Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

All rights reserved

12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Paper Reference 393 (quote when citing this paper)

EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOUR OF STRAIGHT AND

HOOKED SMOOTH BARS IN EXISTING R.C. BUILDINGS

G. Fabbrocino, G. M. Verderame, G. Manfredi

Department of Structural Analysis and Design,

University of Naples Federico II, Naples 80125, ITALY

ABSTRACT
Evaluation of seismic vulnerability of existing reinforced concrete structures is a very
important issue in structural engineering and needs continuous updates. The approach to the
problem cannot neglect the specific performances of materials and detailing adopted in the
past. The present paper deals with smooth reinforcing bars used up to 70, and therefore
present in a very large number of existing constructions exposed to seismic risk. Behaviour of
anchored smooth bars is examined referring to basic properties of bond and response of bar
end details used in critical regions. The attention is focussed on typical circular hooks
commonly used in existing buildings and on the stress-slip response under static and cyclic
loads. This is an interesting topic, since assessment of existing r.c. frames and the related
evaluation of the deformation capacity under lateral loads require refined models for each
source of deformation. Experimental results on hooked and straight bars under pull-out and
beam-test are discussed, pointing out interesting aspects of response under service and
ultimate loads.

Keywords: Seismic assessment, fixed-end rotation, smooth rebars, bar anchorages, bond.

INTRODUCTION
Protection of existing buildings against seismic actions is a very relevant problem in many
countries, and particularly in Italy, where wide regions are exposed to seismic risk and
sometimes are only recently classified as seismic [1], consequently in many cases design does
not take into consideration any relevant horizontal load.

Furthermore, a large number of existing buildings in Italy dates back to 50s and 60s, due to
the fast growth of constructions after the last world war and is characterized by a reinforced
concrete framed structure. At that time, smooth bars were commonly used for reinforcement;
they are characterized by poor bond properties compared to current deformed bars and need
appropriate anchoring end details to ensure a satisfactory interaction with concrete.

Structural maintenance and seismic assessment of such buildings depends on the availability
of reliable models for members, but also of critical regions, i.e. base columns and beam to
column joints. In fact, influence of rotations of end sections in r.c. members can be relevant
and depends on different and complex sources of deformation [2]. Experimental and
theoretical results on effects of smooth bars and anchoring devices on fixed-end rotations of
members is basically poor, since extensive research on seismic behaviour of r.c. structures
started in 70s, and fundamental studies refer to deformed reinforcement.

Review of past researches indicated that typical end anchorages for smooth bars were hooks
with 90, 135 and 180 opening angles. Early experimental researches [3, 4] were aimed to
evaluate the effectiveness of end details on smooth reinforcement pull-out. Contemporary
research by Saliger [5] was very interesting due to large number and types of tests; these were
aimed to evaluate strength of anchorages, without any consideration of performances in terms
of deformation. Straight and hooked bars (180 opening angle) were tested; different bar
diameters, curvature radius and transverse rebar arrangements were considered. Results on
pull-out tests agreed with Bachs tests on beams [3] that increased flexural strength due to end
anchorage and showed that shape of anchorage and transverse reinforcement can give
beneficial effects.

Later, research by Mylrea [6] took into consideration both strength and deformation of
hooked smooth reinforcing bars with 180 opening angle and tried to outline the influence of
end hook radius and transverse reinforcement. Results show a slight influence of hook radius
on deformation and point out the role of transverse reinforcement on the type of failure. In
particular, plain specimens showed a non-ductile behaviour due to concrete failure, compared
to bar failure activated by appropriate transverse bar detailing. Approaching 50s, early types
of deformed bars were investigated and compared to force-slip response of straight and
anchored smooth bars [7]. More than forty specimens were tested varying the hook radius,
surface type (smooth or ribbed), development length and opening angle.

The above remarks about available technical literature on response of hooked smooth rebars,
however, cannot lead to the development of reliable modelling of force-slip behaviour for
seismic assessment. In fact, more recent and comprehensive researches deal with deformed
bars and former studies rarely took account of large post-yielding behaviour of smooth
anchorages [8]. Thus, in the following the results of experimental tests on straight and hooked
smooth bars are presented. The tests have been carried out considering different setup: beam
test, for straight bars bond and service conditions of hooked ones; pull-out type tests to
describe the behaviour of hooked rebars up to failure. Evaluation of experimental results
points out interesting aspects of the mechanical response of smooth and hooked bars and
confirm that hooks can play a fundamental role in the development of rotations at beam and
column ends when smooth bars are concerned.

FIXED-END ROTATIONS OF MEMBERS AND ANCHORED BAR MODELLING

The beam to column region is characterized by complex mechanical interactions, since
actions due to connected end sections lead to very localized stresses on concrete panel and
steel rebars with very high gradients that trigger complex deformation mechanisms.

In Figure 1, global joint deformation is divided into two main components:

- the concrete panel mechanism that is related to cracking of concrete and arrangement
of transverse reinforcement in the joint region;

- the slippage of anchored reinforcement that is dependent upon bond properties and
anchoring details; it leads to a rotation of member end section that is commonly
addressed as fixed-end rotation.
The above sources of deformation can be generally neglected if structural analysis is aimed to
evaluate the ultimate load capacity of r.c. frames with deformed bars, but have a key role
when drift capacity is concerned, as confirmed by theoretical-experimental comparisons [9].

a) b)
Figure 1: Mechanisms governing the joint region deformation: panel (a), bar slip (b).

free end - ds/dx = 0 ; s 0

hooked end - ds/dx 0 ; s 0 F = 2

4
rigid end - ds/dx 0 ; s = 0

u u

rigid end
y y
Steel stress

Steel stress

free end

su Loaded end slip sy y sh Steel strain u

u Curvature y y sh Steel strain u
Moment

Fhook / F

My

Mu 1.0

Figure 2. Influence of bar anchorage on beam and column end section performances.

If smooth bars are considered, the problem is more complex since end details of reinforcing
bars are essential for the development of the strength and the deformation mechanisms, but
the experimental background is definitively poor. The main aspects related to response of end
sections of members are summarised in Figure 2 that reports in detail the force transfer
governing the behaviour of the reinforcing bar under tension drawn in Figure 1.b. The
anchored bar is divided into two components, the straight region and the anchorage,
represented by a circular hook.

From a theoretical point of view, the end anchorage results in a restraint for the inner end of
straight rebar. Therefore, two boundary conditions can be identified:

- if anchorage is not present, straight rebar is characterised by a free end, thus a slippage
occurs and the inner end of the bar does not bear any axial load;

- if anchorage is rigid, slip at the inner end of the rebar is equal to zero, and a pull-out force,
Fhook, develops on the anchoring device.

In the first case, pull-out strength is due to bond properties of smooth bars that allow very low
bar deformations compared to yielding one; in the second case, high ratios between applied
force and anchorage reaction can be reached, even 50-60% of the applied tensile force.

Behaviour of anchorage strongly influences the static and deformation response of the
member end sections. In fact, pull-out of smooth bars without anchors leads to the premature
failure of the member end section, conversely rigid anchorage allows the full development of
flexural strength, as shown in Figure 2.d, and produces the minimum value of slippage at the
loaded end, reported in Figure 2.b. As a result, the key problem in a reliable modelling of r.c.
frames for seismic assessment is the definition of the relationship between the axial force
applied on the anchorage and the slippage of its loaded end in view of the development of a
behavioural model of the anchored bar.

The availability of a specific force-slip relation for anchorage allows to model the anchored
bar on the analogy of a smooth bar embedded in a concrete matrix [10], taking the end detail
into account using an appropriate non-linear stress-slip relationship representing localised
mechanical interactions between concrete and anchoring devices; as a result, traditional
analytical procedure to analyse development length can be easily extended to anchored bars
using comprehensive libraries of mechanical force (stress)/slip relationships for end details.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM AND TEST SETUP

The modelling of anchored bars, as above mentioned, requires the knowledge of the
mechanical response of each component (straight bar and anchoring detail) in terms of
behavioural constitutive laws. A comprehensive review of technical literature, design rules
and practice [11, 12] have been carried out in order to define a typical end anchorage. The
latter has been identified as a circular hook with 180 opening angle and a straight end. The
diameter of the circular region and the length of the end segment depend on the bar diameter.
In particular, hook diameter is 5 times the bar diameter and the straight end length is equal to
3 times the bar diameter.

The experimental program is divided into two phases, depending on the type of tests: beam-
test for evaluation of bond properties of straight bars and service performances of hooked
anchorages; pull-out tests to analyse the response of hooked anchorages both under service
and ultimate load. The first phase is characterised by 10 tests, 6 straight bars and 4 hooked
anchorages, the main investigated parameter is the bar diameter, 12 and 16 mm are
considered according to the results of the above mentioned review of design practice. The
second phase is characterised by a more comprehensive set of investigated parameters: bar
diameter, cast direction, concrete cover thickness, orientation of hooks and the type of
loading (monotonic or cyclic); at the present stage more than 20 tests have been carried out.
In the following an overview of the experimental results is reported in order to discuss the
main aspects of load-slip behaviour of anchored smooth bars. Reinforcement used are smooth
rebars that are still available for secondary purposes in r.c. structures and have mechanical
properties similar to steel classified as Aq42 according to Italian design Code of 60s [13];
yielding stress is about 320 MPa, ultimate stress is equal to 430 MPa and ultimate uniform
strain is about 20%. Concrete has been prepared according to typical mix rules of 60s and
tests on cubes 150 mm wide are used to define mean concrete strength. In the following, an
overivew of experimental results is presented.

Beam-tests
The first phase of the experimental program consists of beam-test carried out according to the
setup described in Figure 3. The specimens are composed of two concrete blocks that are
connected by a reinforcing bar. Mean concrete cubic strength is about 34 MPa. The load
transfer is slightly different respect to standard beam-tests, since a steel hinged beam, see
Figure 3.d, is used to apply the load on the concrete using shear studs.

Ties 4 mm Rebar
Ties 4 mm Rebar Bars 8 mm Plastic tube
Bars 8 mm Plastic tube

250 mm
250 mm

a)
120 mm 10 500 mm 100 mm 600 mm b)
a = 900 mm 300 mm a = 900 mm
Plastic pipe Rebar
Transducer Reference ring F
Steel beam Hinge

h
strain gauges

120 mm L 120 mm L b)
Rebar
Concrete blocks d)
Figure 3. Beam test type specimens and test set-up for straight and hooked smooth bars.

The load is applied on each side of the cylindrical hinge located on the symmetry axis and
axial load T on the rebar can be easily evaluated using the following equilibrium condition:

F a
T= (1)
2 h

As shown in Figure 3.a and 3.b both straight and hooked rebars have been tested. In the first
case, the embedment length is assumed equal to 10 ; in order to avoid any interaction with
surrounding concrete plastic pipes are used. The given embedded length lb is required for the
evaluation of the bond stress that is calculated as follows:

T
b = (2)
lb

being the bar perimeter.

For hooked bar specimens, plastic pipes are located in a way that only circular branch and
straight end of the rebar are embedded and the mechanical response of the anchoring device
can be evaluated, as shown in Figure 3.c. The load on the steel beam is applied using a
mechanical actuator in displacement control; a load cell, inductive transducers and strain
gauges are used to measure the load, slippage and strain of rebars respectively; a typical test
setup is represented in Figure 3.d. Transducers give the slippage at the loaded and the
unloaded end of rebar when straight bars are concerned, but allow only an indirect measure of
the slip at the hook end, since a reference ring is installed outside the plastic pipe that avoids
contact between concrete and steel. Thus measure of hook slip can be computed as follows:

shook = smeas meas L (3)

where shook is the slippage of hook, smeas is the measured slip at the reference section, meas is
the measured bar strain and L is the distance between the reference ring and the end section
of the hook.

Pull-out tests
The second phase of the program consists of modified pull-out tests on hook anchorages; the
test arrangement and the geometry of specimens is described in Figure 4. The concrete
specimen is a cube 300 mm wide that is restrained using shear studs on two opposite vertical
faces. In this way, shear forces on connectors avoid compressive longitudinal forces applied
on the top surface as happens in standard pull-out tests and thus is more representative of the
behaviour of hooks in critical regions, see Figure 1.b. The concrete is characterised by a cubic
mean strength of about 30 MPa.

The main feature of the test setup adopted in the second phase of the research is the direct
measure of the slip at the end section of the anchorage. For monotonic test, interaction of the
straight branch is prevented using a plastic pipe. The slippage at the end of the circular branch
is measured using a high performance draw-wire displacement sensor. In addition an
extensometer is also used during all the load process in order to evaluate the stress-strain
relationship of each tested bar.

F
F Plastic pipe Steel rebar
Plastic pipe Steel rebar

Concrete
300 mm
300 mm

Concrete specimen
specimen

F
F
300 mm
a) 300 mm
b)
Figure 4. Test arrangement for pull-out type tests on hooked smooth bars.

In Figure 4, some details about the specimens and the restraints are given both for monotonic
and cyclic tests. The latter are characterised by a slightly different setup, since firstly buckling
of rebar and then interaction at the bottom surface of concrete block have to be avoided. The
first goal is reached using a thin Teflon cover on the rebar to prevent bond and ensure a
adequate lateral restraint for the rebar, the second one changing the location of concrete block
to avoid the contact between base plate and bottom concrete surface on the analogy with
typical external joint geometry. Furthermore, a reduced clear length of the rebar is allowed
outside concrete, thus the extensometer has not been used, conversely three strain gauges are
installed directly on the rebar to measure local strains. The tests have been carried out using a
uniaxial testing system able to apply the load under displacement control and measuring slip
of anchorage inside the concrete block.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Beam-tests
In Figure 5 the results of beam tests on straight bars are summarised. The shape of the bond
stress-slip relationship points out that mechanical interaction is characterised by different
phases, like the initial adhesion, and the final residual strength related basically to friction
mechanisms. The bond stress for 16 mm rebars is about 1.75 MPa reached at a slip of about
0.18 mm; for 12 mm the values are 1.05 MPa and 0.03 mm respectively.
2.7
bond stress (MPa) bars 12 mm
bars 16 mm

1.8

0.9 Model Code 90

slip (mm)
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 5. Summary of experimental results and MC90 provisions for smooth bars.

500 400
hook hook yielding stress
400 (MPa) (MPa)
300
300 12- 1-l
12-1-l
12-1-r 200 12- 1-r
200 12-2-l 12 - 2-l
12-2-r
sref shook 12 - 2-r
100 100
hook hook
sref (mm) shook (mm)
0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 a) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 b)
500 400 hook
hook
(MPa) yielding stress
400 (MPa)
300
16-1-l
300 16 - 1-l 16-1-r
16 - 1-r 200 16-2-l
200 16 - 2-l 16-2-r
16 - 2-r shook
sref 100
100
s sref (mm) hook
shook (mm)
0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0c) 0.0 20.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 d)
Figure 6. Experimental results of beam-test on hooked bars.
In the same plot the theoretical bond stress-slip relationship suggested by Model Code 90 [14]
is also presented; it is worth noting that peak bond stress values are higher that MC90
maximum stress, but the latter matches well with the residual experimental stress, particularly
for 16 mm bars. Tests on hooked bars are reported in Figure 6; they have been carried out up
to a bar strain of 7%, thus a large strain-hardening range is covered; in fact beyond this limit
the reference ring for the slip measure was not able to follow the system deformation and a
detachment occurred. However, slips calculated at the anchorage end are plotted until a bar
strain of about 1%, that is the maximum strain value allowed by installed strain-gauges. If
slips at the reference ring and at anchorage end section are compared, a very interesting
aspect can be pointed out. In fact, it is easy to recognise that anchorage end slip curve does
not exhibit a plastic plateau, despite the very high ductility of reinforcement and the large
plateau at the reference ring location.

Pull-out tests
Some experimental results of modified pull-out tests are reported in Figure 7 and Figure 8
referring to monotonic and cyclic tests respectively. The first series of plots completely
describe the mechanical behaviour of circular hooks and shows all the measured parameters.

500 500
hook (MPa) hook (MPa)
400 400
yielding
300 300

200 200
shook
100 100 hook
rebar (mm/mm) shook (mm)
0 0
0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
0.0
rebar (mm/mm)
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0
shook (mm)
5.0
Figure 7. Summary of experimental results of pull-out tests, full type specimens.

The tests are carried out up to bar failure, that is reaching strains higher than 20%, both bar
strain-hook slip and stress-slip relationship for hooked anchorage show that the slip of the
hook at yielding is constant and slip increases when strain-hardening is activated.
Furthermore, initial stiffness of the hook stress-slip relationship is very high, and even a stress
range with no slip exists. The comparison between the experimental curves obtained from
beam-tests and pull-out tests points out a relative matching of the mechanical behaviour in
medium and high stress levels, while a scatter is present for low stress levels.

In both cases, a significative slip is obtained at bar yielding; it ranges between 0.8 an 1.2 mm
and cannot be easily neglected when the deformation capacity of the anchored bar is
concerned. This value increases when strain hardening is triggered and becomes about 4 mm
at failure. In the last set of plots, the results of a cyclic test are summarised. The first plot
reports the load history that is chosen to lead the steel reinforcement on the plastic plateau.
Figure 8.b reports the end displacement versus axial stress of the rebar relation. The yielding
stresses are reported on the same plot highlithing an asymmetrical behaviour of end
anchorage. In fact, for a given displacement, the stress level reached under compression is
higher than the corresponding stress under tension. This behaviour occurs until the concrete
spalling at the bottom of the concrete block, that is clearly shown in the plot by the sudden
loss of load capacity.
4.0 400
sload (mm) Tension load (MPa)
yielding
3.0 300 stress
2.0 200

1.0 100
0
0.0 sload (mm)
-100
-1.0
-200 concrete
-2.0 spalling yielding
-300
-3.0 stress
Compression
-400
-4.0 a) -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 b)
400
Tension hook (MPa)
yielding stress

200

0
shook (mm)

concrete
-200 spalling

Compression yielding stress

-400
-2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 c)
Figure 8. Experimental results of cyclic test on hook 12 mm.

After this value, the capacity of dissipation is strongly reduced and compressive strength of
anchorage deteriorates, enabling a pinching type effect. From a local point of view the
asymmetric behaviour is enlarged, as shown in Figure 8.c where the monotonic behaviour is
also plotted. In fact, a very stiff behaviour occurs under compression during the early cycles;
as the slips under compression increases, a rotation counterclockwise of the stress-slip
relation occurs due to the large permanent deformation related to bar pulling out. This effect
is however counterbalanced by an increasing level of deformation under compression that
leads to the failure of a concrete cone in the bottom region of the block. This phenomenon
starts a sudden reduction of the carrying capacity and a strong increase of under compression
deformation and that has been also observed during tests on frames.
CONCLUSIONS
Modelling of existing reinforced concrete frames designed without specific seismic rules is a
key problem for safeguard and protection against seismic risk. Furthermore, in many
European countries, and particularly in Italy, a very large percentage of reinforced concrete
buildings are 35 years old, or even older, thus reinforcement consists of smooth bars. In fact,
only in 70s early applications of deformed bar appeared and a strong research effort in the
field of seismic performances of structures began. As a consequence, technical literature on
mechanical performances of anchored smooth bars is not comprehensive, mainly from the
deformation standpoint, despite the relevance of this aspect on the response of critical
regions, i.e. beam to column joints and base column. The experimental tests that have been
discussed in the present paper are aimed to describe in detail the force-slip relation of bond
mechanism for straight bars and of anchoring end details, i.e. circular hooks with 180
opening angle. The results are interesting and point out some particular aspects of the
behaviour under both monotonic and cyclic loading. The slippage due to anchoring devices is
significant and cannot be neglected, especially in large post-yielding field; mechanisms
governing stress-slip response of hooks enable a reduced yielding spreading in the anchoring
device, so that at yielding, the hook slip does not show a plastic plateau and increases only
when strain hardening starts. Cyclic behaviour is basically asymmetric due to high stiffness of
hook under compression, bar pull in leads to concrete spalling that is a typical failure
mechanism in external joint regions.

REFERENCES
1. De Marco, R., Martini, M.G., Di Pasquale, G., Fralleone, A., Pizza, A.G., Italian
Classification and Seismic Code from 1909 to 1984. XI Forum of Public
Administration, 2000. www.dstn.it/legi/class/presentazione.html (in italian).
2. Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., Verderame, G.M.. Seismic assessment of gravity load
designed r.c. frames: critical issues in structural modeling. Accepted for publication on
special issue of Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2001.
3. Bach, C., Deutcher Ausschus fur Eisenbeton, Hefts 9 and 10, 1911.
4. Abrams, D.A., Test of bond between concrete and steel, Bulletin n 71, Engineering
Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, pp.238, December 1913.
5. Saliger, R., Schubwiderstand und Verbund in Eisenbeton-balken, 1913.
6. Mylrea, T.D., The carrying capacity of semi-circular hooks, ACI Journal, Proceedings
Vol.24, pp.240-272,1928.
7. Fishburn, C.C., Strenght and slip under load of bent-bar anchorage and straight
embedments in haydite concrete, ACI Journal, Proceedings Vol.44, n4, pp.289-308,
December 1947.
8. Mains, R.M., Measurement of the distribution of tensile and bond stresses along
reinforcing bars, ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol.48, n3, pp. 225-252, November 1951.
9. Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., Verderame, G.M., A nonlinear model for underdesigned
r.c.frames. Proc. of XII ECEE, London, 2001.
10. Eligehausen, R., Popov, E.P., Bertero, V.V., Local bond-stress relationships of
deformed bars under generalised excitations, UCB/EERC 83, 23, 1983.
11. Santarella, L., Il cemento armato La tecnica e la statica, Hoepli - Milano, 1937. (in
Italian)
12. CEB Bulletin dInformation n 23, Commission Aciers, Adherence, Ancrages, 1960.
13. Circolare 23 maggio 1957 n1472, Armature delle strutture in cemento armato.
14. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 - Design Code- Comite Euro-International du Beton, 1991.