Aci Structural Journal January-February 2013 v. 110 No. 1 Complete

VOL. 110, NO.
1
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2013
ACI
STRUCTURAL
J O U R N A L
A J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N C O N C R E T E I N S T I T U T E
111 Rapid repair procedure
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013 1
Discussion is welcomed for all materials published in this issue and will appear in the November-
December 2013 issue if received by July 1, 2013. Discussion of material received after specifed
dates will be considered individually for publication or private response.
ACI Standards published in ACI Journals for public comment have discussion due dates printed with
the Standard.
Annual index published online at www.concrete.org/pubs/journals/sjhome.asp.
ACI Structural Journal
Copyright 2013 American Concrete Institute. Printed in the United States of America.
The ACI Structural Journal (ISSN 0889-3241) is published bimonthly by the American Concrete Institute. Publica-
tion offce: 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331. Periodicals postage paid at Farmington, MI, and
at additional mailing offces. Subscription rates: $161 per year (U.S. and possessions), $170 (elsewhere), payable in
advance. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: ACI Structural Journal, 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington
Hills, MI 48331.
Canadian GST: R 1226213149.
Direct correspondence to 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, MI 48331. Telephone: (248) 848-3700. Facsimile
(FAX): (248) 848-3701. Website: http://www.concrete.org.
CONTENTS
Board of Direction
President
James K. Wight
Vice Presidents
Anne M. Ellis
William E. Rushing Jr.
Directors
Neal S. Anderson
Khaled Awad
Roger J. Becker
Jeffrey W. Coleman
Robert J. Frosch
James R. Harris
Cecil L. Jones
Steven H. Kosmatka
David A. Lange
Denis Mitchell
Jack P. Moehle
David H. Sanders
Past President Board Members
Kenneth C. Hover
Florian G. Barth
Luis E. Garca
Executive Vice President
Ron Burg
Technical Activities Committee
David A. Lange, Chair
Daniel W. Falconer, Secretary
Sergio M. Alcocer
JoAnn P. Browning
Chiara F. Ferraris
Catherine E. French
Trey Hamilton
Ronald Janowiak
Kevin A. MacDonald
Antonio Nanni
Jan Olek
Michael Sprinkel
Pericles C. Stivaros
Eldon G. Tipping
Staff
Executive Vice President
Ron Burg
Engineering
Managing Director
Daniel W. Falconer
Managing Editor
Khaled Nahlawi
Staff Engineers
Matthew R. Senecal
Gregory Zeisler
Publishing Services
Manager
Barry M. Bergin
Editors
Carl R. Bischof
Karen Czedik
Kelli R. Slayden
Denise E. Wolber
Editorial Assistant
Ashley Poirier
ACI StruCturAl JournAl
JAnuAry-FebruAry 2013, V. 110, no. 1
A JOURNAL OF THE AMERCAN CONCRETE NSTTUTE
AN NTERNATONAL TECHNCAL SOCETY
3 Ultimate Strength Domain of Reinforced Concrete Sections under
Biaxial Bending and Axial Load, by Francesco Vinciprova and
Giuseppe Oliveto
15 Design Considerations for Shear Bolts in Punching Shear Retroft of
Reinforced Concrete Slabs, by Maria Anna Polak and Wensheng Bu
27 Shortening Estimation for Post-Tensioned Concrete FloorsPart I:
Model Selection, by Guohui Guo and Leonard M. Joseph
35 Shortening Estimation for Post-Tensioned Concrete FloorsPart II:
Calculations, by Guohui Guo and Leonard M. Joseph
43 Shear Behavior of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams, by
S. V. T. Janaka Perera and Hiroshi Mutsuyoshi
53 Design of Anchor Reinforcement for Seismic Shear Loads, by Derek
Petersen and Jian Zhao
63 Innovative Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Columns
Using Carbon-Fiber Anchors, by Ioannis Vrettos, Efstathia Kefala, and
Thanasis C. Triantafllou
71 Adaptive Stress Field Models: Formulation and Validation, by Miguel S.
Loureno and Joo F. Almeida
83 Adaptive Stress Field Models: Assessment of Design Models, by
Miguel S. Loureno and Joo F. Almeida
95 Flexural Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Wall with Limited
Confnement, by S. Takahashi, K. Yoshida, T. Ichinose, Y. Sanada,
K. Matsumoto, H. Fukuyama, and H. Suwada
105 Shake-Table Studies of Repaired Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Fabrics, by Ashkan
Vosooghi and M. Saiid Saiidi
115 Cyclic Loading Test for Reinforced-Concrete-Emulated Beam-
Column Connection of Precast Concrete Moment Frame, by Hyeong-
Ju Im, Hong-Gun Park, and Tae-Sung Eom
127 Unifed Calculation Method for Symmetrically Reinforced Concrete
Section Subjected to Combined Loading, by Liang Huang, Yiqiu Lu,
and Chuxian Shi
137 Cyclic Behavior of Substandard Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Joints with Plain Bars, by Catarina Fernandes, Jos Melo, Humberto
Varum, and Anbal Costa
149 Discussion
Effective Capacity of Diagonal Strut for Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Beams without Shear Reinforcement. Paper by Sung-Gul Hong and Taehun Ha
Unbonded Tendon Stresses in Post-Tensioned Concrete Walls at Nominal
Flexural Strength. Paper by Richard S. Henry, Sri Sritharan, and Jason M. Ingham
Contents cont. on next page
2 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
MEETINGS
Permission is granted by the American Concrete Institute for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC) to photocopy any article contained herein for a fee of $3.00 per copy of the article. Payments
should be sent directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 21 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. ISSN 0889-3241/98
$3.00. Copying done for other than personal or internal reference use without the express written permission of the
American Concrete Institute is prohibited. Requests for special permission or bulk copying should be addressed to the
Managing Editor, ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute.
The Institute is not responsible for statements or opinions expressed in its publications. Institute publications are not able
to, nor intend to, supplant individual training, responsibility, or judgment of the user, or the supplier, of the information
presented.
Papers appearing in the ACI Structural Journal are reviewed according to the Institutes Publication Policy by individuals
expert in the subject area of the papers.
Contributions to
ACI Structural Journal
The ACI Structural Journal is an open
forum on concrete technology and papers
related to this feld are always welcome.
All material submitted for possible publi-
cation must meet the requirements of
the American Concrete Institute Publi-
cation Policy and Author Guidelines
and Submission Procedures. Prospective
authors should request a copy of the Policy
and Guidelines from ACI or visit ACIs
website at www.concrete.org prior to
submitting contributions.
Papers reporting research must include
a statement indicating the signifcance of
the research.
The Institute reserves the right to return,
without review, contributions not meeting
the requirements of the Publication Policy.
All materials conforming to the Policy
requirements will be reviewed for editorial
quality and technical content, and every
effort will be made to put all acceptable
papers into the information channel.
However, potentially good papers may be
returned to authors when it is not possible
to publish them in a reasonable time.
Discussion
All technical material appearing in the
ACI Structural Journal may be discussed.
If the deadline indicated on the contents
page is observed, discussion can appear
in the designated issue. Discussion should
be complete and ready for publication,
including fnished, reproducible illustra-
tions. Discussion must be confned to the
scope of the paper and meet the ACI Publi-
cation Policy.
Follow the style of the current issue.
Be brief1800 words of double spaced,
typewritten copy, including illustrations
and tables, is maximum. Count illustrations
and tables as 300 words each and submit
them on individual sheets. As an approxi-
mation, 1 page of text is about 300 words.
Submit one original typescript on 8-1/2 x
11 plain white paper, use 1 in. margins,
and include two good quality copies of the
entire discussion. References should be
complete. Do not repeat references cited
in original paper; cite them by original
number. Closures responding to a single
discussion should not exceed 1800-word
equivalents in length, and to multiple
discussions, approximately one half of
the combined lengths of all discussions.
Closures are published together with
the discussions.
Discuss the paper, not some new or
outside work on the same subject. Use
references wherever possible instead of
repeating available information.
Discussion offered for publication should
offer some beneft to the general reader.
Discussion which does not meet this
requirement will be returned or referred to
the author for private reply.
Send manuscripts to:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci
Send discussions to:
Journals.Manuscripts@concrete.org
2013
JANUARY
11-13The Precast Show 2013,
Indianapolis, IN, www.precast.org/
theprecastshow
28-30ACCTA 2013, Johannesburg, South
Africa, www.spin.bam.de/en/accta_2013/
index.htm
FEBRUARY
4-8World of Concrete, Las Vegas, NV,
www.worldofconcrete.com
15-16CEMCON 2013, Pune, India,
www.icipunecentre.org/cemcon2013.aspx
14-15IABSE Workshop on Safety,
Failures, and Robustness of Large
Structures, Helsinki, Finland, www.
iabse2013helsinki.org
FEBRUARY/MARCH
28-2CSDA Annual Convention and
Tech Fair, Duck Key, FL, www.csda.org
MARCH
10-14FraMCoS-8, Toledo, Spain, www.
framcos8.org
20-22ICRI Spring Convention, St. Pete
Beach, FL, www.icri.org
APRIL
17-2014th International Congress on
Polymers in Concrete, Shanghai, China,
www.rilem.net
22-242013 fb Symposium, Tel Aviv,
Israel, www.fb2013tel-aviv.co.il
MAY
6-8International IABSE Spring
Conference, Rotterdam, the Netherlands,
www.iabse2013rotterdam.nl
13-152013 APWA Sustainability in
Public Works Conference, San Diego, CA,
www.apwa.net/sustainability
26-29Twin International Conferences
on Civil Engineering Towards a Better
Environment and The Concrete Future,
Covilh, Portugal, www.uc.pt/en/iii/
novidades/2012/twinconferencesucubi
27-29International Conference on
Concrete Sustainability (ICCS13), Tokyo,
Japan, www.jci-iccs13.jp
UPCOMING ACI CONVENTIONS
The following is a list of scheduled ACI conventions:
2013April 14-18, Hilton & Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis, MN
2013October 20-24, Hyatt Regency & Phoenix Convention Center, Phoenix, AZ
2014March 23-27, Grand Sierra Resort, Reno, NV
2014October 26-30, Hilton Washington, Washington, DC
For additional information, contact:
Event Services, ACI
38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
Telephone: (248) 848-3795
e-mail: conventions@concrete.org
Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams with Large Opening.
Paper by Dipti R. Sahoo, Carlos A. Flores, and Shih-Ho Chao
Nonlinear Cyclic Truss Model for Reinforced Concrete Walls. Paper by Marios
Panagiotou, Jos I. Restrepo, Matthew Schoettler, and Geonwoo Kim
Behavior of Lap-Spliced Plain Steel Bars. Paper by M. Nazmul Hassan and Lisa R. Feldman
162 In ACI Materials Journal
Contents cont.
Title no. 110-S01
ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 1, January-February 2013.
MS No. S-2010-301.R3 received March 22, 2012, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2013, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be
published in the November-December 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion
is received by July 1, 2013.
Ultimate Strength Domain of Reinforced Concrete Sections
under Biaxial Bending and Axial Load
by Francesco Vinciprova and Giuseppe Oliveto
A direct method is provided for the construction of the ultimate
strength domain of reinforced and/or prestressed concrete sections
under biaxial bending and axial force. The method, based on the
principle of plane sections, only requires the specifcation of the
stress-strain relationships for each component material, the preten-
sion strains, and possibly any other applied distortion. The results
may be used for safety checks in new designs and in the rehabilita-
tion of vulnerable or deteriorated structures. A few examples are
used to demonstrate the performance of the method and its useful-
ness in practical applications.
Keywords: analytical techniques; biaxial bending; reinforced concrete
sections; strength domain.
INTRODUCTION
The construction of the strength domains of cross sections
of structural members has a long history. It is related to the
problem of designing safe structures and is in fact to some
degree an extension to the cross section of the strength criteria
for materials such as Rankine, Tresca, and the Von Mises
criteria, to quote only a few of the most popular. However,
as is well-known, the strength criteria are often not in agree-
ment with each other and some work is better than others,
depending on the situation considered. Strength domains
or failure surfaces in terms of stress resultants for a cross
section should be the natural extension of strength criteria for
materials. As there are six independent stress components for
the Cauchy stress tensor, there are six stress resultants to be
considered for the cross sectionthat is, an axial force, two
shear forces, two bending moments, and a torque.
The task of producing a complete yield or resistance or
rupture surface for a cross section is so daunting, however,
that so far, none actually exist, even though in several
branches of mechanics they are very much needed. The frst
complication with respect to a strength criterion is that there
is the need for integration of the stress components over the
cross section and the result is obviously dependent on the
shape of the cross section. Moreover, the cross section is
often of a composite nature, where different materials are
used, such as concrete, reinforcing steel, prestressing steel,
and fber-reinforced polymer (FRP), to mention only widely
used materials and technologies.
Although the six-dimensional domain is diffcult to obtain
exactly, several cross sections of the actual surface have been
obtained with the development in the last century of metal and
concrete structural plasticity. The results are available in text-
books on steel structures and on concrete structures.
1-3
Well-
known, for instance, are the bending-moment-axial-force-
interaction domains that are plane curves if the bending is
direct. Even when neglecting both shear forces and torque,
it has been recognized that in many instances the interac-
tion of biaxial bending and axial force cannot be ignored.
This has been recognized by most design codes in the
world, which provide simplifed methods to account for the
abovementioned interaction. Among these are ACI 318,
4
AS
3600,
5
Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1),
6
Eurocode 4 (EN-1994-1-
1),
7
and Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-3).
8
In this paper, the authors
are concerned with the development of a simple numerical
algorithm for the construction of the interaction domain
of reinforced concrete sections, possibly prestressed and/
or including FRP in the form of bars or plies, or of steel
sections encased in concrete or even tubular steel and FRP
sections flled with concrete.
An overview of the state of the art in the feld may be
found in the paper by Furlong et al.
9
In this paper, only
essential literature will be reviewed. All code developments
are supported by scientifc research and for the problem
being considered, the relevant research is provided in a paper
by Bresler,
10
where two empirical methods for the construc-
tion of the interaction surface are introducednamely, the
reciprocal load method (RLM) and the load contour method
(LCM). Because these methods are well-known and avail-
able in the literature, it suffces to say that these are semi-
analytical methods in the sense that they provide equations
that, on the basis of empirically evaluated parameters, allow
for the construction of the interaction surface.
Following this seminal paper, three main research lines
have been pursued to deepen understanding of this topic. One
line has consisted of experimental research aimed at checking
the assumptions on the basis of the two methods mentioned
in the previous paragraph and at evaluating the accuracy
that can be obtained. Noteworthy among this research is the
work by Ramamurthy.
11
Another line of research has been
aimed at providing more accurate analytical expressions
for the construction of the failure surface. The works by
Ferguson et al.,
12
Wight and Mac Gregor,
13
Silva et al.,
14
and
Bonet et al.
15
follow this line. However, a considerable
effort has been devoted to a third line of research, which
has tackled the problem of providing the failure surface
using numerical algorithms based on the integration of the
governing equilibrium equations and constitutive laws for
the constituent materials. Early basic work is considered in
textbooks by Park and Pauley,
16
Nielsen,
17
and MacGregor
and Bartlett.
18
Also in this line of research are the works
by Kawakami et al.
19
; Landonio and Perego
20
; Hulse and
Mosley
21
; Contaldo and Faella
22
; Spiegel and Limbrunner
23
;
Bousias et al.
24
; De Vivo and Rosati
25
; Rodriguez-Gutierrez
and Aristizabal-Ochoa
26
; Rodriguez-Gutierrez and Aris-
Francesco Vinciprova is a Lecturer of physics and mathematics at the Bonaventura
Secusio High School, Caltagirone, Sicily, Italy. He received his MS in civil engineering
and his PhD in structural engineering at the University of Catania, Sicily, Italy. His
research interests include the feld of application of boundary element methods in
structural mechanics and structural dynamics.
Giuseppe Oliveto is Full Professor of structural engineering at the University of
Catania. His research interests include structural mechanics, structural dynamics,
and earthquake engineering.
tizabal-Ochoa,
27
who also considered prestressed concrete
sections; Faftis,
28
who transforms the double equilibrium
integrals into line integrals; Sfakianakis
29
; Consolazio et
al.
30
; Hock and Cheong
31
; Charalampakis and Koumousis
32
;
and Di Ludovico et al.
33
Other works in this line study the
integration methods of the stresses over the cross section.
Among these are studies by Bonet et al.
34,35
The reference by Di Ludovico et al.
33
is notable for a state-
of-the-art treatment of the topic and because it provides a
good basis for the work that will be presented herein. The
paper develops a numerical algorithm based on a fnite
element discretization of the cross section. The applied load
is increased monotonically until the ultimate limit state of
the cross section is reached. For a given value of the axial
force acting on the cross section, the loading axis in the cross
section is provided. For a given value of the bending moment,
which is perpendicular to the loading axis, a nonlinear
system of equations must be solved to fnd the position
of the neutral axis and subsequently strains, stresses, and
stress resultants. This procedure is iterated several times for
successive increments of the bending moment or curvature
until the ultimate limit state for the cross section is reached.
Having completed this task, one point of the failure surface
of the cross section under axial force and biaxial bending is
found. Other points are obtained by slightly changing the
ratio between bending moments and repeating the previous
task. In the end, a cross section of the failure surface for
constant axial force is generated.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The construction of the entire failure surface with the
method described at the end of the introduction requires
the repetition of the previously described tasks for several
values of the axial force, from the failure value in compres-
sion to the failure value in tension. It is obvious that the
construction of the entire failure surface in this way is a very
time-consuming task, but a much more effcient method
is available. This method, already known in literature and
recommended by Marn
36
but somewhat neglected, will be
formulated and exploited in the following sections.
GENERAL FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
Given a cross section of general shape and material compo-
sition (Fig. 1), the problem is to solve is the construction of
the failure surface under axial force and biaxial bending in
the quickest way possible. To make the problem as general as
possible, assume that the cross section does not admit axes of
symmetry. Let a Cartesian orthogonal reference frame O, X,
Y be defned within the plane of the cross section, to which
the axial force and the bending moments are referred. For a
given position of the neutral axis, a rotated Cartesian orthog-
onal reference system O, x, y is defned such that the x-axis
is parallel to the neutral axis n, and o is the anti-clockwise
rotation of the x-axis with respect to the X-axis. The Bernoulli
hypothesis, which states that initially plane cross sections
remain plane after deformation, allows for the deformation
shown graphically in Fig. 1 to be given by the following
mathematical expression
r r x +
0
y (1)
Fig. 1General cross section, global and local reference frames, neutral axis,
and strain and stress diagrams.
where r
0
is the axial strain on the fber defned by the equa-
tion y = 0; and x is the curvature.
At this point, one can only assume that the axial stress is
related to the axial strain via a general nonlinear relation-
shipthat is, o = f(r)where only one value of the stress
corresponds to a given value of the strain, while more than
one strain may correspond to a given stress.
The three equations given as follows must be satisfed to
ensure equilibrium between internal stresses and externally
applied load resultants
o r
o r
o r
dA f dA N
y dA yf dA M
x dA xf dA M
A A
A A
x
A A
y
( )

( )

( )

(2)
The transformation of coordinates
x
y
X
Y
1
]
1

1
]
1
1
]
1
cos sin
sin cos
o o
o o
(3)
allows for Eq. (2) to be written with reference to the fxed
reference frame O, X, Y, providing the following system
of equations
f dA N
X f dA Y f dA M M
X
A
A A
X Y
r
o r o r o o
o
( )

( )
+ ( )
sin cos cos sin
cos ( )
( )
+ f dA Y f dA M M
A A
X Y
r o r o o sin sin cos
(4)
The system of Eq. (4) provides the proper basis for the
problem. In most of the literature, the problem is approached
in the following way. Given the three stress resultants (N, M
X
,
M
Y
), fnd the position of the neutral axisthat is, the angle
o and the ordinate y
0
= r
0
/xand check whether the ultimate
strain has been exceeded in the most distant fbers from the
neutral axis. Generally, a loading process is assigned by
which the external stress resultants are increased step by step
according to a given law until a failure condition is reached
that is, one of the component materials in the cross section
reaches the rupture strain. It is evident that the governing
system of equations is highly nonlinear because of the nonlin-
earity of the constitutive laws of the constituent materials
and because of the geometrical nonlinearity associated to the
position of the neutral axis. This system must be solved many
times just to obtain a single point of the failure surface. It is
obvious that this is not a very effcient method if one wants
just to construct the failure surface of a given cross section.
However, the method may be justifed if one has just one set
of stress resultants and wants to check whether this is safe or
not, or what the safety coeffcient is for a given loading path.
Before a much more effcient method of producing the failure
surface is formulated, it may be worth noting that the given system
of Eq. (4) is strictly suffcient for the evaluation of the three
kinematical unknowns o, r
0
, and x, which solve the problem.
MARNS METHOD
The following describes a much more effcient way
of solving the problem of constructing the failure surface
of a cross section under axial force and biaxial bending.
Although the method has often been used by engineers
to solve problems elegantly that otherwise would be very
hard to solve, it was recommended in the present context
by Marn
36
in 1979 to satisfy the ACI 318-71 requirements.
Rather than starting from a set of stress resultants and then
trying to fnd a point of the failure surface by following a
given step-by-step loading process, the method starts from
a given position of the neutral axisthat is, angle o and the
equation of the neutral axis are known
y y
0
(5)
Equation (1) and Eq. (5) provide the following results
r x r x
0 0 0
( ) y y y (6)
For each material that constitutes the cross section, the
maximum strain r
t
is related to the maximum distance y
i
from the neutral axis via the relationship
r x
i i
y y i N ( )
0
1 2 , , ,
(7)
The failure of the cross section occurs as soon as a material
reaches the rupture or breaking strainnamely r
f
= r
f
r
and
the curvature that leads the cross section to failure, for the
given position of the neutral axis, is given by the equation
x
r
r
j
r
j
y y
0
(8)
At this point, the strain diagram at failure is completely
known if the result from Eq. (8) is used in Eq. (6). The corre-
sponding stress resultants may be obtained by using Eq. (2),
while a coordinate transformation provides the results in the
fxed coordinate system O, X, Y. The set of stress resultants
thus evaluated provides a point of the failure surface of the
cross section. The most important thing that must be observed
is that there are no nonlinear equations to be solved with this
method and the only operations needed are the integral calcu-
lations for the evaluation of the stress resultants. As will be
shown later, even those can be performed in closed form.
The construction of the failure surface proceeds with the
calculation of a family of isogonic lines, each of them associ-
ated with a given angle o for the neutral axis. By translating
the neutral axis slowly, a set of failure points on a isogonic
line may be generated. These points may be as close as one
wishes because their distance depends only on the amount
by which the neutral axis is translated. The isogonic lines
are not generally plane curves, but are certainly plane if the
neutral axis is parallel to one of the principal axes of the cross
section. Once an isogonic line has been completed, the next
one is constructed by rotating the neutral axis by a conve-
nient amount. It is obvious that the family of isogonic lines
thus constructed allows for a complete characterization of the
failure surface of a given cross section. The entire surface may
be constructed or simply areas of the entire surface of specifc
interest. The accuracy of the entire surface or of a required
area can be made as good as required by reducing the transla-
tion and rotational steps of the neutral axis.
IMPLEMENTATION OF METHOD
The implementation of the model requires some basic
operations that are listed in the following. The frst step is
the description of the cross section with the defnition of
exterior and interior boundaries, position of reinforcement
and pretensioned bars, position of FRP bars and/or plies, and
position of structural steel. The second step consists of the
defnition of the constitutive laws of the constituent mate-
rials. The third step consists of the calculation of the stress
resultants as specifed by Eq. (2) and the fnal step consists
of their transformation into the fxed reference frame O, X,
Y. The various phases that have been listed previously will
be described in some detail as follows.
Description of cross section
It is assumed that all boundaries of the cross section
are straight line segments; if a curved boundary exists, it
is assumed that this can be approximated by a polygonal,
which can be made as close as possible to the given boundary
as the number of vertices of the approximating polygonal
increases. All geometrical parameters are referred to the
fxed reference frame O, X, Y as follows:
X
i
c
and Y
i
c
are the coordinates of the vertices of the
various boundaries of the cross section;
X
i
s
and Y
i
s
are the coordinates of the centroid of the ordi-
nary reinforcing bars;
X
i
sp
and Y
i
sp
are the coordinates of the centroid of the
prestressing bars; and
X
i
ss
and Y
i
ss
are the coordinates of the vertices of the
structural steel section encased in the concrete section.
The corresponding coordinates in the local reference
frame O, x, y are obtained via the coordinate transformation
provided by Eq. (3). The equation of the boundary segment j
between vertices i and i + 1 takes the expression
x m y q
j j
+ (9)
where
m
x x
y y
q x
x x
y y
y
j
i
C
i
C
i
C
i
C j i
C i
C
i
C
i
C
i
C i
C
+
+
+
+
1
1
1
1
(10)
provided that the segment is not parallel to the x-axis, in
which case the equation becomes
y y y
i
C
i
C

+1
(11)
Constitutive laws
Any of the constitutive laws used in the literature are
allowed within the context of this work; for instance, the
constitutive laws listed by Di Ludovico et al.
33
However, for
illustrative purposes, some constitutive laws recommended
by Eurocode 2
6
and Eurocode 4
7
are used herein, along with
the softening Kent and Park
37
law for unconfned concrete.
According to the considered Eurocodes, the constitutive
law for concrete assumes that the concrete does not respond
in tension while a parabola-rectangle stress diagram is asso-
ciated to compression strains. In mathematical terms, this
may be expressed as follows
o r r
o r o
r
r
r
r
r r
o r o
c
c cd
c c
c
c
f
( )
( )
_
,

[ ]
( )
0 0
2 0
1 1
1
,
ff
cd cu c

[ ]
r r r ,
1
(12)
When the Kent and Park
37
law is used, the frst and second
equations of Eq. (12) still hold while the third equation is
replaced by Eq. (13), with stress varying linearly from of
cd

to f
cd
.
o r o
r r
r r
o r r r ( ) +

( )
1
]
1

[ ]
c
cu c
cd cu c
f
1
1
1
, (13)
By setting
t t t
c c c c c
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
_
,
_
,

r
r
r
r
x
r
r
r
x
r
(14)
the second equation of Eq. (12) may be written as follows
o o
c cd
y f t t y t y ( ) + +
( )
0 1 2
2
(15)
By setting
t t
L
c cu
cu c
L
cu c
0
0 1
1
1
1
1 1
_
,
_
,
o
r

o
r r
r r
x

o
r r
(16)
Equation (13) may be written as follows
o o
c cd
L L
y f t t y ( ) +
( )
0 1
(17)
The parameters appearing in the previous equations are
specifed by Eurocodes 2 and 4.
The constitutive law for reinforcing steel assumes elastic-
perfectly plastic behavior with limited tensile and compres-
sion strain. In mathematical terms, this is expressed by the
following equations
o r r r r r
o r r r r r r
s s yd yd
s s yd su yd
E
E
( )
1
]
( ) ( )
1
]
,
sgn , rr r
yd su
,
1
]

(18)
For prestressing steel, Eurocode 2 specifes a bilinear
stress-strain relationship
o
r
r
r r
o
r r
r r
r
p pd
yd
yd
p pd
pk
s
pd
yd
ud yd
f
f
f
f

1
]
+
_
,

0,
1
]
r r
yd ud
,
(19)
Stress resultants
The cross section is divided into a fnite number of trap-
ezoids with bases parallel to the neutral axis and the two
oblique sides belonging to its boundary, as is shown in
Fig. 1. The partition lines parallel to the neutral axis, besides
the neutral axis itself defned by the equation y = y
0
and
the straight line y = y
c1
for which it is r(y
c1
) = r
c1
, all pass
through vertices of the boundary of the cross section. Axial
force N and bending moments M
x
and M
y
may be given by
the expressions
N N N N N N
i
S
i
n
i
P
i
n
i
SS
i
n
i
C
i
n
i
C
i
n
S
p
S
SS
t
C
cP
C
+ + + + +
1 1 1 1 1
NN N
M M M M
i
C
i
n
i
C
i
n
x xi
S
i
n
xi
P
i
n
xi
SS
i
cL
C
cR
C
S
p
S

+
+ +
1 1
1 1 1
nn
xi
C
i
n
xi
C
i
n
xi
C
i
n
xi
C
i
n
y
SS
t
C
cP
C
cL
C
cR
C
M M M M
M
+ + + +
1 1 1 1
+ + + +

M M M M M
yi
S
i
n
yi
P
i
n
yi
SS
i
n
yi
C
i
n
yi
C
i
n
S
p
S
SS
t
C
1 1 1 1 1
ccP
C
cL
C
cR
C
M M
yi
C
i
n
yi
C
i
n
+ +
1 1
(20)
where n
S
is the total number of ordinary reinforcing steel
rods; n
S
p
is the total number of pretensioned steel bars; n
SS

is the number of trapezoids into which the structural steel is
divided; n
C
t
is the number of trapezoids into which the part
of cross section in tension is divided; n
C
cp
is the number of
trapezoids in the compression part of the cross section where
the stress has a parabolic distribution; n
C
cL
is the number of
the stress has a linear distribution; and n
C
cR
is the number of
the stress is constant.
Let us now consider the i-th trapezoid whose oblique sides
are the j-th and the k-th sides of the polygon, which defnes
the boundary of the cross section, and let y
sup
and y
inf
be the
ordinates of the two bases of the trapezoid.
The contributions to the stress resultants of the trapezoid
considered are calculated as follows
N x y dxdy x y dx
i
C
c
x y
x y
y
y
c
m y q
m y q
k
j
k k
j j
( )
( )
( )
( )
+
+
o o , ,
inf
sup
ddy
M x y ydxdy x y y
y
y
x
C
c
x y
x y
y
y
c
i
k
j
inf
sup
inf
sup
, ,
( )
( )
( )
( )
o o ddxdy
M x y xdxdy
m y q
m y q
y
y
y
C
c
x y
x y
y
k k
j j
i
k
j
+
+
( )
( )

( )
inf
sup
in
, o
ff
sup
inf
sup
,
y
c
m y q
m y q
y
y
x y xdxdy
k k
j j
( )
+
+
o
(21)
By using Eq. (9), (11), (15), and (17), the aforementioned
integrals lead to the following results if the trapezoid belongs
to the region where the stress has a parabolic distribution
N f t q q y y t m m t q q
y
i
C
cd j k j k j k

( )

( )
+
( )
+
( )
1
]
o
0 0 1
2
sup inf
sup

+
+
( )
+
( )
1
]
+
y
t m m t q q
y y
t m m
j k j k j k
inf
sup inf
2
1 2
3 3
2
2
3
(( )

,

( )

+
y y
M f t q q
y y
t m m
xi
C
cd j k j
sup inf
sup inf
4 4
0
2 2
0
4
2
o
kk j k
j k j k
t q q
y y
t m m t q q
( )
+
( )
1
]
+
( )
+
( )
1
3 3
1 2
3
sup inf
11
]
+
( )

,

y y
t m m
y y
M f t q
j k
yi
C
cd j
sup inf sup inf
4 4
2
5 5
0
4 5
1
2
o
22 2
0 1
2 2
2
1
2
( )

( )
+
( )
+
( )
1
]
1
q y y t m q m q t q q
y
k j j k k j k sup inf
sup

+
+
( )
+
( )
+
( )
y
t m m t m q m q t q q
j k j j k k j k
inf
2
0
2 2
1 2
2 2
2
1
2
1
2
1
]
1
+
+
( )
+
( )
1
]
1
y y
t m m t m q m q
y
j k j j k k
sup inf
sup
3 3
1
2 2
2
4
3
1
2
yy
t m m
y y
j k
inf sup inf
4
2
2 2
5 5
4
1
2 5
+
( )

,
(22)
If the trapezoid belongs to the region where the stress is
linear, the following results are found
N f t q q y y t m m t q q
y
i
C
cd
L
j k
L
j k
L
j k
( ) ( ) + ( ) + ( )
1
]
o
0 0 1 sup inf
suup inf sup inf
2 2
1
3 3
0
2 3
+ ( )

,

y
t m m
y y
M f t q
L
j k
xi
C
cd
L
o
jj k
L
j k
L
j k
q
y y
t m m t q q
y y
( )

+ ( ) + ( )
1
]
+
sup inf sup inf
2 2
0 1
3 3
2 3
tt m m
y y
M f t q q y
L
j k
yi
C
cd
L
j k
1
4 4
0
2 2
4
1
2
( )

,
( )
sup inf
o
ssup inf
sup inf
( ) + ( ) + ( )
1
]
1
y t m q m q t q q
y y
L
j j k k
L
j k 0 1
2 2
2 2
1
2 22
1
2 3
1
0
2 2
1
3 3
+
+ ( ) + ( )
1
]
1
+ t m m t m q m q
y y
L
j k
L
j j k k
sup inf
22 4
1
2 2
4 4
t m m
y y
L
j k
( )

,
sup inf
(23)
If, instead, the trapezoid belongs to the region where the
stress is constant, it results
N f q q y y m m
y y
M
i
C
cd j k j k
xi

( )

( )
+
( )

1
]
1
1
o
sup inf
sup inf
2 2
2
CC
cd j k j k
yi
f q q
y y
m m
y y
M

( )

+
( )

1
]
1
1
o
sup inf sup inf
2 2 3 3
2 3
CC
cd j k j j k k
f q q y y m q m q
y y
m
( )

( )
+
( )

+ o
1
2 2
1
2
2 2
2 2
sup inf
sup inf
jj k
m
y y
2 2
3 3
3
( )

1
]
1
1
sup inf
(24)
Equations (22) through (24) provide closed-form contribu-
tions to the stress resultants and are only valid for the consti-
tutive laws for concrete defned in the appropriate section
above. However, corresponding results may be easily found
for several other common constitutive laws.
EXAMPLES AND COMPARISON WITH RESULTS
IN LITERATURE
In this section, results obtained using the presented
method are compared with those available in the literature.
The results are also compared to those obtained using fber
models, as implemented in the OpenSees
38
software. Prob-
lems, which may arise when using those methods or similar
ones, are highlighted and the usefulness of the proposed
method is reaffrmed. Strength domains for some typical
cross sections are also shown.
Comparison of results for square cross section
The simplest cross section that can be considered is the
rectangular one. Some results for this type of cross section
are shown by Di Ludovico et al.
33
The 250 x 250 mm (9.84 x
9.84 in.) square cross section shown in Fig. 2 is provided
with four reinforcement bars, each 12 mm (0.472 in.) in
diameter, with a concrete cover of 30 mm (1.18 in.).
The material properties considered, also shown in Fig. 2,
are steel design yield stress f
yd
= 278 MPa (40.32 ksi) and
concrete design strength of
cd
= 13.28 MPa (1.93 ksi).
The strength domain constructed by using the method
presented in the previous section is shown in Fig. 3(a). In
the construction of this domain, the rotation of the neutral
axis from one position to the adjacent one was chosen
as 10 degrees or r/18 radians. Therefore, 18 isogonic curves
were generated. The number of points on each of these curves
was established by requiring 25 points for each character-
istic rupture mode of the cross section, defned by a strain
interval ]r
min
, r
max
[. Because there are six rupture modes, the
total number of points on each isogonic curve turns out to
be equal to 150. Therefore, the surface, or boundary, of the
strength domain shown in Fig. 3 is identifed by an irreg-
ular grid of 18 x 150 points. The quadrilaterals visible in
Fig. 3 each correspond to two adjacent isogonic curves and
two adjacent strain values.
The intersection of the strength domain with planes of
constant axial force, as shown in Fig. 3(b), provides the
plane curves given in Fig. 4(a). These were produced to
compare the results obtained by the presented method with
corresponding results available in the literature. In fact, the
results by Di Ludovico et al.
33
were given in the form of
discrete points in the M
X
-M
r
plane, for various levels of axial
force. In Fig. 4(a), the continuous lines refer to the results
of the present method, while the symbols show the results
by Di Ludovico et al.,
33
each line being characterized by a
given ratio v of the actual axial force to the ultimate value
in compression. The agreement is excellent, showing that
both methods lead to the same results. However, it should be
noticed that no iterations are needed to produce the present
results and the entire strength domain can be derived with
little computational effort.
To have a quantitative measure of the accuracy of the
results obtained and to be able to make a comparison with
other methods, the following defnition is adopted for the
error. If P O is the vector denoting the solution obtained by
the present method and Q O denotes the solution obtained
by another method, the relative error may be defned by the
following formula
e
Q P Q P
P O P O
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
(25)
The graph of the error of the results provided by Di
Ludovico et al.
33
is shown in Fig. 4(b). It may be seen that
the maximum error is less than 0.01.
The software OpenSees (Mazzoni et al.
39
) has been used
to implement a fber model for the evaluation of some points
of the boundary of the strength domain (failure surface),
Fig. 2Reinforced concrete square cross section considered by Di Ludovico et al.
33
Fig. 3Strength domain for reinforced concrete section shown in Fig. 2: (a) domain; and
(b) planes of constant axial force.
Fig. 4Cross sections of strength domain for constant axial force: (a) comparison with
results by Di Ludovico et al.
33
; and (b) relative error.
much in the same way as was done by Di Ludovico et al.
33
A
specifc procedure for the evaluation of the strength domain
is not available in OpenSees. Users must therefore apply
their skills to develop a method that may serve the purpose,
taking advantage of the available procedures. The present
authors have used the three following methods.
First methodGiven the values of the axial force N and
of one bending moment (for example, M
X
), the value of the
moment M
Y
that leads to the ultimate curvature x
Yu
that is,
the one derived on the basis of the constitutive modelis
obtained via a step-by-step procedure in which the required
bending moment is increased gradually until the failure
conditions are reached. It should be noticed, however, that
the ultimate curvature x
Yu
must be provided to terminate
the procedure. The authors used the method proposed in
the present work to provide the ultimate curvature. In this
case, results appear to be fairly good for low and moderately
large values of the compression axial force. A maximum
error equal to 0.04 is found for an axial force ratio v = 0 at a
moment ratio M
Y
/M
X
equal to 0.2. Alternatively, the present
procedure can be applied by prescribing the axial force N
and the bending moment M
Y
and by increasing the curvature
x
X
up to the ultimate value x
Xu
which, as before, has been
evaluated by using the method proposed in this work.
The largest error is again equal to 0.04 for an axial force
ratio v = 0, but this time it occurs for a bending moment ratio
M
X
/M
Y
0.2. Although the error incurred by using the proce-
dure described herein is generally rather small, it is clear that
there can be instances when it can be noticeable. The results
discussed previously were derived by using the OpenSees
procedure MomentCurvature3D.tcl.
Second methodRather than prescribing the axial force
N and one bending moment as in the previous method,
here, only the axial force N is provided. Then two incre-
mental analyses are performed in sequence; in the frst one,
the largest between the two curvature components x
X
and
x
Y
is increased to the ultimate value max{x
Xu
, x
Yu
}, while
in the second the smallest between the two components is
increased to the ultimate value min{x
Xu
, x
Yu
}.
The results obtained by OpenSees tend to cluster around
the axes of the graphs, leaving the central part uncovered,
and are not shown for the sake of brevity.
This results in a relatively large error which, in some
cases, can reach nearly 0.15 (or 15%) in the region where
the two bending moments are almost equal.
One might now wonder why the two incremental analyses
were performed in the sequence previously described. As a
matter of fact, if this ordering had not been imposed, the
succession would have simply been x
X
followed by x
Y
. Very
large errors, in the range of 10 to 40%, would have been
obtained in most cases. Again, the graphs are not shown for
space limitations.
The results referring to the second method described previ-
ously were obtained by a simple modifcation of the example
of the OpenSees procedure MomentCurvature3D.tcl.
Third methodIn this method, the axial force N is
prescribed just as in the two previous methods. The two
components x
Xu
and x
Yu
of the ultimate curvature are assigned
together with the prescribed value of the axial force N as a
loading condition using the OpenSees Command sp.
It is important to realize that even in the present case,
the method proposed in this work for the evaluation of the
ultimate curvature is of paramount importance. The results
obtained are shown in the graphs of Fig. 5(a) and in terms of
relative error in the graphs of Fig. 5(b).
It is interesting to notice that in this case, the results are
similar to those obtained by Di Ludovico et al.,
33
and the rela-
tive error is also of the same order of magnitude. A variant of
the present method consists in assigning as a loading condi-
tion the triplet {r
G
, x
Xu
, x
Yu
} corresponding to {N, x
Xu
, x
Yu
}. In
this case, the error has been calculated starting from dimen-
sionless expressions of the stress resultants (stress resultant
divided by its ultimate value in the absence of the other two).
Although the error is almost everywhere below 0.01, there
are a few instances where it approaches 0.03. In conclusion,
it appears that OpenSees can be advantageously used for the
calculation of the strength domain, but the procedure for its
calculation should be carefully selected.
From the analyses presented herein, it appears that the
third method, where the triplet {N, x
Xu
, x
Yu
} is prescribed
as a load condition, provides the best results, which are
also comparable in terms of accuracy with those provided
in the literature by using specifcally designed procedures.
However, the fact that any procedure activated within
Fig. 5Cross sections of strength domain for constant axial force: (a) comparison with
results obtained by using OpenSees software, given values of axial force N and of two
curvatures; and (b) relative error.
OpenSees takes advantage of the method proposed herein
should not be overlooked.
This application shows one of the potential uses of the
present method which is to check that numerical algorithms
for axial force and biaxial bending interaction provide accu-
rate results.
Comparison of results for L cross sections
A series of results concerning an L-shaped section is due to
Faftis.
28
The cross section considered is shown in Fig. 6 and
consists of two unequal concrete fanges 21 in. (533.4 mm)
thick and 135 in. (3429 mm) and 175 in. (4445 mm) long,
respectively. The reinforcement, placed on the centerline,
consists of 29#10@10cc with a design yield stress f
yd
=
60,000 psi (413.69 MPa). The stated concrete strength is f
cd

= 9000 psi (62.05 MPa).
The comparison with the results obtained by the present
method is given in Fig. 7(a) and the results provided by
Faftis
28
are generally in excellent agreement. As may be
seen from Fig. 7(a), the results are provided in the form
of graphs M
X
-M
Y
for three different values of the axial
force: N = 9000 kips (40,034 kN), N = 24,000 kips
(106,757 kN), and N = 44,000 kips (195,722 kN). At
the bottom of the curve corresponding to N = 9000 kips
(40,034 kN); a few of the points provided by Faftis
28
show
a rather erratic behavior. This may indicate that the method
used by Faftis
28
can occasionally have accuracy problems.
This is confrmed by the relative error curves shown in
Fig. 7(b), where a maximum error of nearly 8% is found
for an axial force of 9000 kips (40,034 kN). However,
for the remaining values of the axial force considered, the
maximum error never exceeds 2%.
The comparison with the results obtained by OpenSees
assigning the two limit curvature components and the corre-
sponding limit axial deformation show good agreement,
with the relative error never exceeding 0.02.
All of the examples given previously show that the present
method is capable of producing the strength domain for
any type of reinforced concrete cross section in an effcient
way. The way the domain is constructed avoids all problems
related to accuracy or convergence in the numerical solution
of the nonlinear algebraic equations. The only issues that
have to be addressed are the discretization of the boundary
of the cross section and the choice of the number of points
used for the representation of the boundary surface of the
strength domain. The frst is, in most cases, not a real issue
because the reinforced concrete sections are generally of
polygonal form while the second can be easily addressed by
increasing the number of points as necessary.
It should be noted that the strength domains obtained by
the present method can be replicated by using fber models
in standard computer programs such as OpenSees, provided
that a suitable procedure is implemented that accurately
simulates the method proposed herein. For instance, the
best results with OpenSees are obtained if the limit defor-
mations {r
G
, x
Xu
, x
Yu
} are evaluated by the present method
and assigned by means of the sp command. Slightly better
results were found in the authors comparisons by assigning
the alternative triplet {N, x
Xu
, x
Yu
}. However, the frst
approach should be preferable because in a strength domain,
the axial force N is a natural unknown.
Comparison of results for prestressed cross sections
Several results concerning prestressed cross sections have
been presented recently by Marmo et al.
40
Although all the
cross sections considered by the quoted authors can be easily
analyzed by the present method, for the sake of brevity, only
the Y section shown in Fig. 8 will be discussed herein. The
material properties, areas, and positions of the ordinary and
prestressing reinforcement they used are not shown herein for
the sake of brevity but may be found in Tables 4 through 6 on
Fig. 6L-section considered by Faftis.
28
Fig. 7Cross sections of strength domain for reinforced concrete section of Fig. 6: (a)
comparison with results by Faftis
28
; and (b) relative error.
page 98 of their paper. Obviously, the strength domain for the
considered cross section is a three-dimensional (3-D) surface
(Fig. 9), but only the 12 cross sections at constant N given
by the authors are shown here to simplify the comparison
(Fig. 10). The fgure is split into two parts to avoid exces-
sive curve crossing and to maintain each curve as distinc-
tive as possible. The continuous curves refer to the results
obtained by the present method while the discrete dots are
values provided by the quoted authors. The agreement can be
considered good, albeit not perfect, but the limited number of
points provided by Marmo et al.
40
is indicative of the minor
computational effort required by the present method.
STEEL SECTIONS ENCASED IN CONCRETE
The purpose of this section is twofold. On one hand, it
wants to show how the presented method can be used to
deal with common technological situations such as steel
sections encased in concrete or even tubular steel
41-43
and
FRP sections flled with concrete
44
; on the other hand,
it wants to show how relevant the appropriateness of the
constitutive law for concrete is on the obtained results. To
this purpose, a cross section is used (Fig. 11), previously
considered by Leon and Hajjar,
42
to illustrate the application
of the 2005 AISC Specifcation. However, in the applica-
tion presented herein, the specifcations of Eurocode 4 for
composite steel and concrete structures are used for the
material parameters instead of the AISC ones. Eight cross
sections of the 3-D strength domain with constant axial force
planes are shown with solid lines in Fig. 12. The constitutive
law prescribed by Eurocode 4
7
has then been changed by
replacing the rectangular part of the stress diagram (of
cd

= 20.68 MPa [3 ksi]) by a softening branch with ultimate
strain r
cu
= 0.004 and ultimate stress o
cu
= f
cd
= 12.7 MPa
(1.84 ksi). These parameters were evaluated using the
Kent and Park
37
law for unconfned concrete. The results
are shown with broken lines in Fig. 12 and are signifcantly
different from the previous ones, leading to the conclusion
that the constitutive law should be consistent with the appli-
cation considered. Furthermore, it appears that for tensile
axial forces, no signifcant difference appears between the
two constitutive laws if not in the case of bending around the
minor axis (M
X
= 0), due to the fact that the contribution of
the encased steel section is less effective. As the compres-
sive axial force becomes larger and larger, the strength
domain tends to shrink more and more. Most interesting is
the fact that the strength reduction is more pronounced along
the principal axes of bending and is minimal along lines of
biaxial bending of nearly equal components.
Besides the Kent and Park
37
law for confned concrete,
another constitutive law has been formulated for concrete
confned by FRP
45,46
and applied to the derivation of strength
domains.
47
Such laws and similar ones can be handled eff-
ciently by the present method.
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTORS AND
INSTABILITY EFFECTS
The strength domain constructed with the method described
in the previous paragraphs is dependent on the geometry and
the material properties of the cross section considered. Its use
for design purposes requires modifcations that account for
different levels of uncertainty associated with failure modes
(compression-controlled, intermediate, tensile-controlled)
and for local and global geometrical effects related to the
member and the structure to which the cross section belongs.
Briefy, the different uncertainties related to the failure modes
are accounted for, in codes such as ACI 318-08
4
(Chapter 9),
by the so-called strength reduction factors, while the geomet-
rical effects are considered via the moment magnifer design
procedure (ACI 318-08,
4
Chapter 10). This is a method that
enables to account indirectly for geometric nonlinear effects
by empirically increasing the bending moments obtained by
a linear analysis. This is a diffcult and controversial topic
because such empirical amplifcations could be avoided
altogether if member forces were to be determined through
a complete material and geometric nonlinear analysis.
However, such analyses are usually expensive both in terms
Fig. 8Y-section considered by Marmo et al.
40
Fig. 9Three-dimensional strength domain for reinforced
concrete section of Fig. 8.
of human expertise and computational effort, making the
empirical relations embedded in the codes the most effective
and reliable alternative.
CONCLUSIONS
An exact method for the construction of the strength
domain of reinforced concrete and of prestressed concrete
sections has been presented. The method is direct and does
not require iterative procedures. Therefore, it does not
exhibit accuracy and convergence problems often shown
by methods attempting to solve nonlinear algebraic equa-
tions. The strength domain can be used to check the safety
conditions of the cross section, especially to see whether
code requirements are satisfed. Therefore, it appears to be
an extremely useful and simple tool to be used in design. The
present method makes the construction extremely simple,
quick, and accurate, therefore encouraging its application.
If in the design process it is found that one or more loading
conditions violate the code requirements, the section must be
redesigned with a consequent change of the strength domain;
this, however, can be reconstructed with little effort via the
present method and the optimal design may be achieved via
a trial-and-error procedure.
The strength domain evaluated with the present method
has been checked against several results available in the
literature. In some cases, the agreement has been excellent;
in other cases, the agreement has been generally good, but
with some exceptions suggesting numerical problems in the
methods used in the literature to derive those results. In a
few other cases, the comparison has shown some signifcant
disagreement, probably due to the preliminary nature of the
results considered and/or the inappropriate setting of the
accuracy and convergence parameters. The present method
can be implemented in any software that uses fber models
for the discretization of the cross section. The method can
be used effciently to provide the deformation triplet, which
corresponds to a point on the boundary of the strength
domain in the stress resultants space. The evaluation of the
corresponding triplet of strength resultants requires only the
integration over the cross section of the stresses specifed in
terms of appropriate constitutive laws from the prescribed
limit deformations. This has been applied in the present
work by using OpenSees.
Fig. 10Cross sections of strength domain for reinforced concrete section of Fig. 8 and
comparison with results by Marmo et al.
40
Fig. 11Reinforced concrete square cross section with embedded W14 x 48 section.
Fig. 12Cross sections of strength domain for reinforced concrete section of Fig. 11. Compar-
ison between parabola-rectangle constitutive law and Kent and Park
37
constitutive law.
REFERENCES
1. Bruneau, M.; Uang, C.; and Whittaker, A., Ductile Design of Steel
Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998, 928 pp.
2. Kong, F. K., and Evans, R. K., Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, UK, 1987, 528 pp.
3. Jirasek, M., and Baant, Z. P., Inelastic Analysis of Structures, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2002, 722 pp.
4. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
5. AS 3600, Concrete StructuresAS 3600-2009, Standards Associa-
tion of Australia, Sydney, Australia, 2009, 213 pp.
6. EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1:
GeneralCommon Rules for Building and Civil Engineering Structures,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 222 pp.
7. EN-1994-1-1, Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete
Structures Part 1-1: GeneralCommon Rules and Rules for Buildings,
8. EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resis-
tance Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings,
9. Furlong, R. W.; Hsu, C. T. T.; and Mirza, S. A., Analysis and Design
of Concrete Columns for Biaxial BendingOverview, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 413-422.
10. Bresler, B., Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Columns
under Axial Force and Biaxial Bending, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 57,
No. 11, Nov. 1960, pp. 481-490.
11. Ramamurthy, L. N., Investigation of the Ultimate Strength of Square
and Rectangular Columns under Biaxially Eccentric Loads, Proceedings,
Symposium on Reinforced Concrete Columns, SP-13, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1966, pp. 263-298.
12. Ferguson, P. M.; Breen, J. E.; and Jirsa, J. O., Reinforced Concrete
Fundamentals, ffth edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1988, 768 pp.
13. Wight, J. K., and MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics
and Design, ffth edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
2009, 1176 pp.
14. Silva, M. A.; Swan, C. C.; Arora, J. S.; and Brasil, R. M. L. R. F.,
Failure Criterion for RC Members under Biaxial Bending and Axial Load,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 7, 2001, pp. 922-929.
15. Bonet, J. L.; Miguel, P. F.; Fernandez, M. A.; and Romero, M. L.,
Analytical Approach to Failure Surfaces in Reinforced Concrete Sections
Subjected to Axial Loads, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 130, No. 12, 2004, pp. 2006-2015.
16. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, Wiley, New
York, 1975, 800 pp.
17. Nielsen, M. P., Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, CRC Press,
New York, 1999, 936 pp.
18. MacGregor, J. G., and Bartlett, F. J., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics
and Design, frst edition, Prentice-Hall Canada, Scarborough, ON, Canada,
2000, 1041 pp.
19. Kawakami, M. T.; Kagaya, M.; and Hirata, M., Limit States of Cracking
and Ultimate Strength of Arbitrary Cross Sections under Biaxial Loading,
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1985, pp. 203-212.
20. Landonio, M., and Perego, R., Un metodo generale per il calcolo auto-
matico allo stato limite ultimo di sezioni in c.a. soggette a presso fessione
deviate, La prefabbricazione, V. 2, No. 3, 1986, pp. 112-130. (in Italian)
21. Hulse, R., and Mosley, W. H., Reinforced Concrete Design by
Computer, Macmillan Education Ltd., New York, 1986, 304 pp.
22. Contaldo, M., and Faella, G., Un Procedimento per il calcolo
Automatico delle Sezioni in c.a, Giornale del Genio Civile, V. 10, 1997,
pp. 23-37. (in Italian)
23. Spiegel, L., and Limbrunner, G. F., Reinforced Concrete Design,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002, 506 pp.
24. Bousias, S. N.; Panagiotakos, T. B.; and Fardis, M. N., Modelling
of RC Members under Cyclic Biaxial Flexure and Axial Force, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, V. 6, No. 2, 1996, pp. 711-725.
25. De Vivo, L., and Rosati, L., Ultimate Strength Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Sections Subject to Axial Force and Biaxial Bending, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, V. 166, 1998, pp. 261-287.
26. Rodriguez-Gutierrez, J. A., and Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Biaxial
Interaction Diagrams for Short RC Columns of Any Cross Section, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 6, 1999, pp. 672-683.
27. Rodriguez-Gutierrez, J. A., and Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., M-P-o
Diagrams for Reinforced, Partially, and Fully Prestressed Concrete Sections
under Biaxial Bending and Axial Load, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 127, No. 6, 2001, pp. 763-773.
28. Faftis, A., Interaction Surfaces of Reinforced-Concrete Sections in
Biaxial Bending, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 7,
2001, pp. 840-846.
29. Sfakianakis, M. G., Biaxial Bending with Axial Force of Reinforced,
Composite and Repaired Concrete Sections of Arbitrary Shape by Fiber
Model and Computer Graphics, Advances in Engineering Software, V. 33,
2002, pp. 227-242.
30. Consolazio, G. R.; Fung, J.; and Ansley, M., M-d-P Diagrams for
Concrete Sections under Biaxial Flexure and Axial Compression, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2004, pp. 114-123.
31. Hock, L. G., and Cheong, F. S., A Computerized Estimation of Moment-
Force Interaction for Externally Strengthened RC Composite Column,
Journal of The Institution of Engineers, V. 44, No. 1, 2004, pp. 20-38.
32. Charalampakis, A. E., and Koumousis, V. K., Ultimate Strength Analysis
of Arbitrary Cross Sections under Biaxial Bending and Axial Load by Fiber
Model and Curvilinear Polygons, 5th GRACM International Congress on
Computational Mechanics, Limassol, Cyprus, June 29-July 1, 2005, 8 pp.
33. Di Ludovico, M.; Lignola, G. P.; Prota, A.; and Cosenza, E., Analisi
non lineare di sezioni in c.a. soggette a pressofessione deviate, ANIDIS
2007 XII Convegno Nazionale, Lingegneria sismica in Italia, Pisa, Italy,
June 10-14, 2007, 12 pp. (in Italian)
34. Bonet, J. L.; Romero, M. L.; Miguel, P. F.; and Fernandez, M. A., A
Fast Stress Integration Algorithm for Reinforced Concrete Sections with
Axial Loads and Biaxial Bending, Computers & Structures, V. 82, 2004,
pp. 213-225.
35. Bonet, J. L.; Barros, M. H. F. M.; and Romero, M. L., Comparative
Study of Analytical and Numerical Algorithms for Designing Reinforced
Concrete Sections under Biaxial Bending, Computers & Structures, V. 84,
2006, pp. 2184-2193.
36. Marn, J., Design Aids for L-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Columns,
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 76, No. 11, Nov. 1979, pp. 1197-1216.
37. Kent, D. C., and Park, R., Flexural Members with Confned Concrete,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 97, No. 7, 1971, pp. 1969-1990.
38. OpenSees: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation,
Berkeley, CA, 2009, http://www.openses.berkeley.edu.
39. Mazzoni, S.; McKenna, F.; Scott, M. H.; Fenves, G. L. et al.,
OpenSees Command Language Manual, Berkeley, CA, 2006, http://
www.openses.berkeley.edu.
40. Marmo, F.; Serpieri, R.; and Luciano, R., Ultimate Strength Analysis
of Prestressed Reinforced Concrete Sections under Axial Force and Biaxial
Bending, Computers & Structures, V. 89, 2011, pp. 91-108.
41 Leon, R. T.; Kim, D. K.; and Hajjar, J. F., Limit State Response of
Composite Columns and Beam-Columns Part I: Formulation of Design
Provisions for the 2005 AISC Specifcation, Engineering Journal, fourth
quarter, 2007, pp. 341-358.
42 Leon, R. T., and Hajjar, J. F., Limit State Response of Composite
Columns and Beam-Columns Part II: Application of Design Provisions for the
2005 AISC Specifcation, Engineering Journal, frst quarter, 2008, pp. 21-46.
43. Morino, S., and Tsuda, K., Design and Construction of Concrete-
Filled Steel Tube Column System in Japan, Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Seismology, V. 4, No. 1, 2003, pp. 51-73.
44. Mohamed, H., and Masmoudi, R., Behavior of FRP Tubes-Encased
Concrete Columns under Concentric and Eccentric Loads, Composites
& Polycon, American Composites Manufacturers Association, Jan. 15-17,
2009, 8 pp.
45. Pellegrino, C., and Modena, C., Analytical Model for FRP Confne-
ment of Concrete Columns with and without Internal Steel Reinforce-
ment, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 14, No. 6, 2010,
pp. 693-705.
46. Lam, L., and Teng, J. G., Design-Oriented Stress-Strain Model
for FRP-Confned Concrete, Construction & Building Materials, V. 17,
No. 6-7, 2003, pp. 471-489.
47. Rocca, S.; Galati, N.; and Nanni, A., Interaction Diagram Meth-
odology for Design of FRP-Confned Reinforced Concrete Columns,
Construction and Building Materials, V. 23, 2009, pp. 1508-1520.
NOTES:
Title no. 110-S02
MS No. S-2010-333.R1 received January 4, 2012, and reviewed under Institute
Design Considerations for Shear Bolts in Punching Shear
Retroft of Reinforced Concrete Slabs
by Maria Anna Polak and Wensheng Bu
This study addresses design aspects for the punching shear bolt
retroftting system for reinforced concrete fat slabs supported on
columns. Shear bolts are an external type of reinforcement installed
in existing slabs by frst drilling small holes through the slab thick-
ness, installing the bolts into them, and tightening the bolt nuts.
Previous experimental research at the University of Waterloo
showed the effectiveness of this system in increasing strength and
ductility of existing slabs, with little changes in the slabs appear-
ance. The procedures for the design of the shear bolts and their
installation in slabs are proposed in the paper. Recommendations
are provided regarding the stem diameter, the head area and thick-
ness, and the spacing and the layout of the bolts in a plane of a slab.
Keywords: design; punching shear; reinforced concrete; retroft; shear
bolts; slabs.
INTRODUCTION
Punching shear retroft of reinforced concrete (RC) fat
slabs supported on columns is often a necessity due to
inadequate strength and ductility of existing slab-column
connections. Many of these slabs were built without any
shear reinforcement and rely on concrete strength alone to
carry punching shear stresses. Changes in a buildings use,
construction of openings next to columns (for example,
for ventilation ducts), errors in original designs, corrosion
of reinforcement, and cracking of concrete are the primary
reasons why the existing slabs can be deemed inadequate in
terms of punching shear strength.
Flat concrete slab-on-column construction is common
for buildings and parking garages. Such structural systems
are easy to build, economical, and allow for the construc-
tion of fat ceilings, simplifed formwork, and reduced story
height. The main design issue for these slabs is high trans-
verse stresses concentrated at the slab-column connection
that result in high diagonal tension stresses. If the slab is
unreinforced for shear, this can lead to a sudden and brittle
punching shear failure (Fig. 1 [Wood 2003]), and because
the connection failing in this mode has very little post-failure
rotational capacity and ductility, it creates a possibility of a
catastrophic progressive collapse. The most effcient method
for preventing punching shear failures is to provide properly
designed transverse reinforcement; however, many of these
slabs were constructed without it.
Several researchers recognized the need for the develop-
ment of the punching shear strengthening method. Ghali et
al. (1974) provided shear retroft by introducing transverse
prestressing to the slab area. High-strength prestressing steel
bolts and large anchor plates were used in this application.
Ebead and Marzouk (2002) used solid steel plates on both
sides of the slabs, which were then bolted together through
the slab and glued to the slab surfaces. Ruiz et al. (2010)
used inclined post-installed anchors together with the adhesive
for concrete. Sissakis and Sheikh (2007) strengthened the
slabs using carbon fber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) loop
stirrups and adhesives. Stark et al. (2005) and Lawler and
Polak (2011) used fber composites for seismic retroft of
slab-column connections. Stark et al. used CFRP stirrups
inserted in a form of loops in drilled holes and anchored
using an adhesive, and Lawler and Polak used glass fber-
reinforced polymer (GFRP) bolts anchored by crimping the
bar ends with aluminum fttings.
Shear bolt reinforcement is another method for punching
shear retroft, which was developed and tested at the Univer-
sity of Waterloo (El-Salakawy et al. 2003; Adetifa and Polak
2005; Bu and Polak 2009). It does not require prestressing,
large anchor plates, and application of adhesives. A shear
bolt is manufactured from normal-strength steel and consists
of a bolt stem with a head at one end and a washer and nut
at the other, threaded end (Fig. 2). Previous research at the
University of Waterloo provides evidence of the effective-
ness, and at the same time simplicity, of this retroft method
in both static and seismic loads scenarios. New design
criteria for the shear bolts are discussed in this paper with
appropriate recommendations for sizing of bolts, drilling of
the holes, and placement of the bolts in the plan of a slab.
The process of the design of the retroft system consists of
the following steps aimed at the determination of:
1. The required cross-sectional area of the stem to achieve
the required punching shear strengthening.
2. The hole sizes to be drilled in the slab for bolt installation.
Fig. 1Example of punching shear failure: PiperRow
parking garage (Wood 2003).
Maria Anna Polak, FACI, is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. She received
her PhD from the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. She is a member
of ACI Committee 435, Defection of Concrete Building Structures, and Joint ACI-
ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. Her research interests includes experi-
mental and numerical work related to shear and torsion in concrete members,
nonlinear fnite element analysis, and material modeling.
Wensheng Bu is a Structural Engineer at TRL and Associates Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada.
He received his PhD from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
University of Waterloo. His research interests include experimental testing, theoretical
analysis, and seismic retroft methods for reinforced concrete structures.
3. The spacing of the bolts in the plane of a slab (this step
is linked with Step 1).
4. The number of peripheral rows of bolts to be installed
around the column.
5. Patterns of the bolts in the plane of a slab.
6. The area and the thickness of the head. Because a bolt
has a head at one end and a washer at the other end, the
same requirements apply to the area and the thickness of
the washer.
7. Construction procedures.
This study includes all of the aforementioned steps. To
better explain the derivation process, however, the description
of the design process is organized in the following sections:
Design of the shear bolt head (Step 6);
Design of the retroft of a slab with shear bolts (Steps 1
through 5); and
Construction procedures (Step 7).
This paper presents design procedures for retroftting
slabs using shear bolts. Punching shear in fat concrete slabs
can lead to dangerous and brittle failures, possibly causing
progressive collapse of a structure. Many existing RC slabs
do not have any shear reinforcing elements. For these slabs,
a punching shear retroft method is often the best solution for
increasing their strength. Shear bolt retroft has been exten-
sively and successfully tested in the laboratory; however,
to use the method in the feld, the design recommendations
are needed. The method is simple and yet allows preventing
punching failures and increases in ductility in slabs that
need retroftting due to changes in building use, the need
of installing new services, deterioration due to corrosion of
reinforcement, and construction or design errors.
TESTS ON SLABS STRENGTHENED
WITH SHEAR BOLTS
The behavior of RC slabs strengthened with shear bolts
has been experimentally verifed by tests on isolated speci-
mens representing both edge and interior RC slab-column
connections, under static and static plus reversed cyclic
horizontal loads (El-Salakawy et al. 2003; Adetifa and Polak
2005; Bu 2008; Bu and Polak 2009, 2011). Figure 3 shows
the example of the test results for slabs with and without
shear bolts, but are otherwise identical. These three slabs
(SW4, SW5, and SW8) were subject to a constant gravity
plus a cyclic, increasing lateral displacement-controlled
load applied through the column stub. These were isolated
slab-on-column specimens, simply supported along the
outer edge perimeter and loaded through the column stubs
extending above and below the slabs surfaces (Bu and Polak
2009). It was concluded that the application of the shear
bolts to a nonreinforced-for-shear slab enhances its strength
and ductility. Slabs SW4 and SW9 had the same quantity
and spacing of the shear bolts but with different bolt patterns
in the plane of the slabsSW4 orthogonal and SW9 radial.
Their behaviors were very similar. Also, it should be added
that the behavior of a retroftted slab is similar to the behavior
of an identical but properly reinforced-for-shear slab (Polak
2005). It should be made clear, however, that shear bolts
were developed for retroft and strengthening; new slabs
should be properly designed and reinforced for shear during
construction.
DESIGN OF SHEAR BOLTS
The design of a shear bolt starts with the appropriate sizing
of the bolt stem and its minor diameter (the diameter of the
core inside the tread). The minor diameter of the bolt stem
is determined based on a slabs strength considerations, and
this problem will be discussed later in the paper. The size of
the thread and the nut must follow the rules for bolt thread
design (for example, Shigley et al. [2004]).
Thickness of bolt head
The bolts described in this paper have a short length of
thread at one end of a round stem (Fig. 2 and 4). The rest
Fig. 2Slab strengthened with shear bolts and a shear bolt.
of the bolt is a solid shaft attached at the other end to the
head. The design of the bolts head is based on the radius
of the solid part of the stems cross-sectional area (major
radius/diameter of the bolt), which is attached to the head.
Constant loading distributed over the cross section of the
stem is acting on the head, which is assumed to be simply
supported at the holes edge. The loading is assumed to be
equal to the yield stress of the steel of the stem. This can be
considered conservative because the yielding should occur
frst in the threaded part of the stem, which has the reduced
(with respect to the full stem) cross-sectional area.
The design of the head involves the design of the head
thickness and the head area. The required head thickness is
the largest for the location next to the stem. Depending on
the manufacturing process of the bolt (heat forged, welded
head, or using washers on both sides of the bolt), this thick-
ness can remain constant throughout the head or decrease
with the distance from the stem. The allowable decrease
of the head thickness is also determined in the paper. The
design is completed assuming that the cross-sectional areas
of the bolt stem and the drilled hole are known.
It should also be noted that in the previous tests conducted
at the University of Waterloo, the bolts were manufactured
from typical shear studs with one end being a studs head
and the other end was threaded and anchored by means of a
large washer (larger and thicker than the calculations herein
indicate) and a nut. The head area manufactured for a stud
was too small for bolt application and thus the additional
washer under the studs head was used to enlarge the contact
area between the head and the concrete (Fig. 2). The sizes
of both the washer at the threaded end and the washer under
the head were based on strength calculations. In these frst
tests, however, the washers were larger than needed to avoid
problems with failure of the bolts during testing. This was in
keeping with the primary purpose of these tests, which was
to observe slab behavior.
Flexural strengthThe bolt and its head are shown in
Fig. 4. The calculations to determine the bolt head thickness
are done using the elastic thin plate theory to determine the
fexural strength.
The bolt head and the bolt stem can be considered an
axisymmetric elastic body with axisymmetric loading. For
such an element, the internal bending moments M
r
and M

around axisymmetric axes r and are shown in Fig. 5. The
head is considered a circular plate of constant thickness t and
supported on the edge of the concrete hole (Fig. 4). The fex-
ural strength of the head is checked at the extreme (bottom
or top) fbers of the plate, where o
r
and o
are principal
stresses. Using the Von Mises Criterion, one acquires
2 2
y r r
o o + o o o (1)
where o
y
is the yield stress of the steel, and the other stresses are
Fig. 3Moment versus lateral drift ratio of specimens
tested by Bu and Polak (2011). All specimens were subject
to constant gravity plus increasing reversed cyclic lateral
displacements.
Fig. 4Schematic diagram of shear bolt and loading on
bolt head.
2 2
2
( ) ( ) 6
t t
r
r r z z
M
t

o o (2)
2 2
2
( ) ( ) 6
t t
z z
M
t

o o (3)
By substituting Eq. (2) and (3) into Eq. (1), the equation
for plate thickness t is obtained
2 2
4
2
36
( )
r r
y
t M M M M

+
o
(4)
The round stem applies an evenly distributed circular load
to the head (Fig. 4). The values of the internal moments in the
head are calculated using the elastic thin plate theory (Pilkey
2005), assuming that the plate is simply supported on the
Fig. 5Internal moments M
r
and M
for axisymmetric element

under axisymmetric loading and boundary conditions.
Fig. 6Normalized bolt head thickness versus normalized
distance from bolt stem (for all stem diameters).
edge of the hole (at R) and loaded by a constant circular load
(stress) of radius r
0
and equal to o
y
. These are
( ) ( )
2 2 2
4 2 2
2
1 1
(3 )(1 )
16 16
1
3 1 4 1 ln
r y y
M R R o + v o o
1 v _
+ v o + + v o
1
,
o
]
(5)
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
2
4 2 2 2
2
1 1
(3 ) (1 3 )
16 16
1
1 3 1 4 1 ln 2(1 ) 1
y y
M R R
1 o + v + v o o
]
1 v _
+ v + o + + v o + v
1
, o
]
(6)
where o
y
is the uniformly distributed circular load (stress)
in this case, equal to f
yv
, which is the yield stress of the steel
of the bolt. R is the radius of the circular head plate, which
is equal to the radius of the hole drilled in the concrete slab
because the head is assumed to be simply supported at the
edge. r
0
is the radius of the loading area on the head, which
is equal to the cross-sectional area of the bolt stem area
attached to the head). r is the distance from the center of the
stem, and o = r/R. = r
0
/R is the ratio of stem radius to the
drilled hole radius.
Figure 6 shows the graph in normalized coordinates. The
horizontal axis represents a normalized distance from the
bolt edge to the hole edge: x/R(1 ), and the vertical axis is
the ratio of head thickness over the bolt stem diameter: t/r
0
.
The relation curves are drawn for different values. Based
on the fexural strength check, for the largest investigated
drilled hole ( = 0.5), the maximum thickness at the stem
for x = 0, should be 1.37r
0
. Also, based on the slope of the
curve for = 0.5 (Fig. 6), the required thickness decreases
at a ratio of approximately 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) per 1 mm
(0.0394 in.) distance from the stem.
Shear strengthThe shear strength of the bolt head cross
section is checked at the extreme locationat the stem.
Using the von-Mises theory, the shear strength is
/ 3
y y
t o (7)
For the rectangular cross section
3
2
max
Q
bt
t (8)
where Q is the applied shear force; b is width of the cross
section; and t is depth of the cross section. For the bolt, the
applied force is equal to the stress from the stem times the
stems cross-sectional area: Q = o
y
rr
0
2
, and the width of
the cross section is taken as the perimeter of the stem: b =
2rr
0
. Therefore, the depth of the cross section, t, corresponds
to the required thickness of the bolts head, and is
0 0
3
3 1.3
4
t r r
(9)
Based on the aforementioned calculations, the following
recommendations for the bolt head thickness are proposed:
1. The minimum required head thickness at the stem should
be t = 1.3r
0
, assuming that the diameter of drilling holes is
usually 2 mm (0.08 in.) larger than bolt stem diameter, 0.6
< 1. (If the hole diameter is much larger than the bolt stem,
head thickness is controlled by the fexural strength).
2. The thickness can remain constant throughout the head
(preferred in practice) or it can decrease with the distance
from the stem at the ratio of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) per 1 mm
(0.0394 in.) distance. If the head thickness is decreasing,
concrete underneath it should be shaped accordingly or
a washer might have to be placed between the head and
the concrete to accommodate the curved part and provide
uniform stress on concrete.
These recommendations are based on the assumption that
the head and the stem are made from the same strength steel:
o
y
= f
yv
. In the case when the head or the washer is made
from a steel material of strength f
y
and the stem is made from
steel with the yield strength of f
yv
, the required thickness
should be taken as
0
1.3
yv
y
f
t r
f
(10)
Surface area of bolt head
The shear bolt strength relies on the proper bearing
strength of concrete under the head and the washer. The
main consideration for the bolt head area is to check the
bearing resistance of the concrete under the head. The prin-
ciple in this design is that the bolt should yield without
crushing of concrete under the head or washer. ACI 318-08
(ACI Committee 318 2008) specifes that the factored
bearing resistance of the concrete can be taken as 0.85of
c
A
c
,
and when the supporting surface is wider than the loaded
area, the resistance can be multiplied by a magnifying factor
of up to 2, where o = 0.65 is the strength reduction factor,
f
c
is the concrete compressive strength, and A
c
is the loaded
area, which is the area of the bolt head. Thus, the maximum
nominal concrete resistance of 1.7 of
c
A
c
= 1.1f
c
A
c
was used
in the calculations. Assuming the bolt stem yields at failure
and equating the yield load F
bolt
and the bearing resistance
F
n
, F
bolt
= F
n
, the following equations can be obtained
2
0 bolt yv
F f r r (11)
2
2 2 2 0
0 0 2
1.1 ( ) 1.1
n c c
r
F f R R f R
_
r r

,
(12)
The bolt head area A
c
is rR
0
2
and the stem section area
A
b
is rr
0
2
. R
0
and r
0
are the radii of the head and bolt stem
cross section, respectively. The radius of the stem is the
outer radius including the threads, which is a conservative
assumption in these calculations. R is the hole radius, f
yv
is
the yield strength of the bolts stem. is equal to r
0
/R. From
Eq. (11) and (12), the ratio of the bolt head area over the
stem cross-sectional area is
2
0
2 2
0
1
1.1
yv
c
b c
f
A R
A f r
+

(13)
In Equation (13), the ratio of the bolt head area over
the bolt stem area is related to three parameters: the ratio
of bolt stem radius r
0
over the radius of the hole, the
yield strength of the bolts (f
vy
), and the concrete strength
f
c
. Figure 7 gives the ratio of bolt head area over bolt stem
section area for different values of and different concrete
compressive strengths. The yield strength of bolts, f
yv
, was
taken as 400 MPa (58,015 psi) in these calculations. For
different yield strength of bolts, f
y
, the values from the graph
should be added to a value of
f f f
y yv c
( )
( ) 1 1 . (14)
It can be seen that for most typical cases, the area of the
head should be approximately 15 to 20 times larger than the
cross-sectional area of the stem.
DESIGN OF SLAB RETROFIT USING SHEAR
BOLTS
Bolt stem design
The minor (inner) stem diameter of the bolt must provide
adequate strength to the slab. The punching shear strength
of the slab strengthened with shear bolts can be calculated
using the code equations for headed shear reinforcements.
The additional requirements specifc for bolts are:
1. Consideration of the reduced cross-sectional area of the
bolt stem due to threading.
2. Consideration of the reduced concrete transverse area
contributing to shear-carrying capacity of the slab due to
drilling of holes for bolt insertion.
The presented procedure is based on the ACI 318-08 recom-
mendations. For other codes of practice, analogous proce-
dures can be defned using the appropriate code design
procedures for punching shear reinforcement plus the addi-
tional requirements for bolts stated previously.
According to ACI 318-08, the slabs punching shear
strength v
n
is calculated as
v v v
n c s
+ (15)
Fig. 7Ratio of head area and stem cross-sectional area for
different concrete compressive strengths. Calculations made
using bolt yield strength of 400 MPa (58,015 psi) and stem
major diameter.
v v
n u
o (16)
where v
n
is the nominal shear strength of a slab; v
c
is the
shear resistance from concrete; v
s
is the shear resistance from
shear reinforcement; v
u
is factored shear stress at the critical
perimeter; and o = 0.75 is the resistance factor in shear.
The punching shear strength contribution for the shear
bolts is
0
v vy
s
A f
v
b s
(17)
where b
0
is the length of the critical perimeter (d/2 from
the column perimeter); A
v
is the effective area of the bolt
cross section called the tensile stress area, used to calculate
bolt strength (Shigley et al. 2004); f
vy
is the yield strength
of the bolts; and s is the radial spacing of the shear rein-
forcement. In the case of bolts, which are normally not
uniformly spaced due to drilling restrictions imposed by
fexural reinforcements, s is an average spacing of the bolts.
A
v
can be taken conservatively as 0.7A
v
, where A
v
is the sum
of cross-sectional areas of all shear bolts (including threads)
in each peripheral line parallel to the column faces.
Shear bolt retroft requires drilling small holes in concen-
tric rows around the column. Because these holes would have
some infuence on the concrete shear-carrying capacity, their
effect should be accounted for in the design. It is proposed
that to account for the reduction in the concrete critical
section area due to the drilled holes, the critical perimeter
length should be reduced by the length equal to the number
of holes in the concentric rows times the diameter of the
holes. This results in the following effective critical section
perimeter length b
0
( ) b b n d
h 0 0
(18)
where n is the number of holes drilled along critical
section perimeter; and d
h
is the diameter of the drilled hole
(for bolt installation).
Equation (18) can then be used to calculate the concrete
contribution to carrying punching shear. According to
ACI 421.1R-99 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421), for
slabs strengthened with headed stud reinforcement, concrete
contribution to carrying shear is v
c
= 0.25f
c
. Therefore, the
effective concrete contribution for punching shear for the
slabs with the shear bolts can be taken as
0
0
0.25
c c
b
v f
b
(19)
Bolt spacing in radial direction
The defnition of radial and tangential spacing of the
bolts is shown in Fig. 8. Radial spacing of the shear bolts,
S
0
and S
1
, should be treated as maximum allowable spacings
because fexural reinforcement location can enforce smaller
spacings (drilling cannot be done through the fexural rein-
forcement). S
0
and S
1
must ensure that the bolts cross the
punching shear cracks inside the slab. For the slabs with
shear reinforcement, the shear cracks in the zone with the
shear reinforcement have a steeper inclined angle (
1
) than
that of cracks in the non-shear-reinforced zones (
2
). Dilger
and Ghali (1981) found that in the concrete slab with headed
shear studs, angle
1
can be approximately 40 to 50 degrees,
whereas angle
2
is usually around 20 to 30 degrees.
The tests on slabs in this research showed similar crack
angles as those previously mentioned (Bu 2008). The exis-
tence of small drilled holes around the column perimeter
did not visibly affect the crack angles. The tested slabs with
openings next to the columns allowed observation of the
crack angles on the opening edges (Fig. 9). The tested slabs
were subjected to a constant gravity and increasing lateral
cyclic loads, and the openings were located along the line
of application of lateral loads (Bu and Polak 2011). For the
slab without the shear reinforcement (SW6), the shear crack
was formed at an angle of about 30 degrees (Fig. 9(a)). For
Slab SW8 (with shear reinforcement in the radial pattern),
the shear crack formed at approximately 45 degrees and
for Slab SW7 (Fig. 9(b)) (with shear reinforcement in
the orthogonal pattern), the crack formed at an angle of
approximately 40 degrees to the horizontal (Fig. 9(c)). All
shear cracks started from the column faces. Because the
distance between the frst shear bolt and the column face, S
0
,
should be within the inclined crack, and assuming the bolt
crosses the crack in the middle, the following can be calcu-
lated for the two extreme values of the crack angle (taken
as 40 and 50 degrees)
For
1
= 40, S
0
=0.5d/(tan40) = 0.59d (20a)
For
2
= 50, S
0
=0.5d/(tan50) = 0.42d (20b)
Based on the aforementioned calculations, the frst
bolt should be placed at S
0
= 0.45d. For very thin slabs
of 120 to 150 mm (5 to 6 in.), this distance can be slightly
larger but no more than S
0
= 0.55d. This special consideration
for thin slabs accounts for the fact that drilling of the holes
requires a certain distance from the column to allow space
for the drill. Considering that the bolt head has a confning
effect on the concrete underneath it, the increased limit on
S
0
should provide a safe design.
Fig. 8Spacing S
0
, S
1
, and S
2
of shear bolts. (Note: S
0

and S
1
are radial direction spacing; S
2
is tangential direc-
tion spacing.)
Figure 10 shows the section of the concrete slab strength-
ened with the shear bolts. The crack angle is
1
. The crack
is assumed going across from the bolt edge at the bottom
of the slab to the top fexural reinforcing bar on the adja-
cent bolt outer edge. The crack angle
1
is assumed to be
between 40 and 50 degrees. With the maximum spacing of
bolts assumed as in Fig. 10 with at least one bolt crossing the
crack inside the reinforcement layers
tan
1
d x (21)
where d is the effective depth of the fexural reinforcement;
and x is the spacing between the two adjacent bolt outer
stem edges
x S r +
1 0
2 (22)
where 2r
0
is the major diameter (including thread) of the
shear bolts, and S
1
is the spacing of the bolts
0 1
1
1
2 tan
tan
d r
S

(23)
Table 1 shows the calculations performed to determine the
S
1
/d for slabs of thickness 120 to 500 mm (5 to 20 in.). Two
different crack angles are assumed: 40 degrees for normal
loads, and 50 degrees for heavy loads. Calculations are done
assuming certain logical values for concrete cover, fex-
ural reinforcement diameter, and shear bolt diameter. The
maximum calculated ratios S
1
/d are shown. Considering
that steeper cracks are likely to form under heavy vertical
loads, it is recommended that the maximum shear bolt radial
spacing S
1
be
1. For normal loads: v
u
0.5of
c
for slab thickness of 250 mm (10 in.) or less:

S d
1
0 9 . (24a)
Fig. 9Shear cracks in opening edges of: (a) Slab SW6
without shear bolts; (b) Slab SW8 with shear bolts of radial
layout; and (c) Slab SW7 in orthogonal patterns (Bu 2008).
Table 1Bolt radial spacing calculations
Slab
depth
h, mm
Assumed Normal loads, = 40 Heavy loads, = 50
Bolt
diameter
2r, mm
Flexural bar
diameter d
f
,
mm
Cover,
mm
Effective
depth d,
mm
Bolt spacing versus effective
depth of slabs S
1
/d
Confning
effect of head
A/d (Fig. 11)
Bolt spacing versus effective
depth of slabs S
1
/d
Confning
effect of head
A/d (Fig. 11)
Calculated (Fig. 10,
Eq. (23))
For
design
Calculated (Fig. 10,
Eq. (23)) For design
120 9.5 11.5 20 91 1.06 0.90 0.84 0.71 0.70 1.12
150 9.5 11.5 30 111 1.09 0.90 0.79 0.73 0.70 1.06
200 12.5 16 30 158 1.09 0.90 0.68 0.74 0.70 0.97
250 12.5 16 30 208 1.11 0.90 0.54 0.76 0.70 0.91
300 12.5 16 30 258 1.13 0.70 0.65 0.78 0.50 0.91
350 12.5 20 30 308 1.13 0.70 0.60 0.77 0.50 0.89
400 12.5 20 30 358 1.14 0.70 0.56 0.78 0.50 0.84
500 15 25 50 435 1.13 0.70 0.58 0.78 0.50 0.87
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
for slab thickness greater than 250 mm (10 in.):
S d
1
0 7 .
(24b)
2. For heavy loads: v
u
> 0.5of
c
for slab thickness of 250 mm (10 in.) or less:

S d
1
0 7 .
(25a)
for slab thickness greater than 250 mm (10 in.):
S d
1
0 5 .
(25b)
The normal and heavy loads are defned through the calcu-
lation of v
u
, which is the factored applied shear stress at the
critical perimeter.
The above calculations do not include any consideration
for the confning effect of the bolts head. To account for
this effect, the additional check was completed assuming
that compressive stresses under the head follow a 45-degree
angle (Bu 2008). Figure 11 shows the assumed compressive
stress distribution in the slab concrete due to the shear bolt
heads. The overlap of the compression zones created by the
heads is calculated as
A ( ) h S R
1 0
2 (26)
These check calculations were done assuming bolt spacing
recommended in this section (Eq. (24) and (25)) and the
head area 15 times larger than the stem cross-sectional area
(therefore, R
0
= 3.9r
0
). In all cases, the ratio of A/d is larger
than 0.5 (Table 1), which means that the heads provide bene-
fcial compressive stresses over the large portion of fexural
tensile zone in the slab.
Bolt layout and spacing in tangential direction
Different codes of practice specify different layouts (for
example, orthogonal, radial) of shear reinforcing elements
in the plan of a slab. When shear bolts are installed, inter-
ference from the longitudinal reinforcing elements often
prevents installing bolts in a very regular pattern; therefore,
more general rules are needed for guidelines on how the
bolts should be placed around the column. In the experi-
mental research at the University of Waterloo (Bu and Polak
2011), specimens were tested with the same number and
spacing of shear bolts but with either orthogonal or radial
patterns (Fig. 12). The slabs with the orthogonal and radial
patterns of shear bolts had very similar capacities and ductil-
ities (Fig. 3). Therefore, a practical rule for placing the shear
bolts should be to maintain the rotational symmetry of the
installed bolts around the column. With this in mind, the
following rules for the placement of the bolt in a tangential
direction are proposed:
1. The bolt tangential spacing S
2
in the frst row from the
column should be between d and 2d (ACI 318-08).
2. The shear bolt installation requires drilling holes around
the fexural reinforcement mats. Therefore, due to the inter-
ference from the existing reinforcements, it can be diff-
cult (if not impossible) to achieve perfectly orthogonal or
radial shear bolt patterns. The bolts should be placed in the
following manner:
a. Follow as closely as possible the chosen regular pattern
(orthogonal or radial);
b. Place the same number of bolts in each of the quadrants
of the slab defned by:
i. the x-y axes of the slab system; and
ii. the x-y axes of the slab system (Fig. 8).
c. Place the bolts uniformly distributed in each of the x-y
and x-y quadrants; and
d. The outermost row of shear bolts shall be placed at a
distance not greater than 0.5d within the perimeter at which
no shear bolts are required. At least four peripheral rows
of bolts should be installed. This is based on the previous
testing done in Waterloo; only the frst two rows of bolts
experience any substantial straining, and specimens with
four rows of bolts shows very good ductility (Bu and Polak
2009; Adetifa and Polak 2005). Based on ACI 318-08, the
perimeter where no shear bolts are required is located where
the factored applied shear stress v
u
is less than
0.17
u c c
v v f o o (27)
where o = 0.75; and f
c
is concrete compressive strength.
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
The retroft procedure starts by defning the location of
the holes to be drilled. To avoid drilling through the slab
fexural reinforcing bar, it is important to determine the loca-
tion of the longitudinal reinforcing bar from the construction
drawing and using nondestructive testing techniques. If the
Fig. 10Crack angle
1
in slab strengthened with shear bolts.
Fig. 11Assumed pressure in slab concrete by shear bolt
heads used to calculate ratio of S
1
/d; d is effective depth of
slab (not shown for clarity).
drilling results in hitting the reinforcing bar, drilling should
be stopped, the created hole patched, and the neighboring
location used instead.
Before drilling, it is important to check the capacity of
the slabs with the holes. All live and removable dead load
should be removed and only a few holes should be drilled at
a time so as not to excessively weaken the slabs. The number
of holes that can be drilled at one time must be checked by
appropriate calculations for each slab-column connection.
The nominal strength of the slab with drilled holes should
be taken as
0
0.33
n c
b
v f
b
(28)
where b
0
is the length of the critical perimeter considering
drilled holes. The bolts can be installed in the holes and
tightened to ensure a close ft between the head, washer, and
the slab surfaces. In this research, the bolts were tightened
using a torque wrench, imposing strains of approximately
10% of the yield strength of the bolt steel. It should be noted
that this bolt small strain can be assumed to have had no
effect on the slab response.
Fire and corrosion protection of bolts need further inves-
tigation; however, some recommendations can be offered.
Surface coatings can be applied to the bolts and the washers
before installation to slow down their corrosion. It should
be noted that, in the case of excessive corrosion, the bolts
can be easily replaced by the new bolts installed in the same
holes. Fire protection should follow appropriate specifca-
tions for the building and the fre protection methods for the
steel elements.
DESIGN EXAMPLE
A fat slab of 200 mm (7.8 in.) depth is supported on
columns that are 400 x 400 mm (15.7 x 15.7 in.) in cross
section. The load transmitted by the slab to the column
has been increased to 480 kN (107,908 lb) due to a change
in building use. Check the slab and, if needed, retroft the
internal slab column connection for punching shear. The
concrete compressive strength is 25 MPa (3626 psi), the
longitudinal reinforcement consists of 15M (16 mm [0.63 in.]
diameter) bars, and the concrete cover is 25 mm (1 in.).
1. Check the strength of the slab without shear bolts.
Use effective depth: d = 200 25 16 = 159 mm (6.26 in.)
Critical perimeter length b
0
= (400 + 159) 4 = 2236 mm
(88.03 in.)
a. Factored applied stress:
3
0
480 10
1.35 MPa (195 psi)
2236 159
u
P
v
b d

b. Nominal strength of slabs without shear reinforcement:
0.33 1.65 MPa (239 psi)
n c
v f
c. ov
n
= 0.75 1.65 = 1.24 MPa (179.8 psi) < 1.34 MPa
(194.4 psi) = v
u
; therefore, punching shear strength
is inadequate.
2. Design strengthening using shear bolts (Steps 1, 2, and 3).
Use 12.5 mm (1/2 in.) diameter bolts, 13.5 mm (0.53 in.)
diameter drilled holes, bolt spacing in radial direction equal
to the effective depth 0.9d, cross-sectional area of the bolt
A
s
= 122.7 mm
2
(0.19 in.
2
), the effective bolt area reduc-
tion factor of 0.7, eight shear bolts in the concentric row
around the column, yield strength of the bolts f
y
= 370 MPa
(53,664 psi), and critical perimeter length b
0
= (400 + 159)
4 = 2236 mm (88.03 in.).
a. Steel contribution:

0
122.7 8 0.7 370
0.79 MPa (115 psi)
2236 159 0.9
v vy
s
A f
v
b s

Effective length of the critical perimeter considering the
drilled holes, b
0
= 2236 8 13.5 mm (83.78 in.)
b. Concrete contribution:
Fig. 12Orthogonal and radial placement of bolts in slabs
tested by Bu (2008). Slabs were tested under constant gravity
load plus reversed cyclic lateral displacements. Final crack
pattern on compression face (under gravity load) of Speci-
mens SW4 and SW9.
0
0
2128
0.25 0.25 25 1.19 MPa (173 psi)
2236
c c
b
v f
b

c. Nominal shear strength of the strengthened slab:
v
n
= o(v
c
+ v
s
) = 0.75(1.19 + 0.79)
= 1.49 MPa (216 psi) > v
u
= 1.35 MPa (196 psi)
3. Bolt spacing in radial direction (Step 3):
In the strength calculations, the maximum spacing of 0.9d
was assumed. For practical reasons (drilling around fexural
bars), the bolts spacing should be maintained between 0.7d =
111 mm (0.43 in.) and 0.9d = 143 mm (5.63 in.).
4. Number of peripheral rows (Step 4 and 5).
a. Assuming four rows of orthogonally placed bolts with
an average radial spacing of 0.8d and the frst row at 0.5d
from the columns, the distance of the last bolt from the
columns: L = (0.5 + 3 0.8)d = 461 mm (18.15 in.)
b. Strength should be checked at 0.5d from the last bolts
L + 0.5d = 461 + 159/2 = 540.5 mm (21.28 in.)
The critical perimeter is (orthogonal pattern of bolts):
2
0
(400 2 540.5 ) 4 4658 mm (183 in.) b +
3
0
480 10
0.65 MPa (94 psi)
4658 159
1.24 MPa (180 psi)
u
n
P
v
b d
v

< o
four rows of bolts is adequate
5. Design the bolt head and the washer (Step 6)
12.5
0.9
13.5
r
R

a. Head thickness at the bolt stem: t = 1.3 (12.5/2) =
8 mm (0.31 in.).
The thickness can decrease with the distance from the
stem at the rate of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) thickness per 1 mm
(0.0394 in.) distance. Assuming the same or higher strength
of the steel is used to produce the washer, use 8 mm
(0.315 in.) thick washers.
b. Head area: for = 0.9 and 25 MPa (3626 psi) concrete,
the head area/stem cross sectional ratio is 17 (Fig. 7). The
steel yield strength is 370 MPa (53,664 psi) and Fig. 7 was
created for 400 MPa (58,015 psi). There, using Eq. (14), the
adjusted ratio is
17 + (370 400)/1.1 25 = 17 1 = 16
Therefore
2
2 16 12.5 = 50 mm (2 in.) R
The diameter of the head and the washer should be at
least 50 mm (2 in.).
6. Construction procedure (Step 7).
a. After removing all live load, the remaining factored
dead load on the slab is 200 kN (44,961 lb), resulting in the
factored applied stress
3
0
200 10
= 0.56 MPa (81 psi)
2236 159
u
P
v
b d

b. Nominal strength of slabs without shear reinforcement
and with eight drilled holes around the critical perimeter
0
0.33 = 1.57 MPa (228 psi)
n c
b
v f
b

ov
n
= 0.75 1.57 = 1.18 MPa (171 psi)
> 0.56 MPa (81 psi) = v
u
Punching shear strength of the slab without live load and
with all eight holes drilled around the critical perimeter is
adequate. Drilling of the holes should be done in a construc-
tion sequence that minimizes the existence of open drilled
holes without the bolts. For example, the holes from one row
can be drilled at the same time but before drilling the subse-
quent rows, the bolts should be installed frst.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The design recommendations for the punching shear
retroft of fat RC slabs using shear bolts are presented in this
paper. The shear bolts allow an easy solution for punching
shear strengthening of slabs without changing the slabs
aesthetic appearance. Extensive laboratory testing showed
that slabs retroftted with shear bolts have higher punching
shear strength and ductility than the slabs without the shear
reinforcement. The presented methodology for design
includes design of the bolts and their heads and design of
slabs retroftted with the shear bolts. Recommendations for
construction procedures are given. The design example that
follows the steps described in the paper is presented.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Council (NSERC) of Canada. The shear bolts were manufactured
and donated by Decon Inc. Canada. The ready mixed concrete was donated
by Hogg Fuel and Supply Ltd. Ready Mix Division in Kitchener, ON,
Canada. The authors wish to express their gratitude for the received support.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Farminton Hills, MI, 473 pp.
Adetifa, B., and Polak, M. A., 2005, Retroft of Interior Slab-Column
Connections For Punching Using Shear Bolts, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 102, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 268-274.
Bu, W., 2008, Punching Shear Retroft using Shear Bolts for Reinforced
Concrete Slabs under Seismic Loads, PhD thesis, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Bu, W., and Polak, M. A., 2009, Seismic Retroft of RC Slab-Column
Connections using Shear Bolts, ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 514-522.
Bu, W., and Polak, M. A., 2011, Effect of Openings and Shear Bolt
Pattern in Seismic Retroft of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connec-
tions, Engineering Structures, V. 33, No. 12, pp. 3329-3340.
Dilger, W. H., and Ghali, A., 1981, Shear Reinforcement for Concrete
Slabs, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 107, No. 12,
pp. 2403-2420.
Ebead, U., and Marzouk, H., 2002, Strengthening of Two-Way Slabs
Using Steel Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 23-31.
El-Salakawy, E.; Polak, M. A.; and Soudki, K., 2003, New Shear
Strengthening Technique for Concrete Slabs, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 100, No. 3, May-June, pp. 297-304.
Ghali, A.; Sargious, M. A.; and Huizer, A., 1974, Vertical Prestressing
of Flat Plates Around Columns, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, V. 2,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 905-920.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421, 1999, Shear Reinforcement for Slabs
(ACI 421.1R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
15 pp.
Lawler, N., and Polak, M. A., 2011, Development of FRP Shear Bolts
for Punching Shear Retroft of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Journal of
Composites in Construction, ASCE, V. 15, No. 4, pp. 591-601.
Pilkey, W. D., 2005, Formulas for Stress, Strain, and Structural Matrices,
second edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 1536 pp.
Polak, M. A., 2005, Shell Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Plates Supported on Columns, Engineering Computations:
International Journal of Computer Aided Engineering and Software, V. 22,
No. 3/4, pp. 409-429.
Ruiz, M. F.; Muttoni, A.; and Kunz, J., 2010, Strengthening of Flat Slabs
Against Punching Shear Using Post-Installed Shear Reinforcement, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 434-442.
Shigley, J. E.; Mischke, C. R.; and Budynas, R. G., 2004, Mechanical
Engineering Design, seventh edition, McGraw-Hill, pp. 396-448.
Sissakis, K., and Sheikh, S., 2007, Strengthening Concrete Slabs for
Punching Shear with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 49-59.
Stark, A.; Binici, B.; and Bayrak, O., 2005, Seismic Upgrade of
Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections Using Carbon Fiber-
Reinforced Polymers, ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.,
pp. 324-333.
Wood, J. G. M., 2003, Pipers Row Car Park, Wolverhampton, Quantita-
tive Study of the Causes of the Partial Collapse on March 20, 1997, Health
and Safety Executive Report, UK.
Title no. 110-S03
MS No. S-2011-028 received January 27, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Shortening Estimation for Post-Tensioned Concrete
FloorsPart I: Model Selection
by Guohui Guo and Leonard M. Joseph
For post-tensioned (PT) concrete foors, shortening occurs due
to elastic compression, concrete creep, concrete shrinkage, and
temperature change. The longer the continuous concrete slab,
the greater the cumulative shortening effect. More commonly,
some restraints to shortening exist, such as shear walls and stocky
columns. At best, restraint to shortening (RTS) can induce cracks
and spalls that affect aesthetics and durability. At worst, it can
affect structural safety. Therefore, appropriate models and proce-
dures that can predict shortening are quite necessary. In the frst
part of this study, fve concrete creep and shrinkage models are
compared for both ultimate values and relative shortening rates.
The B3 model is considered to be the most appropriate model.
Adjustments to the B3 model are introduced by using equivalent
concrete age to account for high early concrete strength frequently
used in PT construction. Part II of this study covers detailed proce-
dures to estimate PT concrete foor shortening.
Keywords: creep; equivalent concrete age; foor shortening; post-tensioned
concrete; pour strip; relative humidity; shrinkage; volume-to-surface ratio.
INTRODUCTION
Shrinkage shortens concrete foors in both post-tensioned
(PT) and non-prestressed reinforced concrete (RC) struc-
tures. However, PT and RC structures respond to foor
shortening in different ways.
1-3
As shrinkage takes place
in an RC structure with typical quantities of bonded mild
reinforcement, numerous, well-distributed, closely spaced
narrow cracks typically occur. As a result, concrete foors
may become fexurally softer but exhibit minimal hori-
zontal movement. In contrast, PT structures with unbonded
tendons have much less bonded reinforcement, and concrete
foor shortening usually results in fewer, widely spaced
cracks. Once tendons are stressed, concrete precompres-
sion tends to close most cracks, directly causing PT slabs
to shorten overall. In addition, concrete elastic and creep
effects typically associated only with PT structures shorten
concrete foors even more. Due to the nature of PT slabs and
the amount of shortening that would exist if allowed to occur
freely, restraint to shortening (RTS) can be a major source
of cracking and distress for both structural and nonstructural
elements of PT structures
4
if not adequately addressed during
design and construction. Understanding the magnitudes and
development rates of shortening behaviors is essential to
anticipate and design for RTS conditions.
It is very important for engineers to understand the effect
of foor shortening on the various components of the structure
and appropriately account for it in the design.
4,5
RTS prob-
lems have been recognized for many years, and many mitiga-
tion measures were studied and discussed for PT buildings
6
;
however, there are currently no generally accepted proce-
dures to estimate PT foor shortening. It has been recom-
mended that to assess the movement of slabs at expansion or
contraction joints from the time of placing concrete, 650 r
should be considered normal.
7
The drying effect of air condi-
tioning can increase this to 1000 r. This recommendation is
only empirical and should be adjusted for specifc situations.
The estimation of concrete foor shortening should take
multiple factors into consideration, including concrete prop-
erties, slab volume-to-surface ratio (v/s), relative humidity,
slab average compressive stress from tendons, concrete age
when drying begins, and concrete age when tendons are
stressed. Once the estimated foor shortening is calculated,
structural elements can be designed and detailed to absorb
the resulting movements or resist the forces that result from
restraints to movement.
In this paper, fve models that are frequently used to
predict concrete creep and shrinkage are compared for both
ultimate shortening values and relative shortening rates.
Detailed procedures are then outlined to estimate concrete
foor shortening for PT structures with and without the use
of pour strips. The purpose of this two-part study focuses on
shortening estimation for a concrete foor without restraints.
Thus, shortening effects on structures with restraints and the
design of structures considering these effects are beyond the
scope of this study.
RTS problems frequently occur in PT structures as a result
of concrete foor shortening from several sources. This paper
compares fve models that are frequently used to predict
concrete creep and shrinkage based on both ultimate short-
ening values and relative shortening rates. The B3 model
8-10
is
determined to be the most appropriate model for shortening
estimation. High-early-strength concrete commonly used in
the PT industry is appropriately considered through the use
of equivalent concrete age when drying begins and tendons
are stressed.
CONCRETE CREEP AND SHRINKAGE MODELS
There are many factors affecting the prediction of concrete
foor shortening, such as concrete properties, weather, age
at loading, concrete curing method and period, and slab v/s.
A model would be excellent if it could predict shortening
within 15% of the test results and adequate if the prediction
results are within 20% of the test results.
11
According to the
authors experience, error ranges from 30 to 50% are quite
normal. Many concrete creep and shrinkage models have
been developed to date. This study reviews several commonly
Guohui Guo is a Senior Project Engineer with Haris Engineering, Inc., Kansas City,
KS. He received his PhD of science in structural engineering from the University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS. His research interests include the analysis and design of a
wide range of structures, including high-rise buildings; bridges; and sports, health-
care, parking, post-tensioned, and long-span structures.
Leonard M. Joseph is a Principal with Thornton Tomasetti, Inc., Irvine, CA. He
received his BS in civil engineering from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and his
MS from Stanford University, Stanford, CA. His research interests include analysis,
design, and investigation of projects throughout the world, ranging from the Petronas
Towers in Malaysia to parking decks throughout the United States.
used models, including B3,
8-10
CEB-FIP,
12
ACI 209,
13,14
and
GL2000.
15
In addition, creep and shrinkage data from the
PCI Handbook
16
based on prestressed concrete members are
included for comparison.
The required parameters for each of the prediction
models
14
are tabulated in Table 1(a). For Models B3,
CEB-FIP, ACI 209, and GL2000, concrete creep and
shrinkage at different ages can be easily obtained using
prediction functions. For concrete creep and shrinkage data
published in the PCI Handbook,
16
no prediction functions
are available and correction factors are provided to consider
the effects of concrete strength, average concrete compres-
sive stress from tendons, relative humidity, and slab v/s.
The fve models are compared using the concrete proper-
ties and other parameters shown in Table 1(b). A concrete
strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa), based on standard cylinder
tests at 28 days, is typically used in PT concrete structures,
with a slab average compressive stress of 200 psi (1.4 MPa).
Currently, concrete mixtures exhibiting high early concrete
strength are commonly used for PT buildings, especially for
high-rise buildings, to permit earlier tendon stressing and
shorten the construction schedule. It is not uncommon today
for tendons to be stressed as soon as 1 day after concrete
placement. In this study, it is assumed that concrete will
be wet-cured for 3 days, with tendons being stressed at the
end of concrete curing. While values vary, those shown in
Table 1(b) are representative of typical PT structures.
It is well-known that concrete member v/s and rela-
tive humidity have signifcant effects on both creep and
shrinkage. In this study, slabs with thicknesses varying
from 5 to 12 in. (127 to 305 mm) and ambient relative
humidity values varying from 40 to 90% are considered to
investigate their effects on PT concrete foor shortening.
The v/s for slabs with different thicknesses are tabulated in
Table 2, based on a slab with plan dimensions of 100 x 300 ft
(30.5 x 91.5 m).
Compared with concrete elastic shortening, both concrete
creep and shrinkage are slow, long-term processes. For
regular concrete structural elements of typical proportions
under typical conditions, designers often estimate that more
than 90% of combined concrete creep and shrinkage takes
place within the frst 15 years of use. It is common in the
industry to declare the values predicted by each model at a
concrete age of 75 years as ultimate values even if they
have not approached the predicted asymptote. The term
ultimate will be used the same way in this paper for all
fgures, comparisons, and descriptions. The ultimate creep
and shrinkage values based on the PCI Handbook are fnal
values, as shown in Table 3.12.3 of that publication.
16
This
is because the PCI Handbook
16
provides fnal concrete
creep and shrinkage values, along with correction factions
to consider the effects of concrete strength, v/s, average
prestress, and relative humidity. For the other four models,
both concrete creep and shrinkage predictions are presented
as a function of time.
CONCRETE CREEP AND
SHRINKAGE COMPARISONS
For PT concrete structures, slabs with a thickness
of 5 to 10 in. (127 to 254 mm) are widely used in both one-
and two-way foor systems. Occasionally, thicker slabs are
Table 1(a)Parameters included in different prediction models
Parameters B3 Model CEB-FIP GL2000 ACI 209 PCI
Age of concrete when drying begins
Age of concrete at tendon stressing
Aggregate content
Cement content
Water content
Cement type
Concrete mean strength at 28 days
Concrete mean strength at loading
Modulus of elasticity at 28 days
Modulus of elasticity at loading
Curing condition
Relative humidity
Shape of specimen
v/s
Concrete slump
Fine aggregate percentage
Air content
used to carry heavier live loads, span longer distances, or
transfer offset column loads; therefore, slabs with thick-
nesses from 5 to 12 in. (127 to 305 mm) are considered in
this paper to study both the ultimate values and relative rates
of creep and shrinkage development.
Effects of v/s on ultimate shortening
In PT structures, it is common practice to use pour strips or
closure strips to reduce RTS problems and achieve long foor
dimension without the use of expansion joints. Pour strips are
left open for a certain period of time to allow for the free move-
ment of the two sections adjacent to a pour strip. Specifed
pour strip open periods are typically between 30 and 90 days,
although there are cases of pour strips being flled much later
after the structure is complete. To estimate concrete foor
shortening, both ultimate values and relative rates of creep
and shrinkage are required.
Predicted ultimate shrinkage and creep strains using the
fve models previously described are shown in Fig. 1 and
2, respectively. The fgures are obtained using the param-
eters shown in Table 1(b), but with relative humidity fxed at
50%. As shown in Fig. 1, Models B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP
predict nearly the same ultimate shrinkage value regardless
of v/s. The ultimate shrinkage for a 12 in. (305 mm) slab is
approximately 96% of that for a 5 in. (127 mm) slab for the
GL200 and B3 models, and 90% of that for a 5 in. (127 mm)
slab for the CEB-FIP model. For Models PCI and ACI 209,
the predicted ultimate shrinkage for a 12 in. (305 mm) slab
is less than 70% of that for a 5 in. (127 mm) slab. It is gener-
ally expected that shrinkage for members with different v/s
should be the same once the entire member thickness has
reached equilibrium with ambient relative humiditytheir
truly ultimate shrinkage value. Members with a higher v/s
should exhibit a much lower shrinkage rate, taking longer
to completely dry out. From this standpoint, Models B3,
GL2000, and CEB-FIP appear more credible than the other
three models. Among Models B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP,
ultimate shrinkage is highest for GL2000 and lowest for
CEB-FIP, but it should be noted that different parameters
are considered in different models, as shown in Table 1(a).
Because assumed parameters in Table 1(b) are used to obtain
Fig. 1 and 2, the difference between Models B3, GL2000,
and CEB-FIP might change if actual feld data are used.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that specifed values
for each model be replaced by feld or laboratory test data for
a specifc project.
As shown in Fig. 2, ultimate creep predicted by the
B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP models is nearly constant for
different v/s, with 12 in. (305 mm) slab values more than
90% of 5 in. (127 mm) slab values. The other two models
show 12 in. (305 mm) slab values to be proportionately
lower than 5 in. (127 mm) slab values. This observation
further strengthens the impression that Models B3, GL2000,
and CEB-FIP are more likely to provide credible predictions
of ultimate shortening. Models B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP
have higher ultimate creep values than the other two models.
This is partly because concrete creep predicted by these three
models is signifcantly affected by concrete age at loading,
and this study assumes that slabs are wet-cured for 3 days
and then tendons are stressed. The ACI 209 model includes
a correction factor to consider the age of concrete at loading
later than 7 days. No creep correction factor is considered,
however, because the loading age is only 3 days in this study.
It should be noted that none of the aforementioned models
are based on creep data for high-early-strength concrete and
they do not refect early concrete strength gain. For param-
eters shown in Table 1(b), predicted modulus of elasticity
development is based on Eq. (1) to (3) for different models.
ACI 209 and B3 models: ( ) (28)
4 0.85
t
E t E
t
+
(1)
Table 1(b)Parameters used to predict concrete
creep and shrinkage
Concrete strength, psi
(MPa)
5000
(34.5)
Slab average stress,
psi (MPa)
200 (1.4)
Cement, lb/ft
3

(kg/m
3
)
25.6
(410)
Slab thickness, in.
(mm)
5 to12
(127 to 305)
Water-cement ratio (w/c) 0.45 Relative humidity, % 40 to 90
Water, lb/ft
3
(kg/m
3
)
11.5
(184)
Age when drying
begins, days
3
Aggregate-cement ratio 4.28
Age at tendon
stressing, days
3
Cement type Type I Shape of specimen Infnite slab
Table 2v/s for different slab thicknesses
Slab thickness, in. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
v/s, in. 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.4 5.9
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Fig. 1Ultimate shrinkage strain: various v/s. (Note: 1 in. =
25.4 mm.)
Fig. 2Ultimate creep strain: various v/s. (Note: 1 in. =
25.4 mm.)
concrete compressive strength. To use any of the models
for concrete foor shortening, either feld or laboratory test
results should be used to refect high-early-strength concrete
commonly used in PT structures.
Effects of v/s on shortening rate
To reduce RTS problems that frequently occur in PT struc-
tures, relative rates of creep and shrinkage are required; they
are as important as the ultimate values when pour strips are
used and the appropriate open time for the strip must be
determined. In this section, the relative rate of shortening is
simply defned as the ratio of shortening at a certain concrete
age with ultimate shortening. Predicted relative shortening
rates versus slab thicknessa stand-in for v/sat concrete
ages of 30 and 60 days for the fve models are shown in
Fig. 3 for shrinkage and Fig. 4 for creep.
As shown in Fig. 3, the shrinkage rate according to the
ACI 209 model is independent of v/s. This contradicts the
physical reality that shrinkage rate reduces as v/s increases.
The other four models exhibit this behavior. Among the other
four models, the PCI model shows the highest shrinkage rate
at all concrete ages. The B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP models
exhibit lower, nearly identical shrinkage rates. By the age
of 60 days, the shrinkage rate curves for all models except
the ACI 209 model are roughly parallel to each other, with
the PCI model on the high side and the B3 and CEB-FIP
models on the low side.
Figure 4 shows relative creep-rate curves of the fve
models for different v/s. Relative creep rates exhibited by
the PCI model are much lower than those for other models
and generally decrease as the v/s increases. The other four
models exhibit a nearly constant creep rate, which agrees
well with the fact that increasing v/s affects the shrinkage
Table 3Concrete modulus of elasticity
development with time relative to 28-day value
Age of concrete, days
Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 28
ACI 209/B3 0.45 0.59 0.68 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.94 1
GL2000 0.27 0.40 0.49 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.69 0.86 1
CEB-FIP 0.58 0.71 0.77 0.81 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.95 1
Fig. 3(a) Percentage of shrinkage at 30 days with various
v/s; and (b) percentage of shrinkage at 60 days with various
v/s. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
Fig. 4(a) Percentage of creep at 30 days with various v/s;
and (b) percentage of creep at 60 days with various v/s.
(Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)

+
3/ 4
3/ 4
GL2000 model: ( ) (28)
2.8 0.77
t
E t E
t
(2)

0.25 28
CEB-FIP model: ( ) (28) exp 1
2
E t E
t
1 _
1

,
1
]
(3)
Table 3 shows predicted modulus of elasticity develop-
ment with time relative to 28-day values, concentrating on the
frst week after concrete placement. As shown in Table 3, the
predicted modulus of elasticity development varies, and the
CEB-FIP and GL2000 models represent the upper and lower
bound, respectively. For high-early-strength concrete with
a 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa), it is
not uncommon to achieve 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) within 1 day.
The concrete modulus of elasticity after 1 day of curing is
approximately 77% of that at 28 days because the concrete
modulus of elasticity is proportional to the square root of
process signifcantly but has very marginal effects on the
creep process.
It has been stated that concrete creep and shrinkage
at 60 days account for more than 50% of the ultimate
values.
1-3
This conclusion seems to be based on the creep
and shrinkage prediction data in the PCI Handbooks
Table 3.12.3
16
without considering any correction factors.
The data in Table 3.12.3 are based on a concrete strength
of 3500 psi (24.2 MPa), a relative humidity of 70%, an
average concrete compressive stress of 600 psi (4.1 MPa),
and a v/s of 1.5. It is not clear when tendons are stressed and
how test specimens are cured. As shown in Fig. 3 and 4 for
the PCI model, the shortening at 60 days is somewhere
between 38 and 62% of the ultimate shortening values for
shrinkage and 27 and 44% of the ultimate values for creep. In
contrast, the B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP models show much
lower shrinkage rates and higher creep rates than the PCI
model. It should be noted that only these three prediction
models have the capacity to consider the effects of concrete
age at loading (tendon stressing).
Effects of relative humidity on ultimate shortening
As stated previously, relative humidity is another impor-
tant factor that may affect concrete shrinkage and creep.
To compare the effects of relative humidity on concrete
creep and shrinkage, a slab thickness of 8 in. (203 mm) was
selected with all other parameters the same as those shown
in Table 1(b).
Figures 5 and 6 respectively show ultimate shrinkage
and creep predictions for relative humidity values ranging
from 40 to 90%. In Fig. 5, as relative humidity increases,
ultimate shrinkage decreases in a similar trend for all models
with the exception of the GL2000 model, which shows a
steeper drop. In Fig. 6, ultimate creep curves for all models
are roughly parallel and decrease almost linearly as relative
humidity increases.
Effects of relative humidity on shortening rate
Because it is well-known that relative humidity does
not affect the relative shrinkage rate, no graphs are
shown for shrinkage rate. The creep rates at concrete
ages of 30 and 60 days are shown in Fig. 7. The PCI and
ACI 209 model creep rates remain the same as relative
humidity increases. The CEB-FIP model creep rate shows
a slight decrease for relative humidity between 60 and 90%.
Models B3 and GL2000 show creep rates increasing as rela-
tive humidity increases.
Discussion of results
For actual concrete behavior, it is expected that ultimate
creep and shrinkage should be similar for different slab
thicknesses; only the timing should differ. However, in
Fig. 1 and 2, the ACI 209 and PCI models show less ulti-
mate creep and shrinkage for thicker slabs. Based on these
observations, the B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP models seem
to be more appropriate for estimating the amount and timing
of concrete foor shortening in PT structures than the other
three models.
Among the B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP models, the
CEB-FIP model shows the least creep and shrinkage (less
conservative) in Fig. 1 and 2. In addition, the CEB-FIP
model does not allow separate calculation of drying creep
due to the drying process. Thus, this model cannot be used
to evaluate the effects of different relative humidity values
Fig. 5Ultimate shrinkage strain at various relative humidities.
Fig. 6Ultimate creep strain at various relative humidities.
Fig. 7(a) Percentage of creep at 30 days at various relative
humidities; and (b) percentage of creep at 60 days at various
relative humidities.
during and after construction on concrete drying creep. Both
the B3 and GL2000 models predict drying creep separately
from basic creep, which makes the consideration of different
relative humidity values over time possible. As shown in
Fig. 2, the concrete ultimate creep values predicted by the
B3 model are substantially higher than those predicted by the
other models. The author of the B3 model, Baant, pointed
out that some prediction models, including the ACI 209 and
CEB-FIP models, grossly underestimate multi-decade creep
when compared to the B3 model.
17
The reason is that these
models assume the creep to terminate at some fxed upper
bound for which no experimental support exists.
Based on the previous discussion, the authors consider
the B3 model to be the most appropriate prediction model
to estimate concrete foor shortening in PT buildings.
Among the nine creep prediction models, Fanourakis and
Ballim
18
pointed out that the B3 model was the most accu-
rate model based on the overall coeffcient of variation. The
B3 model can also be calibrated using short-term test data
on the actual concrete mixture to greatly reduce the range of
uncertainty in shortening predictions. Accuracy is improved
even if the B3 model is calibrated with short-term tests of a
1- to 3-month duration.
19
Improved accuracy is extremely
important for studying shortening effects in sensitive struc-
tures. However, the effects of high-early-strength concrete
are not considered in the B3 model, so a workaround adjust-
ment is proposed; otherwise, concrete creep predicted by the
B3 model may be higher than in reality.
SHRINKAGE AND CREEP BASED ON B3 MODEL
To refect the effects of high early strength on concrete
creep, it is proposed to use an equivalent age when drying
begins and tendons are stressed. In this study, the age when
drying begins and tendons are stressed is assumed to be 3 days,
which refects typical construction practice for PT structures
using unbonded tendons. Tendons are typically stressed
when concrete reaches a minimum strength of 3000 psi
(20.7 MPa), mainly because tendon anchorages are designed
to distribute tendon forces to 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) concrete.
Therefore, concrete mixtures for PT structures are designed
to provide a minimum strength of 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) at the
end of a 3-day wet cure. For the B3 model, Eq. (4) shows the
concrete strength development with time.
( ) (28)
4 0.85
t
f t f
t
+
(4)
From Eq. (4), if one assumes f(28) is 5000 psi (34.5 MPa),
concrete strength reaches 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) in 5 days
rather than in 3 days. For this reason, the authors propose
using the equivalent concrete age when drying begins and
load is applied to be approximately 5 days. Throughout the
balance of this paper, a 5-day equivalent concrete age is used
rather than a 3-day age at loading.
Figures 8 and 9 show shrinkage and creep versus time for
slabs of different thicknesses, using an equivalent concrete
age when drying begins and tendons are stressed. The
parameters in Table 1(b) were used in producing the fgures.
As shown in Fig. 8(b), approximately 15 to 30% of the ulti-
mate shrinkage occurred by 60 days. Figure 9(b) shows that
approximately 50% of the ultimate creep is anticipated to
take place within 60 days regardless of v/s.
Fig. 8(a) Shrinkage versus time based on B3 model; and
(b) percentage of shrinkage versus time based on B3 model.
(Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
Fig. 9(a) Creep versus time based on B3 model; and (b)
percentage of creep versus time based on B3 model. (Note:
1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
Table 4Ultimate shrinkage for Cases A through
C, r
Relative
humidity
Case A Case B Case C
Shrinkage Shrinkage
Reduction,
% Shrinkage
Reduction,
%
0.4 629 629 601 4
0.5 588 588 561 5
0.6 527 527 503 5
0.7 442 442 422 5
0.8 328 328 313 5
0.9 182 182 174 4
Table 5Ultimate creep for Cases A through C, r
Relative
humidity
Case A Case B Case C
Creep Creep Reduction, % Creep Reduction, %
0.4 321 296 8 270 16
0.5 281 255 9 238 15
0.6 253 227 10 217 14
0.7 234 209 11 202 14
0.8 221 195 12 192 13
0.9 211 186 12 184 13
Another strategy would be to adjust the 28-day strength.
If concrete achieves 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) in 3 days, the
28-day concrete strength will be 6550 psi (45.2 MPa)
according to Eq. (4). To determine the impact of different
approaches, the following three cases are considered in this
study for comparison:
Case A: A concrete strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) and
an age of 3 days at loading;
Case B: A concrete strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) and
an age of 5 days at loading; and
Case C: A concrete strength of 6550 psi (45.2 MPa) and
an age of 3 days at loading.
Case A simply ignores the effects of high early concrete
strength and Case B corresponds to concrete with only
high early strength, but with a 28-day strength of 5000 psi
(34.7 MPa).
Tables 4 and 5 show ultimate shrinkage and creep values
for different relative humidity values for the three cases.
Using a 28-day strength of 6550 psi (45.2 MPa) (Case C)
reduces predicted shortening by approximately 4 to 5% for
shrinkage and 13 to 16% for creep. Using an equivalent
concrete age of 5 days (Case B) at loading, however, has no
effect on shrinkage and reduces creep by approximately 8 to
12%. Based on the results in Tables 4 and 5, if the actual
28-day concrete strength is not available, it is conservative
to use the specifed 28-day strength and determine an equiv-
alent concrete age at the tendon stressing approach (Case B).
In addition to the concrete age when drying begins and
tendons are stressed, other parametersincluding v/s,
concrete strength, and relative humidityhave major effects
on the development of concrete creep and shrinkage. This is
covered in Part II of this study.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, the following conclu-
sions are drawn:
1. Ultimate concrete shrinkage and creep are approxi-
mately the same for slabs with different v/s using the B3,
GL2000, and CEB-FIP models. This appears to distinguish
them as more accurate and appropriate for estimating PT
slab shortening than the PCI and ACI 209 models.
2. Among the B3, GL2000, and CEB-FIP models, the
B3 model is determined to be the most appropriate model
for shortening estimation because: 1) it can be calibrated
with short-term creep and shrinkage test results; 2) it has
the capability to calculate drying creep for different rela-
tive humidity values during and after construction (covered
in detail in Part II of this study); and 3) all other models
included in the study seem to underestimate concrete creep.
3. As relative humidity increases, both ultimate shrinkage
and creep show signifcant drops, with ultimate shrinkage
decreasing much faster than ultimate creep. Thus, consid-
ering different relative humidity values during and after
construction might be necessary for practical reasons for PT
concrete structures.
4. None of the models are capable of refecting high
early concrete strength commonly used in the PT industry.
To make prediction models suitable for this purpose, an
equivalent concrete age when drying begins and tendons are
stressed is proposed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Z. P. Baant at Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL, for his valuable comments and suggestions.
NOTATION
E(t) = concrete modulus of elasticity at t days
E(28) = concrete modulus of elasticity at 28 days
f(t) = concrete compressive strength at t days
f(28) = concrete compressive strength at 28 days
t = age of concrete, days
v/s = volume-to-surface ratio
REFERENCES
1. Bondy, K. B., Shortening Problem in Post-Tensioned Concrete Build-
ings, Design Review and Inspection of Prestressed Concrete Building Proj-
ects, SEAOC Seminar Proceedings, Jan. 1989, pp. 1-19.
2. Aalami, B. O., and Barth, F. G., Restraint Cracks and Their Mitiga-
tion in Unbonded Post-Tensioned Building Structures (PTI DC20.2-88),
Post-Tensioning Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1988, 49 pp.
3. PTI Committee DC-20, Design, Construction and Maintenance of
Cast-in-Place Post-Tensioned Concrete Parking Structures (PTI DC20.7-
01), Post-Tensioning Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 173 pp.
4. PTI Technical Activities Board (TAB), Post-Tensioning Manual (PTI
TAB.1-06), sixth edition, Post-Tensioning Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2006, 354 pp.
5. Stevenson, A. M., Post-Tensioned Concrete Floor Design in Multi-
Story Buildings, British Cement Association, Growthorne, Berkshire, UK,
1994, 20 pp.
6. Guo, G.; Joseph, M. L.; and Bieberly, G. E., Restraint Design of Cast-
in-Place Post-Tensioned Underground Parking Structures, PTI Journal,
V. 7, No. 1, Aug. 2009, pp. 5-18.
7. PTI Technical Activities Board (TAB), Post-Tensioned Concrete
Floors: Design Handbook (PTI TAB.1-06), second edition, Technical
Report No. 43, The Concrete Society, Camberley, UK, 2005, 110 pp.
8. Baant, Z. P., Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Model for Analysis
and Design of Concrete StructuresModel B3, Materials and Structures,
V. 28, 1995, pp. 357-365.
9. Baant, Z. P., and Baweja, S., Justifcation and Refnements of Model
B3 for Concrete Creep and Shrinkage 1. Statistics and Sensitivity, Mate-
rials and Structures, V. 28, 1995, pp. 415-430.
10. Baant, Z. P., and Baweja, S., Justifcation and Refnements of
Model B3 for Concrete Creep and Shrinkage 2. Updating and Theoretical
Basis, Materials and Structures, V. 28, 1995, pp. 488-495.
11. Gardner, N. J., and Lockman, M. J., Design Provisions for Drying
Shrinkage and Creep of Normal-Strength Concrete, ACI Materials Journal,
V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 159-167.
12. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, CEB Bulletin dInformation No. 213/214,
Comit Euro-International du Beton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1993, pp. 33-41.
13. ACI Committee 209, Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Tempera-
ture Effects in Concrete Structures (ACI 209R-92), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 47 pp.
14. ACI Committee 209, Guide for Modeling and Calculating Shrinkage
and Creep in Hardened Concrete (ACI 209.2R-08), American Concrete
15. Gardner, N. J., Comparison of Prediction Provisions for Drying
Shrinkage and Creep of Normal Strength Concretes, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, V. 31, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2004, pp. 767-775.
16. PCI Design HandbookPrecast and Prestressed Concrete (MNL-120-
99), ffth edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 1999,
690 pp.
17. Baant, Z. P.; Li, G. H.; and Yu, Q., Excessive Long-Time Defec-
tions of Prestressed Box Girders, Structural Engineering Report No. 09-12/
ITI, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL, July 2010, 44 pp.
18. Fanourakis, G. C., and Ballim, Y., Predicting Creep Deformation
of Concrete: A Comparison of Results from Different Investigations,
Proceedings, 11th FIG Symposium on Deformation Measurements, Santo-
rini, Greece, 2003, 8 pp.
19. Baant, Z. P., and Baweja, S., Creep and Shrinkage Prediction
Model for Analysis and Design of Concrete Structures: Model B3, Adam
Neville Symposium: Creep and ShrinkageStructural Design Effects,
SP-194, ACI Committee 209, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2000, pp. 1-83.
Title no. 110-S04
MS No. S-2011-029 received January 27, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Shortening Estimation for Post-Tensioned Concrete
FloorsPart II: Calculations
by Guohui Guo and Leonard M. Joseph
Part I of the study compares fve concrete shortening prediction
models, and the B3 model is considered to be the most appropriate
model. Part II of the study provides detailed procedures to estimate
post-tensioned (PT) concrete foor shortening. Different relative
humidity values during and after construction are used to simulate
the actual conditions concrete foors experience. For typical PT
construction, concrete foor shortening due to elastic compression,
concrete creep, and shrinkage can be estimated as approximately
1 in. (25 mm) per 100 ft (30.5 m). If different relative humidity
values during and after construction are considered, the construc-
tion period can affect total foor shortening by more than 15%.
Total shortening is minimized by longer construction exposure in
regions with high relative humidity and shorter construction expo-
sure in regions with low relative humidity. The helpful effect of pour
strips in reducing PT foor shortening is studied and appears rather
limited for typical construction.
Keywords: creep; equivalent concrete age; foor shortening; post-tensioned
concrete; pour slip; relative humidity; shrinkage; volume-to-surface ratio.
INTRODUCTION
Due to a growing awareness of the advantages of post-
tensioning among engineers, the use of post-tensioning
grows at a rapid speed, with an average annual growth
rate of 8.5% between 1985 and 2004.
1
At the same time,
modern post-tensioned (PT) concrete structures are being
built with ever-longer dimensions without the use of expan-
sion joints. For example, a 663 ft (202 m) long hospital
using a PT concrete frame system was built with the use of
two pour strips.
2
Li and Sha
3
reported that an eight-story
PT building with a length of 534 ft (165.6 m) was success-
fully built without the use of expansion joints. This was
largely attributed to the use of two middle pour strips and a
shrinkage-reducing admixture that cut concrete shrinkage
roughly in half.
Although pour strips are widely used to reduce concrete
foor restraint to shortening (RTS) problems,
4
the realistic
contribution of pour strips to the reduction of foor move-
ment has not been investigated. Over the years, some engi-
neers have mistakenly thought that once they specify the
use of pour strips, PT foor RTS should not be a problem.
This might be true for PT concrete foors with relatively
short dimensions and moderate (fexible) restraints. For long
building dimensions and severe (stiff) restraints, however,
RTS problems could still be serious and deserve a system-
atic approach to account for them during design.
5,6
It is very
important to understand that pour strips can help to reduce
concrete foor shortening to some degree, but the help could
be very limited, especially where stiff supports occur at the
far ends of a design strip.
The second part of this study focuses on detailed proce-
dures to estimate shortening for PT concrete foors with and
without the use of pour strips using the B3 model. Different
relative humidity values are used during and after construc-
tion to evaluate the effects on foor shortening of realistic
environmental conditions a building may experience. Proce-
dures are presented to estimate PT concrete foor shortening
when pour strips are used. The relationship between the
open period of a delayed pour strip and its effect on foor
shortening is studied as well.
The second part of this study provides detailed procedures
to estimate PT concrete foor shortening considering volume-
to-surface ratio (v/s), relative humidity, and concrete proper-
ties. The use of pour strips to reduce concrete foor shortening
is illustrated using different pour strip open periods. The
effects on PT foor shortening of different relative humidity
values during and after construction are studied.
ESTIMATING CONCRETE FLOOR SHORTENING
According to Baant,
7
the prediction using the material
parameters of the B3 model is restricted to portland-
cement concrete with the following parameter ranges:
concrete strength at 28 days between 2500 and 10,000 psi
(17.3 to 69 MPa), water-cement ratio (w/c) between 0.3 and
0.85, cement content between 10 to 45 lb/ft
3
(160 to 720 kg/
m
3
), and aggregate-cement ratio between 2.5 and 13.5. In
addition, the formulas are valid for concrete cured for at
least 1 day, and for service stress below 45% of the concrete
strength at 28 days. The following section considers the use
of different relative humidity values in the B3 model.
Effects of relative humidity
Because relative humidity greatly affects concrete creep
and shrinkage, it is necessary to consider the effects on
foor shortening of different relative humidity values during
and after construction, especially for a project with a long
construction period. According to the B3 model,
7
the effects
of relative humidity can be seen in Eq. (1) for concrete
shrinkage and in Eq. (2) for concrete drying creep. The def-
nition of each parameter is presented in Reference 7.
r r
sh sh h
t t k S t ,
0
( ) ( )
(1)
Guohui Guo is a Senior Project Engineer with Haris Engineering, Inc., Kansas City,
KS. He received his PhD of science in structural engineering from the University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS. His research interests include the analysis and design of a wide
range of structures, including high-rise buildings; bridges; and sports, healthcare,
parking, post-tensioned, and long-span structures.
Leonard M. Joseph is a Principal with Thornton Tomasetti, Inc., Irvine, CA. He
received his BS in civil engineering from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and his MS
from Stanford University, Stanford, CA. His research interests include analysis, design,
and investigation of projects throughout the world, ranging from the Petronas Towers
in Malaysia to parking decks across the United States.
C t t t q H t H t
d
, , exp exp ( ) ( )
( )
1
]
0 5
1 2
8 8 (2)
where H(t) and creep at drying, q
5
, are defned in Eq. (3) and
(4), respectively.
H t h S t ( ) ( ) ( ) 1 1 (3)
5 1 0.6
5
7.57 10
c sh
q f

r (4)
For typical buildings with conditioned air, relative
humidity is maintained at approximately 50% during
service life. However, ambient outdoor relative humidity
varying from 20 to 90% affects shortening during construc-
tion. The aforementioned prediction formulas do not
appear to specifcally address relative humidity values
varying over time. To evaluate foor shortening considering
different relative humidity values, the following approach is
proposed to splice together shortening from two different
humidity levels:
Step 1Determine concrete shrinkage and drying creep
values with time using the average annual relative humidity
during normal service life (50%, for example) based on
Eq. (1) and (2). Record the calculated shrinkage and drying
creep curves as o(t) and, herein, relative humidity during
building normal service life is used.
Step 2Denote n as the construction period, in days, and t
as the concrete age, in days. At a concrete age after construc-
tion (t > n), the change in shrinkage or drying creep since the
end of construction (start of occupancy) is o(t) o(n).
Step 3Determine concrete shrinkage and drying creep
using the actual average relative humidity over the construc-
tion period based on Eq. (1) and (2). Record the calculated
shrinkage or drying creep curve using Eq. (1) and (2) as o(t).
Step 4Create composite concrete shrinkage and drying
creep curves refecting different relative humidity values. At
a concrete age of t days, the shrinkage or drying creep can be
calculated as follows
shrinkage or drying creep =
( ) for

( ) ( ( ) ( ) for
t t n
n t n t n
o
,
o + o o >
(5)
It should be noted that basic creep is still calculated
according to the B3 model without any change because it is
not affected by relative humidity.
Elastic shortening
Concrete foor slabs shorten due to elastic deforma-
tion, concrete shrinkage, concrete creep, and temperature
changes. For PT buildings, elastic shortening
8,9
can be calcu-
lated using Eq. (6) as follows
cpa
es
f L
K
E
A (6)
In the following calculations, K
es
= 0.5 is used because
tendons are typically stressed in sequential order for PT
buildings with unbonded tendons. For Tables 1 to 3, the
elastic shortening is calculated with a concrete strength
of 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) at tendon stressing. For typical PT
concrete foors, the average compressive stress immediately
after the tendon stressing, f
cpa
, is approximately 8% higher
than the average compressive stress after all long-term
stress losses. In this study, based on the average compres-
Table 1Concrete foor shortening per 100 ft
(30.5 m), by slab thickness
Slab thickness, in. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Elastic shortening, in. 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Shrinkage shortening,
in.
0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70
Creep shortening, in. 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31
Total shortening, in. 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
Elastic shortening, %
of total
4
% of total
67
Creep shortening, %
of total
29
Ultimate shrinkage, r 588 588 588 588 588 588 587 586
Ultimate creep, r 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 254
Total ultimate, r 843 843 843 843 843 843 842 841
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
(30.5 m), by concrete strength
28-day concrete
strength, psi (MPa)
4000
(27.6)
4500
(31.1)
5000
(34.5)
6000
(41.4)
7000
(48.3)
8000
(55.2)
Elastic shortening, in. 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
in.
0.73 0.72 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.65
Creep shortening, in. 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.24
Total shortening, in. 1.12 1.08 1.05 1.00 0.96 0.93
Elastic shortening, %
of total
3 4 4 4 4 4
% of total
65 66 67 69 70 70
Creep shortening, %
of total
31 30 29 28 26 25
Ultimate shrinkage, r 611 599 588 571 557 545
Ultimate creep, r 292 272 255 230 211 197
Total ultimate, r 903 871 843 801 768 742
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
sive stress of 200 psi (1.4 MPa) as shown in Table 1(b) of
Part I, an f
cpa
value of 216 psi (1.5 MPa) is used to calculate
elastic shortening.
The shrinkage and creep shortening values are calculated
according to the B3 model. To refect the effects of high
early concrete strength commonly used in PT structures,
an equivalent concrete age is used when drying begins and
tendons are stressed: 5 days instead of the actual concrete
age of 3 days, as discussed in Part I of this paper.
Floor shortening for different v/s
The B3 model predicts that, consistent with material
science, concrete ultimate shrinkage and creep values do
not change as the v/s increases. For parameters shown in
Table 1(b) of Part I and with 50% fxed relative humidity,
predicted foor shortening per 100 ft (30.5 m) is shown in
Table 1, excluding thermal shortening effects.
As shown in Table 1, shrinkage is the biggest contrib-
utor, accounting for approximately 67% of the total foor
shortening. Elastic and creep shortening account for the
remainder. Total shrinkage and creep shortening strain is
approximately 840 r, or approximately 1 in. (25 mm) of
unrestrained slab shortening per 100 ft (30.5 m).
Floor shortening for different concrete strengths
Table 2 shows concrete foor shortening per 100 ft
(30.5 m) of slab length for different concrete strengths, using
parameters shown in Table 1(b) of Part I with a 50%
fxed relative humidity and 8 in. (203 mm) slab thick-
ness. Table 2 shows that as concrete strength increases
from 4000 to 8000 psi (27.6 to 55.2 MPa), the total short-
ening decreases from 903 to 742 r. The shrinkage is still
the biggest contributor, accounting for approximately 65 to
70% of the total shortening. However, this ratio may change
signifcantly if the average precompression from PT tendons
is much more than the typical value of 200 psi (1.4 MPa), as
assumed in this study.
Floor shortening for different relative humidity values
Table 3 shows the effects of relative humidity on concrete
shrinkage and creep. The table is developed using param-
eters in Table 1(b) of Part I with an 8 in. (203 mm) slab thick-
ness. As relative humidity increases from 40 to 90%, total
shortening drops rapidly from 925 to 368 r, and slab short-
ening per 100 ft (30.5 m) reduces from 1.15 in. (29 mm) to
approximately 0.5 in. (13 mm). Shrinkage drops more than
creep, as shown in the differing percentage of total values.
As shown in Tables 1 to 3, ultimate shrinkage is insensi-
tive to v/s and concrete strength, and very sensitive to relative
humidity. Concrete creep, however, is insensitive to v/s and
is sensitive to both concrete strength and relative humidity.
Therefore, total concrete shortening due to elastic, creep, and
shrinkage could vary. The suggested value of 650 r in the
PTI Handbook
10
intended to include elastic, shrinkage, and
creep effectsdoes not appear conservative in low-strength
and low-humidity situations.
Results based on the B3 model also show that short-
ening due to concrete creep is at least fve times that due
to elastic deformation. This ratio is much higher than the
ratio of 1.6 reported in PTI DC20.2-88
5
and the recom-
mended ratio of 2.5 in the PT concrete foor design hand-
book.
10
The ratio of 1.6 was based on estimation and no
detailed calculation or testing was performed. The ratio
of 2.5 does not consider elastic shortening reduced by the
sequential stressing reduction factor that is very typical for
PT concrete buildings with unbonded tendons. Without that
factor, elastic shortening would be doubled and the recom-
mended ratio of 2.5 would be consistent with lower-bound
fndings presented previously for higher concrete strengths
and higher relative humidity values.
Tables 1 to 3 also show that concrete shrinkage is the
largest contributor for foor shortening and accounts for at
least 60% of the total shortening for relative humidity less
than 80%.
SHORTENING OF PT CONCRETE FLOOR WITH
POUR STRIPS
Concrete creep and shrinkage shortening predicted by
the B3 model can be used to estimate unrestrained PT slab
shortening. The shortening data can be used by structural
engineers in analyses as an imposed strain, or artifcial
cooling, to evaluate the effects of foor shortening on struc-
tural members such as columns, walls, and slabs.
The current design trend for PT structures with long plan
dimensions is to use more pour strips and reduce or elimi-
nate permanent expansion joints. This is particularly useful
in parking structures where expansion joints are suscep-
tible to damage that can reduce durability of the concrete
structure.
11
Thus, detailed estimation of slab shortening is
required to properly evaluate the effects of RTS on struc-
tural elements.
Shortening effects
This section fguratively presents the use of pour strips
to help reduce the effects of concrete foor shortening
on the overall structure. Figure 1(a) shows an 11-span
concrete foor with 30 ft (9.1 m) spans supported on one-
story columns. Figure 1(b) to (d) shows frame-defected
shapes due to concrete foor shortening with and without
a pour strip. Shortening is exaggerated, but drawn in the
same scale on all fgures so that rough comparisons can be
made between fgures. In Fig. 1(a), columns are numbered
(30.5 m), by relative humidity
Relative humidity, % 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elastic shortening, in. 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Shrinkage shortening, in. 0.75 0.71 0.63 0.53 0.39 0.22
Creep shortening, in. 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22
Total shortening, in. 1.15 1.05 0.94 0.82 0.67 0.48
Elastic shortening, % of
total
3 4 4 5 6 8
Shrinkage shortening, %
of total
67 67 67 65 60 45
Creep shortening, % of
total
31 29 29 31 35 46
Ultimate shrinkage, r 629 588 527 442 328 182
Ultimate creep, r 296 255 227 209 195 186
Total ultimate, r 925 843 754 651 523 368
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Fig. 1Shortening effects for concrete foors with and without pour strips. (Note: 1 ft = 3.28 m.)
Step 2Determine slab strain corresponding to foor
shortening from elastic shortening, concrete shrinkage, and
creep at the end of the pour strip open period. The bottom
half of Fig. 2 shows concrete shrinkage shortening strain
on the left and creep shortening strain on the right. From
both curves, concrete shrinkage and creep values are found
at the end of a pour strip open period. Elastic shortening
is calculated using Eq. (6), based on the concrete strength
and modulus of elasticity when tendons are stressed. Frame
deformations are conservatively estimated by multiplying
unrestrained shortening strains by distances to the point of
zero movement. The deformed shape during this stage is
shown in Fig. 1(c).
Step 3After the pour strip is flled, the two locations
of zero movement, as shown in Fig. 1(c), disappear and the
new location of zero movement is at the midlength pour strip
location. The entire concrete foor acts as one unit for the
balance of concrete creep and shrinkage movements. Deter-
mine additional building frame deformations by applying
foor shortening strains from the end of the open period to
the age of interest using concrete shrinkage and creep values
in the bottom half of Fig. 2. Conservatively multiply strains
by distances to the new location of zero movement.
Step 4Add Step 2 and Step 3 deformations to fnd
the fnal deformed shape. Based on the specifc situation,
columns close to the center could end up displaced toward
or away from the fnal location of zero movement.
C1 to C6 for easy identifcation. Without a pour strip, the
defected frame after all total shortening takes place is shown
in Fig. 1(b). If all columns have the same stiffness, the loca-
tion of zero movement is at the midpoint of the foor length.
Floor shortening A1 at the end Column C1 is half of the total
foor shortening. When a pour strip is incorporated in the
middle span and kept open for 60 days, the two segments
initially shorten independently toward their own locations
of zero movement, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The fnal defected
shape of the concrete frame is shown in Fig. 1(d), where
A2 represents the shortening at end Column C1. The differ-
ence between A1 and A2 represents the benefcial effect of a
pour strip on foor shortening.
Shortening calculation procedures
Figure 2 shows the procedure that is used in this paper
to determine horizontal movements at individual column
locations due to concrete foor shortening predicted by the
B3 model:
Step 1Determine concrete properties, slab thickness,
average precompression, relative humidity, and concrete ages
when drying begins and tendons are stressed. Although not
shown in Fig. 2, concrete aggregate information is required
as well. On an actual project, concrete feld or laboratory test
data (if available) should be used to improve concrete creep
and shrinkage predictions.
Deformations are calculated using distances to the point
of zero movement that can be determined based on stiffness
of all vertical elements. Stiff shear walls and columns of
differing stiffness will affect the location of zero movement.
The aforementioned procedure calculates frame deforma-
tions from total shortening of unrestrained concrete foors.
In reality, concrete foors may shorten much less due to the
presence of restraint from columns and walls. At the same
time, signifcant forces may be developed in both horizontal
and vertical structural elements. The effects of concrete foor
shortening can generally be evaluated by imposing calcu-
lated unrestrained slab shortening strains within a model of
the complete structure. The effects on the complete struc-
ture due to concrete slab creep or shrinkage shortening are
similar to those due to a slab temperature drop as presented
by Mohammad,
12
where end columns experience the highest
bending and shear and the slab near the midpoint of a design
strip experiences the largest tension due to temperature
drop. Restraint forces that reduce in-slab axial forces can
also reduce creep strain, and sustained forces in columns
and walls restraining slab movement can generate creep in
those members, reducing their effective stiffness and RTS.
Detailed procedures regarding evaluation of these interre-
lated effects, and their consideration in design, are beyond
the scope of this study.
Effects of pour strip on foor shortening
When a pour strip is present, the pour strip open period
is a key parameter. Using the procedures presented previ-
ously, unrestrained horizontal movement at each column
location due to foor shortening can be calculated for two
situations: with and without a pour strip. A separate calcu-
lation is required for each different pour strip open period
being considered. Based on the parameters shown in Fig. 2,
Table 4 tabulates horizontal movement at the top of each
column due to foor shortening for different pour strip open
periods. As the pour strip open period increases, horizontal
movement at the slab ends gradually decreases. A positive
movement value indicates the column top is bending toward
the center of the frame, whereas a negative sign indicates
movement away from the center.
Table 5 shows the percentage reduction of movement
from shortening at each column for different pour strip
open periods when compared with movement from foor
shortening without the use of a pour strip. The sign
simply means that the reduction is not meaningful because
Table 4Movement from foor shortening at
column locations, in.
Columns C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Without pour strip 1.73 1.42 1.10 0.79 0.47 0.16
Pour
strip
open
period,
days
7 1.55 1.24 0.92 0.61 0.29 0.02
14 1.52 1.21 0.89 0.58 0.26 0.05
21 1.50 1.19 0.87 0.56 0.24 0.07
30 1.48 1.17 0.85 0.54 0.22 0.09
60 1.43 1.12 0.80 0.49 0.17 0.14
90 1.39 1.08 0.76 0.45 0.13 0.18
180 1.32 1.00 0.69 0.37 0.06 0.26
365 1.22 0.90 0.59 0.27 0.04 0.36
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Table 5Percentage reduction of movement from
foor shortening by column location
Columns C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Pour strip
open
period, days
7 10% 13% 16% 23% 38%
14 12% 15% 19% 27% 45%
21 13% 16% 21% 29% 49%
30 14% 18% 23% 32% 53%
60 17% 21% 27% 38% 64%
90 20% 24% 31% 43% 72%
180 24% 30% 37% 53% 87%
365 29% 37% 46% 66%
Fig. 2Example of foor shortening calculation.
pour strips result in these columns bending away from the
fnal center of zero movement. As shown in Fig. 1(c) and (d),
shortening at Columns C1 to C3 is additive before and after
flling the pour strip, while the opposite applies for Columns
C4 to C6. The percentage of the shortening reductions is
different for exterior and interior columns. For example, with
a pour strip open period of 30 days, the percentage of short-
ening reduction is approximately 14% and 53% for Columns
C1 and C5, respectively. As a practical matter, reductions at
C1 and C2 are most meaningful, representing typical end
and interior columns, respectively.
Pour strip open time can be a point of contention between
designers and contractors. The aformentioned example
clearly illustrates several pour strip key points:
1. There is a defnite structural beneft from a longer pour
strip open time. However, that can impact the contractors
ability to enclose and ft out the affected foors around the
pour strip.
2. Changing the open time by a few days has little effect
on the structural beneft. A long open time is required to
make a signifcant difference in structural behavior.
3. The largest effects of slab shortening occur at the
locations of greatest restraintthe fxed foundation in this
example. It may be practical to locate pour strips or request
long open times only at highly restrained foors, such as the
lowest framed levels. At higher superstructure levels, adja-
cent foors shorten similarly with minimal restraint, so it
may be possible to either avoid pour strips or, if they are
needed for PT tendon stressing, to use short open times that
do not impact the ft-out schedule.
A long open time needed to achieve a particular goal should
be stated to the contractor in the construction documents.
Pour strips are typically left open between 30 and 90 days;
however, a much longer opening period may be required
when a structure is long and an expansion joint is not
acceptable. In a 25-story PT frame building with dimen-
sions of 663 x 646 ft (202 x 197 m), the two basement levels
were constructed with two pour strips in each direction.
2
To
reduce the effects of RTS cracking problems, concrete was
not placed at pour strip locations until the structures roof
was topped out. It was estimated that at least 60% of the
concrete creep and shrinkage had taken place at the time
when pour strips were flled.
Effects of relative humidity during construction
Part I of this study and Table 3 of this part showed
the large effect that relative humidity has on concrete
creep and shrinkage. As shown in Fig. 5 and 6 in Part I,
and in Table 3 of this part, as relative humidity increases
from 40 to 90%, concrete shrinkage is reduced at a much
faster rate than concrete creep. Thus, a realistic estimate
of concrete foor shortening should consider different rela-
tive humidity values during and after construction, espe-
cially when the construction period is long and ambient
relative humidity during construction greatly differs from
that in normal service. For most buildings with condi-
tioned air, a relative humidity of approximately 50% can
be assumed during normal service life. However, ambient
relative humidity varies greatly by region. In this study, two
scenarios are considered: one for a low relative humidity
area such as Las Vegas, NV, and the other for a high relative
humidity area such as Houston, TX. Average annual rela-
tive humidity is taken as approximately 30% for Las Vegas
and 75% for Houston. To demonstrate the effect of the
construction period on concrete shortening, construction
periods varying from 3 months to 2 years are considered.
The values in Tables 6 to 9 are based on the parameters in
Table 1(b) of Part I, with a slab thickness of 8 in. (203 mm)
and an equivalent concrete age of 5 days when drying begins
and tendons are stressed. In Table 6, for Las Vegas, 30% rela-
tive humidity during construction increases both ultimate
creep and shrinkage. As the construction period is increased
from 3 months to 2 years, the total shortening increases from
2.7 to 8.4% compared to a constant 50% relative humidity
scenario. Thus, in low relative humidity areas, if construc-
tion takes less than 2 years, increasing total shortening by
8% can conservatively account for the effects of low relative
humidity during construction.
Table 6Shortening in Las Vegas, based on different construction periods
Construction period,
days Shrinkage, r
Increase versus 50%
RH, % Creep, r
Increase versus 50%
RH, % Total shortening, r
Increase versus 50%
RH, %
Normal
*
588 255 843
90 606 3.1 260 2.0 866 2.7
180 612 4.1 264 3.5 876 3.9
365 621 5.6 270 5.9 891 5.7
730 631 7.3 283 11.0 914 8.4
*
Constant relative humidity of 50% is used for ultimate shrinkage and creep calculation.
Note: RH is relative humidity.
Table 7Shortening in Houston, based on different construction periods
Construction period,
days Shrinkage, r
Reduction versus
50% RH, % Creep, r
Reduction versus
50% RH, % Total shortening, r
Reduction versus
50% RH, %
Normal
*
588 255 843
90 536 8.8 249 2.4 785 6.9
180 516 12.2 246 3.5 762 9.6
365 489 16.8 242 5.1 731 13.3
730 459 21.9 234 8.2 693 17.8
*
Constant relative humidity of 50% is used for ultimate shrinkage and creep calculation.
Note: RH is relative humidity.
Table 7 shows the change of concrete shrinkage and
creep shortening for Houston for different relative humidity
values during and after construction. Longer construction
periods reduce both concrete shrinkage and creep. Shrinkage
decreases much faster than creep. If construction takes
more than a year, total shortening can be easily reduced
by more than 10%. Therefore, in high relative humidity
areas, consider reducing total concrete shortening by 10% if
construction takes longer than a year.
Table 8 tabulates lateral movement at Column C1 from
unrestrained slab shortening, for foors with and without
pour strips, considering different pour strip open periods
and different construction periods. Looking at any one pour
strip open period, it is clear that in low humidity areas, the
longer the construction period, the larger the movement
at Column C1. The opposite holds true for high humidity
areas. The need for pour strips with longer open times in dry
climates is also clear: to meet the column movement value
for no-strip Houston 730-day construction, the Las Vegas
project would require a pour strip with a 180-day open time.
To meet the same movement value as a 7-day open time on
Houston 90-day construction, Las Vegas requires a 60-day
open time.
Table 9 shows the percentage of foor shortening reduc-
tion at Column C1 for different construction periods in both
low- and high-humidity areas. Both Tables 4 and 9 show
similar results: pour strips are able to reduce shortening for
foors with long dimensions, but the effects seem to be very
limited. Table 9 also reveals something hidden in Table 8 but
is consistent with material behavior: for the same construc-
tion period and pour strip open period, the percentage of
movement reduction due to the use of pour strips is greater
in a dry climate, until the construction period is so long that
overall shortening overwhelms the beneft.
In view of the aforementioned data, the longer pour strip
open period may or may not be worth the increased construc-
tion costs due to a generally longer construction schedule
and other construction inconveniences. If the construction
schedule allows, fll the pour strip as late as possible, or
when the entire structure is completed. Typically, the most
signifcant restraints are realized between ground and the
frst elevated foor, where the elevated foor tends to shorten
and the foundation tends to prevent shortening. Thus, the
frst-level columns, especially edge columns, may suffer
severe bending and shear due to the RTS process. It is often
practical to leave pour strips open at the frst elevated foors
for a period much longer than those at upper levels, where
the frst foor slabs are in parking areas or are scheduled
to receive late, high-end lobby fnishes. In such cases, the
longer open period at the frst elevated levels may not be on
the construction schedule critical path.
Table 8Movement at Column C1 for different construction periods, in.
Construction period, days 90 180 360 730
Pour strip open period, days
Location
LV Hou LV Hou LV Hou LV Hou
No strip 1.78 1.61 1.80 1.57 1.83 1.51 1.87 1.44
7 1.59 1.46 1.61 1.41 1.64 1.35 1.69 1.27
14 1.56 1.43 1.58 1.39 1.61 1.33 1.65 1.25
21 1.54 1.42 1.56 1.37 1.59 1.31 1.63 1.24
30 1.51 1.4 1.53 1.36 1.56 1.3 1.61 1.22
60 1.46 1.37 1.48 1.32 1.51 1.26 1.55 1.19
90 1.41 1.34 1.43 1.30 1.46 1.23 1.51 1.16
180 1.35 1.24 1.38 1.18 1.42 1.11
365 1.26 1.12 1.3 1.04
730 1.16 0.97
Notes: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; LV is Las Vegas; Hou is Houston.
Table 9Percentage reduction of movement from foor shortening at Column C1
Construction period, days 90 180 360 730
Pour strip open
period, days
Location LV Hou LV Hou LV Hou LV Hou
7 10.6% 9.6% 10.4% 10.3% 10.3% 10.6% 9.8% 11.6%
14 12.3% 11.4% 12.1% 11.6% 11.9% 12.0% 11.9% 13.0%
21 13.4% 12.0% 13.2% 12.9% 13.0% 13.3% 13.0% 13.7%
30 15.1% 13.3% 14.9% 13.5% 14.7% 14.0% 14.0% 15.1%
60 17.9% 15.1% 17.7% 16.0% 17.4% 16.6% 17.2% 17.2%
90 20.7% 17.0% 20.4% 17.3% 20.1% 18.6% 19.4% 19.3%
180 24.9% 21.1% 24.5% 21.9% 24.2% 22.7%
365 31.1% 25.9% 30.6% 27.6%
730 38.1% 32.5%
Notes: LV is Las Vegas; Hou is Houston.
In the authors opinion, a pour strip open period of at
least 30 days is recommended to achieve a useful degree
of shortening relief. For PT concrete foors with long plan
dimensions, effects of RTS should always be investigated
especially for supports between foundations and the frst
elevated foor. As a general approach, apply calculated
unrestrained member strains to a full structural model with
appropriate boundary conditions. Because both concrete
creep and shrinkage occur slowly over time, restraints will
also creep, reducing their effective stiffness, so the afore-
mentioned estimated strains are typically reduced to more
realistically represent their eventual effects on structure
members. For example, the PCI Handbook
13
divides strains
by a factor of 4.0 for concrete creep and shrinkage. Others
suggest dividing concrete creep and shrinkage by a factor
of 2.
14
However, a detailed discussion of the interaction of
support restraints and slab shortening, and the effects of
shortening on structural member design, is beyond the scope
of this study.
CONCLUSIONS
In the second part of this study, the B3 model is used to
predict concrete creep and shrinkage considering the effects
of v/s, concrete strength, and different relative humidity
values during and after construction. Detailed procedures
are provided to estimate shortening of PT foors with or
without the use of delayed-pour strips. Based on the results
of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. For the concrete properties and parameters shown in
Table 1(b) of Part I and relative humidity between 40 and
70%, the B3 model predicts shrinkage, creep, and elastic
shortening to account for approximately 67%, 29%, and 4%,
respectively, of the total shortening.
2. Concrete foor total shortening decreases as concrete
strength and relative humidity increase. For commonly used
concrete with strength between 4000 and 7000 psi (27.6 and
48.3 MPa) and loaded at 3 days after concrete placement, at
a relative humidity less than 60%, total shrinkage and creep
shortening is between 750 and 950 r.
3. As a rule of thumb, total unrestrained concrete foor
shortening can be taken as 1 in. (25.4 mm) per 100 ft (30.5 m)
of foor plan length for typical PT concrete structures. Total
unrestrained foor shortening decreases for longer construc-
tion periods in humid regions, and for shorter construction
periods in dry regions. For a construction period of 2 years,
the estimated value could decrease 18% in high-humidity
areas, but increase 8% in low-humidity areas.
4. Delayed pour strips provide a rather limited beneft in
reducing long-term movements from slab shortening, espe-
cially for movements at the far ends of a design strip. A
delayed-pour strip is not equivalent to a permanent move-
ment joint. For PT concrete foors with long plan dimen-
sions, or short dimensions but stiff restraints far from the
slab center, RTS should always be investigated.
5. The percentage reduction of movement from foor short-
ening provided by pour strips is not uniform for all column
locations. The closer a support to a pour strip, the greater the
reduction in total movement from foor shortening.
6. A pour strip open period of at least 30 days is recom-
mended for some degree of foor shortening relief.
7. Exercise caution when using the aforementioned esti-
mated values for situations that are dramatically different
from those as assumed in Table 1(b) of Part I. The two most
important factors are water content and average precompres-
sion. Ultimate shrinkage may vary with water content to the
power of 2.1, as shown in the B3 model prediction function.
Concrete creep is proportional to PT foor average compres-
sive stress from tendons. Both factors may affect total unre-
strained foor slab shortening by a large margin.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Z. P. Baant at Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL, for his valuable comments and suggestions.
NOTATION
C
d
(t,t,t
0
) = compliance function for creep due to drying
E = concrete modulus of elasticity at loading
f
c
= concrete strength at 28 days
f
cpa
= average compressive stress in concrete along member at
center of gravity of tendons immediately after stressing
h = relative humidity
K
es
= 0.5 when tendons are tensioned in sequential order to
same tension
k
h
= humidity dependence
L = concrete foor length
n = construction period, days
P = concrete average precompression force
q
5
= creep at drying
S(t) = time function for shrinkage
t = time, days
t = age at loading, days
t
0
= age when drying begins, days
v/s = volume-to-surface ratio
A = elastic shortening
r
sh
(t,t
0
) = shrinkage strain
r
sh
= ultimate shrinkage strain
(t) = shrinkage or drying creep calculated using actual relative
humidity during construction
(t) = shrinkage or drying creep calculated using relative
humidity during normal service
REFERENCES
1. Post-Tensioning Manual, sixth edition, Post-Tensioning Institute,
2. Liu, B., and Hu, E., Construction Technology of Long Post-Tensioned
Concrete Floors in a New Hospital Building, Chinese and Overseas Archi-
tecture, No. 3, 2007, pp. 94-95.
3. Li, K., and Sha, A., Application of Unbonded Prestressing Technology
in Super Long Structures, Quality of Civil Engineering and Construction,
No. 8, 2004, pp. 41-43.
4. Guo, G.; Lin, K.; and Joseph, M. L., Pour Strip Design in Post-
Tensioned Buildings Using Unbonded Tendons, PTI Journal, V. 6, No. 2,
Aug. 2008, pp. 21-28.
5. Restraint Cracks and Their Mitigation in Unbonded Post-Tensioned
Building Structures (PTI DC20.2-88), Post-Tensioning Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, MI, 1988, 49 pp.
6. Bondy, K. B., Shortening Problem in Post-Tensioned Concrete Build-
ings, Design Review and Inspection of Prestressed Concrete Building Proj-
ects, SEAOC Seminar Proceedings, Los Angeles, CA, Jan. 1989, pp. 1-19.
7. Baant, Z. P., Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Model for Analysis
and Design of Concrete StructuresModel B3, Materials and Structures,
V. 28, 1995, pp. 357-365.
8. Kelley, G. S., Prestress Losses in Post-Tensioned Structures, PTI
Technical Notes, Issue 10, Sept. 2000, 6 pp.
9. Aalami, B., Prestressing Losses and Elongation Calculations,
ADAPT Technical Note, Issue T9-04, Oct. 1998, 16 pp.
10. Post-Tensioned Concrete Floor Design Handbook, Concrete Society
Technical Report No. 43, second edition, The Concrete Society, Camberley,
UK, 2005, 110 pp.
11. ACI Committee 362, Guide for the Design of Durable Parking Struc-
tures (ACI 362.1R-97) (Reapproved 2002), American Concrete Institute,
12. Mohammad, I., Thermal Movement in Parking Structures, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2007, pp. 542-548.
13. PCI Design HandbookPrecast and Prestressed Concrete (MNL-
120-99), ffth edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL,
690 pp.
14. Design, Construction and Maintenance of Cast-in-Place Post-
Tensioned Concrete Parking Structures (PTI DC20.7-01), Post-Tensioning
Title no. 110-S05
MS No. S-2011-043.R1 received February 14, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Shear Behavior of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams
by S. V. T. Janaka Perera and Hiroshi Mutsuyoshi
This paper describes the shear behavior of reinforced high-strength
concrete (RHSC) beams (f
c
> 100 MPa [14,500 psi]) without web
reinforcement. The use of high-strength concrete (HSC) has led to
some concerns about its shear strength because of its brittleness,
smooth fracture surface, and high early-age shrinkage. Test results
indicated that the ratio of uniaxial compressive strength to tensile
strength (the ductility number) of the concrete relative to that of the
aggregate governs the shear strength of HSC. When the ductility
number of the concrete coincided with that of the aggregate, the
shear strength remained constant, irrespective of concrete strength.
When the ductility number of the concrete was higher than that of
the aggregate, however, shear strength started to decrease due to
the smooth fracture surface and brittleness. By introducing early-
age shrinkage and a suitable aggregate size, the modifed compres-
sion feld theory (MCFT) was found to accurately predict the shear
strength of RHSC beams.
Keywords: brittleness; ductility number; fracture surface; high-strength
concrete; shear capacity.
INTRODUCTION
High-strength concrete (HSC) with a strength f
c

exceeding 100 MPa (14,500 psi) is being increasingly
used in buildings and prestressed concrete bridges in Japan
because it enables the use of smaller cross sections, longer
spans, and reduced girder height while improving dura-
bility.
1
According to the ACI 318-05
2
and Japan Society of
Civil Engineers (JSCE) Code design equations,
3
the diagonal
cracking shear strength of reinforced concrete (RC) beams
without web reinforcement increases as the concrete strength
increases (Fig. 1). However, the diagonal cracking shear
strength of reinforced high-strength concrete (RHSC) beams
does not increase as expected with the concrete compressive
strength.
4
Further, increasing the compressive strength of
concrete results in greater early-age shrinkage (autogenous
shrinkage) due to self-desiccation, brittleness, and smooth-
ness of crack fracture surfaces. These limitations have led to
some concerns about the shear strength of RHSC beams.
For slender RC beams without web reinforcement, where
the shear span-depth ratio (a/d) is greater than 2.5, the diag-
onal cracking shear force is carried by: 1) the shear resis-
tance of uncracked concrete in the compression zone; 2) the
interlocking action of aggregate along the rough concrete
surfaces on each side of a crack; and 3) the dowel action
of the longitudinal reinforcement. In rectangular beams, the
proportions of the shear force carried by these mechanisms
are approximately as follows: 20 to 40% by the uncracked
concrete of the compression zone, 33 to 50% by aggregate
interlocking, and 15 to 25% by dowel action.
5
According to past studies,
6
the shear resistance of
uncracked concrete in the compression zone is lower with
HSC as a result of its brittleness. The crack surface of HSC
beams is relatively smoother than normal-strength concrete
(NSC) because cracks penetrate through the aggregates.
The smooth crack surface reduces aggregate interlock and
lowers the shear strength of RHSC beams.
4
Until now, no
research has attempted to quantitatively evaluate the rough-
ness of concrete fracture surfaces. Also, early-age shrinkage
causes deterioration in shear strength at diagonal cracking of
RHSC beams. Maruyama et al.
7
detected cracking around
reinforcing bars due to early-age shrinkage of HSC and, by
comparing self-induced stresses in RC prisms with different
early-age shrinkages, concluded that such cracking degrades
the bond stiffness. This means that the dowel action of the
longitudinal reinforcement is affected by early-age shrinkage.
Previous studies
7,8
have also shown that the use of admix-
tures, such as expansive additives and shrinkage-reducing
agents, is effective in reducing early-age shrinkage. It has also
been shown that an increase in the a/d results in a reduction
in shear strength.
4
However, most of the studies mentioned
have been carried out using concrete with a strength of less
than 100 MPa (14,500 psi) due to design limitations.
Against this background, the objectives of this study
are: 1) to quantitatively explain the effect of concrete
compressive strength, brittleness, fracture surface rough-
ness, aggregate strength, and a/d on the diagonal cracking
shear behavior of RHSC beams where the concrete strength
exceeds 100 MPa (14,500 psi); and 2) to accurately predict
the shear capacity of RHSC beams using the modifed
compression feld theory (MCFT).
9
The rapidly increasing use of HSC is outpacing the devel-
opment of appropriate recommendations for its application.
Fig. 1Comparison of design code formulas. (Note: 1 MPa
= 145 psi.)
ACI member S. V. T. Janaka Perera is a Postgraduate Student in the Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Saitama University, Saitama, Japan.
He received his BSc and MPhil in civil engineering from the University of Mora-
tuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. His research interests include high-strength concrete,
prestressed concrete, and composite construction.
ACI member Hiroshi Mutsuyoshi is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering at Saitama University. He received his Doctorate in engineering
from the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. He is a member of ACI Committee 440,
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement, and the ACI International Partnerships &
Publications IC Subcommittee. His research interests include high-strength concrete,
prestressed concrete, and fber-reinforced polymer reinforcement.
There is currently no research that quantitatively explains
why the shear strength of RHSC beams (f
c
> 100 MPa
[14,500 psi]) without web reinforcement does not increase
with increasing concrete compressive strength. This study
aims to fll this information gap. The shear behavior of
RHSC is described using the ductility number of concrete
and aggregate. Experimental data are compared with MCFT
predictions to assess their accuracy. The results presented in
this paper will lead to improved recommendations for the
use of HSC.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
To investigate the infuence of concrete compressive strength,
early-age shrinkage, brittleness, fracture surface roughness,
aggregate strength, and a/d on the diagonal cracking shear
behavior of RHSC beams, 12 beams without web reinforce-
ment were fabricated for study. The test variables are summa-
rized in Table 1. A brief summary of the experimental inves-
tigation and an introduction to the concept of the brittleness
index and fracture surface roughness index follows.
Materials
Table 2 indicates the concrete mixture proportions. The
materials consist of silica fume cement, in powder form,
with a 5720 cm
2
/g (2791 ft
2
/lb) specifc surface area (SSA),
as measured by Blaines method; an expansive lime-based
additive (EX) with an SSA of 3480 cm
2
/g (1698 ft
2
/lb);
a polycarboxylic acid-based high-range water-reducing
admixture (HRWRA); and an air-reducing admixture (DA).
Table 3 lists the properties of the coarse aggregates used.
Three types of reinforcing bar were used; refer to Fig. 2 for
their mechanical properties.
Table 1Test variables and beam test results
Specimen Concrete type a/d f
c
, MPa f
t
, MPa V
f
, kN V
c
, kN V
u
, kN Failure mode
NSC40-I NSC40 3.0 38 3.2 23.5 75.0 75.0 DT
NSC40-II NSC40 3.5 38 3.4 20.5 78.0 78.0 DT
NSC40-III NSC40 4.0 36 3.1 17.5 76.5 76.5 DT
HA100-I HA100 3.0 133 6.1 25.0 85.5 142.0 SC
HA100-II HA100 3.5 116 5.4 25.0 85.0 93.0 SC
HA100-III HA100 4.0 114 5.2 26.5 85.0 85.0 DT
HA120 HA120 4.0 138 7.2 28.0 82.5 82.5 DT
HA160-I HA160 3.0 165 7.4 27.5 81.0 226.0 SC
HA160-II HA160 3.5 194 6.8 28.0 77.0 80.0 SC
HA160-III HA160 4.0 183 7.4 27.5 75.0 105.5 SC
LA120 LA120 4.0 155 8.3 34.5 85.0 120.5 SC
LA160 LA160 4.0 175 8.5 35.2 67.0 153.0 SC
Notes: V
f
is fexural cracking load; V
c
is shear force at diagonal cracking; V
u
is shear force at failure; DT is diagonal tension failure; SC is shear compression failure; longitudinal
tensile reinforcement ratio p
w
is 3.04%; 1 kN = 225 lbf; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
Table 2Mixture proportions of concrete
Concrete type W/B, %
Unit weight, kg/m
3
W OPC SF S G EX HRWRA DA
NSC40 46 168 363 1017 757 3.45
HA80 30 160 534 873 795 6.94 0.53
HA100 23 165 717 608 940 12.9 0.78
HA120 20 155 775 703 792 11.63 0.78
HA160 17 155 912 592 792 14.59 0.91
LA120 20 155 750 703 792 25 11.63 0.78
LA160 17 155 882 595 792 30 14.59 0.91
Notes: B is binder; B = OPC + SF + EX; W is water; OPC is ordinary portland cement; SF is silica fume cement; S is sand; G is gravel; EX is expansive additive; HRWRA is high-
range water-reducing admixture; DA is air-reducing admixture; 1 kg/m
3
= 0.062 lb/ft
3
.
Table 3Properties of aggregates
Type Density, g/cm
3
Absorption, % Fineness modulus o
c
, MPa o
t
, MPa o
c
/o
t
Maximum size
Crushed granite 2.53 0.42 6.64 190 to 285 8.9 to 15.3 18.6 to 21.3 19 mm
Notes: o
c
is uniaxial compressive strength; o
t
is tensile strength; 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 g/cm
3
= 0.036 lb/in.
3
; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
Specimen design
The cross sections and layout of the test beams are
shown in Fig. 2. In the experiments, the concrete compres-
sive strength, early-age shrinkage, and a/d were varied, as
shown in Table 1. All beams were 200 mm (7.9 in.) wide
and had an effective depth of 250 mm (9.8 in.). The value
of f
c
was varied from 38 to 194 MPa (5511 to 28,137 psi).
Due to experimental limitations, there was no beam test with
Mixture HA80. However, its shear behavior is already well-
documented in existing literature.
3,4
The value of a/d was
varied from 3.0 to 4.0. Three high-strength steel bars (f
y
=
750 MPa [109 ksi]) were used as longitudinal reinforcement
so shear failure would precede fexural failure.
Concrete prisms made of high early-age shrinkage
(HA) and low early-age shrinkage (LA) concretes with a
cross section of 100 x 100 mm (3.9 x 3.9 in.) and a length
of 400 mm (15.7 in.) were prepared to measure shrinkage
of the concrete (Fig. 3). Prisms of the same dimensions
were prepared for fracture energy measurements (with
a 30 mm [1.18 in.] notch height) (Fig. 4). Cylinder speci-
mens measuring 100 mm (3.9 in.) in diameter and 200 mm
(7.9 in.) in height were prepared for the compressive strength
and modulus of elasticity tests; others measuring 150 mm
(5.9 in.) in diameter and 150 mm (5.9 in.) in height were
prepared for the splitting tensile strength tests.
Immediately after casting, all specimens, including the
beams, cylinders, and square prism specimens, were covered
with polyethylene sheeting to reduce concrete drying. All beams
and specimens were moist-cured for approximately 28 days
and were tested 28 to 30 days after casting.
To determine the aggregate strengths, uniaxial compres-
sive strength o
c
and tensile strength o
t
tests of rock cylin-
ders were measured. Cylinder specimens measuring 50 mm
(2.0 in.) in diameter and 100 mm (3.9 in.) in height were
prepared for the uniaxial compressive strength tests; others
measuring 50 mm (2.0 in.) in diameter and 50 mm (2.0 in.) in
height were prepared for the tensile strength tests (measured
using the Brazilian test). Refer to Table 3 for the results of
these tests.
Roughness index R
s
of fracture surface
The interlocking action of aggregate along a crack can be
described using post-failure evidence from the fracture surface.
It is commonly recognized that the roughness of the fracture
surface can vary depending on the concrete mixture design.
Until now, however, this has not been quantitatively explained.
For the surface roughness test, fractured splitting tensile
strength test specimens were tested, as they were used
to measure the tensile capacity of concrete. The fracture
surfaces of these specimens were not damaged because they
failed in Mode I. A laser light confocal microscope was used
to scan the fractured surface three-dimensionally. The rough-
ness index R
s
was calculated from the directly measured
surface area,
10
as shown by Eq. (1) (Fig. 5).
s
Ai
R
A
(1)
Fig. 2Details of RC beam. (Note: Dimensions in mm; area of D6 steel bar is 31.7 mm
2

with yield strength f
y
= 360 MPa and Youngs modulus of steel E
s
= 187 GPa; area of D19
steel bar is 286.5 mm
2
with f
y
= 384 MPa and E
s
= 200 GPa; area of D25 steel bar is
506.7 mm
2
with f
y
= 750 MPa and E
s
= 201 GPa; a/d = 4.0; 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 mm
2
=
0.00155 in.
2
; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi.)
Fig. 3Details of early-age shrinkage specimen. (Note:
Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.; t is thickness.)
Fig. 4Experimental load-crack mouth opening displace-
ment curves from fracture energy tests. (Note: 1 kN = 225 lbf;
1 mm = 0.039 in.)
where Ai is the fractured surface area; and A is the projected
surface area.
Brittleness index B
Various parameters have been proposed to characterize the
brittleness of concrete. The characteristic length l
ch
= EG
F
/f
t
2
,
as proposed by Hillerborg,
11
has been used to characterize
the brittleness of concrete, rock, and glass. The normal-
ized shear strength v
c
/f
t
of geometrically similar beams is
governed by the dimensionless ratio between absolute struc-
ture size D and l
ch
.
12
This ratio is regarded as a measure of the
brittleness of structural elements that are sensitive to tensile
stress-induced fracture. A higher value of B corresponds to a
more brittle structural element.
2
t
F
f D
B
EG
(2)
where f
t
is tensile strength; E is the Youngs modulus; G
F
is
the fracture energy in Mode I; D is the absolute structural
element size (in the case of a beam, equal to the effective
depth of the beam)
12,13
; and v
c
is shear strength. The tensile
strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete are dependent
on compressive strength, and fracture energy is dependent
on aggregate size and compressive strength.
Test procedure
The test beams were simply supported and loaded symmet-
rically with two equal concentrated loads. For the entire
test program, the distance between the two point loads was
kept constant at 300 mm (11.8 in.). The dimensions of the
loading and reaction plates were 25 x 80 x 200 mm (1 x 3.1 x
7.9 in.). At each load increment, the vertical defection and
the strains at the top and bottom of the beam were measured.
Visual observations of any cracks were made during the test
and all cracks were marked. The failure of the beams was
brittle and accompanied by a loud noise. Each beam test was
followed by tests of compressive strength, splitting tensile
strength, modulus of elasticity, and fracture energy.
Concrete shrinkage was measured immediately after
placement. A strain gauge with a reference length of 100 mm
(3.9 in.) was embedded at midheight in the center of the
100 x 100 x 400 mm (3.9 x 3.9 x 15.7 in.) prisms. A fracture
energy test of the concrete was carried out at almost the same
age as the beams when subjected to loading tests, as outlined
in a Japan Concrete Institute (JCI) technical report published
in 2003.
14
To calculate the roughness index, the fracture surface
of the splitting tensile strength test specimen was scanned
as described previously. Due to instrument limitations,
a 75 x 75 mm (3.0 x 3.0 in.) area of the fractured surface
at the center of the specimen was scanned with a 250 m
(9842 in.) pixel size and a resolution of 0.01 m (0.4 in.).
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The test results are presented in Tables 1 and 4. The results
in Table 1 include the observed values for the diagonal
cracking load, failure load, and mode of failure observed.
Information on the properties of concrete is presented
in Table 4. The experimental results and discussion are
presented in four categories: the properties of concrete, load-
defection relationship, effect of compressive strength, and
comparison of shear behavior of RHSC beams.
Properties of concrete
The compressive strength, splitting tensile strength,
Youngs modulus E
c
, fracture energy, and shrinkage strain
of the concrete at the time of the beam test are tabulated
in Table 4. Figure 4 shows the effect of experimental load
on crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) observed in
fracture energy tests. According to the test results, a 15%
greater f
t
was observed in LA concrete compared with HA
concrete. However, E
c
and G
F
were not signifcantly higher
in LA concrete than in HA concrete. In other words, the
effect of early-age shrinkage on the mechanical properties of
HSC was not noticeable other than in the value of f
t
.
The roughness index R
s
of the fracture surface is described
using the ductility number DN. In rock mechanics, the DN
(or brittleness number) is the ratio of uniaxial compressive
strength to tensile strength. It is the most widely used index
for the quantifcation of rock brittleness.
15,16
The higher
the DN, the more brittle the material. As the DN increases,
the size of the crushed zone caused by loading increases,
as well as the number and length of main cracks outside
the crushed zone.
16
The two strength measures (o
c
and o
t
)
have maximum and minimum values that depend on the
orientation of grains in the rock.
17
According to Table 3,
the aggregate type (crushed granite) used in this study has
a DN in the region of 18 to 22. It should be noted that the
aggregate content of the concrete mixture proportions used
in this study is approximately equal, except in the case of
Mixture HA100 (Table 2). The aggregate content of Mixture
Fig. 5Schematic view of roughness parameter (R
s
= ZAi/ZA).
Table 4Properties of concrete
Concrete
type f
c
, MPa f
t
, MPa E
c
, GPa
G
F
,
N/mm r
sh
10
6
l
ch
, mm
NSC40 36 3.1 32.1 0.200 73 676
HA80 81 4.9 34.1 0.223 95 258
HA100 114 5.2 36.5 0.220 322 347
HA120 138 7.2 39.4 0.229 412 176
HA160 183 7.4 43.5 0.250 511 200
LA120 155 8.3 41.0 0.248 168 166
LA160 175 8.5 44.7 0.259 225 161
Notes: E
c
is Youngs modulus of concrete; r
sh
is shrinkage strain in concrete; 1 MPa =
145 psi; 1 N/mm = 0.175 lbf/in.
HA100 was different from other mixtures to investigate the
effect of aggregate content on the R
s
of HSC.
Test results indicated that the DN of NSC was
between 11 and 13 and it was more ductile than the aggregate
(Table 3). Inspection of the failure surfaces of NSC speci-
mens indicated that more than four-ffths of the aggregate
particles had fractured with sharp edges. Therefore, R
s
has a
maximum value (1.269) in NSC (f
c
= 36 MPa [5221 psi]).
The DN of HSC with a strength between 114 and 155 MPa
(16,534 and 22,481 psi) was between 18 and 22, coinciding
with that of the aggregate (refer to Fig. 6). Inspection of the
failure surfaces of HSC specimens in this strength region
indicated that approximately one-eighth of the aggregate
particles had fractured with sharp edges. There was a 14%
reduction in R
s
as the strength of the concrete increased
from 36 to 114 MPa (5221 to 16,534 psi) (Fig. 7). However,
as concrete strength further increased from 114 to 155 MPa
(16,534 to 22,481 psi), the change in R
s
was minimal (Fig. 8).
This was due to the similar brittle behavior of both HSC and
aggregate. Also, the value of R
s
of Mixture LA160 with a
strength of 175 MPa (25,382 psi) was the same as that of
Mixture LA120 with a strength of 155 MPa (22,481 psi). This
behavior was a result of brittleness and it will be discussed in
a later section of this paper. Moreover, as concrete strength
further increased from 155 to 183 MPa (22,481 to 26,542 psi),
DN rose from 22 to 29; in this concrete strength region, the
concrete is more brittle than the aggregate. Inspection of the
failure surfaces indicated that approximately all of the aggre-
gate particles had fractured with a fat and smooth fracture
surface. As a result, R
s
was further reduced, as shown in
Fig. 8. The aggregate content of all concrete mixtures was
approximately the same, except that of Mixture HA100. Irre-
spective of aggregate content, however, the R
s
of HSC was
highly dependent on the DN of concrete.
Fig. 6Effect of compressive strength of concrete on ductility
number DN and diagonal cracking shear capacity of RC
beams. (Note: Aggregate used in this study was crushed
granite; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 225 lbf.)
Fig. 7Fractured surfaces of splitting tensile strength specimens. (Note: Surface elevation
in mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
Load-defection relationship
Figure 9 shows the load-defection curves of tested
beams with a/d = 4.0. All beams exhibit similar behavior;
Beam HA160-III is described herein as an example. In
the HA160-III load-defection curve, fexural cracks frst
appeared at an early stage of loading. The load dropped
slightly after formation of the frst fexural crack and then
continued to rise. The fexural cracking load at which the
frst fexural cracking formed was 43 to 102% greater in
RHSC beams than NSC beams (Table 1). This was mainly
due to the higher tensile strength of HSC.
The diagonal crack then occurred in the shear span
and the load dropped sharply. The load soon continued to
increase, however, dropping slightly once again with the
formation of another crack. Thus, even though diagonal
cracking took place, the beam was still able to bear the
applied load through arch action. Finally, the beam failed
in shear compression when the diagonal cracks in the shear
span widened and the concrete near the crack tip in the
compression zone was crushed. Beams HA100-I, HA100-II,
LA120, HA160-I, HA160-II, HA160-III, and LA160 all
failed in shear compression, while all other beams, including
HA120 and HA100-III, failed in diagonal tension. Diagonal
tension failure occurred just after the occurrence of critical
diagonal cracking.
In RC beams with a concrete strength exceeding 100 MPa
(14,500 psi), when the a/d was greater than 3.0, failure
occurred after diagonal cracking and the beams failed in
shear compression, as described previously. In the case of
RHSC beams (HA100-III and HA120), however, when the
a/d was 4.0, diagonal cracking became unstable and the beams
failed in diagonal tension. For RHSC beams (f
c
> 100 MPa
[14,500 psi]), the transition point between shear compression
failure and diagonal tension failure shifted to a/d greater than
4.0, while for NSC beams it was 3.0
13
(Table 1).
LA beams tended to fail at higher loads in shear compres-
sion after the formation of an arch mechanism as compared
with HA beams (Table 1). This behavior could be due to
the strength of the compression strut and is closely related
to the compressive strength of the concrete. Also, the
reduced early-age shrinkage (by 55 to 60%) in LA beams
improved both bond stiffness between the reinforcement and
concrete,
6
as well as the stiffness of the compression zone.
As a result, the failure loads were increased. Due to the small
sample size, however, more tests are needed to confrm this.
Effect of compressive strength
After cracking, shear is resisted by aggregate interlock,
the dowel action of tension reinforcement bars, and resis-
tance provided by uncracked concrete in the compression
zone of the beam.
5
The percentage carried by aggregate
interlock depends strongly on the surface roughness at the
crack. Examination of failure surfaces of the beams and
splitting tensile strength specimens revealed that the fracture
surfaces were similar and the crack surfaces were smooth
in HSC beams (Fig. 7 and 8), indicating that the shear force
carried by aggregate interlock decreases with increasing
f
c
. There was an 8% decrease in R
s
between concrete
with a strength of 36 and 81 MPa (5221 and 11,748 psi).
A further 8% decrease was observed as the strength of
the concrete increased from 81 to 138 MPa (11,748 to
20,015 psi). However, as concrete strength further increased
from 138 to 183 MPa (20,015 to 26,542 psi), the change
in R
s
was minimal. Test results indicated that the diagonal
cracking shear strength of the RHSC beam with a concrete
strength of 114 MPa (16,534 psi) (Beam HA100-III) was
11% higher than that with a concrete strength of 36 MPa
(5221 psi) (Beam NSC40-III). This increase was due to the
ductility of concrete and the 67% increase in f
t
. The shear
strength of RHSC beams was constant, with a maximum
value for concrete strengths between 114 MPa (16,534 psi)
(Beam HA100-III) and 155 MPa (22,481 psi) (Beam LA120).
This behavior was due to the DN of the concrete and aggre-
gate being approximately equal (Fig. 6). However, the shear
strength of Beam HA160-III (f
c
= 183 MPa [26,542 psi]) was
12% lower than that with a concrete strength of Beam LA120
(f
c
= 155 MPa [22,481 psi]) (Fig. 6). This reduction was
due to the increase in the DN of the concrete rather than
any effect of the aggregate. However, the shear strength of
Beam LA160 (f
c
= 175 MPa [25,382 psi]) was lower than
that of other RHSC beams, although its DN value was main-
tained using LA concrete. This behavior was due to the
brittleness of Mixture LA160 compared to other concrete
types; the RHSC beam with a concrete strength of more
than 155 MPa (22,481 psi) did not stay constant as expected
with increasing f
c
(Table 1).
Comparison of shear behavior of RHSC beams
Measuring the diagonal cracking load experimentally is
not easy. In this study, shear strength is defned as the shear
stress at the point when the diagonal crack that causes failure
becomes inclined and extends beyond the neutral axis.
To analyze the brittleness of beams and the diagonal
cracking load relationship in detail, the normalized shear
Fig. 8Fracture surface roughness of splitting tensile
strength specimens. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
Fig. 9Comparison of load-defection relationship of RC
beams (a/d = 4.0). (Note: 1 kN = 225 lbf; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
strength v
c
/f
t
was used. The brittleness index B is inversely
proportional to material shear strength. Therefore, for a
better understanding, 1/B was analyzed with respect to
v
c
/f
t
. To show the continuity of the shear behavior of RHSC
beams, data reported previously by Fujita et al.
18
and Sato
and Kawakane
8
were used. All data were for an effective
depth of 250 mm (9.8 in.), an a/d of 3.0, and a longitudinal
reinforcement ratio of 1.53%.
As can be seen in Fig. 8 and 10, the values of R
s
and 1/B
decreased by 15% and 74%, respectively, with increasing
concrete strength from NSC (Beam NSC40-III with a strength
of 36 MPa [5221 psi]) to HSC (Beam HA120 with a strength
of 138 MPa [20,015 psi]). The value of v
c
/f
t
(Table 1 and
Fig. 11) decreased from 0.49 to 0.23. In Beam HA120, the
thickness of the uncracked compression zone also decreased
with increasing concrete strength. Because the beam was
very brittle, this thin uncracked compression zone was
reduced further by fexural cracking. As a result of these
factors, the v
c
/f
t
value of Beam HA120 was reduced by 53%.
The value of R
s
changed slightly (approximately 2%)
when concrete strength increased from 138 to 175 MPa
(20,015 to 25,382 psi). Also, v
c
/f
t
and 1/B fell slightly to
0.16 and 0.64 at a concrete strength of 175 MPa (25,382 psi),
respectively. In this region of concrete strength, the normal-
ized shear strength of both Beams LA120 and LA160 was
lower than that of Beams HA120 and HA160, respectively.
This is because of the lower 1/B value in LA beams compared
to HA beams (LA beams were more brittle).
At a concrete strength of 183 MPa (26,542 psi), an
increase in both v
c
/f
t
(0.20; a 33% increase) and 1/B (0.8; a
25% increase) was seen. At the same time, the change in R
s

was minimal at a concrete strength of 183 MPa (26,542 psi).
Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the behavior of v
c
/f
t
and
1/B in HSC beams is proportional (Fig. 10 and 11). Also, the
normalized shear strength of HSC beams greatly depended
on the brittleness index of the beam.
ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
The diagonal cracking shear strength results obtained in
the tests described previously are compared with values
calculated on the basis of the recommendations given in
ACI 318-05,
2
the JSCE Code,
3
equations proposed by Fujita
et al.
18
and Khuntia and Stojadinovic,
4
and the modifed
compression feld theory (MCFT).
9,19
(Note: Equations in
this section are in SI units; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
ACI 318-05
2
ACI 318-05,
2
Eq. (11-5)
1 2
0.158 17.2 (MPa)
u
c c w
u
V d
v f
M
+ p (3)
In this code, the recommended highest compressive
strength of concrete is 70 MPa (10,000 psi). (Note: This
equation is given in U.S. Customary units in Reference 8.)
JSCE Code
3
Eq. 6.3.3
( ) ( )
1 3
1 4 1 3
100 0.2 (MPa)
c w c
v d f
p (4)
According to this code, when the characteristic compres-
sive strength of concrete exceeds 80 MPa (11,600 psi), there
may not be a signifcant increase in v
c
.
Equation proposed by Fujita et al.
18
( ) ( ) ( )
1 3
1 2 1 2
180 100 0.75 1.4 (MPa)
c c w
v f d a d

p + (5)
In this code, the recommended compressive strength of
concrete is between 80 and 125 MPa (11,600 and 18,130 psi).
Equation proposed by Khuntia and Stojadinovic
4
0.5
3
0.537 (MPa)
c
c w c
u
V d
v f
M
_
p

,
(6)
where v
c
is diagonal cracking shear stress; V
c
is the diagonal
cracking shear force; V
u
is the shear force at the section
considered; M
u
is the bending moment at the section consid-
ered; d is effective depth; and p
w
is the longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio.
This equation was found to accurately predict shear strength
in concrete with a compressive strength between 28 and
Fig. 10Behavior of brittleness index. (Note: 1 MPa =
145 psi.)
Fig. 11Behavior of normalized shear strength with
compressive strength of concrete. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
83 MPa (4000 and 12,000 psi).
4
(Note: This equation is given
in U.S. Customary units in Reference 4.)
MCFT
The MCFT
9
relates the shear stress that is transmitted
across a crack to the crack width, the maximum aggregate
size, and the concrete strength as
0.18
(MPa, mm)
24
0.31
16
c
ci
g
f
v
w
a
+
+
(7)
where a
g
is the maximum aggregate size; and w is the
crack width.
1
(mm) w s
r
(8)
where r
1
is the principal tensile strain in the cracked concrete;
and s
is the crack spacing in the direction. (Note: Equations

(6) and (7) are given in U.S. Customary units in Reference 9.)
Aggregate size does not infuence aggregate interlock
capacity in HSC because of the smooth fracture surface.
To account for this, Bentz
19
suggested that an effective
maximum aggregate size be calculated by reducing a
g
to
zero as f
c
increases from 60 to 80 MPa (8500 to 11,603 psi).
Comparison of predictions and experimental results
According to the ACI 318-05
2
and the JSCE Code
3
shear
prediction equations without limitations, the shear strength
of RC beams increases as concrete strength increases.
However, the experimental results obtained in this study
showed that with increasing concrete strength, the shear
strength of RHSC beams did not increase (Fig. 12). There-
fore, for all RHSC beams, ACI 318-05
2
and the JSCE
Code
3
overpredicted the shear strength by between 9 and 73%
(ACI 318-05
2
) and 18 to 77% (JSCE
3
) (Table 5). However,
the predictions made by Fujita et al.
18
and Khuntia and
Stojadinovic
4
were found to be conservative: the averages
of the ratio of the tested-to-predicted shear strength were
1.12 and 1.05 with standard deviations of 0.08 and 0.11,
respectively. In the equation by Fujita et al.,
18
the material
properties factor in the shear strength of HSC was evaluated
using f
c
1/2
, unlike NSC, which is evaluated using f
c
1/2
or
f
c
1/3
. Among the aforementioned methods, those proposed
by Fujita et al.
18
and Khuntia and Stojadinovic
4
were found
to be the most reliable for design purposes.
According to the MCFT,
9,19
an increase in a
g
improves the
ability of cracked concrete to transfer shear. Therefore, in
Fig. 12Comparison of design code formulas with experi-
mental results (a/d = 4.0). (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
Table 5Comparison of experimental results with predicted values of diagonal cracking shear strength
Specimen
V
n,test
/V
n,predicted
Eq. (3) by ACI 318-05
2

Eq. (11-5)
Eq. (4) by
JSCE
3
Eq. (5) by
Fujita et al.
18
Eq. (6) by Khuntia and
Stojadinovic
4
By
MCFT
9,19
By
MCFT
*
NSC40-I 1.21 1.09 (0.49) 1.18 1.12 1.12
NSC40-II 1.31 1.13 (0.54) 1.27 1.21 1.21
NSC40-III 1.36 1.13 (0.54) 1.30 1.27 1.27
HA100-I
(0.82) (0.82) (1.05) (1.09) (0.91) 1.06

HA100-II
(0.89) (0.85) 1.03 (1.15) 1.00 1.09

HA100-III
(0.91) (0.86) 1.06 (1.19) 1.07 1.13

HA120
(0.81) (0.78) (1.14) (1.12) (0.97) 1.08

HA160-I
(0.71) (0.72) (1.10) (1.00) (0.81) 0.97

HA160-II
(0.64) (0.65) (1.20) (0.96) (0.77) 0.91

HA160-III
(0.65) (0.64) (1.19) (0.97) (0.80) 0.94

LA120
(0.79) (0.77) (1.24) (1.13) (0.97) 1.02

LA160
(0.59) (0.58) (1.04) (0.87) (0.73) 0.78

Average (RHSC beams) 0.76 0.74 1.12 1.05 0.89 1.00
SD (RHSC beams) 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.11
Average (all beams) 0.89 0.84 0.97 1.10 0.97 1.05
SD (all beams) 0.26 0.19 0.28 0.13 0.17 0.13
*
MCFT
9,19
with authors recommended modifcations.
RHSC beam.
Notes: V
n,test
is experimental shear strength; V
n,predicted
is predicted shear strength; SD is standard deviation; values in parentheses are predictions outside recommended
concrete strength.
this study, the value of a
g
was varied to represent the infu-
ence of fracture surface roughness. As Bentz
19
suggested,
a
g
was taken as zero for concrete with a strength greater
than 80 MPa (11,603 psi). According to the analysis,
the average of the ratio of the tested shear strength to the
predicted shear strength of RHSC beams was 0.89 with a
standard deviation of 0.12.
According to this study, however, the surface roughness
of NSC specimens with a strength of 36 MPa (5221 psi)
was approximately 8% and 20% greater than that of HSC
specimens with a strength of 81 and 155 MPa (11,748 and
22,481 psi), respectively. Therefore, during the analysis, a
g

was reduced linearly from a
g
= 19 mm (0.748 in.) to zero
as f
c
increased from 36 to 155 MPa (5221 to 22,481 psi)
(Fig. 13). Additionally, because crack width increases with
an increase of r
1
thereby reducing shear transfer capacity
in this analysis, early-age shrinkage strain was uniformly
added to the concrete strain along the longitudinal axis of a
beam. This was to represent the degradation of bond strength
between reinforcing bars and HSC. The early-age shrinkage
strain of each RC beam was taken from Table 4 with respect
to its concrete type.
The test results compared with predictions based on the
MCFT using these recommended modifcations are reported
in Table 5. According to the results, the average ratio of
the tested-to-predicted shear strength of RHSC beams was
1.00 with a standard deviation of 0.11 (Table 5). There is
a clear need to modify the MCFT to better evaluate aggre-
gate interlocking and the brittleness of HSC. More testing is
currently required to study this problem further.
In brief, the MCFT
9,19
with a recommended modifca-
tion was found to be reliable for design purposes. On the
other hand, the predictions given by ACI 318-05
2
and the
JSCE Code
3
were found to overestimate the shear capacity
of RHSC beams.
CONCLUSIONS
The shear behavior of RHSC beams (f
c
> 100 MPa
[14,500 psi]) without web reinforcement was investigated.
The results of a series of tests on 12 beams are presented and
analyzed. Based on these results, the following conclusions
are drawn:
1. By considering concrete brittleness and fracture surface
roughness in conjunction with the ductility numbers of
concrete and coarse aggregate, designers understanding of
shear behavior will be enhanced.
2. The ductility number of the aggregate relative to that of
concrete governs the fracture surface roughness of concrete
and the shear strength of HSC. When the ductility number
of concrete was lower than that of the aggregate, the diag-
onal cracking shear strength increased with the increase
of concrete strength due to the rough fracture surface and
increased tensile strength. When the ductility numbers of
the concrete and aggregate were equal, shear strength stayed
constant at the maximum value. When concrete had a higher
ductility number than the aggregate, however, shear strength
decreased due the smooth fracture surface and high brittle-
ness of the concrete. In this study, however, the maximum
coarse aggregate size was 19 mm (0.748 in.) and the rock
type was crushed granite. Therefore, further studies on
different aggregate sizes and rock types are essential.
3. The ductility number of the aggregate (crushed
granite) used in this study ranged from 18 to 22. The
ductility number of the NSC was between 11 and 13.
Therefore, diagonal cracking shear strength increased by
approximately 9 to 14% as concrete strength increased
from 36 to 114 MPa (5221 to 16,534 psi). Concrete with a
strength between 114 and 155 MPa (16,534 and 22,481 psi)
has the same ductility number as the aggregate. In this
strength region, shear strength is not dependent on concrete
strength. The ductility number of concrete with a strength
greater than 155 MPa (22,481 psi) was more than 22. There-
fore, shear strength started to decrease due to the smooth
fracture surface and high brittleness of the concrete.
4. The change in the fracture surface roughness index of
beams with a concrete strength between 155 and 183 MPa
(22,481 and 26,542 psi) was minimal, while the beam with a
concrete strength of 155 MPa (20,015 psi) was approximately
4% lower than the beam with a concrete strength of 114 MPa
(16,534 psi). The change in the fracture surface roughness
index of the beam with a concrete strength of 114 MPa
(16,534 psi) was approximately 14% lower than that of the
beam with a concrete strength of 36 MPa (5221 psi).
5. The ACI 318-05
2
and JSCE Code
3
equations for evalu-
ating the shear strength of HSC beams need to be modifed
according to the suggestions made in this paper.
6. The average ratio of the tested-to-predicted shear
strength of RHSC beams using the MCFT and including the
authors recommendations was 1.00 with a standard devia-
tion of 0.11. This compares with the previous result without
the authors modifcations, where the average of the ratio of
tested-to-predicted shear strength was 0.89 with a standard
deviation of 0.12.
7. The MCFT can predict the effect of fracture surface
roughness and early-age shrinkage of concrete on diagonal
shear strength but should be improved to include the effects
of aggregate strength and concrete brittleness.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support for this research by the Grant-in Aid for Scientifc Research
provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Tech-
nology in Japan is greatly appreciated. Special thanks to R. Takeda and
H. Watanabe from the graduate school at Saitama University for assisting
with the experiments.
REFERENCES
1. Mutsuyoshi, H.; Ohtsuka, K.; Ichinomiya, T.; and Sakurada, M.,
Outline of Guidelines for Design and Construction of High Strength
Concrete for Prestressed Concrete Structures, Proceedings of JSCE of 8th
International Symposium on Utilization of High Strength and High Perfor-
mance Concrete, Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 2008, pp. 111-117.
Fig. 13Recommended modifcation to MCFT. (Note: 1 MPa
= 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
3. JSCE Guidelines for Concrete No. 3, Structural Performance Veri-
fcation, Standard Specifcation for Concrete Structures2002, Japan
Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), Tokyo, Japan, 2002.
4. Khuntia, M., and Stojadinovic, B., Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Beams without Transverse Reinforcement, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 98, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2001, pp. 648-656.
5. Taylor, R., and Brewer, R. S., The Effect of the Type of Aggregate
on the Diagonal Cracking of Concrete Beams, Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 115, No. 44, July 1963, pp. 87-92.
6. Gettu, R.; Baant, Z. P.; and Karr, M. E., Fracture Properties and Brit-
tleness of High-Strength Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 87, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1990, pp. 608-618.
7. Maruyama, I.; Kameta, S.; Suzuki, M.; and Sato, R., Cracking of High
Strength Concrete around Deformed Reinforcing Bar due to Shrinkage,
International RILEM-JCI Seminar on Concrete Durability and Service Life
Planning, K. Kovler, ed., Ein-Bokek, Israel, 2006, pp. 104-111.
8. Sato, R., and Kawakane, H., A New Concept for the Early Age
Shrinkage Effect on Diagonal Cracking Strength of Reinforced HSC
Beams, Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, V. 6, No. 1, Feb. 2008,
pp. 45-67.
9. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., The Modifed Compression Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI
Journal, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-321.
10. Lange, D. A.; Jenings, H. M.; and Shah, S. P., Relationship between
Fracture Surface Roughness and Fracture Behavior of Cement Paste and
Mortar, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, V. 76, No. 3, 1993,
pp. 589-597.
11. Hillerborg, A., Results of Three Comparative Test Series for Deter-
mining the Fracture Energy G
F
of Concrete, Materials and Structures,
V. 18, No. 107, Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 407-413.
12. Gustafsson, P. J., and Hillerborg, A., Sensitivity in Shear Strength of
Longitudinal Reinforced Concrete Beams to Fracture Energy of Concrete,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 3, May-June 1988, pp. 286-294.
13. Kim, J. K., and Park, Y. D., Prediction of Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams without Web Reinforcement, ACI Materials
Journal, V. 93, No. 3, May-June 1996, pp. 213-222.
14. JCI-S-00-2003, Method of Test for Fracture Energy of Concrete by
Use of Notched Beam, Japan Concrete Institute (JCI), Tokyo, Japan, 2003.
15. Goktan, R. M., and Yilmaz, N. G., A New Methodology for the
Analysis of the Relationship between Rock Brittleness Index and Drag Pick
Cutting Effciency, Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, V. 105, Nov. 2005, pp. 727-733.
16. Gong, Q. M., and Zhao, J., Infuence of Rock Brittleness on TBM
Penetration Rate in Singapore Granite, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, V. 22, 2007, pp. 317-324.
17. Prikryl, R., Some Microstructural Aspects of Strength Variation in
Rocks, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
V. 28, 2001, pp. 671-682.
18. Fujita, M.; Sato, R.; Matsumoto, K.; and Takaki, Y., Size Effect on
Shear Strength of RC Beams Using HSC without Shear Reinforcement,
Translation from Proceeding of JSCE, V. 56(711), Aug. 2002, pp. 113-128.
19. Bentz, E. C., Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members,
PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000.
20. Angelakos, D.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., Effect of Concrete
Strength and Minimum Stirrups on Shear Strength of Large Members, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 3, May-June 2001, pp. 290-300.
Title no. 110-S06
MS No. S-2011-048.R1 received August 1, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Design of Anchor Reinforcement for Seismic Shear Loads
by Derek Petersen and Jian Zhao
Existing design codes recommend hairpins and surface reinforce-
ment consisting of hooked bars encasing an edge reinforcement
to improve the behavior of anchor connections in shear. Concrete
breakout is assumed to occur before anchor reinforcement takes
effect in the current design methods. This paper presents an alter-
native design method for anchor shear reinforcement. The proposed
anchor shear reinforcement consists of a group of closed stirrups
proportioned to resist the code-specifed anchor steel capacity in
shear and placed within a distance from the anchor bolt equal to
the front-edge distance. Steel fracture was achieved in the tests of
twenty 25 mm (1 in.) reinforced anchors with a front-edge distance
of 152 mm (6 in.). Meanwhile, the observed anchor capacities
were smaller than the code-specifed anchor steel capacity in
shear because concrete cover spalling caused combined bending
and shear action in the anchor bolts. Reinforcing bars are needed
along all concrete surfaces to minimize concrete damage in front
of reinforced anchors for consistent seismic behavior in shear.
Keywords: anchor connections; anchor reinforcement; cast-in anchors;
composite construction; fastening; headed studs; seismic design.
INTRODUCTION
Concrete anchor connections are a critical component of
load transfer between steel and concrete members, affecting
structural performance during earthquake events. Observa-
tions of damage in recent major earthquakes have raised
concerns about the seismic performance of anchor connec-
tions.
1-4
Cast-in-place anchors may experience steel fracture
or concrete breakout failure when subjected to a shear force
toward a free edge.
5
The failure modes are mainly depen-
dent on the front-edge distance c
a1
when the anchor bolt is
placed in plain concrete. Concrete breakout cones, such as
the one shown in Fig. 1, vary in shape, while an idealized
breakout cone
6
(encased in the dashed lines) is generally
assumed in calculating the anchor breakout capacity. With
the breakout cone partially formed, the anchor bolt may lose
concrete support when subjected to reversed cyclic shear
loads, leading to unreliable seismic performance.
Building codes
5
and design guidelines
7,8
allow engineers
to use steel reinforcement to increase the shear capacity of
anchors placed near an edge. The recommended anchor shear
reinforcement usually consists of horizontal hairpins that
wrap around the anchor shaft or hooked bars along the direc-
tion of the shear force close to the top concrete surface, as
illustrated in Fig. 2. The existing design methods
5,7,8
assume
that the concrete breakout similar to that observed for
anchors in plain concrete occurs before steel reinforcement
takes effect. With this assumption, the shear resistance of the
anchor is exclusively provided by the anchor reinforcement.
Anchor reinforcement in terms of hooked bars is required
to be fully developed in the assumed breakout cone
5
or the
contribution from each bar is calculated according to its
development length in the assumed breakout cone.
7,8
The
development length requirements limit the distance from the
anchor bolt within which the reinforcement can be deemed
effective, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Signifcant efforts have been invested in testing anchors
reinforced with hairpins. Laboratory tests of anchors reinforced
with other types of reinforcement is scarce, especially for
anchors under cyclic shear loading. This paper presents
tests of cast-in-place anchors reinforced using closed stir-
rups under both monotonic and cyclic shear loading. Closed
stirrups encasing bars placed at the corners and distributed
along concrete surfaces can restrain concrete breakout such
that the shear load is transferred to the structure through the
Fig. 1Concrete breakout failure under shear.
Fig. 2Schematics of existing anchor shear reinforcement.
Derek Petersen is a Structural Engineer at Osmose Railroad Services Inc., Madison,
WI. He received his MS in civil/structural engineering from the University of Wisconsin
at Milwaukee (UWM), Milwaukee, WI.
ACI member Jian Zhao is an Assistant Professor in the UWM Department of Civil
Engineering and Mechanics. He received his PhD from the University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN. He is a member of ACI Committee 355, Anchorage to Concrete,
and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 447, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Structures. His research interests include the behavior of reinforced concrete struc-
tures, concrete-steel connections, and earthquake engineering.
confned concrete. A design method is proposed for anchor
shear reinforcement based on the observed anchor behavior.
BACKGROUND
Various types of anchors have been developed over the
past 40 years. Numerous studies have been performed to
develop the design method of anchors in plain concrete
corresponding to various identifed failure modes.
6
The
behavior of anchors and headed studs in plain concrete has
been discussed at length
7,9-12
and the tests have been summa-
rized in several databases.
13-15
On the other hand, studies
are limited on the performance of anchors with reinforce-
ment. The existing studies on anchor shear reinforcement are
reviewed and the available design methods are summarized
in the following.
Previous studies
The most investigated anchor reinforcement for resisting
shear forces is horizontal hairpins that wrap around the
anchor, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Swirsky et al.
16
tested 24 cast-
in-place anchors consisting of 25 and 51 mm (1 and 2 in.)
diameter ASTM A307 carbon steel or ASTM A449 medium
carbon or alloy steel bolts reinforced with No. 4 or No. 5 hair-
pins under monotonic and cyclic loading. The hairpins had
a 120-degree bend wrapping around the bolts 51 mm (2 in.)
below the concrete surface. A capacity increase of 15 to 87%
was observed at a displacement of approximately 25 mm
(1 in.). Only six anchors were reported to fail with anchor
shaft fracture, in part because the development length for the
hairpins was 20d
b
(d
b
is the diameter of the hairpins), which
is not suffcient. Many tests were terminated after bond
failure of hairpins was observed. Two additional tests were
conducted with two No. 4 vertical stirrups placed 51 mm
(2 in.) away from the bolt. The use of stirrups is similar to
the anchor reinforcement proposed in this paper; however,
the amount of the reinforcement was not suffcient, and both
tests stopped after the concrete cracked and a large displace-
ment was observed.
The behavior of anchor bolts reinforced with hairpins was
further studied by Klingner et al.
17
through 12 monotonic tests
and 16 cyclic tests of 19 mm (0.75 in.) diameter A307 bolts.
A No. 5 hairpin with a 180-degree bend and a develop-
ment length of approximately 37d
b
was placed 19 or 51 mm
(0.75 or 2 in.) below the top surface. The tests showed that
the most effective way to transfer anchor shear force to the
hairpin is through the contact between the anchor shaft and
the hairpin near the surface. Hairpins that were not in contact
with the anchor shaft were found to be effective in monotonic
tests but unreliable under cyclic loading. The No. 5 hairpin
provided suffcient shear resistance compared to the anchor
steel capacity; however, most tests were terminated before
anchor fracture was achievedlikely because a capacity
drop was observed during the tests.
Lee et al.
18
conducted 10 tests of 64 mm (2.5 in.) diam-
eter anchor bolts with a 381 mm (15 in.) edge distance
and a 635 mm (25 in.) embedment depth reinforced with
U-shaped hairpins and hooked reinforcing bars. The reinforce-
ment was proportioned to carry the shear capacity of anchor
steel, resulting in a combination of No. 6 hairpins and
No. 8 hooked bars dispersed within 381 mm (15 in.) from
the anchor bolt with a spacing of 152 mm (6 in.). Three
layers of No. 8 hairpins were used in some specimens. Most
tests were terminated before a peak load was observed due to
the limited stroke of the loading device. The unfnished tests
were not able to fully demonstrate the effectiveness of the
various anchor reinforcement designs.
In Europe, as documented by Schmid,
19
Paschen and
Schnhoff
20
examined 10 types of anchor reinforcement
layouts. Hairpins touching anchor shafts and reinforcing
bars distributed near the top surface, as illustrated in Fig. 2,
were found to be the most effective. Similar conclusions
were made by Ramm and Greiner
21
based on their tests of
anchors reinforced with fve types of reinforcement. Randl
and John
22
observed a capacity increase of 300% in their
tests of post-installed anchor bolts with hairpins. It was
concluded that the thickness of concrete cover affected the
effectiveness of hairpins as anchor shear reinforcement.
Recently, Schmid
19
conducted tests on fve types of anchors
with hooked reinforcing bars, which simulated the reinforcing
bars in an existing concrete element. A model was proposed
for determining the shear capacity of reinforced anchors,
which can be obtained from the summation of the contri-
butions from all reinforcing bars bridging the assumed
35-degree breakout crack. The contribution from each
reinforcing bar included the bearing force of the bent leg and
the bond force of the straight part within the breakout cone.
Schmids
19
equation for the capacity of reinforced anchors in
shear is a refned version of the equation proposed by Fuchs
and Eligehausen,
23
who clearly defned the assumption that
a concrete cone must form before steel reinforcement takes
effect. On the other hand, many of Schmids
19
tests were
terminated after the spalling of the concrete cover, which
might have not indicated the fnal failure of the specimens.
Existing design recommendations
The methods for proportioning anchor shear reinforcement
are summarized in Table 1. Note that many design methods that
focused on the capacity calculation for anchors with a known
confguration of anchor reinforcement, such as that proposed
by Schmid,
19
are not included in Table 1. In summary, most
existing design methods require the reinforcement to provide
more resistance than the anchor steel capacity in shear. This
is achieved by either increasing the design force
5
or reducing
the effectiveness of anchor reinforcement based on their
relative vertical locations.
7,8
Note that there are few tests
with such overdesigned reinforcement, and many such tests
were terminated before a true ultimate load was achieved.
Hairpins are deemed effective as anchor shear reinforce-
ment because they can be placed close to the anchor shaft
using a small bending radius on the hairpin.
17,18
The transfer of
shear load to surface reinforcement shown in Fig. 2 is usually
visualized using a strut-and-tie model (STM).
23,25
STMs
permit large-sized reinforcing bars located at a large distance
from the anchor bolt as anchor reinforcement as long as
the angle between the concrete strut and the applied shear
force is small (for example, less than 55 degrees); however,
tests
18,26
have indicated that reinforcing bars placed closer to
the anchor are more effective. As a result, the existing design
guidelines
5,7,8
require the anchor reinforcement to be within
a distance equal to half of the front-edge distance (0.5c
a1
),
as illustrated in Fig. 2. Such requirements leave a small
window of applicability for practical implementations of the
anchor reinforcement. Oftentimes, the front-edge distance
needs to be increased to accommodate the anchor reinforce-
ment, which in turn increases the concrete breakout capacity
such that the anchor reinforcement may no longer be needed.
Anchor reinforcement design for shear in this study considered
the following four aspects: 1) an effective reinforcement layout
that restrains concrete breakout failure; 2) a proper design
force for proportioning the anchor reinforcement; 3) a reason-
able distance on each side of the anchor bolt within which
the anchor reinforcement is deemed effective; and 4) an
accurate estimation of shear capacity of reinforced anchors.
PROPOSED ANCHOR SHEAR
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN
The proposed anchor reinforcement is shown in Fig. 3 for
anchors with both unlimited and limited side-edge distances.
The goal of the proposed design for anchor shear reinforce-
ment is to prevent concrete breakout using closely spaced
stirrups placed parallel to the plane of the applied shear force
and the anchor. With the concrete confned around the anchor,
it is expected that the concrete will restrain the anchor shaft
and provide shear resistance. The stirrups should be propor-
tioned using the anchor steel capacity in shear, as specifed
by the equation in the last row of Table 1. The nominal yield
strength of reinforcing steel should be used in the calcula-
tion. Two stirrups should be placed next to the anchor shaft,
where the breakout crack in concrete may initiate under a
shear load. The rest of the required stirrups should be placed
with a center-on-center spacing of 51 to 76 mm (2 to 3 in.). A
smaller spacing may be used, provided that the clear spacing
requirements, such as those in ACI 318-11,
5
are satisfed.
The stirrups can be distributed within a distance of c
a1
, as
shown in Fig. 3. Note that the horizontal legs of the closed
stirrups are used as anchor shear reinforcement, while the
vertical legs close to the anchor shaft
25
may be used as
anchor tension reinforcement, as shown in the Phase III
tests of this study. For this purpose, the depth of the stirrups
should be large enough such that the vertical legs are fully
developed for the tension load.
The development length requirements for the horizontal
legs of the closed stirrups are satisfed similar to the trans-
verse reinforcement in a fexural member, where the stirrups
are fully developed at both sides of a shear crack through
the interaction between the closed stirrups and longitu-
dinal bars at all four corners.
27
Meanwhile, reinforcing bar
pullout tests, in which both legs of No. 4 U-shaped bars
embedded 38 and 76 mm (1.5 and 3 in.) in concrete were
loaded in tension, indicated that a minimum embedment
depth of 6d
b
was needed to develop a No. 4 stirrup through
the interaction. Therefore, the length of the horizontal legs
of the vertical closed stirrups should be at least 8d
b
on both
sides of the anchor, as shown in Fig. 3. This requirement
Fig. 3Proposed anchor shear reinforcement layout.
Table 1Summary of design equations for anchor shear reinforcement
Reference Design equation for A
sa
given load V
sd
Development in cone Actual shear capacity V
s
Notes
Shipp and Haninger
24 ,
1.85cos 45
uta se N
ys sa
F A
F A

Not needed
Design based on
equivalent tension
Hairpins
Klingner et al.
17
F
ys
A
sa
= F
uta
A
se,V
Not needed V
s
= 0.6F
uta
A
se,V
Hairpins
CEB
7
0.5F
ys
A
sa
= 1.15V
sd
Considered in capacity
calculation
2
s dh bd
V l uf

Bars within 0.5c
a1
ACI 318-11
5
0.75F
ys
A
sa
= V
sd
*
V
s
= F
ys
A
sa
Bars within 0.5c
a1
or
0.3c
a2
Widianto et al.
25
o
s
A
sa
= F
uta
A
se,V
or 2.5V
sd
o
s
reduced for not fully developed bars
Not considered in STM V
s
= V
sd
Stirrups, ties, and
J-hooks
fb design guide
8
0.5F
ys
A
sa
= V
sd
([e
s
/z] + 1)
Considered in capacity
calculation
bd
s dh
re
f
V l u
o

Bars within 0.5c
a1
Proposed F
ys
A
sa
= 0.6F
uta
A
se,V
8d
b
on both sides V
s
= 0.45F
uta
A
se,V
Closed stirrups within c
a1
*
Refer to Chapter 12 of ACI 318-11
5
for details.
Notes: A
sa
is area of anchor reinforcement; F
ys
is yield strength of reinforcement; A
se,V
, A
se,N
is effective cross-sectional area of anchor; c
a1
, c
a2
are edge distances of anchor; e
s
is
distance from shear to reinforcement; f
bd
is design bond strength; F
uta
is ultimate strength of anchor; L
dh
, l
dh
is development length of hooked bar in breakout cone; u is circumfer-
ence of reinforcing bar; V
sd
is design shear force; z is reinforcement position; o
re
is modifcation factor; o
s
is stress in anchor reinforcement.
0.02
ys
dh b
c
F
L d
f

results in a minimum edge distance of 8d
b
plus the concrete
cover. The design of reinforced anchors should also satisfy
other edge distance requirements, such as those in Section D.8 of
ACI 318-11.
5
Bars at all four corners of the closed stirrups (referred to as
corner bars hereafter) restrain splitting cracks, as well as
other bars distributed along the concrete surfaces (referred to
as crack-controlling bars hereafter). Therefore, the corner
bars and crack-controlling bars need to be fully developed at
both sides of the anchor bolt, and a 90-degree bend (as shown
in dashed lines) in Fig. 3, may be needed. The selection of
corner bars may follow the common practices in selecting
longitudinal corner bars for reinforced concrete beams, such
as those specifed in Section 11.5.6 of ACI 318-11.
5
Crack-
controlling bars were not provided in the tests and the split-
ting cracks were observed, as presented in the following.
Crack-controlling bars are therefore recommended as shown
in Fig. 3, and the determination of these bars can be based on
the well-recognized STMs.
23,25
Specimens
This group of experimental tests is part of a research
program that focused on the behavior and design of cast-
in-place anchors under simulated seismic loads.
28
Sixteen
tests were conducted using 25 mm (1 in.) diameter anchors
consisting of an ASTM A193 Grade B7 threaded rod (f
y
=
724 MPa [105 ksi] and f
ut
= 1069 MPa [131 ksi]) and a heavy
hex nut welded to the end. Another four tests using 19 mm
(0.75 in.) diameter ASTM F1554 Grade 55 anchors (f
y
=
434 MPa [63 ksi] and f
ut
= 524 MPa [76 ksi]) were conducted
with two tests, each under monotonic shear and cyclic shear
loading. Ready mixed concrete with a targeted strength
of 27.6 MPa (4000 psi) was used, and cylinder tests using
three batches of three 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders
tested throughout the anchor test period showed an average
compressive strength of 24.3 MPa (3525 psi).
The dimensions of the test blocks containing four anchors
each are illustrated in Fig. 4. One block was prepared for
Type 19-150-100 specimens, and two blocks were prepared
for Type 25-150-150 and Type 25-150-150H specimens.
Another block similar to that for Type 25-150-150 speci-
mens was used for Type 25-150-150SG specimens. Strain
gauges were installed on the reinforcing bars of the two
anchors in this block. All anchors had an embedment depth
of 152 mm (6 in.). The width and depth of the test blocks
were selected such that the spacing between the anchors was
larger than two times their front-edge distances. Anchors in
Type 25-150-150H specimens had two limited side-edge
distances equal to 1.5 times their front-edge distance. The
height of the blocks was 432 mm (17 in.), similar to all other
anchor tests in the study.
28
The anchor shear reinforcement was proportioned to carry
the maximum capacity of the anchor bolts in shear: 68 kN
(15.3 kips) for the 19 mm (0.75 in.) anchors and 209 kN
(47 kips) for the 25 mm (1 in.) anchors. Using the nominal
yield strength of Grade 60 steel, the required anchor reinforce-
ment was found to be 164 mm
2
(0.25 in.
2
) for the 19 mm
(0.75 in.) anchors and 503 mm
2
(0.78 in.
2
) for the 25 mm
(1 in.) anchors. Therefore, two No. 4 bars were provided
for Type 19-150-100 specimens, as shown in Fig. 4. The
required anchor reinforcement for the 25 mm (1 in.) anchors
was provided using four No. 4 bars with a spacing of 51 mm
(2 in.) for Type 25-150-150 specimens, two No. 4 and four
No. 3 bars for Type 25-150-150H specimens with a spacing
of 76 mm (3 in.), and eight No. 3 bars for Type 25-150-
150SG specimens with a spacing of 51 mm (2 in.). Two addi-
tional No. 3 J-hooks were added beside the outermost bars in
Type 25-150-150SG specimens, as shown in Fig. 4, to host
two more strain gauges, which were approximately 250 mm
(10 in.) away from the anchor bolt. One straight bar was
provided at each corner of the closed stirrups. Note that
some specimens had several narrow stirrups placed behind
the anchorsthe vertical legs of which were intended to be
anchor tension reinforcementin which case one additional
corner bar was provided along the top surface. However,
the planned tension tests were not performed because the
concrete blocks were not suffcient for the large tension
load that would be carried by the reinforced anchors. The
additional stirrups did not affect the shear behavior of the
anchors because they were placed behind the anchor bolts.
All reinforcing bars were placed with a cover of 38 mm
(1.5 in.).
Test setup
The loading frame, actuator placement, and instrumenta-
tion setup used for the tests are shown in Fig. 5. Instead of
a self-balanced load frame, a tie-down rod 381 mm (15 in.)
behind the test anchor was used to fx the test block to the
strong foor. In addition, the concrete block was wedged
against the strong foor to minimize the slip of the test block
under cyclic loads, as shown in Fig. 5. A 245 kN (55 kip)
actuator was used to apply shear loading to the anchor bolt
through a loading plate. The actuator body was braced
against the foor to eliminate the downward motion of the
actuator swivel head and the rotation of the loading plate.
To minimize the friction between the loading plate and the
concrete top surface, a net tension force of 0.8 kN (0.2 kips)
was applied to the loading plate by a 489 kN (110 kip)
actuator, which was used for applying tension loads in other
tests. The nut fxing the loading plate to the anchor bolt
was frst hand-tightened and then loosened one-eighth of a
turn to allow slight vertical movement of the loading plate
Fig. 4Confgurations of anchor specimens.
when the 0.8 kN (0.2 kip) tension force was applied at the
beginning of a test. The test anchors were inserted through a
standard 3 mm (0.125 in.) oversized hole in the loading plate,
and a steel sleeve shim was inserted between the anchor and
the hole to eliminate the clearance and prevent damage to
the loading plate.
Loading protocol
Monotonic shear tests were performed frst to determine
the typical actuator displacement at failure, and the tests
indicated a failure displacement of approximately 35 mm
(1.4 in.). Hence, the cyclic displacement steps for each three-
cycle group were chosen as 2, 3, 4 (failure displacements
for typical unreinforced anchors), 8, 16, and 32 mm (0.08,
0.12, 0.16, 0.32, 0.64, and 1.28 in.), as shown in Fig. 5. The
loading rate for the displacement cycles at or below 4 mm
(0.16 in.) was kept at 2 mm/min (0.08 in./min), while the
load rate was increased to 10 mm/min (0.4 in./min) for the
8, 16, and 32 mm (0.32, 0.64, and 1.28 in.) cycles to reduce
test time. Most reversed cyclic shear tests were conducted
following Loading Pattern C1 shown in Fig. 5, in which the
maximum displacement was set as 4 mm (0.16 in.) when
the shear loading was applied opposite to the front edge.
This was to prevent early anchor fracture under reversed
loads and observe the cyclic behavior over a full displace-
ment range. Cyclic tests following Loading Pattern C2 in
Fig. 5 with equal peak displacements in both directions of
shear loading were conducted for two Type 25-150-150H
specimens. Note that the control of the actuator was based
on the actuator piston motion instead of anchor displace-
ment; hence, the actual anchor displacements were smaller
than the aforementioned target displacements.
Instrumentation
String pots and linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTs) were used to measure the anchor displacements,
as illustrated in Fig. 5. The displacements of the load plate
were actually used as the anchor displacement because the
anchor shaft just above the concrete surface was not assess-
able. A data acquisition system was used to collect data from
all sensors, as well as the force and displacement outputs
from the actuators. The sampling frequency was 5 Hz and
the collected data were fltered using an in-house program
with a cutoff frequency of 0.1 Hz. The observed anchor
behavior is discussed in the following.
Behavior of anchors under monotonic loading
The confguration and loading types of the anchor speci-
mens are summarized in Table 2 along with the measured
shear capacities. The load-versus-displacement behavior
is shown in Fig. 6 for the reinforced anchors subjected to
monotonic shear along with selected images of failed speci-
mens. For comparison purposes, the load-versus-displace-
ment behavior for a 19 mm (0.75 in.) anchor with a front-
edge distance of 100 mm (4 in.) in plain concrete is shown in
Fig. 6(a) and the result of another anchor with a front-edge
Fig. 5Experimental test setup. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Table 2Summary of reinforced anchor tests
in shear
Specimen ID Block type d
a
, in. c
a1
, in. Load type Peak load, kips
9132010 0.75 4 M 22.19
9132010_2 0.75 4 M 22.47
9172010 0.75 4 C1 16.69
9202010 0.75 4 C1 15.50
9282010 1.0 6 M 39.18
9292010 1.0 6 M 44.11
9302010 1.0 6 C1 38.71
10042010 1.0 6 C1 35.92
10052010 1.0 6 C1 34.35
10062010 H 1.0 6 M 38.40
10062010_2 H 1.0 6 M 34.71
10072010 H 1.0 6 M 33.40
10082010 H 1.0 6 C1 33.62
10082010_2 H 1.0 6 C1 31.77
10122010 H 1.0 6 C1 33.88
10132010 H 1.0 6 C2 42.68
*
10142010 H 1.0 6 C2 47.79
*
10292010 SG 1.0 6 M 36.13
11192010 SG 1.0 6 M 39.33
*
Anchor fracture occurred when shear was applied opposite to front edge.
Notes: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.
distance of 150 mm (6 in.) is shown in the rest of Fig. 6. The
unreinforced anchors were tested with a concrete strength
of 39 MPa (5656 psi), whereas the reinforced anchor tests
had a concrete strength of 24.3 MPa (3525 psi); therefore,
the load values for the unreinforced anchors were normal-
ized using a factor of
24.3 39
in Fig. 6. In general, the
reinforced anchors failed by anchor shaft fracture, while
the unreinforced anchors with similar edge distances failed
by concrete breakout. The failure loads for the reinforced
anchors increased by approximately 100% and the displace-
ments corresponding to the peak loads increased more than
six times compared with those of the unreinforced anchors.
The load-displacement behavior of 19 mm (0.75 in.)
anchors in reinforced concrete did not show much difference
from that in plain concrete (Fig. 6(a)) before a crack was
observed at the top surface at a load of approximately 45 kN
(10 kips). Rather than propagating vertically along the anchor
shaft, as observed in the tests of unreinforced anchors as
represented by Fig. 1, the crack propagated around the corner
of the stirrups (refer to the inserted fgure in Fig. 6(a)). The
loss of the 38 mm (1.5 in.) thick concrete cover in front
of the anchor caused a small capacity loss for the 19 mm
(0.75 in.) anchors, as shown in Fig. 6(a). Because the 19 mm
(0.75 in.) anchor only mobilized the top concrete before
cracking, similar to that suggested by Randl and John
22

(approximately 2d
a
deep), the anchor shaft in bending was
not able to resist the same amount of load until a larger
displacement was applied. Such a post-spalling load drop
has been observed in other tests of anchors reinforced with
hairpins.
17,18
The failure load exceeded the code-specifed
anchor shear capacity because the failure was caused by the
fracture of the anchor shaft largely under tension, as shown
in Fig. 7(a), although the fracture may have started from a
fexural crack.
The shear load did not drop noticeably after the concrete
cover spalled in the tests of 25 mm (1 in.) anchors, as shown
in Fig. 6(b) through (d). The 25 mm (1 in.) anchors mobi-
lized deeper concrete such that the loss of bearing support
from the cover concrete was immediately resisted by lower
concrete restrained by the anchor reinforcement. Another
contributing factor is that the 25 mm (1 in.) anchors had a
larger bending stiffness such that a small displacement was
needed to mobilize their load-carrying capacities. The 25 mm
(1 in.) anchors failed at loads lower than the code-specifed
anchor steel capacity in shear. The fractured 25 mm (1 in.)
anchors in Fig. 7(c) showed a different failure mode from
that of the 19 mm (0.75 in.) anchors; the anchor shaft
cracked under a bending moment and the rest of the anchor
shaft then fractured in shear. For the shear-dominant failure
mode, the fexural cracking reduced the cross-sectional area,
thus leading to a lower ultimate shear capacity.
Fig. 6Monotonic shear test results of reinforced anchors.
Fig. 7Typical fractured shape of anchor bolts.
Anchor steel failure was achieved in all 25 mm (1 in.) diam-
eter anchors, indicating that reinforcing bars placed outside
the code-specifed effective distancesuch as 0.5c
a1
in
Type 25-150-150SG and 0.3c
a2
in Type 25-150-150Hcan
be effective as anchor shear reinforcement. However, rein-
forcing bars must be evenly distributed with a small spacing
for outside bars to be mobilized. The effective distance was
verifed by the measured strains in the reinforcing bars in
Type 25-150-150SG specimens, as shown in Fig. 8. The
anchor reinforcement consisted of eight No. 3 stirrups at a
spacing of 51 mm (2 in.) and two additional No. 3 J-hooks.
The thin dashed lines in Fig. 8 indicate the assumed breakout
crack at the concrete surface, and the strain gauges were
installed 25 mm (1 in.) behind the assumed breakout crack
line on the inside face of the stirrups. In general, larger strains
were observed in the bars closer to the anchor bolt. Mean-
while, the outside bars, as indicated by Gauges 4S and 4N
located 170 mm (6.7 in.) from the anchor bolt, also devel-
oped signifcant strains, especially after the surface crack
formed. Note that the gauge positions relative to a crack
should be considered to interpret the measured strains. For
example, the strains by Gauge 2N may have been affected
by the crack passing the gauge location, as shown in Fig. 8.
More importantly, smaller strains measured by the gauges on
the outside bars may have been due to the fact that the gauges
were away from the actual crack. In addition, the measured
strains indicated that none of the Grade 60 bars yielded at
the peak load; hence, the shear capacity of reinforced anchors
may not be calculated as the summation of the yield forces
of the anchor reinforcement. The shear force was actually
transferred to the supports (for example, the tie-down rods
on the back and the steel wedging tube at the bottom, in this
case) through the concrete confned by the closed stirrups.
Anchors in Type 25-150-150H specimens had a lower ulti-
mate capacity, as shown in Fig. 6(c). This might have been
due to the poor confnement of concrete in front of the anchor
bolt; additional splitting cracks were observed and deeper
concrete crushed in these tests, leading to a longer portion
of exposed and unsupported anchor bolts (for example, up
to 0.5d
a
larger than those in Type 25-150-150 specimens).
Finite element analyses indicated that the anchor capacity
controlled by shear fracture can be affected by anchor diam-
eter and concrete cover depth.
29
It is thus envisioned that the
following measures, as illustrated in Fig. 3, can be effec-
tive in improving the post-spalling behavior and capacity of
reinforced anchors in shear: 1) corner bars should be fully
developed; 2) crack-controlling bars should be provided
along both the top and front surfaces of concrete; and 3) a
separate bar can be placed directly in front of the anchor bolt
to alleviate the large local compressive stress in concrete.
Anchor shear capacity
Most anchor bolts in this group of tests failed by shear frac-
ture of a reduced anchor shaft cross section, as shown by the
typical fractured sections in Fig. 7. This failure mode occurred
when a short portion of the anchor bolt was exposed and a
lever arm developed in the anchors after the cover concrete
spalled. The effect of lever arms in anchor bolts is recognized
in the existing design codes.
5,8
For example, ACI 318-11
5
stip-
ulates that the design capacity of anchor connections having
grout leveling pads should be reduced by a factor of 0.8 for
the anchor steel strength in shear. Such capacity reduction
considers the combined bending and shear in the anchor
shaft but does not consider the thickness of the grout pads,
which is similar to the exposed length at the ultimate load.
Eligehausen et al.
12
proposed an equation for predicting the
strength of an exposed anchor, assuming that the anchor fails
by pure bending. This equation was not found to be appli-
cable for predicting the capacity of the anchors in this study,
likely due to the fact that the anchor failure was controlled by
shear fracture. Lin et al.
29
improved the equation by Elige-
hausen et al.
12
by considering the contributions from fexural,
shear, and tensile resistance of an exposed anchor shaft to
the shear capacity of exposed anchors; however, the equation
was based on double shear tests and fnite element analyses
of threaded rods, and the lateral support to the actual anchor
shaft from partially damaged concrete was not considered.
Therefore, the equation may provide lower-bound estimates
of the actual anchor capacities.
The capacity of anchor bolts with a lever arm was instead
examined using the test data available in the literature,
as shown in Fig. 9. The measured anchor capacities were
normalized by the design capacity of anchor bolts in shear
specifed in ACI 318-11.
5
The exposed depth of the anchors
in other tests
16,26
was defned as the distance between the
Fig. 8Strains in anchor shear reinforcement (Type 25-150-
150SG1). (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 9Capacity of anchor bolt with lever arm.
bottom face of a base plate and the lowest solid concrete
surface. The anchor steel capacity observed in this study is
low compared with other available tests. This might have
been due to the fact that friction between the load plate and
the concrete surface was minimized, as previously described
in the test setup section.
The statistical analysis of the limited data in Fig. 9 did
not follow the procedures of predictive inference,
30,31
which
are usually used to predict future occurrences based on
the existing observed data. Instead, a 5-percentile value of
0.73 was obtained using a descriptive statistical analysis
of the 22 collected data points. Considering the afore-
mentioned reasons for the low observed capacities in this
study, it is proposed that the shear strength of reinforced
anchors can be estimated as 75% of the code-specifed steel
capacity for anchors without a lever arm. This is slightly
lower than the reduction factor in ACI 318-11
5
because of
two data points observed in specimens with limited side-
edge distances (Type 25-150-150H). It is envisioned that as
more data points become available in future tests with the
recommended anchor shear reinforcement shown in Fig. 3,
the statistical importance of these two data points can be
reduced. Using the suggested capacity reduction for exposed
anchors should be limited to those with an exposed length
less than three times the anchor diameter (3d
a
). Beyond this
limit, the anchor steel failure in shear needs further study.
Behavior of anchors under cyclic loading
Seismic actions on structural components are mostly
simulated in laboratories using quasi-static cyclic tests with
reversed loading.
32
Therefore, displacement-controlled
loading
33
was used in this study, although many cyclic
tests of anchors have been conducted with load-controlled
loading.
16,17,34
The load-versus-displacement behavior of
two 19 mm (0.75 in.) anchors subject to Type C1 cyclic
shear loading is plotted in Fig. 10(a). The monotonic curve
was closely followed by cyclic curves until a displacement
of 10 mm (0.4 in.), beyond which the cyclic loads were
lower than that of the monotonic test. The slope of the
cyclic curves again had a sudden change at a displacement
of approximately 2 mm (0.16 in.), indicating the concrete
cover spalling. The difference in the observed loads at this
displacement may have been due to variations in the speci-
mens, such as the actual edge distances and cover depths.
The frst three displacement cycles did not see signifcant
degradation in loads with successive cycles to the same
displacement, while the degradation was obvious at the
larger-displacement cycles. This was because the displaced
cover concrete during the frst cycle of each three-cycle
group was not able to recover, leading to reduced restraint
to the anchor shaft in the successive cycles. An average
capacity reduction of 28% was observed in the cyclic shear
capacity for the 19 mm (0.75 in.) anchors. This reduction
was partly attributed to the change of failure modes, as
shown by the fractured shape of the anchor in Fig. 7(a) and
(b); the anchor failure was controlled by the shear fracture
under cyclic loading, while the tensile fracture controlled the
anchor failure in the monotonic test. Note that the reduced
cyclic shear capacities of the 19 mm (0.75 in.) anchors were
higher than the proposed capacity of exposed anchors under
monotonic loading because of the monotonic failure mode.
The behaviors of Type 25-150-150 specimens are
compared in Fig. 10(b). The monotonic load-displacement
curve nicely envelopes the cyclic curves represented by the
frst loading cycle in each three-cycle group. The load degra-
dations during the successive two cycles were again due to
the irreversible crushing of the concrete cover in front of the
anchors. No capacity drop was observed in the tests of
Type 25-150-150 specimens. An average capacity drop of
6.8% was observed for Type 25-150-150H anchors with a
limited side-edge distance, as shown in Fig. 10(c). In this
group of three cyclic tests, concrete deeper than the 38 mm
(1.5 in.) cover crushed, likely due to poor confnement condi-
tions, as indicated by splitting cracks. The larger exposed
length led to a larger moment under the same shear load
and thus a lower shear capacity. Note that the poor confne-
ment conditions can be improved by the crack-controlling
bars recommended in Fig. 3. In addition, a bar placed just
Fig. 10Cyclic behavior of reinforced anchor bolts.
in front of the anchor shaft can help distribute the localized
high compressive stresses such that the exposed length of
the anchors would not be affected by the cyclic loading.
Finally, the tests of two Type 25-150-150H anchors with
fully reversed cyclic loading (Type C2 in Fig. 5) ended with
anchor fractured under a shear load applied opposite to the
front edge. The ultimate load capacities were, on average,
5% lower than the code-specifed anchor steel capacity,
as shown in Fig. 10(d). Hence, it is reasonable to ignore
the reduction of steel capacities for reinforced anchors in
cyclic shear, considering that the monotonic capacity of
reinforced anchors has already been reduced by 25%, as
proposed previously.
CONCLUSIONS
A design method for anchor shear reinforcement was
proposed and verifed using experimental tests of single cast-
in-place anchors. With a goal to prevent concrete breakout
and confne concrete in front of an anchor bolt, the proposed
anchor shear reinforcement consisted of closely spaced stir-
rups, corner bars, and crack-controlling bars distributed
along all concrete faces. The horizontal legs close to the
concrete surface of the closed stirrups were proportioned
to carry a force equal to the code-specifed anchor steel
capacity in shear. The needed reinforcement was provided
by closely spaced, small-sized stirrups distributed within a
distance from the anchor equal to its front-edge distance.
Although not specifcally tested in the study, the selec-
tion of corner bars should follow the practices specifed in
Section 11.5.6.2 of ACI 318-11
5
for corner bars in beams,
and crack-controlling bars may be determined following the
well-recognized STMs.
With the proposed anchor shear reinforcement, concrete
breakout was prevented and anchor shaft fracture was
observed in all the tests of single anchors in this study. Cover
concrete in front of the anchor bolts spalled, causing the top
portion of the anchor shaft close to the concrete surface to
become exposed. The full anchor steel capacity in shear was
not achieved because the exposed anchors were subjected to
a combination of shear, bending, and tension at failure. An
analysis of the test results of exposed anchors in the literature
indicated that a reduction factor of 0.75, which is slightly
lower than that in ACI 318-11
5
on anchors with a grout pad,
can be used to determine the shear capacity of reinforced
anchors. In addition, quasi-static cyclic tests of the rein-
forced anchors in shear showed insignifcant capacity reduc-
tion, which is comparable to other displacement-controlled
cyclic tests. Although large capacity reductions were
observed in load-controlled cyclic tests in the literature, no
further capacity reduction is recommended in this study for
reinforced anchors subjected to cyclic shear loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study reported in this paper is from a project supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 0724097. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the support of J. Pauschke, who served as the
Program Director for this grant. The authors also thank their colleagues in
ACI Committee 355 for their valuable input. Any opinions, fndings, and
recommendations or conclusions expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily refect the views of the NSF.
NOTATION
A
sa
= area of anchor reinforcement
A
se,V
, A
se,N
= effective cross-sectional area of anchor in shear and tension
c
a1
= front-edge distance of anchor
c
a2
= side-edge distance of anchor
d
a
= anchor diameter
d
b
= reinforcement diameter
e
s
= distance from shear force to surface reinforcement
F
ys
= yield strength of steel reinforcement
f
bd
= design bond strength of anchor reinforcement in breakout cone
f
c
= concrete compressive strength
f
uta
= ultimate tensile strength of anchor steel
f
y
= yield strength of anchor steel
l
dh
= development length of hooked bar in breakout cone
u = circumference of reinforcing bar
V
s
= actual shear capacity of exposed anchor
V
sd
= design shear capacity of anchor
z = vertical reinforcement position
o
s
= stress in anchor reinforcement
REFERENCES
1. Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (ASCE), Northridge Earthquake:
Lifeline Performance and Post-Earthquake Response, A Report to U.S.
Department of Commerce, NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory,
Gaithersburg, MD, 1997, 328 pp.
2. Asia-Pacifc Economic Cooperation, Earthquake Disaster Manage-
ment of Energy Supply System of APEC Member Economies, Energy
Commission, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taipei, China, 2002, 104 pp.
3. Grauvilardell, J.; Lee, D.; Hajjar, J.; and Dexter, R., Synthesis
of Design, Testing and Analysis Research on Steel Column Base Plate
Connections in High-Seismic Zones, Structural Engineering Report No.
ST-04-02, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 2005.
4. Tremblay, R.; Bruneau, M.; Nakashima, M.; Prion, H. G. L.; Fili-
atrault, A.; and DeVall, R., Seismic Design of Steel Buildings: Lessons
from the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, V. 23, 1996, pp. 727-756.
6. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; and Breen, J., Concrete Capacity Design
Approach for Fastening to Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 73-94.
7. Comit Euro-International du Bton (CEB), Fastenings to Concrete
and Masonry Structures: State of the Art Report, Thomas Telford Service
Ltd., London, UK, 1997, 562 pp.
8. Federation Internationale du Beton (fb), Fastenings to Concrete and
Masonry Structures, Special Activity Groups (SAG) 4 Report, 2008, 285 pp.
9. Cook, R.; Doerr, G.; and Klingner, R., Design Guide for Steel-to-
Concrete Connections, Research Report No. 1126-4, Center for Transpor-
tation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1989, 58 pp.
10. Cannon, R., Straight Talk about Anchorage to ConcretePart I,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1995, pp. 580-586.
11. Cannon, R., Straight Talk about Anchorage to ConcretePart II,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1995, pp. 724-734.
12. Eligehausen, R.; Malle, R.; and Silva, J., Anchorage in Concrete
Construction, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 2006, 391 pp.
13. Muratli, H., Behavior of Shear Anchors in Concrete: Statistical
Analysis and Design Recommendations, MS thesis, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX, 1998, 181 pp.
14. Anderson, N., and Meinheit, D., Design Criteria for Headed Stud
Groups in Shear: Part ISteel Capacity and Back Edge Effects. PCI
Journal, V. 45, No. 5, 2000, pp. 46-75.
15. Pallars, L., and Hajjar, J., Headed Steel Stud Anchors in Composite
Structures, Part I: Shear, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, V. 66,
2009, pp. 198-212.
16. Swirsky, R.; Dusel, J.; Crozier, W.; Stoker, J.; and Nordlin, E., Lateral
Resistance of Anchor Bolts Installed in Concrete, Report No. FHWA-CA-
ST-4167-77-12, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA,
1978, 100 pp.
17. Klingner, R.; Mendonca, J.; and Malik J., Effect of Reinforcing
Details on the Shear Resistance of Anchor Bolts under Reversed Cyclic
Loading, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1982,
pp. 471-479.
18. Lee, N.; Park, K.; and Suh, Y., Shear Behavior of Headed Anchors
with Large Diameters and Deep Embedment, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 108, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2010, pp. 34-41.
19. Schmid, K., Structural Behavior and Design of Anchor Near the
Edge with Hanger Steel under Shear, PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart,
Stuttgart, Germany, 2010, 277 pp.
20. Paschen, H., and Schnhoff, T., Untersuchungen ber in Beton
Eingelassene Scherbolzen aus Betonstahl, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahl-
beton, Heft 346, Verlag Ernst & Sohn, 1983.
21. Ramm, W., and Greiner, U., Gutachten zur Bemessung von Kopfbol-
zenveran-kerungen, Teil II, Verankerungen mit Rckhngebewehrung, Fach-
gebiet Massivbau und Baukonstruktion, Universitt Kaiserslautern, 1993.
22. Randl, N., and John, M., Shear Anchoring in Concrete Close to
the Edge, International Symposium on Connections between Steel and
Concrete, R. Eligehausen, ed., 2001, pp. 251-260.
23. Fuchs, W., and Eligehausen, R., Zur Tragfhigkeit von Kopfbolzen-
befestigungen unter Querzugbeanspruchung am Rand, Institut fr Werkst-
offe im Bauwesen, Bericht No. 20, 1986.
24. Shipp, J., and Haninger, E., Design of Headed Anchor Bolts, Engi-
neering Journal, V. 20, No. 2, 1983, pp. 58-69.
25. Widianto; Owen, J.; and Patel, C., Design of Anchor Reinforce-
ment in Concrete Pedestals, Proceedings of the 2010 Structures Congress,
Orlando, FL, 2010, pp. 2500-2511.
26. Nakashima, S., Mechanical Characteristics of Exposed Portions
of Anchor Bolts Subjected to Shearing Forces, Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Report, Architectural Institute of Japan, V. 38, 1998,
pp. 349-352.
27. ACI Committee 355, Guide for Design of Anchorage to Concrete:
Examples Using ACI 318 Appendix D (ACI 355.3R-11), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 124 pp.
28. Petersen, D., Seismic Behavior and Design of Cast-in-Place Anchors
in Plain and Reinforced Concrete, MS thesis, University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee, WI, 2011, 181 pp.
29. Lin, Z.; Petersen, D.; Zhao, J. and Tian, Y., Simulation and Design of
Exposed Anchor Bolts in Shear, International Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Multiscale Mechanics, V. 2, No. 2, 2011, pp. 111-129.
30. Geisser, S., Predictive Inference: An Introduction, Chapman & Hall,
New York, 1993, 265 pp.
31. Wollmershauser, R. E., Anchor Performance and the 5 Percent Frac-
tile, Hilti Technical Services Bulletin, Hilti, Inc., Tulsa, OK, 1997, 5 pp.
32. ASTM E2126-10, Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)
Load Test for Shear Resistance of Vertical Elements of the Lateral
Force Resisting Systems for Buildings, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2010, 15 pp.
33. Vintzelou, E., and Eligehausen, R., Behavior of Fasteners under
Monotonic or Cyclic Shear Displacements, Anchors in ConcreteDesign
and Behavior, SP-130, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1992, pp. 180-204.
34. Civjan, S., and Singh, P., Behavior of Shear Studs Subjected to
Fully Reversed Cyclic Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 129, No. 11, 2003, pp. 1466-1474.
Title no. 110-S07
MS No. S-2011-053.R1 received March 7, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Innovative Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Columns Using Carbon-Fiber Anchors
by Ioannis Vrettos, Efstathia Kefala, and Thanasis C. Triantafllou
This paper presents the results of an experimental program that
aimed to study the behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) columns
under simulated seismic loading strengthened in fexure with
anchored carbon-fber sheets. The role of different parameters
is examined by comparing the lateral load-versus-displacement
response characteristics (peak force, drift ratios, energy dissi-
pation, and stiffness). These parameters included the number
of anchors and the volume of fbers in each anchor. The results
were combined with a simple analytical model to yield values for
the effective strain in the anchors at failure. It is concluded that
carbon-fber anchors provide a viable solution toward enhancing
the fexural resistance of RC columns subjected to seismic loads,
especially if they are made of a substantial amount of fbers.
Keywords: carbon-fber anchors; columns; fexure; seismic retroftting;
strengthening.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Earthquakes worldwide have proven the vulnerability of
existing reinforced concrete (RC) columns to seismic loading.
Poorly detailed columns are the most critical structural
elements, which may fail due to shear, compressive crushing
of concrete, reinforcing bar buckling, bond at lap splices, and
fexure. Seismic retroftting of RC columns is a challenging
task that may be addressed successfully today using exter-
nally bonded composite materials (fber-reinforced polymers
[FRPs]) for all of the aforementioned failure mechanisms
except fexure. FRPs in the form of jackets with the fbers
typically in the columns circumferential direction are quite
effective in carrying shear and providing confnement, thus
increasing the shear resistance and deformation capacity of
existing RC columns. However, effective strengthening of
columns in fexureoften needed, for instance, to satisfy
capacity design requirements (that is, the elimination of
weakness in strong-beam, weak-column situations) or when
existing reinforcing bars have been affected by corrosion
calls for the continuation of longitudinal reinforcement. This
reinforcement should extend beyond the end cross sections,
where moments are typically at a maximum. Therefore, the
placement of externally bonded FRP is not applicable. As
a result, fexural strengthening of RC columns is currently
typically achieved by using RC jackets or some form of
steel jacketsnamely, steel cagesalso followed by
shotcreting. RC jackets or steel cages covered by shotcrete
require intensive labor and artful detailing; they increase the
dimensions and weight of columns and result in substantial
obstruction of occupancy. Moreover, increasing the stiffness
of the column will attract a higher force because forces are
distributed according to the relative stiffness of the elements.
Therefore, the implementation of a low-labor and minimal
obstruction fexural strengthening technique for RC columns
is a challenging task that was addressed for the frst time in
a systematic way by Bournas and Triantafllou
1
through the
use of near-surface-mounted (NSM) reinforcement.
In this study, the authors investigated fexural strength-
ening of columns with externally bonded FRP sheets
that are anchored at the columns end sections with fber
anchors in the form of spikes. Fiber anchors have received
the attention of some investigators in applications related
to shear strengthening of columns,
2,3
shear strengthening
of beams,
4
and fexural strengthening of beams.
5,6
Some
studies have also focused on specifc bond aspects of fber
anchors
7,8
or tensile properties.
9
The only study reported in the international literature on
fexural strengthening of columns with anchored FRP sheets
is that of Prota et al.,
10
who used steel spikes at the base of
cantilever-type RC columns in combination with glass FRP
confning jackets. The specimens were tested under mono-
tonic lateral load in combination with constant axial load.
A comparison of the strength results for unstrengthened
and strengthened columns shows an increase in the range
of 33 to 54%.
This paper presents a study on the combination of FRP
sheets and fber anchors for fexural strengthening of RC
columns under simulated seismic loading. Details are
provided in the following sections.
Columns, the most critical structural elements in RC struc-
tures, are often in need of fexural strengthening to satisfy
capacity design requirements (relocation of plastic hinges
from columns to beams) or when longitudinal reinforcing
bars have been affected by corrosion. The implementation of
a low-labor and minimal-obstruction fexural strengthening
technique for RC columns still remains a challenging task,
which is addressed in this study for the frst time through
the use of longitudinal carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets combined
with carbon-fber anchors.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens and experimental parameters
The experimental program aimed to study the fex-
ural strengthening of old-type nonseismically detailed RC
columns with externally bonded FRP sheets, which are
anchored at the columns end sections with fber anchors in
the form of spikes, and compare the effectiveness of different
anchor schemes. A total of four large-scale RC column
Ioannis Vrettos received his Diploma in civil engineering and his MSc in seismic
design of structures from the University of Patras, Patras, Greece, in 2007 and 2009,
respectively. His research interests include advanced materials and seismic retroftting
of reinforced concrete structures.
Efstathia Kefala received her Diploma in civil engineering and her MSc in seismic
design of structures from the University of Patras in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Her
research interests include advanced materials and seismic retroftting of reinforced
concrete structures.
ACI member Thanasis C. Triantafllou is a Professor of civil engineering and Director
of the Structural Materials Laboratory at the University of Patras. He received his
Diploma in civil engineering from the University of Patras in 1985 and his MSc and
PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, in 1987 and
1989, respectively. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement. His research interests include the application of advanced polymer- or
cement-based composites in combination with concrete, masonry, and timber with an
emphasis on strengthening and seismic retroftting.
specimens with the same geometry were constructed and
tested under cyclic uniaxial fexure with constant axial load
(Fig. 1(a)). The specimens were fexure-dominated cantile-
vers (that is, slender and designed to fail by yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars) with a height to the point of
application of the load (shear span) of 1.6 m (63 in.) (half
a typical story height) and a cross section of 250 x 250 mm
(9.84 x 9.84 in.). To represent old-type columns, speci-
mens were reinforced longitudinally with four deformed
bars 14 mm (0.55 in.) in diameter and 8 mm (0.32 in.) diam-
eter deformed stirrups, closed with 90-degree hooks at both
ends, at a spacing of 200 mm (7.87 in.). The geometry of a
typical cross section is shown in Fig. 1(b).
The specimens were designed such that the effect of
two basic parameters on the effectiveness of anchorsthe
number of anchors and the amount of fbers in each anchor
could be investigated. The specimens are described in the
following, supported by Fig. 2.
One specimen was tested without fexural strengthening
as the control specimen. As in all strengthened speci-
mens, however, longitudinal fber sheets were confned
at the base of the column with an FRP jacket so buckling
of those fbers could be prevented; the same confning
jacket was also used in the control specimen (Fig. 2(a)).
As a result, the only difference between the control
specimen and any other specimen was due to the imple-
mentation of fexural strengthening through the use of
longitudinal sheets in combination with anchors. The
jacket was made of a CFRP sheet that extended from
the column base to a height of 600 mm (23.62 in.).
Specimen 2_1.5 was strengthened with a 200 mm
(7.87 in.) wide epoxy-impregnated carbon-fber sheet
on each of the two opposite sides of the column (those
with the highest tension/compression). The CFRP sheet
extended from the column base to a height of 1.4 m
(55.12 in.) and was anchored at the base block with
two carbon-fber spike anchors on each side (Fig. 2(b)).
The cross-sectional area of the fbers in each anchor
was equal to 0.75 times the cross-sectional area of the
fbers in the CFRP sheet; hence, the total cross-sectional
area of the fbers in the two anchors was equal to 1.5
times that of the CFRP sheet. Finally, the column was
confned with a jacket identical to that used in the
control specimen.
Specimen 3_1.5 was strengthened the same as 2_1.5 but
with three instead of two anchors per side (Fig. 2(c)).
Those anchors were 33% lighter than those in 2_1.5:
each one had a cross-sectional area equal to 0.50 times
the cross-sectional area of the fbers in the CFRP sheet;
hence, the total cross-sectional area of the fbers in the
three anchors was again equal to 1.5 times that of the
CFRP sheet.
Specimen 2_1.0 (Fig. 2(d)) was strengthened the same as
2_1.5 but with the light anchors used in Specimen 3_1.5.
In summary, except for the control specimen, the speci-
mens notation is as follows: the frst number denotes the
number of anchors on each side at the base of the column
and the second number denotes the ratio of the fber cross
section in the anchors to that in the CFRP sheet.
Strengthening procedure
One unidirectional carbon-fber sheet 1.4 m (55.12 in.)
long and 200 mm (7.87 in.) wide was bonded on a properly
prepared concrete surface on each of the two opposite sides
Fig. 1(a) Schematic of test setup; and (b) cross section of columns. (Note:
Dimensions in mm [in.].)
of the strengthened columns. The sheet was placed with
fbers in a vertical confguration and was terminated at the
column base.
Fiber anchor spikes were applied on top of the CFRP sheet
at a spacing of 100 mm (3.94 in.) or 67 mm (2.64 in.) for
columns with two or three anchors per side, respectively
(Fig. 2). Spikes were formed from dry carbon fbers (half
dry and half coated with epoxy). Holes were drilled into the
base of the column with a depth of 250 mm (9.84 in.) and
a diameter of 14 or 16 mm (0.55 or 0.63 in.) for Specimens
3_1.5 and 2_1.0 or 2_1.5, respectively. The holes were flled
with epoxy (Fig. 3(a)) to half of their depths. Each anchor
spike was inserted into the holes after applying the CFRP
sheets on the two opposite sides of the columns (Fig. 3(b))
and the protruding dry fbers were fanned out over the CFRP
sheet (Fig. 3(c)). This method of anchoring was selected on
Fig. 2Four columns tested: (a) control; (b) Specimen 2_1.5; (c) Specimen 3_1.5; and (d)
Specimen 2_1.0. (Note: Dimensions in mm [in.].)
Fig. 3(a) Filling of holes in anchorage region with epoxy resin; (b) place-
ment of carbon-fber anchor; (c) fanning out of fber anchors over CFRP sheet;
(d) local jacketing with CFRP; and (e) position of displacement transducers.
(Note: Dimensions in mm [in.].)
the basis of transferring the tension forces from the CFRP
sheet terminating at the bottom of each column into the
concrete base. Finally, all columns received jacketing by
wrapping a single layer of a 600 mm (23.62 in.) wide carbon
sheet, identical to that used in the columns longitudinal
direction (Fig. 3(d)). The effectiveness of confnement was
improved by rounding the four corners near the base of each
column to a radius equal to 25 mm (0.98 in.).
Test setup and materials
The columns were fxed into a heavily reinforced 0.5 m
(19.68 in.) deep base block 1.2 x 0.5 m (47 x 19.7 in.) in
plan, within which the longitudinal bars were anchored
with 50 mm (1.97 in.) radius hooks at the bottom. The
longitudinal bars 14 mm (0.55 in.) in diameter had a yield
stress of 545 MPa (79.0 ksi), a tensile strength of 652 MPa
(94.5 ksi), and an ultimate strain equal to 13.7% (average
values from six specimens). The corresponding values for the
steel used for the stirrups were 351 MPa (50.9 ksi), 444 MPa
(64.4 ksi), and 19.5%. To simulate feld conditions, the base
blocks and the columns were cast with separate batches of
ready mixed concrete (on 2 consecutive days). Casting of
the columns was also made with separate batches due to
the unavailability of a large number of molds. The average
compressive strength and standard deviation on the day of
testing the columnsmeasured on 150 x 150 mm (5.9 x
5.9 in.) cubes (average values from three specimens)were
equal to 17.1 and 0.95 MPa (2478 and 138 psi), respectively,
suggesting that the variability in concrete strength would
not affect the column test results. Cylinders with a diam-
eter of 150 mm (5.9 in.) and a height of 300 mm (11.81 in.)
were also used to obtain the splitting tensile strength of the
concrete; the average tensile strength that was obtained from
six specimens on the day of testing was equal to 2.2 MPa
(319 psi).
The carbon-fber sheet used as both longitudinal reinforce-
ment (vertical fbers) and confnement (horizontal fbers)
was a commercial unidirectional fber product with a weight
of 644 g/m
2
(2.62 10
6
lb/in.
2
) and a nominal thickness
(based on the equivalent smeared distribution of fbers)
of 0.37 mm (0.0146 in.). The mean tensile strength and
elastic modulus of the fbers (as well as of the sheet when
the nominal thickness is used) was taken from data sheets
equal to 3790 MPa (549.27 ksi) and 230 GPa (33,333 ksi),
respectively. The carbon-fber sheet was impregnated with
a commercial low-viscosity structural adhesive (two-part
epoxy resin with a mixing ratio of 3:1 by weight) with a
tensile strength of 70 MPa (10.15 ksi) and an elastic modulus
of 3.2 GPa (464 ksi) (cured for 7 days at 23C [73F]).
The values of the tensile strength and elastic modulus for
the epoxy-impregnated sheet were taken from data sheets
equal to 986 MPa (142.9 ksi) and 95.8 GPa (13,884 ksi),
respectively, corresponding to a thickness equal to 1 mm
(0.039 in.).
Each anchor comprised a tow of carbon fbers of the
same type used in the unidirectional sheets. The weight
of the fbers for the anchors used in Specimens 3_1.5 and
2_1.0 was 63 g/m (0.0035 lb/in.); the anchors used in
Specimen 2_1.5 were 50% heavier and the respective weight
of the fbers was 94.5 g/m (0.0053 lb/in.). Impregnation and
bonding of the fber anchors was done using the same epoxy
adhesive used for the impregnation of the carbon sheets.
The columns were subjected to lateral cyclic loading,
which consisted of successive cycles progressively increasing
by 5 mm (0.20 in.) of displacement amplitudes in each direc-
tion. The loading rate was in the range of 0.2 to 1.1 mm/s
(0.008 to 0.043 in./s)the higher rate corresponding to
a higher displacement amplitudeall in displacement-
control mode. At the same time, a constant axial load was
applied to the columns, corresponding to 25.4% of the
members compressive strength, which was calculated by
multiplying the gross section area by the strength of the
concrete. The lateral load was applied using a horizontally
positioned 250 kN (56.2 kip) MTS actuator. The axial load
was exerted by a set of four hydraulic cylinders with auto-
mated pressure self-adjustment acting against two vertical
rods connected to the strong foor of the testing frame through
a hinge (Fig. 1(a)). As a result of this loading scheme, the
variation of axial load during each test was negligible. With
this setup, the P-A moment at the base section of the column
is equal to the axial load times the tip displacement (that is,
at the piston fxing position) of the column times the ratio of
the hinge distance from the base (0.25 m [9.84 in.]) and the
top (0.25 + 1.60 = 1.85 m [72.83 in.]) of the column (that is,
times 0.25/1.85 = 0.135).
The displacements and axial strains at the plastic hinge
region were monitored using six displacement transducers
(three on each side, perpendicular to the loading direction)
fxed at the cross sections 130, 260, and 450 mm (5.12,
10.24, and 17.72 in.) from the column base, as shown in
Fig. 1(a) and 3(e).
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Strength, failure modes, and deformations
The response of all columns tested is given in
Fig. 4 in the form of the load-drift ratio (obtained by dividing
the tip displacement by the columns height) loops. The corre-
sponding envelope curves are given in Fig. 5; key results are
also presented in Table 1. They include: 1) the peak resistance
in the two directions of loading; 2) the degree of strength-
eningthat is, the peak resistance normalized with respect
to the peak load sustained by the control specimen in the two
directions of loading; and 3) the observed failure mode.
The performance and failure mode of all tested specimens
was controlled by fexure, as expected due to their design
characteristics (a high value of the shear span ratio L/h =
6.4 and a relatively low ratio of longitudinal reinforcement).
This was an important requirement, as the main objective in
this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of spike anchors
as a means of fexural strengthening of RC columns. The
control specimen attained a peak load of approximately
37.8 kN (8.45 kips). After yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement, the load remained nearly constant up to a
large drift ratio of 8%, corresponding to the termination
of the test. The confnement provided by the CFRP jacket
prevented spalling of the concrete cover and potential buck-
ling of the longitudinal reinforcing bars.
All strengthened specimens displayed higher fexural
resistance (from 17% up to approximately 35%) compared
to the control specimen. The response of strengthened
columns was not in all cases completely symmetrical in the
two directions of loading due to slight differences in the
internal reinforcements effective depth and the confgura-
tion of anchors in each strengthened side. Flexural cracking
at the column base started at the early stages of loading and
increased substantially with increasing drift ratios due to slip
of the internal bars. Failure in all strengthened columns was
due to tensile rupture of the anchors at the cross section of
maximum moment (column base). No other failure, such as
debonding, was observed, indicating that the epoxy adhesive
performed well and the anchor length was suffcient.
Rupture of the anchors resulted in a sudden drop of the
applied force when the drift ratio was approximately 2.5%.
As in the case of the control specimen, the confnement
provided by the CFRP jacket prevented spalling of the
concrete cover and potential buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcing bars. The pinching observed in the hysteresis
loops shown in Fig. 4 is attributed to slip of the internal bars
and the nonyielding response of the fber anchors.
Figure 6 gives the relation between the drift ratio and the
slip rotation
slip
of the cross section at the interface between
the column and the base. The latter was measured using
the data from the displacement transducers in two cross
sections at a distance l
1
= 130 mm (5.12 in.) and l
2
= 260 mm
(10.24 in.) from the base as follows:
slip
=
2
ol
2
=
1
ol
1
,
where o is the mean curvature at the column base equal to
(
2

1
)/(l
2
l
1
). This assumption of a constant mean curva-
ture is applicable if this distance l
2
l
1
is small in the order
of the typical distance of two adjacent fexural cracks if the
behavior prior to yielding is of interest or the length within
which concrete is expected to spall or crush and reinforcing
bars may buckle or even break. In experiments, values of
l
2
l
1
in the range of h/2 to h are commonly selected. In
this way, it is possible to estimate the contribution of the
slip rotation to the overall column deformation. The
slip
-
drift ratio relation is nearly bilinear for all columns, with
a frst branch up to approximately the peak lateral load and
a second one with a higher slope beyond that. The contri-
bution of slip rotation to the columns overall behavior was
prevalent, as it comprised the major part of their deformation
capacity (drift ratio).
By comparing the degree of strengthening for all tests,
some useful conclusions concerning the relative effective-
ness of different anchor confgurations can be made. Speci-
mens 2_1.5 and 3_1.5 had anchors with the same total
amount of fbers distributed in two and three anchors per
side, respectively, with Specimen 2_1.5 displaying a higher
degree of strengthening (1.35 versus 1.25). Hence, it may
be concluded that two heavier anchors per side are more
effective than three lighter ones. This is counterintuitive,
but it may be explained by the higher probability of poor
anchor installation as the number of anchors increases. More
test results should clarify this observation further.
Specimens 2_1.5 and 2_1.0 had the same number of
anchors; those in Specimen 2_1.5 were 50% heavier. Yet,
the increase in fexural resistance due to strengthening in
Fig. 4Load-versus-drift ratio curves for tested specimens.
Fig. 5Load-versus-drift ratio envelope curves.
Table 1Summary of results
Specimen
Peak force P
max
,
kN (kips)
Column base
moment at peak
force, kNm (kipft)
Drift ratio at peak
force, %
Degree of strengthening
(P
max,Specimen
/P
max,Control
)
Concrete cover in
tension steel, mm (in.)
Effective strain in
tension anchors, %
Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull
Control
37.91
(8.52)
37.73
(8.48)
62.53
(4.29)
62.35
(4.27)
3.67 3.88 1.00 1.00 33 33
2_1.5
51.15
(11.50)
50.66
(11.39)
83.06
(5.69)
82.25
(5.64)
2.40 2.35 1.35 1.34 25 36 0.53 0.52
3_1.5
47.49
(10.68)
42.11
*

(9.47)
77.40
(5.30)
2.79 1.25 32 31 0.43
2_1.0
45.04
(10.12)
43.33
(9.74)
73.32
(7.25)
70.56
(4.84)
2.48 2.42 1.19 1.15 35 26 0.49 0.43
*
Unreliable result (not used in further calculations) due to wrong positioning of one anchor.
Fig. 6Slip rotation at base in terms of drift ratio.
Fig. 7(a) Cumulative dissipated energy during test; and (b) stiffness versus drift ratio.
Fig. 8(a) Stresses at column base; and (b) approximate bilinear stress-strain curve for
FRP-confned concrete.
Specimen 2_1.5 (34.5% on average in both directions of
loading) was nearly double that in Specimen 2_1.0 (17% on
average in both directions of loading), indicating that heavier
anchors are more effective. On the basis of the limited test
results presented in this study, it is concluded that anchors
should be as few and as heavy as possible.
Stiffness and energy dissipation
To further evaluate the effectiveness of the various anchor
confgurations, the stiffness and cumulative dissipated
energycomputed by summing up the area enclosed within
the load-versus-piston displacement curveswere recorded
for each loading cycle and are plotted in Fig. 7. Overall,
the use of anchors results in higher stiffness (in the order
of 10 to 40%, depending on anchor confguration), up to the
drift corresponding to anchor rupture, whereas the increase
in energy dissipation is marginal.
It should be noted at this point that the increased stiffness
of the strengthened columns may result in increased seismic
forces. However, this is not of concern and should not lead
to the conclusion that the positive effect of strengthening is
counterbalanced by the negative effect of stiffening. What is
of crucial importance in capacity design is the higher strength
of columns versus that of beams, which is typically the reason
why fexural strengthening of columns is a demanda fact
that was verifed experimentally in this study.
Effective strain of fber anchors
Of crucial importance in the design of an FRP-based
strengthening system is the so-called effective strain,
defned herein as the average tensile strain in the fber
anchors at failure. This value was calculated by performing
an analysis of the cross section at the column base through
the use of standardin RCforce equilibrium, strain
compatibility, and material constitutive conditions corre-
sponding to the maximum bending moment at the cross
section (Fig. 8(a)). In this analysis, the spike anchors are
modeled as linear elastic tension elements. Note that the
analysis was performed using the exact values of concrete
cover as measured after each test and not the nominal values
shown in Fig. 1(b); these values are listed in Table 1.
To account for the effect of FRP confnement, the
compressive stress-strain behavior of concrete was modeled
as bilinear (Fig. 8(b)) in agreement with extensive experi-
mental evidence.
11
According to the typical approach toward
modeling confnement of concrete by FRP,
12-14
the confned
strength f
cc
and ultimate strain r
ccu
depend on the confning
stress at failure (fracture of the jacket in the circumferential
direction) o
lu
as follows
15
1
1 ( )
m
cc co u co
f f k f + o
l
(1)
2
1 ( )
n
ccu co u co
k f r r + o
l
(2)
The confning stress o
l
is, in general, nonuniform, espe-
cially near the corners of rectangular cross sections. As an
average for o
l
in a cross section with dimensions of b and h,
one may write (Fig. 9(a) through (c))
( )
, ,
2 2
1
2 2
j j h b
e j j j j
e j j j
t t
k E E
h b
b h
k t E
bh
o + o _
o r + r

,
+
r
l l
l
(3)
where E
j
and r
j
are the elastic modulus and strain, respec-
tively, of the FRP jacket in the lateral direction; t
j
is the jacket
thickness; and k
e
is an effectiveness coeffcient which, for
continuous jackets with fbers in the direction perpendicular
to the member axis, is defned as the ratio of the effectively
confned area (A
e
in Fig. 9(d)) to the total cross-sectional
area A
g
as follows
16
2 2
1
3
e
g
b h
k
A
+
(4)
Hence, the confning stress at failure o
lu
is given by Eq. (3)
with E
j
r
j
replaced by the effective jacket strength in the
lateral direction f
je
( )
u e j je
b h
k t f
bh
+
o
l
(5)
The literature on the precise form of confnement models
for concrete is vast. Some of these models, especially the
older ones, are based on the assumption that the relation-
ship between confned strength and ultimate strain and
their unconfned counterparts is linearthat is, m and n
are both equal to 1. In other models, especially in some of
the most recent ones, m and n are taken as less thanbut
still close to1. Whereas the main advantage of the former
approach is simplicity, the disadvantage is that linear rela-
tionships between f
cc
-o
lu
and r
ccu
-o
lu
tend to overpredict
both the confned strength and the confned ultimate strain
for high confning stresses. As the authors objective in this
paper is not to elaborate on confnement models for concrete
but, rather, to perform a simple cross-section analysis with
FRP confnement taken into account, the authors also make
the assumption of linearitythat is, that m = 1 and n = 1.
Moreover, in agreement with the typical CFRP confnement
models for concrete,
11
the authors take k
1
= 2.15 and k
2
= 10.
The aforementioned procedure was implemented in a
computer program that performs equilibrium iterations in
an automated way and yields the tensile strain in the spike
anchors at failure of the cross section. It should be noted that
failure was always reached when the spike anchors developed
their strength and fractured in tension, while the maximum
compressive strain in the concrete was less than the confned
strength f
cc
. This failure mode is in perfect agreement with
experimental observations for all three FRP-strengthened
columns. The resulting values of strain in the anchors at
failure, summarized in Table 1, indicate that the effective
strain in the spike anchors at failureon average, equal to
0.0047is well below the theoretical deformation capacity
of the (carbon) fbers comprising the anchors. The main
reasons for this difference are the stress concentrations at the
anchor bend and the cyclic nature of stresses in the anchors.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the frst study on the combination of
FRP sheets and fber anchors for fexural strengthening of
RC columns under simulated seismic loading. The design
of specimens allowed for an investigation of the number of
anchors and the volume of fbers in each anchor. The results
were combined with a simple analytical model to yield
values for the effective strain in the anchors at failure. The
main conclusions are summarized as follows:
Carbon-fber anchors provide a viable solution toward
enhancing the fexural resistance of RC columns
subjected to seismic loading.
The effectiveness of anchors increases almost linearly
with their weight.
A fxed amount of fbers placed in the form of anchors
is more effective when two heavier anchors are used
instead of three but are lighter. This may be attributed
to the increased probability of poor installation as the
number of anchors increases and should be investi-
gated further.
On the basis of standard cross-section analysis, which
accounts for the effect of confnement, the effec-
tive strain in carbon-fber anchors subjected to cyclic
loading is in the order of 0.5%.
In view of the limited number of tests performed in this
study, the aforementioned results should be considered
as rather preliminary. Future research should be directed
toward providing a better understanding of the parameters,
including other amounts of fbers in the anchors, the level
of axial load, initial column damage, different shear spans,
Fig. 9(a) to (c) Approximate average confning stresses;
and (d) effectively confned area in columns with rectan-
gular cross section.
different loading histories, other cross sections, and other
types of fbers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank C. Papanicolaou, P. Apostolopoulou, and
K. Giannakopoulos for their assistance in the experimental program. The
study reported in this paper was partially funded by FYFE EUROPE SA.
NOTATION
A
g
= gross section area
E
j
= elastic modulus of jacket in lateral direction
f
cc
= compressive strength of confned concrete
f
co
= compressive strength of unconfned concrete
f
je
= effective strength of jacket in lateral direction
h = cross-section height
k
1
, k
2
= empirical constants
k
e
= confnement effectiveness coeffcient
L = length
l
i
= distance of cross section i from column base; i = 1, 2, 3
m = empirical constant
n = empirical constant
P
max
= peak force
r
c
= radius at corners of rectangular sections
t
j
= thickness of jacket
r
c
= compressive strain in concrete
r
ccu
= ultimate strain of confned concrete
r
co
= strain at failure of unconfned concrete
r
j
= jacket strain in lateral direction
o = mean curvature at column base
i
= rotation of cross section i; i = 1, 2
slip
= slip rotation at column base
o
a
= tensile stress in anchors
o
c
= compressive stress in concrete
o
cc
= maximum compressive stress in concrete
o
l
= lateral stress due to jacketing
o
l,b
= lateral stress perpendicular to side b
o
l,h
= lateral stress perpendicular to side h
o
lu
= ultimate lateral stress due to jacketing
o
s
= tensile stress in longitudinal steel reinforcement
REFERENCES
1. Bournas, D. A., and Triantafllou, T. C., Flexural Strengthening of
RC Columns with NSM FRP or Stainless Steel, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug. 2009, pp. 495-505.
2. Nagai, H.; Kanakubo, T.; Jinno, Y.; Matsuzaki, Y.; and Morita, S.,
Study on Structural Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns with
Waist-High Walls Strengthened by Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Sheets,
Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. W. Dolan,
S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1999, pp. 255-267.
3. Kobayashi, K.; Fujii, S.; Yabe, Y.; Tsukagoshi, H.; and Sugiyama, T.,
Advanced Wrapping System with CF-AnchorStress Transfer Mecha-
nism of CF-Anchor, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures, C. J.
Burgoyne, ed., Thomas Telford, London, UK, 2001, pp. 379-388.
4. Jinno, Y.; Tsukagoshi, H.; and Yabe, Y., RC Beams with Slabs
Strengthened by CF Sheets and Bundles of CF Strands, Proceedings of the
5th International Conference on Fibre-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced
Concrete Structures, C. J. Burgoyne, ed., Thomas Telford, London, UK,
2001, pp. 981-988.
5. Ekenel, M.; Rizzo, A.; Myers, J. J.; and Nanni, A., Flexural Fatigue
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with FRP Fabric
and Precured Laminate Systems, Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V. 10, No. 5, 2006, pp. 433-442.
6. Orton, S.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Bayrak, O., Design Considerations of
Carbon Fiber Anchors, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
V. 12, No. 6, 2008, pp. 608-616.
7. Eshwar, N.; Nanni, A.; and Ibell, T. J., Performance of Two Anchor
Systems of Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2008, pp. 72-80.
8. Niemitz, C. W.; James, R.; and Brea, S. F., Experimental Behavior
of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Sheets Attached to Concrete
Surfaces Using CFRP Anchors, Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V. 14, No. 2, 2010, pp. 185-194.
9. Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M., Tensile Behavior of FRP
Anchors in Concrete, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
V. 13, No. 2, 2009, pp. 82-92.
10. Prota, A.; Manfredi, G.; Balsamo, A.; Nanni, A.; and Cosenza, E.,
Innovative Technique for Seismic Upgrade of RC Square Columns,
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, SP-230, K. Shield,
J. P. Busel, S. L. Walkup, and D. D. Gremel, eds., American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, pp. 1289-1304.
11. Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T.; and Lam, L., FRP: Strengthened
RC Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., London, UK, 2002, 266 pp.
12. Lam, L., and Teng, J. G., Strength Models for Fiber-Reinforced
Plastic-Confned Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 128, No. 5, 2002, pp. 612-623.
13. De Lorenzis, L., and Tepfers, R., Comparative Study of Models
on Confnement of Concrete Cylinders with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composites, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 7, No. 3,
2003, pp. 219-237.
14. Theriault, M.; Neale, K. W.; and Claude, S., Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer-Confned Circular Concrete Columns: Investigation of Size and
Slenderness Effects, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 8,
No. 4, 2004, pp. 323-331.
15. Triantafllou, T. C.; Papanicolaou, C. G.; Zissimopoulos, P.; and
Laourdekis, T., Concrete Confnement with Textile-Reinforced Mortar
Jackets, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2006, pp. 28-37.
16. fb Bulletin 14, Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC
Structures, Technical Report prepared by the Working Party EBR of Task
Group 9.3, International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne,
Switzerland, July 2001, 130 pp.
Title no. 110-S08
MS No. S-2011-060.R2 received April 22, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Adaptive Stress Field Models: Formulation and Validation
by Miguel S. Loureno and Joo F. Almeida
Stress feld models or strut-and-tie models are commonly recog-
nized as powerful tools for the development of consistent design
methods for structural concrete discontinuity regions. Service-
ability and ductility topics are usually indirectly checked through
an adequate model selection, together with appropriate reinforce-
ment details. Stress feld models are an alternative to fnite element
analyses, which are frequently referred to as the main tool for the
assessment of the aforementioned topics. The proposed approach,
called Adaptive Stress Field Models, extends the application of
stress-feld-based models for the nonlinear analysis of struc-
tural concrete discontinuity regions, allowing a consistent study
of service behavior, ductility and, more generally, model assess-
ment topics. The numerical results are compared with the test and
nonlinear fnite element analysis results.
Keywords: adaptive structures; design models; discontinuity regions;
nonlinear analysis; stress feld models; structural concrete.
INTRODUCTION
In recent times, the rapid increase of computational capa-
bilities has allowed numerical models to be widely used in
the analysis process, leading to a further level of complexity
in structural analysis. It must be kept in mind that whereas a
scientifc theory is formulated in precise mathematical terms
and must cover all the details of a physical phenomenon,
engineering models are derived from the former, but with a
simpler approach that allows them to be applicable. These
streamlined models must, however, preserve the proper eval-
uation of the physical evidence and not disregard the main
phenomena behavior (Marti 2005). An approach based on
stress feld modelsstated in terms of equilibrium condi-
tionsprovides a simpler yet reliable framework to consis-
tently evaluate a structural concrete region. It reiterates the
idea of understanding the fow of forces within the elements,
providing an unprecedented awareness of structural behavior,
which is the hallmark of good design and detailing.
Since the beginning of the 1990s, several researchers
have worked on automatic tools for the development of
strut-and-tie models (Schlaich 1989; Kuchma and Tjhin
2002; Kostic 2006), on the application of stress feld models
for the nonlinear analysis of structural concrete regions
(Rckert 1991), and on approaches based on the automatic
development of stress felds using the fnite element method
(Fernndez Ruiz and Muttoni 2007).
This study is meant to provide a step forward in the appli-
cation of stress feld models for the analysis and design
of structural concrete. The proposed technique, Adaptive
Stress Field Models, employs the convenient simplifca-
tions inherent to the stress feld method to develop a tool
for the nonlinear analysis of discontinuity regions. From the
authors point of view, the interpretation of the fow of forces
provided by the method offers a unique awareness of the
structural behavior throughout the loading process, which
can be considered essential for an adequate judgment of the
output. The internal stress redistributions due to the nonlinear
behavior of the materials are accomplished by the introduction
of the adaptive structures concept to stress feld systemsin
particular, model follows energy. This means that the model
confguration at each load step is thus obtained following the
least complementary energy. It intends to consistently follow
the stress feld model concept by setting an initial stress feld
distribution and the appropriate variables that will be adjusted
(geometry and/or forces of the model).
The mechanical properties of the compression and
tension elements are obtained directly from the geometry
of the stress felds, accounting for the nonlinear constitu-
tive relationships of the materials. A detailed study of the
behavior of the elements is developed based on the consti-
tutive relationships of the materials for monotonic loading.
Special attention is given to the behavior of reinforced
ties because the global energy is deeply infuenced by the
tension stress felds (Schlaich et al. 1987; Rckert 1991;
Sundermann 1994). The well-known constitutive relation-
ship proposed in technical documents (CEB-FIP MC90
1993; ACI Committee 318 2008), mainly defned for stabi-
lized cracking, can be inappropriate for some discontinuity
regions. The cracking pattern is sometimes characterized by a
main crack that deeply infuences global structural behavior.
It was assumed that this phenomenon was related to the tie
stress distribution, preventing the formation of a stabilized
cracking. Therefore, the reinforced concrete tie elements
behavior was obtained following the Tension Chord Model
concept (Marti et al. 1998).
The proposed technique is validated by comparing
the numerical results with the outcome from the test and
nonlinear fnite element results. Several discontinuity
regions are analyzednamely, simply supported deep
beams with top and suspended loads and continuous deep
beams. In all cases, it is shown that the main aspects of the
structural behavior were well-simulated, showing the capa-
bility of the methodology for the nonlinear analysis of struc-
tural concrete regions.
Despite all its unquestionable advantages, the applica-
tion of stress feld models in the design process is not fully
exploited. One of the frequently mentioned aspects is the non-
uniqueness of the design models, which raises the discussion
of the validity of the models, mainly concerning ductility
and service behavior. The proposed approach intends to be a
contribution to overcome the aforementioned limitations and
extends the application of stress feld models to the predic-
Miguel S. Loureno is a Partner and Technical Director of JSJ Consulting Ltd.,
Lisbon, Portugal. He received his civil engineering degree, his MSc in structural engi-
neering, and his PhD from Instituto Superior Tcnico (IST-ICIST), Lisbon, Portugal, in
1995, 2000, and 2010, respectively. His research interests include design models and
nonlinear behavior of structural concrete.
Joo F. Almeida is an Associate Professor of Concrete Structures at IST-ICIST and
a Partner and Technical Director of JSJ Consulting, Ltd. He received his civil engi-
neering degree in 1981 and his MSc in structural engineering and PhD in civil engi-
neering from the Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, in 1985 and 1990,
respectively. His research interests include design models and nonlinear behavior of
structural concrete.
tion of nonlinear behavior of structural concrete disconti-
nuity regions. The development and practical application of
such a specifc design tool will improve the consistency and
clearness of design methods, improving the knowledge of
structural concrete behavior.
STRESS FIELD MODELS
The knowledge of stress feld modeling was considerably
developed by several authors during the 1980s and 1990s,
essentially in Zurich, Stuttgart, and Lausanne. Schlaich et al.
(1987) provided guidelines for the uniform design of every
part of any structure regarding safety and serviceability,
replacing empirical procedures, rules of thumb and guess
work by a rational method. Reineck (1996, 2005) increased
the knowledge by applying the method to shear design and
the design of D-regions of prefabricated members with
several numerical examples. An excellent overview of this
technique can be found in Muttoni et al. (1998). The divul-
gation in the United States soon began with a survey of the
technique presented by Marti (1985) for the ACI commu-
nity. Later, Mitchell and Cook (1991) presented examples of
the application of strut-and-tie models and nonlinear fnite
element analysis. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 (1997)
published a bibliography of the strut-and-tie method, and
Kuchma and Tjhin (2002) published Computer-Based
Tools for Design by Strut-and-Tie Method: Advances and
Challenges. The collection of examples in ACI SP-208
(Reineck and ACI Committee 445 2002) should also be
mentioned, which included a justifcation of Appendix A of
ACI 318-02 presented by MacGregor. Finally, ACI SP-273
(Reineck and Novak 2010) was recently published, with
several examples of design with strut-and-tie models based
on Appendix A of ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008).
Referring to CEB-FIP MC90 (1993), design with strut-and-
tie models was very well-described in Schfer (1999), and
it is worth mentioning the FIP Recommendations (1999), a
technical recommendation fully based on design with strut-
and-tie models.
Stress feld models intend to reproduce the compression
and tension felds due to the load path deviation within any
structural concrete region. They present a simple design tool
that allows the visualization of the fow of forces throughout
a structural concrete region, wherein every element clearly
has a physical meaning. Strut-and-tie models, along with a
draft representation of stress felds, are very useful for prac-
tical design applications. Stress feld models indicate the
necessary amount and correct distribution of reinforcement,
as well as the node geometry defnition for the design of
support widths and anchorage lengths.
A plane and uniaxial stress state is assumed for each of
the three types of elements (refer to Fig. 1): ties, fan-shaped
struts, and prismatic-shaped struts. In this particular case,
to establish the compression and tension feld widths, the
following considerations were adopted: prismatic struts are
defned by the compression widths at the region boundaries;
diagonal compression feld spreads within the region and
feld widths are evaluated essentially by vertical reinforce-
ment distribution widths and the anchorage length of the
horizontal reinforcement. Prismatic struts are assumed to
have constant compressive stressessimply obtained by
dividing the resultant force by the stress feld areawhereas
fan struts have compressive radial stresses with a hyperbol-
ical variation along their length. On a reinforced tie element,
the bond constitutive relationship leads to different steel and
concrete stresses along the length of the tie. The stress feld
resultants are obtained by nodal equilibrium and the stress
state in each element is described in the following.
FORMULATION
The mechanical properties of the stress felds are based on
their geometry and stress state, as mentioned previously, and
current structural analysis techniques are applied. The stress
redistribution is simulated following the adaptive structures
conceptin particular, form follows energy. This means that
the model confguration is adjusted according to the least
global energyobtained by the sum of the total computed
energy of each element of the modeland at each load step.
Adaptive structures can be defned as systems whose
mechanical or geometrical characteristics are adapted
according to a specifc optimization process. Teuffel (2004)
Fig. 1Stress feld model of dapped beam (Muttoni et al. 1998).
presented several optimization criteria for truss structures
according to different principles: minimize structure weight
by changing the element section and/or structural geom-
etry, optimize axial forces on bars by adjusting the element
cross section, and adapt structural geometry according to
minimum energy criteria (form follows energy).
This last principle is somehow related to the energetic
principles stated by Koiter (1960) for elastic-plastic solids:
Minimum principle for the stress state ratesFor all stati-
cally admissible stress rate distribution, the exact solution
is attained by minimizing complementary energy in each
load increment.
The model-follows-energy concept consists of minimizing
complementary energy U =
V
o
rdodV satisfying equilibrium
and compatibility conditions, where U should, in particular,
depend on the structure confguration, V is the integration
domain, and o and r are the elements stress and strain,
respectively. The node position or angles between bars are
set as variables and will be called adaptive variables.
For truss structures, the application of this methodology is
computationally effortless because each element is subjected
only to an axial force. The equilibrium equations can be
obtained from nodal equilibrium in the global referential (ZF
x

= 0, ZF
y
= 0) and are condensed in Eq. (1) (refer to Fig. 2).
0 + TN F (1)
where T
T
= [T
c
T
s
] with T
c
= A
T
D
c
and T
s
= A
T
D
s
; matrix A
T

(the transpose of matrix A) represents the node incidences
of elements. The term A
ij
is 1 or 1 (according to the direc-
tion of the elements) if node i connects element j; otherwise,
it is 0; D
c
and D
s
are diagonal matrixes with cosines and
sines, respectively, of each bar angle with horizontal direc-
tion; vector N includes the axial forces of the elements N
T
=
[N
1
...N
n
]; and vector F represents the applied forces at nodes
in the global referential F
T
= [F
x1
...F
xm
|F
y1
...F
ym
].
Compatibility equations are obtained by establishing a
relationship between nodal displacement and bar elongation,
as defned by Eq. (2).
0 0
1
+ +
]
A o A o
T T T
c s
A D T D A (2)
where Vector A contains the total axial elongation of the
elements:
1
0 1 0
n
L L T
n
ds ds 1 r r
]
A
; and vector o contains
the node displacements in the global referential o
T
= [o
x1
...
o
xm
|o
y1
...o
ym
].
Finally, the geometry adaptation and/or stress distribution
of the models is obtained by minimizing the global comple-
mentary energy U subjected to equilibrium and compatibility
constraints (refer to Eq. (3)). The minimization process is
transformed into a set of nonlinear equations (Eq. (4)) with
the same number of equations as adaptive variables v
i
, which
may be solved iteratively by numerical methods such as
Newtons method.
min , subject to the constraints 0 and 0 + +
T
U TN F T A o (3)
min 0
i
U
v
U

(4)
COMPRESSION STRESS FIELDS
In prismatic or parallel stress felds, the stresses are
obtained by simply dividing the resultant compressive force
by the area perpendicular to the force. Fan-shaped stress
felds are, in general, noncentered and the defnition of the
node boundary geometry is established according to equi-
librium conditions of an infnitesimal strut within the fan
(Baumann 1988). The node boundary curve is defned by a
second-order polynomial (refer to Fig. 3(a)) and the radial
stresses at each boundary are defned according to Eq. (5).
2
2
1 tan
tan
r II
II
I
+ o
o
+
o
o o
o
(5a)

2
2
1 tan
tan
r II
II
I
+ o
o
o
+
o
o
o
(5b)
The stresses along each chord within the fan vary hyper-
bolicallyfrom the value o
r
into o
r
at each radial angle o
and are obtained according to the geometrical and equilib-
rium conditions of an infnitesimal width of a specifc chord
(Eq. (6)). For practical and computational implementation, it
is feasible and reliable to consider a linear stress distribution
to simulate the behavior of the fan. In this case, the stresses
are calculated according to the nodes dimensions, as shown
in Fig. 3(a).
( )
( )
( )
0
, with
r
r r o
r r
r
r r
r
o o
o o o o
o o
l
(6)
The concrete strain distribution is obtained by the common
hyperbolical o
c
-r
c
curve (Eq. (7)). The factor q in Eq. (7) is
meant to predict the reduction of the concrete strength caused
by the presence of transversal strains. This reduction usually
occurs in compression stress felds crossing tensioned
reinforcement and is mainly due to the bond induced by the
reinforcement between the cracks and the friction stresses,
leading to transversal tensile stresses and strains in concrete
(Reineck 1995, 2002). Other reasons for this reduction are
also the smaller effective width of the crack surface and the
Fig. 2Forces and displacements of element.
disturbances induced by the reinforcement. This effect was
evaluated by several authors (Schlaich and Schfer 1983;
Schfer et al. 1990; Eibl and Neuroth 1988; Kollegger and
Mehlhorn 1990; Vecchio and Collins 1993) and it is usually
simulated by a decrease in the concrete compressive peak
value, depending on the applied transversal tensile strains
q(r
1
) (Vecchio and Collins 1986).
( )
2
1
c cc cc
c cc
f
o or r
+r
(7)
with
1
1 1 1 1
; 2; ;
c c c c
c cc
c c c c
E E f
E
E E
r
o r
r r
The complementary energy is defned by Eq. (8), illus-
trated in Fig. 3(b), and computed by Gauss integration
within the fan area.
2
1
0
;
c
L
compl compl A compl
u d U u dAds
o
o
r o (8)
TENSION STRESS FIELDS
The global internal energy is mainly infuenced by ties,
especially after cracking of the concrete. To properly simu-
late the behavior of a structural concrete region under
service loads and for post-yielding phases, special atten-
tion of tension stress felds is required. In general, technical
documents defne constitutive relationships for reinforced
concrete ties assuming a stabilized crack pattern, which is
not suitable for some discontinuity regions. In fact, situa-
tions of nonstabilized cracking are commonly observedfor
example, the load near the support and dapped-end beam. In
such cases, the crack pattern is usually characterized by a
main crack that has a relevant effect on the global structural
behavior. This phenomenon can be related with the stress
distribution along the tie length, in which the length of the
tie with constant stresses may not be enough to allow the
formation of a stabilized crack pattern. The length of the tie
with variable stress distribution is obtained directly from the
stress feld defnition, consistently following the stress feld
model. For prismatic and fan compression felds intersecting
the tension-compression node, a linear and a parabolic stress
variation are respectively obtained; however, it was always
assumed to be a linear distribution because minor differ-
ences in the global tie behavior are expected.
To properly simulate a reinforced concrete tie element, the
approach presented in the Tension Chord Model by Marti
et al. (1998) is applied. This model establishes equilib-
rium conditions for an infnitesimal reinforced concrete tie
(Fig. 4(a)), allowing the determination of concrete and steel
stress variation along the element length. The concrete in
tension has a linear o
c
-r
c
relation until it reaches its tensile
strength f
ct
with the Youngs modulus of E
c
. The reinforced
bars have a bilinear o
s
-r
s
relation with the stiffness E
s
in the
elastic branch and, according to the steel ductility, with hard-
ening E
t
after yielding. A rigid perfect relationship for bond
stresses was shown to be adequate (Marti et al. 1998) to simu-
late a reinforced concrete tie with t
b0
= 2f
ct
and t
b1
= f
ct
before
and after yielding of the reinforcement steel, respectively.
Compatibility conditions and the constitutive relation-
ships for concrete in tension, steel, and bond, together with
suitable strain integration, allow the calculation of the crack
widths, the total elongation, and the element mean strain.
Figure 4(b) and (c) shows stress, strain, and slip varia-
tion along the length of the element of two identical ties
with different anchorage lengths. Quite different crack
patterns, steel stresses, and concrete stresses are obtained.
As expected, the tie with larger lengths of variable axial
load reveals a stiffer behavior, evident in the stress-mean
strains curves shown in Fig. 4(d). It is worth mentioning that
a reliable model for stabilized and nonstabilized cracking
is essential for the application of the Adaptive Stress Field
Model in structural concrete regions because substantially
different complementary energies and thus different global
behavior are computed.
s c s s c c
N N N A A + o + o (9)
4
b
c
c
q
d
A
t p
o +
o
(10a)
Fig. 3(a) Radial stresses of noncentered fan; and (b) stress-strain relationship of concrete
and complementary energy defnition.

4
b
s
d
t
o
o
(10b)
( )
2
1
s c
dx
o
o
o r r (11a)

sm
L
o
r
(11b)
Similar to the compression stress felds, the complemen-
tary energy is defned by Eq. (12) and represents the area
behind the stress-mean strain curve.
2
1
0
;
L
compl sm compl A compl
u d U u dAds
o
o
r o (12)
TEST EXAMPLE
To illustrate the behavior of an adaptive stress feld model,
a simple example of a statically indeterminate problem with
three bars is presented. In the following example (Fig. 5),
Element 1 is assumed to have a nonlinear behavior with a
bilinear o-r constitutive relationship, and Elements 2 and 3 are
considered linear elastic. The main goal is to compute and
minimize the complementary energy at each load step and
show the model adjustment given by the angle . Note that
the compatibility conditions in Node N2 are fulflled only by
setting the vertical reaction in Node N3 as an adaptive vari-
ablethat is, imposing equilibrium conditions in the mini-
mization process without explicitly imposing compatibility
constraints. Thus, two adaptive variables and F
y3
were
selected and the complementary energy is calculated as shown
in Eq. (13). The model geometry and the statically indetermi-
nate variable F
y3
are obtained by correspondingly computing
the derivatives of the complementary energy. Equations (14)
and (15) are obtained by assuming that all the bars have the
same Ethat is, the structure is in the elastic or uncracked
branch. For this phase, the model confguration that minimizes
the complementary energy is given for = 60 degrees and
the statically indeterminate variable is F
y3
= 3/13F. Note that
Eq. (15) represents the compatibility conditions for the vertical
displacement o (r
2
L
2
= r
1
L
1
cos + r
3
L
3
sin), following the
energetic principle of the minimum stress state rate mentioned
previously. Developing similar analysis for the post-yielding
branchthat is, assuming Element 1 with E
t
a model confg-
uration of 80 degrees is obtained.
( )
2
2
3 1
1
1
cot
1
2
y
F F L
U
EA

(13a)
( )
2
2
3 2
2
2
sin
1
2
y
F F L
U
EA

(13b)
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
y
F L
U
EA
(13c)
3 2
0 2cos 3cos 1 0 60
3
U r
+
(14)
Fig. 4(a) Stresses of infnitesimal reinforced concrete tie.
Steel and concrete stresses and strains, slip, and crack width
of reinforced concrete tie; (b) stabilized cracking; (c) nonsta-
bilized cracking; and (d) reinforced concrete tie constitutive
relationships for stabilized and nonstabilized cracking.
Fig. 5Test example: geometry and mechanical properties.
(Note: 100 MPa = 14.5 ksi.)
( )
( )

2
3 1
3 1
3 2 3 3
3 2
3 2
cot
0
1 3
0
2 13 sin
y
y
y y
y
F F L
U
F EA
F F L F L
F F
EA EA

(15)
To better understand the adaptive analysis process, the
force-displacement curves F-o (Fig. 6(a)) are calculated,
assuming that the geometry remains unchanged with =
60 degrees and 80 degrees. These results are further
compared with an incremental nonlinear adaptive analysis
(refer also to Fig. 6(a)). Figure 6(b) shows the geometry
variation along the load incremental process. Finally, it
is possible to observe that the adaptive nonlinear analysis
adjusts structure geometry to follow the different linearized
stages. In the uncracked stage, the structure geometry
remains unchanged at = 60 degrees. After cracking, steel
stresses and geometry adjustment tend to the post-yielding
linearized stage.
VALIDATION
Introduction
The validation of the proposed formulation is performed
by comparing the obtained numerical results with the test
and nonlinear fnite element results for some basic but
typical discontinuity regions: simply supported deep beams
with top and suspended loads, and continuous deep beams.
Deep beamstop load
The presented methodology is compared with the well-
known Leonhardt and Walther (1966) deep beam tests and with
nonlinear fnite element analysis using the ATENA program.
Two simply supported beams (WT2 and WT3) in particular
were analyzed. These results were previously presented by
Loureno et al. (2006) and later by Nunes (2008).
The geometrical dimensions, loads, and steel reinforce-
ment layouts of Deep Beams WT2 and WT3 are represented
in Fig. 7. Tests have shown considerable redistribution of
internal stresses due to cracking. Experimental ultimate loads
reached P
u
= 1.28p
u
= 1195 kN (268.6 kips) and P
u
= 1290 kN
(290.0 kips) for Deep Beams WT2 and WT3, respectively. At
rupture, Deep Beam WT2 exhibited yielding of the bottom
reinforcement and maximum support pressures of approxi-
mately 1.06f
cu
. With regard to Deep Beam WT3, bottom steel
stresses of approximately 370 MPa (53.7 ksi) and support
pressures of approximately 1.19f
cu
were measured (f
cu
compression strength of 200 x 200 x 200 mm

3
[7.87 x 7.87 x
7.87 in.
3
] cubes; f
1c
= 0.89f
cu
according to ACI 318-08). Steel
reinforcing detailing at the node region, where U-loops were
adopted, improved concrete confnement and thus a higher
local concrete strength was achieved.
Each developed stress feld model (Fig. 8(a) and (c))
simulates all horizontal deep beam reinforcements, and the
adaptive variables are node horizontal coordinates of the
web reinforcement.
The numerical results agree quite well with tests at all
load stages (Fig. 8(b) and (d)). As mentioned previously,
the reinforcing detailing at the node region, where U-loops
were adopted, improved concrete confnement and increased
concrete strength at the supports. This aspect was disre-
garded in the numerical model, leading to ultimate load
values slightly lower than the experimental results (P
u
=
1100 kN [247.3 kips]). Concerning the slight deviations
of the mean steel strains between the numerical analysis
and experimental results, it must be kept in mind that the
steel strains were measured by strain gauges glued on bars,
although the test outputs depend on the crack location and
strain gauge positions.
It should be pointed out that the stiffness reduction related
to cracking of the main tie induces signifcant internal stress
redistributions, evident in the stress feld model confgu-
rations (Fig. 8(a) and (c)) or in the internal lever arm (z/l)
Fig. 6Adaptive analysis of test example: (a) force versus displacement; (b) force
versus stresses at Element 1; and (c) force versus model confguration. (Note: 100 MN =
22,481 kips; 0.1 m = 3.94 in.; 100 MPa = 14.5 ksi.)
Fig. 7Deep beam geometry and reinforcement layout
(Leonhardt and Walther 1966): (a) WT2; and (b) WT3.
(Note: 1 m = 39.4 in.; 100 mm
2
= 0.155 in.
2
)
Fig. 8(a) Deep Beam WT2 adaptive stress feld model for several load steps; (b) test, nonlinear fnite element,
and adaptive stress feld results for Deep Beam WT2; (c) Deep Beam WT3 adaptive stress feld model for several
load steps; and (d) test, nonlinear fnite element, and adaptive stress feld results for Deep Beam WT3. (Note:
100 kN = 22.5 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 9Deep Beams WT2 and WT3 numerical and test crack pattern for ultimate
load: (a) WT2: test (Leonhardt and Walther 1966); (b) WT2: adaptive stress feld
model; (c) WT2: fnite element analysis; (d) WT3: test (Leonhardt and Walther 1966);
(e) WT3: adaptive stress feld model; and (f) WT3: fnite element analysis.
variation. These aspects are particularly relevant for the Deep
Beam WT2 test, where the available ductility allowed full use
of the beam effective depth. Figure 9 shows the agreement of
the numerical and test crack patterns for ultimate load.
In general, the numerical results agreed quite well with
those obtained experimentally. The force-strain and force-
crack width curves obtained by the adaptive stress feld
analysis and the fnite element method closely follow the test
at different stagesnamely, uncracked, cracked, and post-
yielding. In this study, the fnite element method provides
slightly stiffer results, evident in the force-displacement
curves; however, higher crack widths were obtained. The
Adaptive Stress Field Model approach was revealed to be
quite appropriate and, furthermore, the graphical output
allowed an excellent visualization of structural behavior for
all load stages.
Deep beamssuspended load
Two simply supported deep beams with suspended
loads (WT6 and WT7) were also tested by Leonhardt and
Walther (1966) and numerically compared with the obtained
results. Deep beam geometrical dimensions, loads, and
steel reinforcement layouts are represented in Fig. 10(a)
and (b). Identical dimensions and reinforcement layouts of
Deep Beams WT2 and WT3 were adopted. The web vertical
reinforcement suspends the applied loads at the bottom
surface of the deep beams.
Three layers of reinforcement were considered in the
stress feld models. The top distributed reinforcement layers
were discarded because little infuence on the global analysis
was observed. The adaptive variables are the node horizontal
position of the bottom web reinforcement and the node
vertical position of one of the vertical reinforcements.
Such as the deep beams with top loads, the stiffness reduc-
tion related to cracking of the bottom tie leads to internal
stress redistribution, clearly shown in the stress feld model
confgurations illustrated in Fig. 10(c) and (d). Again, the
available ductility allowed the deep beam with less bottom
reinforcement to fully exploit the effective depth. The numer-
ical mean strain results showed good agreement with the
experimental output, especially in the uncracked stage and
after cracking of the deep beam bottom surface (Fig. 11(a)
and (b)). However, a signifcant discrepancy was obtained
for the numerical and test crack widths because the observed
test crack widths were measured in the deep beam front
surface not effectively controlled by the main reinforcement.
Figure 11(c) to (f) shows the agreement of the numerical
stress feld distribution and test crack pattern for ultimate load.
Continuous deep beam
A two-span continuous Deep Beam DWT2 (Leonhardt
and Walther 1966) was also analyzed, and the numerical and
test results were compared. Figure 12(a) presents the beam
test geometry and loads. The main and distributed reinforce-
ments of the deep beam were simulated in the adaptive stress
feld analysis. The adaptive variables were the horizontal
location of the nodes leading to tension or compression in
horizontal elements.
Figure 12(b) illustrates the comparison between the
numerical and experimental results. A reasonable agreement
should, in general, be noticed. The model thickness enlarge-
ment of the central support region all along the beam height
was not simulated in the numerical model, which seems to
be more fexible; however, the initial elastic range of the
numerical model closely follows the linear results obtained
with the fnite element analysis.
Figure 12(c) and (d) shows the good agreement between
the test crack pattern and the numerically obtained stress
feld distribution. Because the thickness enlargement of the
Fig. 10Deep beam geometry and reinforcement layout (Leonhardt and Walther 1966):
(a) WT6; and (b) WT7. Adaptive stress feld model for several load steps: (c) WT6; and (d)
WT7. (Note: 1 m = 39.4 in.; 100 mm
2
= 0.155 in.
2
; 100 kN = 22.5 kips.)
Fig. 11Comparison of numerical and test results: (a) WT6; and (b) WT7. Stress feld
confguration and test ultimate load crack pattern (Leonhardt and Walther 1966): (c) and
d) WT6; and (e) and (f) WT7. (Note: 100 kN = 22.5 kips.)
Fig. 12(a) Deep Beam DWT2 geometry and reinforcement layout (Leonhardt and Walther
1966); (b) Deep Beam DWT2 tests and adaptive stress feld results; (c) Deep Beam DWT2
test crack pattern (Leonhardt and Walther 1966); and (d) adaptive stress feld model.
(Note: 1 m = 39.4 in.; 100 mm
2
= 0.155 in.
2
; 100 kN = 22.5 kips; 100 MPa = 14.5 ksi.)
middle support was not simulated, the numerically obtained
stress feld inclination is slightly fatter.
CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed to provide a step forward in the applica-
tion of the stress feld models for the analysis and design of
structural concrete. The proposed technique, Adaptive Stress
Field Models, employed the convenient simplifcations
inherent to the stress feld models to develop a tailor-made
tool for structural concrete. The method was implemented in
a computer program; however, the idea was not to build up a
fully automatic tool, even less a black box. One of the main
aspects is the visualization of the fow of forces provided by
the method, which offered a unique awareness of the struc-
tural behavior along the loading processessential for an
adequate judgment of the outputs. The main features of the
proposed approach are as follows:
The internal stress redistributions due to the nonlinear
behavior of the materials were accomplished by the
incorporation of the adaptive structures concept to stress
feld systemsin particular, model follows energy.
The model confguration at each load step was thus
obtained following the least complementary energy.
It intends to consistently follow the stress feld model
concept by setting an initial stress feld distribution and
selecting the appropriate variables that will be adjusted:
geometry and/or forces of the model. The need to select
a model to start the tool should not be considered a
drawback; rather, it should be considered a support for
the engineer to understand the structures main behavior
before starting a more complex analysis.
The mechanical properties of the compression and
tension elements were directly obtained from the geom-
etry of the stress felds, accounting for the nonlinear
constitutive relationships of the materials.
Special attention was given to the behavior of reinforced
ties: the well-known constitutive relationship proposed
in technical documents, mainly defned for stabilized
cracking, can be inappropriate for some discontinuity
regions. The cracking pattern is sometimes character-
ized by a main crack that deeply infuences global struc-
tural behavior. It was assumed that this phenomenon
was related to the tie stress distribution, preventing the
formation of a stabilized cracking.
The decrease in the concrete compressive strength due to
its transverse strain state is also considered in the formu-
lation to predict an eventual premature concrete crushing.
The technique was validated by comparing the numerical
results with the outcomes from the tests and nonlinear fnite
element analysis. The following aspects should be pointed out:
The internal stress redistributions after cracking
observed in several of the presented tests were well-
simulated in the numerical model. In fact, the stiffness
reduction related to cracking of the main ties induced
signifcant stress redistributionsevident in the stress
feld model confgurations.
The force-strain and force-crack width curves obtained
by the adaptive stress feld analysis closely followed the
test results at different stages (cracked and post-yielding).
The model approach was revealed to be quite appro-
priate and, furthermore, the graphical output allowed
an excellent visualization of structural behavior for all
load stages.
Finally, in all cases, it was considered that the main struc-
tural behavior aspects were well-simulated, showing the
capability of the methodology for the nonlinear analysis
of structural concrete regions.
NOTATION
(matrixes and vectors in bold; subscript notation follows primary notation)
A = area
A
T
= transpose of matrix A that represents node incidences of elements
a, b = widths
D
c
, D
s
= matrixes with cosines and sines, respectively, of each bar angle
E = elastic modulus
F = applied forces
F = vector of applied forces
f = material strength
l = length
M = moment
N = axial force
N = vector of axial forces
P = applied forces
q = distributed load
r = radius
T = condensation of matrixes T
c
and T
s
T
c
, T
s
= condensation of matrixes A
T
D
c
and A
T
D
s
, respectively
t = thickness
u, U = complementary energy
V = domain
v = variable
w = crack width
x, y = coordinates
z = inner level arm
o, , q = coeffcients
A = elongation
o = displacement
r = strain
= angle
p = reinforcement ratio (p = A
s
/A
c
)
o = stress
t = tangential stress
= diameter
subscripts
1c = uniaxial compression strength of concrete
b = bond
c = concrete, compression
d = design
i, j = constant
k = characteristic
m = mean, medium
r = radius, radial
s = steel
t = tension, tangential
u = ultimate
w = web, wedge
y = yielding
REFERENCES
Baumann, P., 1988, Die Druckfelder bei der Stahlbetonbemessung
mit Stabwerkmodellen, PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart,
Germany. (in German)
CEB-FIP MC90, 1993, Design of Concrete Structures, CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990, Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Eibl, J., and Neuroth, U., 1988, Untersuchungen zur Druckfestigkeit
von Bewehrtem Beton bei Gleichzeitig Wirkendem Querzug, Institut fr
Massivbau und Baustofftechnologie, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology,
Karlsruhe, Germany.
Fernndez Ruiz, M., and Muttoni, A., 2007, On Development of Suit-
able Stress Fields for Structural Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 104,
No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 495-502.
FIP Recommendations, 1999, Practical Design of Structural Concrete,
FIP Commission 3, Practical Design, SETO, London, UK, Sept.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, 1997, Strut-and-Tie Bibliography,
N. S. Anderson and D. Sanders, eds., ACI Bibliography No. 16, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 50 pp.
Koiter, W. T., 1960, Progress in Solid Mechanics, North-Holland
Publishing Company, New York, pp. 167-221.
Kollegger, J., and Mehlhorn, G., 1990, Experimentelle Untersuchungen
zur Bestimmung der Druckfestigkeit des Gerissenen Stahlbetons bei Einer
Querzugbeanspruchung, DAfStb H.413, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
(in German)
Kostic, N., 2006, Computer-Based Development of Stress Fields, 6th
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland,
Aug. 23-26. (CD-ROM)
Kuchma, D. A., and Tjhin, T. N., 2002, Computer-Based Tools for
Design by Strut-and-Tie Method: Advances and Challenges, ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 586-594.
Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., 1966, Wandartiger Trger, DAfStb Heft
178, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 159 pp. (in German)
Loureno, M.; Almeida, J.; and Nunes, N., 2006, Nonlinear Behaviour
of Concrete Discontinuity Regions, Proceedings of the 2nd fb Congress,
Naples, Italy, June 5-8. (CD-ROM)
Marti, P., 1985, Basic Tools of Reinforced Concrete Beam Design, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 46-56.
Marti, P., 2005, Keep Concrete Attractive, Congress Proceedings, fb
Symposium, V. 1, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 471-481.
Marti, P.; Alvarez, M.; Kaufmann, W.; and Sigrist, V., 1998, Tension
Chord Model for Structural Concrete, Structural Engineering Interna-
tional, Apr., pp. 287-298.
Mitchell, D., and Cook, W. D., 1991, Design of Disturbed Regions,
IABSE Colloquium Report, V. 62, pp. 533-538.
Muttoni, A.; Schwartz, J.; and Thrlimann, B., 1998, Design of Concrete
Structures with Stress Fields, Birkhuser, Basel, Switzerland.
Nunes, N., 2008, Comportamento em Servio de Zonas de Descontinui-
dade de Beto Estrutural, MSc thesis, Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa,
Instituto Superior Tcnico, Lisbon, Portugal, June, pp. 1-90. (in Portuguese)
Reineck, K.-H., 1995, Shear Design Based on Truss Models with Crack-
Friction, Ultimate Limit State Models: A State-of-the-Art Report by CEB
Task Group 2.3, CEB Bulletin 223, June, pp. 137-157.
Reineck, K.-H., 1996, Rational Models for Detailing and Design,
Large Concrete Buildings, B. V. Rangan and R. F. Warner, eds., Longman
Group Ltd., Burnt Mill, Harlow, UK, pp. 101-134.
Reineck, K.-H., 2002, Shear Design in Consistent Design Concept for
Structural Concrete Based on Strut-and-Tie Models, Design Examples for
the FIP Recommendations: Practical Design of Structural Concrete, fb
Bulletin 16, Jan., pp. 165-186.
Reineck, K.-H., 2005, Modellierung der D-Bereiche von Fertigteilen
(Modeling the D-Regions of Prefabricated Members), Betonkalender 94,
Teil II, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, pp. 241-296. (in German)
Reineck, K.-H., and ACI Committee 445, eds., 2002, Strut-and-Tie
Models, SP-208, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
242 pp.
Reineck, K-H., and Novak, L. C., eds., 2010, Further Examples for the
Design of Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models, SP-273, Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 288 pp.
Rckert, K., 1991, Design and Analysis with Strut-and-Tie Models
Computer-Aided Methods, IABSE Colloquium Report, V. 62, pp. 379-384.
Schfer, K., 1999, Deep Beams and Discontinuity Regions, Section 7.3,
fb Bulletin 3, pp. 141-184.
Schfer, K.; Schelling, G.; and Kuchler, T., 1990, Druck- und Querzug
in Bewehrten Betonelementen, DAfStb H.408, Beuth Verlag, Berlin,
Germany, 1990. (in German)
Schlaich, M., 1989, Computeruntersttzte Bemessung von Stahlbet-
onscheiben mit Fachwerkmodellen, PhD thesis, ETH Zrich, Bericht 1,
Professur fr Informatik, Zrich, Switzerland, Oct. (in German)
Schlaich, J.; and Schfer, K., 1983, Zur Druck-Querzug-Festigkeit des
Stahlbetons, BuStb 78, H.3, pp. 73-78. (in German)
Schlaich, J.; Schfer, K; and Jennewein, M., 1987, Toward a Consistent
Design for Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, pp. 75-150.
Sundermann, W., 1994, Tragfhigkeit und Tragverhalten von Stahl-
beton-Scheibentragwerken, PhD thesis, Institut fr Tragwerksentwurf und
-konstruktion, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 1994. (in German)
Teuffel, P., 2004, Entwerfen Adaptiver Strukturen, PhD thesis, Insti-
tute for Lightweight Structures and Conceptual Design (ILEK), Universitat
Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2004. (in German)
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, The Modifed Compression-
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-231.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1993, Compression Response of
Cracked Reinforced Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 119, No. 12, Dec., pp. 3590-3611.
CALL FOR ACTION
Do you have EXPERTISE in any of these areas?
BIM
Chimneys
Circular Concrete Structures Prestressed by Wrapping
with Wire and Strand
Circular Concrete Structures Prestressed with
Circumferential Tendons
Concrete Properties
Demolition
Deterioration of Concrete in Hydraulic Structures
Electronic Data Exchange
Insulating Concrete Forms, Design, and Construction
Nuclear Reactors, Concrete Components
Pedestal Water Towers
Pipe, Cast-in-Place
Strengthening of Concrete Members
Sustainability
en become a REVIEWER for the
ACI Structural Journal or the ACI Materials Journal.
How to become a Reviewer:
1. Go to: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci;
2. Click on Create Account in the upper right-hand corner; and
3. Enter your E-mail/Name, Address, User ID and Password, and
Area(s) of Expertise.
Did you know that the database for MANUSCRIPT
CENTRAL, our manuscript submission program,
is separate from the ACI membership database?
How to update your user account:
1. Go to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci;
2. Log in with your current User ID & Password; and
3. Update your E-mail/Name, Address, User ID and Password,
and Area(s) of Expertise.
A
ACI Invites You To...
QUESTIONS?
E-mail any questions to Journals.Manuscripts@concrete.org.
Title no. 110-S09
Adaptive Stress Field Models: Assessment of Design Models
by Miguel S. Loureno and Joo F. Almeida
When using strut-and-tie or stress feld models for design, different
engineers may propose different models for the same situation,
which may sometimes lead to quite different amounts of required
reinforcement. This can lead to concerns regarding the suitability
of the chosen model. This study intends to provide a step forward
for the assessment of strut-and-tie models, applying the Adap-
tive Stress Field Models concept. Several representative disconti-
nuity regions are studied and different design models and corre-
sponding reinforcement layouts are analyzed for each of them. The
main purpose is to discuss to what extent the design model can
be adjusted, preventing defcient service behavior and/or prema-
ture failure. For several cases, the suitable redistributions from the
reference models (elastic-based solution) were assessed, providing
guidance for the development and application of strut-and-tie
models for the design of discontinuity regions.
Keywords: adaptive structures; discontinuity regions; nonlinear analysis;
stress feld models; structural concrete; strut-and-tie models.
INTRODUCTION
Ductility and service behavior topics are frequently
referred to as limitations of the strut-and-tie method appli-
cation. Several authors (Schlaich et al. 1987; Muttoni
et al. 1998; Reineck 2002; Fernndez Ruiz and Muttoni
2007) addressed this aspect of choosing the proper design
model for a particular discontinuity region. The general
and simplifed energetic criteria mentioned by Schlaich et
al. (1987) to choose a model out of several possible ones
has shown to be suitable for most practical cases: In
selecting the model, it is helpful to realize that loads try to
use the path with the least forces and deformations. Since
reinforced ties are much more deformable than concrete
struts, the model with the least and shortest ties, is the best.
Other researchers presented additional proposals: Muttoni
et al. (1998) provided some guidelines for establishing
stress feld models by selecting load-path mechanisms that
prevent the opening of large cracks and indirectly control
service behavior; Sigrist et al. (1995) applied the upper-
bound methods of limit analysis considering failure mecha-
nisms to complement strut-and-tie-based models.
The general and consensus rule initially referred to by
Schlaich et al. (1987) and Schlaich and Schfer (1991)
was further included in technical documents (FIP Recom-
mendations 1999; EN 1992-1-1:2004): if the strut-and-tie
models main compression and tension felds are orien-
tated according to the elastic trajectories, one can indirectly
ensure a good service behavior. Furthermore, because small
internal stress redistributions are to be expected, the same
model can be used for ultimate and service loads. The model
orientation through the elastic solution should not be inter-
preted as a perfect mapping of the elastic trajectories but
merely to ensure that the main compression and tension
felds are close to the principal stress trajectories. In some
discontinuity regions, however, following strictly elastic
stress trajectories may lead to detailing diffculties and, in
particular cases, improper reinforcement layout. In prac-
tice, the modeling must take into consideration the practical
reinforcement layout and the strut-and-tie model should, in
general, be used with an appropriately distributed minimum
reinforcement where no main reinforcement is required. The
minimum steel area must be able to equilibrate a signif-
cant fraction of the concrete tensile strength that overcomes
locally after cracking. Special attention should also be given
to regions where compression stress felds cross over impor-
tant transversal strains because a signifcant reduction of
the peak compression strength of the concrete is obtained.
It is worth mentioning that, in most cases, the widths of the
compression stress felds are determined by the static condi-
tions (for example, dimensions of the loading plates), and
the concrete effective strength is rarely attained inside the
region. Finally, the selection of a strut-and-tie model for
design requires some engineering judgment to ensure a good
service behavior and avoid a premature failure.
In the following, several discontinuity regions will be
analyzed and their model assessments discussed. The appli-
cation of the Adaptive Stress Field Models methodology is
exceptionally useful for these purposes because it allows
a fundamental guidance for the selection of strut-and-tie
models and extends the application of stress-feld-based
models to the prediction of nonlinear behavior of struc-
tural concrete discontinuity regions. The main objective is
to discuss within which limits the designer can choose the
model, preventing defcient service behavior and/or prema-
ture failure. It should be noted that the models that will be
analyzed in the following may be considered as representa-
tive of several discontinuity regions. They can simulate the
general model of a particular discontinuity region or possibly
be included in more complex models. For this reason, the
rules presented in the following may provide guidance for
the proper design and detailing of most of the structural
concrete regions.
Several studies for systematizing and validating the
strut-and-tie method have been developed; however, very
few regard the models assessment topics. The Adaptive
Stress Field Model provides a preferential and reliable tool
for the selection and validation of strut-and-tie models for
design purposes because it consistently follows the stress
feld model concept for the nonlinear analysis of structural
concrete discontinuity regions. Furthermore, the devel-
Miguel S. Loureno is a Partner and Technical Director of JSJ Consulting Ltd.,
Lisbon, Portugal. He received his degree in civil engineering, his MSc in structural
engineering, and his PhD from Instituto Superior Tcnico (IST-ICIST), Lisbon,
Portugal, in 1995, 2000, and 2010, respectively. His research interests include design
models and nonlinear behavior of structural concrete.
Joo F. Almeida is an Associate Professor of Concrete Structures at IST-ICIST and a
Partner and Technical Director of JSJ Consulting, Ltd. He received his degree in civil
engineering from IST-ICIST in 1981 and his MSc in structural engineering and PhD
in civil engineering from the Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, in 1985
and 1990, respectively. His research interests include design models and nonlinear
behavior of structural concrete.
opment of model assessment topics is a key issue for the
dissemination and application of strut-and-tie models.
ASSESSMENT OF DESIGN MODELS
Typical models
An engineer with experience in the application of strut-
and-tie models for the design of discontinuity regions
easily realizes that some typical models occur repeatedly
in different practical cases. Some strut-and-tie models with
different levels of complexity are presented in the following;
the main questions that could arise during the models
construction will be discussed for each case.
Deep beam models often occur in a discontinuity region
or parts of it. For example, Fig. 1(a) shows the global
design model for a pier of a viaduct. The load path defned
by Model M1 is identical to a common deep beam model
with top loads, and it is easy to observe the similarity of
Model M2 to a deep beam with suspended loads. In these
particular cases, to ensure appropriate service behavior, the
solution was based on the elastic trajectories and the inner
level arms z were set to approximately 0.7L for both models.
However, to what extent can the designer adjust the inner
level arm of each model to guarantee an appropriate struc-
tural behavior for service and ultimate loads? Even in rather
complex models, such as the deep beam of a building shown
in Fig. 1(b), one can see several similarities with continuous
deep beams with top and indirect loads. The same doubts
concerning the proper inner level arm of each deep beam
model can arise. Usually, in these cases, to develop a simpler
and clear model, it is useful to set the position of the nodes
of the horizontal ties coincident to the nodes of the applied
loads at the foor levels. The external reactions are another
relevant topic in continuous deep beams. In fact, the chosen
internal load path infuences the external reactions, wherein
slight variations may halve or double the tie forces in the
span and over the supports. Along with the choice of the
appropriate inner level arm, another possible question could
arise: Within which limits can the designer select the load
path because it infuences the external reactions?
The strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 1(b) also illustrates
a different typical model: the suspension of concentrated
loads. In this particular case, this model arises due to the
indirect load of an out-of-plane deep beam located near the
right opening. The main question may be: Is it appropriate
to suspend the load with vertical reinforcement or must it
be provided with inclined reinforcement to ensure adequate
service behavior?
Another D-region to be analyzed is the re-entrant corner,
which frequently occurs in openings in walls (refer to
Fig. 1(c)) and in dapped beam ends. It is recognized that, in
several cases, the adoption of an orthogonal reinforcement
layout at the re-entrant corner does not effectively control
crack widths. Thus, technical documentation recommends
the combination of two different load paths, especially for
highly stressed regions, in which part of the load is trans-
ferred by the model associated with the orthogonal reinforce-
ment and the remaining part is transferred by inclined
reinforcement. As in the aforementioned typical models, the
designer may have doubts concerning the necessary amount
of inclined reinforcement that ensures adequate service
behavior. This aspect is well-illustrated in the strut-and-tie
model proposed by Schlaich et al. (1987) for a deep beam
with an opening in which 50% of the load is transferred by
inclined reinforcement and the remaining is transferred by
orthogonal reinforcement.
Finally, concerning concentrated forces, point loads near
supports cover all pairs of concentrated loads with a ratio
of the distance between the applied forces a and inner level
arm z of 0.5 a/z 2 and usually occur for point loads near
supportsfor example, corbels and pile caps. For these
cases, part of the load must be hung up by stirrups, and the
remaining part is transferred directly to the support. The force
Fig. 1(a) Design strut-and-tie model for pier of viaduct for vertical loads; (b)
design strut-and-tie model of deep beam within building; and (c) design strut-
and-tie model for deep beam with opening (Schlaich et al. 1987). (Note: L and L1
are in m (in.); numbers adjacent to bars are forces (kN); 1 kN = 0.224 kips; 1 m
= 39.37 in.)
in the stirrups is, based on semi-empirical rules, proportional
to a/z, as defned in several technical and normative publica-
tions. Usually, these regions have very high stresses and no
ability to develop alternative load paths. The current ques-
tion is: How far can the designer be from the reference solu-
tion while avoiding defcient service behavior?
Deep beams with top loads
Leonhardt and Walther (1966) performed tests of two
simply supported deep beams with equal dimensions, in
which one has half of the main reinforcement of the other.
Similar experimental ultimate loads were attained for both
deep beams, and the rupture was governed by the compres-
sion in the node region. At the ultimate load, the deep beam
with a smaller steel area exhibits yielding of the bottom
reinforcement; for the second deep beam, steel stresses
in the bottom reinforcement of approximately 370 MPa
(63.1 ksi) were obtained from the measured strains. Signif-
cant internal stress redistributions were observed imme-
diately after cracking, especially for the deep beam with
the lower bottom reinforcement ratio, where the available
ductility allowed the use of the full beams effective depth.
The important internal redistribution led to steel stresses and
crack width values for service loads at a quite appropriate
level for both deep beams.
Following these results, two different statically admissible
strut-and-tie models were considered (Fig. 2(a) and (b)). The
frst model was based on the elastic stress distribution (
d
=
68.2 degrees); the second assumed a higher inner level arm
where the compression zone is fully used (
d
= 75.1 degrees).
For a design load P
sd
= 1000 kN (224.8 kips), consider-
ably different amounts of reinforcement were obtained
A
s
= 460 mm
2
(0.713 in.
2
) and A
s
= 306 mm
2
(0.414 in.
2
)
(f
syd
= 435 MPa [63.1 ksi]). As usually recommended for
deep beams, an additional minimum web reinforcement of
approximately p = 0.2% was adopted (Fig. 2(c)). To under-
stand the structural behavior of each deep beam and to eval-
uate the steel stresses along the loading process, an adap-
tive stress feld analysis for each reinforcement layout was
developed in which the main and distributed reinforcement
were simulated (Fig. 2(d)). Setting the horizontal coordi-
nates of the nodes as the adaptive variables, it is possible to
simulate either the tension or the compression in the hori-
zontal elements and therefore evaluate the increase of the
inner level arm. The analysis outputs include the steel stress
in the main and distributed reinforcement, as well as the
concrete stresses within the compression felds, throughout
the loading process. However, only the main results are
presented and discussed.
To clearly understand the application of the adaptive
stress feld analysis for this particular case, some comments
concerning the interpretation of the results and its relation
with the developed analysis are mentioned. Figure 2(e)
shows the variation of the inner level arm, defned by the
distance between the resultant of all horizontal compres-
sion felds and the bottom reinforcement. For the uncracked
stage, the relation between the stiffness of the tension and
compression elements is relatively small, and the minimiza-
Fig. 2(a) Elastic stress trajectory-based model (z/L = 0.69;
d
= 68.2 degrees); (b) design (z/L = 1.04;
d
= 75.1 degrees);
(c) deep beam reinforcement layouts; (d) Adaptive Stress Field Model and adaptive variables; (e) adaptive stress feld analysis:
numerical inner level arm; and (f) adaptive stress feld analysis: steel stresses and crack widths throughout loading process.
(Note: 100 MPa = 14.5 ksi; 1000 kN = 224.8 kips; 1 mm
2
= 0.00155 in.
2
; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
tion of the global complementary energy is obtained for a
model confguration in which the inner level arm is close
to that obtained by the elastic theory. After cracking, the
crack stiffness of the bottom reinforcement decreases; thus,
its contribution to the global energy is higher than for the
uncracked stage. Therefore, the model confguration that
spends less energy is obtained for an increase of the inner
level arm and, consequently, a decrease in the force of the
bottom tie. Obviously, this effect is more signifcant for the
deep beam with a lower reinforcement ratio (A
s
= 306 mm
2

[0.474 in.
2
]). With increasing loading, the available ductility
allows for the effective deep beam height to be fully used
in both deep beams, although it happens for quite different
load steps.
Concerning service behavior, for loads between 350 and
650 kN (78.7 and 146.1 kips), steel stresses between 150 and
200 MPa (21.8 and 29.0 ksi) (for the model A
s
= 460 mm
2

[0.713 in.
2
]) and 200 and 250 MPa (29.0 and 36.3 ksi) (for
the model A
s
= 306 mm
2
[0.414 in.
2
]) are obtained. These
results lead to appropriate service behavior in both cases,
given that crack widths less than 0.20 mm (0.008 in.) are
obtained (refer to Fig. 2(f)). Because reinforced ties are
modeled following the Tension Chord Model (Marti et al.
1998), crack widths are calculated accordingly. Further-
more, steel stresses calculated with the strut-and-tie model
used for the ultimate limit state will give slightly conser-
vative results (continuous line in Fig. 2(f)). In fact, for an
applied load of P = 500 kN (112.4 kips), steel stresses of o
s
=
218 MPa (31.6 ksi) are obtained in both cases. On the other
hand, if steel stresses are calculated according to the elastic-
based model for both deep beams, signifcantly higher steel
stresses for the deep beam with A
s
= 306 mm
2
(0.474 in.
2
) are
obtained (hidden line in Fig. 2(f)); o
s
250/tg(68.2)/306
10
6
= 327 MPa (47.4 ksi).
Finally, for the deep beam models, the analysis demonstrates
that the designer has plenty of freedom for choosing the
design strut-and-tie model and, moreover, in spite of the
considerable redistributions assumed for the design model
(from the elastic-based model), the model used at the ultimate
limit state may be applied for checking service behavior.
Deep beams with suspended loads
The consideration of different static conditions for simply
supported deep beams, such as indirect loading, is essential
to cover the most practical cases of deep beams. Herein, the
same questions concerning the proper inner level arm may
arise. For this reason, three different strut-and-tie models
(refer to Fig. 3(a)) are considered. In the frst model, an inner
level arm z/L = 0.69 is considered, similar to that obtained
from the elastic stress trajectories. In the remaining models,
different levels of redistributions are assumed, setting
z/L = 0.90 and z/L = 1.04, leading to different amounts of
reinforcement for the bottom tie. For each design model and
corresponding reinforcement layout, an adaptive stress feld
analysis was developed. Again, the main goal is to fnd out if
there is the same freedom for choosing the design model as
in deep beams with top loads.
The reinforcement layout for each design model is shown
in Fig. 3(b). Figure 3(c) presents the adaptive variables
considered in the nonlinear stress feld analysis. The nodes
horizontal positions lead to either compression or tension
in the horizontal elements (which defne the reinforcement
layers). The variation of the nodes vertical positions intends
to simulate an increase or decrease on the resultant inner
level arm.
Figure 3(d) shows the obtained variation of the resultant
inner level arm z/L for each load level and for each reinforce-
ment layout. After cracking of the horizontal bottom tie, an
important stress redistribution occurs, related to an increase
Fig. 3(a) Different design models for deep beam with suspended loads; (b) reinforcement layout for each design model;
(c) Adaptive Stress Field Model; (d) inner level arm variation; and (e) steel stresses of bottom reinforcement. (Note:
100 MPa = 14.5 ksi; 1000 kN = 224.8 kips; 1 m = 39.37 in.; 1 mm
2
= 0.00155 in.
2
; 100 kN/m = 22.48 kip/ft.)
of the inner level arm, most relevant for the deep beam with
a lower bottom reinforcement ratio (z/L = 1.04). When the
vertical tie that holds up the bottom load reaches the cracking
load, the ratio z/L decreases similarly to that obtained
from the uncracked stage. It should be mentioned that the
analysis for deep beams with top loads showed different
behavior because the inner level arm kept increasing with
increasing loading. For the indirect loads, the increase of
the inner level arm z/L is observed only after yielding of the
bottom reinforcement. This leads to moderate-to-high steel
stresses and corresponding crack widths at service loads.
In fact, between P = 350 kN (78.7 kips) and P = 650 kN
(146.1 kips), steel stresses of 110 to 220 MPa (15.95 to
31.9 ksi) (z/L = 0.69), 140 to 290 MPa (20.3 to 42.1 ksi) (z/L
= 0.90), and 150 to 330 MPa (21.8 to 47.9 ksi) (z/L = 1.04)
are obtained (refer to Fig. 3(e)). A fnal remark concerning
service behavior: checking steel stresses with the same model
used at the ultimate limit state is particularly suitable for the
elastic-based model z/L = 0.69. For the other models, the
obtained values slightly underestimate steel stresses (refer
to the hidden lines in Fig. 3(e)). Alternatively, checking steel
stresses based on the elastic inner level arm for the model
with z/L = 1.04 would be clearly conservative (refer to the
continuous line in Fig. 3(e)).
Continuous deep beams
To assess the design model for continuous deep beams,
several strut-and-tie models were developed. The reference
strut-and-tie model is based on the elastic stress trajectories.
The remaining models (refer to Fig. 4) are defned to simu-
late different inner level arms, as well as different support
and midspan reinforcement ratios (continuous deep beams
are statically redundant systems; thus, the external reac-
tions also depend on the reinforcement layout). As usual, a
minimum reinforcement of p = 0.2% is adopted in all cases.
Models A and B were based on the elastic inner level arm,
but the steel reinforcement areas over the support were set
to approximately half and double those of the reference
solution, respectively. Model 1 intends to simulate a typical
simplifcation for design purposes, in which the tension
over the support is located at the same level as the adjacent
compression (z = 0.7L). In Model 2, the effective height of
the continuous deep beam is fully used and the reinforcement
layout is placed at the top face, similar to a slender beam. In
Model 3, an extreme redistribution is assumed by setting two
independent simply supported deep beam models with no
reinforcement over the support region.
An adaptive stress feld analysis was developed for each
reinforcement layout in which three levels of reinforcement
were considered. The adaptive variables are the horizontal
Fig. 4Continuous deep beam design strut-and-tie models and subsequent reinforcement layout. (Note: Dimensions in m;
100 kN = 22.48 kips; 1 m = 39.37 in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 100 kN/m = 22.48 kip/ft.)
node location and the external reaction R
1
(Fig. 5(a)). The
design load was q = 800 kN/m (54.8 kip/ft) and the analysis
was developed for load steps of 100 kN/m (6.85 kip/ft).
Figure 5(b) to (e) shows the obtained steel stresses in all
analyzed reinforcement layers for each deep beam, where
o
mid span
is the steel stresses at the bottom midspan reinforce-
ment, o
top supp
is the steel stresses at the top reinforcement
over the support, o
mid supp
is the steel stresses at the reinforce-
ment placed at middle height over the support, and o
bottom
supp
is the steel stresses at the reinforcement placed at bottom
height over the support.
For all reinforcement layouts, the predicted design load
was attained, which denotes the capacity of the structure to
adapt itself to the chosen design model. After cracking of
the bottom reinforcement, the support steel stresses increase
at all levels and the bottom reinforcement steel stresses
remain approximately constant. Increasing applied loads,
cracking of the concrete region over the support occurs
and, as expected, an increase of the bottom steel stresses
is observed. Curiously, this increase has similar slopes for
all deep beams in spite of the different amounts of rein-
forcement. Moreover, at the design load level, yielding of
steel was not observed in all analyzed cases. This effect is
mainly due to the increase of the inner level arm (similar
to the behavior that was observed for the simply supported
deep beams with top loads). Concerning service behavior,
for deep beams with low reinforcement ratios over the
supportModels A, 2, and 3the steel stresses can lead to
moderate crack widths. In the upper bound of the service
load range q = 550 kN/m (37.7 kip/ft), steel stresses of
approximately 350 MPa (50.8 ksi) are obtained (refer to
Fig. 5(e)). The other models presented suitable steel stresses
at service loads for all reinforcement levels.
To clearly understand the level of redistributions tested
in the analyzed cases, when compared with slender beams,
redistributions of the resultant moments up to 70% of the
support and midspan moment did not signifcantly affect
service behavior (refer to Models R, A, and B, where the
elastic inner level arm was adopted). It should be noted that
the adopted internal redistributions led to variations from
the reference model up to 20% of the hyperstatic external
reaction R
1
. Moreover, the evaluation of steel stresses at
service loads with the same model used for the ultimate
load provided, in general, conservative results (refer to the
Fig. 5(a) Continuous deep beam adaptive stress feld confguration and identifcation
of adaptive variables. Continuous deep beam steel stresses for different reinforcement
layouts: (b) bottom reinforcement; (c) top support reinforcement; (d) middle support
reinforcement; and (e) bottom support reinforcement. (Note: Dimensions in (a) are in m;
100 MPa = 14.5 ksi; 100 kN/m = 224.8 kip/ft; 1 m = 39.37 in.)
dotted lines in Fig. 5(b) to (e)). As shown for Models 2 and
3, however, increases on the inner level arm higher than 50%
can lead to inappropriate steel stresses at service loads.
This example shows that there is plenty of freedom for
choosing the design model for continuous deep beams and
the assumed redistributions can be considerably higher than
those allowed for slender beams. Nevertheless, to prevent
defcient service behavior, extreme redistributions, such as
those illustrated by Models 2 and 3, should be avoided.
Suspension of concentrated loading
The strut-and-tie model for a corbel subject to point load
was well-established many years ago, but if the same corbel
suspends the load, a few concerns could arise. The elastic
stress trajectories suggest that part of the indirect load may
be carried by stirrups and the remaining may be carried by
inclined reinforcement (Fig. 6(b)). Strictly following the
elastic theory, however, it may not be easy to calculate the
load fraction that should be equilibrated by each load path.
To assess the design model for the suspension of concen-
trated loads, three distinct strut-and-tie models with different
values of the part of the load suspended by vertical stirrups
(defned by the variable k
d
) are studied (Fig. 6(a)). As in the
other examples, for each reinforcement layout, an adaptive
stress feld analysis is developed following the model shown
in Fig. 6(c). The only adaptive variable is k, which repre-
sents the fraction of the load that is suspended by stirrups.
To analyze an eventual premature failure, it was considered
the reduction of the concrete strength (Vecchio and Collins
1986) for the diagonal compression (Element 8) because it
crosses signifcant transversal strains induced by the diag-
onal tie (Element 2).
Figure 6(d) to (g) shows the main numerical results
obtained from the analysis: the load fraction carried by
vertical stirrups, the steel stresses in both ties, and the diagonal
compression stresses. As expected, in the uncracked stage, a
Fig. 6(a) Different corbel design strut-and-tie models and corresponding reinforcement layouts; (b) elastic stress trajec-
tories; (c) corbel adaptive stress feld analysis. Corbel numerical results: (d) load fraction transmitted by vertical stirrups;
(e) vertical reinforcement steel stresses; (f) inclined reinforcement steel stresses; and (g) diagonal compression stresses.
(Note: Dimensions in (a) are in m; 100 MPa = 14.5 ksi; 100 kN = 22.48 kips; 1 m = 39.37 in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
value of k 0.42 for all models was obtained, leading to
the conclusion that both load paths had similar stiffness and,
thus, their contribution to the global complementary energy
was identical. Concrete cracking at vertical and inclined ties
occurred at the same load step V = 100 kN (22.5 kips). For
all design models, the structure has a tendency to follow the
initial strut-and-tie model. This is intimately related with
the stiffness relation of Ties 1 and 2, wherein the computed
energies are highly infuenced by the provided steel area
and its length; thus, the stiffer element carries a higher
load. Obviously, this also happens in the model (k
d
= 0.5),
but the identical steel areas adopted lead to similar resultant
forces in both ties. Concerning service behavior, the stress
redistribution that occurred immediately after cracking
kept steel stresses at both vertical and inclined reinforce-
ments at appropriate levels, suggesting low-to-moderate
crack widths. It is worth mentioning that the superposition
of both load pathsassuming 50% of the load equilibrated
by vertical stirrups (k
d
= 0.90)provides quite lower steel
stresses. The ultimate load was achieved in all cases and
low-to-moderate compression stresses were obtained. As
expected, the diagonal compression stresses (Fig. 6(g)) are
higher for the model that provides more vertical stirrups;
however, the concrete stresses remain lower than the effec-
tive concrete strength. Finally, for practical purposes, the
designer could choose one of the possible load paths and
provide a distributed reinforcement of approximately 15%
of the main reinforcement to improve service behavior.
Note that the inclined reinforcement can be replaced by an
orthogonal reinforcement layout with approximately the
same ratio in both directions. Additionally, at service loads,
the calculation of the steel stresses in the main reinforce-
ment, following the strut-and-tie model used for design, will
lead to slightly conservative values.
Re-entrant corners
The re-entrant corner model can be characterized by a
strut-and-tie model of a dapped beam. The models unique-
ness for dapped beams has been discussed by several
authors (Cook and Mitchell 1988; Reineck 2002). One
of the frequently asked questions concerns the required
inclined reinforcement to adequately control the diagonal
crack in the re-entrant corner. It is known that the elastic
stress trajectories suggest that the load should be mainly
equilibrated by an inclined reinforcement (approximately
75% of the total applied load; refer to Fig. 7(a)). For prac-
tical reasons, however, it is sometimes useful to provide an
orthogonal reinforcement layout, and the elastic stresses do
Fig. 7(a) Dapped-end beam elastic stress trajectories; (b) design strut-and-tie model
assuming 25% of load is equilibrated by vertical reinforcement; (c) design strut-and-tie
model assuming 50% of load is equilibrated by vertical reinforcement; and (d) design
strut-and-tie model assuming 90% of load is equilibrated by vertical reinforcement. (Note:
Bar diameters are in mm; 100 kN = 22.48 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 8Steel stresses variation: (a) horizontal reinforcement; (b) inclined reinforcement;
and (c) vertical reinforcement. (Note: 100 MPa = 14.5 ksi; 100 kN = 22.48 kips.)
not fully reveal all the information needed for the design
for example, the calculation of the anchorage length of the
horizontal reinforcement over the support (refer to Fig. 7(a),
where horizontal and vertical stress distributions are plotted).
It is recognized that modeling singular zones with the fnite
element method is usually complex and turns out to be more
complicated if doing so along with the current and prac-
tical reinforcement layouts. For these reasons, some tech-
nical documents (FIP Recommendations 1999) suggest the
strut-and-tie method for the design of these kinds of regions,
taking into account the superposition of two possible models
to effciently control the cracks in the re-entrant corner: the
frst considering an orthogonal reinforcement and the other
refecting an inclined reinforcement. It is common, especially
for openings in walls, to provide an orthogonal reinforce-
ment layout designed for the total load; for moderate-to-
high loads, an additional (usually not explicitly calculated)
inclined reinforcement at the opening corners is provided.
The main concern is related to the amount of inclined
reinforcement that should be provided to adequately control
the diagonal crack width at service loads. For the evaluation
of the region behavior under different reinforcement layouts,
three different design models were developed (Fig. 7(b) to
(d)), where k
d
is the part of the vertical applied force that
is equilibrated by the orthogonal reinforcement model.
Defning k as the adaptive variable, the developed adap-
tive stress feld analysis allows the calculation of compres-
sion and tension stresses in all elements. Figure 8 shows
the k variation throughout the loading process and the steel
stresses obtained for each analysis.
The following aspects should be pointed out:
Before cracking, the part of the vertical load V that is
equilibrated by the orthogonal reinforcement follows
the elastic theory because values of approximately k =
0.30 for all models were numerically obtained. Imme-
diately after cracking, high stress redistribution occurs
and the load path tends to follow the initial design strut-
and-tie model. This behavior, together with the fact that
the concrete compressive stresses did not reach its effec-
tive strength in any situation, allowed for the design
load to be achieved in all cases.
Concerning service behavior and assuming service
loads between V = 200 kN (45.0 kips) and V = 300 kN
(67.4 kips), steel stresses from 150 to 300 MPa (21.8 to
43.5 ksi) were obtained, leading to acceptable service
behavior. The diagonal reinforcement achieved steel
stresses close to yielding stresses only for the design
strut-and-tie model (k
d
= 0.90), which may be related to
unacceptable crack widths. This result is also in accor-
dance with common practice and test outputs, where it
is known that the orthogonal reinforcement does not
effectively control the diagonal crack.
Loads near support
Almeida and Loureno (2005) and, later, Lobo (2008),
developed an adaptive stress feld analysis based on the
model presented in Fig. 9(a). The adaptive variable is the
part of load F transmitted by the stirrups, k, which is asso-
ciated with the length z
d
. For a given force distribution, all
variables are established by equilibrium conditionsthe
length z
d
and the compression and tension model resultants,
as well as the stress feld widths. The main objective is to
assess the regions structural behavior if the provided vertical
reinforcement is different from the recommended values of
the FIP Recommendations (1999), based on the equation

1
2 1
3
w
F a
F z
_

,
For these purposes, an adaptive stress feld analysis was
developed for different ratios of provided and reference
vertical reinforcement q = A
s
/A
s,ref
and different a/z values.
The main results of the analysis are presented in Fig. 9; for
more detailed information, refer to Lobo (2008). Stirrup
steel stresses are presented in Fig. 9(b) to (e), demonstrating
that it is reasonable to have a slight reduction of the required
reference stirrups without signifcantly affecting service
behavior (reductions up to 25%). The ultimate design load
was achieved in all cases.
CONCLUSIONS
The Adaptive Stress Field Model extends the application
of stress-feld-based models for the nonlinear analysis of
structural concrete discontinuity regions, allowing a consis-
tent study of service behavior, ductility and, more generally,
the models assessment topics. Several representative models
for discontinuity regions were studied, providing guidance
for adequate modeling and detailing in many practical situa-
tions. The following general conclusions can be drawn:
The practical rule of orientating the model at the elastic
stress felds is a simple and conservative recommen-
dation; however, the selected model does not refect
cracking and thus does not consider the redistribution
of the inner fow of forces up to the service load and
ultimate load levels.
In general, the engineer has plenty of freedom for
choosing the model for the design of discontinuity
regions, and the engineers judgment based on previous
experience should not be underestimated. The defor-
mation capacity of the materials after yielding allows
considerable stress redistributions and successive
formation of new static systems. In practical applica-
tions, strut-and-tie models should be used with a well-
Fig. 9(a) Adaptive Stress Field Model for point load near support. Stirrup steel stresses for different ratios q = A
s
/A
s,ref
(Lobo
2008): (b) a/z = 0.75; (c) a/z = 1.0; (d) a/z = 1.75; and (e) a/z = 2.0. (Note: 100 MPa = 14.5 ksi; 100 kN = 22.48 kips; 1 cm
2

= 0.155 in.
2
)
distributed minimum reinforcement, which should also
prevent premature failures at the cracking load.
An unpredicted concrete failure is mainly related to the
reduction of the compressive concrete strength due to
the presence of high transverse strains. In fact, in most
practical cases, this effect is not particularly relevant
because compressive stresses within the regions are
usually lower than the effective strength due to the
moderate concrete stresses imposed by the strength
verifcation of the contiguous nodal regions. However,
a more detailed analysis should be performed when
important compressive stresses cross diagonal ties with
signifcant transverse strains induced.
The assessment of models at the service load level
has shown that quite large deviations from the elastic
solution can be tolerated without greatly affecting the
service behavior. In fact, despite such important internal
redistributions observed in some of the studied cases,
the steel stresses and crack widths at the service load
level remained at quite appropriate levels.
This study confrmed that, in general, the same model
selected for the ultimate load level was seen to be
valid for checking cracking at service loads, even for
moderate deviations from the elastic-based solution.
For several cases, the suitable redistributions from the
reference models were assessed, providing guidance for
the development and application of strut-and-tie models
to the design of discontinuity regions. Furthermore,
following the indications mentioned in the following,
the design model can be used to check service behavior:
Deep beams: The results showed that deviations of
the inner level arm lower than 50% or deviations of
the external reactions lower than 20% (for statically
indeterminate deep beams) relative to the reference
model (elastic-based) are acceptable. Note that
these variations can halve or double the reinforce-
ment area.
Suspension of concentrated loads: The suspen-
sion of the loads due to an indirect support may
be equilibrated by a combination of inclined and
vertical reinforcement. The designer is free to
choose one of the possible load paths. To improve
service behavior, however, it is recommended to
provide a distributed reinforcement of at least 15%
of the main reinforcement.
Re-entrant corners: It is recognized that, in several
cases, the adoption of an orthogonal reinforcement
layout near the re-entrant corner does not effectively
control crack widths. The reference model requires
75% of the applied load to be equilibrated by
inclined reinforcement. The analysis results showed
that assigning 50% of the load at each load path will
provide good service behavior. For higher redistri-
butions, the inclined crack close to the re-entrant
corner can present unsatisfactory crack widths.
Loads near supports: Loads near support models
cover all pairs of point loads within a ratio of the
distance between the applied forces and inner level
arm of 0.5 a/z 2. For these cases, part of the
load must be hung by stirrups and the remaining
load must be directly transferred to the support. The
obtained results pointed out that redistributions of
25% of the reference solution do not signifcantly
infuence service behavior.
NOTATION
a, b = widths
b (subscript) = bottle
c = concrete, compression
d = design
E = elastic modulus
F = applied forces
f = material strength
k = coeffcient
L, l = length
M = bending moment
p = pressure, distributed load
q = distributed load
s = steel
V = vertical force, shear
w = crack width
w (subscript) = web, wedge
y = yielding
z = inner level arm
r = strain
= angle
p = reinforcement ratio
o = stress
u = mechanical ratio
REFERENCES
Almeida, J., and Loureno, M., 2005, Stress Field Models for Struc-
tural Concrete, Keep Concrete Attractive, fb Symposium, V. 1, Budapest,
Hungary, pp. 525-531.
Cook, W. D., and Mitchell, D., 1988, Studies of Disturbed Regions Near
Discontinuities in Reinforced Concrete Members, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 85, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 206-216.
EN 1992-1-1:2004, 2004, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures
Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, British Standards Institu-
tion, London, UK, Dec., 225 pp.
Fernndez Ruiz, M., and Muttoni, A., 2007, On Development of Suit-
able Stress Fields for Structural Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 104,
No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 495-502.
FIP Recommendations, 1999, Practical Design of Structural Concrete,
Practical Design, FIP Commission 3, SETO, London, UK, 113 pp.
Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., 1966, Wandartiger Trger, DAfStb Heft
178, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 159 pp. (in German)
Lobo, P., 2008, Cargas Prximas dos Apoios em Elementos de Beto
Estrutural, PhD thesis, Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa, Instituto Superior
Tcnico, Lisbon, Portugal, July, pp. 1-103. (in Portuguese)
Marti, P.; Alvarez, M.; Kaufmann, W.; and Sigrist, V., 1998, Tension
Chord Model for Structural Concrete, Structural Engineering Interna-
tional, V. 8, No. 4, Nov., pp. 287-298.
Muttoni, A.; Schwartz, J.; and Thrlimann, B., 1998, Design of Concrete
Structures with Stress Fields, Birkhuser, Basel, Switzerland.
Reineck, K.-H., ed., 2002, Examples for the Design of Structural
Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models, SP-208, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 242 pp.
Schlaich, J., and Schfer, K., 1991, Design and Detailing of Structural
Concrete Using Strut-and-Tie Models, The Structural Engineer, V. 69,
No. 6.
Schlaich, J.; Schfer, K; and Jennewein, M., 1987, Toward a Consistent
Design for Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, pp. 75-150.
Sigrist, V.; Alvarez, M.; and Kaufmann, W., 1995, Shear and Flexure
in Structural Concrete Beams, Ultimate Limit State Design Models, CEB
Bulletin 223, June, pp. 7-49.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, The Modifed Compression
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-231.
NOTES:
Title no. 110-S10
MS No. S-2011-062 received March 2, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Flexural Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Wall with
Limited Confnement
by S. Takahashi, K. Yoshida, T. Ichinose, Y. Sanada, K. Matsumoto, H. Fukuyama, and H. Suwada
The fexural drift capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) walls is
discussed in this study based on the test results of 10 specimens.
The test parameters were wall length, thickness, detailing, and
axial force. The detailing of the ties did not satisfy the ACI 318-08
requirements. Each specimen had a column at one end where an
axial force was applied. All specimens failed in fexural compres-
sion after yielding of the longitudinal bars. The observed fexural
drift capacity was between 0.4 and 1.2%. A set of equations to
predict the drift capacity is proposed wherein the hinge zone length
is assumed to be 2.5 times that of the wall thickness.
Keywords: boundary element; compressive failure; confnement; drift
capacity; plastic hinge; reinforced concrete wall.
INTRODUCTION
ACI 318-08
1
requires special detailing for boundary
elements of reinforced concrete (RC) walls to prevent fex-
ural compressive failure under seismic forces. One of the
approaches to the detailing is based on the displacement-
based concept.
2
If the compressive strain of concrete is
expected to be larger than 0.003, the compressive zone is
required to be reinforced according to the requirement of the
special boundary element for confnement. This requirement
is verifed by Thomsen and Wallace,
3
who tested walls with
rectangular- and T-shaped cross sections.
The Japanese Code
4
prescribes the ductility of RC walls
based mainly on the ratio of the neutral axis depth to the wall
thickness. This prescription is based on several experimental
studies, including those by Tabata et al.,
5
who tested RC walls
with rectangular cross sections and large shear-span ratios.
The plastic hinge length L
p
is important for estimating drift
capacity. Researchers have proposed various approaches.
In the study by Wallace and Orakcal,
2
which was the basis
of the seismic requirements of ACI 318-08,
1
the plastic
hinge length was assumed as one half of the wall length
(L
p
= l
w
/2). Tabata et al.
5
assumed L
p
= 0.3l
w
. On the other
hand, Kabeyasawa et al.
6
idealized the wall, assuming that
the strain of each boundary element is uniform within
each story; this idealization is almost equivalent to the
assumption of L
p
= h, where h is story height. Orakcal and
Wallace
7
divided the wall into eight segments in the direc-
tion of the height; this idealization is almost equivalent to
the assumption of L
p
= h/8. Paulay and Priestley
8
assumed
that L
p
= 0.20l
w
+ 0.044a from the test results of canti-
lever walls, where a is shear span length. Takahashi et
al.
9
showed that the prescription of the Japanese Code
4
is
implicitly based on the assumption of L
p
= 2.5t, where t is
wall thickness.
The objective of this paper is to propose a set of equations
to predict the drift capacity of RC walls based on the assump-
tion of L
p
= 2.5t. To verify this assumption, 10 specimens
were tested. The detailing of these specimens does not satisfy
the seismic requirements of ACI 318-08,
1
but such detailing
may be preferred for ease of construction. The test param-
eters were wall length, thickness, detailing, and axial force.
The details of this experiment are available elsewhere.
10,11
There are many RC buildings that do not satisfy the
requirements of ACI 318-08,
1
including those in Chile. Most
of the wall damage caused by the 2010 Chile earthquake was
related to the confguration and reinforcement detailing of
wall boundary elements.
12
The damage indicated that the
performance of these walls was brittle, as expected. On the
other hand, there may have been many buildings that resisted
the earthquake, although they did not satisfy the require-
ments of ACI 318-08.
1
The ACI 318-08
1
requirements are quite strict about
the boundary element; it may be suffcient to ensure large
ductility of walls. However, the fndings of this research may
lead to simpler detailing for walls where a relatively smaller
compressive strain is expected. The fndings of this research
may also be used to evaluate the seismic capacity of buildings
with walls that do not satisfy the ACI 318-08
1
requirements.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Specimens
Ten RC wall specimens with a boundary column on only
one side were prepared to investigate the differences in
deformation capacity. Figure 1 shows the cross sections of
the specimens used in this research. Each specimen is named
as follows:
1. Perpendicular end wall: The frst letter of the speci-
mens nameP or Nmeans with or without a perpen-
dicular wall, respectively. For example, Specimen PM5 in
Fig. 1(g) has a perpendicular end wall 130 mm (5.1 in.) long
and 60 mm (2.4 in.) thick. All the perpendicular end walls
have single-layer reinforcement (D4 at 80 mm [3.15 in.],
where D4 is a deformed bar with a nominal diameter of 4 mm
[0.16 in.]) and do not have confnement.
2. The ratio of wall panel length to wall thickness (l
wp
/t):
The second letter of the specimens nameS, M, or
Lexpresses that the l
wp
/t ratio is 6, 12, or 18, respec-
tively, where the wall panel length l
wp
is defned, excluding
the column. For example, the ratio of Specimen PM5 in
Fig. 1(g) is 1200/100 = 12.
3. The ratio of neutral axis depth to wall thickness (c/t):
The vertical arrows in Fig. 1 indicate the location of the
Susumu Takahashi is a PhD Student of architectural engineering at Nagoya Institute
of Technology, Nagoya, Japan.
Kazuya Yoshida is a Masters Student of architectural engineering at Nagoya Insti-
tute of Technology.
ACI member Toshikatsu Ichinose is a Professor of architectural engineering at
Nagoya Institute of Technology.
ACI member Yasushi Sanada is an Associate Professor of architecture and civil engi-
neering at Toyohashi University of Technology, Toyohashi, Japan.
Kenki Matsumoto is a Masters Student of architectural engineering at Nagoya Insti-
tute of Technology.
ACI member Hiroshi Fukuyama is a Chief Research Engineer at the Building
Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan.
Haruhiko Suwada is a Research Engineer at the Building Research Institute.
neutral axis, whose computation method will be shown in
a later section of the paper. The number of the specimens
name expresses the approximate ratio of c/t. For example,
the ratio of Specimen PM5 in Fig. 1(g) is 493/100 = 4.9.
Although the sections of Specimens NM5 and NM4 are
identical, as shown in Fig. 1(a), the locations of the neutral
axis are different because of the difference of axial forces, as
shown in a later section.
4. With or without crosstie in boundary element:
Figure 2 shows the detail of the boundary elements of the
specimens, except Specimens NM5, NM4, and NM2.
The horizontal bars have a 135-degree hook, as shown in
Fig. 2(a). The cap bars have a 90-degree hook at both ends,
as shown in Fig. 2(b), and the cap bars vertical spacing
is 35 mm (1.4 in.), as shown in Fig. 2(c). The crossties have
90- and 135-degree hooks, as shown in Fig. 2(b), and are
staggered with a spacing of 70 mm (2.8 in.), as shown in
Fig. 2(c). The crossties in Specimens NM5 and NM4 are
located at a spacing of 35 mm (1.4 in.), as shown in Fig. 3(a).
Specimen NM2 does not have crossties, as shown in
Fig. 3(b).
The detailing of the wall reinforcement for Specimen NM3
is shown in Fig. 4. The spacings of the horizontal and vertical
bars are 35 and 100 mm (1.4 and 4.0 in.), respectively. The
reinforcement details of the wall panels of the other speci-
mens are the same as those in Fig. 4. Because the wall thick-
ness of each specimen is different, the lateral and vertical
wall reinforcement ratios vary from 0.54% to 0.84% and
from 0.19% to 0.30%, respectively. The lengths of boundary
elements (220 mm [8.7 in.] in Fig. 2(a)) are longer than half
the length of the neutral axis in most specimens, as specifed
by the seismic requirements of ACI 318-08.
1
In the vertical
direction, crossties are provided from the bottom to one-third
of the clear height h, as shown in Fig. 4. This value of h/3
is much shorter than the requirement of ACI 318-08.
1
The
spacing of the crossties (70 mm [2.8 in.] in most specimens)
does not satisfy the requirements of ACI 318-08
1
either. The
cross-sectional areas of the crossties vary from 15 to 31% of
ACI 318-08.
1
The clear heights of Specimens NM4 and NM5 are
1000 mm (3.3 ft), whereas those of the other specimens are
1200 mm (4.0 ft), as shown in Fig. 4. Eight No. 3 (D10)
longitudinal bars are provided in the boundary element of
all specimens (Fig. 2(a)). Twelve No. 5 (D16) longitudinal
bars are provided in the boundary column, except that of
Specimen NL2, where eight No. 4 (D13) bars are provided
(Fig. 1(e)) so the longitudinal reinforcement ratio (2.5%) is
similar to that of the other specimens.
All specimens are designed to fail in fexure; the shear-
to-fexural-capacity ratios vary from 1.2 to 2.3, where
the fexural and shear capacities are calculated based on
the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) standards
13
and
ACI 318-08,
1
respectively. The material properties of the
steel bars are indicated in Table 1, where f
y
is the yield
strength, f
u
is the tensile strength, and E
s
is the elastic
modulus. The material properties of concrete are indicated
Fig. 1Specimen sections. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.; No. 4 is D13;
No. 5 is D16.)
in Table 2, where f
c
is the compressive strength, E
c
is the
elastic modulus, and f
r
is the modulus of rupture.
Test setup
Figure 5 shows the test setup. Lateral force was applied by
a hydraulic jack to a stiff loading steel beam fastened to the
specimen. All specimens had stiff RC stubs at both the top
and bottom for fxing with the loading frame. No axial force
was applied for Specimen NM4. For the other specimens, two
vertical hydraulic jacks were force-controlled so the moment
around the center of the boundary column is zero, as shown
in Fig. 5. The amount of the axial force was approximately
20% of the axial capacity of the boundary column (f
c
A
g
),
where A
g
is the gross cross-sectional area of the column.
The applied axial load was approximately 240 kN (54 kips)
for Specimen NL2, 400 kN (90 kips) for NM5, and 540 kN
(121 kips) for the other specimens. Horizontal load was
applied 2425 mm (8.0 ft) above the bottom of the wall panel
for NM5 and NM4 (Fig. 5). The height of the horizontal load
was 2525 mm (8.3 ft) for the other specimens. The shear-
span ratio of NL2 is 2525/2000 = 1.26, which is the smallest.
The shear span ratio of NS3 is 2525/1020 = 2.48, which is
the largest.
OBSERVED DAMAGE
AND DEFLECTION COMPONENT
Figure 6 shows the lateral load-drift relationship of
Specimen NL2. Lateral drift R is defned as the ratio of
measured lateral displacement A to specimen height h. The
displacement was measured at the top of the clear height in all
specimens. During the positive loading (column in tension),
the maximum strength (530 kN [119 kips]) was observed at
a +1.2% drift level. The strength was 1.1 times the analytical
fexural strength. Between the drift levels of +2 and +3%,
strength decreased rapidly. During the negative loading
direction (column in compression), the maximum strength
Fig. 2Boundary element except for Specimens NM5, NM4,
and NM2. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.; No. 3 is D10.)
Fig. 3Boundary element of Specimens NM5, NM4, and NM2.
Fig. 4Elevation of Specimen NM3. (Note: Dimensions in
mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Table 1Material properties of reinforcing bars
Bar f
y
, MPa f
u
, MPa E
s
, GPa
D4 411 (351)
*
521 (544)
*
173 (192)
*
No. 3 (D10) 391 (376)
*
469 (520)
*
199 (188)
*
No. 4 (D13) 367 503 183
No. 5 (D16) 389 (387)
*
559 (563)
*
180 (180)
*
*
Numbers in parentheses indicate material properties for Specimens NM4 and NM5.
Notes: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi.
Table 2Material properties of concrete
Specimen f
c
, MPa E
c
, GPa f
r
, MPa
NS3
38.3 28.4 2.65
NM3
NM2
37.8 27.8 2.45
NM2
NL2
37.6 28.6 3.07
PL6
PM5
PM3
NM5
33.4 23.9 2.55
NM4
Notes: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi.
(280 kN [63 kips]) was observed at a 1.5% drift level. The
strength was 1.2 times the analytical fexural strength.
Figure 7 shows Specimen NL2 at the end of the experi-
ment at a 5% drift level. The spalling of concrete started at
the bottom right corner of the wall panel at a +2% drift level.
The spalled zone extended toward the column until a +3%
drift level. On the other hand, the concrete of the boundary
column slightly spalled during the negative loading but
not during the positive loading, even at a +5% drift level.
Figure 8 shows the buckling of the longitudinal bars (eight
No. 3 [D10]) in the boundary element at a 3% drift level. The
buckled bars fractured in tension between the drift levels of
2 and 3%.
Figure 9 shows the linear variable differential transducer
(LVDT) used to evaluate the fexural drifts.
7
Figure 10 shows
Fig. 5Loading setup.
Fig. 6Load versus drift of Specimen NL2.
Fig. 7Specimen NL2 at maximum drift.
Fig. 8Buckling of reinforcement.
Fig. 9Instrumentation of specimens.
the load-versus-fexural-drift relationship of Specimen NL2.
Flexural drift at 80% of maximum strength V
max
(the black
circle in Fig. 10) is defned as fexural drift capacity in this
paper. The hysteresis loops are more spindle-shaped than
those in Fig. 6. The strength degradation in Fig. 10 is milder
than that in Fig. 6, which will be discussed in the following.
Figure 11 shows the load-versus-shear-drift relationship
of Specimen NL2. Shear drift was obtained by subtracting
fexural drift from total drift. Shear drift increased after fex-
ural yielding. The black triangles in Fig. 10 and 11 show
the load step at the onset of strength degradation. The shear
drift just before the strength degradation (1.25%) was larger
than the corresponding fexural drift (0.75%). Note that the
maximum applied shear force is much smaller than the shear
strength computed according to ACI 318-08
1
(the top broken
line in Fig. 11). The shear drift did not increase during the
degradation. This is the reason why the strength degradation
in Fig. 10 is milder than that in Fig. 6.
Figure 12 shows the horizontal slip along one of the
fexural cracks near the center of the wall when the shear
drift was 1.25% or the shear deformation was 15 mm
(0.59 in.) (the black triangle in Fig. 11). The observed slip
was 8.5 mm (0.33 in.), which was more than one half of
the total shear deformation (15 mm [0.59 in.]). The damage
and overall behavior of the other specimens were similar
to Specimen NL2, except that the slips along the fexural
cracks were smaller than those in NL2. To discuss the cause
of the slip, the compressive force of concrete C is defned in
Eq. (1).
st y sc y
C N A f A f + (1)
where N is applied axial load; A
st
is the gross sectional area
of longitudinal bars in tension; A
sc
is the gross sectional
area of longitudinal bars in compression; and f
y
is the yield
strength of the longitudinal bar.
The variable V
max
in the horizontal axis of Fig. 13 indi-
cates the maximum applied shear force. The vertical axis of
Fig. 13 shows the slip drift angle, which is defned as the sum
of the observed slips (Zs) just before the strength degrada-
tion (the black triangle in Fig. 11) divided by the clear height
h. Slip was larger in the specimens with larger V
max
/C ratios.
Such a correlation is not obtained between the slip and the
average shear stress (V
max
/A
g
, where A
g
is the gross sectional
area of the specimen). Because the slip is not the focus of
this study, only fexural drift is discussed in the following.
The load-versus-fexural-drift relationships of Specimens
NM3 and PM3 are shown in Fig. 14(a) and 15(a) to inves-
Fig. 10Load versus fexural drift of Specimen NL2.
Fig. 11Load versus shear drift (deformation) of Specimen NL2.
(Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 12Slip along fexural crack of Specimen NL2. (Note:
1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 13Lateral slip drift Zs/h versus V
max
/C.
tigate the effect of a perpendicular wall on fexural drift
capacity. The difference between these two specimens is
the existence of a perpendicular wall. The drift capacities of
NM3 (0.57%) and PM3 (0.61%) were similar. The compres-
sive failure of the perpendicular wall of PM3 occurred before
the lateral strength degradation started. Because the perpen-
dicular wall is provided with no confnement (Fig. 1), the
compressive ductility of this wall was very limited at the ulti-
mate drift. Therefore, the contribution of the perpendicular
wall should be ignored in evaluating the drift capacity. The
vertical axes of Fig. 14(b) and 15(b) show the average strain
at the compression edge (strain between Points E and F).
The plastic hinge lengths of these two specimens, which will
be evaluated later as 2.5 times the wall thickness (300 mm
[11.81 in.]), are similar to the length between Points E and F
(400 mm [1.3 ft]). The strains at the ultimate drifts (the black
circles in the fgures) were approximately 0.008, which
agrees with the ultimate strain of concrete r
u
computed in
the following considering the confnement effect.
FLEXURAL DRIFT CAPACITY
Simplifcation of plastic deformation
In this paper, fexural drift capacity is decomposed into
elastic and plastic components (R
u
= R
y
+ R
p
), as shown in
Fig. 16(a). The curvature at yielding o
y
is computed based
on the yield strain of longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. 16(b)).
y
y
d c
r
o
(2)
where r
y
is yield strain of reinforcement; d is effective depth,
defned as the distance between the compression edge and
the center of the boundary column; and c is the neutral axis
depth computed from Eq. (3).
1
0.85
c
C
c
f t

(3)
where C is the compressive force of concrete computed
from Eq. (1);
1
is the reduction factor to determine the
neutral axis; f
c
is the compressive strength of concrete; and
t is wall thickness.
Theoretically, Eq. (3) is effective at the ultimate state
and ineffective at yielding; however, this difference may be
negligible because the amount of the wall reinforcements is
much smaller than that in the boundary column.
In this study, linear distribution was used for elastic curva-
ture (Fig. 16(a)). Therefore, the elastic drift R
y
is computed
from Eq. (4).
2
2 6
fy
y y
h h
R
h a
A
_
o

,
(4)
Fig. 14Load and strain versus fexural drift of Specimen NM3.
Fig. 15Load and strain versus fexural drift of Specimen PM3.
Fig. 16Elastic and plastic deformations.
where A
fy
is fexural displacement at yielding; a is shear span
length; and h is the specimens clear height.
The ultimate curvature o
u
is computed based on the ulti-
mate strain of concrete (Fig. 16(c)), where r
u
is the ultimate
compressive strain of concrete defned in a later section
u
u
c
r
o (5)
The plastic drift is computed using plastic hinge length L
p
.
( )
p p u y
R L o o (6)
Substituting Eq. (2) and (5) into Eq. (6) leads to the equa-
tion to compute the plastic drift.
p
p u y
L
c
R
c d c
_
r r

,
(7)
Figure 17 shows the strain distribution measured using
LVDTs in Fig. 9 along the clear height of Specimen NM4
when the lateral force decreased to 80% of the maximum
strength. On the compressive side (the right edge), the
strain localized between Points E and F, whereas the strain
between Points F and G or G and H was quite small. On the
tensile side (the left edge), even the strain between Points C
and D exceeded the yield strain (0.0029 > r
y
= 0.002). It
is concluded that, for plastic deformation, the compressed
area is limited near the bottom of the wall, as indicated by
the shaded rectangle (compressed area) in Fig. 17 and 18,
whereas the area in tension is trapezoidal. The hatched area
in Fig. 18 is assumed as rigid. The strain at the compressed
edge in Fig. 18 is assumed to be uniformly r
p
, which equals
the term inside the parentheses of Eq. (7)
p u y
c
d c
r r r
(8)
where the second term is the strain caused by the elastic
deformation. In this paper, r
p
is called the plastic component
of ultimate strain. Note that the rigid area in Fig. 18 rotates
p
p p
L
R
c
r (9)
around the neutral axis. Therefore, the height of the
compressed area in Fig. 18 can be regarded as the plastic
hinge length L
p
. The deformation shown in Fig. 18 agrees
with the observed crack patterns and is similar to that
proposed by Hiraishi.
14
There are two unknown parametersL
p
and r
p
in
Eq. (9). In the following sections, these parameters are
examined using the tested specimens. Specimens tested by
Wallace and Orakcal
2
and Tabata et al.
5
are used because
fexural deformations of specimens are reported.
Plastic component of ultimate strain
The broken lines in Fig. 19 show the stress-strain relation-
ships of confned and unconfned concrete in Specimen NS3
evaluated by the Saatcioglu and Razvi
15
model, which is
applicable to rectangular sections. Figure 20(a) shows
the boundary element of NS3, where the shaded zone is
assumed to be confned. The confning pressure on the
shaded zone in the x-direction is computed assuming that
the horizontal bars are 100% effective. The confning
pressure in the y-direction is computed assuming that the
Fig. 17Measured strain distribution of Specimen NM4.
(Note: NA is neutral axis.)
Fig. 18Simplifed model for plastic deformation.
Fig. 19Assumed stress-strain model for concrete of
Specimen NS3.
crossties are 100% effective, while the cap bars at the wall
end with 90-degree hooks are 50% effective because the
observed strain of the cap bars was approximately one-half
of the yield strain. Figure 20(b) shows the boundary element
of Specimen NM2. Although only cap bars are provided in
NM2, the shaded area is again assumed to be confned. The
confning pressure in the y-direction is computed assuming
that the cap bars are 50% effective.
The solid line in Fig. 19 shows the average stress-strain
relationship of the boundary element calculated as the
weighted average of confned and unconfned concrete.
c c
c u
t t t
t t
o o + o (10)
where o
c
is the stress of confned concrete; t
c
is the center-to
center distance between the horizontal wall bars (Fig. 20(a));
and o
u
is the stress of unconfned concrete.
The ultimate concrete strain r
u
is defned as the strain
when the average stress of concrete decreases to 80% of the
maximum strength. The ultimate strain of Specimen NM2
without crossties is 0.0066, while the ultimate strains of the
other specimens are between 0.0078 and 0.0084. The ulti-
mate strains of the specimens of Wallace and Orakcal
2
are
approximately 0.008, except for Specimen TW2, which had
a strain of 0.0112. Figure 20(c) shows the boundary elements
of Specimens No. 2 and 3 of Tabata et al.
5
; although the
confnement ratio is higher than that of Fig. 20(a), its ulti-
mate strain is 0.008 because its concrete strength was high
(70 MPa [10.15 ksi]). The strain at the compressive edge
when tensile reinforcement bars yield shown in Fig. 16(b)
(the second term in Eq. (8)) is approximately 0.001 in most
specimens. Therefore, r
p
in Eq. (8) is approximately 0.008
0.001 = 0.007 for all specimens except NM2 and TW2.
Plastic hinge length
As discussed in the Introduction, Wallace and Orakcal
2
and
Tabata et al.
5
assumed that L
p
is equal to 0.5l
w
and 0.3l
w
,
respectively, where l
w
is wall length. If L
p
is proportional
to l
w
, based on Eq. (9), R
p
must be proportional to l
w
/c
because r
p
is similar for most specimens. The relationship
between R
p
and l
w
/c is examined in Fig. 21. The variable
R
p
is the plastic drift, which is the fexural drift minus the
elastic drift R
y
computed by Eq. (4). The broken line in
Fig. 21 is the regression line, which is imposed to pass the
origin. The correlation coeffcient is 0.70, where the results
of Specimens TW2 and NM2 are neglected because the
r
p
values of these specimens are very different from those
of the other specimens. The solid lines show the assump-
tions of L
p
= 0.5l
w
and 0.3l
w
with r
p
= 0.007. They do not
agree with the regression line. The circles in Fig. 21 show
two of the data, which have different trends from the other
specimens. Specimen NS3, whose l
w
/t ratio is the smallest
(=8.5), exhibited a drift capacity twice that expected by the
regression line. On the other hand, Specimen NL2, whose
l
w
/t ratio is the largest (=20), exhibited a drift capacity 60%
of that expected by the regression line. Similarly, specimens
with small or large l
w
/t ratios are located above or below the
regression line, respectively. This tendency indicates that
hinge length is not simply proportional to wall length.
ACI 318-08
1
requires that the special boundary region
shall be longer than a/4, where a is shear span length. This
requirement implies that L
p
in Fig. 18 equals a/4. To investi-
gate whether the hinge length is related to shear span length
a, the relationship between R
p
and the a/c ratio is shown in
Fig. 22. The solid line shows the assumption of L
p
= a/4 with
r
p
= 0.007, which does not agree with the regression line
(the broken line). The correlation coeffcient is 0.84 and
is better than that in Fig. 21. However, it is noted that the
results of Specimens No. 2 and 3 of Reference 5, whose a/t
ratios (=50) are much larger than those of the other speci-
mens (=18 to 28), are located quite lower than the regression
line. This tendency again indicates that hinge length is not
simply proportional to shear span length.
Markeset and Hillerborg
16
conducted uniaxial compres-
sion tests of plain concrete prisms with various lengths and
sectional dimensions. They observed that compressive failure
is quite limited within a certain length. They concluded that
the failure length was 2.5 times the shorter side length of
the compressed section (Fig. 23). In this study, wall thick-
ness t is shorter than neutral axis depth c in all specimens.
Figure 24 shows the damage of Specimen NS3 at a 2% drift
Fig. 20Assumed confned regions. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 21Relationship between R
p
and l
w
/c.
p
and a/c.
level (right after the strength degradation). The damage length
seems to be almost 2.5 times the wall thickness. Therefore,
2.5t is used for plastic hinge length L
p
in this study. It should
also be noted that even in Specimen NM2 with the largest
thickness (t = 140 mm [5.5 in.]), the damage of concrete was
limited within the height of confnement (400 mm [1.3 ft]).
Therefore, it is concluded that the height of confnement
may be limited to 3t if the expected compressive strain is not
greater than 0.008.
Figure 25 shows the relation between R
p
and t/c. The corre-
lation coeffcient is 0.94 and larger than the correlation coef-
fcients in Fig. 21 and 22 (0.70 and 0.84). The broken line
in Fig. 25 shows the regression line. The solid line shows
R
p
estimated from L
p
= 2.5t and r
p
= 0.007. The solid line
reasonably agrees with the regression line, which implies
that the assumption of L
p
= 2.5t is appropriate.
Figure 26 compares the observed and estimated fex-
ural drift capacities (R
u
= R
y
+ R
p
). All test data except
Specimen TW2 are within 30% from the estimated drift
capacities. The observed drift of TW2 is much larger than
the estimated value. The observed compressive failure
zone of TW2 was also much wider than L
p
= 2.5t. Similar
Fig. 23Compression localization.
16
Fig. 24Observed failure of Specimen NS3 at 2% drift.
p
and t/c.
Fig. 26Comparison between estimated and observed fex-
ural drift capacities.
tendencies are observed for the test results of Paulay and
Priestley,
8
which are not plotted in Fig. 26 because their
fexural drift capacities are not reported. These discrepancies
may be attributable to the difference of confnement. Recall
that the strain localization depicted in Fig. 23 is observed in
plain concrete. In the case of well-confned concrete columns
subjected to uniaxial compression, large plastic strain shall
be distributed uniformly over its entire length until strength
degradation starts (r
max
in Fig. 19). If the concrete column is
long enough, buckling occurs
17
before the strain reaches r
max
.
The strain at buckling depends on the length of the column
and the tangential stiffness at the strain.
17
The boundary
elements of Specimen TW2 and the specimens of Paulay and
Priestley
8
almost satisfed the requirements of ACI 318-08.
1
If
such a wall would be subjected to pure bending, uniform
curvature corresponding to r
max
or less would be observed
in its clear height when out-of-plane buckling would occur.
Therefore, for such a wall, r
u
in Eq. (7) should be replaced
with the strain at buckling and L
p
should be a function of
shear span length, which would be much longer than 2.5t.
On the other hand, the cross-sectional areas of the hori-
zontal bars and the crossties of the specimens tested by the
authors are 40% to 52% and 6% to 31% of those required by
ACI 318-08,
1
respectively. The cross-sectional areas of the
confning bars of Specimens No. 2 and 3 tested by Tabata
et al.
5
and Specimens RW1 and RW2 tested by Wallace and
Orakcal
2
are 24 to 63% of those required by ACI 318-08.
1
It
is concluded that L
p
= 2.5t is valid if the confnement of the
boundary element is less than half of that required by the
seismic provisions of ACI 318-08.
1
Otherwise, the equation
tends to underestimate the capacity.
CONCLUSIONS
The test results of 10 RC walls are described in this
study. Based on the experimental results and analytical
work presented in this paper, the following conclusions
are obtained:
1. All tested RC walls with limited confnement in the
boundary element failed in compression after fexural
yielding. The observed fexural drift capacity was between
0.4 and 1.2%.
2. Shear drift caused by lateral slip along the fexural crack
may be large if the ratio of the maximum shear force to the
compressive force of concrete is large (Fig. 13).
3. Plastic components of fexural drift can be modeled as
shown in Fig. 18, where the length of the compression zone
L
p
is 2.5 times the wall thickness (L
p
= 2.5t) if the depth
of the neutral axis is longer than the wall thickness and the
confnement of the boundary element is half of that required
by the seismic provisions of ACI 318-08.
1
4. Ultimate fexural drift is defned as the drift when the
lateral force decreases to 80% of maximum lateral strength.
Ultimate fexural drift can be computed as the sum of
Eq. (4) and (7), where r
u
shall be determined as shown in
Fig. 19 considering the confnement effect.
5. The detailing of the boundary element shown in Fig. 2(c)
with the height of the confned area 3t is suffcient to obtain
an ultimate strain of r
u
= 0.008.
6. The effect of a perpendicular wall on ultimate drift is
negligible if the wall is not confned.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was fnancially supported by the Ministry of Land and Trans-
portation. The authors thank J. Wallace of the University of California,
Los Angeles (UCLA), who independently conceived the idea that hinge
length may be proportional to wall thickness, for valuable discussions. Data
provided by T. Tabata, H. Nishihara, and H. Suzuki of Ando Corporation
are greatly appreciated. The authors also thank H. Sezen of The Ohio State
University for critically reading the manuscript.
REFERENCES
2. Wallace, J. W., and Orakcal, K., ACI 318-99 Provisions for Seismic
Design of Structural Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-Aug.
2002, pp. 499-508.
3. Thomsen, J. H. IV, and Wallace, J. W., Displacement-Based Design of
Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural WallsExperimental Verifcation,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 130, No. 4, 2004, pp. 618-630.
4. Design Guidelines for High-Rise RC Frame-Wall Structures,
National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, Kaibundo,
Tokyo, Japan, 2003, pp. 53-85.
5. Tabata, T.; Nishihara, H.; and Suzuki, H., Ductility of Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls without Column Shape, Proceedings of the Japan
Concrete Institute, V. 25, No. 2, 2003, pp. 625-630. (in Japanese)
6. Kabeyasawa, T.; Shiohara, H.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., Analysis of
the Full-Scale Seven-Story Reinforced Concrete Test Structure, Journal of
the Faculty of Engineering, V. 37, No. 2, 1983, pp. 431-478.
7. Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J. W., Flexural Modeling of Reinforced
Concrete WallsExperimental Verifcation, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 103, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2006, pp. 196-206.
8. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Stability of Ductile Structural
Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 4, July-Aug. 1993, pp. 385-392.
9. Takahashi, S.; Yoshida, K.; Ichinose, T.; Sanada, Y.; Matsumoto, K.;
Fukuyama, H.; and Suwada, H., Flexural Deformation Capacity of RC
Shear Walls without Column on Compressive Side, Journal of Structural
and Construction Engineering: Transactions of AIJ, V. 76, No. 660, 2011,
pp. 371-377. (in Japanese)
10. Takahashi, S., Modeling for RC Shear Walls with or without
Boundary Column, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya
Institute of Technology, Nagoya, Japan, 2011. (in Japanese)
11. Nagoya Institute of Technology, Flexural Deformation of RC Wall
with One Side Column, http://kitten.ace.nitech.ac.jp/ichilab/research/fex-
uralwall2010. (last accessed Nov. 5, 2012)
12. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Executive
Summary on Chile Earthquake Reconnaissance Meeting, NEHARP
Library, http://www.nehrp.gov/library/ChileMeeting.htm. (last accessed
Nov. 5, 2012)
13. Architectural Institute of Japan, AIJ Standard for Structural Calcu-
lation of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Maruzen, Tokyo, Japan, 2010,
pp. 484-491.
14. Hiraishi, H., Evaluation of Shear and Flexural Deformations of
Flexural Type Shear Walls, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society
for Earthquake Engineering, V. 17, No. 2, 1984, pp. 135-144.
15. Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R., Strength and Ductility of Confned
Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, 1992,
pp. 1590-1607.
16. Markeset, G., and Hillerborg, A., Softening of Concrete in Compres-
sion Localization and Size Effects, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 25,
No. 4, 1995, pp. 702-708.
17. Shanley, F. R., Inelastic Column Theory, Journal of the Aeronau-
tical Sciences, V. 14, No. 5, 1947, pp. 261-268.
Title no. 110-S11
MS No. S-2011-066.R4 received November 18, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Shake-Table Studies of Repaired Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Fabrics
by Ashkan Vosooghi and M. Saiid Saiidi
The main objective of this study was to develop a rapid and effec-
tive repair method using carbon fber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
fabrics for earthquake-damaged reinforced concrete (RC) bridge
columns. Shake-table studies, repair methods, and test results are
discussed in this paper. One standard bent of a two-span bridge
model with two low-shear columns, two standard high-shear
columns, and one low-shear and one high-shear substandard
column were tested on shake tables. The column models were
repaired using CFRP fabrics; fast-setting, nonshrink repair mortar;
and epoxy injection and retested on shake tables to evaluate the
performance of the repair procedure. The results indicated that
the strength and displacement capacity of the standard columns
were successfully restored and those of the substandard columns
were upgraded to meet current seismic standards after the repair.
However, the stiffness was not restored due to material degradation
during the original tests.
Keywords: carbon fber-reinforced polymer fabric; earthquake damage;
emergency repair; reinforced concrete bridge column; repair; shake-table test.
INTRODUCTION
The current earthquake engineering design practice for
ordinary bridges allows for damage to bridge columns during
moderate and strong earthquakes. The target response under
the maximum considered earthquake is no-collapse, real-
izing that the structure would undergo considerable nonlin-
earity associated with extensive concrete damage, yielding
of bars, or even rupture of a limited number of the bars. For
the more frequent earthquakes, the target response is repair-
able damage that would allow for relatively rapid restora-
tion of the bridge. The level of damage to different columns
of a bridge varies depending on the intensity of the ground
shaking, type of earthquake, and the force and deformation
demand on individual members. Based on the inspection of
the damaged columns, engineers have to determine whether
the bridge is suffciently safe to be kept open to traffc
without repair, whether it is repairable within a reasonable
time frame, or if it needs to be replaced. This study was
aimed at developing a reliable and effcient repair procedure
for earthquake-damaged reinforced concrete (RC) bridge
columns using carbon fber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs).
Although there are numerous studies on seismic retroft of
RC columns (Saadatmanesh et al. 1996; Seible et al. 1997;
Haroun and Elsanadedy 2005; Laplace et al. 2005), only a few
studies have focused on seismic repair (Priestley and Seible
1993; Saadatmanesh et al. 1997; Lehman et al. 2001; Li and
Sung 2003; Saiidi and Cheng 2004; Belarbi et al. 2008). In
these studies, the damaged concrete was replaced with new
concrete and the cracks were epoxy-injected. The buckled or
fractured bars were replaced with new bars (Lehman et al.
2001) or replaced with equivalent fber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) fabrics (Saiidi and Cheng 2004; Belarbi et al. 2008).
The repaired columns were serviceable after full curing of
new concrete in at least 28 days. In addition, replacing frac-
tured bars was complicated and time-consuming because it
required removing a signifcant amount of concrete from the
damaged zone and adjacent footing. The techniques could
not be considered rapid repair. In this study, fast-setting
repair mortar and accelerated CFRP jacket curing were used
to restore service in less than 1 week. This type of repair may
be labeled as emergency repair due to its urgency and the
speed of repair work.
Shake-table studies of repaired bridge column models
are presented in this paper. Original column models were
tested on a shake table until reaching the highest target
repairable damage state. They were subsequently repaired
using unidirectional CFRP fabrics with fbers in the hoop
direction and retested on the shake table until failure to
evaluate the repair performance.
Delay in opening an earthquake-damaged bridge to traffc
can have severe consequences on the passage of emergency
response vehicles, detour lengths, and traffc congestion.
Rapid and effective repair methods are needed to enable quick
opening of the bridge to minimize impact on the community
and beyond. In this study, a rapid repair procedure using
CFRP fabrics was developed and evaluated for RC bridge
columns. The experimental studies indicated that a damaged
column can be repaired in only a few days using CFRP fabrics.
The proposed repair method using CFRP fabrics can be very
useful in emergency repair of earthquake-damaged bridges.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST MODELS
One standard bent consisting of two low-shear columns
(Bent-2), two standard high-shear columns (NHS1 and
NHS2), one low-shear substandard column (OLS), and
one high-shear substandard column (OHS) were studied.
Columns meeting current seismic design requirements are
referred to as standard columns. Other columns are labeled
as substandard.
Two-column bent
Choi et al. (2007) tested a one-fourth-scale, two-span
bridge model supported on three two-column piers using
three shake tables at the University of Nevada, Reno
(Fig. 1(a)). The seismic design of the bridge was based on
recent seismic design guidelines (Johnson et al. 2008). The
ACI member Ashkan Vosooghi is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV (UNR).
He received his BSC from Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran; his MSCE
in earthquake engineering from the International Institute of Earthquake Engineering
and Seismology, Tehran, Iran; and his PhD in structural/earthquake engineering from
UNR with an emphasis on bridge engineering in 1999, 2002, and 2010, respectively.
His research interests include seismic design, retroft, and repair of structures.
M. Saiid Saiidi, FACI, is a Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering and the
Director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Bridges and Infrastructure at UNR.
He is the founding and former Chair and a current member of ACI Committee 341,
Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges. He is also a member of Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures, and
ACI Subcommittee 318-D, Flexure and Axial Loads: Beams, Slabs, and Columns.
measured yield stress of the longitudinal bars and spirals
was 67.9 and 55.8 ksi (468 and 385 MPa), respectively, and
the measured concrete compressive strength was 6.47 ksi
(44.6 MPa) on the test day. Because the middle bent was
the most severely damaged pier, it was used in the emer-
gency repair study. The original middle bent was designated
as Bent-2 and the repaired bent was designated as Bent-2R.
Bent-2 was composed of two columns that spanned a
distance of 75 in. (1.9 m) center to center. The details of the
column sections are shown in Fig. 1(d).
The axial load index is defned as the compressive axial
force due to gravity loads divided by the product of the
cross-section area of the column and the specifed concrete
compressive strength. Based on Caltrans design practice,
this index typically varies from 5 to 10% in bridge columns,
and it was 8.2% in the two-span bridge model (Johnson et
al. 2008). The average shear stress is calculated as the ratio
of the plastic shear divided by the effective shear area. The
effective shear area is taken as 80% of the gross section area
A
g
in circular columns (Caltrans 2006). The shear stress
index is calculated by dividing the average shear stress
by f
c
(psi) (0.083f
c
[MPa]). This index is used to deter-
mine the level of shear stress in columns. In this study, an
index smaller than 4 was treated as the low shear level in
the column. The columns in Bent-2 were fexure-dominated
with a shear index of 2.3.
Columns NHS1 and NHS2
As part of this study, two similar standard high-shear RC
bridge columns were studied (Vosooghi and Saiidi 2010a).
NHS1 and NHS2 (new design high shear) are the designa-
tions of the two original column models (Fig. 1(b) and (d)).
The repaired models were labeled NHS1-R and NHS2-R.
The designation of new indicates that the column meets
current seismic code requirements. The models were fexure-
dominated, as the current codes do not allow shear-domi-
nated columns. However, the level of shear was relatively
high in NHS1 and NHS2 with the shear index being 6.12.
NHS1 and NHS2 were constructed at different times because
the study of NHS2 was found to be necessary after NHS1-R
testing and analysis of the data. The latest Caltrans Seismic
Design Criteria (SDC) (version 1.4) (Caltrans 2006) and
Bridge Design Specifcations (Caltrans 2003) were used to
Fig. 1Shake-table setup and column model details: (a) two-span bridge; (b) double-curvature column; (c) cantilever column;
and (d) column sections.
design the columns. The axial load index was 10% for the
column models. The measured yield stresses of the longi-
tudinal bars and spirals of NHS1 were 73.5 and 60.6 ksi
(507 and 418 MPa), and those of NHS2 were 66.5 and 67.0 ksi
(458 and 462 MPa), respectively. The measured concrete
compressive strengths in NHS1 and NHS2 were 7.29 and
6.17 ksi (50.3 and 42.5 MPa), respectively, on the test day.
Columns OLS and OHS
RC bridge columns designed prior to the 1970s were not
adequately detailed to resist seismic loads and are considered
to be substandard. They have insuffcient lateral reinforce-
ment and their longitudinal bars are lap-spliced at the base.
As part of this study, one substandard low-shear and one
substandard high-shear RC bridge column were studied
(Vosooghi and Saiidi 2010a). OLS and OHS are the designa-
tions used for the old design low shear and the old design
high shear column models, respectively, and OLS-R and
OHS-R are the designations used for the repaired columns.
The designation of old indicates that the columns do not
meet current seismic code requirements. The details of the
columns are shown in Fig. 1(b) through (d). The axial load
index was 7.5% for both columns and the shear indexes were
1.9 and 5.2 for OLS and OHS, respectively.
Prior to the 1970s, Grade 40 and 50 steel was used in RC
construction. Due to the unavailability of Grade 40 bars,
Grade 60 steel was used in the column models and the
steel ratio was modifed proportionally. The measured yield
stresses of the longitudinal bars in OLS and OHS were
64.5 and 66.5 ksi (445 and 458 MPa), respectively. The
measured yield stress of hoops was 60.0 ksi (414 MPa) in
both columns. The measured concrete compressive strengths
in OLS and OHS were 4.94 and 4.97 ksi (34.0 and 34.3 MPa),
respectively, on the test day. The lap-splice length varies
from 20 to 30 times the longitudinal bar diameter d
b
in
substandard columns. The splice length of 24d
b
was selected
(Laplace et al. 2005). Because the required length of the
splice is proportional to steel yield stress, it was scaled up
by the factor of 3/2, which is the ratio of the specifed yield
stresses of Grade 60 and Grade 40 steel.
SHAKE-TABLE TEST SETUP AND TEST PROCEDURE
Different setups were used for the two-span bridge tests and
single-column tests. The two-span bridge was supported on
three shake tables. The superstructure consisted of six girders
and was post-tensioned laterally and longitudinally to form
a rigid slab. To produce the target axial load in the columns,
concrete blocks and lead pallets were placed on the bridge
deck (Fig. 1(a)). The original bridge model was subjected to
fault-parallel near-feld motions with amplitudes increasing
gradually to simulate fault rupture (Choi et al. 2007).
The single-column models (NHS1, NHS2, OLS, and
OHS) were tested on one of the shake tables at the Univer-
sity of Nevada, Reno. The inertia mass system designed by
Laplace et al. (1999) was used to apply the lateral inertial
force to the columns (Fig. 1(b) and (c)). A single swiveled
link system or a double-link system was used to transmit
the lateral inertial load from the mass rig, depending on the
column. These confgurations allow the columns to be tested
in single or double curvature. The high shear columns were
tested under double curvature (Fig. 1(b)) and the low shear
column was tested under single-curvature loading (Fig. 1(c)).
The footing and head of the columns were designed so they
remained elastic during the shake-table tests.
The 1994 Northridge Sylmar Hospital ground motion
record with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.61g was
selected for earthquake simulation of the single columns.
This motion induced high ductility demands and residual
drifts in the columns that made the repair challenging. In
each shake-table test, the column was subjected to multiple
simulated earthquakeseach referred to as a runwith
gradually increasing amplitudes. In the shake-table tests of
the original bent and columns, the amplitude of each run
was determined such that no steel bars fractured during the
tests. The number of runs was kept as low as possible to
reduce low-cycle-fatigue rupture of the longitudinal bars.
The maximum strains in critical bars in the plastic hinge
zone were carefully monitored for each shake-table run
before deciding the amplitude of the subsequent run. In the
shake-table test of the repaired bent and columns, the input
motion and the loading protocols were similar to those used
in the original column tests, but additional runs with higher
acceleration amplitudes were applied until failure. All the
models were extensively instrumented to measure strains,
curvatures, displacements, forces, and accelerations.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR
ORIGINAL COLUMNS
In a previous study (Vosooghi and Saiidi 2010b), fve
repairable apparent damage states were identifed for RC
columns subjected to earthquakes. The damage states
excluded failure due to bar fracture because it was believed
that repair of columns with fractured bars could not be done
rapidly. The damage states were defned as DS-1: fexural
cracks; DS-2: minimal spalling and possible shear cracks;
DS-3: extensive cracks and spalling; DS-4: visible lateral
and/or longitudinal reinforcing bars; and DS-5: compressive
failure of the concrete core edge (imminent failure). The fve
damage states are applicable to columns meeting current
design codes. Substandard columns do not necessarily reach
higher damage states because they are brittle.
The models were tested to reach the highest repairable
damage state. The standard columns reached DS-5. At this
damage state, many spirals and longitudinal bars are visible,
some of the longitudinal bars begin to buckle, and the edge
of the concrete core is damaged (Fig. 2). Due to severely
inadequate transverse steel and longitudinal bar lap splice,
the substandard columns did not undergo signifcant plastic
deformations. Testing of Columns OLS and OHS was
stopped at DS-3 and DS-2, respectively (Fig. 2), to avoid
complete failure of the columns. Shear cracks covering a
large area of OLS and OHS were formed during the last run.
Considering the very low amount of transverse steel in these
columns, it was felt that additional motions would lead to
total failure of the columns, thus preventing repair.
The cumulative measured force-displacement hysteresis
curves of Bent-2, NHS2, and OHS are shown in Fig. 3(a) to
(c), respectively. Other test models had comparable hyster-
esis curves, although energy dissipation (area enclosed by
the hysteresis hoops) in Column OLS was larger than that of
OHS. The envelope of each hysteresis curve was determined
and idealized by an elasto-plastic curve (Vosooghi and Saiidi
2010a). Using idealized force-displacement curves, the yield
drift ratio, maximum drift ratio, displacement ductility, and
strength of the columns were determined and are listed in
Table 1. Note that the ductilities in the table are not the ductility
capacities because the original columns were not tested to
failure. Generally, the low shear columns (Bent-2 and OLS)
Fig. 2Apparent damage after original shake-table tests.
Fig. 3Force-displacement relationships.
reached approximately two times the displacement ductility
of the high shear columns at the highest repairable damage
states. Because high shear induced relatively large strains in
concrete, the high-shear columns reached the target damage
level under smaller lateral displacements than the low-shear
columns. According to Table 1, the substandard columns
(OLS and OHS) reached approximately one-third of the
displacement ductility of the standard columns (Bent-2 and
NHS1 or NHS2) with the same level of shear because the
substandard columns had severely insuffcient transverse
steel. For instance, OHS reached a displacement ductility of
1.7 but NHS1 and NHS2 reached a displacement ductility of
4.8 and 5.1, respectively.
The peak measured strains in the longitudinal and trans-
verse steel of the plastic hinge zone of the columns are also
listed in Table 1. The measured strains indicate that spirals in
standard high-shear columns yielded during the shake-table
tests; however, the spirals in standard low-shear columns
remained elastic. High shears resulted in extensive shear
cracks that induced large strains in the transverse steel.
In substandard columns, the strains were measured in the
spliced bars. In the case of splice degradation, the measured
strains remain constant or decrease with increasing column
lateral displacement. This was not observed; therefore, it
was concluded that no slippage occurred during the shake-
table tests, even though the lap-splice length was too short to
develop the yield stress by 51% (ACI Committee 318 2008).
CFRP JACKET DESIGN FOR STANDARD COLUMNS
The repair of the standard column models was designed
with the objective of restoring the lateral load strength and
displacement capacity of the column. Unidirectional CFRP
fabrics were used for this purpose. The study of other types
of jackets was not within the scope of this study. The CFRP
fabrics had a nominal thickness of 0.04 in. (1 mm) per layer
and the fbers were in the hoop direction of the columns in
all repaired models.
The CFRP jacket was designed so the repaired column
could reach the plastic fexural capacity. The radial dilating
strain of the jacket was limited to 4000 r (1 r = 10
6
in./
in.) to avoid degradation in concrete aggregate interlock
(Priestley et al. 1996). The contribution of concrete and
spirals to shear strength was treated differently among the
test models as data became available in the course of the
study. Bent-2 was the frst model that was tested, repaired,
and retested. Due to lack of information about the contribu-
tion of concrete and spirals to the shear strength in repaired
columns, their contributions were neglected conservatively
along the entire column height. In the plastic hinge region,
because some of the thin cracks in the core were not repair-
able, the shear strength of concrete was neglected in NHS1-R
and NHS2-R. The spirals in NHS1 experienced a maximum
strain of approximately 1.6 times the yield strain. As a result,
the shear strength of the spirals was assumed to be zero in
NHS1-R. Subsequent to testing, the strain data indicated that
the spirals and CFRP jacket in NHS1-R contributed to the
shear strength equally. A second similar column (NHS2-R)
was designed, neglecting the concrete shear strength in the
plastic hinge, but the jacket was designed for one-half of the
column shear demand, and the other half was assumed to
be resisted by the spirals. Outside the plastic hinge region,
because the spirals did not yield, the entire shear strength
of the spirals was used in NHS1-R and NHS2-R. Although
some shear cracks occurred outside the plastic hinge, the
level of damage was much lower than that of the plastic
hinges. As a result, 50% of the concrete shear strength was
assumed to exist outside the plastic hinges.
Because there were no seismic repair design guidelines,
the Caltrans (2007) seismic retroft guidelines were used to
restore confnement and the ductility capacity of the columns
using a CFRP jacket. This document requires a confnement
pressure of 300 psi (2.07 MPa) at a radial dilating strain
of 4000 r in the plastic hinge regions. The confnement
pressure can be reduced to 150 psi (1.03 MPa) at the same
dilating strain outside the plastic hinges.
The required and actual thicknesses of the CFRP jackets
are listed in Table 2. In Bent-2R, the jacket consisted of two
layers of CFRP at the plastic hinge regions and one layer of
CFRP elsewhere. The Caltrans (2007) confnement require-
ments governed the jacket design in the plastic hinge regions
and shear strength governed the jacket design outside the
plastic hinge regions. In Bent-2R, the end 18 in. (457 mm)
(one-and-a-half-column diameter) was assumed to be the
primary plastic hinge zone and the adjacent 12 in. (304.8 mm)
(one-column diameter) was treated as the secondary plastic
hinge zone. There was a concern that plastic deformation
could extend beyond the primary plastic hinge zone; hence,
the number of CFRP layers in the primary plastic hinge was
maintained in the secondary plastic hinge (Seible et al. 1997).
In NHS1-R, the jacket consisted of four layers of CFRP at
the plastic hinge regions and one layer of CFRP elsewhere.
The shear strength governed the jacket design in the plastic
hinge regions and the Caltrans (2007) confnement require-
ments controlled the jacket design outside the plastic hinge
regions. In NHS2-R, the jacket consisted of two layers of
CFRP at the plastic hinge regions and one layer of CFRP
elsewhere. Table 2 shows that the Caltrans (2007) confne-
ment requirements governed the jacket design inside and
outside the plastic hinge regions of NHS2-R. In NHS1-R
and NHS2-R, a length of 24 in. (610 mm) was used for the
plastic hinge regions (one-and-a-half-column diameter). The
test results for Bent-2R indicated that plastic hinging did
not extend into the secondary plastic hinge regions. Conse-
quently, no secondary plastic hinge region was considered in
Table 1Measured responses of original columns
Model Yield drift, % Maximum drift, % Displacement ductility Strength, kips (kN)
Peak strain, r
Longitudinal steel Transverse steel
Bent-2 1.06 10.41 9.8 33.2 (148) 69,868 (30r
y
) 1227 (0.31r
y
)
NHS1 1.58 7.54 4.8 90.5 (402) 77,522 (17.2r
y
) 6510 (1.6r
y
)
NHS2 1.26 6.42 5.1 75.7 (337) 54,283 (23.6r
y
) 3108 (1.35r
y
)
OLS 1.14 3.97 3.5 23.9 (106) 33,096 (15r
y
) 6292 (1.57r
y
)
OHS 0.82 1.43 1.7 45.0 (200) 23,552 (10r
y
) 1340 (0.3r
y
)
Note: r
y
is yield strain.
NHS1-R and NHS2-R. A jacket gap of 0.75 in. (19 mm) was
specifed at the ends of the columns to prevent jacket bearing
against the footing or the cap beam under large rotations.
CFRP JACKET DESIGN
FOR SUBSTANDARD COLUMNS
The repair of substandard column models was designed
with the objective of upgrading shear strength, preventing
lap-splice slippage, and upgrading confnement of the
columns by using unidirectional CFRP fabrics. The thickness
of CFRP for shear strength was calculated using the method
described previously. The existing steel hoop contribution to
the shear strength was neglected in the repaired substandard
column models because the amount of the transverse steel
was minimal. Due to reasons discussed previously, the shear
strength of the concrete inside the plastic hinge region was
neglected, but 50% of the concrete shear strength outside the
plastic hinge region was accounted for in the repair design.
The method proposed by Priestley et al. (1996) was used
to design the required CFRP jacket thickness to prevent
splice failure. They showed that the propensity for splice
failure could be predicted by assessment of the concrete
tensile capacity across a potential splitting failure surface.
After cracking develops on this surface, splice failure can
be inhibited with suffcient clamping pressure provided by
a CFRP jacket with a radial dilation strain limit of 1500 r
across the fracture surface.
In the absence of repair methods, the seismic retroft guide-
lines of Caltrans (2007) were used to design for confnement
provided by the CFRP jacket.
The required and actual thicknesses of the CFRP jackets
are listed in Table 2. The jacket for OHS-R consisted of two
layers of CFRP along the entire column height and the jacket
for OLS-R consisted of two layers of CFRP at the plastic
hinge region and one layer of CFRP elsewhere. The results
show that inhibiting lap-splice failure governed the jacket
design in the plastic hinge regions of both columns. Caltrans
(2007) confnement requirements controlled the jacket
design outside the plastic hinge regions in OLS-R, and shear
strength requirements governed the jacket design outside
the plastic hinge regions of OHS-R. According to Table 2,
a CFRP thickness of 0.091 in. (2.31 mm) was required to
inhibit lap-splice failure in OHS-R. Two layers of CFRP
with a thickness of 0.08 in. (2.0 mm) were used in OHS-R
instead of a three-layer jacket with a thickness of 0.12 in.
(3.0 mm) to prevent an overly conservative jacket design.
Similar to the standard columns, a 0.75 in. (19 mm) gap was
specifed at the ends of the jackets.
REPAIR PROCEDURE
The entire repair work took 3 to 4 days for each column
and consisted of the following steps:
Straightening columns
The residual drift ratio in Bent-2, NHS1, and NHS2 at the
end of the test was 10.4%, 3.35%, and 2.0%, respectively.
Prior to repair, the bent and the columns were straightened
to a near-vertical position (1% or less drift ratio) by adjusting
the shake tables. The residual drift ratios in OLS and OHS
were relatively small at 0.55% and 0.21%, respectively, and
the columns were not straightened. In practice, straightening
would vary, depending on the bridge, extent of residual
displacement, and the bridge surroundings. Pulling the bridge
using heavy-duty construction equipment may be an option.
Removal of loose concrete
The loose concrete was removed by an impact hammer
with a chisel head (Fig. 4). The area was cleaned using
compressed air to remove dust and the remaining concrete
particles after chipping the concrete. No loose concrete was
observed in the original substandard columns after the tests.
Therefore, this step was not exercised for these columns.
Concrete repair
Two different types of mortar and placement methods were
used. In NHS1-R, a low-shrinkage repair mortar with 1-day
and 3-day specifed compressive strengths of 2.5 and 4 ksi
(17.2 and 27.6 MPa], respectively, was used. A thick mortar
was made and applied to the spalled area by hand and consol-
idated by thumb pressure. The compressive strength of the
mortar was 4.05 ksi (27.9 MPa) on the test day when the
mortar was 3 days old. In Bent-2R, NHSR-2, and OLS-R,
a low-shrinkage, fast-setting repair mortar with 3-hour
and 1-day specifed compressive strengths of 3 and 4 ksi
(20.7 and 27.6 MPa), respectively, was used. The specifed
Youngs modulus of this mortar was 3800 ksi (26.2 GPa).
Due to the relatively high 1-day compressive strength for
the second mortar, it was decided to make a fuid mortar and
cast it into a mold instead of patching it in the spalled area
(Fig. 4). The mortar was consolidated using a small vibrator.
The compressive strength of the mortar used in NHS2-R was
7.87 ksi (54.3 MPa) on the test day at the age of 4 days.
Table 2Thickness of CFRP jackets in repaired columns
Test model Location Shear strength, in. (mm) Lap splice, in. (mm) Confnement, in. (mm) Actual, in. (mm)
Bent-2R
OPHR 0.0345 (0.88) NA (NA) 0.0281 (0.71) 0.04 (1.0)
IPHR 0.0345 (0.88) NA (NA) 0.0563 (1.43) 0.08 (2.0)
NHS1-R
OPHR 0.024 (0.61) NA (NA) 0.038 (0.97) 0.04 (1.0)
IPHR 0.138 (3.51) NA (NA) 0.075 (1.91) 0.16 (4.0)
NHS2-R
OPHR 0.002 (0.05) NA (NA) 0.03 (0.76) 0.04 (1.0)
IPHR 0.049 (1.24) NA (NA) 0.06 (1.52) 0.08 (2.0)
OLS-R
OPHR 0.008 (0.20) 0 (0) 0.025 (0.64) 0.04 (1.0)
IPHR 0.022 (0.56) 0.080 (2.0) 0.05 (1.27) 0.08 (2.0)
OHS-R
OPHR 0.047 (1.19) 0 (0) 0.025 (0.64)
0.08 (2.0)
IPHR 0.061 (1.55) 0.091 (2.31) 0.05 (1.27)
Notes: OPHR is outside plastic hinge region; IPHR is inside plastic hinge region; NA is not available.
Epoxy injection
To provide integrity and stiffness for the damaged
columns, the cracks were injected with epoxy at a pres-
sure of 40 to 50 psi (0.28 to 0.34 MPa). To inject the epoxy,
several ports were attached on all the visible cracks and the
crack surfaces were sealed with a removable sealer. Epoxy
was injected into a given crack through one port and injection
was continued until bleeding from another port occurred.
The epoxy injection process is shown in Fig. 4.
Surface preparation and CFRP wrapping
After the concrete was repaired and epoxy was injected,
the column surface was smoothened slightly by a grinder to
remove any surface roughness and any injected material resi-
dues from the column surface. A layer of epoxy was applied
to prime the column surfaces (Fig. 4). Subsequently, a thick-
ened epoxy was applied directly on the columns to smooth
out imperfections. After preparing the surface, the epoxy was
applied to CFRP layers using a paint roller and the sheets
were wrapped around the columns manually (Fig. 4).
Accelerated curing of jacket
The entire curing of the jacket took approximately 48 hours
for each column and consisted of accelerated curing for
the frst 24 hours, followed by curing under the labora-
tory ambient condition. Note that specifcations call for a
minimum of 7 days of curing for CFRP jackets in the ambient
condition. During accelerated curing, the temperature was
elevated to 110F (43C) and the relative humidity was
reduced to 15% by covering the area around the models with
plastic sheets (Fig. 4), using heat lamps directed away from
the columns and electric heaters, and a fan for circulation.
This condition was maintained for approximately 24 hours.
The plastic sheet was subsequently removed to allow for
installation of strain gauges and linear variable differential
transformer (LVDT) displacement transducers. The jackets
were cured at the ambient temperature in the laboratory for
an additional 24 hours.
CFRP MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The design and measured modulus of elasticity and
measured rupture strain of the CFRP material are listed in
Table 3. CFRP properties recommended by Caltrans (Steckel
et al. 1999) were used in the jacket design of Bent-2R. For
other columns, the measured properties of the CFRP from
previous testsbut limited to the specifed propertieswere
used in the jacket design. The measured properties were
determined based on coupon tests. The coupons were cured
under the same conditions as those of the column jackets. The
specifed modulus of elasticity and rupture strain of the CFRP
after full curing were 11,900 ksi (82.0 GPa) and 10,000 r,
respectively. In all columns, the measured modulus of elas-
ticity exceeded the design value, indicating that the accel-
erated curing was effective. The average measured rupture
strain was comparable to the specifed value.
FOR REPAIRED COLUMNS
The repaired bent and columns were tested on shake tables
under generally the same loading protocols as those used in
the original bent and column tests. The main difference was
that the loading protocols for the repaired columns included
additional runs with increasing amplitudes until failure.
In Bent-2R, no damage was observed during the shake-
table runs until the drift ratio of 9.0%. At this drift ratio, the
frst CFRP rupture occurred in the column under compressive
force due to the overturning moment (west column). This
rupture was extended during subsequent runs. The second
CFRP rupture was observed in the east column during the last
run at a 13.1% drift ratio. The ruptured jackets in both columns
are shown in Fig. 5. After the shake-table test, the CFRP
jacket and some concrete were removed from the plastic hinge
regions and no ruptured bar was observed (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4Rapid repair procedure.
Table 3CFRP material properties
Model
Modulus of elasticity, ksi (GPa)
Measured rupture strain, r Design Measured
Bent-2R 8000 (55.2) 8215 (56.6) 10,562
NHS1-R 8000 (55.2) 10,306 (71.1) 11,440
NHS2-R 10,000 (69.0) 13,468 (92.9) 8415
OLS-R 12,000 (82.7) 12,310 (84.9) 8699
OHS-R 12,000 (82.7) 14,453 (99.7) 9907
In NHS1-R, no damage was observed during the test.
During the last run, a sound of steel rupture was heard.
After removal of the jacket and some concrete, two broken
longitudinal bars were found at the column base (Fig. 5).
Removal of the jacket and concrete at the column top did not
reveal any ruptured bars.
In NHS2-R, no damage was observed during the test until
a drift ratio of 9.94%. The jacket ruptured over an approxi-
mately 0.25 in. (6 mm) area at the column base at this drift
ratio. This rupture was extended during the subsequent run,
which was the last one (Fig. 5). The maximum measured
drift ratio was 13.3% during this run. During the last run, the
CFRP rupture was accompanied by a sound of steel rupture.
After removal of the jacket and some concrete, two broken
longitudinal bars were found at the column base. No bar
fractures were noted at the top plastic hinge after removal of
the jacket and concrete in NHS2-R.
No damage was observed in OLS-R and OHS-R during
the tests. During the last run, the sound of steel rupture was
heard. After removal of the jacket and some concrete, a
broken longitudinal bar was found in the primary tension
side of each column base. Removal of the jacket and concrete
at the top of OHS-R did not reveal any ruptured bars.
The CFRP jackets were extensively instrumented with
strain gauges in the plastic hinge regions. The jacket ruptured
in Bent-2R and NHS2-R. The maximum measured strain in
the NHS2-R jacket was 9410 r prior to the failure. The
measured jacket strain capacity in the coupon test (Table 3)
was smaller due to strain concentrations at the grips of the
test machine. In NHS1-R, the maximum measured jacket
Fig. 5Repaired columns after shake-table test.
strain was 4932 r. The peak strain was developed at the
top plastic hinge on the compressive side of the column,
where the role of the CFRP jacket was to provide confne-
ment. The peak strain was comparable with the design strain
of 4000 r. In OLS-R, a maximum jacket strain of 3597 r
was developed at the column base on the primary compres-
sion side. This strain was smaller than the design strain
of 4000 r. In OLS-R, the maximum measured strain due
to the clamping force in the lap splice was 1191 r, which
was smaller than the design strain of 1500 r. In OHS-R, the
maximum recorded CFRP strain was 3811 r at the column
base. The peak strain was on the side of the column where
strains due to column shear were developed and was smaller
than the design strain of 4000 r.
In the substandard repaired columns, the longitudinal
bar strains were measured along the lap splice. Using the
approach discussed previously, it was concluded that no slip-
page occurred in the lap splices based on the measured strains.
This indicates that the jacket provided suffcient confnement
to prevent splice failure, even under large deformations.
The yield drift ratio, ultimate drift ratio, and lateral load
strength of the repaired columns were determined using
idealized elasto-plastic envelope curves and are listed in
Table 4. The data show that the confnement and lateral load
strength of the substandard columns were upgraded effec-
tively because the repaired columns underwent a reasonable
plastic deformation before failure.
EVALUATION OF REPAIR PERFORMANCE
The force-displacement response of the original and
repaired column models were used to evaluate the repair
performance. The measured force-displacement envelopes
of all column models are shown in Fig. 3(d) to (h). It should
be noted that the end points in the original models do not
indicate failure because these columns were not tested to
failure. The ultimate points were estimated using a method
described in the following sections (displacement capacity
index) and marked on the graphs. The envelopes indicate
that the strength and displacement capacity of the columns
were fully restored and the stiffness of the models was not
restored by the repair. The lower stiffness of the repaired
Table 4Measured responses of repaired columns
Model Yield drift, % Ultimate drift, % Strength, kips (kN)
Bent-2R 1.52 13.11 33.5 (149)
NHS1-R 4.16 13.10 90.3 (402)
NHS2-R 2.56 13.31 85.7 (381)
OLS-R 1.80 5.64 26.6 (118)
OHS-R 1.29 4.57 63.8 (284)
columns is attributed to the residual plastic strains in longi-
tudinal bars and core concrete degradation.
To quantify the comparison between the original and
repaired models, three nondimensionalized response indexes
were developed in terms of strength, stiffness, and displace-
ment capacity. The response indexes reveal whether the
residual strength, stiffness, and displacement capacity in the
damaged column models were restored by the repair. Gener-
ally, the residual strength, stiffness, and displacement capacity
are smaller than those of the original column due to damage.
Strength index
The column strength was defned as the plastic lateral load
capacity of the column (F
p
) that was determined using the
idealized elasto-plastic force-displacement curves. The ratio
between the measured strength of the repaired column and
the original column was defned as the strength index. This
index is shown as I
s
and is calculated as follows
p
s
p
F
I
F
(1)
where F
p
and F
p
are the lateral strengths of the repaired and
original columns, respectively. A strength index equal to or
greater than 1 indicates that the column strength was fully
restored through the repair. The strength index is plotted in
Fig. 6 for all columns. It can be seen that the strength index
is greater than 1 for all repaired columns, thus indicating that
the repairs were successful. Due to insuffcient transverse
steel, the shear strength of OHS was signifcantly lower than
its plastic fexural capacity. After repair, the shear strength
was increased and OHS-R reached the plastic lateral load
capacity. Consequently, a considerably high-strength index
is observed for this column.
Service stiffness index
The serviceability of a structure is addressed based on the
elastic stiffness of the structure. The ratio between the elastic
stiffness of the repaired column and the original column was
defned as the service stiffness index. This index is shown as
I
ss
and is calculated as follows
ss
K
I
K
(2)
where K and K are the elastic stiffnesses of the repaired
and original columns, respectively. The elastic stiffness of
the columns was defned as the initial slope in the idealized
elasto-plastic force-displacement relationship. Indexes equal
to or greater than 1 indicate that the column service stiffness
was fully restored by the repair. The index was calculated for
all column models and is plotted in Fig. 6. The plots show
that all of the indexes are smaller than 1, meaning that the
stiffness of the repaired columns was smaller than that of the
original columns due to the reasons discussed previously. In
addition, the fact that the epoxy injection of the cracks could
not fll the relatively thin cracks in the original column led to
stiffness degradation of concrete.
The service stiffness index in the substandard columns
was higher than that of the standard columns because the
damage level in the original substandard columns was lower
than that of the standard columns. Therefore, the stiffness
Fig. 6Nondimensionalized response indexes.
deterioration in the original substandard columns was less
signifcantparticularly in OHS, where the maximum
damage state in the original column was DS-2.
Among the standard columns, NHS1 had the smallest
service stiffness index because the repair mortar was not of
high quality and its consolidation method was less effective in
NHS1 than those of other columns. As discussed previously,
the water-cement ratio (w/c) in the repair mortar of NHS1 was
reduced due to the relatively low strength of the mortar, and
the mortar was placed by hand because of its low workability.
Furthermore, the mortar was consolidated by thumb pressure.
In Bent-2 and NHS2, due to the high quality of the repair
mortar, a fuid mortar was prepared and cast into the mold
around the damaged zone. This was followed by consolida-
tion using a small vibrator, which was more effective.
Displacement capacity index
The ratio between the measured displacement capacity
of the repaired and original columns was defned as the
displacement capacity index. This index is shown as I
d
and
is calculated as follows
c
d
c
I
A
A
(3)
where A
c
and A
c
are the displacement capacities of the
repaired and original models, respectively. The original
columns were tested on the shake table up to the highest
target repairable damage state, which does not consti-
tute failure. This damage state is referred to as imminent
failure. Therefore, the ultimate displacement capacity for
the original columns needed to be estimated before I
d
could
be found. In a previous study (Vosooghi and Saiidi 2010b),
it was shown that at a damage state of imminent failure,
standard low-shear and high-shear columns reach 0.74 and
0.85 of their plastic displacement capacity, respectively.
Consequently, the ultimate displacement of Bent-2 was
estimated by increasing the maximum measured plastic
displacement by 35% and that of NHS1 and NHS2 was esti-
mated by increasing the maximum measured displacement
by 18%. Plastic displacement was calculated based on ideal-
ized elasto-plastic curves.
Indexes equal to or greater than 1 indicate that the column
displacement capacity was fully restored by the repair.
As mentioned previously, the substandard columns were
repaired and retroftted simultaneously. The objective of
the retroft was to satisfy the current seismic design codes.
Therefore, instead of using the displacement capacity of the
original columns (A
c
), the displacement corresponding to a
target displacement ductility of 5 was used to calculate the
displacement capacity index for the substandard columns.
The displacement capacity indexes for all column models
are plotted in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the index was close
to 1 in Bent-2 and OLS and was greater than 1 in the remaining
column models. This indicates that the displacement capacity
of the column models was fully restored by the repair.
Figure 6 shows that the indexes of NHS2 were generally
higher than those of NHS1, even though the number of CFRP
layers in NHS2 was lower. The results demonstrate that the
repair procedure in terms of quality and the application method
of the repair mortar has a signifcant effect on the perfor-
mance of the repaired column. It is recommended that only
high-early-strength, low-shrinkage grout be used in repair.
The improved performance of NHS2-R clearly suggests that
the relatively high number of CFRP layers in NHS1-R was
unnecessary and counting on 50% of the spiral shear-resisting
force in NHS2-R was a reasonable assumption.
Generally, even though the repair process was done rapidly
and was treated as emergency repair with the implication
that it was a temporary measure, it can be treated as a perma-
nent repair as long as the stiffness of the repaired columns is
suffcient under nonseismic loads.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were drawn based on the
results presented in this paper:
The proposed accelerated curing method for the CFRP
jacket was effective and reduced the required repair
time signifcantly.
The proposed rapid repair procedure using CFRP for
earthquake-damaged standard RC bridge columns to
the highest damage state with no bar rupture was effec-
tive in restoring the shear strength and displacement
ductility capacity.
The repair procedure in terms of quality and the applica-
tion method of the repair mortar had a signifcant effect
on the performance of the repaired columns. High-early-
strength, low-shrinkage grout should be used in repair.
Counting on 50% of the shear strength of transverse steel
in the high-shear columns was a reasonable assumption
in CFRP jacket design and led to a signifcant reduction
in the required jacket thickness.
The proposed rapid repair procedure using CFRP for
earthquake-damaged substandard RC bridge columns to
the highest damage state with no shear and/or splice failure
was effective in upgrading the shear strength and displace-
ment ductility capacity and inhibiting splice failure.
Due to stiffness degradation of the steel and the concrete
during the original model tests and uninjected micro-
cracks, the stiffness of the columns could not be fully
restored by the repair.
Even though the repair process was done rapidly and
was treated as emergency repair with the implication
that it was a temporary measure, it can be treated as a
permanent repair as long as the stiffness of the repaired
columns is suffcient under nonseismic loads.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research project was funded by the California Department of Trans-
portation (Caltrans) through Grant No. 59A0543. The conclusions and
recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily present the
views of the sponsor. The authors wish to thank S. El-Azazy for his helpful
comments and support and J. Gutierrez for his instrumental role in the appli-
cation of repair work and his close interaction. The authors also wish to
thank S. Arnold of the Fyfe Company for arranging for material donation.
REFERENCES
Farmington Hills, MI, 473 pp.
Belarbi, A.; Silva, P.; and Bae, S., 2008, Retroft of RC Bridge Columns
under Combined Axial, Shear, Flexure, and Torsion Using CFRP Compos-
ites, Bridge Science and Applications with Engineering Towards Innova-
tive Solutions for Construction, Challenges for Civil Construction, Porto,
Portugal, Apr. 16-18, 10 pp.
Caltrans, 2003, Bridge Design Specifcations, California Department
of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Caltrans, 2006, Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), version 1.4, California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Caltrans, 2007, Memo to Designers 20-4, Attachment B, California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, 3 pp.
Choi, H.; Saiidi, M.; and Somerville, P., 2007, Effects of Near-Fault
Ground Motion and Fault-Rupture on the Seismic Response of Reinforced
Concrete Bridges, Report No. CCEER-07-06, Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 559 pp.
Haroun, M. A., and Elsanadedy, H., 2005, Fiber-Reinforced Plastic
Jackets for Ductility Enhancement of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns
with Poor Lap-Splice Detailing, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE,
V. 10, No. 6, pp. 749-757.
Johnson, N.; Ranf, T.; Saiidi, M.; Sanders, D.; and Eberhard, M., 2008,
Seismic Testing of a Two-Span Reinforced Concrete Bridge, Journal of
Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 13, No. 2, pp. 173-182.
Laplace, P.; Sanders, D.; and Saiidi, M., 1999, Shake Table Testing of
Flexure Dominated Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns, Report No.
CCEER-99-13, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Univer-
sity of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 163 pp.
Laplace, P. N.; Sanders, D.; Saiidi, M.; Douglas, B.; and El-Azazy, S.,
2005, Retroftted Concrete Bridge Columns Under Shaketable Excitation,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 622-628.
Lehman, D. E.; Gookin, S.; Nacamuli, A.; and Moehle, J., 2001, Repair
of Earthquake-Damaged Bridge Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 233-242.
Li, Y. F., and Sung, Y., 2003, Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation of a
Shear-Failure Damaged Circular Bridge Column Using Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Plastic Jacketing, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
V. 30, pp. 819-829.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., 1993, Repair of Shear Column Using
Fiberglass/Epoxy Jacket and Epoxy Injection, Report No. 93-04, Job
No. 90-08, Seqad Consulting Engineers, Solana Beach, CA, July.
Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Calvi, G. M., 1996, Seismic Design and
Retroft of Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 704 pp.
Saadatmanesh, H.; Ehsani, M.; and Jin, L., 1996, Seismic Strengthening
of Circular Bridge Pier Models with Fiber Composites, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 639-647.
Saadatmanesh, H.; Ehsani, M.; and Jin, L., 1997, Repair of Earthquake-
Damaged RC Columns with FRP Wraps, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 206-215.
Saiidi, M., and Cheng, Z., 2004, Effectiveness of Composites in Earth-
quake Damage Repair of RC Flared Columns, Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V. 8, No. 4, pp. 306-314.
Seible, F.; Priestley, M. J. N.; Hegemier, G.; and Innamorate, D., 1997,
Seismic Retroft of RC Columns with Continuous Carbon Fiber Jackets,
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 52-62.
Steckel, G. L.; Hawkins, G. F.; and Bauer, J. L., 1999, Qualifcations
for Seismic Retroftting of Bridge Columns Using Composites, Aerospace
Report No. ATR-99(7524)-2, Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA,
Prepared for California Department of Transportation, Jan.
Vosooghi, A., and Saiidi, M., 2010a, Post-Earthquake Evaluation and
Emergency Repair of Damaged RC Bridge Columns Using CFRP Mate-
rials, Report No. CCEER-10-05, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 636 pp.
Vosooghi, A., and Saiidi, M., 2010b, Seismic Damage States and
Response Parameters for Bridge Columns, Structural Concrete in
Performance-Based Seismic Design of Bridges, SP-271, P. F. Silva and
R. Valluvan, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
pp. 27-44.
Title no. 110-S12
MS No. S-2011-070 received March 8, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Cyclic Loading Test for Reinforced-Concrete-Emulated Beam-
Column Connection of Precast Concrete Moment Frame
by Hyeong-Ju Im, Hong-Gun Park, and Tae-Sung Eom
An experimental study was performed to investigate the earthquake
resistance of beam-column connections developed for a precast
concrete (PC) moment frame. In the moment frame, PC is used for
the columns and U-shaped beam shells, and cast-in-place concrete
is used for the beam-column joint and the beam core. Six full-scale
cruciform beam-column connections, including a conventional
reinforced concrete (RC) connection, were tested under cyclic
loading. The test parameters were the reinforcement ratio of the
beams and the interface details between the PC column and the
PC beam shell. The test results showed that regardless of the test
parameters, the RC-emulated beam-column connections exhibited
good deformation capacities, which were comparable to that of
the conventional RC connection. Because of the diagonal shear
cracking and reinforcing bar bond slip at the beam-column joint,
however, the stiffness and hysteretic energy dissipation signifcantly
decreased. To prevent the degradation of the stiffness and energy
dissipation, a strengthening method using headed reinforcing bars
was proposed and tested. The performances of the test specimens
were evaluated according to the requirements of ACI 374.1-05. On
the basis of the test results, design considerations for the beam-
column connection were recommended.
Keywords: connections; ductility; energy dissipation; precast concrete;
seismic tests; stiffness.
INTRODUCTION
Precast concrete (PC) structures are popular for a variety
of building facilities because of the advantages of better
concrete quality and savings in construction time and cost.
Under strong earthquake conditions, however, the beam-
column connections in PC moment frames are susceptible
to brittle shear failure, which might cause the failure of the
overall structure. Thus, to use PC construction for buildings
in high and moderate earthquake zones, the earthquake resis-
tance of the beam-column connections needs to be enhanced.
To achieve satisfactory seismic performances (that is,
stiffness, strength, ductility, and energy dissipation), various
beam-column connection methods have been studied.
1-6

Figure 1 shows one of the promising methods: a reinforced
concrete (RC)-emulated beam-column connection developed
for U-shaped PC beam shell construction. The PC moment
frame is constructed by erecting PC columns; seating the PC
beam shells on the cover concrete of the PC column; placing
fexural reinforcements inside the PC beam shell through the
beam-column joint; and then pouring concrete to integrate
the beam, the column, and the joint. The PC beam shell is
used as a formwork that resists construction load. Park and
Bull
4
tested exterior beam-column connections, as shown
in Fig. 1(a). The beam-column connection showed good
ductility and energy dissipation. As also shown in Fig. 1(a),
the PC beam shell was not integrated with the cast-in-place
concrete core. Thus, only the concrete core was considered
for the fexural capacity of the beam.
Kim et al.
6
tested a cruciform beam-column connec-
tion. The details differed from those tested by Park and
Bull
4
in three aspects (Fig. 1(b)). First, multi-story, one-
piece PC columns without concrete at the beam-column
Fig. 1Beam-column connections incorporated with PC
beam shell construction.
Hyeong-Ju Im is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Architecture & Architectural
Engineering at Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. He received his BE in
architectural engineering from Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, and his MS
in architectural engineering from Seoul National University.
ACI member Hong-Gun Park is a Professor in the Department of Architecture & Archi-
tectural Engineering at Seoul National University. He received his BE and MS in archi-
tectural engineering from Seoul National University and his PhD in civil engineering
from the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. His research interests include the
inelastic analysis and seismic design of reinforced concrete and composite structures.
Tae-Sung Eom is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture at the
Catholic University of Daegu, Gyeongsan, South Korea. He received his BE, MS, and
PhD in architectural engineering from Seoul National University. His research inter-
ests include inelastic analysis and the seismic design of reinforced concrete structures.
joint were used to reduce the overall erection time during
construction. Second, instead of using hooked bars, straight
reinforcing bars were placed inside the PC beam shell to
avoid reinforcing bar congestion at the interior beam-
column joint. Third, the stirrups of the PC beam shell were
anchored to the cast-in-place concrete core to enhance the
structural integrity of the beam. Thus, the full beam depth,
including the beam shell, can be used for the negative
moment capacity of the beam. Although the details were
developed to enhance the constructibility and structural
performance of the connection, the test results showed that
in comparison with the conventional RC beam-column
connection, the PC beam-column connection suffered severe
diagonal shear cracking, and the hysteretic energy dissipa-
tion capacity signifcantly decreased. In this study, a cyclic
loading test was performed for full-scale beam-column
connections developed for the PC beam shell construction
shown in Fig. 1(b). From the test results, the failure mode
and structural performances (strength, stiffness, energy
dissipation, and deformability) of the specimens were eval-
uated. On the basis of the results, the causes of the capacity
degradation were clarifed, and design considerations for
the beam-column connection were recommended.
Recently, construction methods using U-beam shells and/
or multi-story, one-piece PC columns have become popular
in several countries. Because the beam-column connection
is integrated by using cast-in-place concrete, its earthquake
resistance is intended to be equivalent to that of the conven-
tional RC beam-column connection. However, the test
results showed that under cyclic loading, the stiffness and
energy dissipation of the RC-emulated connection using the
U-beam shell signifcantly decreased. The capacity degrada-
tion was attributed to the reduced beam-column joint depth
and the increased joint shear force, which were caused by
the use of the PC beam shell. To improve the structural
capacity of the RC-emulated connection, a strengthening
method using headed bars was proposed and its validity was
verifed by testing.
TEST PROGRAM
Full-scale cruciform beam-column connections were tested:
fve beam-column connections (Specimens SP1 to SP5)
for the PC beam shell construction and a conventional RC
beam-column connection (Specimen CP). The test specimens
were designed according to the strong-column, weak-beam
concept, satisfying the requirements of ACI 550.1R-09
7
and
ACI 318-08.
8
The properties and test parameters of the speci-
mens are presented in Table 1.
The confgurations, dimensions, and reinforcing bar
details of Specimen SP1 are shown in Fig. 2(a). The net
height of the column from the bottom hinge to the lateral
loading point was h = 2700 mm (8.9 ft). The beam length
between the two vertical supports was l = 4762 mm (15.6 ft).
The cross sections were 400 x 700 mm (15.7 x 27.6 in.) for
the beam and 600 x 750 mm (23.6 x 29.5 in.) for the column.
The reinforcing bar details for the special moment frame
(ACI 318-08
8
) were used for the design of the column and
beam. The beam core was flled with cast-in-place concrete
and was reinforced with four D32 (A
s
= 794 mm
2
[1.27 in.
2
])
Table 1Properties of test specimens
Specimen Test parameter
Beam reinforcing bars
Seating length of
PC shell, mm
Steel angle for
cover concrete
Beam-column joint
Top bars
p
*
, %
Bottom bars
p
, % Hoops p
v
, % DDR
Shear
demand, kN
||
Shear
capacity, kN
SP1 PC control
4D32
#

(1.23)
4D32 (1.66)
D13
#
at 120
(0.30)
50 20.3 2525.4 2879.9
**
SP2
Steel angle for
cover concrete
4D32
(1.23)
4D32 (1.66)
D13 at 120
(0.30)
50

20.3 2525.4 2879.9
**
SP3
Increased
seating length
4D32
(1.23)
4D32 (1.66)
D13 at 120
(0.30)
65 19.4 2530.2 2746.9
**
SP4
Increased
beam strength
4D35
#

(1.49)
4D35 (1.99)
D13 at 120
(0.30)
50

18.6 3017.6 2879.9
**
SP5 Headed bars
6D25
#

(1.21)
4D25
#
(0.78)
D13 at 70
(0.63)
50 26.0 2387.3 2879.9
**
CP RC
4D32
(1.23)
2D25 and
2D29
#
(0.89)
D13 at 160
(0.22)
23.4 2485.3 3322.9
*
p = A
s
/bd
2
; d
2
is effective depth for negative moment; refer to Fig. 2.
p = A
s
/bd
1
; d
1
is effective depth for positive moment; refer to Fig. 2.
L-50 x 50 x 4 (mm).
Column-depth-to-bar-diameter ratio (h
c
2
s
)/d
b
for Specimens SP1 to SP5 and h
c
/d
b
for Specimen CP (refer to Fig. 7).
||
Joint shear demand calculated using plastic moments of beams.
#
D13 (A
s
= 127 mm
2
; f
y
= 503 MPa); D25 (A
s
= 507 mm
2
; f
y
= 484 MPa; D29 (A
s
= 642 mm
2
; f
y
= 514 MPa); D32 (A
s
= 794 mm
2
; f
y
= 412 MPa); D35 (A
s
= 957 mm
2
; f
y
= 493 MPa).
**
Joint shear capacity based on reduced depth (1.2f
c
A
j
; A
j
= b
j
(h
c
2s); b
j
is effective joint width; (h
c
2s) is reduced joint depth).
Joint shear capacity specifed by ACI 318-08

8
(1.2f
c
A
j
based on full depth h
c
; A
j
= b
j
h
c
; b
j
is effective joint width; h
c
is effective joint depth).
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 mm
2
= 0.00155 in.
2
; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 kN = 145 psi.
deformed bars at the top and four D32 deformed bars at the
bottom. To avoid reinforcing bar congestion, a large-diam-
eter bar (D32) was used. The spacing of the D13 hoops at
the beam plastic hinge zones was 120 mm (4.72 in. d
1
/4;
d
1
= 480 mm [18.9 in.]; Fig. 2(a)) based on the effective
depth d
1
(excluding the beam shell) for the positive moment.
The seating length of the PC beam shell on the PC column
was 50 mm (1.97 in.). Three D25 (A
s
= 507 mm
2
[0.79 in.
2
])
and two D13 (A
s
= 127 mm
2
[0.20 in.
2
]) deformed bars were
used at the bottom and top of the PC beam shell, respec-
tively (refer to Section A-A in Fig. 2(a)). However, these
reinforcing bars were not considered in the calculation of
the fexural capacity of the beam because they were not
connected to the beam-column joint. At the beam-column
joint, six layers of D16 rectangular hoops were used for the
requirements of concrete confnement and joint shear resis-
tance, as specifed by ACI 318-08
8
(refer to Section C-C
in Fig. 2(a)). Table 1 presents the joint shear capacity and
demand, which were calculated using the actual strengths of
the concrete and reinforcing bars.
Figure 2(b) to (d) shows the details of Specimens SP2
to SP4, respectively. In SP2 and SP3, the dimensions and
reinforcing bar details of the PC column and beam shell
were identical to those of SP1. One of the critical issues in
this construction method is the early fracture and crushing
failure of the interface between the PC column and beam
shell, both during and after construction. In particular, the
fracture at the corner of the concrete cover during erec-
tion and construction may lead to a catastrophic failure
of the structure. Thus, in SP2 (Fig. 2(b)), the concrete
cover of the column was strengthened with steel angles
(L-50 x 50 x 4 [mm] with a length of 400 mm [15.7 in.]).
The steel angle was anchored by 2-D10 inclined bars.
The bearing strength of the steel angle strengthening
predicted by using the shear-friction mechanism was 79 kN
(15.74 kips). It should be noted that the steel angle was used
to strengthen the concrete cover in the column. The majority
of the beam shear force was transferred by the core concrete
in the beam. In SP3 (Fig. 2(c)), the seating length of the
PC beam shell was increased to 65 mm (2.56 in.) instead
of using steel angles. In SP4 (Fig. 2(d)), four D35 (A
s
=
957 mm
2
[1.53 in.
2
]) bars were used at the top and bottom
of the beam core to investigate the effect of the increased
fexural strength on the connection behavior.
Fig. 2Confgurations and reinforcing bar details of test specimens. (Note: Dimensions in mm [in.].)
In SP5 (Fig. 2(e)), special details were used to avoid severe
damage at the beam-column joint. Four headed bars were
used to displace the plastic hinge zone toward the beam by
strengthening the beam-column joint. To reduce bond slip at
the beam-column joint, a smaller-diameter barD25 (A
s
=
507 mm
2
[0.79 in.
2
])was used for the fexural reinforcing
bars of the beam: six D25 and four D25 at the top and bottom
of the beam core, respectively. The spacing of the hoops at
the beam plastic hinge zone was reduced to 70 mm (2.76 in.)
to avoid early crushing and shear failure due to the anchorage
force of the headed bars (Fig. 2(e)). Other details were the
same as those of SP1. The design calculations for the headed
bars are presented in the Appendix.
*
Figure 2(f) shows the details of the conventional RC beam-
column connection, Specimen CP. The confgurations and
dimensions of the column and beam were identical to those
of SP1. Four D32 bars were used at the top of the beam, and
two D25 plus two D29 (A
s
= 642 mm
2
[1.00 in.
2
]) bars were
used at the bottom of the beam. In comparison with the PC
specimens, the area of the bottom bars decreased because a
larger beam depth can be used for the positive moment.
The compressive strength of the precast concrete was f
c
=

35.1 MPa (5.09 ksi) for the PC beam shell and f
c
=

47.5 MPa
(6.89 ksi) for the PC column. The compressive strength of
the cast-in-place concrete was f
c
= 34.9 MPa (5.06 ksi). The
yield and ultimate strengths of the reinforcing bars, f
y
and f
u
,
are presented in Table 2.
Figure 3(a) shows the test setup. The column was supported
by the bottom hinge. The beam ends were vertically
supported, allowing lateral movement. Lateral cyclic loading
was applied at the top of the column and was controlled by
the lateral displacement of the actuator. Figure 3(b) shows the
loading history.
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
TEST RESULTS
Lateral load-drift ratio relationships
Figure 4(a) to (f) shows the lateral load-drift ratio relation-
ships. The lateral drift ratio was calculated by dividing the
net lateral displacement at the loading point by the net length
of the column (h = 2700

mm [8.86 ft]). Table 3 summa-
rizes the maximum strength P
u
, maximum displacement
A
u
(maximum drift ratio o
u
), ductility (=A
u
/A
y
), yielding
displacement A
y
, yield stiffness k
y
, post-yield stiffness k
p
,
and failure mode of the specimens. The yield displacement
A
y
was defned by using the equal energy principle (refer
to Fig. 5(b)). The maximum displacement A
u
was defned
as the post-peak displacement corresponding to 75% of the
maximum strength.
In the conventional RC Specimen CP (Fig. 4(a)), fexural
yielding of the beam and the maximum strength of the spec-
imen occurred at 0.9% and 2.5% drift ratios, respectively.
The maximum drift ratio o
u
was 3.3%. Specimen CP showed
relatively large energy dissipation.
As shown in Fig. 4(b) to (e), the lateral load-drift ratio
relationships of the PC Specimens SP1 to SP4 were similar,
regardless of the effects of the test parameters. Flexural
yielding of the beam and the maximum strength of the speci-
mens occurred at 0.9% to 1.1% drift ratios and 1.5% to 2.5%
drift ratios, respectively. After the maximum strength, the
load-carrying capacity gradually decreased. The specimens
showed low energy dissipation due to severe pinching. Under
cyclic loading repeated at a given lateral displacement, the
load-carrying capacities at the second and third load cycles
were less than that at the frst load cycle. The maximum drift
ratio o
u
of the specimens was 3.4 to 5.1%.
The ratio between the measured-to-predicted load-
carrying capacities for Specimens SP1 to SP4 and CP (P
u
/P
n
)
ranged from 1.03 to 1.14. In particular, SP3 had the lowest
P
u
/P
n
(1.03) because the seating length of the PC beam shell
increased to 65 mm (2.56 in.). The load-carrying capacities
of the PC Specimens SP1 to SP3 were 5 to 15% less than
that of Specimen CP. In SP4, where a larger-diameter bar
D35 was used in the beam, the load-carrying capacity was
24.4% greater than that of SP1.
Figure 4(f) shows the behavior of Specimen SP5 strength-
ened by headed bars. Specimen SP5 showed relatively large
energy dissipation and the overall performance was similar
to that of the RC Specimen CP.
Damage patterns and failure modes
Figure 6 shows the failure modes of the specimens. In the
RC Specimen CP (Fig. 6(a)), damage was concentrated at
Fig. 3Test setup and loading history. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; LVDT is linear variable
differential transformer.)
Table 2Yield and tensile strengths of
reinforcing bars
Bar size, mm D13 D16 D25 D29 D32 D35
Area, mm
2
127 199 507 642 794 957
Yield strength, MPa 503 434 463 514 468 493
Tensile strength, MPa 583 585 630 651 599 605
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 mm
2
= 0.00155 in.
2
; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
Fig. 4Lateral load-drift ratio relationships of test specimens. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips.)
Fig. 5Envelope curves of test specimens. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips.)
Table 3Summary of test results
Specimen
Load-carrying capacity
*
Deformation capacity
*
Stiffness
*
Failure mode
Test result
P
u
, kN
Prediction
P
n
, kN P
u
/P
n
Yield displacement
A
y
, mm (o
y
, %)
Maximum displacement
A
u
, mm (o
u
, %)
Ductility
(=A
u
/A
y
) k
y
, kN/mm |k
p
/k
y
|, %
SP1 745.0 650.6 1.14 24.0 (0.89) 98.3 (3.6) 4.09 31.0 5.8 Bond failure
SP2 722.9 650.6 1.11 24.8 (0.92) 136.9 (5.1) 5.52 29.1 7.9 Bond failure
SP3 667.8 645.8 1.03 22.7 (0.84) 122.7 (4.5) 5.40 29.4 6.8 Bond failure
SP4 926.8 810.4 1.14 28.6 (1.06) 118.3 (4.4) 4.13 32.4 5.1 Bond failure
SP5 696.1 661.1 1.05 25.1 (0.93) 98.9 (3.6) 3.94 27.7 9.1 Flexural failure
CP 787.3 690.7 1.14 23.2 (0.86) 90.7 (3.3) 3.91 33.9 Flexural failure
*
Results based on positive loading direction.
Bond failure and diagonal shear cracking at beam-column joint followed by crushing failure at beam end.
Concrete crushing failure at beam plastic hinges.

Notes: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN/mm = 5.71 kip/in.
the plastic hinges of the two beams, while diagonal shear
cracking at the beam-column joint was minimized. Concrete
spalling occurred in the overall beam depth. Ultimately,
concrete crushing failure occurred at the top and bottom of
the critical section.
In the PC Specimens SP1 to SP4 (Fig. 6(b) to (e)), severe
diagonal shear cracking occurred at the beam-column joint.
Furthermore, the end of the PC beam shell was separated from
the beam-column joint by a maximum of 27 mm (1.06 in.)
at a 4.0% drift ratio, which indicates that reinforcing bar
bond slip occurred at the beam-column joint. Ultimately, the
PC specimens failed due to concrete crushing at the top and
bottom of the beam end. On the other hand, SP5 (Fig. 6(f))
failed after plastic hinge formation at the beam ends, which
was similar to the failure mode of CP.
In SP1 and SP3 without steel angles, fracture of the concrete
cover in the column was initiated at a 1.0% drift ratio. On the
other hand, in SP2 and SP4, which were strengthened by
steel angles at the interface between the column and beam
shell, fracture of the concrete cover did not occur until a
3.0% drift ratio. Such delayed fracture of the concrete cover
is attributed to the strengthening effect provided by the steel
angles. In the test specimens, as shown in Fig. 4, the facture
of the concrete cover did not signifcantly affect the load-
carrying capacity and the post-yield behavior because fex-
ural damage did not occur in the columns confned by the
hoop reinforcing bars. When a signifcant axial compression
force is applied to a column, however, the fracture of the
concrete cover may signifcantly decrease the stiffness and
strength of the beam-column connection.
Strains of reinforcing bars
Figure 7(a) to (c) shows the measured strains of the beam
reinforcing bars in Specimens SP3, SP5, and CP, respec-
tively. In SP5 and CP (Fig. 7(b) and (c)), the reinforcing bars
at the beam plastic hinge zone developed large tensile plastic
strains, while the reinforcing bars at the beam-column joint
remained elastic. Thus, the majority of the plastic deforma-
tion and hysteretic energy dissipation developed at the beam
plastic hinge zone. On the other hand, in SP3 (Fig. 7(a)), the
plastic strain of the reinforcing bars at the beam was signif-
cantly less than that in SP5 and CP, and the strains did not
increase further as the reinforcing bars at the beam-column
joint started to yield. This result indicates that the bond slip
at the beam-column joint increased with the inelastic lateral
displacement of the specimen. The strains measured in SP1,
SP2, and SP4 without headed bars were similar to that of SP3.
As shown in Fig. 7(b), the headed bars in SP5 remained
elastic during testing. In all test specimens, the hoops at
the beam-column joint remained elastic until the maximum
displacement of the specimens.
Load-carrying capacity and strength degradation
Because the specimens were designed according to the
strong-column, weak-beam concept, the load-carrying
capacity can be calculated by using the beam yielding
mechanism. In the PC Specimens SP1 to SP4, the beam
was reinforced with extra reinforcing bars in the PC beam
shell and longitudinal bars in the beam core. Thus, the crit-
ical section of the beam yielding is located at the interface
between the PC beam shell and the beam-column joint (refer
to Fig. 8). Using the moment capacity of the beam at the
critical section, the maximum load-carrying capacity P
n
of
the specimen can be calculated as follows
( ) ( )
2 ( 2 )
bp bn bp bn
n
c
P P l M M l
P
h h l h s
+ +

+
(1)
Fig. 6Failure modes of test specimens at end of test.
Fig. 7Measured strains of longitudinal reinforcing bars in beams. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips;
1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
where P
bp
(=M
bp
/(l
b
+ s)) and P
bn
(=M
bn
/(l
b
+ s)) are the
reaction forces at the beam supports; M
bp
and M
bn
are the
positive and negative moment capacities of the beam at the
critical section, respectively; l
b
is the clear span of the beam
between the column face and the vertical support; s is the
seating length of the PC beam shell; and h
c
is the depth of
the column cross section. In the calculation of the nega-
tive moment capacity (in the case of top reinforcing bars in
tension), the contribution of the PC beam shell concrete to the
compressive zone was considered. On the other hand, for the
positive moment capacity (in the case of bottom reinforcing
bars in tension), the contribution of the reinforcing bars at
the bottom of the beam shell was not considered because
they were not connected to the beam-column joint. In the
case of Specimen CP, the critical section was located at the
column face. In SP5, the critical section was assumed to be
located at the end of the headed bars240 mm (9.45 in.)
away from the column face (refer to Fig. 2(e)). Table 3 and
Fig. 4 compare the predicted strength P
n
with the test result
P
u
. In the calculation of P
n
, the actual material strengths
were used. The test result P
u
was 3 to 14% greater than the
predicted P
n
. Such overstrength is attributed to the cyclic
strain hardening of the reinforcing bars, which was not
considered in the calculation.
Figure 9(a) shows the defnition of cyclic strength degra-
dation that occurs during cyclic loading repeated at a drift
ratio o.
9
The cyclic strength ratio o
i
is defned as the ratio
of the load-carrying capacity at the i-th load cycle to the
frst load cycle capacity: o
i
= P
i
/P
1
. Figure 9(b) and (c)
shows the cyclic strength ratios o
2
and o
3
of the second
and third load cycles, respectively. In Specimen CP, the
cyclic strength degradation was negligible (o
2
= o
3
1.0).
On the other hand, in the PC Specimens SP1 to SP5, the
cyclic strength degradation was greater. The cyclic strength
ratios o
2
and o
3
decreased as the drift ratio o increased. At
a 1% drift ratio, the strength ratios o
2
and o
3
were approxi-
mately 0.9. Subsequently, at every 1% increase in the drift
ratio, o
2
and o
3
decreased by 0.75% and 3.6%, respectively.
At a 3.5% story drift ratio, o
3
was 0.8 on average; however,
o
3
= 0.8 was greater than the acceptance criteria specifed by
ACI 374.1-05,
10
where o
3
= 0.75 at a 3.5% story drift ratio.
Stiffness and ductility
Figure 5(a) shows the envelope curves of the PC and RC
specimens. After fexural yielding, Specimen CP showed a
stable hardening behavior until a 2.5% drift ratio. After the
peak strength, sudden strength degradation occurred due to
the concrete crushing at the plastic hinge of the beam. On the
other hand, in the PC specimens, the load-carrying capacities
gradually decreased after the maximum strength (Fig. 5(a)
and Fig. 4(b) to (e)). Such post-peak softening behavior was
caused by the loss of the bond strength and diagonal shear
cracking at the beam-column joint.
In Fig. 5(b), the yield stiffness k
y
and post-peak stiffness k
p

can be estimated by using an idealized trilinear curve and the
equal energy principle. The envelope curve up to the peak
point is idealized as a bilinear curve with zero post-yield
stiffness. The yield displacement A
y
and the yield stiffness k
y

are determined so the area enclosed by the idealized bilinear
curve is the same as the area enclosed by the envelope curve.
In the same way, the post-peak stiffness k
p
is determined by
applying the equal energy principle for the post-peak curve.
Table 3 presents the k
y
and k
p
values of the specimens. The
yield stiffness k
y
of the PC specimens was 11.7% less than
that of Specimen CP. The post-peak stiffness k
p
was 5.1 to
9.1% of the yield stiffness

approximately 5.1 to 9.1%
p y
k k
Table 3 presents the maximum deformation A
u
and
ductility of the test specimens. The maximum defor-
mations of the PC specimens were greater than that of
Specimen CP. This is because in addition to the inelastic
deformation of the beam, the bond slip and diagonal shear
cracking at the beam-column joint contributed to the overall
deformation of the specimen. However, the ductility A
u
/A
y

of the PC specimens was equivalent to that of Specimen CP
because the yield deformation A
y
of CP was smaller.
The acceptance criteria specifed by ACI 374.1-05
10

requires that in the third load cycle at a story drift ratio of not
less than 3.5%, the secant stiffness k
3.5
between the 0.35%
and +0.35% drift ratios under unloading/reloading should
not be less than 0.05 times the initial stiffness k
i
(refer to
Fig. 10). Table 4 presents the initial stiffness k
i
and the secant
stiffness k
3.5
of the specimens. The PC specimens, except
Specimen SP5, did not satisfy the acceptance criteria.
Fig. 9Cyclic strength degradation of test specimens.
Fig. 8Calculation of load-carrying capacity of PC Speci-
mens SP1 to SP4.
Energy dissipation capacity
Figure 11(a) and (b) compares the energy dissipation per
load cycle and the cumulative energy dissipation of the test
specimens, respectively. As shown in Fig. 11(a), the energy
dissipation per load cycle is defned as the area enclosed by
a load cycle at a given displacement. The energy dissipa-
tion of the PC specimens (SP1 to SP4) was only 64% of the
energy dissipation of Specimen CP. As shown in Fig. 11(b),
the cumulative energy dissipation was also signifcantly less
than that of CP. On the other hand, the energy dissipation of
SP5 was equivalent to that of CP.
According to Park and Eom
11
and Eom and Park,
12
the
energy dissipation per load cycle of RC members is devel-
oped mainly due to the fexural reinforcing bars experi-
encing large plastic strains. The evidence for this can be seen
in Fig. 7. The energy dissipation of the reinforcing bars in
SP5 and CP (Fig. 7 (b) and (c)) was signifcantly greater than
that of PC Specimen SP3 (Fig. 7(a)).
The acceptance criteria specifed by ACI 374.1-05
10

requires that in the third load cycle at a story drift ratio of
not less than 3.5%, the energy dissipation ratio should not
be less than 0.125. Herein, is defned as the ratio of the
energy dissipation E
II
for the third load cycle to the energy
dissipation E
II0

corresponding to an idealized elasto-plastic
behavior (refer to Fig. 10). Table 4 presents the values. The
PC specimens satisfed the acceptance criteria, although they
showed low energy dissipation.
DISCUSSION
Effects of test parameters
In Specimens SP2 and SP4, the steel angles prevented early
fracture of the concrete cover in the columns by increasing
the bearing capacity. However, when compared with SP1 and
SP3 without the steel angles, the fracture of the concrete
cover did not signifcantly affect the load-carrying capacity
and the post-yield behavior because fexural damage did not
occur in the columns. When a signifcant axial compression
force is applied to a column, however, early fracture of the
concrete cover may signifcantly decrease the stiffness and
strength of the beam-column connection.
In SP3, where the seating length of the PC beam shell was
increased to 65 mm (2.56 in.), the maximum strength was
10% less than that of SP1 (with a seating length of 50 mm
[1.97 in.]) and the diagonal shear crack damage at the beam-
column joint also increased. Although the increased seating
length s contributes to the stability of the structure under
construction, it shortens the depth of the beam-column joint
Fig. 10Acceptance criteria for stiffness and energy dissi-
pation specifed by ACI 374.1-05.
10
Fig. 11Hysteretic energy dissipation of test specimens.
(Note: 1 kNm = 0.738 k-ft.)
Table 4Evaluation of seismic performance of specimens by ACI 374.1-05
10
Specimen SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 CP
Loading direction + + + + + +
Stiffness, kN/mm
k
i
*
32.2 32.0 32.6 33.6 30.6 31.7 37.3 36.0 37.8 32.1 40.5 41.9
0.05k
i
1.61 1.60 1.63 1.68 1.53 1.59 1.87 1.80 1.89 1.61 2.03 2.10
k
3.5
*
at 3.5% 0.47 0.57 1.17 0.93 0.55 0.45 1.35 1.39 2.91 2.64 2.81 3.17
k
3.5
/0.05k
i
0.29 0.36 0.72 0.55 0.36 0.28 0.72 0.77 1.54 1.64 1.38 1.51
Energy dissipation per
load cycle, kNmm
Elasto-plastic energy E
II0
*
182,770 174,314 177,519 246,816 151,955 163,592
Actual energy E
II
*
31,342 39,821 27,215 49,103 48,494 57,258
Relative energy dissipation
ratio = E
II
/E
II0
0.171 0.228 0.153 0.199 0.319 0.350
*
Refer to Fig. 10.
Notes: 1 kN/mm = 5.71 kip/in.; 1 kNmm = 0.00887 kipin.
to (h
c
2s) (C in Fig. 12). As a result, reinforcing bar bond
slip and diagonal shear cracking increased at the beam-
column joint (Fig. 6(d)).
In SP4, where a larger-diameter bar D35 was used in the
beam, the load-carrying capacity was 24.4% greater than that
of SP1. The load-drift ratio relationship was similar to that
of SP1, although severe diagonal shear cracking occurred at
the beam-column joint.
In SP5, the use of the headed reinforcing bars helped
in avoiding the concentration of ductility demand at the
interface between the PC beam and the cast-in-place
concrete joint by relocating the plastic hinge at the beam
end. Therefore, bond slip and diagonal shear cracking at
the beam-column joint and fracture of the concrete cover
in the column were successfully restrained. The design
calculations and recommendations for the headed bars are
presented in the Appendix.
13,14
Causes of bond slip and diagonal shear cracking
at beam-column joint
1. The seating length s (=50 or 65 mm [1.97 or 2.56 in.])
of the PC beam shell shortened the beam-column joint depth
(h
c
2s) (C in Fig. 12). The reduced joint depth decreased
the shear strength of the beam-column joint. Table 1 shows
the shear capacity of the PC specimens based on the reduced
joint depth (h
c
2s), which was 14% less than the shear
capacity of Specimen CP based on the full depth h
c
. If the
PC beam shell is supported on a temporary support rather
than on the column during construction, the effective depth
of the beam-column joint may not be decreased.
2. The reduced joint depth (C) also decreased the
column depth-to-bar diameter ratio (refer to DDR in
Table 1). To prevent excessive bond slip, ACI 352R-02
15
and
ACI 318-08,
8
respectively, require at least (20f
y
/420 20)
and 20 for the ratio. In the PC specimens using D32 bars
(SP1 to SP4), the ratio (h
c
2s)/d
b
ranged from 18.6 to 20.3,
which was 13 to 21% less than the ratio h
c
/d
b
= 23.4 of CP.
3. Because of the less-effective depth d
1
(H in Fig. 12),
a greater reinforcing bar force was required to achieve the
same positive moment capacity as that of the conventional
RC beam, which required a greater shear force at the beam-
column joint.
4. The reinforcing bars (3D25 and 2D13; refer to Fig. 2(a))
in the PC beam shell (E in Fig. 12) increased the fexural
strength of the beam, although this was not originally
intended (the reinforcing bars in the beam shell were used to
resist construction load and prevent concrete cracking under
service loading). Because of the discontinuity of the beam
shell, yielding of the beam fexural reinforcing bars was
concentrated at the interface between the joint and the beam
(F in Fig. 12), and it propagated toward the beam-column
joint rather than toward the beam having a greater fexural
capacity (G in Fig. 12). The yielding of the reinforcing bars
inside the beam-column joint causes the bond slip. For this
reason, bond slip can occur at the beam-column joint even
when the column-depth-to-bar-diameter ratio is greater than
the requirements of ACI 352R-02
15
and ACI 318-08.
8
Ultimate failure mechanism of PC specimens
As discussed in the section on strains of reinforcing bars,
the beam reinforcing bars at the joints of the RC-emulated
connections (Specimens SP1 to SP4) were subjected to
signifcant plastic strains greater than the yield strain of the
reinforcing bars (refer to Fig. 7(a)). This result indicates that
signifcant bond slip occurred in the beam-column joints.
Because of such bond slip, the tension reinforcing bars in the
beam were anchored to the compression zone (I in Fig. 12) of
the other beam on the opposite side. Therefore, the compres-
sion zone at the beam end was subjected to the combined
compressive and anchorage forces (J in Fig. 12). Ultimately,
the beam-column connection failed due to concrete crushing
in the compression zone of the beam end (refer to Fig. 6).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of these tests showed that the maximum defor-
mation and ductility of the PC specimens were compa-
rable to those of the conventional RC specimen. In the PC
specimens, however, reinforcing bar bond slip and diagonal
shear cracking occurred at the beam-column joint, which
signifcantly decreased the stiffness and energy dissipation
capacity. The capacity degradation was attributed to the
use of the PC beam shell, which reduced the beam-column
joint depth and increased the joint shear force. On the basis
of the test results, the following design considerations are
recommended for the earthquake design of the RC-emulated
beam-column connections.
1. It is recommended that the seating length and thickness
of the PC beam shell be decreased as much as possible to
increase the effective depth of the beam-column joint and
the cross-sectional area of the beam core.
2. The shear strength of the beam-column joint, the devel-
opment length of the beam reinforcing bars, and the strength
of the column at the joint should be designed using the
reduced column depth at the beam-column joint.
3. Under repeated cyclic loading, the load-carrying
capacity continues to decrease as the number of load cycles
increases. Therefore, when a moment frame is designed
against a strong earthquake with a long duration, it is recom-
mended that the design strength of the beam-column connec-
tion be reduced to 80% of the calculated nominal strength.
4. The PC beam shells are not completely integrated with
the cast-in-place beam-column joint. Thus, the yield stiff-
ness of the beam-column connection needs to be decreased
by 10% in comparison with the comparable conventional
RC connection.
5. When the energy dissipation capacity is considered in
the design or evaluation of a structure, the energy dissipation
capacity should be at least 36% less than that of the equiva-
lent conventional RC structure.
Fig. 12Causes of bond slip and diagonal shear cracking.
6. When the column is subjected to high compression
and/or fexural yielding, the interface between the PC
column and the PC beam shell may need to be strengthened
with an appropriate method, such as steel angles, to prevent
early fracture of the concrete cover in the column.
7. The use of a strengthening method such as headed bars
is recommended to achieve the structural performance equiv-
alent to that of the conventional RC connection and satisfy
the requirements of ACI 374.1-05
10
or the special moment
frame in ACI 318-08.
8
Further studies on the possible inter-
face connection between the beam shell and the cast-in-place
concrete at the beam-column joint are required.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was fnancially supported by the Ministry of Construction
and Transportation of Korea (05 R&D D02-01); the authors are grateful
to the authorities for their support. The authors would also like to thank
R. E. Klingner at the University of Texas at Austin for his valuable advice.
NOTATION
A
j
= effective shear area at joint
b = width of cross section
b
j
= effective joint width for A
j
d
b
= diameter of reinforcing bar at joint
d
1
, d
2
= effective depths for positive and negative moments
E
II
= energy dissipation corresponding to third load cycle
at displacement
E
II0
= energy dissipation corresponding to idealized elasto-
plastic behavior
f
c
= compressive strength of concrete
f
u
, f
y
= tensile and yield strengths of reinforcing bar
h, l = height and length of beam-column connection
h
c
= depth of cross section of column
k
i
= initial stiffness
k
y
, k
p
= yield and post-yield stiffness of beam-column connection
l
b
= clear span of beam between column face and beam support
M
bn
, M
bp
= negative and positive moment capacities of beam at crit-
ical section
P
bp
, P
bn
= reaction forces at beam supports
P
n
, P
u
= calculated and measured load-carrying capacity of beam-
column connection
s = seating length of PC beam shell
o
i
= coeffcient of cyclic strength degradation
= energy dissipation ratio (=E
II
/E
II0
)
A
u
, A
y
= maximum and yield lateral displacements of beam-
column connection
o = lateral drift ratio
o
u
= maximum lateral drift ratio
= ductility ratio (=A
u
/A
y
)
p = reinforcement ratio
REFERENCES
1. Bhatt, P., and Kirk, D. W., Test on an Improved Beam Column
Connection for Precast Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp. 834-843.
2. Mast, R. F., A Precast Concrete Frame System for Seismic Zone
Four, PCI Journal, V. 37, No. 1, 1992, pp. 50-64.
3. Priestley, M. J. N., and MacRae, G. A., Seismic Tests of Precast
Beam-to-Column Joint Subassemblages with Unbonded Tendons, PCI
Journal, V. 41, No. 1, 1996, pp. 64-81.
4. Park, R., and Bull, D. K., Seismic Resistance of Frames Incorporating
Precast Prestressed Concrete Beam Shells, PCI Journal, V. 31, No. 4,
1986, pp. 54-93.
5. Englekirk, R. E., Development and Testing of a Ductile Connector
for Assembling Precast Concrete Beams and Columns, PCI Journal, V. 40,
No. 2, 1995, pp. 36-51.
6. Kim, S. H.; Moon, J. H.; and Lee, L. H., An Experimental Study
of the Structural Behavior on the Precast Concrete Beam-Column Interior
Joint with Splice Type Reinforcing Bars, Journal of the Architectural Insti-
tute of Korea, V. 20, No. 1, 2004, pp. 53-61.
7. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 550, Guide to Emulating Cast-in-Place
Detailing for Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Structures (ACI 550.1R-
09), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2009, 17 pp.
9. Applied Technology Council (ATC), Improvement of Nonlinear
Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA 440 Report, Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2005, 392 pp.
10. ACI Committee 374, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames
Based on Structural Testing (ACI 374.1-05) and Commentary, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 9 pp.
11. Park, H. G., and Eom, T. S., A Simplifed Method for Estimating the
Amount of Energy Dissipated by Flexure-Dominated Reinforced Concrete
Members for Moderate Cyclic Deformations, Earthquake Spectra, V. 22,
No. 3, 2006, pp. 1351-1363.
12. Eom, T. S., and Park, H. G., Evaluation of Energy Dissipation of
Slender Reinforced Concrete Members and Its Applications, Engineering
Structures, V. 32, No. 9, 2010, pp. 2884-2893.
13. Abdel-Fattah, B., and Wight, J. K., Study of Moving Beam Plastic
Hinging Zones for Earthquake-Resistant Design of R/C Building, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 31-39.
14. Chutarat, N., and Aboutaha, R. S., Cyclic Response of Exterior
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Reinforced with Headed Bars
Experimental Investigation, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-
Apr. 2003, pp. 259-264.
15. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Recommendations for Design of
Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
(ACI 352R-02) (Reapproved 2010), American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, MI, 2002, 38 pp.
NOTES:
Title no. 110-S13
MS No. S-2011-085.R1 received November 29, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
Unifed Calculation Method for Symmetrically Reinforced
Concrete Section Subjected to Combined Loading
by Liang Huang, Yiqiu Lu, and Chuxian Shi
This study introduces a unifed formula for calculating the ultimate
state of reinforced concrete (RC) members under combined loading
conditions, including axial compression, shear, bending, and
torsion. The proposed formula is deduced by using bending-torsion
interaction as a bridge connecting shear-torsion and bending-axial
compression interaction. Interactions of various types are directly
considered in the proposed formula. Their strength formulas are
determined by comparison of experimental data. Finally, the appli-
cability of the proposed formula is illustrated using a calculation
example of a planar frame. It is concluded that that the unifed
formula can be used as unifed failure criteria of RC components to
determine the safety of the members under various loading states,
and can be used to calculate residual capacity of components under
various types of combined loading.
Keywords: combined loading; interaction; reinforced concrete; strength;
unifed formula.
INTRODUCTION
Structural concrete members such as frames on the perim-
eter of a building, curved bridge decks, and multideck bridge
structures, are subjected to complex loading combinations.
Consideration of the interaction of various loadings is
required, as a complex stress-state can result when they are
applied simultaneously to a structure. In the current design
provisions,
1-3
simple rules are established to equip structural
designers with simplifed methods for considering these
complex interactions. These rules, however, are incom-
plete because they do not cover all interactions. Interactions
involving three or four force types are not directly consid-
ered (Table 1). For example, when members are subjected
to combined loading of bending, shear, torsion, and axial
compression, the bending-axial compression, shear-torsion,
torsion-axial compression, shear-axial compression, torsion-
bending, and shear-bending interactions are considered
separately, but the overall bending-shear-torsion-axial
compression interaction is not directly examined. Given
that combined loading is an overall force state in elements,
and that each type of force will interact with all others, the
overall interaction should be considered.
Complex interaction problems have been studied using
various approaches during the last few decades. Important
studies on this subject area were published in the 1960s
and 1970s. Researchers have proposed several interac-
tion curves and surfaces based on semi-empirical methods,
including torsion-shear interaction curve,
4-6
torsion-bending
interaction curve,
7-9
and torsion-bending-shear interac-
tion surface.
6,7,10
These tests of reinforced concrete (RC)
members under combined loading conditions indicated
that various kinds of forces interact with one another.
These previous studies make an important contribution by
proposing interaction curves and formulas that are easily
implemented into design, and these formulas have been veri-
fed by experimental data. In recent years, more experiments
have been conducted and theoretical models have been
proposed to deal with interactions of axial force, bending
moment, shear force, and torsional moment. Vecchio and
Collins
11
and Bentz
12
proposed sectional models suitable for
analyzing prestressed and reinforced concrete sections under
axial force, bending moment, and shear force. Guner and
Vecchio
13
developed a computer-based analytical procedure,
VecTor5, for the nonlinear analysis of frame-related struc-
tures. The procedure is capable of representing shear-related
effects coupled with fexural and axial behaviors. Cocchi
and Cappello
14
employed the concept of the discrete truss
model to analyze RC sections subjected to bending moment,
torsion, and axial force. Further research of the formulation
as well as a computer implementation for the case of biaxial
bending was made later by Cocchi and Volpi.
15
Saritas and
Filippou
16
and Petrangeli et al.
17
developed frame models
incorporating the interaction effect of bending moment and
shear force. These research results are important in inves-
tigating complex interaction problems. The aforementioned
studies, however, focused primarily on relatively common
load combinations. In other research, axial force, bending
moment, shear force, and torsional moment are completely
considered. For example, Vecchio and Selby
18
proposed a
three-dimensional (3-D) nonlinear fnite element program
named SPARCS based on the equations of the modifed
compression feld theory (MCFT), which is a very powerful
tool for studying the behavior of reinforced and prestressed
concrete structures subjected to bending, shear, torsion, and
axial load. Rahal and Collins
19
employed the MCFT model to
study the shear and torsion interaction as well as a full inter-
action between normal and tangential forces within an RC
Table 1Types of interaction
Level
Numbers
of types Types
Double
interactions
2
4
C = 6
Axial compression-bending, shear-torsion,
bending-torsion, shear-axial compression,
torsion-axial compression, bending-shear
Three
interactions
3
4
C = 4
Bending-shear-axial compression, bending-
torsion-axial compression, bending-shear-
torsion, shear-torsion-axial compression
Four
interactions
4
4
C
= 1 Bending-shear-torsion-axial compression
Liang Huang is an Associate Professor of structural engineering at Hunan University,
Changsha, China, where he received his PhD. His research interests include earth-
quake resistance design of structures, energy-saving of masonry structures, and design
of reinforced concrete structures.
Yiqiu Lu is an MS Candidate in the College of Civil Engineering at Hunan University,
where he received his BS. His research interests include earthquake resistance design
of structures and design of reinforced concrete structures.
Chuxian Shi is a Professor of civil engineering at Hunan University, where he received
his BS. His research interests include earthquake resistance design of structures,
energy-saving of masonry structures, and design of reinforced concrete structures.
and prestressed section. The analytical model COMBINED
is capable of predicting the behavior of RC sections subjected
to biaxial bending, biaxial shear, torsion, and axial load.
A general 3-D model based on the displacement formula-
tion for the analysis of reinforced and prestressed concrete
frame elements was developed by Gregori et al.
20
Arbitrary
cross section geometries and combined loading conditions,
including axial force, biaxial bending moment, torsion, and
biaxial shear forces are taken into account. Additionally,
Valipour and Foster
21
developed an element for nonlinear
analysis of RC framed structures subjected to torsion using
a forced-based formulation taking into account of the inter-
action between tangential and normal forces. Although
the loading combinations considered in these studies were
complete, there was no simplifed interaction formula that
can use various loading combinations and can accurately
predict the test data. Therefore, establishing a formula that
directly considers the overall interaction of load combina-
tions and can accurately predict the test data is imperative.
It is noteworthy to mention Ewida and Mcmullens
work,
22
which proposed that the ultimate capacity of the
section for axial force, bending moment, shear, and torsion
can satisfy

N
N
M
M
V
V
T
T
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
1 2 3 4
1
_
,
_
,
_
,
_
,

q q q q
q q q (1)
where q
1
to q
7
are parameters determined from calibration
with experimental observations. The parameters, however,
were not determined in this work.
This study assumes the function form of the unifed
formula that directly considers the overall interactions
between various types of forces, and it can be expressed as a
more general expression as follows

1 2 3
0 0 0 0
, , , 1
N M V T
f
N M V T
_
o o o

,
(2)
Using a bending-torsion interaction to establish a link
between shear-torsion and bending-axial compression inter-
actions, the unifed function relationship for symmetri-
cally reinforced sections of N, M, V, and T is determined.
The 11 types of interaction equations among bending, shear,
torsion, and axial compression shown in Table 1 can be
obtained from this unifed formula. The three parameters o
1
,
o
2
, and o
3
of various interaction equations are determined
from the calibration with a wide range of experimental obser-
vations. Finally, the applicability of the proposed formula is
illustrated using a calculation example of a planar frame.
A unifed formula capable of predicting various inter-
actions of symmetrically reinforced sections subjected to
combined loading has been developed. The formula directly
considers the overall interactions of bending, shear, torsion,
and axial compression. Equations that represent the inter-
action of various loading combinations between bending,
shear, torsion, and axial compression were developed based
on a calibration with the experimental data. Moreover, the
unifed formula can be used as unifed failure criteria of RC
components in ultimate state to determine the safety of the
members under various loading states and can also be used
to calculate residual capacity of components.
DERIVATION OF UNIFIED FORMULA
Ersoy and Ferguson
4
proposed a quarter-circle for the
shear-torsion interaction of concrete beams without stir-
rups based on their analysis of experimental data. The equa-
tion, which is based on plastic theory, can be expressed in a
dimensionless form

2 2
0 0
1
T V
T V
_ _
+

, ,
(3)
Figure 1 shows the comparison of the quarter-circular
shear-torsion interaction curve with the experimental results
of different researchers.
5,22-25
The interaction circle measured
these results within 10% and indicates the quarter-circular
is applicable with and without stirrups.
Usually columns are loaded eccentrically; with an increase
in eccentricity e, the behavior of a column section changes
in the following manner: 1) e = 0: axial load; 2) e < e
b
:
compression failure; 3) e = e
b
: balanced condition; 4) e > e
b
:
tension failure; and 5) e = : pure bending.
This range of interaction from axial compression to
pure bending can be easily visualized by a bending-axial
compression interaction curve, shown in Fig. 2. In current
codes, different failure modes are computed by solving
different equations, and the bending-axial compression
interaction curve is divided into several sections. This study
establishes a unifed formula interconnecting the fve failure
modes for bending-axial compression interaction. The shape
Fig. 1Comparison between quarter-arc circular and
measured torsion-shear interaction curves.
of the interaction curve is very similar to a parabola allowing
the M-N interaction equation, to be assumed as follows
M = aN
2
+ bN + c (4)
In Fig. 2, the point on the abscissa denoted as M
0
repre-
sents pure bending, and the point on the ordinate denoted
as N
0
represents the concentric load. The point representing
the balanced condition has a coordinate of M
b
and N
b
. These
three points must be on the M-N interaction curve. By substi-
tuting these points(0, M
0
), (N
0
, 0), and (N
b
, M
b
)into
Eq. (4), the factors a, b, and c can be obtained by solving
three equations. The results are as follows

0 0
0 0 2 2 2
0 0
1
, ,
M M n m
a b N a c M
N n n N
_ +
+

,
(5)
where n = N
b
/N
0
; and m = M
b
/M
0
.
Equation (4) can then be expressed in a dimensionless form

2
0 0
2
2 2
2
0 0
1
4 4 1
, ,
2 ( 1) ( 1)
1
,
b b
M N
p q h
M N
k k k
p q h
k k k
n m
k
n n
N M
n m
N M
_ _
+

, ,

,
+

(6)
Equation (6) is plotted as M/M
0
versus N/N
0
in Fig. 3.
According to the dimension and material properties of the
specimens tested by Southwest Jiaotong University,
26
the
average values of factors p, q, and h are equal 0.49, 2.8, and
0.41, respectively. As shown in Fig. 3, the proposed curve is
a continuous, smooth curve interconnecting the aforemen-
tioned fve-force states. The curve is in good agreement with
the test results. Equation (6) is therefore applicable to the
M-N interaction relationship.
Lampert and Collins
9
concluded that, in symmetrically
reinforced sections, the moment-torsion interaction formula
is given as follows

2
0 0
1
M T
M T
_
+

,

(7)
The equation is plotted in Fig. 4 along with the test results
of some symmetrically reinforced beams.
27-30
It can be seen
from Fig. 4 that the experimental results verify this interac-
tion behavior.
At this point, M-T, M-N, and T-V interactions have been
obtained. Subsequently, the M-T interaction is used to
connect the V-T and M-N interactions. Considering the form
of the M-T interaction equation, assume the M-T-N-V inter-
action formula as follows

2 2 2
0 0 0 0
1
T V M N
A B p q h
T V M N
1 1
_ _ _ _
1 1 + + +

, , , , 1 1
] ]

(8)
If T = 0 and V = 0, Eq. (8) becomes

2
0 0
1
M N
B p q h
M N
1
_ _
1 +

, , 1
]
(9)
Fig. 2Bending-axial compression interaction curve.
Fig. 3Comparison between proposed and measured
bending-axial compression interaction curves.
Fig. 4Comparison between parabola circular and
measured bending-torsion interaction curves.
If M = 0 and N = 0, Eq. (8) becomes

2 2
2
0 0
1
T V
A Bqh
T V
1
_ _
1 + +

, , 1
]
(10)
Equations (9) and (10) should be in agreement with
Eq. (6) and (3), respectively. The factors can then be easily
calculated as

2
1
1
A qh
B

,

(11)
From Eq. (6), the value of 1 qh
2
equals p. Hence, the
unifed formula can be expressed as

2 2 2
0 0 0 0
1
T V M N
p p q h
T V M N
1 1
_ _ _ _
1 1 + + +

, , , , 1 1
] ]

(12)
where the factors p and q are as same as those in Eq. (6).
Equation (12) is the relationship between N, M, V, and T.
However, whether it can be applicable to various kinds of
interactions is unknown. Therefore, the parameters o
1
, o
2
,
and o
3
can be added to the T, V, and M terms in Eq. (12).
These three parameters can be determined from a calibra-
tion with the experimental results of different members with
different load combinations. The undetermined formula can
be expressed as follows
2 2 2
1 2 3
0 0 0 0
1
T V M N
p p q h
T V M N
1 1
_ _ _ _
1 1 o + o + o +

, , , , 1 1
] ]
(13)
Interaction equations under different combined loading
conditions can therefore be obtained from the unifed formula.
In the determination of the interaction equation, M
0
, V
0
, T
0
,
N
0
, M
b
, and N
b
are computed based on ACI provisions.
2
They
can be expressed by the following equations

1
0 1
0.85 ( )
2
c w c s
c
M f cb d f A d d
_
+

,

(14)

0
2
v y
c w
A f
V f b d d
s
+ (15)

0
2 cot
t yv
o
A f
T A
s
(16)

( )
0
0.85
c g st y st
N f A A f A + (17)

1
0.85
b c w y s s s
N f b c f A f A + (18)
M f b c d
c h
d N f A d d
b c w b s s

_
,
_
,
+ 0 85
2 2
1
1
. ( )

(19)
where f
s
is determined by compression steel strain r
s
. If r
s

r
y
, then f
s
= E
s
r
y
; or if r
s
> r
y
, then f
s
= f
y
. When the
member is subjected to pure bending, f
s
can be determined
by the following two equations

r
1 o r r
]
r
r r _
1 o + r r r
]
r r ,
0,
,
p pd yd
yd
pk yd
p pd pd yd ud
s ud yd
f
f
f f

(20)

+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ +
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
S C C C C S SS
p t cP cL cR
S C C C C S SS
p t cP cL cR
S
S
p
n n n n n n n
S P SS C C C C
i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i
n n n n n n n
S P SS C C C C
x xi xi xi xi xi xi xi
i i i i i i i
n
n
S P S
y yi yi yi
i i
N N N N N N N N
M M M M M M M M
M M M M

+ + + +
1 1 1 1 1
C C C C SS
t cP cL cR
n n n n n
S C C C C
yi yi yi yi
i i i i i
M M M M
(21)
When the member is at the balanced condition, the
compression steel can always yield, thus f
s
can get f
y
. Also,
the factors p, q, and h can be obtained when M
0
, N
0
, M
b
, and
N
b
are computed.
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
Pure force
The formula for a pure single force can be obtained by
manipulating the other three forces as 0. For example, the
formula for pure axial compression can be derived by taking
M = 0, V = 0, and T = 0

0
1
N
N

(22)
Equation (22) is the bearing capacity formula for RC
under pure axial compression. The other three formulas for
pure force can also be derived from the unifed formula. The
parameters o
1
, o
2
, and o
3
are all equal to 1 for the formula
under pure force.
Shear-torsion, moment-torsion, and moment-
compression interaction
Equation (13) is derived by shear-torsion, moment-
torsion, and moment-compression interaction; hence, it is
in agreement with these interaction equations. Taking M =
0 and N = 0, Eq. (3) can be obtained. Taking T = 0 and V = 0,
Eq. (6) can be obtained. Taking V = 0 and N = 0, Eq. (7) can
be obtained. These equations have already been verifed as
suitable for the corresponding interactions. Values of o
1
, o
2
,
and o
3
also equal to 1 for these three conditions. The other
interaction equations are discussed in the following.
Shear-bending interaction
Taking N = 0 and T = 0, the unifed formula (Eq. (13)) becomes

2
2 3
0 0
1
V M
V M
_
o + o

,

(23)
which is the shear-bending interaction equation. Table 2 shows
the comparison of Eq. (23) and the test results of Mattock and
Wang.
31
According to the comparison results of V
exp
/V
0
and
M
exp
/M
0
, o
2
and o
3
are equal to 0.25 and 1, respectively.
Equation (23) becomes

2
0 0
0.25 1
V M
V M
_
+

,

(24)
Figure 5 shows the theoretical shear-bending interaction
curve of Eq. (24) and experimental interaction point for tests
by Mattock and Wang.
31
The mean of the experimental data
of Eq. (24) is 1.03, and the coeffcient of variation is 6.6%.
From Fig. 5, it can be concluded that Eq. (24) can refect the
behavior of shear-bending members correctly.
Torsion-axial compression interaction
The torsion-axial compression interaction when M = 0 and
V = 0 can be obtained from the unifed formula as

2
2
1
0
0
1
T N
p q h
T N
_
_
o +

,
,

(25)
where the factors p, q, and h have different values according
to different section properties. Therefore, the torsion-axial
compression interaction curve varies with different RC
components. According to dimension and material prop-
erties of the specimens tested by Bishara and Peir,
32
the
average value of factors p, q, and h equal 0.38, 3.19, and
0.44, respectively. Table 3 shows the comparison of N/N
0
,
T/T
0
, and the test results of Bishara and Peir.
32
From the
comparison results in Table 3, it is seen that T/T
0
varies
regularly with the different N/N
0
. The parameter o
1
can be
expressed as a function of N/N
0
. The torsion-axial compres-
sion equation is as follows

2
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
4 2
T N
p q h
T N
N
N
_
_
+

,
,
_
+

,
(26)
The mean of the experimental value of Eq. (26) is 1.095, and
the coeffcient of variation is 11.8%, indicating that Eq. (26)
can accurately describe torsion-axial compression interac-
tion. Figure 6 shows the theoretical torsion-axial compression
interaction curve of Eq. (26) and the experimental interaction
point for tests by Bishara and Peir.
32
From Fig. 6, it can be
concluded that Eq. (26) can refect the behavior of torsion-
axial compression members correctly.
Shear-axial compression interaction
The shear-axial compression interaction when M = 0 and
N = 0 can be obtained from the unifed formula as

2
2
2
0
0
1
V N
p q h
V N
_
_
o +

,
,

(27)
Table 2Comparison of test data and shear-
bending interaction formula
Specimen V/bh V
exp
/V
0
M
exp
/M
0
Value of Eq. (24)
Mattock and Wang
31
average = 1.03; COV = 6.6%
C205-D10 2 1.590 0.497 1.130
C205-D20 2 1.402 0.481 0.973
C210-DOA 2 1.357 0.633 1.093
C210-S0 1 1.558 0.389 0.995
C305-D0 3 1.212 0.582 0.949
C310-D10 3 1.041 0.718 0.989
C310-D20 3 1.097 0.757 1.058
bending-shear interaction curves.
Table 3Comparison of test data and torsion-
axial compression interaction formula
Specimen N
exp
/T
exp
/in. N
exp
/N
0
T
exp
/T
0
Value of Eq. (26)
Bishara and Peir
32
average = 1.08; COV = 11.8%
17 0 0.000 2.123 1.048
19 0 0.000 2.046 1.018
22 0.312 0.064 3.288 1.260
23 0.312 0.054 2.740 1.061
7 0.416 0.086 3.082 1.078
10 0.416 0.101 3.596 1.252
9 0.625 0.145 3.562 1.019
13 0.625 0.168 4.109 1.161
24 0.625 0.186 4.657 1.318
12 0.832 0.249 4.829 1.101
14 0.832 0.285 5.240 1.168
15 0.937 0.326 5.616 1.137
16 0.937 0.355 5.753 1.139
11 1.11 0.546 7.328 1.227
21 1.11 0.428 6.164 1.052
20 1.11 0.420 6.010 1.023
8 1.25 0.465 5.685 0.856
18 1.25 0.525 6.815 1.066
A 0 0.000 1.781 0.950
B 0 0.000 1.918 0.981
C 0.625 0.164 4.109 0.882
D 0.625 0.175 4.383 0.916
Structural components are seldom subjected to shear only;
they are always subjected to combined shear and bending
moment. Components subjected to combined shear, bending,
and axial compression are common. Bending-shear-axial
compression interactions are discussed in the next section.
Shear-bending-axial compression interaction
When the torsion is zero, the shear-bending-axial
compression interaction equation can be calculated from the
unifed formula

2
2
2 3
0
0 0
1
V M N
p q h
V M N
1
_ _
_
o + o +
1

,
, ,
1
]

(28)
Equation (28) is calibrated by using the experimental data
from Mattock and Wang.
31
Table 4 summarizes the compar-
ison of the proposed interaction equation with the test results
of Mattock and Wang.
31
Considering the simplicity of o
1
and
o
2
, as well as the accuracy of the equation, o
1
and o
2
valued
0.25 and 1, respectively. Therefore, Eq. (28) becomes

2
2
0
0 0
0.25 1
V M N
p q h
V M N
1
_ _
_
+ +
1

,
, ,
1
]

(29)
From Table 4, it can be concluded that the experimental
results agree with the theoretical equation very well. The
ratio of the experimental results to the calculated value has
a mean and coeffcient of variation of 1.14 14.7% for tests
by Mattock and Wang.
31
Table 4Comparison of test data and bending-
shear-axial compression interaction formula
Specimen N
exp
/N
0
V
exp
/V
0
M
exp
/M
0
Value of Eq. (29)
Mattock and Wang
31
average = 1.14; COV = 0.147
C205-D11 0.104 2.13 0.894 1.436
C205-D13 0.388 2.215 0.93 1.302
C205-D15 0.519 1.874 0.787 1.052
C205-D16 0.698 1.59 0.668 1.042
C205-D21 0.094 1.935 0.848 1.249
C205-D22 0.188 2.356 1.033 1.466
C205-D24 0.377 2.188 0.959 1.195
C205-D26 0.565 2.328 1.021 1.391
C210-D2 0.154 1.583 0.968 1.110
C210-D4 0.307 1.508 0.922 0.920
C210-D6 0.461 1.508 0.922 0.919
C305-D1 0.078 1.377 0.874 1.068
C305-D2 0.156 1.653 1.049 1.189
C305-D4 0.312 1.653 1.049 1.064
C305-D6 0.467 1.653 1.049 1.067
C310-D11 0.085 1.388 1.277 1.304
C310-D13 0.255 1.35 1.241 1.072
C310-D16 0.509 1.234 1.135 0.957
C310-D21 0.086 1.309 1.203 1.225
C310-D23 0.258 1.443 1.327 1.162
C310-D25 0.43 1.27 1.168 0.956
C310-D27 0.547 1.155 1.062 0.913
bending-shear interaction formula
Specimen T
exp
/T
0
V
exp
/V
0
M
exp
/M
0
Value of Eq. (31)
Osburn et al.
33
average = 1.037; COV = 0.127
A1 1.064 0.611 1.159 1.236
A2 1.003 0.595 1.153 1.182
A3 0.944 0.594 1.134 1.142
A4 0.864 0.575 1.109 1.072
A5 0.811 0.569 1.084 1.030
B1 1.403 0.398 1.119 1.210
B2 1.283 0.387 1.061 1.092
B3 1.251 0.395 1.097 1.095
B4 1.123 0.375 1.073 0.992
B5 1.032 0.361 1.043 0.918
C1 1.107 0.475 1.131 1.098
C2 0.876 0.416 0.973 0.852
C3 0.926 0.454 1.048 0.944
C4 0.891 0.461 1.021 0.922
D1 1.195 0.508 1.213 1.222
D2 1.025 0.48 1.123 1.055
D3 0.93 0.461 1.068 0.963
D4 0.882 0.461 1.041 0.928
E1 1.183 0.513 1.217 1.221
E2 0.945 0.442 1.033 0.935
E3 0.897 0.446 1.037 0.919
E4 0.768 0.405 0.932 0.777
Badawy et al.
34
average = 1.239; COV = 0.168
S3 1.867 0.233 0.412 1.132
S4 1.614 0.511 1.129 1.477
S6 1.342 0.941 0 1.338
S7 1.751 0.493 0 1.011
torsion-axial compression interaction curves.
Torsion-bending-shear interaction
The torsion-bending-shear interaction equation when
axial compression is zero can be derived from the unifed
formula. The equation can be expressed as

2 2
1 2 3
0 0
0
1
T V M
T V M
_ _
o + o + o

, ,

(30)
Table 5 shows the comparison of Eq. (30) and the test
results of Osburn et al.
33
and Badawy et al.
34
From the
comparison results of T
exp
/T
0
, V
exp
/V
0
, and M
exp
/M
0
, o
1
, o
2
,
and o
3
can be valued 0.25, 1, and 0.5, respectively. The
determined equation is as follows

2 2
0 0 0
0.25 0.5 1
T V M
T V M
_ _
+ +

, ,

(31)
The means of Osburn et al.s
33
experimental value of
Eq. (31) is 1.04, and the coeffcient of variation is 12.7%.
The means of Badawy et al.s
34
experimental value of
Eq. (31) is 1.239, and the coeffcient of variation is 16.8%.
Experimental comparison results indicate that Eq. (31) is a
good application of torsion-bending-shear interaction.
Torsion-bending-axial compression interaction
In practice, components, such as brackets and top chord
of roof truss (where shear force can be negligible), are often
under combined torsion, bending, and axial compression.
The unifed formula can derive the torsion-bending-axial
compression interaction equation

2 2
1 3
0 0 0
1
T M N
p q h
T M N
1
_ _
1 o + o +

, , 1
]

(32)
According to dimension and material properties of the
specimens tested by Zhang et al.,
35
the factors p, q, and h
equal 0.434, 3.07, and 0.429, respectively; thus, the theo-
retical value of Eq. (32) can be obtained. Table 6 shows
the comparison of Eq. (32) and the test results of Zhang et
al.
35
The parameters o
1
, o
2
, and o
3
can all be valued 1. Thus,
the torsion-bending-axial compression equation is as follows

2 2
0 0 0
1
T M N
p q h
T M N
1
_ _
1 + +

, , 1
]

(33)
Figure 7 shows that the interaction curve of the proposed
equation is divided into two main parts: 1) when N/N
0
is rela-
tively low, the value of (T/T
0
)
2
+ (M/M
0
) increases with the
increase in N/N
0
, which can be verifed by using the experi-
mental data tested by Zhang et al.
35
; and 2) when N/N
0
is rela-
tively high, the value of (T/T
0
)
2
+ (M/M
0
) decreases with the
increase in N/N
0
. The law of the interaction curve is similar to
that of the bending-axial interaction. The experimental data
basically agree with the interaction curve of the proposed equa-
tion, and the average value of the ratio of the experimental data
to the proposed equation is 1.08 and the coeffcient of varia-
tion is 10.2%, indicating that Eq. (33) is a good application of
bending-torsion-axial compression interaction.
Shear-torsion-axial compression interaction
When the bending moment is zero, the unifed formula becomes

2 2 2
1 2
0 0 0
1
T V N
p q h
T V N
1
_ _ _
1 o + o +

, , , 1
]

(34)
which represents shear-torsion-axial compression interac-
tion. Structural components are seldom subjected to shear
only; they are always subjected to combined shear and
bending moment. The torsion-bending-shear-axial compres-
sion interactions are discussed in the next section.
Torsion-bending-shear-axial compression interaction
Equation (13) is the torsion-bending-shear-axial compres-
sion interaction equation. This equation was calibrated by
comparing the proposed equation with the experimental
results from the tests on 13 square beams under combined
torsion, bending, shear, and axial compression by Zhao et
al.
36
Three parameterso
1
, o
2
, and o
3
can be valued 0.25,
1, and 0.5, respectively. Equation (13) becomes
2 2 2
0 0 0 0
0.25 0.5 1
T V M N
p p q h
T V M N
1 1
_ _ _ _
1 1 + + +

, , , , 1 1
] ]
(35)
The comparison results are shown in Table 7, which are in
good agreement. The average value of the proposed equation
bending-axial compression interaction formula
Specimen N
exp
/N
0
T
exp
/T
0
M
exp
/M
0
Value of Eq. (33)
Zhang et al.
35
average = 1.08; COV = 0.102
M-1-1 0.084 1.105 0.098 0.938
M-1-3 0.084 1.184 0.293 1.101
M-1-4 0.098 0.988 0.453 0.950
M-1-5 0.084 1.19 0.488 1.192
M-1-6 0.088 1.147 0.611 1.182
M-2-1 0.16 1.265 0.186 0.997
M-2-2 0.196 1.175 0.453 0.950
M-2-3 0.168 1.303 0.585 1.200
M-2-5 0.168 1.172 0.975 1.229
M-3-1 0.241 1.399 0.279 1.079
M-4-1 0.307 1.408 0.356 1.061
torsion-bending-axial compression interaction curves.
using the experimental data is 1.321, and the coeffcient of
variation is 24.5%.
Determined unifed formula
At this point, every interaction equation in Table 1 is
determined according to a calibration with the experimental
results. The determined unifed formula is summarized in
Table 8.
APPLICATION OF UNIFIED FORMULA
The unifed formula, as verifed by data, can be used as
unifed failure criteria of RC components in ultimate state
to determine the safety of members under various loading
states. If the value of the left side is lesser than that of the
right side, the section can be considered suffciently safe.
Otherwise, if the value of the left side is larger than that of
the right side, the section is unsafe. This study provides an
example of torsion-shear-bending-axial compression inter-
action to illustrate this point.
For the planar frame given in Fig. 8, assume that all the
columns have the same section details, as do the beams; the
sections are all symmetrically reinforced. The section details
of the columns and the beams are summarized in Table 9. The
value of the concentrated loads at Nodes 3 and 2 in the x-direc-
tion are 250 and 125 kN (56.25 and 28.13 kips), respectively.
The value of the concentrated loads at Nodes 2 and 8 in the
y-direction are 125 and 125 kN (28.13 and 28.13 kips),
respectively. The value of the distributed loads at both the
frst and second foors is 20 kN/m (0.104 kip/in.).
From the planar frame, the maximum value of axial load,
shear force, and bending moment of all the components can
be calculated. The ultimate pure axial compression capacity,
ultimate pure shear capacity, and ultimate bending moment
capacity of columns and beams can also be calculated based
on the section details. The calculation results of N, M, V,
T, N
0
, M
0
, V
0
, and T
0
are substituted into Eq. (35) and are
summarized in Table 10.
As shown in Table 10, the failure factors of Components 7
and 9 are larger than 1, indicating that these components are
Table 8Values of three parameters of unifed formula
2 2 2
1 2 3
0 0 0 0
1
T V M N
p p q h
T V M N
1 1
_ _ _ _
1 1 o + o + o +

, , , , 1 1
] ]
Interactions o
1
o
2
o
3
Equation
Pure force 1 1 1
Torsion-shear 1 1 1 (3)
Torsion-bending 1 1 1 (7)
Bending-axial
compression
1 1 1 (6)
Shear-bending 0.25 1 (24)
Torsion-axial compression 1/(4N/N
0
+ 2)
2
(26)
Shear-bending-axial
compression
0.25 1 (29)
Torsion-bending-shear 0.25 1 0.5 (31)
Torsion-bending-axial
compression
1 1 1 (33)
Torsion-bending-shear-
axial compression
0.25 1 0.5 (35)
bending-shear-axial compression interaction formula
Specimen N
exp
/N
0
T
exp
/T
0
V
exp
/V
0
M
exp
/M
0
Value of Eq. (35)
Zhao et al.
36
average = 1.321; COV = 0.245
WV4-3-2 0.357 1.901 0.52 0.432 1.042
WV5-3-3 0.446 2.583 0.65 0.896 1.603
WV6-3-1 0.536 2.273 0.78 1.075 1.640
WV3-3-2b 0.303 2.118 0.508 0.433 1.186
WV3-2-2 0.303 1.76 0.339 0.289 0.775
WV4-2-2 0.401 2.292 0.443 0.377 1.235
WV3-5-1 0.26 1.559 0.945 0.534 1.567
WV3-2-2b 0.303 2.012 0.339 0.289 0.929
WV4-2-3 0.401 3.199 0.443 0.668 1.515
WV3-2-3 0.303 2.805 0.339 0.289 1.547
WV4-2-ul 0.401 2.847 0 0.377 1.572
WV4-3-2m 0.371 1.642 0.426 0.467 0.889
WV5-4-2m 0.464 2.484 0.65 1.326 1.671
Fig. 8Planar frame. (Note: 1 m = 3.3 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kips;
1 kN.m = 8.87 kip-in.)
Table 9Section details of columns and beams
Component b
w
, mm d, mm p
x
, % p
z
, % f
y
, MPa f
c
, MPa
Column 500 500 1.5 0.25 400 30
Beam 250 500 1.5 0.3 400 30
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
not suffciently safe. Given that the failure factors of Compo-
nents 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are less than 1, these components
are safe. Components 1 and 2 are subjected to axial tension,
biaxial shear, biaxial bending, and torsion, so the unifed
formula is not applicable to these two components. There-
fore, the safety of Components 1 and 2 cannot be determined
by Eq. (35), which is a faw of the unifed formula. Similarly,
Component 5 also cannot be determined.
Components whose failure factors are less than 1 can still
sustain additional force. The unifed formula can determine
how much residual force these components can sustain
because it can be used to calculate residual force capacity
of components under various kinds of combined loading.
Given the planar frame as an example, the residual capacity
is calculated by the following steps. First, given the shear
force as an example, the overall shear force capacity is
calculated by
2 2
0 0 0
0
1 0.5 0.25
N M T
q h p p
N M T
V V
p
_
_ _ _

, , ,
,
(36)
Then, the residual shear force is calculated by
V
s
= V V (37)
The results are also shown in Table 10. For torsion, shear
force, and bending moment, the residual force is nega-
tive when the failure factor is larger than 1, whereas the
residual force is positive when the failure factor is less
than 1. The negative values mean that the force should be
reduced to ensure that the failure factor is less than 1. Given
Component 7 as an example, if 194 kN.m (1720.78 kip-in.)
of bending moment is reduced and the axial compression,
torsion moment, and shear force are unchanged, the failure
factor is 1 and the component is under ultimate state. The
positive values mean that the components are able to with-
stand additional force capacity. Given Component 3 in
Table 10 as an example, the component is able to bear an
additional 67 kN.m (593.95 kip-in.) of torsion moment if
the axial compression, bending moment, and shear force
are unchanged, or an additional 200 kN (45.01 kips) of
shear force if the axial compression, torsion moment, and
bending moment are unchanged, or an additional 244 kN.m
(2163.04 kip-in.) of bending moment if the axial compres-
sion, torsion moment, and shear force are unchanged. From
the table, however, it can be observed that the torsional and
shear residential capacities of Component 7 cannot be calcu-
lated. No matter how the values of torsion moment and shear
are modifed, these components will not be safe. The compo-
nents have been already been destroyed even if the torsion
and shear are reduced to 0.
CONCLUSIONS
A unifed formula capable of predicting the ultimate state
of RC sections subjected to combined loading, including
bending, shear, torsion, and axial compression, has been
developed. The formula, which is based on bending-torsion
interaction as a link between shear-torsion and bending-axial
compression interactions, directly considers the overall inter-
actions of bending, shear, torsion, and axial compression.
Various kinds of interaction equations can be obtained
from the unifed formula. Interaction formulas have been
calibrated by comparisons of experimental results from
members loaded in various kinds of load combinations.
Some of the features of the formula are as follows:
1. It directly considers the interaction between various
kinds of loading.
2. It can accurately predict test data under various loading
combinations.
3. It can be used as unifed failure criteria of RC compo-
nents in ultimate state to determine the safety of members
under various loading states.
4. It can be used to calculate the residual stress capacity of
components under various kinds of combined loading.
NOTATION
A
g
= cross-sectional area of beam
A
o
= gross area enclosed by centerline of shear fow path
A
s
= area of tension steel
A
s
= area of compression steel
A
st
= total area of longitudinal steel
A
t
= cross-sectional area of one leg of torsional stirrup
A
v
= cross-sectional area of one leg of shear stirrup
b
w
= width of beam
c = depth of concrete compression zone
d = effective depth of beam
d = effective depth to compression reinforcement
E
s
= modulus of elasticity of steel
f
c
= concrete cubic compression strength (150 x 150 x 150 mm [6 x
6 x 6 in.])
f
c
= compressive cylinder strength of concrete
f
s
= stress of compression steel
f
y
= yield stress of tension steel
f
y
= yield stress of compression steel
f
yv
= yield stress of stirrups
M
0
= ultimate pure bending capacity
M
b
= ultimate bending capacity in balanced condition when subjected
to eccentric compression
M
exp
= experimental bending capacity
Table 10Failure factor and residual capacity
No.
Maximum force of components Ultimate pure force capacity Failure factor
Safe or not
Residual capacity
N, kN T, kNm M, kNm V, kN N
0
, kN T
0
, kNm M
0
, kNm V
0
, kN Value of Eq. (35) T
r
, kN M
r
, kNm V
r
, kN
3 398 90 448 145 6524 96 271 467 0.87 Yes 67 244 200
4 139 68 341 123 6524 96 271 467 0.88 Yes 70 214 196
6 134 47 235 78 6524 96 271 467 0.80 Yes 119 374 318
7 64 24 332 183 3262 27 136 258 1.21 No -194
8 200 14 232 143 3262 27 136 258 0.89 Yes 22 100 69
9 42 24 347 178 3262 27 136 258 1.24 No -221
10 78 14 235 134 3262 27 136 258 0.99 Yes 4 11 9
Notes: Compression considered positive; tension considered negative; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 kN.m = 8.87 kip-in.
M
r
= residual bending capacity
N
0
= ultimate pure axial compression capacity
N
b
= ultimate axial compression capacity in balanced condition when
subjected to eccentric compression
N
exp
= experimental axial compression capacity
N
r
= residual axial compression capacity
p
x
= longitude reinforcement ratio
p
z
= stirrup reinforcement ratio
s = spacing of stirrups
T
0
= ultimate pure torsion capacity
T
exp
= experimental torsion capacity
V
0
= ultimate pure shear capacity
V = overall shear capacity according to unifed formula
V
exp
= experimental shear capacity
V
r
= residual shear capacity
1
= equivalent factor of rectangular compressive stress distribution
r
s
= strain of compression steel
r
y
= yield strain of steel
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research described in this paper has been sponsored by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51078132), the Chang Jiang
Scholars Program and Innovative Research Team Project by the Ministry of
Education of China (Project No. IRT0917). The authors gratefully acknowl-
edge the assistance provided by Z. Xu, H. Yi, S. Chen, J. Li, and B. Yan.
REFERENCES
1. GB 50010-2002, Concrete Structure Design Code, 2002. (in Chinese)
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offcials,
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations and Commentary, third
edition, Washington, DC, 2004.
4. Ersoy, U., and Ferguson, P. M., Concrete Beams Subjected to
Combined Torsion and ShearExperimental Trends, Torsion of Structural
Concrete, SP-18, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1968,
pp. 441-460.
5. Klus, J. P., Ultimate Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams in
Combined Torsion and Shear, ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 65, No. 3, Mar.
1968, pp. 210-216.
6. Syamal, P. K.; Mirza, M. S.; and Ray, D. P., Plain and Reinforced
Concrete L-Beams under Combined Flexure, Shear, and Torsion, ACI
Journal, Proceedings V. 68, No. 11, Nov. 1971, pp. 848-860.
7. Hsu, T. T. C., Torsion of Structural Concrete Interaction Surface for
Combined Torsion, Shear, and Bending in Beams without Stirrups, ACI
Journal, Proceedings V. 65, No. 1, Jan. 1968, pp. 51-60.
8. Victor, D. J., and Ferguson, P. M., Reinforced Concrete T-Beams
without Stirrups under Combined Moment and Torsion, ACI Journal,
Proceedings V. 65, No. 1, Jan. 1968, pp. 29-36.
9. Lampert, P., and Collins, M. P., Torsion, Bending, and Confusion
An Attempt to Establish the Facts, ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 69, No. 8,
Aug. 1972, pp. 500-504.
10. Badawy, H. E. I.; Jordaan, I. J.; and McMullen, A. E., Effect of Shear
on Collapse of Curved Beams, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
V. 103, No. ST9, Sept. 1977, pp. 1849-1866.
11. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., Predicting the Response of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Shear Using Modifed Compres-
sion Field Theory, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 3, May-June 1988,
pp. 258-268.
12. Bentz, E. C., Section Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members,
PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000.
13. Guner, S., and Vecchio, F. J., Pushover Analysis of Shear-Critical
Frames: Formulation, ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
2010, pp. 63-71.
14. Cocchi, G. M., and Cappello, F., Inelastic Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Space Frames Infuenced by Axial, Torsional and Bending Inter-
action, Computer & Structures, V. 46, No. 1, Jan. 1993, pp. 83-97.
15. Cocchi, G. M., and Volpi, M., Inelastic Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined Torsion, Flexural and Axial
Loads, Computer & Structures, V. 61, No. 3, Mar. 1996, pp. 479-494.
16. Saritas, A., and Filippou, F. C., A Beam Finite Element for Shear
Critical RC Beams, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures, SP-237, L. Lowes and F. Filippou, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, pp. 295-310.
17. Petrangeli, M.; Pinto, P. E.; and Ciampi, V., Fiber Element for Cyclic
Bending and Shear of RC Structures I: Theory, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, V. 125, No. 9, Sept. 1999, pp. 994-1001.
18. Vecchio, F. J., and Selby, R. G., Toward Compression-Field Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Solids, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 117, No. 6, June 1991, pp. 1740-1757.
19. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., Combined Torsion and Bending
in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 157-165.
20. Gregori, J. N.; Sosa, P. M.; Fernandez Prada, M. A.; and Filippou,
F. C., A 3D Numerical Model for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Elements Subjected to Combined Axial, Bending, Shear and Torsion
Loading, Engineering Structures, V. 29, No. 12, Dec. 2007, pp. 3404-3419.
21. Valipour, H. R., and Foster, S. J., Nonlinear Reinforced Concrete
Frame Element with Torsion, Engineering Structures, V. 32, No. 4, Apr.
2010, pp. 988-1002.
22. Ewida, A. A., and Mcmullen, A. E., Torsion-Shear-Flexure Interac-
tion in Reinforced Concrete Members, Magazine of Concrete Research,
V. 33, No. 115, June 1981, pp. 113-122.
23. Pritchard, R. G., Torsion-Shear Interaction of Reinforced Concrete
Beams, MSc thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 1970.
24. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., Effect of the Thickness of Concrete
Cover on the Shear-Torsion InteractionAn Experimental Investigation,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 334-342.
25. Liao, H. M., and Ferguson, P. M., Combined Torsion in Reinforced
Concrete L-Beams with Stirrups, ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 66, No. 12,
Dec. 1969, pp. 986-993.
26. Eccentric Compression Strength Group, Performance of Reinforced
Concrete Members Under Eccentric Compression, Reinforced Concrete
Structure Research Reports, No. 9, Sept. 1981, pp. 19-61. (in Chinese)
27. Collins, M. P.; Walsh, P. F.; Archer, F. E.; and Hall, A. S., Ultimate
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined Torsion
and Bending, Torsion of Structural Concrete, SP-18, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1968, pp. 379-402.
28. Lampert, P., Reinforced Concrete Beams in Bending and Torsion
(Torsion und Beigung von Stanhlbetonbalken), Schweizerische Bauzeitung
(Zurich), V. 88, No. 5, Jan. 29, 1970.
29. Mamullen, A. E., and Warwaruk, J., The Torsional Strength of Rect-
angular Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined Loading,
Report No. 2, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, July 1967.
30. Cardenas, A., and Sozen, M. A., Strength and Stiffness of Isotropi-
cally and Nonisotropically Reinforced Concrete Slabs Subjected to Combi-
nations of Flexural and Torsional Moment, Civil Engineering Studies,
Structural Research Series No. 336, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, May
1968, 250 pp.
31. Mattock, A. H., and Wang, Z. H., Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Members Subjected to High Axial Compressive Stress, ACI
Journal, Proceedings V. 81, No. 3, May-June 1984, pp. 287-298.
32. Bishara, A., and Peir, J. C., Reinforced Concrete Rectangular
Columns in Torsion, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 94,
No. ST12, Mar. 1968, pp. 2913-2933.
33. Osburn, D. L.; Mayoglou B.; and Mattock, A. H., Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement in Combined
Torsion, Shear, and Bending, ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 66, No. 1, Jan.
1969, pp. 31-41.
34. Badawy, H. E. I.; McMullen, A. E.; and Jordaan, I. J., Experimental
Investigation of the Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Curved Beams,
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 29, No. 99, June 1977, pp. 59-69.
35. Zhang, L. D.; Wang Z. J.; and Wei, Y. T., Nonlinear Full Range
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members under Eccentric Compres-
sion and Torsion, Journal of Building Structures, V. 11, No. 2, Feb. 1990,
pp. 16-27. (in Chinese)
36. Zhao, J. K.; Zhang, L. D.; and Wei, Y. T., Research of Bearing
Torsion Capacity of Reinforced Concrete under the Combined Action of
Compression, Bending, Shear and Torsion, China Civil Engineering
Journal, V. 26. No. 1, Jan. 1993, pp. 20-30. (in Chinese)
Title no. 110-S14
Cyclic Behavior of Substandard Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints with Plain Bars
by Catarina Fernandes, Jos Melo, Humberto Varum, and Anbal Costa
An experimental investigation aimed at assessing the cyclic
behavior of substandard interior beam-column joints built with
plain reinforcing bars is described in this paper. Five specimens
with plain reinforcing bars and one with deformed bars were tested
under reversed cyclic loading. The infuence of bond properties,
displacement history, column axial load, and amount of reinforce-
ment was investigated. A comparison was established in terms of
maximum strength, damage, energy dissipation, ductility, displace-
ment components, and rotation capacity. Better bond properties led
to a more spread damage distribution and larger energy dissipation.
Higher column axial load resulted in larger lateral strength and
energy dissipation. A larger amount of longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement did not necessarily lead to enhanced behavior. The
test results contribute to the characterization of the cyclic behavior
of beam-column joints with plain bars and can be used to calibrate
numerical models for the simulation of this type of element.
Keywords: beam-column joints; bond slip; cyclic behavior; full-scale tests;
plain reinforcing bars; reinforced concrete.
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) structures built until the mid-
1970s, before the introduction of modern seismically
oriented codes, were usually designed for gravity loads only.
As a consequence of the absence of any capacity design
principles in design and poor reinforcement details, a signif-
cant lack of ductilityat both the local and global levelsis
expected for these structures, resulting in inadequate struc-
tural performance even under moderate seismic excitations.
1
Past experimental investigation and damage observed
following recent earthquakes indicate that defciencies in the
detailing of beam-column joints often lead to brittle failure
of the connections and, consequently, of the entire frame.
Different damage or failure modes are expected to occur
depending on the typology (exterior or interior joint) and
adopted structural details (namely, total lack or presence of
a minimum amount of transverse reinforcement in the joint,
use of plain reinforcing bars or deformed bars, and alterna-
tive anchorage solutions).
2
Numerous experimental studies have investigated the
cyclic behavior of RC beam-column joints. However, rela-
tively few experimental investigations are focused on the
behavior of joints with design details typical of pre-1970s
RC structures. Among these, the majority refer to joints with
deformed bars.
3-5
There is a signifcant lack of information
about the cyclic behavior of beam-column joints built with
plain reinforcing bars, which were widely used for longitu-
dinal reinforcement in structures built before the 1970s and
are characterized by low bond properties.
Examples of recent experimental studies on the cyclic
behavior of RC beam-column joints with plain reinforcing
bars can be found in References 1, 3, and 6 through 10.
Liu and Park
6
tested the response of full-scale beam-
column joints designed according to the pre-1970s codes.
The main test variables were the manner in which the longi-
tudinal beam bars were hooked in the joint core and the
level of the column axial load. Similar units using deformed
bars were also tested. In comparison to the specimens with
deformed bars, the specimens with plain bars displayed
signifcantly lower stiffness and strength, less joint shear
distortion but high opening of beam bar hooks in tension,
and column bar buckling. Pampanin et al.
1
tested four exte-
rior and two interior 2/3-scaled beam-column joints designed
for gravity loads only and characterized by the absence of
transverse reinforcement in the joint and poor anchorage
detailing. Two different types of anchorage solutions for the
beam longitudinal reinforcement through the joint region
were considered in the interior joints specimens: continuous
reinforcement or lapped splices with hooked-end anchorage
outside the joint region. A better global joint behavior was
obtained for the specimens with lapped splices and hooked-
end anchorage. The bar-slip phenomenon was evidenced by
the marked pinching of the hysteresis.
Bedirhanoglu et al.
3
tested full-scale exterior corner beam-
column joints with plain reinforcing bars and low-strength
concrete. The sensitivity of the specimens behavior to
column axial load, displacement history, amount of joint
reinforcement, presence of a transverse beam and a trans-
verse slab, and conditions of anchorage within the joint
was investigated. The test results show that an increase in
column axial load led to less pinching of the hysteresis loops
and an increase in the dissipated energy. The infuence of
displacement history was negligible. The use of transverse
reinforcement in the joint resulted in larger lateral strength
capacities and energy dissipation capacity. The presence of
the transverse beam and slab resulted, in general, in larger
lateral load.
The experimental work described herein refers to the
cyclic tests performed on six full-scale beam-column joints,
representative of interior beam-column joints of existing RC
building structures designed without adequate reinforce-
ment detailing for seismic loading. Five specimens were
built with plain reinforcing bars and one specimen was built
with deformed bars to allow a performance comparison to
be established. The sensitivity of the specimens behavior
to bond properties, displacement history, column axial load,
and amount of steel reinforcement was investigated.
Catarina Fernandes is a PhD Student at the University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal. Her
research interests include assessment and strengthening of existing building structures.
Jos Melo is a PhD student at the University of Aveiro. His research interests include
assessment and strengthening of existing building structures.
Humberto Varum is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at
the University of Aveiro. His research interests include assessment, strengthening, and
repair of existing structures; structural testing and modeling; and earth construction.
Anbal Costa is a Full Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at the Univer-
sity of Aveiro. His research interests include rehabilitation and strengthening of struc-
tures and seismic engineering.
The available data on the cyclic behavior of substandard
RC beam-column joints built with plain reinforcing bars
are less rich and detailed when compared to those for joints
with deformed bars. The behavior of this type of element
under cyclic loading is not yet comprehensively understood.
The experimental investigation described in this paper will
contribute to enlarging the available database on substan-
dard beam-column joints with plain reinforcing bars. The
experimental results presented can be used to upgrade and
calibrate numerical models for the adequate simulation of
the cyclic behavior of this type of element.
Test specimens
The specimens were designed to represent an interior
beam-column connection. Each column element represents
a half-story column in a building, and each beam element
represents a half-span beam. Five specimens (JPA-1, JPA-2,
JPA-3, JPB, and JPC) were built with plain reinforcing bars
and one specimen (JD) was built with deformed bars. The
geometry, dimensions, and reinforcement detailing of the
test specimens are depicted in Fig. 1. In all specimens, beam
and column longitudinal reinforcement was continuous,
there was no transverse reinforcement in the joint region,
and stirrups in the beams and columns had 90-degree hooks.
Longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios, computed
according to Eurocode 2 (EC2),
11
are summarized in
Table 1, where: 1) p
l,beam
is the total longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio in the beam; 2) p
l,column
is the total longitudinal
reinforcement ratio in the column; 3) p
w,beam
is the ratio of
the transverse reinforcement in the beam; and 4) p
w,column
is
the ratio of the transverse reinforcement in the column. The
steel reinforcement amount and detailing adopted in Speci-
mens JPA-1, JPA-2, and JPA-3 are referred to in this work
as standard reinforcement.
The fexural and shear capacities of the beams and columns
(considering the axial load) were computed according to
EC2
11
and are indicated in Table 2. The fexural capacity of
Fig. 1Geometry, dimensions, and reinforcement detailing of test specimens.
the elements is indicated in terms of the corresponding lateral
load. Note that the formulation included in EC2
11
considers
the plane cross-section assumption and perfect bond condi-
tions between steel and concrete. Hence, for elements with
plain reinforcing bars, the empirical procedure included in
EC2
11
may not accurately estimate their behavior.
Materials
All specimens were cast on the same day and with the
same concrete mixture. Compressive tests on concrete
0.15 x 0.15 x 0.15 m (5.9 x 5.9 x 5.9 in.) cubic samples,
cast together with the specimens, were conducted to deter-
mine the concrete compressive strength. A mean strength
equal to 23.8 MPa (3.45 ksi) was obtained. The character-
istic compressive strength estimated is equal to 19.8 MPa
(2.87 ksi), corresponding to the C16/C20 concrete class
according to the EC2
11
classifcation.
The mean mechanical properties of the steel longitudinal
reinforcement are indicated in Table 3. The strength of the
plain reinforcing bars is higher than the typical values for this
type of steel reinforcement in existing buildings. However,
considering that the cyclic behavior of the elements is
strongly infuenced by the concrete-steel bond properties,
the steel strength is not expected to infuence the specimens
response signifcantly.
Test setup and loading pattern
Figure 2 illustrates the test setup that was adopted, indi-
cating the idealized support and loading conditions, and
the schematics adopted for the linear variable displacement
transducers (LVDTs) used for measuring the local relative
displacements in the beam-joint and column-joint interfaces
(Slice 1) and vicinities (Slice 2) and joint. The specimens
were tested in the horizontal position. Four high-load-
carrying capacity devices with reduced friction were placed
below the specimens to carry their self-weight. Steel reac-
tion frames associated to sliding devices at the beam extrem-
ities and to a pinned connection at the base of the column
were used to simulate the support conditions. The maximum
frictional forces in the devices used to carry the specimens
self-weights and to simulate the supports at beams were less
than 2.5% of the corresponding lateral load imposed.
The test was conducted under displacement-controlled
conditions. Two hydraulic actuators were arranged at the top of
the superior column: one to impose the lateral displacements d
c

and the other for the axial load N. Two levels of axial load were
considered: 200 kN (45 kips) in Specimens JPA-1, JPA-2, and
JD, corresponding to a normalized axial load equal to 9.4%,
and 450 kN (101 kips) in Specimens JPA-3, JPB, and JPC,
corresponding to a normalized axial load equal to 21.3%. A
displacement history constituted by a series of push-and-pull
cycles (three cycles for each level of drift imposed) with a
total of 18 levels up to a 4% drift was imposed on all speci-
mens except JPA-2. In the displacement history imposed on
JPA-2, only one push-and-pull cycle was performed for each
level of drift, with a total of seven levels up to a 4% drift.
Table 1Steel reinforcement details
Beam Column
Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement
Specimen Steel
Diameter,
mm (in.) p
l
,
beam
, %
Diameter,
mm (in.) p
w
,
beam
, %
Diameter,
mm (in.) p
l
,
column
, %
Diameter,
mm (in.) p
w
,
column
, %
JPA-1 Plain bars
12 (0.47)
0.6
8 (0.32)
0.17
12 (0.47)
0.5
8 (0.32)
0.13
JPA-2 Plain bars 0.6 0.17 0.5 0.13
JPA-3 Plain bars 0.6 0.17 0.5 0.13
JPB Plain bars 0.6 0.17 1.0 0.13
JPC Plain bars 0.6 0.34 1.0 0.34
JD Deformed bars 0.6 0.17 0.5 0.13
Table 2Flexural and shear capacities of beams and columns computed according to Eurocode 2
11
Specimen
Flexural capacity, kN (kips) Shear capacity, kN (kips)
Beam
Column Beam Column Positive direction Negative direction
JPA-1 48 (11) 25 (6) 40 (9) 244 (55) 142 (32)
JPA-2 48 (11) 25 (6) 40 (9) 244 (55) 142 (32)
JPA-3 48 (11) 25 (6) 62 (14) 244 (55) 142 (32)
JPB 48 (11) 25 (6) 92 (21) 244 (55) 142 (32)
JPC 48 (11) 25 (6) 92 (21) 488 (110) 354 (80)
JD 36 (8) 19 (4) 40 (9) 178 (40) 103 (23)
Table 3Steel mechanical properties (mean values)
Characteristics Plain bars Deformed bars
Yielding strength, MPa (ksi) 590 (86) 430 (62)
Ultimate strength, MPa (ksi) 640 (93) 550 (80)
Elastic modulus, GPa (ksi) 198 (28,717) 200 (29,008)
Lateral-load-versus-drift diagrams
Figure 3 presents the experimental results in terms of
lateral load versus imposed drift. Each plot represents the
curves obtained for two different specimens for a better
understanding of the infuence of the variable parameter
in question on the specimens global behavior, namely:
bond properties (JPA-1 versus JD), displacement history
(JPA-1 versus JPA-2), column axial load (JPA-1 versus
JPA-3), and amount of steel reinforcement (JPA-3 versus
JPB and JPA-3 versus JPC).
Table 4 summarizes the values of the maximum lateral
load F
c,max
achieved by each specimen and the corresponding
drift, the yielding displacement A
y
(computed according
to Annex B.3 of Eurocode 8: Part 1 [EC8-1
12
]), and the
strength degradation registered at the maximum imposed
drift (computed in relation to F
c,max
).
For each specimen, the maximum lateral load reached in
the positive and negative loading directions is similar. The
specimen with deformed bars reached the lateral strength at
a lateral drift inferior to that observed for the specimens with
plain reinforcing bars. The specimens with plain reinforcing
bars reached the lateral strength at similar drift levels. Within
the drift range imposed on the specimens, JPA-3 displayed
the greatest strength and also the largest strength degrada-
tion. In fact, the failure condition usually adopted, corre-
sponding to a strength reduction of 20% with respect to the
peak resistance, was only registered for Specimen JPA-3 at a
drift between 3.7 and 4%. The differences registered between
maximum lateral load and strength degradation are well-
depicted by the lateral load-drift peak envelopes in Fig. 3(f).
The pinching effect was observed for all specimens, being
less important for the specimen with deformed bars and
more evident in the responses of Specimens JPB and JPC.
Comparing the maximum moment demand in each
element with the corresponding capacity predicted according
to EC2
11
(Table 2), it is concluded that: 1) for the specimen
with deformed bars, EC2 provides a good estimate of the
elements strength, overestimating the beams strength by
10% and underestimating the columns strength by 2%;
and 2) for all the specimens with plain reinforcing bars, the
EC2 expressions overestimate the capacity of the elements
by approximately 10 to 30%.
Damage observed and damage index
Figure 4 illustrates the crack pattern corresponding to the
fnal damage state of the specimens. In general terms, the
specimens with plain reinforcing bars displayed damage
concentrated at the beam-joint and column-joint interfaces
within Slice 1. Damage within Slice 2 was, in most cases,
negligible. From Slice 2 to the end of the elements length,
damage was not observed. Specimen JPA-3 displayed signif-
icant damage within the joint region with concrete cover
spalling. In Specimens JPB and JPC, damage was heavily
concentrated at the beam-joint interfaces, while cracking at
the column-joint interfaces was minor. Conversely to what
Fig. 2Test setup.
was observed for the specimens with plain reinforcing bars,
the specimen with deformed bars displayed a more spread
damage distribution. Cracking was spread along the beam
and column lengths and severe cracking with concrete cover
spalling was observed within the joint region. Due to the
stiffness degradation associated with the damage evolution,
a small reduction in the column axial load was registered for
all specimens, with a maximum variation ranging from 2.8%
(for JPB) to 10.3% (for JPA-3).
Table 5 indicates the drift at which the frst fexural cracks
and inclined cracks (within the joint region) were registered.
In all specimens, the fexural cracks were frst observed in
the beams at or close to the interface with the joint region
at drifts ranging from 0.07 to 0.20%. Cracking onset at the
column-joint interfaces was registered for higher drift levels
ranging from 0.33 to 2%. The maximum crack widths regis-
tered at the beam-column and joint-column interfaces are
also indicated in Table 5.
The maximum value estimated for the principal tensile
stress developed in the joint region is equal to 0.32f
c
0.5
for
Specimen JPA-1, 0.35f
c
0.5
for JPA-2, 0.31f
c
0.5
for JPA-3,
0.26f
c
0.5
for JPB, 0.25f
c
0.5
for JPC, and 0.39f
c
0.5
for JD (f
c
is
the concrete compressive strength). Although Specimens
JPA-1 and JPA-3 were tested with different column axial
load, they developed similar maximum stress in the joint.
However, while in JPA-1 (with lower axial load), cracking
was not observed in the joint, in JPA-3, diagonal cracking
occurred at the drift corresponding to the maximum prin-
cipal tensile stress. Larger column longitudinal reinforce-
ment (JPB and JPC) reduced the maximum principal tensile
stress by 16%.
The Park and Ang (PA) damage index
13
was computed
for Specimens JPA-1 and JD (plain reinforcing bars versus
deformed bars) for each level of imposed drift. The column
properties were considered to estimate the parameters
involved in the computation. The time evolution of the PA
damage index is depicted in Fig. 5 and 6, together with the
contribution of the maximum deformation u
max
/u
u
. For the
frst levels of imposed driftup to 1%the average contri-
bution of the maximum deformation to the PA damage index
was equal to 99% for the two specimens. For the last three
levels of imposed drift, the average contribution was approxi-
mately 82% and 80% for JPA-1 and JD, respectively. The
results show the relatively minor contribution of the energy
dissipation to the PA damage index, which was also observed
by Varum.
14
Figures 5 and 6 show the damage state categories
suggested by Park et al.
15
and the corresponding global
damage indexes boundaries (refer to Reference 14). For
each specimen, Fig. 5 and 6 also indicate the drift corre-
Fig. 3Lateral-load-versus-drift responses for specimens: (a) JPA-1 versus JD; (b) JPA-1
versus JPA-2; (c) JPA-1 versus JPA-3; (d) JPA-3 versus JPB; (e) JPA-3 versus JPC; and
(f) peak envelopes. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)
Table 4Maximum lateral load, yielding displacement, and strength degradation
Specimen
Maximum lateral load
A
y
, mm (in.) Strength degradation at 4% drift, % F
c,max
, kN (kips) Drift, %
JPA-1 34.0 (7.6) 3.3 28.2 (1.11) 4.5
JPA-2 35.8 (8.0) 3.0 28.2 (1.11) 5.8
JPA-3 43.3 (9.7) 2.7 31.1 (1.22) 26.6
JPB 39.5 (8.9) 2.3 26.0 (1.02) 15.8
JPC 38.3 (8.6) 3.3 27.0 (1.06) 10.0
JD 39.0 (8.8) 2.0 23.8 (0.94) 19.0
sponding to the onset of the main types of damage observed
in the experimental tests, namely: cracking at the beam-
joint and column-joint interfaces, diagonal cracking in the
joint region, and concrete cover spalling in the beams and
columns. In both specimens, cracking onset occurred within
the expected range of the global damage index. Concrete
cover spalling was registered for damage indexes larger than
those suggested. The drift at which the specimens reach
each damage state is, in general, lower for the specimen with
plain reinforcing bars than for the specimen with deformed
bars. For example, a damage index equal to 1 is registered
for a drift of 3% for JPA-1 and 3.3% for JD.
Energy dissipation and ductility demands
In Fig. 7, the evolution of the total dissipated energy,
computed as the area under the lateral load-drift diagrams, is
plotted for all specimens except JPA-2. Specimen JPA-2 was
excluded from this analysis because it was subjected to a
displacement history different from the one imposed on
the other specimens. The largest energy dissipation was
registered for Specimens JPA-3 (with higher column axial
load) and JD (with better bond properties). The pronounced
pinching effect observed in the lateral load-drift diagrams
of Specimens JPB and JPC led to signifcantly lower energy
dissipation in comparison to JPA-3 (subjected to the same
displacement history and column axial load).
Figure 8(a) shows a plot of the response of each spec-
imen in terms of equivalent damping versus displacement
ductility. For Specimens JPA-1, JPA-3, and JD, the curves
that best ft the experimental results are also presented.
Specimen JPA-2 was also excluded from this analysis.
Equivalent damping
eq
was computed according to
Varum
14
as the ratio between the dissipated energy for half
the load-displacement cycle and the viscous damping for
the corresponding maximum drift. Displacement ductility Fig. 4Crack pattern corresponding to fnal damage state.
Fig. 5Time evolution of PA damage index for Specimen JPA-1.
Table 5Drift corresponding to cracking onset
Specimen
Flexural cracks
Drift at frst inclined crack within joint region, %
Drift at frst crack, % Maximum crack width, mm (in.)
Beam Column Beam Column
JPA-1 0.07 0.83 5.9 (0.23) 5.9 (0.23)
JPA-2 0.13 0.50 4.3 (0.17) 8.2 (0.32)
JPA-3 0.13 1.33 6.9 (0.27) 3.1 (0.12) 2.67
JPB 0.20 2.00 12.4 (0.49) 0.1 (0.004)
JPC 0.13 1.67 12.2 (0.48) 0.3 (0.001) 4.00
JD 0.13 0.33 5.4 (0.21) 10.4 (0.41) 0.67
A
corresponds to the ratio between imposed displace-
ment d
c
and yielding displacement A
y
(Table 4). Within the
drift range under analysis, the largest and lowest ductility
demands were imposed on JD (
A
= 5.0) and JPA-3 (
A
=
3.8). Even if the lowest demand, in terms of ductility, was
imposed on JPA-3, it is recalled that this was the only spec-
imen that reached the conventional failure condition.
Figure 8(b) shows a comparison between the experimental
results and the equivalent damping-versus-displacement-
ductility relationships computed from some of the existing
equivalent damping equations,
16
namely: Eq. (1), proposed by
Priestley
17
for concrete frames, and Eq. (2), referring to the
Takeda model.
18
This comparison is made considering that
existing RC building structures built without adequate seismic
detailing tend to develop soft story mechanisms and therefore
the response of the beam-column joints of a weak story may
be correlated to the response of the overall structure. In addi-
tion, a comparison is also made with the equivalent damping
computed from Eq. (3), proposed by Varum,
14
based on the
results of a series of pseudo-dynamic tests of an RC frame
structure built with plain reinforcing bars.
A
_
+

r

,
120 1
5 1 =
(1)
A
_
+

,
0
1
0.2 1 =
(2)
( ) A + 11.041 ln 9.9286 =
(3)
In Eq. (2),
0
is the initial viscous damping (considered
equal to 5%). In Eq. (3), A represents the interstory drift.
The equivalent damping-displacement ductility relation-
ships determined from Eq. (1) to (3) signifcantly overes-
timate the experimental results. Equations (1) and (2) are
more adequate for structures with larger energy dissipation
capacities. This highlights the need for the development of
simplifed expressions, based on experimental data, for the
assessment of existing RC building structures built without
specifc seismic detailing and, in particular, with plain
reinforcing bars. Regarding Eq. (3), the experimental results
used for determining the equivalent damping-displacement
ductility relationship refer to a particular story. In these tests,
the story response was mainly governed by the behavior of a
strong column. Conversely to what was observed in the joint
specimens with plain reinforcing bars under study, damage
in that strong column was not concentrated at the interface
with the joint. Instead, it was spread along a larger elements
plastic hinge region. Hence, the associated energy dissipa-
tion is expected to be larger than that displayed by the beam-
column joints under study.
Drift components
This section studies the relative contribution of beam and
column deformations to the specimen deformation. The
direct integration method was used for estimating the total
Fig. 6Time evolution of PA damage index for Specimen JD.
Fig. 7Evolution of total dissipated energy. (Note: 1 kN.mm
= 8.85 lbfin.)
drift and the contribution of each component. Considering
the concentration of damage observed in the specimens with
plain reinforcing bars and assuming a linear distribution of
moments along the beam and column lengths, the curvature
distribution in each element was analytically established.
Thus, in the analytical formulation, the following assump-
tions are made for the curvatures of each element (refer to the
nomenclature in Fig. 2): a linear variation from the element
extremity (where the curvature is zero) to the interface
between Slices 1 and 2, and a parabolic variation between
this section and the interface between Slice 1 and the joint
(where the maximum curvature occurs). In the calculations,
the mean curvatures measured in Slices 1 and 2 were used
as input in the analytical expressions derived. Considering
the assumptions previously presented, the direct integration
method was used for determining the defection and rotation
along the elements.
Based on the analytical equations for each element, and
considering the compatibility conditions in terms of displace-
ments and rotation at the joint, as well as the displacement
restraints at the supports, the deformation equations for all
the specimens were obtained.
With the expressions derived, the lateral displacement at
the free end of the superior column was determined at each
time step and compared to the corresponding experimental
values. In general terms, a good match was found between
the experimental and analytical results. The maximum
difference registered between the experimental and analyt-
ical displacements was: 8% for JPA-1, 7% for JPA-2, 15%
for JPA-3, 19% for JPB, and 9% for JPC. Therefore, the
analytical equations were used for determining the contribu-
tion of each element to the total lateral displacement, which
is proportional to the lateral drift. The relative contribution
of beams and columns to the total drift imposed on the speci-
mens with plain reinforcing bars is represented in Fig. 9.
The curvature distribution adopted for the elements
with plain reinforcing bars does not represent the damage
displayed by the specimen with deformed bars. Furthermore,
the experimental results in terms of curvature (measured in
Slices 1 and 2) are not suffcient for a precise defnition of the
curvature distribution in this specimen; therefore, the spec-
imen with deformed bars was excluded from this analysis.
For all specimens, the results show that at lower imposed
drift levels, the beam deformation controls the total drift
Fig. 8Equivalent damping versus displacement ductility: (a) experimental results; and
(b) comparison with results of existing equivalent damping equations.
Fig. 9Relative partial contribution of beams and columns to total drift in specimens:
(a) JPA-1; (b) JPA-2; (c) JPA-3; (d) JPB; and (e) JPC.
associated with the deformation of the specimens. For
Specimens JPA-1, JPA-2, and JPA-3, as the imposed lateral
drift increases, the contribution of column deformation to
the total drift rises. Conversely, in Specimens JPB and JPC,
the contribution of column deformation decreases with the
imposed drift. These results are in accordance with the
damage evolution registered during the testing of each spec-
imen. At a 3% drift, the relative contribution of the column
deformation to the total drift is equal to 51% for JPA-1, 71%
for JPA-2, 26% for JPA-3, 5% for JPB, and 9% for JPC.
Ultimate rotation capacity
Eurocode 8: Part 3 (EC8-3)
19
evaluates the deformation
capacity of RC elements in terms of the chord rotation. For
elements with plain reinforcing bars, the ultimate rotation
capacity is evaluated by applying a correction coeffcient
(always inferior to 1), based on experimental data, to the
capacity formulations calibrated on elements with deformed
bars and seismic detailing. For elements without lapping of
the longitudinal bars, the correction coeffcient is equal to
0.575. According to Verderame et al.,
20
some provisions of
EC8-3 have been changed according to Reference 21 and
the correction coeffcient has been increased to 0.80. In
either case, according to the code provisions, the ultimate
rotation capacity of elements with plain reinforcing bars is
smaller than that of elements with deformed bars with equiv-
alent structural characteristics and details. However, recent
experimental results
20,22
indicate the contrary. According
to Verderame et al.,
23
when plain reinforcing bars are used,
chord rotation results from a combined action of the fxed-
end rotation at the base and spreading of yielding over the
element length. A critical review of the EC8-3 approach for
estimating the ultimate rotation capacity of elements with
plain reinforcing bars is made by Verderame et al.
20
Based
on the test results from recent experiments on RC columns
with plain reinforcing bars, the authors also propose a new
correction coeffcient to be applied to the EC8-3 expres-
sions. For elements without lapping of longitudinal bars, the
proposed correction coeffcient is equal to 1.0.
To make a comparison between the ultimate rotation
capacity predicted by EC8-3 and the one estimated from
the experimental results for the specimens under study, joint
rotation had to be subtracted from the total drift imposed
on the specimens so that the columns chord rotation could
be obtained. Joint rotation was estimated by the direct
integration method used for determining the displacement
components. For the reasons previously stated, Specimen JD
was excluded from the analysis. Specimen JPA-3 was also
excluded from this analysis because, for drift levels supe-
rior to 3%, the direct integration method did not provide a
good match between the experimental and analytical results.
Hence, maximum column chord rotation could not be deter-
mined for this specimen.
Table 6 presents the theoretical values of ultimate rota-
tion capacity computed using the EC8-3 expression and
multiplied by the correction coeffcient. Three correc-
tion coeffcients were considered: 1) the correction coef-
fcient prescribed by EC8-3, equal to 0.575; 2) the new
EC8-3 correction coeffcient, equal to 0.80 according
to Verderame et al.
20
; and 3) the correction coeffcient
proposed by Verderame et al.,
20
equal to 1.0. Accordingly
and respectively, three different theoretical values of ulti-
mate rotation capacity are presented for each specimen:
u,EC8
,
u,EC8
, and
u,Verd
.
Figure 10 shows the lateral load-column chord rotation
diagrams obtained for the specimens under analysis, with
indication of the failure condition for which the rotational
capacity is usually evaluated (corresponding to a strength
reduction of 20% with respect to the peak resistance) and the
theoretical values of ultimate rotation capacity. A strength
reduction equal to or larger than 20%, measured in the force-
versus-chord-rotation diagrams, was not registered for either
of the specimens analyzed. In fact, the maximum strength
reduction recorded was equal to 6% (for Specimen JPA-2).
Hence, neither of the specimens reached the ultimate rota-
tion capacity predicted by EC8-3. JPA-1 achieves the ulti-
mate rotation capacity
u,EC8
for a strength reduction equal to
4%. JPA-2 reaches
u,EC8
for its peak strength and
u,EC8
for
a strength reduction equal to 6%. For JPA-2, and considering
the tendency displayed by the force-versus-column-chord-
rotation diagram in the last cycles, the approach proposed by
Verderame et al.
20
seems to give better results.
Infuence of bond properties
As shown in Fig. 3(a), Specimens JPA-1 (with plain
reinforcing bars) and JD (with deformed bars) displayed
similar stiffness until the beginning of cracking. After
cracking onset, for larger displacement demands,
JPA-1 showed lower unloading stiffness than JD. The
maximum lateral load registered for the specimen with
Table 6Theoretical values of ultimate rotation
capacity
Specimen
Ultimate rotation capacity, %
u,EC8

u,EC8

u,Verd.
JPA-1 1.98 2.75 3.44
JPA-2 1.98 2.75 3.44
JPB 1.72 2.39 2.99
JPC 1.83 2.55 3.18
Fig. 10Lateral-load-versus-column chord rotation rela-
tionships for specimens: (a) JPA-1; (b) JPA-2; (c) JPB; and
(d) JPC. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)
deformed bars (at a 2% drift) was approximately 15% higher
than that for the specimen with plain reinforcing bars (at a
3.3% drift). Strength degradation at maximum drift was
equal to 4.5% for JPA-1 and 19% for JD. The pinching effect
was observed for both specimens but was more evident for
the specimen with plain reinforcing bars. The effects of bond
properties were particularly evidenced by the differences in
the damage distribution (Fig. 4). The specimen with plain
reinforcing bars displayed damage concentrated at the beam-
joint and column-joint interfaces without damage within the
joint region. The specimen with deformed bars displayed a
more spread damage distribution, with cracking along the
elements lengths and signifcant damage within the joint
region. The different damage distributions are refected in
the energy dissipation capacities of the specimens (Fig. 7).
As expected, better bond properties led to larger energy
dissipation. At maximum drift, the total energy dissipated by
JD was 8% higher than that for JPA-1. Within the drift range
imposed on the specimens, JD displayed larger ductility
demands than JPA-1 (Fig. 8).
Infuence of displacement history
The infuence of displacement history was minor. Speci-
mens JPA-1 and JPA-2 displayed similar stiffness, before and
after cracking, and similar maximum lateral load (reached at
similar drift) and strength degradation (Fig. 3(b)). Damage
distribution was also alike (Fig. 4).
Infuence of column axial load
As shown in Fig. 3(c), Specimens JPA-1 (with lower
column axial load) and JPA-3 (with higher column axial
load) displayed similar stiffness until the beginning of
cracking. After cracking onset, JPA-3 exhibited larger stiff-
ness than JPA-1. The increase in column axial load led to an
increase of approximately 27% in the maximum lateral load,
which was reached for lower drift (2.7%) than in the case
of JPA-1 (at a 3.3% drift). The specimen with higher axial
load also displayed signifcantly greater strength degrada-
tion, reaching the conventional failure condition corre-
sponding to a 20% strength reduction. Strength degradation
at maximum drift was equal to 4.5% for JPA-1 and 26.6%
for JPA-3. The pinching effect was more evident for JPA-3.
However, it practically ceases after the specimen reaches
the maximum load. Damage in JPA-1 was concentrated
at the beam-joint and column-joint interfaces. In JPA-3,
signifcant damage was also observed within the joint region
(Fig. 4). Increasing the column axial load resulted in larger
energy dissipation (Fig. 7). At maximum drift, the total
energy dissipated by JPA-3 is approximately 47% higher
than that for JPA-1. Within the drift range imposed on the
specimens, JPA-3 displayed lower ductility demands than
JPA-1 (Fig. 8).
Infuence of amount of steel reinforcement
As shown in Fig. 3(d) and (e), Specimens JPA-3 (with
standard steel reinforcement), JPB, and JPC displayed
similar stiffness until cracking onset. Prior to and after
reaching maximum strength, JPA-3 displays the greatest
stiffness. The maximum lateral load registered for Speci-
mens JPB and JPC is approximately 91% (at a 2.3% drift)
and 88% (at a 3.3% drift), respectively, of that for JPA-3 (at
a 2.7% drift). Increasing the amount of steel reinforcement
resulted in lower strength degradation. At maximum drift,
strength degradation was equal to 26.6% for JPA-3, 15.8%
for JPB, and 10% for JPC. The pinching effect was particu-
larly evident for Specimens JPB and JPC. The energy dissi-
pation associated with these two specimens is signifcantly
lower than that registered for JPA-3 (Fig. 7). At maximum
drift, the total energy dissipated by JPA-3 is approximately
56% and 41% higher than that for JPB and JPC, respectively.
Within the drift range imposed on the specimens, Speci-
mens JPB and JPC display a similar equivalent damping-
displacement ductility relationship with larger ductility
demands in comparison to JPA-3 (Fig. 8).
CONCLUSIONS
An experimental investigation was performed to assess the
cyclic behavior of full-scale RC interior beam-column joints
built with plain reinforcing bars and poor reinforcement
detailing. Five specimens with plain reinforcing bars and
one specimen with deformed bars were tested under reversed
cyclic loading imposed under displacement-controlled
conditions. The infuence of bond properties, displacement
history, column axial load, and amount of steel reinforce-
ment was investigated. Two levels of column axial load
were considered: 200 kN (45 kips) and 450 kN (101 kips).
Two displacement histories were considered, both up to a
maximum drift of 4%one with fewer displacement cycles
than the other. Among the specimens with plain reinforcing
bars, in comparison to the others, one specimen was built
with a larger amount of column longitudinal reinforcement
and another with larger amounts of column longitudinal
reinforcement and transverse reinforcement in the beams
and columns.
The infuence of bond properties was particularly evidenced
by differences observed in the damage distribution of the
specimens. In the specimens with plain reinforcing bars,
damage was mainly concentrated at the beam-joint and
column-joint interfaces. Conversely, a more spread damage
distribution was observed in the specimen with deformed
bars, with cracking along the elements lengths and signif-
cant damage within the joint region. Better properties led to
larger energy dissipation.
The effects of the column axial load were observed
mainly in terms of lateral strength and damage distribution.
Increasing the column axial load led to larger lateral strength
and signifcantly greater strength degradation. In the spec-
imen with higher column axial load, signifcant damage
was also observed within the joint region. This specimen
displayed considerably more energy dissipation.
The infuence of the amount of steel reinforcement was
mainly evidenced by the damage distribution. In the two
specimens with larger amounts of steel reinforcement,
damage was mostly concentrated at the beam-joint inter-
faces. Damage in the columns was minor and no damage
was observed within the joint region. The energy dissipation
associated with these two specimens was signifcantly lower
than that in the specimen with standard steel reinforcement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper reports research developed under fnancial support provided
by Fundao para a Cincia e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, co-funded by
the European Social Fund within the scope of the Programa Operacional
Potencial Humano (POPH) of the National Strategic Reference Framework,
namely through the PhD grants of the frst and second authors, with refer-
ences SFRH/BD/27406/2006 and SFRH/BD/62110/2009, respectively.
The authors would like to acknowledge the following companies: Civilria,
for the construction of the test specimens; and Somague, Grupo Meneses,
Silva Tavares & Bastos Almeida and Pavitil, for the construction of the
structural reaction systems. The authors also acknowledge H. Pereira and
A. Figueiredo for assisting in the preparation of the test.
REFERENCES
1. Pampanin, S.; Calvi, G. M.; and Moratti, M., Seismic Behavior of
RC Beam-Column Joints Designed for Gravity Loads, Paper No. 726,
Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
London, UK, 2002, 10 pp.
2. Pampanin, S., Alternative Performance-Based Retroft Strategies and
Solutions for Existing RC Buildings, Seismic Risk Assessment and Retro-
ftting, A. Ilki, F. Karadogan, S. Pala, and E. Yuksel, eds., Springer, Berlin,
Germany, 2009, pp. 267-295.
3. Bedirhanoglu, I.; Ilki, A.; Pujol, S.; and Kumbasar, N., Behavior of
Defcient Joints with Plain Bars and Low-Strength Concrete, ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010, pp. 300-310.
4. Clyde, C.; Pantelides, C. P.; and Reaveley, L. D., Performance-Based
Evaluation of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Building Joints for Seismic Exci-
tation, PEER Report 2000/05, Pacifc Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2000, 61 pp.
5. Pantelides, C. P.; Hansen, J.; Nadaul, J.; and Reaveley, L. D., Assess-
ment of Reinforced Concrete Building Exterior Joints with Substandard
Details, PEER Report 2002/18, Pacifc Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2002, 114 pp.
6. Liu, A., and Park, R., Seismic Behaviour and Retroft of Pre-1970s
As-Built Exterior Beam-Column Joints Reinforced by Plain Round Bars,
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 34,
No. 1, 2001, pp. 68-81.
7. Park, R., A Summary of Results of Simulated Seismic Loads on
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Beams and Columns with
Substandard Reinforcing Details, Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
V. 6, No. 2, 2002, pp. 147-174.
8. Akguzel, U., and Pampanin, S., Seismic Upgrading of Exterior Beam-
Column Joints Using GFRP, Proceedings of the 14th European Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Paper 760, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia,
2010. (CD-ROM)
9. Eligehausen, R.; Genesio, G.; Obolt, J.; and Pampanin, S., 3D
Analysis of Seismic Response of RC Beam-Column Exterior Joints Before
and After Retroft, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retroftting, Cape Town, South Africa,
2008, pp. 1141-1147.
10. Hertanto, E., Seismic Assessment of Pre-1970s Reinforced Concrete
Structure, MSc thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 2005, 247 pp.
11. EN 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures
Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2004, pp. 70 and 156.
12. EN 1998-1:2004, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake
ResistancePart 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Build-
ings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2004,
pp. 201-202.
13. Park, Y.-J., and Ang, A. H.-S., Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model
for Reinforced Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 111,
No. 4, 1985, pp. 722-739.
14. Varum, H., Seismic Assessment, Strengthening and Repair of
Existing Buildings, PhD thesis, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal,
2003, 546 pp.
15. Park, Y.-J.; Ang, A. H.-S.; and Wen, Y. K., Damage-Limiting Aseismic
Design of Buildings, Earthquake Spectra, V. 3, No. 1, 1987, pp. 1-26.
16. Blandon, C., and Priestley, M. N. J., Equivalent Viscous Damping
Equations for Direct Displacement Based Design, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, V. 9, No. 2, 2005, pp. 257-278.
17. Priestley, M. N. J., Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering,
Revisited. The Mallet-Milne Lecture, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 2003,
pp. 93-115.
18. Gulkan, P., and Sozen, M. A., Inelastic Responses of Reinforced
Concrete Structure to Earthquake Motions, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1974, pp. 604-610.
19. EN 1998-3:2005, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake
ResistancePart 3: Strengthening and Repair of Buildings, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2005, pp. 36-40.
20. Verderame, G. M.; Ricci, P.; Manfredi, G.; and Cosenza, E., Ulti-
mate Chord Rotation of RC Columns with Smooth Bars: Some Consider-
ations about EC8 Prescriptions, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, V. 8,
No. 6, 2010, pp. 1351-1373.
21. CEN, Corrigenda to EN 1998-3, Document CEN/TC250/SC8/
N437A, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
22. Di Ludovico, M.; Verderame, G. M.; Prota, A.; Manfredi, G.; and
Cosenza, E., Experimental Investigation on Non-Conforming Full Scale
RC Columns, Proceedings of the XIII Conference ANIDIS, Paper S02_09,
Bologna, Italy, 2009. (CD-ROM)
23. Verderame, G. M.; Fabbrocino, G.; and Manfredi, G., Seismic
Response of R.C. Columns with Smooth ReinforcementPart II: Cyclic
Tests, Engineering Structures, V. 30, No. 9, 2008, pp. 2289-2300.
NOTES:
DISCUSSION
Disc. 109-S13/From the March-April 2012 ACI Structural Journal, p. 139
Effective Capacity of Diagonal Strut for Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Shear
Reinforcement. Paper by Sung-Gul Hong and Taehun Ha
Discussion by Emil de Souza Snchez Filho, Marta de Souza Lima Velasco, and Jlio J. Holtz Silva Filho
ACI member, DSc, Professor at Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; DSc, Professor at Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
DSc, Structural Engineer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
The authors should be congratulated for their interesting
and excellent investigation into the theoretical study of
strength of diagonal struts for the shear strength of reinforced
concrete (RC) beams without shear reinforcement. They
have made an effective contribution to the theoretical study
of the concrete effectiveness factor and strut strength and
provide a theoretical method that replaces a host of currently
used empirical formulas. However, the discussers would
like to address the following questions and point out some
special aspects in this study. The objective of this discussion
is to obtain additional data on the research and give sugges-
tions so the authors can improve their analyses.
1. The concrete effectiveness factor v is an essential
parameter that needs to be inserted into the development of
the plasticity theory applied to structural concrete elements.
The best agreement between the theory and experimental
data is obtained by the appropriate choice of v.
2. The concrete effectiveness factor depends on the
strut type, reinforcement arrangementslongitudinal and
transversal (this reinforcement is not studied in this paper)
and dimensions of the beam; however, the authors consider
only one type of strut (prism strut) in their modeling.
3. The longitudinal reinforcement has a pronounced
infuence on the behavior of the strut strength, and its
consideration is the great merit of the theoretical formulation.
4. The discussers suggest the analysis of the theoretical
values of v for other strut types (fan and bottle struts)
adopted in beams with different a/h ratios. The discussers
believe that the theoretical value of v for the fan and bottle
struts is different from the effectiveness factor for the
prism strut because the parameter a/h infuences the beam
behavior,
16
strut type, and strength of the strut (Fig. 14).
5. The authors failed to explain the theoretical value for
the angle given in Eq. (19), which depends on the position
of the neutral axis (Fig. 10). Further precise information
regarding the model conception is necessary.
6. The authors should take care when analyzing the results
obtained with the expressions of Eurocode 2
14
because f
ck

is a statistical value and is very different from the values of
experimental studies analyzedfor example, f
ck
is different
Effective Capacity of Diagonal Strut for Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Shear
Reinforcement. Paper by Sung-Gul Hong and Taehun Ha
Discussion by Andor Windisch
ACI member, PhD, Karlsfeld, Germany
In the course of improvements to the strut-and-tie models
as the essence of member behavior failing in shear, the
authors arrive at a new attribute. Instead of struts with a
uniform cross section or bottle shapeboth with a reduced
Fig. 14Beams without shear reinforcement.
16
(Note:
Dimensions in cm; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)
from the average concrete strength f
c
. The statistical values
shown in Table 10 for Eq. 6.a (Eurocode 2)
14
are controversial.
Therefore, the discussers would greatly appreciate it if the
authors could clarify their queries and provide some comple-
mentary information about the research.
REFERENCES
16. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., Schubversuche an einfeldrigen
Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne Schubbewehrung, Deutscher Ausschuss fr
Stahlbeton, Heft 1551, 1962. (in German)
effective concrete strength (strut effciency factor) due to the
induced transverse tensile stressesthe authors recognize
the reduction of strut width due to the diagonal cracks as the
main cause of shear failure.
It is not clear why the authors needed a nonlinear fnite
element model to obtain the compressive stress trajectories
for uncracked reinforced concrete (RC) beams. Furthermore,
it is not easy to understand how the bond stresses of the longi-
tudinal tensile reinforcement make the compressive strut
curved. If this thesis is correct, then any further study would
be moot, as the longitudinal reinforcement is bonded. Hence,
in the case of any impairment of the straight strut through
a crack, the strut could work as a curved strut (compare
Fig. 2(b) and (c)). The paper is full of target-orientednever-
theless questionableassumptions and statements.
Figure 3, which should present the fundamental case
of reduction of the strut width, shows the interaction of a
fexural crack with the compressive force equilibrating the
bending moment. No impairment of the fexural capacity is
known. The cracks shown in Fig. 4 are impressive but not
correct. The frst crack in a corbel develops at the corner,
whereas the corner of a dapped end is always inclined, as
shown quite recently.
17
Figure 5 is full of inconsistencies and contradictions.
Please address:
In the authors compressive strut, the stress distribution
is not uniform. This is a remarkable innovation
reduced width + somehow parabolic compressive
stress distribution?
Point B has no validity at all: The second crack
segment then meets the extension line of the neutral
axis at Point B, above which the fexural compression
exists in the area of the concrete strut. This statement is
confusing and has no mechanical validity.
The remaining segment of the diagonal crack follows
the original yield line of the concrete strut. This yield
line is something new in the strut-and-tie models.
Figure 7 and the related comments explain that bond
stresses around the longitudinal reinforcement cause
the inclined (shear) cracks. The authors should realize
that bond stresses develop on both sides of a fexural
crack along the beam region with pure bending also.
The cracks remain straight.
It is certain that RC beams without shear reinforcement
fail along a critical section consisting of a fexural-shear
crack and a sliding surface across the compressive zone, but
the authors proposal does not support the understanding of
the behavior of these members at all.
REFERENCES
17. Nagrodzka-Godycka, K., and Piotrkowski, P., Experimental Study
of Dapped-End Beams Subjected to Inclined Load, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 109, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2012, pp. 11-20.
AUTHORS CLOSURE
Closure to discussion by Snchez Filho et al.
The authors are grateful to the discussers for their interest
in the paper. The following items address the points made in
the order they appear in the discussion:
The authors agree with the discussers on the importance
of the effectiveness factor for concrete strength.
Although not explicitly derived in the paper, the
effectiveness factor is represented by the intactness of
the strut width, as shown in Eq. (18). These equations
involve the effect of the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio, which is verifed by the consistent model safety
factor, regardless of the variation of the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, as shown in Fig. 13(b). Therefore,
the infuence of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio
on the effectiveness factor is already considered in the
development of the theory.
Regarding the types of struts other than the prism strut,
the value of the effectiveness factor could be different,
as the discussers believe. However, the interpretation
of the mechanism of penetration of the diagonal crack
into the bottle-shaped strut or fans would be challenging
compared with the case of a simple prism strut due
to geometrical complexity. The authors believe that
the approach adopted in the paper for evaluating the
effective capacity of the strut is not adequate for those
types of struts.
The derivation process of Eq. (21) was edited due to
the maximum paper length limit. The inclined angle
of compressive strut

is geometrically determined as
follows and was inserted in Eq. (19) with Eq. (18) and
(20) to give Eq. (21)

( ) ( )
2
2 2
2 2
1
sin
1
n
n
h c
a h c

o + +
(24)
For the comparison with the test results, the characteristic
compressive cylinder strength of concrete f
ck
was used
for Eq. 6.2.a of Eurocode 2
14
because the equation is for
the purpose of design. For the same reasoning, f
c

was
used for Eq. (11-3) of ACI 318-02
4
and the modifed
compression feld theory (MCFT). The authors believe
that even the data in Table 1 could be changed slightly
by using any other type of concrete strength; the trends
in the plotted data in Fig. 12 will not be changed.
AUTHORS CLOSURE
Closure to discussion by Windisch
The authors are grateful to the discusser for his interest
in the paper. Closures to each item of the discussion are
listed in the following in the order they appear in the original
discussion by Windisch:
Compressive stress trajectories are a clear representation
of the load path from its point of application to that
of resistance. The authors believe that using the
graphical results of nonlinear fnite element analysis
are an effcient way of showing the compressive stress
trajectories and, therefore, put them in the introductory
part of the paper.
It is evident that the stress condition around the
compressive strut is not as ideal as the stress in the strut in
the strut-and-tie model in Fig. 2(a). The strut is affected
by the fexural behavior of the member and the bond
stress is the result of the shear-fexural behavior. There
have been a lot of studies to consider this phenomenon
in the past
3
and some of them modeled the compressive
force fow as a curved arch
6
or a series of deviated
concrete struts.
7
This paper did not model the strut as
curved but, rather, straight with partial impairment.
In Fig. 3, the impairment of the fexural capacity is
shown as dotted arrows in the region of strut width that
are not considered effective, as opposed to the solid
arrows above. The degree of impairment is quantifed in
calculating the average concrete stress over the reduced
width of strut f
c
in Eq. (20).
The examples in Fig. 4 serve as strong evidence of
tension cracks penetrating into the strut. Although the
direction of the crack at the corner of the dapped end
is not as shown in Fig. 4(c), the important point is that
the cracks in the recent research
17
still interfere with
the compressive strut whether the cracks are vertical
or diagonal.
The authors intentionally used a combination of reduced
strut width and parabolic stress distribution rather than
the conventional combination of intact strut width and
(reduced) constant stress distribution for their target-
oriented research.
In Fig. 5, the location of Point B is very important and
was not determined at random. The authors believe that
this can be clarifed when the discusser refers to Fig. 9
and the related description in the paper. The yield line
above Point B is not new but very common in fnding
upper-bound solutions in plasticity of concrete.
In Fig. 7, the authors wanted to explain the phenomenon
that the shear stress from the stress gradient of reinforcing
bars develops bond stress between the reinforcing bar
and surrounding concrete. From this point of view, the
reason why there is no deviation of cracks in the pure
fexural region in a four-point bending test is that there
is no stress gradient of reinforcing bars in that region.
The authors believe that these closures should shed some
light on the discussers comments.
Unbonded Tendon Stresses in Post-Tensioned Concrete Walls at Nominal Flexural Strength. Paper by
Richard S. Henry, Sri Sritharan, and Jason M. Ingham
Discussion by Huanjun Jiang and Bo Fu
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; Doctoral Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction
in Civil Engineering, Tongji University
The discussed paper developed an equation to predict the
unbonded tendon stresses in post-tensioned concrete walls,
which are designed for use in low seismic regions at nominal
fexural strength. The authors should be complimented for
their meaningful work. Some fndings are interesting to the
discussers and are worthy of further discussion.
1. The discussers wonder why the infuences of mild
reinforcements on the unbonded tendon stresses were not
considered in this study. In the discussers opinion, the mild
reinforcements can at least infuence the nominal fexural
strength, so they cannot be neglected. In addition, the nota-
tions, such as A
s
and f
y
, which denote the mild reinforcing
steel area and yield stress of mild reinforcing steel, respec-
tively, can be found in the Notation section of the discussed
paper; however, it seems that they were not included in the
body of the paper.
2. The discussers cannot quite agree with the statement in
the Experimental Tests section that up until nominal fexural
strength is reached, the walls typically exhibit a nonlinear
elastic response because strains in the wall toe are less than
0.003 and, therefore, cyclic loading was unlikely to modify
wall response. It is widely acknowledged that when the
compressive strain of concrete arrives at approximately 0.002,
the material will enter into an elastic-plastic descending
section; therefore, the previous statement is not exactly correct
and cyclic loading might affect the wall responses.
3. The unbonded tendon lengths of the eight specimens
were provided in the paper, while the values for the walls in
the parametric study were not presented. The authors should
supply these to the readers.
4. There are some minor mistakes in the discussed paper.
Firstly, in the Review of Existing Equations section, Eq. (1)
and (2) used psi units, whereas (f
se
+ 420) and (f
se
+ 210)
in the following paragraph used MPa units. The units
should be unifed. Secondly, the row heading f
se
, % f
y
in
Tables 1 and 2 should be corrected as f
se
, % f
py
. Lastly,
Reference 20 was cited with a wrong page range; it should
be pp. 938-946.
5. Because the authors stated in the beginning of the paper
that the accurate prediction of tendon stresses is a critical
step in calculating the nominal fexural strength of unbonded
post-tensioned concrete walls, the authors should provide
the corresponding formula of nominal fexural strength
using the proposed equation of unbonded tendon stresses.
Then, the formula can be further verifed by fnite element
model (FEM) analysis.
AUTHORS CLOSURE
The authors thank the discussers for their thoughtful and
thorough comments and would like to respond to several of
the points raised.
1. The stated objective of the paper was to investigate the
tendon stresses in post-tensioned concrete walls that are suit-
able for applications in regions with low seismicity. For this
reason, a simple post-tensioned wall panel was considered
without additional energy-dissipating elements, such as mild
steel bars. The authors agree that mild steel bars would infu-
ence the wall response and, in particular, the nominal fex-
ural strength; however, the A
s
f
y
term could easily be incor-
porated into the calculation of both the neutral axis depth
and the nominal fexural strength. Validation of the proposed
equations for use in post-tensioned walls containing mild
steel bars could be investigated in a future study.
2. The authors agree that when subjected to a uniaxial
compression force, unconfned concrete reaches its peak
strength at a compressive strain of approximately 0.002,
followed by the descending section of the stress-strain
response. However, in post-tensioned concrete walls, the
foundation provides some confnement to the wall toe, which
limits the onset of any crushing to well beyond compressive
strains of 0.003, as reported by Henry et al.
9
Additionally,
experimental tests by Perez et al.
2
indicated that there was
no signifcant difference between the lateral-load response
of identical post-tensioned wall specimens subjected to both
monotonic and cyclic loading until well beyond a compres-
sive strain of 0.003 in the wall toe. For these reasons, it was
decided to use monotonic loading for both the experimental
and numerical investigations reported in the paper.
3. The authors thank the discussers for noting the omis-
sion of the unbonded tendon lengths that were used in the
parametric study. For all walls in the parametric study, the
unbonded tendon length l
p
was equal to the effective wall
height h
e
, plus an additional 500 mm (19.685 in.) to account
for the tendon anchorages.
4. The authors thank the discussers for pointing out several
typos in the paper. The previously developed equations were
reported in the paper using their original units to ensure
familiarity to the readers.
5. The focus of the paper was on the development of an
equation to predict the unbonded tendon stresses in post-
tensioned walls at nominal fexural strength; due to space
limitations, the procedures for calculating the nominal fex-
ural strength of such walls were omitted. The calculation of
nominal fexural strength can be completed using the equa-
tion presented for predicting the unbonded tendon stresses
along with a standard rectangular compression stress block
assumption. Validation of this method using the experimental
and numerical wall data has been published by Henry.
26
REFERENCES
26. Henry, R. S., Self-Centering Precast Concrete Walls for Buildings in
Regions with Low to High Seismicity, PhD thesis, University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2011, http://hdl.handle.net/2292/6875.
Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams with Large Opening. Paper by Dipti R. Sahoo,
Carlos A. Flores, and Shih-Ho Chao
Discussion by Bhupinder Singh
PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
The authors should be complimented for carrying out a
meticulously planned and carefully executed experimental
investigation; the results are informative and useful. The
following observations are made for their consideration:
1. Because a relatively high dosage of steel fbers was
used by the authors in their concrete mixtures, a summary
of the measured properties of the fresh steel fber-reinforced
concrete (SFRC) would have been useful. It would be inter-
esting to know as to how the workability of fresh SFRC was
characterized; what were the measured values?
2. The authors mention that the fexural performance of
the SFRC mixtures was evaluated by a three-point test, but
the test confguration shown in Fig. 4(b) of the paper repre-
sents a four-point bending test setup.
It is suggested that the evaluation of SFRC fexural perfor-
mance should have been carried out by following the provi-
sions in the 2008 ACI Building Code (ACI Committee 318
2008). These provisions, although applicable for the evalua-
tion of SFRC intended to be used as replacement of minimum
shear reinforcement in reinforced concrete (RC) beams, would
have yielded more objective resultsas far as the suitability
of SFRCfor use in shear-dominated structural applications
or tension-controlled response modes.
3. In addition to the maximum crack widths, it would be
more interesting to compare the service-load crack widths
across all the deep beam specimens, which were not reported
in the paper. This would enable a more relevant evaluation of
the effect of SFRC on the cracking behavior of the beams.
4. In Fig. 8(b), the formation of what is evidently a split-
ting crack approximately oriented along the axis of the SFRC
bottle-shaped strut between the load point and the upper left
corner of the opening is likely to seriously compromise the
strength of this inclined strut. Such cracking is not evident
in the comparable inclined strut formed in the RC specimen
of Fig. 8(a). In this context, how can the authors justify the
following statement: cracking due to splitting of the
concrete compressive strut could be delayed due to the better
tensile behavior of SFRC?
5. It is well-established in strut-and-tie model (STM)
design that singular nodes, such as the CCT nodes at the
supports of the authors beam specimens, are bottlenecks
of stresses in the structural member. Schlaich et al. (1987)
suggested that the entire D-region (the whole of the authors
deep beam in the present case) would be safe if the pressure
under the most heavily loaded bearing plate is controlled
and, in addition, suitable reinforcement is provided to resist
tensile stresses in the member. The premature crushing of
concrete over one of the supports in some of the authors deep
beam specimens indicates improper design of the support-
bearing plates, resulting in an undesirable failure mode.
The provision of steel cage confnement in the beams over
support locations need not be a standard detailing feature in
deep beams, as was suggested by the authors, provided that
the support-bearing plates are properly designed.
6. The authors attributed the failure of Specimen RC2 to
fracture of longitudinal tension reinforcement. Given the
very large failure strains of steel reinforcement, it is not
expected that crushing of concrete in some critically stressed
region would preempt fracture of steel reinforcement.
Failure due to fracture of tension reinforcement is very rare
in RC members.
Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams with Large Opening. Paper by Dipti R. Sahoo,
Carlos A. Flores, and Shih-Ho Chao
The authors claim that it was due to the yielding of the
bottom longitudinal reinforcing bars in tension. Neverthe-
less, Specimens SFRC 1 and SFRC2 had the same longit-
udinal reinforcement, but the load-displacement responses
were quite dangerously brittle. Please clarify why the SFRC
specimens performed in a brittle manner.
The authors should be complimented for their statements
and conclusions, which highlight the severe risks that may
develop when a designerhaving found a lattice of full
lines and dashed linesadapts this STM without criticism
as the basis of the reinforcement pattern.
Conclusion 1 should be corrected as follows:
The design STM underestimated the ultimate strength
of the test specimens, which haddifferent from the
STMa redundant continuous tensile reinforcement under
the opening. Test specimens without these reinforcing bars
would have failed at the appearance of the frst cracks under
the openingfar below the predicted ultimate strength.
It cannot be determined whether test specimens without
continuous bottom tensile reinforcement satisfy the require-
ment of secondary reinforcements as per ACI 318-08,
Appendix A (ACI Committee 318 2008); provisions would
have reached the design strength without failure without
further tests.
The load-defection behavior of the SFRC specimens
does not support the proposal made in Conclusion 5. Steel
fbers serve the control of cracksfor example, due to
shrinkagenevertheless, they do not replace the ordinary
reinforcement for the required load-bearing capacity.
Further research is needed.
AUTHORS CLOSURE
Closure to discussion by Singh
The authors appreciate all the comments received related
to this paper and hope that this response provides clarifca-
tion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further
comments. The following are responses provided to the
raised issues:
1. The SFRC used in this study was similar to the highly
fowable mixture used by the authors in prior research appli-
cations (Liao et al. 2006, 2010). Figure 12 shows the state of
the SFRC mixture used during the casting of the test speci-
mens. No workability tests on the fresh SFRC mixture were
carried out during the casting of the specimens, but tests on
similar SFRC mixtures can be found elsewhere (Liao et al.
2006, 2010). Note that the fowability was further enhanced
by external vibration, as shown in Fig. 12.
2. The bending test should be called the third-point rather
than the three-point test, as mentioned in ASTM C1609.
While ASTM C1609 could serve as the performance
evaluation method for SFRC application, such as the one
presented in this study, more research is needed to develop
suitable criteria, similar to those given in ACI 318-08
(ACI Committee 318 2008).
The authors report on very interesting tests that help
readers better understand the merits and shortages of strut-
and-tie models (STMs).
The design STM (Fig. 2) adopted in this study has one
remarkable characteristic: the concrete part below the
opening is not needed for the equilibrium of the deep beam.
Nevertheless, a deep beam without an opening requires a
continuous tie between the two supports, increasing the
size of the opening a frame formsat least a continuous
tie is needed there, too. This famous deep beam with the
opening and the odd STM was published by Schlaich et al.
(1987). At developing the reinforcement pattern, the authors
continue the two longitudinal bottom reinforcing bars under
the opening up to the left support, even if they regard this
section as the anchorage end (ANC) of the tie only. The
crack propagations shown in Fig. 6(a) and (b) reveal that both
reinforced concrete (RC) test specimens would have failed at
a 25 to 30 kip (112.5 to 135 kN) loadthat is, far below even
the very modest ultimate strength predicted by the design
STM. (Conclusion 1 should be corrected accordingly.)
Apart from the local concrete damages at the supports of
the specimens without the steel cages as secondary reinforce-
ment, the fexural cracks controlled the failure mechanism
and the ultimate strength. This reveals the fundamental char-
acteristic of deep beams: they can fail in fexure only, never
in compression of any type. (The corner failures in the case
of Specimens RC1 and SFRC1 are node [if ever] failures,
not failures of any strut.) At deep beams, the beam theory
does not applythat is, the resultant of the compressive
force due to fexure is quite far below the top of the deep
beam. The STM shown in Fig. 2 does not account for this.
A comparison of the STM (Fig. 2) with the crack patterns
shown in Fig. 6 reveals that the system of the assumed
compressive struts and the cracks contradict each other. In
the case of Specimen RC2, the position and length of the
fexural crack do not allow for any bottle-shaped (or even
constant-width) strut.
The dots shown in Fig. 8 refer to microcracking events
in concrete gathered with acoustic emission measurements.
The authors interpret the target-oriented results as signs
of formation of bottle-shaped struts. Nevertheless, the
crack patternsespecially in the case of Specimen SFRC1
(Fig. 8(b)) over the openingcontradict this interpretation.
Moreover, the discusser misses the microcracks preceding
the development of cracks. Furthermore, in both specimens,
numerous events are shown above the support opposite to
the opening; these should precede the strut formation there.
These microcracking events should occur before achieving
the 65 kip (293 kN) load level. At this load level, the
compressive stress in the concrete just above the support is
approximately 14 N/mm
2
(2 ksi), which is less than 30% of
the actual concrete strength. At this stress level, the occur-
rence of very few microcracks is presumable. Please clarify.
According to the load-displacement diagrams, Specimen
RC2 displayed proper post-yield strain-hardening behavior.
3. The crack widths and propagation in the test specimens
were measured at regular intervals during the testing. The
measured crack widths at different load levels of the test
specimens were reported in the paper (the Overall Cracking
section) in addition to the maximum crack width at the
failure load.
4. As shown in Fig. 6(a) and (c), cracks oriented along
the axis between the loading point and the upper left corner
of both RC and SFRC specimens. In the case of the RC
specimen, a single crack was oriented along this axis located
close to the bottle-shaped strut in the concrete; however,
multiple cracks developed along the concrete strut formed
in the SFRC specimen, as shown in Fig. 6(c). Further, the
crack that developed at various load levels was similar in
both RC and SFRC specimens. It should be mentioned
that steel reinforcement bars were present in both perpen-
dicular directions near the corner of the RC specimen,
whereas these bars were completely absent in the case of
Specimen SFRC1. Hence, it was inferred that the steel fbers
delayed the cracking, which could have been observed much
earlier in plain concrete only.
5. Based on the computer analysis (that is, CAST) with a
design load of 31.3 kips (139 kN), the reaction at the support
that showed premature cracking is approximately 20 kips
(90 kN). This gives only a compressive stress of 0.89 ksi
(6.14 MPa) with the bearing plate used in this study. As a
consequence, in terms of design, the bearing plates should
have been appropriate.
6. The fracture of steel, as mentioned in the paper, was
observed during the failure of Specimen RC2. It should
be noted that the failure was due to shear failure under the
opening (Fig. 11) rather than the fexural failure, which
commonly occurs in the case of slender RC fexural
members. It is well-known that formation of diagonal cracks
will lead to greater tensile force in fexural reinforcement
(Park and Paulay 1975).
REFERENCES
Liao, W.-C.; Chao, S.-H.; Park, S.-Y.; and Naaman, A. E., 2006, Self-
Consolidating High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SCHPFRC)
Preliminary Investigation, Report No. UMCEE 06-02, 76 pp.
Park, R., and Paulay, T., 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 769 pp.
AUTHORS CLOSURE
The authors appreciate all the comments received related
to this paper and hope that this response provides clarifca-
tion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further
comments. The following are responses provided to the
raised issues:
1. The authors agree that the cracks under the opening
could lead to some local damage if the reinforcing bars did
not pass through the segment under the opening. However,
prior experimental tests had shown that this discontinuity
of bars did not signifcantly reduce the ultimate strength
of the deep beam (Brea and Morrison 2007). In Brea
and Morrisons (2007) Specimen 1A, which has exactly
the same geometry and dimensions as the beams tested in
this study, the longitudinal bars were not continued under
the opening. Although the cracks propagated through the
segment under the opening, the ultimate strength was
approximately 140 kips (622.7 kN), rather than the low
values predicted by the discusser.
2. Numerous investigations (for example, Hsu et al.
[1963]) showed that microcracks exist in concrete even prior
to application of the load. Stress concentrations at these
microcracks induced by low stresses can lead to further crack
propagation but in a stable manner. This crack development
can occur under loads of 25 to 30% of the ultimate strength,
as shown by either sonic or acoustic emission (AE) methods
(Jones 1952; Brandt 2009). Therefore, it is not surprising
that AE events were detected at low loads. The authors did
not claim any particular shape of the strut formed in the
SFRC specimens but just used the AE events to demonstrate
the widespread cracks and considerable internal stress redis-
tribution due to the fber-bridging effect.
3. The SFRC specimens did not perform in a dangerously
brittle manner. As shown in Fig. 6, the frst cracking in the
SFRC specimens occurred at approximately 30 kips (135 kN)
(very close to the design load of 31.3 kips [139 kN]). Unlike
plain concrete, the strength kept increasing up to very high
loads before degradation began. This process was accom-
panied by the multiple cracks in the specimens. Note that
Specimen SFRC2 reached very high strength even with an
extremely lower amount of reinforcing bars. The descending
parts of the load-displacement responses of the SFRC speci-
mens were steep compared to Specimen RC2 (perhaps this is
the dangerously brittle behavior that the discusser referred
to). The quick drop in the load-carrying capacity after signif-
icant cracking and deformation (Fig. 11(a)) was due to the
complete fber pulloutthus the loss of tensile capacity
of the SFRC at a few critical locations. This descending
response can be signifcantly enhanced if these critical loca-
tions are reinforced by reinforcing bars (Pareek 2011).
Fig. 12State of fresh SFRC mixture.
4. The experimental results are opposite to the discussers
statement. As shown in Fig. 9, the ultimate loads (96.8 kips
[435 kN]) resisted by Specimen SFRC2 were three times the
design value (31.3 kips [139 kN]). The analysis shown in the
paper also indicated that the strength of the specimen would
have been only 14.3 kips (64 kN) without any reinforcement.
In addition to the enhancement in structural behavior, fber
reinforcement adds a host of both tangible and intangible
benefts to the performance of a concrete structure, including
cracking control, ductility, and increased impact/energy
absorption capacity, as well as durability. Detailed informa-
tion can be found in numerous studies.
REFERENCES
Brandt, A. M., 2009, Cement-Based CompositesMaterials, Mechanical
Properties and Performance, second edition, Taylor & Francis, London,
UK, 526 pp.
Hsu, T. T. C.; Slate, F. O.; Sturman, G. M. M.; and Winter, G., 1963,
Microcracking of Plain Concrete and the Shape of the Stress-Strain
Curve, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 60, No. 2, Feb., pp. 209-224.
Jones, R., 1952, A Method of Studying the Formation of Cracks in a
Material Subjected to Stresses, British Journal of Applied Physics, V. 3,
No. 7, July, pp. 229-232.
Pareek, T., 2011, Use of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete in Structural
Members with Highly Complex Stress Fields, masters thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, the University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX,
296 pp.
Nonlinear Cyclic Truss Model for Reinforced Concrete Walls. Paper by Marios Panagiotou, Jos I. Restrepo,
Matthew Schoettler, and Geonwoo Kim
The authors should be complimented for proposing a
new nonlinear truss modeling approach to investigate the
behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) walls. Two possible
limitations of this method, in the discussers opinion, are
presented in the following.
Firstly, although the proposed model was capable of accu-
rately predicting the general responses, such as the ultimate
strength and stiffness upon cracking of RC walls under
cyclic loadings, stresses and strains of the concrete and
reinforcing bars at the locations without truss elements in the
actual walls cannot be provided by the model. In addition,
even if the internal forces of the truss elements can be calcu-
lated, they cannot represent the actual forces of the concrete
and reinforcements, as the elements were just substitutes of
all the reinforcing bars and surrounding concrete in certain
areas. The whole does not always represent the individual
parts. For instance, the internal force of a reinforcing bar in
an outer vertical truss element could not be exactly the same
with the internal force of the outer vertical truss element.
Secondly, it can be easily seen in Fig. 6(b) that the model
overestimates the stiffness and strength of the wall after
the frst crushing of diagonal concrete struts. The possible
reasons are as follows. A couple of orthotropic diagonal
concrete struts share a great proportion of concrete. When
one concrete strut crushes, the corresponding orthotropic
strut will be greatly weakened in the meantime and may
even be destroyed. However, such a mechanism cannot be
refected by the model, which results in an overestimation of
the actual stiffness and strength of the wall.
The research in the paper is meaningful; hence, the
authors are encouraged to further improve their model and
modify it to investigate the seismic behavior of innovative
wall systems, such as steel plate shear walls, in the future.
AUTHORS CLOSURE
The authors would like to thank the discussers for their
interest in this work and their comments. Two points were
brought up as possible limitations of the proposed model.
The frst was the inability of the model to compute stresses
and strains at points of concrete and reinforcing bars different
than the location of the elements used in the model. This is
the same limitation found in fnite element models, where
exact stress and strain values are computed only at the inte-
gration points; then, through interpolation, using shape func-
tions, stresses, and strains at any point of the element, these
values are computed. The same procedure can be readily
used in the authors model.
The second point the discussers presented was that the
model overestimates the overall stiffness and strength
after the frst crushing of the diagonal concrete struts. The
discussers suggested that a possible reason for this is that the
model does not account for the dependence of the properties
of concrete in a diagonal on the maximum level of compres-
sion previously reached in the normal direction. This depen-
dence may be implicitly or explicitly accounted for by
several existing constitutive models for concrete. Because the
post-crushing softening behavior is the part of the response
with the largest uncertainty, it is the authors belief that the
overestimation is primarily due to this uncertainty and the
associated mesh size effects. What the discussers describe is
part of this uncertainty that the authors modelnor anyone
elsescannot consider explicitly.
The discussed paper presented a series of tests concerning
the behavior of lap-spliced plain steel bars and compared
the test results with the CEB-FIP Model Code.
11
Some
fndings are interesting to the discussers and are worthy of
further discussion.
RESEARCH SIGINFICANCE
The discussed paper mentioned that the relationship for
development length as a function of bar size and splice
length was provided. A similar statement can be found in
the Summary and Conclusions section. However, it seems
that the information about development length was not
included in the body of the text. In addition, in the Summary
and Conclusions section, the authors concluded that a
linear and proportional relationship for maximum load as a
function of development length and bar diameter provides
a best ft for the test data. However, it can be concluded
from Eq. (2) or (2a) that the maximum load is a function
of spliced length and bar diameter. Therefore, the authors
might have confused the difference between development
length and spliced length. The differences between them
can be obtained from Reference 10:
Developed length and development length are used
interchangeably to represent the bonded length of a
bar that is not spliced with another bar, while spliced
length and splice length are used to represent the
bonded length of bars that are lapped spliced.
As Eq. (2) in the next section indicated that the bar
surface roughness has, to some extent, some infuence on
the maximum load, the discussers are interested about the
selection principle of the bar surface roughness in this study.
Were the values of R
y
in this study acquired from substantial
statistical data of historical bars?
The discussed paper compared the normalized maximum
loads attained by the splice specimens with deformed bars
and plain bars and concluded that the splice specimens with
plain bars can resist maximum loads, which are approxi-
mately 60% of those identical specimens with deformed
bars with the same nominal diameter. The discussers wonder
why the authors did not conduct more comparisons, as the
limited comparisons with only two specimens can hardly
convince readers.
The discussed paper showed that the CEB-FIP Model
Code
11
provisions for average bond stress underestimate
P
max
and proposed two empirical formulas. The discussers
made a comparison between the predicted effciency of the
CEB-FIP Model Code
11
and the two proposed equations.
The results are shown in Table 3 and several conclusions can
be drawn.
1. The CEB-FIP Model Code
11
provision

statisti-
cally underestimates the test results for all three kinds
of bars. Among them, the bars with a diameter of 19 mm
(0.75 in.) made the worst prediction; however, it seems that
the predicted accuracy increases with the increases of the
bar diameter.
2. Both Eq. (2) and (2a) statistically underestimate
the experimental results for the bars with diameters
of 19 and 25 mm (0.75 and 1 in.), while they overestimate
the results for the 32 mm (1.25 in.) bars.
3. For estimating the bars with diameters of 19 mm
(0.75 in.), Eq. (2) and (2a) are superior to the CEB-FIP
Model Code,
11
while for the 25 and 32 mm (1 and 1.25 in.)
bars, the superiority is hardly refected.
Table 3Comparisons between predicted effciency of CEB-FIP Code
11
and two empirical equations
Specimen ID
Normalized maximum load L = P
max
/f
c
, kN/MPa Ratios between predicted and experimental results
Test: L
1
CEB-FIP Model Code
11
provisions: L
2
Eq. (2): L
3
Eq. (2a): L
4
R
1
= L
2
/L
1
R
2
= L
3
/L
1
R
3
= L
4
/L
1
19-305 8.50 5.06 7.57 7.48 0.60 0.89 0.88
19-410 9.14 7.88 10.32 10.05 0.86 1.13 1.10
19-510 9.58 10.70 13.09 12.50 1.12 1.37 1.30
19-610 17.80 14.00 14.99 14.95 0.79 0.84 0.84
Average ratio for bar diameter d
b
= 19 mm (0.75 in.) 0.69 0.87 0.86
25-410 16.20 12.40 12.47 13.22 0.77 0.77 0.82
25-510 18.40 16.00 14.73 16.45 0.87 0.80 0.89
25-610 20.60 19.40 18.20 19.67 0.94 0.88 0.95
25-810 29.70 25.10 26.63 26.12 0.85 0.90 0.88
b
= 25 mm (1 in.) 0.81 0.83 0.85
32-410 15.60 14.60 17.83 16.92 0.94 1.14 1.08
32-610 25.10 22.30 25.99 25.18 0.89 1.04 1.00
32-810 31.80 28.80 35.87 33.44 0.91 1.13 1.05
b
= 32 mm (1.25 in.) 0.92 1.14 1.07
Discussion by M. John Robert Prince and Bhupinder Singh
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India; PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
to achieving bond failure in splice beam specimens. If the
intention is to enforce a bond failure, then it is desirable to
restrict the splice lengths to values signifcantly less than the
critical splice lengths. Preferred splice lengths in splice beam
tests are typically less than 20 bar diameters. The use of relat-
ively large splice lengths in some of the specimens by the
authorsas, for example, in Specimens 19-610 and 25-810,
each having a splice length of 32d
b
may be the reason for
the measured moment capacities of these specimens being
larger than their nominal yield moment capacities.
3. In structural testing, it is common to load beam speci-
mens, for example, in the load-controlled mode up until the
peak loads and in the displacement-controlled mode after-
ward to capture the post-peak response. Load-controlled
testing in the ascending branch facilitates detection and
recording of cracking behavior, which may be diffcult when
testing is done in the displacement-controlled mode. Did the
authors have any specifc purpose for using only displace-
ment-controlled loading in their experiments?
4. On the basis of the measured capacities of Specimens
25-410 and 25-610, the authors suggest that splice speci-
mens reinforced with plain bars are capable of resisting
peak loads that are approximately 60% of those recorded
for identical specimens reinforced with deformed bars of
the same diameter. There is insuffcient direct empirical
evidence to back up this assertion, which implies that bond
strength of plain bars is a signifcant fraction (60%) of the
bond strength of deformed bars. It is well-known that adhe-
sion and friction is the dominant bond mechanism in plain
bars and these get quickly lost due to slip at early stages of
loading. It is reckoned that the structural capacities of Speci-
mens 25-410 and 25-610 attributed by the authors to the
bond resistance of plain bars has more to do, rather, with the
development of an alternate load-resisting mechanism in the
form of arch action in these beams, consequent to a more or
less complete loss of bond at early stages of loading. Inter-
estingly, the authors reported the development of arch action
in their beam specimens reinforced with the plain bars.
The authors should be complimented for carrying out a
meticulously planned and carefully executed experimental
investigation into the bond behavior of plain steel bars. The
following observations are made for their consideration
and response:
1. In bond studies, for test results to be directly comparable
with each other, it is very important that the confnement
conditions of the longitudinal reinforcement bars across
different test specimens be identical. Concrete confne-
ment to the longitudinal reinforcement is usually expressed
in terms of the dimensionless parameter c/d
b
, where c may
either be the side clear cover c
s
or the bottom clear cover c
b

and d
b
is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement bar.
For most practical beams, c/d
b
lies in the range of 1 to 1.5.
The c/d
b
for the authors beams reinforced with the 19, 25,
and 32 mm (0.75, 1, and 1.25 in.) diameter bars are 2.65,
2.02, and 1.56, respectively, when c is taken as the bottom
clear cover c
b
. These values indicate that the confnement of
longitudinal reinforcement in the authors beam specimens
was neither uniform nor realistic. The practical range of c/d
b
values mentioned previously usually result in a splitting type
of bond failure, whereas the authors reported a pullout type
of bond failure in their beam specimens, which is expected,
given their relatively high c/d
b
. Because cover requirements
were generally less stringent at the time when most of the
historical structures were constructed, the use of relatively
large c/d
b
by the authors needs clarifcation.
All the beams tested by the authors had a constant thick-
ness of 305 mm (12 in.) and this implies that the c
s
/d
b
across
their specimens varied, depending on the diameter of the
longitudinal reinforcement. Ideally, for identical confne-
ment conditions, both c
s
/d
b
and c
b
/d
b
should be nominally
equal to each other and these values should, in turn, be
constant across all the test specimens. For this to happen,
the effective depth and the width of the beam specimens
should vary, depending on the diameter of the longitudinal
reinforcing bars. The authors may want to clarify this issue.
2. The upper-bound splice length of 32.4 times the longit-
udinal bar diameter adopted by the authors is not conducive
The authors report on tests that should help readers better
understand the behavior of lap splices; however, the success
is quite limited.
In the introduction, the authors note that the reason for
their research is that the evaluation of historical reinforced
concrete structures may reveal the existence of construc-
tion details that do not meet current standards deform-
ation patterns that do not conform to current specifcations
(plain reinforcement). It should be noted thatat least in
Europeat the end of anchorages and lap splices of plain
reinforcing bars, hooks (except in shells and thin plates) were
mandatory; therefore, lap splices with straight ends could
not have occurred in historical structures. Moreover, at least
in Europe, the highest yield strength for plain reinforcing
bars with a diameter of >8 mm (>0.3 in.) was 220 N/mm
2

(31.9 ksi) with an ultimate strength of 340 N/mm
2
(49.3 ksi);
hence, the properties of reinforcing steels chosen for the test
specimens were not representative of those in Europe.
The relevant guidelines of the CEB-FIP Model Code
11
are
misunderstood and misinterpreted. Equation (1) serves for
the calculation of the length of the lap splice only. Along with
bond characteristics, this length also comprises the errors at
cutting and installation. The formula cannot be used for any
calculation for splice lengths smaller than the required one.
Moreover, the CEB-FIP Model Code
11
explicitly notes that
splices (with their full length) should possibly be placed at
regions with less tensile stresses in the spliced reinforcement.
All results are presented and discussed on the basis of
normalized values, where the applied and achieved loads
are divided by the square root of the concrete compressive
strength. Previous investigations
7
should have shown that
this relationship was valid. A comparison of Fig. 9 with
Fig. 3 shows that this is not the case. The physical reason
for the independence of the results from the concrete
compressive strength (or its square root, which is related to
the tensile strength) is that after the adhesion is destroyed,
the main source of the local bond resistance of plain bars is
the friction between the bar surface and concrete.
Specimen 32-910 was identifed by the authors as an
outlierin Fig. 9(c), it fts very well into the trend;
nevertheless, Specimen 32-810 turned out to be an outlier.
Specimens 19-610 and 25-610 were judged as outliers by
the discusser.
The statement that the CEB-FIP Model Code
11
provi-
sions for average bond stress underestimate P
max
by 15.7%
on average is not accurate. The same is valid for Eq. (2)
and (2a) also. These would only ft for beams with identical
geometries and loading patterns as the test specimens.
Figure 9(a) reveals that for reinforcing bars with a diameter
of 19 mm (No. 6 [0.75 in.]), a minimum splice length of
approximately 23.5d
b
yields the necessary strength. For
reinforcing bars with a diameter of 25 mm (No. 8 [1 in.])
(refer to Fig. 9(b)), the minimum required splice length
is shown to be 28d
b
. For reinforcing bars with a diameter
of 32 mm (No. 10 [1.25 in.]), Fig. 9(c) yields the relative
length of 28.4d
b
. This trend is known: for plain bars, the
required splice (and anchorage) length increases with
increasing reinforcing bar diameter as the relative bonded
surface decreases.
Presenting the crack patterns, the authors conclude that
vertical cracks within the shear spans are an indication
of a lack of shear stresses and suggest that the load-car-
rying mechanism of the specimens tended toward that of
a tied arch. Checking the maximum shear stresses at the
maximum applied loads, it becomes clear that the shear
stresses were far below the lower fractile value of the
concrete tensile strength; thus, there was no reason for the
cracks to develop as shear cracks. The shear load-bearing
behavior of uncracked concrete beams has nothing to do
with the tied arch model.
It would be interesting to learn the sizes of the end slips
shown in Fig. 5. The end slips must somehow be equal to the
sum of the crack widths measured along the splice length.
Does this ft? Please clarify.
It would also be interesting if the authors reported the posi-
tion of the cross sections where the test specimens failed.
Were these sections within the splice lengths or just outside?
The midspan defections shown in Fig. 6 only reveal that
Response 2000 is dangerously unable to predict the brittle
behavior of a simple beam with spliced tensile reinforcement.
The conclusions related to the bond stresses must be
considered with caution. It is known that the measured
strain/stress depends on the position of the gauge related to
the next crack. The stochastic character of the relative posi-
tions of the strain gauges versus the fexural cracks along the
splice length makes the size and distribution of the calcu-
lated bond stresses and the conclusions questionable.
AUTHORS CLOSURE
Closure to discussion by Jiang and Fu
interest and discussion related to the paper.
The discussers have correctly identifed that the terms
development length and splice length have been used
interchangeably in the paper, as defned by ACI 408R-03
10
for
design to mean the length of embedded reinforcement
required to develop the design strength of reinforcement.
The results of a past study, reported in Reference 23,
concluded that the determination of lap splice length is
directly related to development length. It is for this reason,
Fig. 9Maximum applied load and maximum predicted load
according to CEB-FIP Model Code
11
versus development
length as function of bar diameter: (a) d
b
= 19 mm (No. 6
[0.75 in.]; (b) d
b
= 25 mm (No. 8 [1 in.]); and (c) d
b
= 32 mm
(No. 10 [1.25 in.]). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)
along with their relative simplicity of construction and
ability to realistically capture the stresses in the concrete
surrounding the reinforcement, that lap-splice specimens are
commonly used to determine both splice and development
lengths and comprise the bulk of the test database used to
establish American and Canadian code provisions for bond
and development.
10
Reference 7 presents the results of an extensive experi-
mental investigation, with determining the infuence of bar
surface roughness on the bond strength of plain reinforce-
ment as one of its objectives. This reference presents the
fndings of limited measurements of the maximum height
of profle R
y
of reinforcement removed from a historical
structure and measurements of as-received modern plain bar
stock. Perhaps even more convincing are the results of the
experimental investigation as compared to those reported
by Abrams
2
in his historical 1913 paper. The comparison
persuasively shows that the surface roughness of sandblasted
bars with an average maximum height of profle of 11.3 mm
(4.45 10
4
in.) provides a lower bound for the calculation
of maximum and residual average bond stresses of historical
bars. The average roughness profle of the reinforcing bars
in the study is 9.44 mm (3.72 10
4
in.), which suggests that
the results are a reasonable lower bound of what would be
expected for historical plain bars.
The authors were careful to identify in the paper that the
comparison with deformed bars was a rather limited one.
Additional testing is ideally recommended. That said, the
authors constructed specimens reinforced with plain bars
only; therefore, comparisons could only be made to splice
specimens reinforced with deformed bars, as reported in the
available literature with similar geometry to those tested by
the authors.
A more detailed evaluation of the results shown in Table 1,
similar to that provided by the discussers, has been published
elsewhere.
24
Conclusion 1 presented by the discussers
is taken directly from the paper. The authors agree with
Conclusions 2 and 3 presented by the discussers, as they
relate to 25 and 32 mm (1 and 1.25 in.) diameter bars only;
again, these conclusions are provided in Reference 24. More
specifcally, Eq. (2) overestimates the maximum load for
specimens with 19 and 32 mm (0.75 and 1.25 in.) diameter
bars by 2% and 9%, respectively, while the same equation
underestimates the maximum load for specimens reinforced
with 25 mm (1 in.) bars by 20%. In comparison, Eq. 2(a)
overestimates the maximum load for specimens with 32 mm
(1.25 in.) diameter bars by 4% and underestimates the
maximum load of specimens reinforced with 25 mm (1 in.)
diameter bars by 13%. This same equation, used to predict
the maximum applied load for specimens with 19 mm
(0.75 in.) bars, results in a test-to-predicted ratio of 1.0.
REFERENCES
23. Orangun, C. O.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., A Reevaluation of
Test Data on Development Length and Splices, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 74, No. 3, Mar. 1977, pp. 114-122.
24. Hassan, M. N., Splice Tests of Plain Reinforcing Steel, MSc thesis,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 2011, 241 pp.
Closure to discussion by Prince and Singh
interest and comments related to the paper. The questions
and concerns raised in the discussion are addressed herein.
Confnement conditions and splitting-type
bond failures
Side and bottom cover, as well as spacing between the
longitudinal bars, are parameters that need to be controlled
when testing and comparing the results of splice speci-
mens reinforced with deformed bars of varying sizes. The
reason for this is that radial stresses are developed in the
concrete due to bearing of the lugs of the reinforcement
against the concrete upon bar slip. These radial stresses
potentially lead to splitting of the surrounding concrete,
thus affecting the maximum load attained by splice speci-
mens. Unlike deformed bars, mechanical interlock is not
expected for plain bars, as they lack lugs or other surface
deformations. The results of a previous investigation of
pullout specimens reinforced with plain bars presented in
Reference 7 suggested that concrete cover was not a signif-
cant factor for plain bars in their as-received condition, but
may be more signifcantalthough this could not be conclu-
sively shownfor the roughened bars included in this study.
The bars in the study had lower roughness values than those
reported in Reference 7, and observations of the splice speci-
mens following testing did not show any evidence of split-
ting cracks, let alone splitting failures. For these reasons, it
does not appear that the need to control concrete cover and
bar spacing is particularly signifcant for plain bars. That
noted, the concrete cover selected for the specimens was
based on requirements provided by ACI 318-63
25
the last
to include provisions for plain barsand so are represen-
tative of actual structures from that era. The clear spacing
between the longitudinal bars was set at greater than twice
this clear cover.
Upper bound on lap splice lengths
As described in the introductory section of the paper, plain
steel bars transfer bond by two mechanisms: 1) adhesion
between the reinforcement and the surrounding concrete;
and 2) the wedging action of small particles that break free
from the concrete upon slip. Unlike deformed bars, plain
bars do not possess lugs or other surface deformations and
so cannot transfer bond forces by mechanical interlock. As a
result, it is fully expected that the bond performance of plain
bars is inferior to that of deformed bars; therefore, longer
lap splice and development lengths are required to achieve
yield. Any rules of thumb related to lap-splice lengths used
when designing splice specimens with deformed bars, there-
fore, do not apply herein. The authors intentionally designed
some specimens with very high ratios of lap splice length to
bar diameter in an attempt to obtain test data for lap-splice
lengths close to that which would allow for full development
of the reinforcement. As the discussers have identifed, the
authors obtained their desired objective.
Displacement-controlled testing
Displacement-controlled testing is, in fact, quite commonly
conducted, as it offers stability at all load levels and better
data capture immediately preceding and following a sudden
specimen failure. Similar methods of crack recording can
be conducted irrespective of the method used to control the
hydraulic jack.
Comparison of splice performance of plain and
deformed bars
As identifed in the paper, the comparison of results of
splice specimens reinforced with plain and deformed bars is
a rather limited one. Further testing is ideally recommended.
However, the authors would like to point out that although
the adhesion mechanism for bond of plain bars is lost at rela-
tively small values of slip, the sliding friction component is
not. Reference 8 presents a mechanics-based bond stress-
slip model developed for plain bars that shows this and then
provides for experimental validation of the model. The 60%
fraction as reported is perhaps then not so unexpected.
REFERENCES
25. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-63), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 1963, 144 pp.
The authors would like to thank the discusser for his
interest and perspective related to the paper. Items raised in
the discussion are addressed herein.
Anchorage and yield strength
It was not until the 1951 edition of ACI 318
26
that hooks
were made mandatory at the ends of plain bars. Structures
built in the United States and Canada prior to this code
would then potentially be reinforced with plain bars with
straight ends. Furthermore, the advanced age of structures
with plain bars in the United States and Canada is such that a
number of these structures have, or will, undergo rehabilita-
tion. One such case study of the rehabilitation of a structure
reinforced with plain bars is described in Reference 27 and
provides an example of a situation where there was a need
to cut off the hooked ends of the plain bars, thus requiring
the project engineers to assess the capacity and behavior of
the affected membersa rather diffcult task given the lack
of literature in this area and current American and Canadian
code guidance.
The yield strength of reinforcement used in Canada is
a function of the construction era. According to the Cana-
dian Highway Bridge Design Code,
3
assuming an unknown
material grade, nominal yield strengths of 210, 230, 275,
and 300 MPa (30.4, 33.4, 39.9, and 43.5 ksi) can be assumed
for the reinforcement when construction occurred: prior to
1914, 1914 to 1972, 1973 to 1978, and after 1978, respec-
tively. Bond behavior is a function of bar force, bond stress,
and slip; therefore, consideration of different yield strengths
is a future research objective of the second author. Given that,
the initial experimental program as presented in the paper
was conducted with the most readily available material and
so had a nominal yield strength of 300 MPa (43.5 MPa). The
authors believe that this is a reasonable selection, given that
it matches the yield strength of structural grade reinforce-
ment as used after 1978 and also captures the range of inter-
mediate- (otherwise known as medium-) and hard-grade
reinforcement used since 1914 in Canada.
3
Use of CEB-FIP Model Code
11
average bond stress
formula to predict failure load and identifcation
of outliers
The authors agree with the discusser that an average bond
stress can only be based on knowledge of the maximum and
residual bond stresses, the bond stress distribution, and a
specifc development length; therefore, the use of such an
equation, as is provided in the CEB-FIP Model Code,
11
can
only provide an approximation of failure loads for speci-
mens with different lap-splice lengths. It is this limitation,
coupled with the knowledge that bond stresses along a
reinforcing bar are very much nonuniform, that led to the
change in American and Canadian codes to instead present
provisions directly in terms of development length. That
being stated, the provisions included in the CEB-FIP Model
Code
11
were the only provisions available in the literature
that could provide an indication of failure load, and it was
necessary to have some means of load prediction during
the experimental design phase to ensure that all specimens
would fail in bond and therefore provide meaningful test
data. As the authors stated in the paper and the discusser
has shown graphically, the actual-to-predicted ratio of the
maximum specimen load tended to decrease with increasing
bar diameter and splice length. This is true for the case of
specimens included in the paper because the CEB-FIP
Model Code
11
provisions tend to capture the behavior of
bottom-cast round bars quite reasonably.
The discusser is cautioned in his defnition and applica-
tion of outlying observations: an outlier should be deemed
as such only if physical evidence (that is, errors in spec-
imen construction or testing) or a statistical evaluation can
be used to rationalize anomalous data. Specimens cannot
be identifed as outliers simply because their resulting
data does not ft a desired trend or hypothesis. Given that,
the paper clearly describes the errors in testing that led to
Specimen 32-910 being identifed as an outlier, while no such
evidence exists to justify the exclusion of Specimens 19-610,
25-610, and 32-810 from the test database.
Normalizing by square root of concrete
compressive strength
As noted by the discusser, evidence substantiating the
method of normalizing the maximum load attained by the
splice specimens by the square root of the concrete compres-
sive strength (f
c
) is provided in Reference 7 rather than the
paper under discussion. It is clearly shown in the paper that
both the maximum and residual bond stresses as measured
in pullout specimens are proportional to f
c
and therefore
take into account bond resistance, both when adhesion is
acting and after it is destroyed. Figure 9(a) provided by
the discusser includes data from specimens with 19 mm
(0.75 in.) diameter bars only and, as shown in Table 1 in
the paper, the range of compressive strength for the concrete
varies from 17.4 to 21.0 MPa (2520 to 3040 psi); there-
fore, f
c
varies from 4.17 to 4.58 MPa (50.2 to 55.2 psi).
Similarly, the range of concrete compressive strengths for
specimens cast with 25 mm (1 in.) diameter bars shown in
Fig. 9(b) ranged from 19.2 to 24.0 MPa (2780 to 3480 psi),
and that for 32 mm (1.25 in.) diameter bars (Fig. 9(c))
ranged from 15.8 to 19.8 MPa (2290 to 2870 psi). All three
groups of specimens included a very small range of concrete
compressive strengths and hence even smaller ranges of f
c
,
and therefore are insuffcient to disprove the normalization
method for the maximum applied load as used in the paper.
Location of specimen failures and relationship
between bar end slip and crack widths along lap-
splice length
As noted in the paper, a fexural crack that formed at one
end of the lap splice length widened markedly once the
maximum load was attained, indicating that this is the posi-
tion along the specimen length where failure occurred. This
observation was consistent for all specimens.
The authors agree with the discusser that the magnitude of
the end slip of the lapped longitudinal bars should be equal to
the summation of all crack widths intercepting the bars. This
is a rather simple statement to make in theory, but one that is
rather diffcult to confrm in practice, given the narrow width
of all cracks (save for the one discussed in the previous para-
graph), the nonuniform nature of crack widths along their
height, and the fact that some cracks are only evident on one
specimen side face. Given that only one crack in each spec-
imen widened signifcantly, the magnitude of the end slip of
the reinforcement can be assumed to be approximately equal
tobut likely slightly greater thanthe width of this one
crack. This was physically confrmed for all specimens based
on crack measurements made following specimen testing.
Orientation of cracks within shear spans
Assessing the existence of cracks by calculating and
comparing the resulting shear stress acting along with the
concrete tensile stress, as was done by the discusser, is an
oversimplifcation. Rather, the stress state at any point along
the beam is quite complex, as it is subject to a state of plane
stress that includes normal stresses on the side faces of the
element in combination with the resulting shear stress, as
was identifed by the discusser. The orientation of the crack
can then be determined by solving for the orientation of the
element when the principal stresses are acting. An analysis
of the resulting stress states at different locations along the
specimen length suggests that the resulting angles of crack
inclination within the shear spans are less than vertical (that
is, 90 degrees) and decrease with increasing applied load. As
reported in the paper, however, this is contrary to the obser-
vations made for all specimens, given that cracks within the
shear spans remained vertical, and resulted because cracking
locally reduced the bond stresses between the reinforcing
bar and the surrounding concrete and therefore reduced the
formation of bond-induced shear stresses.
28
The resulting
change in the stress state of an element then reduces the
angle of crack orientation with respect to the vertical. This
reduction in bond-induced shear stresses also suggests that
beam action becomes less dominant in the transfer of forces.
Use of strain gauge data
The discussers comments related to the interpretation and
use of strain gauge data are rather general, as they apply to
any experimental program using such measurement devices,
rather than the specifc work as presented in this paper.
Having stated this, the results presented in this paper are
encouraging in that similar trends were established for all
instrumented specimens as related to strain compatibility,
bond stress distribution along the lap-splice length, and the
results of the fexural section analysis.
REFERENCES
26. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-51), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 1951, 63 pp.
27. Feldman, L. R.; MacFarlane, D. C.; Kroman, J. A.; and Bartlett,
F. M., Construction Staging of the Centre Street Bridge Rehabilitation to
Accommodate Emergency Vehicle Traffc, 31st Annual Conference of the
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2003, 10 pp. (CD-ROM)
28. Lutz, L. A., and Gergely, P., Mechanics of Bond and Slip of
Deformed Bars in Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 64, No. 11,
Nov. 1967, pp. 711-721.
IN ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
The American Concrete Institute also publishes the ACI Materials
Journal. This section presents brief synopses of papers appearing
in the current issue.
From the January-February 2103 issue
PDF versions of these papers are available for download at
the ACI website, www.concrete.org, for a nominal fee.
110-M01Quantifying Stress Development and Remaining
Stress Capacity in Restrained, Internally Cured Mortars
by J. L. Schlitter, D. P. Bentz, and W. J. Weiss
Concrete can develop tensile stress when it is restrained from shrinking
freely. Standard tests, such as the restrained ring test (ASTM C1581-09),
can be used to quantify how likely it is that a mixture will crack due to the
stresses developed under constant temperature conditions. The standardized
restrained ring test is a passive test where the residual stress that develops
due to restraint can be quantifed using strains measured on the inner steel
ring. The residual stress can then be compared with the concretes tensile
strength to determine a mixtures propensity for cracking. A new dual ring
test method has been developed to characterize the early-age behavior of
mixtures that expand and/or undergo a temperature change. A new testing
approach uses this dual ring test to quantify the remaining stress capacity
(that is, the additional stress that can be applied before the concrete develops
a through crack). The new testing procedure allows stress to develop under
constant temperature conditions before rapidly reducing the temperature to
induce cracking. To demonstrate this approach, one plain and three internally
cured mortar mixtures were tested and the results of these tests are discussed.
110-M02Fatigue-Life Prediction of Full-Scale Concrete
Pavement Overlay over Flexible Pavement: Super-Accelerated
Pavement Testing Application
by BooHyun Nam, Chul Suh, and Moon C. Won
Thin concrete pavement overlay placed on the top of fexible pavements
is referred to as a thin whitetopping (TWT) pavement, which is one of the
rehabilitation treatments for deteriorated fexible pavements. The primary
goal of this study is to evaluate the fatigue performance of the full-scale
TWT pavement due to repeated traffc loading. Super-accelerated pave-
ment (SAP) tests on full-scale TWT concrete slabs were performed under
static and constant cyclic loading. The stationary dynamic defectometer
(a truck-mounted SAP testing device) was used to statically and dynami-
cally load the TWT slabs. To monitor the response of the TWT slabs, accel-
erometers and linear variable differential transformers were installed, and
the dynamic displacements of slabs were recorded during the entire testing
period. The test results show that the tested slabs have dynamic displace-
ment peaks around the number of load repetitions corresponding to the
frst visible cracks. The dynamic displacement increased at a higher rate
after the occurrences of the frst visible crack. In addition, the tested slabs
showed stress redistribution phenomenon during the crack propagation. The
concepts of stress level and equivalent fatigue life were used to eliminate,
in part, infuences of other factors (that is, the water-cement ratio [w/c] and
aggregate type and gradation) and correct the effect of different stress ratios,
respectively. The S-N curve developed from this study was very close to
Thompson and Barenburgs S-N curve after the application of the equiva-
lent fatigue-life concept.
110-M03Effects of Sand Content, High-Range Water-
Reducing Admixture Dosage, and Mixing Time on Compressive
Strength of Mortar
by Virak Han, Soty Ros, and Hiroshi Shima
This study investigated the effects of unit sand volume, mixing time dura-
tion, and high-range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA) dosage on mortar
compressive strength. The experiments were conducted on many mortar
mixtures made of different water-cement ratios (w/c), sand contents, mixing
times, and different limestone powder replacement ratios. Consequently, the
experimental results suggested that there existed a critical unit sand volume
that caused a change in the mortar compressive strength. When the unit sand
volume in the mortar exceeded the critical unit sand volume, the strength of
the mortar increased and decreased in the case of HRWRA dosage of 0.3%
or 0.6% and 0.8%, respectively. Moreover, the critical unit sand volume was
found to be 0.38 and 0.52 for a w/c of 0.3 and 0.6, respectively. Meanwhile,
regardless of the w/c, the optimum duration of mixing time was 3 minutes.
The optimum HRWRA dosage required for high cement dispersion leading
to high compressive strength of mortar was found to be 1.0% and 1.18% for
mortar with and without limestone powder, respectively.
110-M04Self-Healing of Microcracks in High-Volume Fly-Ash-
Incorporated Engineered Cementitious Composites
by Erdog an zbay, Mustafa S ahmaran, Mohamed Lachemi, and
Hasan Erhan Ycel
This paper presents the self-healing ability of engineered cementi-
tious composites (ECCs) containing high volumes of fy ash (HVFA).
Composites containing two different contents of fy ash (FA) (55 and 70%
by weight of the total cementitious material) are examined. A splitting
tensile strength test was applied to generate microcracks in ECC mixtures,
wherein cylindrical specimens were preloaded up to their 85% maximum
deformation capacity at 28 days. These specimens were then exposed to
the further continuous wet, continuous air, wet/dry cycle curing regimes
for up to 60 days. The extent of the damage was determined by using the
rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT), splitting tensile tests, and micro-
scopic observation. In terms of permeation properties, microcracks induced
by mechanical preloading signifcantly increase the RCPT values of ECC
mixtures. Moreover, increasing FA content is shown to have a negative
effect, especially on the permeation properties of virgin ECC specimens
at an early age. Without self-healing, however, the effect of mechanical
preloading on the chloride-ion penetration resistance of ECC with 70% FA
is lower compared to the ECC with 55% FA. The test results also indicate
that continuous wet and wet/dry cycle curing contribute and speed up the
healing process of the cracks, signifcantly improve mechanical proper-
ties, and drastically decrease the RCPT of ECC. The use of HVFA in ECC
production is likely to promote self-healing behavior due to tighter crack
width and a higher amount of unhydrated cementitious material available
for further hydration. Therefore, it appears that the curing conditions and
ECC composition signifcantly infuence the self-healing ability.
110-M05Factors That Affect Color Loss of Concrete
Paving Blocks
by Federica Lollini and Luca Bertolini
Concrete paving blocks are used for several applications, such as paving
of squares, parking garages, and cycling lines. They are usually made of a
dual concrete mixture and the surface layer is colored through the addition
of pigments. In time, the surface layer of the blocks may fade as a conse-
quence of weathering due to climatic and other factors; this results in the
loss of aesthetic requirements.
In this paper, several factors that could affect the color and microstruc-
ture of concrete paving blocks are examined on specimens with different
coloration. Color and microstructural variations were compared with new
blocks. Color analysiscarried out by means of spectrophotometryand
macro- and microstructural analysis showed that the major factors that lead
to color variation are wear and environmental exposure.
110-M06Strain Measurement of Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete under Multi-Axial Loads with Fiber Bragg Gratings
by Robert Ritter and Manfred Curbach
During multi-axial loading tests, conventional measuring methods for
the determination of strains have diffculty showing the material behavior
of specimens, especially in the range of small deformations. As a result,
the measured strains are infuenced within the entire loading range and a
correction might be required. This paper presents a measuring method that
uses fber Bragg gratings (FBGs) to determine strains inside concrete speci-
mens and provides test results as expected, even concerning small strains.
By applying six measuring points in a tetrahedron-shaped arrangement,
axial and shear strains can be determined. Reference measurements with
strain gauges during uniaxial loading tests show that this measuring method
produces reliable test results. From multi-axial loading tests with compres-
sion-compression-tension loads, a realistic determination of the deforma-
tion behavior was also possible.
110-M07Chemo-Mechanical Micromodel for Alkali-
Silica Reaction
by Wiwat Puatatsananon and Victor Saouma
This paper presents a two-stage numerical model for alkali-silica reac-
tion (ASR)/stress analysis in concrete. The coupled analytical chemo-
mechanical model developed by Suwito et al. was modifed to include the
effects of internal moisture and ion concentration on transport properties of
concrete. A fnite difference model is used to simulate the coupled diffusion
of alkali into concrete and subsequent ASR gel into pores surrounding the
aggregates; then, a fnite element model is subsequently used to perform
a nonlinear analysis. This model is invoked from the master fnite differ-
ence model, resulting in a coupled chemo-mechanical simulation of ASR-
affected concrete with aggregates of different shapes and sizes. Throughout
this analysis, the authors kept track of the vertical and lateral expansions of
the concrete with time which, in turn, are transformed into equivalent aniso-
tropic coeffcients of ASR expansion. Finally, the accuracy of the model is
assessed through comparison with simulated laboratory tests.
110-M08Water Permeability of Reinforced Concrete
Subjected to Cyclic Tensile Loading
by Cllia Desmettre and Jean-Philippe Charron
A large proportion of reinforced concrete structures are cracked and
subjected to cyclic loading in service. The presence of cracks enhances
the ingress of aggressive agents into the concrete, resulting in faster struc-
ture deterioration. On the other hand, crack self-healing and inclusion of
fbers in concrete can improve structure durability. Self-healing under
constant loading is a well-known phenomenon; however, the possibility
for self-healing to occur under cyclic loading has received insuffcient
attention. This study used an innovative permeability device to investigate
the water permeability of reinforced normal-strength concrete (NSC) and
fber-reinforced concrete (FRC) simultaneously subjected to tensile cyclic
loading. Complementary mechanical tests were performed under the same
loading procedure to assess the crack-pattern evolution. The experimental
results showed that, at an equivalent stress level in the reinforcement, the
water permeability was signifcantly lower in the FRC than in the NSC
both under constant and cyclic loading. Moreover, two opposite phenomena
occurred during cyclic loading: crack propagation and self-healing. In the
NSC, the self-healing that occurred under cyclic loading compensated for
the increase of permeability resulting from the crack propagation. In the
FRC, crack growth was minor; the self-healing was not affected by the
cyclic loading and may even have been promoted in comparison to self-
healing under constant loading. The results emphasize the beneft of using
FRC in structures.
110-M09Acoustic-Emission-Based Characterization of
Corrosion Damage in Cracked Concrete with Prestressing Strand
by Jes Mangual, Mohamed K. ElBatanouny, Paul Ziehl, and Fabio Matta
An accelerated corrosion study to assess the feasibility of acoustic emis-
sion (AE) for the detection of active corrosion in prestressing strand is
described. Concrete prisms with an embedded steel strand were corroded
by supplying a constant potential between the strand and a copper plate
while the specimens were immersed in a 3% NaCl solution. Corrosion was
detected using the half-cell potential (HCP), steel section loss, and visual
inspection. The results were compared to AE data. The location of active
corrosion was determined experimentally based on the characteristic wave
speed. An intensity analysis approach was used to plot the relative signif-
cance of the corrosion damage and a classifcation chart is presented. The
results indicate that AE is a useful, nonintrusive technique for the detection
and quantifcation of corrosion damage and may be developed as a struc-
tural prognostic tool for maintenance prioritization.
110-M10Resistance Model of Lightweight Concrete Members
by Anna M. Rakoczy and Andrzej S. Nowak
The objective of this study is to develop a resistance model for light-
weight concrete (LWC) beams and slabs and compare it with normalweight
concrete (NWC) beams and slabs, using new material and component test
data. The focus is on the development of statistical parameters for bending
moment capacity and shear capacity. Resistance parameters can then serve
as a basis for determination of rational resistance factors for LWC. Load-
carrying capacity (resistance) is considered a product of three random vari-
ables representing the uncertainty in material properties, dimensions and
geometry (fabrication factor), and analytical model (professional factor).
In general, it was observed that the compressive strength of LWC is similar
to that of NWC; in some cases, it is even better. However, the lab tests
of beams and slabs show that the current shear design procedure is less
conservative for LWC compared to NWC. Therefore, the resistance factor
for LWC needs to be revised.
NOTES:
NOTES:
NOTES:
NOTES:

Aci Structural Journal January-February 2013 v. 110 No. 1 Complete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aci Structural Journal January-February 2013 v. 110 No. 1 Complete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 110, NO.

for axisymmetric element

for slab thickness of 250 mm (10 in.) or less:

for slab thickness of 250 mm (10 in.) or less:

is the crack spacing in the direction. (Note: Equations

(0.82) (0.82) (1.05) (1.09) (0.91) 1.06

(0.89) (0.85) 1.03 (1.15) 1.00 1.09

(0.91) (0.86) 1.06 (1.19) 1.07 1.13

(0.81) (0.78) (1.14) (1.12) (0.97) 1.08

(0.71) (0.72) (1.10) (1.00) (0.81) 0.97

(0.64) (0.65) (1.20) (0.96) (0.77) 0.91

(0.65) (0.64) (1.19) (0.97) (0.80) 0.94

(0.79) (0.77) (1.24) (1.13) (0.97) 1.02

(0.59) (0.58) (1.04) (0.87) (0.73) 0.78

compression strength of 200 x 200 x 200 mm

Joint shear capacity specifed by ACI 318-08

Concrete crushing failure at beam plastic hinges.

You might also like