DISCUSSION
Disc. 102-S01/From the January-February 2005 ACI Structural Journal, p. 3
Shear Strength of Joints in Precast Concrete Segmental Bridges. Paper by Xiangming Zhou, Neil Mickleborough,
and Zongjin Li
Discussion by Guenter Rombach and Angelika Specker
Professor, Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, Germany; Doctorate, Boeger + Jaeckle Consultant Engineers, Germany
In their paper, the authors showed some interesting results
of load tests of specimens with single and multiple shear
keys. It may be surprising that the design for shear in
segmental bridges is still not clarified whereas many such
bridges have already been built.
The discussers would like to add some aspects that are not
fully taken into account in this paper. First, our design
formula is not based on numerical analyses only. Tests on
single and multiple keys, both dry as well as glued, were
done to calibrate the finite element model. The behavior of
the joint and the ultimate load were well predicted. For this
reason, the model is used to develop a design formula.
The problem of design formulas is to consider the situation
on site that always results in imperfections. This is done by
safety coefficients. While developing the design formula
effects of imperfections are investigated numerically, it can be
shown that imperfections have a great importance on the shear
capacity of joints. Especially for dry loads, the contact
between the surfaces is important to transfer the loads. For this
reason, a relatively high value for the safety coefficient should
be used. The discussers suggest a coefficient of γ = 2.0.
The authors confirm the importance of imperfections
because the measured shear capacity of keys in three-keyed
joints was always lower than those in single-keyed joints.
This is true for dry joints. Using epoxy, the influence of
imperfections is reduced because of a more uniform distri-
bution of stresses among the keys. However, epoxy joints
have many other problems, such as an improper use on site
or very brittle failure behavior. The authors show that shear
capacity decreases when the epoxy thickness amounts to
more than 2 mm. This cannot be controlled on site. For this
reason, the discussers’ design formula is not valid for epoxy
Disc. 102-S01/From the January-February 2005 ACI Structural Journal, p. 3
Shear Strength of Joints in Precast Concrete Segmental Bridges. Paper by Xiangming Zhou, Neil Mickleborough,
and Zongjin Li
Discussion by José Turmo, Gonzalo Ramos, and Ángel C. Aparicio
Civil Engineering School, Castilla-La Mancha University, Spain; Visiting Faculty at Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India; Civil Engineering School, Technical University of
Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
The authors present a great work, with an impressive
number of experimental results, and should be congratu-
lated. Experimental research on dry and epoxied multiple-
key joints is very scarce, and to the discussers’ knowledge,
it is the first time such tests have been performed on high-
strength concrete specimens.
Nevertheless, the discussers have some comments and
suggestions. It is the intention of this discussion to express
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005
joints. To consider the problems, it is necessary to reduce the
ultimate shear capacity of epoxy joints. Also, the formula
used in AASHTO is valid for dry joints only. Therefore, for
epoxy joints, the discussers’ “dry” formula should underes-
timate the ultimate shear strength because of the improved
load distribution by using epoxy joints as opposed to dry
joints. As it can be seen, this is true until the thickness
exceeds a value of 2 mm, but these improvements cannot be
considered in calculations because of the problems that may
occur on site.
For dry joints, the authors show that the shear capacity of
keys in three-keyed joints is lower than for single-keyed
joints. The discussers’ formula and the AASHTO formula
are based on a linear correlation between the number of keys
and the maximum shear capacity. For this reason, it is
possible that both our formula as well as the AASHTO
formula underestimate the shear capacity of single-keyed
dry joints but overestimate the shear capacity of multiple-
keyed dry joints. Because our formula is more conservative
than the AASHTO formula, the overestimation of our
formula (3.2 to 53.7%) is much less than that of the
AASHTO formula (19.7 to 61.8%). The decrease in shear
capacity of keys in three-keyed joints can be due to the fact
that the number of imperfections is higher when using
multiple keys because the probability of defects is higher. In
the discussers’ formula, imperfections are considered by
using a safety coefficient. In future work, it would be inter-
esting to specifically investigate the effects of imperfections
to define an economic safety coefficient. By using a value of
γ = 2.0, the discussers’ formula is able to calculate the shear
capacity sufficiently.
some remarks based on previous research, just in case it
could be useful to the authors and readers in general.
In the introduction of the article, it is stated that the shear
keys serve three functions: aligning the segments during
erection, transferring the shear force between segments
during service, and ensuring durability of the tendons against
corrosion. However, the crucial function of resisting shear
during the construction of balanced cantilever bridges, when
901
the epoxy has not hardened and acts like a lubricant, is not
mentioned. Stating that keys help prevent corrosion of the
internal tendons is not a very accurate assertion; the corrosion
protection relies on other techniques such as the use of epoxy
in the joints, the sealing of the ducts at the joints with
compressed neoprene o-rings, and the duct injection.
Also in the introduction, the AASHTO formula for the
design of the keyed joints is claimed to be empirical, whereas
it is completely theoretical. From a presumed simple state of
stresses within the key, when subjected to axial and shear
forces, Roberts and Breen20 deduced the formula later
adopted by AASHTO, stating that a key fails when the
maximum principal tensile stress equals the concrete tensile
strength. Regarding the content of the same paragraph, it is
worth noting that a shearing-off failure along the keys only
occurs when the shear span-depth ratio (a/d) is extremely
low (a/d < 0.5),20 as in shear panel tests, whereas in beam
tests, shear failure involves a diagonal cracking within the
segment.21,22 At the same time, in shear panel tests, failure
does not occur only through the shearing-off of the keys, as
flexural and compressive failures in the keys have been also
recorded in such tests.21 The discussers agree with the
authors that even if a diagonal shear failure is more likely to
occur in a real bridge, the shearing-off of the joint is also to
be checked and that reliable design formulas should be able
to do so.
It is very difficult to extract definite conclusions from the
test program because the object of the research is very
dependent on the concrete tensile strength. This magnitude
can be derived from the concrete compressive strength with
a significant scatter, which of course will be more important
for concrete compressive strength in the range of 30 to 80 MPa,
as those considered in the test program. In this manner, the
comparison of the results is also difficult because compressive
stresses for multiple-key specimens (ranging from 0.5 to
2 MPa) are systematically lower than in single-key specimens
(ranging from 1 to 4.5 MPa). The compressive stresses
observed in the tests seem to also be very low, especially for
multiple-key specimens, where the most common service
compressive stresses in a concrete box girder bridge is above
an average of 0.15fc′ .
Regarding the experimental results and analysis, some
points should be discussed. The AASHTO code proposes
Eq. (5) to estimate the shear capacity of the joints in PCSB
(without safety factor). This formula is the one provided by
Roberts and Breen20 and it depends on the tensile strength of
the concrete. Actually, this formula was deduced for
concrete with a compressive strength up to 55 MPa.20 In
such concrete classes, the tensile strength was derived from
the compressive strength through the following nondimen-
sional formula (in psi)
f t = 7.5 f c′ (8)
In Reference 5, Eq. (5) does not distinguish between
strength levels. This formula, however, was not proposed for
high-strength concrete. Hence, the fact that the grade of
some test specimens is greater than 55 MPa should have been
taken into account when checking the accuracy of Eq. (5). It
could be wise to use the tests on the one hand for checking
the accuracy of Eq. (5) for conventional strength concrete
(fc′ < 55 MPa) and on the other for evaluating its applica-
bility for predicting the shear strength of joints made with
high-strength concrete (fc′ > 55 MPa).
902
The generally accepted statement that the strength of an n-
key joint will roughly be n-times the strength of a single-key
joint relies on the plastic behavior of the joint. This plastic
behavior depends on two main factors: the strength of the
concrete and the compressive stresses acting at the joint. The
higher the concrete compressive strength, the more brittle
the material; thus, the high compressive strength of some
concrete used in the test programs will also affect the
behavior of the three-key specimens. At the same time, the
higher the confinement stresses at the joint, the more plastic
its behavior. Due to this fact, Roberts and Breen also limited
the validity of their formula to joints where the actuating
compressive stress is greater than 0.7 MPa. This stress level
is generally lower than the one actuating in a real structure.
The low confinement stress would explain the huge differ-
ences between the AASHTO predictions and the tests on
multiple-key specimens. Actually, when a higher compressive
stress is acting at the joint, the AASHTO formula proves to be
very accurate for predicting the strength of panel tests with
multiple-key joints (up to seven keys).3,22 Average
compressive stresses in the mentioned panel tests range
between 2.9 and 3.9 MPa (References 3 and 22, respectively).
The second point of the conclusions is very controversial.
There, it is stated that the dry joints had an ultimate strength
of approximately 20 to 40% less than the epoxied joints.
Comparing Fig. 11(a) and (b), completely different conclusions
can be reached. In such figures, the normalized shear strength
from the single-key dry joint specimens is systematically
higher than the strength from the single-key specimens with
a 1 mm epoxy joint. Also, from the comparison of these
figures, similar conclusions can be obtained for the case of
the normalized shear strength of the three-key specimens
compressed up to 1 MPa.
Regarding the second point of the conclusions, another
issue that is not sufficiently explained is the fact that specimens
with a thicker epoxy layer (3 mm) have a worse behavior
than specimens with a thinner one (2 mm). Common sense
(and FEM analysis22) suggests that the softer the contact
between two adjacent keys is, the more uniform the distribution
of shear stresses among the keys is and, hence, the shear
capacity of the joint should be higher. Shear transfer in a
joint with several keys can be regarded as analogous to an
elastic force transfer in a lap joint with several bolts;
depending on the stiffness of the bolts, shear is transferred in
a different way. If very stiff fasteners are provided, the shear
flow will concentrate in the extreme bolts. On the other hand,
flexible fasteners will lead to an equally distributed shear
transfer among the bolts. In the same manner, the thicker the
epoxy layer, the softer the connection, the more homoge-
neous the shear distribution, and the higher the shear
capacity of the joint. The tests prove that this statement is
true when comparing results from 1 and 2 mm-thick epoxy
joints. Contrarily, tests results do not support this analogy
when comparing results from 2 and 3 mm-thick epoxy joints.
As test results show unexpected trends, some physical
phenomenon should be counterbalancing the beneficial
effect of a more equally distributed shear transfer along the
3 mm-thick epoxy joint. It is thought that it would be very
convenient for the scientific and technical communities if the
authors could explain such a physical phenomenon.
REFERENCES
20. Roberts, C. L., “Measurement Based Revisions for Segmental Bridge
Design and Construction Criteria,” PhD dissertation, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., Dec. 1993.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005
 21. Ramírez-Aguilera, G., “Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioning
Segmental Beams with Multiple Shear Keys,” master’s thesis, The University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., Jan. 1989.
22. Turmo, J., “Flexure and Shear Behavior of Segmental Concrete
Bridges with External Prestressing and Dry Joints,” PhD dissertation, ETS-
ICCP de Barcelona, Dept. Ing. de la Construcción, July 2003. (in Spanish)
AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
The authors thank the discussers for their meaningful
comments and suggestions.
Rombach and Specker mainly discussed the issues
involved in their design formula: 1) the derivation and appli-
cability (Eq. (7)); 2) consideration of safety factor to take
matching imperfections into account; and 3) single-keyed
and multiple-keyed joint application.
There are mainly three methods to derive design formulas
for concrete structural members of segmental bridges. One is
purely from regression analyses of experimental results,
such as those presented by Buyukozturk, Bakhoum, and
Beattie;6 the second one is from numerical analyses with a
finite element model calibrated by experimental work, such
as those addressed by Rombach and Specker;10 the last one
may be totally based on an analytical model, but this method
is very limited. The authors did address that Rombach and
Specker’s formula (Eq. (7)) was based on numerical analyses
in the Introduction of the paper. The authors also stated in the
Shear Capacity of Joints section of the paper that Rombach
and Specker’s formula (Eq. (7)) is “mainly” based on their
numerical simulations (third paragraph, left column of p. 9).
Rombach and Specker have conducted a small number of tests
on dry and epoxied joints in segmental bridges.23,24 They
found that the models used in practical design, for instance,
those of AASHTO,5 were obtained from experiments and
described by simple analytical formulas.23,24 Due to the limi-
tations in experimental measurements, they concluded that
numerical calculations were required to investigate the shear
capacity of the joints.23,24 From this point of view, they also
built a finite element model and verified the model by their
experimental results.23,24
In the discussed paper, the authors presented their experi-
mental results and compared them with the predictions from
design formulas proposed by AASHTO and Rombach and
Specker,10 respectively, which were the only available
formulas for design of shear capacity of joints in segmental
bridges at that time according to the authors’ knowledge.
The authors found that there was a significant difference in
ultimate shear strength between measured and predicted
results. Based on the observation of shear-off failure mode
and analyses by separating the shear contribution of the
contact flat parts in vertical direction from other parts of the
joint, the authors pointed out that the shear capacity per key
in multiple-keyed dry joints was systematically lower than
that in single-keyed dry joints; in epoxied joints, the difference
became smaller. The authors attributed the differences to the
matching imperfections existing between the keys. As
Rombach and Specker have pointed out in their discussion,
both their formula (Eq. (7)) and the AASHTO formula
(Eq. (5) or (6)) are based on a liner correlation between the
number of keys and the shear capacity of the joint. Certainly
it is difficult to consider the matching imperfection in
numerical analyses, as well as in practical design formulas,
but the matching imperfections may always occur in practice
so that it leads to a lower shear capacity of joints than that
predicted by most design formulas and analytical models. It
is understandable that the model proposed by Rombach and
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005
Specker was intended for dry joints and could not accurately
predict the loading-carrying capacity for epoxied joints.
Several points have brought up by discussers Turmo,
Ramos, and Aparicio, which are: 1) the keys’ function; 2) the
derivation of AASHTO formula, valid concrete strength
range for the formula, and failure mode of different keys; 3)
magnitude of the confining stress of specimens and its influence
on shear behavior of multiply-keyed joints; 4) the comparison
of shear strength of dry and epoxied joints; and 5) the influence
of epoxy layer thickness.
The keys in segmental bridges may have many functions.
Epoxy provides waterproofing of the joints for bridges.5
Thus, using epoxy, consequently epoxied joints, can reduce
and/or prevent corrosion of the internal and external tendon
in segment bridges. Certainly there are many other tech-
niques that can achieve these targets, such as the sealing of
the ducts at the joints and the duct injection. The authors
agree that epoxy can also serve as a lubricant during placement
of segments, behaves as a seal to avoid cross-over during
grouting of internal tendons, and provides some tensile
strength across the joint.5
AASHTO’s equation for shear design of keyed joints was
derived with guidance from work by Mattock,25 and confirmed
by test data from the experimental programs of Koseki and
Breen,3 and Buyukozturk, Bakhoum, and Beattie.6 It is not to
say that the formula is completely theoretical. Although web
shear cracking and flexural shear cracking may occur in
segmental bridges, it is well recognized that the most likely
failure mode of keyed joints in precast concrete segmental
bridges is the shearing-off of the keys along the joint plane.3,6
A keyed-joint can be considered under two-dimensional
stresses. The stress along the longitudinal direction is some-
times called confining stress. For the authors’ experiments, due
to the limitation of the testing facility and the relative large size
of the specimens, the confining stresses applied on the
specimens could only reach 5 MPa for single-keyed
joints and 2 MPa for three-keyed joints. It should be
noted that most of the specimens were tested under a
confining pressure greater than 0.7 MPa, which was regarded
as the valid lower-bound confining pressure when using
Roberts and Breen’s design formula—the origin work of the
AASHTO design formula (Eq. (5) or (6)). 5 Based on
observation of the large difference between the experimental
and the predicted values by the AASHTO formula, it has been
found that ultimate shear strengths of multiple-keyed joints can
also be influenced by the fixing imperfections between
multiple-keyed joints. As proof, the authors cite that the shear
capacity per key in multiple-keyed dry joints is always lower
than that in single-keyed dry joints. On the other hand, epoxy
can largely reduce the fixing imperfections, so that the shear
capacity per key in multiple-keyed epoxied joints is comparable
to that in single-keyed epoxied joints.
Though AASHTO’s formula (Eq. (5)) is based on the work
of Roberts and Breen,20 which was deduced for concrete with
a compressive strength generally less than 55 MPa according to
Turmo, Ramos, and Aparicio in their discussion, AASHTO5
does not distinguish between strength levels. In fact, if one
takes the limit of the concrete strength, 55 MPa, as the design
compressive strength fck, and assume that the compressive
strength has a normal distribution with mean value fcm and
standard deviation σ, it should exist fcm = fck + 3σ, where σ
equates to 4 MPa, according to British standard. Therefore, the
applicable mean compressive strength is 67 MPa. Besides,
most of the specimens tested by the authors had a compressive
903
strength of less than 55 MPa. Certainly, there were 16 speci-
mens having a compressive strength between 55 to 60 MPa,
and only two specimens had a compressive strength greater than
60 MPa. The authors did not intend to perform tests of keys
made of high-strength concrete. Actually, most of the specimens
were cast with commercial concrete, Grade 30 or 50 concrete
widely used in Hong Kong. Only one specimen (M3-D-K1-
1; refer to Table 1) was made of in-house high-strength
concrete, which was deliberately tailored to achieve high
strength and examine its shear behavior in segmental joints.
The second point of the conclusions summarizes the
“apparent” experimental results—the overall shear
capacity—of dry joints and epoxied joints, that is, the ulti-
mate shear strength of the joints, in the unit of kN, including
the contributions of both the contact flat part in vertical
direction and the keys. This point is based on the ultimate
strength values in Table 1. However, in Fig. 11, the normal-
ized shear capacity per key is obtained by subtracting the
contribution of the contact flat part in vertical direction from
the ultimate shear strength. This part has a high percentage
for epoxied joints, and a lower percentage for dry joints.
During testing, the authors found that epoxied joints with
3 mm-thick epoxy bonding layers showed lower shear
capacity than those with 1 or 2 mm-thick epoxy layers (refer
to Table 1). Based on these data, the authors drew the conclu-
sion that a 3 mm-thick epoxy layer may bring worse
behavior than a thinner (1 or 2 mm) epoxy layer. Buyukoz-
turk, Bakhoum, and Beattie6 have also found that the
epoxied keyed joints exhibit different shear strength in the
Disc. 102-S04/From the January-February 2005 ACI Structural Journal, p. 31
Long-Term Tension-Stiffening Effects in Concrete. Paper by Richard H. Scott and Andrew W. Beeby
Discussion by Je Il Lee, Young Hak Lee, and Andrew Scanlon
PhD student, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.; Associate Director, Dong Yang Structural Engineers Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea; Professor and Head of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
The authors have reported some very interesting data on
the behavior of axially loaded reinforced concrete prisms in
tension. As the authors point out, the tension stiffening effect
decays with time. This decay can be attributed largely to
tensile creep in the concrete between cracks. Analogous to
the gradual transfer of stress from concrete to steel in the
compressive zone due to creep, the stress in concrete in
tensile zones also decreases due to creep, transferring stress
to the embedded tensile steel.
An analysis of one of the authors’ specimens was
performed using the approach proposed by Cho iet al. 7
Tension stiffening is modeled using a simple bilinear stress-
strain relationship as shown in Fig. A. The same relationship
was used for time-dependent response employing the age-
adjusted effective modulus approach to account for creep. An
iterative procedure is employed in which the secant modulus
of elasticity for the concrete is adjusted after cracking to
follow the descending branch. The secant modulus is further
reduced under sustained load as determined by the age-
adjusted effective modulus to account for tensile creep.
Ec
E c = αE c, E ct = ---------------------
- (1)
( 1 + χφ t )
904
presence of a different epoxy layer thickness. This may be
because that the variation of epoxy layer thickness increases
as the thickness of epoxy layer increases, especially if this
could lead to an accumulation of geometric errors. The vari-
ation of epoxy layer thickness can lead to more matching
imperfections and, thus, a lower shear capacity of epoxied
joints. Epoxy normally has a lower elastic modulus (around
6 GPa) and brittle failure mode. Also, the shear stress
increases with the epoxy thickness at a horizontal portion of
the joint. Thus, more deformation will be generated in the
epoxy layer that can lead to fracture of the specimen. It is
questionable to treat epoxy layers as ductile springs in
numerical analyses.
Though a lot of segmental bridges have been built and are
open for traffic, there is still very limited research, especially
experimental work, on the design of keyed joints in such
bridges. From the authors’ point of view, there is still far from
adequate research in this area. Certainly there are many contro-
versial points on the available research. The authors believe that
these points will be clarified as more and more research is done
on shear behavior of joints in segmental box bridges.
REFERENCES
23. Rombach, G. A., and Specker, A., “Numerical Modelling of Segmental
Bridges,” Proceedings of the European Conference on Computational
Mechanics, W. Wunderlich, ed., Munich, Germany, Aug. 31 to Sept. 3, 1999.
24. Rombach, G., and Specker, A., “Finite Element Analysis of Externally
Prestressed Segmental Bridges,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth Engineering
Mechanics Conference, J. L. Tassoulas, ed., Austin, Tex., May 21-24, 2000.
25. Mattock, A. H., “Design Proposals for Reinforced Concrete Corbels,”
PCI Journal, V. 21, No. 3, May-June 1976, pp. 18-42.
Fig. A—Bilinear tensile stress-strain relation.
where
Ec = elastic modulus before cracking;
Ec = effective elastic modulus after cracking;
Ect = effective elastic modulus including cracking and
creep;
fcr = tensile strength of concrete;
εcr = tensile strain at cracking;
α = tension stiffening factor;
β = tension stiffening parameter; and
χ = aging factor (assumed = 0.8).
A comparison between the author’s experimental results
and the analytical results is shown in Fig. B for a specimen
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005

Fig. B—Comparison between analytical and experimental
results.
under time-dependent incremental load. The agreement is
fairly good at the second increment of load. On initial
loading, the analytical response is too stiff, while at the upper
load level, the analysis results are too flexible. Clearly, better
correlation could be obtained by replacing the post-peak
response with a nonlinear function that initially decreases
more rapidly, but at higher strains, increases at a slower rate
as indicated in Fig. C. Several proposed functions of the
nonlinear type are compared by Fields and Bischoff.8 In this
analysis, the simple ACI 209R9 creep function developed for
comparison was used. Better correlation may be obtained
using a more sophisticated creep function.10
For flexural members, the decay in tension stiffening may
be fairly rapid; however, the time-dependent response will
still be largely determined by creep of concrete in the
compressive zone so that the incremental deflection may still
be the desired criterion to satisfy.
REFERENCES
7. Choi, B.; Scanlon, A.; and Johnson, P. A., 2004, “Monte Carlo Simu-
lation of Immediate and Time-Dependent Deflections of Reinforced
Concrete Beams and Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, Sept.-
Oct. 2004, pp. 633-641.
8. Fields, K., and Bischoff, P. H., “Tension Stiffening and Cracking of
High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Tension Members,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug. 2004, pp. 447-456.
9. ACI Committee 209, “Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage and Tempera-
ture Effects in Concrete Structures (ACI 209R-92),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1992, 48 pp.
10. Ostergaard, L.; Lange, D. A.; Altoubat, S. A.; and Stang, H., “Tensile
Basic Creep of Early-Age Concrete Under Constant Load,” Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 31, No. 12, 2001, pp. 1895-1899.
AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
The authors would like to thank the discussers for their
interest in our paper. The discussers state that the decay in
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005
Fig. C—Nonlinear-type tension stiffening effect.
Fig. D—Variation of concrete tensile stress with time for
Specimen T16R1.
tension stiffening can largely be attributed to creep. In the
authors’ view, the situation is rather more complex and,
though creep clearly has some influence, we are inclined to
believe that cumulative damage is the major contributor.
The authors have carried out a detailed analysis of the long-
term behavior of the specimens described in the paper, and the
results from this analysis will be published in a paper that has
now been accepted for publication.11 For the specimen
considered in the contribution (Specimen T16R1), the total
long-term increment in strain over time was 264 × 10–6. Of
this, 90 × 10–6 can be easily shown from the stress distributions
along the bar to result from the formation of new cracks,
leaving 160 × 10–6 for possible creep deformation. The
method of gauging the specimens means that the stress in the
concrete surrounding the bars can be calculated at each load
stage. While there was a sharp peak in the concrete stress at
each stage when loading was applied, this rapidly dropped to
a value between 0.5 and 0.3 MPa (Fig. D). On average, the
assumption of stress in the concrete of approximately 0.5 MPa
seems reasonable. This stress remained on the specimen for
97 days. Assuming a value for tensile creep of twice the
value for compressive creep, the creep strain under this stress
calculated using the method given in Eurocode 25 results in
an approximate creep strain of 62 × 10–6. The authors would
say that this is close to a worst case and it leaves another
98 × 10–6 of strain to be accommodated by other mecha-
nisms. Though we cannot offer any detailed proof, it is our
opinion that this is probably due to the extension of internal
cracking within the specimens. If this is true, then creep, in
this case, is only directly contributing about a quarter of the
total long-term deformation and the remainder is due to
cumulative internal damage.
REFERENCES
11. Beeby, A. W., and Scott, R. H., “Mechanisms of Long-Term Decay
of Tension Stiffening,” Magazine of Concrete Research. (in press)
905
Disc. 102-S10/From the January-February 2005 ACI Structural Journal, p. 93

Use of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers in Slab-Column Connection Upgrades. Paper by Baris Binici and Oguzhan
Bayrak

Discussion by K. Sissakis and S. A. Sheikh

Structural Engineer, Halsall Associates Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto

The discussers would like to extend their appreciation to

the authors for presenting their work on the use of FRP for
strengthening two-way slabs in shear. This discussion is
written to bring notice to the work that was carried out on
this topic at the University of Toronto in 2000 and 200220,21
and has not been referred to in the paper.
In a pilot test series, three slab specimens retrofitted with
CFRP were tested and compared with a control specimen20
in an effort to validate the concept of stitching the slabs with
FRP to enhance their punching shear capacity. All the slab
specimens were 1500 x 1500 mm (59 x 59 in.) in plan and
150 mm thick (5.9 in.), and tested under displacement-
controlled concentric load applied at the center of the
specimen on an area of 200 x 200 m (7.9 x 7.9 in.). Figure A
shows details of the specimen and the test machine with a
specimen simply supported on all four sides similar to those
shown in Fig. 1 of the paper. Slab specimens in the pilot test
series were reinforced with short strands of CFRP laminate
that were passed once through the holes cast in the slab and
had their ends adhered to the top and bottom surface of the
slab for anchorage (Fig. B(a)). Large sheets of CFRP
laminate were later installed on the top and bottom surface
to ensure anchorage to the concrete (Fig. B(b)). The results
showed a substantial increase in the shear capacity and
ductility of the slabs due to FRP retrofitting and validated the
hypothesis of upgrading the slabs with FRP for punching
shear (Fig. C). The experiments also found partial separation
of the CFRP laminates from the concrete surface during
testing and considerable increases in flexural stiffness and
strength due to the added CFRP laminates on the top and
bottom surface of the slab specimens. An increase in the
flexural capacity was not considered to be desirable for this
application, especially if the upgrade is to enhance seismic
resistance of slabs. In addition, the bond between FRP and
concrete was a major concern. These issues were addressed
in the next series of tests.21
Further work was carried out on 28 slab specimens of the
same dimensions as those of the pilot series.21 Twenty-four
of these specimens were retrofitted with CFRP and tested
under concentric load. All the slab specimens were cast with
one of the four patterns of holes shown in Fig. D. The
number of concentric shear-reinforcing perimeters parallel
to the loading plate periphery varied between 3 and 6. The
major improvement from the pilot series was the change in
the retrofit procedure. The slabs were effectively stitched
with continuous strings of carbon FRP passing through
paired holes and anchored at the ends (Fig. E). The solid
rings of CFRP reinforcement minimized the dependence on
bond between the concrete and the FRP laminate and
avoided increases in flexural strength and stiffness. Figure F
compares the behaviors of four slab specimens with different
reinforcing configurations each retrofitted with CFRP in six
shear reinforcing perimeters and a control specimen in which
no shear reinforcement was used. The load has been normalized Fig. A—Specimen details and test setup.

906 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005

 Fig. D—Shear reinforcement configurations and assumed
critical shear section perimeters.

Fig. B—CFRP application of slab specimens in pilot

studies.

Fig. E—Slab specimen D4 before and after CFRP application.

Fig. C—Load-deformation curves for pilot test series.

with respect to bod√fc′ to compare specimens with different

concrete strengths in the entire test program and corresponds
to the cumulative shear stress at a distance of d/2 from the
bearing plate periphery. The retrofitted slab specimens
demonstrated increases in shear strength and ductility of up
to 82% and 768%, respectively, over that of their respective
control specimens.
An increase of 57.5% in the load-carrying capacity of
slabs as a result of similar FRP retrofitting observed by the
authors in their tests (Fig. 5 of the paper) is comparable to Fig. F—Load-deformation curves for slab specimens with
that observed in the Toronto tests. six shear reinforcing perimeters and control specimen.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005 907


Fig. G—Strengthening patterns and details used by Sissakis.21
REFERENCES
20. Sissakis, K., “The Use of CFRP Strands to Improve the Punching
Shear Resistance of Concrete Slabs,” BASc thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Apr. 2000.
21. Sissakis, K., “Strengthening of Concrete Slabs for Punching Shear
with CFRP Laminates,” MASc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Feb. 2002.
AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
The authors thank the discussers for their contribution and
for highlighting the oversight on the authors’ part for failing
to refer to their work.20,21 The authors are also glad to have
this opportunity to clarify the differences between their work
and the results reported in our original paper. Although the
differences are not limited to the issues discussed as follows,
the authors consider the following to be significant:
1. Geometric properties—The discussers indicate that
their specimens were 59 x 59 x 6 in. whereas the specimens
tested in our research measured 84 x 84 x 6 in. These
dimensions indicate a difference of approximately 45% in
the shear span-depth ratio. This significant difference is also
reflected in the moment-shear ratios calculated at the critical
perimeter for both bending axes. The different loading plate
sizes used by the discussers (8 in.) and the authors (12 in.)
result in significantly different bo/d ratios in the two test
series. An examination of Reference 21 indicates that the
discussers used two flexural reinforcement ratios: 1.49% and
2.23%. The flexural reinforcement ratio used in our tests was
908
Fig. H—Strengthening patterns and details used by Binici.24
kept constant at 1.76%. CEB-FIP MC 9022 and BS 8110-
9723 consider the punching shear resistance as a function of
longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Hence, it is well
established that punching shear strength of flat plates is
significantly influenced by the flexural reinforcement ratio.
2. Detailing—Improving the punching shear strength of
slab-column connections was only one of the two important
goals of our research. The second and equally important goal
was to improve the post-punching capacity. As such, the
authors developed anchorage details that are drastically
different than those employed by the discussers. Figure G
illustrates the anchorage details21 and CFRP application
used by the discussers. Figure H demonstrates the way in
which the CFRP stirrups were externally installed in our
experimental program. The purpose of our CFRP
installations was not only to improve the strength of the slab-
column connection but also to create a tightly knit array of
CFRP stirrups to engage more flexural reinforcement into
the punching cone for improved dowel resistance. As
discussed in our research,6,24,25 additional dowels improve
the residual capacity after punching. This characteristic is of
paramount importance to mitigate progressive collapse. The
risk of progressive collapse is reduced by minimizing the
magnitude of the load that will be shed to neighboring
connections at punching shear failure. Figure 12 of
Reference 25 clearly illustrates the efficacy of two different
details anchoring the same amount of vertical CFRP
reinforcement in improving the punching shear capacity.
Hence, it is very clear that the anchorage of vertical CFRP
reinforcement plays an important role in enhancing the
punching shear strength and post punching behavior. It is
important to observe that the external CFRP stirrup
installation technique used in our research involved
providing multiple anchorage paths for most, if not all, of the
discrete vertical CFRP reinforcement locations. The
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005
anchorage details used by the discussers (Fig. G) are
fundamentally different in nature and need to be evaluated in
view of this observation.
3. Instrumentation—Although the discussers, like the
authors, used a test setup similar to the one used by Elstner
and Hognestad18 in 1956, the instrumentation used in the
authors’ study6,24,25 was different. Because the corners of
the simply supported slabs lift up when concentrated loads
are applied at the center of slab specimens, the support
movements in the authors’ research24 were monitored at the
center of the four sides, directly above the rollers. The
support movements were monitored at the four corners of the
slabs tested by the discussers.21 The displacements
measured at the corners of slab specimens include uplift of
corners and support settlements/movements. It is not
possible to separate these two displacement components.
It is important to recognize that the external CFRP stirrup
installation patterns developed in our research6,24,25 were
later used to evaluate the performance of slab-column
connections subjected to shear and unbalanced moment26
and seismic loads.27 As such, the importance of providing
Disc. 102-S17/From the January-February 2005 ACI Structural Journal, p. 159
Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Cement Composite
Coupling Beams. Paper by B. Afsin Canbolat, Gustavo J. Parra-Montesinos, and James K. Wight
Discussion by Thomas Paulay
ACI Honorary Member, Professor Emeritus, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
The motivation for this discussion stems from some 40 years
of interest in the seismic design of reinforced concrete
coupled walls. It was interesting to learn about beneficial
effects of fiber reinforcement. However, it was disap-
pointing that issues of behavior, necessary for engineering
understanding, and determination of nominal strengths,
necessary for the applications in design of experimental
findings, were not addressed in the paper. It is hoped that the
comments offered may encourage the authors to revise some
of their conclusions and remind designers of important
behavioral features applicable to coupling beams.
1. The identification in the mid-60s of the inappropriateness
of established procedures, relevant to the prediction of the
nominal strength of conventionally reinforced squat coupling
beams (Fig. 1(a)), then initiated some research. Among speci-
mens tested in New Zealand, four were geometrically similar
to those shown in Fig. 1(a) and 2(b). In 1969, that study
concluded that such elements possess limited seismic
displacement and energy dissipation capacity.
Sources of ductility in such beams were traced by exten-
sive strain and displacement measurements (Park and Paulay
1975). Features, partly illustrated in Fig. A, demonstrated
that, contrary to the conformity with the illusory deformation
configuration perceived by the authors in Fig. 2, all hori-
zontal bars over the clear span s of squat beams were
subjected only to tension.
The consequently greatly reduced bond transfer along
horizontal bars implies that traditionally defined shear
stresses are insignificant. Diagonal compression stresses
along trajectories (sketched in Fig. A) rather than shear
stresses, initiated a potential diagonal failure crack. When
vertical stirrup reinforcement is provided to transfer without
yielding the maximum shear force V between the triangular
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005
multiple anchorage paths was studied systematically under a
variety of loading conditions. In addition, design, detailing
and application guidelines were provided as a result of this
comprehensive research study.6,24-26
REFERENCES
22. CEB-FIP, “Model Code 1990,” Bulletin D’Information No. 203-305,
The International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzer-
land, 1990.
23. BS 8110-97, “Structural Use of Concrete,” British Standards Institu-
tion, London, 1997.
24. Binici, B., “Punching Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Slabs Using Fiber Reinforced Polymers,” dissertation, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., 2003, 279 pp.
25. Binici, B., and Bayrak, O., “Use of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers in
Slab-Column Connection Upgrades,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 2005, pp. 93-102.
26. Binici, B., and Bayrak, O., “Upgrading of Slab-Column Connections
Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymers,” Engineering Structures, V. 27, No. 1,
Jan. 2005, pp. 97-107.
27. Stark, A.; Binici, B.; and Bayrak, O., “Seismic Upgrade of Rein-
forced Concrete Slab-Column Connections Using Carbon Fiber-Rein-
forced Polymers,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2005,
pp. 324-333.
Fig. A—Conventionally reinforced coupling beam.
bodies A to B, no failure along any diagonal crack occurs. In
the absence of steel strain reversals, significant strength can
be extracted from such beams only when an imposed seismic
displacement is larger than the previously accumulated
plastic deformations. The results are a dramatic reduction of
stiffness and inferior energy dissipation.
Identified internal forces, associated with the nominal
strength of the anti-symmetric panel, are recorded on the
left-hand side of Fig. A. In spite of the total horizontal
internal forces, Cc =Ts + Ts′ , being larger than those derived
for ordinary beam sections, because of the reduced internal
lever arm z, nominal strength is reduced. Relative displacements
of the right-hand boundary of the beam, based on Villiot’s
technique, and their components, ∆c and ∆t , respectively, are
909
also shown. After a few inelastic displacement reversals, the
entire shear force V needs to be transferred by friction across
previously extensively cracked compression zones. All spec-
imen in which diagonal tension failure was prevented, failed
by sliding shear (Park and Paulay 1975) with subsequently
mobilized dowel mechanism having inadequate shear
strength.
2. The negative outcome of the studies summarized previ-
ously prompted a search for radical changes in the detailing
of coupling beams. This led to the experimental work of
Binney reported in 1974, and its further exploitation by
Santhakumar, using tests of coupled walls. The vastly supe-
rior performance of such coupling beams resulted in the
abandonment in New Zealand (1973) of conventionally rein-
forced beams. The relevant local code in 1982 formally
restricted their use. Much earlier than 1999, several astute Fig. B—Diagonally reinforced coupling beam.
American structural consultants adapted diagonally rein-
forced coupling beams in their buildings. As Fig. B shows,
the behavioral model used in New Zealand was that of
symmetrical diagonal steel bracing, capable of sustaining
large inelastic strains both in tension and compression.
During the first tensile strain excursion beyond yield, the
concrete surrounding the diagonal compression bars (shown
by the shaded area in Fig. B) contributes to force transfer. At
this stage, diagonal compression bars perform in the elastic
domain. The associated components and beam displace-
ments, at the onset of yielding along the tension diagonal,
∆vy and ∆hy, are identified in Fig. B. This enables the
nominal yield chord rotation, θby = ∆vy /s, and shear stiffness,
kb = Vy /∆vy = (2Tssinα)/∆vy, of such beams to be realisti-
cally estimated. Bar elongation due to uniform yield strains Fig. C—Drift relationships.
along a diagonal, with some allowance of strain penetration
into the anchorage regions in the walls (Paulay 2002a), is
denoted as ∆t. After the first reversal of inelastic seismic ment demands can be readily estimated. Deformations
displacements, the diagonal bars in compression replace the controlling the performance of a coupled wall system are
contribution to strength of the surrounding concrete. Hence generally those of the important elements, the walls.
the shortening of the compression diagonal is ∆c ≈ 0. Energy A critical quantity is the maximum story drift θw along
dissipation is furnished only by the diagonal bars, leading to their height. A typical moderate value of 1.5% is used herein
a Ramberg-Osgood type of hysteretic response. As expected, to illustrate the associated demand θb imposed on the critical
inelastic deformations will be proportional to post-yield beam. A free but astute choice of the strength of the coupling
tensile strains imposed. A displacement ductility, µ∆b = ∆vu/ beams, possibly uniform over the height of the building,
∆vy , in the order of 15 can be sustained without approaching determines the preferred location of the maximum story drift
an acceptable limit on steel tensile strains, for example, 5 to (Paulay 2002a). Using the notation given in Fig. C, the ratio
6%. ω of critical beam and wall drifts is
Any horizontal reinforcement, for example, that placed in
an integral adjacent floor slab, is activated by the elongation, ω = θb /θw = 1 + (lw + c1 – c2)/s
∆hu = µ∆b ∆hy , of these beams. Hence, beam strength will
increase. However, as in conventionally reinforced coupling where c1 and c2 are the estimated neutral axis depths of the
beams, this strength enhancement diminishes when subse- elastic but cracked wall sections, respectively. Using relative
quent inelastic displacement demands become less than the dimensions, approximating those used in Fig. 4 (lw = 3.4s, c1
maximum previously imposed.
= 0.34s, and c2 = 0.68s), one finds that ω ≈ 4. The chord rotation
Ties around a bundle of diagonal bars were never intended of the coupling beam θb = 4 × 1.5% = 6% is thus well in
to provide confinement (Park and Paulay 1975). The sole
excess of that achieved in the reported tests. Conventionally
purpose of such reinforcement, sometimes in the form of
reinforced coupling beams, with or without fibers, cannot
rectangular spirals, was to prevent premature buckling of
bars subjected to significant inelastic compression strains. accommodate such chord rotations.
Admittedly, fiber reinforcement could replace this function.
The comparison in Table 3 of shear stresses sustained is REFERENCES
inappropriate. As Fig. A and particularly Fig. B imply, such Park, R., and Paulay, T., 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John
Wiley & Sons, 786 pp.
stresses are generally negligible or nonexistent.
Paulay, T., 2002a, “The Displacement Capacity of Reinforced Concrete
3. Displacement (drift) capacities observed by the authors Coupled Walls,” The Journal of Earthquake, Wind and Ocean Engineering,
are of paramount interest. They should be compared with V. 24, pp. 1165-1175.
likely displacement demands. With the use of simple rela- Paulay, T., 2002b, “A Displacement Focused Seismic Design of Mixed
tionships (Paulay 2002b), identifiable in Fig. C, displace- Building Systems,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 18, No. 4, pp. 680-718.

910 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005

 AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
The authors would like to thank the discusser for his
comments on the paper as well as his discussion of the
behavior of conventionally and diagonally reinforced
coupling beams. The authors are somewhat confused,
however, about some of the discusser’s comments and
believe that he misinterpreted the conclusions presented in
the paper. The following explanations should be able to clear
up his concerns.
The main motivation for the study presented by the
authors was to simplify the construction of coupling beams
in earthquake-resistant coupled wall systems and not to
develop an alternative design because current design provi-
sions have been shown to lead to adequate coupling beam
behavior under displacement reversals. In fact, since the
1960s, experimental results have clearly shown that the use
of diagonal reinforcement leads to superior behavior of
coupling beams under pushover-type loading, as well as
under displacement reversals, when compared to conven-
tionally reinforced coupling beams (that is, beams with
distributed horizontal and vertical reinforcement). In their
experimental study on the behavior of coupling beams and
coupled walls under pushover-type loading, Luisoni,
Somenson, and Ungaro (1970) indicated that the combina-
tion of diagonal reinforcement with vertical stirrups repre-
sented the most efficient design for RC coupling beams.
Paulay (1971) and Paulay and Binney (1974) showed that
the use of diagonal reinforcement also leads to far superior
behavior in coupling beams compared to conventionally
reinforced coupling beams when subjected to displacement
reversals. As pointed out by Paulay and Binney, however,
hoops or spirals are required to provide lateral support to the
diagonal bars, which substantially complicates the construction
of the coupling beams.
The design of diagonally reinforced coupling beams, as
per the ACI Building Code (ACI Committee 2005), involves
the use of reinforcement cages consisting of at least four
diagonal bars and closely spaced transverse reinforcement,
similar to that used in critical regions of reinforced concrete
columns. This creates construction difficulties, particularly
in the region where the two diagonal reinforcement cages
intersect. Further, the widening of the coupling beam is often
required to accommodate the two diagonal reinforcement
cages. Thus, the main goal of the authors was to develop a
coupling beam design that could be more easily constructed,
while exhibiting a behavior that was at least comparable to
that of well-detailed diagonally reinforced coupling beams.
The authors find the discusser’s criticism on the use of
conventionally reinforced coupling beams (with or without
fibers) irrelevant because the authors are not recommending
the use of conventionally reinforced high-performance fiber-
reinforced cement composite (HPFRCC) coupling beams, as
the discusser seems to believe. In fact, in the abstract, the
following statement was provided: “It was also observed that
diagonal reinforcement is necessary to achieve large
displacement capacity.” Further, in the Summary and Conclu-
sions section of the paper, it was made clear that the use of
HPFRCC materials allowed the elimination of transverse
reinforcement around diagonal bars, but not the diagonal
reinforcement itself, as evidenced by the following statements:
“The use of advanced fiber cementitious materials allowed
the elimination of the transverse reinforcement typically
required around the diagonal bars for confinement, thus
simplifying the beam construction process. The test results
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005
showed that HPFRCC coupling beams with simplified diag-
onal reinforcement exhibited higher shear strength and stiff-
ness retention.” Thus, it should be clear that the authors are
proposing a coupling beam design that does not require the
use of transverse reinforcement around the diagonal rein-
forcement to prevent buckling of those bars. In addition to
simplifying the reinforcement detailing in reinforced
concrete coupling beams, HPFRCC materials were also
intended to enhance damage tolerance and increase shear
resistance in reinforced concrete coupling beams subjected
to displacement reversals.
The discusser mentions that “ties around a bundle of diag-
onal bars were never intended to provide confinement.”
Regardless of the discusser’s intentions during his research
on coupling beams, the authors strongly believe that trans-
verse reinforcement around diagonal bars of reinforced
concrete coupling beams is required not only to provide
lateral support to the diagonal bars, but also to provide
confinement to the concrete. In fact, Paulay and Binney
(1974) concluded the following. “To prolong the effective
contribution of coupling beams during catastrophic earth-
quake, the confinement of the concrete within the cage of the
diagonally placed group of bars is imperative.” This seems
to be in agreement with the authors’ claim.
With regard to the discusser’s criticism of the authors’
discussion on average shear stresses sustained by reinforced
concrete and HPFRCC coupling beams, the authors believe
that the use of average shear stresses allowed a comparison
of test results with code-specified shear stress limits, as well
as a fair comparison of the shear resistance of the four
coupling beam specimens tested as part of their investigation.
The term “shear stress,” whether appropriate or not, has long
been used in design codes worldwide, including the ACI
Building Code and the New Zealand Code. It is worth
mentioning that the maximum shear allowed by the 2005
ACI Building Code in coupling beams is based on an
average shear stress. Further, the fact that the width and
amount of diagonal reinforcement of Specimens 3 and 4
(HPFRCC coupling beams) were approximately 3/4 of those
in Specimen 1 (diagonally reinforced concrete coupling
beam), and still the HPFRCC coupling beams exhibited a
peak strength approximately 70% greater than that of the
diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beam indicated that
the HPFRCC materials contributed significantly to beam
shear resistance prior to complete fiber pullout. Thus,
expressing the results in terms of average shear stress was
found more suitable for evaluating the shear resistance of
HPFRCC coupling beams, as well as for easy comparison of
the measured shear strengths with the maximum shear stress
value permitted in the ACI Code.
The discusser’s comments on drift capacity versus
demand are particularly interesting. In Table 3 of the paper,
specimen drift capacities, based on the widely used criterion
of a maximum acceptable strength decay rate of 20%, were
given. Specimen 4, however, exhibited a stable hysteretic
behavior up to 4.5% and 5.5% drift in the positive and nega-
tive loading directions, respectively, even though the
strength decay slightly exceeded 20%, and a strength equal
to 80% of the peak strength when failure occurred at 8.0%
drift, which was due to fracture of the diagonal reinforcement.
Thus, for the design scenario that the discusser describes, the
authors believe that the behavior of Specimen 4 was satisfactory.
As mentioned in the paper, Specimen 1 (diagonally rein-
forced concrete coupling beam) sustained a peak displace-
911
ment demand of 4.0% drift, at which point no clear
indication of failure was observed. However, as shown in
Fig. 9(b) of the paper, this specimen was already severely
damaged at 3.5% drift.
It is worth mentioning that Coupling Beams 317 (span-
depth ratio of 1.3) and 395 (span-depth ratio of 1.0) tested by
Paulay and Binney (1974), which contained diagonal
reinforcement and hoops around the diagonal bars, exhibited
drift capacities of approximately 6.0% and 5.3%, respectively,
even though the loading regime was substantially less severe
than that applied to Specimen 4. For example, Coupling
Beam 317 exhibited a significant strength decay after four
inelastic displacement cycles, only two of them representing
inelastic displacement reversals. It is worth emphasizing that
the span-depth ratio of Coupling Beam 317 was 30% larger
than that in Specimen 4. Coupling Beam 395, on the other
hand, failed after two full cycles in the inelastic range with a
peak drift demand in the negative loading direction of
approximately 0.3%, which implies that this coupling beam
was primarily tested under a cyclic unidirectional displacement
history. Further, a diagonally reinforced coupling beam with
a span-depth ratio of 1.0 tested by Tassios, Moretti, and
Bezas (1996) exhibited significant shear strength decay after
being subjected to three cycles at a displacement ductility
level of 3.0 (three times the yield displacement). Even
912
though the corresponding value of drift was not available,
yielding of diagonal reinforcement in short coupling beams
generally occurs at displacements below 1.0% drift.
Specimen 4 tested by the authors sustained over 15 cycles of
inelastic displacement reversals up to 5.5% drift and a final
push to 8.0% drift. This drift capacity is similar to that of
Coupling Beams 317 and 395 tested by Paulay and Binney,
even though Specimen 4 was subjected to a much more
severe displacement history.
In summary, the authors believe that the results from their
investigation support the conclusion that the use of high-
performance fiber-reinforced cement composites (HPFRCCs)
allows the elimination of transverse reinforcement around
diagonal bars in reinforced concrete coupling beams. In
addition, the HPFRCC materials were shown to contribute
significantly to coupling beam shear resistance prior to
complete fiber pullout, and led to superior damage tolerance
compared with regular concrete coupling beams (with or
without diagonal reinforcement).
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2005, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 430 pp.
Paulay, T., 1971, “Simulated Seismic Loading of Spandrel Beams,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 97, No. ST9, pp. 2407-2419.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005