ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 106-S53

TECHNICAL PAPER

Anchorage Strength and Behavior of Headed Bars in Exterior Beam-Column Joints
by Sung-Chul Chun, Bohwan Oh, Sung-Ho Lee, and Clay J. Naito
Thirty exterior beam-column joint specimens without transverse reinforcement were tested to measure anchorage strength with respect to anchorage configuration and embedment length. The anchorage behavior of bars terminated with a head and with a 90-degree hook is investigated and compared with each other and existing models. It is found that existing models based on idealized failure modes do not properly predict the concrete contribution to anchorage strength of headed bars terminated in exterior joints. A new model that accounts for head bearing and bond capacity of the anchored bars is proposed and calibrated using statistical analysis of the experimental results. The model conservatively estimates the anchorage strength of the headed bars terminated within exterior beam-column joints with sufficient side cover. Features of the new model are compared with the existing models.
Keywords: anchorage; bar(s); beam-column joint; bearing; bond; CCT node.

Fig. 1—Headed bars and hooked bars (No. 8, No. 11, and No. 18).

INTRODUCTION Headed bars, as shown in Fig. 1, provide an alternative to hooked bars and assist in alleviating steel congestion.1-3 Previous research on headed bars may be divided into two categories: performance of headed bars in realistic structural systems, and investigation of the mechanics of the headed bars under idealized conditions. Previous structural system studies include a number of beam-column joint investigations,3-5 where headed bars were used for longitudinal reinforcement, and slab-column joint investigations,6,7 where headed bars were used for shear reinforcement. The reliability and applicability of the headed bars were validated in these studies and, consequently, guidelines on the use of headed bars were introduced in ACI 352R-028 and ACI 421.1R-08.9 These guidelines provide guidance on general application of bars but do not provide direct estimates for the anchorage strength of headed bars. To assist in the development of models on anchorage strength, previous studies on headed bars under idealized conditions examined headed bar failures, such as side-face blowout10-13 and concrete breakout10 modes. These studies consisted of idealized evaluations where headed bars were pulled from concrete blocks. Headed bar anchorages are commonly used in areas where development hooks or traditional reinforcement development lengths cannot be achieved. A number of standard configurations are shown in Fig. 2. The anchorage mechanism of headed bars is typically modeled according to strut-and-tie concepts with the bar head region classified as a compressioncompression-tension (CCT) node. These nodes are further classified as either surface CCT nodes or interior CCT nodes, depending on the location of headed bars. The surface CCT node may be formed at a support or at a concentrated load point such as dapped-end beam or corbel. The interior CCT node is formed inside a member such as an ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Fig. 2—Examples of headed bars developed in surface CCT nodes and interior CCT nodes.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009. MS No. S-2007-003.R4 received May 16, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the July-August 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2010.

579

ACI member Sung-Chul Chun is a Principal Researcher at Daewoo Institute of Construction Technology (DICT), Suwon, Korea. He received his BS, MS, and PhD from Seoul National University in 1994, 1996, and 2007, respectively. His research interests include steel anchorage to concrete, composite structures, and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures. ACI member Bohwan Oh is a Research Fellow at DICT. He received his BS from Yonsei University, Korea, and MS and PhD from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. His research interests include modeling of concrete behavior and high-rise building systems. Sung-Ho Lee is a Senior Researcher at DICT. He received BS and MS from Korea University in 2000 and 2002, respectively. His research interests include steel anchorage to concrete and behavior of beam-column joints. Clay J. Naito is an Associate Professor of structural engineering at Lehigh University. He received his BS in 1993 from the University of Hawaii and MS and PhD from the University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. His research interests include predictive modeling and experimental validation of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures subjected to extreme events.

Third, the bond outside a nodal zone or an extended nodal zone is easily lost at ultimate state in the surface CCT node due to cracks near the nodal zone.13 An exterior beam-column joint is an ideal application for headed bars due to the high level of reinforcement congestion that occurs. In this application, the variation of bond strength along the bar and the anchorage strength are dependent not only on the materials but also on the geometry of the reinforcing bar and the state of stress in the beam-column connection. In this paper, idealized exterior beam-column joint tests were conducted to evaluate the concrete contribution to the anchorage strength of headed bars. Failure modes regarding headed bar anchorage in an exterior beam-column joint can be classified as shown in Fig. 3. All failure modes are induced as a result of the tensile force on the anchored headed bar. Side-face blowout failure occurs when inadequate side cover is provided. This can be alleviated when proper side cover is provided.8 Concrete breakout may occur when an effective beam depth is greater than 1.5 times an embedment length.14 This case is rare due to the typical relative depths used for beams and columns as well as the higher strength and stiffness provided by most columns. A pullout mode of failure can occur if the net head area is less than 4 times the bar cross-sectional area. The pullout capacity of headed bars can be calculated using Section D.5.3 of ACI 318-08.15 When proper embedment and head geometry is used, a joint shear failure mode governs the response of the exterior beam-column joint. In this paper, the anchorage strength of headed bars under a joint shear failure mode is investigated through experiments and a new model to predict the strength is proposed. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The research examines 30 specimens simulating exterior beam-column joints with headed or hooked beam reinforcement anchorage. To investigate the concrete contribution to the anchorage strength, transverse reinforcement was not placed in the joints. The specimens were designed to reflect the characteristics and boundary conditions of an interior CCT node typical of an exterior beam-column joint. The anchorage strength of the headed bars was found to consist of a combination of head bearing and bond. Based on these results, a new comprehensive model is developed that allows for accurate prediction of the anchorage capacity of the headed bars terminated within the exterior beam-column joints. TEST PROGRAM An experimental program was developed to investigate anchorage behavior of headed bars. The test matrix is shown in Table 1 and details of the specimens are presented in Fig. 4. The test setup examines the anchorage of longitudinal beam reinforcement in an exterior beam-column joint using headed reinforcement. The specimens were tested with the column in a horizontal position, as shown in Fig. 5. The demands generated from beam flexure were idealized by applying a compression/tension force couple to the face of the column. The force couple was monotonically increased until failure. The compressive force was applied to a bearing plate across the full width of the column. The tension force was applied through high-strength loading bars attached to the anchored headed and hooked bars. No column axial load was applied, as tests have shown that including axial load tends to improve joint behavior.16 A length of column was included to minimize boundary effects and to generate a ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Fig. 3—Failure modes regarding headed bar anchorage in exterior beam-column joint. exterior or corner beam-column joint and hanging headed bars in a deep beam. The surface CCT node differs from the interior CCT node in three ways. First, the strength of the surface CCT node is typically higher than that of the interior CCT node due to the surface bearing plate, which provides transverse deformation restraint to the node concrete. Second, the dimension of the surface CCT node is determined by the size of the bearing plate, whereas the dimension of the interior CCT node is determined from internal stress fields. 580

Fig. 4—Details of specimens. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) typical ratio of column shear and flexure on the joint. The testing condition generates flexural forces within the column and mimics the clamping demands generated by the column. Thirty full-scale specimens were tested. The test specimens were similar to those by Marques and Jirsa17 from which ACI 318 code provisions15 for hooked bars were derived. The specimens of Marques and Jirsa were tested in a vertical position and axial loads were applied. The specimens were designed to fail the anchorage. The embedment length le was varied from 8.4db to 15.5db for No. 18 specimens and from 6.3db to 10.4db for No. 11 specimens and No. 8 specimens, where db denotes a bar diameter. The largest embedment length tested is approximately 75% of the development length of hooked bars (ldh) required in ACI 352R-028 (for Type 1 connections) and ACI 318-0815 without modification factors. The anchorage of a single longitudinal bar was examined to avoid interference of multi-bar effects. No transverse reinforcement was included to minimize potential confining enhancements to the anchorage. All specimen detailing and testing configuration decisions were made to provide a lower-bound (conservative) estimate of capacity. The specimens were designed in accordance with ACI 352R-028 except for the provisions regarding transverse reinforcement in the joint and the embedment length of a headed bar. Main test variables include embedment length and bar diameter. Three bar diameters (25, 36, and 57 mm [No. 8, No. 11, and No. 18]) were chosen, which represent a range of bars used for beam reinforcement. The width of the specimen is 6 times the headed bar diameter (6db). The clear side cover of 2.5db for a beam bar in an exterior joint is a common case, providing that the diameters of column bars and hoops are equal to 1db and 0.5db, respectively. Side-face blowout failure is precluded with the clear side cover of 2.5db. For comparison, two specimens with hooked bars were tested for each headed bar diameter examined. The embedment lengths for the hooked bar specimens were chosen to be equal to the longest and shortest embedment lengths of headed bars for each diameter. Material properties of the bars are in conformance with ASTM A61518 Grade 60 (Grade 420 in SI units) and the design compressive strength of concrete at an age of 28 days is 24 MPa (3480 psi). The low concrete strength was intentionally chosen to produce anchorage failure prior to ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 Table 1—Test matrix
Specimen ID* le † , mm (in.) Column bars N‡ 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 Details of specimens,§ mm (in.), MPa (ksi) B = 350 (13.8); a = 105 (4.1); l = 6708 (264.1); ln = 5748 (226.3); Dc = d = 958 (37.7); Hoop = No. 5 at 480 (18.9); fc′ = 24.2 (3.51); and fy = 447.7 (64.92). B = 220 (8.7); a = 65 (2.6); l = 3044 (119.8); ln = 2604 (102.5); Dc = d = 434 (17.1); Hoop = No. 4 at 300 (11.8); fc′ = 24.6 (3.57); and fy = 450.6 (65.34). B = 160 (6.3); a = 45 (1.8); l = 2258 (88.9); ln = 1936 (76.2); Dc = d = 323 (12.7); Hoop = No. 3 at 200 (7.9); fc′ = 25.1 (3.64); and fy = 454.8 (65.95).

No. 18-H-0.9L 908 (35.7) Four No. 11 No. 18-M-0.9L 888 (35.0) Four No. 11 No. 18-M-0.7L 684 (26.9) Four No. 11 No. 18-M-0.7L-2R 684 (26.9) Eight No. 11 No. 18-M-0.5L 479 (18.9) Four No. 11 No. 18-H-0.5L 499 (19.6) Four No. 11 No. 11-H-0.9L 384 (15.1) Four No. 8 No. 11-M-0.9L 372 (14.6) Four No. 8 No. 11-M-0.7L 295 (11.6) Four No. 8 No. 11-M-0.7L-2R 295 (11.6) Four No. 11 No. 11-M-0.5L No. 11-H-0.5L No. 8-H-0.9L No. 8-M-0.9L No. 8-M-0.7L No. 8-M-0.5L No. 8-H-0.5L
* No.

217 (8.5) 229 (9.0)

Four No. 8 Four No. 8

273 (10.7) Four No. 6 264 (10.4) Four No. 6 212 (8.3) 161 (6.3) 170 (6.7) Four No. 6 Four No. 8 Four No. 6 Four No. 6

No. 8-M-0.7L-2R 212 (8.3)

1-2-3L-4R: 1 bar designation number; 2 H-hooked bar, M-headed bar; 3 embedment length to column depth ratio; 4 “2R” denotes that the specimen was reinforced with twice the normal column reinforcements. †l = embedment length. e ‡ N = number of specimens. §Refer to Fig. 4.

the yielding of the headed bar. As-built material properties of specimens are summarized in Table 1. A new screw-on headed bar system was used and the head was attached to the bar end using a parallel-threaded connection. The threads are formed by cold-rolling the bar with a press and the sectional area of the thread is not reduced. The head shape is circular with a net head area Anh, equal to 4 times of the bar area Ab in accordance with the studies by Wallace.1,3 The headed bars for the tests are shown in Fig. 1 and the head dimensions refer to Hong et al.19 Strain gauges were used on the bar surface to assess the strain distribution over the embedded length. The strain 581

Fig. 5—Test setup. (Note: units are in mm [in.].)

Fig. 6—Crack patterns after failure (grids are spaced at 100 mm [3.94 in.]). gauges were spaced at 3db with the first gauge applied at 1db from the face of the head. For the No. 18 specimens, two strain gauges were affixed at each measurement point on both sides of the bar, and the results were averaged. This minimized the contribution of any localized bar flexure to the strain. For the hooked bars, the strain gauges were affixed on the straight portion but were not installed on the hook. Slip was measured at the head of the headed bars and at the beginning of the hook bend, as shown in Fig. 4. Load was applied to the bars at a rate of 5 MPa/min (725 psi/min) under load control. The tests were terminated when the applied load decreased to 85% of the maximum load. TEST RESULTS Mode of failure and cracking behavior For all specimens, cracks initiated at the face of the column around the anchored bar (indicated as 1 in Fig. 6). 582 These cracks are thought to occur due to bond loss. The cracks then propagated toward the head or the hook along the bar. In specimens with an embedment length of 90% of the column depth, bond cracks along the column bars and flexural cracks in columns formed as 2 and 3 in Fig. 6(a) and (b). In some specimens, diagonal cracks near column face occurred as 4 in Fig. 6 due to a combination of shear stresses developed from loaded bar and column bar. After the cracks along the anchored bar reached the vicinity of the head or hook, diagonal cracks formed from the head or hook toward the compressive zone of the virtual beam (5 in Fig. 6). In specimens with a shallow embedment length of 50% of column depth, cracks 3 and 4 did not occur and, instead, a cone-shaped concrete breakout failure was observed, as shown in Fig. 6(c). After diagonal crack 5 formed, two failure modes were observed: concrete breakout and joint shear. Specimens with ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Fig. 7—Observed failure modes: (a) cone-shaped concrete breakout failure of 0.5L specimens; (b) joint shear failure with extended diagonal cracks of 0.7L specimens; and (c) joint shear failure of 0.9L specimens.

Fig. 8—Bar force-head and hook slip (Note: : at initial cracking; for headed specimens; and void mark for hooked specimens.) embedment length of 50% of column depth showed diagonal cracks radiating from both sides of the head (7 in Fig. 6(c)). The anchorage force decreased as a breakout cone formed and separated. This type of failure is referred to as a concrete breakout failure, as shown in Fig. 7(a). The other specimens failed immediately after the diagonal crack 5 occurred (Fig. 6(b) and (e)) as shown in Fig. 7(c) or after the diagonal crack 5 extended to the other column side (Fig. 6(f)), as shown in Fig. 7(b). This failure is a joint shear failure. Unlike specimens with headed bars (denoted as headed specimen hereafter), the specimens with hooked bars (denoted as hooked specimen hereafter) did not fail immediately when the diagonal crack 5 formed. This is attributed to the orientation of the hook that crossed the primary diagonal crack 5. Additional cracks (6 in Fig. 6(a) and (d)) formed across the hook and tail with additional loading. Both failure modes occurred in a brittle sudden manner because no transverse reinforcement was provided in the joints. The bar force at the occurrence of diagonal cracking (Pcr) and maximum anchorage capacity (Pm) are reported in Table 2. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

: at diagonal cracking; •: at maximum load; solid mark

Slip of heads and hooks Measured force versus slip relationships for all specimens except No. 11-M-0.5L-(2) and No. 8-M-0.9L-(1) are presented in Fig. 8. Specimens having equivalent embedment length are plotted together. Specimens with embedment length of 90% of column depth—The initial cracks along the anchored bar (marked as in Fig. 8) of the specimens having equivalent embedment length occurred at similar loads. The load at initial vertical crack occurrence are lower than the flexural cracking loads of the columns (409, 117, and 64 kN [91.1, 26.3, and 14.4 kips] for No. 18 series, No. 11 series, and No. 8 series, respectively). Therefore, the vertical cracks are considered to be initiated by bond loss. The diagonal cracking (marked as in Fig. 8 and 5 in Fig. 6) loads of the specimens having equivalent embedment length are also similar. After diagonal cracking, the load of the headed specimens rapidly decreased, but hooked specimens resisted additional load. The additional load of hooked specimens is attributed to the hook crossing the primary diagonal crack. The maximum loads for hooked specimens are greater than those for headed specimens by 583

Table 2—Test results
Specimen ID No. 18-H-0.9L No. 18-M-0.9L-(1) No. 18-M-0.9L-(2) No. 18-M-0.7L-(1) No. 18-M-0.7L-(2) No. 18-M-0.7L-2R-(1) No. 18-M-0.7L-2R-(2) No. 18-M-0.5L-(1) No. 18-M-0.5L-(2) No. 18-H-0.5L No. 11-H-0.9L No. 11-M-0.9L-(1) No. 11-M-0.9L-(2) No. 11-M-0.7L-(1) No. 11-M-0.7L-(2) No. 11-M-0.7L-2R-(1) No. 11-M-0.7L-2R-(2) No. 11-M-0.5L-(1) No. 11-M-0.5L-(2) No. 11-H-0.5L No. 8-H-0.9L No. 8-M-0.9L-(1) No. 8-M-0.9L-(2) No. 8-M-0.7L-(1) No. 8-M-0.7L-(2) No. 8-M-0.7L-2R-(1) No. 8-M-0.7L-2R-(2) No. 8-M-0.5L-(1) No. 8-M-0.5L-(2) No. 8-H-0.5L Diagonal cracking Maximum load Bond strength Pb-e, Bearing strength Ph-e, kN (kips) Pb-e /Pcr load Pcr , kN (kips) Pm, kN (kips) kN (kips) 760.7 (171.0) 701.3 (157.7) 693.2 (155.8) 434.4 (97.6) 444.2 (99.8) 491.8 (110.6) 515.3 (115.8) 309.4 (69.6) 309.0 (69.5) 284.2 (63.9) 217.0 (48.8) 228.8 (51.4) 212.1 (47.7) 192.5 (43.3) 169.7 (38.2) 197.8 (44.5) 187.3 (42.1) 116.8 (26.3) 121.7 (27.4) 106.1 (23.8) 113.6 (25.5) 123.7 (27.8) 122.7 (27.6) 93.7 (21.1) 91.1 (20.5) 88.8 (20.0) 90.4 (20.3) 59.4 (13.4) 56.1 (12.6) 67.2 (15.1) 843.3 (189.6) 701.3 (157.7) 693.2 (155.8) 434.4 (97.6) 444.2 (99.8) 491.8 (110.6) 515.3 (115.8) 309.4 (69.6) 309.0 (69.5) 307.1 (69.0) 322.8 (72.6) 228.8 (51.4) 233.0 (52.4) 192.5 (43.3) 185.0 (41.6) 262.7 (59.1) 227.1 (51.1) 194.2 (43.7) 152.7 (34.3) 127.7 (28.7) 149.5 (33.6) 123.7 (27.9) 127.3 (28.6) 122.1 (27.4) 126.6 (28.5) 141.6 (31.8) 144.9 (32.6) 73.1 (16.4) 94.0 (21.1) 80.3 (18.1) NA 298.3 (64.5) 298.3 (67.1) 292.1 (65.7) 266.8 (60.0) 233.5 (52.5) 316.6 (71.2) 164.7 (37.0) 171.3 (38.5) NA NA 106.8 (24.0) NA 81.5 (18.3) NA NA 106.9 (24.0) 47.8 (10.8) 56.4 (12.7) NA NA NA NA NA NA 40.4 (9.1) 31.5 (7.1) NA NA NA NA 414.3 (93.1) 394.9 (88.8) 142.3 (32.0) 177.4 (40.0) 258.3 (58.1) 198.7 (44.7) 144.7 (32.5) 137.8 (31.0) NA NA 122.0 (27.4) NA 111.0 (25.0) NA NA 80.4 (18.1) 69.0 (15.5) 65.5 (14.7) NA NA NA NA NA NA 48.3 (10.9) 58.9 (13.3) NA NA NA Average
*

Proposed model Failure Ph-e /Pcr Pcal, kN (kips) Pcr /Pcal mode* NA 0.59 0.57 0.33 0.40 0.53 0.39 0.47 0.45 NA NA 0.53 NA 0.58 NA NA 0.43 0.59 0.54 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.54 0.65 NA NA NA 0.51 — 739.5 (166.2) 501.2 (112.7) 501.2 (112.7) 262.9 (59.1) — — 221.5 (49.8) 151.5 (34.1) 151.5 (34.1) 80.5 (18.1) — — 108.2 (24.3) 75.0 (16.8) 75.0 (16.8) 42.4 (9.5) — Average COV — 0.95 0.94 0.87 0.89 0.98 1.03 1.18 1.18 — — 1.03 0.96 1.27 1.12 1.31 1.24 1.45 1.51 — — 1.14 1.13 1.25 1.21 1.18 1.21 1.40 1.32 — 1.16 15% JS JS JS JS JS JS JS CB CB CB JS JS JS JS JS JS JS CB CB CB JS JS JS JS JS JS JS CB CB CB

NA 0.41 0.43 0.67 0.60 0.47 0.61 0.53 0.55 NA NA 0.47 NA 0.42 NA NA 0.57 0.41 0.46 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.46 0.35 NA NA NA 0.49

JS: Joint shear failure, CB: concrete breakout failure.

20.9%, 40.0%, and 19.1% for No. 18 series, No. 11 series, and No. 8 series, respectively. The slip of all headed specimens (including specimens with embedment length of 70% and 50% of column depth) at diagonal cracking loads are less than 0.3 mm (0.012 in.), and for most specimens, the slip is less than 0.2 mm (0.008 in.). The slip of hooked specimens at diagonal cracking loads are also small (from 0.17 to 0.69 mm [0.007 to 0.027 in.]) but greater than those of headed specimens, especially for No. 18-H-0.9L and No. 18-H-0.5L. Due to the bend radius on the hooked bar, the straight segment of the hooked bar is shorter than the headed bar for the same embedment. As a result, the hook provides a greater proportion of the anchorage strength for the hooked bar than the head does for the headed bar anchorage. The concrete inside hook radius may have crushed, resulting in slip at the face of the joint.20 After diagonal cracking, the slip rapidly increased for all hooked specimens. For No. 18-H-0.9L, No. 11-H-0.9L, and No. 8-H-0.9L, the slip at maximum load was 1.30, 1.03, and 3.14 mm (0.05, 0.04, and 0.12 in.), respectively. Generally, the slip induces a significant pinching effect on the loaddeformation behavior of a beam-column joint under cyclic loading. This behavior reduces the energy resistance 584

of the connection and, thus, the slip should be limited until the design strength is developed. CEB-FIP MC9021 specifies that the slip for headed bars between the bar and the concrete at the loaded end shall not exceed 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) under 95% of the ultimate force. Because the slip in Fig. 8 was measured between the hook (or the head) and the concrete at the rear of the joint, the slip relative to the face of the joint will be greater than the measured slip due to the additional elongation of the bar in the joint. Because the slip at the face of the joint exceeds 0.5 mm (0.02 in.), the additional strength after diagonal cracking should be ignored for safety of the overall structure. Specimens with embedment length of 70% of column depth—Graphs of Fig. 8(b), (e), and (h) show comparisons of force versus slip relationships of specimens having heavy column reinforcement with those of specimens having normal column reinforcement. The normal column reinforcement was determined in accordance with ACI 352R-028 and the columns of specimens having “2R” in their identifications were reinforced with twice the normal column reinforcements (refer to Table 1). These specimens were tested to investigate the influence of the amount of column reinforcement on the anchorage capacity. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

There is no significant difference in behavior between the specimens until diagonal cracking occurs. At diagonal cracking, the average strengths of the two duplicate specimens with heavy column reinforcement were greater than those with normal column reinforcements by 14.6% and 6.3% for No. 18 specimens and No. 11 specimens, respectively. The average strength of two No. 8-M-0.7L-2R specimens, however, was less than the average load of two No. 8-M-0.7L specimens by 3.0% at diagonal cracking. The diagonal crack occurred due to failure of the compressive strut from the bearing head to the compressive zone of the idealized beam, as illustrated in the strut-and-tie model of Fig. 2(b). Because the column is elastic prior to diagonal cracking, the shear strength was not affected by the amount of column reinforcement. Consequently, there was little difference in diagonal cracking loads with variations on the amount of column reinforcement for No. 11 and No. 8 specimens. The column reinforcement of No. 18-M-0.7L-2R, however, was placed in double layers, whereas that of No. 18-M-0.7L was in single layer as shown in Fig. 4 and Table 1. If the joints are modeled by a strut-and-tie model, the widths of the longitudinal ties of No. 18-M-0.7L-2R are greater than the widths of the ties of No. 18-M-0.7L. The width of the diagonal strut of No. 18-M-0.7L-2R is greater than that of No. 18-M-0.7L and, therefore, the strut capacity of No. 18-M-0.7L-2R is enhanced. After diagonal cracking, No. 18 specimens immediately lost load-carrying ability. The loads of No. 11 and No. 8 specimens increased after a marginal decrease due to diagonal cracking. These specimens reached maximum loads when the extended diagonal crack (crack 8 of Fig. 6(f)) occurred. The maximum loads of specimens with heavy column reinforcement are higher than those with normal column reinforcement by 29.7% and 15.2% for No. 11 and No. 8 specimens, respectively. The column reinforcements were located across the extended diagonal crack. As more column reinforcement was provided, the formation of the extended diagonal crack was delayed. Therefore, the specimens with heavy column reinforcement could resist higher load than the specimens with normal column reinforcement. The measured slip of the specimens, which exceeded the cracking load, is greater than the allowable value of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.). As mentioned previously, the additional strength after diagonal cracking should be ignored for safety of the overall structure. Specimens with embedment length of 50% of column depth—Unlike the specimens with deep embedment length, the loads carried by specimens with embedment length of 50% of the column depth steadily increased after diagonal cracking until additional diagonal cracks, completing a breakout cone, were formed. The slip rapidly increased after diagonal cracking, such that additional strength after diagonal cracking should be ignored. Bar stress distribution Figure 9 illustrates the stress distributions for the No. 18 specimens, which were calculated from the measured strains and the stress-strain response of the coupon tests. The horizontal axis represents the location of strain gauges with an origin at the column face. Because the beam concrete was not placed, the strains measured outside the joint are equal to the strains at the column face. Figure 9(a) shows the stress distributions of No. 18-H-0.9L (dashed lines) and No. 18-M-0.9L-(1) (solid lines). For the headed specimen, the stress distributions at loads of 200 and 400 kN (45 and 90 kips) show that most of the load is ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Fig. 9—Stress distribution along bar in No. 18 specimens. resisted by bond. The slope of the line near the column face at a load of 400 kN (90 kips) approached zero, which means the bond resistance near the column face is deteriorated. Bearing was evaluated from the bar strains at a distance of 1db from the head face of headed bars and at the beginning of the hook bend. As load increases, head bearing starts to develop. At a load of 600 kN (135 kips), the head bearing resists almost half of the load. For the hooked specimen, the stress distributions are similar to those of the headed specimen until the bar load of 600 kN (135 kips). At a load of 701 kN (158 kips), the slope of the line of the hooked specimen is flatter than that of the headed specimen, which means severe bond deterioration. Due to the shorter straight portion of the hooked specimen compared with the headed specimen, most of the bar load is carried by the hook because the bond is deteriorated. 585

The components of the anchorage force provided by bond and head (or hook) bearing are shown in Fig. 10. Loads at initial cracking and diagonal cracking are marked in each figure. In hooked specimens, the increase of bond contribution begins to slow down and even decrease on initial bond crack formation, and most of the bar force is carried by hook bearing at failure. This may induce concrete crushing inside the hook radius. Because of this concrete crushing, slip of the hook was larger than that of the head at same load level, as shown in Fig. 8. Even after the initial bond crack formed, bond resistance still increased in headed specimens. Because the straight portion of the headed specimens is longer than that of the hooked specimens, bond resistance of the headed specimens was always greater than that of the hooked specimens. After the bond contribution reached its maximum value, the contribution from bond remained relatively constant or slightly decreased while the head carried additional force gain. At failure, approximately 60% of the bar force was carried by head bearing and approximately 40% by bond for No. 18-M-0.9L-(1), as shown in Fig. 10(a). In Table 2, contributions from the head bearing and the bond to the total load at diagonal cracking of each specimen are summarized. EXISTING MODELS FOR ANCHORAGE STRENGTH OF HEADED BARS Models for predicting anchorage strength of headed bars were proposed by Thompson et al.,22 Bashandy,11 and DeVries.10 Thompson et al. conducted test programs of CCT nodes and lap splices. Several failure modes were mixed in the tests. The specimens of the CCT node test failed by sideface blowout (laterally splitting), crushing of concrete, or rupture of nodal zone,13 and the specimens of the lap-splice test failed by rupture of cover concrete.23 Thompson et al.’s22 model consists of two capacities induced by head bearing and bond. Section 12.6 for the development of headed bars is introduced in ACI 318-08 and it provides an equation to calculate the development length of a headed bar, which is based on the tests of Thompson. Bashandy tested 32 simulated exterior beam-column joints and proposed a model from 18 tests that failed by side-face blowout. DeVries proposed two models for anchorage strength of headed bars depending on the failure mode: concrete breakout or sideface blowout. Section 12.6.2 of ACI 349-0614 stipulates that mechanical anchorages shall be designed in accordance with Appendix D, which is a specification for anchor design and is based on the concrete capacity design (CCD) method.24 ACI 349-0614 defines five failure modes for anchors in tension: steel failure, concrete breakout, pullout, side-face blowout, and concrete splitting. The anchorage strength is determined to be the lowest value among the strengths calculated from the failure modes. From comparisons of test results with the existing models (refer to Table A in the Appendix), the existing models are not suitable for predicting the concrete contribution of the anchorage strengths of the specimens in this research because the failure modes on which the existing models are based are different from the failure modes of this study. PROPOSED MODEL FOR ANCHORAGE STRENGTH OF HEADED BAR A strut-and-tie model for the anchorage of a headed bar in an exterior beam-column joint without transverse reinforcement was developed using a smeared nodal zone and a fan by ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Fig. 10—Bond and head bearing contribution to anchorage strength of selected specimens. The stress distributions of No. 18-H-0.5L (dashed lines) and No. 18-M-0.5L-(1) (solid lines) are presented in Fig. 9(b). The development of head bearing and bond resistance of No. 18-M-0.5L-(1) is similar to that of No. 18-M-0.9L-(1). For the hooked specimen (No. 18-H-0.5L), however, the bond resistance is lost earlier compared to No. 18-H-0.9L and No. 18-M-0.5L-(1). At a load of 200 kN (45 kips), that is, two thirds of the maximum load, the dashed line is nearly flat, which denotes that the bond resistance is almost lost. The bond loss of the hooked specimen is considered to be induced by the shorter straight portion. Head bearing and bond contribution to headed bar anchorage strength The contributions of head bearing and bond to the total anchorage force were determined from the measured strain distributions. The head/hook anchorage contribution was assumed to equal the stress at a distance of 1db from the head face of headed bars or at the beginning of the hook bend of hooked bars. The bond contribution was determined by deducting the bearing from the stress outside the joint. 586

Fig. 11—Relationship between normalized head bearing and normalized embedment. authors.19 A new model is developed from the experimental results to predict the anchorage strength of the headed bar in an exterior beam-column joint. It is observed from the tests that the anchorage strength of the headed bar is developed from a combination of head bearing and bond. Contribution of each component to the total anchorage strength is statistically assessed from the measured data at the occurrence of diagonal cracking. Head bearing contribution Phead According to the measured data, the head bearing stress is proportional to the embedment length. The head bearing stress is determined by dividing the bar force (Esεb Ab) by the net head area (Anh), where Es denotes modulus of elasticity of headed bar, εb is measured strain at 1db from the head face, and Ab is headed bar area. Figure 11 shows the relationship between normalized head bearing stress and normalized embedment length. Because the strain gauges failed in some specimens, the bearing strengths of nine specimens cannot be determined, which are marked as “NA” in Table 2. In Fig. 11, the x-axis represents the embedment length normalized by column depth Dc and the y-axis represents the stress developed by head bearing normalized by effective compressive strength of concrete 0.85fc′ . The head bearing cannot be fully developed in the specimens with shallow embedment length. In the specimens with deep embedment length, however, the stress induced by the head bearing is greater than 0.85fc′ . The head bearing may be affected by the joint strut. With deep embedment length, the head is located in or behind the joint strut and the head bearing can be fully developed. In the case of shallow embedment length, the joint strut cannot confine the head. Consequently, the head bearing is dependent on the normalized embedment length. For simplicity, a linear regression analysis is conducted and the following equation is derived. Phead = [1 + 2.27(le – 0.7Dc)/Dc]0.85fc′Anh (1) Fig. 12—Shear stress distribution on headed bar. It is worth comparing Eq. (1) with Thompson’s model22 for head bearing capacity as follows fs,head = n5%2fc′ (c/db) A nh /A b Ψ (2)

where fs,head is the anchorage bar strength provided by head bearing, n5% is a 5% fractile coefficient, c is a minimum cover dimension measured to bar center, Ψ (= 0.6 + 0.4(c2/c) ≤ 2.0) is a radial disturbance factor, and c2 is a minimum cover dimension measured in direction orthogonal to c. By substituting 3, 4, 2, 0.7 for (c/db), (Anh/Ab), Ψ, n5%, respectively, into Eq. (2), Thompson’s model yields fs,head = 16.8fc′ . Multiplying (Ab/Anh) to the fs,head yields 4.2fc′ of a bearing stress acting on the concrete in front of the head. The maximum strength from Eq. (1) with le ≈ Dc is 1.93(0.85fc′ )Anh. Dividing the maximum value by Anh yields the maximum bearing stress 1.6fc′ , which is approximately 40% of Thompson’s model. The difference between the head bearing capacities calculated by Eq. (1) and (2) is due to the node conditions of the tests on which each equation is based. As previously mentioned, the node strength of the surface CCT node is greater than that of the interior CCT node. The head bearing strength in the interior CCT node such as exterior beam-column joint may be determined by Eq. (1). Bond contribution Pbond The bond stress is determined by dividing the measured bond strength (Pb-e) by the bar diameter (φb) and the length (le – db), where the measured bond strength (Pb-e) is obtained by subtracting the measured bearing strength (Esεb Ab) from the bar load at the diagonal cracking. Traditionally, the bond stress is expressed in terms of f c′ . The bond stresses are scattered and had no relationship with the embedment length. The average of bond stresses for 15 specimens is 0.504 f c′ (MPa) (6.07 f c′ [psi]) and is greater than the bond strength calculated from Section 12.2.2 of ACI 318-08. The directions of shear stresses on both interfaces between headed bar and concrete in the interior CCT node are shown in Fig. 12(b). In the case of the surface CCT node, however, the directions of shear stresses on the interfaces of headed bar are opposite (Fig. 12(a)). Even though the bearing plate directly confines the node concrete, the bond capacity may 587

When the embedment length is 0.7Dc , the stress induced by head bearing is equal to the effective compressive strength of concrete. With shallow embedment length, the head bearing capacity decreases linearly, and the head bearing capacity increases linearly with deep embedment length longer than 0.7Dc. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Table 3—Comparison of test results in Reference 11 and proposed model
Proposed model Specimen ID T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 db, mm (in.) fc′, MPa (ksi) le , mm (in.) Anh, Dc, Measured Pcal, mm2 load P, mm kN (in.) (in.2) kN (kips) (kips) Pcal /P 227 (51.0) 222 (49.9) 232 (52.2) 94 (21.1) 167 (37.5) 173 (38.9) 185.1 (41.6) 200.1 (45.0) 281.5 (63.3) 98.0 (22.0) 161.3 (36.3) 133.1 (29.9) 1.23 1.11 0.82 0.96 1.04 1.30

35 26.7 280 381 4494 (1.4) (3.87) (11.0) (15.0) (6.97) 35 29.4 280 381 4494 (1.4) (4.26) (11.0) (15.0) (6.97) 35 29.4 285 381 7094 (1.4) (4.26) (11.2) (15.0) (11.0) 25 26.7 211 305 2690 (1.0) (3.87) (8.3) (12.0) (4.17) 35 22.5 280 381 4494 (1.4) (3.26) (11.0) (15.0) (6.97) 35 33.3 209 305 2838 (1.4) (4.83) (8.2) (12.0) (4.40)

Fig. 13—Comparison between test results and predicted values. *Values in parentheses are calculated including data of Reference 11. decrease in the surface CCT node due to the opposite direction of the shear stresses. The bond capacity of the headed bar terminated within the exterior beam column joint may be determined by the following equation Pbond = 0.504 f c′ φb(le – db) [MPa] = 6.07 f c′ φb(le – db) [psi] where φb (= πdb) is a bar perimeter. Proposed model By summing the bond and head bearing components, the anchorage strength can be determined. The predicted values calculated from Eq. (1) and (3) are summarized in Table 2 and Fig. 13 and compared to the test values for 24 specimens. Test results of six specimens failing in shear conducted by Bashandy11 were also compared with the proposed model in Table 3 and Fig. 13. Figure 13 shows that the proposed model can predict the strengths without bias on four specimen series. The average of ratios of tests to predictions is 1.16 and the coefficient of variation is 0.15. It is found that a coefficient for 5% fractile25 is 0.78 from statistical analysis. The final form of the proposed model is
P = n 5% ( P bearing + P bond ) l e – 0.7D = 0.78 ⎛ 1 + 2.27 ----------------------c⎞ 0.85f c′ A nh + 0.504 f c′ φ b ( l e – d b ) ⎝ Dc ⎠ l e – 0.7D = 0.78 ⎛ 1 + 2.27 ----------------------c⎞ 0.85f c′ A nh + 6.07 f c′ φ b ( l e – d b ) ⎝ Dc ⎠

T31

Average 1.08 Coefficient of variation 16%
Note: db is bar diameter, le is embedment length, Dc is depth of column (refer to Fig. 4), and Anh is net head area.

(3)

(4)
[MPa]

[psi]

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS An experimental study was performed to assess the anchorage capacity of the headed bar terminated within exterior beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement. Tests were conducted on 30 full-scale simplified specimens with beam bars in diameters of 25, 36, and 57 mm (No. 8, No. 11, and No. 18) with both 90-degree hooked bar and headed bar anchorages. Tensile load was directly applied to the bar and 588

the same amount of compressive load was applied to the compressive zone of an idealized beam. A new model predicting anchorage strength of headed bars has been proposed using statistical analysis of test results. Based on the test results and statistical analysis, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The anchorage strength of headed bars consists of head bearing and bond. Initial anchorage is carried by bond. As load increases in the bar, head bearing starts to develop. After bond contribution reaches its maximum value, bond resistance remains constant or slightly decreases. The anchorage capacity of headed bars is provided by peak head bearing plus slightly reduced bond; 2. The head bearing strength contribution is proportional to the embedment depth normalized by the column depth. Greater bearing strength is provided at greater embedment depths due to the confinement provided from the diagonal compressive strut in the joint. When the embedment depth is 0.7 times the column depth, the head bearing strength is equal to the effective compressive strength of concrete. From statistical analysis, a model is derived to predict head bearing strength as a function of a ratio of an embedment length to a column depth; 3. The measured bond strength per unit area has no relationship with embedment length. The mean bond strength of specimens is slightly higher than the bond strength calculated from Section 12.2.2 of ACI 318-08. Considering the safety factor of provisions of the ACI 318 regarding development lengths, the measured bond strengths are similar to bond strength determined from ACI 318. The bond strength in the interior CCT node is higher than that in the surface CCT node; and 4. The anchorage strength of the headed bars terminated within exterior joint with sufficient side cover (greater than 3db from the bar center) can be accurately predicted by Eq. (4). The formulation predicts the strength based on a combination of head bearing and bond capacity. Failure modes of headed bar anchorage are varied with given geometric and material conditions and, therefore, a specific model complying with the given condition of the anchorage zone should be used rather than a general model for the anchorage strength of headed bars. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

REFERENCES
1. Wallace, J. W., “Headed Reinforcement: A Viable Option,” Concrete International, V. 19, No. 12, Dec. 1997, pp. 47-53. 2. Berner, D. E., and Hoff, G. C., “Headed Reinforcement in Disturbed Strain Regions of Concrete Members,” Concrete International, V. 16, No. 1, Jan. 1994, pp. 48-52. 3. Wallace, J. W.; McConnell, S. W.; Gupta, P.; and Cote, P. A., “Use of Headed Reinforcement in Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Earthquake Loads,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1998, pp. 590-606. 4. McConnell, S. W., and Wallace, J. W., “Use of T-Headed Bars in Reinforced Concrete Knee-Joints Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Loading,” Report No. CU/CEE-94/10, Department of Civil Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 1994, 44 pp. 5. Chun, S. C., and Kim, D. Y., “Evaluation of Mechanical Anchorage of Reinforcement by Exterior Beam-Column Joint Experiments,” Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004. (CD-ROM) 6. Mokhtar, A. S.; Ghali, A.; and Dilger, W. H., “Stud Shear Reinforcement for Flat Concrete Plates,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 676-683. 7. Elgabry, A. A., and Ghali, A., “Tests on Concrete Slab-Column Connections with Stud Shear Reinforcement Subjected to ShearMoment Transfer,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1987, pp. 433-442. 8. 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, MI, 2002, 37 pp. 9. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421, “Guide to Shear Reinforcement for Slabs (ACI 421.1R-08),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 23 pp. 10. DeVries, R. A., “Anchorage of Headed Reinforcement in Concrete,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1996, 294 pp. 11. Bashandy, T. R., “Application of Headed Bars in Concrete Members,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, Dec. 1996, 302 pp. 12. Thompson, M. K., “The Anchorage Behavior of Headed Reinforcement

in CCT Nodes and Lap Splices,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2002, 502 pp. 13. Thompson, M. K.; Ziehl, M. J.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., “CCT Nodes Anchored by Headed Bars—Part 1: Behavior of Nodes,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005, pp. 808-815. 14. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear SafetyRelated Concrete Structures (ACI 349-06) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, 153 pp. 15. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 465 pp. 16. Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., “Shear Strength of R/C BeamColumn Connections,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 107, No. ST11, Nov. 1981, pp. 2227-2244. 17. Marques, J. L. G., and Jirsa, J. O., “A Study of Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-Column Joints,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 72, No. 5, May 1975, pp. 198-209. 18. ASTM A615-06, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, 6 pp. 19. Hong, S.-G.; Chun, S.-C.; Lee, S.-H.; and Oh, B., “Strut-and-Tie Model for Development of Headed Bars in Exterior Beam-Column Joint,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2007, pp. 590-600. 20. Ghali, A., and Dilger, W. H., “Anchoring with Double-Headed Studs,” Concrete International, V. 20, No. 11, Nov. 1998, pp. 21-24. 21. Comité Euro-International du Béton, “CEB-FIP Model Code, 1990,” Thomas Telford, 437 pp. 22. Thompson, M. K.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., “Behavior and Capacity of Headed Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-Aug. 2006, pp. 522-530. 23. Thompson, M. K.; Ledesma, A.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., “Lap Splices Anchored by Headed Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2006, pp. 271-279. 24. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; and Breen, J. E., “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 73-94. 25. Natrella, M. G., “Experimental Statistics,” National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91, 1966.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

589

APPENDIX Table A—Comparison of test values with predicted values
Predicted strength by DeVries ACI 318-08 Proposed model Diagonal cracking (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) load Pcr , kN (kips) kN (kips) (1)/Pcr kN (kips) (2)/Pcr kN (kips) (3)/Pcr kN (kips) (4)/Pcr kN (kips) (5)/Pcr kN (kips) (6)/Pcr 701.3 (157.7) 693.2 (155.8) 434.4 (97.6) 444.2 (99.8) 491.8 (110.6) 515.3 (115.8) 309.4 (69.6) 309.0 (69.5) 228.8 (51.4) 212.1 (47.7) 192.5 (43.3) 169.7 (38.2) 197.8 (44.5) 187.3 (42.1) 116.8 (26.3) 121.7 (27.4) 123.7 (27.8) 122.7 (27.6) 93.7 (21.1) 91.1 (20.5) 88.8 (20.0) 90.4 (20.3) 59.4 (13.4) 56.1 (12.6) 1322.5 (297.3) 1267.8 (285.0) 1267.8 (285.0) 1,212.8 (272.8) 495.3 (111.3) 482.3 (108.4) 482.3 (108.4) 469.2 (105.5) 260.7 (58.6) 254.4 (57.2) 254.4 (57.2) 248.1 (55.8) 1.89 1.91 2.92 2.85 2.58 2.46 3.92 3.92 2.17 2.13 2.51 2.61 1.84 2.12 2.42 3.07 2.11 2.05 2.08 2.01 1.80 1.76 3.39 2.64 2.46 25% 126.5 (28.4) 112.8 (25.3) 112.8 (25.3) 97.1 (21.8) 53.3 (12.0) 48.4 (10.9) 48.4 (10.9) 42.9 (9.7) 33.0 (7.4) 30.2 (6.8) 30.2 (6.8) 27.1 (6.1) 1.87 1.89 2.28 2.23 2.02 1.93 2.16 2.16 1.65 1.62 1.50 1.56 1.10 1.27 1.02 1.30 1.62 1.58 1.26 1.22 1.09 1.06 1.48 1.15 159.2 (35.8) 141.4 (31.8) 141.4 (31.8) 121.0 (27.2) 66.6 (15.0) 60.2 (13.5) 60.2 (13.5) 53.1 (11.9) 41.2 (9.3) 37.5 (8.4) 37.5 (8.4) 33.4 (7.5) 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.26 0.26 0.46 0.36 0.31 18% 619.6 (139.3) 832.0 (187.0) 832.0 (187.0) 997.6 (224.3) 256.9 (57.8) 284.5 (64.0) 284.5 (64.0) 284.5 (64.0) 141.0 (31.7) 152.3 (34.2) 152.3 (34.2) 152.3 (34.2) 0.88 0.89 1.97 1.87 1.69 1.61 3.22 3.22 1.12 1.10 1.48 1.54 1.08 1.25 1.47 1.86 1.14 1.11 1.25 1.20 1.08 1.05 2.08 1.62 1.53 41% 126.5 (28.4) 112.8 (25.3) 112.8 (25.3) 97.1 (21.8) 53.3 (12.0) 48.4 (10.9) 48.4 (10.9) 42.9 (9.7) 33.0 (7.4) 30.2 (6.8) 30.2 (6.8) 27.1 (6.1) 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.31 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.18 0.21 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.29 0.25 18% 739.5 (166.2) 501.2 (112.7) 501.2 (112.7) 262.9 (59.1) 221.5 (49.8) 151.5 (34.1) 151.5 (34.1) 80.5 (18.1) 108.2 (24.3) 75.0 (16.8) 75.0 (16.8) 42.4 (9.5) 1.05 1.07 1.15 1.13 1.02 0.97 0.85 0.85 0.97 1.04 0.79 0.89 0.77 0.81 0.69 0.66 0.87 0.88 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.83 0.71 0.76 0.88 16% Thompson Bashandy Concrete breakout Side-face blowout

Specimen ID No. 18-M-0.9L-(1) No. 18-M-0.9L-(2) No. 18-M-0.7L-(1) No. 18-M-0.7L-(2) No. 18-M-0.7L-2R-(1) No. 18-M-0.7L-2R-(2) No. 18-M-0.5L-(1) No. 18-M-0.5L-(2) No. 11-M-0.9L-(1) No. 11-M-0.9L-(2) No. 11-M-0.7L-(1) No. 11-M-0.7L-(2) No. 11-M-0.7L-2R-(1) No. 11-M-0.7L-2R-(2) No. 11-M-0.5L-(1) No. 11-M-0.5L-(2) No. 8-M-0.9L-(1) No. 8-M-0.9L-(2) No. 8-M-0.7L-(1) No. 8-M-0.7L-(2) No. 8-M-0.7L-2R-(1) No. 8-M-0.7L-2R-(2) No. 8-M-0.5L-(1) No. 8-M-0.5L-(2)

Average COV

590

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009