Research Note

Research Note
RN-2009-2

Evaluation of the Orientation

of 90° and 180° Reinforcing Bar
Hooks in Wide Members
Introduction
Longitudinal reinforcing steel bars in flexural
members are often developed at discontinuous
ends with a 90° or 180° standard hook. These
hooks are usually oriented in the vertical direc-
tion, which generally corresponds with being
perpendicular (or normal) to the member’s major
axis. Because standard hook sizes can be quite
large, especially for large diameter bars, detailing
of hooked bars can be critical. In some instances,
such as the case of a shallow member that is Figure 1 ‒ Example of tilted reinforcing bar hooks
heavily reinforced, the standard hook height in ac- shown at the edge of a cantilever balcony slab
cordance with the ACI 318-11 Code (2011), plus
the required concrete cover above and below the
bar, may exceed the member depth. In this case,
one solution used in practice to satisfy the cover
requirements and maintain the hook length is to
rotate the bar along its longitudinal axis, such that
the hook is no longer vertical. Hook tilting is illus-
trated in Figures 1 and 2.

This Research Note describes results of a

study initiated as part of the CRSI Graduate Re-
search Fellowship Program to evaluate the influ-
ence of hook angle tilt on hook performance and
behavior. The research also examined the poten-
tial limitations of hook tilt in a concrete member,
depicted in Figure 3. Figure 2 ‒ Recommended bar details for solid
slabs (CRSI 2008)
Background
Hook Behavior
Forces are transferred between 90° or 180°
hooked bars in tension and the surrounding con-
crete through bond along the bar surface and
bearing of the bar on the enclosed concrete.
Ninety-degree (90°) hooked bars tend to straight-
en under tension, resulting in bearing against
the concrete in the inner radius of the hook, and
compressive stresses on the hook tail as it bears
against the surrounding concrete.
Figure 3 ‒ Schematic of a hooked bar in concrete
Failure of both hook types can result from slab
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
crushing of concrete within the bend of the bar,
which may cause cracks to propagate to a nearby side
face of the member. Splitting failure, originating within
the bar bend due to high stress concentrations, can also
occur within the plane of the hook. Cracking of the con-
crete behind the hook tail is possible, as well.
Code Requirements
Hooks can be provided to develop reinforcing bars
in tension in locations where there is limited length to
develop a straight reinforcing bar. Standard hook dimen-
sions including the minimum finished inside bend diame-
ter “D” and extension length “A” are given in ACI 318-11,
Sections 7.1 and 7.2.1, and CRSI’s Design Handbook
(2008), as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 ‒ Hooked bar details for development of standard
hooks (CRSI 2008)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2 Evaluation of the Orientation of 90° and 180° Reinforcing Bar Hooks in Wide Members [RN 2009-02]
Provisions for development of standard hooks in ten-
sion are provided in ACI 318-11, Section 12.5. The ten-
sion development length of deformed bars with standard
hooks ℓdh (determined in accordance with the Code) is
a function of the reinforcing bar diameter, yield strength,
presence of epoxy coating, concrete type, and speci-
fied compressive strength of concrete. The development
length can be reduced by various modification factors,
which account for the effects of excess reinforcement,
confinement from stirrups or ties, and/or adequate con-
crete cover. The parameters and factors that influence
the development length account for the magnitude of the
compressive stresses or the resistance to splitting.
Summary of Study
Scope and Objective
The objective of this study was to evaluate the limits
of reinforcing steel hook tilt from vertical to ensure ulti-
mate performance of the member is not compromised.
This was achieved experimentally by comparing the
load-slip responses of modified beam-end specimens
with different hooked bar orientations and configura-
tions. Concrete reinforcement in this study included de-
formed reinforcing steel bars with standard hooks em-
bedded in normal weight concrete. The test variables
included hook tilt angle, hook bend type, reinforcing bar
size, and group-effect. Four hook tilt angles were evalu-
ated: 0° (horizontal), 22.5°, 45°, and 90° (vertical). Both
90° and 180° standard hooked reinforcing bars were in-
vestigated. #5 and #8 bars were examined in this study
since they are commonly used in practice. The effect of
multiple bars was also examined to evaluate the effects
of interaction of adjacent bars, as shown in Figure 1. Ad-
ditionally, bar spacing and position were evaluated. The
test specimen matrix is shown in Table 1.
Experimental Program
Test Specimens
Modified beam-end specimens used in this study were
modeled after previous tests reported in the literature
(Minor 1971, Jirsa and Marques 1972, Minor and Jirsa
1975, Ehsani, et al. 1995) and in ASTM A944-10 (2010).
The specimen was elongated so the reinforcing hook ex-
tended beyond the reaction plates and the compression
strut developing between the reactions. A PVC pipe bond
breaker was provided along the straight portion of the bar
to isolate the performance of the hooked portion of the bar.
Test specimen dimensions are summarized in Table
1. The specimen height was a function of the concrete
above the hook extension (3 in.), the diameter (db), the
length of the hook tail extension (12db), and the concrete
cover (3db) of the test bar. The length of the specimen
was the height plus the distance beyond the reaction
plate. The distance beyond the reaction plate was the
sum of 4 in., the diameter of the test bar, and 3 in. to ac-
count for the cover of the tail extension of the bar. The
width of the test specimens varied to accommodate the
 Table 1 ‒ Test Specimen Matrix
Hook Angle of
Standard
Specimen1 Bar Size Tilt from Length (in) Width (in) Height (in)
Hook Bend (°)
Horizontal (°)
BE-5-180-0 #5 180 0 17 1/2 17 3/8 9 7/8
BE-5-180-22.5 #5 180 22.5 17 1/2 16 5/8 9 7/8
BE-5-180-45 #5 180 45 17 1/2 14 1/2 9 7/8
BE-5-180-90 #5 180 90 17 1/2 8 5/8 9 7/8
BE-5-90-0 #5 90 0 22 1/2 27 3/8 14 7/8
BE-5-90-22.5 #5 90 22.5 22 1/2 25 7/8 14 7/8
BE-5-90-45 #5 90 45 22 1/2 21 1/2 14 7/8
BE-5-90-90 #5 90 90 22 1/2 8 5/8 14 7/8
BE-8-90-0 #8 90 0 30 39 22
BE-8-90-22.5 #8 90 22.5 30 36 5/8 22
(a) side view
BE-8-90-45 #8 90 45 30 29 5/8 22
BE-8-90-90 #8 90 90 30 9 22
BE-5-90-0-G2A2 3-#5 90 0 22 1/2 67 3/8 14 7/8
BE-5-90-0-GA2 3-#5 90 0 22 1/2 47 3/8 14 7/8
BE-5-90-0-G0.5A2 3-#5 90 0 22 1/2 37 3/8 14 7/8
BE-5-90-22.5-G2A 3-#5 90 22.5 22 1/2 62 3/4 14 7/8
BE-5-90-22.5-GA 3-#5 90 22.5 22 1/2 44 3/8 14 7/8
BE-5-90-22.5-G0.5A 3-#5 90 22.5 22 1/2 35 1/8 14 7/8
BE-8-90-0-G2A2 3-#8 90 0 30 103 22
BE-8-90-0-GA2 3-#8 90 0 30 71 22
BE-8-90-0-G0.5A2 3-#8 90 0 30 55 22
BE-8-90-22.5-G2A 3-#8 90 22.5 30 95 3/4 22
BE-8-90-22.5-GA 3-#8 90 22.5 30 66 1/8 22
BE-8-90-22.5-G0.5A 3-#8 90 22.5 30 51 3/8 22
(b) end view
Notes: Figure 5 ‒ Single bar specimens (90° hook
1. The following notation system is used to identify the variables of each specimen.
The first term indicates the type of test: BE (Modified beam-end test). The sec- bar shown)
ond term indicates the bar size: #5 or #8 standard. The third term is hook bend
type: 90° or 180°. The fourth term is the angle of tilt from horizontal: 0°, 22.5°, 45°
or 90°. Term G in the fifth term denotes specimens with multiple bars, and bar
spacing is denoted as a multiple of bar extension length “A” defined in Figure 4.

2. A
 ngle of tilt from horizontal is nominal. Actual angle is slightly larger than zero
due to bar placement.

tilt arc of the hooks on the bar ends. The cover distance
on the side of the reinforcing steel hook was 4 in., based
on ASTM A944-10.

Specimens were constructed with the reinforc-

ing bar(s) on the bottom surface to mitigate the “top
bar” effect; they were then later inverted for testing.
Single bar specimens with 180° and 90° hooks are
shown in Figure 5, and multiple bar specimens are
shown in Figure 6. In the figures, ϴ is the angle of tilt
from horizontal.
Material Properties
The reinforcing steel used in this study was ASTM
A615, Grade 60. The measured yield strength of the #5
and #8 reinforcing bars was 68.0 ksi and 67.5 ksi, re-
spectively. The concrete was normal weight, with a target
compressive strength of 4,500 psi. The single bar test
specimens achieved an average compressive strength
of 6,450 psi, and the multiple bar specimens achieved
an average compressive strength of 4,850 psi; both
were measured at test date. The compressive strength
of concrete (ƒ’c ) and the splitting tensile strength of con-
crete (ƒt) measured at test date for each specimen are
provided in Table 2.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Figure 6 ‒ Multiple bar specimens – end view
Test Procedure
The test setups for the single bar and multiple bar
specimens are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
For the single bar specimens, a steel L-bracket ten-
sioned to the strong floor was used to provide the force
couple reaction created by the applied force to the bar
and the horizontal reaction of the test specimen, depict-
ed in Figure 7. To resist overturning, a double channel
spreader beam was placed atop the specimen, creating
a distributed vertical reaction. This loading beam was
held in position by two additional spreader beams ten-
sioned to the strong floor. To apply the force to the lead
end of the reinforcing bar, a center hole hydraulic jack
and load cell were placed on the bar, completed with an
end anchorage affixed to the bar end.
CRSI Research Note 3
 Table 2 – Summary of Test Results For the multiple bar specimens,
Specimen f'c (psi) ft (psi) T1 (ksi) T1 (k) S1 (in) Failure Mode reactions for the horizontal force cou-
BE-5-180-0 6580 490 60.7 18.8 0.002 Y ple were provided by two HSS tubes
BE-5-180-22.5 6420 480 61.2 19.0 0.016 Y tensioned to the strong floor and a
BE-5-180-45 5910 430 61.0 18.9 0.015 Y
load frame tensioned to the strong
Single Bar Specimens

BE-5-180-90 6690 410 61.3 19.0 0.050 Y

BE-5-90-0 6150 450 60.3 18.7 0.034 Y
floor, illustrated in Figure 8. The top
BE-5-90-22.5 6130 420 60.9 18.9 0.014 Y beam reaction mechanism was simi-
BE-5-90-45 6360 390 61.3 19.0 0.021 Y lar to the single bar specimens. Force
BE-5-90-90 6590 460 59.0 18.3 0.004 Y to the lead end of the reinforcing bar
BE-8-90-0 6570 440 62.1 49.0 0.028 Y
was applied using a similar hydraulic
BE-8-90-22.5 6610 410 60.8 48.0 0.065 Y
BE-8-90-45
jack and load cell arrangement placed
6610 400 60.1 47.5 0.007 Y
BE-8-90-90 6480 440 59.5 47.0 0.012 Y
on each reinforcing bar. The hydraulic
Bar A 65.7 20.4 0.072 Y jack for each bar was manifolded in
BE-5-90-0-G0.5A 4970 410
Bar B 67.3 20.8 0.108 Y parallel to ensure equal pressure from
BE-5-90-0-GA
Bar A
5350 380
62.4 19.4 0.074 Y the pump; loads applied to each bar
Bar B 66.4 20.6 0.068 Y
were carefully monitored during test-
Bar A 64.4 20.0 0.096 C
BE-5-90-0-G2A
Bar B
4840 380
64.6 20.0 0.004 Y, C
ing to provide equal load distribution.
Bar A 67.4 20.9 0.071 Y
BE-5-90-22.5-G0.5A
Bar B
4840 420
67.2 20.8 0.092 Y
During testing, the applied force in
Bar A 60.1 18.6 0.100 Y each bar was measured using a load
BE-5-90-22.5-GA 4970 410
Muiltiple Bar Specimens

Bar B 63.8 19.8 0.081 Y cell. Slip was measured using linear
BE-5-90-22.5-G2A
Bar A
4840 380
61.8 19.2 0.054 Y variable displacement transducers
Bar B 66.7 20.7 0.052 Y
(LVDTs) and displacement wires posi-
Bar A 50.9 40.2 0.066 C
BE-8-90-0-G0.5A
Bar B
4470 410
53.0 41.9 0.074 C
tioned at the free end of the bar and
Bar A 65.7 51.9 0.055 Y, C various locations along the embedded
BE-8-90-0-GA 4850 450
Bar B 61.9 48.9 0.027 Y, C hook. Strain in the bar was measured
BE-8-90-0-G2A
Bar A
5020 420
63.8 50.4 0.050 C at the free end and various positions
Bar B 64.6 51.0 0.036 C
along the embedded hook with elec-
Bar A 62.9 49.7 0.201 S
BE-8-90-22.5-G0.5A
Bar B
4260 450
67.9 53.7 0.230 S
tronic strain gages affixed to the bar.
Bar A 63.3 50.0 0.081 Y
The load was applied incrementally,
BE-8-90-22.5-GA
Bar B
5310 410
66.9 52.8 0.070 Y which typically resulted in 36 load
BE-8-90-22.5-G2A
Bar A
4450 410
33.5 26.5 0.077 C stages for the both #5 and #8 bars
Bar B 36.7 29.0 0.057 C based on a nominal yield strength of
60 ksi. At each load stage, the load

(a) side view (a) side view

(b) top view (b) top view

Figure 7 ‒ Single bar specimen test setup Figure 8 ‒ Multiple bar specimen test setup
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4 Evaluation of the Orientation of 90° and 180° Reinforcing Bar Hooks in Wide Members [RN 2009-02]
was applied and held constant. Table 3 – Specimen Groups and Results
Once the load stabilized, elec- Specimen f'c,avg (psi) 𝒇𝒇′ 𝒄𝒄, 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂/𝒇𝒇′ 𝒄𝒄 T1 (ksi) T1* (ksi) S1 (in) Failure Mode
tronic data were recorded. Be- BE-5-180-0 0.99 60.7 59.9 0.002 Y

Group 1
havior of the specimens such BE-5-180-22.5
6400
1.00 61.2 61.1 0.016 Y
BE-5-180-45 1.04 61.0 63.5 0.015 Y
as cracking, bar slip, and failure

Single Bar Specimens

BE-5-180-90 0.98 61.3 60.0 0.050 Y
was observed and documented BE-5-90-0 1.01 60.3 61.1 0.034 Y
at each load stage.

Group 2
BE-5-90-22.5 1.01 60.9 61.7 0.014 Y
6307
BE-5-90-45 1.00 61.3 61.1 0.021 Y
All specimens were tested BE-5-90-90 0.98 59.0 57.7 0.004 Y

to failure. Failure was de- BE-8-90-0 1.00 62.1 62.1 0.028 Y

Group 3
BE-8-90-22.5 1.00 60.8 60.6 0.065 Y
fined as one of three test-end BE-8-90-45
6567
1.00 60.1 59.9 0.007 Y
modes: reinforcing bar yield- BE-8-90-90 1.01 59.5 59.9 0.012 Y
ing, excessive concrete crack- BE-5-90-0-G0.5A Bar A 0.99 65.7 65.3 0.072 Y

Grp 37 Grp 36 Grp 35 Grp 34 Grp 33 Grp 32 Grp 21 Grp 20 Grp 19 Grp 18 Grp 17 Grp 16
4905
ing, or reinforcing bar slip. The BE-5-90-22.5-G0.5A Bar A 1.01 67.4 67.8 0.071 Y

reinforcing bar yield mode was Multiple Bar Specimens - Bar A

BE-5-90-0-GA Bar A
5160
0.98 62.4 61.3 0.074 Y

characterized by a plateau in BE-5-90-22.5-GA Bar A 1.02 60.1 61.2 0.100 Y

the force - displacement or BE-5-90-0-G2A Bar A

4840
1.00 64.4 64.4 0.096 C

force - strain plot monitored BE-5-90-22.5-G2A Bar A 1.00 61.8 61.8 0.054 Y

during testing. Concrete crack- BE-8-90-0-G0.5A Bar A

4365
0.99 50.9 50.3 0.066 C

ing was monitored visually and BE-8-90-22.5-G0.5A Bar A 1.01 62.9 63.6 0.201 S

BE-8-90-0-GA Bar A 1.02 65.7 67.3 0.055 Y, C

audibly during testing; cracking 5080
BE-8-90-22.5-GA Bar A 0.98 63.3 61.9 0.081 Y
typically destroyed the con-
BE-8-90-0-G2A Bar A 0.97 63.8 62.0 0.050 C
crete confinement in the hook 4735
BE-8-90-22.5-G2A Bar A 1.03 33.5 34.5 0.077 C
vicinity, which usually led to bar
BE-5-90-0-G0.5A Bar B 0.99 67.3 66.8 0.108 Y
pullout. Excessive slip of the re- BE-5-90-22.5-G0.5A Bar B
4905
1.01 67.2 67.6 0.092 Y
inforcing bar was characterized BE-5-90-0-GA Bar B 0.98 66.4 65.2 0.068 Y
Multiple Bar Specimens - Bar B

by large movement recorded in BE-5-90-22.5-GA Bar B

5160
1.02 63.8 65.0 0.081 Y
the lead bar LVDT, and defined BE-5-90-0-G2A Bar B 1.00 64.6 64.6 0.004 Y, C
as slip greater than 0.12 in. BE-5-90-22.5-G2A Bar B
4840
1.00 66.7 66.7 0.052 Y

BE-8-90-0-G0.5A Bar B 0.99 53.0 52.4 0.074 C

Results BE-8-90-22.5-G0.5A Bar B
4365
1.01 67.9 68.8 0.230 S

BE-8-90-0-GA Bar B 1.02 61.9 63.3 0.027 Y, C

General – A summary of 5080
BE-8-90-22.5-GA Bar B 0.98 66.9 65.4 0.070 Y
the test results is provided in BE-8-90-0-G2A Bar B 0.97 64.6 62.7 0.036 C
Table 2 with the failure mode BE-8-90-22.5-G2A Bar B
4735
1.03 36.7 37.8 0.057 C
of each specimen identified
by yielding (Y) of the bar, con-
crete cracking (C), and/or slip
(S) of the reinforcing bar. The failure mode of all single bar stress (T1) was normalized to the average group
bar specimens was by bar yielding, while the failure concrete compressive strength by the factor √ƒ’c,avg ̸ ƒ’c
mode of the multiple bar specimens varied. As shown to account for the minor differences in measured con-
in Table 2, the maximum bar stress or force is termed crete compressive strength (Ehsani, et al. 1995).
T1, and the corresponding displacement at the bar end
is denoted S1. Note the values of S1 were corrected to Effect of Hook Tilt Angle – For the single bar spec-
account for bar elongation. For the multiple bar speci- imens, all bars at the four tilt angles were able to de-
mens, Bar A refers to the exterior bar closest to the velop yielding at approximately 60 ksi, irrespective of
side edge, and Bar B refers to the interior bar. tilt angle as shown in Figure 9. For the concrete com-
pressive strength at testing, the tilt angle did not have
The influence of the different test variables was an effect on the displacements of the reinforcing bar.
evaluated by comparing the reinforcing bar stress-dis-
placement relationships for different groups of speci- The graphs in Figures 10 and 11 show that the
mens. Specimens were grouped to isolate a single maximum normalized bar stress was similar among all
test variable, either hook tilt angle, bar size, hook type, multiple-bar specimens, at approximately 60 ksi, ex-
number of bars, or bar position, while holding other cept for a few that cracked before yielding. The data
test variables constant. Table 3 presents the specimen showed that the #5 bars generally yielded, while the #8
groups discussed in this research note; full results are bars exhibited one of the three failure modes. The dif-
discussed in Podhorsky (2011). To compare the per- ferent failure modes were likely due to the higher force
formance of specimens within a group of either single transfer to the concrete in bond required in order to
bar specimens or multiple bar specimens, maximum yield the #8 bars versus the #5 bars. Even though the
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
CRSI Research Note 5
Figure 9 ‒ Influence of tilt angle on maximum normalized bar stress for Groups 1 to 3 (single bar specimens)

Figure 10 ‒ Influence of tilt angle on maximum normalized bar stress for Groups 16 to 21 (multiple bar specimens –
Bar A, exterior bar)

stresses were similar, the displacements were much
different. The displacements of the multiple bar speci-
mens were generally higher than the displacements of
the single bar specimens.
Effect of Bar Size – The testing showed that the
maximum normalized bar stress was similar for both
the #5 and #8 bars. The bar displacements varied for
the single bar specimens, but not enough of a data
trend could be established.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6 Evaluation of the Orientation of 90° and 180° Reinforcing Bar Hooks in Wide Members [RN 2009-02]
Figure 11 ‒ Influence of tilt angle on maximum normalized bar stress for Groups 32 to 37 (multiple bar specimens –
Bar B, interior bar)
In the multiple bar specimens, the testing showed
the maximum normalized bar stress was similar among
all specimens, except for those tests for which con-
crete cracking was the failure mode. The data showed
the #5 bars generally yielded, while the #8 bars exhib-
ited different failure modes. As addressed previously,
the different failure modes were likely due to the higher
force that must be transferred to the concrete in bond
in order to yield the #8 bars versus the #5 bars.
Effect of Hook Type – This variable was studied
only in the single bar specimens. Test results revealed
that there was little difference between the 90° and
180° hooks studied. This observation corroborates
similar conclusions from various testing programs con-
ducted at the University of Texas.
Multiple Bar Spacing – A variable spacing of the
three reinforcing bars was studied, with the spacing
based on the standard reinforcing hook geometry:
0.5A, A and 2A. Generally all multiple bar specimens
reached similar maximum normalized bar stress, ex-
cept for when the cracking failure mode governed. For
the exterior bar (Bar A), the #5 bar size exhibited no
influence regarding bar spacing. On the contrary, the
#8 exterior located bars exhibited increased lead bar
slip with a closer bar spacing. Johnson and Jirsa’s
(1981) study also reported this trend. For the single
interior bar (Bar B), both the #5 and #8 bars exhibited
increased lead bar slip with closer bar spacing.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
When the single and multiple bar tests were com-
pared, the testing revealed closer spacing of multiple
bars results in an increase in reinforcing bar slip or
displacement relative to the concrete. At a close spac-
ing, one reinforcing bar and its bond behavior with the
concrete clearly has an effect on the adjacent rein-
forcing bar and its bond behavior. This adjacent bar
influence was shown to increase with a closer spacing
of reinforcing bars. For the larger bar spacings, the
normalized, single bar displacements were similar to
those of the multiple bar specimens with an A or 2A
spacing (wide spacing). This indicates the bars were
spaced sufficiently apart to avoid the overlap of the
bond stresses.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This study was conducted to investigate the poten-
tial influence of hook tilt angle on the performance of
reinforcing bars hooks. This was approached experi-
mentally by comparing the bar stress-displacement
responses in 24 modified beam-end specimens with
different hooked bar orientations and configurations.
Twelve specimens included a single bar, and 12 speci-
mens included three bars. To isolate the performance
of the bar hook, only the hooked portion of each bar
was bonded to the surrounding concrete.
All single bar specimens were able to achieve bar
yielding, and no concrete crushing was observed in the
test specimens after failure. On the other hand, the mul-
tiple bar specimens, which had a lower average concrete
CRSI Research Note 7
compressive strength than the single bar specimens, ex-
hibited different modes of failure including bar yielding,
concrete cracking, and excessive slip.
Results showed no clear relationship between hook
tilt angle and hook performance, and for the specimens
tested in this study, hook tilt angle did not appear to have
an effect on the maximum stress or displacement of the
reinforcing bar. Similar to results found in previous stud-
ies, results generally indicated that bar slip (displace-
ment) increased with closer bar spacing in specimens
with multiple bars.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted by Missouri University
of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) with the spon-
sorship of the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI)
and the National University Transportation Center at Mis-
souri S&T. Longitudinal reinforcing steel and bar supports
used in this work were generously provided by Ambas-
sador Steel Corporation and Gateway Building Products.
References
American Concrete Institute - ACI Committee
318 (2011), Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary (ACI
318R-11), Farmington Hills, Michigan, 503 pp.
ASTM International - ASTM A944 (2010), Stan-
dard Test Method for Comparing Bond Strength of
Steel Reinforcing Bars to Concrete Using Beam-End
Specimens, ASTM A944 - 10, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 4 pp.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute - CRSI (2008),
CRSI Design Handbook, Schaumburg, Illinois, 788 pp.
Ehsani, M.R., Saadatmanesh, H., and Tao, S.
(1995), “Bond of Hooked Glass Fiber Reinforced Plas-
tic (GFRP) Reinforcing Bars to Concrete,” ACI Materi-
als Journal, Vol. 92, No. 4, American Concrete Insti-
tute, July-August, pp. 391-400.
Jirsa, J.O. and Marques, J.L.G. (1972), “A Study
of Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-Column Joints,”
Final Report, Project 33, Reinforced Concrete Re-
search Council, Department of Civil Engineering,
Structures Research Laboratory, University of Texas
at Austin, 79 pp.
Marques, J.L.G. (1973), “Study of Anchorage Ca-
pacities of Confined Bent-Bar Reinforcement,” Ph.D.
Thesis, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 215 pp.
Marques, J.L.G. and Jirsa, J.O. (1975), “A Study of
Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-Column Joints,” ACI
Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 72, No. 5, May, pp. 198-209.
Minor, J. and Jirsa, J.O. (1975), “Behavior of Bent
Bar Anchorages,” ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 72,
No. 4, April, pp. 141-149.
Minor, J. and Jirsa, J.O. (1971), “A Study of Bent
Bar Anchorages,” Rice Structural Research Report
No. 9, Department of Civil Engineering, Rice Univer-
sity, Houston, Texas, 65 pp.
Podhorsky, N.L. (2011), “Evaluation of the Orien-
tation of 90° and 180° Reinforcing Bar Hooks,” M.S.
Thesis, Missouri University of Science and Technol-
ogy, Rolla, Missouri, 174 pp.

Contributors: The principal authors on this publication are Nicole L. Witushynsky (née Podhorsky)
and Lesley H. Sneed, Ph.D., PE, of Missouri University of Science & Technology. This document
represents a summary of their CRSI research project on the subject topic; the final report should be
referenced for more information on the topic research.

Keywords: Development length, standard hook, tilt, deformed bar, reinforcement, reinforced concrete

Reference: Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute-CRSI [2013], “Evaluation of the Orientation of 90°
and 180° Reinforcing Bar Hooks in Wide Members,” CRSI Research Note RN 2009-2, Schaum-
burg, Illinois, 8 pp.
933 North Plum Grove Rd.
Note: This publication is intended for the use of professionals competent to evaluate the signifi- Schaumburg, IL 60173-4758
cance and limitations of its contents and who will accept responsibility for the application of the p. 847-517-1200 • f. 847-517-1206
material it contains. The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute reports the foregoing material as a www.crsi.org
matter of information and, therefore, disclaims any and all responsibility for application of the stated
principles or for the accuracy of the sources other than material developed by the Institute. Regional Offices Nationwide
A Service of the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
The opinions and findings expressed in this Research Note are those of the researchers and do not
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
necessarily reflect the opinions or recommendations of the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. ©2013 This publication, or any part thereof, may not be
reproduced without the expressed written consent of CRSI.

Printed in the U.S.A.