Statistical analyses of 133 splice and development specimens in which the bars are not confined by transverse reinforcement and 166 specimens in which the bars are confined by transverse reinforcement are used to develop an expression for the bond force at failure as a function of concrete strength, cover, bar spacing, development/splice length, transverse reinforcement, and the geometric properties of the developed/spliced bars. Results are used to formulate design criteria that incorporate a reliability-based strength reduction (f) factor that allows the calculation of a single value for both development and splice length for given material properties and member geometry. As with earlier studies, the analyses demonstrate that the relationship between bond force and development or splice length ld is linear but not proportional. Thus, to increase the bond force (or bar stress) by a given percentage requires more than the percentage increase in ld . f ¢ c 1/2 does not provide an accurate representation of the effect of concrete strength on bond strength over the full range of concrete strengths in use today; development/splice strengths are underestimated for low-strength concretes and overestimated for high-strength concretes. f¢ c 1/4 provides an accurate representation of the effect of concrete strength on bond strength for concretes with compressive strengths between 2500 and 16,000 psi (17 and 110 MPa). The most accurate representation of the effect of transverse reinforcement on bond strength obtained in the current analysis includes parameters that account for the number of transverse reinforcing bars that cross the developed/spliced bar, the area of the transverse reinforcement, the number of bars developed or spliced at one location, the relative rib area of the developed/spliced bar, and the size of the developed/spliced bar. The yield strength of transverse reinforcement does not play a role in the effectiveness of the transverse reinforcement in improving development/splice strength. Depending on the design expression selected, for conventional and high relative rib area bars that are not confined by transverse reinforcement, development lengths average 2 to 14 percent higher and splice lengths 12 to 22 percent lower than those obtained using ACI 318-95. For conventional reinforcing bars confined by transverse reinforcement, development lengths average 5 percent lower to 16 percent higher than those obtained using ACI 318-95, while splice lengths average 11 to 27 percent lower than those obtained using ACI 318-95. For high relative rib area reinforcing bars confined by transverse reinforcement, development lengths average 3 to 17 percent lower than those obtained using ACI 318 95, while splice lengths average 25 to 36 percent lower than those obtained using ACI 318-95. When confined by transverse reinforcement, high relative rib area bars require development and splice lengths that are 13 to 16 percent lower than
required by conventional bars
