You are on page 1of 150

Design of Reinforced
Concrete Structures
N. Subramanian
Chapter 19
Design of Joints
Introduction

In the capacity design of structures, a building is usually envisaged as a
chain and the different components, such as columns, beams, joints,

On the basis of the underlying principle of a chain is as strong as its
weakest link, the overall strength of a building is correlated to the
strength of its weakest component.

If an RC bridge is idealized as a chain, then the piers, deck, and the
Introduction
Fig. 19.1 Capacity design concept (a) Original chain (b) Loaded chain
Introduction

The objective of any design will then be to ensure that the chain (or its
weakest link) does not break when it is pulled with the design force.

In order to ensure this, the designers need to carry out the following:
2. Accurately (and conservatively) evaluate the strength of the
3. Know with reasonable certainty the higher-bound value of the
design force with which the chain will be pulled
Introduction

If the ductile link is the weak one (i.e., its capacity to take the load is
less), then the chain will show large final elongation (see Fig. 19.1).
Instead, if the brittle link is the weak one, then the chain will fail
suddenly and show small final elongation.

Joints are crucial zones for the effective transfer of forces and
moments between the connecting elements such as beams and
columns.

When a building is located in a non-seismic zone and designed only for
gravity loads, the design check for joints may not be critical and hence is
not usually attempted.
Failure of Beam-column Joints
During Earthquakes
Fig. 19.2 Failure of beam-column joints (a) During the Turkey earthquake (b) During
the 1988 Bihar earthquake
Beam-column Joints

The performance of framed structures not only depends upon the
individual structural elements but also upon the integrity of the joints.

In most of the cases, joints of framed structures are subjected to the

The joints should be strong enough to sustain the forces (moments,
axial, and shear forces) generated by the loading and to transfer the
forces from one structural member to another (beams to columns, in
most of the cases) for satisfactory performance of structures under all
Beam-column Joints

Beam-column joint is defined as the portion of the column within the
depth of the deepest beam that frames into the column.

The beam-column joints in a moment resistant frame can be classified
as the following (see Fig. 19.3):
1. Interior joints
2. Exterior joints
3. Corner joints
4. Knee joints
Beam-column Joints
Fig. 19.3 Types of beam-column joints and strength coefficients as per ACI 352-02
Beam-column Joints
When four beams frame into the vertical faces of a column, the joint is
called an interior joint.

When one beam frames into the vertical face of a column and two
more beams frame into the column in the perpendicular direction, it is
called an exterior joint.

A corner joint is one in which the beams frame into two adjacent
vertical faces of a column.

In a roof joint (also called knee joint), the columns will not extend
above the joint, whereas in a floor joint the columns will extend above
the joint as shown in Fig. 19.3.
Requirements of Beam-column Joints

1. A joint should exhibit a service load performance equal to or greater
than that of the members it joins; that is, the failure should not
occur within the joints.
2. A joint should possess strength not less than the maximum demand
corresponding to the development of the structural plastic hinge
mechanism of the structure.
3. The joint should respond elastically during moderate earth quakes.
4. The deformation of joints should not significantly increase the storey
drift.
5. The joint configuration should ensure ease of fabrication and good
access for placing and compacting concrete in the joint region.
Design and Detailing of Joints

Some of the incorrect detailing practices adopted by the site engineers
in India are as follows:
(a) incorrect bending of beam reinforcement into the beam-column
joint for anchorage

(b) inadequate anchorage of beam bars into the beam-column joint

(c) poor quality concrete at the critical region of the joint, obviously
due to poor quality formwork coupled with inadequate compaction

(d) kinking of column bars near beam-column joints
Corner Joints
The external joints (corner joints) of a frame can be broadly classified
into opening and closing corners.

The corners that tend to open (increase the included angle when
loaded), as circled in Fig. 19.4, are termed opening corners, whereas
those that tend to decrease the included angle are termed closing
corners.

Opening corners occur at the corners of frames, bottom of water
tanks, and in L-shaped retaining walls.

In bridge abutments, the joint between the wing walls and abutment
will act as an opening joint.
Opening Joints
Fig. 19.4 Examples of opening joints (a) Water tank (b) Retaining
wall (c) Bridge abutment (d) Portal frame
Corner Joints

The elastic distribution of stresses before cracking of an opening
corner knee joint is shown in Fig. 19.5(b). Large tensile stresses occur at
the re-entrant corner and the middle of the joint.

Due to these stresses, cracking will develop as shown in Fig. 19.5(c). If
reinforcements are not provided crossing these cracks, the joint will fail
immediately after the development of the diagonal crack.

Corner Joints
Fig. 19.5 Stresses in an opening joint (a) Stresses at ultimate load (b) Elastic distribution of stresses
(c) Possible cracks (d) Strut-and-tie model
Corner Joints

When the internal load path in the form of a truss system is envisaged
and steel provided to carry the tension, with concrete carrying the
compression, the resulting details will have a good chance of working
safely. Such a truss system could be determined using the strut-and-tie
modela possible model for the joint is shown in Fig. 19.5(d).

In the normal detailing adopted for an opening joint (Fig. 19.6a), the
flexural efficiency was found to be about 25 per cent of the strength of
the members meeting at the joint.

The detail shown in Fig. 19.6(g) will develop the required moment
capacity without excessive deformation.

Opening Joints
Fig. 19.6 Measured efficiency of opening joints (a) Detail ASimple detail (b) Detail B
Loop detail (c) Detail CTwo U hooks (d) Detail DVertical stirrups (e) Detail E
Simple detail (f) Detail FCross-diagonal spiral (g) Detail GWith diagonal bar
Closing Corner Joints

The stresses and behaviour of a closing corner joint are opposite to
those in an opening corner joint (see Fig. 19.7). Hence, a major diagonal
crack is formed on the diagonal of the joint, as shown in Fig. 19.7(b).

In these joints, the top tension bars in the beams have to be bent to a
sufficient radius to anchor them in the column to prevent bearing or
splitting failure inside the bent bars at the corner. The tension steel
should be continuous around the corner.

Knee joints may be subjected to load reversals during wind or seismic
loads and hence require greater care in detailing.
Closing Corner Joints
Fig. 19.7 Closing corner joint (a) Stresses at ultimate load (b) Cracking pattern
T-joints

T-joints are encountered in exterior column-beam connections,
continuous roof beams over columns, and at the base of retaining walls.

The forces acting at a T-joint are shown in Fig. 19.8(a). The shear force
in the joint gives rise to diagonal cracks, thus requiring stirrups in the
joint.

The detailing of longitudinal reinforcement also significantly affects
the efficiency of the joint. A commonly found detail is shown in Fig.
19.8(b) and an improved detail is shown in Fig. 19.8(c).

T-joints
Fig. 19.8 T-joints (a) Forces and strut-and-tie model (b) Poor detail (c) Satisfactory detail
T-joints

As the bars are bent away from the joint core in the detail of Fig.
19.8(b), the efficiency was found to be in the range of only 2540 per
cent.

However, the detail of Fig. 19.8(c), where the bars are anchored in the
joint core, showed better performance in tests and had efficiency in the
range of 80100 per cent.

However, it has to be noted that stirrups have to be provided to
confine the concrete core within the joint.

In the case of T-joints at the base of retaining walls, Nilsson and
Losberg (1976) found that the normal detailing as shown in Fig. 19.9(a)
results in wide corner cracks.

To reduce the crack width, they suggest a detail with an inclined
reinforcement as shown in Fig. 19.9(b).
T-joints
T-joints
Fig. 19.9 Layout of reinforcement in retaining wall corners (a) Normal
detail (b) Addition of diagonal bar
Beam-column Joints in Frames

The beam-column joint in a multi-storey frame transfers the loads and
moments at the ends of the beams into the columns.

The forces acting on an interior joint subjected to gravity loading is
shown in Fig. 19.10(a). Here, the tension and compression from the
beam ends and the axial loads from the columns are transmitted
directly through the joint.

For a four-member connection as shown in Fig. 19.10(a), if the two
beam moments are in equilibrium with one another then no additional
reinforcement is required.
Beam-column Joints in Frames
Beam-column Joints in Frames

forces from beams and columns, as shown in Fig. 19.10(b), develop
diagonal tensile and compressive stresses within the joint.

Cracks develop perpendicular to the tension diagonal AB in the joint
and at the faces of the joint where the beams frame into the joint.

As concrete is weak in tension, transverse reinforcements have to be
provided in such a way that they cross the plane of failure to resist the
diagonal tensile forces.
Design of Beam-column Joints

Because the joint block area is smaller relative to the member sizes, it
is essential to consider localized stress distribution within the joints.

The principal mechanisms of failure of a beam-column joint are as
follows:
1. Shear failure within the joint
2. Anchorage failure of bars, if anchored within the joint
3. Bond failure of beam or column bars passing through the joint

The joint has to be designed based on the fundamental concept that
failure should not occur within the joint.
Types of Joints
Typical beam-column joints are grouped as Type 1 and Type 2 joints, as
per ACI 352 as follows:

Type 1 joints: These joints have members that are designed to
satisfy strength requirements without significant inelastic
deformation. These are non-seismic joints.

Type 2 joints: These joints have members that are required to
dissipate energy through reversals of deformation into the inelastic
range. These are seismic joints.
Joint Shear and Anchorage

Joint shear is a critical check and will govern the size of the columns of
moment-resisting frames.

For ductile behaviour, it is assumed that the beams framing into the
column will develop plastic hinges at the ends and develop their
probable moment of resistance at the column faces. This action
determines the demands on the column and the beam-column joint.
Joint Shear and Anchorage
Fig. 19.11 Beam-column joint and frame yielding mechanism
Joint Shear and Anchorage

Hanson and Connor (1967) first suggested a quantitative definition of
RC joint shear, namely that it could be determined from a free body
diagram at mid-height of a joint panel.

Figure 19.12 is a free body diagram of the joint for calculation of
column shear.

It is made by cutting through the beam plastic hinges on both sides of
the column and cutting through the column one-half storey height
above and below the joint.
Joint Shear and Anchorage
Fig. 19.12 Free body diagram of interior beam-column joint
Joint Shear and Anchorage

For a typical storey, it is sufficiently accurate to assume that the point
of contraflexure is at the mid-height of the column.

Once the column shear, V
col
is found, the design horizontal joint shear
can be obtained by considering the equilibrium of horizontal forces
acting on the free body diagram of the joint shear, as shown in Fig.
19.13.

Assuming the beam to have zero axial load, the flexural compression
force in the beam on one side of the joint may be taken equal to the
flexural tension force on the same side of the joint.
Joint Shear and Anchorage
Fig. 19.13 Free body diagram of joint shear
Numerous studies have shown the presence
of a slab to have a significant effect on the
performance of Type 2 connections.

Hence longitudinal reinforcement in the slab
within the effective width should be included
to calculate the joint shear force (ACI 352-02).
Joint Shear and Anchorage
The nominal shear strength of the joint V
n,j
should be at least equal to the required
strength V
u,j
.

Where A
ej
is the effective shear area of the joint =
b
j
h
j
, b
j
is the effective width of the joint, and h
j
is the
effective depth of the joint, is the strength
reduction factor = 0.85, and is the strength
coefficient.
Joint Shear and Anchorage
Joint Shear and Anchorage

The area effective in resisting joint shear may not be as large as the
entire cross-sectional area of the column since the (web) width of beam
and of the column may differ from each other. The codes recommend
effective joint shear area based on engineering judgment.

Concentric and eccentric joints are shown in Fig. 19.14.

Effective Joint Width
Fig. 19.14 Determination of effective joint width (a) Concentric joint (b) Eccentric joint
Effective Joint Width, b
j

Joint Shear and Anchorage

The shear strength of the eccentric beam-column connection is
reduced by using a smaller effective width if the eccentricity of the
spandrel beam with respect to the column centroid exceeds one-eighth
of the column width.

When beams of different widths frame into opposite sides of the
column in the direction of loading, b should be taken as the average of
two widths. The average of the beam and column widths usually
governs the effective joint shear width.
Design of Shear Reinforcement
Paulay, et al. (1978) proposed shear transfer mechanisms of a joint as
shown in Fig. 19.15, referred to as diagonal strut mechanism and truss
mechanism.

They assumed that the strength of the diagonal strut controls the joint
strength before cracking.

When the joint shear becomes large, diagonal cracking occurs in the
joint core and the joint reinforcements come into play; finally, the joint
fails by the crushing of the concrete in the joint core.

Both mechanisms are incorporated in the NZS 3101 code.
Joint Shear Resistance Mechanisms
Fig. 19.15 Joint shear resistance mechanisms (a) Concrete strut mechanism (b) Concrete
truss mechanism
Design of Shear Reinforcement
NZS 3101 requires a large amount of transverse reinforcement in a
joint to resist a dominant part of the joint shear by the truss
mechanism, relying on the good bond stress transfer along the
longitudinal reinforcement.

The US codes assume severe bond deterioration of the reinforcing
bars in the joint and hence the internal shear forces are resisted only by
the diagonal compressive strut of concrete.

The real behaviour of the structure may be due to the combination of
the diagonal strut and the truss mechanisms with the bond
deterioration of longitudinal reinforcement to a certain degree during
Joints Confined by Beams

The behaviour of a beam-column joint is influenced by several
variables, which include concrete strength, arrangement of joint
reinforcement, size and quantity of beam or column reinforcement,
bond between concrete and longitudinal bars in the beam or column,
and axial load in the column.

For Type 1 joints the hoop reinforcement can be omitted when the
joints are confined by beams framing into the sides of the column.
Joints Confined by Beams

When such confining beams are not present, ACI 352-02 recommends
that at least two layers of transverse reinforcement be provided for Type
1 joints, between the top and bottom levels of longitudinal
reinforcement, in the deepest beam framing into the joint.

The primary functions of ties in a tied column are to restrain the
outward buckling of the column longitudinal bars, to improve bond
capacity of column bars, and to provide some confinement to the joint
core.
Confinement Reinforcement

Confinement of the joint core is intended to maintain the integrity of
joint concrete, to improve joint concrete toughness, and to reduce the
rate of stiffness and strength deterioration.

For Type 2 joints, when the joint is confined by beams, transverse
reinforcement equal to at least half the confining reinforcement
required at the end of the column should be provided within the depth
of the shallowest framing member.

Spacing of Transverse
Reinforcement
Confinement Reinforcement

When wide beams are used, confining reinforcement should be
provided through the joint to provide confinement for longitudinal
beam reinforcement outside the column core if such confinement is not
provided by a beam framing into the joint.

In the exterior and corner joints, all the 135 hooks of the cross-ties
should be along the outer face of the column.

For best behaviour of the joint, the longitudinal column bars should be
uniformly distributed around the perimeter of the column core.
Anchorage of Bars at Joints

When plastic hinge develops in the beams adjacent to the joint, the
top bars of beams may go into the strain hardening range and yielding
may penetrate into the joint core with simultaneous bond deterioration.

A splitting crack may appear along the bar as shown in Fig. 19.16(a)
and the bond stress distribution around the bar will not be uniform.

Column dimensions seldom permit providing the development length
by straight embedment alone; hence, hooks are often required to
anchor negative (top) beam reinforcement at the far side of exterior
beam-column joints.
Anchorage of Bars at Joints
Fig. 19.16 Anchoring of beam bars in exterior joints (a) Anchorage details (b) Hook
details (c) Location of hoops and headed bars
Anchorage of Bars at Joints

If the bottom bars are also required to develop their strength at the
face of the joint, they should also be provided with 90 hooks, which
should be turned upwards and extended towards the mid-depth of the
joint.

Hooks should be located within 50 mm of the confined core, as
shown in Fig. 19.16(c).

The development length equation in ACI and NZS codes consider the
beneficial effect of anchoring the bar in the well-confined joint core and
also the adverse effect of the bar being subjected to load reversals
during earthquake.
Code Provisions for Hooks
The use of hooks in external beam-column
joints often results in steel congestion,
difficult fabrication and construction, and
greater potential for poor concrete
placement.

longitudinal bar, can be used as an alternative to the use of hooked
bars in exterior beam-column joints.

The use of headed bars offers a potential solution to the problems
posed by hooked bars and may ease fabrication, construction, and
concrete placement.

Beam and Column Bars Passing through
Interior Joint

The uneven distribution of bond stress around a bar may affect the
top beam bars, the underside of which may be embedded in inferior
quality concrete, due to sedimentation.

The following factors influence the bond response of bars at the
beam-column joint:
1. Confinement, transverse to the direction of the embedded bar,
significantly improves bond performance under seismic
conditions.
2. The bar diameter has a significant effect on the bond strength in
terms of bond stress.

Beam and Column Bars Passing through
Interior Joint
3. The bar deformations (i.e., the area of ribs of deformed bars)
improve resistance against slip and increase the bond strength.
4. The clear distance between the bars moderately affects the bond
strength.
5. The compression strength of concrete is not a significant
parameter.
To limit the slippage of beam and column bars through a joint, ACI
352: 2002 suggests the following limits:

Draft IS 13920 stipulates(Clause 7.1.2):
Larger development lengths are highly
desirable, especially when the joint is
subjected to high shear stresses and when the
column-to- beam flexural strength ratio is low.

Larger beam-to-column flexural strength ratios
considerably improve the behaviour of
connections.

Beam and Column Bars Passing
through Interior Joint
Constructability Issues

A three-stage procedure for installing the horizontal ties in a beam-
column joint is shown in Fig. 19.17 (see next slide):

In stage 1, as shown in Fig. 19.17(a), top bars of the beam are not
placed and horizontal ties in the joint region are stacked up.

In stage 2, top bars of the beam are inserted in the beam stirrups,
and beam reinforcement cage is lowered into the formwork.

In stage 3, ties in the joint region are raised in their final locations
and tied with binding wires, and column ties are continued.

Constructability Issues
Fig. 19.17 Three stages of providing horizontal ties in beam-column joints (a) Stage 1
(b) Stage 2 (c) Stage 3
Constructability Issues

Multiple layers of longitudinal reinforcement should be avoided
wherever possible, as they make the placement difficult, especially in
exterior beam-column joints.

In this case, as well as in cases where shallow columns are joined with
relatively deep beams, the beam bars may be terminated in an
extended beam stub as shown in Fig. 19.18(a). In this case, ties should
be extended into the beam stub to control cracks.

Constructability Issues
Fig. 19.18 Measures to improve constructability

To avoid unfavourable plastic hinge mechanism and to reduce
congestion at beam-column joints, the beam plastic hinge region can be
moved slightly away from the face of the beam-column joint.

This will eliminate the bond deterioration between the beam bars and
the surrounding concrete in the beam-column joint. Moving the beam
plastic hinge region can be achieved by detailing the beam as shown in
Figs 19.18(b) and (c).
Constructability Issues
Beam-to-beam Joints

Strut-and-tie models for the flow of forces of interconnected systems
as shown in Fig. 19.19.

The strut-and-tie models of Fig. 19.19 indicate tensile stresses at the
beam-to-beam junction, and hence additional vertical stirrups are to be
provided to support them. Such stirrups are also referred to as hanger
reinforcement or hanger stirrups.
Strut-and-tie Model for Beam-to-beam
Joints
Fig. 19.19 Strut-and-tie model for beam-to-beam joints (a) System A (b) System B
Beam-to-beam Joints

The main reaction from the secondary beam to the girder was found
to be delivered by a diagonal compression strut, as shown in Fig. 19.20,
which tends to apply its thrust near the bottom of the supporting girder.

This inclined compressive force will tend to push the bottom of the
supporting girder/main beam, eventually splitting the concrete at the
bottom of the girder and resulting in the subsequent failure of the
girder.

Beam-to-beam Joints
Fig. 19.19 Strut-and-tie model for beam-to-beam joints (a) System A (b) System B
Fig. 19.20 Girder supporting secondary beams (a) System of beams (b) Section through secondary beam
(c) Section XX through the girder
Beam-to-beam Joints

These compressive forces should be resisted by providing hanger
stirrups, which are designed to equilibrate the downward component of
the diagonal compression struts (see Fig. 19.20a).

It has to be noted that the hanger stirrups are to be provided in
addition to the normal girder stirrups required for shear, as shown in
Fig. 19.20.

The transfer of beam reaction into the girder may be visualized using
the strut-and-tie model, as shown in Fig. 19.20(c).

Beam-to-beam Joints

The hanger stirrups should be distributed within a zone extending to a
distance of half the depth of the relevant beam on each side of the
point of intersection of the beam axes. This zone is referred to as the
transition or transfer zone (see Fig. 19.21).

The hanger stirrups should be well anchored at the top and the
bottom.

When the beam and girder are of the same depth, the lower layer of
reinforcement in the supported beam can be cranked up at the junction,
so that it is above the lower layer of reinforcement of the supporting
girder.
Location of Hanger Stirrups
Fig. 19.21 Location of hanger stirrups (a) As per Canadian code (b) As per Leonhardt and Mnnig
(1977) and Euro code
Beam-to-beam Joints

When the reaction due to the secondary beam is large, SP 34- 1987
suggests using bent- up bars in addition to hanger stirrups as shown in
Fig. 19.22.

Such reinforcement helps reduce cracking and should be placed within
the transition zone.
Bent-up Hanger Bars
Fig. 19.22 Bent-up hanger bars
Design of Corbels
Corbels or brackets are short stub-like projections from the column or
wall faces (see Fig. 19.23).

The term corbel is generally used to denote cantilevers having shear
span to effective depth ratios less than or equal to 1.0.

They are generally found in the columns of industrial buildings to
support gantry girders, which, in turn, support rails over which overhead
cranes are mounted.

They are extensively used in precast concrete construction to provide
seating for beams; in such cases, corbels are cast integrally with precast
columns.
Typical Corbel
Fig. 19.23 Typical corbel (a) Reinforcement details (b) Strut-and-tie model
Design of Corbels

The principal function of corbels is to support the prefabricated beam
and at the same time transmit the reactions to vertical structural
members such as walls or columns.

Corbels are usually provided with a steel-bearing plate or an angle on
its top surface, as shown in Fig. 19.23a, to distribute the reaction evenly
and to have uniform contact surface.

A similar bearing plate or angle will be provided in the lower part of
the supported beam.
Failure Modes of Corbel

1. Flexural tension failure is the most common mode and results in the
crushing of the concrete at the bottom of the sloping face of the
corbel after extensive yielding of the tension reinforcement.

2. Flexural compression failure results in the crushing of the concrete
strut at the base of the corbel before the yielding of the
reinforcement.

3. Diagonal splitting failure leads to sudden splitting along the line
from the bearing plate to the base of the corbel.
Failure Modes of Corbel
Fig. 19.24 Failure modes of corbel (a) Diagonal splitting failure (b) Shear failure (c) Direct shear failure
(d) Vertical splitting (too shallow outer face) (d) Shearing of a portion outside the reinforcement
Failure Modes of Corbel

4. Shearing failure results in a series of short inclined cracks along the
weakened plane. Another possibility is the failure in direct shear
along a plane more or less flush with the vertical face of the column.

5. If the reinforcement is not detailed properly, shearing of a portion
outside the reinforcing bars takes place.

6. If the corbel depth is too shallow, the diagonal cracks may intersect
the sloping surface of the corbel.
Design of Corbels

In corbels with proper detailing, all these failure modes tend to
converge into a single failure mode called the beamshear failure.

This failure mode is characterized by the opening of one or more
diagonal cracks followed by shear failure in the compression strut.

The behaviour of a corbel may be visualized using the strut-and-tie
model shown in Fig. 19.23(b).

Design of Corbels

The downward reaction is resisted by the vertical component of the
diagonal compression strut, which carries the load down into the
column.

The horizontal load is directly resisted by the tension in the bars kept
at the top of the corbel; these bars also resist the outward thrust at the
top of the concrete strut.

At the other end of the corbel, the tension in the ties is kept in
equilibrium by the horizontal component of the second compression
strut.
Design of Corbels
Fig. 19.25 Anchorage of main reinforcement in corbels (a) Required anchorage (b) Details of welding
main bar to anchor bar
Design of Corbels
The vertical component of the thrust in the strut acts as a tensile force
acting downwards into the supporting column. The required
reinforcement to resist the forces as per the strut-and-tie model is
shown in Fig. 19.23(a).

The reinforcement should be anchored by the following:
1. Welding the primary tension reinforcement to the underside of
the bearing plate or angle, especially when corbels are designed
to resist horizontal forces, or welding to a transverse bar of equal
diameter, in which case the bearing area should stop short of the
face of the support by a distance equal to the cover of the
reinforcement (see Fig. 19.25b).
Design of Corbels
2. Bending back the bars to form a loop, in which case, the bearing
area of the load should not project beyond the straight portion
of the bars forming the main tension reinforcement.
U-shaped bars in a horizontal plane provide effective end hooks for
wide brackets and when loads are not applied close to the edge. It is
also important to provide a 90 hook for anchorage at the other side of
corbel as shown in Fig. 19.25(a).

The closed stirrups with area A
h
(see Fig. 19.23a) must be provided to
confine the concrete in the two compression struts and to prevent the
splitting in the direction parallel to the thrust.

The area of flexure and shear reinforcement may be calculated using
Clause 11.8 of ACI code.

Double-headed studs provide sufficient anchorage when used as top
reinforcement in corbels.

The double-headed studs when placed in the compression zone, in
the direction normal to the corbel face, significantly improve the
ductility of the corbel.

For best efficiency the confining studs should be placed at the bottom
face just outside the column corbel interface (see Fig. 19.26).
Fig. 19.26 Double-headed studs in corbels
Design of Anchors

Anchors (fasteners) are embedded in concrete and used to connect
and support structural steel columns, light poles, highway sign
structures, bridge rail, equipment, and many other applications.

They are basically used to connect two elements of a structure and
are increasingly used in both retrofit and new constructions.

The type of anchors used in practice may be broadly classified as cast-
in-place anchors and post-installed anchors.
Cast-in-place Anchors

These include the following types:
2. L-bolt
3. J-bolt

In the precast concrete industry, precast components are typically
connected by the use of an embedded plate, which is usually anchored

The size of anchors ranges from 16 mm to 60 mm in diameter.
Cast-in-place Anchors
Fig. 19.27 Cast-in-place anchors (a) Headed hexagonal bolt with washer (b) L-bolt
(c) J-bolt (d) Welded headed stud
Cast-in-place anchors are set in place inside the formwork along with
the steel reinforcement prior to concrete placement.

Anchor groups may be set using a steel or plywood template to ensure
proper geometry and placement. As these preinstalled anchors do not
allow any clearance, they need very accurate positioning.

Cast-in-place anchors are recommended when the applied loads
require large embedment lengths and high tensile strength.

head, nut, or bent portion and possibly by the bond between the anchor
shank and the surrounding concrete.
Cast-in-place Anchors
Post-installed Anchors

Installed in hardened concrete, these are classified as the following
based on their load transfer mechanisms (see Fig. 19.28):

2. Mechanical anchors
Post-installed Anchors
Fig. 19.28 Post-installed anchors (a) Adhesive or bonded anchor (b) Undercut anchor (c) Torque-
controlled expansion anchorssleeve and stud types (d) Drop-in type displacement-controlled
expansion anchor
Adhesive or bonded anchors (Fig. 19.28a) are inserted into hardened
concrete with an anchor hole diameter not greater than 1.5 times the
anchor diameter.

These anchors transfer tensile loads to the concrete by the bond
between the anchor and the adhesive as well as the bond between the

reinforcing bars, or internally threaded steel sleeves with external
deformations.

Epoxy is the most widely used adhesive.
Mechanical Anchors

These transfer load by friction or bearing and include expansion
anchors and undercut anchors.

Expansion anchors work by the expansion of a wedge or sleeve
mechanism against the surrounding concrete.

Undercut anchors (Fig. 19.28b) are placed in a drilled hole, which is
locally widened at the bottom (called the undercut) using a special
drilling tool. These are then set by projecting elements from the anchor
against the sides of the undercut portion of the hole, usually by applying
a torque to the anchor.
Mechanical Anchors
In torque-controlled expansion anchors (Fig. 19.28c), the expansion is
generated by applying a predetermined torque.

In displacement-controlled expansion anchors (Fig. 19.28d), the
expansion is generated when the anchors are driven inside the hole.

Mechanical anchors loaded in tension apply reaction forces to the
concrete at the expansion mechanism, usually near the end of the
embedded part of the anchor.

A grouted anchor is a headed bolt or a threaded rod with a nut at the
embedded end, placed in a drilled hole filled with a pre-mixed grout or a
Portland cementsand grout.

As shown in Fig. 19.29, anchors under tension loading can exhibit five
different types of failures:
1. Steel anchor failure (Fig. 19.29adue to yield and fracture of the
anchor shank)

2. Pull-out or pull-through failure (Fig. 19.29bdue to the
progressive crushing of concrete over the anchor head)

3. Concrete breakout (Fig. 19.29c, where a cone-shaped concrete
failure surface propagates from the head of the anchor; this is
usually the most critical failure mode)
Failure Modes for Anchors under
Failure Modes for Anchors under
Fig. 19.29 Failure modes for anchors under tensile loading (a) Steel failure (b) Pull-out
(c) Concrete breakout (d) Concrete splitting (e) Side-face blowout (f) Bonded anchors

4. Concrete splitting (Fig. 19.29d, which is characterized by the
formation of cracks vertically along the length of the anchor)

5. Side-face blowout (Fig. 19.29e, which involves the side-face
studs cannot be closer to an edge than 40% of the effective
height of the studs)

Failures in bonded anchors may occur due to pull-out of a cone of
concrete, slip out of the hole, or steel failure (see Fig. 19.29f).
Failure Modes for Anchors under
Code Provisions for Design
There are no provisions for the design of anchors in IS 456.

In the early 1970s, formal design concepts for headed-stud anchors
were introduced in the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institutes (PCI) PCI
Design Handbook (1971).

ACI 349-90 used a 45 cone breakout model for determining the
concrete breakout strength.

This method assumed a constant tensile stress of f
c
/3 acting on the
projected area of a 45 cone radiating towards the free surface from the
bearing edge of the anchor (see Fig. 19.30).
Concrete Breakout Bodies
Code Provisions for Design

The k method suggested a truncated pyramid failure model (with a
35 slope of failure cone), which was incorporated in the Eurocode.

This corresponds to the widespread observation that the horizontal
extent of the failure surface is about three times the effective
embedment depth (see Fig. 19.31).

Additional refinement of the Kappa method at the University of Texas,
Austin, to make it user friendly, resulted in the CCD approach to
fastenings in concrete, based on the 35 truncated pyramid failure
model.
Concrete Breakout Failure
Fig. 19.31 Concrete breakout failure under tensile loading according to ACI 318
Steel Strength of Anchor in Tension

In the ACI 318 code, design equations are presented to check the
following different failure modes:
1. Steel capacity (tension and shear)
2. Concrete breakout capacity (tension and shear)
3. Pull-out strength and side-face blowout strength (only in tension
and cast-in-place anchor)
4. Concrete pryout strength (only in shear)
5. Bond strength (only for adhesive anchor)

The designer should aim to achieve steel failure as it will be ductile
and will provide sufficient warning before failure.
Concrete Breakout Strength of
Anchor in Tension
As per ACI 318, the nominal concrete breakout
strength of a single anchor in tension in
cracked concrete, N
no

a
is the factor for lightweight concrete
h
ef
is the effective embedment depth
k
c
= 7 for post-installed anchors and as 10 for
Nominal concrete capacity considering edge
and spacing of anchors is:

For a group of anchors:

A
N
is the projected concrete failure area(see
next slide), A
no
= , and
i
are the
modification factors
Concrete Breakout Strength of
Anchor in Tension
Fig. 19.32 Projected areas for single and group of anchors (a) Single anchor (b) Group of anchors
Modification factor for

1
is modification factor for anchor groups

Fig. 19.33 Definition of e'
N
for a group of anchors (a) All anchors are in tension, (b)
Only a few anchors are in tension
Modification factor for edge effects

Modification factor
4
(applicable to post
installed anchors only)
Modification factor for Edge Effects
Critical and Minimum Edge
Distances
IF there is no cracking at service load levels, then the
modification factor,
Pull-out Strength in Tension

Pull-out capacity is dictated by a failure of the concrete around the

When the bearing area of the head is small, crushing of concrete
occurs at the head and the anchor can pull-out and crush the concrete
without forming a concrete breakout cone (see Fig. 19.29b).

Local crushing under the head of the anchor significantly reduces the
stiffness of the anchor connection and increases displacement.
A
brg
is the net bearing area of the head of anchor bolt,
p
= 1.4 (no
cracking)
p
= 1.0 (there will be cracking)

Concrete Side-face Blowout
For a single headed anchor with deep
embedment close to an edge (h
ef
> 2.5 c
1
), the
nominal side-face blow out strength

For multiple headed anchor with (c
1
< 0.4 h
ef
),
and anchor spacing < 6c
1
, the nominal side-
face blow out strength
In the case of shear loading with large edge distance, the mode of
failure of anchors will normally be by steel fracture as shown in Fig.
19.34(a) preceded by spalling of concrete.

Fastening with short anchors may fail by prying out a concrete cone on
the side opposite to the load application as shown in Fig. 19.34(b).

Concrete breakout failures may be due to concrete spalling and lateral
cone or edge failures as shown in Fig. 19.34(c).

concrete tensile capacity, side cover, flexural stiffness of the anchor
shaft, and embedment depth.
failure (b) Concrete pryout failure (c) Concrete breakout failure
Concrete Breakout Strength of
Anchor in Shear

Calculations for the basic concrete breakout capacity in shear of an
individual anchor in cracked concrete are given in Page 768 of the book.

Projected area for single and group of anchors under shear loading is
shown in Fig. 19.34.

Fig. 19.35 shows multiple fastening with cast in situ headed studs

The modification factor for edge effects for single anchor or anchor
groups loaded in shear is shown in Fig. 19.36.

Fig. 19.35 Projected area for single and group of anchors under shear loading (a) Single anchor
(b) Group of anchors
Steel Strength of Anchor in Shear
The nominal steel strength of an anchor in

Where A
se,V
is the effective cross-sectional area of an
anchor in shear (mm
2
), and f
uta
is the specified tensile
strength of anchor steel
For cast-in headed bolt, post installed anchors
where sleeves do not extend through the shear
plane
The basic concrete breakout capacity in shear
of an individual anchor in cracked concrete, is
the smaller of the following two equations:
Concrete Breakout Strength of
Anchor in Shear
l
e
= h
ef
for anchors with constant overall stiffness over the full
length, l
e
= 2d
a
for torque-controlled expansion anchors, l
e

8d
a
in all other cases. c
1
direction and d
a
is the diameter of the anchor
Modification factor for

5
is modification factor for anchor groups

Fig. 19.36 Example of multiple fastening with cast in situ
Nominal concrete breakout strength
considering edge and spacing of anchors is:

For a group of anchors:

A
v
is the projected area of failure surface on
the sides of member, A
vo
= , and
i
are
the modification factors
Concrete Breakout Strength of
Anchor in Shear
Modification factors for Edge Effect
in Shear
Fig. 19.37 Edge effect in shear
Other Modification Factors for
When there is no cracking at service load

For anchors in cracked concrete without
supplementary reinforcement or with edge
reinforcement smaller than 12 mm bars

with supplementary reinforcement or with
edge reinforcement > 12 mm bars
Other Modification Factors for
The modification factor,
8
, for anchors
located in concrete members where h
a
< 1.5c
1

Anderson and Meinheit (2000, 2008) showed that for a multiple-stud
connection the breakout capacity in shear is defined by the cattycorner
stud, that is, the stud diagonally opposite to the geometric corner (see
Fig. 19.37).

On the basis of their work, the PCI code introduced the concept of
side edge distance to the cattycorner stud.

It has been shown that corner influences are much better modelled by
the WJE/PCI equations than the ACI code provisions and ACI provisions
are very conservative for small side edge distances.
Concrete Breakout Strength of
Anchor in Shear
Fig. 19.38 Corner concrete breakout when headed stud anchor is
located near a member corner
Concrete Breakout Strength of
Anchor in Shear
Concrete Pryout Strength of
Anchor in Shear
Pryout failure normally occurs when short, stocky studs or
post-installed anchors are loaded in shear away from an edge
(see Fig. 19.33b).
The nominal strength for single anchor:

The nominal strength for a group of anchors:

k
cp
= 1.0 for h
ef
< 65 mm and k
cp
= 2.0 for h
ef
65 mm.

Anchor in Tension

The basic bond strength of a single adhesive anchor in tension in
cracked concrete

The characteristic bond strength in cracked concrete,
cr
, should be
taken as five per cent fractile of test results conducted as per ACI
355.4M.

When analysis indicates no cracking at service load levels,
characteristic bond stress of adhesive anchor in uncracked concrete,
ucr
,
may be used instead of the characteristic bond strength in cracked
concrete.

Anchor in Tension

Minimum characteristic bond strength,
ucr
, may be
used, provided:
Anchors meet the requirements of ACI 355.4M,
Anchor holes are drilled with a rotary impact drill
or rock drill,
Concrete has a compressive strength of 17MPa
and has attained a minimum age of 21 days at the
time of installation, and
Concrete temperature at that time is at least 10C.
Minimum Characteristic Bond
Strength (ACI 318:2011)
The nominal bond strength of single adhesive
anchor in tension is:

The nominal bond strength of group of

Anchor in Tension
tension

For edge effects

For uncracked concrete without supplementary
reinforcement

The modification factors for Bond
Case Study
Bostons Big Dig Ceiling Collapse

Source:http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2007/HAR0702.pdf
Required Strength of Anchors
After calculating the nominal strength, the
following condition has to be satisfied as per
ACI 318-11

Where, is the strength reduction factor and
N
ua
and V
ua
are the applied factored tension
and shear loads on anchor respectively

Strength reduction factor,
(ACI 318:2011)
Interaction of Tensile and Shear Forces

Anchors and group of anchors that are subjected to shear and tensile
loads should be designed to satisfy
When V
ua
/(V
n
) 0.2 for the governing strength in shear, then full
strength in tension may be permitted.
When N
ua
/(N
n
) 0.2 for the governing strength in tension, then full
strength in shear may be permitted.
When V
ua
/(V
n
) >0.2 for the governing strength in shear and N
ua

/(N
n
) > 0.2 for the governing strength in tension, ACI 318-11 suggests
the following interaction equation:

Interaction of Tensile and Shear Forces
Fig. 19.39 Interaction diagram for combined tension and shear
Seismic Design Requirements

When the seismic component of the total factored tension demand on
an anchor or group of anchors exceeds 20 per cent, the following four
options are suggested:

1. Ensure failure of ductile steel anchor ahead of brittle failure of
concrete. This involves the new concept of stretch length.
Observations from earthquakes indicated that a stretch length of
about eight times the diameter of anchor results in good
structural performance (see Fig. 19.39).
Provision of Stretch Length in Anchors
Fig. 19.40 Provision of stretch length in anchors (a) Anchor chair (b) Sleeve
2. Design anchor for the maximum tension force that can be
transmitted to the anchor based on the development of a ductile
yield mechanism in the attachment in flexure, shear, or bearing, or
its combinations, and considering both material over-strength and
strain hardening effects of the attachment.

3. Design anchor for the maximum tension force that can be
transmitted to the anchor by a non-yielding attachment.

4. Design anchor for the maximum tension force obtained from design
an amplification factor (
0
) to account for over-strength of the
seismic force-resisting system.

Seismic Design Requirements
Influence of Reinforcements to Resist Shear

In general, the procedure to predict the strength of anchors exhibiting
concrete cone failures assumes absence of reinforcement in the
anchorage area.

Parallel reinforcement near the anchor heads (e.g., hairpin
reinforcement) has been shown to increase the ultimate load when the
reinforcement is well anchored, as shown in Fig. 19.41.

To ensure yielding of the anchor reinforcement, the reinforcement
should be in contact with the anchor and must be placed as close to the
concrete surface as possible, as shown in Fig. 19.41.
Hairpin Anchor Reinforcement for Shear
Fig. 19.41Hairpin anchor reinforcement for shear (a) U-loops (b) V-loops (c) Section A-A
Edge and Anchor Reinforcement for Shear
The reinforcement could also consist of stirrups and ties enclosing the
edge reinforcement embedded in the breakout cone and as close to the
anchors as possible (see Fig. 19.42).

The anchor reinforcement should be developed on both sides of the
breakout surface; edge reinforcement is also necessary for equilibrium
considerations (see Fig. 19.42).

The use of anchor reinforcement is attempted only in the case of cast-
in-place anchors.

Reinforcing bars are to be provided along all concrete surfaces to
minimize concrete damage in front of anchors for consistent seismic
shear behaviour.
Edge and Anchor Reinforcement for Shear
Fig. 19.42 Edge and anchor reinforcement for shear (a) Plan (b) Section BB
Required Edge Distances and Spacing to
Prevent Splitting of Concrete

The following minimum edge distances and spacings are specified to
preclude splitting failure, unless supplementary reinforcements are
provided to control splitting:
1. The minimum centre-to-centre (c/c) spacing of anchors should
be 4d
a
for cast in anchors that will not be torqued and 6d
a
for
torqued cast in anchors and post-installed anchors.

2. The minimum edge distances of anchors that will not be torqued
should be based on specific cover requirements for
reinforcements (Table 16 of IS 456), and for torqued cast-in
anchors the minimum edge distance should be 6d
a
.

3. The minimum edge distances for anchors should not be less than the
critical and minimum edge distance for post-installed anchors.

4. The value of h
ef
for an expansion or undercut post-installed anchor
should not exceed two-thirds of member thickness and member
thickness minus 100 mm.
Required Edge Distances and Spacing to
Prevent Splitting of Concrete
Obtuse-angled and Acute-angled Corners

Corners with obtuse and acute angles occur in bridge abutments
between the wing walls and the front wall and in folded plate roof.

Tests on V-shaped beams with 135 to 145 corners have been
conducted for various reinforcement details based on which the
following have been concluded:
1. The efficiency of the joint detail is improved when inclined bars
are added to take up the tensile force at the inner corner. Loops
with inclined bars, as shown in Fig. 19.43(a), are preferable for
continuous corners between lightly reinforced slabs.

Reinforcement Details for Obtuse and
Acute Corners
Fig. 19.43 Reinforcement details for obtuse and acute corners (a) Obtuse angle (b) Acute angle
2. The efficiency of the corners improved significantly when the
thicknesses of the adjoining members were different. Further,
the mode of failure changed from diagonal tensile failure to
flexural failure.

3. The efficiency of the corner increased by about 32 per cent
when the length ratio of the two legs was changed from one to
two.

The main reinforcement should be restricted to about 0.651.0 per
cent of the section in order to avoid brittle failure of the corner. If the
reinforcement percentage is higher than this, the corner must be
provided with a reinforced haunch and stirrups.
Obtuse-angled and Acute-angled Corners
Obtuse-angled and Acute-angled Corners

A reinforcement layout is shown in Fig 19.43(b) where the inclined
reinforcement in acute-angled corner is laid in a haunch.

The length of this haunch is at least one-half the thickness of the wing
wall and the reinforcement is less than 0.50.75 per cent and at least
equal to the thickness of wing wall when it is about 0.81.2 per cent.

The bars must not be spliced in the corner region.

Further, recesses or openings should not be made at or in the
immediate vicinity of corners or joints, since they considerably reduce
the strength and stiffness of the connection.