splice length. Comparisons are made with
replicate specimens reinforced with deformed bars and with
CEB-FIP Model Code provisions for average bond stress.
The results of the instrumented splice specimens identify
bond behavior in specimens reinforced with these bars.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Fifteen splice specimens with the cross-section, eleva-
tion, and plan view shown in Fig. 1 were designed and
tested. All specimens had identical cross-sectional dimen-
sions (305 mm [12 in.] wide x 410 mm [16 in.] high) and
span lengths (4570 mm [180 in.]). These dimensions were
selected to match those reported by Idun and Darwin12 for
tests of splice specimens reinforced with deformed bars to
allow a direct comparison to be made. Figure 1(a) shows the
cross section of the splice specimens. The effective depth
of the reinforcement d was 350, 347, and 344 mm (13.8,
13.7, and 13.5 in.) for specimens longitudinally reinforced
with 19, 25, and 32 mm (0.75, 1, and 1.25 in.) diameter bars,
respectively. The reinforcement ratio As/bd was 0.53, 0.95,
and 1.51% for specimens longitudinally reinforced with 19,
25, and 32 mm (0.75, 1, and 1.25 in.) diameter bars, respec-
tively. The shear span-depth ratio (a/d) for all beams was
approximately 3.94. Figure 1(b) shows an elevation of the
splice specimens, including span length, loading, and the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 2, March-April 2012.
MS No. S-2010-107.R3 received November 5, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the January-February 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is
received by September 1, 2012.
235
ACI member M. Nazmul Hassan is a Structural Engineer-in-Training at AMEC,
Saskatoon, SK, Canada, and received his MSc from the University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon.
ACI member Lisa R. Feldman is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil
and Geological Engineering at the University of Saskatchewan. She is Secretary of
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 408, Development and Splicing of Deformed Bars, and a
member of ACI Committee 342, Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements,
and ACI Subcommittee 318-R, Code Reorganization.
Fig. 1—Splice specimen geometry: (a) cross section within
lap splice length; (b) elevation; and (c) plan view. (Note:
Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
reinforcing steel arrangement. Figure 1(c) shows a plan
view of the specimens and illustrates the arrangement of the
spliced longitudinal bars.
All specimens were designed to fail in bond and had splice
lengths ranging from 12.8 to 32.4 times the longitudinal bar
diameter. The failure loads for all specimens (Table 1) were
predicted in accordance with the CEB-FIP Model Code11 by
substituting the specified mean value of the concrete tensile
strength as described in this code for the design value of the
concrete strength fctd shown in Eq. (1) in an attempt to better
represent the concrete properties of the splice specimens.
This prediction required a sectional analysis of the speci-
mens and was approximated by assuming strain compat-
ibility between the concrete and longitudinal reinforcement.
Three replicate specimens reinforced with 25 mm (1 in.)
diameter longitudinal bars and splice lengths of 410, 510,
and 610 mm (16, 20, and 24 in.) were instrumented with
steel and concrete strain gauges. Figure 2 shows that
Specimens 25-410I and 25-510I were instrumented at three
locations along their length—at each end of the lap splice
236
length and at the specimen centerline. Specimen 25-610I
was instrumented at five locations along its length—at each
end of the splice length, at quarter points along the splice
length, and at the specimen centerline.
Figure 2(a) shows a plan view of the splice length of the
instrumented specimens and illustrates the placement of the
steel strain gauges on the longitudinal reinforcement. All four
longitudinal reinforcing bars in each of the specimens were
instrumented for a total of eight gauges in Specimens 25-410I
and 25-510I and 16 gauges in Specimen 25-610I. Strain
gauges were not mounted on the unloaded end of the spliced
bars, as the bars are not developed at these locations. All
gauges were installed on the surface of the reinforcing bars
along their longitudinal axis.
Figure 2(b) shows an elevation view of the splice length
of the instrumented specimens and illustrates the place-
ment of the concrete strain gauges. Nine gauges were
installed on Specimens 25-410I and 25-510I. Three gauges
were located 50 mm (1.97 in.), 100 mm (3.94 in.), and the
effective depth d from the top of the specimens to coin-
cide with the placement of the steel gauges along the splice
length. Two additional concrete gauges were installed on
Specimen 25-610I: one at the quarter point of the lap splice
length from each end, located at an effective depth d from
the top of the specimen to coincide with the placement of
the steel gauges.
A vertical load was applied using a spreader beam at the
two load points shown in Fig. 1(b). The load was applied
by a computer-controlled hydraulic jack located beneath the
laboratory strong floor and was operated in displacement
control at a rate of 0.015 mm/s (0.0006 in./s) to failure. The
self-weight of the spreader beam exerted an effective load P
of 1.77 kN (0.40 kips) on the splice specimens.
Concrete
The concrete had a target compressive strength of 20 MPa
(2900 psi). General purpose (Type GU) portland cement was
used without admixtures. The coarse aggregate was a blend
of crushed limestone and granite from the Saskatoon area
with a maximum aggregate size of 20 mm (0.8 in.). The fine
aggregate was washed Waldheim pit silica sand. All aggre-
gates conformed to CAN/CSA A23.1-09.13 The mixture
design per m3 (yd3) of concrete was: 250 kg (421 lb) cement,
1100 kg (1854 lb) sand, 1100 kg (1854 lb) crushed coarse
aggregate, and 140 L (23.5 gal.) water. Table 1 shows the
concrete compressive strength of the specimens at the time
of testing as established from the results of companion cylin-
ders stored under the same conditions and tested on the same
day as the corresponding specimen. Specimens were moist-
cured using wet burlap and plastic sheets for 7 days following
casting and were then stored in the laboratory until testing.
Reinforcement
All longitudinal reinforcement was hot-rolled CSA G40.21
300W steel. The material properties were established from
coupons obtained from surplus bar lengths and were tested
in accordance with ASTM A370-97a14 with a loading
rate ranging from 1.73 to 6.76 MPa/s (251 to 980 psi/s).
Table 2 shows the static yield strengths fys calculated in
accordance with Rao et al.,15 dynamic yield strengths fyd, the
ultimate strength fu, and the modulus of elasticity Es for all
longitudinal bar sizes used. All bars had 180-degree hooks
at the ends adjacent to the beam supports to ensure that the
bond failure would occur within the lap splice length.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012
Table 1—Actual and predicted failure loads
Predicted normalized maximum load Pmax/√fc′
Normalized CEB-FIP Neglecting Including strain
maximum Midspan Model Code strain hardening hardening of
Splice length Concrete Bar surface load Pmax/√fc′, deflection at provisions, of reinforcing reinforcing
as function of compressive strength roughness Ry, mm kN/√MPa maximum load, kN/√MPa steel, kN/√MPa steel, kN/√MPa
Specimen ID* bar diameter fc′, MPa (psi) (× 10–3 in.) (lb/√psi) mm (in.) (lb/√psi) (lb/√psi) (lb/√psi)
19-305 16.0db 17.4 (2320) 9.54 (0.376) 8.50 (159) 7.38 (0.290) 5.06 (94.4) 18.2 (339) 29.6 (552)
19-410 21.6db 17.4 (2320) 9.67 (0.381) 9.14 (171) 7.80 (0.307) 7.88 (147) 18.2 (339) 29.6 (552)
19-510 26.8db 18.7 (2710) 9.86 (0.388) 9.58 (179) 9.17 (0.361) 10.7 (200) 17.6 (329) 28.8 (537)
19-610 32.1db 21.0 (3040) 9.44 (0.372) 17.8 (332) 17.5 (0.689) 14.0 (261) 16.8 (313) 27.5 (513)
25-410 16.4db 23.7 (3440) 8.88 (0.350) 16.2 (302) 12.0 (0.472) 12.4 (231) 27.8 (518) 45.2 (842)
25-510 20.4db 24.0 (3480) 8.43 (0.332) 18.4 (343) 11.0 (0.434) 16.0 (299) 29.5 (551) 47.5 (886)
25-610 24.4db 22.8 (3300) 8.71 (0.343) 20.6 (384) 14.0 (0.552) 19.4 (362) 27.4 (512) 44.7 (834)
25-810 32.4db 19.2 (2780) 9.60 (0.378) 29.7 (554) 17.7 (0.695) 25.1 (468) 29.7 (554) 46.0 (859)
32-410 12.8db 19.8 (2880) 9.92 (0.390) 15.6 (291) 7.81 (0.307) 14.6 (272) 46.4 (866) 67.6 (1260)
32-610 19.1db 19.8 (2880) 9.72 (0.383) 25.1 (468) 10.6 (0.416) 22.3 (416) 46.4 (866) 67.6 (1260)
32-810 25.3db 15.8 (2290) 10.1 (0.398) 31.8 (594) 11.2 (0.442) 28.8 (538) 49.6 (926) 69.7 (1300)
†
32-910 28.4db 19.7 (2850) 10.0 (0.394) 34.5 (659) 18.6 (0.732) 35.1 (655) 46.5 (868) 67.6 (1260)
25-410I 16.4db 21.5 (3110) 9.68 (0.381) 14.5 (271) 8.41 (0.331) 12.0 (224) 28.4 (529) 44.3 (827)
25-510I 20.4db 20.8 (3020) 9.75 (0.384) 17.8 (332) 9.59 (0.377) 15.2 (284) 28.8 (536) 44.8 (836)
25-610I 24.4db 21.5 (3110) 9.94 (0.391) 15.4 (287) 10.5 (0.415) 18.7 (349) 28.4 (529) 44.3 (827)
*
First number in bar designation refers to diameter of spliced longitudinal bars and second number indicates lap splice length provided in millimeters; “I” following lap splice
length identifies specimens that were instrumented with steel and concrete strain gauges.
†
Outlier, as described in text.

Table 2—Longitudinal reinforcing steel properties

Static yield strength fys, Dynamic yield strength fyd, Ultimate strength fu, Modulus of elasticity Es,
Bar diameter db, mm (in.) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi)
19 (0.75) 326 (47.3) 355 (51.5) 520 (75.4) 203,000 (29,400)
25 (1.00)* 322 (46.7) 346 (50.2) 534 (77.4) 196,000 (28,400)
25 (1.00)† 316 (45.8) 346 (50.2) 504 (73.1) 206,000 (29,900)
32 (1.25) 318 (46.1) 348 (50.5) 504 (73.1) 204,000 (29,600)
*
Specimens 25-410, 25-510, and 25-610.
†
Specimens 25-810, 25-410I, 25-510I, and 25-610I.

The longitudinal reinforcing bars were sandblasted

using 220 grit aluminum oxide, a nozzle distance of 125 mm
(5 in.), and a 698 kPa (100 psi) blast pressure to increase
their surface roughness and make them more representative
of historical bars.7 The surface roughness of each bar was
characterized by the maximum height of profile Ry calculated
as the distance between the highest peak and the deepest
valley on the bar surface.16 A total of 30 roughness measure-
ments were made on each bar using a surface roughness
tester and a single 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) stroke. Table 1 shows
the average Ry values for the longitudinal reinforcing bars in
each specimen.
The shear reinforcement consisted of 12.7 mm (0.5 in.)
diameter hot-rolled CSA G40.21 300W plain steel bars Fig. 2—Strain gauge arrangement for instrumented speci-
spaced at 200 mm (8 in.) on center within the shear spans mens: (a) plan view showing location of steel strain gauges;
and 250 mm (10 in.) on center within the constant moment and (b) elevation showing location of concrete strain gauges.
region outside of the lap splices (Fig. 1(c)). Two additional (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
stirrups were placed in the splice region one-quarter of the
splice length—but not exceeding 150 mm (6 in.)—from the shear reinforcement than strictly necessary to ensure that
ends of the splice to prevent the prying action of the longitu- failure would be governed by bond between the longitudinal
dinal reinforcement. The specimens had considerably more reinforcement and the surrounding concrete.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012 237


Fig. 3—Normalized maximum applied load versus devel-
opment length as function of bar diameter. (Note: 1 mm =
0.0394 in.)
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
This section summarizes the visual observations made
during testing and provides an analysis of recorded linear
variable displacement transducer (LVDT) and strain gauge
data. Predicted and actual failure loads are compared, bond
stress progression along the length of the spliced longitudinal
reinforcement is presented, and the flexural sectional analysis
conducted for instrumented specimens is also discussed.
Preliminary observations
Table 1 shows the observed maximum loads attained by
the specimens and those predicted using CEB-FIP Model
Code11 provisions for average bond stress and both neglecting
and including strain hardening, assuming that full develop-
ment of the longitudinal reinforcement is achieved. All loads
reported have been normalized by the square root of the
concrete compressive strength to provide a direct comparison
between all specimens. A previous investigation7 showed
that this relationship is valid for plain reinforcement and is
consistent with familiar equations for deformed bars. The
reported maximum loads, neglecting and including strain
hardening of the longitudinal reinforcement, were calcu-
lated using the flexural resistance computation procedures
in ACI 318-086 with resistance factors set equal to unity
and the stress in the longitudinal reinforcement set equal
to the static yield strength fys and ultimate yield strength fu,
respectively. The predicted loads have been reduced by the
weight of the spreader beam and the specimen self-weight
to allow for a direct comparison with the maximum loads
that were recorded during testing. The deflection at midspan
coinciding with the maximum load as recorded by the LVDT
placed at the centerline of the specimen is also presented.
Specimen 32-910 was identified as an outlier as a result of
technical difficulties encountered during testing. This spec-
imen required unloading and reloading twice prior to failure,
which resulted in large plastic deformations between load
cycles. The results obtained have therefore been excluded
from the subsequent analysis.
All but two specimens failed in bond at loads well below
those predicted assuming yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement. Specimens 19-610 and 25-810 attained
loads of 106% and 100%, respectively, of those predicted
assuming yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement. A more
detailed review of the specimens’ performance, as provided
by their load-deflection behavior, is required to establish
their likely failure mode and is discussed in the following
238
section. A comparison of the normalized maximum loads
attained by Specimens 25-410 and 25-610 with the specimen
results reported by Idun and Darwin12 suggest that splice
specimens reinforced with plain bars are capable of resisting
peak loads that are approximately 60% of those recorded for
identical specimens reinforced with deformed bars with the
same nominal diameter. It should be noted, however, that the
concrete mixture designs used by Idun and Darwin12 resulted
in concrete compressive strengths ranging from 28.2 to
37.5 MPa (4090 to 5440 psi)—somewhat higher than those
reported for this study.
Surface-mounted strain gauges on longitudinal reinforce-
ment are known to disturb the concrete-steel interface and
affect test results. Table 1 shows that the recorded maximum
loads for Specimens 25-410I and 25-510I are 89.5% and
96.7%, respectively, of those recorded for replicate speci-
mens without any internal instrumentation (that is, Speci-
mens 25-410 and 25-510). The maximum load attained
by Specimen 25-610I was 74.7% of that recorded for
Specimen 25-610, as it was more heavily instrumented than
specimens with shorter lap splice lengths. The purpose of
including the instrumented specimens in this study was not
to obtain quantifiable load data. Rather, these specimens
were included to provide a more comprehensive under-
standing of the mechanics and behavior of splice speci-
mens reinforced with plain bars, as will be discussed in the
following sections.
CEB-FIP Model Code11 provisions for average bond stress
underestimate Pmax by 15.7% on average. The ratio of Pmax to
the load predicted by the CEB-FIP Model Code11 ranged from
89.7% for Specimen 19-510 to 168% for Specimen 19-305,
with conservative predictions for all viable, noninstrumented
specimens, except for Specimen 19-510. The actual-to-
predicted load ratio tended to decrease with increasing longi-
tudinal bar diameter and splice length, provided that Pmax did
not reach or exceed the load corresponding to yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement.
A regression analysis of the 11 specimens that did not
contain internal instrumentation yields the following empir-
ical relationship
Pmax (2)
= 1.37 × 10 −4 Ry Ls db
fc′
where Pmax/√f c′ is expressed in kN/√MPa; Ls and db, the
nominal bar diameter, are in mm; and Ry is in mm. All
parameters in Eq. (2) are significantly different from zero,
and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) is 8.74 kN/√MPa
(163 lb/√psi).
Substituting the mean value of 9.44 mm for Ry into Eq. (2)
provides the simplified relationship
Pmax
= 1.29 × 10 −3 Ls db (2a)
fc′
Figure 3 shows the fit of Eq. (2a) with the experimental
data for all specimens without internal instrumentation.
Equation (2a) shows that a linear and proportional relation-
ship, with Pmax/√f c′ = 0 for Ls = 0, is the best fit. This finding
differs from the linear, but not proportional, relationships
reported for deformed bars6 and prestressing strands.17
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

Fig. 4—Observed crack pattern following testing (Spec-
imen 25-610).
Fig. 6—Normalized applied load versus midspan deflection for: (a) Specimen 25-410;
(b) Specimen 25-610; (c) Specimen 25-810; and (d) Specimen 19-610.
Cracking and failure modes
All specimens exhibited similar crack patterns as the
testing progressed. Figure 4 shows the crack pattern observed
for Specimen 25-610 following testing. The flexural crack
spacing was generally confined to the middle 3.0 m (118 in.) of
the specimen and averaged approximately 200 and 250 mm
(8 and 10 in.) on center within the shear spans and constant
moment region outside of the splice length, respectively, and
roughly coincided with the stirrup locations. Flexural cracks
also occurred at the ends of the spliced bars, possibly due
to the reduced stiffness at these locations, with additional
cracks within the splice length at the stirrup locations more
common for specimens with splice lengths in excess of 20db.
The crack pattern during service-level loading was therefore
similar to that expected for flexural specimens reinforced
with deformed bars, as observed by others18; however, all
cracks in both the shear spans and constant moment region
remained vertical rather than becoming inclined due to the
effect of shear. Vertical cracks within the shear spans are an
indication of a lack of shear stresses and suggest that the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012
Fig. 5—End slip of longitudinal reinforcing bars at right
end of lap splice length (Specimen 25-610): (a) Bar 1; and
(b) Bar 2.
load-carrying mechanism of the specimens tended toward
that of a tied arch.19 A flexural crack that had formed at one
end of the splice lengthened and widened markedly when
the maximum load was attained. Splitting cracks were not
evident on any of the specimens; this suggests that all bond
failures resulted from pullout of the spliced longitudinal
reinforcing bars.
The concrete surrounding the reinforcing bars at the
ends of the lap splice length was removed following testing
and confirms that pullout of the spliced longitudinal bars
occurred. Figure 5 shows the resulting end slip at the cut
ends of the longitudinal reinforcing bars at the right end of
the lap splice length for Specimen 25-610. This end slip
typically occurred at both ends of the lap splice length for
the specimens.
Figure 6 shows the normalized applied load versus
midspan deflection for four representative specimens.
The theoretical curves shown were calculated using
Response 2000,20 assuming strain compatibility of the longi-
tudinal reinforcement and the surrounding concrete and are
239
Fig. 7—Bond stress progression (Specimen 25-610I): (a) Bar A; and (b) Bar B.
based on actual stress-strain relationships for the concrete
and the reinforcement. The initial portions of all four curves
were similar. The slope of each curve was at its maximum
between zero load and that corresponding to first cracking
of the specimens, as represented by Point “a” in Fig. 6(a) to
(d). In all cases, the actual normalized load corresponding to
first cracking tended to be somewhat less than the theoretical
normalized cracking load. This was expected because the
tensile stresses that develop in the concrete as a result of the
restraint from shrinkage provided by the reinforcement tend
to reduce the expected cracking load.21
Figure 6(a) shows the normalized load-versus-deflection
curve for Specimen 25-410 and tends to be representative of
specimens with lap splice lengths less than 24db. The slope
of the experimental curve decreased after first cracking of
the specimen and then remained essentially linear until the
maximum load was reached. The load then dropped off
markedly with any additional increase in the midspan deflec-
tion. Specimen 25-610, shown in Fig. 6(b), represents the
behavior of specimens with lap splice lengths in excess of
24db. The slope of the curve, and hence the specimen stiff-
ness, decreased, but did not remain linear once first cracking
240
of the specimen was exceeded. Rather, a gradual reduction
in slope was observed. The loss of stiffness suggests a reduc-
tion in bond between the longitudinal reinforcement and the
surrounding concrete as the test progressed.18 Therefore,
longer splice lengths offer more potential for the redistribu-
tion of bond stresses.
Figure 6(c) and (d) shows the normalized load-versus-
midspan deflection for Specimens 25-810 and 19-610,
respectively. Both of these specimens attained maximum
loads that reached or exceeded those predicted assuming
yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement. Neither curve
shows evidence of a load plateau coinciding with yielding of
the longitudinal reinforcement; rather, the load dropped off
markedly with increased deflection immediately after Pmax
was recorded. The dominance of arch action, as suggested
from the resulting crack patterns, causes the longitudinal
reinforcement in these specimens to act as a tension tie and
bond failure results.
Calculated bond stresses
Figure 7 shows the average bond stress progression with
load within the lap splice length for Specimen 25-610I based
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012
on the steel strain gauge readings. The specimens were each
reinforced with two spliced longitudinal bars that each
comprise two bar segments. Figure 7(a) shows Bar A, which
was located on the left-hand side of the cross section shown
in Fig. 1(a). End 1 of Bar A was the bar segment instru-
mented with Gauges S1 to S4, and End 2 of Bar A was the
bar segment instrumented with Gauges S5 to S8. Figure 7(b)
shows Bar B, located on the right-hand side of the beam
cross section shown in Fig. 1(a). End 1 of Bar B was instru-
mented with Gauges S13 to S16 and End 2 of Bar B was
instrumented with Gauges S9 to S12. The average bond
stress between gauges uave is
∆ε x As Es
uave = (3)
πdb ∆x
where Dex is the difference between the adjacent steel strain
gauge measurements at a given level of applied load; As is
the cross-sectional area of a single longitudinal reinforcing
bar; and Dx is the distance between adjacent steel strain
gauges. Discontinuities in uave occur at the gauge locations.
Gauge S12 did not function and could not be used for the
calculation of the bond stress distribution along End 2 of
Bar B.
Figure 7(a) and (b) shows the bond stress distribution
along the longitudinal reinforcing bars at several load levels:
P/Pmax = 0.18, which coincides with the cracking load for the
specimen; 0.5; 0.75; 0.9; and 1.0. The bond stress distribu-
tion for the same end of the two longitudinal reinforcing bars
should be identical if both shared equally in the resistance.
The bond stress distributions for the opposing ends of the
same longitudinal bar should be mirror images of each other
if the load was being transferred equally to both supports.
Figure 7(a) and (b) shows that bond demand is greatest
adjacent to the ends of the splice for P/Pmax ≤ 0.75.
Figure 7(a) then shows that bond demand in these regions
tended to decrease, signifying bond loss, whereas the bond
stress in the segments adjacent to the splice centerline
continued to increase for P/Pmax < 0.90. The average bond
distribution then became uniform along the entire splice
length and approached its residual value, signifying a loss
of strain compatibility. In contrast, the average bond stress
distribution in Fig. 7(b) remained nonuniform throughout
the entire load range. Therefore, bond loss was not global
along Bar B at the maximum load level. A review of the bond
stress distributions for both bars suggested that Bar A likely
failed first in bond. Bar B then would have failed immedi-
ately after Bar A, as it could not resist the applied load on its
own. The load-versus-deflection behavior for this specimen
confirms that a sudden failure occurred.
Sectional analysis within splice region
A review of the raw strain gauge data shows that the
strains recorded by the concrete gauges located at the level
of the longitudinal steel deviated from that recorded by the
steel gauges at a load level roughly coinciding with that of
first cracking. Whereas the tensile strain recorded by the
steel gauges continued to increase with increasing applied
load, that recorded by the concrete gauges became more
compressive. Put simply, strains measured by the concrete
and steel gauges diverged once first cracking was achieved.
These findings suggest that strain compatibility and, hence,
perfect bond between the longitudinal reinforcement and the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012
surrounding concrete, did not exist for much of the loading
range and was consistent for all instrumented specimens at
all strain gauge locations.
Figure 8(a) shows the change in the neutral axis location
with normalized applied load at the right end of the lap splice
length for Specimen 25-510I. The neutral axis location was
determined for loading increments of P/Pmax = 0.05 using a
linear regression analysis based on two scenarios: 1) using
the data from all three concrete strain gauges (Method 1);
and 2) using the top two concrete gauges and the steel gauge
(Method 2) at the instrumented location. Distinctly different
values of the neutral axis result once first cracking of the
specimen occurred. Figure 8(a) shows that the neutral axis
location as determined using Method 2 followed the theo-
retically predicted values reasonably well. Whereas the
theoretical calculations suggest a discontinuity in the neutral
axis location at first cracking, however, the values calcu-
lated based on the strain gauge data showed that, in fact,
this transition is much more gradual. In contrast, the neutral
axis location as calculated using Method 1 was consistently
located below that calculated using the previous method
once first cracking occurred. The consistency of these results
suggested that a loss of strain compatibility due to bond loss
within the lap splice length occurred. Similar results were
observed at other instrumented locations along the lap splice
length and for other instrumented specimens.
The flexural analysis of the instrumented speci-
mens was calculated using procedures outlined in the
ISIS-M03-06 Manual.22 The method allows for the selec-
tion of Whitney’s stress block parameters for cases when
the extreme compressive strain in the section is less than
the concrete crushing strain. The concrete compressive
force was calculated using the stress block parameters a
and b, which are functions of both the concrete compressive
strength and the ratio of the extreme compressive strain to
the concrete crushing strain. The tensile force in the longi-
tudinal reinforcement was calculated from the steel strain
gauge data and the nominal bar diameter. The nominal flex-
ural capacity was then determined by summing the forces
about the plastic centroid of the section. Any resultant axial
force at a section was calculated from the horizontal equilib-
rium of forces.
Figure 8(b) shows the resultant compressive force in
the concrete, Cc, and the tension force in the longitudinal
reinforcement, T, versus the normalized applied load at the
right end of the lap splice length for Specimen 25-510I. The
compressive force in the concrete was calculated based on
the neutral axis location as per the two methods previously
described. Figure 8(b) shows that the concrete compressive
force, as calculated using Method 2, matches reasonably
well with the calculated tension force in the longitudinal
reinforcement throughout the loading range. Horizontal
equilibrium of forces was therefore achieved. In contrast,
Cc as calculated using Method 1 was consistently greater
than T and resulted in a resultant axial compressive force in
the section. The difference in these results likely occurred
due to bond loss between the longitudinal reinforcement
and the surrounding concrete. Similar results were obtained
for other instrumented locations and for Specimens 25-410I
and 25-610I.
Figure 8(c) shows the nominal bending moment versus
the normalized applied load at the right end of the lap splice
length for Specimen 25-510I. The bending moment calculated
from statics based on the magnitude of the applied load is also
241
Fig. 8—Flexural section analysis at right end of lap splice length (Specimen 25-510I): (a) neutral axis; (b) internal forces; and
(c) resulting moment.
shown for comparison. The figure shows that the moment
calculated based on Method 2 matched the theoretically calcu-
lated value of the bending moment quite well. In contrast,
the bending moment calculated based on Method 1 tended to
overestimate the internal moment in the section. This is due to
the increased neutral axis depth with respect to the top of the
section, as calculated using this method.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study provides an indication of the development of
plain steel reinforcement and highlights the complicated
interaction between flexural and shear behavior, cracking,
and bond loss. Fifteen 4.87 m (16.0 ft) long splice speci-
mens with an a/d of approximately 3.94 were tested in four-
point loading. The reinforcement ratios were equal to 0.53,
0.95, and 1.51% for specimens longitudinally reinforced
with 19, 25, and 32 mm (0.75, 1, and 1.25 in.) diameter
bars, respectively. Lap splice lengths ranged from 12.8 to
32.4 times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Three of the specimens were instrumented with both steel
and concrete strain gauges. From the analysis of the test
data, the following conclusions appear to be warranted:
242
1. All but two specimens failed in bond at loads well
below those predicted, assuming yielding of the longitu-
dinal reinforcement.
2. Based on a limited comparison with the results of two
specimens reinforced with deformed bars, it appears that
splice specimens reinforced with plain bars are capable
of resisting maximum loads that are approximately 60%
of those recorded for identical specimens reinforced with
deformed bars with the same nominal diameter.
3. The results of the 11 specimens without instrumen-
tation showed that CEB-FIP Model Code provisions for
average bond stress generally underestimated the predic-
tion of the maximum load by 16% on average. Individual
maximum loads attained ranged from 89.7 to 168% of the
load predicted using this method.
4. A regression analysis of the specimens without internal
instrumentation shows that a linear and proportional rela-
tionship for maximum load as a function of development
length and bar diameter provides a best fit for the test data.
5. The calculated average bond stress distribution along
the spliced longitudinal bars shows that bond demand is at
first greatest in the regions adjacent to the ends of the splice
length. Bond loss then occurred in these regions as the
demand adjacent to the splice centerline increased.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012
 6. A review of the strain gauge data and a flexural analysis
conducted for the instrumented specimens suggested that
bond loss occurred between the longitudinal reinforcement
and the surrounding concrete within the lap splice length.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of B. Pokoyoway and
D. Pavier, University of Saskatchewan Laboratory Technicians and Graduate
and Undergraduate Research Assistants in Civil & Geological Engineering,
for assistance with the preparation and testing of all specimens. Financial
support was provided by the University of Saskatchewan and a Natural
Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant.
Scholarships for the first author from the American Concrete Institute and
the University of Saskatchewan are also gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATION
As = cross-sectional area of reinforcing bar or bars
a = shear span
b = specimen width
Cc = concrete compressive force
d = effective depth of reinforced splice specimen
db = bar diameter
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel
fc′ = concrete compressive strength
fctd = design value of concrete tensile strength
fu = ultimate strength of reinforcing steel
fyd = dynamic yield strength of reinforcing bar
fys = static yield strength of reinforcing bar
Ls = spliced length of longitudinal reinforcing bars
P = applied load
Pcr = load corresponding to first cracking
Pmax = maximum applied load
Ry = bar surface roughness
T = tension force in reinforcing bar
uave = average bond stress
ubd = design bond stress
x = distance along specimen or reinforcing bar
a, b = stress block parameters
ex = recorded strain
h1 = factor to describe reinforcing type
h2 = factor to account for bond conditions
h3 = factor to account for bar size
REFERENCES
1. Loov, R. E., “Reinforced Concrete at the Turn of the Century,”
Concrete International, V. 13, No. 12, Dec. 1991, pp. 67-73.
2. Abrams, D. A., “Tests of Bond between Concrete and Steel,” Univer-
sity of Illinois Bulletin No. 71, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL, 1913, 240 pp.
3. CAN/CSA-S6-06, “Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,” Cana-
dian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2006, 800 pp.
4. CAN/CSA-A23.3-04, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2004, 258 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012
5. AASHTO, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” Wash-
ington, DC, 2009, 1612 pp.
6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
7. Feldman, L. R., and Bartlett, F. M., “Bond Strength Variability in
Pullout Specimens with Plain Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 102, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005, pp. 860-867.
8. Feldman, L. R., and Bartlett, F. M., “Bond Stresses Along Plain Steel
Reinforcing Bars in Pullout Specimens,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 104,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2007, pp. 685-692.
9. Feldman, L. R., and Bartlett, F. M., “Bond in Flexural Members with
Plain Steel Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 5, Sept.-
Oct. 2008, pp. 552-560.
10. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 408, “Bond and Development of Straight
Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, 49 pp.
11. CEB-FIP, “CEB-FIP Model Code (1993),” Comité Euro-Internatio-
nale du Béton (CEB), Thomas Telford Ltd., London, UK, 1993, 437 pp.
12. Idun, E. K., and Darwin, D., “Improving the Development Character-
istics of Steel Reinforcing Bars,” SM Report No. 41, University of Kansas
Center for Research, Lawrence, KS, 1995, 267 pp.
13. CAN/CSA-A23.1/A23.2-09, “Concrete Materials and Concrete
Construction/Test Methods and Standard Practices for Concrete,” Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2009, 582 pp.
14. ASTM A370-97a, “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1997, 52 pp.
15. Rao, N. R. M.; Lohrmann, M.; and Tall, L., “Effects of Strain Rate
on the Yield Stress of Structural Steels,” Journal of Materials, V. 1, No. 1,
May 1966, pp. 241-262.
16. Mitutoyo, “SJ-201 Surface Roughness Tester User’s Manual
No. 99MBB0796A,” Mitutoyo Corporation, Kanagawa, Japan, 2006, 190 pp.
17. Barnes, R. W.; Burns, N. H.; and Kreger, M. E., “Development
Length of 0.6-Inch Prestressing Strands in Standard I-Shaped Pretensioned
Concrete Beams,” Research Report 1388-1, Center for Transportation
Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2000, 338 pp.
18. Bischoff, P. H., and Johnson, R. D., “Effect of Bond and Cracking on
Serviceability Related Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Plain
(Undeformed) Reinforcing Bars,” 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 2008, 8 pp.
19. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., The Stuttgart Shear Tests, 1961:
Contributions to the Treatment of the Problem of Shear in Reinforced
Concrete Construction, Cement and Concrete Association, London, UK,
1962, 134 pp.
20. Bentz, E., User Manual: Response-2000, Shell-2000, Triax-2000,
Membrane-2000 Version 1.1, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada,
2001, 85 pp.
21. Bischoff, P. H., and Johnson, R. D., “Effects of Shrinkage on Short-
Term Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Beams and Slabs,” Structural
Implications of Shrinkage and Creep of Concrete, SP-246, N. J. Gardner
and M. A. Chiorino, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2007, pp. 167-180.
22. ISIS Canada Research Network, “Reinforcing Concrete Structures
with Fibre Reinforced Polymers,” ISIS Design Manual No. 3, ISIS Canada
Corporation, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, Dec. 2006, 129 pp.
243
 NOTES:

244 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012