ISSN 2302-786X

Bond Strength and Development Length of Reinforcement Deform

Embedded in Hardened Concrete Using Smart NS Grout
Anis Rosyidah 1), Fauzri Fahimuddin 2), Praganif Sukarno3), I Ketut Sucita44) and
Nurhikmah Zahrani5)
1,2,3,4)
Lecture of Civil Engineering Department, The State Polytecnic of Jakarta
5)
Graduated of Civil Engineering Department, The State Polytecnic of Jakarta
E-mail: anis.rosyidah@gmail.com

Abstract

This research aims to investigate the value of bond strength, development length, and to know the
failure pattern of the specimen. The method used is pullout test using ASTM C234-91a standard.
This research divided into two steps, the first step is to get the value of bond strength and developent
length, then the second step is to test development length that obtained from the first step.The
specimen in the first step is cube concrete with size 200 x 200 x 200 mm, in the center of the cube is
embedded reinforcement and grouting. Beside the monolith concrete with reinforcement made as
compared. The specimen in the second step, the specimen is concrete with size 200 x 200 x ld (mm),
precisely in the center of square concrete embedded reinforcement and grouting. Moreover, the
monolith with reinforcement made as compared. The value of development length to become three
variations, such as less than (<), equal (=), and more than (>) development length. Bond strength in
monolith specimen is less than grouting specimen with Smart NS. There are two failure pattern
happened to specimen that are slippage reinforcement and rupture steel failure.

Keywords: Bond strength, Development length, Reinforcement deform.

1. INTRODUCTION requirements in reinforced concrete

Precast Concrete is often used in the
construction industry because of easy
to be used and shorten the time of
construction. We can see at the
construction of flyover where are
most of the upper structure use
segmental box girder precast and the
erection will be lifted every single
segment. Every joint of box girder
will be stuck with adhesive material.
There are some crannies in the middle
of span between each pier called by
closure. The size is much smaller than
the width of a segment of box girder.
Needed the reinforcement steel
connection in this section so that
structure becomes an integrated span.
The most important in precast
concrete structure in transferring force
is connected. There is reinforcement
steel and concrete material work
along resist the force in this section.
Bonding between reinforcement steel
and concrete is one of the
structure. Additional of addictive
material can increase bonding
between those materials thus become
a compact mass. Addictive material
can be used for repairing the structure.
This research was made in two steps.
First step purposed to get bond stress
and development length deformed
reinforcement steel which was
embedded into hard concrete, then
grouted with smart NS Grout. Value
of development length was calculated
according to AASHTO 2010, ACI
318-02-2002, and SNI 03-2847-2002
literatures. In the second step would
be experimented for getting failure
scheme that was occurring in the
specimen. The second step’s
specimen would be made with 3
variants of development length, those
were “<”, “=”, and “>”.
Last research that observed bond
strength and development length

Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013 103
 ISSN 2302-786X

reinforcement is Erfan and Hari strength in high strength and normal

(2007). That research used deformed concrete.
reinforcement that was embedded into
high strength concrete, obtained the 1.1 Bond Strength
result of the development length Bond strength is shear stress
approach the result in plain that is occurring at the surface
reinforcement steel. Other research of concrete, where force
had been experimented with Ahmed transferring happen between
and friends (2007) concerning the reinforcement steel and concrete
effect of development length in high around it thus can modify the
strength concrete and normal tension of reinforcement steel.
concrete. The result represented that In Fig. 2 can be seen about
the addition of development length drawing bond behavior along
from 5db to 10db increased the bond the reinforcement steel (Park &
Paulay: 1975).

Fig. 2. Embedding and Bond Flexure of Tensile Rebar (Park and Paulay: 1975)

Park and Paulay concluded that surface bond stress and bond
to calculate value of bond stress stress obtained from adhesive
used these formulas: that was occurred along rebar.
Fig. 3 can explain it obviously.
Obtained development length:
fs
ld = .db
4.u (2.1)

And value of bond stress:

fs Fig. 3. Stress Distribution at Reinforcement Steel (Park

u= .db
4.ld and Paulay: 1975)
(2.2)
However bond stress that was
With T = outside tensile force
obtained from adhesive along
(N), A = section area of
reinforcement steel was too
reinforcement steel (mm²), fs =
small compared with surface
yield strength of steel (MPa), db
bond stress which covered
= diameter of reinforcement
spiral, thus Va could be ignored
steel (mm), ld = development
for practical purposing so that
length (mm), u = bond strength/
relation between fb and Vc are:
bond stress (MPa).
ΔT = π.db.a.fb  π.db.c.Vc (2.3)
Park and Paulay (1975)
explained that bond stress
occurred between two spirals a
Vc = .fb
was from combination of c (2.4)

104 Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013
 ISSN 2302-786X

With ∆T = tensile strength 1.2 Development Length of

(MPa), a = distance between Reinforcement
peak of spiral to reinforcement Park and Paulay (1975)
(mm), b = wide of spiral’s peak explained that development
(mm), c = distance between length (ld) was length of
spiral (mm), fb = surface bond reinforcement that was
stress (MPa), Va = bond embedded inside concrete
stress along rebar (MPa), Vc = which guarantee reinforcement
bond stress of deformed was pulled in the elastic stress ,
reinforcement steel and concrete yield strength (fy) and ultimate
(MPa), db = nominal diameter strength condition (fu).
reinforcement steel (mm) Meanwhile embedding model of
rebar into concrete can be seen
at Fig. 4:

As . fs

ld
Gambar 4. Development length (ld) (Park and Paulay: 1975)

Park and Paulay (1975) also concrete after 28 days (Ksi), db

explained that calculation of = rebar’s diameter (in)
development length is needed
value of bond stress (u). This According to ACI 318-02 to
case showed the existence of obtain the value of development
close relations between bond length in tensile area can be
stress and development length, seen in Formula (2.7).
written in Formula (2.2)
3.fy.α.β.λ
ld = .db
According to AASTHO LRFD 50 f'c (2.7)
Bridge Design Specifications,
Fifth Edition 2010, Which fy = yield strength (Psi),
development length in tensile α= location factor of
area cannot be less than 12 reinforcement, β = layering
inches, or according to: factor, λ = factor of mild
concrete, f’c = compressive
For strength of concrete after 28
days (Psi), db = rebar’s
1,25.Ab.fy
D 36 and more (2.5) diameter (in).
f'c
According to SNI 03-2847-2002
But is not less than about Tatacara Perhitungan
Struktur Beton Untuk Bangunan
0,4.db.fy (2.6) Gedung was written to obtain
development length in tensile
Which Ab = rebar’s area (in2),
area at formula (2.8) and the
fy = yield strength (Ksi),
value cannot be less than 300
f’c = compressive strength of
mm.

Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013 105
 ISSN 2302-786X

18.fy.α.β.λ MPa quality. Deformed

ld = .db
25 f'c reinforcement steel that was
(2.8) used was 10 mm diameter. Hole
in concrete was made by a pipe
Which fy = yield strength (Psi),
that was installed in casting.
α= location factor of
After hardening of concrete, the
reinforcement, β = layering
hole was filled by rebar and
factor, λ = factor of mild
grouting (Smart NS material)
concrete, f’c = compressive
with the same thickness. As a
strength of concrete after 28
comparison was made cube cast
days (Psi), db = rebar’s
monolith with rebar through the
diameter (in).
concrete. Each variant was
2. METHODOLOY OF made 3 specimens.
RESEARCH
The second step was about
2.1 Time and Location of development length deformed
Research reinforcement that was
Testing location of bond embedded as deep 1d into
strength of reinforcement steel concrete. In this step was
was held in Puspitek BPPT hopped 3 kinds of failures, those
Serpong, while testing of were elastic stress failures, yield
compressive strength was held stress and ultimate stress of
in material Laboratory in Civil rebar. Value of + was drawn
Department PNJ. Duration of 30% from , while value of -
research is 8 months. was drawn 2 variants, those
were 20% and 40%. Design of
2.2 Research Plan and specimen in second step can be
Methodology of Testing seen at table 1. At Fig. 5 can be
In the first step was made seen result of casting with pipe
concrete cube specimen sized (a), cast monolith (b), when it
200x200x200 mm using 25 was been curing (c).
T able 1. Design of Specimens in Second Step

106 Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013
 ISSN 2302-786X

Fig. 5. Cast with Pipe Concrete and Reinforced Cast Monolith Concrete

After that, the specimens with Method For Comparing

pipe were grouted and curing Concrete On The Bond
again. After 28 days would be Developed With Reinforcing
tested compressive strength of Steel). Test equipment that was
concrete (for tube specimens) used was UTM (Universal
and bond pull-out. Before bond Testing Machine). LVDT
pull-out test, ought to be (Linear Variable Displacement
installed strain gauge type FLA- Transducer) was installed to
5-11 first to rebar that had control the increasing of length
function to read strain value. steel rebar in pull-out test. At
Tensile strength in deformed Fig. 6 can be seen set-up of
rebar would be tested also. UTM in pull-out test.

Pull-out test was according to

ASTM 234-91a (Standard Test

Gambar 6. Set-up UTM in Pull-Out Test

3. DISCUSSION AND RESULT 3.1 Test Result in the First Step

The result of compressive strength of From pull-out test was obtained
concrete test was obtained f’c value bond strength of rebar (Table 2)
was 29,75 MPa, while result of pull- and value of development
out test to rebar steel was obtained length (Table 3).
average of yield strength was 505,164
MPa and modulus of elasticity value
was 282.809,62 MPa.

Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013 107
 ISSN 2302-786X

Tabel 2. Pembandingan Hasil Pengujian Kuat Lekat Tulangan

From the result of test was and failure scheme using high
obtained average of bond strength concrete and high
strength value (Table 2) for tension steel. There were 2
reinforced monolith cast variants size of specimen was
specimen was 5,985 MPa, while used, the first was tube concrete
for specimen that was grouted with 240 mm of diameter and
by Smart NS was 6,112 MPa. 300 mm of height, given A
This case showed that value of code. The second was tube
bond strength in grouted concrete with 300 mm of
specimen was more than diameter and 300 mm of height,
monolith cast specimen. given B code. The result were
According to the result could be bond strength of 11A diameter
concluded that reinforcement rebar was 9,6 MPa, while bond
steel added by grouting material strength for 11B was 11,5 MPa.
could be used for replacing Failure scheme in specimen
reinforcement steel monolith 11A was broken of rebar, and in
cast. specimen 11B was slippage of
rebar.
Muhammad NS Hadi (2008)
researched about bond strength
Table 3. Comparison of Development length Result

proved SNI has the higher

According to Table 3 was safety factor to determine
obtained average of ld in development length in tensile
grouted specimen from reinforcement. Based on that
AASTHO, ACI and SNI. It table can be drawn a bar chart, it
seemed that the longest value of can be seen at Fig. 7.
ld came from SNI literature, it

108 Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013
 ISSN 2302-786X

Comparison of Development Length Diagram

900
800
700
Ld (mm) 600
500
400
300
200
100
0
SN
AASHTO 421,64 304,80
ACI 770,271 641,892
SNI 767,510 639,592
HASIL UJI 198,19 202,56

Fig. 7. Comparison of Development length Diagram

From Fig. 7 seemed that ld for (2007) about the effect of

grouted specimen from development length for high
calculation according to strength and normal concrete.
AASHTO, ACI, and SNI were There were 2 kinds of deformed
more than monolith cast reinforcement steel that were
specimen. That was because of used 16 mm and 19 mm of
grouted specimen has more diameter, the specimens were
safety factor than monolith cast tube concrete with 150 mm of
specimen diameter and 300 mm of height.
There were 2 variants of ld, 5 db
From the result of research was dan 10 db. The result
obtained average of represented that increasing of
development length value (ld) development length from 5db to
for grouted specimen was 10db would increase bond
198,19 mm. Value of ld for strength in high strength
reinforcement monolith cast concrete, but it was not for
was 202,56 mm. Value of ld normal concrete.
that was obtained, according to
AASHTO, 421,64 mm for 3.2 The Result in the Second Step
grouted specimen and 304,8 After obtaining value of ld
mm for monolith cast. Value of (development length) from the
ld, according to ACI, for result of first step, would be
grouted specimen was 770,271 used for primary design to
mm and 641,892 mm for determine another variants of ld
monolith cast. The last ld value, that would be tested in the
according to SNI, for grouted second step. In this step was
specimen was 767,51 mm and obtained failure scheme of
639,592 mm for monolith cast specimen thus would be showed
specimen. Fig. s of all specimens. Design
of ld was made in 3 variants,
Another research had been those were <ld, =ld, and >ld.
tested by Ahmed and friends Variant a (<ld) was for ld = 120

Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013 109
 ISSN 2302-786X

mm, variant was b (=ld) for ld = a) Analysis and Result

160 mm, variant c (=ld) was for Failure Scheme of
ld = 200 mm, and variant d Variant a Specimens
(>ld) was for ld = 260mm. (ld = 120 mm)

Graphic of Concrete Section SNa and Ma

40000
35000
30000
25000
Load (N)

20000
15000
10000
5000
0
- 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50 2,75 3,00
Concrete Section (mm)
sesar SNa1 sesar SNa2 sesar SNa3
sesar Ma1 sesar Ma2 sesar Ma3
Fig. 8. Graphic of Concrete Section SNa and Ma

It was seemed at Fig. 8 if was section was 0,25 mm, and when
drawn dashed line when the the concrete section was 2,5 mm
concrete section was 0,25 mm was obtained tensile force was
was obtained tensile force was 29.812 N. It seemed at Fig. 9,
19.346 N, and when the failure schemes occurred in
concrete section was 2,5 mm Ma1, Ma2, Ma3 specimens. All
was obtained tensile force was the reinforcement in specimens
25.976 N for monolith had slippage and the concrete
specimen. In grouted specimen were undamaged, these slippage
was obtained tensile force was occurred before reinforcements
16.578 N when the concrete were in yield condition.

Fig. 9. Failure Scheme in Ma Specimens

110 Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013
 ISSN 2302-786X

Fig. 10. Failure Scheme SNa Specimens

It was seemed at Fig. 10, after yield condition. The

failure scheme occurred in broken sections in
SNa1, SNa2, and SNa3 reinforcements were in strain
specimens. All the gauge instalation.
reinforcements in specimens
were broken and the concrete b) Analysis and Result Failure
were undamaged, the Scheme of Variant b
reinforcements were broken Specimens (ld = 160 mm)

Graphic of Concrete Section SNb and Mb

50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (N)

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
- 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50 2,75 3,00
Concrete Section (mm)
sesar SNb1 sesar SNb2 sesar SNb3
sesar Mb1 sesar Mb2 sesar Mb3
Gambar 11. Graphic of Concrete Section SNb and Mb

Fig. 11 showed that average of section was 2,5 mm in Mb3

load when concrete section were specimen the tensile force was
0,25 mm bond strength was 29,443 N. In grouted specimen
15.438 N. In these variant Mb was obtained concrete section
specimens, there were 2 was 0,25 mm and tensile force
specimens have collapsed was 9.426 N, and when concrete
before value of concrete section section was 2,5 mm tensile load
was 2,5 mm, those were Mb1 was 36.073 N.
and Mb2. When concrete

Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013 111
 ISSN 2302-786X

Fig. 12. Failure Scheme in Mb Specimens

Fig. 13. Failure Scheme in SNb Specimens

It was seemed at Fig. 12, in SNb1, SNb2, dan SNb3

failure schemes that were specimens. All the
occurred in Mb1 and Mb2 reinforcements in specimens
specimens, reinforcements have were broken and the concrete
slippage and concrete was were undamaged, the
undamaged. In Mb3 specimen, reinforcements were broken
reinforcement was broken and after yield condition. The
concrete was undamaged. That broken section in reinforcement
reinforcement was broken after was in strain gauge instalation
yield condition. The broken for SNb1, on the bottom for
sections in reinforcements were SNb2 and on the top for SNb3.
under the strain gauge
instalation. c) Analysis and Result Failure
Scheme of Variant c
It was seemed at Fig. 13, Specimens (ld = 200 mm)
failure schemes were occurred

112 Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013
 ISSN 2302-786X

Graphic of Concrete Section SNc and Mc

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
Load (N)

15000
10000
5000
0
(0,25) - 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50 2,75 3,00
Concrete Section (mm)
sesar SNc1 sesar SNc2 sesar SNc3
sesar Mc1 sesar Mc2 sesar Mc3
Fig. 14. Graphic of Concrete Section Mc

Fig. 14 showed that average of was 0,25 mm and tensile force

load when concrete section were was 19.921 N, and when
0,25 mm bond strength was concrete section was 2,5 mm
28.117 N. In these variant Mc tensile load was 36.073 N. In
specimens, there was 1 these variant SNc specimens,
specimen has collapsed before there was 1 specimen has
value of concrete section was collapsed before value of
2,5 mm, that was Mc2. When concrete section was 2,5 mm,
concrete section was 2,5 mm in that was SNc2. When concrete
Mc1 and Mc3 specimens the section was 2,5 mm in SNc1
average of tensile force was and SNc3 specimens the
36.840 N. In grouted specimen average of tensile force was
was obtained concrete section 37.426 N.

Fig. 15. Failure Scheme in Mc Specimens

Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013 113
 ISSN 2302-786X

Fig. 16. Failure Scheme SNc Specimens

It was seemed at Fig. 15, in SNc1, SNc2, and SNc3

failure schemes thaat were specimens. All the
occurred in Mc1, Mc2m and reinforcements in specimens
Mc3 specimens. All the were broken and the concrete
reinforcements in specimens were undamaged, the
were broken and the concrete reinforcements were broken
were undamaged, the after yield condition. The
reinforcements were broken broken section in reinforcement
after yield condition. The was in strain gauge instalation
broken sections in for SNc1, on the top for SNb2
reinforcements were in the and on the bottom for SNb3.
strain gauge instalation.
d) Analysis and Result Failure
It was seemed at Fig. 16, Scheme of Variant d
failure schemes were occurred Specimens (ld = 260 mm

Graphic of Concrete Sections SNd and Md

45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (N)

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
- 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50 2,75 3,00
Concrete Section (mm)
sesar SNd1 sesar SNd2 sesar SNd3
sesar Md1 sesar Md2 sesar Md3
Gambar 17. Grafik Sesar Beton Md

Fig. 17 showed that average of specimens have collapsed

load when concrete section were before value of concrete section
0,25 mm bond strength was was 2,5 mm, those were Md2
13.691 N. In these variant Md and Md3. When concrete
specimens, there were 2 section was 2,5 mm in Md1

114 Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013
 ISSN 2302-786X

specimen the tensile force was was 19.705 N, and when

38.575 N. In grouted specimen concrete section was 2,5 mm
was obtained concrete section tensile load was 37.749 N.
was 0,25 mm and tensile force

Fig. 18. Failure Scheme in Md Specimens

Fig. 19. Failure Scheme in SNd Specimens

specimens. All the
It was seemed at Fig. 18, reinforcements in specimens
failure scheme that was were broken and the concrete
occurred in Md1 specimen, were undamaged, the
reinforcement has slippage and reinforcements were broken
concrete was undamaged. In after yield condition. The
Md2 and Md3 specimens, broken section in
reinforcements were broken and reinforcements were in strain
concrete was undamaged. That gauge instalation for SNd2 and
reinforcement was broken after SNd3, and on the top for SNd1.
yield condition. The broken Fig. 20 showed load and
sections in reinforcements were concrete section graphic for all
the strain gauge instalation for variant specimens in second
Md2 and on the top for Md3. step of pull-out test. The
summary of failure schemes that
It was seemed at Fig. 19,
were occurred can be seen at
failure schemes were occurred
Table 4.
in SNd1, SND2, dan SND3

Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013 115
 ISSN 2302-786X

Tabel 4. Summary of Failure Schemes in Specimens

Fig. 20. Graphic of Concrete Section all Variant of Specimens in the Second Step Pull-Out Test

After testing, there were 2 kinds reinforcement was yield, and

of failure, the first was reinforcement was broken.
reinforcement has slippage and
the second was reinforcement 4. CONCLUSION
was broken after yield The conclusions that can be obtained
condition. from this research are:
1. Bond strength value between
If was compared with last monolith cast concrete and
research which observed bond grouted concrete with Smart NS
strength and development Grout material were not really
length by Erfan and Hari different. It means additional of
(2007). This research used grouting in reinforcement that is
deformed reinforcement steel embedded into concrete can
that embedded into high replace monolith cast concrete.
strength concrete, were obtained
3 kinds of failure scheme, those 2. Development length that is
were slippage before yield, obtained from the result test of
concrete was cracked after monolith cast concrete is 202,56
mm, and for grouted concrete

116 Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013
 ISSN 2302-786X
with Smart NS Grout is obtained
198,19 mm. The calculation,
according to AASHTO 2010, for
monolith cast concrete is 304,8
mm and for grouted concrete is
421,64 mm. According to ACI
318-02-2002, it is obtained
641,892 mm for monolith cast
concrete, and 770,271 mm for
grouted concrete. According to
SNI 03-2847-2002, it is obtained
the result is 639,592 mm for
monolith cast concrete and
767,51 mm for grouted concrete.
Quality of concrete is 29,75 MPa
and deformed reinforcement steel
with 10 mm of diameter.
3. There are 2 kinds of failure
scheme, those are reinforcement
has slippage before yield, and
reinforcement is broken after
yield condition.
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] AASHTO 2010 LRFD Bridge
Design Specification, Fifth
Edition. Washington DC:
American Association of State
Highway and Transportation
Officials.
[2] ACI 318-02, 2002. Building Code
Requirement for Structural
Concrete. American Concrete
Institute.
[3] Ahmed, dkk. 2007. Slippage of
Steel in High and Normal Strength
Concrete. Pak. J. Engg. & Appl.
Sci. Vol. 1 July 2007. Pakistan:
University of Engineering &
Technology, Lahore. Diakses
pada: 7 Juni 2013. Alamat web:
http://www.uet.edu.pk/export/sites
/UETWebPortal/research/researc
hinfo/journal/volume1/article5.pdf
.
Proceeding of Annual South East Asian International Seminar (ASAIS) 2013
[4] Badan Standarisasi Nasional
2002, SNI-03-2847-2002 Tatacara
Perhitungan Perhitungan Struktur
Beton Untuk Bangunan Gedung.
[5] Badan Standarisasi Nasional
2002, SNI-03-2847-2002 Tatacara
Perhitungan Perhitungan Struktur
Beton Untuk Bangunan Gedung.
[6] Erfan, Mohammad. Winantyo,
Hari. 2007. Kekuatan Tulangan
(Bond) dan Panjang Penyaluran
Tulangan Cold Rolled & Twisted
Bar Pada Beton Mutu Tinggi.
Jurnal Sondir Nomor 2 Volume I,
Oktober 2007 (1-5). Diakses pada:
17 Januari 2013, pukul 19:39:55.
Alamat web:
http://isjd.pdii.lipi.go.id/admin/jur
nal/1207115_1979-2832.pdf.
[7] Muhammad. NS, Hadi.2008.
Bond of High Strength Concrete
with High Strength Reinforced
Steel. The Open Civil Engineering
Journal, 2008, 2, 143-147.
Australia: Faculty of
EngineeringUniversity of
Wollongong. Diakses pada: 13
Juni 2013, pukul 21:23:06.
Alamat web:
http://www.benthamscience.com/o
pen/tociej/articles/V002/143TOCI
EJ.pdf.
[8] Park, R. And Paulay, T. 1975.
Reinforced Concrete Structures.
New York : Jhon Wiley And
Sons, Inc.
[9] Rosyidah, Anis; dkk. 2012.
Development Length Of
Reinforcing Steel Bar In Precast
Concrete Using Epoxy.
Proceeding Of Annual South East
Asian International Seminar
(ASAIS) 2012, ISSN : 2302-
786X. Politeknik Negeri Jakarta.
117