PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 12, 2026Applied Sciences0 citationsOpen Access

Anchorage Strength Model for Large-Diameter Headed Bars Anchored at the Cutoff Point

HJHyung-Suk Jung

Key Points

  • To quantify the anchorage behavior of large-diameter headed bars and develop a predictive strength model.
  • Tested nineteen concrete beam specimens under four-point loading conditions
  • Examined variables including development length and concrete compressive strength
  • Measured effects of transverse reinforcement on anchorage strength
  • Anchorage strength increased with greater concrete compressive strength and development length
  • Strength enhancement was notably greater with transverse reinforcement (up to ~60%)
  • Most specimens failed by splitting, demonstrating dominant bond contribution (70–86%) at failure.

Abstract

Design guidance for headed-bar development remains uncertain for large-diameter bars at cutoff points, where bar termination increases anchorage demand and confinement is often limited. This study quantified the anchorage behavior of 43 and 57 mm headed bars and established a regression-based strength model grounded in a splitting-controlled bond–bearing mechanism. Nineteen reinforced concrete beam specimens were tested under four-point loading configured to place the bending-moment inflection point at the head location. The primary variables were the development length (ldt = 12–28db), concrete compressive strength (fc′ = 42 and 70 MPa), clear side cover, clear spacing, and transverse reinforcement index (Ktr/db = 0–2.0). All the specimens failed by splitting prior to bar yielding, characterized by longitudinal cracking along the development region and cover spalling near the head. The anchorage strength increased with concrete compressive strength and development length and was most strongly enhanced by transverse reinforcement (up to ~60%). At failure, the bond contributed 70–86% of the developed stress, while the head-bearing contribution increased with confinement. Existing ACI 318-19 and KDS-2021 provisions were generally unconservative, particularly for unconfined specimens. The proposed bond–bearing model showed a close agreement with the test database (mean test/prediction = 0.99; COV = 4.72%) within stated parameter limits.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hyung-Suk Jung (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b2584996eeacc4fcec7c39https://doi.org/10.3390/app16052599
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper