Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This paper presents the cyclic response of six exterior beam- head area ratio, Abrg/Ab, which is defined as the ratio of net
column joints with or without eccentricity to evaluate the use of head bearing area, Abrg, to the nominal bar area Ab. The
mechanical anchorages in place of hooked bar anchorages. In high larger the relative head area ratio, the greater the tensile stress
seismic zones, the hooked beam bars often cause steel congestion that can be developed near the head. A headed deformed bar
in a joint at building corners. From previous tests of beam-column with smaller relative head area plus an additional bonded
joints, the use of mechanical anchorages in place of hooked bar
anchorages provides a promising solution for steel congestion, but
length can also be used. It is typical that longitudinal bars
it has not been verified in eccentric beam-column joints. The terminated within a beam-column joint are deeply embedded.
presented experimental program demonstrates that eccentric Therefore, headed bars with a smaller relative head area can
beam-column joints with mechanical anchorages can exhibit be used by considering the head bearing component plus the
satisfactory performance and adequate anchorage capacity for a bond component within the joint. With a smaller relative head
limiting drift ratio. Extending ACI design methods to cover the use area, however, the possibility of side-face blowout and
of mechanical anchorages for eccentric beam-column joints is an concrete crushing at the head should be checked.
appropriate code modification. Test results also indicate that the In the early 1990s, Wallace et al.9 conducted cyclic
cyclic behavior of exterior beam-column joints can be significantly loading tests of isolated beam-column joints to address the
improved by attaching double mechanical devices on each beam
bar within the joint.
INTRODUCTION
Hooked bar anchorages are commonly used for longitudinal
beam flexural reinforcing bars terminating within a building
beam-column joint. To promote the development of a diagonal
compression strut within a beam-column joint under earthquake-
type loading, it is well accepted that hooked bars should be bent
into the joint with the hook embedded as far as possible from the
critical section. This requirement and the specified dimension of
standard hooks in ACI 318-08,1 however, often cause steel
congestion in an exterior or corner beam-column joint, as shown
in Fig. 1, thereby making fabrication and construction difficult. Fig. 1—Congestion of hooks in eccentric beam-column
To ease the congestion problem within the beam-column joint, connection during fabrication.
the use of headed bars in place of hooked bars is a viable option.
Headed bars are fabricated by attaching an anchor plate or
forged head onto the end of a reinforcing bar to provide
mechanical anchorage by head bearing. The pullout behavior
and anchorage capacity of headed bars have been extensively
studied at the Universities of Calgary,2 Kansas,3 and Texas at
Austin.4-8 Researchers4-6 used a simple and convenient
definition to distinguish shallowly-embedded headed bars
from deeply-embedded headed bars, from which embedment
depth to the bearing face of head was at least five times the
least cover dimension, as shown in Fig. 2. Concrete breakout
is the primary failure mechanism of shallowly-embedded
headed bars, similar to that of anchor bolts embedded into
concrete (ACI 318-08,1 Appendix D). For a deeply-embedded
Fig. 2—Shallow versus deep embedment for headed bars.
headed bar, the primary failure mechanism is side-face blowout
of cover concrete when the headed bar is close to a side face.
If headed bars are closely spaced, crushing of the concrete at ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 3, May-June 2009.
the head may occur. MS No. S-2007-313.R2 received April 23, 2008, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
Previous studies5-8 have shown that the anchorage including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-
capacity of a headed bar is strongly related to the relative April 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2009.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
No available data exist showing that headed bars can be safely
used in eccentric beam-column joints. Cyclic loading tests of
exterior beam-column joints with concentric or eccentric beams
were conducted to evaluate the use of mechanical anchorage
devices in place of the standard 90-degree hooks on longitudinal
beam bars. The test results demonstrate that eccentric beam-
column joints with mechanical anchorage have satisfactory
performance with respect to modern seismic design. This paper
also presents an innovative arrangement of double mechanical
anchorages for longitudinal beam bars within the joints. The
double anchorage design improved the cyclic response of beam-
column joints significantly.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
This paper presents results from six exterior beam-column
joint specimens with different anchorage methods. The primary
test variables were the anchorage methods of longitudinal beam
bars and the eccentricity between the beam and column
centerlines. Figure 3 shows the designation and reinforcing
details for the test specimens. The first pair of joint specimens
(W0 and W150), which was selected from five specimens
tested by Lee and Ko,16 used standard 90-degree hooks for the
Fig. 3—Specimen designation and reinforcing details. beam bar anchorage. The next two pairs of joint specimens
φV n = φγ f c ′b j h c ≥ V u (2)
⎧ (b + b ) ⁄ 2
⎪ b c
⎪ mh
b j = the smaller of ⎨ b + Σ ---------c (3)
⎪ b 2
⎪ Fig. 4—Details of mechanical devices for test specimens
⎩ bc (plan view).
b j = ⎛ ---------------
b b + b c⎞ 0.80 0.76 0.76 0.71 0.77 0.74
-
⎝ 2 ⎠
V j, max †
---------------------
-
γ f c ′b j h c b j = ( b b + 0.5h c ⁄ 2 ) — 0.85 — 0.80 — 0.83
b j = ( b b + 0.3h c ⁄ 2 ) — 0.94 — 0.89 — 0.92
( L + 0.5h )
Vj,max = P max ⎛ -----b – ----------------------------
c ⎞
* L b
- where jd = 0.875d is assumed.
⎝ jd Lc ⎠
†γ f c ′ is nominal joint shear stress of 1.0 f c ′ MPa ( 12 f c ′ psi) for test joints.
Table 3—Test results for comparison with acceptance criteria in ACI 374.1-05
Connection Conventional Mechanical anchorage
specimen ID
Parameters W0 W150 W0-M1 W150-M1 W0-M2 W150-M2
Initial stiffness for first cycle of 0.25% drift, Positive 9.16 (52.3) 9.01 (51.4) 9.19 (52.5) 9.03 (51.5) 9.47 (54.1) 9.71 (55.4)
kN/mm (kips/in.) Negative 8.97 (51.2) 8.18 (46.7) 8.94 (51.0) 9.53 (54.4) 8.97 (51.2) 8.60 (49.1)
Percentage degradation in load capacity from Positive 4% 11% 3% 4% 2% 1%
first to third cycle
of 4% drift Negative 5% 20% 5% 5% 3% 2%
Relative energy dissipation ratio* 0.31 0.22 0.33 0.29 0.32 0.35
Ratio of secant stiffness† around zero drift to Positive 0.17 0.08 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.21
initial stiffness Negative 0.16 0.07 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.21
*
Relative energy dissipation ratio is energy-dissipated in third complete cycle of 4% drift ratio divided by idealized elastoplastic energy. Elastoplastic energy was calculated for
positive and negative loading direction using initial stiffness in first cycle of 0.25% drift ratio and peak load resistances in third complete cycle of 4% drift ratio.
†
Secant stiffness around zero drift was obtained for positive and negative loading direction between –0.4% and +0.4% drift ratios in third compete cycle of 4% drift ratio.
Fig. 7—Average dissipated energy of three cycles at each Fig. 9—Contributions to total drift after beam yielding for
drift level. eccentric specimens.
f s, head c A brg f c ′
-------------- = n 5% 2 ⎛ ----b-⎞ ---------
- Ψ ----- (9)
fy ⎝ d b⎠ A b f y
Fig. 10—Bar tensile stresses measured at beam-column Fig. 11—Bar strain histories measured at half column depth into
interface and half column depth into test joints. joint: (a) Specimen W150-M1; and (b) Specimen W150-M2.