You are on page 1of 168

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Frostig.3. Keywords: beam. flexural. alternate analysis and design techniques can be developed based on the understanding obtained from numerical simulations to ensure the required capacity in FRP reinforced concrete structures. In particular. A comparison of the proposed approach with the experimental data indicated that the procedure provides a good lower bound for conservative predictions of load-carrying capacity. and reviewed under Institute publication policies. INTRODUCTION In recent years. A pilot experimental and analytical study was conducted by Bank. modulus of elasticity. conventional steel or FRP bars. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the present study were: 1) to investigate the ability of explicit finite element analysis tools to predict the behavior of composite grid reinforced concrete beams. V. concrete. No. and Shapira3 to investigate the feasibility of developing three-dimensional pultruded FRP grating cages to reinforce concrete beams. and lightweight systems suitable for assembly automation and ideal for reducing field installation and maintenance costs. Based on this analysis. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the structural members present in a concrete beam reinforced with the three-dimensional FRP reinforcement investigated in this study.5. and thus no bond is necessary for proper load transfer. and Michael E. For instance.9. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The research work presented describes the use of advanced numerical simulation for the analysis of FRP reinforced concrete. FRP grids are prefabricated. 2. and force transfer characteristics of FRP composite grids. March-April 2003. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. 2) to evaluate the effect of the shear span-depth ratio in the failure mode of the beams and the stress state of the main flexural reinforcement at ultimate conditions. composite. this effort provides a basis for the understanding of the interaction between the composite grid and the concrete when large flexural-shear cracks are present. American Concrete Institute. fiber-reinforced polymer.10 One specific type of three-dimensional FRP reinforcement is constructed from commercially manufactured pultruded FRP profiles (also referred to as FRP grating cages). an explicit finite element program widely used for the nonlinear transient analysis of structures. a detailed finite element substructure model was developed to further analyze the stress state of the main longitudinal reinforcement at ultimate conditions. Plesha This study focuses on the use of explicit finite element analysis tools to predict the behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite grid reinforced concrete beams subjected to four-point bending. ductility. a procedure was proposed for the analysis of composite grid reinforced concrete beams that accounts for different failure modes.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. All rights reserved. 100-S27 TECHNICAL PAPER Analysis of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Grid Reinforced Concrete Beams by Federico A. The composite grid was modeled in a discrete manner using beam and shell elements. Lawrence C. 02-100 received March 27. Pertinent discussion will be published in the January-February 2004 ACI Structural Journal if received by September 1. Tavarez. Also. MS No. Bank. Predictions were obtained using LS-DYNA. Continuing research is being conducted to fully understand the behavior of composite grid reinforced concrete to commercialize its use and gain confidence in its design for widespread structural applications. 2003. This type of reinforcement provides integrated axial.6 Three-dimensional FRP composite grids provide a mechanical anchorage within the concrete due to intersecting elements. Therefore. As such. Failure of all beams tested occurred due to rupture of the FRP main longitudinal reinforcement in the shear span of the beam. and can also provide a concrete member with the ability to fail in a pseudoductile manner. including load-deflection characteristics and failure modes. The load-deflection characteristics obtained from the simulations show good correlation with the experimental data. and shear reinforcement. 2002.8 The geometrical shape. Research on constructability issues and economics of FRP reinforcement cages for concrete members has shown the potential of these reinforcements to reduce life-cycle costs and significantly increase construction site productivity. connected to a concrete solid mesh. research on fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite grids has demonstrated that these products may be as practical and cost-effective as reinforcements for concrete structures. Experimental results also revealed that most of the deflection at high loads appeared to occur due to localized rotations at large flexural crack widths ACI Structural Journal. Copyright © 2003. the behavior of concrete beams with this type of reinforcement needs to be thoroughly investigated. Current flexural design methods for FRP reinforced concrete beams are analogous to the design of concrete beams using conventional reinforcement. reinforcement. Background Several researchers have studied the viability of threedimensional FRP grids to reinforce concrete members. 100. are likely to be different than 250 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 . however. stress. shear.1-5 FRP grid reinforcement offers several advantages in comparison with conventional steel reinforcement and FRP reinforcing bars.7 This type of information is critical for the development of design guidelines for FRP grid reinforced concrete members. These numerical simulations can be used effectively to understand the complex behavior and phenomena observed in the response of composite grid reinforced concrete beams. there is a need to predict the correct failure mode of composite grid reinforced concrete beams where there is significant flexural-shear cracking. noncorrosive. and 3) to develop an alternate procedure for the analysis of composite grid reinforced concrete beams considering multiple failure modes.

Research results concluded that the design of concrete beams with composite grid reinforcements must account for failure of the main bars in the shear span.5 mm (shortest dimension parallel to the width of the beam).14 Due to the aforementioned behavior for beams reinforced with composite grids. ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 Fig. His research interests include finite element analysis. and 3800 mm were modeled corresponding to shear span-depth ratios of 3. Bank is a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. and the use of discrete element methods for modeling concrete damage and fragmentation under impact. and beam elements to represent the top reinforcement. the longitudinal bars play an important role in the overall behavior of the system. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. using explicit finite element tools to simulate this behavior and determine the conditions that will cause failure in the beam. with values of 3.15 Using an explicit finite element method. dynamics of geologic media. constitutive modeling of geologic discontinuity behavior. it would be very difficult to model the nonlinearities and progressive damage/ failure using an implicit method. ACI member Lawrence C. He received his PhD in civil engineering and engineering mechanics from Columbia University in 1985. He received his BS in civil engineering from the University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez and his MSCE from the University of Wisconsin. and long beam. As will be seen later. Even though failure modes of the beams were different depending upon the characteristics of the composite grid. Further experimental tests on concrete beams reinforced with three-dimensional FRP composite grids were conducted to investigate the behavior and performance of the grids when used to reinforce beams that develop significant flexural-shear cracking. shell elements to represent the bottom longitudinal reinforcement. can result in long run times due to the large number of time steps that are required. Because the time step depends on the smallest element size. 2. The cross-sectional properties were identical for the three models. Fig. He is a member of ACI Committee 440. 2—Deformation due to rotation of rigid bodies. Plesha is a professor in the Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics Program in the Department of Engineering Physics at the University of WisconsinMadison.13. and 6. The present study investigates the stress-state at the flexuralshear cracks in the main longitudinal bars. it is postulated that the longitudinal bars in the member are subjected to a uniform tensile stress distribution. especially to model a quasistatic experiment as the one presented herein. medium beam. beams with relatively small shear span-depth ratios typically fail due to rupture of the main FRP longitudinal reinforcement at large flexural-shear cracks. especially those that exhibit significant flexural-shear cracking. Numerical analysis of FRP composite grid reinforced beams Implicit finite element methods are usually desirable for the analysis of quasistatic problems. and 6. The concrete representation consisted of 8-node solid elements with dimensions 25 x 25 x 12. 4. The reinforcement mesh was connected to the concrete mesh by shared nodes between the concrete and the 251 . the use of composite materials for structural applications. His research interests include finite element analysis. plus a nonuniform stress distribution due to localized rotations at large cracks. progressive failure of materials and structural systems. Three different shear spandepth ratios (a/d) were investigated. These models are referred to herein as short beam. and transverse bars) on the load-deflection behavior and failure modes. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the mesh used for the models developed. 4. The study concluded that further research was needed to obtain a better understanding of the stress state in the longitudinal reinforcement at failure to predict the correct capacity and failure modes of the beams. Tavarez is a graduate student in the Department of Engineering Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As a result. 1—Structural members in composite grid reinforced concrete beam. with one-point integration. vertical bars. Failure modes included splitting and rupture of the main longitudinal bars and shear-out failure of the vertical bars. efficiency is compromised by mesh refinement. discrete element analysis.12 A schematic of this behavior is shown in Fig. and therefore they were modeled with greater detail than the rest of the reinforcement. and continuum modeling of jointed saturated rock masses. respectively. even though they are over-reinforced according to conventional flexural design procedures. depend on mesh topology and severity of nonlinearities.11 The data obtained from this recently completed experimental study was compared with the finite element results obtained in the present study. Beams with span lengths of 2300. all beams failed in their shear spans.7 Different composite grid configurations were designed to study the influence of the FRP grid components (longitudinal bars. developed in the shear span near the load points. The three-dimensional finite element mesh for this study was developed in HyperMesh16 and consisted of brick elements to represent the concrete. respectively. and durability of FRP materials. The mesh discretization was established so that the reinforcement nodes coincided with the concrete nodes. and thus an explicit method was chosen to perform the analysis. His research interests include FRP reinforcement systems for structures. which can be of great importance in determining the ultimate flexural strength of the beam. and cross rods. Their efficiency and accuracy. Experimental studies have shown that due to the development of large cracks in the FRP-reinforced concrete beams. most of the deformation takes place at a relatively small number of cracks between rigid bodies. 3050.7. however. stirrups. A second phase of this experimental research was performed by Ozel and Bank5 to investigate the capacity and failure modes of composite grid reinforced concrete beams with different shear span-to-effective depth ratios. He received his PhD from Northwestern University in 1983. In the problem at hand.Federico A.5. Michael E.5. soil structure interaction modeling.5. respectively.

To model the bottom longitudinal reinforcement. stirrups. going from zero displacement at t = 0. reinforcement. Fig. as shown in Fig. The vertical members have a width of 38 mm and a thickness of 6. the four-node BelytschkoLin-Tsay shell element formulation was used. That is.7 mm. respectively. The two-node Hughes-Liu beam element formulation with 2 x 2 Gauss integration was used for modeling the top longitudinal bars.Fig. The prescribed displacement was linear. The finite element simulations were displacement controlled. each model contains two top longitudinal bars with heights of 25 mm and thicknesses of 4 mm. 4—Short beam model at several stages in simulation. The models also have four cross rods and three vertical members at each stirrup location. which is usually the control method for plastic and nonlinear behavior. The cross rod elements have a circular cross-sectional area with a diameter of 12. 3—Finite element model for composite grid reinforced concrete beam.4 mm. 3.0 s for the short. medium. a perfect bond is assumed between the concrete and the composite grid. and 90 mm at t = 1. with two through-the-thickness integration points. The algorithm CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SINGLE_ SURFACE in LS-DYNA was used to model the contact ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 . 252 Boundary conditions and event simulation time To simulate simply supported conditions. the beam was supported on two rigid plates made of solid elements. a displacement was prescribed on the rigid loading plates located on top of the beam. The corresponding applied load due to the prescribed displacement was then determined by monitoring the vertical reaction forces at the concrete nodes in contact with the support elements. As such.0 s to 60. and long beams. In this study. 3. 75. and cross rods in the finite element models. as shown in Fig.

there is considerable damage in the shear span of the concrete beam. respectively. however. respectively. Properties used for this model are shown in Table 1. 4. Figure 4 also shows the behavior of the composite grid inside the concrete beam. The lighter areas in the model represent damage (high effective plastic strain) in the concrete material model. All displacements in the simulation graphics were amplified using a factor of 5 to enable viewing.0 s was sufficiently long so that inertial effects are negligible and the analysis can be used to represent a quasistatic experiment.7 GPa 14. and long beams for the experimental and LS-DYNA results. As the time over which the load is applied approaches the period of the lowest natural frequency of vibration of the structural system. A rigid material model ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 Fig.19 Poisson’s ratio and a tensile strength of 3. 20 The remaining reinforcement (top longitudinal bars. the load application time was chosen to be long enough so that inertial effects would be negligible. triaxial tension.01 for uniaxial tension.8 MPa 151.0 s of load application time on a 600 MHz PC with 512 MB RAM. and face area of the elements on the contact surface.9 MPa 302. Material models Material Type 72 (MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE) in LS-DYNA was chosen for the concrete representation in the present study. it was determined that having a load application time of 1. The composite material model uses the Chang/Chang failure criteria. The model slightly over-predicts the stiffness of the beam. The formulation has also been used successfully to model the behavior of standard reinforced concrete dividing walls subjected to blast loads. medium. As expected. and the concrete beam. which shows the applied load versus midspan deflection behavior for the short. 17 Accordingly. As shown in this figure. The softening parameters in the model were chosen to be 15. 5. Actual deflection values are given in Fig. inertial forces become more important in the response.9 MPa 177. –50.6 GPa 0. The tensile properties in the transverse direction were taken from tests on unnotched specimens. and long beams.18 The values used in the input file corresponded to a 34. 5—Experimental and finite element load-deflection results for short.18 This concrete model is a plasticitybased formulation with three independent failure surfaces (yield.6 GPa 3. Therefore.between the supports. FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Graphical representations of the finite element model for the short beam at several stages in the simulation are shown in Fig. Table 1—Material properties of FRP bottom bars Ex Ey Gxy νxy β 26. describing the deviatoric part of the stress state. This algorithm automatically generates slave and master surfaces and uses a penalty method where normal interface springs are used to resist interpenetration between element surfaces. Fig. 11 Values for shear and compressive properties were chosen based on data in the literature. Tensile and compressive meridians are defined for each surface.5 Xt Yt Sc Xc Yc 266. The flexural frequency of vibration was computed analytically for the three beams using conventional formulas for vibration theory. maximum. The finite element analysis was performed to represent quasistatic experimental testing. Because the longitudinal bars were drilled with holes for cross rod connections. and compression. the CPU run time varied approximately from 22 to 65 h (depending on the length of the beam) for 1. and 0. 6—Typical failure of composite grid reinforced concrete beam (Ozel and Bank5). which governs failure in the element. The interface stiffness is computed as a function of the bulk modulus. the tensile strength in the longitudinal direction of the FRP bars was taken from experimental tensile tests conducted on notched bar specimens with a 12. Detailed information about this concrete material model can be found in Malvar et al. This material model has been used successfully for predicting the response of standard uniaxial. stirrups. load bars.5 MPa concrete compressive strength with a 0.19 The longitudinal bars were modeled using an orthotropic material model (MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE). The significant drop in load seen in the load-deflection curves produced in LS-DYNA is caused by failure in the 253 . the ultimate load value from the finite element model agrees well with the experimental result. The jumps in the LS-DYNA curves in the figure represent the progressive tensile and shear failure in the concrete elements. and residual) that change shape depending on the hydrostatic pressure of the element. and triaxial concrete tests in both tension and compression. biaxial.7 mm hole to account for stress concentration effects at the cross rod locations.0 MPa 6. medium. volume.26 0.0 MPa (MAT_RIGID) was used to model the supports and the loading plates. and under-predicts the ultimate deflection. and cross rods) was modeled using two-noded beam elements using a linear elastic material model (MAT_ELASTIC) with the same properties used for the longitudinal direction in the bottom FRP longitudinal bars. For the finite element simulations presented in this study. which is material Type 54 in LS-DYNA.4 MPa.

the ultimate load ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 . For this model. it can be seen that this model exhibits the least shear damage. failure was caused by a combination of rupture in the longitudinal bars as well as concrete crushing in the compression zone. Once again. as expected. On the other hand. This compressive failure was located near the load points. This deflection behavior was also observed in the experimental tests. The deformed shape seen in this figure indicates a peculiar behavior throughout the length of the beam. there is considerable damage in the shear span of the member. Large shear cracks develop in the beam. It appears to indicate that after a certain level of damage in the shear span of the model. it can be seen that the shear damage is not as significant as in the previous simulation. Failure in this model was also caused by rupture of the longitudinal bars at a location near the load points. longitudinal bars. These rotations create a stress concentration that causes the longitudinal bars to fail at those locations. which would be the behavior predicted using conventional moment-curvature methods based on the curvature of the member. Figure 7 shows the medium beam model at several stages in the simulation. In the experimental test. the longitudinal bars exhibit a parabolic shape. 7—Medium beam model at several stages in simulation. localized rotations occur in the beam near the load points. as seen in Fig. 11 As shown in this figure. Comparing this simulation with the one obtained for the short beam. 11 Figure 8 shows the results for the long beam model. The deflected shape seen in the longitudinal bars shows that this model does not have the abrupt changes in rotation that 254 were observed in the short beam. and could have been initiated by cracks formed due to stress concentrations produced by the rigid loading plates. Figure 6 shows a typical failure in the longitudinal bars from the experiments conducted on these beams. However. the finite element analysis slightly over-predicted both the stiffness and the ultimate load value obtained from the experiment. the stiffness of the beam was slightly over-predicted. however. As a result. the ultimate deflection was under-predicted. causing the member to deform in the same fashion as the one seen in the finite element model. 4. The figure also shows the behavior of the main longitudinal bars. Fig.Fig. which would imply that this model does not exhibit significant flexural-shear damage. Comparing this simulation with the two previous ones. 8—Long beam model at several stages in simulation.

and finite element results.8 97. 4.2 108. shown in Fig. the elements fail in an isotropic fashion and. As such. followed by rupture of the main longitudinal bars.7 143. factors such as aggregate interlock and dowel action would contribute to transfer shear forces in a concrete beam. and 8 for the short. Although the finite element results over-predicted the ultimate load for the medium and long beams. there is no tension transfer between the concrete at that location. 255 .0 Tensile force in each main bar. In the concrete material formulation. The results for tensile load in the bars reported in this table suggest that composite grid reinforced concrete beams with values of shear span-depth ratio greater than 4. Failure in the experimental test was caused by a compression failure at a location near one of the load application bars.9 113. kN Flexural analysis 196. continues to develop. causing the member to lose stiffness as cracking progresses. Therefore. therefore.1 kN).5 kN. which can be related to the simulation stages given in Fig. the total axial load in the longitudinal bars for the short beam model produces a uniform stress of 130 MPa. it cannot transfer further shear. and tensile failure in the concrete would not affect the response as directly as in the finite element model. Therefore. when a crack opens. the element still has the capability to transfer shear forces and the stresses will gradually decrease to zero. while for the medium beam model and the long beam model the tensile force at failure was approximately 76. medium. conventional flexural analysis results. As a result of this shear damage in the concrete.6 kN. and long beam. 9(a).6 76. while the internal moment was approximately 339 N-m for both the short beam model and the long beam model. the tensile force in the longitudinal bars at midspan would be obtained by dividing the ultimate moment obtained from the experimental test by the internal moment arm. The sum of these two components produces a tensile stress of 271 MPa. It is important to mention that the concrete material model parameters that govern the post-failure behavior of the material played a key role in the finite element results for the three finite element models.7 Finite element analysis 51.5 Beam Short Medium Experimental 215. When this value is entered in the Chang/Chang failure criterion for the tensile longitudinal direction. Figure 5 also shows the time at total failure for each beam. conventional flexural analysis under-predicts the actual ultimate load carried by the beams and a better ultimate load prediction was obtained using finite element analysis. According to Fig. depending on their shear span-depth ratio. this behavior causes the beam to fail prematurely as a result of tensile failure in the concrete. kN Flexural analysis 90. It is clear that the shear damage in the short beam model causes a considerable localized effect in the stress state of the longitudinal bars. which is important to consider for design purposes. the internal moment in the short beam model was approximately 734 N-m. the use of conventional beam analysis formulas to analyze this composite grid reinforced beam would not only erroneously predict the force in the longitudinal bars. 9.6 kN. 9(a) and (b).7 90. This would imply that there is a uniform tensile force in each longitudinal bar of 88. the beam shear span-depth ratio was sufficiently large so that the stress state in the longitudinal bars would not be greatly affected by the shear damage produced in the beam. 7. resulting in a total failure load comparable to the experimental result. The internal moment in the longitudinal bars shown in Fig. Because the failed elements can still transfer tensile stresses. In real concrete behavior. including experimental results. the curvature at the center of the beam is not large enough to produce a tensile force in the bars of this magnitude (88. which is not enough to fail the element in tension at this location. This tensile force is never achieved in the finite element simulation due to considerable shear damage in the concrete elements. which is approximately half the load predicted using conventional methods. the modifications caused an increase in the stiffness of the beam. the ultimate internal moment produces a tensile stress at the bottom of the longitudinal bars of 141 MPa.Table 2—Summary of experimental and finite element results Total load capacity. the tensile force and the internal moment of the longitudinal bars at the failed location for the three finite element models was determined. 9(b). respectively. Failure in the model was caused by rupture of the longitudinal bars. On the other hand.1 Fig. and (b) internal moment in longitudinal bars. as shown in Fig. However. but it would also predict a concrete ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 Long compression failure mode.3 161. Regarding shear transfer. the simulations provided a better understanding of the complex phenomena involved in the behavior of the beams. In summary. show that for both cases. the strength is exceeded and the elements fail. The curves for the medium beam model and the long beam model.7 90. however. Table 2 presents the ultimate load capacity for the three models. As shown in this table. It is interesting to note that for the short beam model.1 kN. value compares well with the experimental result.9 Finite element analysis 215. the parameters that govern the post-failure behavior in the concrete material model were chosen so that when an element fails in tension. Because the concrete elements are connected to the reinforcement mesh. 9—(a) Tensile force in longitudinal bars. Using conventional over-reinforced beam analysis formulas. the force in the bars according to the simulation was approximately 51. the tensile force at failure was approximately 51. To investigate the stress state of a single longitudinal bar at ultimate conditions. the ultimate axial force obtained in the longitudinal bars for both models was close to the ultimate axial load that would be predicted by using conventional methods. The tensile load in the bars was computed (analytically) by dividing the experimental moment capacity by the internal moment arm computed by using strain compatibility.5 76. which was not the failure mode observed from the experimental tests. As mentioned before. however. once an element fails in tension.2 130.5 can be analyzed by using the current flexural theory.

Stress analysis of FRP bars As discussed previously, failure modes observed in experimental tests performed on composite grid reinforced concrete beams suggest that the longitudinal bars are subjected to a uniform tensile stress plus a nonuniform bending stress due to localized rotations at locations of large cracks. This section presents a simple analysis procedure to determine the stress conditions at which the longitudinal bars fail. As a result of this analysis, a procedure is presented to analyze/design a composite grid reinforced concrete beam, considering a nonuniform stress state in the longitudinal bars. A more detailed finite element model of a section of the longitudinal bars was developed in HyperMesh16 using shell elements, as shown in Fig. 10. A height of 50.8 mm was specified for the bar model, with a thickness of 4.1 mm. The length of the bar and the diameter of the hole were 152 and 12.7 mm, respectively. The material formulation and properties were the same as the ones used for the longitudinal bars in the concrete beam models, with the exception that now the unnotched tensile strength of the material (Xt = 521 MPa) was used as an input parameter because the hole was incorporated in the model. The finite element model was first loaded in tension to establish the tensile strength of the notched bar. The load was applied by prescribing a displacement at the end of the bar. Figure 10 shows the simulation results for the model at three stages, including elastic deformation and ultimate failure. As expected, a stress concentration developed on the boundary of the hole causing failure in the web of the model, followed by ultimate failure of the cross section. A tensile strength of 274 MPa was obtained for the model. A value of 267 MPa was obtained from experimental tests conducted on notched bars (tensile strength used in Table 2), demonstrating good agreement between experimental and finite element results. A similar procedure was performed to establish the strength of the bar in pure bending. That is, displacements were prescribed at the end nodes to induce bending in the model. Figure 11 shows the simulation results for the model at three stages, showing elastic bending and ultimate failure caused by flexural failure at the tension flange. As shown in this figure, the width of the top flange was modified to prevent buckling in the flange (which was present in the original model). Because buckling would not be present in a longitudinal bar due to concrete confinement, it was decided to modify the finite element model to avoid this behavior. To maintain an equivalent cross-sectional area, the thickness of the flange was increased. A maximum pure bending moment of 2.92 kN-m was obtained for the model. Knowing the maximum force that the bar can withstand in pure tension and pure bending, the model was then loaded at different values of tension and moment to cause failure. This procedure was performed several times to develop a tensionmoment interaction diagram for the bar, as shown in Fig. 12. The discrete points shown in the figure are combinations of tensile force and moment values that caused failure in the finite element model. This interaction diagram can be used to predict what combination of tensile force and moment would cause failure in the FRP longitudinal bar. Considerations for design The strength design philosophy states that the flexural capacity of a reinforced concrete member must exceed the flexural demand. The design capacity of a member refers 256

Fig. 10—Failure on FRP bar subjected to pure tension.

Fig. 11—Failure on FRP bar subjected to pure bending. to the nominal strength of the member multiplied by a strengthreduction factor φ, as shown in the following equation

φ Mn ≥ Mu

(1)

For FRP reinforced concrete beams, a compression failure is the preferred mode of failure, and, therefore, the beam should be over-reinforced. As such, conventional formulas are used to ensure that the selected cross-sectional area of the longitudinal bars is sufficiently large to have concrete compression failure before FRP rupture. Considering a concrete compression failure, the capacity of the beam is computed using the following8 a M n = A f f f  d – - 2 Af ff a = -------------β1 fc ′b (2)

(3)

β1 d – a f f = E f ε cu ----------------a

(4)

Experimental tests have shown, however, that there is a critical value of shear Vscrit in a beam where localized rotations due to large flexural-shear cracks begin to occur. The ultimate moment in the beam is assumed to be related to this shear-critical value and it is determined according to the following equation Mn = n ⋅ ( t ⋅ i e + m ) (5)

where n is the number of longitudinal bars. Once the beam has reached the shear-critical value, it is assumed (conservatively) that the tensile force t, which is the force in each bar at the shear-critical stage, remains constant and any additional load is carried by localized internal moment m in the longitudinal bars. Furthermore, it is assumed that at this stage the concrete is still in its elastic range, and, therefore, the internal moment arm ie can be determined by equilibrium and elastic strain compatibility. The tensile force t in Eq. (5) is computed ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

Table 3—Summary of results for three beams using proposed approach
Experimental ultimate Theoretical shear shear, kN critical, kN 108.1 71.6 54.7 88.1 88.1 88.1 Total load capacity, kN Equation for moment capacity Mn = t · ie + m Mn = Af f f (d – a/ 2) Mn = Af f f (d – a/2) Experimental 216 143 109 Analytical Tension in each Pn = Mn /as main bar, kN 199 131 99 70.7 90.7 90.7

Beam Short Medium Long

according to the following equation for a simply supported beam in four-point bending V s ⋅ as t = --------------------ni e
crit

(6)

where as is the shear span of the member. The obtained value for the tension t in each bar is then entered in Eq. (7), which is the equation for the interaction diagram, to determine the ultimate internal moment m in Eq. (5) that causes the bar to fail. In this equation, tmax and mmax are known properties of the notched composite bar. t - 2 for t > 0 ; m > 0 m = m max 1 –  ------- t max

(7)

The aforementioned procedure is a very simplified analysis to determine the capacity of a composite grid reinforced concrete beam, and, as can be seen, it depends considerably on the shearcritical value Vscrit established for the beam. This value is somewhat difficult to determine. Based on experimental data, a value given by Eq. (8) (analogous to Eq. (9-1) of ACI 440.1R-01) can be considered to be a lower bound for FRP reinforced beams with shear reinforcement. Vs
crit

Fig. 12—Tension-moment interaction diagram for longitudinal bar. to compute the maximum moment that the bar can carry as a function of the tensile force acting in the bar. If a specific bar is always used, however, this difficulty is eliminated, and if the flexural demand is not exceeded, a higher capacity can be obtained by increasing the number of longitudinal bars in the section. According to the results obtained for the three beams analyzed herein, the proposed procedure will under-predict the capacity of the composite grid reinforced concrete beam, but it will provide a good lower bound for a conservative design. Furthermore, it will ensure that the longitudinal bars will not fail prematurely as a result of the development of large flexural-shear cracks in the member, and thus the member will be able to meet and exceed the flexural demand for which it was designed. CONCLUSIONS Based on the explicit finite element results and comparison with experimental data, the following conclusions can be made: 1. Failure in the FRP longitudinal bars occurs due to a combination of a uniform tensile stress plus a nonuniform stress caused by localized rotations at large flexural-shear cracks. Therefore, this failure mode has to be accounted for in the analysis and design of composite grid reinforced concrete beams, especially those that exhibit significant flexuralshear cracking; 2. The shear span for the medium beam and the long beam studied was sufficiently large so that the stress state in the longitudinal bars was not considerably affected by shear damage in the beam. Therefore, the particular failure mode observed by the short beam model is only characteristic of 257

7 ρf Ef 1 -- f ′ bd = ----------------90 β 1 f c ′6 c

(8)

where fc′ is the specified compressive strength of the concrete in MPa. In summary, the ultimate moment capacity in the beam is determined according to one of the following equations
crit M n = Af ff  d – a -- for V ult < V s   2

(9)

M n = n ⋅ ( t ⋅ i e + m ) for V ult > V s

crit

(10)

According to Eq. (9), if the ultimate shear force computed analytically based on conventional theory does not exceed the shear-critical value Vscrit, the moment capacity can be computed from flexural analysis. On the other hand, if the computed ultimate shear force is greater than Vscrit, Eq. (10) is used. Table 3 presents a summary showing the load capacity for the three beams obtained experimentally and analytically using the present approach. As shown in this table, the equation used to determine the flexural capacity depends on the ultimate shear obtained for each beam. As seen in this procedure, the only difficulty in applying these formulas is the fact that an equation needs to be determined ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

beams with a low shear span-depth ratio. Moreover, according to the proposed analysis for such systems, both the medium beam and the long beam could be designed using conventional flexural theory because the shear-critical value was never reached for these beam lengths; 3. Numerical simulations can be used effectively to understand the complex behavior and phenomena observed in the response of composite grid reinforced concrete beams and, therefore, can be used as a complement to experimental testing to account for multiple failure modes in the design of composite grid reinforced concrete beams; and 4. The proposed method of analysis for composite grid reinforced concrete beams considering multiple failure modes will under-predict the capacity of the reinforced concrete beam, but it will provide a good lower bound for a conservative design. These design considerations will ensure that the longitudinal bars will not fail prematurely (or catastrophically) as a result of the development of large flexural-shear cracks in the member, and thus the member can develop a pseudoductile failure by concrete crushing, which is more desirable than a sudden FRP rupture. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant. No. CMS 9896074. Javier Malvar and Karagozian & Case are thanked for providing information regarding the concrete material formulation used in LS-DYNA. Jim Day, Todd Slavik, and Khanh Bui of Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC) are also acknowledged for their assistance in using the finite element software, as well as Strongwell Chatfield, MN, for producing the custom composite grids.

REFERENCES
1. Sugita, M., “NEFMAC—Grid Type Reinforcement,” Fiber-ReinforcedPlastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties and Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, A. Nanni, ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, V. 42, 1993, pp. 355-385. 2. Schmeckpeper, E. R., and Goodspeed, C. H., “Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction,” Journal of Composite Materials, V. 28, No. 14, 1994, pp. 1288-1304. 3. Bank, L. C.; Frostig, Y.; and Shapira, A., “Three-Dimensional FiberReinforced Plastic Grating Cages for Concrete Beams: A Pilot Study,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1997, pp. 643-652. 4. Smart, C. W., and Jensen, D. W., “Flexure of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Advanced Composite Orthogrids,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, V. 10, No. 1, Jan. 1997, pp. 7-15. 5. Ozel, M., and Bank, L. C., “Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with 3-D Composite Grids,” CD-ROM Paper No. 069. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Technical Conference, American Society for Composites, Virginia Tech, Va., Sept. 9-12, 2001. 6. Shapira, A., and Bank, L. C., “Constructability and Economics of FRP Reinforcement Cages for Concrete Beams,” Journal of Composites for Construction, V. 1, No. 3, Aug. 1997, pp. 82-89. 7. Bank, L. C., and Ozel, M., “Shear Failure of Concrete Beams Reinforced with 3-D Fiber Reinforced Plastic Grids,” Fourth International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. Dolan, S. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, pp. 145-156. 8. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-01),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2001, 41 pp. 9. Nakagawa, H.; Kobayashi. M.; Suenaga, T.; Ouchi, T.; Watanabe, S.; and Satoyama, K., “Three-Dimensional Fabric Reinforcement,” FiberReinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties and Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, V. 42, A. Nanni, ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 387-404. 10. Yonezawa, T.; Ohno, S.; Kakizawa, T.; Inoue, K.; Fukata, T.; and Okamoto, R., “A New Three-Dimensional FRP Reinforcement,” FiberReinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties and Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, V. 42, A. Nanni, ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 405-419. 11. Ozel, M., “Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with 3-D Fiber Reinforced Plastic Grids,” PhD thesis, University of WisconsinMadison, 2002. 12. Lees, J. M., and Burgoyne, C. J., “Analysis of Concrete Beams with Partially Bonded Composite Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2000, pp. 252-258. 13. Shehata, E.; Murphy, R.; and Rizkalla, S., “Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,” Fourth International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. Dolan, S. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, pp. 157-167. 14. Guadagnini, M.; Pilakoutas, K.; and Waldron, P., “Investigation on Shear Carrying Mechanisms in FRP RC Beams,” FRPRCS-5, FibreReinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, C. J. Burgoyne, ed., V. 2, Cambridge, July 16-18, 2001, pp. 949-958. 15. Cook, R. D.; Malkus, D. S.; and Plesha, M. E., Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., 1989, 832 pp. 16. Altair Computing, HyperMesh Version 2.0 User’s Manual, Altair Computing Inc., Troy, Mich., 1995. 17. Thompson, W. T., and Dahleh, M. D., Theory of Vibration with Applications, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, N.J., 1998, 524 pp. 18. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford, J. E.; Wesevich, J. W.; and Simons, D., “A Plasticity Concrete Material Model for DYNA3D,” International Journal of Impact Engineering, V. 19, No. 9/10, 1997, pp. 847-873. 19. Tavarez, F. A., “Simulation of Behavior of Composite Grid Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Explicit Finite Element Methods,” MS thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2001. 20. Hallquist, J. O., LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual , Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, Calif., Apr. 2000.

NOTATION
a as b d Ef Ex Ey Gxy f ′c ff ie Mn m n Sc t Vscrit Vult Xc Xt Yc Yt β β1 εcu ρf νxy = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = depth of equivalent rectangular stress block length of shear span in reinforced concrete beam width of rectangular cross section distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement modulus of elasticity for FRP bar modulus of elasticity in longitudinal direction of FRP grid material modulus of elasticity in transverse direction of FRP grid material shear modulus of FRP grid members specified compressive strength of concrete stress in FRP reinforcement in tension internal moment arm in the elastic range nominal moment capacity internal moment in longitudinal FRP grid bars number of longitudinal FRP grid bars shear strength of FRP grid material tensile force in a longitudinal bar at the shear critical stage critical shear resistance provided by concrete in FRP grid reinforced concrete ultimate shear force in reinforced concrete beam longitudinal compressive strength of FRP grid material longitudinal tensile strength of FRP grid material transverse compressive strength of FRP grid material transverse tensile strength of FRP grid material weighting factor for shear term in Chang/Chang failure criterion ratio of the depth of Whitney’s stress block to depth to neutral axis concrete ultimate strain FRP reinforcement ratio Poisson’s ratio of FRP grid material

258

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

The proposed models are intended to provide substantial compatibility to nonlinear finite element analysis in the context of smeared rotating cracks in both the compression and tension stress regimes. among others. respectively. The smeared crack approach tends to be the most favored as documented by. Priestley.5 addressing the criticism that it cannot be effectively used to model general loading conditions. To reproduce accurate simulations of structural behavior. Keywords: cracks. The formulations are also easily adaptable to a fixed crack approach or an algorithm based on fixed principal stress directions. Partial unloading/reloading is also considered. A comprehensive review of cyclic models available in the literature and those reported herein can be found elsewhere. The formulations were implemented into a secant stiffness-based finite element algorithm. including Okamura and Maekawa.4 More recently.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. Therefore. 100. Vecchio5 initially adopted simple linear unloading/reloading rules for concrete. load. More important. Furthermore. 616 however. the modeling considers the shape of the unloading and reloading curves of concrete to capture the energy dissipation and the damage of the material due to load cycling. which is marked by excellent convergence and numerical stability. for reversed cyclic loading assumes smeared rotating cracks consistent with a compression field approach.6 and Mansour. Improved analysis and design can be achieved by modeling the main features of the hysteresis behavior of concrete and by addressing concrete in tension. the secant stiffness method has successfully modeled the response of structures subjected to reversed cyclic loading. American Concrete Institute. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The need for improved methods of analysis and modeling of concrete subjected to reversed loading has been brought to the fore by the seismic shear wall competition conducted by the Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation of Japan. used herein. No. has demonstrated good correlation to experimental results. All rights reserved.8 It is important to note that the models presented are not intended for fatigue analysis and are best suited for a limited number of excursions to a displacement level. MS No. the state of the art in analytical modeling of concrete subjected to general loading conditions requires improvement if the seismic response and ultimate strength of structures are to be evaluated with sufficient confidence. will be published in the JulyAugust 2004 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1. Okamura and Maekawa2 and Sittipunt and Wood. and reviewed under Institute publication policies. most are not applicable to the alternative method of analysis used by the authors.3 Their approach. 5. the rotating crack model eliminates the need to model normal stresses and shear stresses separately.7 among others. Copyright © 2003. and Park. Also presented are formulations for partial unloading and partial reloading. September-October 2003. the fixed crack assumption requires separate formulations to model the normal stress and shear stress hysteretic behavior. CONCRETE STRESS-STRAIN MODELS For demonstrative purposes. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure. The procedure has demonstrated excellent correlation to experimental data for structures subjected to monotonic loading. assuming fixed cracks. This paper presents a unified approach to constitutive modeling of reinforced concrete that can be implemented into finite element analysis procedures to provide accurate simulations of concrete structures subjected to reversed loading. if any. In the finite element method of analysis. was the apparent inability to accurately predict structure ductility. formulated in the context of smeared rotating cracks. The modeling is not limited to the compressive regime alone. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Lee. 2004. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 . the models are derived from tests under quasistatic loading. 2002.2 Mander. as the tensile behavior also plays a key role in the overall response of reinforced concrete structures. models reported that have demonstrated successful results under reversed cyclic loading are less common than models applicable to monotonic loading. 02-234 received July 2. linear reloading that incorporates degradation in the reloading stiffness based on the amount of strain recovered during the unloading phase. An alternative method of analysis. Vecchio Constitutive formulations are presented for concrete subjected to reversed cyclic loading consistent with a compression field approach. and improved plastic offset formulations. Further. in the case of seismic analysis. Features of the modeling include: nonlinear unloading using a Ramberg-Osgood formulation. Backbone curves from which unloading paths originate and on which reloading paths terminate are represented by the monotonic response curves and account for compression softening and tension stiffening in the compression and tension regions. INTRODUCTION The analysis of reinforced concrete structures subjected to general loading conditions requires realistic constitutive models and analytical procedures to produce reasonably accurate simulations of behavior. as structural components may partially unload and then partially reload during a seismic event. this approach is coupled with a secant stiffness formulation. V. 100-S64 TECHNICAL PAPER Compression Field Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed Loading: Formulation by Daniel Palermo and Frank J. and Hsu. for reinforced concrete subjected to reversed cyclic loading. have been documented in the literature. reinforced concrete. This is at odds with test observations. Documented herein are models. using a smeared rotating crack ACI Structural Journal. However. While several cyclic models for concrete.1 The results indicate that a method for predicting the peak strength of structural walls is not well established.

for the most part. 2) has been derived herein considering data from unconfined tests from Bahn and Hsu14 and Karsan and Jirsa. 2—Plastic offset models for concrete in compression. Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures. and the Bahn and Hsu14 model calculates progressively larger plastic offsets. University of Toronto. The models presented herein have also been formulated in the context of smeared rotating cracks. and compressing of internal voids. 1—Hysteresis models for concrete in compression: (a) unloading. respectively. The proposed plastic offset formulation is described as lower-bound solutions. including reversed cyclic loading. The model illustrated the dependence of the plastic offset strain on the strain at the onset of unloading from the backbone curve.+ 0.13 and confined tests from Buyukozturk and Tseng. εp is the strain at peak stress.132  -----ε c = ε p 0. The models reported in the literature were derived from their own set of experimental data and. the backbone curve for the tension response is shifted such that its origin coincides with the compressive plastic offset strain. Canada. the results indicated that the plastic offset was not affected by confining stresses or strains. internal cracking. University of Toronto. The plot indicates that models proposed by Buyukozturk and Tseng15 and Karsan and Jirsa13 represent upper. the models best suit the data from which they were derived.5 A companion paper 9 documenting the results of nonlinear finite element analyses. Ontario. Figure 2 also illustrates the response of other plastic offset models available in the literature. Hognestad parabola 10 or Popovics formulation.11 and includes the compression softening effects according to the Modified Compression Field Theory. and are intended to build upon the preliminary constitutive formulations presented by Vecchio. A unified model (refer to Fig. it is not unexpected that the Palermo model is skewed towards the lower-bound Karsan and Jirsa13 model. Approximately 50% of the datum points were obtained from the experimental results of Karsan and Jirsa.Daniel Palermo is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Civil Engineering. and large-scale testing and analysis of structural walls. Karsan and Jirsa13 were the first to report a plastic offset formulation for concrete subjected to cyclic compressive loading. which is essentially are dependent on the plastic offset strain εc the amount of nonrecoverable damage resulting from crushing of the concrete. His research interests include nonlinear analysis and design of concrete structures. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441. and 447. and no one model seems to be most appropriate. occurring in either of the principal strain directions.and ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 Fig. 1. and (b) reloading. The proposed formulation alleviates dependence on one set of experimental data and test conditions. constitutive modeling of reinforced concrete subjected to cyclic loading. may be affected by the testing conditions.166  ----- εp   εp  (1) where εcp is the plastic offset strain. by predicting Fig.13 therefore. A review of various formulations in the literature reveals that. The Palermo model. 12 The shape and slope of the unloading and reloading responses p . ACI member Frank J. The plastic offset is used as a parameter in defining the unloading path and in determining the degree of damage in the concrete due to cycling. Various plastic offset models for concrete in compression have been documented in the literature.15 From the latter tests. His interests include nonlinear analysis and design of concrete structures. respectively. Reinforced Concrete Columns. that is. Further. ε 2 c 2 ε 2 c p . approach. Compression response First consider the compression response. Toronto. Figure 1(a) and (b) illustrate the compressive unloading and compressive reloading responses. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto in 2002. to illustrate the analysis capability for arbitrary loading conditions. The proposed model (Palermo) predicts slightly larger residual strains than the lower limit. will demonstrate accurate simulations of structural behavior. Vecchio is Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Civil Engineering. The backbone curve typically follows the monotonic response. incorporating the proposed models. and ε2c is the strain at the onset of unloading from the backbone curve. 617 . illustrated in Fig. thus.

Further straining is required for the reloading response to intersect the backbone curve. measured from the instantaneous strain on the unloading path to the unloading strain. is the degradation in the reloading stiffness resulting from load cycling. no additional damage is induced in the concrete for hysteresis loops occurring at strains less than the maximum unloading strain. This phenomenon is further illustrated through the partial unloading and partial reloading formulations. the reloading curve does not return to the backbone curve at the previous maximum unloading strain (refer to Fig. Figure 3(a) and (b) illustrate good correlation with experimental data. Reloading can sufficiently be modeled by a linear response and is done so by most researchers. A. however. This pinching phenomenon has been observed by Palermo and Vecchio8 and Pilakoutas and Elnashai16 in the load-deformation response of structural walls dominated by shear-related mechanisms. 1 (b)). 3(a)) and 33 datum points for the postpeak regime (Fig. and Park6 attempted to incorporate this phenomenon by defining a new 618 βd is a damage indicator.14 Karsan and Jirsa. 17 f2c is the stress calculated from the backbone curve at the peak unloading strain ε 2c. Because there was a negligible amount of scatter among the test series. which is commonly ignored.15 Bahn and Hsu. Their approach. The unloading stiffness Ec3.071 E c. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 . is deficient in capturing the energy dissipated during an unloading/reloading cycle in compression. and Ec 1 is the reloading stiffness.10 (ε rec ⁄ ε p ) for ε c < ε p (8) ( E c 3 – E c 2 )∆ε f c ( ∆ε ) = f 2 c + E c 2 ( ∆ε ) + -------------------------------------N–1 p N ( εc – ε2c ) where N (3) 1 β d = -------------------------------------------------0. however. and C are parameters used to define the general shape of the curve.5 1 + 0. is defined as 0. Therefore. This type of representation. indicating the link between the strain recovery and the damage due to load cycling.13 and Yankelevsky and Reinhardt. The degradation was observed to be a function of the strain recovery during unloading. however. predicts more pinching in the hysteresis behavior of the concrete. In analysis. The minimum strain is limited by the compressive plastic offset strain. which defines the stiffness at the end of the unloading phase. 3(b)).175 (ε rec ⁄ ε p ) and for ε c > ε p (9) ∆ε = ε – ε 2 c and (4) ε rec = ε max – ε min (10) ( E c 2 – E c 3 ) ( εc – ε 2 c ) N = --------------------------------------------------p fc2 + Ec2 ( εc – ε2c ) p (5) ε is the instantaneous strain in the concrete. a RambergOsgood formulation similar to that used by Seckin17 was adopted. and N is the Ramberg-Osgood power term. calculated as follows ( β d ⋅ f max ) – f ro E c 1 = ----------------------------------ε 2 c – ε ro where (7) (2) where fc is the stress in the concrete on the unloading curve. fmax is the maximum stress in the concrete for the current unloading loop. and was adopted from Seckin. the datum points were combined to formulate the model. and is routinely calculated as 2fc′ / ε′c . The approach used herein is to define the reloading stiffness as a degrading function to account for the damage induced in the concrete due to load cycling. was stress-based and dependent on the backbone curve. B.6 1 + 0. To derive an expression to describe the unloading branch of concrete. and ∆ε is the strain increment. f ro is the stress in the concrete at reloading reversal and corresponds to a strain of εro .18 A total of 31 datum points were collected for the prepeak range (Fig. in its simplest form. The unloading response of concrete. An important characteristic. Essentially. Mander. the plastic offset strain remains unchanged unless the previous maximum strain in the history of loading is exceeded. The general form of the unloading branch of the proposed model is expressed as f c ( ∆ε ) = A + B ∆ε + C ∆ε N stress point on the reloading path that corresponded to the maximum unloading strain. Priestley. The initial unloading stiffness Ec2 is assigned a value equal to the initial tangent stiffness of the concrete Ec.relatively small plastic offsets. βd is calculated for the first unloading/reloading cycle and retained until the previous maximum unloading strain is attained or exceeded. The damage indicator was derived from test data on plain concrete from four series of tests: Buyukozturk and Tseng. and εrec is the amount of strain recovered in the unloading process and is the difference between the maximum strain εmax and the minimum strain εmin for the current hysteresis loop. Applying boundary conditions from Fig. 1(a) and simplifying yields and 1 β d = ----------------------------------------------0. The new stress point was assumed to be a function of the previous unloading stress and the stress at reloading reversal. The reloading response is then determined from f c = f ro + E c 1 ( ε c – ε ro ) (6) where fc and εc are the stress and strain on the reloading path. Test data of concrete under cyclic loading confirm that the unloading branch is nonlinear. The formulation is strongly influenced by the unloading and plastic offset strains. can be represented by a linear expression extending from the unloading strain to the plastic offset strain.

Unloading Curve 1 represents full unloading from the maximum unloading strain to the plastic offset and is calculated from Eq. that the reloading curves become nonlinear beyond the point of intersection with the unloading curves. There exists. though. Curve 2 defines reloading from the plastic offset strain and is defined by Eq. The unloading path is defined by the unloading stress and strain and the plastic offset strain.It is common for cyclic models in the literature to ignore the behavior of concrete for the case of partial unloading/ reloading. which remains unchanged unless the previous maximum strain is exceeded. the response of Curve 4 follows the reloading path of Curve 5. For the case of partial unloading followed by reloading to a strain in excess of the previous maximum unloading strain. This more general case was modeled using the experimental results of Bahn and Hsu. (6) for full reloading. The reloading stress is then calculated using Eq. The case where concrete is partially unloaded and partially reloaded to a strain less than the previous maximum unloading strain is illustrated in Fig 4. often referred to as the Fig. Five loading branches are required to construct the response of Fig. and the plastic offset strains are well predicted. 4. Other models explicitly consider the case of partial unloading followed by reloading to either the backbone curve or strains in excess of the previous maximum unloading strain. The response follows a linear path from the load reversal point to the previous unloading point and assumes that damage is not accumulated in loops forming at strains less than the previous maximum unloading strain. This implies that the reloading stiffness of Curve 4 is greater than the reloading stiffness of Curve 2 and is consistent with test data reported by Bahn and Hsu. however. respectively. It is apparent. the previous maximum unloading strain and corresponding stress are replaced by a variable unloading strain and stress. the reloading path is defined by the expressions governing full reloading. a lack of information considering the case where partial unloading is followed by partial reloading to strains less than the previous maximum unloading strain. Curve 3 represents the case of partial unloading from a reloading path at a strain less than the previous maximum unloading strain. however. 5 against the experimental results of Karsan and Jirsa.13 The Palermo model generally captures the behavior of concrete under cyclic compressive loading. and the stiffness is calculated as β d ⋅ f 2 c – f max E c 1 = ------------------------------ε 2 c – ε max (12) The reloading stresses are then determined from the following ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 Fig. The nonlinear unloading and linear loading formulations agree well with the data. Curve 4 describes partial reloading from a partial unloading branch. In further straining beyond the intersection with Curve 2. with the exception of substituting the unloading stress and strain for the current hysteresis loop for the unloading stress and strain at the previous maximum unloading point.14 The proposed rule for the partial unloading response is identical to that assumed for full unloading. 3—Damage indicator for concrete in compression: (a) prepeak regime. and (b) postpeak regime. 619 . The expressions used for full unloading are applied. The latter retains the damage induced in the concrete from the first unloading phase. (6) to (10). (3) to (5) for full unloading. Some models establish rules for partial loadings from the full unloading/reloading curves.14 The reloading stiffness for Curve 4 is represented by the following expression f max – f ro E c 1 = ---------------------ε max – ε ro (11) f c = f max + E c 1 ( ε c – ε max ) (13) The proposed constitutive relations for concrete subjected to compressive cyclic loading are tested in Fig. 4—Partial unloading/reloading for concrete in compression.

Figure 7 illustrates very good correlation to experimental data. and Collins19 reported a nonlinear response based on defining the stiffness along the unloading path. which assumes the monotonic behavior. and (b) reloading. respectively. and ε1c is the unloading strain from the backbone curve. and the point at which cracked surfaces come into contact. A linear reloading path was also assumed. the offsets in tension seem to be dependent on the unloading strain from the backbone curve. The researchers were able to capture the softening behavior of concrete beyond cracking in displacementcontrolled testing machines. 5—Predicted response for cycles in compression. The Palermo model can be easily modified to account for this phenomenon. for the most Fig. however. The offsets occur when cracked surfaces come into contact during unloading and do not realign due to shear slip along the cracked surfaces. and it was thus ignored in the model. Tension response Much less attention has been directed towards the modeling of concrete under cyclic tensile loading. consists of two parts adopted from the Modified Compression Field Theory12: that describing the precracked response and that representing postcracking tension-stiffened response. however. This is a direct result of the postpeak response of the concrete and demonstrates the importance of proper modeling of the postpeak behavior. the slope and damage of the reloading path. linear unloading/reloading responses with no plastic offsets. Okumura and Maekawa2 proposed a hysteretic model for cyclic tension. The accepted approach has been to model the unloading branch as linear and to ignore the hysteretic behavior in the concrete Fig. Hordijk 20 used a fracture mechanics approach to formulate nonlinear unloading/reloading rules in terms of applied stress and crack opening displacements. Stevens. unusually small load steps would be required in a finite element analysis to capture this behavior. 7). in which a nonlinear unloading curve considered stresses through bond action and through closing of cracks. Figure 6 (a) and (b) illustrate the unloading and reloading responses. Some researchers consider little or no excursions into the tension stress regime and those who have proposed models assume.common point. Furthermore. The plastic offset strain. 7—Plastic offset model for concrete in tension. Observations of test data suggest that the unloading response of concrete subjected to tensile loading is nonlinear. Test results from Yankelevsky and Reinhardt21 and Gopalaratnam and Shah22 provide data that can be used to formulate a plastic offset model (refer to Fig. Uzumeri.523 ε 1 c p 2 (14) where εcp is the tensile plastic offset. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 . 6—Hysteresis models for concrete in tension: (a) unloading. the models were verified with limited success. Similar to concrete in compression. is used to define the shape of the unloading curve. 620 Fig. The proposed offset model is expressed as ε c = 146ε1 c + 0. part. The latter was the approach used by Vecchio5 in formulating a preliminary tension model. A shortcoming of the current body of data is the lack of theoretical models defining a plastic offset for concrete in tension. in the proposed tension model. The backbone curve. the results tend to underestimate the intersection of the reloading path with the backbone curve. The proposed tension model follows the philosophy used to model concrete under cyclic compression loadings.

The literature is further deficient in the matter of partial unloading followed by partial reloading in the tension stress regime. The approach suggested herein is to model the reloading behavior as linear and to account for a degrading reloading stiffness. and Ec 5 is the initial unloading stiffness. Proposed herein is a partial unloading/reloading Fig. similar to that used for concrete in compression. and G are parameters that define the shape of the unloading curve. and N is a power term that describes the degree of nonlinearity.2 The response is assumed to return to the backbone curve at the previous unloading strain and ignores damage induced to the ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 εrec is the strain recovered during an unloading phase. The latter is assumed to be a function of the strain recovered during the unloading phase and is illustrated in Fig. The damage parameter βt is calculated from the following relation 1 β t = ---------------------------------------0.due to cycles in tension. Figure 8 depicts good correlation between the proposed formulation and the limited experimental data.21 The reloading stress is calculated from the following expression f c = β t ⋅ tf max – E c 4 ( ε1 c – ε c ) where (21) ( E c 5 – E c 6 )∆ε f c ( ∆ε ) = f 1 c – E c 5 ( ∆ε ) + -------------------------------------p N–1 N ( ε1c – εc ) where N ( β t ⋅ tf max ) – tf ro E c 4 = -------------------------------------ε 1 c – t ro (22) (16) ∆ε = ε 1 c – ε and (17) fc is the tensile stress on the reloading curve and corresponds to a strain of εc. Limited test data confirm that linear reloading sufficiently captures the general response of the concrete.001 (19) (20) The Okamura and Maekawa2 model tends to overestimate the unloading stresses for plain concrete. The unloading stiffness Ec6. among others. The state of the art in modeling reloading of concrete in tension is based on a linear representation.001 ε 1 c > 0. Ec4 is the reloading stiffness. Following the philosophy for concrete in compression. assigned a value equal to the initial tangent stiffness Ec. the following models were found to agree well with test data E c 6 = 0. The proposed model captures the nonlinear behavior and energy dissipation of the concrete.25 1 + 1. 8 against data reported by Yankelevsky and Reinhardt. owing partly to the fact that the formulation is independent of a tensile plastic offset strain. 6(a) and simplifying yields concrete due to load cycling. The approach used herein was to formulate a nonlinear expression for the concrete that would generate realistic hysteresis loops. was determined from unloading data reported by Yankelevsky and Reinhardt. which is limited by the plastic offset strain. Vecchio5 and Okamura and Maekawa. ∆ε is the strain increment measured from the instantaneous strain on the unloading path to the unloading strain. βt is calculated for the first unloading/reloading phase and retained until the previous maximum strain is at least attained.053 ⋅ E c ( 0.071 ⋅ E c ( 0. tf max is the unloading stress for the current hysteresis loop. βt is a tensile damage indicator.001 ⁄ ε 1 c ) ε rec = ε max – ε min (24) ε 1 c ≤ 0. Applying the boundary conditions from Fig. which defines the stiffness at the end of the unloading phase. it is evident that the reloading stiffness accumulates damage as the unloading strain increases. The formulations are a function of the unloading point and a residual stress at the end of the unloading phase. It is the difference between the unloading strain εmax and the minimum strain at the onset of reloading εmin. 621 . as described by.15 ( ε rec ) (23) ( Ec 5 – Ec 6 ) ( ε1c – εc ) N = --------------------------------------------------p Ec 5 ( ε1 c – εc ) – f1 c p (18) where f1c is the unloading stress from the backbone curve. To derive a model consistent with the compression field approach. D. 8—Damage model for concrete in tension. was adopted and is expressed as fc = D + F∆ε + G∆εN (15) where fc is the tensile stress in the concrete.21 By varying the unloading stiffness Ec6. a Ramberg-Osgood formulation. and tfro is the stress in the concrete at reloading reversal corresponding to a strain of tro.001 ⁄ ε 1 c ) E c 6 = 0. The linear unloading response suggested by Vecchio5 is a simple representation of the behavior but does not capture the nonlinear nature of the concrete and underestimates the energy dissipation. however. F. The residual stress is dependent on the initial tangent stiffness and the strain at the onset of unloading.

Once the cracks completely close. The models are. is calculated by the following expression tf max – tf ro E c 4 = -----------------------ε max – t ro and the reloading stress is then determined from (25) f c = tf ro + E c 4 ( ε c – t ro ) (26) As loading continues along the reloading path of Curve 4. The partial reloading stiffness. Curve 1 corresponds to a full unloading response and is identical to that assumed by Eq. Beyond the intersection. however. The stress on the closing-of-cracks path is then determined from the following expression Fig. 622 f c = E close ( ε c – ε c ) p (31) ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 . Figure 9 depicts the proposed rules for a concrete element. based on realistic assumptions derived from the models suggested for concrete in compression. CRACK-CLOSING MODEL In an excursion returning from the tensile domain. defining Curve 4. 9—Partial unloading/reloading for concrete in tension. The stiffness of the concrete during closing of cracks. The stiffness is then calculated as β t ⋅ f 1 c – tf max E c 4 = -------------------------------ε 1 c – ε max (27) The reloading stresses can then be calculated according to f c = tf max + E c 4 ( ε c – ε max ) (28) The previous formulations for concrete in tension are preliminary and require experimental data to corroborate.model that directly follows the rules established for concrete in compression. replace the strain and stress at the previous peak unloading point on the backbone curve. Therefore. lightly reinforced to allow for a post-cracking response. The crack-closing stiffness Eclose is calculated from f close E close = ----------p εc where fclose = –Ec(0. the stress imposed on the concrete as cracked surfaces come into contact. There exists limited data to form an accurate model for crack closing. (16) to (18). The first term represents a residual stress at the completion of unloading due to stress transferred due to bond action. Reloading from a full unloading curve is represented by Curve 2 and is computed from Eq. the strain and stress at unloading. after the two cracked surfaces have come into contact and before the cracks completely close. The response follows a linear path from the reloading strain to the previous unloading strain. The model explicitly assumes that damage does not accumulate for loops that form at strains less than the previous maximum unloading strain in the history of loading. however. Curve 3 represents the case of partial unloading from a reloading path at a strain less than the previous maximum unloading strain. now variables. 10—Crack-closing model. (21) to (24). 2 Figure 10 is a schematic of the proposed model. and the preliminary model suggested herein is based on the formulations and assumptions suggested by Okamura and Maekawa. is smaller than that of crack-free concrete. The recontact strain is assumed equal to the plastic offset strain for concrete in tension. Compressive stresses will arise once cracked surfaces come into contact. to corroborate the model. the reloading stiffness of Curve 4 is larger than the reloading stiffness for the first unloading/reloading response of Curve 2. the reloading response follows the response of Curve 5 and retains the damage induced to the concrete from the first unloading/reloading phase. The expressions for full unloading are used. fclose . No data exist.0016 ⋅ ε1c + 50 × 10–6) (30) (29) Fig. The recontact strain is a function of factors such as crack-shear slip. a change in the reloading path occurs at the intersection with Curve 2. the stiffness assumes the initial tangent stiffness value. The second term represents the stress directly related to closing of cracks. Reloading from a partial unloading segment is described by Curve 4. consists of two terms taken from the Okamura and Maekawa2 model for concrete in tension. however. compressive stresses do not remain at zero until the cracks completely close.

therefore.05 ---------------if ε y < ( ε m – ε o ) < 4 ε y (35)  εy  Er = 0. The program was initially restricted to conditions of monotonic loading. REINFORCEMENT MODEL The suggested reinforcement model is that reported by Vecchio. The initial response is linear elastic.After the cracks have completely closed and loading continues into the compression strain region. following the reloading path previously established for tensile reloading of concrete.1364 ( ε 1 c – 0. the yield stress. the reloading rules for concrete in compression are applicable. followed by a yield plateau. the compressive stresses remain zero until the cracks completely close. plastic offsets in tension can be omitted. The monotonic response curve is assumed to represent the backbone curve. The ability to account for material prestrains provided the framework for the analysis capability of reversed cyclic loading conditions.991 ( Em – Er ) ( εm – εo ) N = -------------------------------------------fm – Er ( εm – εo ) (38) fm is the stress corresponding to the maximum strain recorded during previous loading. The elastic strain is used to compute an effective secant stiffness for the concrete. iterative procedure. εm is taken as zero and fm = fy.85Es if (εm – εo) > 4εy (36) where Es is the initial tangent stiffness. thermal loads. 11. The stresses experienced during the reloading phase are determined from Em – Er N . and the unloading stiffness at the completion of unloading Ec6 can be modified to ensure that the energy dissipation during unloading is properly captured. and later developed to account for material prestrains.12 The reinforcement is typically modeled as smeared within the element but can also be discretely represented by truss-bar elements.⋅ ( εi – ε o ) f s ( ε i ) = E r ( ε i – ε o ) + -------------------------------------N–1 N ⋅ ( εm – εo ) where ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 (37) Fig. with the stress in the concrete at the reloading reversal point assuming a value of fclose. and. εm is the maximum strain attained during previous cycles. and constitutive relations of the Modified Compression Field Theory. the plastic offset strain must be treated as a strain offset. IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION The proposed formulations for concrete subjected to reversed cyclic loading have been implemented into a two-dimensional nonlinear finite element program. the stress in the concrete is assumed to be linear. in an unloading excursion in the tensile strain region.21 a formulation was derived for the unloading stiffness at zero loads and is proposed as a function of the unloading strain on the backbone curve as follows E c 6 = – 1. From the prestrains. 5 For cyclic loading. The hysteretic response of the reinforcement has been modeled after Seckin. The package employs the compatibility. assuming smeared rotating cracks. and Em is the tangent stiffness at εm. and ending with a strain-hardening portion. Using data reported by Yankelevsky and Reinhardt. and Er is the unloading modulus and is calculated as Er = Es if ( ε m – ε o ) < ε y (34) ε m – ε o E r = E s  1. similar to an elastic offset as reported by Vecchio.5 and is illustrated in Fig.17 and the Bauschinger effect is represented by a Ramberg-Osgood formulation. 623 . plastic prestrain nodal forces can be evaluated using the effective element stiffness matrix due to the concrete component. Then.23 The program is applicable to concrete membrane structures and is based on a secant stiffness formulation using a total-load. free joint displacements are determined as functions of the element geometry. which was developed at the University of Toronto. and εy is the yield strain. For the first reverse cycle. and expansion and confinement effects.4 The plastic offsets in the principal directions are resolved into components relative to the reference axes. fs – 1 and εs – 1 are the stress and strain from the previous load step.05 – 0. For reloading from the closing-of-cracks curve into the tensile strain region. The plastic offsets developed in ) (32) Implicit in the latter model is the assumption that. The monotonic response of the reinforcement is assumed to be trilinear. εo is the plastic offset strain. adapted from Seckin (1981). The same formulations apply for reinforcement in tension or compression. the secant stiffness procedure separates the total concrete strain into two components: an elastic strain and a plastic offset strain. equilibrium. 11—Hysteresis model for reinforcement. In lieu of implementing a crack-closing model. The unloading portion of the response follows a linear path and is given by fs ( ε i ) = f s – 1 + Er ( ε i – εs – 1 ) (33) where fs(εi) is the stress at the current strain of εi .

“Towards Cyclic Load Modeling of Reinforced Concrete. 1992. which considers boundary conditions at the onset of unloading and at zero stress. “Finite Element Modeling of Concrete Expansion and Confinement. 92. and Maekawa. 3. J. aimed at verifying the proposed cyclic models using nonlinear finite element analyses. and Wood. and for tension stiffening and tension softening in the tensile region. D. are calculated as the sum of the concrete and reinforcement contributions. 2001. the principal strain directions may be rotating presenting a complication. 1804-1826. Y. T. J. ASCE. J. Vecchio. University of Toronto.. The reloading response does not return to the backbone curve at the previous unloading strain.. Palermo. pp.” Journal of Structural Engineering.-Dec. which are represented by the monotonic response curves.. 1999. F. NU-SSWISP-D014. S. Reloading is modeled as linear with a degrading reloading stiffness. A simple and effective method of tracking and defining the strains is the construction of Mohr’s circle.. T. and further straining is required to intersect the backbone curve. Canada. Giho-do Press.. Mander. which are heavily influenced by flexural mechanisms. amongst others: the plastic offset strain. pp. 114. 132-202. Department of Civil Engineering. Priestley. The total nodal forces for the element. 351 pp. The former is generally not adequate to corroborate constitutive formulations for concrete. 1996. 9. and Park... Sittipunt. These are added to prestrain forces arising from elastic prestrain effects and nonlinear expansion effects. pp.” ACI Structural Journal. The finite element solution then proceeds. and Hsu. No. J. 12. 407 pp.” Journal of Structural Engineering. The concrete cyclic models consider concrete in compression and concrete in tension. L. Nov. terminates at the plastic offset strain. 2002. 745-756. V. M. V. Vecchio.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Models for the compressive and tensile plastic offset strains have been formulated as a function of the maximum unloading strain in the history of loading. C. The backbone curves are adjusted for compressive softening and confinement in the compression regime. 7. 6. “Comparison Report: Seismic Shear Wall ISP.9 Structures considered will include shear panels and structural walls available in the literature. 4. NUPEC’s Seismic Ultimate Dynamic Response Test.-Apr. 2. F. the previous unloading strain. ASCE. and Vecchio. V. arising from plastic offsets. The unloading and reloading rules are linked to backbone curves. 2.5 A comprehensive study. 1402-1411. Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation of Japan (NUPEC).. “Theoretical StressStrain Model for Confined Concrete. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 5. No. The structural walls will consist of slender walls. εs = εm = εmax = εmin = εp = εrec = εro = εsh = εs – 1 = εy = initial modulus of concrete crack-closing stiffness modulus of concrete in tension compressive reloading stiffness of concrete initial unloading stiffness of concrete in compression compressive unloading stiffness at zero stress in concrete reloading stiffness modulus of concrete in tension initial unloading stiffness modulus of concrete in tension unloading stiffness modulus at zero stress for concrete in tension tangent stiffness of reinforcement at previous maximum strain unloading stiffness of reinforcement initial modulus of reinforcement strain-hardening modulus of reinforcement unloading stress from backbone curve for concrete in tension unloading stress on backbone curve for concrete in compression normal stress of concrete peak compressive strength of concrete cylinder crack-closing stress for concrete in tension cracking stress of concrete in tension reinforcement stress corresponding to maximum strain in history maximum compressive stress of concrete for current unloading cycle peak principal compressive stress of concrete compressive stress at onset of reloading in concrete average stress for reinforcement stress in reinforcement from previous load step yield stress for reinforcement maximum tensile stress of concrete for current unloading cycle tensile stress of concrete at onset of reloading tensile strain of concrete at onset of reloading damage indicator for concrete in compression damage indicator for concrete in tension strain increment on unloading curve in concrete instantaneous strain in concrete plastic offset strain of reinforcement unloading strain on backbone curve for concrete in tension compressive unloading strain on backbone curve of concrete compressive strain of concrete strain at peak compressive stress in concrete cylinder residual (plastic offset) strain of concrete cracking strain for concrete in tension current stress of reinforcement maximum strain of reinforcement from previous cycles maximum strain for current cycle minimum strain for current cycle strain corresponding to maximum concrete compressive stress strain recovered during unloading in concrete compressive strain at onset of reloading in concrete strain of reinforcement at which strain hardening begins strain of reinforcement from previous load step yield strain of reinforcement REFERENCES 1. Japan. “Behaviour and Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Walls Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading. 6. K. The proposed hysteresis rules for concrete in this procedure require knowledge of the previous strains attained in the history of loading. 127. “Cyclic Stress-Strain Curves of Concrete and Steel Bars in Membrane Elements. and the strain at reloading reversal.. in the case of full loading. Lee. B. 8.each of the reinforcement components are also handled in a similar manner. Mansour. Unloading is assumed nonlinear and is modeled using a Ramberg-Osgood formulation... Okamura. C. demonstrating the applicability of the proposed formulations and the effectiveness of a secant stiffnessbased algorithm employing the smeared crack approach.” ACI Structural Journal.. F.” Report No. V. 2002-01. M. 8. and squat walls where the response is dominated by shear-related mechanisms. 1991. University of Tokyo. The models are intended for a secant stiffness-based algorithm but are also easily adaptable in programs assuming either fixed cracks or fixed principal stress directions. 1995. V. 1988. 96..0. In the rotating crack assumption. No. No.” Publication No. France. pp. “Influence of Web Reinforcement on the Cyclic Response of Structural Walls. Unloading. 2390-2406. consistent with a compression field approach. 182 pp. pp. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 . The constitutive relations for concrete have been formulated in the context of a smeared rotating crack model. 624 NOTATION Ec = Eclose = E c1 = E c2 = E c3 = E c4 = E c5 = Ec6 = Em = = Er = Es Esh = f1c = f2c = = fc = f ′c fclose = = fcr = fm fmax = = fp fro = = fs fs – 1 = = fy tfmax = tfro = tro = βd = βt = ∆ε = ε = ε0 = ε1c = ε2c = εc = ε′c = p εc = εcr = ε i . R. H. The models also consider the general case of partial unloading and partial reloading in the region below the previous maximum unloading strain. N. Further details of the procedure used for reversed cyclic loading can be found from Vecchio. will be presented in a companion paper. The degrading reloading stiffness is a function of the strain recovered during unloading and is bounded by the maximum unloading strain and the plastic offset strain. 118. ASCE. Mar. Paris. Nonlinear Analysis and Constitutive Models of Reinforced Concrete. J.. J. No. including. CONCLUSIONS A unified approach to constitutive modeling of reversed cyclic loading of reinforced concrete has been presented. with heightwidth ratios greater than 2.

Z.” Cement and Concrete Research. Part I: Experimental Results. 110. M.” Journal of Structural Engineering. P. Y. “Local Approach to Fatigue of Concrete. 219-231. Proceedings V. 113. K. Proceedings V. pp. 2. Vecchio. 210. B. 310-323. Hognestad.” ACI JOURNAL. J.” PhD thesis. Karsan. and McHenry. No. 21. 1987. pp. “Model for Cyclic Compressive Behaviour of Concrete. 26-35. 178-193. pp. P. 1987. 22. No.” Journal of Structural Engineering. T. No. F. No. N. No. H.. 266 pp. V.... Canada. Yankelevsky. 3. Hansen. 2. ASCE. S.-Apr.. M. ASCE. Hordijk. 461-476. and Collins. Feb. 1984. 1991. V. ASCE. May-June 1995. “Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design. 5. 14. pp. S. and Reinhardt. D. 87-1.-Feb. pp. 271-281. 3. 455-479. V. 16.. I.” Journal of the Structural Division.-Apr. “A Numerical Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete. (accepted for publication) 10. pp. 95. V. T.” ACI Structural Journal. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 625 . M.. MayJune 1985. 3. 1989. F. H. Uzumeri.. 1955. 115. O. and Tseng. 2. 92. 86. The Netherlands.” ACI Materials Journal.. 23.. J. No. Toronto. “The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear. J.. V. 19.. V. D. Yankelevsky. W. C. Mar. and Collins. 82. 12. S.. Popovics. pp. No. “Cyclic Behavior of RC Cantilever Walls. 1998. “Analytical Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Monotonic and Reversed Loadings. University of Toronto.. P. Palermo. pp. “Hysteretic Behaviour of Cast-in-Place Exterior BeamColumn Sub-Assemblies. Bahn. 228-240. pp. 1989. Department of Civil Engineering. “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Membranes. 3. O. W. No. V. “Concrete in Biaxial Cyclic Compression.. 1981. 52.” ACI Structural Journal. J. pp. and Jirsa. “Compression Field Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed Loading: Verification. Mar.. A. Stevens.” Journal of Structural Engineering. V.” Delft University of Technology. Proceedings V. V. D. F. 20. D. D.. and Hsu.. pp. 1986.. pp. 2543-2563. 1973. 18. Canada. and Vecchio. Pilakoutas. Seckin. 11. “Softening Response of Plain Concrete in Direct Tension.. J. 12. A. Vecchio. M. ASCE. Dec.. and Shah. “Uniaxial Behaviour of Concrete in Cyclic Tension. M. University of Toronto.. S. 201 pp. “Behaviour of Concrete Under Compressive Loadings. No. 95.. and Elnashai.. W. N.” ACI JOURNAL... Jan. 15. Buyukozturk. 13.” Publication No. Toronto.” ACI Structural Journal. Mar.9. “Stress-Strain Behaviour of Concrete Under Cyclic Loading. 17. 83. 1. Gopalaratnam. K. No.. 1969. 166-182. and Reinhardt.” ACI JOURNAL. 583-599. Z. 12. E. No. 1..

2006. The joint shear reinforcements of the subassemblages used in the experiments. 2]). and G1 was to represent details of new structures.1.9.9-12 There is scarce experimental evidence and insufficient data. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. V. E2. 4]) are bars with a diameter of 6. so that the safety (that is. The subassemblages were subjected to a large number of inelastic cycles.4-7. will be published in the MayJune 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1. but different from the percentage of E1 and G1.10. ACI Structural Journal. E2. E2.4 according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-02. 1. American Concrete Institute.). Ø6 multiple hoop at 5 cm for Subassemblage E1. If the connections or columns exhibit stiffness and/or strength deterioration with cycling. about the performance of joints designed according to current codes during strong earthquakes. The concrete 28-day compressive strength of both Subassemblages A1 and E2 was 35 MPa (5075 psi). and G1 had the same longitudinal column reinforcement. All rights reserved. 1(a) and (b). The tests indicated that current design procedures could sometimes result in excessive damage to the joint regions. 1(a)). however. 1(b)). Ø10 [No. collapse due to P-Δ effects or to the formation of a story mechanism may be unavoidable. All subassemblages were typical of new structures and incorporated full seismic details in current building codes. All the 468 subassemblages (A1.R1 received June 21. despite the use of a weak girder-strong column design philosophy. according to Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 8. the beam is expected to fail in a flexural mode during cyclic loading. Ø6 multiple hoop at 4. As is clearly demonstrated in Fig. as shown in Fig. Tsonos The seismic performance of four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages is examined. No. INTRODUCTION The key to the design of ductile moment-resisting frames is that the beam-to-column connections and columns must remain essentially elastic throughout the load history to ensure the lateral stability of the structure. such as a weak girder-strong column design philosophy. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure. July-August 2007. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . In some cases. Copyright © 2007. The longitudinal column reinforcement of A1 was lower than that of the other three subassemblages (E1. in all these subassemblages. 104-S45 TECHNICAL PAPER Cyclic Load Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages of Modern Structures by Alexandros G. E1. The results indicate that current design procedures could sometimes result in severe damage to the joint.00 in earthquake-resistant constructions is to push the formation of the plastic hinge in the beams.8 cm for Subassemblage E2 (Fig. Subassemblages E1. E2. All subassemblages incorporated seismic details. and reviewed under Institute publication policies. 4. The purpose of Subassemblages A1. Reinforcement yield strengths are as follows: Ø6 = 540 MPa (78 ksi). 3]. while the beam reinforcement of E2 consisted of two bars with a diameter of 14 mm.1. safety could be jeopardized during strong earthquakes by premature joint shear failures. Ø10 = 500 MPa (73 ksi). 1(a)) and Ø8 multiple hoop at 10 cm for Subassemblage G1 (Fig. are as follows: Ø6 multiple hoop at 5 cm for Subassemblage A1 (Fig. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Experimental data and experience from earthquakes indicate that loss of capacity might occur in joints that are part of older reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures. 10.6 and according to the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code7 and the new Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures.13 Thus. S-2006-230. Subassemblages E1 and G1 had the same percentage of longitudinal beam reinforcement (ρE1 = ρG1 = 7. and Ø14 = 495 MPa (72 ksi) (note: Ø6 [No. 104. if any. connections.7 × 10–3) and Subassemblages A1 and E2 also had the same percentage of longitudinal beam reinforcement (ρA1 = 5. and Ø14 [No. and G1) had the same general and cross-sectional dimensions. (Fig. while the concrete 28-day compressive strength of both Subassemblages E1 and G1 was 22 MPa (3190 psi). MS No. all the subassemblages had high flexural strength ratios MR. and G1) due to the restrictions of ACI 352R-026 for the column bars passing through the joint. 1(b)).2.23 × 10–3 and ρE2 = 5.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. 1(a) and (b).8 The subassemblages were subjected to cyclic lateral load histories so as to provide the equivalent of severe earthquake damage. Subassemblage A1 had smaller beam reinforcing bars than Subassemblage E2 due to the restrictions of ACI 352R-026 for the beam bars passing through the joint. This research provides structural engineers with useful information about the safety of new RC frame structures that incorporate seismic details from current building codes. The joints could at times remain the weak link even for structures designed in accordance with current model building codes. 2008. The purpose of using an MR ratio (sum of the flexural capacity of columns to that of beam(s)) significantly greater than 1. collapse prevention) of the structure is not jeopardized. Reinforcement details of the subassemblages are shown in Fig. structural analysis. reinforced concrete. and 14 mm).4 in. while the longitudinal column reinforcement of A1 consisted of eight bars with a diameter of 10 mm (0. DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS— MATERIAL PROPERTIES Four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages were designed and constructed for this experimental and analytical investigation.2 × 10–3).2 Four one-half scale beam-column subassemblages were designed and constructed in turn. The longitudinal beam reinforcement of A1 consisted of four bars with a diameter of 10 mm. Keywords: beam-column frames. cyclic loads. E1. eight bars with a diameter of 14 mm.

the strain · is higher than the rate corresponding to static conditions. to 0. All subassemblages were subjected to 11 cycles applied by slowly displacing the beam’s free end according to the load history shown in Fig. An axial load equal to 200 kN was applied to the columns of the subassemblages and kept constant throughout the test. Tsonos is a Professor of reinforced concrete structures. E2. His research interests include the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete structures. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Failure mode of Subassemblages A1.0394 in. 35. 60.) ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 469 . 45. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND LOADING SEQUENCE The general arrangement of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. The formation of plastic hinges caused severe cracking of the concrete near the fixed beam end of each subassemblage (Fig. In the case of seismic loading. Department of Structural Engineering. The behavior of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was as expected and as documented in the seismic design philosophy of the modern codes as will be explain in the following. Using the aforementioned expression. 40. dyn = [ 1. 30. commonly used in previous studies.ACI member Alexandros G.160 × log ε c. Thessaloniki.15 tested column subassemblages with various amounts of hoop reinforcement under strain rates ranging from 0. involved the formation of a plastic hinge in the beam at the column face.33 × 10–5 sec–1 (static loading). The amplitudes of the peaks in the displacement history were 15. Their test results conformed with the results obtained from Eq. 55. 2(b) without reaching the actuator stroke limit. 1—Dimensions and cross-sectional details of: (a) Subassemblages A1 and E2. and G1 during the tests are somewhat lower than the strengths they would exhibit if subjected to load histories similar to actual seismic events. He received his PhD from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in 1990. 20. The experimental loading sequence used is a typical one. the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. nonstandard loading histories on the response of the subassemblages.0127 ( log ε ·) ] × f f c. One loading cycle was performed at each displacement amplitude. (Note: dimensions are in cm. E2. all the subassemblages were loaded slowly. 25. stat (1) Scott et al. fiber-reinforced concrete. E1.0167 sec–1 (seismic loading). E1. As previously mentioned. 50. as expected. (1) can be found in the CEB code. the strengths exhibited by Subassemblages A1.16 Thus.11.4-7 2 Approximately 10 electrical-resistance strain gauges were bonded on the reinforcing bars of each subassemblage of the program. 1 cm = 0. and G1 The failure mode of Subassemblages A1 and E2. and (b) Subassemblages E1 and G1. and the seismic repair and restoration of monuments.1. and 65 mm. An expression similar to Eq. Greece.48 + 0. respect to static conditions leads to a moderate increase in the strength of concrete · + 0. concrete strengths increase a strain rate of ε by approximately 20% (compared with the static one). rate ε · with Soroushian and Sim14 showed that an increase in ε Fig.13 It was not the objective of this study to investigate the effect of other. The strain rate of the load applied corresponded to static conditions. (1). it is estimated that for · = 0. structural design. 3).0167 sec–1. 2(a). seismic repair and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures.

tenth. Significant inelastic deformations occurred in the beams’ longitudinal reinforcement in both Subassemblages A1 and E2 (strains of over 40. exhibited shear failure during the ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig.225 kip.) the joint hoop reinforcement for both subassemblages was below the yield strain of 2. the maximum strain recorded in 470 .Fig. 4—Applied shear versus strain in beam-column joint hoop reinforcement of: (a) Subassemblages A1 and E2. E2. As is clearly shown in Fig. E1. while joint shear reinforcement remained elastic. which was in agreement with the observed failure modes of Subassemblages A1 and E2. contrary to expectations. and (b) Subassemblages E1 and G1.039 in. 3—Views of collapsed Subassemblages A1. 2—(a) General arrangement of experimental setup and photograph of test setup (dimensions are in m. (Note: 1 mm = 0. Figure 4(a) shows strain gauge data of joint hoop reinforcement for both Subassemblages A1 and E2. and eleventh) when drift Angle R ratios exceeded 4.17 One difference between the failure modes of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was that hairline cracks appeared in the joint region of E2.5 while the joint region of Subassemblage A1 remained intact at the conclusion of the test (refer to Fig. (Note: 1 kN = 0. 4(a). The connections of both Subassemblages E1 and G1.) Fig. 3). and G1. 1 m = 3. and partial loss of the concrete cover in the rear face of the joint of E2 took place during the three last cycles of loading (ninth.500με.28 ft). and (b) lateral displacement history.000με were obtained in the beams’ longitudinal bars).

E2. 5). and G1. E1. and G1. RC frame structures have been shown to exhibit a controlled and very ductile inelastic response. the maximum strain recorded in the joint hoop reinforcement of both Subassemblages E1 and G1 was significantly higher than the yield strain 2. and G1) are shown in Fig.4. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2. which is in agreement with the damage observed in the joints of these subassemblages. early stages of cyclic loading.) A major concern in the seismic design of RC structures is the ability of members to develop their flexural strength before failing in shear. The beam calculated flexural capacities of the subassemblages are shown as dashed lines in Fig. E1. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. where it is important to develop their flexural strengths before joint shear failure. E2. the progression of cracking of Subassemblage E1 during the test is demonstrated. 6—Gradual cracking configuration of Subassemblage E1 during test.500με (refer to Fig. This is especially true for members framing at a beam column joint (beams and columns). and by detailing plastic hinge (critical) regions for ductility.500 με. Figure 4(b) shows strain gauge data for the joint hoop reinforcement for Subassemblages E1 and G1.Fig. Moreover. Fig. Damage occurred both in the joint area and in the columns’ critical regions. 7.225 kip. 6. Load-drift angle curves Plots of applied shear force versus drift angles for all the Subassemblages (A1. E2.18 The maximum strain recorded in the longitudinal bars of the beams of both Subassemblages E1 and G1 was below 2. As shown in Fig. 5—Maximum strain during each cycle of loading in beam longitudinal reinforcement of Subassemblages A1. 7—Hysteresis loops of Subassemblages A1. In Fig.9 471 . 7. by designing the flexural strengths of columns in RC frame structures to meet the strong-column weak-beam rule. Joint shear damage has been shown to occur after yielding of the joint hoop reinforcement. 4(b). all members against premature shear failure. E1.

5 (Fig. CODE REQUIREMENTS Despite the fact that all the subassemblages were designed according to their corresponding modern codes.85 3.225 kip.7.4. to determine the beam bar pull-out. it is discussed how requirements of these codes used for the design of the joints of Subassemblages A1. and subsequent inelastic buckling of the longitudinal bars. Numbers outside parentheses are provided values. a flexural failure was observed for this beam.0 0. crushing of the concrete cover of the reinforcement took place and the beam’s hoops could not provide adequate support to the longitudinal reinforcement. 7. the beam of Subassemblage G1 developed maximum shear forces significantly lower than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength. lb. This is an indication of the flexural response of this beam because it developed its flexural strength until a drift Angle R ratio of 4. In particular. Table 1 clearly indicates that the joint of A1 satisfied the design requirements of ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 for exterior beam-column joints for seismic loading. ldh is development length of hooked beam bars. E23. 7.6 Table 2—Comparison of joints of Subassemblages E1 and E2 design parameters with Eurocode 84 and Eurocode 23 Ash. The beam of Subassemblage E1 developed maximum shear forces very close to those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength only during the second and third cycle of loading. 3). which exhibited premature joint shear failure (refer to Fig.08 14 3. †Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ACI 352R-02. cm sw . but beyond drift Angle R ratios of 4. running in the transverse direction of the joint. If the sequence in the breakdown of the chain of resistance of these real frame structures follows the desirable hierarchy during a catastrophic earthquake. stiffness.As can be seen in Fig.80)† (1. As can be seen in Fig. 1 m = 0.5.5 and 2. Subassemblages E1 and G1.6 < 6. In both subassemblages. the premature joint shear failure did not allow the beam in this subassemblage to develop its flexural capacity (Fig. and unstable degrading hysteresis beyond drift Angle R ratios of 2. *Numbers inside parentheses are required values of Eurocode considerable loss of strength.5. cm 2 hbeam/ column bar sh. Also. as long as buckling ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . cm Ash. This is due to significant and detrimental influence of P-Δ phenomena on both lateral load resistance and dynamic response.8 While it was reassuring that story drifts of as much as 4% of the story height were achieved in most reported tests referring to the seismic response of beamcolumn specimens. the formation of plastic hinges in the beams of these structures would be expected.95 (0. mm MR lb. If the maximum strains in a beam’s longitudinal bar during each two consecutive cycles of loading remained the same or decreased. The beam of Subassemblage E2 also developed maximum shear forces higher than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the eleventh upper half cycle of loading and until the seventh lower half cycle of loading. stiffness.08 45 (43)† 5 (5)* (168)* (2.7.3 Note: Vjh is horizontal joint shear force. it should be remembered that drifts in excess of 2% are not likely to be readily accommodated in high rise frames. By contrast. E2.19 Subassemblages A1 and E2.15)* (1. and unstable hysteretic behavior. For the remaining cycles (four through 11). The beam-column Subassemblages A1.60 126 < 6. 1 cm = 0. which developed plastic hinges in their beams (Fig. caused by crushing of the concrete cover of the longitudinal reinforcement. This is the setup recommended by Eurocode 8 when the requirement of limitation of beam bar diameter (dbl) to ensure appropriate anchorage through the joint is not satisfied (refer to Table 2).4 Numbers inside parentheses are required values of Eurocode 2. and sw is spacing of transverse reinforcement of joint. 5. however. Table 2 indicates that the joints of both E1 and E2 satisfied the design provisions for exterior beam-column joints of Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 for DC”M” structures. two developed failure modes dominated by joint shear failure (Fig.9 The aforementioned desirable failure mode (with formation of a plastic hinge in the beam) was developed by Subassemblages A1 and E2. the magnitude of loads resisted by Subassemblages A1 and E2 are consistent with the expected values from actual events. during the final cycles of loading beyond drift Angle R ratios of 4. Asv is vertical joint shear reinforcement. Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse steel in joint.06)* (11. and sh is spacing of transverse reinforcement in joint. As a result. respectively (Fig.20)* 8. E1.67 < 17 (15. dbl is diameter of hooked beam bars (in both E1 and E2 setup recommended by EC8 and shown in Fig.0.0)*† (1. cm2 dbl .85 3.5 when large displacements were imposed.039 in. two 8 mm diameter short bars were placed and were tightly connected on the top bends of the beam reinforcing bars and two on the bottom.6 E1..net is development length of hooked beam bars. It was considered worthwhile.20)* 75. 7).66)*† (5. For this reason. respectively. as shown in Fig.net.0%. 7.4. Subassemblage Vjh. cm 14 2.7. this criterion is fulfilled for Subassemblies A1 and E2. and G17.72 (23.2. cm diameter MR 5.8 were satisfied. kN cm2 E1 E2 † Asv . They showed a 472 Table 1—Comparison of joint of Subassemblage A1 design parameters with ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 Subassemblage A1 * γ ldh.85)* (1.5 Note: γ is shear strength factor reflecting confinement of joint by lateral members.394 in. the beam of Subassemblage A1 developed maximum shear forces higher than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the sixth cycle of loading. 3 and 7).20)* (1. buckling of the beam longitudinal reinforcement in Subassemblages A1 and E2 occurred after the sixth and seventh cycles of loading. 7). Strain gauge measurements were used to determine beam bar pull-out.9 As can be seen in Fig. it is not fulfilled for Subassemblies E1 and G1 because they exhibited significant loss of strength during cyclic loading.4. 3 and 7) showed a considerable loss of strength. showed stable hysteretic behavior up to drift Angle R ratios of 4. Story drifts allowed by modern codes are on the order of 2% of the story height. 1 kN = 0. 1 mm = 0.30 45 (32)† 5 (5)* (222)* (2.. Numbers outside parentheses are provided values.65)* 0. Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse steel of joint. 5 was applied).2.85)* (1.4 (for DC”M” structures).20)*† Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ACI 318-05. Thus.06)* (9.0 was reached and exceeded. 6 and 7).394in. One of the basic provisions of all modern structural codes is to provide the structures with sufficient strength and sufficient ductility to undergo post-elastic deformations without losing a large percentage of their strength. because the use of a weak girder-strong column design philosophy is adopted by the modern codes. The premature joint shear failure of Subassemblage G1 also did not allow the beam in this subassemblage to develop its flexural capacity.0)*† (17)† 30 1. and G1 are similar to real modern frame structures.

5). An equal and opposing 473 . the minimum value for the MR ratio according to ACI 318-05 and ACI 352R-02. 8(c)) and partly by a truss mechanism formed by horizontal and vertical reinforcement and concrete compression struts. the beam’s longitudinal reinforcement in Subassemblages E1 and E2 maintained adequate anchorage throughout the tests due to the short bars placed and tightly connected under the bends of a group of reinforcing bars (refer to Fig. of this bar had not taken place.7.7 Note: Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse steel of joint and lb. Their resultant is ΣTi.01 (2. 8(a)).27 Both mechanisms depend on the core concrete strength.7 Thus. (b) internal forces around exterior beam-column joint as result of seismic actions. cm 45 (43) * MR 2.net is development length of hooked beam bars.40. the flexural moment is almost zero.8 The codes prescribe minimum MR values.19 and (d) forces acting in joint core concrete through Section I-I from two mechanisms.10.27.8 † Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ERC-1995. the ultimate concrete strength of the joint core under compression/tension controls the ultimate strength of the connection. Thus. In this section.12.01) * lb. 8(b) shows the internal forces around this joint. 8(a)).60 (1.10.27.4-6 The minimum value for the MR ratio according to the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code is 1.20.18 As shown in Fig. cm2 2. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS A new formulation published in recent studies20-26 predicts the beam-column joint ultimate shear strength and was used in the present study to predict the failure modes of Subassemblages A1. is 1.10. The forces acting in the concrete are shown in Fig. A summary of this formulation is presented. strength in the joint is limited by gradual crushing along the cross-diagonal cracks and especially along the potential failure planes (Fig. After failure of the concrete.net.10. E2. Numbers outside parentheses are provided values.19 The horizontal and vertical reinforcement is normally provided by horizontal hoops in the joint core around the longitudinal column bars and by longitudinal column bars between the corner bars in the side faces of the column. Neither the New Greek Code for the Design of RC Structures8 nor the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code7 require limitations for the joint shear stress. and G1. as can be seen from Tables 1 through 3. For instance.28 Table 3—Comparison of joint of Subassemblage G1 design parameters with ERC-19957 and CDCS-19958 Subassemblage G1 Ash. a good target MR for most structures is between 1. 8(d).20 and 1. it was concluded that a pullout of this bar had occurred. 5.13.10. Of course both of these codes need to add requirements to limit joint shear stress.Fig. Table 3 also clearly indicates that the joint of G1 satisfied the design provisions for exterior beam-column joints of both the new Greek codes. 1 cm = 0.28 Each force acting in the joint core is analyzed into two components along the x and y axes (Fig.40. So. Figure 8(a) shows an RC exterior beam-column joint for a moment resisting frame and Fig. The values of Ti are the tension forces acting on the longitudinal column bars between the corner bars in the side faces of the column.12. E1. consider Section I-I in the middle of the joint height (Fig.12 (c) two mechanisms of shear transfer (diagonal concrete strut and truss mechanism). 8—(a) Exterior beam-column joint.12 The shear forces acting in the joint core are resisted partly by a diagonal compression strut that acts between diagonally opposite corners of the joint core (refer to Fig. as well as according to Eurocode 8 (DC”M”).40)† *Numbers inside parentheses are required values of CDCS-1995.394 in.12. 8(d)).

respectively.53 MPa = 10.5 and the solution of the system of Eq. Equation (11) gives 2 ( 0.= α V jh hc (6) (5) (13) The solution of the system of Eq. + T 4 ) = D cy + D sy = V jv ↓ ↓ compression strut truss model fc = K × fc ′ (9a) Also. (8) and using τ = γ f c gives the following expression αγ ⎛ 4⎞ ---------. Substituting Eq. This compression force was generated by the resultant of the vertical components of the truss mechanism’s diagonal compression forces D1. f ′c is the concrete compressive strength and K is a parameter of the model15 expressed as ρ s × f yh K = 1 + ---------------fc ′ (9b) (2a) where ρs is the volume ratio of transverse reinforcement and fyh is its yield strength.6 and Eurocode 84 are not possible to derive.+ -----fc fc 5 = 1 (8) where fc is the increased joint concrete compressive strength due to confinement by joint hoop reinforcement.558 according to the Scott et al.12 The principle (σI = maximum. which is given by the model of Scott et al. (3) and (4) D cy + D sy V jv σ = ---------------------.5 ACI 352R-02.27 Thus..1485 and y = 0.78 MPa (refer to Table 4). This system is solved each time for a given value of the joint aspect ratio using standard mathematical analysis.compression force (–ΣTi) must act in the joint core to balance the vertical tensile forces generated in the reinforcement. (5) through (7) into Eq. D2 …Dv. K(A1) = 1. (10) is transformed into ( x + ψ ) + 10 ψ – 10 x = 1 5 5 The summation of horizontal forces equals the horizontal joint shear force Vjh D cx + ( D 1 x + D 2 x … + D vx ) = D cx + D sx = V jh (2b) 5 αγ 4 + --------. The joint ultimate strength τult depends on the increased joint concrete compressive strength due to confining fc and on the joint aspect ratio α. however.4. COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The proposed shear strength formulation can be used to predict the failure mode of the subassemblages and thus the ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 where α is the joint aspect ratio. Thus.1 + ------σ I. f ′c(A1) = 35 MPa. II = -2 2 2 σ 2 (7) Equation (8)29 was adopted for the representation of the concrete biaxial strength curve30 by a fifth-degree parabola σI σ II – 10 ---.53 . for each joint would be calculated as in the following example.10. A particular value. From Eq. (11) to (13) gives the beam-column joint ultimate strength τult = γult f c (MPa).1 + 1 + ----2⎠ ⎝ 2 fc α Assume herein that αγ x = ---------2 fc and 4 αγ 1 + ----ψ = ---------2 2 fc α Then Eq. Example for Subassemblage A1 The value α = 1.27 The column axial load is resisted by the compression strut mechanism.15 model and fc(A1) = K(A1) × f ′c(A1) = 54.46 54.± -.53 MPa.248.= 1.⎛ 1 + ----.– 1⎞ = 1 2 ⎝ ⎠ fc α (10) The vertical normal compressive stress σ and the shear stress τ uniformly distributed over Section I-I are given by Eq. (3) and (4) V jv -×τ σ = -----V jh It has been shown that V jv hb -----..= ---.5 and finally τult(A1) = 1.15 according to the equation 474 . It is now necessary to establish a relationship between the average normal compressive stress σ and the average shear stress τ.46 γ ult ( A1 ) = ----------------------------------------1. typical values of τult for comparison with the values of ACI 318-05. D1y + D2y + … + Dvy = ΣTi = T1 + T2 + T3 + T4.1458 ) 54. σII = minimum) stresses are calculated σ σ 4τ .12 The summation of vertical forces equals the vertical joint shear force Vjv D cy + ( T 1 + . (11) to (13) gives x = 0.= ------------------hc ′ × bc ′ hc ′ × bc ′ V jh τ = ------------------hc ′ × bc ′ (3) (11) (4) (12) where h ′c and b ′c are the length and the width of the joint core.

E2.0 1. when the calculated joint shear stress τcal is greater or equal to the joint ultimate strength (τcal = γcal f c ≥ τult = γult f c ).92 10. 3 and 7). The horizontal joint shear stresses are mainly produced by the longitudinal beam reinforcement as clearly described by Eq.93 psi. the performance of both subassemblages will not be satisfactory.34 1.19 1.4 and for both Greek codes. For Type 2 joints. if the Subassemblages E1 and G1 had higher values with concrete compressive strengths. This would have happened for values with concrete compressive strength of approximately 50 MPa. Japan. A very good correlation is observed (Table 5). and energy dissipation capacity during the tests. the joints of both these subassemblages will fail earlier than their beams according to the aforementioned methodology.19 1. Furthermore.05 8.0 f c ′ MPa for exterior beam-column joints and 1.19 0.17 1. as the values of the ratio τcal/τult = γcal/γult decrease was also demonstrated. is acceptable for Eurocode 2. that is. The percentage of longitudinal beam reinforcement of Subassemblages E1 and G1 was purposely chosen to be higher than that of Subassemblages A1 and E2 to produce higher joint shear stresses than those corresponding to their ultimate capacities. however.46 1. then the predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near τcal because the connection permits its adjacent beam(s) to yield. The value of τcal is calculated from the horizontal joint shear force assuming that the top reinforcement of the beam yields (Fig. which are shown in Table 6. and New Zealand. The joint region of E1. Therefore. τult = γult f c is calculated from the solution of the system of Eq. The value of concrete 28-day compressive strengths of 22 MPa for both Subassemblages E1 and G1. actual values of connection shear stress.20 1.20-26 The validity of the formulation was checked using test data from more than 120 exterior and interior beam-column subassemblages that were tested in the Structural Engineering Laboratory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.12. the joint of Subassemblage E1 was more confined than the joint of Subassemblage G1. both Subassemblages E1 and G1 demonstrated premature joint shear failure starting from the early stages of seismic loading and damage concentrated mostly in this region (Fig.47 in Subassemblage A1 (that is. E2.94 5.60 1. are equal to their τcal values (because γcal < γult) and are significantly different from their τult values. E1. as a result.8 475 .5) and γcal/γult is equal to 0. When the calculated joint shear stress τcal is lower than the connection ultimate strength (τcal = γcal f c < τult = γult f c ). respectively. then the predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near τult(τult = γult f c ). both subassemblages failed in flexure.13. and Vcol is the column shear force (Fig.25 A s 1 × f y – V col (14) where As1 is the top longitudinal beam reinforcement (Fig.0 According to proposed shear strength formulation 10.96 8. One of the motivations behind this ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 study was the verification of the shear strength formulation presented herein for beam-column joints designed according to modern codes. Table 6 shows that γcal/γult is equal to 0. As expected. a joint shear failure is expected for both Subassemblages E1 and G1 without any serious damage in their beams and. however.24 1. which explains why the hysteretic response of the former was better than that of the latter (Fig. where α = 1. exhibiting remarkable seismic performance (Fig. they would have behaved as well as Subassemblages A1 and E2.017.25. fy is the yield stress of this reinforcement. Values τpred of A1 and E2.5).25 f c ′ MPa for interior beam-column joints) are included for each reference subassemblage.025 and 0. 8(a)). The shear capacities of the connections of Subassemblages A1. lower than 0..78 6. In Table 5. The improved retention of strength in the beam-column subassemblages. 7).7. because the joints of both E1 and G1 reach their ultimate shear strength during the tests before the beams reach their ultimate strength. Thus. The concrete compressive strength significantly increases the joint ultimate strength τult. the volume ratios of joint transverse reinforcement for Subassemblages E1 and G1 were 0. MPa τpred /τexp γcal / γult τult. This is because the connection fails earlier than the adjacent beam(s).50.5. As predicted.Table 4—Joint ultimate strength and ratios τpred /τexp and γcal / γult for Subassemblages A1. (11) to (13).20-26 as well as data from similar experiments carried out in the U. lower than 0. both Subassemblages E1 and G1 exhibited poor seismic performance.78 6. there will be satisfactory performance for both Subassemblages A1 and E2. Thus. E1. and G1 were also computed using the aforementioned methodology.5.46 in Subassemblage E2 (that is. In this case.04 Subassemblage τult . the limiting values of joint shear stress according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 (1. Thus. the calculated joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c when the beams reach their ultimate strength is higher than the joint ultimate capacity τult = γult f c . the limiting values of joint shear stress according to Eurocode 84 (15τR MPa for exterior beam-column joints and 20τR MPa for interior beam-column joints) are also included. The longitudinal beam reinforcement of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was purposely chosen to produce low joint shear stresses during the tests. and G1 According to Park and Paulay10 A1 E1 E2 G1 6.S. which are shown in Table 4. (14).28 1.31 1. as a result. 8(a)).0 1. Therefore. Thus. MPa τpred /τexp γcal / γult Note: 1 MPa = 144. satisfied all the design requirements of Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 and the joint regions of G1 satisfied all the design requirements of the two Greek codes. the horizontal joint shear force is expressed as V jhcal = 1.31-36 A part of this verification is presented in Table 5 where the comparison is shown between experimental and predicted results by the preceding methodology for 39 exterior and interior beam-column joint subassemblages from the literature.08 0.47 1. which would have resulted in values of ratio γcal/γult lower than 0. As also predicted. 8(a)). according to the aforementioned methodology.8 Table 6 also shows that for both Subassemblages E1 and G1. In Table 5.1. 3). the design forces in the beam according to ACI 352R-026 should be determined using a stress value of α × fy for beam longitudinal reinforcement. a ratio τcal/τult = γcal/γult less than 0.3 Eurocode 8. stiffness. the beam-column joints of the subassemblages performed excellently during the tests and remained intact at the conclusion of the tests. which was characterized by significant loss of strength. the formation of a plastic hinge in the beams near the columns is expected without any serious damage in the joint regions and.7.0 1. For τcal/τult = γcal/γult ≤ 0.

70 40.47 4.70 0.04 0.13 7.14 1.99 0.00 1.74 5. Overstrength factor a = 1.33 1. E equals exterior beam-column subassemblage.00 1. 16 A1 A2 A3 33 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 UNIT1 12 UNIT2 UNIT3 UNIT4 SHC1 36 SHC2 SOC3 SP1 SP2 SP3 35 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7 SP8 Total * † γult Observed Predicted shear strength τpred.23 8.74 0.23 1. Beam bars of UNIT3 were anchored in beam stub at far face of column.10 46.68 0.02 5.30 5.90 1.20 30.74 0.40 6.16 4.54 8.65 6.06 0.02 0.01 0.94 0.71 8.22 4.00 30.30 4.65 8.69 0.15 1.87 0.00 1.41 4.10 30.76 8.77 1.49 4.20 7.65 5.03 4.66 7.56 5.96 10.96 0.75 0.00 1.70 0.39 15.55 9.97 0.40 41.76 1.71 5.45 6.20 40.36 5.00 30.26 1.00 1.09 0. 1.80 6.30 6.19 1.83 1.76 1.19 4.33 7.00 30.68 0. 11 No.14 1.79 5.00 1.33 7.33 1.78 0.17 5.93 12.31 0.11 7.94 1.54 7.50 4.20 30.92 1.32 0.46 4.08 0.96 2.09 2.97 0.54 7.20 0.62 1.93 0.00 1.85 5.47 4.00 1.72 0.70 4.06 0.10 1.90 1.81 10.33 1.01 1.70 41.90 4.03 0.4 Neither relevant Greek codes7.62 4.11 1.90 0.72 1.20 40.34 1.90 7.74 5.39 5.06 0.10 27.11 4. 15 No.93 0.69 1.02 0.14 1.50 4.13 1.91 7.67 1. γpred = γcal.01 4.99 5.81 7.48 7. 5 No.92 6.02 1.74 6.00 1.03 0.94 0.00 1.21 7.93 psi. 8 No. 3 No.83 1.50 4. shear strength μ = τpred / τexp τexp.21 7.17 1.20 4.92 8.83 6.48 7.11 E‡ E § E§ E‡§ E E E 39 I equals interior beam-column subassemblage.06 8.14 1.96 1.10 41.20 1.03 12. γpred = γult.70 31.70 37.78 6.00 41.86 0.70 8.14 1.12 4.78 1.94 1.33 1.80 5.47 4.14 1.00 1.90 0.90 0.66 0. beam bar fy .08 1. joints.13 0.00 1.16 6.68 0.29 7.74 1. hoop fy .36 1.40 41.23 7.00 0. 476 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .06 1.58 13. 9 No.86 1.71 0. τEC8.20 41.55 4.88 5.6 τEC8 is the limiting values of joint shear stress according to Eurocode 8.62 5.77 0.75 1.40 4. 7 34 No.00 1.46 9.93 5.18 8.68 1.33 5.06 7. τpred = τult.83 0.40 4.49 4. 4 No.24 5.26 4.06 8.70 44.13 4.64 0.90 6.14 1.14 1.00 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 1070 409 1070 1070 1070 409 1070 1070 315 307 473 473 413 413 413 347 349 350 349 347 352 352 352 250 250 250 281 281 281 250 250 250 281 281 281 250 281 281 250 291 291 291 291 291 291 291 291 320 320 321 321 551 551 551 0 0 427 379 0 357 365 365 0.99 1.45 6.93 12.66 5.16 6.88 0.00 1.69 1.05 0.67 1.82 0.21 7.55 5.40 40.65 9.01 0.40 32.33 1.44 8.09 1.00 0.50 47.69 0.93 12.00 1. 10 No.32 4.48 1.20 40.00 1.5 8.34 1.43 4.16 0.87 1.64 1. τACI.68 0.25 for ‡Unreinforced beam steel is included in computations of joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c MPa.96 2.07 1.11 8.69 1.99 1.56 13.83 0.05 f c psi. 1 No.83 0.95 6.88 0.97 5.46 9.05 1. Notes: τACI is the limiting values of joint stress according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-02.126 1.37 9.50 59.17 0.90 1.05 0.11 1.90 38.93 0.22 0.62 1.93 12.14 1.17 1.70 26.Table 5—Experimental verifications Joint Concrete Type of Longitudinal Joint aspect compressive subassem.02 0.43 4.58 7.03 1.90 56.69 9.57 7.126 1.92 Average COV 0.07 1.35 9.126 1.39 5.43 5.78 0.70 6.90 35.ratio strength f ′ Subc.06 1.0 f c MPa = 12.8 provide information regarding limiting values for joint shear stress.78 1.00 1.91 1.42 9.12 0. 1 MPa = 144. 6 No.03 0.58 7.21 1.31 1.33 31.60 1. τpred = τcal and for γcal ≥ γult.33 1.50 3.05 0.20 1.76 7.89 0.44 4.05 0.00 1.74 1.0.95 4.70 7.11 4.92 0.14 1.95 0.20 40.33 1.65 5.16 5.60 44.03 0.47 4.41 7. 2 No.67 0.39 5.30 5. §Subassemblages with one transverse beam for γ cal < γult.64 16. * α = hb/hc MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa γcal γexp Reference assemblage blage No.65 5.126 1.99 8.47 4.51 7.33 1.00 32. All subassemblages have flexural strength ratios MR higher than 1.00 31.96 0. MPa MPa 4.00 30.70 1.34 6.63 6.08 0.08 1.30 46.10 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I I I I E E E E I I E† E I I I E ‡§ 1.06 1. 12 No.48 7.00 1.67 1.91 1.99 1.40 9.50 4.20 38.01 0.11 5.14 2.48 5.47 9.03 0. 13 No.44 5.69 0.54 7.9 9. 14 No.33 7.67 7.14 1.70 36.33 1.02 8.47 4.00 36.51 4.74 4.76 4.23 1.48 7.

1995. Berlin. E1.. ACI Committee 318. pp.05 6.584 1.685 0. and G1 tested in this study were significantly higher than 1. 7.” ACI Structural Journal. Jan.. 572 pp. (11) to (13) depend on the increased joint concrete compressive strength due to confining fc.3 Eurocode 8.19 1. the presence of a concrete slab would not have had any influence on the response of these subassemblages.4 The beamcolumn joints of both Subassemblages A1 and E2 performed satisfactorily during the cyclic loading sequence to failure. The behavior of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was as expected and as documented in the seismic design philosophy of ACI 318-05.05 f c psi. Greece.” Athens. 1. E2. thus. These values differ significantly from those of Park and Paulay.5 ACI 352R-02. MPa τexp γult 5. E1.10 which mainly depend on the percentage of top longitudinal beam reinforcement.593 1.46 1. which are typical in buildings. according to the requisite strong column-weak beam. Hakuto. 1991. London. R.92 5.558 0. γpred = γult.10 5. 4.50 1. Mich. 477 . This effect cannot be underestimated as it may lead to premature lateral instability in ductile momentresisting frames of modern structures. “New Greek Earthquake Resistant Code (ERC-1995). T. Farmington Hills.56 1.17 1.50 1. E2. Overstrength factor a = 1. J. E2. 87. and Tanaka. and G1 with significant accuracy.. Greece. 6.6 and Eurocode 8.675 0.” CEN. A. as well as on the joint aspect ratio α. 1. Farmington Hills. (in Greek) 9. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC2. (11) to (13) are higher than those of Subassemblages E1 and G1 derived by the same methodology. Damage occurred both in the joint area and in the columns’ critical regions. flexural strength ratios should be no less than 1. “Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details. 3. 37 pp.10 would lead to similar findings as those derived from the solution of the system of Eq. 61 pp. The ultimate joint shear strengths of Subassemblages A1.25 for beam steel is included incomputations of joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c MPa. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352.26 0. allowing the formation of plastic hinges in their adjacent beams. Ehsani and Wight31 found that “the flexural strength ratio MR at the connections is reduced significantly due to the contribution of the slab longitudinal reinforcement.A question arises regarding how concrete slabs. 1995. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC8.96 1. (11) to (13) for A1 and E2. the proposed shear strength formulation predicted the failure mode for Subassemblages A1. “New Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures (CDCS-1995). “Eurocode 8: Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1998-1-1/2/3). the following conclusions can be drawn.46 1. E2.50 1.31 The flexural strength ratios of all the Subassemblages A1. and G1. Table 4 shows that the values of ultimate joint shear strengths of Subassemblages A1 and E2 derived from the solution of the system of Eq. V...17 0. 2002. Berlin. 1(a) and (b)). Leon. 192 pp.. 2005. Finally.04 K γcal 1. and ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Table 6—Experimental and predicted values of strength of Subassemblages A1.-Feb. γpred = γcal.558 0. 97. E1. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05).” American Concrete Institute. E2. τpred/τexp and γcal/γult for Subassemblages A1. and G1 according to the aforementioned procedures. 1 MPa = 144.8 related to the design of beam-column joints need improvement. and G1 Joint aspect ratio Subassem. contrary to expectations based on Eurocode 2. E1.. 2.98 1.47 1. Thus. 1990. Mich. CONCLUSIONS Based on the test results described in this paper. (11) to (13) for E1 and G1 and less than the values from Eq. 1. E&FN Spon. E1. The joints of both Subassemblages E1 and G1. E2. 5. “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1992-1-1).60 4. provisions in Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 and those in the two Greek codes7. 1995. 167 pp.. 2000. 3.46 1.” ACI Structural Journal. 145 pp. It was demonstrated that the design assumptions of Eurocode 2.00 6. No. Penelis. 11-25. To this end.3 Eurocode 8. G. Thus. τpred = τcal and for γcal ≥ γult. for both Subassemblages E1 and G1. H.α = blage hb/hc A1 E1 E2 G1 Predicted Observed μ= shear shear strength strength τpred/ γcal/ γexp γult τpred. 1. to ensure flexural hinging in the beam. E1.20 (refer to Fig. This happened because.8 did not avoid premature joint shear failures because the resulting design can not ensure that the joint shear stress will be significantly lower than the joint ultimate strength τult and did not ensure the development of the optimal failure mechanism with plastic hinges occurring in the beams while columns remained elastic.0 f c MPa = 12. Both subassemblages showed high strength without any appreciable deterioration after reaching their maximum capacity. (11) to (13).8 exhibited shear failure during the early stages of cyclic loading.50 1. 3-11. “Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior BeamColumn Joints. Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures.08 1.80 4. 430 pp.31 5. τpred = τult. while the Park and Paulay10 procedure predicted only the failure mode of Subassemblages A1 and E2. 1997. G. Table 4 presents the joint ultimate strength and ratios. This clearly explains why the Park and Paulay10 values of ultimate joint shear strength in Table 4 are larger than the values from Eq.4 and those in the Greek codes7.” CEN. and G1 derived from the solution of the system of Eq.20 0. V.15 Notes: For γcal < γult.” They recommended that.19 1. Park.554 1. “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02). R. the calculated joint shear stress τcal was higher than the joint ultimate strength τult (Table 6). ∅ a b ′c f ′c hb h ′c hc MR N Vjh Vjv α γcal γexp γult τ NOTATION bar diameter overstrength factor width of joint core compressive strength of concrete total depth of beam length of joint core total depth or width of square column sum of flexural capacity of columns to that of beam applied column axial load during test horizontal joint shear force vertical joint shear force hb/hc design values of parameter [γcal = (τcal / f c )] actual values of parameter [γexp = (τexp/ f c )] values of parameter γ at ultimate capacity of connection [γult = (τult/ f c )] = joint shear stress = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = REFERENCES 1. 2.93 psi. they performed poorly under reversed cyclic lateral deformations. (in Greek) 8. Jan. MPa τexp. Germany.” American Concrete Institute. Germany. Despite the fact that Subassemblages E1 and G1 represented beam-column subassemblages of contemporary structures. affect the performance of the joints of subassemblages such as A1.20 0. No. and Kappos. pp. S. as can be seen from Table 4.” Athens.-Feb.4 and the two Greek codes7. It would be of interest to learn whether simpler procedures for arriving to the beam-column joint ultimate strength such as that proposed by Park and Paulay.50 1.20.

“Effect of Transverse Beams and Slab on Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections. pp. “Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates.. Proceedings V. A. J. 82. Grant No. May-June 1985. A. “Shear Strength of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections for Seismic Resistant Structures. pp..” Proceeding of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 1. 24. A. V. pp. pp. 71 pp. 16. Priestley. pp.” ACI JOURNAL. J. 1999. No. Attaalla. 343-349.. H. University of Canterbury. H. 82. “The Paulay Years. N.. “Ductility Estimation of Exterior BeamColumn Subassemblages in Reinforced Concrete Frames. Proceedings V.O. B. 96... K. Tokyo.. P. pp. V.” Structural Engineering and Mechanics. Tsonos. pp. “Lateral Load Response of Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Joints. 492-499. 293-350.” ACI Structural Journal. Hilsdorf. J. “Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading. 1975. V. 1991. pp. A. R. 1-30. Mitchel. 1982. “Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Soroushian. 1995. “Seismic Repair of Exterior R/C Beam-to-Column Joints using Two-Sided and Three-Sided Jackets. No. 29-43. 2000.. 1. 86. Mich. 1984. T.” Journal of European Earthquake Engineering.” Journal of Advances in Structural Engineering. and Wight. 29. 2001. 490 pp. “Comparison Between Interior and Exterior RC Beam-Column Joint Behavior. G. 478 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . 1993. American Concrete Institute. SP-157. 145-166. No.-Feb.. Park. R... G. R. pp. G..and High-Strength Concrete Frames.-Apr. Collins... “Performance of Interior BeamColumn Joints Cast from High Strength Concrete Under Seismic Loads. New York. and F.. J. No. 1977... Kaku. “Comparison of Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Ordinary. J. T. 635-643.. 1991. “Strength and Ductility of Cast-in-Place Beam-Column Joints. and Asakusa. Fujii. M. 31. “Effectiveness of CFRP-Jackets and RC-Jackets in PostEarthquake and Pre-Earthquake Retrofitting of Beam-Column Subassemblages. Farmington Hills. Kupfer. 1969. Jirsa.. Jan. 22. No. 17-34.. “Joints of Reinforced Concrete Frames Designed for Earthquake Resistance. 16. No. Farmington Hills. 147-174. No. K. P. Jan. 32. M. Sept. pp. pp. No. S. pp.” ACI JOURNAL. 46-56..” ACI JOURNAL. Moussa. Beams and Columns with Substandard Reinforcing Details. “Contribution to the Study and Improvement of Earthquake-Resistant Mechanical Properties of Low Slenderness Structural Elements. No. 2. 6. pp. Ehsani. and Paulay. No. Tsonos. Tsonos. 3. 4. A. 1. “Seismic Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Joints by the Removal and Replacement Technique. 17. S. 82..” Recent Developments in Lateral Force Transfer in Buildings. SP-123.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering. T. Tsonos. Uzumeri.). V. T. pp. Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (E. 3.10. American Concrete Institute. pp. pp. K. V.. 27. pp. and F. Proceedings V. 23. Park. “A Summary of Results of Simulated Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Proceedings V. R.. “Towards a New Approach in the Design of R/C Beam-Column Joints.. K. VIII. R. Switzerland. No. Ehsani. A.. 21. G. 167 pp. 2001. eds. 147-157. T.. 11. 48-64. 1988. (in Greek) 30. D. 13.. pp.. (in Greek). 1985.. Japan. 18. 2002. Scott. Department of Civil Engineering. 769 pp. pp.” Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance. Park. G.. R. D.” Final Report.. Collins. 25. 19.. 8. and Vallenilla. Farmington Hills. R. 66. 656-667. 35. pp.. 1995. G. H. eds. SP-157. 69-82. No. Farmington Hills. 1.” Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance. 83. H.. Lausanne.. C. 36.” Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones.” Research Report 84-9. A. 13-27. SP-123.. Nov... No. 7. and Morita. J. E.-Dec. Farmington Hills.. V. “Behavior of Interior Beam-to-Column Connections under Earthquake-Type Loading. O.” ACI JOURNAL.” ACI JOURNAL. 8. M. and Park.P. N. “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses. and Sim.-Apr. Aug. M.. Tsonos. Scientific Journal of the Technical Chamber of Greece. 1-2. 6.P. 79.” Journal of European Association for Earthquake Engineering. Paulay.. Mich.-Dec. American Concrete Institute. Priestley. 185. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. July-Aug..” ACI JOURNAL. 13. A. No. “Seismic Behavior of Beam-Column Joints in Reinforced Concrete Space Frames. Proceedings V. I. Mich. and Priestley.. 161-169. 6. 54-64. Seible. P. V. and Wight.. A.-Feb. S. Jirsa.. 84. 2. 26. Tegos. 12. G. New Zealand. 2. Reinforced Concrete Structures. Seible.. M. American Concrete Institute. No. 167-185.” Bulletin d’ Information. 1984. 28. State-of-the Art Report. “Model Code 1990. Nov. and Agbabian. Mar. Ehsani. Park. “Controversial Issues in the Seismic Design of Connections in Reinforced Concrete Frames. 1987.” ACI Structural Journal. Paulay. J. N. 1996... J. 1986. R. Mich. 34.. No. 2.” ACI Structural Journal. 188-195. A. Proceedings V. 1989. 1997. 1985. John Wiley Publications. pp. 557-568.” PhD thesis. and Rusch. Christchurch. 75-96. V. CEB-FIP. 20.” Recent Developments in Lateral Force Transfer in Buildings. pp. 15. O. CEB. SP-53.. Tsonos. V. ed. M. 2. M. A.” Technika Chronika. Tsonos. Durrani. S. Appendix 13. 14. “Axial Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns under Dynamic Loads. pp. 100/11-10-2000. American Concrete Institute. 1018-1025. Mich. M. 2004. Paulay. Mar. S. “Seismic Retrofit of R/C Beam-to-Column Joints using Local Three-Sided Jackets. 33. R. 2003. and Wight. ed.” Journal of European Earthquake Engineering.

2006. 459 . Current ACI design provisions are primarily developed from test results of concentric beam-column connections. The measured strains in joint hoop reinforcement and the joint shear deformations on the side near the beam centerline were larger than those on the side away from the beam centerline. Raffaelle and Wight11 suggested a formula for reducing the effective joint width for shear resistance of eccentric connections. No.9-19 To clarify the effect of eccentric beams on the behavior of connections. whereas eccentric beam-column connections are rather common in practice. Keywords: beam-column connections. The specimen variables are the shear direction and the eccentricity between the beam and column centerlines. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 has issued design recommendations for RC beam-column joints. Teng and Zhou14 also proposed an empirical equation for calculating the nominal shear strength of eccentric joints by reducing the effective joint width. and concluded that joint eccentricity slightly reduced the strength and stiffness of the connections. The majority of the experimental programs have concentric beam-column connections isolated from a lateral-force-resisting frame at the nearest inflection points in the beams and columns framing into the joint.5 Throughout the years.20 In the early 1990s. 4. and reviewed under Institute publication policies.. Copyright © 2007. Relatively few tests of eccentric RC beam-column connections have been reported in the literature to date. Finally.5-7 and appointed a task group to review and summarize previous research on eccentric RC beamcolumn connections.1-3 The cause of collapse has been attributed to the lack of joint confinement. Experimental verification shows that the current ACI design procedures are acceptable for seismic design purposes.5. Because floor slabs were typically not included in previous tests of eccentric connections.7 by integrating results of new experimental programs. Eccentricity between beam and column centerlines had detrimental effects on the strength.0 to 1. shear strength. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 has called for additional research on this topic over the past two decades. and displacement ductility of the specimens.33. one concentric transverse beam. floor slabs. 104.9 Lawrance et al. Burak and Wight’s15 three specimens were tested under sequential loading in two principal directions in which lateral loading was first applied in the edge beam direction and then in the transverse beam direction.4. will be published in the May-June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1. leading to the collapse of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. the aforementioned corner connections had square columns. INTRODUCTION Shear failure in beam-column connections. Teng and Zhou14 also tested four cruciform eccentric beam-column connections with rectangular columns in aspect ratios of 2 and 1. Experimental results showed that two joints connecting a beam in the strong direction were capable of supporting adjacent beam plastic mechanisms. and tapered width beams could eliminate the detrimental effect of eccentric beams. Joh et al. MS No. The other three joints connecting a beam in the weak direction.. energy dissipation capacity. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Chen and Chen12 concluded that the performance of eccentric corner connections was inferior to that of concentric corner connections. especially for the exterior and corner beamcolumn connections without beams framing into all four sides. In the early 2000s. exhibited significant damage and loss of strength after beam flexural yielding. Chen and Chen12 first tested five T-shaped eccentric corner beam-column connections in the late 1990s. Shin and LaFave’s16 two specimens were tested under lateral loading in the edge beam direction to simulate the behavior of an ACI Structural Journal. while Vollum and Newman13 also tested 10 corner connections with two beams (one concentric and one eccentric) framing in from two perpendicular directions. 104-S44 TECHNICAL PAPER Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Cyclic Loading in Principal Directions by Hung-Jen Lee and Jen-Wen Ko Cyclic loading responses of five reinforced concrete corner beamcolumn connections with one concentric or eccentric beam framing into a rectangular column in the strong or weak direction are reported. joints. S-2006-226 received June 2. and rectangular columns with aspect ratios varied from 1. if any. it could not prevent the failure of corner connections at large drift levels. and indicated that further study of eccentric beam-column connections with rectangular columns is needed. Notably. Burak and Wight15 as well as Shin and LaFave16 tested five eccentric beamcolumn-slab connections. July-August 2007. amounts of experimental investigations on the seismic performance of RC beam-column connections have been extensively studied. Since the late 1960s. 2008.10 and Raffaelle and Wight11 tested six cruciform eccentric beamACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 column connections with square columns. American Concrete Institute. On the other hand. Early deterioration of strength and ductility was observed in these eccentric connections.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. Based on their analysis. All rights reserved. V. has been observed in the post-earthquake reconnaissance. Vollum and Newman13 tested specimens with combined loading in various load paths to investigate the behavior of eccentric beam-column connections and to verify a previously proposed design method. however. The researchers concluded that the performance of corner connections improved significantly when reducing joint eccentricity. however. Since 1976. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure. these guidelines evolved into state-of-the-art reports6. a number of these design recommendations for beam-column connections have been adopted in Chapter 21 of the ACI 318 Building Code8 for seismic design. Each subassembly consisted of eccentric edge beams.

The primary test variables were the lateral loading directions and the eccentricity between the beam and column centerlines. Kamimura et al. especially for eccentric corner connections with rectangular columns. even though the column cross section is rectangular.ACI member Hung-Jen Lee is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Construction Engineering and a Research Engineer of the Service Center for Construction Technology and Materials in the National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. Current ACI design procedures consider the effects of the column’s aspect ratio and eccentric beam on joint shear 460 . Cross sections and reinforcement details of the five specimens. this experimental program focuses on the behavior of eccentric corner connections with rectangular columns because they have not been experimentally verified. edge connection in an exterior moment-resisting frame. Additional experimental verification of the design provisions for eccentric connections is needed. 1. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Current ACI design provisions for estimating joint shear strength of eccentric beam-column connections are established based on few experimental investigations. current ACI design procedures7. and tested under reversed cyclic loading. W75. are shown in Fig.19 tested four cruciform eccentric connections (three deep beam-wide column connections) and proposed an equation combining shear and torsion to evaluate the joint shear strength. Taiwan. Experimental verifications on the ACI approach provided contribution to the understanding of beam-column connections. Section ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. and transverse beams could not only introduce additional demand on joint shear force but also reduce the effect of joint eccentricity. behavior of beam-column connections. Test and analytical results of another nine cruciform eccentric beam-column connections were presented in the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.9%) and D10 (No. and strut-and-tie models. in 2000. and W150 (Series W). designated as S0. The total cross-sectional area of the lateral reinforcement for each direction of the column was approximately equal to the minimum amount required by ACI 318-05. He received his PhD from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. strength by limiting and reducing the effective joint width.16 reported that the damage in the joint region of these eccentric beam-column-slab connections was not as severe as that of previous tests without floor slabs. Thus. each subassembly had only one beam framing into one corner column in each principal direction. W150) connections were tested in total. The enhancement on the joint shear capacity from confinement of floor slabs and transverse beams is questionable because a corner joint is only confined on two adjacent faces and it is likely to sustain biaxial loading. LaFave et al. W75. Jen-Wen Ko is a PhD Student in the Department of Construction Engineering at the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. Nevertheless.) and used 12 D22 (No. Specimen geometry and reinforcement The experimental program was designed using a concrete compressive strength f ′c of 30 MPa (4. two concentric (S0 and W0) and three eccentric (S50. S50 (Series S).18 who tested two cruciform eccentric connections (one with additional U-shaped reinforcement in the eccentric side).5-7 Thus.) throughout the column.9. interstory connections. Notably. Taiwan.11 Including floor slabs significantly improves the overall performance of eccentric connections and delays the deterioration of joint stiffness and strength. floor slabs. Beam-column joints in RC buildings are probably subjected to lateral loading in two principal directions during an earthquake. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Five RC corner beam-column connections were designed. The corner column had a cross section of 400 x 600 mm (16 x 24 in. The effects of a column’s aspect ratio and eccentric beam on joint shear strength are evaluated by the effective joint width. His research interests include seismic design of reinforced concrete structures. A T-shaped assembly was used to represent the essential components of a corner beam-column connection in a two-way building frame subjected to lateral loading in each principal direction. This paper presents experimental results for five corner connections with one concentric or eccentric beam framing into a rectangular joint in the strong or weak direction. 7) longitudinal bars (gross reinforcement ratio of 1. For a corner. More experimental results are needed to verify the effective joint width in eccentric connections. Further study on the behavior of corner beam-column-slab connections subjected to biaxial loading is needed. Taipei. As a result. only one value of permissible shear stress is selected for a joint according to the effective confinement on the vertical faces of the joint. reinforcement detailing.20 pointed out that including floor slabs in cruciform eccentric connections would not only raise the joint shear demand but would also reduce the effect of joint eccentricity and enhance the joint shear-resisting mechanisms. Finally.9 ksi). Yunlin. Goto and Joh17 concluded that the joint shear strength decreases as the joint eccentricity increases due to the stress concentration on the eccentric side.35 ksi) and a reinforcement yield stress fy of 420 MPa (60. 1—Illustration of test specimens.17-19 Based on experimental results and finite element analysis of three cruciform eccentric connections. Neither transverse beams nor floor slabs were constructed to ease testing.8 require that the joint shear strength be evaluated in each direction independently and implicitly assume an elliptical interaction relationship for biaxial loading. He received his MS from the National Yunlin University of Science and Technology in 2005. The subsequent numerals denote the eccentricity between the beam and column centerlines in mm. The first character (S or W) of the designation represents one south or west beam framing into the rectangular column in the strong or weak direction. constructed. Similar observations were also concluded by Kusuhara et al. 3) hoops with crossties at a spacing of 100 mm (4 in. The researchers15. W0.

Vn is the nominal joint shear strength. Note: All values are computed with fc′ = 30 MPa (4. In general. and the eccentricity between the beam and column centerlines.9 ksi). and ACI 352R-02. Because both Mr values were much greater than the specified value of 1.4.) Column depth hc. the embedment lengths of the hooked beam bars.71 0 (0) 50 (2) 0 (0) 75 (3) 350 (14) 0.) calculated using the following equations ⎧ bb + 2 x ⎪ = the smaller of ⎨ b b + h c ⎪ ⎩ bc ACI 318-05 : 8 318 bj (2) 461 . Leaving a 70 mm (2. Section 4. the beam longitudinal bars were anchored using a 90-degree standard hook bent into the joint and embedded as close as possible to the back of the column (Fig. the embedment lengths required by ACI 318-05 and ACI 352R-02 are 14.Table 1—Connection design parameters Specimen Column width bc.4.2. the loading beam had a cross section of 300 x 450 mm (12 x 18 in.) Moment strength ratio Mr * S0 S50 W0 W75 W150 400 (16) 600 (24) 5.0 f c′ MPa (12 f c′ psi) for corner.1) 400 mm (in.35 ksi).25fy for the beam longitudinal reinforcement was included.46.90 600 (24) 0.8db. 2—Overall geometry of test specimens.29%) at both top and bottom.) Vu -------------------------352 γ fc ′ bj hc *M r † Joint shear demand Vu. Due to column bending in the strong or weak direction.) in the direction of joint shear to be considered. The lengths of the beam and column that were chosen to simulate the nearest inflection points in the beam and column framing into the joint. γ f c′ is the nominal joint shear stress of 1.53 300 (12) 0.85. Per ACI 352R-02. measured from the critical section.7 for Type 2 connections. The current ACI design procedures for joint shear strength are based on Eq. To ensure the anchorage of beam longitudinal bars and to promote the development of a diagonal compression strut within the joint. a probable strength of 1. mm (in. it is taken at the outside edge of the column core.1.2db and 16.10 and 3.5. mm (in. Vu -------------------------318 γ fc ′ bj hc Effective joint width b352 j .54 450 (18) 0. mm (in. interstory connections.8 the critical section is taken at the beam-column interface.7) 150 (6) 300 (12) 1. hc is the column depth (mm or in. the demand of the joint shear force Vu is dominated by the flexural capacity of the beam.2db and 16. the five specimens were nominally identical except for the joint shear direction. Connection design parameters Table 1 shows the main design parameters for the specimens. respectively.8 in. For fy of 420 MPa (60. Section 21.5. Per ACI 318-05. Due to small differences in beam lengths. flexural hinging in the beam was anticipated. the provided embedment lengths within the joint were 24db for Series S and 15db for Series W.7 kips) for the specimens in Series W. respectively.35 ksi) and fy = 420 MPa (60. respectively. The required development lengths of hooked beam bars. kN (kips) 699 (157.) back cover behind the hook. respectively. are given in ACI 318-05. for Type 2 connections.07 360 (14.) (16) 0.72 = ΣMn(columns)/ΣMn(beams).4.2.) and used four D22 (No.8 To control the demand of shear force acting on the joint.8db. (1) φ V n = φγ f c ′ b j h c ≥ V u (1) where φ is the strength reduction factor of 0.61 450 (18) 0. 2). Figure 2 illustrates the overall geometry of the specimens.) Effective joint width bj318. Embedment lengths required by ACI 318-05 and ACI 352R-02 are 14. 7) longitudinal bars (steel ratio of 1. and bj is the effective joint width (mm or in. 21. As shown in Table 1. Based on the capacity design concept.1. the provided embedment length within the joints in Series W is ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig.46 15 706 (158.4.4) 0. the ratios of column-to-beam flexural strength Mr at the connections of Series S and W were equal to 5.9 ksi) and f ′c of 30 MPa (4.10 24 600 (24) 400 (16) 3. closed overlapping hoops were provided through the length of the beam.1 kips) for the specimens in Series S and 706 kN (158. When computing Vu values. mm (in.72 Provided embedment length db† Joint eccentricity e. 105% of that required by ACI 318-05 but only 89% of that required by ACI 352R-02. the value of Vu is equal to 699 kN (157. To avoid beam shear failure and ensure adequate confinement in the beam plastic hinge region.

5 (4278) 60 29. Fig. 3.2 (4960) 53 28. 4. and to be bc/4 for Specimen W150. otherwise m is 0. 12 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.5 h c (4) where drift ratio θ is the angular rotation of the beam chord with respect to the column chord. In contrast. 1. The fresh concrete was covered with plastic 462 Test setup and loading sequence Figure 3 shows the elevation views of the test setup. because the variation of concrete compressive strengths within each batch of concrete is small.) diameter hose. MPa (psi) Analytical f ′c.) for Series S (Fig. and it is equal to 2.1 (4220) W150 33. and m is 0.4 (4409) 29.3 when e is greater than bc/8. and 7%) was used for all specimens. The results are used to evaluate the influence of joint eccentricity and loading directions on the seismic performance of corner beam-column connections. a twist of the column about its longitudinal axis was applied for the eccentric connections. 1. MPa (psi) 49 32.). the specimens were subjected to reversed cyclic lateral displacements. The average of concrete compressive strengths at the testing date are used for analytical f ′c in this paper. A typical lateral displacement history consisting of three cycles at monotonically increasing drift levels (0.) concrete cylinders were cast and cured together with the beam-column assemblies. MPa (psi) Test days Test day f ′c. 3—Test setup for Series W (similar setup for Series S). cover plates.5. and rods. The actuator load was applied at the beam centerline while the column axial load was applied along the column longitudinal axis.). Each specimen was cast in a wood form with the beam and column lying on the ground and the exterior column side (east side for Series S and north side for Series W) facing up. Three cylinders were tested at 28 days and the rest were tested at the testing date of each beam-column assembly. This arrangement was chosen to provide stability against torsional action. and 4) effect of joint eccentricity. bc is the column width (mm or in. Concrete was supplied by a local ready mix plant using normal concrete aggregate and delivered by pump using a 125 mm (5 in.5hc is the vertical distance between the actuator and column centerlines.15 m (86 in. only Specimen W150 had a target joint shear stress exceeding the nominal value of 1. x is the smaller distance between the beam and column edges (mm or in.40 mm/s (0. respectively.5 (4133) 67 34.10Ag fc′ during testing. Series S was cast at one time using a single batch of concrete.85.sheets and wet-cured for 1 week./s). As shown in Table 1. The joint eccentricity e was designed to be bc/8 for Specimen S50 and W75. Axial load was applied at the beginning of a test and held at a level of 0. 0. 3) discussion of joint shear capacity. 0.) for Series W and 2. To simulate the displacement reversal of beam-column connections during earthquake events. Construction and material properties Two sizes of standard reinforcement meeting ASTM A 706 were used for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in all specimens.05 to 1. Measured responses are summarized and discussed in the following subsections. For each batch of concrete. 2). Lb + 0.0 f c′ MPa (12 f c′ psi) for the effective joint width per ACI 318-05. The D22 (No.50. In addition. 2.2 (4815) ACI 352R-027: b j 352 ⎧ (b + b ) ⁄ 2 c ⎪ b ⎪ mh c (3) = the smaller of ⎨ b + Σ -------2 ⎪ b ⎪ ⎩ bc where bb is the beam width (mm or in. The summation term is applied on each side of the joint where the column edge extends beyond the beam edge. Table 2—Concrete compressive strengths Specimen Concrete batch 28-day f ′c. The actuator applied each target displacement in a quasi-static manner at a speed ranging from 0.0. The average yield and ultimate strengths were 471 and 715 MPa (68 and 104 ksi) for D10 (No.25.056 in. three joints of Series W exhibited significant damage and strength degradation after the beam flexural yielding. 2) joint failure after beam yielding for Series W.002 to 0. Thus.9 (4191) S50 W0 W75 2 25. each beam-column assembly was rotated 90 degrees and tied down to a strong floor with reaction steel beams.). 6. four one-dimensional rollers were seated beside the column to allow in-plane rotation at both ends of the column.8 The other four specimens satisfied the requirement on the joint shear stress when following ACI design procedures with a strength reduction factor of 0. Table 2 summarizes the concrete compressive strengths at 28 days and the testing date. Beam flexural failure for Series S Figure 4 depicts the normalized load-displacement hysteretic curves for the test specimens. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Experimental results showed that two joints of Series S were capable of supporting the complete formation of a beam plastic hinge.075 m (83 in. 7) longitudinal reinforcement had an average yield stress of 455 MPa (66 ksi) and an average ultimate strength of 682 MPa (99 ksi). 5.2 (3655) 57 30. Results presented include: 1) beam flexural failure for Series S. Target displacement amplitudes at the beam tip Δ were computed using the following equation Δ Drift ratio θ = -----------------------L b + 0.75. To restrain the column for twisting about the column axis. and then Series W was cast using another batch of concrete with the same mixture proportions. The actuator load P was ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .5. 3) transverse reinforcement.6 (4728) S0 1 28.

Further.58 1.93) (0.68 0. The buckling of the beam bars in eccentric Specimen S50 appeared earlier than that of concentric Specimen S0. 4—Normalized load versus displacement response. which is typical for a flexure-dominated system. the readings of shear deformations ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Table 3—Test results Specimen Nominal yield load Pn. The hysteretic curves show relatively little pinching.78 0. The failure mode for the specimens in Series S was classified as beam flexure failure (Mode B) due to buckling of the beam bars.41 Maximum joint shear Vj. As shown in Fig. strength.max.98) Over strength factor Pmax /Pn Ductility ratio Δmax /Δy 1. All three 463 .004 for extreme compression fiber of the critical beam section.8 (0. Fig. 4.0% drift cycle and maximum load was recorded at 5% drift level. it was concluded that both joints of Series S were capable of maintaining joint integrity and remaining elastic during the formation of adjacent beam plastic hinges.11 5.0) Nominal yield displacement Δ y .1 23.20 1.11 4.80 1. When analyzing the beam section. 4.) 18. Accordingly. are very similar in stiffness. max -------------------------352 γ fc ′ bj hc Failure mode* *Failure 0.22 1.5) (33.5 24. only hairline shear (diagonal) cracks were observed on the east and west face of the joint during testing. Joint failure after beam yielding for Series W As shown in Fig.0) (33. Table 3 reports the nominal yield load and displacement for each specimen.80 BJ 0.60 0.9 20. mm (in.5) (35. but only minor cover concrete spalling appeared on the east face of the joint adjacent to the beam-column interfaces. Figure 5 shows the final damage states for test specimens.67 0.0) (33. max -------------------------318 γ fc ′ bj hc V j. Concrete crushing in the beam plastic region was evident. The failure mechanisms for specimens of Series S were core concrete crushing and subsequent buckling of longitudinal bars in the beam plastic hinge region. In addition. 5—Final damage states for test specimens. kN (kips) S0 S50 W0 W75 W150 158 158 147 147 147 (35. the nominal yield displacement Δy was determined by extrapolation from measured displacement at 0.13 0. normalized to the nominal yield load Pn that was calculated at a given strain of 0. as shown in Fig.93) (0. the measured material properties were used to model the concrete and reinforcing bars. the beam-tip displacement Δ was also normalized to the drift ratio and displacement ductility ratio. kN (kips) 827 814 778 781 739 (186) (183) (175) (176) (166) V j.41 5.94 BJ Mode B means beam flexural failure and BJ means joint shear failure after beam yielding. The load-displacement responses for Specimens S0 and S50.80 B B BJ 0. For Specimens S0 and S50.05 3.75Pn in the 1% drift cycle.5 23.12 4.79) (0. Note: All values are computed with analytical f c ′ (refer to Table 2) of concrete and measured strengths of reinforcement. Beam bars initiated yielding in the 1.74) (0.Fig. measured on the east face of the joints remained in elastic range during testing. and ductility. the load-displacement responses for the specimens in Series W were similar up to 4% drift cycles after yielding of the beam bars (1% drift cycle) and joint transverse reinforcement (2 to 3% drift cycle).60 1.60 0. 4.

wide-opened diagonal shear cracks. 5). the strain readings of Gauge 9 within the joint remained elastic up to the 3% drift level. Due to the distance between beam and column edges (Fig.12 first discussed that there are two shear-resisting mechanisms exiting in joints. Meanwhile. 5). The stress of the bar would begin to drop after crushing of the diagonal strut within the joint. In this paper. 4. The joint shear failure after beam yielding (Mode BJ) was evident due to the nonlinear shear deformation. this type of failure is classified as diagonal shear compression failure of the joint rather than premature anchorage failure of the beam bars. respectively. The hooked beam bars initiated yielding at the critical section (Gauge 10) during the 1% drift cycle. The truss mechanism transfers the ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. which is large for a welldesigned building system. which were typical responses of the shear or bond-slip mechanism. Visible cracking. Figure 6 shows the strain distributions along the beam bars at peak drift values for Specimens W0 and W150. Fig. Eventually. the appearance of initial joint shear cracks on the north face of the joint was delayed to the 1. The joint failure and subsequent pushout cracks were observed at a drift level of 5% or more. and then spread plasticity into the plastic hinge region (Gauges 11 and 12) during the 2 and 3% drift cycle. the truss mechanism and the diagonal strut mechanism. the hooked beam bars might gradually lose its bond and anchorage within the joint. Due to crushing of the concrete within the joint. the pushout movement of the beam compression bars induced the pushout cracks on the east face of the joints in Series W. a considerable strength degradation was observed after the maximum loads recorded at the 4% drift level (Specimen W150) or 5% drift levels (Specimens W0 and W75).5% drift cycle for Specimens W75 and W0. The bond along the straight portion of the bar was lost at this stage.5% drift cycle.0 and 1. The initial joint shear cracks appeared diagonally during the 0. followed by extensive pushout cracks distributed on the east face of the joint behind the hooked beam bars (Fig. which had similar behavior with Specimen W150. the observed behavior appears to be acceptable for the seismic design purpose. The beam bar strains were measured using electrical resistance strain gauges attached to reinforcing bars at selected locations. crushing. followed by significant degradation on strength and stiffness. specimens in Series W exhibited significant pinching curves in Fig. Therefore.Fig. 7—Strain histories of Gauge 9 on hooked beam bars for Specimens W0 and W150. 1). Strength degradation after the 5% drift cycle was attributed to the crushing of concrete within the joints. also failed in Mode BJ. Both gauge 464 . joints were capable of supporting beam flexural yielding up to 4% drift. and visible expansion from crushing of concrete in the joint region. no new joint shear cracks appeared while crushing and spalling of concrete started on the north face of the joint. Figure 8 shows the cracking pattern and measurement of joint shear deformation on the north (flush) face of the joint for Specimen W150. 6—Strain profiles of hooked beam bars for Specimens W0 and W150. followed by propagation of diagonal cracks up to a 4% drift level. The measured joint shear deformation rapidly increased after the maximum load recorded at 4% drift. 8—Measurement of joint shear deformation on north face of Specimen W150: (a) cracking patterns on north face at 5% drift. and therefore the bearing inside the bent portion of the hook resisted most of the tension force. As a result. Discussion of joint shear capacity Paulay et al. readings remained elastic in the 3% drift cycles and then went into yielding plateau in the first or second cycle of the 4% drift level. This denoted that some bond still existed along the straight part of the bar embedded within the joint. It is evident that the beam bar was adequately developed up to 4% drift. however. After strength degradation commenced at 4% drift. Figure 7 depicts the available strain histories of Gauge 9 for Specimens W0 and W150 during testing. however. and spalling of concrete in Specimens W0 and W75 were less than those in Specimen W150 (Fig. and (b) load versus joint shear deformation. Specimens W0 and W75.

forces uniformly from the beam and column bars through the bond mechanism. Adequate bond must exist between the reinforcement and concrete to necessitate a truss mechanism, which also requires considerable amounts of horizontal and vertical tie forces in the truss panel to be in equilibrium. Figure 9 illustrates a conceptual model for the degradation of joint shear capacity under increasing drift or ductility ratio. Joints subjected to inelastic displacement reversals often undergo significant bond deterioration along the reinforcing bars from the adjacent beam plastic hinge. At this stage, a part of the joint shear is transferred through the horizontal hoops with fan-shaped struts, while the remainder is carried by the diagonal strut. As the drift or ductility ratio increases, the horizontal hoops would yield progressively, the joint concrete may crack excessively, and the bond of the reinforcing bars within the joint might be lost. Eventually, the joint shear force is directly transferred by the diagonal strut mechanism. Real shear-transferring mechanisms in joints may be a combination of the diagonal strut and the truss mechanism, with the bond deterioration being at a certain degree of longitudinal reinforcement during cyclic loading (Fig. 9). Hence, the joint shear capacity decreases as the cyclic inelastic loading increases, which is referred to as the degradation of the joint shear capacity. When the joint shear capacity falls below the shear demand from beam hinging, the joint will fail in the shear after beam yielding (Mode BJ). If the joint shear capacity is greater than the demand, the maximum strength is limited by the beam flexure capacity (Mode B). Three levels of strength and ductility ratios for the test specimens are shown in Table 3. Because the maximum strengths of Specimens S0 and S50 were dominated by the beam flexure capacity rather than the joint shear capacity, Specimens S0 and S50 had over-strength factors of approximately 1.2 and ductility ratios greater than 5. In contrast, Specimens W0 and W75 had over-strength factors of approximately 1.1 and ductility factors of approximately 4.6 due to the joint shear failure at 5% drift level. Further, the largejoint-eccentricity Specimen W150 barely reached the nominal yield load and deteriorated at a ductility ratio of only 3.4. Corresponding to the maximum actuator load, the maximum shear force acting on the horizontal cross section within the joint can be estimated by L b ( L b + 0.5 h c )⎞ V j, max = T max – V col = P max ⎛ ---- – ----------------------------⎝ jd ⎠ Lc (5)

Fig. 9—Conceptual model for degradation of joint shear capacity. the maximum shear force acting on the joint was less than the joint shear capacity (Fig. 9). In contrast, Specimen W0 failed in Mode BJ when the joint shear force reached the joint shear capacity at 5% drift. Clearly, the joint shear capacity in the strong direction of the rectangular joint (Specimen S0) was greater than that in the weak direction (Specimen W0). Comparing eccentric Specimens S50 and W75 can also find similar observation. This point cannot be rationally reflected on the calculation of a cross-sectional approach within the joint, especially for the effective joint width given by Eq. (2). When following ACI 352R-02,7 the maximum joint shear forces were approximately 70% of the nominal strengths for Series S, 80% of those for Specimens W0 and W75, and 94% of that for Specimen W150. Three levels of demand-to-capacity ratios reasonably reflected three levels of performance on strength and ductility ratios shown in Table 3. This shows that the effective joint width bj352 is more rational than bj318 for test specimens. Although following the ACI 352R-027 procedures could not avoid joint shear failure at a large drift level of 4 or 5%, it is considered acceptable in a real structural system. In this experimental program, each specimen was able to carry the applied column axial load of 0.10Ag f c ′ over the entire displacement history. Strain readings of gauges confirmed that all column longitudinal bars remained elastic during testing. For a building frame during earthquake events, however, the axial load in a corner column may be higher than 0.10Ag f c′ , or even in tension, due to overturning moment from lateral loads. Therefore, more research on the behavior of eccentric beam-column connections under high axial loads is still needed. Effect of joint eccentricity The relative energy dissipation ratio β and the equivalent viscous damping ratio ξeq, as shown in Fig. 10(a), were used to evaluate the energy dissipation capacities of the test specimens. The first index β represents a fatter or narrower hysteretic curve (pinching) with respect to an elastic perfectly plastic model. Another quantitative index ξeq describes the hysteretic damping (or energy dissipation per cycle) with respect to an equivalent linear elastic system. Average β and ξeq of three cycles at each drift level for the test specimens are compared in Fig. 10(b) and (c). Three performance levels of energy dissipation capacities 465

where Tmax is the maximum force in the tension reinforcement of the beam (N or lb); Vcol is the column shear in equilibrium with the applied loading (N or lb); and jd is the internal level arm of the beam section (mm or in.). From standard momentcurvature analysis for each specimen, jd is approximately 7/8 of the effective depth of the beam section. Thus, jd is simply assumed to be 350 mm (13.8 in.) for the following evaluation of maximum joint shear forces. Table 3 compares the maximum joint shear force with the nominal joint shear strength following the methods in ACI 318-058 or ACI 352R-02.7 When following ACI 318-05,8 Specimens S0 and W0 had equal effective joint area. Thus, the maximum joint shear forces were only 60% of the nominal strength for concentric Specimens S0 and W0 (Table 3), but different failure modes occurred during testing (Fig. 4). For the flexure-dominated Specimen S0, ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 12—Strain profiles at central layer of joint shear reinforcement in Series S. drift values. There were three layers of transverse reinforcement at a spacing of 100 mm (4 in.) in each joint. Only the strain profiles of the hoop legs and crossties in the direction of shear and at the central layer of the transverse reinforcement were compared in Fig. 11 and 12. For the corresponding drift ratios shown in Fig. 11, the strain readings of Gauge 24 in Specimens W75 and W150 were larger than those in Specimen W0. These profiles confirm the observations of more extensive shear or torsion cracks on the north side of the eccentric joints. On the south side, the strain readings of Gauge 20 in Specimens W75 and W150 were less than those in Specimen W0 because the shear and torsional stresses counteract each other.11 The effective joint width bj352 is also displayed in Fig. 11. For the joints of Series W, strain gauges on hoop legs and crossties within bj352 yielded during the 2 or 3% drift cycles while the outside strain gauges remained elastic at the same drift level. During testing of Series W, crushing of joint concrete was observed within bj352 on the west side of the joint. These observations agreed well with the strain profiles shown in Fig. 11. For the specimens in Series S, all joint hoops and crossties remained elastic over the entire displacement history. Figure 12 shows the strain distributions of hoop legs and crossties along the joint width. Due to torsional stresses from joint eccentricity, Specimen S50 had asymmetric strain distribution with respect to concentric Specimen S0. It should be noted that the total cross-sectional area of joint transverse reinforcement in two principal directions was different. Although the maximum joint shear forces in ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 10—Normalized energy dissipation at each drift level for test specimens.

Fig. 11—Strain profiles at central layer of joint shear reinforcement in Series W. are evident. The flexure-dominated Specimens S0 and S50 had a highest performance while Specimen W150 had lowest performance. A small joint eccentricity of bc /8 (Specimens S0 and W75) had a slight influence on this experimental program. Obviously, the large joint eccentricity of bc/4 had significant detrimental effects on the seismic performance of Specimen W150. Strain histories for the joint hoops and crossties were used to plot the strain distribution along the joint width at peak 466

Series S and W were similar (Table 3), the joint shear forces transferring by the lateral joint reinforcement in Series S were obviously less than those in Series W. These profiles agree well with Hwang and Lee’s model,22 which proposed that the fraction of shear carried by the joint transverse reinforcement depends on the inclination of the diagonal strut. Due to a deeper joint depth, the joints in Series S had a flatter diagonal strut that can resist horizontal joint shear more efficiently.23 As a result, the shear forces transferring by the lateral joint reinforcement was reduced and then the lateral joint reinforcement remained elastic during testing. CONCLUSIONS Based on the evaluation of the cyclic loading responses of five reinforced concrete beam-column corner connections in this experimental program, the conclusions are as follows: 1. The joint shear capacity in the strong direction of a rectangular joint is greater than that in the weak direction. In this experimental program, two joints subjected to lateral loading in the strong direction were capable of supporting the complete formation of a beam plastic hinge. The other three joints exhibited significant damage at the joints with the joint shear acting along the weak direction of the column; 2. Joint eccentricity between the beam and column centerlines had detrimental effects on the seismic performance of beam-column connections. Slight influence on the connection performance was found when the joint eccentricity was equal to half-quarter width of the column. As the joint eccentricity increasing to one-quarter of the column width, significant reductions in the strength, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity was observed; and 3. Compared with seismic performance levels, strain distributions, joint damage of the test specimens, the effective joint width recommend by ACI 352R-02 is a better choice than that given in the ACI 318 code. Experimental verifications show that the current ACI design procedures are acceptable for seismic design purposes but could not prevent the failure of corner connections at a large drift level of 4 or 5%. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the funding support (NSC 93-2211-E-224-010) of the National Science Council in Taiwan. The assistance of graduate students for the construction and testing of the beam-column connections in the structural laboratory of the National Yunlin University of Science and Technology is also acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Moehle, J. P., and Mahin, S. A., “Observations on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Buildings during Earthquakes,” Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures—Inelastic Response and Design, SP-127, S. K. Ghosh, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 67-89. 2. Sezen, H.; Whittaker, A. S.; Elwood K. J.; and Mosalam, K. M., “Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings during the August 17, 1999, Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake, and Seismic Design and Construction Practice in Turkey,” Engineering Structures, V. 25, No. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 103-114. 3. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), “Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake of September 21, 1999,” Reconnaissance Report No. 2001-02, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, Calif. 4. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of

Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 73, No. 7, July 1976, pp. 375-393. 5. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 266-283. 6. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-91),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, 18 pp. 7. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 40 pp. 8. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp. 9. Joh, O.; Goto, Y.; and Shibata, T., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints with Eccentricity,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 317-357. 10. Lawrance, G. M.; Beattie, G. J.; and Jacks, D. H., “The Cyclic Load Performance of an Eccentric Beam-Column Joint,” Central Laboratories Report 91-25126, Central Laboratories, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, Aug. 1991, 81 pp. 11. Raffaelle, G. S., and Wight, J. K., “Reinforced Concrete Eccentric Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 45-55. 12. Chen, C. C., and Chen, G. K., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Eccentric Beam-Column Corner Joints Connecting Spread-Ended Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999, pp. 443-449. 13. Vollum, R. L., and Newman, J. B., “Towards the Design of Reinforced Concrete Eccentric Beam-Column Joints,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 51, No. 6, Dec. 1999, pp. 397-407. 14. Teng, S., and Zhou, H., “Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 139-148. 15. Burak, B., and Wight, J. K., “Seismic Behavior of Eccentric R/C Beam-Column-Slab Connections under Sequential Loading in Two Principal Directions,” ACI Fifth International Conference on Innovations in Design with Emphasis on Seismic, Wind and Environmental Loading, Quality Control, and Innovation in Materials/Hot Weather Concreting, SP-209, V. M. Malhotra, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, pp. 863-880. 16. Shin, M., and LaFave, J. M., “Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Eccentric Beam-Column Connections with Floor Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 403-412. 17. Goto, Y., and Joh, O., “Shear Resistance of RC Interior Eccentric Beam-Column Joints,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 649, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004, 13 pp. 18. Kusuhara, F.; Azukawa, K.; Shiohara, H.; and Otani, S., “Tests of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Joint Subassemblage with Eccentric Beams,” Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 185, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004, 14 pp. 19. Kamimura, T.; Takimoto, H.; and Tanaka, S., “Mechanical Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Assemblages with Eccentricity,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 4, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004, 10 pp. 20. LaFave, J. M.; Bonacci, J. F.; Burak, B.; and Shin, M., “Eccentric Beam-Column Connections,” Concrete International, V. 27, No. 9, Sept. 2005, pp. 58-62. 21. Paulay, T.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Seismic Actions,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1978, pp. 585-593. 22. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., “Strength Prediction for Discontinuity Regions by Softened Strut-and-Tie Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 128, No. 12, Dec. 2002, pp. 1519-1526. 23. Hwang, S. J.; Lee, H. J.; Liao, T. F.; Wang, K. C.; and Tsai, H. H., “Role of Hoops on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005, pp. 445-453.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

467

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

As NSM reinforcement. Concrete strength. This technology is referred to as near-surface mounted (NSM) strengthening and is shown in Fig. and environmental damage. Saadatmanesh (1994). 1. Three companion unstrengthened specimens were also tested to serve as a control. polymer. shear span-to-depth ratio. and unforeseen settlement and structural damage. Also. the FRP is surrounded by concrete on three sides so the bond and damage problems associated with externally bonded FRP strengthening systems are reduced or eliminated. and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure. errant design and construction practice. An excellent summary of research in this area is available by Teng et al. (2002). Grace et al. S-2006-212 received May 25. strength. MS No. or ripping. will be published in the MayJune 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1. Available research documenting this behavior is abundant. (2001) observed only a limited increase in flexural capacity for beams strengthened with partial length longitudinal CFRP sheets due to premature delamination. In addition to problems associated with bond failure. increased service loads. strengthening with CFRP resulted in a decrease in both energy ductility and deflection ductility. Arduini and Nanni (1997). including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. 4. Fig. and strain data. All rights reserved. INTRODUCTION In-service steel-reinforced concrete flexural members may require strengthening due to material decay of the internal reinforcement and surrounding concrete. Premature failure of externally-bonded FRP plates and sheets can occur before the ultimate flexural capacity of the strengthened section is achieved. FRP materials are characterized by high tensile strength and low unit weight. and Mukhopadhyaya and Swamy (1999). American Concrete Institute. Theory related to failure modes and strength models are evaluated based on comparison with the test data. epoxy grout. flexural failure modes. if any. Other advantages of using NSM FRP technology include improved bond and force transfer with the surrounding concrete and the ability to increase the negative bending strength of bridge decks. and other structural riding surfaces. respectively. of the concrete cover surrounding the steel reinforcement. predictable nominal strengths and failure modes. (2002) and ACI has published a design guide for strengthening concrete structures with externally-bonded FRP materials (ACI Committee 440 2002). A popular method of increasing the flexural strength of beams. The surrounding concrete now protects the FRP so that mechanical and thermal damage is unlikely. July-August 2007. ACI Structural Journal. and effective force transfer between the CFRP. Mildenberg Flexural strengthening using near-surface mounted (NSM) fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) materials is a promising technology. Keywords: beam. Test results show measurable increases in yield and ultimate strengths. Bencardino et al.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. These conditions require structural retrofit to increase the flexural strength of the section. and Jason J. Similar results have been reported by Rahimi and Hutchinson (2001). 104-S41 TECHNICAL PAPER Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Strengthened with Near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Strips by Joseph Robert Yost. Brena et al. It is expected that the conclusions reported will ultimately contribute to the development of a design guide for using NSM FRP for flexural strengthening of concrete beams and slabs. 104. external FRP plates are vulnerable to mechanical. (1994). pavements. and slabs is through external bonding of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) plates and sheets. 2008. Nguyen et al. Yield and ultimate strengths. that mechanical anchors can be used to improve the peel resistance of externally bonded FRP. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE This paper documents behavior of full-scale test beams strengthened in flexure with NSM CFRP strips and tested to failure in four-point bending. Dinehart. and ductility are discussed based on measured load. 2006. and they are noncorrosive when exposed to chloride environments. reinforcement. and surrounding concrete. In response to the detrimental conditions associated with externally bonded FRP. however. (2003) reported debonding of longitudinal carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets at deformation levels less than half the deformation capacity of control specimens. and steel reinforcement ratios were selected as typical for concrete flexural components in the civil infrastructure. deflection. This is typically due to bond failure between the FRP and concrete or tensile peeling of the cover concrete. Shin and Lee (2003) reported failure of beams held under sustained load and strengthened with CFRP laminates due to 430 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . No. Experimental variables include three different ratios of steel reinforcement ρs and two different ratios of CFRP reinforcement ρfrp . David W. Copyright © 2007. Sharif et al. This paper presents experimental results from 12 full-scale concrete beams strengthened with NSM carbon FRP (CFRP) strips. rip-off type failure of the CFRP at loads well below the ultimate flexural capacity of the sections. It should be noted. (2002) identified brittle failure by shear tension and debonding. The parameters of steel and FRP reinforcement ratios are investigated. thermal. Gross. For beams strengthened with CFRP plate and fabric systems. V. 1—Concrete member strengthened in flexure with NSM FRP. walls. engineers have proposed relocating the strengthening FRP material from the unprotected exterior of the concrete to the protected interior. Shawn P.

0 is optimal. DeLorenzis et al. Three of the test beams were strengthened with NSM CFRP strips and the fourth served as a control specimen. 431 . 9-C. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. David W. and 12-C). The third strengthened beam failed due to tensile rupture of the FRP strip. The NSM CFRP-reinforced span failed by tensile rupture of the CFRP bars.Joseph Robert Yost is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Villanova University. Villanova. with all beams in a given group having the same cross section and steel reinforcement ratio ρs. respectively. The specimen strengthened with two No. Thus. Dinehart is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Villanova University. moment strength increases of 17 and 29% were reported for decks retrofitted with externally bonded CFRP laminates and internally placed NSM CFRP bars. DeLorenzis et al. Two of the three strengthened beams used an epoxy for bonding the FRP and the third used a cement grout. His research interests include the use of innovative materials in transportation infrastructure. and E803. This ratio was intentionally selected so that ultimate strength would be controlled by flexural failure and not shear failure. and the design and behavior of concrete and steel structures. Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. splitting of the epoxy cover. these research findings demonstrate that bond integrity can not be taken for granted and that bond related limit states must also be considered for NSM FRP. two beams had two CFRP strips (designated 6-2Fa&b. The authors reported that bond is critical to using this technology effectively. material characteristics of the FRP. two beams had one CFRP strip (designated 6-1Fa&b. cracking of the concrete surrounding the grove. and one beam acted as a control with no CFRP (designated 6-C. but is preferable because it yields a more ductile bond-slip behavior. (2004) state that epoxy is superior to cement paste as the groove filler material. passive damping systems. Taljsten and Carolin (2001) evaluated four rectangular concrete beams subjected to four-point bending and monotonically loaded in deformation control. Lightweight Aggregate and Concrete. Both CFRP strengthened beams failed due to debonding of the NSM rods. High-Strength Concrete. Their experimental bond tests showed three bond related failure modes. 2. Manalapan. nondestructive methods for health monitoring of structures. splitting of the concrete cover surrounding the longitudinal steel bars might become the controlling ultimate limit-state. Gross is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Villanova University. Significantly. Table 1 presents the unstrengthened steel reinforcement ratio ρs relative to a balanced design ρs /ρsb. All test beams had a shear-span-to-steel-reinforcement-depth ratio av /ds of 8. including the use of high-strength concrete and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement. Pa. Relative to the capacity of an unstrengthened control deck. ACI member Shawn P. the two parameters investigated in the study are the amount of steel and CFRP reinforcements. Mildenberg is a Structural Engineer with Schoor De Palma of Brick. Their research showed that higher ultimate strengths and increased ductility were achieved by the NSM strengthened specimens. and properties of the epoxy grout. 3 CFRP bars) and 44% (two No. Bond failure of the NSM FRP bars was also identified by DeLorenzis and Nanni (2001) as in need of further investigation. Together. Deflection of Concrete Building Structures. 363. Debonding of the NSM FRP bars due to splitting of the epoxy used for holding the rod in place was reported.4. and a member of ACI Committees 213. El-Hacha and Rizkalla (2004) compared the behavior of beams strengthened on an equal axial stiffness basis using NSM FRP bars and strips and externally bonded FRP laminates. steel reinforcement. and concrete. 440. Jason J. DeLorenzis and Nanni (2002) suggest that bond performance will be influenced by multiple factors including bond length. NSM FRP bar diameter and surface characteristic.J. He received an MS in civil engineering from Villanova University. namely. His research interests include the design and behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures. Test results showed that two of the three retrofitted beams failed due to anchorage loss ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. The test setup and associated specimen details are shown in Fig. a groove size-to-bar diameter of 2. groove geometry. 435. Predicted failure loads overestimated measured strengths. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW Nanni (2000) compared the behavior of full-scale simply supported highway bridge deck panels strengthened in flexure with either externally bonded CFRP laminates or internally placed NSM CFRP bars. Within each group of five beams. Loss of anchorage was observed in several of their test specimens. The 15 test beams were separated into three groups of five beams. and pullout of the NSM FRP rod. 9-2Fa&b. where debonding of the NSM FRP bars is prevented. His research interests include seismic evaluation of wood structures. In a related experimental bond study. He is Secretary of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423. and seismic design and analysis of bridges. (2000) tested three steel-reinforced concrete T-beams strengthened in flexure with NSM glass FRP (GFRP) and NSM CFRP bars. It was suggested that this failure limit-state could possibly be avoided by increasing bond lengths or anchoring the NSM rods in the flange. 2—Test setup. Failure of the CFRP laminate reinforced deck spans was through a combination of rupture and peeling of the CFRP laminates. and 12-2Fa&b). the authors reported that. 4 GFRP bars also failed due to debonding of the NSM GFRP bars at a load 26% higher than the control specimen. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM This experimental investigation consisted of testing 15 simply supported full-scale concrete beams in flexure and material characterization of the CFRP. Note that beams identified as a and b are replicate specimens. The CFRP retrofitted beams experienced increases in strength of 30% (two No. N. and a smooth grove surface yields slightly lower local bond strengths. They also noted that bond integrity of NSM FRP bars was less effective than for NSM FRP strips. and 12-1Fa&b). 9-1Fa&b. 4 CFRP bars) over an unstrengthened control specimen. between the NSM FRP strips and concrete. Prestressed Concrete.

The ratios of 0. Concrete for Bridge Decks.04 (–0. ‡For all samples with CC failure.95 (6. 4 bars and 490 MPa (71 ksi) for the No. CC = concrete compression failure. kN-mm (kip-in. coarse aggregate 1784 lb/yd3.).76) 27.92 (5. 9-2Fb.15 1. fine aggregate 7242 N/m3 (1245 lb/yd3).068 (204.) Pn . The groove was cut using a hand-held circular with an 18 cm (7 in. Concrete for the test specimens was delivered to the laboratory by a concrete supplier.6 mm (4 in.92 (4.8) NA 1276 (185) 1091 (158) NA 1648 (239) 1436 (208.) diameter diamond-tooth.470 –1.5 mm (0. the longitudinal groove was located at the center of the cross section.104 (222.2) 31.76) 29.2 mm (1/8 in.83 (7. §P = M /1219 mm (M /48 in.060) 0. MPa (ksi) Mn.060) Af /Afb NA –0. mm2 (in.Table 1—Specimen design and predicted strength parameters Specimen 6-C 6-1Fa&b 6-2Fa&b 9-C 9-1Fa&b 9-2Fa&b 12-C 12-1Fa&b 12-2Fa&b *ρ s † ρs/ρsb* 0. air entrainment 30 N/m3 (3 oz/yd3). Yield strength of the steel reinforcement was determined from uniaxial coupon testing to be 510 MPa (74 ksi) for No.2) –38.6) 40. Next.69 NA Failure type†‡ SY/CC CC CC SY/CC CC CC SY/CC TR CC ff-ult. Next a rectangular groove approximately 6.2) 25.353 38.3) 34.) high cylinders was 37.24 1. the grooves were located at the 1/3 points in the cross section.071 (301. The material composition is 60% 4137 MPa (600 ksi) carbon fiber by volume in a bisphenol epoxy vinylester resin matrix.41 1 1.023 (354. the beams were rotated 180 degrees about the long axis so that the steel reinforcement was at the top of the beam. 4—Specimen preparation. abrasive cutting blade.221 (276. the groove was thoroughly cleaned of debris with compressed air and then partially filled with a structural epoxy material that bonds with the concrete and FRP to ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . 5 bars.25) 21.) wide by 19 mm (3/4 in.31 NA 0.).415 (313.91) 23.2) 26.63) 25. The depth of the blade was set to 19 mm (3/4 in.66 –63. Elastic modulus Es is taken as 200 GPa (29.38) 20. and 12-2Fb had an additional strain gauge bonded to the CFRP at the center span.5) 29.10 in.2 MPa (5.59 (4.26 1 1. and for specimens having two CFRP strips.38) Pn/PnC 1 1.0016) –31. with design specifications and properties given in BD-601M 432 (PennDOT 2001). (4).4 mm (1/4 in. The saw was fitted with a rip guide. Fig. Strengthened Specimens 6-1Fb.15 (4.168 (258. 3(a). The mixture design was selected as typical for bridge decks and is given as follows: water 1530 N/m3 (263 lb/yd3). 3—CFRP and tensile test results.82 (4.) diameter by 200 mm (8 in.765 and 239 ksi).) wide so that two passes were made to achieve the required width. so that the distance from the edge of the beam to the blade could be set and maintained during cutting. The concrete was in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Class AAA. The saw blade was just over 3. and the surface of the wide face is roughened to enhance force transfer with the concrete epoxy grout. A photo of the CFRP reinforcement with associated instrumentation detail can be seen in Fig. steel has yielded at ultimate as per analysis of Eq.684 were selected as typical for existing structures.69 = As /bds and ρsb = 0. The CFRP strips have a thin rectangular cross section that measures approximately 15 x 2.84 1.000 ksi). SY = steel yield.790 (228. respectively.3) 35. 6-2Fb. Installation of the NSM CFRP strips is shown in Fig. The slump at specimen casting was 101.606 (235. cement 3967 N/m3 (682 lb/yd3).4 ksi) for all beams.61 (5. 9-1Fb.28) 32. and 0. 0.94 (0.470. 12-1Fb.) by adjusting the saw.353.05 (6. n n n Fig.85 –1. Test results are shown in Fig. and retarder 196 N/m3 (20 oz/yd3). First. All specimens were instrumented with a concrete strain gauge located on the top compression fiber at the center span. TR = tensile rupture of FRP.2) 18.).53) 21.5) 25.86 (–0.55 0. For test specimens having one CFRP strip.684 Afb.60 x 0. 4 and described as follows.4) 709 (102. Linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were used to measure displacement at the center span. 3(b) from which Ef and ffu were determined to be 136 GPa and 1648 MPa (19. and the 33-day compressive strength as determined by ASTM C 684-99 (ASTM 1999) using 100 mm (4 in. kN (kip)§ NA 810 (117.2) 23.) deep was cut longitudinally in the concrete where the CFRP was to be installed.32 1. The CFRP elastic modulus Ef and ultimate tensile strength ffu were determined from testing uniaxial coupon specimens according to ACI Committee 440 (2004).85(fc′ /fy)β1(εcu)/(εcu + εsy) is unstrengthened balanced reinforcement ratio.

the section is initially uncracked. 5(b). The epoxy grout used was a two-part epoxy. (1) as a theoretical FRP reinforcement limit. for As ≤ Asy. calculating the steel area corresponding to yield Asy. depending on the existing amount of steel reinforcement present (As). stress. 5. Moment equivalence at center span 433 Using Eq. M n = Af f fu ⎛ d f – a --⎞ + As f y ⎛ d s – a --⎞ for A f < A fb ⎝ ⎝ 2⎠ 2⎠ (2b) For sections controlled by concrete crushing. From Fig. and resultant force for a cracked section at ultimate that is under-reinforced with steel (ρs < ρsb) and strengthened with FRP. Moment strength Mn was calculated using the measured material strengths for the steel. Typical photos at failure are shown in Fig. and concrete.– A f E f ε sy ⎛ ---0. It is noted that Afb can be either positive or negative. Finally. Strain distributions for FRP failure. and compression failure are shown in Fig. the relative increase in strength Pn/PnC is inversely proportional to the amount of steel reinforcement. the steel stress at ultimate for all specimens controlled by concrete failure in this study was equal to yield. For sections controlled by FRP failure. 6 and recorded in Table 2 have been corrected to include the self-weight bending effects of the beam. and comparing this with the area of steel present As. Again. this is as follows ε cu ⎞ df⎞ . In this context. Excess epoxy gel was then cleaned from the concrete surface and curing was done for a minimum of 2 weeks.85 f c ′ b ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 (2a) . the stress level in the steel is initially unknown. Likewise.) on either side of center span and controlled by a manually-operated pump. for As > Asy. Also noted in Fig. All beams were tested monotonically from an uncracked condition.003.85 ) f c ′ b β 1 A f E f ε cu d f – ( A f E f ε cu – A s f y ) a = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( 2 ) 0. 6 and summarized in Table 2. LVDTs. Two 90 kN (10 ton) hydraulic cylinders. the FRP strain εf will slightly exceed the steel strain εs. when Af < Afb. 5. 5(b). as is shown in Fig. perfect bond exists between the steel and FRP reinforcements and concrete. For a negative result from Eq.85 f c ′ b 2 (4a) ( df – α ⁄ β1 ) f f = E f ε cu --------------------------. and nominal moment capacity Mn for sections controlled by concrete failure are found from compatibility and equilibrium as follows ( A f E f ε cu – A s f y ) + 4 ( 0. or compression failure of the concrete. stress in the FRP reinforcement ff. It is evident from Table 1 that. TEST RESULTS Load-deflection and load-strain results are shown in Fig. the steel stress is less than fy and must be determined from compatibility and equilibrium. balanced-strengthened. 5—Analytical model at ultimate. and considering compatibility and equilibrium. the compression block depth a and nominal moment strength at ultimate Mn are calculated from equilibrium as follows Af f fu + As f y a = -------------------------for A f < A fb 0. balanced-strengthened represents simultaneous tensile rupture of the FRP and compression failure of the concrete.5 kN/minute (1 kip/minute). With the steel stress at yield. the compression block a. the steel stress is equal to fy. Af provided will always be greater than Afb. and load cell were recorded by a 16-bit data acquisition system at a frequency of 1 Hz. 7. indicating a compression failure of the concrete.85 f c ′ b β 1 d s ⎛ ------------------⎝ d s⎠ ⎝ ε cu + ε sy⎠ = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------fy A sy (3) Accordingly. located 152 mm (6 in. The applied cylinder loads plotted in Fig. for an initially uncracked section with df > ds and εf = εfu in Fig. CFRP.85 f ′ c b β 1 d f ⎨ ------------------⎬ – As fy ⎩ ε cu + ε fu ⎭ = -----------------------------------------------------------------------f fu Fig. respectively. Using these assumptions and strain limits. It can be determined by fixing the steel and concrete strains at yield εsy and crushing εcu. the following assumptions are implicit: strain varies linearly through the cross section. From Fig. Electronic signals from the strain gauges (concrete and CFRP). The theoretical nominal flexural strength Mn of an initially uncracked beam that is under-reinforced with steel (ρs < ρsb) and strengthened with FRP is dependent on the amount of FRP provided (Af) relative to the FRP area corresponding to a balanced-strengthened strain condition (Afb). were used to apply load at an approximate rate of 4. (1). Table 1 summarizes relevant design and strength parameters. the FRP was depressed into the groove. 5(b). the concrete strain at compression failure is 0. failure will be tensile rupture of the FRP when Af > Afb . because the section is initially uncracked and df > ds. Using this procedure. the theoretical balanced-strengthened area of FRP is ⎧ ε cu ⎫ 0. for a given area of FRP Af . by default the steel for a balanced-strengthened design will have yielded (εs > εsy). 5.≤ f fu α ⁄ β1 Mu = Af ff ⎛ df – a --⎞ + A s fy ⎛ d s – a --⎞ ⎝ ⎝ 2⎠ 2⎠ (4b) (4c) A fb (1) The preceding analysis is offered as an alternative to the trial and error procedure set forth by ACI Committee 440 (2002) and yields identical results as would be obtained using the ACI 440.provide a mechanism for force transfer. where care was taken to ensure that no air voids were trapped within the epoxy gel. the Whitney rectangular stress block in the compression zone is a valid substitution for a nonlinear stress distribution at ultimate. A load cell was located under each hydraulic cylinder to measure applied load. ANALYTICAL STRENGTH Figure 5 illustrates the assumed basic analytical conditions of internal strain.2R procedure. and the steel stress-strain behavior is assumed to be elastic-plastic.

44 1.34) 27. From Fig.23 1.70) 24.77 (9. Moment equivalence at center span is expressed as {1/8wbeamL2} = {Peqav}. and 12 in.80 (7.2 (4.09 1. TR = CFRP tensile rupture. the physical effects of supplemental strengthening with CFRP are clearly evident when strengthened specimens are compared with companion control (unstrengthened) specimens.14 1.18 1 1. 9-C.77.20 1.12 1.14 1.11 1.39) 1. Yield Ultimate Average 1 1.28) SY/CC 21. and 12-C Referring to the load-deflection behavior of control Specimens 6-C.59 (6.22 (6.06) 25.30) CC CC CC CC SY/CC CC CC CC CC SY/CC TR TR CC CC 24.56) 25.93 (6. Peq for the 152.65) 31.0 (5. 9-C.50.23 1.24 1.13 1.63) 24.28 1.76) 29.28 1. respectively. Detailed discussions of the test results for control and strengthened specimens are presented in the following sections.9 (5.62) 26.29 1.9 (6.81) 26.69) 28.49 Average — 1.7 (5.29 1 1. 0.09 1. 0.09 1. 7—Test specimens at failure. strengthening with CFRP increased stiffness and yield load.10 1. 230.60) 41. was used to calculate an equivalent concentrated force Peq that was added to all laboratory measured load data.58) 23.33) 35.18 1.38 Pmax/Pn 1.Fig.10 1.97) 28.27 Pmax/PmaxC 1 1.22) 25.172.15 1.14 1.23 1.30 1 1.97) 33.29) 29.06 — 1.09 1. To a lesser degree. Control specimens: 6-C.12 (4. 6.7 (5.25) 19 (4.38 — 1.43 1. 6—Load-deflection and load-strain results.48) 24.27 1.30 9-C (control) 20.56) 25.32 1.10 1.7 (6. kN (kip) Mechanism type* Pmax.12 1.01 (6.13 1.9 (5.38) 20.06 1.20 1.5 (5.9 (4.3 (4.13 1.94 (6.05) 23.28 1 1.75) 1 21.11 1.10 1.20 1.4 (5.42 1 1.38) SY = steel yield.26 1.05 (8.78 Comparison Average — 1.11 1. 3.6 (5.4 (5. and 0.13 1.3 (5.34 1. kN (k) Py /PyC 6-C (control) 18.) wide specimens is calculated to be 0. 9.18 1.8 (4.29 (5.8 (7.76) 21. kN (kip) Py.230 kips).06 1.12 1 1.27 Pn.69) 21.04 1.83 (5.19 1.50) 27. Table 2—Summary of test results Measured Theory Sample ID 6-1Fa 6-1Fb 6-2Fa 6-2Fb 9-1Fa 9-1Fb 9-2Fa 9-2Fb 12-1Fa 12-1Fb 12-2Fa 12-2Fb * Fig.11 1.24 (5.20 1.11 1.78) 24. the ductile behavior characteristic of under-reinforced steel flexural (ρs < ρsb) members ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .14 1.84) 27.91) 23. and 1.28) 32.47 1.03) 25. CC = concrete crushing.23) 24.28) 37.11 1. and 12-C. and 305 mm (6. From Fig.52 (5.9 (4.44 — 1.63) 22.61 Pmax/Py 1.0 kN (0.53) 12-C (control) 21.03 1.0 (6. All specimens strengthened with CFRP showed 434 a significant increase in ultimate strength when compared with the companion control specimens.0 (6.11 1.82 (8.99 (5.115.09 1.23 — 1.5 (5.5 (4.02 1.6 (4.12 1.18 1.

This indicates that at steel yield. The measured failure loads for Specimens 6-C. 9. The magnitude and range of this comparison suggest that the analytical model and associated assumptions used in Eq. The load-strain curve for Specimen 6-2Fb.) wide specimens with one CFRP strip. Thus. the CFRP did not rupture prior to concrete crushing. For the 152 mm (6 in. 9-1Fa&b. which is not available for the control specimens. respectively. the change from cracked-elastic to inelastic behavior for the 230 and 305 mm (9 and 12 in. all 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in. Failure of all 152. this change from elastic to inelastic behavior is much less obvious from the load-deflection graphs.84 kips). and 305 mm (6. no debonding or slip between the CFRP strip and concrete was observed (refer to Fig. The mechanism of failure at ultimate for all specimens in this group is consistent with that predicted using the theory outlined previously and summarized in Table 1. 9. the section responds elastically until the yield strength of the steel reinforcement fy is reached. however. For Specimens 6-C. the average ultimate loads Pmax were between 13 and 20% greater than the average yield loads Py. the strength increase between yield and ultimate limit states is slightly greater for these specimens than for the control specimens (which was approximately 12%). 11. the increase in ultimate load Pmax for the 152.03. and 12-2Fa&b Referring to Fig.4. Specimens strengthened with two CFRP strips: 6-2Fa&b. the change in stiffness after steel yield is more apparent.34ρsb.) wide specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips occurred by concrete crushing. 18. Also.29 kips). and 29%. for Specimens 6-1Fa&b. and 12 in. shows a clear redistribution of tensile force to the CFRP as a result of steel yield.) wide specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip relative to the respective control specimens (PyC and PmaxC) was roughly the same and taken approximately as 11%. greater than the theoretical nominal capacity Pn.69. however. This is expected and represents the additional tensile capacity provided by the CFRP after steel yield. 5. For the 152 mm (6 in. and 12-1Fa&b For specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip.) wide specimens with two CFRP strips. It is therefore concluded that the steel did yield for these specimens (6-2Fa&b).) wide specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip failed by crushing of the concrete. The trend in these values is consistent with those listed in Table 1. 6. Initially. Thus. 25. and 12 in. For all specimens. 9-C. the ultimate load Pmax was approximately 12% greater than the yield load Py. the concrete strain was near ultimate so that any increase in strength is limited by the threshold level corresponding to concrete compression failure. and 61%.) wide specimens. 9. Specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip: 6-1Fa&b. a greater increase in both yield and ultimate load capacities was ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 achieved for the 305 mm (12 in. there was a significant increase in yield load Py relative to the respective companion control specimens PyC. Referring to Fig. the measured failure loads Pmax were between 6% (6-1Fb) and 14% (6-1Fa) greater than the theoretical strength Pn. and 21. 230. 230. 9-C. and 12 in. At the yield load Py. Thus. the average yield and ultimate loads for Specimens 6-1Fa&b. 9-C. in design. At the cracking load Pcr.) wide specimens was 23.is apparent. These specimens have the largest relative area of steel reinforcement equal to 0. behavior changes from cracked-elastic to inelastic. respectively. respectively. and 12-C. After concrete crushing.3. steel yield occurred at 19. where the gain in ultimate strength increases with decreasing steel reinforcement ratio. and 12-C were 12. and 18%.5 kN (4. the 305 mm (12 in. and 12-C was 21. (2) and (4) are acceptable for predicting the flexural capacity of these four test specimens. the average ultimate loads increased by 435 .) wide specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips increased by 29. the change from cracked-elastic to inelastic behavior (yield point) is less abrupt and the associated reduction in the slope of the loaddeflection curve is less than for the control specimens. indicating that the strain level was less than the ultimate material strength.5 kN (4. For the strengthened specimens in this group. Yield is followed by a load plateau where the moment capacity of the section remains roughly constant.) wide specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips can still be seen. For Specimens 9-1Fa&b and 12-1Fa&b. 6. This rupture is significant in that it again confirmed that force transfer is sufficient to develop the full tensile capacity of the CFRP strip. and 5. Ultimate load for Specimens 6-C. behavior changes from uncracked to cracked-elastic. Referring to Table 2.28. Comparing results. 44. 9-1Fa&b. however. As can be seen in Table 2. and 27% over the control. This is consistent with the failure mode predicted in Table 1.) wide specimens. for all samples in this group. the yield load increased by 18% and the ultimate load increased by 29%. For the 305 mm (12 in. These specimens were reinforced with 0. all sections are uncracked and gross section properties apply (Ig). 22. the yield loads for 152. Therefore. Relative to the control specimens.68ρsb. Referring to Table 2. This was followed by compression failure in the concrete. and 305 mm (6. 5. For the 305 mm (12 in. respectively. 23. the average ultimate load was only 6% greater than the yield load.47ρsb and 0. The yield load corresponds to a flattening of the load-deflection trace and simultaneous inflection in the concrete load-strain response. 9-2Fa&b. As load is increased further. and to a lesser degree for Specimen 6-C. the relative increase in yield Py and ultimate Pmax loads for the 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in. For the 230 and 305 mm (9 and 12 in. When compared with control specimens. the yield load increase for specimens with two CFRP strips was significantly higher than for specimens with one CFRP strip. respectively. All specimens failed at loads slightly in excess of their respective predicted nominal flexural strength Pn.75. and 11%. the CFRP reinforcement did rupture at ultimate.) wide specimens were further deformed until rupture of the CFRP occurred. 11. Thus. respectively. 7(b)).) wide specimens.) wide specimens than for the 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in. and 305 mm (6. 230. and 14%. and 12-1Fa&b increased by 11%. the expected additional strength from the CFRP must consider the existing relative amount of steel in the unstrengthened condition.1. This is verification that the increase in strength is inversely proportional to the relative area of steel reinforcement (ρs/ρbs).) wide specimens strengthened with two CFRP strips. The load plateau is clearly visible for Specimens 9-C and 12-C. however. This is especially true for specimens with a large relative amount of steel reinforcement ρs/ρsb. For these specimens. the bond between the CFRP and concrete for Specimens 12-1Fa&b was able to develop the tensile strength of the CFRP strip. For all control specimens. and 23. respectively. the change in stiffness at ensuing nonlinear loaddeflection response associated with steel yielding is negligible. and 4. At the ultimate load Pmax. failure occurred by concrete crushing.

50) 1147 (10. Thus.28 2.88 1.03 (1.17.82 0. and Specimen 9-2Fb.Table 3—Ductility results Yield Sample ID 6-C 6-1Fa 6-1Fb 6-2Fa 6-2Fb 9-C 9-1Fa 9-1Fb 9-2Fa 9-2Fb 12-C 12-1Fa 12-1Fb 12-2Fa 12-2Fb * † Ultimate kN-mm (kip-in.95) 20.16 (0.89 1.91) 24.64) 1081 (9.33) *.45) 909 (8. and 305 mm (12 in.69) 19.88 0. 2002). From the data presented. Ductility results are summarized in Table 3 where it is observed that most specimens experience a decrease in both deflection ductility and energy ductility relative to the control beams.27 1. It could be argued that in a load controlled test this would have been the ultimate limit state for which Δu.90 (0. type of CFRP (thin rectangular strips). μd . and Eu and Ey are the areas under the load-deflection diagrams at ultimate and yield. mm (in.80) 976 (8. the ultimate limit state is also subject to interpretation.65 0. indicating the analytical model is conservative.) 30. The exceptions are Specimens 6-1Fa and 12-2Fb.55 (2.22) 47.90 1.13) 280 (2.80) 334 (2.74) 47.27 in.26 (0.45 (1. The strengthened beams failed in flexure as predicted according to the amounts of steel and CFRP reinforcement. respectively. and 2.07) 235 (2. First. energy ductility ratios to 0. The 305 mm (12 in. The experimental ductility analysis presented previously is subjective for two reasons.02) 296 (2.95) Δu.09 0.84 1.49 1.04 (1. reinforcement ratios (ρs and ρf).2 kN-mm (6.70 0.41 k-in.05) 729 (6.40 Δy .96) 845 (6.09 (1.00 0.06 (0.97 2. 1. The CFRP remained intact at concrete failure and no debonding was detected.60.81) 20.08 1.19 (1.) wide specimens.08) 2823 (2. mm (in.14 0.56 (0. Numerical integration of the measured load-deflection diagrams was used to determine Eu and Ey.05 (0.74) 389 (3. This behavior is reflective of the relative amounts of both steel and CFRP reinforcement and how these reinforcement areas compare with that required for a balanced-strengthened design.) wide specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip failed by steel yield followed by CFRP rupture. 38% over the yield loads. This reduces the deflection ductility and 436 .46) 863 (7. CFRP strengthened specimens ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Ratio = {strengthened sample}/{control sample}.23 2.) wide specimens with two CFRP strips failed by steel yield followed by concrete crushing. Typically. the measured loads were between 3 and 28% greater than predicted strengths.92 0.06 1. ductility is calculated in terms of dimensionless deflection or energy ratios.26 2.).42 3.86) 228 (2. Under closer scrutiny.80 0. experienced a major crack at approximately 35 kN (7. Predicted flexural strength of all specimens with two CFRP strips was less than measured values. the model is an acceptable analytical tool for strength prediction in design. and μE are 32.03) 31.88) 44.93 1. Ductility and energy The reported effect of flexural strengthening with external FRP reinforcement is a reduction in flexural ductility relative to the unstrengthened condition (ACI Committee 440 2002.51 (0. Using these parameters ductility μ relative to the yield condition is defined as Deflection ductility: μd = Δu /Δy Energy ductility: μE = Eu /Ey (5a) (5b) In Eq.23 (0.29 3.26 2.81) 58. a range of ductility results can be expected that may be slightly different from those reported in Table 3. Deflection ductility μd = Δu/Δy 1.86) 46.49 3.50) 353 (3.) 22. which experienced an increase in both deflection and energy ductilities.64) 989 (8.93) 344 (3.83) 24. Secondly. All 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.84 kips).23 1. 1.12) 354 (3.16 2.93 1.31) Eu kN-mm (kip-in.00 0. E = ∫ P dΔ . Thus. CONCLUSIONS The research presented in this study evaluated strength and ductility of steel reinforced concrete beams strengthened with near surface mounted CFRP strips.16 Energy ductility μ E = E u /E y 1. respectively.15) 1732 (15.3 mm (1. Specimen 12-2Fb. resulting in a decrease in both ductility indexes.36 (1.64 and 0.76 (0.14 (0. and testing procedures that were used in this study. This is expected and represents the increased available capacity in the concrete at steel yield. Eu.75) 40.99) 21.76) 44.17 (0.02) 423 (3.48) 323 (2. must be that ductility is decreased relative to the unstrengthened condition.94 Ratio† 1.45) 503 (4. All beams strengthened with CFRP failed at loads greater than their respective control beams. These beams were predicted to fail in compression. depending on the selection for the yield and ultimate limit states.) 233 (2.30 2. The general conclusion.61 2.23 (1.86) 331 (2.55 2.98 (1.10 1.93 0.42 3.62.15) 26.05) 323 (2. 2.81 (1.00 0.87 3. the yield limit state is not an instantaneous condition that occurs at a clearly defined load.84 1.90 0. deflection.77) 20.15 (0.14) 29.85) 36. These beams were predicted to fail by CFRP rupture.87) 19.70 3.00 1. Experimental variables were the amount of steel and CFRP reinforcements.78 0.69 1.45) 44. no debonding of the CFRP was detected. for some specimens. the following conclusions are made.97) 25. which experienced a slight increase in energy ductility. Relative to control specimen capacity.96) 334 (2.00 0.87) 17.24 2. or strain.50) 455 (4. respectively.68 (1.89 0.50 1. however. 724.66 (0. Bencardino et al.82) 22.97 1.19 Ratio† 1. The conclusions reported are restricted to the material properties (for concrete and CFRP).78) Ey*. respectively.87 (1.80 (1. Referring to Table 2.77) 23.30 (1. Steel reinforcement ratios ρs and concrete strength were selected as typical for existing concrete flexural members that would be found in nonprestressed bridge and building flexural members.80) 19.61) 47.10 (1.43 5.78 0. In all cases.83) 21.75) 1125 (9.).00 1.89 0. (5) Δu and Δy are the ultimate and yield center-span deflections. Further parametric investigation of ductility using theoretical modeling to calculate deflection and strain is recommended.50 (0.) 395 (3.19) 28.88 0.36 1.62) 317 (2.74 1.55 (0.

Nanni. J..-Feb.. T. T. Sept.. “Critical Review of Plate Anchorage Stresses in Premature Debonding Failures of Plate Bonded Reinforced Concrete Beams. Abdel-Sayed.012). “Anchorage Length of Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars for Concrete Strengthening—Experimental Investigation and Numerical Modeling. ρf ρsb = steel As/bds and CFRP Af /bdf reinforcement ratio. As Afb Asy ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 437 . pp. respectively df . “Increasing Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites.” Journal of Composites for Construction.” Proceedings of the Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. pp. ASCE. L. 1. “Strength and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Beams Externally Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Fabric. 45 pp.. J..” ACI Structural Journal.” ACI Structural Journal. 1994. F. pp. Spadea. For the specimens tested. Nominal strength was calculated using a simplified closed-form analysis that yields identical results to the trial and error procedure given in ACI 440.-Apr. 2001. SP-188. 2001. 5. Sharif. H. respectively = ultimate strength of FRP (1648 MPa [239 ksi]) and steel ffu.2R-02).” Specifications for the Concrete. V. av = depth of compression block at ultimate and shear span.. 2000. Class AAA.. S. and Tegila. Y. D... A..-Oct. 100. ACI Committee 440. and Nanni. and A. pp. L.. G. Mar. Taljsten. V. 100.. Arduini. “Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rods. Mich. “Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.. DeLorenzis. 1. H. Pmax = measured load at steel yield and ultimate. V. Mar. pp.. BD-601M. V. Nanni... pp. Rizkalla. S.. R.” ACI Structural Journal. 2. and Carolin. 2000. V. and Nanni. L. and Testing Concrete Compression Test Specimens. 3. 1-5. 123-132.. DeLorenzis. Mar. 1994. 10 pp. Inc. M. energy and deflection ductilities were reduced for CFRP strengthened beams. and surrounding concrete was able to develop the full tensile strength of the CFRP strips. S. 101. 2. 16. Brena. No. 1999.. respectively = balanced-strengthened area of CFRP = steel area corresponding to simultaneous concrete crushing and steel yielding a.-Apr.-Oct. “Behavior of Precracked RC Beams Strengthened with Carbon FRP Sheets.. Baluch.. 2004. V. A. A. 2002.had measured increases in yield strength ranging from 9 to 30%. B. A. Dolan. No. 101.. PmaxC = measured load for control specimen at steel yield and ultimate. No. respectively = balanced steel reinforcement ratio for unstrengthened section REFERENCES ACI Committee 440. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).” Fourth International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures. 15-18.. For all other specimens where the CFRP did not fail. E. eds. No. 346-354. appropriate code mandated design limitations for strength. 2. Teng. and Nanni. G. DeLorenzis. V. 269-278. and ductility need to be investigated. Chan. ds = depth to CFRP and steel reinforcement. L.3R-04).” American Concrete Institute. 2001. 2004. University of Kansas. respectively PyC. Sept. 2002. G. pp. Wood.. P. “Bond between Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rods and Concrete in Structural Strengthening. respectively = ultimate strain of concrete (0. Jan. West Sussex. 99. 231-239. epoxy grout. Shin. ASTM C 684-99. V. Jan. F. W. N. 1.. pp. epoxy grout. A. NSM FRP splice and bond behavior.. “Guide Test Methods of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440. No. there was no discernable trend between the change in ductility (energy and deflection) and the relative amount of steel reinforcement ρs/ρsb or CFRP strengthening reinforcement Afrp. Chen.. Accelerated Curing.” ACI Structural Journal. 2.” Journal of Composites for Construction.. “Brittle Failure and Bond Development Length of CFRP-Concrete Beams. With the exception of two strengthened beam. 692-700. “Fiber Composites for New and Existing Structures. and Ghaleb.. 1.” ACI Structural Journal. UK. εs = strain in CFRP and steel. and measured increases in ultimate strength ranging from 10 to 78%. Structural Engineering Conference. pp. “The Bridge Design Specification Sheet. A. 2003. A... A.) wide specimens with no apparent slip or damage to the concrete cover or epoxy grout.. and 5. 98. R. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Hughes Brothers.003) and FRP (0. and Swamy. I. Farmington Hills. “Near-Surface-Mounted FiberReinforced Polymer Reinforcements for Flexural Strengthening of Concrete Structures. S. 60-68.” ACI Structural Journal. Farmington Hills. Thus. No. 266 pp. 44-55.. the increase in strength was inversely proportional to the relative amount of steel reinforcement normalized to a balanced design ρs /ρsb.. 36-46. 1999. 4. and Rizzo. and Lee. pp.” Journal of Composites for Construction..2R-02.. A. Smith. 99. for donating the CFRP reinforcement and the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects at Villanova University for providing financial support for this research. W. 717-726. H. 5. No. No. fs = stress in CFRP and steel. c = beam width and depth on neutral axis. C. DeLorenzis. Mar.” ACI Structural Journal. and Kreger.” American Concrete Institute.. “FRP Reinforcement for Bridge Structures.. L. El-Hacha. 107-116. K. fc′ = FRP elastic modulus and concrete strength.. V. H. UK. respectively ff-ult = calculated CFRP stress at sections theoretical moment strength = theoretical nominal moment strength Mn Pn = theoretical applied load corresponding to Mn PnC = theoretical applied load for control specimens corresponding to Mn Py . Furthermore. “Strengthening of Concrete Beams Using Innovative Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Fabric. respectively ff . 2004. 359-368.. fy yield strength. “Concrete Beams Strengthened with Near Surface Mounted CFRP Laminates. respectively εcu.. pp. and Hutchinson. R. For unstrengthened beams. No. Lawrence.. American Concrete Institute. V. Force transfer between the CFRP. pp. L. S. May-June. and Swamy..-Apr.. Bramblett.” Proceedings. Pa.. pp. L. 2002. The authors suggest that additional research is required to study the strength and ductility behavior of a beam strengthened with wider range of combinations of steel and FRP reinforcement ratios. 2. N. Lundgren.. Mar. M. Cambridge. ASCE. A. 40 pp. the measured ultimate strength was between 11 and 23% greater than the section’s predicted nominal strength. A. Kans. 2001. Saadatmanesh. and Rizkalla. Mukhopadhyaya..” ASTM International. V. Nanni. 163-171. R. N. Bencardino. pp. Farmington Hills. ρs. M. 63-70. respectively Ef .-Apr.. These ratios suggest that the CFRP strengthened section nominal flexural capacity is appropriately predicted using the simplified closed-form or ACI 440. Aug. 99. T s = tensile force in CFRP and steel. Mich. and Cheong. ASCE... respectively Tf . respectively wbeam = self-weight of beam = ratio of a/c β1 εf. and surrounding concrete. 91. and Lam. July 16-18. C. 2002. Mich.” ACI Structural Journal.. The measured ultimate capacity of CFRP strengthened beams was between 6 and 28% greater than the respective predicted nominal strength. F. M. Rahimi. Mar.. 2. “Strengthening of Initially Loaded Reinforced Concrete Beams Using FRP Plates.. J. FRP-Strengthened RC Structures. 3. pp. pp. V. pp. 91... West Conshohocken. In general. “Standard Test Method for Making. Grace. FRP RCS-5 Conference. B.. V.. “Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates at Different Levels of Sustaining Load. No.2R-02 methodologies. S. G. respectively b..” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures. 2003..” ACI Structural Journal. “Flexural and Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Near Surface Mounted FRP Bars. Ottawa.. John Wiley & Sons. 1997. V. 521-528. Tensile rupture of the single CFRP strip was achieved in the 305 mm (12 in.-Apr. the CFRP strip’s thin rectangular cross section and roughened surface provide an effective mechanism of force transfer with this epoxy. there was no apparent loss in force transfer between the CFRP. Nguyen. No. deflection. Canada.” ACI Structural Journal. 5.. NOTATION = area of CFRP and steel reinforcement. 5. 1. εfu Af . Basunbul.-Feb. 12-17. No.. and Ragheb.. 2001. Jan. “Concrete Beams Strengthened with Externally Bonded FRP Plates. Al-Sulaimani. 2002. 160-168. A. H.

few experiments1-3 were carried out on continuous deep beams of shear span-to-overall depth ratio (a/h) greater than 1.3. Studies on the validity of the strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05. July-August 2007. For beams having an a/ h of 0. 1. and the amount and configuration of shear reinforcement.3. which is the main load transfer element in deep beams. MS No. V. The ultimate shear strength of continuous deep beams and load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement were compared with those of the corresponding simple deep beams and the predictions obtained from the strut-and-tie model recommended in ACI 318-05. The influence of shear reinforcement on the ultimate shear strength in continuous deep beams was compared with that in the corresponding simple ones. was increased from 0. The ratio of the load capacity measured and that predicted by the strutand-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 dropped against the increase of a/ h. The current codes6-8 and several researchers9-12 have recommended the design of deep beams using the strut-andtie model.5 and 1.5. No. Beams tested were classified into two groups according to the concrete compressive strength: L-series for design concrete strength of 30 MPa (4350 psi) and H-series for design concrete strength of 60 MPa (8700 psi). The behavior of continuous deep beams is significantly different from that of simply supported deep beams. All rights reserved. allows the use of an effectiveness factor of 0. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE A great deal of research has focused on simply supported deep beams.0 ksi). showed that the relative effectiveness of horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement on controlling diagonal cracks and enhancing load capacity reversed for deep beams having an a/h less than 1.12-14 This paper presents test results of 24 two-span reinforced concrete deep beams. pile caps.5 to 0. however. The value of a/h in H-series.5 had exceeded the capacity of the loading machine in the pilot test. The a/h were initially designed to be 0.75 when computing the effective concrete compressive strength of bottle-shaped struts with reinforcement satisfying ACI 318-05. and the amount and configuration of shear reinforcement. 2008. a reasonable evaluation of the influence of shear reinforcement on continuous deep beams having an a/h less than 1. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . would increase the ultimate strength of beams predicted by the strut-and-tie model by 25%. horizontal shear reinforcement was always more effective than vertical shear reinforcement. extensive experimental investigations have brought simple deep beams into focus.5 however. Copyright © 2007. load. The ACI Structural Journal. that is. Therefore. the main function of shear reinforcement is to restrain diagonal cracks near the ends of bottle-shaped struts and to give some ductility to struts.3.6. 2006.6 if shear reinforce420 ment as recommended by ACI 318-05.08. strut-and-tie model.1 Indeed.0 requires further investigation.3.0 and concrete strength less than 35 MPa (5. ACI 318-05. S-2006-206. is not provided. whereas vertical shear reinforcement was more effective for an a/h lager than 1. leading to a significant reduction in the effective strength of the concrete strut. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure. shear reinforcement. Although these members commonly have several supports. The main variables studied were concrete strength. however. The main variables included concrete strength. a/h. Heon-Soo Chung.0.0. Ashour Test results of 24 reinforced concrete continuous deep beams are reported. 4. are very rare even in simple deep beams.3. Section A.0. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION The details of geometrical dimensions and reinforcement of test specimens are shown in Table 1 and Fig. The load capacity predictions of reinforced concrete continuous deep beams by the strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05 were evaluated by comparison with test results. as the capacity of beams having fc′ of 60 MPa (8700 psi) and an a/h of 0. Section A. Keywords: beams.0 to allow comparison with current results with those reported by Yang13 for simple deep beams. This implies that shear reinforcement satisfying ACI 318-05. shear span-to-overall depth ratio (a/ h) and the amount and configuration of shear reinforcement. American Concrete Institute. The results of simple deep beams tested by Tan et al. will be published in the May-June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1. a/h. INTRODUCTION Reinforced concrete deep beams are used in structures as load distribution elements such as transfer girders. if any.0. 104-S40 TECHNICAL PAPER Influence of Shear Reinforcement on Reinforced Concrete Continuous Deep Beams by Keun-Hyeok Yang. The strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 overestimated the strength of continuous deep beams having a/ h more than 1. The coexistence of high shear and high moment within the interior shear span in continuous deep beams has a considerable effect on the development of cracks. and Ashraf F.3.3. The value of the effectiveness factor drops to 0. and reviewed under Institute publication policies.R1 received May 20. and foundation walls in tall buildings. Test results in this study clearly showed the influence of shear reinforcement on the structural behavior of continuous deep beams according to the variation of concrete strength and a/h. The main variables studied were compressive strength of concrete fc′ . This decrease rate was more remarkable in continuous deep beams than that in simple deep beams. horizontal shear reinforcement was more effective for an a/h below 1. The results of this study show that the load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement was much more prominent in continuous deep beams than in simply supported deep beams. Even the few tests on continuous deep beams were carried out on beams having an a/h exceeding 1. Section A. Section A.4 and Smith and Vantsiotis.3. 104. In these strut-and-tie models.

2. The longitudinal bottom reinforcement was continuous over the full length of the beam and welded to 160 x 100 x 10 mm (6.003 0.2) and yield strength of 562 MPa (81. Specimen MPa L5NN L5NS L5NT L5SN L5SS L5TN L10NN L10NS L10NT L10SN L10SS L10TN H6NN H6NS H6NT H6SN H6SS H6TN H10NN H10NS H10NT H10SN H10SS H10TN Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi. UK.2 1.). having a nominal area of 287 mm2 (0.2 mm2 (0. He received his MSc and PhD from Chungang University.0 1. Ashraf F.5 0.003 — 32. Both longitudinal top.Table 1—Details of test specimens Keun-Hyeok Yang is a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Bradford. He received his BSc and MSc from Mansoura University. L5-SS is a continuous deep beam having design concrete strength of 30 MPa (4350 psi).39 in. and bw equals the beam width). an a/h of 0.2) and yield strength of 421 .6 0. The second part is used to identify the a/h.) and the corresponding shear reinforcement ratios.7 720 68. His research interests include shear.) and overall section depth h of 600 mm (23.006 — — — 0.003 and 0. Material properties The mechanical properties of reinforcement are given in Table 2. The clear covers to longitudinal top and bottom reinforcement. ρs ′ = (As′ /bwd). Korea. The spacing of shear reinforcement was chosen to be 60 and 120 mm (2. 1: none.003 0. and optimization of reinforced concrete and masonry structures. whereas longitudinal top reinforcement was anchored in the outside of the exterior supports by 90-degree hooks according to ACI 318-05. Korea.3. For example. strengthening. respectively. The beam notation given in Table 1 includes four parts.003 — — 0. and an Assistant Professor at Mokpo National University.6 ksi) and a 6 mm (0. The length of each span L varied according to a/h.) configuration of shear reinforcement included four different arrangements as shown in Fig. Ashour is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Bradford. mm sh. were 0. ρs = (As /bwd).17 1200 65. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 respectively: N for no shear reinforcement.006 — 0.). Section 11.006. respectively. ρ (= Aw /bw s. only vertical. mm — 120 60 — 120 — — 120 60 — 120 — — 120 60 — 120 — — 120 60 — 120 — ρv — 0.003 0.3 x 3.003 and 0.6 in. Section A.003 0.003. UK.006 — — — 0. He received his MSc and PhD from Tokyo Institute of Technology. only horizontal.23 in. All longitudinal and shear reinforcing bars were deformed bars of a 19 mm (0. mm — — — 120 120 60 — — — 120 120 60 — — — 120 120 60 — — — 120 120 60 ρh — — — 0.003 0.006 — 0.039 in.72 in.75 in. Japan.1 0. The vertical shear reinforcement was closed stirrups and the horizontal shear reinforcement with 90 degree hooks was arranged along the longitudinal axis in both sides of the beams. His research interests include flexure. plasticity.3 in.0 1. and shear of reinforced.003 0.1 1. and both horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement ratios of 0. reinforcement ratios were kept constant in all beams as 1%.15 to ensure no flexural yielding of longitudinal reinforcement prior to failure of concrete struts. and his PhD from Cambridge University. respectively.003 0. Horizontal a/h a/jd L.003 — — 0. The first part refers to the concrete design strength: L for low compressive strength and H for high compressive strength.17 1200 Fig.003 0. where Aw equals the area of shear reinforcement at spacing s. 1 mm = 0. high-strength concrete structures.003 0.) diameter.003 — — 0. which were calculated from nonlinear FE analysis. and the minimum amount recommended in ACI 318-05. Details of shear reinforcement fc′ .3.003 0.44 in. The third and fourth parts give the amount of horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement. UK. and orthogonal reinforcement.38 and 1.9 x 0.) end plates.006 — 0.4 0.14 in.006 — 0.8.58 600 32. high-strength concrete members. shear. to satisfy the maximum spacing specified in ACI 318-05.003 0. 1—Geometrical dimensions and reinforcement of test specimens.) diameter. and bottom. and shear reinforcement were 35 and 29 mm (1. 1 mm = 0. and bond behavior of reinforced. Heon-Soo Chung is a Professor at Chungang University.5.039 in.006 Vertical sv .36 and 4.006.003 0. His research interests include ductility. All beams tested had the same section width bw of 160 mm (6. having a nominal area of 28. (Note: all dimensions are in mm and • indicates locations of strain gauges.04 in. and S and T for shear reinforcement ratios of 0. as given in Table 1.006 — — — 0. Egypt. Korea.

which is the location of the maximum 422 . GPa 199 198 Fig.) diameter by 200 mm (7.8 in. The strains of shear reinforcement were measured by 5 mm (0. the reactions of the exterior and intermediate supports due to the total applied load P.4).2% offset method.87 in. (Note: all dimensions are in mm.Fig. All steel plates were 50 mm (1. 2—Test setup. a linear 2-D FE analysis considering shear deformation effect was performed on the beams shown in Fig.97 in. The second moment of area of the testing machine bed cross section about the bending axis was 3.2P and 0. The amount of elastic shortening due to a load at the exterior and intermediate supports involving the load cell and plates was considered in designing the support size as follows. 1. They were tested soon after the beam test. the test data were captured by a data logger and automatically stored. Vertical deflections at a distance of 0.2% offset method. 483 MPa (70 ksi). or 200 mm (3. The yield strength of 6 mm (0. Support settlements Continuous deep beams are sensitive to differential support settlements causing additional moment and shear.) thick and 300 mm (11.) Table 2—Mechanical properties of reinforcement Diameter. the maximum additional shear forces obtained from linear 2-D FE analysis are 25 and 7 kN (5. At each load increment. All specimens were cast in a vertical position in the same wooden mold.) electrical resistance strain gauges (ERS) at the region crossing the line joining the edges of load and intermediate support plates as shown in Fig. respectively. Note: 1 mm = 0.41 and 0.039 in. 2.7 kip/minute) using a 3000 kN (675 kip) capacity universal testing machine (UTM).) wide was provided to prevent premature crushing or bearing failure. are 0. respectively. 1000 kN (225 kip) capacity load cells were installed in both exterior end supports. MPa 549 741 Es. As the height of the intermediate support was equal to that of the exterior load cell.2248 kips. mm 6 * fy. fly ash.2 × 1010 mm4 (7. to assure a similar loading distribution to supports according to the result of the linear two-dimensional finite element (2-D FE) analysis. Control specimens.) high cylinders. When a/h is 0. The results of the cylinder compressive strength given in Table 1 are the average value from testing nine cylinders. All beams having two spans were tested to failure under a symmetrical two-point top loading system with a loading rate of 30 kN/minute (6.69 × 104 in. were cast and cured simultaneously with beams to determine the compressive strength.23 in.94 in. (Note: 1 kN = 0. 3—Crack patterns and failure of concrete strut. The water-binder ratios of the L-series added with fly ash of 12% and of the H-series added with fly ash of 20% were 0.. as shown in Fig.) deflection predicted by the linear 2-D FE analysis.88 in. Numbers indicate total load in kN at which crack occurred.6P. a steel plate of 100.5.9. whereas the intermediate support prevented horizontal movement but allowed rotation.) long to cover the full width of test specimen. MPa 483 562 εy 0. 2.62 and 1. The pilot test results showed that the maximum settlement of the exterior support relative to the intermediate support was in order of L/25. 1 mm = 0.2 in. or 7. from the linear 2-D FE analysis.7 kip) before testing.000. To evaluate the shear force and loading distribution. respectively. At the location of loading or support point.000176R mm.) diameter reinforcement was obtained by 0. Both surfaces of the beams tested were whitewashed to aid in the observation of crack development during testing.47L from the exterior support.). 150.98 in.) from the center of the testing machine is 0.039 in.45L to 0. To assess the effect of differential settlements on the beams tested. 1.00284 fsu. The ingredients of ready mixed concrete were ordinary portland cement. which were 100 mm (3. and at the midspan of each span were measured using linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs). 2. the contact area of the intermediate support with the bed of the testing machine was designed to be three times wider than that of the load cell at the exterior support to produce the same elastic shortening. The two exterior end supports were designed to allow horizontal and rotational movements.27. The inclined crack width of concrete struts joining the edges of load and support plates was monitored by the π-shape displacement transducers (PI gauges) as shown in Fig. as shown in Fig.94. sources of relative support settlements were the elastic shortening of the load cell and plates and elastic deformation of the bed of the testing machine. Each span was identified as E-span or W-span. Test setup Loading and instrumentation arrangements are shown in Fig. 5. which wouldn’t produce any cracks. All beams were preloaded up to a total load of 150 kN (33. For a differential settlement between the exterior and intermediate supports of L/25.000.0044 0. For the beams tested. 1.57 kip) for beams ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 * 19 Yield stress of 6 mm diameter reinforcement was obtained by 0. irregular gravel of a maximum size of 25 mm (0. then the elastic deformation under a point load R (in kN) at a distance 1500 mm (59 in. and sand. 1 MPa = 145 psi.

454 1. An end block rotated about the exterior support leaving the other block fixed over the other two supports as shown in Fig. Therefore.132 0. therefore. and was less than 0.571 1.087 0. having an a/h of 0. For beams with a/h = 0. 3.997 1.880 1. it is not shown in Fig.950 1.963 0. In those beams. respectively.042 0.Table 3—Details of test results and predictions obtained from ACI 318-05 Load Pcr and shear force Vcr at first diagonal crack.661 0. the midspan 423 .593 0.2248 kips.892 0. Note: 1 kN = 0.023 1.334 1./ Pn. A diagonal crack within the exterior shear span occurred suddenly near the failure load. Load versus midspan deflection The beam deflection at midspan was less than that measured at 0.45L to 0. and then a vertical crack took place in the sagging zone.2h deep at failure. however.688 0. The influence of shear reinforcement on the first flexural and diagonal crack loads was not significant (refer to Table 3) as also observed in simple deep beams given in Appendix A.942 0. Just before failure. 3.684 1.053 0. but diagonal cracks within exterior shear spans were seldom developed. The first flexural crack over the intermediate support generally occurred at approximately 80% of the ultimate strength. kN (Vn)I ACI 318-05 E-span Exterior Interior (Pcr)I 816 857 850 867 980 910 537 596 647 490 452 621 1236 978 915 1022 825 980 690 751 717 757 768 704 (Vcr)I 244 262 230 257 293 278 171 195 208 151 148 193 303 300 264 297 256 297 228 234 224 252 244 220 Exterior (Pcr)E (Vcr)E 937 1330 1260 927 1020 966 — — — 782 713 775 1960 2280 2480 2420 2630 2648 840 — — — — — 187 281 262 179 202 185 — — — 146 129 143 407 457 531 513 542 540 143 — — — — — Pn 1635 1710 1789 1887 2117 2317 880 1153 1541 884 1177 935 2248 2289 2625 2427 2763 2966 1276 1443 2116 1309 1575 1287 W-span 473 486 512* 537* 607 * (Vcr)I 255 247 278 255 247 266 173 156 206 153 166 175 305 379 324 393 367 439 228 237 251 255 232 234 (Pcr)E (Vcr)E 902 1028 1380 1268 990 1130 — — 1023 — — — 1562 1646 2550 2420 2630 — 868 — — — — — 180 210 284 252 192 230 — — 230 — — — 321 316 550 517 548 — 149 — — — — — E-span 456* 475* 494 546 583 640 * (Pn)Exp. All beams developed the same mode of failure as observed in other experiments.785 0.314 1.498 1.5.699 0.378 1.541 0.5 and 1.606 1.996 0. Two rigid blocks separated from original beams at failure due to the significant diagonal cracking./ (Vn)I-Exp.134 1. This indicates that the differential settlement had no significant effect on the test arrangement.958 1. kN W-span Interior Specimen (Pcr)I L5NN L5NS L5NT L5SN L5SS L5TN L10NN L10NS L10NT L10SN L10SS L10TN H6NN H6NS H6NT H6SN H6SS H6TN H10NN H10NS H10NT H10SN H10SS H10TN * Failure load Pn and ultimate shear force (Vn)I at interior shear spans. the two spans showed nearly the same crack patterns.063 1.153 1. kN (Pn)ACI (Vn)I-ACI 1298 1298 1298 1298 1623 1298 1000 1000 1000 1000 1250 1000 2520 2520 2520 2520 3150 2520 2124 2124 2124 2124 2655 2124 342 342 342 342 427 342 265 265 265 265 331 265 668 668 668 668 834 668 563 563 563 563 703 563 1.884 0. and then a flexural crack in the sagging region immediately followed. the first crack occurred vertically in the hogging ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 zone.935 0. the midspan deflection was higher.276 0.616 0.872 0.0 developed in a different order from that described previously for beams with a/h = 0.317 1.177 0.389 1.420 1. Cracks in beams with a/h = 1.679 0.5. the first crack suddenly developed in the diagonal direction at approximately 40% of the ultimate strength at the middepth of the concrete strut within the interior shear span.260 1.000 1. 3 and Table 3.877 1. more flexural and diagonal cracks were formed and a major diagonal crack extended to join the edges of the load and intermediate support plates. As the load increased. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Crack propagation and failure mode The crack propagation was significantly influenced by the a/h as shown in Fig.47L from the exterior support until the occurrence of the first diagonal crack as predicted by the 2-D FE analysis. followed by a diagonal crack in the interior shear span. kN (Vn)I.305 1. After the first diagonal crack.908 1.689 852 849 1017 864 814 912 537 477 635 498 521 538 1046 1261 1116 1322 1207 1442 690 759 788 757 718 754 655 264* 349 446* 266 357 287 633 * 262 348 * 439 265* 352* 288* 634 683* 757* 708 799* 852* 372* 414 637* 378 484 388 * 684 757 703* 792 854 373 413* 638 387* 492* 393 Failure occurred in this shear span. The crack pattern in the L-series was similar to that in the H-series.601 0.0.734 1.3 The failure planes evolved along the diagonal crack formed at the concrete strut along the edges of the load and intermediate support plates.

was slightly higher than that predicted by the linear 2-D FE analysis after the occurrence of the first diagonal crack within the interior shear span. the relationship of the end and intermediate support reactions against the total applied load in all beams tested shows good agreement with the prediction of the linear 2-D FE analysis. 4 against the total applied load: Fig.0 and the H-series beams were similar to those of the L-series beams having an a/h = 0.006). not presented herein. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. 6(a) at the first diagonal cracking load and Fig. which significantly depended on the a/h. however. The development of flexural cracks in sagging and hogging zones has little influence on the stiffness of beams tested.5. for beams with a/h = 1.0. The initial stiffness of beams tested increased in accordance with the increase of concrete strength and the decrease of the a/h. Before the first diagonal crack. respectively. as shown in Fig. therefore. Support reaction Figure 5 shows the amount of the load transferred to the end and intermediate supports against the total applied load in the L-series beams having a/h = 0. 6(b) at the same load as the ultimate failure load of the corresponding deep beam without shear reinforcement.2248 kips. A more prominent reduction of diagonal crack width appeared in beams with horizontal shear reinforcement only or orthogonal shear reinforcement than in beams with vertical shear reinforcement only when a/h was 0. But the occurrence of diagonal cracks in the interior shear span caused a sharp decrease in the beam stiffness and an increase of the beam deflection. Width of diagonal crack Figure 6 shows the variation of the diagonal crack width in the interior shear span according to the configuration of shear reinforcement: Fig.Fig. even though the total shear reinforcement ratio in these beams was the same (ρv + ρh = 0. but it seems to be independent of the amount and configuration of shear reinforcement. the wider the diagonal crack width. the difference between the measured end support reaction and prediction of the linear 2-D FE analysis was in order of 7 and 12%.2248 kips. 4—Total load versus midspan deflection. a smaller diagonal crack width was observed in beams with vertical shear reinforcement only than in beams with orthogonal shear reinforcement. although after the occurrence of diagonal cracks the beam stiffness has reduced. the larger the a/h. (Note: 1 kN = 0. the internal redistribution of forces is limited. It seems possible to reduce the diagonal crack width by more than twice if shear reinforcement is suitably arranged according to the variation of a/h. 424 .5. On the same figure.5. 4(b) for beams in the H-series. the support reactions obtained from the linear 2-D FE analysis are also presented. The end and intermediate support reactions of the L-series beams having a/h = 1. 5—Total applied load versus support reactions for L-series beams tested having a/ h of 0.0. At failure.5 and a/h = 1.5. 4(a) for beams in the L-series and Fig. The distribution of applied load to supports was independent of the amount and configuration of shear reinforcement. (Note: 1 kN = 0. Shear reinforcement had an important role in restraining the development of the diagonal crack width. for beams with a/h = 0.) This stiffness reduction was prominent in case of lower concrete strength and higher a/h. On the other hand. For the same concrete compressive strength.) deflection of the failed span for different beams tested are only presented in Fig. The amount of loads transferred to the end support. This means that. 4.

reinforcement. The reduction of the ultimate shear strength was also dependent on the configuration of shear reinforcement. Shear reinforcement was not generally strained at initial stages of loading.) Fig.Fig. 8(b) for continuous deep beams including the test results of Rogowsky et al. For deep beams without shear reinforcement. When shear reinforcement is provided.6. and Fig. whereas in beams with a/h = 1. only horizontal reinforcing bars yielded. and Fig. the more effective the horizontal shear reinforcement and the less effective the vertical shear reinforcement. The relation between strains in shear reinforcement and the total applied load in the L-series beams was similar to that in the H-series beams.2 It can be seen that the ultimate shear strength of all beams without or with shear reinforcement dropped due to the increase of a/h. 8(a) for simply supported deep beams given in Appendix A. The influence of the horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement on the ultimate shear strength is influenced by the a/h.0. This indicates that the reinforcement ability to transfer tension across cracks strongly depends on the angle between the reinforcement and the axis of the strut. the shear strength 425 .6. the normalized ultimate shear strength λ in continuous deep beams matched that of the corresponding simply supported ones. (Note: 1 mm = 0. 6—Configuration of shear reinforcement versus diagonal crack width. However.2248 kips. 8: Fig. plotted against a/h.1 and Ashour. is given in Fig. only vertical reinforcing bars yielded. strains suddenly increased with the occurrence of the first diagonal crack. When a/h was below 0. (Note: 1 kN = 0. not presented herein. The strains of shear reinforcement were recorded by ERS gauges at different locations.) Figure 7 shows the strain in shear reinforcement against the total applied load in the H-series beams: Fig. 1. Ultimate shear stress The normalized ultimate shear strength. the normalized ultimate shear strength λ in continuous deep beams was less than that in simply supported ones by an average of 26% due to higher transverse tensile strains produced by the tie action of longitudinal top and bottom ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. 7—Total load versus strains in shear reinforcement for beams in H-series. therefore. The lower the a/h. λ = Vn/bwd f c′ . as shown in Fig. 7(b) for horizontal shear reinforcement in beams having either horizontal or orthogonal shear reinforcement. 8—Normalized ultimate shear strength versus shear span-to-overall depth ratio.039 in. 7(a) for vertical shear reinforcement in beams having either vertical or orthogonal shear reinforcement. In beams with a/h = 0.

Section 11. The load transfer capacity of vertical shear reinforcement was higher in beams having a/h = 1. 10 identifies two main load transfer systems: one of which is the strut-and-tie action formed with the longitudinal bottom reinforcement acting as a tie and the other is the strut-and-tie action due to the longitudinal top reinforcement. (Vn)W/O. as shown in Fig. have suggested that horizontal shear reinforcement has little influence on the shear strength improvement and crack control. As the load capacity of concrete is usually regarded as the strength of beams without shear reinforcement.2 and the comments of ACI 318-05. and (c) for beams with vertical shear reinforcement only. as shown in Fig. respectively. 9(a). 9: Fig. 9(a).1. respectively. Existing test results of continuous deep beams carried out by Rogowsky et al.Vn – ( Vn )W ⁄ O Vs ----= ------------------------------Vn Vn (2) The variations of Vs /Vn at the failed shear span against the increase of a/h are given in Fig.5 as shown in Fig.2. which is a hydrostatic node connecting both ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . which can be expressed as tan–1(jd/a).5. Comparison with current codes It has been shown by several researchers. The load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement is dependent on a/h. In the current tests.1 and Ashour. with horizontal shear reinforcement only. 10. as shown in Fig. Load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement The shear strength of deep beams Vn can be described as follows Vn = Vc + Vs (1) where FE and FI equal the load capacities of exterior and interior concrete struts. horizontal shear reinforcement is more effective than vertical shear reinforcement for beams with a/h of 0. On the other hand. ACI 318-05 requires the use of either nonlinear analysis or strut-and-tie model. respectively.8. The nodes at the applied load point could be classified as a CCC type. 10). Figure 10 shows a schematic strut-and-tie model of continuous deep beams in accordance with ACI 318-05.83 f c′ bwd.5 than those having a/h = 1.8. As the applied loads in the two-span continuous deep beams are carried to supports through concrete struts of exterior and interior shear spans (refer to Fig. and with orthogonal shear reinforcement. The distance between the center of top and bottom nodes jd could be approximately assumed as the distance between the center of longitudinal top and bottom reinforcing bars as jd = h – c – c′ (4) where Vc and Vs equal the load capacity of concrete and load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement. of deep beams with minimum horizontal shear reinforcement had an average value of 150% higher than the upper bound value. the total load capacity of two-span continuous deep beams Pn due to failure of concrete struts is Pn = 2(FE – FI)sinθ (3) Fig. The load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement is more pronounced in continuous deep beams than that in simple ones. The strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 8 and 9. the ratio of the load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement to the shear strength of beams Vs/Vn is 426 where h equals the overall section depth and c and c′ equal the cover of longitudinal bottom and top reinforcement. respectively. which had the same material and geometrical properties as continuous deep beams tested in the current study. and θ equals the angle between the concrete strut and the longitudinal axis of the deep beam. the load transfer capacity of horizontal shear reinforcement was higher in beams having a/h = 0. Section 11. the test results of simply supported deep beams given in Appendix A. For the design of deep beams. 9—Shear reinforcement ratios versus Vs / Vn. specified in ACI 318-05. (b).0 than those having a/h = 0.3. 9(b). are also presented. On the same figure. 0. Appendix A.0.4 that the shear capacity prediction of reinforced concrete deep beams obtained from ACI 318-9916 (unchanged since 1983) was unconservative.

can be calculated from FI sinθ.346 when a/h ratios are 0. 11: Fig. 10—Qualitative strut-and-tie model of continuous deep beams according to ACI 318-05. This implies that shear reinforcement satisfying Eq. and wt′ equals the smaller of the height of the plate anchored to longitudinal bottom reinforcement wt and twice of the cover of longitudinal bottom reinforcement 2c as shown in Fig.5 ( l p ) I + ( 1. The shear capacity at the interior shear span (Vn)I.969 and 0.’s and Ashour’s test results./(Pn)ACI. It was proved by Marti10 that the width of the strut at a CCC node is in proportion to the principal stress normal to the node face to make the state of stress in the whole node region constant.0 – β ) ( l p ) P ] sin θ ( w s ) I = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 ( w t ′ + 2 c ′ ) cos θ + [ ( l p ) E + β ( l p ) P ] sin θ ( w s ) E = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 (5a) Fig. (lp)E. and 0. (7) proposed by ACI 318-05 is recommended for deep beams having concrete strength of less than 40 MPa. 10. The mean and standard deviation of the ratio.4 and 0. The load transfer capacity of the concrete strut depends on the area of the strut and the effective concrete compressive strength. where the failure is expected to occur in continuous deep beams. and αi equals the angle between i-th layer of reinforcement and the strut.6 when shear reinforcement satisfying Eq.8 ksi) in ACI 318-05 are suggested as 0.003 ∑ --------bw si A si (7) Fig.306. respectively. the loading plate width can be assumed to be subdivided into two parts in accordance with the ratio of the exterior reaction to the applied load β. respectively. Although Eq.0. which is recommended to be placed in two orthogonal directions in each face. 11(a) for simple deep beams given in Appendix A and Fig. If enough anchorage of longitudinal reinforcement is provided.5 and 1. is suggested by ACI 318-05 as follows . for simply supported deep beams. 11—Comparison of test results and predictions by ACI 318-05. and (lp)I equal the widths of loading. the width of the strut can be calculated from wt′cosθ + (lp)Esinθ. The effectiveness factors for concrete strength not exceeding 40 MPa (5. (Pn)Exp.326. as estimated from the linear 2-D FE analysis. respectively. each to form the node connecting the exterior and the interior struts. 11(b) for continuous deep beams including Rogowsky et al. average widths of concrete struts in interior (ws)I and exterior shear spans (ws)E are ( w t ′ + 2 c ′ ) cos θ + [ 0. as developed previously are shown in Table 3 and Fig. To accommodate both CCC type and CCT type. exterior support. (7) is arranged and is not provided. The β values of tested beams are 0.75 and 0. (7) enables the strength of beams to be increased by 25%. the load capacity of the H-series beams were also predicted using this equation to evaluate its conservatism in case of high-strength concrete deep beams. and the total load capacity is 2FEsinθ. respectively. between the experimental and predicted load capacities are 1. Comparisons between test results and predictions obtained from the strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . Hence. The truss model representing the load transfer mechanism of horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement is not included in ACI 318-05. The minimum amount of shear reinforcement required in bottle-shaped struts.exterior and interior compressive struts in sagging zone and a CCT type for longitudinal top reinforcement in the hogging zone. (5b) where (lp)P.229 and 0. respectively. respectively. 427 where Asi and si equal the total area and spacing in the i-th layer of reinforcement crossing a strut. the load capacities of the exterior and interior concrete struts are FE = ve f ′cbw(ws)E FI = ve f ′cbw(ws)I (6a) (6b) where ve equals the effectiveness factor of concrete. and interior support plates.sin α i ≥ 0. In simple deep beams.

0 as given in Table 3. J.respectively. “Tests of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams. “Basic Tools of Reinforced Concrete Beam Design. 1. pp. “ATENA Computer Program Documentation: Part 1. 4. Chungang University. 0. 83. A. In deep beams with a/h not exceeding 0. 201-213. ACI Bibliography No. 16. 2002. F. 120 pp. and Jennewein. 11. V. Korea. Reineck. 4. Tjhin. D. pp.” Strut-and-Tie Bibliography.” ACI Structural Journal. The authors wish to express their gratitude for financial support.0 were unconservative. J. M. J.. Proceedings V. This decrease rate was more remarkable in continuous deep beams than that in simple ones.. V. 1985.” PhD Thesis. 1998. “Example 1b: Alternative Design for the Non-Slender Beam (Deep Beam). 1997. The ratio of the test result to prediction generally dropped with the increase of a/h. No. Farmington Hills. 128.. “Effect of Web Reinforcement on High-Strength Concrete Deep Beams. and Cervenka. G. 3. In particular. 1997. for two-span continuous deep beams as shown in Fig. 11. Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 12-25.. No. “Evaluation on the Shear Strength of High-Strength Concrete Deep Beams. N. highly underestimated the actual measured shear strength. 2003. 1.” Cervenka Consultant. “Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete. The strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 overestimated the shear capacity of high-strength concrete continuous deep beams having a/h more than 1. N. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99). 16.. K. Farmington Hills. No.” American Concrete Institute. Smith. Mich. (Vn)I-Exp. only horizontal shear reinforcement reached its yield strength with a sharp increase of stress after the first diagonal crack. MacGregor.. c c′ d h Es FE FI fc′ fsu fy jd L lp Pcr Pn sh sv T Vc Vcr Vn Vs ve ws wt α β εy λ θ ρh ρst ρst ′ ρv = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = cover of longitudinal bottom reinforcement cover of longitudinal top reinforcement effective depth of beam section overall depth of beam section elastic modulus of steel load capacity of concrete strut in exterior shear span load capacity of concrete strut in interior shear span concrete compressive strength tensile strength of reinforcement yield strength of reinforcement distance between center of top and bottom nodes span length width of loading plate diagonal crack load ultimate load at failure spacing of horizontal shear reinforcement spacing of vertical shear reinforcement tensile force in longitudinal reinforcement load capacity of concrete diagonal crack shear force ultimate shear force at failure load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement effectiveness factor of concrete width of concrete strut height of plate anchored to longitudinal reinforcement angle between shear reinforcement and axis of concrete strut ratio of exterior reaction to applied load yield strain of reinforcement normalized ultimate shear strength angle between concrete strut and longitudinal axis of beam horizontal shear reinforcement ratio (Ah/bwsh) longitudinal bottom reinforcement ratio (As/bwd) longitudinal top reinforcement ratio (As ′ /bwd) vertical shear reinforcement ratio (Av /bwsv) REFERENCES 1. S.. “Design of Concrete Structures. The following conclusions are drawn: 1. G. K.. JulyAug.. ed. 32. namely.” ACI JOURNAL. L. American Concrete Institute. P. D. MacGregor. Cervenka. the normalized ultimate shear strength in continuous deep beams matched that in simply supported deep beams. and 5. only vertical shear reinforcement yielded in beams with a/h of 1. 12. 199 pp. “Reinforced Concrete Two-Span Continuous Deep Beams.0. 1997. pp. Schafer. 1997. 82..” ACI JOURNAL. American Concrete Institute. ACI Committee 318. 1986. pp. 2002... the critical upper bound on shear strength suggested in ACI 318-05. Marti. For deep beams without shear reinforcement.... L. Teng. The load transfer capacity of all shear reinforcement was much more prominent in continuous deep beams than that in simple ones.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Rexdale. F. 3-12. 94. 369 pp.-H. However. S. May-June 1982. ACI Committee 318. and Kuchma. vertical shear reinforcement was more effective for a/h higher than 1. pp. 5. 94. even though the effectiveness factor used in the beams with either horizontal or vertical shear reinforcement was 0.” American Concrete Institute. Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design.3-94./(Vn)I-ACI. 9. In addition. Yang. Horizontal shear reinforcement was always more effective than vertical shear reinforcement when the a/h was 0.6. Mich..5. Jendele.. 106 pp. between the experimental and predicted shear capacities in the interior shear span was generally below 1.” ACI Structural Journal. 2005. A. Kong. the strutand-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 overestimated the shear capacity of high-strength concrete continuous deep beams having a/h = 1. S. K. 8. Schlaich.0. V. 46-56. 2.. 10. Jan. Sept. SP-208. W. and Vantsiotis.0.83 f c ′ bwd. “Shear and Torsion. FIP Recommendations: Practical Design of Structural Concrete. NOTATION Ah As As′ Aw a bw = = = = = = area of horizontal shear reinforcement area of longitudinal bottom reinforcement area of longitudinal top reinforcement area of shear reinforcement shear span width of beam section 428 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . A.. 79. 74-150. Y. Rogowsky. Farmington Hills. This decrease rate was more remarkable in continuous deep beams than that in simple ones. Subedi. the predictions for several continuous deep beams having a/h exceeding 1. Ashour. K. Tan. 1994. Canada.6 regardless of the amount of shear reinforcement. PrenticeHall International. 1999. Mich. pp. Sept.” ACI JOURNAL . V.-Feb.. 6. 430 pp. Feb. K.. 14. pp. When shear reinforcement was provided.-Oct..” Strut-and-Tie Models. the normalized ultimate shear strength was 26% lower in continuous beams than that in simple ones. H. pp. 3.6. and Ong. H. 5. M. Mich. No. 4. CONCLUSIONS Tests were performed to study the influence of the amount and configuration of shear reinforcement on the structural behavior of continuous deep beams according to the variation of concrete strength and a/h. V. Proceedings V. Ontario. “Shear Strength of Deep Beams.. The ratios of measured load capacity to that obtained from the strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 dropped with the increase of the a/h.0. and Weng. J. May-June 1987. 7. Dec. T. Canadian Standards Association.” A23. 15. 3. Proceedings V. 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2003-041-D00586) and the Regional Research Centers Program (Bio-housing Research Institute). Structures & Buildings.” Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute. Feb. 2. the ratio. No.. Farmington Hills. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05). however. as if it was a lower limit. 614-623.. 81-90. 572-582. “Tests of Reinforced Concrete Continuous Deep Beams. 1999. 13. K.-Feb. N. granted by the Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. 50 pp. Jan. On the other hand.. ACI Committee 445. K.. for high-strength concrete continuous deep beams having a/h = 1. Inc. No..0. In beams having a/h of 0.

9 1299.006 0.361 1.5 1443. MPa a/h a/jd ρh 0 0 0 0.006 0 0.6 409. 35 No.6 1129.039 0.7 905.5 1.006 0. 30 No.012 0 0.7 (Pn)Exp.157 1.444 1.59 0.6 1215. 27 No. 12 No.1 855.1 303.8 1710. 9 No.707 1.029 0.5 52.006 0 0. 5 No.547 2.7 347.0 992.6 836.0 345.006 0 0 0 0.006 0 0.933 0. 15 No.006 0. 10 No.0 1111. 32 No.871 0.9 1395.006 0.012 0 0.006 0.3 1146.9 1299.0 249.964 1.9 1299.130 1.0 520.5 1962.0 347. 25 No.1 684.4 0.524 1.0 318.006 0. fc ′ .1 877.2 656.4 1107.006 0 0.0 401.3 Exp.0 259.012 0 0.8 289. 20 No. 13 No.5 181. 21 No.1 173.9 947.5 0.6 1356.8 142.0 178.5 1934. 7 No.9 ACI 318-05 684.76 0.0 520.006 0.147 0. 33 No.199 0.8 240.3 1558.5 172.006 0.59 1.1 No.0 650.0 260.7 762.18 0.7 780.9 281.006 0 0.0 1183.4 181. 3 No./(Pn)ACI 1.450 1.006 0 0 0 0.7 1323.APPENDIX A Table A1—Details and test results of simple deep beams13 Pn .6 1775.5 0.9 392.4 1789.006 0 0.8 173.1 684.9 1299.006 0. 31 No.9 2269.0 520. 6 No.327 1.5 195.2 1213.0 185.230 1.4 1710.0 215.935 0.6 270.8 1952. 24 No. kN Simple No.006 0 0.5 0.4 245. 1 kN = 0.6 876.59 0.034 1.6 205. 18 No.4 2138.006 0. 8 No.7 31.2 684.624 1.523 1.5 1701.797 0. 37 No.4 1710. 28 No.8 308.5 225.3 291.882 1.012 0 1.3 1540.1 624.7 1622.4 1561. 36 No.963 1. 26 No.9 357.1 993.82 0.0 249. 2 No.393 1.1 294.0 1.1 290. 17 No.5 188. 14 No. 22 No. 958.8 1561.8 952.402 1.6 721.5 707.2248 kips.0 107.0 1391.591 1.326 0.7 1044.7 78.2 1299.131 1.338 1.086 1.894 0.006 0 0 0.5 1154.0 520.0 378.7 254. 16 No.0 1646.18 1.229 0.2 1295.9 262.006 0.0 2061. kN 254.8 473.693 0.006 1.7 624.9 1624.0 1. 23 No.4 601.006 Vcr . 38 Mean Standard deviation Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.4 0.006 0.9 520.4 1096.0 1710. 34 No.006 0. 4 No.0 1.046 1. 11 No.006 0 0.006 0.081 1.400 1.006 0 0 0 0.012 0 0.012 0 ρv 0 0.006 0 0.334 1.006 0 0.466 2.82 0.1 684.9 1.012 0 0.012 0 0.006 0 0 0.76 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 429 .043 1. 19 No.006 0 0.18 1. 29 No.7 750.3 1042.4 1710.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

and it has been proposed as a simple nondestructive assurance procedure by which the quality of bond can be monitored within precasting plants. εpi is the initial strand strain.5 in.20 CEB-FIP21* Rose and Russell22 den Uijl12 fib23 Lopes and do Carmo24 fpi by effective stress in strand immediately after release. and α = 3 for linear descending bond stress distribution (parabolic variation in strand stress) Equation (1) can be rewritten as follows δ Ep L t = α -------f pt (2) experimental results and theoretical studies. and the α coefficient represents the shape factor of the bond stress distribution along the transfer zone.1 Variation in strand stress along the transfer length involves slip between the strand and the concrete.6 2. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure. Table 2 shows other expressions that relate the transfer length to the strand end slip at the free end of a pretensioned concrete member. if any.25 and α = 2. A sequence of slip values at each end of the specimen after release versus the embedment length has been analyzed.18 Oh and Kim19 Wan et al. 4. will be published in the May-June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1. where Ep is the modulus of elasticity of the prestressing strand and fpi is the strand stress immediately before release.86 2.2 Most experimental standards3-6 are based on this method. Two hypotheses were considered8: α = 2 for uniform bond stress distribution (linear variation in strand stress). where db is the diameter of prestressing strand. The expressions relating the transfer length to the tendon end slip are presented.67). and fci ′ is the compressive strength of concrete at the time of prestress transfer.] seven-wire strand. Several researchers have proposed different values of α for the bond stress distribution along the transfer zone from ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 487 . Transfer length test results of seven-wire strand on twelve different concrete mixtures were analyzed. prestressing. Transfer length is defined as the distance required to develop the effective stress in the prestressing strand. b = 0. strand.7 Guyon8 proposed the following expression from a theoretical analysis δ L t = α ----ε pi (1) Balázs11 den Uijl 12 By theoretical studies Experimental value and by theoretical studies Assumed value Jonsson13 Guyon 8 Brooks et al. Martí-Vargas. Keywords: bond. V. ACI Structural Journal. precast concrete.3 to 2. δ is the strand end slip at the free end of a prestressed concrete member. transfer length.14 Balogh15 Russell and Burns16 Logan17 Steinberg et al. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. and reviewed under Institute publication policies.5 Indicated value for linear ascending bond stress distribution where Lt is the transfer length. 104.8 2/(1 – b)† 2. strand stress varies from zero at the free end of the member to a maximum value (effective stress). pretensioning. No. 2006.5 Adopted value INTRODUCTION The force in a prestressing strand is transferred by bond to the concrete in the release operation.67 2. Pedro Serna-Ros.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. and Carmen Castro-Bugallo An experimental program on 12 series of specimens with different embedment lengths to determine the transfer length was conducted. All rights reserved. 104-S47 TECHNICAL PAPER Reliability of Transfer Length Estimation from Strand End Slip by José R. At this stage.7 mm [0. Table 1 indicates the different assigned values of α. July-August 2007. A testing technique based on the analysis of bond behavior by means of measuring the force supported by the tendon has been used. MS No. b is experimental constant value that must be fixed for each type of prestressing strand according to its bond characteristics (for 12. 2008. César A. A value of Guyon’s factor for tendon stress distribution shape has been obtained. The specimens had been instrumented with slip measurement devices at each end of the specimen. Table 1—Proposed α coefficient values from Guyon’s formula Reference FIP4 Guyon8 FIP 4* Coefficient 4 Origin of value Indicated value when stress in prestressing strand is rapidly increasing By hypothesis Adopted value Experimental 3 Olesniewicz9 FIP10 RILEM3 IRANOR5 LCPC 6 2. The measurement of the strand end slip is an indirect method to determine the transfer length. Copyright © 2007. American Concrete Institute. S-2006-250 received June 16. slip. † *Substituting 2 By hypothesis 1. Two criteria to determine the transfer length from the slip sequences at both ends of the specimens have been analyzed. Arbeláez.

4 E p se b (7) (8) 488 .1 By setting Eq.7. 1 1.154 in. as previously described).14. δ.30 in prisms.14 In this case. but the measurements of slips are affected by the local bond loss at the ends. db. and Lt in mm. δ.S. 1 in.7 mm).625 3⁄2 Balázs 11 (5) 24. units: fpi. Some researchers conducted experimental studies to obtain the transfer length from the strand end slip at the free end in hollow-core slabs.30 have established an allowable free end slip as the strand end slip which results in a transfer length equal to that computed by the ACI provisions for transfer length (Eq.–1 for K = 0.036 with a guaranteed ultimate strength of 270 ksi (1860 MPa). cement content from 590 to 843 lb/yd3 (350 to 500 kg/m3) and a compressive strength at the time of testing fci ′ from 3. The prestressing strand was ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Marshall and Krishnamurthy25 (3) δ δ --L t = --K K K = 0.472 in.13 breakage of gauges to measure the strand end slip when a flame cutting process is applied.7 mm sevenstrand wire strand δ Lt = 218db 4 -------f ci ′ 0.7 δ L t = ----------------------------0. She is member of ICITECH at UPV. His research interests include bond properties of prestressed concrete structures and the use of advance cement-based materials in structural applications.3 kips (192. δall2 is the implied allowable value of free end slip when α = 2.16.5. (2) to be equal to the Eq. and modulus of elasticity 28.60 kN).0000035 mm–1 0. = 25 mm.50 kN). Colombia. To apply Guyon’s end slip theory to determine transfer length is easy. respectively. Arbeláez is a PhD Assistant Researcher in the Department of Construction Engineering and Civil Engineering Projects at Polytechnic University of Valencia.2 (99.27-29 in piles. Valencia. seven-wire for 12. the implied allowable value of end slip can be calculated by Eq. f ′ci.27 and excessive free end slip in prestressed members with poor concrete consolidation around the strand.18. The mixtures of the tested concretes are shown in Table 3.15 ⎛ f pi ⎞ f ci ′ ---⎝ E p⎠ Ep . Quindío. units) Lt = Equation (SI units) where fse is the effective stress in the prestressing strand after allowance for all prestress losses. She received her degree in civil engineering from UPV.f d (U. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION An experimental program has been conducted to determine the transfer length of prestressing strands: the ECADA* test method33-34 (*Ensayo para Caracterizar la Adherencia mediante Destesado y Arrancamiento [Test to Characterize the Bond by Release and Pull-out]).31 and in specimens to simulate bond behavior along transfer length.157 in. His research interests include bond behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete structural elements.----.20. He is a member of ICITECH at UPV. units) 9 E p se b δ all 3 1 f pi .+ 137.145 ksi.----f d (SI units) = --------41. Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV). He is member of the Institute of Science and Concrete Technology (ICITECH) at UPV. designers.507 ksi (196.35 b) crushed limestone aggregate (0.7 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE This research study provides information on the transfer length of a seven-wire prestressing strand in twelve concretes of different compositions and properties. [7 to 12 mm]). France.5 R.3 to 0.16 f pi Rose and Russell22 (6) Notes: For U. fiber-reinforced concrete.69 mm2). A test method based on the measurement and analysis of the force supported by the strand has been used. (12. His research interests include self-consolidating concrete. db. 1 MPa = 0. and Ep in MPa.19. fpi . f ′ci . The information is valuable for all parties involved in the precast/prestressed concrete industry: manufacturers. and Ep.5 to 8 ksi (24 to 55 MPa) were tested.S.625 3⁄2 Balázs26 (4) δ Lt = 105db 4 -------f ci ′ 0.32 Several authors7. and d) policarboxilic ether high-range water-reducing additive. Concrete components were a) cement CEM I 52. This paper analyzes the reliability of transfer length determination from free end slips according with proposed expressions in the literature. for SI units: fpi.+ 5. and δall3 is the implied allowable value of free end slip when α = 3 (Lt . Carmen Castro-Bugallo is a PhD candidate in the Department of Construction Engineering and Civil Engineering Projects at Polytechnic University of Valencia.4 0.5 in. c) washed rolled limestone sand (0 to 0. greater slips are measured resulting in incorrect transfer length estimation. Pedro Serna-Ros is a Professor of civil engineering in the Department of Construction Engineering and Civil Engineering Projects at Polytechnic University of Valencia.15 difficulty to measure accurately smaller slips. producers. (7)). He received his degree in civil engineering from UPV and his PhD from l’Ecole National des Ponts et Chaussées. and bond behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete. and Ep in ksi. The main characteristics were adopted from the manufacturer: diameter 0.00009 in.4 0.2% 40 kips (177.----. db is the nominal diameter of prestressing strand.15 ⎛ f pi ⎞ f ci ′ ---⎝ E p⎠ Ep L t = 2 δ ---. and Lt in inches.275 to 0. Paris. The prestressing strand was a low-relaxation seven-wire strand specified as UNE 36094:97 Y 1860 S7 13.S. Equation (U.700 MPa). and his PhD from UPV. Her research interests include bond properties of reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete structures and strut-and-ties models. and strut-and-ties models.5 in.José R. cross-sectional area 0. César A. ultimate strength 43. builders. The other disadvantages of Guyon’s method are larger scatter of experimental results. [0 to 4 mm]).f d (U.20.7 se b 1 f pi . Equations (1) to (6) are not applicable to elements of a poor bond quality.13-15 in beams. Findings of the research are presented in procedures for the experimental determination of transfer length measuring forces or slips.S. (7) and substituting α = 2 and α = 3 in Eq.----. durability of concrete structures. He is member of ICITECH at UPV. (8) and (9).S.22.f d (SI units) = --------62. yield stress at 0. 1 f pi δ all 3 = -. Spain.1 E p se b (9) Table 2—Proposed equations for transfer length from strand end slip Reference Equation no.4 L t = 2 δ ---f pi 111 δ L t = ----------------------------0. Armenia. Materials Twelve different concretes with a range of water-cement ratios (w/c) from 0.f d (U. units) δ all 2 = -6 E p se b δ all 2 f pi 1 . He received his degree in civil engineering and his PhD from UPV. units) L t = --------L t = -f d (SI units) 3 se b 20. (2). Martí-Vargas is an Associate Professor of civil engineering in the Department of Construction Engineering and Civil Engineering Projects. He received his civil engineering degree from Quindío University. and owners.

2.34 and may be summarized as follows: Preparation stage— 1. and the prestressing force transfer to the concrete is performed.50 0. and 5. The strand is placed in the frame. The concrete is mixed. A stabilization period of 2 hours from release was established.40 M-500-0.Table 3—Concrete mixtures from test program Cement. The AMA system is made up of a sleeve in the final stretch of the specimen to prevent the influence of the confinement caused by the end frame plate. Although it is not included in this study.8 (46. and 2.45 M-400-0.14 f ci ′ (at time of Gravel/sand testing. Designation lb/yd3 (kg/m3) M-350-0.30 1.50 M-350-0.50 M-400-0. Test parameters The specimens had a 4 x 4 in. the test can continue with the pull-out operation positioning the hydraulic jack at the stressed end to increase the force in the strand. After concrete placement. Criterion to determine transfer length With the ECADA test method.35 0.35 M-500-0. Strand anchorage by an adjustable strand anchorage. free end slip).40 M-450-0.40 M-400-0. The adjustable strand anchorage is relieved using the hydraulic jack.8 (26.45 0. and two linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs). The force in the strand at the stressed end depends on the strain compatibility with the concrete specimen. Stabilization period—The level of force during this time is zero at the free end.8) Fig. the transfer length is obtained with a series of specimens with different embedment 489 .8 (46.35 M-500-0.6) 7. placed into the formwork in the frame.50 0.9 (54. Testing technique The ECADA test method is based on the measurement and analysis of the force supported by the strand in a series of pretensioned concrete specimens with different embedment lengths.2) 4.3) 6.3) 6. stressed end slip). 2) to measure the draw-in (δ. ratio ksi (MPa) 3.40 0. Instrumentation The instrumentation used was a hydraulic jack pressure sensor to control tensioning and release operations.40 0.7) 3.. Fig. and care was taken not to drag the strand on the floor.8) 6.3 (36. Testing stage— 1. The strand is completely released.2 (100 x 100 mm2) cross section with a concentrically located single strand at a prestress level before release of 75% of guaranteed ultimate strand strength.5 (24. The strand was stored indoors.35 0. Strand release is produced at a controlled speed. Figure 1 shows the test equipment layout. 2—LVDT at free end of specimen.5 (30. and an anchorage plate supported on the frame by two separators.3) 6. Strand tensioning. and another at the stressed end (Fig. All specimens were subjected to the same consolidation and curing conditions. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig.18 kips/s (0. Release was gradually performed 24 hours after concreting at a controlled speed of 0.45 M-350-0.4) 6. 4. one at the free end (Fig. 1—Test equipment layout.3) 5.45 0.7 (46. The strand was no treated in any special manner. 24 hours). the stressed end frame plate.6 (45. 3—LVDT at stressed end of specimen. and consolidated.35 M-450-0. This force requires a stabilization period to guarantee its measurement.1) 5. The specimen is supported at the stressed end frame plate. visible splitting cracks have not happened in any of the tested specimens.6) 4. 3.4 (37.40 0.40 0. tested in the as-received condition (free of rust and free of lubricant).30 843 (500) 758 (450) 674 (400) 590 (350) w /c 0. 3) to measure the strand slip to the last embedment concrete cross-section of the specimen (δl. The strand force in the AMA system is recorded continuously during the test. An anchorage-measurement-access (AMA) system is placed at one end (stressed end) of a pretensioning frame to simulate the sectional stiffness of the specimen. the specimen is cured to achieve the desired concrete properties at the time of testing. separating the anchorage plate of the AMA system from the frame.80 kN/s).40 M-400-0.1 (28. The step-by-step test procedure was described in detail in Martí-Vargas et al.0 (41. No internal measuring devices were used in the test specimens so as to not distort the bond phenomenon.35 0. a hollow force transducer included in the AMA system to measure the force supported by the strand. With these test parameters.

The exterior interval corresponds to the extreme transfer length values according to the hypotheses by Guyon obtained as follows: the lower limit was calculated by applying α = 2 to the minimum free end slip. (550 mm). ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. The results obtained by the ECADA test method are located within both intervals in all cases except for the M-500-0. the strand force measured in the AMA system after release will be slightly higher than the effective prestressing force of the strand in the specimen. and the upper limit was calculated by applying α = 3 to the maximum free end slip. The amplitude of the transfer length intervals is very variable for the different concrete mixtures. (550 mm). the age of the concrete at the time of testing. As an example. Both curves present a bilinear tendency with a descendent initial branch with a strong slope and a practically horizontal branch starting from 21. 490 . For an embedment length sequence of 2 in. even if the specimen embedment length is greater than the transfer length. For this reason. Fig.30 concrete mixture for the interior interval. one with the force losses registered just after release (ΔP).7 in. When specimens have an embedment length below 21. the beginning of the horizontal branches coincides at both points of time. When specimens have an embedment length equal to or greater than 21. The difference between the two curves corresponds to the increment of force loss registered during the stabilization period. This rigidity depends on the concrete properties. increases of force loss have taken place during the stabilization period in the first point of the resulting horizontal branch just after release. Figure 7 shows the transfer length results obtained by the ECADA test method in the corresponding series versus the free end slip registered after the stabilization period in each specimen. In some cases.34 The resolution in the determination of the transfer length will depend on the sequence of lengths of the specimens tested. The interior interval corresponds to the extreme transfer length values obtained by applying Guyon’s formula with α = 2. a small slip of the strand at the stressed end is registered. The force loss values are arranged according to the specimen embedment length (Fig. It is shown that 38.7 in. as well as the transfer length obtained from the free end slips by applying Guyon’s formula (Eq. Comparison of test results with Guyon’s formula Figure 6 shows the transfer length results obtained by the ECADA test method for each concrete mixture.Fig. The predicted transfer lengths by Guyon’s formula are also plotted in Fig. the transfer length obtained by the ECADA test method is repeated when a same concrete mixture is tested. (550 mm) embedment length. Only the specimens with an embedment length equal to or greater than the transfer length have been included. 5—Force loss versus embedment length for Concrete M-350-0. and the specimen cross section. the force loss after the stabilization period is greater than the force loss registered just after release.34 Transfer length over-estimation The ideal AMA system must have the same sectional rigidity as the specimen. This difference of forces gives rise to a small over-estimation of the real transfer length. in this experimental work. The transfer length determined by the ECADA test method for this concrete mixture is 21. (550 mm). the force loss is similar at both points of time. The obtained curve shows a bilinear tendency. A discontinuity section is generated in the border between the specimen and the AMA system. Two curves are shown. As it can be observed in Fig. This formula has been applied to free end slips registered after the stabilization period in specimens with an embedment length equal to or greater than the transfer length. the rigidity of the AMA system designed is slightly greater than the sectional rigidity of the specimens. lengths.0% show a transfer length greater than the predicted maximum values. however. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Determination of transfer length Transfer length is determined for each concrete mixture in accordance with the exposed criterion. 5 shows the results of force loss versus the embedment length for the concrete M-350-0. (2)).7 in. for this concrete. 5.8% of the experimental results fall outside the limits (33. For each specimen. and another with the force losses registered after the stabilization period (ΔP).34 Consequently. The transfer length corresponds to the smallest specimen embedment length that marks the beginning of the horizontal branch. It would not really be feasible to design a system for each specific test conditions. as shown in Fig.33. the transfer length must be always determined on the curve measured after the stabilization period. 4). however. 4—Determination of transfer length through ECADA test method. In these conditions.50.8 (adopted by RILEM3) to the minimum and maximum free end slips. 7. For this reason. with a total of 121 specimens.7 in. the strand force loss in the AMA system directly after the stabilization period is measured. 6.50 (designation according with Table 3). Two intervals are drawn for each concrete mixture. Between four and 18 specimens for each concrete mixture. (50 mm). have been considered.

(6).07 0. (fpi = 1395 MPa. The percentages of results included in each sector delimited by LtACI. Ep = 196. and δall3 are indicated in Fig. Besides. other parameters like the concrete compressive strength. Ep = 28. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 (4) (5) (6) (2) with α = 2.44 (obtained value from the experimental results of this study) is included.8% show a transfer length smaller than the predicted minimum values).3% of the cases (2. 8—Comparison between results of present tests and those of other researchers. Figure 8 also shows that when a transfer length is smaller than LtACI.700 MPa and db = 12. the comparison with Eq.11 1. (2) with α = 2.17 1. (3) Average Lt (calculated)/L t (measured) Coefficient of correlation R2 1.8fpi = 162 ksi. Fig. in addition to the slips. 7—Transfer length versus free end slip for specimens with embedment length equal to or greater than transfer length. Consequently. Table 4—Comparison between measured and calculated transfer lengths Equation no.8% + 29. 9—Comparison of measured transfer lengths with calculated values according to Eq. the δall2 limit is exceeded in 2.3 and 4. (3) to (6) have been compared. (6) and Eq.01 0.7 mm). The LtACI. The coefficient of correlation improves when the expressions include.35 0. δall2. Fig. (6). On the other hand. and 5. fse = 0. 8.44) show a good prediction of the average measured transfer length.8fpi = 1116 MPa. 8. (8)) and δall3 (Eq. and δall3 values have been calculated by considering that fpi = 202 ksi.44 Comparison of test results with other expressions The experimental results obtained with both the ECADA test method and the theoretical predictions from Eq. (2) by substituting α = 2.Fig. The range of free end slip registered is very ample for one same transfer length.5 in.20 Fig. for registered free end slips smaller than δall3 or δall2. Table 4 summarizes these comparisons.18 1. δall2. Use of end slips sequences to determine transfer length The possibility of determining the transfer length from the sequences of end slip values at both ends versus the embedment length of specimens was considered. As an example.44 from the regression analysis of the test results has been obtained. 6—Graphical comparison between experimental transfer length and predicted transfer lengths from Guyon’s formula and RILEM provisions.54 0. 8. A value of α = 2. It can be observed that the expressions based on Guyon’s formula (Eq. 491 .5%).8% of the cases. and the δall3 is exceeded in 32. 9 illustrates the comparison with Eq.95 0. The predicted transfer length according to ACI 318-051 (LtACI) and the allowable free end slips δall2 (Eq. (9)) are also plotted in Fig. Fig.6%. the use of an assurance procedure for bond quality based on a limit value for the allowable free end slip is not completely reliable. fse = 0. as observed in Fig. Figure 8 shows the experimental transfer lengths versus the registered free end slips obtained in beams by several authors. Also the range of transfer length values is very variable for one same free end slip. respectively).21 0. transfer lengths greater than LtACI are measured in some cases (2.528 ksi and db = 0.

It was not possible to determine the transfer length if the beginning of the horizontal branch was not clearly defined. δ.7 (500) 21. 11—Stressed end slip versus embedment length for Concrete M-350-0. and only a 2 in. The transfer lengths from the three sequences of results obtained from the test instrumentation (ΔP. and δl) Transfer length.50. The transfer lengths obtained from the stressed end slip and by the ECADA test method coincide in 11 out of the 12 concrete mixtures. These cases correspond to concrete mixtures with greater water content in their mixture. Two curves are shown. Consequently.40 M-500-0. Table 5—Transfer length obtained from three sequences of results (ΔP. The transfer lengths obtained from the free end slip coincide in eight out of the 12 concrete mixtures. This embedment length coincides with the result obtained by the ECADA test method (refer to Fig. The feasibility of applying the ECADA test method to determine the transfer length of prestressing strands has been verified. Similarly. and the other with the free end slip registered after the stabilization period δ.7 (550) 21.7 (550) — — 21. 492 .7 (400) 21.40 M-400-0.50 M-350-0. Again. 5). Although the slope of the descendent initial branch is very pronounced in the cases of force loss and stressed end slip.50.35.7 (550) 25. and δl). 7).7 (550) 25.7 in. and the stressed end slip after the stabilization period δl versus the embedment length for the same concrete mixture. Given the wide dispersion of the measured free end slip. (mm) Designation ECADA test method ΔP Free end slip δ Stressed end slip δl M-350-0. a bilinear tendency is observed with a descendent initial branch and a perceptibly horizontal branch from 21. δAVE.6 (600) 17. and the average test results (ΔPAVE. the stressed end slip only increases during the stabilization period in specimens whose embedment length is smaller than the transfer length.7 (550) 21. and δl) versus the embedment length have been determined.7 (500) 23.7 (550) 19.50 M-400-0. In regard to the force losses. Both curves present a bilinear tendency.45 M-400-0.30 21. no bilinear behavior was detected in the remaining cases (see range of free end slip to one same transfer length in Fig. one with the free end slip just after release δ.50 after the stabilization period. 10—Free end slip versus embedment length for Concrete M-350-0.7 (450) 15. Figure 12 summarizes the results of the three variables (force loss and slip at both ends) for the concrete M-350-0.7 (550) 17.45 M-350-0.7 (550) 19. δ/δAVE . δ. This procedure of test results analysis for each concrete mixture has been applied.50.40 M-400-0.Fig.7 (450) 15. (550 mm) embedment length.35 M-500-0. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig.7 (550) 21. Fig. in. The free end slip increases during the stabilization period in all the specimens.7 (550) 21.7 in. the following conclusions are drawn: 1. The beginning of the horizontal branch coincides with the result obtained by the ECADA test method (21.35 M-450-0.35 M-500-0.7 (500) — 17. δ.7 (400) Figure 10 shows the free end slip results versus the embedment length for the concrete mixture M-350-0. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this experimental investigation.7 (550) 21.7 in.7 (450) 21. with a descendent initial branch and a practically horizontal branch starting from 21.7 (500) 23. 12—Ratios ΔP/ΔPAVE .40 M-450-0.7 (550) 19.6 (600) 17. (50 mm) difference is observed in the concrete M-400-0.7 (550) 21.6 (650) 21. Both curves present a bilinear tendency. even in concretes with a low compressive strength.7 (550) 21. Fig. Table 5 summarizes the obtained results.7 (550) 21.7 (500) — 19.7 (550) 19. (550 mm) embedment length.7 (400) 21.7 (450) 15.50. 11 shows the stressed end slip just after release δl. the beginning of the horizontal branch is more easily identifiable by analyzing the force loss and stressed end slip than the free end slip. The shown ratios are the quotient between each specimen test result (ΔP.6 (650) 21. it is very weak in the case of free end slip. [550 mm]). and δlAVE) of specimens with an embedment length equal to or greater than the transfer length. and δl/δlAVE versus embedment length for Concrete M-350-0.

” PCI Journal. Olesniewicz. W. and Russell. 1975. In relation to the results from the ECADA test method. pp. “Use of Large Tendons in Pretensioned Concrete. Spain.-Apr. July-Aug. Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte. London. Pretensioned Concrete: Theoretical and Experimental Study.. D. 26. 1993. 2. “Bond Test of Steel Wires for Prestressed Concrete.-Feb. V. pp. B. 56-80. and Anderson. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées. “Statistical Evaluation of Transfer Length of Strand. pp. Balogh.. 23. “Statistical Distribution of Draw-in of Seven-Wire Strands. 3.” Bond and Development of Reinforcement. Proceedings V. den Uijl. 45 pp. 711 pp. W.-Dec. Thorsen.. 25. 2005.” Réunion Internationale des Laboratoires et Experts des Matériaux. Lopes. S. pp. 20. pp. 17. 1979. J. 44-65. American Concrete Institute. Latvia. 117-126. 3. Feb. 14.20-2. Rose. A.10-2. 7. 5. V. SP-180. 430 pp.. G. K.. Lausanne. 2. K..” PCI Journal. Madrid. UK. A. R. Latvia. 99.” CEB-FIP. 2002. IRANOR UNE 7436. The prediction range of transfer lengths from expressions proposed by several authors relating the transfer length to the free end slip is very ample. M. 1997.-Feb.. Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte.. R. “Realistic Evaluation of Transfer Lengths in Pretensioned.” Proceedings of the International Symposium Bond in Concrete: From Research to Practice.” ACI JOURNAL .” Instituto Nacional de Racionalización y Normalización. 13 pp.. 1999.” FIP.” ACI Structural Journal. 33. 8. 4. Financial support provided by the Ministry of Education and Science and FEDER funds (Project MAT2003-07157 and Project BIA2006-05521) made this research possible. “Transfer Length of Prestressing Strand as a Function of Draw-In and Initial Prestress. Anchorage and Application of Pretensioned 7-Wire Strands.19..” The Indian Concrete Journal.” PCI Journal. 44.6 in. Bagneux. Jan. and Petrou. “Measured Transfer Lengths of 0. The sequence of free end slip values versus the embedment length is not a reliable assurance procedure for the experimental determination of transfer length. although it can lead to a false perception that the transfer length value is very variable. R. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05). T. B.. Mich.. 2. Switzerland.. pp. 457-464. No.. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The contents of this paper are within the framework of a line of research that is currently being carried out by the Concrete Technology and Science Institute (ICITECH) of the Polytechnic University of Valencia. “Model Code for Concrete Structures. Russell. 437 pp.. UK. “Anchorage of Strands in Prestressed Extruded HollowCore Slabs.” PCI Journal. Mich. No.” Bulletin d’Information. Jonsson. 24. “Investigation of Standardized Tests to Measure the Bond Performance of Prestressing Strand.-Oct. Lausanne. Prestressed Concrete Members. Consequently. 1993. 8. No. 42.. and Burns. 1. A. Determining transfer length from the free end slip is relatively easy.” FIP. 19 pp. Oh. pp.. Balázs. Paris. T. Riga. D. 1996. E. B. 6. E.. 3. 821-830. 1997. 53. Fédération Internationale du Béton.. No. 7. and 8. Comité Euro-International du Béton-Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte. “Bond Modelling of Prestressing Strand. D. H. No.” ACI Structural Journal. 9. “An Assurance Criterion for Flexural Bond in Pretensioned Hollow Core Units. B. “Specification for the Test to Determine the Bond Properties of Prestressing Tendons. M. 1. “Bond of Prestressed Strands to Concrete: Transfer Rate and Relationship between Transfer Length and Tendon Draw-in. “Effect of Initial Strand Slip on the Strength of Hollow-Core Slabs. R. Brooks. 7. 1956. REFERENCES 1. 2001. S. V. Riga Technical University and CEB. No. M. A.” PCI Journal. 1992. Furthermore.-Apr... D.. 15. 6. Strands in Pretensioned Concrete. ed. fib. Beier. V.. 38. 90-111. 2000. the range of transfer length values for one same free end slip is very variable. 5. Aug. 1988.” American Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills. Test Method Applicable for Prestressed Reinforcement. Sept. G.. the sequence of stressed end slip values versus the embedment length is a reliable assurance procedure for the experimental determination of transfer length. Proceedings V. Systèmes de Constructions et Ouvrages. 649-659. and Krishnamurthy. 52-90. 1982. 13. W. France. Guyon.. NOTATION = nominal diameter of prestressing strand = modulus of elasticity of prestressing strand = compressive strength of concrete at time of prestress transfer (cylinder) fpi = strand stress immediately before release fse = effective stress in the prestressing strand after allowance for all prestress losses Lt = transfer length LtACI = predicted transfer length according ACI 318-05 α = coefficient to take into account assumed shape of bond stress distribution δ = strand end slip at free end δall2 = allowable free end slip when α = 2 δall3 = allowable free end slip when α = 3 δ = free end slip just after release δAVE = average free end slip after stabilization period obtained in all specimens of series with embedment length equal to or greater than transfer length δl = stressed (loaded) end slip δl = stressed end slip just after release δlAVE = average stressed end slip after stabilization period obtained in all specimens of series with embedment length equal to or greater than transfer length ΔP = force loss after stabilization period ΔPAVE = average force loss after stabilization period obtained in all specimens of series with embedment length equal to or greater than transfer length ΔP = force loss just after release εpi = initial strand strain db Ep fci ′ ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 493 . No. T. Valencia. LCPC. 19. 1953. ACI Committee 318. J..” Techniques et Méthodes. V. pp. Mar. No. D. 1978. R. “Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete: State-of-Art Report. Nov. 6. pp. eds. No. 10. “Transfer Length Determination. 2002. An average value of α = 2. Leon. Marshall.28. H. Jan.” PCI Journal. R. V. Sept.-Oct.. pp. Farmington Hills. pp.44 for Guyon’s formula has been obtained from the experimental results of this study.” ACI JOURNAL. 2. 18. “Transfer Control of Prestressing Strands. The beginning of the horizontal branch is not clearly defined when the dispersion of measured free end slip is wide. Warsaw. 1982. This particularly occurs when concrete has a low compressive strength.” Proceedings of the International Symposium Bond in Concrete: From Research to Practice. pp. July 1969... “Report on Prestressing Steel: 2. Y. Paris. An ample range of free end slip values has been obtained for one same transfer length. 7 pp. pp. and do Carmo. 45-55. 145-169. 244-275. No. pp. France. No. as well as the participation of the technical staff of the Concrete Structures Laboratory at the Polytechnic University of Valencia for their assistance in preparing and testing specimens. France. 42. 4. 5.. R. 577-585. 2.” PCI Journal. 86-93.” Research and Design Centre for Industrial Building (BISTYP). Harries. eds. E. 6. The authors appreciate the collaboration of the aforementioned companies and organizations. Test for the Determination of Tendon Transfer Length under Static Conditions. G. Mar. Steinberg. “Acceptance Criteria for Bond Quality of Strand for Pretensioned Prestressed Concrete Applications. N. 22... RILEM RPC6.2. 2000. “Transfer Length of Strands in Prestressed Concrete Piles. 1992. Switzerland. N. 73. pp. 10. V. 97. Riga.” Structural Concrete. and Kim.. Anderson. “Report on Prestressing Steel: 7. Spain. 12. pp. “Transfer Length of Prestressing Tendons from Concrete Cube Strength at Transfer. London.. V. 4. H. 21. N. Wan. 5. Gerstle. 43. a great variability of results for one same concrete mixture has been observed in transfer length estimation from the experimental free end slips when Guyon’s formula was applied. 46. No. No. “Effects of Sudden Prestress Force Transfer in Pretensioned Concrete Beams. 64-75. Using a limit value for the allowable free end slip as an assurance procedure for bond quality may give rise to uncertain situations. S. 3. in collaboration with the companies PREVALESA and ISOCRON. and Sargand. V. 11. 1976.. V. Balázs. No. 1998. F. Logan. Poland. 53. 427 pp.5 and 0. 16. and Logan. Riga Technical University and CEB.

V. 1997.. F. S. 28. F. “Transfer and Development Length of 15-mm Strand in High-Performance Concrete Girders. 21 pp. M. M.” AENOR. K..V. B. Martí-Vargas. No. S. Prestressed Members.. L. 27. R. 58. “Experimental Study on Bond of Prestressing Strand in High-Strength Concrete.. 774-782. May-June 1993. No. 228-235. pp. pp. pp. Abrishami.” PhD thesis. E. 31. J. and Arbeláez. P. Polytechnic University of Valencia.. Brussels. Nov. V. May-June 1994. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. Madrid. 30. V. No. No. and Reutlinger. 30 pp. 91. E. J. Rizkalla. 36. J. W. 4.” ACI Structural Journal. Joiner.-Dec. C. Fernández-Prada. “Test Method for Determination of the Transmission and Anchorage Lengths in Prestressed Reinforcement. Serna-Ros. CEN. D. A..” ACI Materials Journal. pp. “Cement. C. I.. 3. M. Trezos. “Reduced Strand Spacing in Pretensioned. MiguelSosa. W. 6. and Simmons.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Sept. ProQuest Information and Learning Co. 33. Cousins. Belgium. Spain. Wan. M. T. P. H.-Oct.. G. Part 1: Compositions. No. R. No. No. 7.. 3. “Transfer Length of Epoxy-Coated Prestressing Strand. 37. and Zaghloul. pp.” Magazine of Concrete Research. H. 87. 1999. (in Spanish) 34. Cousins.” European Standard EN 197-1:2000. Kahn. and Harries.. J. Dill.. 29. Z. 277-286. pp. 913-921. 1992. Mich. 35. Petrou. F.. 2003. 2000.” ACI Materials Journal. 494 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . and Zia. and Mitchell. 2006. Feb. A. Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements.. T. H.. P.. V. Martí.. 32. E. 96. UMI number 3041710. July 2002. Johnston. 1.. 128. Comité Européen de Normalisation. Mahmoud. “UNE 36094: Steel Wire and Strand for Prestressed Concrete.. G... 355 pp. 594-602. July-Aug. 97. 60-71. A. May-June 1990. V. No. C. C. “Excessive Strand End Slip in Prestressed Piles. “Transfer and Development Lengths of Carbon Fiber Reinforcement Polymers Prestressing Reinforcing. 3. 90. D.. R. V. 21-29... 2000.. B..” ACI Structural Journal.” ACI Structural Journal.. V. Stallings. “Bond Characteristics of Pretensioned Strand.. 5. 193-203. pp. pp.

performance-based design. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings. Keywords: deformation capacity. JoAnn Browning. (23)). Finally. with column drop panels. INTRODUCTION Two-way slabs without beams are popular floor systems because of their relatively simple formwork and the potential for shorter story heights due to their shallow profile. Primary reinforcement in slabs contributing to lateral load resistance shall include nonprestressed reinforcement. In the last 40 years. and their connections. Wallace Two-way slabs without beams are popular floor systems because of their relatively simple formwork and the potential for shorter story heights. Copyright © 2007. practical recommendations are provided for the PBSD of slab-column connections. The PBSD material is presented in a format consistent with the limit states suggested in FEMA 356 (ASCE 2000) and is intended to provide guidance primarily for new construction. Hueste. and rehabilitated structures. Earthquakes. No. Without proper detailing. are: 1) to review the current state of practice and PBSD approaches for slab-column connections. This structural system is common in regions of low to moderate seismic risk. Finally. or both. Equation (23). “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings” (ASCE 2000) classifies slab-column moment frames as frames that meet the following conditions: 1. Framing components shall be slabs (with or without beams in the transverse direction). however. and relevant experimental data. A column capital is defined as a flared portion of the column below the slab that is cast monolithically with the slab. This paper focuses on the behavior and design of interior slab-column connections under combined gravity and lateral loading and serves to review current design procedures. prestressed reinforcement. Andres Lepage. practical recommendations are provided for defining specific performance objectives. 2) to summarize experimental data for slab-column connections tested under combined gravity and lateral loads. developed by a task group within ACI Committee 374. July-August 2007. if any. PBSD approaches. have demonstrated that slab-column frames are vulnerable to brittle punching shear failures in the slabcolumn connection region and dropping of the slab. could also be applied to existing structures that contain subpar seismic details where a moderate seismic demand is expected. and efficient construction. Shear capitals are provided to increase the shear capacity at the slab-column connection and are defined by Joint ACIASCE Committee 352 (1989) as a thickened portion of the slab around a column that does not meet the ACI 318 plan dimension requirements for drop panels. present a practical approach for PBSD of slab-column connections. and 3. for drift capacity of these systems in terms of the gravity shear ratio. V. is derived using the collected experimental data. and relevant experimental data. and 3) to 448 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . Slab-column connections in structures subjected to earthquake or wind loading must transfer forces due to both gravity and lateral loads. a significant number of experiments have been conducted to evaluate the performance of slabcolumn connections under cyclic lateral loading. Frames shall be of monolithic construction that provides for moment transfer between slabs and columns. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. performance-based design approaches. S-2006-222 received June 1. lower building heights for a given number of stories. Earthquakes. punching shear. the connection can be susceptible to two-way (punching) shear failure during response to lateral loads. which are costly to repair. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The objectives of this paper. This combination can create large shear and unbalanced moment demands at the connection. 104. and with column or shear capitals. This information has formed the basis of current code provisions and guidelines for the design of slab-column connections under combined gravity and lateral loading. This paper focuses on the behavior and design of slab-column connections under combined gravity and lateral loading and reviews current design procedures. 2008. have demonstrated that slab-column frames are not suitable as a main LFRS in regions of high seismic risk because they are relatively flexible and because of the potential for brittle punching shear failures in the slab-column connection region. The flexibility of a slab-column frame can lead to large lateral deformations. including larger open space. columns. effective slab width. where it is allowed as a lateral-force-resisting system (LFRS). The connections between the slab and a column can be accomplished in several ways including direct connection (whether from solid or waffle slab construction). MS No. and John W. however. it is important to evaluate the recommended limits for various structural systems with respect to the latest experimental data and post-earthquake observations. 2. American Concrete Institute. a practical equation that relates drift capacity to gravity shear ratio is presented (Eq. An equation relating the gravity shear ratio at a slab-column connection to drift capacity is presented. As performance-based seismic design (PBSD) becomes more common in structural engineering practice. as well as in regions of high seismic risk for gravity systems where moment frames or shear walls are provided as the main LFRS. This classification includes both frames that are or are not intended to be part of the LFRS for new. 4. The FEMA 356. All rights reserved. existing. and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure. SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES AND CONNECTIONS Slab-column frame construction can deliver several desirable architectural features. will be published in the May-June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. The criteria. As a significant benefit for design approaches outside the PBSD framework. 104-S43 TECHNICAL PAPER Seismic Design Criteria for Slab-Column Connections by Mary Beth D. 2006. however. which may increase the potential ACI Structural Journal.

369. where d1 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 449 . The model was adopted by the 1971 version of the ACI 318 and only minor modifications have been included in subsequent versions. and design and evaluation of prestressed concrete bridge structures. steel. Beams. Composite and Hybrid Structures. the ACI 318-05 design equations for limiting the shear stresses vu are given by vu ≤ φvn Vu γv Mu c vu = ------. John W. He is a member of ACI Committee 318-H. and Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas. Performance-Based Design of Concrete Buildings for Wind Loads. For the condition of two-way action. design and analysis of concrete structures.ACI member Mary Beth D. Pa. and hybrid structural systems subjected to extreme events. ACI 318-05 has incorporated special provisions related to the lateral-load capacity of slab-column connections in structures located in regions of high seismic risk or structures assigned to high seismic performance or design categories. Wallace. and others. This eccentric shear stress model is based on the work by DiStasio and Van Buren (1960) and reviewed by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1962). Andres Lepage. ACI member JoAnn Browning is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil. FACI. however. 335. Tex. structural rehabilitation including seismic retrofitting. This critical section is assumed to be located at a distance d (effective slab depth) from the face of the column or shear capital. 369. Combined flexural and diagonal cracking are coupled with significant in-plane compressive forces in the slab induced by the restraint of the surrounding unyielding slab portions. E803. the slab acts as a wide beam with the critical section for shear extending across the entire width of the slab. truss analogies. Relatively simple design equations have been derived by considering the critical section to be located at d/2 away from the face of the column and by assuming that shear stress on the critical perimeter varies linearly with distance from the centroidal axis. Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. Punching failures around shear capitals were also noted in the post-tensioned floor slabs of a four-story building during the same event (Hueste and Wight 1997). The design approach presented in this section of the paper is based on the design procedures given in ACI 318-05 complemented by ACI 421. The design method specified by ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee 318 2005) provides acceptable estimates of shear strength with reasonable computational effort. He is a member of ACI Committees 318-H. The procedure is based on the results of a significant number of experimental tests involving slab-column specimens. must be considered to determine the demands on the connections. 374. and torsion in the portion of the slab around the column. Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings. University Park. Bond and Development of Reinforcement. Flexure and Axial Loads. Composite and Hybrid Structures. E803. shear. 375. This failure was partly attributed to a high flexibility combined with low-ductility capacities of the waffle slab-to-column connection. 374. Lawrence. For example. 1. Fig. College Station. EarthquakeResistant Concrete Bridges. Her research interests include earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete structures. ACI 318 eccentric shear stress model Slab-column connections experience very complex behavior when subjected to lateral displacements or unbalanced gravity loads. Performance-Based Design of Concrete Buildings for Wind Loads. FACI. is a Professor of civil engineering at the University of California-Los Angeles. and durability of concrete structures. beam analogies. Her research interests include the performance of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loads. Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. laboratory and field testing of structural components and systems. She is a member of ACI Committees 314. Existing methods for calculating the shear strength of slabcolumn connections include applications of elastic plate theory. and Columns. performance-based seismic design. In a department store during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. For a slab-column connection transferring shear and moment. Recently. Slabs. and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352. strip design methods. In beam action. and 375. 374. The seismic performance of reinforced concrete structures with flat-slab construction has demonstrated the vulnerabilities of the system. 335. The eccentric shear stress model is the basis of the general design procedure embodied in ACI 318 for determining the shear strength of slab-column connections transferring shear and moment. and structural health monitoring and use of sensor networks. This involves transfer of flexure. is the effective slab depth within the thickened shear capital region and d2 is the effective slab depth). either beam action or two-way action. CURRENT DESIGN APPROACH General The shear strength of slabs in the vicinity of columns is governed by the more severe of two conditions. Compatibility of lateral deformations between the slab-column frame and the LFRS. Kans. therefore. the critical section is assumed to be located at a distance d/2 from the perimeter of the column or shear capital.± -------------J bo d (1) (2) for punching failures. punching shear failures were noted in a 15-story building with waffle flat-plate construction (Rodriguez and Diaz 1989). For this condition. Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings. Seismic Provisions. slab-column frames are used in conjunction with beamcolumn moment frames or shear walls. Seismic Provisions. with potential diagonal tension cracks occurring along a truncated cone or pyramid passing through the critical section (refer to Fig. conventional beam theory applies and will not be discussed in detail herein. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings. His research interests include response and design of buildings and bridges to earthquake actions. and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Los Angeles. and 408. discontinuous flexural reinforcement at slab-column connections led to punching failures at column drop panels (Holmes and Somers 1996). His research interests include the design of concrete. 318-D.1R-99 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421 1999) and 352. 341.1R-89 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 1989). Hueste is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University. following the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. 1—Critical sections for two-way shear for interior slab-column connection with shear capital. Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. Environmental. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architectural Engineering at Pennsylvania State University. Calif. She is a member of ACI Committees 374. in regions of high seismic risk. Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation.

fpc is the average compressive stress in two vertical slab sections in perpendicular directions.or multiple-leg stirrups properly anchored. Shear reinforcement. (c) increasing the specified compressive strength of concrete. is assumed uniformly distributed on the critical section. (b) adding shear reinforcement. or (d) increasing the column size. (6) is replaced by ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ v c = min ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ Vp 3.5⎞ f c′ (MPa) + 0. fc′ is the specified concrete compressive strength (psi units). which can be in the form of bars or wires and single.+ 2⎞ f c′ (MPa) ⎪ 0.+ ------------6 6 2 3 3 2 (4) (5) The first term of Eq. (2).3 f pc + -------bo d Vp sd ⎛α -------. defined by 1 γ v = 1 – --------------------2 b1 1 + -. the nominal shear strength (in stress units) carried by the concrete vc in nonprestressed slabs is given by ⎧ 4 f c′ (psi) ⎪ ⎪ 4⎞ ⎪ ⎛ 2 + ---.5 MPa) in each direction.17 f c′ (MPa) A v f yv v s = ----------bo s (8) (9) (10) ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .3 f pc + -------⎪ 0. including drop panel.29 f c′ (MPa) + 0. (6) applies. (7) is restricted to cases where fc′ is less than 5000 psi (35 MPa). J is a property of the critical section analogous to the polar moment of inertia.5⎞ f c′ (psi) + 0.5h on either side of the column (h is the slab thickness. if any). and γv is the fraction of the unbalanced moment considered to be transferred by eccentricity of shear. When vu > φvn. and corner columns.+ 2⎞ f c′ (psi) ⎪ ⎝ -------⎠ b ⎩ o (6) ⎧ 0.083 ⎝ -------⎠ bo ⎩ 450 where αs equals 40. Mu is the factored unbalanced bending moment acting about the centroid of the critical section.+ 1. The use of Eq. the slab shear capacity can be increased by: (a) thickening the slab in the vicinity of the column with a column capital. If these conditions are not satisfied.33 f c′ (MPa) ⎪ ⎪ 2⎞ ⎪ 0. 30. For an interior column and a critical section of rectangular shape.3 f pc + -------⎝b ⎠ b d o o (7) ⎧ Vp ⎪ 0. after allowance for all prestress losses.where vu is the factored shear stress. 1).083 ⎛ ⎝ ⎠ b b ⎩ o od where b1 and b2 are the widths of the critical section measured in the direction of the span for which Mu is determined (Direction 1) and in the perpendicular direction (Direction 2). For members with shear reinforcement other than shearheads.5 f c′ (MPa) v c = 2 f c′ (psi) or 0. and Vp is the vertical component of all effective prestress forces crossing the critical section. The provisions of the ACI 318 specify that in absence of shear reinforcement. shear capital.17 ⎛ 1 + ---. fpc ranges between 125 and 500 psi (0. bo and d are defined previously.+ ---------.9 and 3. The portion of the moment not carried by eccentric shear is to be carried by slab flexural reinforcement placed within lines 1. or drop panel. Eq. βc is the ratio of long side to short side of column. In a flat slab with shear capitals or drop panels.---3 b2 (3) For prestressed slabs without shear reinforcement. edge. and 20 for interior. φ is the strength reduction factor for shear.+ 1. the nominal shear strength (in stress units) is calculated using v c = v c + v s ≤ 6 f c′ (psi) or 0.f ′ (MPa) ⎝ or v c = min ⎨ β c⎠ c ⎪ ⎪ ⎛ αs d . and no portion of the column cross section is closer than four times the slab thickness to a discontinuous edge. respectively. bo is the length of the perimeter of the critical section. d is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the longitudinal tension reinforcement.3 f pc + -------⎪ bo d v c = min ⎨ Vp αs d ⎪ -------. stresses must be checked at all critical locations—both at the thickened portion of the slab near the face of the column and at the section outside the shear capital or drop panels (refer to Fig. increases both the shear strength and the ductility of the connection when transferring moment and shear. bo and J are determined by bo = 2(b1 + b2) db 1 b 1 d db 2 b 1 J = ------. Vu is the factored shear force acting at the centroid of the critical section. Design procedures for shearhead reinforcement are presented in Corley and Hawkins (1968) and are not discussed in this paper. This flexural reinforcement is also used to resist slab design moments within the column strip. vn is the nominal shear stress. the slab should be treated as nonprestressed and Eq. the shear stresses due to direct shear. c is the distance from the centroidal axis of the critical section to the point where shear stress is being computed.f ′ (psi) v c = min ⎨ ⎝ β c⎠ c ⎪ ⎪ ⎛ αs d . and the fraction γv Mu is assumed to be resisted by linear variation of shear stresses on the critical section.5 f c′ (psi) + 0. Shear reinforcement consisting of structural steel shapes (shearheads) is also effective in increasing the shear strength and ductility of slab-column connections.

In structures subjected to high winds or seismic loads. fyv is the specified yield strength of shear reinforcement. (9). for which inelastic moment transfer is anticipated. and bo are defined previously. The nominal ultimate concrete shear stress along the critical section acting with shear reinforcement is taken as 2 f c′ (psi) ( 0.5d. s is the spacing of shear reinforcement. (15) may be waived if calculations demonstrate that the imposed displacement will not induce yield in the slab system. diagonal tension cracks begin to form and cracking is needed to mobilize the shear reinforcement. ACI 352.61 m). and without slab shear reinforcement. When lightweight aggregate concrete is used. ACI 318-05 has incorporated this 451 . a slab-column connection should be classified as Type 2 even though it is not designated as part of the primary LFRS.where vs is the nominal shear stress provided by shear reinforcement. ACI 352.75 d when ---≤ 6 f c′ (psi) or 0. s.4vcbod (15) ⎧ vu ⎪ 0. ACI 421.66 f c′ (MPa) v c = 3 f c′ (psi) or 0. For example.8.5%. ACI 352. as follows v c = v c + v s ≤ 8 f c′ (psi) or 0. The report states that Eq. and 2) Type 2— connections requiring sustained strength under moderate deformations into the inelastic range.1R-89 regarding other combinations of shear stress and story drift ratio. the spacing of shear reinforcement is allowed to reach 0.1R-89 only applies to nonprestressed slabcolumn connections with fc′ less than 6000 psi (42 MPa).25 f c′ (MPa) (11) (12) fyv ≤ 72.12. reinforced concrete slab-column connections. in nonprestressed slabs. all bottom bars within the column strip shall be continuous and at least two of the column strip bottom bars in each direction shall pass through the column core (ACI Committee 318 2005. For both prestressed and nonprestressed slabs.1R-89 classifies slab-column connections as one of two types: 1) Type 1—connections not expected to undergo deformations into the inelastic range.5 f c′ (MPa) ⎪ φ s≤⎨ (13) vu ⎪ ⎪ 0.5).5 f c′ (MPa) φ ⎩ ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 where vc is determined by either Eq. and vc. ACI 421.4). (6) or (7).1R-89 references the work by Pan and Moehle (1989) and recommends that for all Type 2 connections—without shear reinforcement—the direct factored shear Vu acting on the connection.1R-89 suggests that the deformation capacity of slab-column connections may be defined as a function of the shear stress due to direct shear only.1R-99 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421 1999) gives recommendations for the design of shear reinforcement using shear studs in slabs.1R-99 suggests treating a shear stud as the equivalent of a vertical branch of a stirrup and to use higher limits on some of the design parameters used in ACI 318. a minimum of two tendons shall be provided in each direction through the critical shear section over columns (ACI Committee 318 2005. and structural integrity for resisting gravity and lateral forces. the use of structural walls may adequately limit the imposed drifts on slab-column frames such that yield at the slab-column connection may not occur.1R-89 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 1989) includes recommendations for the determination of connection proportions and details to ensure adequate performance of monolithic. the maximum spacing of shear reinforcement is 0.000 psi (500 MPa) (14) The justification for these higher values is mainly due to the almost slip-free anchorage of the studs and that the mechanical anchorage at the top and bottom of the stud is capable of developing forces in excess of the specified yield strength at all sections of the stud stem. ACI 421. (6) through (9) is multiplied by 0.17 f c′ [MPa] ) because at approximately this stress.75h but not to exceed 24 in. ACI 352. In nonprestressed slabs. also referred to as shear studs. The limitation defined by Eq.85 for sand-lightweight concrete.> 6 f c′ (psi) or 0. (15) exhibit virtually no post-yield deformation capacity under lateral loading. Thus.1R-89 recommendations ACI 352. Connections not complying with Eq. and do not apply to slab-column connections that are part of a primary LFRS in regions of high seismic risk because slab-column frames are generally considered to be inadequate for multi-story buildings in these areas. ACI 318 mandates continuity reinforcement to give the slab some residual capacity following a single punching shear failure at a single support. In particular.75 for all lightweight concrete or by 0. To ensure a minimal level of ductility. Section 13. ductility. ACI 421. Section 18. This report also includes equations for calculating shear stresses on nonrectangular critical sections.1R-99 refinements ACI 318 sets out the principles of design for slab shear reinforcement but does not make specific reference to mechanically anchored shear reinforcement.4vc. No additional statements are made in ACI 352. The recommendations address connection strength.3. In prestressed slabs.1R-99 suggests higher allowable values for vn. Shear studs have proven to be effective in increasing the strength and ductility of slab-column connections. with or without drop panels or shear capitals. The shear reinforcement or shear capital must be extended for a sufficient distance until the critical section outside the reinforced region satisfies Eq. fc′ . vc. must satisfy Vu ≤ 0. the value of f c′ in Eq. The extent of the shear-reinforced zone is determined to ensure that punching shear failure does not occur immediately outside this region for the design actions. (0. the connection experiences a brittle failure for story drift ratios of approximately 1.4Vc = 0. In prestressed slabs. This approach has been developed further by Moehle (1996) and Megally and Ghali (2000). Av is the area of shear reinforcement.5 d when ---. The approach by ACI 352. Pan and Moehle (1989) found that when the stress due to direct shear approaches 0. and fyv. (15) was based on a review of test data that revealed that the deformation capacity of interior connections without shear reinforcement is inversely related to the direct shear on the connection. The provisions are limited to connections where severe inelastic load reversals are not expected.

for ratios of c2/c1 from 1/2 to 2 and a slab aspect ratio l2/l1 greater than 2/3. 3. If the DR exceeds the limit given by Eq.2S. Wey and Durrani (1992).5 Model building codes (SEI/ASCE 2005) have deformation compatibility requirements for members that are not designated as part of the LFRS.0 VR ( for VR < 0. The connection is evaluated based on a simple relationship between the design story drift ratio (DR) and the shear stress due to factored gravity loads. These members should be able to resist the gravity loads at lateral displacements corresponding to the design level earthquake. Requirements of ACI 318-05.5 f c′ (psi) ( 0. defined by Eq. (16). use of this prescriptive approach is likely to be common. 2—ACI 318-05 relationship for determining adequacy of slab-column connections in seismic regions. must exceed 3. To account for cracking. defined as 452 (16) where bint is the effective width for interior frame connections (interior connections and edge connections with bending perpendicular to the edge).29 f c′ [MPa] ) and the shear reinforcement must extend at least four times the slab thickness from the face of the support. a stiffness reduction factor β has been proposed by Hwang and Moehle (2000) for nonprestressed slabs and is given by c 1 β = 4. One way to accomplish this is to vary the width of the effective beam along the span (Hwang and Moehle 1990).> -l 3 (19) ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . ⎧ DR = ⎨ 3. has incorporated a design provision to account for the deformation compatibility of slab-column connections. The design DR (story drift divided by story height) should be taken as the largest value for the adjacent stories above and below the connection. recommend a minimum length equal to two times the slab thickness from the face of the column. Effects of cross section changes. (6) or (7). such as slab openings. The representative design steps are shown in Fig. concept into a general approach for addressing the deformation capacity of slab-column connections not designated as part of the LFRS. ACI 318-05 does not prescribe a minimum extension of shear capitals.5 where VR is the shear ratio. ACI 318-05. The maximum DR (in percent) that a slab-column connection can tolerate. 2. The term vc is calculated using Eq. be determined using an effective beam width represented as l1 b int = 2 c 1 + --3 (18) Fig. is given by the following relationship and illustrated in Fig. Instead of calculating the induced effects under the design displacement. and that the added cost of providing shear reinforcement at connections is not significant for structures designed for high seismic performance categories. When adding shear reinforcement. ACI 318-05 prescribes that the term vs.Vu VR = ---------------φ vc bo d (17) Fig. For exterior frame connections (corner connections and edge connections with bending parallel to the edge). are to be considered. live. L. (18) is used. half the width defined in Eq. column capitals. If shear capitals. Hwang and Moehle (2000) recommend that the uncracked effective stiffness for a model with rigid joints. Section 21. Recommendations by Hwang and Moehle (2000) may be used to establish the effective stiffness of the slab and to include the impact of cracking. and S are the dead.5. shear reinforcement must be provided (or the connection can be redesigned). where D.5 – 5. 3—Design steps when adding shear reinforcement. Section 21. all potential critical sections must be investigated.6 ) ⎩ 0. Given that this approach is relatively simple. c1 and l1 are the column dimension and slab span parallel to the direction of load being considered.6 ) ( for VR ≥ 0.11.2D + 1. and c2 and l2 correspond to the orthogonal direction. however. ACI 318-05 describes a prescriptive approach.0L + 0. (10). or drop panels are used. and snow loads. in the absence of shear reinforcement. The factored shear force Vu on the slab critical section for two-way action is determined for the load combination 1.11. ANALYTICAL MODELING The shear stresses due to the combined factored shear and moment transferred between the slab and the column under the design displacement can be determined by creating an appropriate analytical model of the slab-column frame and directly assessing the potential for punching.

and zero-length plastic hinges on either side of the connection). Further details of this model are described by Kang et al. the presence of continuity reinforcement through the column cage. and QUD is the deformation-controlled design action. components are classified as having low (DCR < 2). Structures at life safety may have sustained significant damage. Secondary elements are those typically not considered to provide resistance to earthquake effects. Generally. the development of reinforcement. For a given design event and a target performance level. The m-factors for slab-column connections range from 1 to 4 and depend on several parameters: the gravity-shear ratio. c1/l1 of 1/14. Deformation-controlled actions are applicable for components that have the capacity to undergo deformations into the inelastic range without failure. The connections must also be classified as primary or secondary elements to determine the limits for life safety and collapse prevention. while performance objectives define the target performance level to be achieved for a particular intensity of ground motion. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. and reinforcement development at any section. the Basic Safety Objective is defined as life safety-performance for the basic safety earthquake 1 (BSE-1) earthquake hazard level and collapse prevention performance for the BSE-2 earthquake hazard level. plastic rotation is computed as the 453 . PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA A review of current practice with respect to performance-based design is needed to provide context to the material presented subsequently on performance objectives for slab-column connections. Punching failures can occur if the capacity of the connection element is reached or if a limiting story drift ratio is reached for a given gravity shear ratio. 2006). To evaluate acceptability using linear procedures. and the selected performance level. In FEMA 356.where c and l are the column dimension and slab span parallel to the load direction. (2006). the member behavior is modified to account for the significant reduction in stiffness and strength. and collapse prevention. FEMA 356 restricts inelastic response values determined from the analytical model in terms of maximum plastic rotations. Equation (20) can be rearranged for direct comparison of the DCR to m to determine acceptability Q UD DCR ≤ m = ------------κ Q CE (21) The FEMA 356 limiting values for m-factors for two-way slabs and slab-column connections are provided in Table 1. or high (DCR > 4) ductility demands. QCE is the expected strength of a component or element at the deformation level considered. the factor m is only used to evaluate the acceptability of deformation-controlled actions mκQCE ≥ QUD (20) where κ is the knowledge factor used to reduce the strength of existing components based on quality of information. as well as a general framework for creating performance levels and objectives. but still provide an appreciable margin against collapse. shear-moment transfer.4 MPa). Structures at immediate occupancy should have only minor damage. moderate (2 ≤ DCR ≤ 4). Hueste and Wight (1999) suggested an approach for incorporating this behavior into a nonlinear analysis program. after prediction of a punching shear failure. The factor m is intended to provide an indirect measure of the total deformation capacity of a structural element or component. For nonlinear static and dynamic analysis procedures. Kang and Wallace (2005) suggest a direct approach by employing a limit state model. Kang and Wallace (2005) recommend β = 0. Structures at collapse prevention are expected to remain standing. Based on the demand to capacity ratio (DCR). where. shear. an action is classified as either deformation-controlled or force-controlled.5 for post-tensioned floor systems with approximate values for span-to-slab thickness ratios of 40. As such. The acceptance criteria based on linear analysis procedures are expressed in terms of m-factors. Structural performance levels in FEMA 356 include immediate occupancy. The analytical model of the slab-column frame should capture the potential for both slab yielding and connection failure due to punching as recommended in FEMA 356. calculated using the linear static or dynamic analysis procedures. The FEMA 356 guidelines note that the analytical model for a slab-column frame should consider all potential failures including flexure. The FEMA 356 prestandard (ASCE 2000) provides analytical procedures and criteria for the performancebased evaluation of existing buildings and for designing seismic rehabilitation alternatives. In FEMA 356. but with little margin against collapse. 4—Modeling of slab-column connection (adapted from Kang et al. and precompression of 200 psi (1. The modeling information mentioned previously gives a convenient and relatively straightforward approach to modeling the behavior of slabcolumn frames for nonlinear static and dynamic analysis. BSE-1 is the smaller event corresponding to 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (10% in 50 years) and 2/3 of the BSE-2 (2% in 50 years) event. FEMA 356 provides acceptance criteria when using either static or dynamic analysis based on linear and nonlinear procedures. performance levels describe limitations on the maximum damage sustained during a ground motion. an elastic slab-beam with stiffness properties defined by the effective beam width model. This prestandard includes recommended limits for deformation capacities based on the calculated gravity shear ratio. life safety. Figure 4 shows an approach where yielding within the slab column strip is modeled using slab-beam elements (in this case.

6—Test data for interior slab-column connection specimens with shear reinforcement. a number of slab-column specimens with stud-shear reinforcement (SSR) attained story drift ratios well over 3% before failure.” Fig.9). it is critical for the nonlinear model to represent the maximum plastic rotation for a certain level of demand. and the selected performance level (immediate occupancy. 1995. with and without shear reinforcement. Therefore.1 to 0. The peak drift is defined as the drift corresponding to the peak lateral load. LS = life safety. Robertson and Johnson 2006) and available data is included in Table 2. and 3 occurs for given component. when available. The maximum drift at which an interior connection will fail can be estimated from the gravity shear ratio Vg/Vo (Pan and Moehle 1989. difference between the maximum rotation during analysis and the yield rotation at the member end. Otherwise. In particular. 2.Table 1—Acceptance criteria for linear procedures— two-way slabs and slab-column connections (adapted from FEMA 356 [ASCE 2000]) m-factors by performance level* Component type Primary Conditions Continuity reinforcement§ Yes Yes No No 2 1 2 1 — 2 *IO † Secondary LS † IO LS CP CP 1. ‡ Vg = gravity shear acting on slab critical section and Vo = direct punching shear strength as defined by ACI 318. are compared in Fig.4 2 1 2 1 — 2 3 1 3 1 — 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 4 3 3 1 4 4 Fig. It may be observed that punching shear occurs for a large range of Vg/Vo values (approximately 0.02 radians for primary slab-column connections and from 0. flexure F.2 ≥ 0. Tables 2 and 3 provide information on interior slabcolumn connection test specimens. The failure mode for each specimen is provided. Therefore.0 to 0. or collapse prevention). These limits are based on the gravity-shear ratio. while flexural failures primarily occur for Vg/Vo values of 0. Figure 6 provides a similar plot for interior slab-column connection specimens with shear reinforcement. The plastic rotation limits in FEMA 356 range from 0. with and without shear reinforcement. and CP = collapse prevention. (8) through (10).4 ≤ 0. The experimental data indicates that larger drift ratios are possible when shear reinforcement is used. Slabs controlled by inadequate embedment into slab-column joint† = immediate occupancy. EXPERIMENTAL DATA Over the past 40 years.3 or less. Where that slab is post-tensioned. as either: punching shear P. Dovich and Wight 1996. The gravity shear ratio and peak drift are also provided for each specimen. and Luo and Durrani (1995). Limited tests have been conducted for nonductile slab-column connections where the bottom slab reinforcement is discontinuous at the interior slab-column connection (Durrani et al. experimental studies have been conducted by researchers at a number of universities. 2. §Under heading “Continuity reinforcement. Much of the earlier data has been summarized by Pan and Moehle (1989). The figure shows the direct influence of the gravity shear ratio on the lateral drift capacity of slabcolumn connections.0 to 0. life safety. Slabs controlled by inadequate development or splicing along span† 3. (6) or (7). 5—Test data for interior slab-column connection specimens with no shear reinforcement. When more than one of Conditions 1. A similar ratio can be computed for slabs with shear reinforcement by replacing vc with vn defined by Eq. use “Yes” where at least one of post-tensioning tendons in each direction passes through column cage. Figure 5 provides a plot of peak drift as a function of Vg/Vo for interior slab-column connection specimens with no shear reinforcement. use minimum appropriate numerical value from table. use “No. Slab controlled by flexure and slab-column connections Vg /Vo‡ ≤ 0. the maximum drift attained for a particular specimen may be larger than the reported peak drift. the development of reinforcement. Megally and Ghali (1994). or a 454 combination of flexure and punching shear (F-P) where a punching shear failure occurred at a higher drift level following yielding of the slab reinforcement.2 ≥ 0.” use “Yes” where at least one of the main bottom bars in each direction is effectively continuous through column cage. Luo and Durrani 1995). along ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . 7. the presence of continuity reinforcement through the column cage.05 radians for secondary slab-column connections. The data from slab-column connection tests. The gravity shear ratio represents the unfactored vertical gravity shear Vg divided by the theoretical punching shear strength without moment transfer Vo determined using Vo = vc bo d (22) The term vc is calculated using Eq.

Performance-based seismic design (PBSD) criteria are suggested in the following.08 0.43 0.00 3. (1993) 2 3 4 SM 0.70 2.24 0.50 1.07 0. life safety. Joints 1 2 3C ND1C * * Vg/Vo 0.24 0.17 3.80 3.85 1.50 3.50EW/0.19 0. For this reason. (1995) DNY 2* DNY 3 Elgabry and Ghali (1987) 1 1 Farhey et al.23 0.37 0.18 0.5 A12 A13L B16 Hanson and Hanson (1968) B7 C17 C8 S1 Hawkins et al.5 Ghali et al. Likewise.20 1.00 2.52 0.23 0. NS = north-south lateral load for biaxial test.75NS 2.17 0. compatibility of deformations must be considered to calculate the demands at the slab-column connections.00 1.56 2.86 0.42 0.70 2. with the ACI 318-05 limits for assessing the need for shear reinforcement.60 1.00 2.50 3.46 0.20 0.00 2. (2002) Symonds et al.03 0.I INT1 INT2 MG-2A Vg/Vo 0.00 2. As noted previously.81 0.00 to 5.50 6.04 0.35 0.50 1.30 0.00 3. they do resist lateral loads during a seismic event even if they were designed for gravity loads only.45 0. NA: Not available.60 NA 4.26 Peak drift.30 0.03 0. and hysteretic behavior for nonlinear models).28 0.19 0.35 0.54 0.75 3.50 3.15 0.50 3.85 0.15 0. Note: EW = east-west lateral load for biaxial test.80 1.22 0.00 3. % Mode 0.00 6. the analytical model should include the strength and stiffness of the slab-column ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 frames to ensure an accurate representation of the overall building stiffness and allow an evaluation of the magnitude of the lateral load that must be resisted by the slab-column frame members.00 2.22 0.30 2.00 5.29 0.50 3.33 4. in regions of high seismic risk.45 0.30 0.67 3. and collapse prevention) and seismic design requirements for slab-column connections that are adopted in ACI 318-05.18 0.50 1.47 0.20 4.70 NA NA NA 3.40 0.21 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.75 2.50 0.40 6.29 0. A strength reduction factor of φ = 1 is used when determining Vg/Vo for the test data.28 0.00 NA NA 1. F = flexural failure.25 0.80 NA 5.00 3.30 Mode F P P P F-P F-P F-P F F F F F F-P F-P F-P F-P P P F-P P F F-P F F P P F-P P P P P F F P F-P Luo and Durrani (1995) DNY 4* Megally and Ghali (2000) MG-7 MG-8 MG-9 S1 S2 Morrison and Sozen (1983) S3 S4 S5 AP 1 AP 2 AP 3 AP 4 1 2 3 4 1 2C 3SE Pan and Moehle (1989) Pan and Moehle (1992) Robertson and Durrani (1990) 5SO 6LL 7L 8I Robertson et al. The criteria are based on experimental data of interior slab-column connections under combined gravity and lateral load.36 0.00 3.40 3.70 3.25 0. the slab-column connections of two-way 455 .10 2.00 2. as such.29 0. (1974) S2 S3 S4 Hwang and Moehle (1990) Islam and Park (1976) 4 Int.22 0.17 4.20EW/1.60 4.0 SM 1. (1976) 1C S6 S7 SC 0 ND4LL* ND5XL Robertson and Johnson (2006) * * ND6HR NC7LR* ND8BU* *Bottom Wey and Durrani (1992) SC 2 SC 4 SC 6 Zee and Moehle (1984) INT slab reinforcement is discontinuous at interior connection.33 0.81 4. PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Research studies and past structural performance have shown that slab-column frames provide lateral stiffness contributions to the overall LFRS and. cracked section properties.40 0.33 0.21 Peak drift.15 0. The line defined by ACI 318-05 is a reasonable lower-bound limit for the data corresponding to specimens without shear reinforcement. The suggested criteria reference FEMA 356 performance levels (immediate occupancy.31 0.18 0.24 0.90 1. P = punching shear failure. and F-P = flexural and punching shear failure. % 5.00 NA NA NA F P F F-P P F F P P F F-P F-P P P P F-P F-P F P P P P NA P P F-P F-P F-P P P F-P F-P Source Label I.29 0.58 0.00 3.45 3.79NS 3.26 0.80 4.10 3.04 3.29 0. (1976) SM 1.26 0.10 1.21 0.03 0.23 0.50 4.00 3. The appropriate parameters that should be included in such a model were highlighted previously (effective slab width for equivalent beams.65 0.Table 2—Test data for interior slab-column connection test specimens with no shear reinforcement Source Dilger and Cao (1991) Label CD 1 CD 2 CD 8 DNY 1* Durrani et al.

For all performance levels. Table 4 summarizes the key points for the recommended PBSD criteria and the values are shown graphically in relationship to the test data in Fig.24 0.43 0. As the approximate mean of the data for specimens without shear reinforcement (Fig.5% drift capacity.5 0.60 5. (16) also underscore the direct relationship between these two parameters. The life safety performance level was initially defined as 2/3 of the values used for collapse prevention. and CP = collapse prevention.47 0. (23) as a reference for selecting the collapse prevention performance level limits. 5. LS = life safety.90 4. the mean for the data gives the following expression for the maximum story drift ratio (in percent) Vg DR = 5 – 7 ----Vo (23) Note: SSR = stud-shear reinforcement.00 4. % reinforcement Mode 0.70 5. P = punching shear failure. and F-P = flexural and punching shear failure.50 6.10 5.50 SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR Stirrups Stirrups Stirrups Stirrups Stirrups Bent up Shear head Stirrups Stirrups Stirrups Closed hoop Headed stud Single leg SSR SSR SSR SSR SSR Closed hoop S1 S1 S2 S2 S1 S2 S2 NA NA NA NA P P P P C3 P F NA F P P P P P F F F NA NA F-P F-P F-P F Note: IO = immediate occupancy.Table 3—Test data for interior slab-column connection test specimens with shear reinforcement Source Label SJB-1 SJB-2 SJB-3 Dilger and Brown (1995) SJB-4 SJB-5 SJB-8 SJB-9 CD 3 Dilger and Cao (1991) CD 4 CD 6 CD 7 2 Elgabry and Ghali (1987) 3 4 5 SS1 Hawkins et al.47 0.50 5. As suggested by the FEMA 356 limits for slab-column connections. The suggested line for life safety corresponds to the ACI 318-05 design limits (refer to Fig.56 0.80 5. The life safety performance level includes the combination of Vg/Vo = 0.0 0.40 7. 1/3 of the values for collapse prevention was used.91 0.50 5.97.00 3.00 3.87 0. (2002) 4HS 3SL MG-10 MG-3 Megally and Ghali (2000) MG-4 MG-5 MG-6 Robertson and Durrani (1990) 4S Shear Vg /Vo Peak drift.60 6. It is important to note the direct influence of the gravity shear ratio on the lateral drift capacity of slabcolumn connections without shear reinforcement illustrated by the test data in Fig.5 0.33 4.48 0.49 0.27 0. The drift limits determined using the aforementioned parameters were the basis for finalizing the key points of the graphed PBSD criteria.59 0. 7).43 4.48 0.5 CP 5.15 0.17 4. 2). which is consistent with the recommendation in ACI 352. the collapse prevention limits correspond to a 50% probability of failure (without considering the load and resistance factors provided in the ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .6.46 0. 7.50 4. The collapse prevention limits correspond to approximately the mean of the experimental data for specimens without shear reinforcement.16 0.48 0.60 0. The ACI 318-05 seismic design limits for slabcolumn connections given in Eq.47 0.00 6.42 0.70 5. Thus.31 0.6 1.20 5.64 0.0 0. the drift limits for the immediate occupancy performance level are relatively low so that the slab-column frame members remain at or near the elastic range of behavior.85 1.4 and a drift of 1.1R-89 that the gravity shear ratio should be kept below 0.23 0.62 0.60 NA NA NA NA 3.0 Drift ratio.95 and a zero intercept of 4. 7—Comparison of recommended performance-based seismic design limits with slab-column connection test data. Fig. (1975) SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 4S 5S Islam and Park (1976) 6CS 7CS 8CS 2CS Robertson et al.25 0. a constant story drift ratio capacity is assigned for gravity shear ratios in excess of 0. results in a line defined by a slope of –6.24 0. and for immediate occupancy.23 0. %. slabs without beams must be checked for the induced effects caused by the lateral displacement expected for the designbasis earthquake.51 0.47 0.19 1 Table 4—Key points for recommended PBSD criteria for interior slab-column connections Gravity shear ratio (Vg / Vo) 0.6.49 0. S2 = shear failure in shear in zones without shear reinforcement.00 4. this relationship is critical to the development of appropriate PBSD criteria for slab-column connections.25 LS 3.86 0.20 0.75 0.5%.50 4. by performance level IO 1.47 0.40 5. Linear regression analysis on the experimental data for slab-column connections without shear reinforcement and having a gravity shear ratio Vg/Vo less than 0.50 5.70 7.10 3.75 0.75 5. C3 = crushing failure at column face without apparent punching shear failure. NA: not available.4 to ensure some minimal ductility with the availability of approximately 1. 456 The PBSD criteria suggested herein use Eq. S = shear failure outside shear reinforced zone. For the suggested PBSD criteria.10 0.40 4. F = flexural failure.50 3.

2. 997-1008. July-Aug. Institut F&Uuml. 3. “RC Flat Slab-Column Subassemblages under Lateral Loading... “Transfer of Bending Moment between Flat Plate Floor and Column.. N. 6). 1997.. V. V. No. and the immediate occupancy limits. N. Elgabry.” Federal Emergency Management Agency. pp. J.0. pp. Proceedings V. K. Proceedings V. V. 1987. Dilger. DiStasio. currently φ = 0... J.. and Sheu. 1960.” ACI Structural Journal. A direct comparison of the suggested PBSD criteria to the FEMA 356 acceptance criteria is not simply accomplished because FEMA limits are in terms of plastic rotations rather than drift ratios.” Earthquake Spectra. Seattle. and Luo. Oct. V. P.. Tex. 479-487. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the members of ACI Committee 374. Practical recommendations are provided for PBSD of slab-column connections under seismic loading conditions that can be readily implemented into design practice. 430 pp. however. pp. the life safety limits. and Hawkins. 10. “Models for Laterally Loaded SlabColumn Frames. Switzerland.. Corley. a graduate student at Texas A&M University.. The contribution of Y. consideration must be given to increased lateral forces resulting from the structural modification. pp. 5. A. A relationship between drift capacity and gravity shear ratio is provided in Eq. 2) reduce the story drift ratio to be within the allowable limit by stiffening the lateral system. L. Eth Z&Uuml. representing an average of the collected experimental data.. 1995. 12. Y. When the story drift limit corresponding to the acting gravity shear ratio is exceeded for the performance level considered. P. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 566-572. An assessment of the experimental data versus the ACI 318-05 recommendations for slab-column connections indicate that the limits for determining the necessity of slab shear reinforcement are a reasonable lower bound of the test data. PerformanceBased Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings.. various options exist.-Apr. pp. J. “Tests on Slab-Column Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure. University of California-Berkeley... and Hanson. P... The proposed limits correlate well with the ACI 318-05 seismic design provisions for slab-column connections and provide a practical approach for conducting PBSD for slab-column connections. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05). and Brown. 7 for comparison. Very few reports for slab-column connection specimens include plastic rotation data.. however. “Behaviour of Slab-Column Connections under Reversed Cyclic Loading. could also be applied to existing structures that contain subpar seismic details where a moderate seismic demand is expected. defined as 1/3 of collapse prevention. Hawkins. W. Z. D. D..” Proceedings of the Second International Conference of High-Rise Buildings. D.. M. Mar. No. Durrani. 549-568. 1995. The aforementioned PBSD criteria are intended primarily for new construction. 2000. D. adding shear capitals.-Oct. S. H. “Nonlinear Punching Shear Failure Model for Interior Slab-Column Connections..” ACI Structural Journal.. V.. Mich. Berkeley. For assessing the expected performance of a structure. and collapse prevention. M. pp. including: 1) reduce the gravity shear ratio by thickening the slab. ASCE.. 457 .. pp. and Cao. 299-314. Kim. the experimental data indicates that larger drift ratios are possible when shear reinforcement is used (refer to Fig.. 1. S.. whereas for new building design.. M. pp. 1994: Reconnaissance Report. 10.” ACI Structural Journal. “Punching of Flat Plates under Static and Dynamic Horizontal Forces. No. and Wight. and relevant experimental data. “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA Publication 356). 387-414. J.” ACI JOURNAL.” Earthquake Spectra. Farmington Hills. W. and Van Buren. UCB/ SEMM-90/11. 3.-H. Vo should include a strength reduction factor for shear. No. 2005. pp. W. No. 528 pp.. No.” Report No. and Wight. pp. V. ASCE. 1968. 224-225 Hueste. Hawkins. D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This paper focuses on the behavior and design of interior slab-column connections under combined gravity and lateral loading and serves to review current design procedures. V. Geburtstag. College Station...C.R Baustatik Und Konstruktion.. M. Hugo Bachmann Zum 60. Dovich. D. 57. D. Holmes.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. “Northridge Earthquake of January 17. V. M. Mar. 2. Mitchell... pp. The recommended PBSD criteria in this paper use two key parameters for assessing slab-column connections: the gravity shear ratio at the connection and the maximum story drift ratio. A. K. and Hanna. M.” Journal of the Structural Division. No. or 3) add shear reinforcement as prescribed by ACI 318-05. The use of story drift ratio allows a direct comparison to the experimental data and is readily available when conducting a structural ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 analysis. or adding drop panels. No. V. pp. and Park. 22-27. Farhey. 1975.Rich.. for their input. “Cyclic Behavior of Six Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Specimens Transferring Moment and Shear. pp.” Journal of Structural Engineering. 1976. pp. Calif. 1974. Wash. Assuming a normal distribution. 1976. For Options 1 and 2. “Tests on Concrete Slab-Column Connections with Stud-Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-Moment Transfer.. In addition. (23). W.” ACI JOURNAL. N. 1991. 811-824. No. The criteria. H.” Festschrift Professor Dr. 271 pp. 1968. “Shear and Moment Transfer between Concrete Slabs and Columns. No. No. correspond to approximately 5% probability of failure. Supplement C. China. M. W. J. Y. Ghali. “An Experimental Study of FlatPlate Structures Under Vertical and Lateral Loads. A. 10 pp. 4. FEMA 356. Hwang. N. and Moehle. Proceedings V. 433-442. Hueste. 97.. J. M. V. pp. 345-353. and Somers. is also appreciated. 73. “Seismic Resistance of Nonductile Slab-Column Connections in Existing Flat-Slab Buildings. 11. W. Dilger.. 119. REFERENCES ACI Committee 318.. and Ghali. 572-582. S. Du.” Journal. 125.” Earthquake Spectra. P.. “Evaluation of a Four-Story Reinforced Concrete Building Damaged During the Northridge Earthquake. J. A. and Yankelevsky. 1996.” Progress Report 1973-74 on NSF Project GI-38717. correspond to less than 1% probability of failure. V.. and Wight. S. S. and 3) lack of continuity reinforcement through the column cage. PCA Research and Development Laboratories. University of Washington. N. Islam. 4.. life safety.. Section II. 2000.. and Dilger. 2) inadequate embedment into the slab-column joint. M. M. In general. K. N. 102. “Earthquake Resistance of SlabColumn Connection. “Lateral Response of Older Flat Slab Frames and Economic Effect on Retrofit.75 in ACI 318-05. R. 667-691. 13. 10. S.. G. One exception is that FEMA 356 does not allow plastic rotation in primary components when the gravity shear ratio is above 0. 1999. the value of Vo should be computed with φ = 1. J. A. J.” Journal of the Structural Division. 1903-1916. performance-based seismic design (PBSD) approaches. including: 1) inadequate development or splicing along the slab span. Oct. “Shearhead Reinforcement for Slabs.. J. 1996. ST3. Hanson. Washington. Sept. J. 1990.. defined as 2/3 of collapse prevention. 6. Elmasri. 1993.. Adin.code). the proposed PBSD limits appear to be in the range of the corresponding FEMA 356 limits. 50 pp. 1-16.. 65. 92. T. Hwang..4. “Effects of Shear Reinforcement on the Reversed Cyclic Loading Behavior of Flat Plate Structures.” ACI JOURNAL.” American Concrete Institute. Mitchell. 9. Three performance levels are used to match those in FEMA 356: immediate occupancy.. provides limits in terms of plastic rotations for nonlinear analysis procedures that are determined in part by the gravity shear ratio at the slab-column connections. Z. FEMA 356 is intended for assessing existing structures and also addresses cases involving several possible deficiencies.. The data for the shear reinforced specimens are included in Fig. For Option 3.. 84. and Moehle. a distinction is made between primary and secondary components. ASCE. No.

Farmington Hills. and Diaz.” Structural Engineering Institute. 89. W. E. 3. 80 pp. 2000. “Lateral Load Tests of R/C Slab-Column Connections. P.. 2005. University of Washington.-Oct. Mar.. A. “Cyclic Testing of Slab-Column Connections with Shear Reinforcement.. Pan. Lee. MayJune. 303-314. 2699-2714. No... 356-364. Robertson. and Durrani. San Francisco. and Durrani. Calif. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering... 5.. Nov. Nov.” ACI Structural Journal. 97. 1994. Zee. 1984. “Shear and Diagonal Tension. K. Waffle Flat Plate Building. eds. 22 pp. “Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352. 1976.” ACI Structural Journal. (CD-ROM) Luo..” ACI Structural Journal.-Feb.” ACI Structural Journal. 5.. Calif. J.. No.” Paper 0362.. and Moehle.-Dec. “Equivalent Beam Model for Flat-Slab Buildings—Part 1: Interior Connections. G. 763-773.. I. 3. J. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. and Johnson. W. Mich. S. and Ghali... Wey. “Seismic Design Considerations for Flat Plate Construction. Robertson. 458 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . 6.. A.-Oct. “Seismic Response of Interior Slab-Column Connections with Shear Capitals. Sept.. “Seismic Response of Connections in Indeterminate Flat-Slab Subassemblies. Department of Civil Engineering. pp.. V. 99.” Report No.1R-89).. 102. No... T. 1999. Farmington Hills. pp. P. P.. and Hawkins. D. Rodriguez. 2005. Farmington Hills. Symonds.Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326.” Mete A. American Concrete Institute.” Progress Report on NSF Project GI-38717. H. I.. 2006. V. 1.” ACI Structural Journal. No. pp. A. 1990. Kang.” ACI JOURNAL. Megally.” ACI Structural Journal. Jan. 1992. pp. 89.. May-June. pp. and Moehle... 682-691.-Dec. and Ghali. V.” Earthquake Spectra. and Wallace. pp. pp. W. 1989.. 1995. V. V... Elwood. 3. 1983. J.. 103. Pan.. K. “Behavior of Interior and Exterior Flat Plate Connections Subjected to Inelastic Load Reversals. “Punching Shear Design of Earthquake-Resistant Slab-Column Connections.. Y. M. and Enomoto. Mitchell.. 10 pp. T. pp. 1996. V. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352. pp. J. Moehle. 15 pp. pp. ASCE. and Durrani. J. 1992. No. 41. “Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates. Tex. 92. 2006. E. SEI/ASCE. “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures (SEI/ASCE 7-05). H. Sept. K.” Report No.. No.. Va. “An Experimental Study of SlabColumn Connections. “Design Considerations for Slab-Column Connections in Seismic Zones. Sept. 115-124. “Slab-Column Connections Subjected to High Intensity Shears and Transferring Reversed Moments.. 6..1R-99). Wash. Kang. Rice University. 3. MayJune. A. Reston. V. 1989. N.. G. T. Wight and M. H. C. D.. 1989. “Dynamic Response of Flat Plate Systems with Shear Reinforcement. Proceedings of the 8th U. No. Kawai. No. Kreger. ASCE. 376 pp. H. 626-638. M. 91. A. J. 266 pp. Seattle. B. A. 11.” ACI Structural Journal.. pp.. J. S. J..” ACI Structural Journal. 5. pp. J. 1962... 353-396. No. A. and Wallace. Department of Civil Engineering. Robertson. “Analysis of the Seismic Performance of a Medium Rise. V. Proceedings V. Mich. V.. 605-613.S. V.” ACI Structural Journal.. 109. and Sozen. “Shear Reinforcement for Slabs (ACI 421. Berkeley. No. 25-40. J. 1. 59. L. J.” Journal of the Structural Division.. 720-730. Megally.. No. P.” American Concrete Institute.. Houston. and Moehle. V. “Dynamic Tests and Modeling of RC and PT Slab-Column Connections. M. 86. J. Morrison.. pp. A.-Oct. 1-35.” American Concrete Institute.. Mich. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421. D. UCB/EERC-84/07. SP-162. K. Sozen Symposium: A Tribute from his Students. University of California-Berkeley. “Cyclic Lateral Loading of Nonductile Slab-Column Connections. Slabs. I. 130 pp. 2002. 5. No. 250-258.

The study included both experimental and analytical components to evaluate the seismic performance of bridge columns with double interlocking spirals with different parameters. All rights reserved. INTRODUCTION The current seismic design philosophy for reinforced concrete structures relies on confinement of concrete to provide the necessary ductility and energy dissipation capacity of structural members. 104. the test parameters were selected to capture the effect of a range of realistic horizontal shear stresses. variation of the axial load ratios. The effect of other parameters such as axial load and material strength was not considered because the variation of these parameters in real bridges is relatively small. 4.5 times the spiral radius is satisfactory. To address these issues. the amount of tie reinforcement is greater than that provided by spirals. a study was undertaken using large-scale testing of bridge column models on one of the shake tables of the University of Nevada-Reno.S. will be published in the May-June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1. the level of shear. The Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS)1 and Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)2 are currently the only codes in the U. The circular shape of spirals makes them suitable for circular and square columns. recommendations exist. di. July-August 2007. di. Keywords: bridge. 2008. Correal. Previous studies have shown that columns with interlocking spirals have a satisfactory behavior. and tested. for the design of columns with interlocking spirals. seismic behavior. including a comparison between interlocking spirals and ties. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure. including the spread between the spiral sets. No. whereas the study in Reference 3 places an upper limit of 1. load-displacement responses. Another advantage of spirals is that they are generally easier to construct. The focus of this paper is on the experimental phase of the investigation. horizontal distance between centers of the spirals. Conflicting ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 393 . and reviewed under Institute publication policies. spiral distance. As a result. Details of all aspects of the study are presented in Reference 6. Spirals confine concrete more effectively than rectilinear ties because they counteract the dilation of concrete through hoop action instead of a combination of bending and hoop action that takes place in rectilinear ties. two or more sets of interlocking spirals are used. that include provisions for the design of columns with interlocking spirals. Confinement is mainly provided by the transverse reinforcement. however. Because the amount of research on interlocking spirals has been limited. David Sanders. supplementary crossties are needed to prevent premature vertical shear cracking and strength degradation in columns with relatively high shear. the design provisions are driven mainly by research on single spirals. are in conflict with some of the recommendations that are based on the limited available past studies. However. Studies3-5 were conducted on the effect of several design parameters. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. These studies generally concluded that flexural and shear capacities of columns with interlocking spirals can be conservatively estimated using current procedures. American Concrete Institute. Copyright © 2007. and 3) supplementary horizontal crossties. if any. and the apparent plastic hinge lengths were examined to evaluate the response. interlocking spirals. and 3) identify cases and limit states in which supplemental crossties are needed. The spirals are designed based on provisions that have yet to be verified and. 2) the horizontal distance between the centers of the spirals.2R on the horizontal distance of the centers of the spirals. The average horizontal shear stress was calculated as the lateral load divided by the effective shear area taken equal to ACI Structural Journal. appropriate size and spacing of longitudinal bars in the interlocking region. For example. and crossties. The limit of 1. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES Test specimens Six large-scale specimens were designed. The research presented in this paper was used to: 1) evaluate the dynamic performance of bridge columns that are designed based on the current Caltrans provisions. Six large-scale column models were designed and tested on a shake table at the University of NevadaReno to study the effects of the shear level. The results revealed that the Caltrans upper spiral distance limit of 1. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Interlocking spirals are used in the columns of many bridges. which in columns usually consists of spirals in members with circular or square shape and ties in those with square or rectangular cross sections. in part. S-2005-200 received August 8.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. M. recommended in Reference 3 is to ensure sufficient vertical shear transfer between adjacent spiral sets. The observed damage progression. The test variables are listed in Table 1. and Saad El-Azazy The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) code provides the only guidelines in the U. to provide the same level of confinement. the BDS upper limit on the distance between the centers of adjacent spirals is 1. Saiid Saiidi.S.5 times the radius of the spiral R. Because vertical shear is a function of horizontal shear. with respect to the distance between spiral sets and uncertainties about the need for supplemental crossties between adjacent spiral sets. MS No. 2) determine if the limits in the provisions are satisfactory. columns. 2005. The test variables were: 1) the level of average shear stress. quantity of transverse reinforcement. V. and crossties. constructed. 104-S37 TECHNICAL PAPER Shake Table Studies of Bridge Columns with Double Interlocking Spirals by Juan F. To use the benefits of spirals in rectangular columns. but none of them have addressed the Caltrans upper limit on horizontal spacing between centers of the spirals in detail and none used dynamic testing.2R. and cross section shape. reinforcement strains.

In this study. is an Associate Professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Nevada-Reno. His research interests include the seismic design of bridges and applications of innovative materials for design. 80% of the gross area (SDC). The specified concrete compressive strength was 34.25 1. His research interests include shake table studies of reinforced concrete bridges.2 the displacement ductility is defined as the displacement divided by the effective yield displacement excluding bond slip and shear deformations. is a Professor of civil and environmental engineering and is the Director of the Office of Undergraduate Research at the University of Nevada-Reno. He is a Past Chair and a member of ACI Committee 341.0 7. Bridge Evaluation.1 2. is specified.0 2. and is a member of the ACI Technical Activities Committee.0% and 394 Fig. The displacement-based design procedure in the SDC2 was used for a target displacement ductility capacity of 5.083√f ′c (MPa) (√f ′c [psi]). 544.9 2.Juan F. although shear damage is expected to increase as the shear index increases. The third initial L or H was for the shear index of low or high.9* * Steel ratio from additional crossties is not included. These indexes represent column shear stresses in real bridges.5 ρl .9 ρs . In the specimens with low shear. E803. The initials I and S represented interlocking and spirals. David Sanders.0R. respectively. Ohio. Scale factors of 1/4 for the specimens with low shear and 1/5 for the columns with high shear were selected. This index represents the level of shear in the column. and rehabilitation of structures. two levels of shear were selected: low index equal to 3 and high index equal to 7. repair. is Past Chair of ACI Committee 341.25 Shear index 3. (where R is measured to the outside edge of the spiral) for the horizontal distance of the spirals. Saad EI-Azazy is the Seismic Research Program Manager at the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).25 ISH1.0 1. The experimental program was developed to use one of the shake tables at the Large-Scale Structures Laboratory at the University of Nevada-Reno. The longitudinal reinforcement was continuous with 90-degree standard hooks at the ends. Colombia. The details of the cross section and the elevations of the specimens are shown in Fig. Additional crossties with the same bar size as the spirals and spacing of two times the spacing of the spirals were used based on a design recommendation described in Reference 6.6 0. E804. His research interests include analysis and shake table studies of reinforced concrete bridges and application of innovative materials.9 2. the height was taken from the top of the footing to the center of the lateral loading head because these columns were tested in single curvature cantilever mode.0 2. 369. A maximum limit of 1.5R. measured center-to-center of the spirals. Giza.0 ISH1. and his MS and PhD from Ohio State University.5 ISH1. Columbus. The height for others was taken as the clear distance between the top of the footing and the bottom of the loading head because these columns were tested in double curvature.8% were selected for the longitudinal reinforcement. Of the six models used in this study. A minimum distance of 1. Egypt.9 0. and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352. 2. Educational Awards Nomination Committee.0 2. where he received his BS and MSCE. was used to represent the axial load level in real bridge columns. Three alphabetical characters followed by a number were used to identify the test specimens.9 0. Correal is an Assistant Professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Los Andes.5 1. Typical steel ratios of 2.6 2.5 times the radius of the spirals. Table 1—Test variables Steel reinforcement Specimen ISL1.5 1.0 7. He received his BS from Cairo University. two were designed with a di of 1.1 0. The average measured concrete strength of the standard cylindrical ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges. He is Chair of ACI Committee 445. The transverse steel ratio was designed to provide sufficient confinement for the columns to reach the target displacement ductility capacity. These were the largest scales that could be used without exceeding shake table capacity. Note: ρl = ratio of longitudinal reinforcement and ρs = ratio of transversal reinforcement. E803. the spirals must be interlocked or the pier must be designed as though it consists of multiple single columns.1 1.0 7.0 7. 1). Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. Shear and Torsion.5 ISH1.5T 0. In the SDC. di. respectively.8 2.25R. His research interests include bridge seismic retrofit and performance of new bridges. The spirals were extended along the height of the footing and the top loading head. and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423.0 ISL1.) maximum aggregate size.2 Scale factor 0. He received his PhD in 2004 from the University of Nevada-Reno. 1 and 2. and three with a di of 1.0R is recommended to avoid overlaps of more than two spirals in multiple spiral cases. Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures.0 Aspect ratio 3. Actual bridge columns are designed to be ductile and the load capacity is controlled by flexure. Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges. designation to indicate the presence of supplementary crossties (Fig. and is member of ACI Committees 342. The Caltrans BDS1 states that when more than one cage is used to confine an oblong column core.1 di (× R) 1. Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation. A numeral indicated the fraction of R used for di. The spirals were continuous with constant pitch throughout the height of the specimens. respectively. R. 1—Test specimens cross sections.3 3.0 3.0 2. Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. M. Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Nev. Reno. FACI. Structural Concrete Building Code. ACI Committees 318.2 A shear stress index was defined as the average shear stress divided by 0. % 2.0 1.* % 1. one with a di of 1. Saiid Saiidi. Prestressed Concrete. defined as the axial load divided by the product of the gross cross-sectional area and the specified concrete compressive strength of 10%. In one specimen an initial T was added at the end of the specimen.5 MPa (5000 psi) with 9.52 mm (3/8 in. An axial load index. FACI.

the curvature and plastic hinge length. Wire potentiometers were used to measure the lateral displacements of the columns. One set consisted of one link connected at the column loading head to test the specimens as a cantilever member with single curvature. Most of these cracks were located in the lower 1/3 of the column height.5.8) in Specimen ISL1. and strains were used to judge the behavior of the columns. Electrical strain gauges were attached to the longitudinal and transverse steel to measure strain variation. Additional response parameters. The time axis of the input record was compressed to account for the scale effect and the minor differences between the axial load and the effective mass. recorded at the Sylmar Hospital (0. The double-link system was designed to prevent rotation of the loading head. First spalling and shear cracks were seen in Specimen ISL1.1 MPa (4514 psi) for Specimens ISH1.5) were tested in single curvature whereas the specimens with high shear (ISH1. Additional displacement transducers forming panels were placed along the height of the columns with high shear. 3—Double cantilever test setup.1 MPa (6542 psi) for Specimens ISH1. Each column was subjected to multiple simulated earthquakes. Preliminary moment-curvature analysis was performed to estimate the lateral load and displacement capacities of the specimens. 2—Test specimens elevations.5. and testing procedure Figure 3 shows the shake table setup for the high shear specimens.5. a series of dynamic analyses were conducted to select the input motion to be simulated in the shake table tests.5 after 1. The specified yield stress for all the reinforcement was 420 MPa (60 ksi).5.0. The test setup for the low-shear specimens was similar but with only one link between the mass rig and the column to achieve single-curvature testing. The specimens with low shear (ISL1.5. each referred to as a “run.5T. 31. Observed response Specimens with low shear—The observed performance was correlated with the displacement ductility μd. A series of curvature measurement instruments were installed in the plastic hinge zones. The shear cracks were located in the interlocking region in the lower 1/3 of the height of the column and were extensions of the flexural cracks. The lateral load was applied through an inertial mass system off the table for better stability.” The amplitude of the motions was increased in subsequent runs. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig.25. Spirals were visible 395 . Small increments of the Sylmar record (10 to 20% of the full Sylmar amplitude) were initially applied to the specimens to determine the initial stiffness.25 and ISH1. Test setup.5 × Sylmar (μd = 3. Only flexural cracks were observed during the first three runs (displacement ductility of up to 0. The acceleration at the top of the columns was measured using an accelerometer placed on the link connecting the mass rig to the specimens.samples on the day of testing was 36.0 after 0. 443 MPa (64 ksi) for Specimens ISH1. ISH1.0 and ISH1. The earthquake record is referred to as “Sylmar” hereafter.8) in Specimen ISL1.5.5T.8 MPa (5339 psi) for Specimens ISL1. as well as propagation of flexural and shear cracks. were computed based on the measured data and used in performance evaluation.5 × Sylmar (μd = 1. and 431 MPa (63 ksi) for Specimens ISH1. ISH1. the elastic response. Two sets of swiveled links were used to connect the inertial mass system to the specimens. Considerable spalling at the bottom of the column.25 and ISH1. All specimens were tested in the strong direction. Load cells were used to measure both the axial and lateral forces. which represents the displacement divided by the effective measured yield displacement. Intermittent free vibration tests were conducted to measure the change in frequency and damping ratio of the columns. Fig. and 45.606g peak ground acceleration [PGA]) was selected as the input motion based on the maximum displacement ductility demand placed on the columns without exceeding the shake table capacity. The 1994 Northridge earthquake. The other set consisted of two links connected at the top of the column.5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Important aspects of the seismic performance of the test columns were evaluated.0 and ISL1. respectively.0 and ISL1.5) and in Specimen ISL1. allowing the specimens to be tested in double curvature.0 and during the first six runs (μd of up to 1. The axial load was applied through a steel spreader beam by prestressed bars connected to hydraulic jacks and an accumulator to limit axial load fluctuation. The total equivalent weight of the inertia mass was 445 and 356 kN (100 and 80 kips) for specimens tested in single and double curvature. Once the capacity was estimated.0 and ISL1. The average measured yield stress of the steel samples was 462 MPa (67 ksi) for Specimens ISL1. and the effective yield point.0 and 1. load-displacement response. The observed damage progression.4).0 and ISH1.5) in Specimen ISL1. was observed after 1.1) in Specimen ISL1. and ISH1.5T) were tested in double curvature. instrumentation. Once the effective yield was reached. the amplitude of the input record was increased until failure.25 × Sylmar (μd = 2.25 × Sylmar (μd = 2.

5T. whereas in Specimens ISH1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 1. 5).29g PGA and μd = 10.7. The longitudinal bars buckled at the bottom of the column during 2. the first spalling was observed during 1.5T.125 × Sylmar (μd = 4.1) and longitudinal bars were exposed after 1. 2.7) in Specimen ISH1.5. Fig.7) in Specimen ISH1.7) near the bottom and 2.0 × Sylmar (μd = 4.0 × Sylmar (1. respectively.6) and 2.4.5T.5 after 1.2) in Specimen ISH1. Flexural and shear cracks propagated and more concrete spalled during 1. failure was due to fracture of the spirals and one of the longitudinal bars.7) and in Specimen ISH1.25 and ISH1.0.5 × Sylmar (μd = 2.75 × Sylmar (μd = 4. The spirals were visible in Specimen ISL1. Localized small vertical cracks were observed in Specimen ISH1.21g PGA and μd = 9. hence. The failure in both columns was similar and was due to rupture of the spirals and buckling of the longitudinal bars at the bottom of the column in the plastic hinge zone.4) in Specimen ISH1. 1. The flexural cracks were located in the plastic hinge zones near the top and bottom of the columns. 0. Specimens ISL1. Specimens ISH1. 1.5T under 396 Fig.25.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1. Figure 4 shows the damage after failure in Specimen ISL1.5T.6) in Specimen ISL1. respectively.25 and 1.0.0 × Slymar (μd = 7.8).5T).0) and 2.7) Specimen ISH1.5.5 after 2.4).9) in Specimen ISH1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3. and ISH1.6) in Specimen ISH1. Failure in Specimen ISH1.125 × Sylmar (μd = 2.375 × Sylmar (μd = 4. and 2.75 × Sylmar (μd = 2.5T after 2. There was no visible core damage in either specimen. ISH1.25. 6—Specimen ISH1. shear cracks were visible starting with 0.5 × Sylmar (μd = 4. 0.8) in Specimen ISH1.0 and ISH1.5.25 after failure.2).5T.5T after failure.0) and in Specimen ISH1.5T Specimens ISH1. These cracks were concentrated mainly at the top and bottom 1/3 of the column height.0 × Sylmar. The measured displacement ductilities associated with initial flexural cracks were 0.5 and ISH.25.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3.25 × Sylmar (μd = 1. and 1. respectively.5 failed during 2.25. Specimens with high shear—Even though these columns had a relatively high shear index. only flexural cracks were formed during the initial three or four runs. The spirals were visible at the top and bottom of the column after 2.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3.6 in Specimen ISH1.7) in Specimen ISH1.5) in Specimen ISH1.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1. and 1.4) in Specimen ISH1. ISH1. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .0 and ISL1.6 in Specimens ISH1.25 (Fig.75 × Sylmar (μd = 3. 1. 7—Specimen ISH1. In Specimen ISH1. whereas in Specimen ISH1.4 × Slymar (μd = 0.75 × Sylmar (μd = 5.0.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1. 5—Vertical crack (µd = 0.7 in Specimen ISH1.5) in Specimen ISH1. Diagonal cracks were formed in the interlocking region in the plastic hinge zones of all the specimens.5) and became exposed over a large area after 2.6) and became noticeable under 0.5).6. they were flexural members and. and 0. 7) failed during 2. was due to fracture of the spirals and buckling of the longitudinal bars.0.75 × Sylmar (μd = 0. 4—Specimen ISL1. Fig.Fig. respectively.125 × Sylmar (1.5 × Sylmar (μd = 2.5 (Fig.2) in Specimen ISH1.0 after failure.5 × Sylmar (μd = 3.75 × Sylmar (μd = 2. Damage in the core was observed in Specimen ISH1.0.5T under 1.375 × Sylmar (μd = 4.4).4) in Specimen ISH1. A vertical crack in the interlocking region extending from the top of the column to the midheight was observed after 0.7) near the top. 6) failed in flexure/shear during 2.0 × Sylmar (μd = 2.0).5.5 and 2. The longitudinal bars were exposed after 1. first spalling at the top and bottom of the column was observed in Specimens ISH1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 1. After 1.5T (Fig.625 × Sylmar (μd = 3. 1.9) in Specimen ISH1. after 1.5.25.0. These cracks began to form starting with 0.0 and ISH1.5.5 × Sylmar (μd = 0.5.

The column section total depths were different within each specimen group due to different distances between the spiral sets. The effect of a large distance between the spiral sets in low-shear columns can be seen in Fig. ISH1. Fig. Once the elastic portion was defined. The strength of the specimen with di of 1. For each column. To compare the performance of the specimens. ISH1. a backbone force-displacement envelope was developed based on the peak forces with corresponding displacements for all the motions before failure. 8 and 9).5T. 10(a). The backbone curves for the predominant direction of the motion were idealized by elasto-plastic curves to quantify the ductility capacity. and ISH1. 10). The force corresponding to the first reinforcement yield and the corresponding displacement on the measured envelope was used to define the elastic portion of the idealized curve. The latter was used when the force at the maximum displacement dropped more than 20% of the pick force (Fig.5 and 10. the measured displacement ductility capacities were 4.0. 4. displacement ductility capacities of 9.0. respectively. As a result. 9—Hysteretic curves and envelopes for high-shear specimens. 8—Hysteretic curves and envelopes for low-shear specimens.0. forces were normalized with respect to the effective yield force of each specimen and the normalized forcedisplacement envelopes were compared (Fig.5.0R 397 .5). The failure point in the backbone curve was assumed either at the point of maximum displacement or at a point with 80% of the peak force with the corresponding displacement. 8 and 9.4 were obtained for Specimens ISL1. however. 5. the yield level was established by equalizing the area between the measured backbone and the idealized curves.8.7.5R (Specimen ISL1.25. and 3.5. respectively. respectively. the lateral load capacity varied among the columns.0 and ISL1. Based on the elasto-plastic curves. degraded starting with displacement ductility of 7.Fig. respectively. Figures 8 and 9 show the idealized curves for specimens with ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 low and high shear. In Specimens ISH1. whereas the strength of the column with di of 1.4. Force-displacement relationships The accumulated measured hysteresis curves for the ISL and ISH groups are plotted in Fig. The overall ductility capacity of the two low-shear specimens was comparable.

High values of curvature were measured in the plastic hinges. Note that the target design displacement ductility for the columns was 5. The lower curvatures are consistent with the smaller displacement ductility capacities that were observed for this group. In all specimens. 11—Measured displacement ductility capacity versus average shear stress index. and the shake table response are attributed 398 . the strength degradation in the column with di of 1. respectively. the displacement ductility capacity decreased when the average shear stress index increased. the peak top curvatures were 20 to 25% lower than the bottom curvature due to slight rotation of the loading head that occurred under high loads and prevented fully fixed response at the top.5R was 10% whereas it was 4% when di was 1. as expected. Symmetric cyclic displacements tend to place higher demands on reinforced concrete members. The slightly lower ductility of Specimen ISH1. Nonetheless. had the displacements in the two columns been identical.0 and ISH1. whereas those with low shear failed in flexure with no significant shear damage. In specimens with high shear. Nevertheless.5T versus Specimen ISH1. The measured concrete compressive strengths were used in this graph. 11. In Specimens ISH1.0 and ISL1.25R. 12 and 13 for specimens with low and high shear.5R was approximately 3.0) did not drop until failure.5T would have shown a higher ductility capacity.5 (3. The addition of the crossties reduced the slope of the degradation part of the responses (Fig. The average curvature over the gauge length was computed as the difference between the strains on the opposite sides of the column divided by the horizontal distance between the instruments. degradation started at a relatively high ductility and hence is not of concern. and in those with di of 1.5T was considered to be satisfactory.25R was approximately 3.0R or 1. to the difference in the column responses. Fig. 10(b)). The larger spread of the spirals clearly shows some effect on the overall load-displacement response.7. The curvature profiles for the predominant direction of motion are shown in Fig. confirming that the loading mechanism to bend the columns in double-curvature fixed-fixed mode was successful. The strain on each side of the column was calculated from the vertical displacement measured by each external transducer divided by the gauge length. The maximum ultimate curvatures in Specimens ISL1. the ductility capacity of approximately 4 measured in Specimens ISH1. and in the loading heads of the ISH group.5 were comparable.5T response was somewhat symmetric. indicating that the change in distance of the spiral sets did not affect the curvature performance.0R.5T. the longitudinal bars yielded ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. The displacement ductility at which strength degradation began in columns with di of 1. It is hence concluded that. (Specimen ISL1. The ductility capacity dropped by approximately 20% when di was increased to 1. This procedure assumes that sections remained plane.5 contained limited excursions into the negative displacement range. 9(c) and (d) indicates that the response of Specimen ISH1. column stiffness.5 and ISH1. 10—Normalized lateral force-displacement envelopes. whereas the Specimen ISH1.0R and 1. the displacement ductility capacity was comparable in the two columns with di of 1. Measured curvatures Displacement transducers were used to measure curvature in the plastic hinge regions at the bottom of the ISL group and at the top and bottom of the ISH group.Fig. The maximum curvatures in the columns with high shear were also comparable within the group. 12—Measured curvature for ISL group.8 versus 4) suggests that the addition of crossties had little effect on the ductility capacity. The peak top and bottom curvatures in Specimens ISH1.5R. Measured strains The strain gauges on the longitudinal reinforcement were placed at the potential plastic hinge regions of all the columns and the footings.5 and ISH1. but were approximately 2/3 of the curvatures of the ISL group. In general. The displacement ductility capacity versus the average shear stress index is shown in Fig. This observation was in agreement with the displacement ductility capacities of the two models. Specimen ISH1. The curvatures at the ends are influenced by the localized longitudinal reinforcement bond slip and are not purely due to flexural deformation of the plastic hinge. This was because columns subjected to high shear failed in shear/flexural mode.25 were comparable. Variations of concrete strength properties. A comparison of Fig. At a displacement ductility of 9.

The average bar strains in all specimens increased especially during the first three damage states. Higher strains were measured at or near the base of all the columns and also at the top of the ISH group.5 times the yield strain.0 compared with the rest of the high-shear specimens until the last motion. The higher spiral strains are attributed to the slight degradation of the load capacity (Fig. An average strain of 14. Average strains of approximately 3. 2) first spalling and shear cracks. This damage state corresponded to the run before the failure run in the shake table tests. Fig. 14—Longitudinal bars strain versus observed damage.Fig. The larger distance between the spiral sets in Specimen ISL1.5. making the strain more localized and the average strains lower. yield strain was recorded when extensive cracking and spalling was observed in the columns. Within the ISH group. The average of peak spiral strains is plotted against displacement ductilities in Fig. Because the response in all the specimens was dominated by flexure.5 times the yield strain were recorded when flexural cracks were observed in the columns. extensively and flexural deformations dominated the response. The fifth damage state refers to the case where core damage is observed or is about to occur and some of the longitudinal bars show signs of bending that might lead to buckling and failure in subsequent runs. 15. Five damage states were selected representing an increasing level of damage: 1) flexural cracks. This is because the moment gradient in the high-shear columns is relatively high. It was found that spiral bar strains remain small (generally less than 2/3 of the yield strain) until the run before failure. The average maximum spiral strains in 399 . It can be seen that average strain was below yield until higher ductilities were reached.5 led to higher strains than those of Specimen ISL1.5 led to higher bar strains in the first three damage states. The correlation between the spiral bar strains and different damage states was also reviewed. within each damage state. Figure 14 shows the average of the highest three strain data in the longitudinal bars versus the damage states in each model. The correlation between the apparent damage and the longitudinal bar strains was studied. When first spalling and shear cracks were visible. It can be seen in Fig. It was determined that it would be more useful if the trends in spiral bar strains are studied as a function of displacement ductilities. the strain in the longitudinal bars increased to approximately 7. In addition. The larger distance between the spiral sets in Specimen ISL1. the longitudinal bar strains were generally higher in the ISL group. were used because local bar strains are influenced by cracks and present erratic patterns. The average data for three gauges. rather than the maximum strain. 13—Measured curvature for ISH group. and 5) imminent failure. 4) visible spirals and longitudinal bars. Average strains of 18 and 19 times the yield strain were recorded for the last two damage states. the bar strains did not seem to be sensitive to the distance between the spiral sets. 15 shows slightly smaller strains in Specimen ISH1. The data for all specimens were averaged and shown on the graph. 14 that. These data are presented and discussed in more detail in Reference 7. 10) observed in Specimen ISL1.0 under large ductilities.5 times the ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. the test variables did not significantly affect the trends in the longitudinal and spiral bar strains except as noted in the following. 3) extensive cracking and spalling.

400 .1 (0.05) 102 (4.75 and 0. Crossties are recommended to reduce premature vertical cracking in these columns.5R and the column shear is relatively high. thus increasing the apparent plastic hinge length by approximately 20%. respectively. and 1. The measured displacement ductility capacity was approximately 4 in columns with high shear and a di of 1. hence.27 times the total depth of the columns were found for Specimens ISH1.00) 1753 (69) 541 (21. (1).008) 16. 15—Maximum average strain in the spirals. two plastic hinges were formed and.004) 32.) lp .0R and 1. The seismic performance of columns with relatively low shear with spiral distance di of 1. 4. the column is considered to be sufficiently ductile for most applications.172 (0. and the average maximum spiral strain in Specimen ISH1.1 (0. mm (in.204 (0. Specimen ISL1. 2.4202) 1828 (72) 428 (16. ISH1. is defined by θp = ( φu – φy ) lp (1) where φu equals the ultimate curvature capacity. Rad/mm (Rad/in.83) 98.0 and ISL1. 1.25 and ISH1. ISH1. In the ISH group.67) 161 (6.83 times the total depth of the column were found for Specimens ISL1. they were ductile and achieved the design displacement ductility capacity of 5.159 (0.5R.0 aspect ratio. 5.101 (0. The PHL was determined using this equation.5 was the highest until a displacement ductility of approximately 1.005) 21. which exceeded the target design displacement ductility of 5. but also reduced the strength degradation.9) 0.72) 188 (7. the average of the measured curvatures over the extreme two gauge lengths (203 mm [8 in. and ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Specimens ISH1.25.5 would experience a smaller shear deformation.0R to 1.5T. and ISH1.96.] in high-shear columns) was used because most of the plastic deformation was concentrated over that region according to the measured curvatures and strains. lp. Even though the desired ductility capacity was 5.5T were nearly the same. The addition of horizontal crossties connecting the interlocking hoops not only reduced and delayed vertical cracks in the interlocking region. It can be seen that the larger spiral distance in Specimen ISL1.5.116 (0. The larger spread of the spirals in Specimen ISL1. however. l p⎞ Δ p = θ p ⎛ L – --⎝ 2⎠ (2) where L equals the distance from point of maximum moment to the point of contraflexure.) Δy. the increase in the distance between the spirals from 1. the PHL for each column was estimated using the measured plastic curvatures and displacements.0.124 0.5.1) 0. mm (in. The large area of plain concrete in the interlocking zone is susceptible to cracking when di is 1. The aspect ratios for these columns were nearly the same.) L .5R appears to have increased displacement due to shear.7 (1.5.5 ISH1.Fig. Table 2 lists the data used to determine the measured lp for Specimens ISL1.98.83) 105 (4.5R is appropriate for columns with low shear.88) 1473 (58) 363 (14. Vertical cracks in the interlocking region were observed under small earthquakes in the column with high shear and di of 1.4.84) ISH1. mm (in. Plastic hinge length The plastic hinge length (PHL) is used to estimate postyield lateral displacements based on the moment curvature properties of the plastic hinge while empirically taking into account displacements due to bond slip and shear deformation.074 (0.5R. This degradation began at a displacement ductility of 7. the average measured curvatures at the top and bottom were used. Even though the columns failed in shear/flexure mode. 3. The strength degradation was slightly larger when di was 1.5R. The center of rotation was assumed to be at the center of the plastic hinge.901 (0.0 0.5.6 was reached.) Δu.6 (3. and φy equals the idealized yield curvature. 0. The seismic performance of column models with di of 1. however.3) In Eq.5 led to an increase in the ratio of the PHL over the column depth by approximately 10%.0R and 1. respectively.02) 1753 (69) 480 (18.5 was approximately 10% larger than the Specimen ISL1. Equation (2) was assumed to relate plastic rotation and plastic displacements.0 and ISL 1.3) 21. Because the low-shear column with di of 1. The values of lp of 0. CONCLUSIONS Based on the observations and the experimental results of this study.12.34) 1473 (58) 351 (13. mm (in.26) 127 (5.15) 1600 (63) 384 (15. The moment area method was used to relate displacements and curvatures assuming that the plastic rotation θp over the equivalent PHL.5R was similar and satisfactory with displacement ductility capacities of near 10.25 ISH1. Table 2—Data for plastic hinge length Specimen Variables φp .5 0.005) (0.1 (1. it appears that the Caltrans provision of allowing a di value of up to 1. In high-shear columns. and based on the satisfactory displacement ductility capacity.] in low-shear columns and 254 mm [10 in. To determine the sensitivity of PHL to the spiral set distance and the level of shear. The aspect ratio (column height divided by the column section depth in the loading direction) of Specimen ISL1.5T 0.006) 18. appear to have led to higher shear deformations that necessitated a larger PHL to match the measured displacement.8) ISL1. the following conclusions are drawn: 1. Under equal conditions.) ISL1.0 ISH1.25R subjected to high shear was similar and satisfactory. The values of lp of 0.003) 26.5R did not experience significant shear cracking.

“Seismic Performance of RC Bridge Columns Reinforced with Two Interlocking Spirals. 90.5R by 10 to 20%. New Zealand... 1993. 146 pp. Dec. H. and Seible. 8 pp. 7. CCEER-04-6. 4. Calif.. Earthquake Engineering Branch. and Park. G. Wehbe of South Dakota State University for developing a moment-curvature analysis program for interlocking spiral columns.. Pullman. Mar. F.. Auckland. Priestley.” Engineering Service Center. 2001. D. Orlando.. M. “Bridge Design Specifications. 2. “Seismic Shear Strength of Columns with Interlocking Spiral Reinforcement. Reno. V.” 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. No. J.. 1992. Correal. Benzoni. Lucas of the University of Nevada-Reno bridge laboratory is gratefully acknowledged. Specials thanks are expressed to N. 2000. N.. 2. 3. 438 pp. M.0R to 1. and Saiidi. C. pp. The plastic hinge length to match the measured plastic lateral displacement increased as the distance of the spirals sets increased from 1. Tanaka. J. Washington State University.-Apr. Calif.6. Fla. “Seismic Design and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Interlocking Spirals. 5.. California Department of Transportation.. M. 9 pp.. July 2000. 250 pp. Laplace.. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 401 .. California Department of Transportation..” Report No. REFERENCES 1. “Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns with Interlocking Spirals Reinforcement. Buckingham. 2005. 133 pp. Aug. Department of Civil Engineering. and Sanders. J. R. Nev. 6. G. J. Pedroarena.. “Lessons Learned from Shake Table Testing of RC Columns in Relation to Health Monitoring. The dedicated assistance of P.” ACI Structural Journal. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research..” IMAC-XXIII—A Conference & Exposition on Structural Dynamics—Structural Health Monitoring. 2004. and P. 192-203.” Engineering Service Center. “Seismic Design Criteria Version 1. University of Nevada-Reno. Saiidi. Correal. Wash. Earthquake Engineering Branch. depending on the level of shear. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research presented in this paper was sponsored by the California Department of Transportation.” MS thesis.2.

2%. Concrete Engineering Data Book. c = kd varies according to the flexural reinforcement ratio ρ and the modular ratio n. (11-3) is a subset of Eq. Based on the aforementioned assumptions. However. Simplification can be achieved using an effective flange width approach. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 REFERENCES 10.5 times the flange depth on each side of the web can be considered for shear. This derivation was not based on the neutral axis located at the center of a beam. (2). the discusser would like to offer the following comments: 1.” BS 8110:Part 1:1997. Unfortunately. For k = 0. 12. Is this consistent with the shear strength of reinforced concrete T-beams without transverse reinforcement plain concrete? 2. Based on the aforementioned two approaches. Tyler S. Eq. NA was assumed within the flange and within the web of the T-beams) and found that approximately 20% of the crosssectional area increases above NA as compared with its equivalent rectangular section and approximately 10% of the cross-sectional area increases to its equivalent rectangular section. “Structural Use of Concrete.10 the flexural stress σm of a plain homogeneous concrete beam equals to 114. The discusser has computed over 100 specimens of T-beams from Reference 1 by assuming the flange depth as one unit and the overall depth and web width were transferred into the flange depth units with varying depths of NA (that is. authors’ Eq.” ENV 1992-1-1. The authors’ concept on shear funnel (Fig. however. Koray Tureyen.12 and by substituting c = 0. (2) simplifies it to 2 f c′ bwd.4d in the authors’ Eq. the discusser believes that there is no need to have a reinforced concrete beam database. (2) without considering the experimental database of reinforced concrete beams.DISCUSSION Disc. (2) are presented in Reference 2 of the paper.1991. The discusser is referred to Reference 2 for further clarification. Wolf. which would result in authors’ Eq. Based on ft = 6 f c′ (or 0. p. and by considering various strength ratios of flexural stress σm versus concrete compressive stress fc′ (σm/f ′c = 14.4. London. Frosch Discussion by Himat Solanki Professional Engineer. but rather based on the location of the neutral axis as calculated based on a cracked section analysis. which is inconsistent with the Rankine’s failure criteria of a plain homogeneous concrete beam. 10 are based on an angled approach using a 45-degree angle. but Eq. Eq.-Oct. (1) and its simplification into Eq. 1997. Perhaps a better view is that Eq. 656 Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete T-Beams without Transverse Reinforcement. (11-3) rather than (11-5). Nihon University. (2) was a simplification of Eq. Based on Fig.4d11. 2. Fla. The results presented in Fig. The detailed derivation of Eq. “Design of Concrete Structures. It appears that the discusser is referring to ACI Eq. Japan.1fc′ ) and assuming the Rankine’s failure criteria of plain concrete. British Standard Institution. Eq. Based on the area achieved from the 45-degree shear funnel. if the entire beam was compared with the rectangular section. 2000. The neutral axis depth. These values are somewhat inconsistent in the authors’ Table 2. Another simplified approach is that Eq. The authors have presented an interesting paper on the shear strength of reinforced concrete T-beams without transverse reinforcement. (5). 103-S67/From the Sept. the discusser arrived at the authors’ Eq. The authors’ Eq. The comments are addressed in the same order as presented by the discusser. (1) appears to be based on the neutral axis (NA) located at the center of the beam in a typical homogeneous rectangular concrete beam. Sarasota. the neutral axis depth should be computed using an effective flange width that is based on flexural behavior 503 . Please note that there is no reinforcement within the compression and/or flange area. Sarasota County Government. Fukushima Prefecture. considering a simplified approach.. a portion of the crosssectional area above NA in the T-beam could be converted into an equivalent rectangular section. K. 8. (11-3) is insensitive except with respect to its inclusion in the term f c′ . As noted in Reference 2. Commission of the European Communities. Koriyama-City. whereas ACI 318 Eq. but not the entire section of the T-beam when a shear force is computed. The authors have mentioned the basic outline of a derivation of Eq. (5)) by assuming an average depth of NA equals 0. Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction. and Robert J. (2) can be derived from the ACI code. Building Dept. 11. Therefore. (2) accounts for the reinforcement ratio and the concrete compressive strength. 8 and 10) is somewhat unclear.2%10 of the tensile strength of plain concrete ft . the discusser’s question “Is this consistent with the shear strength of reinforced concrete T-beams without transverse reinforcement plain concrete?” is unclear and cannot be addressed. The discusser notes that Eq. Fig. were considered so that a complete perspective of the performance of the simplified expression could be accessed. (2) can also be derived from the current ACI Building Code9 (that is. Eurocode No. It was shown that this equation could be simplified for an assumed tensile strength (6 f c′ ) and considering the flexural stress σm. If the neutral axis falls within the thickness of the flange. that is. AUTHORS’ CLOSURE The authors thank the discusser for his interest in this paper. (1) based on the experimental database of reinforced concrete beams. this effective width approach is conservative. an effective overhanging flange width of 0. (1) was derived considering that failure initiates when the principal stress in the compression zone reaches the tensile strength of concrete ft. (2). Kato. (1). It should be noted that in either the shear funnel or equivalent flange width approach. Part 1: General Rules and Rules of Buildings. 1 and 2. 2006 ACI Structural Journal. The experimental results.. Paper by A. UK.

the true distribution of stresses in the compressive zone is usually replaced for simplification by an equivalent rectangular stress block. because the authors have converted a T-beam into a rectangular beam with bef web width in lieu of bw web width. the equivalent rectangular stress distribution (shown in Fig. and Prodromos D. which is a rectangular beam from References 1 and 2. a mean value of Vu. This means the shear reinforcement ρv fvy does have some influence on the shear strength. the authors choose a state where the strain of concrete at extreme fiber is εco = 0.667bcfc′ . 6(b) and other researchers.30f ′ (Eq.05 were found. REFERENCES 15. p.exp /Vu. The authors have presented an interesting concept in their paper on shear strength of reinforced concrete T-beams. 693 Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete T-Beams.667c value (in the Appendix) other than the test result values versus their theoretical values. as emphasized in the paper. There has never been made a 45-degree projection angle by the authors. Disc. c. Beam Pair T2-T3 and Beam Pair T15-T16 of Reference 4. for the evaluation of the shear area when the flanges were ignored. 7. However. and Beam Pair A00-A75 of Reference 7. Sarasota County Government. These beam pairs all have test parameters such as concrete strength fc′ . Then. Sarasota. (4)) based on Reference 10. 2006 ACI Structural Journal. (8) and Vu in Eq. 1997. (10). the discusser would like to offer the following comments: 1. exactly parabolic distribution of stresses in the compressive zone. as outlined in the authors’ Table 1. but the shear strength increases with an increase in shear reinforcement ρv fvy. Beam Pair T3a-T3b of Reference 5. 4. the neutral axis depth was calculated ignoring the flanges while the shear funnel approach computed the neutral axis depth with the flanges considered. Based on this concept. Karaveziroglou.667c. the authors have not thoroughly explained the assumption of 0. Based on Eq.9c.th of 1. It appears that the authors have considered a routine rectangular beam with compression reinforcement but have not considered the reinforcement within the flange width when a T-beam section was converted into a rectangular beam section above NA.81bcfc′ . (10) for a calculation of NA. A) has a height equal to 0. is Fc = 0. 3. but no consideration c was given to the depth of compression zone equals 0. This strain corresponds in a true. Fla. A (of the authors’ Appendix) are unclear. Let’s consider beam pairs from Table 1: Beam Pair TA11-TA12 of Reference 2. Zararis Discussion by Himat Solanki Professional Engineer. However. (7) and Fig. the equivalent rectangular stress distribution has an approximate height equal to 0. London. The percentage of flange area considered will vary depending on the section considered and the location of the neutral axis. by considering the reinforcement in the flange width and by using authors’ Eq. Zararis. In this case.002. 2 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . and shear span-todepth ratio a/d approximately identical.006 and a standard deviation value of 0. the neutral axis (NA) is located at the interface of the bottom of flange and the top of web. (9) and the calculated values of A s ′ of the depth of compression block in Fig. The discusser has calculated all T-beams except Beam ET1. This may explain the perceived inconsistencies in the discusser’s analysis if he was directly comparing the results provided in Table 2. when the compressive strain in concrete at extreme fiber is εc = 0. The 504 reinforcement in the flange would improve the value of c (depth of NA) as well as the value of Vcr in Eq.. 103-S71/From the Sept. Therefore. The authors’ Eq. Maria K.and that is different from the flange width considered effective for shear.8c value as suggested in Reference 10. In the ultimate limit state. Also. the authors assumption for a 45-degree projection angle from web to flange appears to be inconsistent with Fig. It was also noticed from Table 11. In conclusion.-Oct. AUTHORS’ CLOSURE The authors would like to thank the discusser for his interest in the paper and his kind comments. the corresponding compressive force of concrete is Fc = 0. Thus. Building Dept. The authors have considered εco = 0. the failure occurs due to a splitting of concrete that takes place in the compression zone of the T-beam. the main premise is that additional shear area beyond that bounded by the web can be considered as effective in shear transfer. that is. 5. longitudinal reinforcement ρ%. the compressive force of concrete.2. the authors’ statement “An increase of stirrups does not give any advantage to T-beams over the rectangular beams” is a little confusing without thorough explanation.002 and fct = 2/3 0. Paper by Ionanis P. 2. Please note that BS 8110:Part 1:199715 considers the depth of compression zone equal a value of 0. Table 2 presents a statistical comparison of the performance of the various design methods considering the ratio of Vtest/ Vcalc. Taking into account Fig. except for the shear reinforcement ρv fvy. As it is written in the text of the paper. “Structural Use of Concrete. In the case of rectangular or T-section beams.4-8 that the thinner web width with higher reinforcement ratios (both longitudinal and shear reinforcement ratios) do not have any advantage over wider web width with lower reinforcement ratio in T-beams.0035.8c. that is. UK. and then Vcr and Vu were calculated. Regardless. as a resultant of stresses. In this case. British Standard Institution. it is unclear what inconsistencies the discusser is referring to. The 45-degree projection angle was a simplified assumption based on the depth of compression equals the depth of flange. The authors would like to reply to his comments in the order they are asked. Thus. the true distribution of stresses in the compressive zone follows a parabola-rectangular diagram. Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction. however.” BS 8110:Part 1:1997.

002) cot2 35 degrees = 0. εcc ≈ 0.01125 1 -≤1 β = -------------------------------------------0. (1988) and Scott et al.75f ′co /3. This statement means that the contribution of stirrups in the shear strength is the same for T-beams and rectangular beams.-Oct.01125 = 0. The 35 degrees falls within the range from 25 to 45 degrees. (1980) test results. particularly of the test specimens supplemented by the associated assumptions. Therefore.75) – 1)] = 0. This has been observed both in T-beams and rectangular test beams. exactly because the reinforcement As′ improves the value of c. it was assumed that the tensile strain is causing approximately a 35-degree skew angle crack to the strut’s axis. 7.0114. as suggested by the authors in their Eq. the splitting takes place in an inclined area. nor by the authors. Without a detailed explanation and information.8 + 0. p.’s methodology. it is very difficult to verify the author’s results as well as published results available elsewhere. In the previous equation. Therefore. εcc = εco[1 + R((f ′cc/f ′co) – 1)]. The increase in the strength of the beams that the discusser has mentioned is due to an increase of the first part of Eq. Now. R = 6 was appropriate and was assumed in the aforementioned equation by the discusser. Fla.175fy/Es.. Disc.= -----------------------. (14) appears to be on the low side.0024 + (0. results simply from the area of this shaded part of cross section of the T-beam. however. Nevertheless. Based on the authors’ Fig. the transverse reinforcement details with respect to the longitudinal reinforcement. 1 and 2. The compression reinforcement As′ within the flange width has been considered and takes part in Eq. The discusser has tried to understand the authors’ methodology. εcc = 0.0048 was chosen due to lateral expansion (biaxial tensioncompression) x = εc/εcc = 0. Based on the test results of Mander et al. That is.011. (9) with the ratio ρ′ = As′ bwd.75 and εco ≈ 0.0115.175fy was considered. therefore. 736 Effect of Reinforced Concrete Members Prone to Shear Deformations: Part I—Effect of Confinement. Building Dept.002 (Richart et al. as it results from the second part of Eq. Though the authors have presented an interesting concept on shear deformations in their paper.000 ksi.52εco ≈ 0.5 E c βf ′ cc xr Now σc = --------------------r r–1+x 505 .15fy to 1. (10).34 ( ε 1 ⁄ ε cc ) Also. Based on an average value of εcc = 0.20fy.and 6. the small ratios of ρ′ have only a small effect on the shear strength. Sarasota County Government. on the contrary. the R value varies from 3 to 6 (Park and Paulay 1990).5Ec Ec Ec Now. (1980).= 2. they have not fully explained all necessary assumptions other than the use of Mander et al. 103-S76/From the Sept.425 Esec = f ′co/εcc = 1. and has described the authors’ methodology to the best as follows. Equation (7). is approximately defined from the shaded part of the section in Fig. Paper by Suraphong Powanusorn and Joseph M.01125 and εc ≈ 0. In the following concept. (12) is expressed as β f ′cc xr σ c = --------------------r r–1+x where 1 -≤1 β = -------------------------------------------0. Equations (8) and (10) show that a decrease of the depth c decreases the strength. Also. r = -------------------. giving the effective width. there are several assumptions that were neither mentioned by Mander et al. on a cross section of the beam. Sarasota. The authors’ Eq. it decreases the shear strength. f ′cc/f ′co ≈ 1.002 [1 + 6((1. 5 and 13 of Ferguson (1964): ε1 = ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 0. As it results from the discusser’s calculations. R = 5.0Ec E c – E sec E c – 0. εs = 1. That is. based on an average value of εcc = 0. (1988). the authors have not provided the details as outlined by Mander et al. The compression reinforcement A s ′ has not been considered in the calculations of Table 1. because of the lack of data regarding this reinforcement for all the test beams.0024 + 0. an increase of As′ does not increase the shear strength of a beam. Furthermore.34 ( ε 1 ⁄ ε cc ) in which ε1 = εs + (εs + 0. (1988) and Scott et al. the projection of which.8 + 0.0048/0. Based on the Mander et al. Bracci Discussion by Himat Solanki Professional Engineer. (10). the discusser has the following comments: 1. 2006 ACI Structural Journal. where Es = 29.002)cot2α Ferguson (1964) suggested that the stress in steel develops from 1. and this angle is consistent with Cusson and Paultre (1994) and Fig. 1928). an average value of 1. (1988).

No. 3. however. 114.0 – 1 + 0. “Bridge Design and Research Seminar: 506 . The special emphasis of the article is ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 REFERENCES Fukui.. Based on Vecchio’s study (Vecchio 1992). 1990. Because asymmetrical loading conditions would create unbalanced loading.” Journal of Structural Engineering. “High Strength Concrete Columns Confined by Rectangular Ties. (2).. depending on the unbalanced load due to the asymmetrical loading condition. I. are required to define a state of stress and strain at a given point within the member. Christchurch.1008fc′ or ≈ 1. σy. V. The discusser demonstrates the application of Eq. A. J.425 ) ( 2. M. 1928.. the extension of the MCFT proposed by the authors is based on two-dimensional stress and strain analysis. and Brown. Texas A&M University. and r values in the previous equation ( 0. 1988. Ill. as shown by the authors in Fig. 120. 2004. F. Switzerland.4%.0 ) = 0. and Muttoni. J. It was concluded that the results from applying Eq. R. and τxy.. Fukui et al. that is. Based on Fig. the results are not included in the discussion. Using the aforementioned concept outlined in this discussion and Muttoni’s (2003) methodology. 783-804. The authors’ response to the discusser is as follows: General The purpose of the article under discussion was to present an alternative method that incorporates the effects of confinement into the constitutive equations of the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT). and Priestley.. and Paulay. σy. Park. 98. which was compared with a study by Vecchio (1992) on shearwalls and panels and also by the authors’ reinforced concrete (RC) bent cap tests. J. Is this consistent with the methodology/concept/logic used in this paper? 2. pp.. L. 1827-1849. University of Canterbury. 3. R. pp. T. x. N. Rodrigues. 74-84. M. 2003. For two-dimensional states of stress and strain. Response to discusser comments 1.. 1(a).. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. No. Champaign. Feb. Institut de Structures. The results are found to be in good agreement with the test results. A. first proposed by Vecchio and Collins (1986). εy. TTI.. the effectiveness of stirrups as compared with the longitudinal reinforcement was unclear from Table 1 through 3. 2001. and Paultre. AUTHORS’ CLOSURE The authors would like to express a sincere gratitude to the discusser for comments that give the authors an opportunity to clarify certain issues in the article.629 f ′cc σ c = -----------------------------------------------------------2. Aug. (12) alone to obtain an increase in strength is only part of the comparative study. D... All necessary assumptions were stated at the beginning of the article under the section Proposed analytical model. and Park. Priestley. it would require some additional reinforcement per truss analogy in the dark area. V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The discusser gratefully appreciates S. Tex. the application of Eq. 5. R. M. Wards. ASCE. an average stress in shear panels was increased by approximately 5.” Bulletin 185. Muttoni.. (in Japanese) Cusson.75fc′ σc = 1. a simplified method proposed by Muttoni (2003) could be extended to the authors’ specimens.” RR Bulletin 84. and N. ε2). “Schubfestigkeit und Durchstanzen von Platten ohne Querkraftbewehrung. E. εy. Richart. “Observed Stress and Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete. Muttoni. Park.” Laboratoire de Construction en Béton (IS-BETON). 8.6%. University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station. (12) led to an approximate 10% increase in compressive strength of concrete. Department of Civil Engineering.. 2001. which are εx.. Tokyo. Pippin and A. J. have been defined in the principal stress and strain components (σ1. Strength and Ductility of Concrete Substructures of Bridges. P. T. The concrete constitutive equation in compression defined in the principal stress and strain directions are given in Eq. but the symmetrical loading case may not be the case for all structures in the practice. Public Works Research Institute. A. Istitut de Structures.. especially for members prone to shear deformations near ultimate loading. R.” Beton und Stahlbetonbau. and Umebara.. Public Works Research Institute. Earthquake Engineering Team.” Journal of Structural Engineering. The general state of stress and strain. R. Due to brevity. “Stress-Strain Relationships for Confined Concrete: Rectangular Sections. however. In essence. Lausanne.. V. 4. and γxy and σx. Feb. V. No. Mar. Oct. A. Scott. 3841. an overall average value increased in stress would be 9. College Station. Japan. Ferguson 1964). D. B. V. for providing publications related to the shear strength of beams.. Leader. N. It is the force-deformation behavior that is important for comparative purposes. Brandtzaeg.5%. The model can be categorized into the so-called rotating crack model to maintain the coaxiality between the concrete principal stresses and principal directions. (12) on the constitutive relationship of concrete in compression taken into account the effect of confinement given in the paper with assumptions on a few parameters shown in the equation.. This value is consistent with Vecchio’s (1992) concept as well as the authors’ tests results as shown in Tables 1 through 3. and 3) the compatibility of strains in the concrete and reinforcing steel as shown in Eq. The constitutive relationships under the context of MCFT. New Zealand. (4) through (8) and (11) through (13). 1980.10 fc′ This means approximately 10% compressive stress increases due to the confinement. From the authors’ point of view. εx. It is unclear how the theoretical values stated in Tables 1 through 3 were calculated. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. ε2) using Mohr’s circle of stress and strain.” Technical Memorandum No. 9(a) and (b). Mander. are related to the principal stress and strain components (σ1. Japan. (1). σ2) and (ε1. “Study of Shear Capacity of Deep Beams and Footing. Tokyo. 2. New Zealand. B... while an average stress in shearwalls was increased by approximately 13.. the authors have considered a symmetrical loading case. three components of stresses and strains. 2) the superposition of stresses in the concrete and reinforcing steel as shown in Eq. “Influence des Déformations Plastiques de l’Armature de Flexion sur la Résistance a l’Effort Trenchant des Pouters sans étriers: Rappart d’essai. “A Study of Failure of Concrete under Combined Compressive Stresses. 1994. Unjoh. The discusser would like to point out that because the shear strength and shear deformations relate to the strength of concrete.8737 ) f ′cc ( 0. and γxy and σx. σ2) and (ε1.Substituting β. the discusser has also analyzed other test specimens available in the literature elsewhere (Rodrigues and Muttoni 2004. Wellington. ASCE.” Research Report 80-6. pp. Shirato. Was any correction for variable depth considered? Or was a uniform depth considered? Though the authors stated the advantage of overlapping stirrups versus single stirrups.425 ( 2.0 ) Because f ′cc ≈ 1. Transit New Zealand. MCFT is generally developed on the basis of: 1) twodimensional states of stress and strain.. and τxy.

8. (1988) using the five-parameter failure surface derived by Willam and Warnke (1974). E.. Plasticity for Structural Engineers. 1-30. 114. 4 and 5. and Warnke.. Chen. To justify the proposed model. Regarding the discusser’s comments on the R value for determining the peak strain corresponding to the peak concrete stress. pp. New York. 2) compatibility.on the incorporation of the beneficial effects of lateral confinement of the transverse reinforcement on the concrete stress-strain relationship in the principal compressive direction using an approach adopted by Mander et al. R. The authors agree with the discusser that the shear strength and deformation are related to the compressive strength of concrete and would like to look into further details on the article by Muttoni (2003). D. Italy. 1988. the authors did not include the complete development of five-parameter failure surface in the article. “Theoretical StressStrain Model for Confined Concrete. was not considered in this work and would require further experimental and analytical research to justify recommendations. Willam. W. N. and Chen and Saleeb (1982) for further details. New York. V. P. 1974. and Park. It is the results from FEM analysis that are summarized in Tables 1 through 3.-F. and Saleeb. Interested readers should consult the original paper by Willam and Warnke (1974) or books by Chen (1982). and 3) material constitutive relationships.. additional studies by the authors have shown that the use of R = 6 led to only a marginal change in the strength prediction. International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers Seminar. M. and Han... 1982. J. J. 1804-1826. The MCFT was formulated on the basis of three fundamental principles of structural mechanics. however. Chen and Han (1988).. W. A.” Elasticity and Modeling. 3. John Wiley & Sons. The case of unsymmetric loading. B. J. Paper III-1. W. J. Due to space limitations. Springer-Verlag. Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete. 606 pp. 474 pp. New York.” Concrete Structures Subjected to Triaxial Stresses. V. Chen. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 507 . 1982. K... pp. which are: 1) equilibrium. 1988. REFERENCES Chen. No. Priestley. ASCE. F. Mander. “Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials. the authors implemented the proposed model into a finite element code using a userdefined material subroutine. Bergamo.-F. The rationality and generality of the MCFT should make the theory applicable to any loading pattern.. “Constitutive Model for the Triaxial Behavior of Concrete. 2. 1.-F.” Journal of Structural Engineering. McGraw-Hill..

Even though Kinnunen and Nylander’s model8 did not provide high accuracy in punching shear strength predictions.2 At these connections. 1. All rights reserved. such as ACI 318-05. This was based on the experimental observation that the punching shear strength was close to the flexural capacities of the concrete slabs. It is noted that the fuzzy-based model yields a significant enhancement in the prediction of the punching shear strength of concentrically loaded interior slab-column connections while still respecting the fundamental failure mechanisms in punching shear of concrete. Pralong6 and Nielsen7 derived lower bound and upper bound values for punching shear strength based on the theory of plasticity.3-04 codes. Copyright © 2007. The applied punching shear stress is calculated at a defined critical perimeter and compared with an allowed value based on the calibration of existing test results. It becomes apparent that the complexity of the punching problem and the dependence of the punching shear strength on a number of interacting variables necessitate the use of empirical modeling approach to estimate the punching shear strength. Sherif An alternative approach for predicting the punching shear strength of concentrically loaded interior slab-column connections using fuzzy learning from examples is presented. The various design codes show significant difference in defining the location of the critical section as well as the allowed punching shear stress. plasticity. Alexander and Simmonds2 proposed a strut-and-tie model with concrete ties to describe the load transfer in the slab-column connections. 2006.10 In spite of the importance of these models in understanding the failure mechanism of slab-column connections. most design codes use the so-called control perimeter approach12-15 depicted in Fig. Eurocode 2. flat plate systems have various economic and functional advantages over other floor systems such as fast construction. will be published in the May-June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1. Moreover. American Concrete Institute. if any. and reviewed under Institute publication policies. strut and tie. a significant amount of research has been performed to investigate this complex problem of concentric punching shear of reinforced concrete flat plates by using various methods ranging from mechanical models up to purely empirical models. From a viewpoint of structural mechanics.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The present study introduces a new approach for predicting the punching shear strength of concentrically loaded interior slab-column connections using fuzzy learning from examples. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . The size-effect model was able to explain the experimental observations of decreasing punching failure shear stresses of slab-column connections without reinforcement with increasing slab thickness. combined stressstrength criteria. A recent review of such models can be found elsewhere. the failure criteria were defined by the inclined radial compressive stress and the tangential 438 compressive strain at the shear crack. flat plates are structures of complex behavior.3 For the last three decades. The punching shear strength predicted by the fuzzy-based model is compared with those predicted by current punching shear strength models widely used in the design practice. and size effect). For this simple appearance. INTRODUCTION Flat plates consist of slabs directly supported on the columns without beams. S-2006-214 received May 27. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. No. The fuzzy-based model is developed to address the interaction between various punching shear modeling parameters and the uncertainties between them. Kinnunen and Nylander8 developed the first mechanical model for punching shear strength using failure criteria based on the observation of shear cracks in the experiments. which might not be properly captured in classical modeling approaches. and Alaa G. A total of 178 experimental datasets obtained from concentric punching shear tests of reinforced concrete slab-column connections from the literature are used in training and testing of the fuzzy system. Bažant and Cao9 developed a punching shear strength model considering size effect of concrete based on principles of fracture mechanics. CEB-FIP MC 90. 2008. flat plates usually fail in a brittle manner by punching at the slab-column connections within the discontinuity region known as the D-region. While classical empirical techniques used by many design codes show limited accuracy. 4. Moreover. Reda Taha. slab-column connections.1. low story height. the level of complexity encountered in using these models for design might be difficult to justify given the fact that most of these models do not usually show high accuracy in the prediction of punching shear strength.11 To develop simple strength equations. 104. The model is trained using 82 datasets and verified using 96 datasets that are not used in the training process. July-August 2007. and CSA A23. however. 104-S42 TECHNICAL PAPER Simplified Punching Shear Design Method for Slab-Column Connections Using Fuzzy Learning by Kyoung-Kyu Choi. there is considerable difficulty in using these models in the daily design practice. The proposed approach incorporates the control perimeter ACI Structural Journal. a more robust empirical modeling technique that respects fundamental failure mechanisms of the punching shear is needed. it significantly contributed to a better understanding of the failure mechanism of the slab-column connections and enabled visualizing a rational flow of forces in such connections. Numerous models suggested modifications to these general directions outlined previously (flexure. In early models including Yitzhaki4 and Long and Rankin. V. MS No. Keywords: fuzzy systems. three-dimensional stresses are developed due to the combined high shear and normal stresses creating a stress state that is complex to analyze accurately.5 punching shear strength was defined considering the flexural capacity of reinforced concrete slabs. and irregular column layout. Mahmoud M. These formulations did not consider the effect of flexural reinforcement on the punching shear strength. In this model. punching shear. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure.

Shear and Torsion. and compression and tension reinforcement ratios.18-20 The fundamental concept in modeling complex phenomena using fuzzy systems is to establish a fuzzy rule-base that is capable of describing the relationship between the input parameters and the output parameters while considering uncertainty bounds. the use of the fuzzy set theory to model the punching shear strength of a slab-column connection is demonstrated. Calgary.6.19. fuzzy systems have the ability to consider random and nonrandom types of uncertainties that arise due to vagueness and/or ambiguity in the modeling parameters/process. Egypt.24. punching shear perimeter. the most significant parameters that affect the punching shear strength are concrete compressive strength fc′ . Mataria-Cairo. Korea. the fuzzy-based model considers the major criteria on punching shear examined by many researchers. Alberta. Possible parameters included ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. Albuquerque. concrete compressive strength. and PhD in architecture from Seoul National University. He is a member of ACI Committees 209. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. His research interests include shear strength and seismic design of reinforced concrete structures and application of artificial intelligence in structural engineering. the Bayesian analysis showed that for circular and square columns (c1/c2 ratio equals to 1. Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete. slab thickness h. Reda Taha is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of New Mexico. This finding is in agreement with the literature8.20 While probabilistic empirical models are limited to random uncertainties. these three parameters have been used as input parameters to the fuzzy-based model for predicting the punching shear strength. slab thickness and effective depth. Egypt. approach and targets predicting the punching shear strength of the slab-column connections based on various geometric and material parameters. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. Sherif is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering Department.27 size effect related to slab thickness. Hereafter. Preliminary investigations using Bayesian analysis of significance22 have been performed to identify the most primary input parameters that have a significant influence on the punching shear strength. While the ratio of the column dimensions of rectangular columns and the perimeter-to-depth ratio (bo/d) have been reported to affect the punching shear strength of slab-column connections. and his PhD from the University of Calgary. Seoul. in 2000. 548.18 The capability of the fuzzy systems to model complex systems is attributed to their inherent ability to accommodate a tolerance for uncertainty in the modeling parameters. Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. Polymers in Concrete. By considering these three parameters.24-28 These include shear strength and cracking capacity conventionally represented by the cubical or square root of the compressive strength. He received his BE. system nonlinearity is not recognized by using nonlinear equations but through establishing a number of fuzzy rules (that could use linear relations) such that the fuzzy system becomes capable of describing the phenomena to a pre-specified level of accuracy. The assumption of the punching shear perimeter to be known a priori is based on the fact that the punching shear databank does not include detailed information about the failure pattern and the punching shear perimeter. FUZZY LEARNING OF PUNCHING SHEAR DATABANK Fuzzy systems have been widely used in the last decade for modeling complex engineering systems (for example. Electronic Data Exchange. He is an associate member of ACI Committees 440.23 showing that the primary effect of compression reinforcement is on post-punching behavior providing a membrane action. Helwan University.19 This fuzzy rule-base captures individual and group relationships that distinguish the internal complex relations between the system parameters. and fiber-reinforced polymers. column geometry. 1—Current design codes for punching shear.ACI member Kyoung-Kyu Choi is a Research Assistant Professor at the University of New Mexico. Canada. and his MSc and PhD from the University of Calgary. modeling robots16 and in assessing concrete durability17) and their feasibility as universal approximators has been proven. Cairo. This hinders the ability to learn the failure patterns of slab-column connections as part of the new model. and tension reinforcement ratio ρ. N. Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445.9 and membrane effect28 represented by the flexural reinforcement ratio. He received his BSc from Cairo University.20 As such. His research interests include the behavior and serviceability of reinforced concrete structures and systems for multi-span cable-stayed bridges. It is also noted that the results of Bayesian analysis showed that the compression reinforcement does not have a significant effect on the maximum punching shear strength.29 the experimental database for rectangular columns or for slabs with significantly large perimeter-to439 . Egypt.20. and E803. Polymers in Concrete. He received BSc and MSc from Ain Shams University. MS. The proposed fuzzy-based model presented in a simple form respects the failure mechanics of punching shear by learning its rules from the experimental database with the ability to address the interaction between the modeling variables and the uncertainty in these variables. 440. using artificial intelligence in structural modeling. ACI member Alaa G. ACI member Mahmoud M.0). He is an associate member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352.24. 235. The fuzzy-based model shows high accuracy in predicting punching shear strength. span length. 548. Assuming the geometry of punching shear perimeter to be known a priori. Mex. His research interests include structural monitoring.20 A group of successful techniques to establish a fuzzy rule-base using exemplar observations was recently developed. Cairo.21 Here.

Fig.30 A technique is adopted herein that is based on providing an initial definition of the fuzzy sets using k-means clustering31 followed by the automated update of the fuzzy sets during the learning process. the top width. ρ is defined with respect to effective depth. The use of other membership functions (for example. While simplified methods can be used according to expert opinion. 3—Pictorial representation of bell-shaped membership function used to represent fuzzy sets defined over input domains. bo = (2c1 + 2c2 + 4d) for a square column and bo = π(D + d) for a circular column.7 The modeling is started by defining N fuzzy sets A over the domain of each input parameter x.0.6-9 The choice of the critical perimeter to be considered at a distance d/2 from the column face is attributed to the possible use of this location to estimate the average ultimate shear strength vc for usually intersecting most plausible failure planes. 2. defined˜ on ˜ the fuzzy c slab thickness h.20. and q k j represents the center.21 The basis in the formulation of fuzzy set theory. and di are known as the consequent coefficients that define the output side of the i-th rule in the fuzzy rule-base. The value of Nj is the total number of fuzzy sets defined over the j-th input parameter. This definition˜ provides each value of the parameter x with N membership values representing its level of belonging to the N fuzzy set A . Equation (1). failure as observed by many researchers. D equals the diameter of a circular column. and vc represents the average ultimate punching shear strength. depth ratio (bo/d > 15) is insufficient to develop the knowledge rule base that is necessary for the fuzzy-based model to consider both effects on the punching shear strength. prediction of the fuzzy-based model will be modified to consider the effect of rectangularity of columns or high perimeter-to-depth ratios in excess of that used in the training (bo/d > 15) as shown in the Results and discussion section. which describes the relationship between the fuzzy sets defined on the input domains and the punching shear strength using a group of linear equations. and the shape parameters of the membership function defining the k-th fuzzy set defined over the j-th input parameter. 2. ˜ μ A(x) does not express probability of x but characterizes the ˜ extent to which x belongs to fuzzy set A . Exemplar rule in the fuzzy rulebase can be defined as If f ′ c∈ A f . has been adopted by almost all current design codes and respects the fundamental mechanics governing the slab-column punching 440 k where x cj . Choice of d/2 allows obtaining good estimate of average ultimate punching shear strength vc.21 The modeling process depends on fuzzifying all three input domains and constructing a fuzzy rule-base. In the present study.20. 3. and tension reinforcement ratio ρ. ci. but constrained by having a differentiable membership function. bi. which is defined with respect to defective depth. The values ai. ˜ k 1 μ A ( x j ) = ---------------------------------k ˜ k 2 qj x j – x cj 1 + --------------k wj (3) where Vc equals the punching failure load and bo equals the critical perimeter at a distance d/2 from the column face.0 and 1. 2—Cross section of slab-column connection showing critical section at distance d/2 from column face to intersect most plausible failure planes (angle θ ranges between 30 and 45 degrees). ˜ ˜ ˜ then vi = ai f c′ + bih + ciρ + di k k k k k k (2) Fig.21 The bell-shape membership function to represent the k-th fuzzy set of the j-th input parameter xj can be k described as μ A (x). The ˜ the concept of membership or degree of belonging represents 18. and A p are the k-th fuzzy set (k = 1. which is similar to the value (h/2) proposed in Nielsen.20. although simplified. the fuzzy-based model is trained by using the experimental data with square and circular columns only and with perimeter to depth ratio (bo/d) < 15. gaussian and triangular) is possible. h ∈ A h . Therefore. A bell-shape membership function is employed to represent the fuzzy sets defined on the input domains. membership denoted μ A(x) ranges between 0. By considering the T-norm (product) operator (Π) to capture the influence of the interaction ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . first. A pictorial representation of the bell-shaped membership function is shown in Fig. the punching shear failure load of slab-column connections without shear reinforcement Vc is defined as Vc = vcbod (1) where A f .20 Several methods for establishing membership functions˜with different levels of complexity exist. as shown in Fig. complex automated methods using artificial neural networks or inductive reasoning are usually considered to be efficient for modeling complex phenomena. w jk. The values c1 and c2 equal the short and long sizes of a rectangular column. Based on this fact. A h . … Nj) ˜ domains of compressive strength f ′ . and ρ∈ A p . In the present study. Equation (2) represents the i-th rule in the fuzzy rule-base. respectively.

0 to 35.3 100 1.0 320 2.5 to 35.4 to 37.4 to 320 3. The root mean square prediction error E is defined as Nd 21. (1970).29 Criswell35 Total * † ∑ R ⎛ ⎞ ⁄⎜ λ i⎟ ⎝i = 1 ⎠ ∑ R 23.1 39.6 to 110 to 1. Regan et al. bi. This is followed by computing the consequence coefficients (ai. herein 1.77 to 32.8 8. k k ∂ E ( m )w j ( m ) = w j ( m – 1 ) + η ----------------∂ wj ( m ) k k ∂E(m) q j ( m ) = q j ( m – 1 ) + η ---------------∂ qj ( m ) E = n =1 --------------------------------------- ∑ ( vpn – vdbn ) Nd 2 (8) (6) where vpn is the predicted punching shear strength for the n-th dataset.5 to 119.6 to 19.6 (5) where vi is the output of the i-th rule in the fuzzy rule-base and λi represents the weight of the i-th rule in the fuzzy rulebase as computed using Eq.5 37. and q j (m) are the center.6 to 23.2 to 39.2 to 29.4 125 0.5 1.5 23. and the shape of the membership function. The punching shear strength vc can then be computed as ⎛ ⎞ vc = ⎜ λ i v i⎟ ⎝i = 1 ⎠ Tolf (1988) Regan (1986) Swamy and Ali (1982) Marti et al.1 9.. % 3 3 79.0 to 1. (4).4 to 119. respectively.4 to 80.0 to 90 to 0. defining the k-th fuzzy set defined over the j-th input parameter in the m-th learning epoch (trial).8 245 1.1 to 143 to 0.145 ksi. unless otherwise noted. 1 mm = 0. Hallgren and Kinuunen (1993b).4 24. The number of fuzzy rules R is a function of the number of input variables T and the number of fuzzy sets Nj defined over each input domain. w j .7 158 2. The values x k j (m – 1). (1993) Marzouk and Hussein (1991) Lovrovich and McLean (1990) 7 4 6 2 4 11 1 1 1 2 1 9 4 5 7 6 8 0 0 0 82 6 4 8 2 3 11 1 1 1 3 1 9 4 6 7 6 9 6 4 1 96 30.between the input parameters32 on the output. defining the k-th fuzzy set defined over the j-th input parameter in the (m – 1) learning epoch. Schaeidt et al.2 125 1.8 24.0 150 2. This knowledge rule-base can be used later to model the behavior of the system (herein the punching shear of slabcolumn connections) for input datasets not used in the training process. T = 3).7 25.7 to 2.1 to 120 to 0.0 × 10–5.24 1.1 to 180 to 1.9 to 138 to 0..R R T 1 Σ i =1 Π j =1 ---------------------------------k k 2 qj x j – x cj 1 + --------------k wj Table 1—Dimensions and properties of specimens Investigator*† Hallgren and Kinnunen (1993a). and Nd is the total number of training datasets. mm ρ.0 to 1.0 150 146 1.6 to 0.0 to 1.12 33.2 35.9 to 74.8 44.0 to 40. the top width. (1977). Hallgren (1996) No.20 The learning process starts by initializing the premise parameters (parameters describing the membership functions k k 31 xk cj .3 (4) Tomaszewicz (1993) Ramdane (1996). can be found in Reference 3.4 to 25. (1979) Schaefers (1984) Ladner et al.7 8.5 to 239 to 0.5 280 1. k wk j (m – 1).2 to 3. and di) using least square techniques33 such that the root mean square prediction error E of the punching shear strength does not exceed a target root mean square prediction error.6 152 1.4 0. and q j (m – 1) are the center. and the shape of the membership function. and ∂E(m)/∂qj(m) are components ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 441 .1 to 2. Ladner (1973) Corley and Hawkins (1968) Bernaert and Puech (1996) Manterola (1966) Yitzhaki (1966) Moe (1961) Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) Elstner and Hognestad (1956) Hawkins et al. of specimens f′ c. As the target mean square prediction error will not be achieved from the first learning trial (using the initial fuzzy sets and consequence coefficients).2 64.8 to 250 2.0 1.5 to 1.0 142 1.2 to 30. the weight of the i-th rule (λi) in the fuzzy rule-base can be computed as T 1 Π j =1 ---------------------------------k k 2q x j – x cj j 1 + --------------k wj λ i = -----------------------------------------------------------. w j (m).6 28.3 Note: 1 MPa = 0.7 20.3 to 120 to 1. the premise parameters describing the fuzzy sets can be updated using the gradient descent method as k k ∂ E ( m )x cj ( m ) = x cj ( m – 1 ) + η -----------------∂ x cj ( m ) (9) (7) k k where x k j (m). The value T represents the total number of input parameters (herein. the top width.4 to 40. While other techniques capable of building similar learning systems were reported in the literature (for example. Training Verification MPa h.04 in.for i = 1.4 191 1.1 80 to 0.2 146 140 125 102 152 1. The process for learning from example aims at extracting a knowledge rule-base from a group of input-output datasets. (1977).6 to 108. and q j ) using the k-means clustering technique. the advantage of fuzzy systems is being able to consider nonrandom uncertainty in the modeling process and thus yields robust modeling systems.24 80 to 0.4 8. Properties and dimensions of these test specimens were collected from fib Bulletin 12.5 to 27.1 240 0.4 14.6 to 149 to 0.0 to 41.7 Factors affecting the choice of the implication operator are discussed in the following. The value η is the learning rate and ∂E(m)/∂xj(m). ci.7 Reference to investigators work. respectively.0 20. vdbn is the punching shear of the n-th dataset from the database. artificial neural networks).3 200 0. Pralong et al.9 0.34 Teng et al. ∂E(m)/∂wj(m).

The update process therefore allows the fuzzy-based model to reduce the root mean square prediction error and thus learn from examples in a much more robust manner compared with any other empirical techniques. MF2 (Membership Function 2).011 1. slab thickness h.982 2.3 ksi). MPa (ksi) 29.37 and Tolf38 were also excluded because their tension reinforcement ratios were extremely beyond practical design range (ρ ≥ 6. and MF3 (Membership Function 3).005 ˜ -0. and 5.30 (11. Also. All specimens used in the testing were not used in training the fuzzy-based model.35 were used.07 (5. It is worth noting.) Ah ˜ Ah ˜ Ah ˜ 3 2 1 w. A specimen reported by Lovrovich and McLean36 was excluded in this study because its span length was extremely short (l1/c1 = 2).012 0.7 (4. The process continues and the fuzzy rule-base parameters (premise and consequent parameters) are updated in each training epoch until the target root mean square prediction error 442 or a maximum number of training epochs is reached. 80 ≤ h ≤ 320 mm (3.4 Elstner and Hognestad. and reinforcement ratio ρ.4 ≤ f ′c ≤ 119.83 (–3. Table 2—Parameters describing premise parameters (membership functions)* Compressive strength f ′ c xc.2 ≤ f ′c ≤ 17. Exemplar methods for rule reduction in the fuzzy rule-base include the Combs and Andrews40 method and the method suggested by Lucero41 but are beyond the scope of this work.018 q 1. tension reinforcement ratio. mm (in.73) Tension reinforcement ratio ρ xc 1 Aρ w 0. The specimens had two types of boundary geometries (circular and rectangular flat plates) and two types of column shapes (circular and square columns).40) Af ˜ 2 Slab thickness h xc.21 It was found that the best learning represented by the lowest root mean square prediction error was achieved while using two fuzzy sets to represent the compressive strength and the tension reinforcement ratio. 4—Fuzzy sets used to describe concrete compressive strength. 0. are shown in Fig. mm (in. The initial and final fuzzy sets.0 (2. however.99) q 1. MPa (ksi) 1 Af w.52) 126. Thus. N2 = 3).31 The number of membership functions defined on the domain of any variable x can be used to indicate the sensitivity of the model to this variable x. 178 test specimens performed by 21 researchers as reported in the fib bulletin3 and other reports in the literature29. slab thickness. the larger the number of membership functions used to describe the variable x. Before training (left) and after training (right): MF1 (Membership Function 1).5 ≤ bo/d ≤ 24.98 2.0 MPa (1. six specimens by Yitzchaki. 12 rules (R = 12) were needed to describe the relationship between the input parameters: concrete compressive strength.20.6 in.9%).30) q 1. The optimum number of fuzzy sets for each modeling parameter was developed using the k-means clustering technique.2 (11. The total number of rules in the rule-base can be computed by multiplying the number of membership functions of the three variables as R = N1N2N3.00) 272. The test specimens had a broad range of design parameters: 8.9 (4. that increasing the number of membership functions does not guarantee enhancing the model accuracy. of the gradient vector of the mean square prediction error with respect to the premise parameters of the j-th input parameter evaluated at the m-th learning epoch.994 42. Three fuzzy sets were necessary for describing the slab thickness (N1 = N3 = 2.20 researchers showed that the efficient reduction of the number of rules shall be performed considering both accuracy and robustness of the model. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . The dimensions and properties of the specimens are summarized in Table 1.02 ˜ –23. The higher the sensitivity of the model to the variable x. For training and testing of the fuzzy-based model. 4 and Table 2.58 (10.05 (1.34.Fig. These data cover a wide range of the material and geometric properties of slab-column connections.1 ≤ h ≤ 15.40) 78. All modeling parameters were normalized to their maximum values determined from the database (178 data sets).34) 78. Eighty-two specimens were used for training of the fuzzy-based model while 96 specimens were used for testing the model. Only specimens that were reported to fail in pure punching shear (no flexural shear failure) were considered.001 0.).7%. The normalization process is necessary to avoid the influence of numerical weights on the learning process.4 (3. and tension reinforcement ratio. as established by the learning algorithm.68) 89.997 2. and the punching shear strength.4 ≤ ρ ≤ 3.39 The fuzzy rulebase that achieved the lowest root mean square error during training was used for testing and verification of the model capability to predict punching shear strength in slab-column connections. slab thickness.) 68.035 Aρ ˜ *For 2 compressive strength f c ′ .66) 127. While reduction of the total number of rules in the fuzzy rule-base is possible for limiting combinatorial explosion. The updated premise parameters are then used to recompute a new set of consequence parameters and a new root mean square prediction error.

314 0.92 to 1. h ∈ A h.85 to 1.26 to 1. (4).12 1.008 h + 153.29 1.85 0. Eurocode 2.17 1.54 0.19 1.79 to 1.36 1. the product implication tends to dilute the influence of joint membership values that are small and 443 . ∑ ∑ (12) It is important to emphasize the fact that several implication operators exist.14 1.88 to 1.73 ρ + 0. (1970).70 to 1.018 h + 36. and mm. Pralong et al. h ∈ A h.85 to 0.9.3-04 model VTest/ VTest/ VTest/ VTest/ VTest/ Vpredicted† Vpredicted† Vpredicted† Vpredicted† Vpredicted† Investigator* Hallgren and Kinnunen (1993a). First.13 to 1.84 0.66 0. Hallgren and Kinuunen (1993b).52 1..006 f c ′ + 0. and ρ ∈ A ρ ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 5 = – 0.139 0.94 0.91 to 1. (1977).15 0.80 to 1.60 to 1.91 R = 6: if f c ′ ∈ A f .96 to 1. CEB-FIP.20 0.96 R = 12: if f c ′ ∈ A f .34 0.38 0. and ρ ∈ A ρ ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 6 = 0.96 1.68 to 1.247 f c ′ + 0.15 0. and ρ ∈ A ρ ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 1 = 0.57 ρ – 2. h ∈ A .97 0. (1977).82 to 1. h ∈ A .36 0.71 to 1. The product implication Π was selected herein for three reasons.85 0. the punching shear strength of any slab-column connection within the geometrical limitations listed previously can be computed using Eq.for i = 1.23 1.043 h + 19.30 0.15 1.87 to 0.002 h – 30.79 0.005 f c ′ – 0.29 Criswell35 Mean Standard deviation * where vi.81 to 0. and ρ ∈ A ρ ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 10 = 0.19 to 2.04 1.98 1.3-04) or fuzzy-based model. and ρ ∈ A ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 11 = 0.75 1.14 R = 8: if f c ′ ∈ A . the influence of the fused output on the model prediction.27 0.23 0.026 h + 835.19 ρ – 6.149 f c ′ + 0. Equation (11) presents the 12 rules forming the fuzzy knowledge rule-base.41 to 1.98 1.47 1. and ρ ∈ A ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 3 = 0.00 0.89 to 1.10 0.49 R = 5: if f c ′ ∈ A f .94 1.53 0.77 1.90 to 1.29 to 1. and h are in MPa.92 to 1.88 to 1.19 1.72 0.93 to 1.05 to 1.02 to 1.76 to 1.48 to 1.89 to 1.41 0.243 f c ′ – 0.70 to 1.97 to 1. h ∈ A .031 h – 136.02 to 1.64 0.02 0.00 1.07 to 1.86 1.91 0.92 0.91 to 1. MPa. unless otherwise noted.375 0.00 0.019 0.49 0.34 Teng et al.79 to 0.03 to 1.97 1.64 1.89 to 1.70 to 1.4 ρ – 11.98 0. Equation (10) can be used to compute the weight λ for each rule in the rule-base using the premise parameters listed in Table 1.31 to 1.65 to 0. where VTest equals actual strengths (test results).68 0.00 0.8 and 14. to perform the fuzzy and operation as indicated by Eq.116 h – 136.88 to 1.83 to 1.31 1.94 to 1.93 to 1.17 to 1.12 12 3 1 Σ i =1 Π j =1 ---------------------------------k k 2 qj x j – x cj 1 + --------------k wj Table 3—Testing to predicted punching shear strength ratio using existing design codes and fuzzy-based model FuzzyCSA based ACI 318-05 CEB-FIP Eurocode 2 A23.174 f c ′ + 0.40 1.86 ρ + 1.89 1.80 to 1.12 0.78 to 0.031 h – 84.028 h + 63.189 (10) R = 1: if f c ′ ∈ A f .006 f c ′ – 0.78 1. Ladner (1973) Corley and Hawkins (1968) Bernaert and Puech (1996) 0.19 ρ – 7.63 to 1.56 0.001 h – 236.36 2 3 2 2 f 3 h 1 ρ 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 f 1 h 2 ρ 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 f 2 h 1 ρ 1 f 1 h 2 ρ 1 1 1 (11) Manterola (1966) Yitzhaki (1966) Moe (1961) Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) Elstner and Hognestad (1956) Hawkins et al. (1979) Schaefers (1984) Ladner et al.87 to 1.05 1.22 to 1. h ∈ A h.21 1. and ρ ∈ A ρ ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 4 = 0.24 to 1.26 0.12 R = 4: if f c ′ ∈ A f .04 to 1.26 0.32 ρ + 3.61 1. Second. † Strength ratio (= VTest/Vpredicted).73 to 0.65 ρ – 3. and the effect of the fusion method on the computational efficiency of the learning algorithm.88 to 1.72 1.05 0.97 to 1.23 1.85 0.81 to 1.19 0.280 0.35 ρ + 3.006 h – 53.23 0.72 to 1.25 to 1.93 0. h ∈ A h.006 h + 49. Schaeidt et al.29 1.43 0.40 0.88 to 1.00 0.098 0.77 to 1.80 to 1.94 0.96 1. Hallgren (1996) Tomaszewicz (1993) Ramdane (1996). 3 1 Π j =1 ---------------------------------k k 2q x j – x cj j 1 + --------------k wj λ i = -----------------------------------------------------------.38 ρ + 3. and ρ ∈ A ρ ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 12 = 0.47 0. Regan et al.58 R = 11: if f c ′ ∈ A .15 1.45 0. f ′c.004 f c ′ + 0.43 0.51 to 1.506 f c ′ + 0. (10) to (12).37 0. and CSA A23.87 0.9 ρ – 8.10 0.05 R = 10: if f c ′ ∈ A f .75 0. (1993) Marzouk and Hussein (1991) Lovrovich and McLean (1990) Tolf (1988) Regan (1986) Swamy and Ali (1982) Marti et al. Therefore. and ρ ∈ A ρ ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 7 = – 0.02 to 1.. h ∈ A .05 1.82 1.01 to 1.90 R = 2: if f c ′ ∈ A .86 to 0. The punching shear strength vcf can be computed using Eq.88 to 0.10 1.67 R = 9: if f c ′ ∈ A f .01 to 1.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The fuzzy-based model was trained using test results with specific geometrical limits: circular and square columns and slabs with perimeter-to-slab-depth ratio (bo/d) ranging between 5.42 The selection of the implication operator is governed by three main issues: the needed logical implication ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 of information. respectively.16 0.76 to 1. h ∈ A h. h ∈ A h.39 to 1.46 to 1. (11) and (12) ⎛ 12 ⎞ ⎛ 12 ⎞ λ i⎟ v cf = ⎜ λ i v i⎟ ⁄ ⎜ ⎝i = 1 ⎠ ⎝i = 1 ⎠ Reference to investigators work.18 to 1.88 to 1.19 0.96 1. respectively. and Vpredicted equals predicted strengths by current design methods (ACI 318-05.42 R = 3: if f c ′ ∈ A .07 1.92 to 1.54 0. h ∈ A h.83 to 1.207 0.83 to 1.28 0.78 0.15 to 1. can be found in Reference 3.021 f c ′ + 0.34 0.65 0.248 f c ′ + 0.05 0.001 f c ′ – 0.198 1. and ρ ∈ A ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 8 = 0.02 0.16 R = 7: if f c ′ ∈ A f .27 to 1. h ∈ A h.32 1.47 0.42 0.219 0. and ρ ∈ A ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 2 = – 0.47 1.7 ρ + 4.76 to 1.64 1. and ρ ∈ A ρ ˜ ˜ ˜ then v 9 = 0.20 to 1.18 1.

20 Finally. 1 mm = 0. This fact promoted the use of the 444 product operator in artificial neural networks as an efficient Hebbian-type learning algorithm. (Note: 1 MPa = 0. (4) and (5)).04 in. the choice of the product implication was also controlled by the need to ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .145 ksi.) therefore magnify the contribution of the rules associated with high membership values in computing the shear strength (Eq. 5—Strength prediction by current design method and fuzzy-based model.Fig.

019 and a standard deviation of 18. Moreover. while those using n = 2 are 1.375. and n is a power coefficient. Figures 5(b) to (e) show the ratios between actual to predicted strength (Vtest /Vpredicted) using the CEB-FIP MC 90.219. If ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . The results show that the fuzzy-based model can be used to predict the punching shear strength of slab-column connections with various slab thicknesses. 7—Variation of strength-prediction by fuzzy-based model according to c2/c1 higher than 1. The model prediction with n = 2 for a wide range of bo/d and for rectangular columns are shown in Fig. which were not used in the learning process. Table 3 presents a summary of punching shear strength of the specimens predicted by the fuzzy-based model. the CEB-FIP MC 90 code underestimates the punching shear strength of specimens with low tension reinforcement ratios while it overestimates the punching shear strength of specimens with high tension reinforcement ratios.098. Therefore. (13) was based on examining each component separately. (13)) can accurately predict the punching shear strength of slabcolumn connections with various bo/d (5. the fuzzy-based model also accurately predicts the punching shear strength of slab-column connections with rectangular columns (c2/c1 > 1). the 96 specimens.8. 5(a) that the fuzzy-based model predicts punching shear strength at both low and high reinforcement ratios with consistent accuracy. and 1. This is attributed to the fact that ACI 318-05 and CSA A23.0) even though the fuzzy-based model (Eq. a design approach based on the fuzzy-based model is proposed as ⎧ v cf ⎪ ⎪ 1⎞ ⎛ 0. 1. Figure 5(a) shows the ratios between the actual test to the fuzzy-based model predicted strength (Vtest /Vpredicted) to have a mean value 1.9) due to the lack of test data. It is interesting to note that. The choice of n = 2 for the second and third components of Eq. Figure 6 demonstrates the fact that the modified fuzzybased model using a modification factor (Eq. 6 and 7. It is evident that the modified fuzzy-based model can properly consider the interaction between bo/d and vc in its strength equation (Eq. the model will significantly overestimate the punching slab-column connections with rectangular columns and with bo/d higher than 15. and circular and square columns. (12).8 ≤ bo/d ≤ 14. 6—Variation of strength-prediction by fuzzy-based model according to bo /d. were used. (12)) was developed within the geometrical limits (5.5 + ⎝ b ⎠ ⎠ cf o⁄d ⎩ Fig. c1 and c2 equal the short and long sizes of rectangular columns.5 + ---. (1)). These parameters have also been promoted by other researchers before because of their influence on the size effect43 and their possible role in developing shear friction.3-04 codes do not account for the effect of the tension reinforcement ratio on the punching shear strength.produce a continuous and differentiable error function (Eq. ACI 318-0514 and CSA A23. (13)). with standard deviations of 20. higher prediction accuracy of the fuzzy-based model can be observed compared with predication accuracies for all existing design codes. and 28.3-0415 underestimate the punching shear strength of specimens with high reinforcement ratios while they overestimate the punching shear strength of specimens with low reinforcement ratios. n = 1. It is also evident from Fig.12 the Eurocode 2.14 and CSA A23. Finally.189. 19.3-04. Moreover.9%. This is attributed to the fact that the fuzzybased model was developed by using the average ultimate shear strength vc considering bo and d (Eq. respectively. It is worth noting that the slab thickness and the tension reinforcement ratio in addition to the compressive strength are found to have a significant influence on modeling punching shear strength using the fuzzy-based model.0). From this result. it is noted that the modified fuzzy-based model properly considers the effect of rectangularity of columns in practical design range (1 ≤ c2/c1 ≤ 5). except for Eurocode 2.13 current design methods show a considerable scatter represented by high standard deviations of test-prediction ratios. the authors recommend the use of n = 2. 5(c). In Fig.0 as similar to the ACI equation is used. respectively. 31. the use of modification factors for 445 (13) where βc = c2/c1.44 To consider other rectangularity ratios c2/c1 (>1) and high perimeter to depth ratios bo/d (>15.7.019 and 0. The Eurocode 213 shows good accuracy in predicting the punching shear strength at different reinforcement ratios.4.15 to have mean values of 1.0%.8 ≤ bo/d ≤ 24. 7. if enough experimental data with high bo/d ratios and rectangular columns were available in the literature. It has become evident that refinement in the value of n for each part would not yield any enhancement in the prediction accuracy of the model. reinforcement ratios. In the verification. respectively (refer to Table 3).13 ACI 318-05.139.193. (6)) to enable efficient computation of the error gradients during the learning process. vcf is the fuzzy-based shear strength estimated using Eq. 1. It is worth noting that. Equation (13) is modeled in a format similar to that of the ACI equation for predicting the punching shear strength.977 and 0. observing Fig.v ⎪ n⎠ cf ⎝ v c = min ⎨ βc ⎪ ⎪ ⎛ 10 -⎞ n⎞ ⎛ ----------v ⎪ ⎝ 0. Fig. A mean value and a standard deviation of the strength-prediction ratios (Vtest /Vpredicted) of the specimens (Table 3) using n = 1 are 0.

9 ≤ h ≤ 11. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.3 Figure 9 shows the punching shear strength reported in existing test results.37.45 but is beyond the scope of this study.44. and tension reinforcement ratio are the primary parameters that dominate the punching behavior of slab-column connections.13 In cases with high reinforcement ratios. PROPOSED DESIGN CHART For design purposes. These combined effects can be successfully described by the fuzzy-based model.8 ≤ ρ ≤ 2.47 Regan. Each data set itself has similar dimension and property.). Investigations for developing a model with good accuracy showed that concrete compressive strength.37 Shaeidt el al. only four design charts are developed herein covering the aforementioned range of parameters.5 ksi). the direct use of the fuzzy-based model as an empirical method using Eq. 8.9 ≤ f ′c ≤ 14. the authors suggest a simplified design model that is developed based on a set of design charts that are developed using the fuzzy-based model. As expected.46 This phenomenon is due to the combined effect of the primary parameters (compressive strength. (13) using n = 2. For this study.8 in. Obtaining a refined shear strength reduction factor (higher than 0. the punching shear strength of thick slabs is always less than that of thin slabs due to the size effect24. For space limitations. and tension reinforcement ratio) and can be also observed in previous test results from the punching shear database. 9(b). This can be attributed to the possibility that the increase in the slab thickness with high reinforcement ratios results in an increase in the axial membrane force. however. It can be observed from Fig. This indicates the fact that a refined fuzzy-based model would always be possible to develop. the punching shear strength increases as the slab thickness increases.) Fig.26. CONCLUSIONS A new alternative design method and a set of design charts based on fuzzy learning from examples are proposed.44-47 addressing these issues can be completely omitted. Additional design charts can be developed using the model equations described previously. The dimensions and properties of the specimens are summarized in Table 1. for all data sets with high concrete compressive strength. The design charts are developed 446 .Fig. The new method can accurately predict the punching shear strength of simply supported interior slab-column connections without shear reinforcement. the punching shear strength of thick slabs may be greater than that of thin slabs. 8(c) and (d). which indicates the trade-off between size effect and shear friction effect.44 This possible shear friction contribution to the punching shear strength has been argued by other researchers in shear analysis. which respects previous findings of the size effect by Bažant and Cao9 and Eurocode 2. 100 ≤ h ≤ 300 mm (3. (10) to (13) and the premise parameters from Table 2 might not be feasible for designers. The punching shear strength vcf can be estimated using Fig. 8(a) to (d) that the punching shear strength decreases as slab thickness increases..38.24. To avoid such complexity and to make use of the demonstrated ability and relative high accuracy of the fuzzybased model in design of slab-column connections without shear reinforcement. and φ is the strength reduction factor taken equal to 0. One hundred and seventy eight test specimens from the punching shear databank were used for training and testing the proposed model (82 for training and 96 for testing). however. 9(a)). The training and testing data sets cover a wide range of the material and geometric properties. The φ factor of 0. This finding is limited to circular and rectangular columns ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 where vc is calculated according to Eq.48 Marzouk and Hussein. In Fig. Following a format similar to that used in ACI 318-05.27 which contributes to punching shear strength due to the increase in the shear friction effect.25 Hallgren and Kinnunen. Figures 8(a) to (d) show a group of design charts to estimate the punching shear strength vcf of slab-column connections using the fuzzy-based model. slab thickness.25. 1 mm = 0. for low concrete compressive strength and high reinforcement ratios (ρ ≥ 0.012).145 ksi. As observed in Fig. Elstner and Hognestad. 5(a). 9—Strength variation according to primary design parameters. The testing data set was not used in the training process.6 corresponds conservatively to the lowest bound shown in Fig. this size effect is disturbed by the combined effect of size and membrane force generated by the tension reinforcement.6) can be done using principles of load and resistance factor design (LRFD).04 in. for high tension reinforcement ratios and low concrete compressive strength. slab thickness. 8—Design chart for punching shear strength using fuzzy-based model.0%.49 and Tomaszewicz’s50 specimens were used.43 (see Fig.6. and 0. once experimental data beyond these geometrical limitations becomes available. the design strength for punching shear of slab-column connections is defined as φVn = φvcbod (14) for a wide range of primary design parameters: 20 ≤ f ′c ≤ 100 MPa (2.

. 2004. 23. “Design of Concrete Structures. Ladner. E. 3. No. 35.” Journal of Structural Engineering.. “On a General Class of Fuzzy Connectives. and Long. “A23. 2004. 20. Proceedings V.. 5.. B. Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft Computing. 42. Comité EuroInternational du Béton. pp.” Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs.” ACI Structural Journal. SP-30. M. “Berechnung von Flachdecken auf Durchstanzen. pp. 87. 82.. K.. 527-542.. Deflection and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab Systems. No.. 7.. and Geng. Loov. 1970. E. pp. E. “Poinçonnement Symétrique des Plachers-Dalles. 146. 2. Lausanne. 1985. W. P. CEB-FIP MC 90. and Hinojosa. A. J. 11. V. Sept. Bažant. Albuquerque. “On the Convergence of a New LevenbergMarquardt Method. CEB-FIP Task Group. “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Laviolette. Dübendort. E. 84. M.. Series B. TRITA-BST Bull.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 2005. 2001. D.3-04 Design of Concrete Structures. “Plattjocklekens Inverkan På Betongplattors Hållfasthet vid Genomstansning. P. G. pp. Royal Institute of Technology.” ACI Structural Journal.. Berenji. Fallsen. E. pp.” Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs-und Versuchsanstalt. Sweden. and Qi. “The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its Solutions.8 and 24.. pp. 47.. Nov. 1-11. J.” fib 12. and Stork. “Combinatorial Rule Explosion Eliminated by a Fuzzy Rule Configuration. Department of Civil Engineering.. 626-638. 127-146. Jan. J. P.. 29-58. S. V. Criswell. No. MayJune 1987. University of Calgary. 6. W. 39. A. J. Farmington Hills. 30. J.. M. Regan.. 64 pp. V.” IEEE Trans. 1987.” PhD dissertation. Stockholm. 1971. D. STE70 A93082. Bažant. Prentice Hall. Lillehammer.. R. S. 230 pp. J. 678-687. Sept. 115-128. 44-53. 327-346.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 1992. K. 5. and Hognestad. 280 pp. 5. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications.” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 507-511. D. Brussels... N. and Long. B. R. U. Gupta. and Zhou. Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasi Brittle Materials. 48..” Magazine of Concrete Research. 40. 12. 1. W. while addressing uncertainty and interactions between modeling parameters.” American Concrete Institute. pp. Report No. 44.3. 2nd Edition. C. 19. Mich. V. Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity. 33. 2001.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.. 3. 8. W.” CEB-FIP Model Code 1990.. R. and Jennewein. AMSS. M. and Nylander.. Trondheim. 1993. 41. pp. University of New Mexico. Insitut für Baustatik und Konstruktion.. pp. Apr. pp. 1960. ACI Committee 318. P. S. Teng. 680 pp. B. Rankin. 25.. 28. 43. Alberta. SINTEF Structures and Concrete..” Utilization of High Strength Concrete. 1329-1333. Wiley & Sons. No. Jan. “An Experimental Study of Slab-Column Connections. Duda.” Cracking. American Concrete Institute. CSA Technical Committee on Reinforced Concrete Design. L.” ACI Structural Journal.. 5. I. and McLean. 26. Comp. John Wiley and Sons.. S. 131. 701-713. “Punching Shear Tests on Circular High Strength Concrete Slabs. New York.. and Moehle.. Z. Canada. No. 3.. “Bayesian Model Choice via Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods. “Ultimate Punching Shear Strength Analysis of Slab-Column Connections. R. and CSA A23. V. 82. 6. D. V. ASCE.. Uncertainty and Information: Foundations of Generalized Information Theory. Kuang. 437-450. H. D. Birkle. B. 17..” ACI Structural Journal. 1995. and Simmonds.. K. “Ultimate Strength of Slab-Column Connections. H.. P. pp..0 and 5.. S. Tolf. J. 1987. Pralong. No. Department of Civil Engineering.3-04 in predicting the punching shear strength of slab-column connections. 250 pp.. 1993. 6.” IBKBericht No. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 447 . R. C. I. A. W. Alexander. UK. Fan.” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks. Sherif. 24..” ACI JOURNAL. 724-740. and Rösli.. 22. pp. 3. G. 2nd Edition. A. Proceedings V. 1964. S. V. 43.-Dec. pp. Nov. Chatterjee. Yitzhaki. Z. V. J. 1986. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05). 158. C. R. 23. J. John Wiley & Sons. H. 37. 36 pp. 463 pp. Calgary. 255-261.” European Committee for Standardization. 36. 13. “Accelerated Assessment and Fuzzy Evaluation of Concrete Durability. Switzerland. 437 pp. 2002. 4. H. S. Mich. pp. pp. Kani. 53. M...” Transactions No. Chau. CRC Press. 1996.. 1997. Combs. Zongjin. H. Yager. W. 46. V. Vicksburg. 89. J..” ACI JOURNAL . A. pp. 14. 441-468. 5. “Learning and Tuning Fuzzy Logic Controllers Through Reinforcements.. V. E. No. N. 1993. 88. 76. 49. T. and Khedkar. “Calibration of LRFD Bridge Code. Eurocode 2. 998-1011.” Bulletin d’information. 1998.. 9. Cheong.” Cement and Concrete Composites. 1999. “Experimental Investigation on the Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs. V. ASCE. D. No. “Predicting the Punching Strength of Conventional Slab-Column Specimens. “A Probabilistic and Statistical View of Fuzzy Methods. and Hussein. “Symmetric Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. G. Theodorakopoulos. Lovrovich. “Fuzzy Systems Methods in Structural Engineering. 249-261. N. N.3-94 Simplified Method for Shear Design and Comparison with Results Using Shear Friction. No. Marzouk. Schlaich. M. R.. and Cao. 40. KTH Stockholm. “Punching Shear in Forced Concrete: A State of the Art Report. 38. “Flat Slabs: The Influence of the Slab Thickness and the Stud Layout.. N. Dec. V.. A Computational Approach to Learning and Machine Intelligence. 2006.C. 6. 1987. 31. H.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems.. “High-Strength Concrete: SP2-Plates and Shells— Report 2. J.” PhD dissertation. V. G. Mex. N. H. V. 1992.. 1165-1186. pp. 2004. E. V. M. Nielsen.. 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The financial support by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) University Strategic Partnership to the University of New Mexico is greatly appreciated. Switzerland. X. 1997. Rexdale. 614 pp. Miss. K. Lucero..-Dec. L.-Oct. ETH Zürish.. Chinese Academy of Sciences. and Woodall. “Fuzzy Systems as Universal Approximators. 235-242. REFERENCES 1. 17. No.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 84. 2001. 25.” Försök med Cikulåra Plattor. 2nd Edition.S. 1995. Carlin. “Strength and Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections Subjected to Static and Dynamic Loading. Z. 3. and Mizutani. X... Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Sweden. V. M. D. A. No. P.. Proceedings. B. M. P.. A. V. No. 34. “Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs. and Kinnunen. P. 45. pp. “Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate Structure. Canada.3-94 for Punching Shear Strength Provisions for Interior Columns. P..” ACI JOURNAL.. 101. “Critical Review of the CSA A23.. Kinnunen. 24. 15. Barrett. “An Adaptive Fuzzy Strategy for Motion Control of Robot Manipulators. 16.. Thomas Telford.. Schaeidt. Schäfer. Nowak. 32. 775-808.. No. Hallgren. and Dilger. No. Su. 185-193..” Fuzzy Sets and Systems.-Oct. July 1979. O. July 1956..” ACI JOURNAL. 1990.. The proposed model. V. 4. Hawkins. 1995. 1991. D.and slabs with perimeter-to-slab-depth ratios (bo/d) ranging between 5. Tomaszewicz.. Klir. Pan.. J.. 11 pp.” Technometrics. A. G. V. “Punching Shear Behaviour of Slab with Varying Span-Depth Ratios. 2005. 112 pp. 3. D. pp.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. and Mitchell. 431-450. 74-150. 1245-1251. pp. 32. and Chib... 61. and Andrews. S. J. 3. 1982. 1970. “Design of Concrete Structures Part I: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. 1.0 and column size ratios (c2/c1) ranging between 1. E.. 21.” Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute.. No.. 1993. Jang. 121.. 37.” Technical Report N-70-1. A. Elstner. P. “Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs. Kosko.. “Review of A23. Lausanne. and Watanabe. No... CEB-FIP MC 90. Y.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. New York. “Predicting the Enhanced Punching Strength of Interior Slab-Column Connections. Z. J.. 50.. 29. 499 pp. Rankin. 57. Pattern Classification. Hawkins. 2004. 9. pp. V.. No.” ACI Structural Journal. pp. G. E. “Theory of T-Norms and Fuzzy Inference Methods.0. was shown to respect the fundamental mechanics of punching shear as described by many researchers. and Swamy. No. T.. 1991. No. 2004. Farmington Hills. Proceedings V. “Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. 2005.. 509-521. V. 27. and Yuan. 1987. “Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement. J. May 1966. EC 2. 473-484. J. “Influence of Column Rectangularity on the Behaviour of Flat Plate Structures. V.” Soft Computing. and Braestrup.” Technical Report. pp. E. 314 pp. Proceedings V. B. 3. 257-263 18. pp. pp. M. The fuzzy-based model demonstrates higher prediction accuracy compared with all current design codes including ACI 318-05. 430 pp. Y. M.. 8. 4.. V. Seaman. pp. G. K. 1980. 63. No. Ontario. CRC Press.” ACI Structural Journal.. 650 pp. R. J. 1988.” Canadian Standards Association. “Punching Shear Strength of Slabs with Openings and Supported on Rectangular Columns. 10. 7. N. Hart. Ross. 7. “Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete.. Regan. H. pp. 2002. 38.-Feb. 3. pp.

2 and to evaluate the applicability of capacity-prediction methods developed for smaller anchors. with diameters from 2. 104. tension test.67 (5) N u = 4 f c ′π hef ( 1 + d k ⁄ h ef ) ( lb ) 2 Note: fc ′ = specified concrete compressive strength (psi).5 1. Copyright © 2007. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The research described herein is the first experimental information on the tensile behavior of very large headed anchor bolts (hef ≥ 21 in. anchor diameter. it may be considered to predict approximately the 5%-fractile of test results. To evaluate the tensile behavior of anchors with large diameters and embedment depths.7 f c′ h ef ( lb ) 1. which are not addressed by ACI 318.3 which is a derivative of the Kappa method4 described in Reference 5. Kang Sik Kim.6 a 45-degree cone model is used to calculate the concrete breakout capacity (Eq.5 Remark Mean breakout strength. the average concrete breakout capacity of headed anchors in uncracked concrete is given by Eq. Appendix D). large anchors were tested in tension to develop design criteria for anchors that are not addressed by ACI 318-05. (1). CCD-method with exponent 1. will be published in the May-June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1. The mean concrete capacity may be calculated according to Eq. (5)). no design provisions validated by tests exist for them. (50 mm) or an embedment depth greater than 25 in. which is assumed as 0. (69. (4) for calculating the nominal breakout capacity of headed anchors with an embedment depth hef ≥ 11 in. 479 . It is important because although such anchor bolts are commonly used in power plants and for the anchorage of tanks. V. the tensile capacity of large anchor bolts is governed by tensile yield and fracture of the anchor steel or by tensile breakout of the concrete in which the anchor is embedded. EXISTING FORMULAS FOR PREDICTING TENSILE CAPACITY OF ANCHOR BOLTS IN CONCRETE Presuming the head of the anchor is large enough to prevent pull-out failure (refer to ACI 318.67 1. ACI 349-97 (45-degree cone model) (3) (4) N u = 20 f c′ h ef ( lb ) 1.5 on hef Nominal breakout strength. and Kwang Ryeon Park This paper presents test results for large cast-in-place anchor bolts in concrete. CCD-method with exponent 1. and ACI 349.3 In ACI 318.1 or ACI 349-01. (635 mm). A summary of the proposed predictors are given as Equation number (1) (2) Predictor N u. (254 mm) according to ACI 318-05. In ACI 349-97.9 to 108 mm) and embedment depths from 25 to 45 in. Appendix D Mean breakout strength for anchors with hef ≥ 10 in. Whereas the tensile behavior of smaller anchors has been studied extensively. The breakout formulas of current U. Appendix D Nominal breakout strength. embedment depths exceeding 25 in. No. The tests were also intended to investigate the safety of such anchors for use in nuclear power plants and the effects of regular (conventional) and special reinforcement on the strength of such anchors. According to the CCD method. large anchors have not been adequately addressed. Appendix B.67 on hef Nominal breakout strength for anchors with hef ≥ 10 in. The test results are used to assess the applicability of existing design formulas valid for smaller anchors to large anchors. (254 mm). ACI 318-05. Because Eq.25 in. S-2006-232 received June 6. and a specified ultimate strength of 155 ksi (1085 MPa). 2006. Appendix D. [525 mm]). (635 mm). m = 40 f c′ h ef ( lb ) N u = 30 f c′ h ef ( lb ) N u. Chang Joon Bang. hef = effective embedment (in. anchor bolt. (2). 2008. All rights reserved. American Concrete Institute. (279 mm) in uncracked concrete. embedment. INTRODUCTION Current anchorage designs for nuclear power plants in Korea use large anchor bolts with diameters exceeding 2 in. ACI 318-05. Keywords: anchor.75 times the mean value. Steel yield and fracture are well understood. five different test configurations were selected and four test replicates with each configuration ACI Structural Journal.). Equation (4) modifies the CCD method slightly by changing the exponent on the embedment depth hef from 1. Appendix D. In the research described herein. Appendix D. MS No.1 allows the use of Eq.75 to 4. (5) was used in design. that is. This equation is valid for anchors with a relatively small head (mean bearing pressure at breakout load of approximately 13fc′ ). cast-in-place.ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no.S. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Test specimens To evaluate the effects of embedment depth. This leads to Eq.5 to 1.67. m = 26.). and db = diameter of anchor head (in. The tests were performed to evaluate the tensile performance of large anchors. July-August 2007. (3). various anchors. design provisions (ACI 318-051 and ACI 349-012) are based on the concrete capacity design (CCD) ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 method (CCD method). Suggestions are made for incorporating the effects of deep embedment or large diameter in existing design provisions for cast-in-place tensile anchor bolts under tension load. and reviewed under Institute publication policies. anchors with a diameter greater than 2 in. 104-S46 TECHNICAL PAPER Tensile-Headed Anchors with Large Diameter and Deep Embedment in Concrete by Nam Ho Lee. (635 to 1143 mm) were tested. Appendix B. 4. (50 mm). Appendix D. a specified yield strength of 140 ksi (980 MPa). Pertinent discussion including author’s closure.1 the 5%-fractile of the concrete cone breakout loads are predicted. and supplementary reinforcement patterns on the tensile capacity of large anchors. including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. if any.

9) 3. Seoul.4.6hef / 2. All anchors were fabricated of ASTM A540 Gr.25 in.2) Fig. Table 2(b)—Concrete strength at time of testing Test specimen T1-A/B/C/D T2-A/B/C/D T3-A/B/C/D T4-A/B/C/D Curing ages. Korea. (19 mm). dh = 8.7hef / 2.B. B23 Class 2 steel (equivalent to ASME SA 549 Gr. (406.0hef 5. 8 bars and 16 No. 8 bars for test Series T4 and T5. embedment each anchor hef .9 mm]). in test Series T4 and T5.0 mm]).1) 6144 (42.8)/ 5508 (38. 1. He is a member of ACI Committees 349.db. 2 Fig.9) 2. Daejeon. The target concrete strength at 42 days was fc′ = 5500 psi (37.ACI member Nam Ho Lee is a Senior Research Engineer in the Civil Engineering Department of the Korea Power Engineering Co. in. Korea Power Engineering Co.5 in.0hef /3. No. Kang Sik Kim is a Senior Researcher.0)/5464 (37.0)/5917 (40. The test specimens are shown in Fig. to minimize the width of eventual shrinkage cracks. The concrete mixture for the test specimens is shown in Table 2(a).0 (152.C.3 mm]).0hef / 2. and 355.44 44 525 514 128 1257 1617 474 26 admixture.4) 6.75 (69.. † Air-entraining admixture. Chang Joon Bang is a Project Engineer at Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Korea Electric Power Research Institute.9hef 5. WRA.D T3-A. and 254 mm) spacing for Specimens T1. were performed giving 20 specimens in total.7) 5177 (35. and dh = 10 in. His research interests include the nonlinear behavior of concrete structures and anchorage to concrete. The concrete volume (width/length/depth) available for each anchor is shown in Table 1. The anchor head consisted of a round thick plate which was fixed to the bolt by clamping nuts (Fig. 1 T5-A. and Joint ACI-ASME Committee 359.9) 6. Anchorage to Concrete.0) 2. W.C.4) 25 (635) 35 (889) 45 (1143) 25 (635) 25 (635) 5. T3. and 10 in.75 in. He is currently a Graduate Student of civil engineering. the top and bottom of the test member were reinforced in both directions with No. Table 1—Description of tension test specimens Concrete Diameter volume Anchor of anchor Effective available for diameter. Korea.75 (95. psi (MPa) 5771 (39. in. as shown in Fig. and T5.75 (69.4 mm) (db = 2.9 mm) (db = 3.) crushed aggregate was used instead of 3/4 in. head.6)/5220 (36.9hef /5. ment (mm) (mm) (mm) depth) None None None 2. and T3.9hef /5. 3) was used to increase the ultimate load. Kwang Ryeon Park is a Research Engineer.B. FA. at W/ S/a.3) 4.9) / 5305 (36.9 MPa).4)/6130 (42.0) 6.B.75 in. days 58/50/44/42 41/45/47/49 61/56/54/50 57/55/54/50 71/70/69/68 Compressive strength. T4.4) 8.6)/5348 (36.8)/5630 (38.7) 5448 (37. The actual concrete strength at the time of testing is given in Table 2(b). Table 2(a)—Concrete mixture proportioning Nominal strength. (152. Civil Engineering Department.0hef / 2.0 (152.5)/5320 (36. [69. except that 20% by weight of the Type I cement was substituted by fly ash and 1 in. (215. 2).25 (108. respectively).D T4-A.0hef 5. Pa.D Supp. 2—Details of anchor head.B.C. Concrete Components for Nuclear Reactors. The supplementary reinforcements consisted of vertical stirrups (eight No.B.0hef / 2. supplementary reinforcement (refer to Fig. lb mL 5500 *Water-reducing 0. 480 T5-A/B/C/D ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .D Supp. 1—Tension test Specimens T1.9hef Specimen T1-A. (25 mm.9hef 5. 254. (width/length/ dh .3)/ 6130 (42. As shown in Fig. in. psi. 10 bars at 16. 10. lb lb S.9hef /5. [108.7)/5248 (36. This surface reinforcement does not significantly influence the concrete breakout load. 1. respectively. (254. Lehigh University. Reinforce.7)/5817 (40.0 (254.0 mm) (db = 4. no special reinforcement was used to resist the applied tension load. The diameter of the round plate was dh = 6 in.* AEA.8)/ 5903 (40.† mL 42 days (C + FA) % lb C. B23 Class 2 used in Korean nuclear power plants) with fy = 140 ksi (980 MPa) and fu = 155 ksi (1085 MPa). No.5 (215. Ltd. The concrete used in the test specimens was comparable to the concrete used in the Korean Nuclear Plant. The test program is summarized in Table 1. lb G.C.4hef/4. Whereas in test Series T1 to T3.75 (69.2) / 5291 (36. Environment and Structure Laboratory. He received his BS from Seoul National University and his MS and PhD from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology. wooden and steel frames were constructed to suspend the cast-in-place anchors in the correct position and at the correct embedment depth. [95. The concrete for the specimens of one test series was placed from one batch. Furthermore. Concrete Nuclear Structures.D T2-A. T2. His research interests include the behavior of concrete-filled steel plate structures and anchorage to concrete.0 (152.3)/6116 (42.0) 5945 (41. Bethlehem.9) 10. 3. The size of the concrete test block was large enough to avoid splitting failure.C. T2.

6(b).4. 302.9.55. 30. The values given in the tables are normalized to fc′ = 5500 psi (37. thus allowing for an unrestricted formation of a concrete cone. the strain along the embedment length of the anchor bolt was measured (Fig. and T5. The cracking patterns in the specimen after the test are depicted in Fig. 5).90. 6(a). and 9750.25 in.55.5. 1683. load cell. Additionally. 3—Supplementary reinforcement in Specimens T4 and T5. T3. and 107.25.9 MPa) by multiplying the measured peak load of each test with the factor (5500/fc. 77. and 9750. respectively.95 mm]. and 2192 kips [4114. 5—Location of LVDTs and strain gauges (Specimen T1).5 kN] for bolts with diameters of 2.75.75.25 in.25.90. In test Series T1 to T3. respectively). Only Specimen T4-A was tested to Fig.4. 266. one major longitudinal crack was observed. Generally. The cores confirmed a breakout cone whose angle with the concrete surface varied from α = 20 to 30 degrees. and 213. To identify the internal crack propagation defining the roughly conical breakout body. 342. centered approximately on the sides of the block. T4. and 2192 kips [4114. The applied load was measured by a load cell. Furthermore. The load was applied to the anchor under force-control in an increment of approximately 3.5. one replicate of each specimen type was selected. T2. were not tested to failure. that is.6.5% of ultimate steel strength of the anchor bolt (Fu = 925. 7486. in combination with a horizontal crack and some transverse cracks. [69. loading plate. and other items. 68. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig.6. the cracks formed a circular pattern around the anchor. 4. respectively). the measured steel strains exceeded the yield strain and because of safety concerns a sudden rupture of the bolt was avoided. failure was caused by concrete cone breakout well below the anchor bolt steel capacities (Fu = 925. jack assembly. for bolts with a diameter of 2. On the top surface of the block. 1683. the displacement of the top end of the anchor was measured by LVDTs (Fig. 3.test)0.4. test Specimens T4 and T5. and (b) photo. It was reacted in two directions by a stiff frame to minimize the bending moment in the test specimen. following the typical crack profiles shown in Fig. 82. 5). In general. 4—Tension test setup: (a) schematic. 481 . 3. as shown in the schematic and photo in Fig.Test setup The test setup consisted of a loading frame. 82. and 4. Fig. and 48 kips (133. and 107. with supplementary reinforcement (Fig. 60. and 4.95 mm]. At the applied peak load. [69. failure modes and load displacement behavior The average failure loads are summarized in Table 3(a) (Series T1 to T3) and Table 3(b) (Series T4 and T5). TEST RESULTS Failure loads. 7486. The clear distance between the supports was 4.0 hef for Specimens T1 through T5. and the concrete was cored on two orthogonal planes whose intersection coincided with the axis of the anchor.5 kN].5. 3).5 kN) for Series T1.

B. 35 in. the relationship between load and anchor displacement at the surface of the concrete (calculated from the displacements measured at the anchor top end subtracting the steel elongation of the projecting length) are plotted for test Series T1 to T5. 53. no cores were taken to check whether a cone had begun to form. (1059.18 1. T4.37 1.58 1.67 h ef Eq. T2. (3) 0. T2. the applied maximum loads were almost identical with the failure loads.99 0.45 1.bol in Com25 in.5 625 (2780) 0. and 41.7 685 (3047) 0. 9 parison (635 mm) (889 mm) (1143 mm) Mean 5% fractile of test results Mean of test results (I) (II) (III) (IV) Nu.09 0. the calculated displacements at the concrete surface are negative for low loads. 25 in.5%/Eq. Eq. (3) T4 1.44 failure.09 Symbol in Classification Fig.19 1.51 1. 25 in. Eq. (635 mm) (889 mm) (1143 mm) 676 (3006) 320 (1423) 371 (1650) 1305 (5804) 562 (2499) 614 (2731) 2138 (9510) 855 (3803) 895 (3981) Table 3(b)—Tension test results and predictions for reinforced Specimens T4 and T5 Concrete breakout capacities. T3.51 1. T2.24 1. In some tests. are much smaller than shown in Fig. Eq. and T5 are shown in Fig.5%/Eq. (5) ACI 318-05.77 750 (3336) 744 (3309) 2.37 1.70 T1 0.74 1. 7. the failure load of the anchors was not reached.58 1.Table 3(a)—Tension test results and predictions for unreinforced Specimens T1. it can be concluded that in test Series T4. kips (kN). 9 5% fractile of test results Mean of test results (I) (II) (III) (IV) Ratio of observed to predictions (hef = 25 in. 1234. (3) Mean COV. kips (kN).39 1.8 662 (2944) 0.74 1. (1) CCD method with 1. 7(a) through 7(e). T2. Failure of this specimen was caused by forming a concrete cone. 6—(a) Cracking pattern for four test replicates (A.92 1. 8.86 428 (1903) 509 (2264) 5. (5) Nu.7. % CCD method with 428 (1903) 1. From the load-displacement curves (Fig. Classi.89 1142 (5079) 1242 (5524) 6.21 0. Eq. T4.5 h ef Eq. 45 in. by embedment Specimen T4 Specimen T5.19 0. 25 in. [635 mm]) Comparison Nu.24 1.5 h ef Eq. (1) Predictions CCD method with 1. (1) Mean/Eq. using the displacement measured at the top of each anchor.98 1. and D) of Specimens T1.97 1. % Tests 5%-fractile 5%-fractile/ mean 509 (2264) 5. respectively. 7 include the steel elongation of the projecting anchor length. 1059.44 1. In Fig. 25 in. (4) Classification Reference ACI 349-97.12 1.32 1.67 h ef Eq. (5) Mean/Eq. the actual anchor displacements at the top of the concrete surface. T3.16 1. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 . and T5 were 41. (5) ACI 318-05. by embedment Specimen T1 Specimen T2. 41.6. and T3. In test Series T5. 35 in.1. fication Fig. Specimen T3. (4) Predictions CCD method with 1.1 944 (4199) 0. (5) Nu. and 1059 mm). It is believed that this is 482 (a) (b) Fig.19 T4/T1 1. and (b) typical internal crack profile in Specimen T1.01 2. (1) Mean/ Eq. C.93 428 (1903) 725 (3224) 3.8 393 (1748) 0. 45 in. (4) Mean/ Eq.71 T5 0.5%/ Eq. 7). Because the measured displacements shown in Fig. The load-displacement relationship for each test replicate varied based on the concrete strength at the time of testing.7.8 393 (1748) 0.5%/ Eq. Specimen T3. (635 mm) (635 mm) (635 mm) 676 (3006) 320 (1423) 371 (1650) 676 (3006) 320 (1423) 371 (1650) 676 (3006) 320 (1423) 371 (1650) Classification Reference ACI 349-97. 48. Specimen T1. and T3 Concrete breakout capacities. The load-displacement curves for Specimens T1. The projecting lengths of the anchor shafts from the concrete surface to the top of the anchor for Specimens T1.96 1. Because Specimens T4 and T5 showed no cracking at the concrete surface. however.77 5%-fractile 5%-fractile/ mean Ratios of observed to predicted capacities SymSpecimen T1 Specimen T2. 1348. (3) Mean COV.76 Tests 428 (1903) 733 (3260) 1.7 in. which are accumulated along the embedded portion of the anchor.

(200 mm) best. (1) is conservative for large embedment depths.test /Nu. Only two 483 . AND T3 According to the 45-degree cone model (Eq.67 proportional to hef ) is 1. In Fig. the predictions according to the CCD method are conservative. 10(a)). (3). 8—Relation between load and anchor displacement at concrete surface. the power on the embedment depths is greater than 1. The failure loads predicted by Eq.7 In the present tests. On average. (250 mm) predicts the failure loads of anchors with hef ≥ 8 in. (200 mm) measured in the present tests and taken from other sources3. T2. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Fig. (3) (Nu 1. T2. as well as the failure loads according to best fit equations using the current test results and Eq. It decreases slightly with increasing embedment depth (Fig. the breakout failure loads increase approximately proportional to hef1. (1). (2). and T3. Eq. tension test results for unreinforced Specimens T1. Appendix D.3 and Shirvani et. The breakout capacities increase in proportion to hef predicted capacities Nu. 10(c)).calc decreases with increasing embedment depth (Fig.5. respectively. 10(a). Fig. In Fig. caused by bending of the anchors if they were not installed perfectly perpendicular to the concrete surface. This agrees with the findings by Fuchs et al. 10(b)). EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS FOR UNREINFORCED SPECIMENS T1.8 In contrast. and (5). 10(b). and 5. (3) agree quite well with the measured values (Fig. Fig. are plotted as a function of the embedment depth. the ratios of measured capacities to predicted values are plotted. 10(e)). (1) and (3).67 at an effective embedment depth of 10 in.5 to 1. On average.calc are much higher than the measure values Nu. the prediction according to Eq. did not slip much. the breakout failure loads of headed anchors with an embedment depth hef ≥ 8 in.8 are compared with values predicted by the CCD method. al. 10(c). In Fig. T2. With much larger heads. It can be seen that the anchor displacements at peak load of Specimens T1 to T3 (concrete cone failure) are rather small. This can be explained by the rather large anchor heads that. According to Fig. due to the low concrete stresses. at failure. and the 5%-fractiles of the measured failure loads calculated by assuming an unknown standard deviation are compared with the values according to Eq. and Eq. Fig. (4) and (5). Figure 10(f) shows that the CCD method changing the exponent on hef from 1. The measured mean failure loads are compared with the predicted mean capacities according to Eq. 7—Measured load-displacement relationships. (3). the 5%-fractiles of the observed capacities are approximately half the capacities predicted by ACI 349-97 (Table 3(a)). and T3. and results in Table 3(b) for reinforced Specimens T4 and T5. the 2 . as a function of the embedment depth. the related pressure under the head was on average p/fc′ = 4. (1) (Nu proportional to hef1.5) with no significant influence of the embedment depth (Fig. Comparison of predicted and tested tensile breakout capacities In Table 3(a). the ratio of measured failure loads to the values predicted by Eq. 10(d) to 10(f). (1). The measured average breakout loads are approximately 30% higher than the values predicted according to Eq. the measured concrete breakout loads.37. It was much smaller than the pressure allowed by ACI 318-05 for uncracked concrete ( pn = 10fc′ ).09 (Table 3(a)). (5). 10(d). 9. (5)). are compared with predicted capacities.5. This demonstrates that the 45-degree cone model is unconservative for deep anchors. Figure 10 shows the measured failure loads of each test compared with the values predicted according to Eq. For head sizes allowed by ACI 318-05.test and the ratio Nu.Fig. 3.36. 11.31 for test Series T1.

5%/Nu.5%/Nu. might vary more than in the present test specimens.7 using a sophisticated three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model demonstrates that the concrete breakout capacity of headed anchors is influenced by the head size.m of 0. This limiting value is supported also by the numerical analysis results. This limiting value is deduced from the results of the test Series T1 to T3. Fig. On average. 9—Ratios of test results (5% fractile and mean) to predicted capacities. 11—Test results and comparison with predicted capacities. should only be used for deep anchors if the pressure under the head is pn ≤ 2.81.7 For smaller heads. Based on the previous evaluations. whereas in ACI 349-01.3.4fc′. Numerical investigations by Ozbolt et al. The higher ratio Nu. the coefficient of variation (COV) was approximately 5%. In cracked reinforced concrete.67. In actual structures. Equation (4) is valid. (3)). on average 4. it is recommended to predict the nominal concrete breakout capacities of anchors with an embedment depth hef ≥ 10 in. In these tests. (4)) (refer to Table 3(a)). that is.0. This results in an average ratio Nu. Appendix D. the breakout capacities in uncracked concrete should be predicted by Eq. (4) with hef1.8. multiplied by the factor 0. Appendix D (Eq. The nominal capacity is approximately 75% of the mean capacity (compare Eq. one gets pn/fc′ = 3. Therefore. the pressure under the head. Appendix D. Therefore. compare with Table 3.8 compared with uncracked concrete.3. in cracked concrete Eq.test points at hef = 8 in. Fig. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .m assumed in ACI 318-05. (2). The 5%-fractiles of the capacities observed in the present tests average approximately 120% of the values predicted by ACI 318-05. 484 Fig. 10—Ratios of observed to predicted concrete tensile breakout capacities as function of embedment depth. When applying this reduction factor. ACI 318-05. (4). which is equal to 75% of the average value. the ratio Nu.4 to 5.75 is assumed. reduces the nominal breakout capacities of headed anchors in cracked reinforced concrete by a factor 0. only if the head size is large so that the pressure under the head at the nominal capacity is pn ≤ 3fc′ . (4) with Eq.2 ~ 3.calc when comparing the 5% fractiles with each other instead of the average values is due to the rather low scatter of test results. lower breakout capacities than in uncracked concrete are observed. (250 mm) in uncracked concrete by Eq. and thus the concrete cone resistance. however. (200 mm) fall below the assumed 5%-fractile. should be maintained. the pressure under the head was pn/fc′ = 3.9 Therefore. the concrete strength.test /Nu. for which the nominal pressure under the head is pn > 3fc′ . related to the concrete compressive strength as described previously. a ratio of 0.

In Series T5. stresses in the supplementary reinforcement of Specimens T5 along the outer circles are less than half of those along the inner circle. The tested anchors. These test results indicate that this layout of supplementary reinforcement contributes with a low level of effectiveness to the capacity of the anchor.2 times the load resisted by the equal area of supplementary reinforcement in the outer concentric circle (8. 10(b)). however. Reinforced Specimen T5 The mean tested capacity (725 kips [3225 kN]) of the four replicates of test Specimen T5. the measured failure loads are approximately 10% higher than the predicted values. Therefore. 10(f)). Specimen T5 were not fully loaded up to failure due to safety concerns. The ratio Nu.test /Nu. By comparing results from Specimens T4 with those of Specimens T5. The mean tested failure load (733 kips [3260 kN]) is close to the sum (806 kips [3585 kN]) of the calculated reinforcement strength (378 kips [1681 kN]) and the unreinforced concrete strength (428 kips [1904 kN]) by Eq. 16 x 60 ksi x 0.5 The CCD method with hef (Eq. the characteristic spacing scr. however. it can be inferred that the increase in tensile capacity is approximately proportional to the amount of supplementary reinforcement. The results.N are probably larger than scr. the overestimation of the failure loads would be even larger for anchors at an edge or for anchor groups.2 in. (3) seems not to be justified.N = 2ccr. the results of Series T5 are judged to not be useful in verifying the absolute effectiveness of the supplementary reinforcement. calc decreases with increasing embedment depth (Fig. 371 kips (1650 kN). 3 was much smaller than the sum (1129 kips [5021 kN]) of the calculated reinforcement strength.0 hef instead of scr. the supplementary reinforcement was not strong enough to resist the concrete breakout load. This conclusion is corroborated by measured strains in the gauges attached to the reinforcing bars. According to the measured strains in the strain gauges attached to reinforcing bars. On average. In Series T5. however. (1). it is still possible to judge the relative effectiveness of the different supplementary reinforcement patterns. It is proposed to calculate the characteristic resistance of single anchor bolts with hef ≥ 10 in. that is. it is proposed to increase the concrete breakout resistance calculated as described 485 . (5)) significantly overestimates the tensile breakout capacity of large anchors. the supplementary reinforcement was not strong enough to resist the applied load. In Series T5. in which the supplementary reinforcement yielded. but with scr. Nevertheless. or approximately 60% of the calculated yield strength of the supplementary reinforcement. the failure load was increased by approximately 50% over the unreinforced case. anchors with small heads. are shown in Fig. It can be inferred that the adopted reinforcement pattern effectively acted in the anchorage system to resist tension load. [106 mm] from the axis of the anchor) was 2. had rather large heads. a change of Eq. the reinforcing bars close to the anchor were more effective in increasing the tensile capacity and their maximum stress was measured close to the anchor head.5 in. For these reasons. Therefore. only approximately 1/3 (246/759 ≈ 0.N = 4. Therefore. 9 and 10(e)). Tensile load-displacement behavior of large anchors with supplementary reinforcement In Series T4. Furthermore. (3)) (refer to Fig. however. however. the load could still be increased. The load-displacement curves of Series T4 show that the peak load was nearly reached in the tests. Therefore.2 = 758 kips (3371 kN) and concrete breakout strength per the CCD method given by Eq. The load resisted by the supplementary reinforcement in the inner concentric circle (4. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 Therefore. [216 mm] from the axis of the anchor). (250 mm) and low bearing pressure (pressure under the head at nominal breakout load pn ≤ 3fc′ [uncracked concrete] or pn ≤ 2.4fc′ [cracked concrete]) according to ACI 318-05. which indicates little strain in the reinforcement.0 hef as given in ACI 318-05. This result can reasonably be used in the calculation of ultimate strength. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Tensile load-displacement behavior of large anchors without supplementary reinforcement The test results show that ACI 349-97 (Eq. this formula in ACI 349-97 should not be used in design.67). using the equation with hef1. Appendix D.33) of the applied peak load was resisted by the reinforcement. the loading was stopped before the supplementary reinforcement could be fully activated. Even in Test T4-A. As noted previously.79 in. the results of these tests cannot be used to develop a general design model for anchors with supplementary reinforcement. or ACI 349-01. In Series T4. the average cone angle was not 35 degrees (as assumed in the CCD method) but only approximately 25 to 30 degrees. As a consequence. The relative trends of stress distribution are similar for each reinforcement in both Series T4 and T5. Therefore.N = 3. according to ACI 318-05. The loading on Specimen T4-A was increased to the expected total yield force of the supplementary reinforcement so that the load distribution to each of the two reinforcement groups could be estimated. (3). 10(a)). it is not possible to formulate a general model from the test results. 1. with supplementary reinforcement as shown in Fig. For a given applied load. the results of test Series T4 showed that the peak load could be increased by approximately 50% compared with the results from test Series T1 without supplementary reinforcement. or of group anchorages. with supplementary reinforcement. Comparison of the mean tested strengths of Specimens T1 and T4 shows that the effective increase in capacity due to supplementary reinforcement is roughly 224 kips (996 kN). The tested breakout strength of the unreinforced test Specimen T1 with the same embedment depth as Specimen T4 was 509 kips (2264 kN). show that with supplementary reinforcement arranged as in Specimens T4 and dimensioned for about 80 to 100% of the expected ultimate concrete breakout capacity. however. Therefore.N and characteristic edge distance ccr. which is valid only for anchors with high bearing pressure. the tests had to be stopped because of tensile yielding of the anchors before the supplementary reinforcement had been fully mobilized.EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTARY REINFORCEMENT Reinforced Specimen T4 Test Specimens T4. Appendix B. The test results can best be predicted by the CCD method with (Eq.N = 3hef as assumed in ACI 318-05. This is probably due to the fact that this method is based on linear fracture mechanics. 3. If all available results are taken into account (refer to Fig. which had a stronger reinforcement. According to the test results. the slope of the concrete cone was much flatter than 45 degrees. (1)) is conservative for large anchors (Fig. it seems prudent to calculate the resistance of anchorages at an edge or corner.

12.. 5. W.” American Concrete Institute. 134 pp.. Tex. ACI Committee 349. “Fastening to Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures. “Behavior of Tensile Anchors in Concrete: Statistical Analysis and Design Recommendations. CEB.. Rehm. (100 mm) or ≤ 0.. 2005. R. “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-01). In a more general model. Thomas Telford. R. 812-820.. 5. 1. 101. and Graves III. This model is described in detail in References 11 and 12. Comité Euro-International du Beton (CEB).. 365-379.5 if supplementary reinforcement is present around each anchor of an anchor group. Colo. 9.-Dec. Fuchs. Ltd. Eurocode 2. “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete. Technical Committee CEN/TC 250. 1995.. and Mallée. The supplementary reinforcement should be designed using a strut-and-tie model. Eligehausen. R.. Apr. London. Nov. Klingner. 7. and Mayer. and Breen.. Klingner. Ernst & Sohn. The characteristic resistance of the supplementary reinforcement is given by the bond capacity of the supplementary reinforcement in the anticipated concrete cone.. Austin. 205-210. ACI Committee 349. pp. CEN Technical Specifications. 2004. Part 2: Headed Fasteners. Comité Euro-International du Beton. 1997. Jan. Mich. Shirvani.. Farmington Hills.15hef from the anchor) and dimensioned for the characteristic concrete breakout resistance according to Eq. 2004.. 2004.” American Concrete Institute. 73-94. 486 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 .. The bond capacity should be calculated according to codes of practice (for example. The design strength is limited by the yield capacity of the bars.. “Befestigungstechnik” (Fastening Technique). (4)). University of Texas at Austin. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and technical help of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. M. V. H. pp. “Design of Concrete Structures. Eligehausen. 123 pp. Vail. Eligehausen. R. R. London. and Balogh.” State-of-the-Art Report. 1997. Mich. Germany. “Behavior of Fasteners Loaded in Tension in Cracked Reinforced Concrete. 1991. and members of ACI Committee 355. 92. Mich.” 2004. 845-852.. which should be assumed to radiate from the head of the anchor at an angle of 35 degrees. pp. The supplementary reinforcement must be arranged as in Tests T4 (four U-shaped stirrups at a distance ≤ 4 in. V. 2001. Farmington Hills. Farmington Hills. Stuttgart. “3D FE Analysis of Anchor Bolts with Large Embedment Depths. V. No. 3. U. Thomas Telford.” Final Draft. G. Periskic. “Design of Fastening for Use in Concrete. REFERENCES 1..-Feb. 6. University of Stuttgart.” American Concrete Institute. 430 pp. 92. No. V. ACI 318-051 or Eurocode 210). 8. 6.previously by a factor of 1. E. T. Eligehausen. Anchorage to Concrete.. 4. No. 3. pp. Eligehausen. Ozbolt.” ACI Structural Journal. and Korea Electric Power Research Institute for financing this research work and several on-going research projects related to the capacity of anchorage to concrete structures. No.. Design Guide for Anchorages to Concrete. L.. G. R. pp. The authors are also grateful for the valuable advice of R. 2. R. 1995. 10. 11. the supplementary reinforcement should be dimensioned to take up 100% of the applied load. thus neglecting the contribution of the concrete. J.” ACI Structural Journal. ACI Committee 318. Germany.” Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures. Betonkalender 1995. “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-97).. Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. May-June 1995.” ACI Structural Journal. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05). E.. J. 2. Berlin.