Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental behaviour of anchored smooth rebars in

old type reinforced concrete buildings
Giovanni Fabbrocinoa,, Gerardo M. Verderameb, Gaetano Manfredib
a Department S.A.V.A., University of Molise, Via De Sanctis 86100 Campobasso, Italy
b Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio, 21 80125 Napoli, Italy

Received 1 December 2004; received in revised form 2 May 2005; accepted 3 May 2005

Abstract
Modelling of existing reinforced concrete (r.c.) frames designed without specific seismic rules is a key problem for maintenance, structural
upgrading and seismic assessment. In many European countries a very large percentage of reinforced concrete buildings are 40 years old, or
even older; thus reinforcement consists of smooth rebars, since only in the 1970s did early applications of deformed rebars appear. Technical
literature on mechanical performances of anchored smooth rebars is non-comprehensive, mainly from the deformation standpoint, despite
the relevance of this aspect to the response of critical regions, i.e. beam to column joints and column bases. In the present paper a series of
experimental tests on smooth rebars are presented; they are aimed at describing in detail the forceslip relation for the bond mechanism for
straight rebars and for anchoring end details, i.e. circular hooks with a 180 opening angle.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Old type r.c. constructions; Seismic assessment; Smooth reinforcement; Anchorages; Bond

1. Introduction
The first step in upgrading strategies for addressing
existing reinforced concrete (r.c.) structures is the assessment of seismic performances of materials and structural
systems. In fact, many existing constructions in seismic
areas have been designed only for gravity loads or according to outdated seismic rules, resulting in low available
ductility and lack of a strength hierarchy. The measure of
global ductility for framed structures is the interstorey drift
ratio, that for reinforced concrete frames is dependent upon
different contributions like the beam plastic rotation, the
column flexural behaviour and the beam to column joint
region deformation [1]. The latter is generally divided into
two components related to shear deformation of the panel
zone and to fixed-end rotation that is predominant in underdesigned structures and depends on the bond properties of
reinforcement and anchoring devices [2]. The present paper
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0874 404779; fax: +39 0874 404855.

E-mail address: giovanni.fabbrocino@unimol.it (G. Fabbrocino).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.05.002

deals with the smooth reinforcement widely used up to the

1970s in a very large number of existing constructions;
they exhibit poor bond performances resulting in mandatory
anchoring end details able to ensure the required level of
interaction. Thus, the behaviour of anchored smooth rebars
is a key issue in the development of reliable procedures for
the evaluation of available bearing and/or displacement capacities of buildings. In fact, advanced structural analyses
are able to take account of actual element dimensions,
critical details, laboratory and field test data on the concrete
and reinforcement, as shown in [3]. In the following,
the results of an experimental evaluation on the behaviour
of straight smooth rebars and 180 circular hooks are discussed; some interesting features of the structural response
under service loads and in the large post-yielding field are
pointed out.
1.1. Literature review
Early experimental studies [4,5] were aimed at evaluating
the effectiveness of end details on smooth reinforcement

1576

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

Fig. 1. Hooked rebar model and its role in the deformation of critical regions.

pull-out. In the same period, the research by Saliger [6]

was very interesting due to the large number and varying
kinds of tests; these were aimed at evaluating the strength
of anchorages, without any consideration of performance
in terms of deformation. Straight and hooked rebars (180
opening angle) were tested; different rebar diameters,
curvature radii and transverse rebar arrangements were
considered. Results on pull-out tests agreed with Bachs
tests on beams [4], which exhibited an increased flexural
strength due to end anchorage and demonstrated that the
shape of the anchorage and transverse reinforcement could
give beneficial effects. Later, research by Mylrea [7] took
into consideration both the strength and the deformation of
hooked smooth rebars with a 180 opening angle and tried
to outline the influence of the end hook radius and transverse
reinforcement. Results showed a slight influence of the
hook radius on the deformation and indicated the role of
transverse reinforcement in the type of failure. In particular,
plain specimens showed a non-ductile behaviour by concrete
failure, compared to rebar failure induced by appropriate
transverse rebar detailing. Approaching the 1950s, early
types of deformed rebars were investigated and compared
as regards the forceslip response to straight and anchored
smooth rebars [8]. More than forty specimens were tested,
varying the hook radius, surface type (smooth or ribbed),
development length and opening angle. During the 1960s
experimental works on smooth rebars carried out by [9,10]
offered a series of data used as references in many later
studies in the field of bonding. However, available technical
and experimental data on smooth rebars as reinforcement for
concrete structures are not fully satisfactory as regards the
development of a reliable numerical modelling of anchored
rebars placed in critical regions. In fact, the majority of data
can be found in the framework of studies aimed at assessing
the performances of deformed reinforcements and defining
safe design provisions [14]; accordingly, smooth rebars are
used as a reference but are not fully investigated, particularly
if a large post-yielding phase is considered.
This is the case also for more recent research on plain
rebars that today are commonly used for precast concrete
elements [12].

In summary, a more comprehensive approach is required

in order to develop reliable numerical procedures and give
consistent predictions of the r.c. construction response under
seismic actions or of the residual bearing capacity of existing
buildings [11,13].
2. Research objective
A review of experimental analyses aimed at the
evaluation of smooth rebars and related anchoring end
details reveals a lack of data in the large post-yielding field
response.
A number of studies on the subject were carried out, but
this was many years ago, so the limitations of the testing
equipment due to the technology available at that time lead
to results being non-comprehensive. In fact, it has been
found that results rarely refer to strain levels beyond yielding
and that the use of equipment under force control prevents
the reporting of descending branches that could be relevant
for modern applications.
From a behavioural perspective, the response of hooked
smooth rebars results from the interaction between two
distinct components: the straight rebar portion, where the
behaviour is basically related to the bond interaction; and
the anchoring device, made of a circular hook, where the
specific rebar shape activates local interaction mechanisms
that involve large volumes of concrete.
Fig. 1 reports the hooked rebar model and the idealised
constitutive relationship of the components identified for
analysing the problem: the bond between the smooth rebars
and the concrete in the straight rebars, and the anchoring end
detail response.
The latter can be given in terms of the pull-out force
(and/or stress) and slippage at the end of the anchorage; a
global representation of localised interaction mechanisms
involving the hooked rebar and the surrounding concrete
can be obtained. Such an idealisation has a number of
advantages, since it makes the analysis of the anchored rebar
using consolidated numerical techniques reliable [14] and
gives stable solutions even in the large post-yielding field.
The present paper reports the results of an experimental programme aimed at calibrating proper constitutive

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

1577

relationships for anchoring devices; specific tests for characterising the two components of the anchored smooth reinforcement (straight rebar and hooked end) are discussed.
These tests represent the experimental background of reliable models of reinforced concrete joints where smooth
rebars are used [15].
3. Test programme
The experimental programme described in this paper
consists of 20 tests with distinct aims:
evaluation of smooth rebar bond properties with three
beam tests and three pull-out tests;
evaluation of the response of hooked anchorages both
in service and at ultimate load with fourteen pull-out
tests.
All the tests are carried out on both straight and hooked
12 mm rebars. The selection of steel rebars was based on
the mechanical and surface properties of materials used in
the decade 19601970 [16]. The hooked rebar geometry
was defined after a comprehensive review of Italian and
international design codes and manuals used as reference in
the reference period [17].
In particular, the hook geometry can be described by
referring to two dimensionless parameters: the ratio between
the inner diameter of the hook and the rebar diameter, equal
to 5, and the ratio between the straight end length and the
rebar diameter, generally equal to 3.
3.1. Material properties
The smooth rebars used in the context of the present work
are hot rolled and classified as Feb22k [16]; in particular,
tensile tests carried out on 12 mm reinforcements have
shown a mean yielding stress s,y = 320 N/mm2 , initial
hardening under strain sh = 3%, ultimate stress s,u =
440 N/mm2 and ultimate strain s,u = 23%. Stressstrain
plots are reported in Fig. 2(a), where the significant ductility
can be recognised together with a large strain hardening ratio
(1.375).
The concrete has been prepared according to typical
mixing rules of the 1960s [18] and tests on cubes 150 mm
wide were used to define the mean concrete strength.
Table 1 reports the concrete mix design data for both
beam test and pull-out specimens that have been prepared
in two distinct phases, characterised by different strength
developments probably due to the different humidity of
the coarse aggregates. Specimens and cubes for strength
evaluation have been cast together and cured in the same
open air environmental conditions for 28 days before
testing.
The beam test specimens exhibited a mean cubic
compressive strength of 34.20 MPa; Table 2. The pull-out
test specimens exhibited a mean cubic compressive strength
of 29.34 MPa; Fig. 2(b).

Fig. 2. Steel stressstrain plot (a); concrete compressive strength of pull-out

specimens (b).

Table 1
Concrete mix design
Component
Water/cement ratio
Aggregate size (04 mm)
Aggregate size (410 mm)
Aggregate size (1020 mm)

(kN/m3 )
(kN/m3 )
(kN/m3 )

0.45
10.14
3.13
5.16

Table 2
Compressive strength of beam test specimens
Cube

Cubic strength
(MPa)
(MPa)

Cylindrical strength
(MPa)
(MPa)

1
2
3
4
5
6

33.60
34.00
33.60
35.70
33.60
34.70

26.90
27.20
26.90
28.60
26.80
27.70

34.20
(2.49)

27.30
(2.54)

1578

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

Fig. 4. Test arrangement for pull-out type tests on straight bars.

Fig. 3. Beam test set-up (a); specimen type (b).

3.2. Test set-up

The beam test has been carried out according to the setup described in Fig. 3. Specimens were composed of two
concrete blocks connected by a reinforcing rebar. The load
transfer is slightly different with respect to standard beam
tests [19], since a steel hinged beam, Fig. 3(a), is used to
apply the load on the concrete using shear studs. The load
is transferred on each side of the cylindrical hinge located
on the symmetry axis and the axial load T on the rebar
can easily be evaluated using the equation of equilibrium
between the moment due to external force and the resistance
one due to tensile stresses in the rebar. The embedment
length, L b , is assumed equal to 10; in order to avoid
any interaction with surrounding concrete, plastic pipes are
used. The embedded length L b is used to evaluate the bond
stress, which is calculated assuming a constant distribution
of the bond stress along the rebar. 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 the rebars
respectively; transducers give the slippage at the loaded and
the unloaded ends of rebar Fig. 3(b).
The set-up for the pull-out tests is shown in Fig. 4;
specimens were made of cubes, 300 mm wide, that
incorporate the rebar to be tested. A plastic pipe is used
to avoid interaction between the rebar and the surrounding
concrete except in the embedded zone, 10 long. The testing
equipment is completed by a bolted steel envelope that
restrains the concrete block by means of threaded rebars on
the lateral surfaces, as shown in Fig. 4. It is worth noting that
special care has been devoted to avoiding any tensile force

Fig. 5. Test arrangement for pull-out type tests on hooked smooth bars; Full
type specimen.

in the threaded rebars and keeping the concrete unconfined,

without lateral compressive stresses.
Measurements of the tensile force F, of the rebar strain
and of the slips between the loaded and the unloaded ends
and the concrete are taken; tests are carried out under
displacement control, so that descending branches can be
fully detected.
The second phase of the programme consists of modified
pull-out tests on hook anchorages. The main parameters
investigated are: the concrete cover; the cast direction; the
position of the circular branch with respect to the top
surface of the specimen. In fact, two types of specimens
have been designed in order to modify the hook concrete
cover in compliance with the reinforcement detailing in base
column/internal beam to column joints and external joints
respectively.
Therefore, three test set-ups have been considered:
Full type specimens, shown in Fig. 5, that consist of a
concrete cube 300 mm wide and the rebar centred in the
cross section; this leads to a significant concrete cover
that can be representative of the above-mentioned base
column or the internal beam to column condition.
End type specimens, shown in Fig. 6, that are
representative of the typical location of rebars in external
beam to column joint regions; in this case, the concrete
cover is 22 mm, and the concrete block has a 180 mm
thick by 300 mm wide cross section.
Full-H type specimens; these are characterised by the
same geometry as Full type specimens, but the cast
direction is perpendicular to the rebar and the location of

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

1579

Fig. 6. Test arrangement for pull-out type tests on hooked smooth bars; End
type specimen.

the circular branch with respect to the block top surface

is changed.
In all cases, the load is applied to the free end of the
rebar and the reaction force is imposed by an external steel
box restrained to the concrete block using bolts embedded
in the concrete. This specific set-up has been chosen in
order to avoid compressive stresses on the top surface of the
concrete and to fit the real conditions of rebars under tension
in cracked sections. The bolts used as shear connectors
are the only reinforcement present in the concrete blocks
and are characterised by zero pre-tension to avoid lateral
confinement of concrete, similarly to the bond tests.
The main aspect of the test set-up is the direct
measurement of the slip at the end section of the anchorage;
in fact, interaction of the straight branch is prevented using
a plastic pipe, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and the slippage
at the end of the circular branch is measured using a high
performance draw-wire displacement sensor. Preliminary
validation of measurements taken by draw-wire transducers
has been performed in order to avoid incorrect data; the axial
tensile force generated by the transducer and the very low
flexural stiffness of the wires used for measurements of the
slippage ensured the reliability of the system.
In addition, an extensometer has also been used
throughout the load process in order to evaluate the
stressstrain relationship of each rebar tested. The tests have
been carried out using a uniaxial testing system able to apply
the load under displacement control and measuring the slip
of the anchorage inside the concrete block.

4. Experimental results
4.1. Bond test
Due to the nature of the reinforcement and the geometry
of the specimen, splitting phenomena did not occur, so
concrete blocks were not damaged macroscopically during
the tests. Measurements of slippage at loaded and unloaded
ends demonstrated that the differences between them are
negligible, so the constitutive relationships have been plotted
depending on the unloaded end slip.

Fig. 7. Beam test results: (a) steel stressslip plot; (b) bond stressslip plot.

Figs. 7(a) and 8(a) show both beam test and pull-out test
results; evaluation of the bond stress b has been carried
out, depending on the bonded length L b = 10 and on the
tensile reinforcement stress s as follows:
b =

s As
Lb

(1)

where As and are the area and the rebar perimeter

respectively.
Figs. 7(b) and 8(b) show clearly the different phases of
the interaction phenomenon: adhesion with negligible slips,
interlocking with increasing slip up to a peak value and then
a friction based residual stress.
The mean value of the bond stress is about 1.42 MPa,
corresponding to a slip of about 0.04 mm for beam test type
specimens, and 1.96 MPa, corresponding to a slip of about
0.14 mm for pull-out test type specimens; see Table 3 for
details.
In the same plot the theoretical bond stressslip
relationship suggested by Model Code 90 (MC90) [20] is
also presented; it is worth noting that peak bond stress values

1580

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

Fig. 8. Pull-out test results: (a) steel stressslip plot; (b) bond stressslip
plot.
Table 3
Results for pull-out and beam test specimens
Specimen

1
2
3
Mean value
(COV)

Pull-out test
Slip
b max
(mm)
(MPa)

Beam test
Slip
(mm)

b max
(MPa)

0.14
0.14
0.15

2.30
1.90
1.67

0.05
0.03
0.05

2.16
1.06
1.05

0.14
(4.12)

1.96
(16.26)

0.04
(28.86)

1.42
(44.92)

are higher than the MC90 maximum stress, but the latter
matches well with the residual experimental stress.
4.2. Hook test
Pull-out tests on circular hooks in the three different
arrangements (Full, End, Full-H) are reported in the present
section. The reinforcement has a diameter of 12 mm, in
compliance with the previously discussed bond tests. It is
worth noting that Full and End type specimens allow for

analysing the influence of the concrete cover on the hook

behaviour, while Full-H tests indicate the role of the concrete
casting direction.
Five Full type specimens, described in Fig. 9(c), are
first examined. In particular, Fig. 9(a) reports the measured
stressstrain relationships of the rebars, Fig. 9(b) represents
the stressslip relationship at the hook end and finally
Fig. 9(d) gives the strain versus hook slip relationship plot.
Analysis of experimental results indicates a strongly nonlinear behaviour of the anchoring device even for low stress
levels in the rebar; in more detail, an initial high device
stiffness is observed, since zero slips are measured for stress
levels lower than 50 MPa. The slippage of the circular hook
taken at the yielding stress (strain) exhibits a considerable
variability ranging from 0.80 mm to an upper bound of
2.55 mm.
The behaviour of the hook in the post-yielding phase
of the rebar is characterised by an interesting phenomenon
that can be recognised with reference to Fig. 9(d). In fact,
slippage at the yielding stress remains basically constant
over the whole plastic plateau of the rebars and increases
only when strain hardening starts; this circumstance is also
confirmed by a stressslip relationship that seems to be
continuous and does not show a sudden increase at the
yielding stress.
This phenomenon is common to all the tests, confirming
that yielding spreading does not occur along the circular
branch and the interaction is basically governed by a
mechanical interlock, which leads to the concentration of
the normal stress at the end of the hook without yielding
penetration along the curved branch. On the other hand,
evaluation of the stressstrain relationship of rebars show
that the plastic deformation takes place over the whole
unbonded straight branch of the rebar.
The strain hardening phase, as already mentioned, is then
characterised by an increase of the slippage at the hook end
activated by the load increase, even if a progressive reduction
of the stiffness is observed up to rebar failure. The slippage
measured at rebar failure ranges between 2.66 and 7.86 mm.
In Fig. 10(a), a Full type specimen during the test
is reported on; Fig. 10(c) indicates the tensile failure of
the rebar. Both pictures clearly show the devices used to
measure the rebar strain and the anchoring device slippage.
The specimen cross section is then reported in Fig. 10(b) for
after a pull-out test; it is easy to recognise that the unloaded
end of the hook is basically affected by slippage without
visible concrete damage.
The plots of Fig. 11 referring to the End test series show
that the shape of the curve is similar to the previous ones,
but the results are less scattered in terms of the hook slip
at yielding; in fact measured values range from 1.62 to
2.00 mm. The stress/strain curves of the rebar, however,
indicate that a sudden loss of load occurs in the large postyielding field; this loss is significant since it can reach even
60% of the maximum load. This phenomenon is due to a
splitting type of failure that occurs in the concrete cover,

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

1581

Fig. 9. Summary of experimental results of pull-out tests; Full type specimens.

Fig. 10. Full type specimen. Set-up (a), final state of the anchorage after the pull-out test (b), anchorage failure (c).

triggering a relevant increase of the slip at the hook end,

as shown clearly by the rebar strainhook slip relation.
Nevertheless, the anchorage is still able to bear tensile
stresses in the cracked state also, so in many cases the pre-

cracking load can be recovered and a progressive pull-out of

the rebar develops.
On this subject, it is worth noting that the solution
adopted to restrain the concrete block in End type specimens

1582

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

Fig. 11. Summary of experimental results of pull-out tests; End type specimens.

did not affect the response of the hook due to the absence of
lateral confinement and to the tolerances used for bolt installation (parallel to hooks), resulting in free relative displacements between the concrete and surrounding steel envelope.
A review of experimental tests indicates that three
different responses of the anchoring device in the postcracking phase occurred. The first behaviour is characterised
at the crack formation by a sudden loss of bearing capacity
that can be estimated as 40% of the peak load and then
by a gradual reloading phase affected by large slips of the
hook up to rebar failure (specimens 1 and 2). The second
type of behaviour exhibits, similarly to the previous one, a
sudden loss of load at crack formation, but the reloading
branch is not able to trigger the rebar failure due to large
slips of the hook, so anchorage failure can be recognised in
Fig. 12(c) (specimen 4). The last type of behaviour is then
characterised by a Full type specimen stressslip response,
without any clear loss of load (specimens 3, 5).
Fig. 12 reports a number of pictures taken during and
after the End type specimen tests. In particular, Fig. 12(b)

shows the final state of a specimen after the pull-out test;

an estimation of the slip at the unloaded end of the circular
hook can be made with reference to the measuring device
placed upon the cracked surface. Furthermore, a comparison
between Figs. 12(b) and 10(b) indicates a large extension
of the concrete damage in End type specimens due to the
local stresses between the steel rebar and the surrounding
medium.
The last set of plots, in Fig. 13, show the response of
hooks depending on the casting direction and on the position
of the circular branch with respect to the top surface of
the specimens (Full-H type). The results can be easily
divided into two groups, showing the influence of the last
parameter on the response of the hooks. In fact, hooks placed
downwards are stiffer both at yielding and at collapse due to
rebar failure.
Table 4 reports slips measured at the yielding stress/strain,
s y , and the one corresponding to the strain hardening start,
ssh , for each group of tests (Full and End type specimens);
mean values of the above parameters are also given.

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

1583

Fig. 12. End type specimen. Set-up (a), final state of the anchorage after the pull-out test (b), anchorage failure of specimen 4 (c).

Fig. 13. Summary of experimental results of pull-out tests; Full-H type specimens.

It is worth noting that basically End type specimens are

characterised by a larger deformability compared with Full
type ones; the increase of deformation can be estimated as
around 20%. This result is not necessarily related to cracking

of concrete, since it occurs in the advanced strain hardening

phase; conversely it can be related to a different level of
confinement of the hook depending on the concrete cover
thickness.

1584

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

5. Conclusions

Table 4
Results of pull-out test: Full and End type specimens
Type
Specimen
1
2
3
4
5
Mean value
(COV)

Full
sy
(mm)

ssh
(mm)

su
(mm)

End
sy
(mm)

ssh
(mm)

su
(mm)

1.58
2.55
1.45
0.96
0.80

1.58
2.55
1.45
1.07
0.97

4.26
7.86
4.45
3.40
2.66

1.96
2.00
1.62
1.86
1.62

2.10
2.03
1.71
1.91
1.71

1.47
(46.73)

1.52
(41.27)

4.53
(44.07)

1.81
(10.08)

1.89
(9.50)

However, the different evolutions of phenomena in

the strain hardening phase prevents a comprehensive
comparison between slips at failure su , so Table 4 reports
only the values measured for Full type specimens.
Table 5 provides an estimation of the influence of the
cast direction on the response of the anchoring devices. In
fact, slips measured at the yielding stress/strain, s y , and
those corresponding to the strain hardening start, ssh , and
to rebar failure, su , are reported with reference to FullH type specimens; mean values of the above parameters
are also given. It is easy to recognise that up specimens
exhibit a larger deformability compared with down ones;
the increase can be estimated as 80% in the case of yielding
slip and about 20% in the case of ultimate slip.

References

Table 5
Results of pull-out tests: Full-H type specimens
Type

Full-H (down)
ssh
sy
(mm)
(mm)

1
2

0.72
1.27

Mean value

1.00

Specimen

Seismic assessment of old type r.c. constructions is of

interest for structural engineers; however, knowledge of
basic interaction phenomena involving smooth rebars is not
comprehensive, especially due to the lack of data ranging
from yielding to the large strain hardening field. This
circumstance represents a limitation on the use of advanced
non-linear analysis procedures.
The present paper gives an experimental contribution in
this research area. Beam tests and pull-out tests allowed
for describing in detail the forceslip relation of the bond
mechanism for straight rebars and that of anchoring end
details, i.e. circular hooks with a 180 opening angle. The
results indicate some particular aspects of the behaviour
under monotonic loading. The slippage due to anchoring
devices is relevant and cannot be neglected, especially in
the large post-yielding field; mechanisms governing the
stressslip response of hooks allow a reduced yielding
spreading in the anchoring device, so at yielding, the hook
slip does not show a plastic plateau and increases only
when strain hardening starts. The concrete cover plays a
role in the large post-yielding field, since splitting type
failures have been observed in End specimens that fit
the rebar embedment in the external beam to column
regions. The casting direction seems to have an influence
on the behaviour, together with the relative position of
the hook with respect to the top surface of the concrete
specimen.

su
(mm)

Full-H (up)
sy
ssh
(mm)
(mm)

su
(mm)

0.73
1.36

2.80
3.75

1.83
1.83

1.99
1.93

4.16
4.25

1.05

3.28

1.83

1.96

4.21

A combined review of results given in Tables 4 and 5

demonstrates that Full-H down specimens, representative
of beam top smooth reinforcement, are characterised
by a stressslip response that is stiffer that the Full-H
up configuration, representative of beam bottom smooth
reinforcement, and of the Full one, which is column
reinforcement.
Finally, comparison of experimental data obtained
from modified beam tests and pull-out tests indicates
the uncertainties of beam test data related to indirect
measurement of slippage with respect to the alternative
solution adopted for the pull-out tests; as a result, the
improved reliability of the pull-out tests allows for the
assessment of the actual response of hooked anchors.

[1] Bonacci JF, Wight JK. Displacement-based assessment of reinforced

concrete frames in earthquake. In: Mete A. Sozen symposium. ACI
publication SP 162; 1996. p. 11733.
[2] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Verderame GM. Seismic assessment of
gravity load designed r.c. frames: critical issues in structural modeling.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002;6(1) [special issue].
[3] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Verderame GM. A nonlinear model for
underdesigned r.c. frames. In: Proceedings of XII ECEE. 2001.
[4] Bach C. Deutcher Ausschus fur Eisenbeton. Hefts 9 and 10.1911.
[5] Abrams DA. Test of bond between concrete and steel. Bulletin no. 71.
Urbana: Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois; 1913.
p. 238.
[6] Saliger R. Schubwiderstand und Verbund in Eisenbeton-balken. 1913.
[7] Mylrea TD. The carrying capacity of semi-circular hooks. ACI
Journal, Proceedings 1928;24:24072.
[8] Fishburn CC. Strength and slip under load of bent-bar anchorage and
straight embedment in haydite concrete. ACI Journal, Proceedings
1947;44(4):289308.
[9] Rehm G. ber die grundlagen des verbundes zwischen stahl un beton.
DafStb, H. 138. Berlin: W. Ernst u. Sohn; 1961.
[10] Rehm G. Kriterien zur beuterilung von bewehrungsstaben mit hoch
wertigem verbund. In: Stahlbetonbau. Berlin: W. Ernst u. Sohn; 1969.
p. S. 7996.
[11] Kankam LK. Relationship of bond stress, steel stress and slip in
reinforcing concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997;7985.
[12] Mo YL, Chan J. Bond and slip of plain rebars in concrete. ASCE
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 1996;8(4):20811.

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 15751585

[13] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Experimental
response and behavioural modelling of anchored smooth bars in
existing rc frames. In: International conference Bond in concrete
from research to standards. 2002.
[14] Eligehausen R, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Local bondstress relationships of deformed bars under generalized excitations. UCB/EERC 83,
23. 1983.
[15] Fabbrocino G, Verderame G, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Structural
models of critical regions in old-type r.c. frames with smooth rebars.
Engineering Structures 2004;26:213748.
[16] Verderame GM, Stella A, Cosenza E. Mechanical properties
of reinforcement used for r.c. constructions in 1960s. In: 10th

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

1585

national conference LIngegneria Sismica in Italia. 2001 [in

Italian].
Fabbrocino G, Verderame G, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Experimental
behaviour of smooth bars anchorages in existing r.c. buildings. In: fib
2002 Osaka congress. 2002. Paper W-463.
Verderame GM, Manfredi G, Frunzio G. Mechanical properties of
concrete used for r.c. constructions in 1960s. In: 10th national
conference LIngegneria Sismica in Italia. 2001 [in Italian].
RILEM technical recommendations for the testing and use of
construction materials. RC5: Bond test for reinforcing steel. 1. Beam
test, 1982. UK: E & FN Spon; 1994.
CEB Bulletin No. 213/214. CEB-FIP model code 90. 1993.