ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 100-S27

Analysis of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Grid

Reinforced Concrete Beams
by Federico A. Tavarez, Lawrence C. Bank, and Michael E. Plesha

This study focuses on the use of explicit finite element analysis conventional steel or FRP bars. Therefore, the behavior of
tools to predict the behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) concrete beams with this type of reinforcement needs to be
composite grid reinforced concrete beams subjected to four-point thoroughly investigated.
bending. Predictions were obtained using LS-DYNA, an explicit
finite element program widely used for the nonlinear transient
analysis of structures. The composite grid was modeled in a discrete OBJECTIVES
manner using beam and shell elements, connected to a concrete The objectives of the present study were: 1) to investigate
solid mesh. The load-deflection characteristics obtained from the the ability of explicit finite element analysis tools to predict
simulations show good correlation with the experimental data. the behavior of composite grid reinforced concrete beams,
Also, a detailed finite element substructure model was developed to including load-deflection characteristics and failure modes;
further analyze the stress state of the main longitudinal reinforce- 2) to evaluate the effect of the shear span-depth ratio in the
ment at ultimate conditions. Based on this analysis, a procedure failure mode of the beams and the stress state of the main
was proposed for the analysis of composite grid reinforced concrete
flexural reinforcement at ultimate conditions; and 3) to
beams that accounts for different failure modes. A comparison of
the proposed approach with the experimental data indicated that
develop an alternate procedure for the analysis of composite grid
the procedure provides a good lower bound for conservative reinforced concrete beams considering multiple failure modes.
predictions of load-carrying capacity.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Keywords: beam; composite; concrete; fiber-reinforced polymer; reinforce- The research work presented describes the use of advanced
ment; shear; stress. numerical simulation for the analysis of FRP reinforced
concrete. These numerical simulations can be used effectively
INTRODUCTION to understand the complex behavior and phenomena observed
In recent years, research on fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) in the response of composite grid reinforced concrete beams. In
composite grids has demonstrated that these products may be as particular, this effort provides a basis for the understanding of
practical and cost-effective as reinforcements for concrete the interaction between the composite grid and the concrete
structures.1-5 FRP grid reinforcement offers several advantages when large flexural-shear cracks are present. As such, alternate
in comparison with conventional steel reinforcement and FRP analysis and design techniques can be developed based on the
reinforcing bars. FRP grids are prefabricated, noncorrosive, and understanding obtained from numerical simulations to ensure
lightweight systems suitable for assembly automation and ideal the required capacity in FRP reinforced concrete structures.
for reducing field installation and maintenance costs. Research
on constructability issues and economics of FRP reinforcement
Background
cages for concrete members has shown the potential of
Several researchers have studied the viability of three-
these reinforcements to reduce life-cycle costs and significantly
dimensional FRP grids to reinforce concrete members.3,5,9,10
increase construction site productivity.6
One specific type of three-dimensional FRP reinforcement is
Three-dimensional FRP composite grids provide a mechanical
constructed from commercially manufactured pultruded FRP
anchorage within the concrete due to intersecting elements, and
profiles (also referred to as FRP grating cages). Figure 1 shows
thus no bond is necessary for proper load transfer. This type of
a schematic of the structural members present in a concrete
reinforcement provides integrated axial, flexural, and shear
beam reinforced with the three-dimensional FRP reinforcement
reinforcement, and can also provide a concrete member with
investigated in this study.
the ability to fail in a pseudoductile manner. Continuing
research is being conducted to fully understand the behavior of A pilot experimental and analytical study was conducted
composite grid reinforced concrete to commercialize its use by Bank, Frostig, and Shapira3 to investigate the feasibility
and gain confidence in its design for widespread structural of developing three-dimensional pultruded FRP grating cages
applications. For instance, there is a need to predict the correct to reinforce concrete beams. Failure of all beams tested occurred
failure mode of composite grid reinforced concrete beams due to rupture of the FRP main longitudinal reinforcement in
where there is significant flexural-shear cracking.7 This type the shear span of the beam. Experimental results also revealed
of information is critical for the development of design that most of the deflection at high loads appeared to occur
guidelines for FRP grid reinforced concrete members. due to localized rotations at large flexural crack widths
Current flexural design methods for FRP reinforced concrete
beams are analogous to the design of concrete beams using ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, March-April 2003.
conventional reinforcement.8 The geometrical shape, ductility, MS No. 02-100 received March 27, 2002, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includ-
modulus of elasticity, and force transfer characteristics of FRP ing the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the January-February 2004 ACI Structural
composite grids, however, are likely to be different than Journal if received by September 1, 2003.

250 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

Federico A. Tavarez is a graduate student in the Department of Engineering Physics
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He received his BS in civil engineering from
the University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez and his MSCE from the University of
Wisconsin. His research interests include finite element analysis, the use of composite
materials for structural applications, and the use of discrete element methods for
modeling concrete damage and fragmentation under impact.

ACI member Lawrence C. Bank is a professor in the Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He received his
PhD in civil engineering and engineering mechanics from Columbia University in
1985. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.
His research interests include FRP reinforcement systems for structures, progressive
failure of materials and structural systems, and durability of FRP materials.
Fig. 1—Structural members in composite grid reinforced
Michael E. Plesha is a professor in the Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics concrete beam.
Program in the Department of Engineering Physics at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. He received his PhD from Northwestern University in 1983. His research
interests include finite element analysis, discrete element analysis, dynamics of
geologic media, constitutive modeling of geologic discontinuity behavior, soil structure
interaction modeling, and continuum modeling of jointed saturated rock masses.

developed in the shear span near the load points. The study
concluded that further research was needed to obtain a better
understanding of the stress state in the longitudinal rein-
forcement at failure to predict the correct capacity and failure
modes of the beams.
Further experimental tests on concrete beams reinforced
with three-dimensional FRP composite grids were conducted to
investigate the behavior and performance of the grids when
used to reinforce beams that develop significant flexural-shear
cracking.7 Different composite grid configurations were
designed to study the influence of the FRP grid components
(longitudinal bars, vertical bars, and transverse bars) on the Fig. 2—Deformation due to rotation of rigid bodies.
load-deflection behavior and failure modes. Even though failure
modes of the beams were different depending upon the Numerical analysis of FRP composite grid
characteristics of the composite grid, all beams failed in their reinforced beams
shear spans. Failure modes included splitting and rupture of Implicit finite element methods are usually desirable for
the main longitudinal bars and shear-out failure of the the analysis of quasistatic problems. Their efficiency and
vertical bars. Research results concluded that the design accuracy, however, depend on mesh topology and severity
of concrete beams with composite grid reinforcements must of nonlinearities. In the problem at hand, it would be very
account for failure of the main bars in the shear span. difficult to model the nonlinearities and progressive damage/
A second phase of this experimental research was performed failure using an implicit method, and thus an explicit method
by Ozel and Bank5 to investigate the capacity and failure modes was chosen to perform the analysis.15
of composite grid reinforced concrete beams with different shear Using an explicit finite element method, especially to
span-to-effective depth ratios. Three different shear span- model a quasistatic experiment as the one presented herein,
depth ratios (a/d) were investigated, with values of 3, 4.5, and 6, can result in long run times due to the large number of time
respectively.11 The data obtained from this recently completed steps that are required. Because the time step depends on the
experimental study was compared with the finite element results smallest element size, efficiency is compromised by mesh
obtained in the present study. refinement. The three-dimensional finite element mesh for
Experimental studies have shown that due to the develop- this study was developed in HyperMesh16 and consisted of
ment of large cracks in the FRP-reinforced concrete beams, brick elements to represent the concrete, shell elements to
most of the deformation takes place at a relatively small represent the bottom longitudinal reinforcement, and beam
number of cracks between rigid bodies.12 A schematic of this elements to represent the top reinforcement, stirrups, and
behavior is shown in Fig. 2. As a result, beams with relatively cross rods. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the mesh used for
small shear span-depth ratios typically fail due to rupture of the the models developed. Beams with span lengths of 2300,
main FRP longitudinal reinforcement at large flexural-shear 3050, and 3800 mm were modeled corresponding to shear
cracks, even though they are over-reinforced according to span-depth ratios of 3, 4.5, and 6, respectively. These models
conventional flexural design procedures.5,7,13,14 Due to the are referred to herein as short beam, medium beam, and long
aforementioned behavior for beams reinforced with composite beam, respectively. The cross-sectional properties were
grids, especially those that exhibit significant flexural-shear identical for the three models. As will be seen later, the longi-
cracking, it is postulated that the longitudinal bars in the tudinal bars play an important role in the overall behavior of the
member are subjected to a uniform tensile stress distribution, system, and therefore they were modeled with greater detail
plus a nonuniform stress distribution due to localized rota- than the rest of the reinforcement. The concrete representation
tions at large cracks, which can be of great importance in consisted of 8-node solid elements with dimensions 25 x 25 x
determining the ultimate flexural strength of the beam. The 12.5 mm (shortest dimension parallel to the width of the beam),
present study investigates the stress-state at the flexural- with one-point integration. The mesh discretization was estab-
shear cracks in the main longitudinal bars, using explicit lished so that the reinforcement nodes coincided with the
finite element tools to simulate this behavior and determine concrete nodes. The reinforcement mesh was connected to the
the conditions that will cause failure in the beam. concrete mesh by shared nodes between the concrete and the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 251

 Fig. 3—Finite element model for composite grid reinforced concrete beam.

Fig. 4—Short beam model at several stages in simulation.

reinforcement. As such, a perfect bond is assumed between the Boundary conditions and event simulation time
concrete and the composite grid. To simulate simply supported conditions, the beam was
The two-node Hughes-Liu beam element formulation with supported on two rigid plates made of solid elements. The
2 x 2 Gauss integration was used for modeling the top longi- finite element simulations were displacement controlled,
tudinal bars, stirrups, and cross rods in the finite element which is usually the control method for plastic and nonlinear
models. In this study, each model contains two top longitudinal behavior. That is, a displacement was prescribed on the rigid
bars with heights of 25 mm and thicknesses of 4 mm. The loading plates located on top of the beam. The prescribed
models also have four cross rods and three vertical members displacement was linear, going from zero displacement at t =
at each stirrup location, as shown in Fig. 3. The vertical 0.0 s to 60, 75, and 90 mm at t = 1.0 s for the short, medium,
members have a width of 38 mm and a thickness of 6.4 mm. and long beams, respectively. The corresponding applied
The cross rod elements have a circular cross-sectional load due to the prescribed displacement was then determined
area with a diameter of 12.7 mm. To model the bottom by monitoring the vertical reaction forces at the concrete
longitudinal reinforcement, the four-node Belytschko- nodes in contact with the support elements.
Lin-Tsay shell element formulation was used, as shown The algorithm CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SINGLE_
in Fig. 3, with two through-the-thickness integration points. SURFACE in LS-DYNA was used to model the contact

252 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

between the supports, load bars, and the concrete beam.
This algorithm automatically generates slave and master
surfaces and uses a penalty method where normal interface
springs are used to resist interpenetration between element
surfaces. The interface stiffness is computed as a function
of the bulk modulus, volume, and face area of the elements
on the contact surface.
The finite element analysis was performed to represent
quasistatic experimental testing. As the time over which the
load is applied approaches the period of the lowest natural
frequency of vibration of the structural system, inertial forces
become more important in the response. Therefore, the load
application time was chosen to be long enough so that inertial
effects would be negligible. The flexural frequency of vibration
was computed analytically for the three beams using conven-
tional formulas for vibration theory. 17 Accordingly, it was
determined that having a load application time of 1.0 s
was sufficiently long so that inertial effects are negligible Fig. 5—Experimental and finite element load-deflection
and the analysis can be used to represent a quasistatic experi- results for short, medium, and long beams.
ment. For the finite element simulations presented in this
study, the CPU run time varied approximately from 22 to
65 h (depending on the length of the beam) for 1.0 s of load
application time on a 600 MHz PC with 512 MB RAM.

Material models
Material Type 72 (MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE) in
LS-DYNA was chosen for the concrete representation in the
present study. This material model has been used successfully Fig. 6—Typical failure of composite grid reinforced concrete
for predicting the response of standard uniaxial, biaxial, and beam (Ozel and Bank5).
triaxial concrete tests in both tension and compression. The
formulation has also been used successfully to model the
behavior of standard reinforced concrete dividing walls Table 1—Material properties of FRP bottom bars
subjected to blast loads.18 This concrete model is a plasticity-
Ex 26.7 GPa Xt 266.8 MPa
based formulation with three independent failure surfaces
(yield, maximum, and residual) that change shape depending Ey 14.6 GPa Yt 151.0 MPa
on the hydrostatic pressure of the element. Tensile and Gxy 3.6 GPa Sc 6.9 MPa
compressive meridians are defined for each surface, describing νxy 0.26 Xc 177.9 MPa
the deviatoric part of the stress state, which governs failure in β 0.5 Yc 302.0 MPa
the element. Detailed information about this concrete material
model can be found in Malvar et al.18 The values used in
the input file corresponded to a 34.5 MPa concrete compressive (MAT_RIGID) was used to model the supports and the
strength with a 0.19 Poisson’s ratio and a tensile strength of loading plates.
3.4 MPa. The softening parameters in the model were chosen to
be 15, –50, and 0.01 for uniaxial tension, triaxial tension, and FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
compression, respectively.19 Graphical representations of the finite element model for
The longitudinal bars were modeled using an orthotropic the short beam at several stages in the simulation are shown
material model (MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE), in Fig. 4. The lighter areas in the model represent damage
which is material Type 54 in LS-DYNA. Properties used for (high effective plastic strain) in the concrete material model.
this model are shown in Table 1. Because the longitudinal As expected, there is considerable damage in the shear span
bars were drilled with holes for cross rod connections, the of the concrete beam. Figure 4 also shows the behavior of the
tensile strength in the longitudinal direction of the FRP bars composite grid inside the concrete beam. All displacements
was taken from experimental tensile tests conducted on in the simulation graphics were amplified using a factor of 5
notched bar specimens with a 12.7 mm hole to account to enable viewing. Actual deflection values are given in
for stress concentration effects at the cross rod locations. Fig. 5, which shows the applied load versus midspan deflec-
The tensile properties in the transverse direction were tion behavior for the short, medium, and long beams for the
taken from tests on unnotched specimens. 11 Values for experimental and LS-DYNA results, respectively. The
shear and compressive properties were chosen based on jumps in the LS-DYNA curves in the figure represent the
data in the literature. The composite material model uses progressive tensile and shear failure in the concrete elements. As
the Chang/Chang failure criteria. 20 shown in this figure, the ultimate load value from the finite
The remaining reinforcement (top longitudinal bars, stirrups, element model agrees well with the experimental result. The
and cross rods) was modeled using two-noded beam elements model slightly over-predicts the stiffness of the beam, however,
using a linear elastic material model (MAT_ELASTIC) with and under-predicts the ultimate deflection.
the same properties used for the longitudinal direction in the The significant drop in load seen in the load-deflection
bottom FRP longitudinal bars. A rigid material model curves produced in LS-DYNA is caused by failure in the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 253

 Fig. 7—Medium beam model at several stages in simulation.

Fig. 8—Long beam model at several stages in simulation.

longitudinal bars, as seen in Fig. 4. The deformed shape were observed in the short beam, which would imply that this
seen in this figure indicates a peculiar behavior through- model does not exhibit significant flexural-shear damage. For
out the length of the beam. It appears to indicate that after this model, the finite element analysis slightly over-predicted
a certain level of damage in the shear span of the model, both the stiffness and the ultimate load value obtained from
localized rotations occur in the beam near the load points. the experiment. On the other hand, the ultimate deflection
These rotations create a stress concentration that causes was under-predicted. Failure in this model was also caused
the longitudinal bars to fail at those locations. This deflection by rupture of the longitudinal bars at a location near the load
behavior was also observed in the experimental tests. points. In the experimental test, failure was caused by a
Figure 6 shows a typical failure in the longitudinal bars combination of rupture in the longitudinal bars as well as
from the experiments conducted on these beams. 11 As concrete crushing in the compression zone. This compressive
shown in this figure, there is considerable damage in the failure was located near the load points, however, and
shear span of the member. Large shear cracks develop in could have been initiated by cracks formed due to stress
the beam, causing the member to deform in the same concentrations produced by the rigid loading plates. 11
fashion as the one seen in the finite element model. Figure 8 shows the results for the long beam model.
Figure 7 shows the medium beam model at several stages Comparing this simulation with the two previous ones, it
in the simulation. The figure also shows the behavior of the can be seen that this model exhibits the least shear damage,
main longitudinal bars. Comparing this simulation with the as expected. As a result, the longitudinal bars exhibit a
one obtained for the short beam, it can be seen that the shear parabolic shape, which would be the behavior predicted
damage is not as significant as in the previous simulation. using conventional moment-curvature methods based on the
The deflected shape seen in the longitudinal bars shows that curvature of the member. Once again, the stiffness of the
this model does not have the abrupt changes in rotation that beam was slightly over-predicted. However, the ultimate load

254 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

 Table 2—Summary of experimental and finite
element results
Tensile force in each
Total load capacity, kN main bar, kN
Finite Finite
Flexural element Flexural element
Beam Experimental analysis analysis analysis analysis
Short 215.7 196.2 215.3 90.7 51.6
Medium 143.2 130.8 161.9 90.7 76.5
Fig. 9—(a) Tensile force in longitudinal bars; and (b) internal Long 108.1 97.9 113.0 90.7 76.5
moment in longitudinal bars.
compression failure mode, which was not the failure
value compares well with the experimental result. Failure in
the model was caused by rupture of the longitudinal bars. mode observed from the experimental tests.
Failure in the experimental test was caused by a compression The curves for the medium beam model and the long beam
failure at a location near one of the load application bars, model, shown in Fig. 9, show that for both cases, the beam
followed by rupture of the main longitudinal bars. Figure 5 shear span-depth ratio was sufficiently large so that the stress
also shows the time at total failure for each beam, which can state in the longitudinal bars would not be greatly affected by the
be related to the simulation stages given in Fig. 4, 7, and 8 shear damage produced in the beam. As such, the ultimate axial
for the short, medium, and long beam, respectively. force obtained in the longitudinal bars for both models was
To investigate the stress state of a single longitudinal bar close to the ultimate axial load that would be predicted by using
at ultimate conditions, the tensile force and the internal conventional methods.
moment of the longitudinal bars at the failed location for the In summary, Table 2 presents the ultimate load capacity
three finite element models was determined, as shown in for the three models, including experimental results, conven-
Fig. 9(a) and (b). It is interesting to note that for the short tional flexural analysis results, and finite element results. As
beam model, the tensile force at failure was approximately shown in this table, conventional flexural analysis under-predicts
51.6 kN, while for the medium beam model and the long the actual ultimate load carried by the beams and a better
beam model the tensile force at failure was approximately ultimate load prediction was obtained using finite element
76.5 kN. On the other hand, the internal moment in the short analysis. The tensile load in the bars was computed (analytically)
beam model was approximately 734 N-m, while the internal
by dividing the experimental moment capacity by the internal
moment was approximately 339 N-m for both the short beam
moment arm computed by using strain compatibility. Although
model and the long beam model. It is clear that the shear
damage in the short beam model causes a considerable the finite element results over-predicted the ultimate load for the
localized effect in the stress state of the longitudinal bars, medium and long beams, the simulations provided a better
which is important to consider for design purposes. understanding of the complex phenomena involved in the
According to Fig. 9(a), the total axial load in the longitudinal behavior of the beams, depending on their shear span-depth
bars for the short beam model produces a uniform stress of ratio. The results for tensile load in the bars reported in this table
130 MPa, which is not enough to fail the element in tension suggest that composite grid reinforced concrete beams
at this location. However, the ultimate internal moment with values of shear span-depth ratio greater than 4.5 can be
produces a tensile stress at the bottom of the longitudinal analyzed by using the current flexural theory.
bars of 141 MPa. The sum of these two components produces It is important to mention that the concrete material model
a tensile stress of 271 MPa. When this value is entered in the parameters that govern the post-failure behavior of the material
Chang/Chang failure criterion for the tensile longitudinal played a key role in the finite element results for the three finite
direction, the strength is exceeded and the elements fail. element models. In the concrete material formulation, the
Using conventional over-reinforced beam analysis formulas, elements fail in an isotropic fashion and, therefore, once an
the tensile force in the longitudinal bars at midspan would element fails in tension, it cannot transfer further shear.
be obtained by dividing the ultimate moment obtained from Because the concrete elements are connected to the reinforce-
the experimental test by the internal moment arm. This ment mesh, this behavior causes the beam to fail prematurely
would imply that there is a uniform tensile force in each as a result of tensile failure in the concrete. Therefore, the
longitudinal bar of 88.1 kN. This tensile force is never parameters that govern the post-failure behavior in the
achieved in the finite element simulation due to considerable concrete material model were chosen so that when an element
shear damage in the concrete elements. As a result of this fails in tension, the element still has the capability to transfer
shear damage in the concrete, the curvature at the center of shear forces and the stresses will gradually decrease to zero.
the beam is not large enough to produce a tensile force in the
Because the failed elements can still transfer tensile stresses,
bars of this magnitude (88.1 kN). The internal moment in the
however, the modifications caused an increase in the stiffness
longitudinal bars shown in Fig. 9(b), however, continues
to develop, resulting in a total failure load comparable to of the beam. In real concrete behavior, when a crack opens,
the experimental result. As mentioned before, the force in there is no tension transfer between the concrete at that
the bars according to the simulation was approximately location, causing the member to lose stiffness as cracking
51.6 kN, which is approximately half the load predicted progresses. Regarding shear transfer, factors such as aggre-
using conventional methods. Therefore, the use of conventional gate interlock and dowel action would contribute to transfer
beam analysis formulas to analyze this composite grid reinforced shear forces in a concrete beam, and tensile failure in the
beam would not only erroneously predict the force in the concrete would not affect the response as directly as in the
longitudinal bars, but it would also predict a concrete finite element model.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 255

Stress analysis of FRP bars
As discussed previously, failure modes observed in experi-
mental tests performed on composite grid reinforced concrete
beams suggest that the longitudinal bars are subjected to a
uniform tensile stress plus a nonuniform bending stress due
to localized rotations at locations of large cracks. This section
presents a simple analysis procedure to determine the stress
conditions at which the longitudinal bars fail. As a result of this Fig. 10—Failure on FRP bar subjected to pure tension.
analysis, a procedure is presented to analyze/design a composite
grid reinforced concrete beam, considering a nonuniform stress
state in the longitudinal bars.
A more detailed finite element model of a section of the
longitudinal bars was developed in HyperMesh16 using shell
elements, as shown in Fig. 10. A height of 50.8 mm was
specified for the bar model, with a thickness of 4.1 mm. The
length of the bar and the diameter of the hole were 152 and
12.7 mm, respectively. The material formulation and properties
Fig. 11—Failure on FRP bar subjected to pure bending.
were the same as the ones used for the longitudinal bars in the
concrete beam models, with the exception that now the to the nominal strength of the member multiplied by a strength-
unnotched tensile strength of the material (Xt = 521 MPa) was reduction factor φ, as shown in the following equation
used as an input parameter because the hole was incorporated in
the model.
The finite element model was first loaded in tension to φ Mn ≥ Mu (1)
establish the tensile strength of the notched bar. The load
was applied by prescribing a displacement at the end of the For FRP reinforced concrete beams, a compression failure
bar. Figure 10 shows the simulation results for the model at is the preferred mode of failure, and, therefore, the beam
three stages, including elastic deformation and ultimate should be over-reinforced. As such, conventional formulas
failure. As expected, a stress concentration developed on the are used to ensure that the selected cross-sectional area of the
boundary of the hole causing failure in the web of the model, longitudinal bars is sufficiently large to have concrete
followed by ultimate failure of the cross section. A tensile compression failure before FRP rupture. Considering a concrete
strength of 274 MPa was obtained for the model. A value compression failure, the capacity of the beam is computed using
of 267 MPa was obtained from experimental tests con- the following8
ducted on notched bars (tensile strength used in Table 2),
demonstrating good agreement between experimental
M n = A f f f  d – ---
and finite element results. a
(2)
A similar procedure was performed to establish the  2
strength of the bar in pure bending. That is, displacements
were prescribed at the end nodes to induce bending in the
model. Figure 11 shows the simulation results for the model Af ff
a = -------------- (3)
at three stages, showing elastic bending and ultimate failure β 1 f c′ b
caused by flexural failure at the tension flange. As shown in
this figure, the width of the top flange was modified to
β1 d – a
prevent buckling in the flange (which was present in the f f = E f ε cu ----------------- (4)
original model). Because buckling would not be present in a a
longitudinal bar due to concrete confinement, it was decided
to modify the finite element model to avoid this behavior. To Experimental tests have shown, however, that there is
maintain an equivalent cross-sectional area, the thickness of a critical value of shear Vscrit in a beam where localized rotations
the flange was increased. A maximum pure bending moment due to large flexural-shear cracks begin to occur. The
of 2.92 kN-m was obtained for the model. ultimate moment in the beam is assumed to be related to
Knowing the maximum force that the bar can withstand in this shear-critical value and it is determined according to
pure tension and pure bending, the model was then loaded at the following equation
different values of tension and moment to cause failure. This
procedure was performed several times to develop a tension-
moment interaction diagram for the bar, as shown in Fig. 12. Mn = n ⋅ ( t ⋅ i e + m ) (5)
The discrete points shown in the figure are combinations of
tensile force and moment values that caused failure in the where n is the number of longitudinal bars. Once the beam has
finite element model. This interaction diagram can be used reached the shear-critical value, it is assumed (conservatively)
to predict what combination of tensile force and moment that the tensile force t, which is the force in each bar at the
would cause failure in the FRP longitudinal bar. shear-critical stage, remains constant and any additional load is
carried by localized internal moment m in the longitudinal
Considerations for design bars. Furthermore, it is assumed that at this stage the concrete
The strength design philosophy states that the flexural is still in its elastic range, and, therefore, the internal moment
capacity of a reinforced concrete member must exceed the arm ie can be determined by equilibrium and elastic strain
flexural demand. The design capacity of a member refers compatibility. The tensile force t in Eq. (5) is computed

256 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

 Table 3—Summary of results for three beams using proposed approach
Total load capacity, kN
Experimental
ultimate Theoretical shear Equation for Analytical Tension in each
Beam shear, kN critical, kN moment capacity Experimental Pn = Mn /as main bar, kN
Short 108.1 88.1 Mn = t · ie + m 216 199 70.7
Medium 71.6 88.1 Mn = Af f f (d – a/ 2) 143 131 90.7
Long 54.7 88.1 Mn = Af f f (d – a/2) 109 99 90.7

according to the following equation for a simply supported

beam in four-point bending

crit
Vs ⋅a
t = ---------------------s (6)
ni e

where as is the shear span of the member. The obtained value

for the tension t in each bar is then entered in Eq. (7), which
is the equation for the interaction diagram, to determine the
ultimate internal moment m in Eq. (5) that causes the bar to
fail. In this equation, tmax and mmax are known properties of
the notched composite bar.

m = m max 1 –  --------- for t > 0 ; m > 0

t 2
(7)
 t max

The aforementioned procedure is a very simplified analysis to

determine the capacity of a composite grid reinforced concrete
beam, and, as can be seen, it depends considerably on the shear- Fig. 12—Tension-moment interaction diagram for longi-
critical value Vscrit established for the beam. This value is tudinal bar.
somewhat difficult to determine. Based on experimental data, a
value given by Eq. (8) (analogous to Eq. (9-1) of ACI to compute the maximum moment that the bar can carry as a
440.1R-01) can be considered to be a lower bound for function of the tensile force acting in the bar. If a specific bar
FRP reinforced beams with shear reinforcement. is always used, however, this difficulty is eliminated, and if
the flexural demand is not exceeded, a higher capacity can be
crit 7 ρf Ef 1 obtained by increasing the number of longitudinal bars in the
Vs = ----------------- --- f ′ bd (8) section. According to the results obtained for the three beams
90 β 1 f c′ 6 c analyzed herein, the proposed procedure will under-predict
the capacity of the composite grid reinforced concrete beam,
where fc′ is the specified compressive strength of the concrete but it will provide a good lower bound for a conservative
in MPa. In summary, the ultimate moment capacity in the beam design. Furthermore, it will ensure that the longitudinal bars
is determined according to one of the following equations will not fail prematurely as a result of the development of
large flexural-shear cracks in the member, and thus the
member will be able to meet and exceed the flexural demand
M n = A f f f  d – a--- for V ult < V s
crit
(9)
 2  for which it was designed.

CONCLUSIONS
crit
M n = n ⋅ ( t ⋅ i e + m ) for V ult > V s (10) Based on the explicit finite element results and comparison
with experimental data, the following conclusions can be made:
According to Eq. (9), if the ultimate shear force computed 1. Failure in the FRP longitudinal bars occurs due to a
analytically based on conventional theory does not exceed combination of a uniform tensile stress plus a nonuniform
the shear-critical value Vscrit, the moment capacity can be stress caused by localized rotations at large flexural-shear
computed from flexural analysis. On the other hand, if the cracks. Therefore, this failure mode has to be accounted for
computed ultimate shear force is greater than Vscrit, Eq. (10) in the analysis and design of composite grid reinforced concrete
is used. Table 3 presents a summary showing the load capacity beams, especially those that exhibit significant flexural-
for the three beams obtained experimentally and analytically shear cracking;
using the present approach. As shown in this table, the equation 2. The shear span for the medium beam and the long beam
used to determine the flexural capacity depends on the ultimate studied was sufficiently large so that the stress state in the
shear obtained for each beam. longitudinal bars was not considerably affected by shear
As seen in this procedure, the only difficulty in applying damage in the beam. Therefore, the particular failure mode
these formulas is the fact that an equation needs to be determined observed by the short beam model is only characteristic of

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 257

beams with a low shear span-depth ratio. Moreover, according REFERENCES
to the proposed analysis for such systems, both the medium 1. Sugita, M., “NEFMAC—Grid Type Reinforcement,” Fiber-Reinforced-
Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties and
beam and the long beam could be designed using conventional Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, A. Nanni, ed., Elsevier,
flexural theory because the shear-critical value was never Amsterdam, V. 42, 1993, pp. 355-385.
reached for these beam lengths; 2. Schmeckpeper, E. R., and Goodspeed, C. H., “Fiber-Reinforced
3. Numerical simulations can be used effectively to under- Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction,” Journal of Composite
Materials, V. 28, No. 14, 1994, pp. 1288-1304.
stand the complex behavior and phenomena observed in the
3. Bank, L. C.; Frostig, Y.; and Shapira, A., “Three-Dimensional Fiber-
response of composite grid reinforced concrete beams and, Reinforced Plastic Grating Cages for Concrete Beams: A Pilot Study,” ACI
therefore, can be used as a complement to experimental Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1997, pp. 643-652.
testing to account for multiple failure modes in the design 4. Smart, C. W., and Jensen, D. W., “Flexure of Concrete Beams
of composite grid reinforced concrete beams; and Reinforced with Advanced Composite Orthogrids,” Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, V. 10, No. 1, Jan. 1997, pp. 7-15.
4. The proposed method of analysis for composite grid 5. Ozel, M., and Bank, L. C., “Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced
reinforced concrete beams considering multiple failure with 3-D Composite Grids,” CD-ROM Paper No. 069. Proceedings of the
modes will under-predict the capacity of the reinforced 16th Annual Technical Conference, American Society for Composites,
concrete beam, but it will provide a good lower bound for Virginia Tech, Va., Sept. 9-12, 2001.
6. Shapira, A., and Bank, L. C., “Constructability and Economics of FRP
a conservative design. These design considerations will Reinforcement Cages for Concrete Beams,” Journal of Composites for
ensure that the longitudinal bars will not fail prematurely Construction, V. 1, No. 3, Aug. 1997, pp. 82-89.
(or catastrophically) as a result of the development of large 7. Bank, L. C., and Ozel, M., “Shear Failure of Concrete Beams Reinforced
flexural-shear cracks in the member, and thus the member with 3-D Fiber Reinforced Plastic Grids,” Fourth International Symposium on
can develop a pseudoductile failure by concrete crushing, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures,
SP-188, C. Dolan, S. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete
which is more desirable than a sudden FRP rupture. Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, pp. 145-156.
8. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-01),” American Concrete
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2001, 41 pp.
Grant. No. CMS 9896074. Javier Malvar and Karagozian & Case are 9. Nakagawa, H.; Kobayashi. M.; Suenaga, T.; Ouchi, T.; Watanabe, S.;
thanked for providing information regarding the concrete material formulation and Satoyama, K., “Three-Dimensional Fabric Reinforcement,” Fiber-
used in LS-DYNA. Jim Day, Todd Slavik, and Khanh Bui of Livermore Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties
Software Technology Corporation (LSTC) are also acknowledged for their and Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, V. 42, A. Nanni, ed.,
assistance in using the finite element software, as well as Strongwell Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 387-404.
Chatfield, MN, for producing the custom composite grids. 10. Yonezawa, T.; Ohno, S.; Kakizawa, T.; Inoue, K.; Fukata, T.; and
Okamoto, R., “A New Three-Dimensional FRP Reinforcement,” Fiber-
Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties
NOTATION and Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, V. 42, A. Nanni, ed.,
a = depth of equivalent rectangular stress block Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 405-419.
as = length of shear span in reinforced concrete beam 11. Ozel, M., “Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with 3-D
b = width of rectangular cross section Fiber Reinforced Plastic Grids,” PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension Madison, 2002.
reinforcement 12. Lees, J. M., and Burgoyne, C. J., “Analysis of Concrete Beams with
Ef = modulus of elasticity for FRP bar Partially Bonded Composite Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal,
Ex = modulus of elasticity in longitudinal direction of FRP grid material V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2000, pp. 252-258.
Ey = modulus of elasticity in transverse direction of FRP grid material 13. Shehata, E.; Murphy, R.; and Rizkalla, S., “Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,” Fourth International
Gxy = shear modulus of FRP grid members
Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced
f ′c = specified compressive strength of concrete
Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. Dolan, S. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds.,
ff = stress in FRP reinforcement in tension American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, pp. 157-167.
ie = internal moment arm in the elastic range 14. Guadagnini, M.; Pilakoutas, K.; and Waldron, P., “Investigation on
Mn = nominal moment capacity Shear Carrying Mechanisms in FRP RC Beams,” FRPRCS-5, Fibre-
m = internal moment in longitudinal FRP grid bars Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the
n = number of longitudinal FRP grid bars Fifth International Conference, C. J. Burgoyne, ed., V. 2, Cambridge, July
Sc = shear strength of FRP grid material 16-18, 2001, pp. 949-958.
t = tensile force in a longitudinal bar at the shear critical stage 15. Cook, R. D.; Malkus, D. S.; and Plesha, M. E., Concepts and
Vscrit = critical shear resistance provided by concrete in FRP grid rein- Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 3rd Edition, John Wiley &
forced concrete Sons, N.Y., 1989, 832 pp.
Vult = ultimate shear force in reinforced concrete beam 16. Altair Computing, HyperMesh Version 2.0 User’s Manual, Altair
Xc = longitudinal compressive strength of FRP grid material Computing Inc., Troy, Mich., 1995.
Xt = longitudinal tensile strength of FRP grid material 17. Thompson, W. T., and Dahleh, M. D., Theory of Vibration with
Applications, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, N.J., 1998, 524 pp.
Yc = transverse compressive strength of FRP grid material
18. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford, J. E.; Wesevich, J. W.; and Simons, D., “A
Yt = transverse tensile strength of FRP grid material Plasticity Concrete Material Model for DYNA3D,” International Journal
β = weighting factor for shear term in Chang/Chang failure criterion of Impact Engineering, V. 19, No. 9/10, 1997, pp. 847-873.
β1 = ratio of the depth of Whitney’s stress block to depth to neu- 19. Tavarez, F. A., “Simulation of Behavior of Composite Grid Reinforced
tral axis Concrete Beams Using Explicit Finite Element Methods,” MS thesis, University
εcu = concrete ultimate strain of Wisconsin-Madison, 2001.
ρf = FRP reinforcement ratio 20. Hallquist, J. O., LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual, Livermore
νxy = Poisson’s ratio of FRP grid material Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, Calif., Apr. 2000.

258 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 100-S64

Compression Field Modeling of Reinforced Concrete

Subjected to Reversed Loading: Formulation
by Daniel Palermo and Frank J. Vecchio

Constitutive formulations are presented for concrete subjected to however, the fixed crack assumption requires separate
reversed cyclic loading consistent with a compression field formulations to model the normal stress and shear stress
approach. The proposed models are intended to provide substan- hysteretic behavior. This is at odds with test observations. An
tial compatibility to nonlinear finite element analysis in the context alternative method of analysis, used herein, for reversed
of smeared rotating cracks in both the compression and tension
cyclic loading assumes smeared rotating cracks consistent
stress regimes. The formulations are also easily adaptable to a
fixed crack approach or an algorithm based on fixed principal with a compression field approach. In the finite element
stress directions. Features of the modeling include: nonlinear method of analysis, this approach is coupled with a secant
unloading using a Ramberg-Osgood formulation; linear reloading stiffness formulation, which is marked by excellent
that incorporates degradation in the reloading stiffness based on convergence and numerical stability. Furthermore, the
the amount of strain recovered during the unloading phase; and rotating crack model eliminates the need to model normal
improved plastic offset formulations. Backbone curves from which stresses and shear stresses separately. The procedure has
unloading paths originate and on which reloading paths terminate demonstrated excellent correlation to experimental data
are represented by the monotonic response curves and account for for structures subjected to monotonic loading.4 More
compression softening and tension stiffening in the compression recently, the secant stiffness method has successfully
and tension regions, respectively. Also presented are formulations
modeled the response of structures subjected to reversed
for partial unloading and partial reloading.
cyclic loading,5 addressing the criticism that it cannot be
effectively used to model general loading conditions.
Keywords: cracks; load; reinforced concrete.
While several cyclic models for concrete, including
Okamura and Maekawa;2 Mander, Priestley, and Park;6
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE and Mansour, Lee, and Hsu,7 among others, have been
The need for improved methods of analysis and modeling documented in the literature, most are not applicable to the
of concrete subjected to reversed loading has been brought to alternative method of analysis used by the authors.
the fore by the seismic shear wall competition conducted by
Documented herein are models, formulated in the context of
the Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation of Japan.1 The
smeared rotating cracks, for reinforced concrete subjected to
results indicate that a method for predicting the peak strength
reversed cyclic loading. To reproduce accurate simulations of
of structural walls is not well established. More important, in
structural behavior, the modeling considers the shape of the
the case of seismic analysis, was the apparent inability to
unloading and reloading curves of concrete to capture the
accurately predict structure ductility. Therefore, the state of
energy dissipation and the damage of the material due to load
the art in analytical modeling of concrete subjected to general
cycling. Partial unloading/reloading is also considered, as struc-
loading conditions requires improvement if the seismic response
tural components may partially unload and then partially reload
and ultimate strength of structures are to be evaluated with
during a seismic event. The modeling is not limited to the
sufficient confidence.
compressive regime alone, as the tensile behavior also plays a
This paper presents a unified approach to constitutive key role in the overall response of reinforced concrete struc-
modeling of reinforced concrete that can be implemented tures. A comprehensive review of cyclic models available in the
into finite element analysis procedures to provide accurate literature and those reported herein can be found elsewhere.8
simulations of concrete structures subjected to reversed
It is important to note that the models presented are not
loading. Improved analysis and design can be achieved by
intended for fatigue analysis and are best suited for a limited
modeling the main features of the hysteresis behavior of
number of excursions to a displacement level. Further, the
concrete and by addressing concrete in tension.
models are derived from tests under quasistatic loading.
INTRODUCTION
CONCRETE STRESS-STRAIN MODELS
The analysis of reinforced concrete structures subjected to
general loading conditions requires realistic constitutive models For demonstrative purposes, Vecchio5 initially adopted
and analytical procedures to produce reasonably accurate simple linear unloading/reloading rules for concrete. The
simulations of behavior. However, models reported that have formulations were implemented into a secant stiffness-based
demonstrated successful results under reversed cyclic loading finite element algorithm, using a smeared rotating crack
are less common than models applicable to monotonic loading.
The smeared crack approach tends to be the most favored as ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 5, September-October 2003.
documented by, among others, Okamura and Maekawa2 and MS No. 02-234 received July 2, 2002, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
Sittipunt and Wood.3 Their approach, assuming fixed cracks, the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the July-
has demonstrated good correlation to experimental results; August 2004 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2004.

616 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

 lower-bound solutions, respectively. The proposed model
Daniel Palermo is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He received his PhD from the University (Palermo) predicts slightly larger residual strains than the
of Toronto in 2002. His research interests include nonlinear analysis and design of lower limit, and the Bahn and Hsu14 model calculates
concrete structures, constitutive modeling of reinforced concrete subjected to cyclic
loading, and large-scale testing and analysis of structural walls. progressively larger plastic offsets. Approximately 50% of
the datum points were obtained from the experimental results
ACI member Frank J. Vecchio is Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE of Karsan and Jirsa;13 therefore, it is not unexpected that the
Committee 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns, and 447, Finite Element Analysis Palermo model is skewed towards the lower-bound Karsan
of Reinforced Concrete Structures. His interests include nonlinear analysis and
design of concrete structures.
and Jirsa13 model. The models reported in the literature were
derived from their own set of experimental data and, thus,
may be affected by the testing conditions. The proposed
approach, to illustrate the analysis capability for arbitrary
loading conditions, including reversed cyclic loading. The formulation alleviates dependence on one set of experimental
models presented herein have also been formulated in the data and test conditions. The Palermo model, by predicting
context of smeared rotating cracks, and are intended to build
upon the preliminary constitutive formulations presented by
Vecchio.5 A companion paper 9 documenting the results
of nonlinear finite element analyses, incorporating the
proposed models, will demonstrate accurate simulations
of structural behavior.

Compression response
First consider the compression response, illustrated in
Fig. 1, occurring in either of the principal strain directions.
Figure 1(a) and (b) illustrate the compressive unloading and
compressive reloading responses, respectively. The backbone
curve typically follows the monotonic response, that is,
Hognestad parabola 10 or Popovics formulation,11 and
includes the compression softening effects according to
the Modified Compression Field Theory. 12
The shape and slope of the unloading and reloading responses
are dependent on the plastic offset strain εcp , which is essentially
the amount of nonrecoverable damage resulting from
crushing of the concrete, internal cracking, and compressing of
internal voids. The plastic offset is used as a parameter in
defining the unloading path and in determining the degree of
damage in the concrete due to cycling. Further, the backbone
curve for the tension response is shifted such that its origin
coincides with the compressive plastic offset strain.
Various plastic offset models for concrete in compression
have been documented in the literature. Karsan and Jirsa13
were the first to report a plastic offset formulation for concrete
subjected to cyclic compressive loading. The model illustrated
the dependence of the plastic offset strain on the strain at the
onset of unloading from the backbone curve. A review of
various formulations in the literature reveals that, for the
most part, the models best suit the data from which they were Fig. 1—Hysteresis models for concrete in compression: (a)
derived, and no one model seems to be most appropriate. A unloading; and (b) reloading.
unified model (refer to Fig. 2) has been derived herein consid-
ering data from unconfined tests from Bahn and Hsu14 and
Karsan and Jirsa,13 and confined tests from Buyukozturk and
Tseng.15 From the latter tests, the results indicated that the
plastic offset was not affected by confining stresses or strains.
The proposed plastic offset formulation is described as

ε 2c 2 ε 2c
ε c = ε p 0.166  ------
- + 0.132  ------
p
- (1)
 εp   εp 

where εcp is the plastic offset strain; εp is the strain at peak

stress; and ε2c is the strain at the onset of unloading from the
backbone curve. Figure 2 also illustrates the response of other
plastic offset models available in the literature.
The plot indicates that models proposed by Buyukozturk
and Tseng15 and Karsan and Jirsa13 represent upper- and Fig. 2—Plastic offset models for concrete in compression.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 617

relatively small plastic offsets, predicts more pinching in stress point on the reloading path that corresponded to the
the hysteresis behavior of the concrete. This pinching maximum unloading strain. The new stress point was assumed
phenomenon has been observed by Palermo and Vecchio8 and to be a function of the previous unloading stress and the
Pilakoutas and Elnashai16 in the load-deformation response of stress at reloading reversal. Their approach, however, was
structural walls dominated by shear-related mechanisms. stress-based and dependent on the backbone curve. The
In analysis, the plastic offset strain remains unchanged approach used herein is to define the reloading stiffness
unless the previous maximum strain in the history of loading as a degrading function to account for the damage induced in the
is exceeded. concrete due to load cycling. The degradation was observed to
The unloading response of concrete, in its simplest form, be a function of the strain recovery during unloading. The
can be represented by a linear expression extending from the reloading response is then determined from
unloading strain to the plastic offset strain. This type of
representation, however, is deficient in capturing the energy f c = f ro + E c1 ( ε c – ε ro ) (6)
dissipated during an unloading/reloading cycle in compression.
Test data of concrete under cyclic loading confirm that the
unloading branch is nonlinear. To derive an expression to where fc and εc are the stress and strain on the reloading path;
describe the unloading branch of concrete, a Ramberg- f ro is the stress in the concrete at reloading reversal and
Osgood formulation similar to that used by Seckin17 was corresponds to a strain of εro ; and Ec1 is the reloading
adopted. The formulation is strongly influenced by the stiffness, calculated as follows
unloading and plastic offset strains. The general form of
the unloading branch of the proposed model is expressed as ( β d ⋅ f max ) – f ro
E c1 = -----------------------------------
- (7)
ε 2c – ε ro
N
f c ( ∆ε ) = A + B ∆ε + C ∆ε (2)
where
where fc is the stress in the concrete on the unloading curve,
and ∆ε is the strain increment, measured from the instantaneous 1
strain on the unloading path to the unloading strain, A, B, β d = -----------------------------------------------
0.5
- for ε c < ε p (8)
1 + 0.10 (ε rec ⁄ ε p )
and C are parameters used to define the general shape of the
curve, and N is the Ramberg-Osgood power term. Applying
boundary conditions from Fig. 1(a) and simplifying yields
and
N
( E c3 – E c2 )∆ε
f c ( ∆ε ) = f 2c + E c2 ( ∆ε ) + -------------------------------------- (3) 1
p N–1 β d = --------------------------------------------------
- for ε c > ε p (9)
N ( ε c – ε 2c ) 0.6
1 + 0.175 (ε rec ⁄ ε p )

where
and
∆ε = ε – ε 2c (4)
ε rec = ε max – ε min (10)
and
βd is a damage indicator, fmax is the maximum stress in the
p
concrete for the current unloading loop, and εrec is the
( E c2 – E c3 ) ( εc – ε 2c ) amount of strain recovered in the unloading process and is
N = ---------------------------------------------------
- (5)
p the difference between the maximum strain εmax and the
f c2 + E c2 ( ε c – ε 2c )
minimum strain εmin for the current hysteresis loop. The
minimum strain is limited by the compressive plastic offset
ε is the instantaneous strain in the concrete. The initial strain. The damage indicator was derived from test data on
unloading stiffness Ec2 is assigned a value equal to the plain concrete from four series of tests: Buyukozturk and
initial tangent stiffness of the concrete Ec, and is routinely Tseng,15 Bahn and Hsu,14 Karsan and Jirsa,13 and
calculated as 2fc′ / ε′c . The unloading stiffness Ec3, which defines Yankelevsky and Reinhardt.18 A total of 31 datum points
the stiffness at the end of the unloading phase, is defined as were collected for the prepeak range (Fig. 3(a)) and 33 datum
0.071 E c, and was adopted from Seckin. 17 f2c is the stress points for the postpeak regime (Fig. 3(b)). Because there was a
calculated from the backbone curve at the peak unloading negligible amount of scatter among the test series, the datum
strain ε 2c. points were combined to formulate the model. Figure 3(a) and
Reloading can sufficiently be modeled by a linear response (b) illustrate good correlation with experimental data, indi-
and is done so by most researchers. An important characteristic, cating the link between the strain recovery and the damage due
however, which is commonly ignored, is the degradation in to load cycling. βd is calculated for the first unloading/reloading
the reloading stiffness resulting from load cycling. Essentially, cycle and retained until the previous maximum unloading strain
the reloading curve does not return to the backbone curve at is attained or exceeded. Therefore, no additional damage is
the previous maximum unloading strain (refer to Fig. 1 (b)). induced in the concrete for hysteresis loops occurring at strains
Further straining is required for the reloading response to less than the maximum unloading strain. This phenomenon is
intersect the backbone curve. Mander, Priestley, and Park6 further illustrated through the partial unloading and partial
attempted to incorporate this phenomenon by defining a new reloading formulations.

618 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

 It is common for cyclic models in the literature to ignore f c = f max + E c1 ( ε c – ε max ) (13)
the behavior of concrete for the case of partial unloading/
reloading. Some models establish rules for partial loadings
from the full unloading/reloading curves. Other models The proposed constitutive relations for concrete subjected
explicitly consider the case of partial unloading followed to compressive cyclic loading are tested in Fig. 5 against the
by reloading to either the backbone curve or strains in excess experimental results of Karsan and Jirsa.13 The Palermo
of the previous maximum unloading strain. There exists, model generally captures the behavior of concrete under cyclic
however, a lack of information considering the case where compressive loading. The nonlinear unloading and linear
loading formulations agree well with the data, and the plastic
partial unloading is followed by partial reloading to strains
offset strains are well predicted. It is apparent, though, that
less than the previous maximum unloading strain. This more
the reloading curves become nonlinear beyond the point of
general case was modeled using the experimental results of
intersection with the unloading curves, often referred to as the
Bahn and Hsu.14 The proposed rule for the partial unloading
response is identical to that assumed for full unloading;
however, the previous maximum unloading strain and
corresponding stress are replaced by a variable unloading
strain and stress, respectively. The unloading path is defined
by the unloading stress and strain and the plastic offset strain,
which remains unchanged unless the previous maximum
strain is exceeded. For the case of partial unloading followed
by reloading to a strain in excess of the previous maximum
unloading strain, the reloading path is defined by the expressions
governing full reloading. The case where concrete is partially
unloaded and partially reloaded to a strain less than the
previous maximum unloading strain is illustrated in Fig 4.
Five loading branches are required to construct the response
of Fig. 4. Unloading Curve 1 represents full unloading from
the maximum unloading strain to the plastic offset and is
calculated from Eq. (3) to (5) for full unloading. Curve 2
defines reloading from the plastic offset strain and is
defined by Eq. (6) to (10). Curve 3 represents the case of
partial unloading from a reloading path at a strain less than the
previous maximum unloading strain. The expressions used
for full unloading are applied, with the exception of substi-
tuting the unloading stress and strain for the current hysteresis
loop for the unloading stress and strain at the previous
maximum unloading point. Curve 4 describes partial
reloading from a partial unloading branch. The response
follows a linear path from the load reversal point to the
previous unloading point and assumes that damage is not
accumulated in loops forming at strains less than the
previous maximum unloading strain. This implies that the
reloading stiffness of Curve 4 is greater than the reloading
stiffness of Curve 2 and is consistent with test data reported
by Bahn and Hsu.14 The reloading stiffness for Curve 4 is
represented by the following expression Fig. 3—Damage indicator for concrete in compression:
(a) prepeak regime; and (b) postpeak regime.
f max – f ro
E c1 = ----------------------
- (11)
ε max – ε ro

The reloading stress is then calculated using Eq. (6) for

full reloading.
In further straining beyond the intersection with Curve 2,
the response of Curve 4 follows the reloading path of Curve 5.
The latter retains the damage induced in the concrete from
the first unloading phase, and the stiffness is calculated as

β d ⋅ f 2c – f max
E c1 = ------------------------------- (12)
ε 2c – ε max

The reloading stresses are then determined from the

following Fig. 4—Partial unloading/reloading for concrete in compression.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 619

common point. The Palermo model can be easily modified to part, linear unloading/reloading responses with no plastic
account for this phenomenon; however, unusually small load offsets. The latter was the approach used by Vecchio5 in
steps would be required in a finite element analysis to capture formulating a preliminary tension model. Stevens, Uzumeri,
this behavior, and it was thus ignored in the model. Further- and Collins19 reported a nonlinear response based on defining
more, the results tend to underestimate the intersection of the the stiffness along the unloading path; however, the models
reloading path with the backbone curve. This is a direct result were verified with limited success. Okumura and Maekawa2
of the postpeak response of the concrete and demonstrates the proposed a hysteretic model for cyclic tension, in which a
importance of proper modeling of the postpeak behavior. nonlinear unloading curve considered stresses through bond
action and through closing of cracks. A linear reloading path
Tension response was also assumed. Hordijk 20 used a fracture mechanics
Much less attention has been directed towards the modeling approach to formulate nonlinear unloading/reloading rules
of concrete under cyclic tensile loading. Some researchers in terms of applied stress and crack opening displacements.
consider little or no excursions into the tension stress regime The proposed tension model follows the philosophy used to
and those who have proposed models assume, for the most model concrete under cyclic compression loadings. Figure 6 (a)
and (b) illustrate the unloading and reloading responses,
respectively. The backbone curve, which assumes the
monotonic behavior, consists of two parts adopted from the
Modified Compression Field Theory12: that describing the
precracked response and that representing postcracking
tension-stiffened response.
A shortcoming of the current body of data is the lack of
theoretical models defining a plastic offset for concrete in
tension. The offsets occur when cracked surfaces come into
contact during unloading and do not realign due to shear slip
along the cracked surfaces. Test results from Yankelevsky
and Reinhardt21 and Gopalaratnam and Shah22 provide data
that can be used to formulate a plastic offset model (refer to
Fig. 7). The researchers were able to capture the softening
behavior of concrete beyond cracking in displacement-
Fig. 5—Predicted response for cycles in compression. controlled testing machines. The plastic offset strain, in the
proposed tension model, is used to define the shape of the
unloading curve, the slope and damage of the reloading path,
and the point at which cracked surfaces come into contact.
Similar to concrete in compression, the offsets in tension
seem to be dependent on the unloading strain from the back-
bone curve. The proposed offset model is expressed as

p 2
ε c = 146ε1c + 0.523 ε 1c (14)

where εcp is the tensile plastic offset, and ε1c is the unloading
strain from the backbone curve. Figure 7 illustrates very
good correlation to experimental data.
Observations of test data suggest that the unloading response
of concrete subjected to tensile loading is nonlinear. The
accepted approach has been to model the unloading branch
as linear and to ignore the hysteretic behavior in the concrete

Fig. 6—Hysteresis models for concrete in tension: (a)

unloading; and (b) reloading. Fig. 7—Plastic offset model for concrete in tension.

620 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

due to cycles in tension. The approach used herein was to concrete due to load cycling. Limited test data confirm that
formulate a nonlinear expression for the concrete that would linear reloading sufficiently captures the general response of
generate realistic hysteresis loops. To derive a model consistent the concrete; however, it is evident that the reloading stiffness
with the compression field approach, a Ramberg-Osgood accumulates damage as the unloading strain increases. The
formulation, similar to that used for concrete in compression, approach suggested herein is to model the reloading behavior
was adopted and is expressed as as linear and to account for a degrading reloading stiffness.
The latter is assumed to be a function of the strain recovered
fc = D + F∆ε + G∆εN (15) during the unloading phase and is illustrated in Fig. 8 against
data reported by Yankelevsky and Reinhardt.21 The reloading
stress is calculated from the following expression
where fc is the tensile stress in the concrete; ∆ε is the strain
increment measured from the instantaneous strain on the
unloading path to the unloading strain; D, F, and G are f c = β t ⋅ tf max – E c4 ( ε1c – ε c ) (21)
parameters that define the shape of the unloading curve; and
N is a power term that describes the degree of nonlinearity. where
Applying the boundary conditions from Fig. 6(a) and
simplifying yields ( β t ⋅ tf max ) – tf ro
E c4 = --------------------------------------
- (22)
ε 1c – t ro
N
( E c5 – E c6 )∆ε
f c ( ∆ε ) = f 1c – E c5 ( ∆ε ) + -------------------------------------- (16)
p N–1
N ( ε 1c – ε c ) fc is the tensile stress on the reloading curve and corresponds
to a strain of εc. Ec4 is the reloading stiffness, βt is a tensile
damage indicator, tf max is the unloading stress for the current
where hysteresis loop, and tfro is the stress in the concrete at reloading
reversal corresponding to a strain of tro. The damage parameter
∆ε = ε 1c – ε (17) βt is calculated from the following relation

and 1
β t = ----------------------------------------
0.25
- (23)
1 + 1.15 ( ε rec )
p
( E c5 – E c6 ) ( ε 1c – ε c )
N = ---------------------------------------------------
- (18)
p where
E c5 ( ε 1c – ε c ) – f 1c

ε rec = ε max – ε min (24)

f1c is the unloading stress from the backbone curve, and Ec5
is the initial unloading stiffness, assigned a value equal to the
initial tangent stiffness Ec. The unloading stiffness Ec6, which εrec is the strain recovered during an unloading phase. It is
defines the stiffness at the end of the unloading phase, was the difference between the unloading strain εmax and the
determined from unloading data reported by Yankelevsky and minimum strain at the onset of reloading εmin, which is
Reinhardt.21 By varying the unloading stiffness Ec6, the limited by the plastic offset strain. Figure 8 depicts good
following models were found to agree well with test data correlation between the proposed formulation and the
limited experimental data.
E c6 = 0.071 ⋅ E c ( 0.001 ⁄ ε 1c ) ε 1c ≤ 0.001 (19) Following the philosophy for concrete in compression, βt
is calculated for the first unloading/reloading phase and retained
until the previous maximum strain is at least attained.
E c6 = 0.053 ⋅ E c ( 0.001 ⁄ ε 1c ) ε 1c > 0.001 (20) The literature is further deficient in the matter of partial
unloading followed by partial reloading in the tension stress
The Okamura and Maekawa2 model tends to overestimate regime. Proposed herein is a partial unloading/reloading
the unloading stresses for plain concrete, owing partly to the
fact that the formulation is independent of a tensile plastic
offset strain. The formulations are a function of the unloading
point and a residual stress at the end of the unloading phase.
The residual stress is dependent on the initial tangent stiffness
and the strain at the onset of unloading. The linear unloading
response suggested by Vecchio5 is a simple representation of
the behavior but does not capture the nonlinear nature of the
concrete and underestimates the energy dissipation. The
proposed model captures the nonlinear behavior and energy
dissipation of the concrete.
The state of the art in modeling reloading of concrete in
tension is based on a linear representation, as described by,
among others, Vecchio5 and Okamura and Maekawa.2 The
response is assumed to return to the backbone curve at the
previous unloading strain and ignores damage induced to the Fig. 8—Damage model for concrete in tension.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 621

model that directly follows the rules established for concrete f c = tf ro + E c4 ( ε c – t ro ) (26)
in compression. No data exist, however, to corroborate the
model. Figure 9 depicts the proposed rules for a concrete
element, lightly reinforced to allow for a post-cracking response. As loading continues along the reloading path of Curve 4,
Curve 1 corresponds to a full unloading response and is a change in the reloading path occurs at the intersection with
identical to that assumed by Eq. (16) to (18). Reloading from Curve 2. Beyond the intersection, the reloading response
a full unloading curve is represented by Curve 2 and is computed follows the response of Curve 5 and retains the damage induced
from Eq. (21) to (24). Curve 3 represents the case of partial to the concrete from the first unloading/reloading phase. The
unloading from a reloading path at a strain less than the stiffness is then calculated as
previous maximum unloading strain. The expressions for
full unloading are used; however, the strain and stress at β t ⋅ f 1c – tf max
unloading, now variables, replace the strain and stress at E c4 = -------------------------------- (27)
ε 1c – ε max
the previous peak unloading point on the backbone curve.
Reloading from a partial unloading segment is described
by Curve 4. The response follows a linear path from the The reloading stresses can then be calculated according to
reloading strain to the previous unloading strain. The model
explicitly assumes that damage does not accumulate for f c = tf max + E c4 ( ε c – ε max ) (28)
loops that form at strains less than the previous maximum
unloading strain in the history of loading. Therefore, the
reloading stiffness of Curve 4 is larger than the reloading The previous formulations for concrete in tension are
stiffness for the first unloading/reloading response of preliminary and require experimental data to corroborate. The
Curve 2. The partial reloading stiffness, defining Curve 4, models are, however, based on realistic assumptions derived
is calculated by the following expression from the models suggested for concrete in compression.

tf max – tf ro CRACK-CLOSING MODEL

E c4 = ------------------------
- (25)
ε max – t ro In an excursion returning from the tensile domain,
compressive stresses do not remain at zero until the
cracks completely close. Compressive stresses will arise
and the reloading stress is then determined from once cracked surfaces come into contact. The recontact
strain is a function of factors such as crack-shear slip.
There exists limited data to form an accurate model for
crack closing, and the preliminary model suggested
herein is based on the formulations and assumptions
suggested by Okamura and Maekawa. 2 Figure 10 is a
schematic of the proposed model.
The recontact strain is assumed equal to the plastic offset
strain for concrete in tension. The stiffness of the concrete during
closing of cracks, after the two cracked surfaces have come into
contact and before the cracks completely close, is smaller than
that of crack-free concrete. Once the cracks completely close,
the stiffness assumes the initial tangent stiffness value. The
crack-closing stiffness Eclose is calculated from

f close
E close = ----------- (29)
p
Fig. 9—Partial unloading/reloading for concrete in tension. εc

where

fclose = –Ec(0.0016 ⋅ ε1c + 50 × 10–6) (30)

fclose , the stress imposed on the concrete as cracked surfaces

come into contact, consists of two terms taken from the
Okamura and Maekawa2 model for concrete in tension. The
first term represents a residual stress at the completion of
unloading due to stress transferred due to bond action.
The second term represents the stress directly related to
closing of cracks. The stress on the closing-of-cracks path is
then determined from the following expression

p
Fig. 10—Crack-closing model. f c = E close ( ε c – ε c ) (31)

622 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

 After the cracks have completely closed and loading ( Em – Er ) ( εm – εo )
continues into the compression strain region, the reloading N = --------------------------------------------
- (38)
fm – Er ( εm – εo )
rules for concrete in compression are applicable, with the
stress in the concrete at the reloading reversal point assuming
a value of fclose. fm is the stress corresponding to the maximum strain recorded
For reloading from the closing-of-cracks curve into the during previous loading; and Em is the tangent stiffness at εm.
tensile strain region, the stress in the concrete is assumed to The same formulations apply for reinforcement in tension
be linear, following the reloading path previously established or compression. For the first reverse cycle, εm is taken as
for tensile reloading of concrete. zero and fm = fy, the yield stress.
In lieu of implementing a crack-closing model, plastic off-
sets in tension can be omitted, and the unloading stiffness at IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
the completion of unloading Ec6 can be modified to ensure The proposed formulations for concrete subjected to
that the energy dissipation during unloading is properly reversed cyclic loading have been implemented into a
captured. Using data reported by Yankelevsky and Reinhardt,21 two-dimensional nonlinear finite element program, which
a formulation was derived for the unloading stiffness at zero was developed at the University of Toronto.23
loads and is proposed as a function of the unloading strain on
the backbone curve as follows The program is applicable to concrete membrane structures
and is based on a secant stiffness formulation using a total-load,
iterative procedure, assuming smeared rotating cracks.
– 0.991
E c6 = – 1.1364 ( ε 1c ) (32) The package employs the compatibility, equilibrium, and
constitutive relations of the Modified Compression Field
Theory.12 The reinforcement is typically modeled as
Implicit in the latter model is the assumption that, in an
smeared within the element but can also be discretely
unloading excursion in the tensile strain region, the compressive
represented by truss-bar elements.
stresses remain zero until the cracks completely close.
The program was initially restricted to conditions of
monotonic loading, and later developed to account for
REINFORCEMENT MODEL
The suggested reinforcement model is that reported by material prestrains, thermal loads, and expansion and
Vecchio,5 and is illustrated in Fig. 11. The monotonic response confinement effects. The ability to account for material
of the reinforcement is assumed to be trilinear. The initial prestrains provided the framework for the analysis capability of
response is linear elastic, followed by a yield plateau, and ending reversed cyclic loading conditions. 5
with a strain-hardening portion. The hysteretic response of the For cyclic loading, the secant stiffness procedure separates
reinforcement has been modeled after Seckin,17 and the Bausch- the total concrete strain into two components: an elastic
inger effect is represented by a Ramberg-Osgood formulation. strain and a plastic offset strain. The elastic strain is used to
The monotonic response curve is assumed to represent the compute an effective secant stiffness for the concrete, and,
backbone curve. The unloading portion of the response therefore, the plastic offset strain must be treated as a strain
follows a linear path and is given by offset, similar to an elastic offset as reported by Vecchio.4
The plastic offsets in the principal directions are resolved
into components relative to the reference axes. From the
fs ( ε i ) = f s – 1 + Er ( ε i – εs – 1 ) (33) prestrains, free joint displacements are determined as functions
of the element geometry. Then, plastic prestrain nodal forces
where fs(εi) is the stress at the current strain of εi , fs – 1 and εs – 1 can be evaluated using the effective element stiffness matrix
are the stress and strain from the previous load step, and Er due to the concrete component. The plastic offsets developed in
is the unloading modulus and is calculated as

Er = Es if ( ε m – ε o ) < ε y (34)

ε m – ε o
E r = E s  1.05 – 0.05 ---------------- if ε y < ( ε m – ε o ) < 4 ε y (35)
 εy 

Er = 0.85Es if (εm – εo) > 4εy (36)

where Es is the initial tangent stiffness; εm is the maximum

strain attained during previous cycles; εo is the plastic offset
strain; and εy is the yield strain.
The stresses experienced during the reloading phase are
determined from

Em – Er N
f s ( ε i ) = E r ( ε i – ε o ) + --------------------------------------
N–1
- ⋅ ( εi – ε o ) (37)
N ⋅ ( εm – εo )
Fig. 11—Hysteresis model for reinforcement, adapted from
where Seckin (1981).

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 623

each of the reinforcement components are also handled in a NOTATION
similar manner. Ec = initial modulus of concrete
Eclose = crack-closing stiffness modulus of concrete in tension
The total nodal forces for the element, arising from plastic Ec1 = compressive reloading stiffness of concrete
offsets, are calculated as the sum of the concrete and reinforce- Ec2 = initial unloading stiffness of concrete in compression
ment contributions. These are added to prestrain forces arising Ec3 = compressive unloading stiffness at zero stress in concrete
from elastic prestrain effects and nonlinear expansion effects. Ec4 = reloading stiffness modulus of concrete in tension
The finite element solution then proceeds. Ec5 = initial unloading stiffness modulus of concrete in tension
Ec6 = unloading stiffness modulus at zero stress for concrete in tension
The proposed hysteresis rules for concrete in this procedure Em = tangent stiffness of reinforcement at previous maximum strain
require knowledge of the previous strains attained in the history Er = unloading stiffness of reinforcement
of loading, including, amongst others: the plastic offset strain, Es = initial modulus of reinforcement
the previous unloading strain, and the strain at reloading reversal. Esh = strain-hardening modulus of reinforcement
f1c = unloading stress from backbone curve for concrete in tension
In the rotating crack assumption, the principal strain directions f2c = unloading stress on backbone curve for concrete in compression
may be rotating presenting a complication. A simple and fc = normal stress of concrete
effective method of tracking and defining the strains is f ′c = peak compressive strength of concrete cylinder
the construction of Mohr’s circle. Further details of the fclose = crack-closing stress for concrete in tension
procedure used for reversed cyclic loading can be found fcr = cracking stress of concrete in tension
fm = reinforcement stress corresponding to maximum strain in history
from Vecchio.5 fmax = maximum compressive stress of concrete for current unloading
A comprehensive study, aimed at verifying the proposed cycle
cyclic models using nonlinear finite element analyses, will fp = peak principal compressive stress of concrete
be presented in a companion paper.9 Structures considered fro = compressive stress at onset of reloading in concrete
fs = average stress for reinforcement
will include shear panels and structural walls available in the fs – 1 = stress in reinforcement from previous load step
literature, demonstrating the applicability of the proposed fy = yield stress for reinforcement
formulations and the effectiveness of a secant stiffness- tfmax = maximum tensile stress of concrete for current unloading cycle
based algorithm employing the smeared crack approach. The tfro = tensile stress of concrete at onset of reloading
structural walls will consist of slender walls, with height- tro = tensile strain of concrete at onset of reloading
βd = damage indicator for concrete in compression
width ratios greater than 2.0, which are heavily influenced by βt = damage indicator for concrete in tension
flexural mechanisms, and squat walls where the response is ∆ε = strain increment on unloading curve in concrete
dominated by shear-related mechanisms. The former is ε = instantaneous strain in concrete
generally not adequate to corroborate constitutive formulations ε0 = plastic offset strain of reinforcement
ε1c = unloading strain on backbone curve for concrete in tension
for concrete. ε2c = compressive unloading strain on backbone curve of concrete
εc = compressive strain of concrete
CONCLUSIONS ε′c = strain at peak compressive stress in concrete cylinder
A unified approach to constitutive modeling of reversed εc p
= residual (plastic offset) strain of concrete
εcr = cracking strain for concrete in tension
cyclic loading of reinforced concrete has been presented. ε i , εs = current stress of reinforcement
The constitutive relations for concrete have been formulated εm = maximum strain of reinforcement from previous cycles
in the context of a smeared rotating crack model, consistent εmax = maximum strain for current cycle
with a compression field approach. The models are intended εmin = minimum strain for current cycle
for a secant stiffness-based algorithm but are also easily εp = strain corresponding to maximum concrete compressive stress
εrec = strain recovered during unloading in concrete
adaptable in programs assuming either fixed cracks or fixed εro = compressive strain at onset of reloading in concrete
principal stress directions. εsh = strain of reinforcement at which strain hardening begins
The concrete cyclic models consider concrete in compression εs – 1 = strain of reinforcement from previous load step
and concrete in tension. The unloading and reloading rules εy = yield strain of reinforcement
are linked to backbone curves, which are represented by the
monotonic response curves. The backbone curves are adjusted REFERENCES
1. Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation of Japan (NUPEC),
for compressive softening and confinement in the compression “Comparison Report: Seismic Shear Wall ISP, NUPEC’s Seismic Ultimate
regime, and for tension stiffening and tension softening in Dynamic Response Test,” Report No. NU-SSWISP-D014, Organization for
the tensile region. Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, France, 1996, 407 pp.
Unloading is assumed nonlinear and is modeled using a 2. Okamura, H., and Maekawa, K., Nonlinear Analysis and Constitutive
Models of Reinforced Concrete, Giho-do Press, University of Tokyo, Japan,
Ramberg-Osgood formulation, which considers boundary 1991, 182 pp.
conditions at the onset of unloading and at zero stress. 3. Sittipunt, C., and Wood, S. L., “Influence of Web Reinforcement on
Unloading, in the case of full loading, terminates at the plastic the Cyclic Response of Structural Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
offset strain. Models for the compressive and tensile plastic No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1995, pp. 745-756.
offset strains have been formulated as a function of the 4. Vecchio, F. J., “Finite Element Modeling of Concrete Expansion and
Confinement,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 9,
maximum unloading strain in the history of loading. 1992, pp. 2390-2406.
Reloading is modeled as linear with a degrading reloading 5. Vecchio, F. J., “Towards Cyclic Load Modeling of Reinforced Concrete,”
stiffness. The reloading response does not return to the backbone ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1999, pp. 132-202.
curve at the previous unloading strain, and further straining is 6. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Theoretical Stress-
Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
required to intersect the backbone curve. The degrading ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, 1988, pp. 1804-1826.
reloading stiffness is a function of the strain recovered 7. Mansour, M.; Lee, J. Y.; and Hsu, T. T. C., “Cyclic Stress-Strain
during unloading and is bounded by the maximum unloading Curves of Concrete and Steel Bars in Membrane Elements,” Journal of
strain and the plastic offset strain. Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 12, 2001, pp. 1402-1411.
8. Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F. J., “Behaviour and Analysis of Reinforced
The models also consider the general case of partial unloading Concrete Walls Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading,” Publication No.
and partial reloading in the region below the previous maximum 2002-01, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada,
unloading strain. 2002, 351 pp.

624 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003

 9. Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F. J., “Compression Field Modeling of 17. Seckin, M., “Hysteretic Behaviour of Cast-in-Place Exterior Beam-
Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed Loading: Verification,” ACI Column Sub-Assemblies,” PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Structural Journal. (accepted for publication) Canada, 1981, 266 pp.
10. Hognestad, E.; Hansen, N. W.; and McHenry, D., “Concrete Stress
18. Yankelevsky, D. Z., and Reinhardt, H. W., “Model for Cyclic
Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 52,
No. 12, Dec. 1955, pp. 455-479. Compressive Behaviour of Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
11. Popovics, S., “A Numerical Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain ASCE, V. 113, No. 2, Feb. 1987, pp. 228-240.
Curve of Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 3, No. 5, 1973, pp. 19. Stevens, N. J.; Uzumeri, S. M.; and Collins, M. P., “Analytical Modelling
583-599. of Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Monotonic and Reversed Loadings,”
12. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression-Field Publication No. 87-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1987, 201 pp.
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
20. Hordijk, D. A., “Local Approach to Fatigue of Concrete,” Delft
13. Karsan, I. K., and Jirsa, J. O., “Behaviour of Concrete Under
Compressive Loadings,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 95, University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1991, pp. 210.
No. 12, 1969, pp. 2543-2563. 21. Yankelevsky, D. Z., and Reinhardt, H. W., “Uniaxial Behaviour of
14. Bahn, B. Y., and Hsu, C. T., “Stress-Strain Behaviour of Concrete Concrete in Cyclic Tension,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Under Cyclic Loading,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 95, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. V. 115, No. 1, 1989, pp. 166-182.
1998, pp. 178-193. 22. Gopalaratnam, V. S., and Shah, S. P., “Softening Response of Plain
15. Buyukozturk, O., and Tseng, T. M., “Concrete in Biaxial Cyclic Concrete in Direct Tension,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-
Compression,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No. 3,
June 1985, pp. 310-323.
Mar. 1984, pp. 461-476.
16. Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A., “Cyclic Behavior of RC Cantilever 23. Vecchio, F. J., “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Walls, Part I: Experimental Results,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 3, Concrete Membranes,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
May-June 1995, pp. 271-281. 1989, pp. 26-35.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2003 625

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S45

Cyclic Load Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

Beam-Column Subassemblages of Modern Structures
by Alexandros G. Tsonos

The seismic performance of four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages (A1, E1, E2, and G1) had the same general
subassemblages is examined. All subassemblages were typical of new and cross-sectional dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1.
structures and incorporated full seismic details in current building Subassemblages E1, E2, and G1 had the same longitudinal
codes, such as a weak girder-strong column design philosophy.
The subassemblages were subjected to a large number of inelastic
column reinforcement, eight bars with a diameter of 14 mm,
cycles. The tests indicated that current design procedures could while the longitudinal column reinforcement of A1 consisted of
sometimes result in excessive damage to the joint regions. eight bars with a diameter of 10 mm (0.4 in.). The longitudinal
column reinforcement of A1 was lower than that of the other
Keywords: beam-column frames; connections; cyclic loads; reinforced three subassemblages (E1, E2, and G1) due to the restrictions
concrete; structural analysis. of ACI 352R-026 for the column bars passing through the
joint. Subassemblages E1 and G1 had the same percentage
INTRODUCTION of longitudinal beam reinforcement (ρE1 = ρG1 = 7.7 × 10–3)
The key to the design of ductile moment-resisting frames and Subassemblages A1 and E2 also had the same percentage
is that the beam-to-column connections and columns must of longitudinal beam reinforcement (ρA1 = 5.23 × 10–3 and
remain essentially elastic throughout the load history to ρE2 = 5.2 × 10–3), but different from the percentage of E1 and
ensure the lateral stability of the structure. If the connections G1. The longitudinal beam reinforcement of A1 consisted of
or columns exhibit stiffness and/or strength deterioration four bars with a diameter of 10 mm, while the beam reinforce-
with cycling, collapse due to P-Δ effects or to the formation ment of E2 consisted of two bars with a diameter of 14
of a story mechanism may be unavoidable.1,2 mm. Subassemblage A1 had smaller beam reinforcing bars
Four one-half scale beam-column subassemblages were than Subassemblage E2 due to the restrictions of ACI 352R-026
designed and constructed in turn, according to Eurocode 23
for the beam bars passing through the joint. The joint shear
and Eurocode 8,4 according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-02,6
reinforcements of the subassemblages used in the experiments,
and according to the new Greek Earthquake Resistant
Code7 and the new Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced are as follows: Ø6 multiple hoop at 5 cm for Subassemblage A1
Concrete Structures.8 (Fig. 1(a)), Ø6 multiple hoop at 5 cm for Subassemblage E1,
The subassemblages were subjected to cyclic lateral load (Fig. 1(b)), Ø6 multiple hoop at 4.8 cm for Subassemblage E2
histories so as to provide the equivalent of severe earthquake (Fig. 1(a)) and Ø8 multiple hoop at 10 cm for Subassemblage G1
damage. The results indicate that current design procedures (Fig. 1(b)). All subassemblages incorporated seismic details.
could sometimes result in severe damage to the joint, despite The purpose of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 was to
the use of a weak girder-strong column design philosophy. represent details of new structures. As is clearly demon-
strated in Fig. 1(a) and (b), all the subassemblages had high
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE flexural strength ratios MR. The purpose of using an MR ratio
Experimental data and experience from earthquakes indicate (sum of the flexural capacity of columns to that of beam(s))
that loss of capacity might occur in joints that are part of significantly greater than 1.00 in earthquake-resistant
older reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures.9-12 There is constructions is to push the formation of the plastic hinge in
scarce experimental evidence and insufficient data, however, the beams, so that the safety (that is, collapse prevention) of
about the performance of joints designed according to the structure is not jeopardized.1,2,4-7,9,10,13 Thus, in all these
current codes during strong earthquakes. This research subassemblages, the beam is expected to fail in a flexural mode
provides structural engineers with useful information about during cyclic loading.
the safety of new RC frame structures that incorporate The concrete 28-day compressive strength of both
seismic details from current building codes. In some cases, Subassemblages A1 and E2 was 35 MPa (5075 psi), while the
safety could be jeopardized during strong earthquakes by concrete 28-day compressive strength of both Subassemblages
premature joint shear failures. The joints could at times E1 and G1 was 22 MPa (3190 psi). Reinforcement yield strengths
remain the weak link even for structures designed in accordance are as follows: Ø6 = 540 MPa (78 ksi), Ø10 = 500 MPa (73 ksi),
with current model building codes. and Ø14 = 495 MPa (72 ksi) (note: Ø6 [No. 2]), Ø10 [No. 3],
and Ø14 [No. 4]) are bars with a diameter of 6, 10, and 14 mm).
DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS—
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
MS No. S-2006-230.R1 received June 21, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publi-
were designed and constructed for this experimental and cation policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includ-
analytical investigation. Reinforcement details of the ing 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 May-
subassemblages are shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). All the June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

468 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 respect to static conditions leads to a moderate increase in
ACI member Alexandros G. Tsonos is a Professor of reinforced concrete structures,
Department of Structural Engineering, the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the strength of concrete
Thessaloniki, Greece. He received his PhD from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
in 1990. His research interests include the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete
2
structures, structural design, fiber-reinforced concrete, seismic repair and rehabilitation
of reinforced concrete structures, and the seismic repair and restoration of monuments.
f c, dyn = [ 1.48 + 0.160 × log ε· + 0.0127 ( log ε· ) ] × f c, stat (1)

Approximately 10 electrical-resistance strain gauges were Scott et al.15 tested column subassemblages with various
bonded on the reinforcing bars of each subassemblage of amounts of hoop reinforcement under strain rates ranging
the program. from 0.33 × 10–5 sec–1 (static loading), to 0.0167 sec–1
(seismic loading). Their test results conformed with the
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND results obtained from Eq. (1).
LOADING SEQUENCE
The general arrangement of the experimental setup is Using the aforementioned expression, it is estimated that for
shown in Fig. 2(a). All subassemblages were subjected to a strain rate of ε· = 0.0167 sec–1, concrete strengths increase
11 cycles applied by slowly displacing the beam’s free end by approximately 20% (compared with the static one). An
according to the load history shown in Fig. 2(b) without expression similar to Eq. (1) can be found in the CEB code.16
reaching the actuator stroke limit. The amplitudes of the Thus, the strengths exhibited by Subassemblages A1, E1,
peaks in the displacement history were 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, E2, and G1 during the tests are somewhat lower than the
45, 50, 55, 60, and 65 mm. One loading cycle was performed strengths they would exhibit if subjected to load histories
at each displacement amplitude. An axial load equal to 200 kN similar to actual seismic events.
was applied to the columns of the subassemblages and kept
constant throughout the test. The experimental loading EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
sequence used is a typical one, commonly used in previous Failure mode of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1
studies.1,11,13 It was not the objective of this study to investigate The failure mode of Subassemblages A1 and E2, as
the effect of other, nonstandard loading histories on the expected, involved the formation of a plastic hinge in the
response of the subassemblages. beam at the column face. The formation of plastic hinges
As previously mentioned, all the subassemblages were loaded caused severe cracking of the concrete near the fixed beam end
slowly. The strain rate of the load applied corresponded to of each subassemblage (Fig. 3). The behavior of Subassem-
static conditions. In the case of seismic loading, the strain blages A1 and E2 was as expected and as documented in the
rate ε· is higher than the rate corresponding to static conditions. seismic design philosophy of the modern codes as will be
Soroushian and Sim14 showed that an increase in ε· with explain in the following.4-7

Fig. 1—Dimensions and cross-sectional details of: (a) Subassemblages A1 and E2; and (b) Subassemblages E1 and G1. (Note:
dimensions are in cm. 1 cm = 0.0394 in.)

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 469

Fig. 2—(a) General arrangement of experimental setup and
photograph of test setup (dimensions are in m; 1 m = 3.28 ft);
and (b) lateral displacement history. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

Fig. 4—Applied shear versus strain in beam-column joint

hoop reinforcement of: (a) Subassemblages A1 and E2;
and (b) Subassemblages E1 and G1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)

the joint hoop reinforcement for both subassemblages was

below the yield strain of 2.500με, which was in agreement with
the observed failure modes of Subassemblages A1 and E2.17
Fig. 3—Views of collapsed Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1. One difference between the failure modes of Subassemblages
A1 and E2 was that hairline cracks appeared in the joint region
Significant inelastic deformations occurred in the beams’ of E2, and partial loss of the concrete cover in the rear face of
longitudinal reinforcement in both Subassemblages A1 and E2 the joint of E2 took place during the three last cycles of loading
(strains of over 40.000με were obtained in the beams’ (ninth, tenth, and eleventh) when drift Angle R ratios
longitudinal bars), while joint shear reinforcement remained exceeded 4.5 while the joint region of Subassemblage A1
elastic. Figure 4(a) shows strain gauge data of joint hoop remained intact at the conclusion of the test (refer to Fig. 3).
reinforcement for both Subassemblages A1 and E2. As is The connections of both Subassemblages E1 and G1,
clearly shown in Fig. 4(a), the maximum strain recorded in contrary to expectations, exhibited shear failure during the

470 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 5—Maximum strain during each cycle of loading in
beam longitudinal reinforcement of Subassemblages A1, E1,
E2, and G1.

Fig. 6—Gradual cracking configuration of Subassemblage E1

during test.

early stages of cyclic loading. Damage occurred both in the

joint area and in the columns’ critical regions. Figure 4(b)
shows strain gauge data for the joint hoop reinforcement for
Subassemblages E1 and G1. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the
maximum strain recorded in the joint hoop reinforcement of
both Subassemblages E1 and G1 was significantly higher
than the yield strain 2.500 με. Joint shear damage has been Fig. 7—Hysteresis loops of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and
shown to occur after yielding of the joint hoop reinforcement, G1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
which is in agreement with the damage observed in the joints
of these subassemblages.18 The maximum strain recorded in A major concern in the seismic design of RC structures is
the longitudinal bars of the beams of both Subassemblages the ability of members to develop their flexural strength before
E1 and G1 was below 2.500με (refer to Fig. 5). In Fig. 6, the failing in shear. This is especially true for members framing
progression of cracking of Subassemblage E1 during the test at a beam column joint (beams and columns), where it is
is demonstrated. important to develop their flexural strengths before joint
shear failure. Moreover, by designing the flexural strengths
Load-drift angle curves of columns in RC frame structures to meet the strong-column
Plots of applied shear force versus drift angles for all the weak-beam rule, all members against premature shear failure,
Subassemblages (A1, E1, E2, and G1) are shown in Fig. 7. and by detailing plastic hinge (critical) regions for ductility,
The beam calculated flexural capacities of the subassemblages RC frame structures have been shown to exhibit a controlled
are shown as dashed lines in Fig. 7. and very ductile inelastic response.2,4,9

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 471

 As can be seen in Fig. 7, the beam of Subassemblage A1 Table 1—Comparison of joint of Subassemblage A1
developed maximum shear forces higher than those corre- design parameters with ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026
sponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the sixth cycle hbeam/
of loading. This is an indication of the flexural response of column bar
2
this beam because it developed its flexural strength until a Subassemblage γ ldh, cm Ash, cm sh, cm diameter MR
drift Angle R ratio of 4.0 was reached and exceeded. Also, a 0.67 < 17 (15.65)* 0.95 5.0 30 1.72
A1
flexural failure was observed for this beam, caused by (1.0)*† (17)† (0.66)*† (5.0)*† (23.80)† (1.20)*†
crushing of the concrete cover of the longitudinal reinforcement, *
Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ACI 318-05.5
and subsequent inelastic buckling of the longitudinal bars. †Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ACI 352R-02.6

The beam of Subassemblage E2 also developed maximum Note: γ is shear strength factor reflecting confinement of joint by lateral members, ldh
is development length of hooked beam bars, Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse
shear forces higher than those corresponding to its ultimate steel in joint, and sh is spacing of transverse reinforcement in joint. Numbers outside
flexural strength until the eleventh upper half cycle of loading parentheses are provided values. 1 cm = 0.394 in.
and until the seventh lower half cycle of loading. In particular,
during the final cycles of loading beyond drift Angle R ratios
of 4.5 when large displacements were imposed, crushing of Table 2—Comparison of joints of Subassemblages
the concrete cover of the reinforcement took place and the E1 and E2 design parameters with Eurocode 84 and
beam’s hoops could not provide adequate support to the longi- Eurocode 23
tudinal reinforcement. As a result, buckling of the beam longi- Ash, Asv , lb,net, sw ,
tudinal reinforcement in Subassemblages A1 and E2 occurred Subassemblage Vjh, kN cm2 cm2 dbl , mm MR cm cm
after the sixth and seventh cycles of loading, respectively. 126 < 6.85 3.08 14 2.60
The beam of Subassemblage E1 developed maximum E1 45 (43)† 5 (5)*
(168)* (2.85)* (1.06)* (9.15)* (1.20)*
shear forces very close to those corresponding to its ultimate 75.6 < 6.85 3.08 14 3.30
flexural strength only during the second and third cycle of E2 45 (32)† 5 (5)*
(222)* (2.85)* (1.06)* (11.20)* (1.20)*
loading. For the remaining cycles (four through 11), the *Numbers inside parentheses are required values of Eurocode
8.4
premature joint shear failure did not allow the beam in this †
Numbers inside parentheses are required values of Eurocode 2.3
subassemblage to develop its flexural capacity (Fig. 6 and 7). Note: Vjh is horizontal joint shear force, Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse
steel of joint, Asv is vertical joint shear reinforcement, dbl is diameter of hooked beam
The premature joint shear failure of Subassemblage G1 bars (in both E1 and E2 setup recommended by EC8 and shown in Fig. 5 was applied), lb,net
also did not allow the beam in this subassemblage to develop is development length of hooked beam bars, and sw is spacing of transverse reinforcement
its flexural capacity. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the beam of of joint. Numbers outside parentheses are provided values. 1 m = 0.394in.; 1 mm =
0.039 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.
Subassemblage G1 developed maximum shear forces
significantly lower than those corresponding to its ultimate
flexural strength.
One of the basic provisions of all modern structural codes considerable loss of strength, stiffness, and unstable hysteretic
is to provide the structures with sufficient strength and sufficient behavior, but beyond drift Angle R ratios of 4.5 (Fig. 7).
ductility to undergo post-elastic deformations without losing Subassemblages E1 and G1, which exhibited premature joint
a large percentage of their strength.2,4,7,9 As can be seen in shear failure (refer to Fig. 3 and 7) showed a considerable loss of
Fig. 7, this criterion is fulfilled for Subassemblies A1 and E2. strength, stiffness, and unstable degrading hysteresis beyond
By contrast, it is not fulfilled for Subassemblies E1 and G1 drift Angle R ratios of 2.5 and 2.0%, respectively (Fig. 7).
because they exhibited significant loss of strength during
cyclic loading. CODE REQUIREMENTS
The beam-column Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 are Despite the fact that all the subassemblages were designed
similar to real modern frame structures. If the sequence in the according to their corresponding modern codes, two developed
breakdown of the chain of resistance of these real frame failure modes dominated by joint shear failure (Fig. 3). For
structures follows the desirable hierarchy during a catastrophic this reason, it is discussed how requirements of these codes
earthquake, the formation of plastic hinges in the beams of used for the design of the joints of Subassemblages A1,5,6 E1,
these structures would be expected, because the use of a E23,4 (for DC”M” structures), and G17,8 were satisfied.
weak girder-strong column design philosophy is adopted by Table 1 clearly indicates that the joint of A1 satisfied the
the modern codes.2,4,5,7,9 The aforementioned desirable design requirements of ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 for
failure mode (with formation of a plastic hinge in the beam) exterior beam-column joints for seismic loading.
was developed by Subassemblages A1 and E2. Thus, the Table 2 indicates that the joints of both E1 and E2 satisfied the
magnitude of loads resisted by Subassemblages A1 and E2 design provisions for exterior beam-column joints of
are consistent with the expected values from actual events. Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 for DC”M” structures.
Story drifts allowed by modern codes are on the order of 2% In both subassemblages, two 8 mm diameter short bars
of the story height.4,7,8 While it was reassuring that story were placed and were tightly connected on the top bends of
drifts of as much as 4% of the story height were achieved in the beam reinforcing bars and two on the bottom, running in
most reported tests referring to the seismic response of beam- the transverse direction of the joint, as shown in Fig. 5. This
column specimens, it should be remembered that drifts in is the setup recommended by Eurocode 8 when the requirement
excess of 2% are not likely to be readily accommodated in of limitation of beam bar diameter (dbl) to ensure appropriate
high rise frames. This is due to significant and detrimental anchorage through the joint is not satisfied (refer to Table 2).
influence of P-Δ phenomena on both lateral load resistance It was considered worthwhile, however, to determine the
and dynamic response.19 beam bar pull-out. Strain gauge measurements were used to
Subassemblages A1 and E2, which developed plastic determine beam bar pull-out. If the maximum strains in a
hinges in their beams (Fig. 3 and 7), showed stable hysteretic beam’s longitudinal bar during each two consecutive cycles
behavior up to drift Angle R ratios of 4.0. They showed a of loading remained the same or decreased, as long as buckling

472 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 Fig. 8—(a) Exterior beam-column joint; (b) internal forces around exterior beam-column
joint as result of seismic actions;10,12 (c) two mechanisms of shear transfer (diagonal concrete
strut and truss mechanism);10,12,19 and (d) forces acting in joint core concrete through
Section I-I from two mechanisms.27,28

Table 3—Comparison of joint of Subassemblage G1 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

design parameters with ERC-19957 and CDCS-19958 A new formulation published in recent studies20-26 predicts
the beam-column joint ultimate shear strength and was used in
Subassemblage Ash, cm2 lb,net, cm MR the present study to predict the failure modes of Subassemblages
G1 2.01 (2.01) *
45 (43) *
2.60 (1.40)† A1, E1, E2, and G1. A summary of this formulation is presented.
*Numbers inside parentheses are required values of CDCS-1995.8 Figure 8(a) shows an RC exterior beam-column joint for a
†
Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ERC-1995.7 moment resisting frame and Fig. 8(b) shows the internal
Note: Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse steel of joint and lb,net is forces around this joint.10,12 The shear forces acting in the
development length of hooked beam bars. Numbers outside parentheses are provided
values. 1 cm = 0.394 in. joint core are resisted partly by a diagonal compression strut
that acts between diagonally opposite corners of the joint
core (refer to Fig. 8(c)) and partly by a truss mechanism
of this bar had not taken place, it was concluded that a pull- formed by horizontal and vertical reinforcement and concrete
out of this bar had occurred.13,18 As shown in Fig. 5, the compression struts.10,12,19 The horizontal and vertical
beam’s longitudinal reinforcement in Subassemblages E1 reinforcement is normally provided by horizontal hoops in
and E2 maintained adequate anchorage throughout the tests the joint core around the longitudinal column bars and by
due to the short bars placed and tightly connected under the longitudinal column bars between the corner bars in the side
bends of a group of reinforcing bars (refer to Fig. 5). faces of the column.10,12,27 Both mechanisms depend on the
Table 3 also clearly indicates that the joint of G1 satisfied core concrete strength. Thus, the ultimate concrete strength
the design provisions for exterior beam-column joints of of the joint core under compression/tension controls the
both the new Greek codes.7,8 ultimate strength of the connection. After failure of the
The codes prescribe minimum MR values. So, as can be concrete, strength in the joint is limited by gradual crushing
seen from Tables 1 through 3, the minimum value for the MR along the cross-diagonal cracks and especially along the
ratio according to ACI 318-05 and ACI 352R-02, as well as potential failure planes (Fig. 8(a)).
according to Eurocode 8 (DC”M”), is 1.20.4-6 The minimum For instance, consider Section I-I in the middle of the joint
value for the MR ratio according to the new Greek Earthquake height (Fig. 8(a)). In this section, the flexural moment is
Resistant Code is 1.40.7 Thus, a good target MR for most almost zero. The forces acting in the concrete are shown in
structures is between 1.20 and 1.40. Fig. 8(d).27,28 Each force acting in the joint core is analyzed
Neither the New Greek Code for the Design of RC into two components along the x and y axes (Fig. 8(d)). The
Structures8 nor the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code7 values of Ti are the tension forces acting on the longitudinal
require limitations for the joint shear stress. Of course both of column bars between the corner bars in the side faces of the
these codes need to add requirements to limit joint shear stress. column. Their resultant is ΣTi. An equal and opposing

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 473

compression force (–ΣTi) must act in the joint core to balance fc = K × fc ′ (9a)
the vertical tensile forces generated in the reinforcement.
This compression force was generated by the resultant of the
vertical components of the truss mechanism’s diagonal Also, f ′c is the concrete compressive strength and K is a
compression forces D1, D2 …Dv.27 Thus, D1y + D2y + … + parameter of the model15 expressed as
Dvy = ΣTi = T1 + T2 + T3 + T4.27 The column axial load is
resisted by the compression strut mechanism.12 The summation ρ s × f yh
K = 1 + ----------------
- (9b)
of vertical forces equals the vertical joint shear force Vjv fc ′

D cy + ( T 1 + ... + T 4 ) = D cy + D sy = V jv where ρs is the volume ratio of transverse reinforcement and

↓ ↓ fyh is its yield strength.
compression strut truss model (2a) Substituting Eq. (5) through (7) into Eq. (8) and using τ =
γ f c gives the following expression
The summation of horizontal forces equals the horizontal
joint shear force Vjh 5
αγ
----------- ⎛ 1 + 1 + ------⎞ + --------- ⎛ 1 + ------ – 1⎞ = 1
4 5αγ 4
(10)
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
D cx + ( D 1x + D 2x … + D vx ) = D cx + D sx = V jh (2b) 2 fc α fc α

Assume herein that

The vertical normal compressive stress σ and the shear
stress τ uniformly distributed over Section I-I are given by
αγ
Eq. (3) and (4) x = ----------- (11)
2 fc
D cy + D sy V jv
σ = ----------------------
- = -------------------
- (3) and
hc ′ × bc ′ hc ′ × bc ′

αγ 4
V jh
τ = -------------------
- (4) ψ = ----------- 1 + -----2- (12)
hc ′ × bc ′ 2 fc α

where h ′c and b ′c are the length and the width of the joint Then Eq. (10) is transformed into
core, respectively.
It is now necessary to establish a relationship between the 5
( x + ψ ) + 10ψ – 10x = 1 (13)
average normal compressive stress σ and the average shear
stress τ. From Eq. (3) and (4)
The solution of the system of Eq. (11) to (13) gives the
beam-column joint ultimate strength τult = γult f c (MPa).
V
σ = ------jv- × τ (5) This system is solved each time for a given value of the joint
V jh aspect ratio using standard mathematical analysis. The joint
ultimate strength τult depends on the increased joint concrete
It has been shown that compressive strength due to confining fc and on the joint
aspect ratio α. Thus, typical values of τult for comparison with
the values of ACI 318-05,5 ACI 352R-02,6 and Eurocode 84
V h
------jv- = ----b- = α (6) are not possible to derive. A particular value, however, for
V jh hc each joint would be calculated as in the following example.

where α is the joint aspect ratio.4,10,12 Example for Subassemblage A1

The principle (σI = maximum, σII = minimum) stresses are The value α = 1.5 and the solution of the system of Eq. (11)
calculated to (13) gives x = 0.1485 and y = 0.248; f ′c(A1) = 35 MPa,
K(A1) = 1.558 according to the Scott et al.15 model and
2 fc(A1) = K(A1) × f ′c(A1) = 54.53 MPa.
σ σ 4τ
σ I, II = --- ± --- 1 + -------- (7) Equation (11) gives
2 2 2
σ
2 ( 0.1458 ) 54.53
Equation (8)29 was adopted for the representation of the γ ult ( A1 ) = ------------------------------------------ = 1.46
1.5
concrete biaxial strength curve30 by a fifth-degree parabola
and finally τult(A1) = 1.46 54.53 MPa = 10.78 MPa (refer to
σ σ II 5
– 10 -----I + ------ = 1 (8) Table 4).
fc fc
COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND
where fc is the increased joint concrete compressive strength EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
due to confinement by joint hoop reinforcement, which is The proposed shear strength formulation can be used to
given by the model of Scott et al.15 according to the equation predict the failure mode of the subassemblages and thus the

474 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 4—Joint ultimate strength and ratios τpred /τexp study was the verification of the shear strength formulation
and γcal /γult for Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 presented herein for beam-column joints designed according
According to Park and
to modern codes.
According to proposed shear
Paulay10 strength formulation The horizontal joint shear stresses are mainly produced
Subassemblage τult , MPa τpred /τexp γcal /γult τult, MPa τpred /τexp γcal /γult
by the longitudinal beam reinforcement as clearly
described by Eq. (14). The longitudinal beam reinforcement of
A1 6.05 1.19 1.0 10.78 1.17 0.47
Subassemblages A1 and E2 was purposely chosen to
E1 8.94 1.31 1.0 6.92 1.19 1.08 produce low joint shear stresses during the tests, that is, a ratio
E2 5.96 1.24 1.0 10.78 1.20 0.46 τcal/τult = γcal/γult less than 0.5.
G1 8.34 1.28 1.0 6.60 1.19 1.04 Table 6 shows that γcal/γult is equal to 0.47 in Subassemblage
Note: 1 MPa = 144.93 psi. A1 (that is, lower than 0.5) and γcal/γult is equal to 0.46 in
Subassemblage E2 (that is, lower than 0.5). Thus, the formation
of a plastic hinge in the beams near the columns is expected
actual values of connection shear stress. Therefore, when the without any serious damage in the joint regions and, as a
calculated joint shear stress τcal is greater or equal to the joint result, there will be satisfactory performance for both
ultimate strength (τcal = γcal f c ≥ τult = γult f c ), then the Subassemblages A1 and E2. As predicted, both subassemblages
predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near failed in flexure, exhibiting remarkable seismic performance
τult(τult = γult f c ). This is because the connection fails (Fig. 3 and 7). Values τpred of A1 and E2, which are shown
earlier than the adjacent beam(s). When the calculated joint in Table 6, are equal to their τcal values (because γcal < γult)
shear stress τcal is lower than the connection ultimate and are significantly different from their τult values, which
strength (τcal = γcal f c < τult = γult f c ), then the predicted are shown in Table 4.
actual value of connection shear stress will be near τcal
because the connection permits its adjacent beam(s) to yield. The percentage of longitudinal beam reinforcement of
τult = γult f c is calculated from the solution of the system of Subassemblages E1 and G1 was purposely chosen to be
higher than that of Subassemblages A1 and E2 to produce
Eq. (11) to (13). The value of τcal is calculated from the
horizontal joint shear force assuming that the top reinforcement higher joint shear stresses than those corresponding to their
of the beam yields (Fig. 8(a)). In this case, the horizontal ultimate capacities. The joint region of E1, however, satisfied
all the design requirements of Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84
joint shear force is expressed as
and the joint regions of G1 satisfied all the design requirements
of the two Greek codes.7,8
V jhcal = 1.25A s1 × f y – V col (14) Table 6 also shows that for both Subassemblages E1 and
G1, the calculated joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c when the
where As1 is the top longitudinal beam reinforcement (Fig. 8(a)), beams reach their ultimate strength is higher than the joint
fy is the yield stress of this reinforcement, and Vcol is the ultimate capacity τult = γult f c . Therefore, the joints of both
column shear force (Fig. 8(a)). For Type 2 joints, the design these subassemblages will fail earlier than their beams
forces in the beam according to ACI 352R-026 should be according to the aforementioned methodology, because the
determined using a stress value of α × fy for beam longitudinal joints of both E1 and G1 reach their ultimate shear strength
reinforcement, where α = 1.25. during the tests before the beams reach their ultimate strength.
The improved retention of strength in the beam-column Thus, according to the aforementioned methodology, a joint
subassemblages, as the values of the ratio τcal/τult = γcal/γult shear failure is expected for both Subassemblages E1 and G1
decrease was also demonstrated. For τcal/τult = γcal/γult ≤ 0.50, without any serious damage in their beams and, as a result, the
the beam-column joints of the subassemblages performed performance of both subassemblages will not be satisfactory.
excellently during the tests and remained intact at the As expected, both Subassemblages E1 and G1 demonstrated
conclusion of the tests.20-26 premature joint shear failure starting from the early stages of
The validity of the formulation was checked using test seismic loading and damage concentrated mostly in this
data from more than 120 exterior and interior beam-column region (Fig. 3). As also predicted, both Subassemblages E1
subassemblages that were tested in the Structural Engineering and G1 exhibited poor seismic performance, which was
Laboratory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,20-26 as characterized by significant loss of strength, stiffness, and
well as data from similar experiments carried out in the U.S., energy dissipation capacity during the tests. Furthermore, the
Japan, and New Zealand.1,12,13,31-36 A part of this verification volume ratios of joint transverse reinforcement for Subassem-
is presented in Table 5 where the comparison is shown blages E1 and G1 were 0.025 and 0.017, respectively. Thus,
between experimental and predicted results by the preceding the joint of Subassemblage E1 was more confined than the
methodology for 39 exterior and interior beam-column joint joint of Subassemblage G1, which explains why the hysteretic
subassemblages from the literature. A very good correlation response of the former was better than that of the latter (Fig. 7).
is observed (Table 5). In Table 5, the limiting values of joint The concrete compressive strength significantly increases
shear stress according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 the joint ultimate strength τult. Thus, if the Subassemblages
(1.0 f c ′ MPa for exterior beam-column joints and 1.25 f c ′ E1 and G1 had higher values with concrete compressive
MPa for interior beam-column joints) are included for each strengths, they would have behaved as well as Subassemblages
reference subassemblage. In Table 5, the limiting values of A1 and E2. This would have happened for values with
joint shear stress according to Eurocode 84 (15τR MPa for concrete compressive strength of approximately 50 MPa,
exterior beam-column joints and 20τR MPa for interior which would have resulted in values of ratio γcal/γult lower
beam-column joints) are also included. than 0.5. The value of concrete 28-day compressive
The shear capacities of the connections of Subassemblages strengths of 22 MPa for both Subassemblages E1 and G1,
A1, E1, E2, and G1 were also computed using the aforemen- however, is acceptable for Eurocode 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and for
tioned methodology. One of the motivations behind this both Greek codes.7,8

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 475

Table 5—Experimental verifications
Joint Concrete
Type of aspect compressive Longitudinal Joint Predicted shear Observed
Sub- subassem- ratio strength f ′c, τACI, τEC8, beam bar fy , hoop fy , strength τpred, shear strength μ = τpred /
Reference assemblage blage * α = hb/hc MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa γcal γexp γult MPa τexp, MPa τexp
No. 1 E 1.00 31.10 5.58 7.80 391 250 0.78 0.88 0.92 4.46 5.03 0.89
No. 2 E 1.00 41.70 6.46 9.45 391 250 0.68 0.74 1.06 4.50 4.90 0.92
No. 3 E 1.00 41.70 6.46 9.45 391 250 0.68 0.67 1.06 4.50 4.43 1.01
No. 4 E 1.00 44.70 6.69 9.90 391 281 0.66 0.67 1.08 4.43 4.50 0.99
No. 5 E 1.00 36.70 6.06 8.63 391 281 0.74 0.69 0.99 4.50 4.20 1.07
No. 6 E 1.00 40.40 6.35 9.30 391 281 0.70 0.69 1.03 4.47 4.41 1.01
No. 7 E 1.00 32.20 5.67 7.95 391 250 0.77 0.82 0.93 4.47 4.76 0.94
No. 8 E 1.00 41.20 6.42 9.40 391 250 0.68 0.72 1.06 4.47 4.74 0.94
34
No. 9 E 1.00 40.60 6.37 9.30 391 250 0.69 0.67 1.05 4.51 4.40 1.03
No. 10 E 1.00 44.40 6.65 9.83 391 281 0.67 0.69 1.08 4.49 4.62 0.97
No. 11 E 1.00 41.90 6.47 9.48 391 281 0.69 0.70 1.05 4.49 4.55 0.99
No. 12 E 1.00 35.10 5.92 8.34 391 281 0.75 0.74 0.96 4.47 4.40 1.01
No. 13 E 1.00 46.40 6.81 10.16 391 250 0.64 0.64 1.12 4.47 4.47 1.00
No. 14 E 1.00 41.00 6.40 9.36 391 281 0.70 0.69 1.03 4.50 4.44 1.01
No. 15 E 1.00 30.70 5.54 7.74 391 281 0.71 0.74 1.02 3.95 4.12 0.96
No. 16 E 1.00 37.40 6.11 8.76 391 250 0.72 0.76 1.01 4.51 4.76 0.95
A1 I 1.14 40,20 7.93 12.33 1070 291 4.62 1.34 1.11 7.21 8.70 0.83
A2 I 1.14 40.20 7.93 12.33 409 291 1.76 1.23 1.11 7.21 7.99 0.90
A3 I 1.14 40.20 7.93 12.33 1070 291 4.62 1.34 1.11 7.21 8.70 0.83
A4 I 1.14 40.20 7.93 12.33 1070 291 4.48 1.33 1.14 7.62 8.88 0.86
33
B1 E 1.14 30.00 5.48 7.65 1070 291 2.68 0.93 0.96 5.39 5.22 1.03
B2 E 1.14 30.00 5.48 7.65 409 291 1.02 0,83 0.96 5.39 4.66 1.16
B3 E 1.14 30.00 5.48 7.65 1070 291 2.68 1.03 0.96 5.39 5.78 0.93
B4 E 1.14 30.00 5.48 7.65 1070 291 2.60 1.05 0.99 5.71 6.06 0.94
UNIT1 I 1.126 41.30 8.03 12.54 315 320 1.20 1.13 1.26 8.96 8.44 1.06
UNIT2 I 1.126 46.90 8.56 13.65 307 320 1.31 1.08 1.33 10.23 8.43 1.20
12
UNIT3 E† 1.126 38.20 6.18 8.70 473 321 1.17 0.90 1.09 7.06 5.85 1.21
UNIT4 E 1.126 38.90 6.23 8.55 473 321 2.32 0.90 1.11 7.29 5.91 1.23
SHC1 I 1.14 56.50 9.39 15.9 413 551 1.00 0.91 1.31 7.81 7.11 1.10
36 SHC2 I 1.14 59.50 9.64 16.5 413 551 0.97 0.91 1.36 7.90 7.41 1.07
SOC3 I 1.14 47.10 8.58 13.71 413 551 1.06 1.00 1.22 7.70 7.26 1.06
SP1 ठ1.33 30.70 5.54 7.74 347 0 0.90 0.78 1.03 4.99 4.32 1.15
E
SP2 E‡ 1.33 31.10 5.58 7.80 349 0 0.90 0.77 1.04 5.02 4.30 1.17
SP3 § 1.33 27.00 5.20 7.11 350 427 0.94 0.83 1.00 5.17 4.56 1.13
E
SP4 E§ 1.33 31.00 5.57 7.79 349 379 0.86 0.87 1.09 5.13 5.19 0.90
35
SP5 Eठ1.33 32.00 5.66 7.92 347 0 0.88 0.75 1.05 4.97 4.24 1.17
SP6 E 1.33 36.20 6.02 8.55 352 357 0.78 0.78 1.20 5.16 5.16 1.00
SP7 E 1.33 30.70 5.54 7.74 352 365 0.87 0.83 1.08 5.16 4.93 1.05
SP8 E 1.33 26.30 5.13 7.00 352 365 1.19 1.02 1.11 6.44 5.92 1.09
Total 39 Average 1.02
COV 0.10
*
I equals interior beam-column subassemblage; E equals exterior beam-column subassemblage.
†
Beam bars of UNIT3 were anchored in beam stub at far face of column.
‡Unreinforced joints.
§Subassemblages with one transverse beam for γ
cal < γult, γpred = γcal, τpred = τcal and for γcal ≥ γult, γpred = γult, τpred = τult.
Notes: τACI is the limiting values of joint stress according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-02;6 τEC8 is the limiting values of joint shear stress according to Eurocode 8.4 Neither relevant Greek
codes7,8 provide information regarding limiting values for joint shear stress. All subassemblages have flexural strength ratios MR higher than 1.0. Overstrength factor a = 1.25 for
beam steel is included in computations of joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c MPa. 1 MPa = 144.93 psi; 1.0 f c MPa = 12.05 f c psi.

476 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 A question arises regarding how concrete slabs, which are Table 6—Experimental and predicted values of
typical in buildings, affect the performance of the joints of strength of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1
subassemblages such as A1, E1, E2, and G1. Ehsani and Joint
Wight31 found that “the flexural strength ratio MR at the aspect Predicted Observed
connections is reduced significantly due to the contribution Sub- ratio shear shear μ=
assem- α = strength strength τpred/ γcal/
of the slab longitudinal reinforcement.” They recommended γcal γexp γult τpred, MPa τexp, MPa τexp γult
blage hb/hc K
that, to ensure flexural hinging in the beam, flexural strength
A1 1.50 1.558 0.685 0.584 1.46 5.05 4.31 1.17 0.47
ratios should be no less than 1.20.31 The flexural strength
ratios of all the Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 tested in E1 1.50 1.593 1.26 0.98 1.17 6.92 5.80 1.19 1.08
this study were significantly higher than 1.20 (refer to Fig. 1(a) E2 1.50 1.558 0.675 0.554 1.46 5.00 4.10 1.20 0.46
and (b)); thus, the presence of a concrete slab would not have G1 1.50 1.50 1.20 0.96 1.15 6.60 5.56 1.19 1.04
had any influence on the response of these subassemblages. Notes: For γcal < γult, γpred = γcal, τpred = τcal and for γcal ≥ γult, γpred = γult, τpred = τult.
It would be of interest to learn whether simpler procedures 1 MPa = 144.93 psi; 1.0 f c MPa = 12.05 f c psi. Overstrength factor a = 1.25 for beam
for arriving to the beam-column joint ultimate strength such steel is included incomputations of joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c MPa.
as that proposed by Park and Paulay,10 would lead to similar
findings as those derived from the solution of the system of
3. It was demonstrated that the design assumptions of Euro-
Eq. (11) to (13). To this end, Table 4 presents the joint ultimate
code 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and those in the Greek codes7,8 did not
strength and ratios, τpred/τexp and γcal/γult for Subassemblages
avoid premature joint shear failures because the resulting
A1, E1, E2, and G1 according to the aforementioned procedures.
design can not ensure that the joint shear stress will be signif-
The ultimate joint shear strengths of Subassemblages A1, E1, icantly lower than the joint ultimate strength τult and did not
E2, and G1 derived from the solution of the system of Eq. (11) ensure the development of the optimal failure mechanism with
to (13) depend on the increased joint concrete compressive plastic hinges occurring in the beams while columns remained
strength due to confining fc, as well as on the joint aspect elastic, according to the requisite strong column-weak beam.
ratio α. These values differ significantly from those of Park Thus, provisions in Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 and those in
and Paulay,10 which mainly depend on the percentage of top the two Greek codes7,8 related to the design of beam-column
longitudinal beam reinforcement. Thus, Table 4 shows that joints need improvement.
the values of ultimate joint shear strengths of Subassemblages
A1 and E2 derived from the solution of the system of Eq. (11)
NOTATION
to (13) are higher than those of Subassemblages E1 and G1 ∅ = bar diameter
derived by the same methodology. This clearly explains why a = overstrength factor
the Park and Paulay10 values of ultimate joint shear strength b ′c = width of joint core
in Table 4 are larger than the values from Eq. (11) to (13) for f ′c = compressive strength of concrete
hb = total depth of beam
E1 and G1 and less than the values from Eq. (11) to (13) for h ′c = length of joint core
A1 and E2. Finally, as can be seen from Table 4, the proposed hc = total depth or width of square column
shear strength formulation predicted the failure mode for MR = sum of flexural capacity of columns to that of beam
Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 with significant accuracy, N = applied column axial load during test
Vjh = horizontal joint shear force
while the Park and Paulay10 procedure predicted only the Vjv = vertical joint shear force
failure mode of Subassemblages A1 and E2. α = hb/hc
γcal = design values of parameter [γcal = (τcal / f c )]
γexp = actual values of parameter [γexp = (τexp/ f c )]
CONCLUSIONS γult = values of parameter γ at ultimate capacity of connection [γult =
Based on the test results described in this paper, the (τult/ f c )]
following conclusions can be drawn. τ = joint shear stress
1. The behavior of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was as
expected and as documented in the seismic design philosophy REFERENCES
1. Leon, R. T., “Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior Beam-
of ACI 318-05,5 ACI 352R-02,6 and Eurocode 8.4 The beam- Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 3-11.
column joints of both Subassemblages A1 and E2 performed 2. Penelis, G. G., and Kappos, A. J., Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
satisfactorily during the cyclic loading sequence to failure, Structures, E&FN Spon, London, 1997, 572 pp.
allowing the formation of plastic hinges in their adjacent beams. 3. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC2, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1992-1-1),”
Both subassemblages showed high strength without any appre- CEN, Berlin, Germany, 1991, 61 pp.
ciable deterioration after reaching their maximum capacity; 4. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC8, “Eurocode 8: Earthquake Resistant
2. Despite the fact that Subassemblages E1 and G1 represented Design of Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV
beam-column subassemblages of contemporary structures, they 1998-1-1/2/3),” CEN, Berlin, Germany, 1995, 192 pp.
5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
performed poorly under reversed cyclic lateral deformations. Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
The joints of both Subassemblages E1 and G1, contrary to Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
expectations based on Eurocode 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and the two 6. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
Greek codes7,8 exhibited shear failure during the early stages Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
(ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
of cyclic loading. This happened because, for both Subas- 2002, 37 pp.
semblages E1 and G1, the calculated joint shear stress τcal 7. “New Greek Earthquake Resistant Code (ERC-1995),” Athens,
was higher than the joint ultimate strength τult (Table 6). Greece, 1995, 145 pp. (in Greek)
Damage occurred both in the joint area and in the columns’ 8. “New Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
(CDCS-1995),” Athens, Greece, 1995, 167 pp. (in Greek)
critical regions. This effect cannot be underestimated as it may 9. Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., “Seismic Load Tests on Interior
lead to premature lateral instability in ductile moment- and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details,”
resisting frames of modern structures; and ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 11-25.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 477

 10. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley Engineering, No. 1, 2001, pp. 48-64.
Publications, New York, 1975, 769 pp. 24. Tsonos, A. G., “Seismic Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete
11. Park, R., “A Summary of Results of Simulated Seismic Load Tests Joints by the Removal and Replacement Technique,” Journal of European
on Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Beams and Columns with Earthquake Engineering, No. 3, 2001, pp. 29-43.
Substandard Reinforcing Details,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 6, 25. Tsonos, A. G., “Seismic Repair of Exterior R/C Beam-to-Column
No. 2, 2000, pp. 147-174. Joints using Two-Sided and Three-Sided Jackets,” Structural Engineering
12. Paulay, T., and Park, R., “Joints of Reinforced Concrete Frames and Mechanics, V. 13, No. 1, 2002, pp. 17-34.
Designed for Earthquake Resistance,” Research Report 84-9, Department 26. Tsonos, A. G., “Effectiveness of CFRP-Jackets and RC-Jackets in Post-
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Earthquake and Pre-Earthquake Retrofitting of Beam-Column Subassem-
Zealand, 1984, 71 pp. blages,” Final Report, Grant No. 100/11-10-2000, Earthquake Planning and
13. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., “Exterior Reinforced Concrete Protection Organization (E.P.P.O.), Sept. 2003, 167 pp. (in Greek).
Beam-to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,” 27. Paulay, T., “Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 492-499. Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 635-643.
14. Soroushian, P., and Sim., J., “Axial Behavior of Reinforced Concrete 28. Park, R., “The Paulay Years,” Recent Developments in Lateral Force
Columns under Dynamic Loads,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 6, Transfer in Buildings, SP-157, N. Priestley, M. P. Collins, and F. Seible,
Nov.-Dec. 1986, pp. 1018-1025. eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, pp. 1-30.
15. Scott, B. D.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Stress-Strain Behavior 29. Tegos, I. A., “Contribution to the Study and Improvement of Earth-
of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain quake-Resistant Mechanical Properties of Low Slenderness Structural
Rates,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1982, pp. 13-27. Elements,” PhD thesis, Appendix 13, V. 8, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
16. CEB-FIP, “Model Code 1990,” Bulletin d’ Information, CEB, Lausanne, 1984, pp. 185. (in Greek)
Switzerland, 1993, 490 pp. 30. Kupfer, H.; Hilsdorf, H. K.; and Rusch, H., “Behavior of Concrete
17. Mitchel, D., “Controversial Issues in the Seismic Design of Connections under Biaxial Stresses,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 8, Aug.
in Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Recent Developments in Lateral Force 1969, pp. 656-667.
Transfer in Buildings, SP-157, N. Priestley, M. P. Collins, and F. Seible, 31. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., “Effect of Transverse Beams and
eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, pp. 75-96. Slab on Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections,”
18. Ehsani, M. R.; Moussa, A. E.; and Vallenilla, C. R., “Comparison of ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1985, pp. 188-195.
Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Ordinary- and High-Strength Concrete 32. Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., “Behavior of Interior Beam-to-Column
Frames,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1987, pp. 161-169. Connections under Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
19. Paulay, T., “Seismic Behavior of Beam-Column Joints in Reinforced V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 343-349.
Concrete Space Frames, State-of-the Art Report,” Proceeding of the Ninth 33. Fujii, S., and Morita, S., “Comparison Between Interior and Exterior
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. VIII, Tokyo, Japan, RC Beam-Column Joint Behavior,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for
1988, pp. 557-568. Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute,
20. Tsonos, A. G., “Towards a New Approach in the Design of R/C Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 145-166.
Beam-Column Joints,” Technika Chronika, Scientific Journal of the Technical 34. Kaku, T., and Asakusa, H., “Ductility Estimation of Exterior Beam-
Chamber of Greece, V. 16, No. 1-2, 1996, pp. 69-82. Column Subassemblages in Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Design of
21. Tsonos, A. G., “Shear Strength of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed.,
Beam-to-Column Connections for Seismic Resistant Structures,” Journal American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 167-185.
of European Association for Earthquake Engineering, No. 2, 1997, pp. 54-64. 35. Uzumeri, S. M., “Strength and Ductility of Cast-in-Place Beam-Column
22. Tsonos, A. G., “Lateral Load Response of Strengthened Reinforced Joints,” Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American
Concrete Beam-to-Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1977, pp. 293-350.
Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 46-56. 36. Attaalla, S. A., and Agbabian, M. S., “Performance of Interior Beam-
23. Tsonos, A. G., “Seismic Retrofit of R/C Beam-to-Column Joints Column Joints Cast from High Strength Concrete Under Seismic Loads,”
using Local Three-Sided Jackets,” Journal of European Earthquake Journal of Advances in Structural Engineering, V. 7, No. 2, 2004, pp. 147-157.

478 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S44

Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Connections

Subjected to Cyclic Loading in Principal Directions
by Hung-Jen Lee and Jen-Wen Ko

Cyclic loading responses of five reinforced concrete corner beam- column connections with square columns. Early deterioration
column connections with one concentric or eccentric beam framing of strength and ductility was observed in these eccentric
into a rectangular column in the strong or weak direction are connections. The measured strains in joint hoop reinforcement
reported. The specimen variables are the shear direction and the and the joint shear deformations on the side near the beam
eccentricity between the beam and column centerlines. Experimental
centerline were larger than those on the side away from the
results showed that two joints connecting a beam in the strong
direction were capable of supporting adjacent beam plastic beam centerline. Raffaelle and Wight11 suggested a formula
mechanisms. The other three joints connecting a beam in the weak for reducing the effective joint width for shear resistance of
direction, however, exhibited significant damage and loss of eccentric connections, and indicated that further study of
strength after beam flexural yielding. Eccentricity between beam eccentric beam-column connections with rectangular
and column centerlines had detrimental effects on the strength, columns is needed.
energy dissipation capacity, and displacement ductility of the Chen and Chen12 first tested five T-shaped eccentric
specimens. Experimental verification shows that the current ACI corner beam-column connections in the late 1990s, while
design procedures are acceptable for seismic design purposes; Vollum and Newman13 also tested 10 corner connections
however, it could not prevent the failure of corner connections at with two beams (one concentric and one eccentric)
large drift levels. framing in from two perpendicular directions. Chen and
Chen12 concluded that the performance of eccentric
Keywords: beam-column connections; joints; shear strength. corner connections was inferior to that of concentric corner
connections, and tapered width beams could eliminate
INTRODUCTION the detrimental effect of eccentric beams. On the other
Shear failure in beam-column connections, leading to the hand, Vollum and Newman13 tested specimens with
collapse of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, has been combined loading in various load paths to investigate the
observed in the post-earthquake reconnaissance.1-3 The behavior of eccentric beam-column connections and to
cause of collapse has been attributed to the lack of joint verify a previously proposed design method. The researchers
confinement, especially for the exterior and corner beam- concluded that the performance of corner connections improved
column connections without beams framing into all four sides. significantly when reducing joint eccentricity. Notably, the
Since the late 1960s, amounts of experimental investigations aforementioned corner connections had square columns.
on the seismic performance of RC beam-column connections In the early 2000s, Teng and Zhou14 also tested four
have been extensively studied. The majority of the exper- cruciform eccentric beam-column connections with rectangular
imental programs have concentric beam-column connections columns in aspect ratios of 2 and 1.33, and concluded that
isolated from a lateral-force-resisting frame at the nearest joint eccentricity slightly reduced the strength and stiffness
inflection points in the beams and columns framing into the of the connections. Based on their analysis, Teng and Zhou14
joint. Since 1976, Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 has also proposed an empirical equation for calculating the
issued design recommendations for RC beam-column nominal shear strength of eccentric joints by reducing the
joints.4,5 Throughout the years, these guidelines evolved into effective joint width.
state-of-the-art reports6,7 by integrating results of new Because floor slabs were typically not included in
experimental programs. Finally, a number of these design previous tests of eccentric connections, Burak and Wight15
recommendations for beam-column connections have been as well as Shin and LaFave16 tested five eccentric beam-
adopted in Chapter 21 of the ACI 318 Building Code8 for column-slab connections. Each subassembly consisted of
seismic design. Current ACI design provisions are primarily eccentric edge beams, one concentric transverse beam, floor
developed from test results of concentric beam-column slabs, and rectangular columns with aspect ratios varied
connections, whereas eccentric beam-column connections from 1.0 to 1.5. Burak and Wight’s15 three specimens were
are rather common in practice. Relatively few tests of eccentric tested under sequential loading in two principal directions in
RC beam-column connections have been reported in the which lateral loading was first applied in the edge beam
literature to date.9-19 To clarify the effect of eccentric beams direction and then in the transverse beam direction. Shin and
on the behavior of connections, Joint ACI-ASCE Committee LaFave’s16 two specimens were tested under lateral loading
352 has called for additional research on this topic over the in the edge beam direction to simulate the behavior of an
past two decades,5-7 and appointed a task group to review
and summarize previous research on eccentric RC beam- ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
column connections.20 MS No. S-2006-226 received June 2, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
In the early 1990s, Joh et al.,9 Lawrance et al.,10 and the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
Raffaelle and Wight11 tested six cruciform eccentric beam- discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2008
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 459

 strength by limiting and reducing the effective joint width.
ACI member Hung-Jen Lee is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Construction
Engineering and a Research Engineer of the Service Center for Construction Technology More experimental results are needed to verify the effective
and Materials in the National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin, joint width in eccentric connections.5-7 Thus, this experimental
Taiwan. He received his PhD from the National Taiwan University of Science and program focuses on the behavior of eccentric corner connections
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, in 2000. His research interests include seismic design of
reinforced concrete structures, behavior of beam-column connections, reinforcement with rectangular columns because they have not been
detailing, and strut-and-tie models. experimentally verified.
Jen-Wen Ko is a PhD Student in the Department of Construction Engineering at the
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. He received his MS from the RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology in 2005. Current ACI design provisions for estimating joint shear
strength of eccentric beam-column connections are established
based on few experimental investigations. The effects of a
column’s aspect ratio and eccentric beam on joint shear
strength are evaluated by the effective joint width. Additional
experimental verification of the design provisions for eccentric
connections is needed, especially for eccentric corner
connections with rectangular columns. This paper presents
experimental results for five corner connections with one
concentric or eccentric beam framing into a rectangular joint
in the strong or weak direction. Experimental verifications
on the ACI approach provided contribution to the under-
standing of beam-column connections.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Five RC corner beam-column connections were
designed, constructed, and tested under reversed cyclic
loading. A T-shaped assembly was used to represent the
Fig. 1—Illustration of test specimens. essential components of a corner beam-column connection
in a two-way building frame subjected to lateral loading in
edge connection in an exterior moment-resisting frame. The each principal direction. The primary test variables were
researchers15,16 reported that the damage in the joint region the lateral loading directions and the eccentricity between
of these eccentric beam-column-slab connections was not the beam and column centerlines. Neither transverse beams
as severe as that of previous tests without floor slabs.9,11 nor floor slabs were constructed to ease testing. As a result,
Including floor slabs significantly improves the overall each subassembly had only one beam framing into one
performance of eccentric connections and delays the corner column in each principal direction. For a corner,
deterioration of joint stiffness and strength. LaFave et al.20 interstory connections, floor slabs, and transverse beams
pointed out that including floor slabs in cruciform eccentric could not only introduce additional demand on joint shear
connections would not only raise the joint shear demand but force but also reduce the effect of joint eccentricity. The
would also reduce the effect of joint eccentricity and enhancement on the joint shear capacity from confinement
enhance the joint shear-resisting mechanisms. of floor slabs and transverse beams is questionable because
Test and analytical results of another nine cruciform a corner joint is only confined on two adjacent faces and it
eccentric beam-column connections were presented in the is likely to sustain biaxial loading. Further study on the
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.17-19 behavior of corner beam-column-slab connections
Based on experimental results and finite element analysis subjected to biaxial loading is needed.
of three cruciform eccentric connections, Goto and Joh17
concluded that the joint shear strength decreases as the Specimen geometry and reinforcement
joint eccentricity increases due to the stress concentration The experimental program was designed using a concrete
on the eccentric side. Similar observations were also compressive strength f ′c of 30 MPa (4.35 ksi) and a reinforce-
concluded by Kusuhara et al.18 who tested two cruciform ment yield stress fy of 420 MPa (60.9 ksi). Cross sections and
eccentric connections (one with additional U-shaped reinforce- reinforcement details of the five specimens, designated as
ment in the eccentric side). Finally, Kamimura et al.19 tested S0, S50 (Series S), W0, W75, and W150 (Series W), are
four cruciform eccentric connections (three deep beam-wide shown in Fig. 1. The first character (S or W) of the designation
column connections) and proposed an equation combining represents one south or west beam framing into the rectangular
shear and torsion to evaluate the joint shear strength. column in the strong or weak direction. The subsequent
Beam-column joints in RC buildings are probably numerals denote the eccentricity between the beam and
subjected to lateral loading in two principal directions during column centerlines in mm. Thus, two concentric (S0 and
an earthquake. Nevertheless, current ACI design procedures7,8 W0) and three eccentric (S50, W75, W150) connections
require that the joint shear strength be evaluated in each were tested in total.
direction independently and implicitly assume an elliptical The corner column had a cross section of 400 x 600 mm
interaction relationship for biaxial loading. Notably, only (16 x 24 in.) and used 12 D22 (No. 7) longitudinal bars
one value of permissible shear stress is selected for a joint (gross reinforcement ratio of 1.9%) and D10 (No. 3) hoops
according to the effective confinement on the vertical faces with crossties at a spacing of 100 mm (4 in.) throughout the
of the joint, even though the column cross section is rectangular. column. The total cross-sectional area of the lateral reinforce-
Current ACI design procedures consider the effects of the ment for each direction of the column was approximately equal
column’s aspect ratio and eccentric beam on joint shear to the minimum amount required by ACI 318-05, Section

460 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 1—Connection design parameters
Specimen S0 S50 W0 W75 W150
Column width bc, mm (in.) 400 (16) 600 (24)
Column depth hc, mm (in.) 600 (24) 400 (16)
Moment strength ratio Mr * 5.10 3.46
Provided embedment length db† 24 15
Joint shear demand Vu, kN (kips) 699 (157.1) 706 (158.7)
Joint eccentricity e, mm (in.) 0 (0) 50 (2) 0 (0) 75 (3) 150 (6)
400 300 600 450 300
Effective joint width bj318, mm (in.) (16) (12) (24) (18) (12)
Vu
--------------------------
318
- 0.53 0.71 0.54 0.72 1.07
γ f c ′b j h c

Effective joint width b352

j , mm (in.) 350 (14) 450 (18) 360 (14.4)
Vu
--------------------------
352
- 0.61 0.72 0.90
γ f c ′b j h c
*M = ΣMn(columns)/ΣMn(beams).
r
†
Embedment lengths required by ACI 318-05 and ACI 352R-02 are 14.2db and
16.8db, respectively.
Note: All values are computed with fc′ = 30 MPa (4.35 ksi) and fy = 420 MPa (60.9 ksi).

21.4.4.1.8 To control the demand of shear force acting on the

joint, the loading beam had a cross section of 300 x 450 mm
(12 x 18 in.) and used four D22 (No. 7) longitudinal bars (steel
ratio of 1.29%) at both top and bottom. To avoid beam shear
failure and ensure adequate confinement in the beam plastic
hinge region, closed overlapping hoops were provided
through the length of the beam. Figure 2 illustrates the
overall geometry of the specimens. The lengths of the beam
and column that were chosen to simulate the nearest inflection
points in the beam and column framing into the joint. In
general, the five specimens were nominally identical except Fig. 2—Overall geometry of test specimens.
for the joint shear direction, the embedment lengths of the
hooked beam bars, and the eccentricity between the beam
and column centerlines. 105% of that required by ACI 318-05 but only 89% of that
required by ACI 352R-02.
Based on the capacity design concept, the demand of the
Connection design parameters
Table 1 shows the main design parameters for the specimens. joint shear force Vu is dominated by the flexural capacity of
Due to column bending in the strong or weak direction, the the beam. When computing Vu values, a probable strength
ratios of column-to-beam flexural strength Mr at the connections of 1.25fy for the beam longitudinal reinforcement was
of Series S and W were equal to 5.10 and 3.46, respectively. included. Due to small differences in beam lengths, the
Because both Mr values were much greater than the specified value of Vu is equal to 699 kN (157.1 kips) for the specimens in
value of 1.2, flexural hinging in the beam was anticipated. Series S and 706 kN (158.7 kips) for the specimens in
Series W, respectively.
To ensure the anchorage of beam longitudinal bars and to
The current ACI design procedures for joint shear strength
promote the development of a diagonal compression strut
are based on Eq. (1)
within the joint, the beam longitudinal bars were anchored
using a 90-degree standard hook bent into the joint and
embedded as close as possible to the back of the column φV n = φγ f c ′b j h c ≥ V u (1)
(Fig. 2). Leaving a 70 mm (2.8 in.) back cover behind the
hook, the provided embedment lengths within the joint were where φ is the strength reduction factor of 0.85; Vn is the
24db for Series S and 15db for Series W. The required nominal joint shear strength; γ f c′ is the nominal joint shear
development lengths of hooked beam bars, measured from stress of 1.0 f c′ MPa (12 f c′ psi) for corner, interstory
the critical section, are given in ACI 318-05, Section connections; hc is the column depth (mm or in.) in the direction
21.5.4.1, and ACI 352R-02, Section 4.5.2.4, for Type 2 of joint shear to be considered; and bj is the effective joint
connections. Per ACI 318-05,8 the critical section is taken at width (mm or in.) calculated using the following equations
the beam-column interface. Per ACI 352R-02,7 for Type 2
connections, it is taken at the outside edge of the column core.
For fy of 420 MPa (60.9 ksi) and f ′c of 30 MPa (4.35 ksi), the ⎧ b b + 2x
embedment lengths required by ACI 318-05 and ACI 352R-02 8 318 ⎪
ACI 318-05 : bj = the smaller of ⎨ b b + h c (2)
are 14.2db and 16.8db, respectively. As shown in Table 1, the ⎪
provided embedment length within the joints in Series W is ⎩ bc

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 461

 sheets and wet-cured for 1 week. For each batch of concrete,
12 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) concrete cylinders were cast
and cured together with the beam-column assemblies. Three
cylinders were tested at 28 days and the rest were tested at
the testing date of each beam-column assembly. Table 2
summarizes the concrete compressive strengths at 28 days
and the testing date. The average of concrete compressive
strengths at the testing date are used for analytical f ′c in this
paper, because the variation of concrete compressive strengths
within each batch of concrete is small.

Test setup and loading sequence

Fig. 3—Test setup for Series W (similar setup for Series S). Figure 3 shows the elevation views of the test setup. To
restrain the column for twisting about the column axis, each
Table 2—Concrete compressive strengths beam-column assembly was rotated 90 degrees and tied
down to a strong floor with reaction steel beams, cover
Specimen S0 S50 W0 W75 W150
plates, and rods. In addition, four one-dimensional rollers
Concrete batch 1 2 were seated beside the column to allow in-plane rotation at
28-day f ′c, MPa (psi) 28.5 (4133) 25.2 (3655) both ends of the column. This arrangement was chosen to
Test days 49 67 53 57 60 provide stability against torsional action. The actuator load
Test day f ′c, MPa (psi) 32.6 34.2 28.9 30.4 29.1 was applied at the beam centerline while the column axial
(4728) (4960) (4191) (4409) (4220) load was applied along the column longitudinal axis. Thus, a
Analytical f ′c, MPa (psi) 33.2 (4815) 29.5 (4278) twist of the column about its longitudinal axis was applied
for the eccentric connections.
To simulate the displacement reversal of beam-column
⎧ (b + b ) ⁄ 2 connections during earthquake events, the specimens were
⎪ b c subjected to reversed cyclic lateral displacements. Axial load
352 ⎪ mh c (3) was applied at the beginning of a test and held at a level of
ACI 352R-027: b j = the smaller of ⎨ b + Σ --------
- 0.10Ag fc′ during testing. A typical lateral displacement
⎪ b 2
⎪ history consisting of three cycles at monotonically
⎩ bc increasing drift levels (0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7%) was used for all specimens. The actuator applied
where bb is the beam width (mm or in.); x is the smaller each target displacement in a quasi-static manner at a speed
distance between the beam and column edges (mm or in.); bc ranging from 0.05 to 1.40 mm/s (0.002 to 0.056 in./s). Target
is the column width (mm or in.); and m is 0.3 when e is displacement amplitudes at the beam tip Δ were computed
greater than bc/8, otherwise m is 0.5. The summation term is using the following equation
applied on each side of the joint where the column edge
extends beyond the beam edge. The joint eccentricity e was Δ
designed to be bc/8 for Specimen S50 and W75, and to be bc/4 Drift ratio θ = ------------------------- (4)
L b + 0.5h c
for Specimen W150.
As shown in Table 1, only Specimen W150 had a target
joint shear stress exceeding the nominal value of 1.0 f c′ MPa where drift ratio θ is the angular rotation of the beam chord
(12 f c′ psi) for the effective joint width per ACI 318-05.8 with respect to the column chord; Lb + 0.5hc is the vertical
The other four specimens satisfied the requirement on the distance between the actuator and column centerlines, and it
joint shear stress when following ACI design procedures is equal to 2.15 m (86 in.) for Series W and 2.075 m (83 in.)
with a strength reduction factor of 0.85. for Series S (Fig. 2).

Construction and material properties EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Two sizes of standard reinforcement meeting ASTM A 706 Experimental results showed that two joints of Series S
were used for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in all were capable of supporting the complete formation of a
specimens. The D22 (No. 7) longitudinal reinforcement had beam plastic hinge. In contrast, three joints of Series W
an average yield stress of 455 MPa (66 ksi) and an average exhibited significant damage and strength degradation after
ultimate strength of 682 MPa (99 ksi). The average yield and the beam flexural yielding. Measured responses are summarized
ultimate strengths were 471 and 715 MPa (68 and 104 ksi) for and discussed in the following subsections. Results
D10 (No. 3) transverse reinforcement, respectively. presented include: 1) beam flexural failure for Series S; 2)
Each specimen was cast in a wood form with the beam and joint failure after beam yielding for Series W; 3) discussion
column lying on the ground and the exterior column side of joint shear capacity; and 4) effect of joint eccentricity. The
(east side for Series S and north side for Series W) facing up. results are used to evaluate the influence of joint eccentricity
Concrete was supplied by a local ready mix plant using and loading directions on the seismic performance of corner
normal concrete aggregate and delivered by pump using a beam-column connections.
125 mm (5 in.) diameter hose. Series S was cast at one time
using a single batch of concrete, and then Series W was cast Beam flexural failure for Series S
using another batch of concrete with the same mixture Figure 4 depicts the normalized load-displacement hysteretic
proportions. The fresh concrete was covered with plastic curves for the test specimens. The actuator load P was

462 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 Fig. 5—Final damage states for test specimens.
Fig. 4—Normalized load versus displacement response.
Table 3—Test results
normalized to the nominal yield load Pn that was calculated Specimen S0 S50 W0 W75 W150
at a given strain of 0.004 for extreme compression fiber of Nominal yield load Pn, kN (kips) 158 158 147 147 147
the critical beam section. When analyzing the beam section, (35.5) (35.5) (33.0) (33.0) (33.0)
the measured material properties were used to model the Nominal yield displacement Δ y , mm (in.) 18.9 20.1 23.5 23.5 24.8
(0.74) (0.79) (0.93) (0.93) (0.98)
concrete and reinforcing bars. In addition, the beam-tip
Over strength factor Pmax /Pn 1.22 1.20 1.11 1.11 1.05
displacement Δ was also normalized to the drift ratio and
displacement ductility ratio. As shown in Fig. 4, the nominal Ductility ratio Δmax /Δy 5.41 5.12 4.58 4.60 3.41
yield displacement Δy was determined by extrapolation from Maximum joint shear Vj,max, kN (kips) 827 814 778 781 739
measured displacement at 0.75Pn in the 1% drift cycle. (186) (183) (175) (176) (166)
Table 3 reports the nominal yield load and displacement V j, max
--------------------------
- 0.60 0.78 0.60 0.80 1.13
for each specimen. γ f c ′b j h c
318

The load-displacement responses for Specimens S0 and

V j, max
S50, as shown in Fig. 4, are very similar in stiffness, strength, --------------------------
352
- 0.68 0.67 0.80 0.80 0.94
and ductility. Beam bars initiated yielding in the 1.0% drift γ f c ′b j h c
cycle and maximum load was recorded at 5% drift level. The Failure mode* B B BJ BJ BJ
hysteretic curves show relatively little pinching, which is *FailureMode B means beam flexural failure and BJ means joint shear failure after
typical for a flexure-dominated system. The failure mech- beam yielding.
Note: All values are computed with analytical f c′ (refer to Table 2) of concrete and
anisms for specimens of Series S were core concrete measured strengths of reinforcement.
crushing and subsequent buckling of longitudinal bars in the
beam plastic hinge region. The buckling of the beam bars in
eccentric Specimen S50 appeared earlier than that of concentric measured on the east face of the joints remained in elastic
Specimen S0. range during testing. Accordingly, it was concluded that both
The failure mode for the specimens in Series S was classified joints of Series S were capable of maintaining joint integrity
as beam flexure failure (Mode B) due to buckling of the beam and remaining elastic during the formation of adjacent beam
bars. Figure 5 shows the final damage states for test specimens. plastic hinges.
For Specimens S0 and S50, only hairline shear (diagonal)
cracks were observed on the east and west face of the joint Joint failure after beam yielding for Series W
during testing. Concrete crushing in the beam plastic region As shown in Fig. 4, the load-displacement responses for
was evident, but only minor cover concrete spalling appeared the specimens in Series W were similar up to 4% drift cycles
on the east face of the joint adjacent to the beam-column after yielding of the beam bars (1% drift cycle) and joint
interfaces. Further, the readings of shear deformations transverse reinforcement (2 to 3% drift cycle). All three

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 463

 Fig. 8—Measurement of joint shear deformation on north
face of Specimen W150: (a) cracking patterns on north face
at 5% drift; and (b) load versus joint shear deformation.

readings remained elastic in the 3% drift cycles and then

went into yielding plateau in the first or second cycle of the
4% drift level. It is evident that the beam bar was adequately
developed up to 4% drift. The bond along the straight portion
of the bar was lost at this stage, and therefore the bearing
inside the bent portion of the hook resisted most of the
tension force. The stress of the bar would begin to drop after
crushing of the diagonal strut within the joint. In this paper,
this type of failure is classified as diagonal shear compression
failure of the joint rather than premature anchorage failure of
the beam bars.
Figure 8 shows the cracking pattern and measurement of
joint shear deformation on the north (flush) face of the joint
Fig. 6—Strain profiles of hooked beam bars for Specimens W0 for Specimen W150. The initial joint shear cracks appeared
and W150. diagonally during the 0.5% drift cycle, followed by propagation
of diagonal cracks up to a 4% drift level. After strength
degradation commenced at 4% drift, however, no new joint
shear cracks appeared while crushing and spalling of
concrete started on the north face of the joint. The measured
joint shear deformation rapidly increased after the maximum
load recorded at 4% drift, followed by significant degradation
on strength and stiffness. The joint shear failure after beam
yielding (Mode BJ) was evident due to the nonlinear shear
deformation, wide-opened diagonal shear cracks, and visible
expansion from crushing of concrete in the joint region.
Specimens W0 and W75, which had similar behavior with
Specimen W150, also failed in Mode BJ. Visible cracking,
Fig. 7—Strain histories of Gauge 9 on hooked beam bars for crushing, and spalling of concrete in Specimens W0 and
Specimens W0 and W150. W75 were less than those in Specimen W150 (Fig. 5). Due
to the distance between beam and column edges (Fig. 1), the
joints were capable of supporting beam flexural yielding up appearance of initial joint shear cracks on the north face of
to 4% drift; however, a considerable strength degradation the joint was delayed to the 1.0 and 1.5% drift cycle for
was observed after the maximum loads recorded at the 4% Specimens W75 and W0, respectively. Strength degradation
drift level (Specimen W150) or 5% drift levels (Specimens W0 after the 5% drift cycle was attributed to the crushing of
and W75). Eventually, specimens in Series W exhibited concrete within the joints, followed by extensive pushout
significant pinching curves in Fig. 4, which were typical cracks distributed on the east face of the joint behind the
responses of the shear or bond-slip mechanism. hooked beam bars (Fig. 5). Due to crushing of the concrete
The beam bar strains were measured using electrical within the joint, the hooked beam bars might gradually lose
resistance strain gauges attached to reinforcing bars at its bond and anchorage within the joint. As a result, the
selected locations. Figure 6 shows the strain distributions pushout movement of the beam compression bars induced
along the beam bars at peak drift values for Specimens W0 the pushout cracks on the east face of the joints in Series W.
and W150. The hooked beam bars initiated yielding at the The joint failure and subsequent pushout cracks were
critical section (Gauge 10) during the 1% drift cycle, and observed at a drift level of 5% or more, which is large for a well-
then spread plasticity into the plastic hinge region (Gauges 11 designed building system. Therefore, the observed behavior
and 12) during the 2 and 3% drift cycle. Meanwhile, the appears to be acceptable for the seismic design purpose.
strain readings of Gauge 9 within the joint remained elastic
up to the 3% drift level. This denoted that some bond still Discussion of joint shear capacity
existed along the straight part of the bar embedded within the Paulay et al.12 first discussed that there are two shear-resisting
joint. Figure 7 depicts the available strain histories of Gauge 9 mechanisms exiting in joints, the truss mechanism and the
for Specimens W0 and W150 during testing. Both gauge diagonal strut mechanism. The truss mechanism transfers the

464 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

forces uniformly from the beam and column bars through the
bond mechanism. Adequate bond must exist between the
reinforcement and concrete to necessitate a truss mechanism,
which also requires considerable amounts of horizontal and
vertical tie forces in the truss panel to be in equilibrium.
Figure 9 illustrates a conceptual model for the degradation
of joint shear capacity under increasing drift or ductility
ratio. Joints subjected to inelastic displacement reversals
often undergo significant bond deterioration along the
reinforcing bars from the adjacent beam plastic hinge. At
this stage, a part of the joint shear is transferred through the
horizontal hoops with fan-shaped struts, while the remainder
is carried by the diagonal strut. As the drift or ductility ratio
increases, the horizontal hoops would yield progressively,
the joint concrete may crack excessively, and the bond of the
reinforcing bars within the joint might be lost. Eventually,
the joint shear force is directly transferred by the diagonal
strut mechanism. Fig. 9—Conceptual model for degradation of joint shear
Real shear-transferring mechanisms in joints may be a capacity.
combination of the diagonal strut and the truss mechanism,
with the bond deterioration being at a certain degree of longitu- the maximum shear force acting on the joint was less than
dinal reinforcement during cyclic loading (Fig. 9). Hence, the joint shear capacity (Fig. 9). In contrast, Specimen W0
the joint shear capacity decreases as the cyclic inelastic failed in Mode BJ when the joint shear force reached the
loading increases, which is referred to as the degradation of joint shear capacity at 5% drift. Clearly, the joint shear
the joint shear capacity. When the joint shear capacity falls capacity in the strong direction of the rectangular joint
below the shear demand from beam hinging, the joint will (Specimen S0) was greater than that in the weak direction
fail in the shear after beam yielding (Mode BJ). If the joint (Specimen W0). Comparing eccentric Specimens S50 and
shear capacity is greater than the demand, the maximum W75 can also find similar observation. This point cannot be
strength is limited by the beam flexure capacity (Mode B). rationally reflected on the calculation of a cross-sectional
Three levels of strength and ductility ratios for the test approach within the joint, especially for the effective joint
specimens are shown in Table 3. Because the maximum width given by Eq. (2).
strengths of Specimens S0 and S50 were dominated by the When following ACI 352R-02,7 the maximum joint shear
beam flexure capacity rather than the joint shear capacity, forces were approximately 70% of the nominal strengths for
Specimens S0 and S50 had over-strength factors of Series S, 80% of those for Specimens W0 and W75, and 94%
approximately 1.2 and ductility ratios greater than 5. In contrast, of that for Specimen W150. Three levels of demand-to-capacity
Specimens W0 and W75 had over-strength factors of approxi- ratios reasonably reflected three levels of performance on
mately 1.1 and ductility factors of approximately 4.6 due to strength and ductility ratios shown in Table 3. This shows that
the joint shear failure at 5% drift level. Further, the large- the effective joint width bj352 is more rational than bj318 for test
joint-eccentricity Specimen W150 barely reached the nominal specimens. Although following the ACI 352R-027 procedures
yield load and deteriorated at a ductility ratio of only 3.4. could not avoid joint shear failure at a large drift level of 4 or
Corresponding to the maximum actuator load, the 5%, it is considered acceptable in a real structural system.
maximum shear force acting on the horizontal cross section In this experimental program, each specimen was able to
within the joint can be estimated by carry the applied column axial load of 0.10Ag f c′ over the
entire displacement history. Strain readings of gauges confirmed
L ( L b + 0.5h c )⎞ that all column longitudinal bars remained elastic during
V j, max = T max – V col = P max ⎛ ----b- – ----------------------------- (5) testing. For a building frame during earthquake events,
⎝ jd Lc ⎠
however, the axial load in a corner column may be higher
than 0.10Ag f c′ , or even in tension, due to overturning moment
where Tmax is the maximum force in the tension reinforcement from lateral loads. Therefore, more research on the behavior
of the beam (N or lb); Vcol is the column shear in equilibrium of eccentric beam-column connections under high axial
with the applied loading (N or lb); and jd is the internal level loads is still needed.
arm of the beam section (mm or in.). From standard moment-
curvature analysis for each specimen, jd is approximately 7/8 of Effect of joint eccentricity
the effective depth of the beam section. Thus, jd is simply The relative energy dissipation ratio β and the equivalent
assumed to be 350 mm (13.8 in.) for the following evaluation viscous damping ratio ξeq, as shown in Fig. 10(a), were used
of maximum joint shear forces. to evaluate the energy dissipation capacities of the test
Table 3 compares the maximum joint shear force with specimens. The first index β represents a fatter or narrower
the nominal joint shear strength following the methods in hysteretic curve (pinching) with respect to an elastic perfectly
ACI 318-058 or ACI 352R-02.7 When following ACI 318-05,8 plastic model. Another quantitative index ξeq describes the
Specimens S0 and W0 had equal effective joint area. hysteretic damping (or energy dissipation per cycle) with
Thus, the maximum joint shear forces were only 60% of respect to an equivalent linear elastic system.
the nominal strength for concentric Specimens S0 and W0 Average β and ξeq of three cycles at each drift level for
(Table 3), but different failure modes occurred during the test specimens are compared in Fig. 10(b) and (c).
testing (Fig. 4). For the flexure-dominated Specimen S0, Three performance levels of energy dissipation capacities

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 465

 Fig. 12—Strain profiles at central layer of joint shear
reinforcement in Series S.

drift values. There were three layers of transverse reinforcement

at a spacing of 100 mm (4 in.) in each joint. Only the strain
profiles of the hoop legs and crossties in the direction of
shear and at the central layer of the transverse reinforcement
were compared in Fig. 11 and 12.
For the corresponding drift ratios shown in Fig. 11, the
strain readings of Gauge 24 in Specimens W75 and W150
Fig. 10—Normalized energy dissipation at each drift level were larger than those in Specimen W0. These profiles
for test specimens. confirm the observations of more extensive shear or torsion
cracks on the north side of the eccentric joints. On the south
side, the strain readings of Gauge 20 in Specimens W75 and
W150 were less than those in Specimen W0 because the
shear and torsional stresses counteract each other.11
The effective joint width bj352 is also displayed in Fig. 11.
For the joints of Series W, strain gauges on hoop legs and
crossties within bj352 yielded during the 2 or 3% drift cycles
while the outside strain gauges remained elastic at the same
drift level. During testing of Series W, crushing of joint
Fig. 11—Strain profiles at central layer of joint shear concrete was observed within bj352 on the west side of the
reinforcement in Series W. joint. These observations agreed well with the strain profiles
shown in Fig. 11.
are evident. The flexure-dominated Specimens S0 and S50 For the specimens in Series S, all joint hoops and
had a highest performance while Specimen W150 had crossties remained elastic over the entire displacement
lowest performance. A small joint eccentricity of bc /8 history. Figure 12 shows the strain distributions of hoop
(Specimens S0 and W75) had a slight influence on this legs and crossties along the joint width. Due to torsional
experimental program. Obviously, the large joint eccentricity of stresses from joint eccentricity, Specimen S50 had asymmetric
bc/4 had significant detrimental effects on the seismic strain distribution with respect to concentric Specimen S0. It
performance of Specimen W150. should be noted that the total cross-sectional area of joint
Strain histories for the joint hoops and crossties were used transverse reinforcement in two principal directions was
to plot the strain distribution along the joint width at peak different. Although the maximum joint shear forces in

466 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Series S and W were similar (Table 3), the joint shear Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI
forces transferring by the lateral joint reinforcement in JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 73, No. 7, July 1976, pp. 375-393.
5. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
Series S were obviously less than those in Series W. These Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI
profiles agree well with Hwang and Lee’s model,22 which JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 266-283.
proposed that the fraction of shear carried by the joint 6. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
transverse reinforcement depends on the inclination of the Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI
diagonal strut. Due to a deeper joint depth, the joints in 352R-91),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991,
18 pp.
Series S had a flatter diagonal strut that can resist horizontal 7. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
joint shear more efficiently.23 As a result, the shear forces Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
transferring by the lateral joint reinforcement was reduced (ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
and then the lateral joint reinforcement remained elastic 2002, 40 pp.
8. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
during testing. Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
CONCLUSIONS 9. Joh, O.; Goto, Y.; and Shibata, T., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Based on the evaluation of the cyclic loading responses of Beam-Column Joints with Eccentricity,” Design of Beam-Column Joints
five reinforced concrete beam-column corner connections in for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 317-357.
this experimental program, the conclusions are as follows: 10. Lawrance, G. M.; Beattie, G. J.; and Jacks, D. H., “The Cyclic Load
1. The joint shear capacity in the strong direction of a Performance of an Eccentric Beam-Column Joint,” Central Laboratories
rectangular joint is greater than that in the weak direction. In Report 91-25126, Central Laboratories, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, Aug.
this experimental program, two joints subjected to lateral 1991, 81 pp.
loading in the strong direction were capable of supporting 11. Raffaelle, G. S., and Wight, J. K., “Reinforced Concrete Eccentric
Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI
the complete formation of a beam plastic hinge. The other Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 45-55.
three joints exhibited significant damage at the joints with 12. Chen, C. C., and Chen, G. K., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
the joint shear acting along the weak direction of the column; Eccentric Beam-Column Corner Joints Connecting Spread-Ended Beams,”
2. Joint eccentricity between the beam and column center- ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999, pp. 443-449.
lines had detrimental effects on the seismic performance of 13. Vollum, R. L., and Newman, J. B., “Towards the Design of Reinforced
Concrete Eccentric Beam-Column Joints,” Magazine of Concrete
beam-column connections. Slight influence on the connection Research, V. 51, No. 6, Dec. 1999, pp. 397-407.
performance was found when the joint eccentricity was equal to 14. Teng, S., and Zhou, H., “Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
half-quarter width of the column. As the joint eccentricity Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2,
increasing to one-quarter of the column width, significant Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 139-148.
15. Burak, B., and Wight, J. K., “Seismic Behavior of Eccentric R/C
reductions in the strength, ductility, and energy dissipation Beam-Column-Slab Connections under Sequential Loading in Two Principal
capacity was observed; and Directions,” ACI Fifth International Conference on Innovations in Design
3. Compared with seismic performance levels, strain with Emphasis on Seismic, Wind and Environmental Loading, Quality Control,
distributions, joint damage of the test specimens, the effective and Innovation in Materials/Hot Weather Concreting, SP-209, V. M. Malhotra,
joint width recommend by ACI 352R-02 is a better choice ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, pp. 863-880.
16. Shin, M., and LaFave, J. M., “Seismic Performance of Reinforced
than that given in the ACI 318 code. Experimental verifications Concrete Eccentric Beam-Column Connections with Floor Slabs,” ACI
show that the current ACI design procedures are acceptable for Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 403-412.
seismic design purposes but could not prevent the failure of 17. Goto, Y., and Joh, O., “Shear Resistance of RC Interior Eccentric
corner connections at a large drift level of 4 or 5%. Beam-Column Joints,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 649, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada, 2004, 13 pp.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 18. Kusuhara, F.; Azukawa, K.; Shiohara, H.; and Otani, S., “Tests of
The authors are grateful to the funding support (NSC 93-2211-E-224-010) of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Joint Subassemblage with
the National Science Council in Taiwan. The assistance of graduate students Eccentric Beams,” Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake
for the construction and testing of the beam-column connections in the Engineering, Paper No. 185, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004,
structural laboratory of the National Yunlin University of Science and 14 pp.
Technology is also acknowledged. 19. Kamimura, T.; Takimoto, H.; and Tanaka, S., “Mechanical Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Assemblages with Eccentricity,”
REFERENCES Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
1. Moehle, J. P., and Mahin, S. A., “Observations on the Behavior of Paper No. 4, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004, 10 pp.
Reinforced Concrete Buildings during Earthquakes,” Earthquake-Resistant 20. LaFave, J. M.; Bonacci, J. F.; Burak, B.; and Shin, M., “Eccentric
Concrete Structures—Inelastic Response and Design, SP-127, S. K. Beam-Column Connections,” Concrete International, V. 27, No. 9, Sept.
Ghosh, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, 2005, pp. 58-62.
pp. 67-89. 21. Paulay, T.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Reinforced Concrete
2. Sezen, H.; Whittaker, A. S.; Elwood K. J.; and Mosalam, K. M., Beam-Column Joints under Seismic Actions,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
“Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings during the August 17, 1999, V. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1978, pp. 585-593.
Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake, and Seismic Design and Construction Practice 22. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., “Strength Prediction for Discontinuity
in Turkey,” Engineering Structures, V. 25, No. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 103-114. Regions by Softened Strut-and-Tie Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
3. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), “Chi-Chi, Taiwan, ASCE, V. 128, No. 12, Dec. 2002, pp. 1519-1526.
Earthquake of September 21, 1999,” Reconnaissance Report No. 2001-02, 23. Hwang, S. J.; Lee, H. J.; Liao, T. F.; Wang, K. C.; and Tsai, H. H.,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, Calif. “Role of Hoops on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
4. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005, pp. 445-453.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 467

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S41

Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Strengthened with

Near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Strips
by Joseph Robert Yost, Shawn P. Gross, David W. Dinehart, and Jason J. Mildenberg

Flexural strengthening using near-surface mounted (NSM) fiber-

reinforced polymer (FRP) materials is a promising technology. As
NSM reinforcement, the FRP is surrounded by concrete on three
sides so the bond and damage problems associated with externally
bonded FRP strengthening systems are reduced or eliminated. This
paper presents experimental results from 12 full-scale concrete
beams strengthened with NSM carbon FRP (CFRP) strips. Three
companion unstrengthened specimens were also tested to serve as a
control. Experimental variables include three different ratios of steel Fig. 1—Concrete member strengthened in flexure with
reinforcement ρs and two different ratios of CFRP reinforcement
NSM FRP.
ρfrp . Yield and ultimate strengths, flexural failure modes, and ductility
are discussed based on measured load, deflection, and strain data. rip-off type failure of the CFRP at loads well below the ultimate
Test results show measurable increases in yield and ultimate flexural capacity of the sections. Similar results have been
strengths; predictable nominal strengths and failure modes; and
reported by Rahimi and Hutchinson (2001), Bencardino et al.
effective force transfer between the CFRP, epoxy grout, and
surrounding concrete. Also, strengthening with CFRP resulted in a (2002), Arduini and Nanni (1997), Sharif et al. (1994),
decrease in both energy ductility and deflection ductility. Saadatmanesh (1994), and Mukhopadhyaya and Swamy
(1999). In addition to problems associated with bond failure,
Keywords: beam; polymer; reinforcement; strength. external FRP plates are vulnerable to mechanical, thermal,
and environmental damage. It should be noted, however, that
INTRODUCTION mechanical anchors can be used to improve the peel resistance
In-service steel-reinforced concrete flexural members may of externally bonded FRP.
require strengthening due to material decay of the internal In response to the detrimental conditions associated with
reinforcement and surrounding concrete, errant design and externally bonded FRP, engineers have proposed relocating
construction practice, increased service loads, and unforeseen the strengthening FRP material from the unprotected exterior of
settlement and structural damage. These conditions require the concrete to the protected interior. This technology is
structural retrofit to increase the flexural strength of the referred to as near-surface mounted (NSM) strengthening
section. A popular method of increasing the flexural strength and is shown in Fig. 1. The surrounding concrete now protects
of beams, walls, and slabs is through external bonding of
the FRP so that mechanical and thermal damage is unlikely.
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) plates and sheets. FRP materials
Other advantages of using NSM FRP technology include
are characterized by high tensile strength and low unit
weight, and they are noncorrosive when exposed to chloride improved bond and force transfer with the surrounding concrete
environments. An excellent summary of research in this area and the ability to increase the negative bending strength of
is available by Teng et al. (2002) and ACI has published a bridge decks, pavements, and other structural riding surfaces.
design guide for strengthening concrete structures with
externally-bonded FRP materials (ACI Committee 440 2002). RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Premature failure of externally-bonded FRP plates and This paper documents behavior of full-scale test beams
sheets can occur before the ultimate flexural capacity of the strengthened in flexure with NSM CFRP strips and tested to
strengthened section is achieved. This is typically due to failure in four-point bending. The parameters of steel and
bond failure between the FRP and concrete or tensile peeling FRP reinforcement ratios are investigated. Concrete strength,
of the cover concrete. Available research documenting this shear span-to-depth ratio, and steel reinforcement ratios were
behavior is abundant. Brena et al. (2003) reported debonding selected as typical for concrete flexural components in the
of longitudinal carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets at deformation civil infrastructure. Theory related to failure modes and strength
levels less than half the deformation capacity of control models are evaluated based on comparison with the test data.
specimens. Nguyen et al. (2001) observed only a limited It is expected that the conclusions reported will ultimately
increase in flexural capacity for beams strengthened with contribute to the development of a design guide for using NSM
partial length longitudinal CFRP sheets due to premature FRP for flexural strengthening of concrete beams and slabs.
delamination, or ripping, of the concrete cover surrounding
the steel reinforcement. For beams strengthened with CFRP
plate and fabric systems, Grace et al. (2002) identified brittle ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
MS No. S-2006-212 received May 25, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
failure by shear tension and debonding, respectively. Shin policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
and Lee (2003) reported failure of beams held under 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 May-
sustained load and strengthened with CFRP laminates due to June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

430 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Joseph Robert Yost is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Villanova University, Villanova, Pa. His research interests include the use of innovative
materials in transportation infrastructure, nondestructive methods for health monitoring
of structures, and seismic design and analysis of bridges.

ACI member Shawn P. Gross is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering at Villanova University. He is Secretary of Joint
ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete, and a member of ACI Committees 213,
Lightweight Aggregate and Concrete; 363, High-Strength Concrete; 435, Deflection of
Concrete Building Structures; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; and
E803, Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. His research interests include the
design and behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, including the
use of high-strength concrete and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement.

David W. Dinehart is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at

Villanova University. His research interests include seismic evaluation of wood structures,
passive damping systems, and the design and behavior of concrete and steel structures.

Jason J. Mildenberg is a Structural Engineer with Schoor De Palma of Brick, Manalapan,

N.J. He received an MS in civil engineering from Villanova University.

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Nanni (2000) compared the behavior of full-scale simply Fig. 2—Test setup.
supported highway bridge deck panels strengthened in flexure
with either externally bonded CFRP laminates or internally between the NSM FRP strips and concrete. The third
placed NSM CFRP bars. Failure of the CFRP laminate strengthened beam failed due to tensile rupture of the FRP
reinforced deck spans was through a combination of rupture strip. Predicted failure loads overestimated measured strengths.
and peeling of the CFRP laminates. The NSM CFRP-reinforced El-Hacha and Rizkalla (2004) compared the behavior of
span failed by tensile rupture of the CFRP bars. Relative to the beams strengthened on an equal axial stiffness basis using
capacity of an unstrengthened control deck, moment strength NSM FRP bars and strips and externally bonded FRP laminates.
increases of 17 and 29% were reported for decks retrofitted Their research showed that higher ultimate strengths and
with externally bonded CFRP laminates and internally placed increased ductility were achieved by the NSM strengthened
NSM CFRP bars, respectively. specimens. They also noted that bond integrity of NSM FRP
DeLorenzis et al. (2000) tested three steel-reinforced bars was less effective than for NSM FRP strips.
concrete T-beams strengthened in flexure with NSM glass
FRP (GFRP) and NSM CFRP bars. The CFRP retrofitted Together, these research findings demonstrate that bond
beams experienced increases in strength of 30% (two No. 3 integrity can not be taken for granted and that bond related
CFRP bars) and 44% (two No. 4 CFRP bars) over an limit states must also be considered for NSM FRP. DeLorenzis
unstrengthened control specimen. Both CFRP strengthened and Nanni (2002) suggest that bond performance will be
beams failed due to debonding of the NSM rods. The specimen influenced by multiple factors including bond length, NSM
strengthened with two No. 4 GFRP bars also failed due to FRP bar diameter and surface characteristic, material charac-
debonding of the NSM GFRP bars at a load 26% higher than teristics of the FRP, groove geometry, and properties of the
the control specimen. The authors reported that bond is critical epoxy grout. Their experimental bond tests showed three
to using this technology effectively. Bond failure of the bond related failure modes, namely, splitting of the epoxy
NSM FRP bars was also identified by DeLorenzis and Nanni cover, cracking of the concrete surrounding the grove, and
(2001) as in need of further investigation. Debonding of the pullout of the NSM FRP rod.
NSM FRP bars due to splitting of the epoxy used for holding
the rod in place was reported. It was suggested that this EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
failure limit-state could possibly be avoided by increasing This experimental investigation consisted of testing 15 simply
bond lengths or anchoring the NSM rods in the flange. supported full-scale concrete beams in flexure and material
Significantly, the authors reported that, where debonding of characterization of the CFRP, steel reinforcement, and concrete.
the NSM FRP bars is prevented, splitting of the concrete All test beams had a shear-span-to-steel-reinforcement-depth
cover surrounding the longitudinal steel bars might become ratio av /ds of 8.4. This ratio was intentionally selected so that
the controlling ultimate limit-state. Loss of anchorage was ultimate strength would be controlled by flexural failure and
observed in several of their test specimens. In a related not shear failure. The test setup and associated specimen
experimental bond study, DeLorenzis et al. (2004) state that details are shown in Fig. 2.
epoxy is superior to cement paste as the groove filler material, The 15 test beams were separated into three groups of five
a groove size-to-bar diameter of 2.0 is optimal, and a smooth beams, with all beams in a given group having the same
grove surface yields slightly lower local bond strengths, but is cross section and steel reinforcement ratio ρs. Within each
preferable because it yields a more ductile bond-slip behavior. group of five beams, two beams had one CFRP strip
Taljsten and Carolin (2001) evaluated four rectangular (designated 6-1Fa&b, 9-1Fa&b, and 12-1Fa&b), two beams
concrete beams subjected to four-point bending and had two CFRP strips (designated 6-2Fa&b, 9-2Fa&b, and
monotonically loaded in deformation control. Three of the 12-2Fa&b), and one beam acted as a control with no CFRP
test beams were strengthened with NSM CFRP strips and the (designated 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C). Note that beams identified as
fourth served as a control specimen. Two of the three a and b are replicate specimens. Thus, the two parameters
strengthened beams used an epoxy for bonding the FRP and investigated in the study are the amount of steel and CFRP
the third used a cement grout. Test results showed that two of reinforcements. Table 1 presents the unstrengthened steel
the three retrofitted beams failed due to anchorage loss reinforcement ratio ρs relative to a balanced design ρs /ρsb.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 431

Table 1—Specimen design and predicted strength parameters
Specimen ρs/ρsb* Afb, mm2 (in.2) Af /Afb Failure type†‡ ff-ult, MPa (ksi) Mn, kN-mm (kip-in.) Pn , kN (kip)§ Pn/PnC
6-C NA SY/CC NA 23,068 (204.2) 18.92 (4.25) 1
6-1Fa&b 0.684 –38.86 (–0.060) –0.85 CC 810 (117.4) 26,606 (235.5) 21.82 (4.91) 1.15
6-2Fa&b –1.69 CC 709 (102.8) 29,168 (258.2) 23.92 (5.38) 1.26
9-C NA SY/CC NA 25,104 (222.2) 20.59 (4.63) 1
9-1Fa&b 0.470 –1.04 (–0.0016) –31.66 CC 1276 (185) 31,221 (276.3) 25.61 (5.76) 1.24
9-2Fa&b –63.31 CC 1091 (158) 35,415 (313.5) 29.05 (6.53) 1.41
12-C NA SY/CC NA 25,790 (228.3) 21.15 (4.76) 1
12-1Fa&b 0.353 38.94 (0.060) 0.84 TR 1648 (239) 34,071 (301.6) 27.95 (6.28) 1.32
12-2Fa&b 1.69 CC 1436 (208.2) 40,023 (354.2) 32.83 (7.38) 1.55
*ρ = As /bds and ρsb = 0.85(fc′/fy)β1(εcu)/(εcu + εsy) is unstrengthened balanced reinforcement ratio.
s
†
SY = steel yield, CC = concrete compression failure, TR = tensile rupture of FRP.
‡For all samples with CC failure, steel has yielded at ultimate as per analysis of Eq. (4).
§P = M /1219 mm (M /48 in.).
n n n

(PennDOT 2001). The mixture design was selected as typical

for bridge decks and is given as follows: water 1530 N/m3
(263 lb/yd3), cement 3967 N/m3 (682 lb/yd3), coarse aggregate
1784 lb/yd3, fine aggregate 7242 N/m3 (1245 lb/yd3), air entrain-
ment 30 N/m3 (3 oz/yd3), and retarder 196 N/m3 (20 oz/yd3). The
slump at specimen casting was 101.6 mm (4 in.), and the
33-day compressive strength as determined by ASTM C 684-99
(ASTM 1999) using 100 mm (4 in.) diameter by 200 mm (8 in.)
high cylinders was 37.2 MPa (5.4 ksi) for all beams. Yield
strength of the steel reinforcement was determined from
Fig. 3—CFRP and tensile test results. uniaxial coupon testing to be 510 MPa (74 ksi) for No. 4 bars
and 490 MPa (71 ksi) for the No. 5 bars. Elastic modulus Es
is taken as 200 GPa (29,000 ksi).
The CFRP strips have a thin rectangular cross section that
measures approximately 15 x 2.5 mm (0.60 x 0.10 in.), and the
surface of the wide face is roughened to enhance force
transfer with the concrete epoxy grout. A photo of the CFRP
reinforcement with associated instrumentation detail can be
seen in Fig. 3(a). The material composition is 60% 4137 MPa
(600 ksi) carbon fiber by volume in a bisphenol epoxy
vinylester resin matrix. The CFRP elastic modulus Ef and
ultimate tensile strength ffu were determined from testing
uniaxial coupon specimens according to ACI Committee
440 (2004). Test results are shown in Fig. 3(b) from which
Ef and ffu were determined to be 136 GPa and 1648 MPa
(19,765 and 239 ksi), respectively.
Installation of the NSM CFRP strips is shown in Fig. 4 and
described as follows. First, the beams were rotated 180 degrees
about the long axis so that the steel reinforcement was at the
top of the beam. Next a rectangular groove approximately
Fig. 4—Specimen preparation. 6.4 mm (1/4 in.) wide by 19 mm (3/4 in.) deep was cut
longitudinally in the concrete where the CFRP was to be
The ratios of 0.353, 0.470, and 0.684 were selected as typical installed. The groove was cut using a hand-held circular with
for existing structures. an 18 cm (7 in.) diameter diamond-tooth, abrasive cutting
All specimens were instrumented with a concrete strain blade. The saw was fitted with a rip guide, so that the distance
gauge located on the top compression fiber at the center from the edge of the beam to the blade could be set and
span. Strengthened Specimens 6-1Fb, 6-2Fb, 9-1Fb, 9-2Fb, maintained during cutting. The depth of the blade was set to
12-1Fb, and 12-2Fb had an additional strain gauge bonded to 19 mm (3/4 in.) by adjusting the saw. The saw blade was just
the CFRP at the center span. Linear variable displacement over 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) wide so that two passes were made to
transducers (LVDTs) were used to measure displacement at achieve the required width. For test specimens having one
the center span. CFRP strip, the longitudinal groove was located at the center
Concrete for the test specimens was delivered to the of the cross section; and for specimens having two CFRP
laboratory by a concrete supplier. The concrete was in strips, the grooves were located at the 1/3 points in the cross
accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation section. Next, the groove was thoroughly cleaned of debris
(PennDOT) Class AAA, Concrete for Bridge Decks, with with compressed air and then partially filled with a structural
design specifications and properties given in BD-601M epoxy material that bonds with the concrete and FRP to

432 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

provide a mechanism for force transfer. The epoxy grout
used was a two-part epoxy. Finally, the FRP was depressed
into the groove, where care was taken to ensure that no air
voids were trapped within the epoxy gel. Excess epoxy gel
was then cleaned from the concrete surface and curing was
done for a minimum of 2 weeks.
All beams were tested monotonically from an uncracked
condition. Two 90 kN (10 ton) hydraulic cylinders, located
152 mm (6 in.) on either side of center span and controlled
by a manually-operated pump, were used to apply load at an
approximate rate of 4.5 kN/minute (1 kip/minute). A load Fig. 5—Analytical model at ultimate.
cell was located under each hydraulic cylinder to measure
applied load. Electronic signals from the strain gauges M n = Af f fu ⎛ d f – a
---⎞ + As f y ⎛ d s – a
---⎞ for A f < A fb (2b)
(concrete and CFRP), LVDTs, and load cell were recorded ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
by a 16-bit data acquisition system at a frequency of 1 Hz.
For sections controlled by concrete crushing, the stress level
ANALYTICAL STRENGTH in the steel is initially unknown, as is shown in Fig. 5(b). It
Figure 5 illustrates the assumed basic analytical conditions can be determined by fixing the steel and concrete strains at
of internal strain, stress, and resultant force for a cracked yield εsy and crushing εcu, respectively, calculating the steel
section at ultimate that is under-reinforced with steel (ρs < ρsb) area corresponding to yield Asy, and comparing this with the
and strengthened with FRP. From Fig. 5, the following area of steel present As. From Fig. 5(b), this is as follows
assumptions are implicit: strain varies linearly through the
cross section, the section is initially uncracked, perfect bond ε cu ⎞ d
exists between the steel and FRP reinforcements and 0.85f c ′bβ 1 d s ⎛ ------------------- - – A f E f ε sy ⎛ ----f ⎞
⎝ ε cu + ε sy⎠ ⎝ d s⎠
concrete, the concrete strain at compression failure is 0.003, A sy = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3)
the Whitney rectangular stress block in the compression fy
zone is a valid substitution for a nonlinear stress distribution
at ultimate, and the steel stress-strain behavior is assumed to Accordingly, for As ≤ Asy, the steel stress is equal to fy. Likewise,
be elastic-plastic. Also noted in Fig. 5, because the section is for As > Asy, the steel stress is less than fy and must be determined
initially uncracked and df > ds, the FRP strain εf will slightly from compatibility and equilibrium. Using this procedure,
exceed the steel strain εs. the steel stress at ultimate for all specimens controlled by
The theoretical nominal flexural strength Mn of an initially concrete failure in this study was equal to yield. With the
uncracked beam that is under-reinforced with steel (ρs < ρsb) steel stress at yield, the compression block a, stress in the
and strengthened with FRP is dependent on the amount of FRP reinforcement ff, and nominal moment capacity Mn for
FRP provided (Af) relative to the FRP area corresponding to sections controlled by concrete failure are found from
a balanced-strengthened strain condition (Afb). In this context, compatibility and equilibrium as follows
balanced-strengthened represents simultaneous tensile rupture
of the FRP and compression failure of the concrete. Again, 2
( A f E f ε cu – A s f y ) + 4 ( 0.85 )f c ′bβ 1 A f E f ε cu d f – ( A f E f ε cu – A s f y ) (4a)
for an initially uncracked section with df > ds and εf = εfu in a = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( 2 )0.85f c ′b
Fig. 5, by default the steel for a balanced-strengthened
design will have yielded (εs > εsy). Using these assumptions
and strain limits, and considering compatibility and equilibrium, ( df – α ⁄ β1 )
f f = E f ε cu ---------------------------
- ≤ f fu (4b)
the theoretical balanced-strengthened area of FRP is α ⁄ β1

⎧ ε cu ⎫
0.85f′ c bβ 1 d f ⎨ ------------------- ⎬ – As fy Mu = Af ff ⎛ df – a
---⎞ + A s fy ⎛ d s – a
---⎞ (4c)
⎩ ε cu + ε fu ⎭ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
A fb = ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1)
f fu The preceding analysis is offered as an alternative to the trial
and error procedure set forth by ACI Committee 440 (2002)
Using Eq. (1) as a theoretical FRP reinforcement limit, failure and yields identical results as would be obtained using the
will be tensile rupture of the FRP when Af > Afb , or compression ACI 440.2R procedure. Table 1 summarizes relevant design
failure of the concrete, when Af < Afb. It is noted that Afb can be and strength parameters. Moment strength Mn was calculated
either positive or negative, depending on the existing amount of using the measured material strengths for the steel, CFRP,
steel reinforcement present (As). For a negative result from and concrete. It is evident from Table 1 that, for a given area
Eq. (1), Af provided will always be greater than Afb, indicating a of FRP Af , the relative increase in strength Pn/PnC is
compression failure of the concrete. Strain distributions for FRP inversely proportional to the amount of steel reinforcement.
failure, balanced-strengthened, and compression failure are
shown in Fig. 5(b). For sections controlled by FRP failure, the TEST RESULTS
compression block depth a and nominal moment strength at Load-deflection and load-strain results are shown in Fig. 6 and
ultimate Mn are calculated from equilibrium as follows summarized in Table 2. Typical photos at failure are shown in
Fig. 7. The applied cylinder loads plotted in Fig. 6 and recorded
Af f fu + As f y in Table 2 have been corrected to include the self-weight
a = -------------------------- for A f < A fb (2a) bending effects of the beam. Moment equivalence at center span
0.85f c ′b

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 433

Fig. 6—Load-deflection and load-strain results. Fig. 7—Test specimens at failure.

Table 2—Summary of test results

Measured
Theory Yield Ultimate Comparison
Sample ID Pn, kN (kip) Py, kN (kip) Mechanism type* Pmax, kN (k) Py /PyC Average Pmax/PmaxC Average Pmax/Py Average Pmax/Pn
6-C (control) 18.9 (4.25) 19 (4.28) SY/CC 21.12 (4.75) 1 1 1 — 1.11 — 1.12
6-1Fa 20.9 (4.69) CC 24.83 (5.58) 1.10 1.18 1.19 1.14
21.8 (4.91) 1.11 1.14 1.14
6-1Fb 21.3 (4.78) CC 23.24 (5.23) 1.12 1.10 1.09 1.06
6-2Fa 24.4 (5.48) CC 24.99 (5.62) 1.28 1.18 1.02 1.04
23.9 (5.38) 1.29 1.23 1.06
6-2Fb 24.7 (5.56) CC 26.94 (6.06) 1.30 1.28 1.09 1.13
9-C (control) 20.6 (4.63) 22.4 (5.03) SY/CC 25.29 (5.69) 1 1 1 — 1.13 — 1.23
9-1Fa 25.3 (5.70) CC 28.22 (6.34) 1.13 1.12 1.11 1.10
25.6 (5.76) 1.11 1.11 1.13
9-1Fb 24.5 (5.50) CC 27.93 (6.28) 1.09 1.10 1.14 1.09
9-2Fa 27.7 (6.22) CC 37.05 (8.33) 1.24 1.47 1.34 1.28
29.0 (6.53) 1.18 1.44 1.38
9-2Fb 25.0 (5.63) CC 35.82 (8.05) 1.12 1.42 1.43 1.23
12-C (control) 21.2 (4.76) 21.5 (4.84) SY/CC 23.52 (5.29) 1 1 1 — 1.09 — 1.11
12-1Fa 24.7 (5.56) TR 29.59 (6.65) 1.15 1.26 1.20 1.06
27.9 (6.28) 1.18 1.29 1.20
12-1Fb 25.9 (5.81) TR 31.01 (6.97) 1.20 1.32 1.20 1.11
12-2Fa 26.5 (5.97) CC 33.80 (7.60) 1.23 1.44 1.27 1.03
32.8 (7.38) 1.27 1.61 1.38
12-2Fb 28.0 (6.30) CC 41.77 (9.39) 1.30 1.78 1.49 1.27
*
SY = steel yield, CC = concrete crushing, TR = CFRP tensile rupture.

was used to calculate an equivalent concentrated force Peq that a significant increase in ultimate strength when compared
was added to all laboratory measured load data. Moment with the companion control specimens. To a lesser degree,
equivalence at center span is expressed as {1/8wbeamL2} = strengthening with CFRP increased stiffness and yield load.
{Peqav}. From Fig. 3, Peq for the 152, 230, and 305 mm (6, Detailed discussions of the test results for control and
9, and 12 in.) wide specimens is calculated to be 0.50, 0.77, strengthened specimens are presented in the following sections.
and 1.0 kN (0.115, 0.172, and 0.230 kips), respectively.
From Fig. 6, the physical effects of supplemental strengthening Control specimens: 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C
with CFRP are clearly evident when strengthened specimens Referring to the load-deflection behavior of control
are compared with companion control (unstrengthened) Specimens 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C, the ductile behavior charac-
specimens. All specimens strengthened with CFRP showed teristic of under-reinforced steel flexural (ρs < ρsb) members

434 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

is apparent. Initially, all sections are uncracked and gross achieved for the 305 mm (12 in.) wide specimens than for the
section properties apply (Ig). At the cracking load Pcr, 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.) wide specimens. This is
behavior changes from uncracked to cracked-elastic. As load verification that the increase in strength is inversely
is increased further, the section responds elastically until the proportional to the relative area of steel reinforcement (ρs/ρbs).
yield strength of the steel reinforcement fy is reached. At the For the strengthened specimens in this group, the average
yield load Py, behavior changes from cracked-elastic to ultimate loads Pmax were between 13 and 20% greater than
inelastic. For Specimens 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C, steel yield the average yield loads Py. Thus, the strength increase
occurred at 19, 22.4, and 21.5 kN (4.28, 5.03, and 4.84 kips), between yield and ultimate limit states is slightly greater for
respectively. The yield load corresponds to a flattening of the these specimens than for the control specimens (which was
load-deflection trace and simultaneous inflection in the approximately 12%). This is expected and represents the
concrete load-strain response. Yield is followed by a load plateau additional tensile capacity provided by the CFRP after steel
where the moment capacity of the section remains roughly yield, which is not available for the control specimens.
constant. The load plateau is clearly visible for Specimens 9-C All specimens failed at loads slightly in excess of their
and 12-C, and to a lesser degree for Specimen 6-C. respective predicted nominal flexural strength Pn. Referring
At the ultimate load Pmax, failure occurred by concrete to Table 2, the measured failure loads Pmax were between 6%
crushing. Ultimate load for Specimens 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C (6-1Fb) and 14% (6-1Fa) greater than the theoretical strength
was 21.1, 25.3, and 23.5 kN (4.75, 5.69, and 5.29 kips), Pn. The magnitude and range of this comparison suggest that
respectively. For all control specimens, the ultimate load the analytical model and associated assumptions used in Eq. (2)
Pmax was approximately 12% greater than the yield load Py. and (4) are acceptable for predicting the flexural capacity of
The measured failure loads for Specimens 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C these four test specimens.
were 12, 23, and 11%, respectively, greater than the theoretical
nominal capacity Pn. Specimens strengthened with two CFRP strips:
6-2Fa&b, 9-2Fa&b, and 12-2Fa&b
Specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip: Referring to Fig. 6, the change from cracked-elastic to
6-1Fa&b, 9-1Fa&b, and 12-1Fa&b inelastic behavior for the 230 and 305 mm (9 and 12 in.)
For specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip, the change wide specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips can still be
from cracked-elastic to inelastic behavior (yield point) is less seen. For the 152 mm (6 in.) wide specimens strengthened
abrupt and the associated reduction in the slope of the load- with two CFRP strips, however, this change from elastic to
deflection curve is less than for the control specimens. This inelastic behavior is much less obvious from the load-deflection
is especially true for specimens with a large relative amount of graphs. The load-strain curve for Specimen 6-2Fb, however,
steel reinforcement ρs/ρsb. Referring to Fig. 6, for Specimens shows a clear redistribution of tensile force to the CFRP as a
6-1Fa&b, the change in stiffness at ensuing nonlinear load- result of steel yield. It is therefore concluded that the steel
deflection response associated with steel yielding is negligible. did yield for these specimens (6-2Fa&b).
These specimens have the largest relative area of steel Failure of all 152, 230, and 305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide
reinforcement equal to 0.68ρsb. For Specimens 9-1Fa&b and specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips occurred by
12-1Fa&b, however, the change in stiffness after steel yield concrete crushing. This is consistent with the failure mode
is more apparent. These specimens were reinforced with predicted in Table 1. After concrete crushing, the 305 mm
0.47ρsb and 0.34ρsb, respectively. (12 in.) wide specimens were further deformed until rupture
The mechanism of failure at ultimate for all specimens in of the CFRP occurred. This rupture is significant in that it
this group is consistent with that predicted using the theory again confirmed that force transfer is sufficient to develop
outlined previously and summarized in Table 1. As can be the full tensile capacity of the CFRP strip.
seen in Table 2, all 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.) wide specimens For all specimens, there was a significant increase in yield
strengthened with one CFRP strip failed by crushing of the load Py relative to the respective companion control specimens
concrete. For these specimens, the CFRP did not rupture PyC. Referring to Table 2, the yield loads for 152, 230, and
prior to concrete crushing, indicating that the strain level was 305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide specimens reinforced with
less than the ultimate material strength. For the 305 mm (12 in.) two CFRP strips increased by 29, 18, and 27% over the
wide specimens with one CFRP strip, however, the CFRP control, respectively. Comparing results, the yield load
reinforcement did rupture at ultimate. This was followed by increase for specimens with two CFRP strips was significantly
compression failure in the concrete. Thus, the bond between higher than for specimens with one CFRP strip. Relative to the
the CFRP and concrete for Specimens 12-1Fa&b was able to control specimens, the increase in ultimate load Pmax for the
develop the tensile strength of the CFRP strip. Also, for all 152, 230, and 305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide specimens was
samples in this group, no debonding or slip between the 23, 44, and 61%, respectively. The trend in these values is
CFRP strip and concrete was observed (refer to Fig. 7(b)). consistent with those listed in Table 1, where the gain in
When compared with control specimens, the average yield ultimate strength increases with decreasing steel reinforcement
and ultimate loads for Specimens 6-1Fa&b, 9-1Fa&b, and ratio. Thus, in design, the expected additional strength from
12-1Fa&b increased by 11%, 11, and 18%, and 14%, 11, and the CFRP must consider the existing relative amount of steel
29%, respectively. Thus, the relative increase in yield Py and in the unstrengthened condition.
ultimate Pmax loads for the 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.) For the 152 mm (6 in.) wide specimens with two CFRP
wide specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip relative to strips, the average ultimate load was only 6% greater than the
the respective control specimens (PyC and PmaxC) was roughly yield load. This indicates that at steel yield, the concrete
the same and taken approximately as 11%. For the 305 mm strain was near ultimate so that any increase in strength is
(12 in.) wide specimens, the yield load increased by 18% and limited by the threshold level corresponding to concrete
the ultimate load increased by 29%. Therefore, a greater compression failure. For the 230 and 305 mm (9 and 12 in.)
increase in both yield and ultimate load capacities was wide specimens, the average ultimate loads increased by

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 435

Table 3—Ductility results
Yield Ultimate Deflection ductility Energy ductility
Sample ID Δy , mm (in.) Ey*, kN-mm (kip-in.) Δu, mm (in.) *,
Eu kN-mm (kip-in.) μd = Δu/Δy Ratio† μE = Eu/Ey Ratio†
6-C 22.17 (0.87) 233 (2.07) 30.23 (1.19) 395 (3.50) 1.36 1.00 1.69 1.00
6-1Fa 19.51 (0.77) 235 (2.08) 28.98 (1.14) 455 (4.02) 1.49 1.09 1.93 1.14
6-1Fb 23.06 (0.91) 2823 (2.50) 29.30 (1.15) 423 (3.74) 1.27 0.93 1.50 0.88
6-2Fa 24.66 (0.97) 353 (3.12) 26.19 (1.03) 389 (3.45) 1.06 0.78 1.10 0.65
6-2Fb 25.26 (0.99) 354 (3.13) 31.04 (1.22) 503 (4.45) 1.23 0.90 1.42 0.84
9-C 21.05 (0.83) 280 (2.48) 47.03 (1.85) 909 (8.05) 2.23 1.00 3.24 1.00
9-1Fa 21.14 (0.83) 323 (2.86) 36.80 (1.45) 729 (6.46) 1.74 0.78 2.26 0.70
9-1Fb 24.16 (0.95) 331 (2.93) 44.45 (1.75) 863 (7.64) 1.84 0.82 2.61 0.80
9-2Fa 20.76 (0.82) 344 (3.05) 40.81 (1.61) 989 (8.75) 1.97 0.88 2.87 0.88
9-2Fb 22.15 (0.87) 323 (2.86) 47.87 (1.88) 1125 (9.96) 2.16 0.97 3.49 1.08
12-C 17.55 (0.69) 228 (2.02) 44.68 (1.76) 845 (6.80) 2.55 1.00 3.70 1.00
12-1Fa 19.50 (0.77) 296 (2.62) 44.09 (1.74) 976 (8.64) 2.26 0.89 3.29 0.89
12-1Fb 20.56 (0.81) 317 (2.80) 47.36 (1.86) 1081 (9.50) 2.30 0.90 3.42 0.92
12-2Fa 20.23 (0.80) 334 (2.96) 46.10 (1.81) 1147 (10.15) 2.28 0.89 3.43 0.93
12-2Fb 19.90 (0.78) 334 (2.95) 58.55 (2.31) 1732 (15.33) 2.94 1.16 5.19 1.40

∫ P dΔ .
*
E =
†
Ratio = {strengthened sample}/{control sample}.

38% over the yield loads. This is expected and represents the energy ductility ratios to 0.64 and 0.60, respectively,
increased available capacity in the concrete at steel yield. This resulting in a decrease in both ductility indexes.
behavior is reflective of the relative amounts of both steel and The experimental ductility analysis presented previously
CFRP reinforcement and how these reinforcement areas is subjective for two reasons. First, for some specimens, the
compare with that required for a balanced-strengthened design. yield limit state is not an instantaneous condition that occurs
Predicted flexural strength of all specimens with two at a clearly defined load, deflection, or strain. Secondly, the
CFRP strips was less than measured values, indicating the ultimate limit state is also subject to interpretation. Thus,
analytical model is conservative. Referring to Table 2, the depending on the selection for the yield and ultimate limit
measured loads were between 3 and 28% greater than states, a range of ductility results can be expected that may
predicted strengths. Thus, the model is an acceptable analytical be slightly different from those reported in Table 3. The
tool for strength prediction in design. general conclusion, however, must be that ductility is
decreased relative to the unstrengthened condition. Further
Ductility and energy parametric investigation of ductility using theoretical
The reported effect of flexural strengthening with external modeling to calculate deflection and strain is recommended.
FRP reinforcement is a reduction in flexural ductility relative
to the unstrengthened condition (ACI Committee 440 2002, CONCLUSIONS
Bencardino et al. 2002). Typically, ductility is calculated in terms The research presented in this study evaluated strength and
of dimensionless deflection or energy ratios. Using these param- ductility of steel reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
eters ductility μ relative to the yield condition is defined as near surface mounted CFRP strips. Experimental variables
were the amount of steel and CFRP reinforcements. Steel
Deflection ductility: μd = Δu /Δy (5a) reinforcement ratios ρs and concrete strength were selected
as typical for existing concrete flexural members that would
be found in nonprestressed bridge and building flexural
Energy ductility: μE = Eu /Ey (5b) members. The conclusions reported are restricted to the
material properties (for concrete and CFRP), reinforcement
In Eq. (5) Δu and Δy are the ultimate and yield center-span ratios (ρs and ρf), type of CFRP (thin rectangular strips), and
deflections, respectively, and Eu and Ey are the areas under testing procedures that were used in this study. From the data
the load-deflection diagrams at ultimate and yield, respectively. presented, the following conclusions are made.
Numerical integration of the measured load-deflection 1. The strengthened beams failed in flexure as predicted
diagrams was used to determine Eu and Ey. Ductility results according to the amounts of steel and CFRP reinforcement.
are summarized in Table 3 where it is observed that most All 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.) wide specimens, and 305 mm
specimens experience a decrease in both deflection ductility and (12 in.) wide specimens with two CFRP strips failed by steel
energy ductility relative to the control beams. The exceptions yield followed by concrete crushing. The CFRP remained
are Specimens 6-1Fa and 12-2Fb, which experienced an intact at concrete failure and no debonding was detected.
increase in both deflection and energy ductilities, and These beams were predicted to fail in compression. The
Specimen 9-2Fb, which experienced a slight increase in 305 mm (12 in.) wide specimens strengthened with one
energy ductility. Under closer scrutiny, Specimen 12-2Fb, CFRP strip failed by steel yield followed by CFRP rupture.
experienced a major crack at approximately 35 kN (7.84 kips). These beams were predicted to fail by CFRP rupture. In all
It could be argued that in a load controlled test this would have cases, no debonding of the CFRP was detected;
been the ultimate limit state for which Δu, Eu, μd , and μE are 2. All beams strengthened with CFRP failed at loads
32.3 mm (1.27 in.), 724.2 kN-mm (6.41 k-in.), 1.62, and greater than their respective control beams. Relative to
2.17, respectively. This reduces the deflection ductility and control specimen capacity, CFRP strengthened specimens

436 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

had measured increases in yield strength ranging from 9 to ρs, ρf = steel As/bds and CFRP Af /bdf reinforcement ratio, respectively
30%, and measured increases in ultimate strength ranging ρsb = balanced steel reinforcement ratio for unstrengthened section
from 10 to 78%. In general, the increase in strength was
inversely proportional to the relative amount of steel REFERENCES
ACI Committee 440, 2002, “Design and Construction of Externally
reinforcement normalized to a balanced design ρs /ρsb; Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02),”
3. The measured ultimate capacity of CFRP strengthened American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 45 pp.
beams was between 6 and 28% greater than the respective ACI Committee 440, 2004, “Guide Test Methods of Fiber-Reinforced
predicted nominal strength. Nominal strength was calculated Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI
440.3R-04),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 40 pp.
using a simplified closed-form analysis that yields identical
ASTM C 684-99, 1999, “Standard Test Method for Making, Accelerated
results to the trial and error procedure given in ACI 440.2R-02. Curing, and Testing Concrete Compression Test Specimens,” ASTM
For unstrengthened beams, the measured ultimate strength was International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 10 pp.
between 11 and 23% greater than the section’s predicted nominal Arduini, M., and Nanni, A., 1997, “Behavior of Precracked RC Beams
strength. These ratios suggest that the CFRP strengthened Strengthened with Carbon FRP Sheets,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 63-70.
section nominal flexural capacity is appropriately predicted using Bencardino, F.; Spadea, G.; and Swamy, R., 2002, “Strength and Ductility of
the simplified closed-form or ACI 440.2R-02 methodologies; Reinforced Concrete Beams Externally Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Fabric,”
4. Force transfer between the CFRP, epoxy grout, and ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 163-171.
surrounding concrete was able to develop the full tensile strength Brena, S. F.; Bramblett, R. M.; Wood, S. L.; and Kreger, M. E., 2003,
of the CFRP strips. Tensile rupture of the single CFRP strip was “Increasing Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Carbon
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,
achieved in the 305 mm (12 in.) wide specimens with no No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 36-46.
apparent slip or damage to the concrete cover or epoxy grout. DeLorenzis, L. A.; Nanni, A.; and Tegila, A. L., 2000, “Flexural and
For all other specimens where the CFRP did not fail, there Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Near Surface
was no apparent loss in force transfer between the CFRP, Mounted FRP Bars,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Ottawa, Canada,
epoxy grout, and surrounding concrete. Thus, the CFRP strip’s Aug. 15-18, pp. 521-528.
thin rectangular cross section and roughened surface provide DeLorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2001, “Shear Strengthening of Reinforced
an effective mechanism of force transfer with this epoxy; and Concrete Beams with Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
5. For the specimens tested, there was no discernable trend Rods,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 60-68.
between the change in ductility (energy and deflection) and DeLorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2002, “Bond between Near-Surface
Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rods and Concrete in Structural
the relative amount of steel reinforcement ρs/ρsb or CFRP Strengthening,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 123-132.
strengthening reinforcement Afrp. With the exception of two DeLorenzis, L.; Lundgren, K.; and Rizzo, A., 2004, “Anchorage Length
strengthened beam, energy and deflection ductilities were of Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars for Concrete
reduced for CFRP strengthened beams. Strengthening—Experimental Investigation and Numerical Modeling,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 269-278.
The authors suggest that additional research is required to El-Hacha, R., and Rizkalla, S., 2004, “Near-Surface-Mounted Fiber-
study the strength and ductility behavior of a beam strengthened Reinforced Polymer Reinforcements for Flexural Strengthening of Concrete
with wider range of combinations of steel and FRP reinforce- Structures,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, V. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 717-726.
ment ratios. Furthermore, NSM FRP splice and bond behavior, Grace, N.; Abdel-Sayed, G.; and Ragheb, W., 2002, “Strengthening of
appropriate code mandated design limitations for strength, Concrete Beams Using Innovative Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Fabric,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 692-700.
deflection, and ductility need to be investigated. Mukhopadhyaya, P., and Swamy, R. N., 1999, “Critical Review of Plate
Anchorage Stresses in Premature Debonding Failures of Plate Bonded
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Fourth International Symposium on Fiber
The authors wish to thank Hughes Brothers, Inc., for donating the CFRP Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188,
reinforcement and the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects at Villanova C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute,
University for providing financial support for this research. Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 359-368.
Nanni, A., 2000, “FRP Reinforcement for Bridge Structures,” Proceedings,
Structural Engineering Conference, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
NOTATION Kans., Mar. 16, pp. 1-5.
Af , As = area of CFRP and steel reinforcement, respectively Nguyen, D.; Chan, T.; and Cheong, H., 2001, “Brittle Failure and Bond
Afb = balanced-strengthened area of CFRP Development Length of CFRP-Concrete Beams,” Journal of Composites
Asy = steel area corresponding to simultaneous concrete crushing for Construction, ASCE, V. 5, No. 1, pp. 12-17.
and steel yielding Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), 2001, “The
a, av = depth of compression block at ultimate and shear span, Bridge Design Specification Sheet, BD-601M,” Specifications for the
respectively Concrete, Class AAA.
b, c = beam width and depth on neutral axis, respectively Rahimi, H., and Hutchinson, A., 2001, “Concrete Beams Strengthened
df , ds = depth to CFRP and steel reinforcement, respectively with Externally Bonded FRP Plates,” Journal of Composites for Construction,
Ef , fc′ = FRP elastic modulus and concrete strength, respectively ASCE, V. 5, No. 1, Jan., pp. 44-55.
ff , fs = stress in CFRP and steel, respectively Saadatmanesh, H., 1994, “Fiber Composites for New and Existing
ffu, fy = ultimate strength of FRP (1648 MPa [239 ksi]) and steel Structures,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 3, May-June, pp. 346-354.
yield strength, respectively Sharif, A.; Al-Sulaimani, G. J.; Basunbul, I. A.; Baluch, M. H.; and
ff-ult = calculated CFRP stress at sections theoretical moment strength Ghaleb, B. N., 1994, “Strengthening of Initially Loaded Reinforced
Mn = theoretical nominal moment strength Concrete Beams Using FRP Plates,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 2,
Pn = theoretical applied load corresponding to Mn Mar.-Apr., pp. 160-168.
PnC = theoretical applied load for control specimens correspond- Shin, Y. S.; and Lee, C., 2003, “Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
ing to Mn Beams Strengthened with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates at
Py , Pmax = measured load at steel yield and ultimate, respectively Different Levels of Sustaining Load,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2,
PyC, PmaxC = measured load for control specimen at steel yield and ultimate, Mar.-Apr., pp. 231-239.
respectively Taljsten, B., and Carolin, A., 2001, “Concrete Beams Strengthened with
Tf , T s = tensile force in CFRP and steel, respectively Near Surface Mounted CFRP Laminates,” Proceedings of the Non-Metallic
wbeam = self-weight of beam Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRP RCS-5 Conference, July 16-18,
β1 = ratio of a/c Cambridge, UK, pp. 107-116.
εf, εs = strain in CFRP and steel, respectively Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T.; and Lam, L., 2002, FRP-Strengthened
εcu, εfu = ultimate strain of concrete (0.003) and FRP (0.012), respectively RC Structures, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK, 266 pp.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 437

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S40

Influence of Shear Reinforcement on Reinforced Concrete

Continuous Deep Beams
by Keun-Hyeok Yang, Heon-Soo Chung, and Ashraf F. Ashour

Test results of 24 reinforced concrete continuous deep beams are ment as recommended by ACI 318-05, Section A.3.3, is not
reported. The main variables studied were concrete strength, shear provided. This implies that shear reinforcement satisfying
span-to-overall depth ratio (a/ h) and the amount and configuration of ACI 318-05, Section A.3.3, would increase the ultimate
shear reinforcement. The results of this study show that the load strength of beams predicted by the strut-and-tie model by
transfer capacity of shear reinforcement was much more prominent 25%. Studies on the validity of the strut-and-tie model
in continuous deep beams than in simply supported deep beams.
For beams having an a/ h of 0.5, horizontal shear reinforcement
recommended by ACI 318-05, however, are very rare even
was always more effective than vertical shear reinforcement. The in simple deep beams.12-14
ratio of the load capacity measured and that predicted by the strut- This paper presents test results of 24 two-span reinforced
and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 dropped against the concrete deep beams. The main variables included concrete
increase of a/h. This decrease rate was more remarkable in continuous strength, a/h, and the amount and configuration of shear
deep beams than that in simple deep beams. The strut-and-tie reinforcement. The influence of shear reinforcement on the
model recommended by ACI 318-05 overestimated the strength of ultimate shear strength in continuous deep beams was
continuous deep beams having a/ h more than 1.0. compared with that in the corresponding simple ones. The
load capacity predictions of reinforced concrete continuous
Keywords: beams; load; shear reinforcement; strut-and-tie model. deep beams by the strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05 were
evaluated by comparison with test results.
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete deep beams are used in structures as RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
load distribution elements such as transfer girders, pile caps, A great deal of research has focused on simply supported
and foundation walls in tall buildings. Although these members deep beams. Even the few tests on continuous deep beams
commonly have several supports, extensive experimental were carried out on beams having an a/h exceeding 1.0 and
investigations have brought simple deep beams into focus. concrete strength less than 35 MPa (5.0 ksi). Test results in
The behavior of continuous deep beams is significantly this study clearly showed the influence of shear reinforcement
different from that of simply supported deep beams. The on the structural behavior of continuous deep beams according
coexistence of high shear and high moment within the interior to the variation of concrete strength and a/h. The ultimate
shear span in continuous deep beams has a considerable shear strength of continuous deep beams and load transfer
effect on the development of cracks, leading to a significant capacity of shear reinforcement were compared with those
reduction in the effective strength of the concrete strut, of the corresponding simple deep beams and the predictions
which is the main load transfer element in deep beams.1 obtained from the strut-and-tie model recommended in
Indeed, few experiments1-3 were carried out on continuous ACI 318-05.
deep beams of shear span-to-overall depth ratio (a/h) greater
than 1.08. The results of simple deep beams tested by Tan et al.4
and Smith and Vantsiotis,5 however, showed that the relative EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
effectiveness of horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement The details of geometrical dimensions and reinforcement
on controlling diagonal cracks and enhancing load capacity of test specimens are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The main
reversed for deep beams having an a/h less than 1.0, that is, variables studied were compressive strength of concrete fc′ ,
horizontal shear reinforcement was more effective for an a/h a/h, and the amount and configuration of shear reinforcement.
below 1.0, whereas vertical shear reinforcement was more Beams tested were classified into two groups according to
effective for an a/h lager than 1.0. Therefore, a reasonable the concrete compressive strength: L-series for design
evaluation of the influence of shear reinforcement on concrete strength of 30 MPa (4350 psi) and H-series for
continuous deep beams having an a/h less than 1.0 requires design concrete strength of 60 MPa (8700 psi). The a/h were
further investigation. initially designed to be 0.5 and 1.0 to allow comparison with
The current codes6-8 and several researchers9-12 have current results with those reported by Yang13 for simple
recommended the design of deep beams using the strut-and- deep beams. The value of a/h in H-series, however, was
tie model. In these strut-and-tie models, the main function of increased from 0.5 to 0.6, as the capacity of beams having fc′
shear reinforcement is to restrain diagonal cracks near the of 60 MPa (8700 psi) and an a/h of 0.5 had exceeded the
ends of bottle-shaped struts and to give some ductility to capacity of the loading machine in the pilot test. The
struts. ACI 318-05, Section A.3.3, allows the use of an
effectiveness factor of 0.75 when computing the effective ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
MS No. S-2006-206.R1 received May 20, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
concrete compressive strength of bottle-shaped struts with policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
reinforcement satisfying ACI 318-05, Section A.3.3. The 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 May-June 2008
value of the effectiveness factor drops to 0.6 if shear reinforce- ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

420 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 Table 1—Details of test specimens
Keun-Hyeok Yang is a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Bradford, UK,
and an Assistant Professor at Mokpo National University, Korea. He received his MSc Details of shear reinforcement
and PhD from Chungang University, Korea. His research interests include ductility, Horizontal Vertical
strengthening, and shear of reinforced, high-strength concrete structures. fc′ ,
Specimen MPa a/h a/jd L, mm sh, mm ρh sv , mm ρv
Heon-Soo Chung is a Professor at Chungang University, Korea. He received his MSc L5NN — — — —
and PhD from Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan. His research interests include
flexure, shear, and bond behavior of reinforced, high-strength concrete members. L5NS — — 120 0.003
L5NT — — 60 0.006
Ashraf F. Ashour is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Bradford, UK. He received 32.4 0.5 0.58 600
his BSc and MSc from Mansoura University, Egypt, and his PhD from Cambridge L5SN 120 0.003 — —
University, UK. His research interests include shear, plasticity, and optimization of L5SS 120 0.003 120 0.003
reinforced concrete and masonry structures.
L5TN 60 0.006 — —
L10NN — — — —
L10NS — — 120 0.003
L10NT — — 60 0.006
32.1 1.0 1.17 1200
L10SN 120 0.003 — —
L10SS 120 0.003 120 0.003
L10TN 60 0.006 — —
H6NN — — — —
H6NS — — 120 0.003
H6NT — — 60 0.006
65.1 0.6 0.7 720
H6SN 120 0.003 — —
H6SS 120 0.003 120 0.003
H6TN 60 0.006 — —
H10NN — — — —
H10NS — — 120 0.003
H10NT — — 60 0.006
68.2 1.0 1.17 1200
H10SN 120 0.003 — —
H10SS 120 0.003 120 0.003
H10TN 60 0.006 — —
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.039 in.

respectively: N for no shear reinforcement, and S and T for

shear reinforcement ratios of 0.003 and 0.006, respectively.
For example, L5-SS is a continuous deep beam having design
concrete strength of 30 MPa (4350 psi), an a/h of 0.5, and both
horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement ratios of 0.003.
All beams tested had the same section width bw of 160 mm
(6.3 in.) and overall section depth h of 600 mm (23.6 in.). Both
longitudinal top, ρs′ = (As′ /bwd), and bottom, ρs = (As /bwd),
reinforcement ratios were kept constant in all beams as 1%,
which were calculated from nonlinear FE analysis,15 to ensure
no flexural yielding of longitudinal reinforcement prior to
failure of concrete struts. The length of each span L varied
Fig. 1—Geometrical dimensions and reinforcement of test according to a/h, as given in Table 1. The clear covers to
specimens. (Note: all dimensions are in mm and • indicates longitudinal top and bottom reinforcement, and shear reinforce-
locations of strain gauges. 1 mm = 0.039 in.) ment were 35 and 29 mm (1.38 and 1.14 in.), respectively. The
longitudinal bottom reinforcement was continuous over the
configuration of shear reinforcement included four different full length of the beam and welded to 160 x 100 x 10 mm (6.3
arrangements as shown in Fig. 1: none, only vertical, only x 3.9 x 0.39 in.) end plates, whereas longitudinal top rein-
horizontal, and orthogonal reinforcement. The spacing of shear forcement was anchored in the outside of the exterior
reinforcement was chosen to be 60 and 120 mm (2.36 and supports by 90-degree hooks according to ACI 318-05. The
4.72 in.) and the corresponding shear reinforcement ratios, ρ vertical shear reinforcement was closed stirrups and the
(= Aw /bw s, where Aw equals the area of shear reinforcement horizontal shear reinforcement with 90 degree hooks was
at spacing s, and bw equals the beam width), were 0.003 and arranged along the longitudinal axis in both sides of the beams.
0.006, respectively, to satisfy the maximum spacing speci-
fied in ACI 318-05, Section 11.8, and the minimum amount Material properties
recommended in ACI 318-05, Section A.3.3.2. The beam The mechanical properties of reinforcement are given in
notation given in Table 1 includes four parts. The first part Table 2. All longitudinal and shear reinforcing bars were
refers to the concrete design strength: L for low compressive deformed bars of a 19 mm (0.75 in.) diameter, having a
strength and H for high compressive strength. The second nominal area of 287 mm2 (0.44 in.2) and yield strength of
part is used to identify the a/h. The third and fourth parts give 562 MPa (81.6 ksi) and a 6 mm (0.23 in.) diameter, having a
the amount of horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement, nominal area of 28.2 mm2 (0.04 in.2) and yield strength of

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 421

Fig. 2—Test setup. (Note: all dimensions are in mm. 1 mm =
0.039 in.)

Table 2—Mechanical properties of reinforcement Fig. 3—Crack patterns and failure of concrete strut. Numbers
indicate total load in kN at which crack occurred. (Note:
Diameter, mm fy, MPa εy fsu, MPa Es, GPa
1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)
6 * 483 0.0044 549 199
19 562 0.00284 741 198 deflection predicted by the linear 2-D FE analysis, and at the
*
Yield stress of 6 mm diameter reinforcement was obtained by 0.2% offset method. midspan of each span were measured using linear variable
Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi. differential transformers (LVDTs). Both surfaces of the
beams tested were whitewashed to aid in the observation of
483 MPa (70 ksi), respectively. The yield strength of 6 mm crack development during testing. The inclined crack width
(0.23 in.) diameter reinforcement was obtained by 0.2% of concrete struts joining the edges of load and support plates
offset method. was monitored by the π-shape displacement transducers (PI
The ingredients of ready mixed concrete were ordinary gauges) as shown in Fig. 2. The strains of shear reinforcement
portland cement, fly ash, irregular gravel of a maximum size were measured by 5 mm (0.2 in.) electrical resistance strain
of 25 mm (0.98 in.), and sand. The water-binder ratios of the gauges (ERS) at the region crossing the line joining the edges
L-series added with fly ash of 12% and of the H-series added of load and intermediate support plates as shown in Fig. 1. At
with fly ash of 20% were 0.41 and 0.27, respectively. All each load increment, the test data were captured by a data
specimens were cast in a vertical position in the same logger and automatically stored.
wooden mold. Control specimens, which were 100 mm
(3.94 in.) diameter by 200 mm (7.87 in.) high cylinders, were Support settlements
cast and cured simultaneously with beams to determine the Continuous deep beams are sensitive to differential
compressive strength. They were tested soon after the beam support settlements causing additional moment and shear.
test. The results of the cylinder compressive strength given To assess the effect of differential settlements on the beams
in Table 1 are the average value from testing nine cylinders. tested, a linear 2-D FE analysis considering shear deformation
effect was performed on the beams shown in Fig. 1. For the
Test setup beams tested, sources of relative support settlements were
Loading and instrumentation arrangements are shown in the elastic shortening of the load cell and plates and elastic
Fig. 2. All beams having two spans were tested to failure deformation of the bed of the testing machine. The second
under a symmetrical two-point top loading system with a moment of area of the testing machine bed cross section
loading rate of 30 kN/minute (6.7 kip/minute) using a 3000 kN about the bending axis was 3.2 × 1010 mm4 (7.69 × 104 in.4),
(675 kip) capacity universal testing machine (UTM). Each then the elastic deformation under a point load R (in kN) at a
span was identified as E-span or W-span, as shown in Fig. 1. distance 1500 mm (59 in.) from the center of the testing
The two exterior end supports were designed to allow machine is 0.000176R mm. The amount of elastic shortening
horizontal and rotational movements, whereas the intermediate due to a load at the exterior and intermediate supports
support prevented horizontal movement but allowed rotation. involving the load cell and plates was considered in
To evaluate the shear force and loading distribution, 1000 kN designing the support size as follows. When a/h is 0.5, the
(225 kip) capacity load cells were installed in both exterior reactions of the exterior and intermediate supports due to the
end supports. At the location of loading or support point, a total applied load P, from the linear 2-D FE analysis, are 0.2P
steel plate of 100, 150, or 200 mm (3.94, 5.9, or 7.88 in.) and 0.6P, respectively. As the height of the intermediate
wide was provided to prevent premature crushing or bearing support was equal to that of the exterior load cell, the contact
failure, as shown in Fig. 2. All steel plates were 50 mm (1.97 in.) area of the intermediate support with the bed of the testing
thick and 300 mm (11.8 in.) long to cover the full width of machine was designed to be three times wider than that of the
test specimen. All beams were preloaded up to a total load of load cell at the exterior support to produce the same elastic
150 kN (33.7 kip) before testing, which wouldn’t produce shortening. The pilot test results showed that the maximum
any cracks, to assure a similar loading distribution to supports settlement of the exterior support relative to the intermediate
according to the result of the linear two-dimensional finite support was in order of L/25,000. For a differential settlement
element (2-D FE) analysis. between the exterior and intermediate supports of L/25,000,
Vertical deflections at a distance of 0.45L to 0.47L from the maximum additional shear forces obtained from linear 2-D
the exterior support, which is the location of the maximum FE analysis are 25 and 7 kN (5.62 and 1.57 kip) for beams

422 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 3—Details of test results and predictions obtained from ACI 318-05
Failure load Pn and ultimate shear
Load Pcr and shear force Vcr at first diagonal crack, kN force (Vn)I at interior shear spans, kN ACI 318-05
W-span E-span (Vn)I
Interior Exterior Interior Exterior (Pn)Exp./ (Vn)I-Exp./
Specimen (Pcr)I (Vcr)I (Pcr)E (Vcr)E (Pcr)I (Vcr)I (Pcr)E (Vcr)E Pn W-span E-span Pn, kN (Vn)I, kN (Pn)ACI (Vn)I-ACI
L5NN 852 255 902 180 816 244 937 187 1635 473 456* 1298 342 1.260 1.334
L5NS 849 247 1028 210 857 262 1330 281 1710 486 475* 1298 342 1.317 1.389
L5NT 1017 278 1380 284 850 230 1260 262 1789 512* 494 1298 342 1.378 1.498
L5SN 864 255 1268 252 867 257 927 179 1887 537* 546 1298 342 1.454 1.571
L5SS 814 247 990 192 980 293 1020 202 2117 * 583 1623 427 1.305 1.420
607
L5TN 912 266 1130 230 910 278 966 185 2317 655 * 1298 342 1.785 1.872
640
L10NN 537 173 — — 537 171 — — 880 264* 262 1000 265 0.880 0.997
L10NS 477 156 — — 596 195 — — 1153 349 * 1000 265 1.153 1.314
348
L10NT 635 206 1023 230 647 208 — — 1541 446* 439 1000 265 1.541 1.684
L10SN 498 153 — — 490 151 782 146 884 266 265* 1000 265 0.884 1.000
L10SS 521 166 — — 452 148 713 129 1177 357 352* 1250 331 0.942 1.063
L10TN 538 175 — — 621 193 775 143 935 287 288* 1000 265 0.935 1.087
H6NN 1046 305 1562 321 1236 303 1960 407 2248 * 634 2520 668 0.892 0.950
633
H6NS 1261 379 1646 316 978 300 2280 457 2289 684 683* 2520 668 0.908 1.023
H6NT 1116 324 2550 550 915 264 2480 531 2625 757 757* 2520 668 1.042 1.134
H6SN 1322 393 2420 517 1022 297 2420 513 2427 703* 708 2520 668 0.963 1.053
H6SS 1207 367 2630 548 825 256 2630 542 2763 792 799* 3150 834 0.877 0.958
H6TN 1442 439 — — 980 297 2648 540 2966 854 852* 2520 668 1.177 1.276
H10NN 690 228 868 149 690 228 840 143 1276 373 372* 2124 563 0.601 0.661
H10NS 759 237 — — 751 234 — — 1443 413* 414 2124 563 0.679 0.734
H10NT 788 251 — — 717 224 — — 2116 638 637* 2124 563 0.996 1.132
H10SN 757 255 — — 757 252 — — 1309 387* 378 2124 563 0.616 0.688
H10SS 718 232 — — 768 244 — — 1575 492* 484 2655 703 0.593 0.699
H10TN 754 234 — — 704 220 — — 1287 393 * 2124 563 0.606 0.689
388
*
Failure occurred in this shear span.
Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.

having an a/h of 0.5 and 1.0, respectively. This indicates that zone, followed by a diagonal crack in the interior shear span,
the differential settlement had no significant effect on the and then a vertical crack took place in the sagging zone, but
test arrangement. diagonal cracks within exterior shear spans were seldom
developed. The influence of shear reinforcement on the first
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION flexural and diagonal crack loads was not significant (refer
Crack propagation and failure mode to Table 3) as also observed in simple deep beams given in
The crack propagation was significantly influenced by the Appendix A.
a/h as shown in Fig. 3 and Table 3. The crack pattern in the Just before failure, the two spans showed nearly the same
L-series was similar to that in the H-series; therefore, it is not crack patterns. All beams developed the same mode of
shown in Fig. 3. For beams with a/h = 0.5, the first crack failure as observed in other experiments.3 The failure planes
suddenly developed in the diagonal direction at approximately evolved along the diagonal crack formed at the concrete strut
40% of the ultimate strength at the middepth of the concrete along the edges of the load and intermediate support plates.
strut within the interior shear span, and then a flexural crack
Two rigid blocks separated from original beams at failure
in the sagging region immediately followed. The first flexural
due to the significant diagonal cracking. An end block
crack over the intermediate support generally occurred at
rotated about the exterior support leaving the other block
approximately 80% of the ultimate strength, and was less
fixed over the other two supports as shown in Fig. 3.
than 0.2h deep at failure. As the load increased, more flexural
and diagonal cracks were formed and a major diagonal crack
extended to join the edges of the load and intermediate Load versus midspan deflection
support plates. A diagonal crack within the exterior shear The beam deflection at midspan was less than that
span occurred suddenly near the failure load. Cracks in measured at 0.45L to 0.47L from the exterior support until
beams with a/h = 1.0 developed in a different order from that the occurrence of the first diagonal crack as predicted by the
described previously for beams with a/h = 0.5. In those 2-D FE analysis. After the first diagonal crack, however, the
beams, the first crack occurred vertically in the hogging midspan deflection was higher. Therefore, the midspan

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 423

 Fig. 5—Total applied load versus support reactions for L-series
beams tested having a/ h of 0.5. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)

This stiffness reduction was prominent in case of lower

concrete strength and higher a/h.

Support reaction
Figure 5 shows the amount of the load transferred to the
end and intermediate supports against the total applied load
in the L-series beams having a/h = 0.5. On the same figure,
the support reactions obtained from the linear 2-D FE analysis
are also presented. The end and intermediate support reactions
of the L-series beams having a/h = 1.0 and the H-series
beams were similar to those of the L-series beams having an
a/h = 0.5; therefore, not presented herein. Before the first
diagonal crack, the relationship of the end and intermediate
support reactions against the total applied load in all beams
tested shows good agreement with the prediction of the
linear 2-D FE analysis. The amount of loads transferred to
the end support, however, was slightly higher than that
predicted by the linear 2-D FE analysis after the occurrence
of the first diagonal crack within the interior shear span. At
failure, the difference between the measured end support
reaction and prediction of the linear 2-D FE analysis was in
order of 7 and 12%, for beams with a/h = 0.5 and a/h = 1.0,
respectively. The distribution of applied load to supports was
independent of the amount and configuration of shear
reinforcement. This means that, although after the occurrence
of diagonal cracks the beam stiffness has reduced, as shown
in Fig. 4, the internal redistribution of forces is limited.

Width of diagonal crack

Figure 6 shows the variation of the diagonal crack width in
the interior shear span according to the configuration of
shear reinforcement: Fig. 6(a) at the first diagonal cracking
load and Fig. 6(b) at the same load as the ultimate failure load
of the corresponding deep beam without shear reinforcement.
For the same concrete compressive strength, the larger the a/h,
Fig. 4—Total load versus midspan deflection. (Note: 1 kN = the wider the diagonal crack width. Shear reinforcement had
0.2248 kips.) an important role in restraining the development of the diagonal
crack width, which significantly depended on the a/h. A
deflection of the failed span for different beams tested are more prominent reduction of diagonal crack width appeared
only presented in Fig. 4 against the total applied load: Fig. 4(a) in beams with horizontal shear reinforcement only or
for beams in the L-series and Fig. 4(b) for beams in the H-series. orthogonal shear reinforcement than in beams with vertical
The initial stiffness of beams tested increased in accordance shear reinforcement only when a/h was 0.5. On the other
with the increase of concrete strength and the decrease of the hand, for beams with a/h = 1.0, a smaller diagonal crack
a/h, but it seems to be independent of the amount and width was observed in beams with vertical shear reinforcement
configuration of shear reinforcement. The development of only than in beams with orthogonal shear reinforcement, even
flexural cracks in sagging and hogging zones has little influence though the total shear reinforcement ratio in these beams was
on the stiffness of beams tested. But the occurrence of diagonal the same (ρv + ρh = 0.006). It seems possible to reduce the
cracks in the interior shear span caused a sharp decrease in diagonal crack width by more than twice if shear reinforcement
the beam stiffness and an increase of the beam deflection. is suitably arranged according to the variation of a/h.

424 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 Fig. 7—Total load versus strains in shear reinforcement for
beams in H-series. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)

Fig. 6—Configuration of shear reinforcement versus diagonal

crack width. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

Figure 7 shows the strain in shear reinforcement against

the total applied load in the H-series beams: Fig. 7(a) for
vertical shear reinforcement in beams having either vertical
or orthogonal shear reinforcement, and Fig. 7(b) for horizontal
shear reinforcement in beams having either horizontal or
orthogonal shear reinforcement. The relation between strains
in shear reinforcement and the total applied load in the L-series
beams was similar to that in the H-series beams; therefore,
not presented herein. The strains of shear reinforcement
were recorded by ERS gauges at different locations, as
shown in Fig. 1. Shear reinforcement was not generally
strained at initial stages of loading. However, strains suddenly
increased with the occurrence of the first diagonal crack. In
beams with a/h = 0.6, only horizontal reinforcing bars yielded,
whereas in beams with a/h = 1.0, only vertical reinforcing
bars yielded. This indicates that the reinforcement ability to
transfer tension across cracks strongly depends on the angle
between the reinforcement and the axis of the strut.

Ultimate shear stress

The normalized ultimate shear strength, λ = Vn/bwd f c′ ,
plotted against a/h, is given in Fig. 8: Fig. 8(a) for simply
supported deep beams given in Appendix A, and Fig. 8(b) Fig. 8—Normalized ultimate shear strength versus shear
for continuous deep beams including the test results of span-to-overall depth ratio.
Rogowsky et al.1 and Ashour.2 It can be seen that the ultimate
shear strength of all beams without or with shear reinforcement reinforcement. When shear reinforcement is provided, the
dropped due to the increase of a/h. The reduction of the ultimate normalized ultimate shear strength λ in continuous deep
shear strength was also dependent on the configuration of shear beams matched that of the corresponding simply supported
reinforcement. For deep beams without shear reinforcement, ones. The influence of the horizontal and vertical shear
the normalized ultimate shear strength λ in continuous deep reinforcement on the ultimate shear strength is influenced by
beams was less than that in simply supported ones by an the a/h. The lower the a/h, the more effective the horizontal
average of 26% due to higher transverse tensile strains shear reinforcement and the less effective the vertical shear
produced by the tie action of longitudinal top and bottom reinforcement. When a/h was below 0.6, the shear strength

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 425

 V Vn – ( Vn )W ⁄ O
-----s = -------------------------------
- (2)
Vn Vn

The variations of Vs /Vn at the failed shear span against the

increase of a/h are given in Fig. 9: Fig. 9(a), (b), and (c) for
beams with vertical shear reinforcement only, with horizontal
shear reinforcement only, and with orthogonal shear reinforce-
ment, respectively. On the same figure, the test results of
simply supported deep beams given in Appendix A, which
had the same material and geometrical properties as continuous
deep beams tested in the current study, are also presented.
The load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement is more
pronounced in continuous deep beams than that in simple ones.
The load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement is dependent
on a/h. The load transfer capacity of vertical shear reinforcement
was higher in beams having a/h = 1.0 than those having
a/h = 0.5 as shown in Fig. 9(a). On the other hand, the load
transfer capacity of horizontal shear reinforcement was
higher in beams having a/h = 0.5 than those having a/h = 1.0,
as shown in Fig. 9(b). Existing test results of continuous
deep beams carried out by Rogowsky et al.1 and Ashour,2
and the comments of ACI 318-05, Section 11.8, have
suggested that horizontal shear reinforcement has little
influence on the shear strength improvement and crack
control. In the current tests, horizontal shear reinforcement is
more effective than vertical shear reinforcement for beams
with a/h of 0.5, as shown in Fig. 8 and 9.

Comparison with current codes

It has been shown by several researchers,1,2,4 that the
shear capacity prediction of reinforced concrete deep beams
obtained from ACI 318-9916 (unchanged since 1983) was
unconservative. For the design of deep beams, ACI 318-05
requires the use of either nonlinear analysis or strut-and-tie
model. Figure 10 shows a schematic strut-and-tie model of
continuous deep beams in accordance with ACI 318-05,
Appendix A. The strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 10 identifies
two main load transfer systems: one of which is the strut-and-tie
action formed with the longitudinal bottom reinforcement
acting as a tie and the other is the strut-and-tie action due to
the longitudinal top reinforcement. As the applied loads in
the two-span continuous deep beams are carried to supports
through concrete struts of exterior and interior shear spans
(refer to Fig. 10), the total load capacity of two-span continuous
deep beams Pn due to failure of concrete struts is
Fig. 9—Shear reinforcement ratios versus Vs / Vn.
Pn = 2(FE – FI)sinθ (3)
of deep beams with minimum horizontal shear reinforcement
had an average value of 150% higher than the upper bound where FE and FI equal the load capacities of exterior and
value, 0.83 f c′ bwd, specified in ACI 318-05, Section 11.8.3. interior concrete struts, respectively, and θ equals the angle
between the concrete strut and the longitudinal axis of the
Load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement deep beam, which can be expressed as tan–1(jd/a). The
The shear strength of deep beams Vn can be described distance between the center of top and bottom nodes jd could
as follows be approximately assumed as the distance between the center
of longitudinal top and bottom reinforcing bars as
Vn = Vc + Vs (1)
jd = h – c – c′ (4)
where Vc and Vs equal the load capacity of concrete and load
transfer capacity of shear reinforcement, respectively. where h equals the overall section depth and c and c′ equal
As the load capacity of concrete is usually regarded as the the cover of longitudinal bottom and top reinforcement,
strength of beams without shear reinforcement, (Vn)W/O, the respectively, as shown in Fig. 10.
ratio of the load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement to The nodes at the applied load point could be classified as
the shear strength of beams Vs/Vn is a CCC type, which is a hydrostatic node connecting both

426 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

exterior and interior compressive struts in sagging zone and
a CCT type for longitudinal top reinforcement in the hogging
zone. It was proved by Marti10 that the width of the strut at a
CCC node is in proportion to the principal stress normal to
the node face to make the state of stress in the whole node
region constant. To accommodate both CCC type and CCT
type, the loading plate width can be assumed to be subdivided
into two parts in accordance with the ratio of the exterior
reaction to the applied load β, each to form the node
connecting the exterior and the interior struts, respectively.
The β values of tested beams are 0.4 and 0.346 when a/h
ratios are 0.5 and 1.0, respectively, as estimated from the
linear 2-D FE analysis. If enough anchorage of longitudinal
reinforcement is provided, average widths of concrete struts
in interior (ws)I and exterior shear spans (ws)E are
Fig. 10—Qualitative strut-and-tie model of continuous deep
( w t ′ + 2c′ ) cos θ + [ 0.5 ( l p ) I + ( 1.0 – β ) ( l p ) P ] sin θ
( w s ) I = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5a) beams according to ACI 318-05.
2

( w t ′ + 2c′ ) cos θ + [ ( l p ) E + β ( l p ) P ] sin θ

( w s ) E = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (5b)
2

where (lp)P, (lp)E, and (lp)I equal the widths of loading, exterior
support, and interior support plates, respectively, and wt′
equals the smaller of the height of the plate anchored to
longitudinal bottom reinforcement wt and twice of the cover
of longitudinal bottom reinforcement 2c as shown in Fig. 10.
The load transfer capacity of the concrete strut depends on
the area of the strut and the effective concrete compressive
strength. Hence, the load capacities of the exterior and interior
concrete struts are

FE = ve f ′cbw(ws)E (6a)

FI = ve f ′cbw(ws)I (6b)

where ve equals the effectiveness factor of concrete. The

shear capacity at the interior shear span (Vn)I, where the
failure is expected to occur in continuous deep beams, can be
calculated from FI sinθ.
The minimum amount of shear reinforcement required in
bottle-shaped struts, which is recommended to be placed in
two orthogonal directions in each face, is suggested by
ACI 318-05 as follows

A si
∑ ---------
bw si
- sin α i ≥ 0.003 (7) Fig. 11—Comparison of test results and predictions by
ACI 318-05.

where Asi and si equal the total area and spacing in the i-th as developed previously are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 11:
layer of reinforcement crossing a strut, respectively, and αi Fig. 11(a) for simple deep beams given in Appendix A and
equals the angle between i-th layer of reinforcement and Fig. 11(b) for continuous deep beams including Rogowsky
the strut. et al.’s and Ashour’s test results. In simple deep beams, the
The effectiveness factors for concrete strength not width of the strut can be calculated from wt′cosθ + (lp)Esinθ,
exceeding 40 MPa (5.8 ksi) in ACI 318-05 are suggested as and the total load capacity is 2FEsinθ. Although Eq. (7)
0.75 and 0.6 when shear reinforcement satisfying Eq. (7) is proposed by ACI 318-05 is recommended for deep beams
arranged and is not provided, respectively. The truss model having concrete strength of less than 40 MPa, the load
representing the load transfer mechanism of horizontal and capacity of the H-series beams were also predicted using this
vertical shear reinforcement is not included in ACI 318-05. equation to evaluate its conservatism in case of high-strength
This implies that shear reinforcement satisfying Eq. (7) concrete deep beams. The mean and standard deviation of
enables the strength of beams to be increased by 25%. the ratio, (Pn)Exp./(Pn)ACI, between the experimental and
Comparisons between test results and predictions obtained predicted load capacities are 1.229 and 0.326, respectively,
from the strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 for simply supported deep beams, and 0.969 and 0.306,

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 427

respectively, for two-span continuous deep beams as shown c = cover of longitudinal bottom reinforcement
in Fig. 11. The ratio of the test result to prediction generally c′ = cover of longitudinal top reinforcement
d = effective depth of beam section
dropped with the increase of a/h. This decrease rate was h = overall depth of beam section
more remarkable in continuous deep beams than that in Es = elastic modulus of steel
simple ones. In particular, the predictions for several continuous FE = load capacity of concrete strut in exterior shear span
deep beams having a/h exceeding 1.0 were unconservative, FI = load capacity of concrete strut in interior shear span
even though the effectiveness factor used in the beams with fc′ = concrete compressive strength
fsu = tensile strength of reinforcement
either horizontal or vertical shear reinforcement was 0.6 fy = yield strength of reinforcement
regardless of the amount of shear reinforcement. In addition, jd = distance between center of top and bottom nodes
for high-strength concrete continuous deep beams having a/h = L = span length
1.0, the ratio, (Vn)I-Exp./(Vn)I-ACI, between the experimental and lp = width of loading plate
Pcr = diagonal crack load
predicted shear capacities in the interior shear span was Pn = ultimate load at failure
generally below 1.0 as given in Table 3; namely, the strut- sh = spacing of horizontal shear reinforcement
and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 overestimated sv = spacing of vertical shear reinforcement
the shear capacity of high-strength concrete continuous deep T = tensile force in longitudinal reinforcement
beams having a/h = 1.0. Vc = load capacity of concrete
Vcr = diagonal crack shear force
Vn = ultimate shear force at failure
CONCLUSIONS Vs = load transfer capacity of shear reinforcement
Tests were performed to study the influence of the amount ve = effectiveness factor of concrete
and configuration of shear reinforcement on the structural ws = width of concrete strut
wt = height of plate anchored to longitudinal reinforcement
behavior of continuous deep beams according to the variation α = angle between shear reinforcement and axis of concrete strut
of concrete strength and a/h. The following conclusions β = ratio of exterior reaction to applied load
are drawn: εy = yield strain of reinforcement
1. In beams having a/h of 0.6, only horizontal shear λ = normalized ultimate shear strength
reinforcement reached its yield strength with a sharp θ = angle between concrete strut and longitudinal axis of beam
ρh = horizontal shear reinforcement ratio (Ah/bwsh)
increase of stress after the first diagonal crack. On the other ρst = longitudinal bottom reinforcement ratio (As/bwd)
hand, only vertical shear reinforcement yielded in beams ρst′ = longitudinal top reinforcement ratio (As′ /bwd)
with a/h of 1.0; ρv = vertical shear reinforcement ratio (Av /bwsv)
2. For deep beams without shear reinforcement, the
normalized ultimate shear strength was 26% lower in REFERENCES
continuous beams than that in simple ones. When shear 1. Rogowsky, D. M.; MacGregor, J. G.; and Ong, S. Y., “Tests of Reinforced
Concrete Deep Beams,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 83, No. 4, July-
reinforcement was provided, however, the normalized ultimate Aug. 1986, pp. 614-623.
shear strength in continuous deep beams matched that in 2. Ashour, A. F., “Tests of Reinforced Concrete Continuous Deep
simply supported deep beams; Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, pp. 3-12.
3. The load transfer capacity of all shear reinforcement 3. Subedi, N. K., “Reinforced Concrete Two-Span Continuous Deep
was much more prominent in continuous deep beams than Beams,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures &
Buildings, V. 128, Feb. 1998, pp. 12-25.
that in simple ones. Horizontal shear reinforcement was 4. Tan, K. H.; Kong, F. K.; Teng, S.; and Weng, L. W., “Effect of Web
always more effective than vertical shear reinforcement Reinforcement on High-Strength Concrete Deep Beams,” ACI Structural
when the a/h was 0.5. However, vertical shear reinforcement Journal, V. 94, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1997, pp. 572-582.
was more effective for a/h higher than 1.0; 5. Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. S., “Shear Strength of Deep Beams,”
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 3, May-June 1982, pp. 201-213.
4. In deep beams with a/h not exceeding 0.6, the critical 6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
upper bound on shear strength suggested in ACI 318-05, Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
0.83 f c ′ bwd, highly underestimated the actual measured Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
shear strength, as if it was a lower limit; and 7. Canadian Standards Association (CSA), “Design of Concrete Structures,”
A23.3-94, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada,
5. The ratios of measured load capacity to that obtained Dec. 1994, 199 pp.
from the strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 8. FIP Recommendations: Practical Design of Structural Concrete. 1999.
dropped with the increase of the a/h. This decrease rate was 9. MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, Prentice-
more remarkable in continuous deep beams than that in Hall International, Inc., 1997.
simple ones. The strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 10. Marti, P., “Basic Tools of Reinforced Concrete Beam Design.” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1985, pp. 46-56.
318-05 overestimated the shear capacity of high-strength 11. Schlaich, J.; Schafer, K.; and Jennewein, M., “Toward a Consistent
concrete continuous deep beams having a/h more than 1.0. Design of Structural Concrete,” Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute,
V. 32, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 74-150.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 12. Tjhin, T. N., and Kuchma, D. A., “Example 1b: Alternative Design
This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant for the Non-Slender Beam (Deep Beam),” Strut-and-Tie Models, SP-208,
(KRF-2003-041-D00586) and the Regional Research Centers Program K.-H. Reineck, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
(Bio-housing Research Institute), granted by the Korean Ministry of Education 2002, pp. 81-90.
and Human Resources Development. The authors wish to express their 13. Yang, K. H., “Evaluation on the Shear Strength of High-Strength
gratitude for financial support. Concrete Deep Beams,” PhD Thesis, Chungang University, Korea, Feb.
2002, 120 pp.
14. ACI Committee 445, “Shear and Torsion,” Strut-and-Tie Bibliography,
NOTATION ACI Bibliography No. 16, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Ah = area of horizontal shear reinforcement Mich., Sept. 1997, 50 pp.
As = area of longitudinal bottom reinforcement 15. Cervenka, V.; Jendele, L.; and Cervenka, J., “ATENA Computer
As′ = area of longitudinal top reinforcement Program Documentation: Part 1,” Cervenka Consultant, 2003, 106 pp.
Aw = area of shear reinforcement 16. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
a = shear span Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99),” American Concrete
bw = width of beam section Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, 369 pp.

428 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 APPENDIX A
Table A1—Details and test results of simple deep beams13
Pn , kN

Simple f c′ , MPa a/h a/jd ρh ρv Vcr , kN Exp. ACI 318-05 (Pn)Exp./(Pn)ACI

No.1 0 0 254.0 958.0 684.1 1.400
No. 2 0 0.006 259.0 992.0 684.1 1.450
No. 3 0 0.012 260.0 1111.3 684.1 1.624
0.5 0.59
No. 4 0.006 0 249.9 1042.7 684.1 1.524
No. 5 0.006 0.006 262.6 1323.0 855.2 1.547
No. 6 0.012 0 270.5 1391.6 684.1 2.034
No. 7 0 0.006 188.0 876.1 624.7 1.402
No. 8 0.7 0.82 0.006 0 215.6 993.7 624.7 1.591
No. 9 31.4 0.006 0.006 205.8 1044.7 780.9 1.338
No. 10 0 0 173.5 750.7 520.0 1.444
No. 11 0 0.006 172.5 762.4 520.0 1.466
No. 12 0 0.012 195.0 1107.4 520.0 2.130
1.0 1.18
No. 13 0.006 0 178.4 601.7 520.0 1.157
No. 14 0.006 0.006 181.0 905.5 650.0 1.393
No. 15 0.012 0 185.0 707.6 520.0 1.361
No. 16 0 0 107.8 409.6 378.8 1.081
1.5 1.76
No. 17 0.006 0.006 142.1 721.3 473.5 1.523
No. 18 0 0 290.0 1540.6 1154.5 1.334
0.5 0.59
No. 19 0.006 0.006 318.5 1775.8 1443.1 1.230
52.9
No. 20 0 0 225.4 952.6 877.4 1.086
1.0 1.18
No. 21 0.006 0.006 245.0 1129.0 1096.8 1.029
No. 22 0 0 347.9 1646.4 1710.4 0.963
No. 23 0 0.006 357.7 1789.5 1710.4 1.046
No. 24 0 0.012 347.9 1934.5 1710.4 1.131
0.5 0.59
No. 25 0.006 0 392.0 1962.0 1710.4 1.147
No. 26 0.006 0.006 345.0 2061.9 2138.0 0.964
No. 27 0.012 0 401.8 2269.7 1710.4 1.327
No. 28 0 0.006 289.1 1622.9 1561.8 1.039
No. 29 0.7 0.82 0.006 0 303.8 1395.5 1561.8 0.894
No. 30 78.4 0.006 0.006 308.7 1701.3 1952.2 0.871
No. 31 0 0 254.8 1146.6 1299.9 0.882
No. 32 0 0.006 240.1 1356.3 1299.9 1.043
No. 33 0 0.012 294.0 1558.2 1299.9 1.199
1.0 1.18
No. 34 0.006 0 249.9 1213.2 1299.9 0.933
No. 35 0.006 0.006 281.3 1295.6 1624.9 0.797
No. 36 0.012 0 291.1 1215.2 1299.9 0.935
No. 37 0 0 173.5 656.6 947.0 0.693
1.5 1.76
No. 38 0.006 0.006 181.3 836.9 1183.7 0.707
Mean 1.229
Standard deviation 0.326
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 429

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S47

Reliability of Transfer Length Estimation from Strand End Slip

by José R. Martí-Vargas, César A. Arbeláez, Pedro Serna-Ros, and Carmen Castro-Bugallo

An experimental program on 12 series of specimens with different Table 1—Proposed α coefficient values from
embedment lengths to determine the transfer length was conducted. Guyon’s formula
Transfer length test results of seven-wire strand on twelve different
concrete mixtures were analyzed. A testing technique based on the Reference Coefficient Origin of value
analysis of bond behavior by means of measuring the force supported Indicated value when stress in
by the tendon has been used. The specimens had been instrumented FIP4 4 prestressing strand is rapidly
increasing
with slip measurement devices at each end of the specimen. A
sequence of slip values at each end of the specimen after release versus Guyon8 By hypothesis
3
the embedment length has been analyzed. The expressions relating FIP 4* Adopted value
the transfer length to the tendon end slip are presented. A value of
Guyon’s factor for tendon stress distribution shape has been Olesniewicz9
2.86 Experimental
obtained. Two criteria to determine the transfer length from the FIP10
slip sequences at both ends of the specimens have been analyzed.
RILEM3

Keywords: bond; precast concrete; prestressing; pretensioning; slip; IRANOR5 2.8 Adopted value
strand; transfer length. LCPC 6

Balázs11 2/(1 – b)† 2.67 By theoretical studies

INTRODUCTION
12 Experimental value and by
The force in a prestressing strand is transferred by bond to den Uijl 2.3 to 2.6
theoretical studies
the concrete in the release operation. At this stage, strand
Jonsson13 2.5 Assumed value
stress varies from zero at the free end of the member to a
8
maximum value (effective stress). Transfer length is defined Guyon
as the distance required to develop the effective stress in the Brooks et al.14
prestressing strand.1 Variation in strand stress along the
Balogh15
transfer length involves slip between the strand and the
concrete. The measurement of the strand end slip is an indirect Russell and Burns16
method to determine the transfer length.2 Most experimental Logan17
2 By hypothesis
standards3-6 are based on this method, and it has been proposed Steinberg et al.18
as a simple nondestructive assurance procedure by which the
Oh and Kim19
quality of bond can be monitored within precasting plants.7
Guyon8 proposed the following expression from a theoretical Wan et al.20
analysis CEB-FIP21*
Rose and Russell22
δ
L t = α ------ (1) den Uijl12
ε pi Indicated value for linear ascend-
fib23 1.5
ing bond stress distribution
Lopes and do Carmo24
where Lt is the transfer length, δ is the strand end slip at the *Substituting
free end of a prestressed concrete member, εpi is the initial †
fpi by effective stress in strand immediately after release.

strand strain, and the α coefficient represents the shape b is experimental constant value that must be fixed for each type of prestressing
strand according to its bond characteristics (for 12.7 mm [0.5 in.] seven-wire
factor of the bond stress distribution along the transfer zone. strand, b = 0.25 and α = 2.67).
Two hypotheses were considered8: α = 2 for uniform bond
stress distribution (linear variation in strand stress); and α = 3
experimental results and theoretical studies. Table 1 indicates
for linear descending bond stress distribution (parabolic
the different assigned values of α.
variation in strand stress)
Equation (1) can be rewritten as follows Table 2 shows other expressions that relate the transfer
length to the strand end slip at the free end of a pretensioned
concrete member, where db is the diameter of prestressing
δE strand, and fci′ is the compressive strength of concrete at the
L t = α --------p- (2)
f pt time of prestress transfer.

where Ep is the modulus of elasticity of the prestressing ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
strand and fpi is the strand stress immediately before release. MS No. S-2006-250 received June 16, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
Several researchers have proposed different values of α 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 May-June 2008
for the bond stress distribution along the transfer zone from ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 487

 1 f pi
José R. Martí-Vargas is an Associate Professor of civil engineering in the Department of δ all3 = --- -----f d (U.S. units)
Construction Engineering and Civil Engineering Projects, Polytechnic University of 9 E p se b
Valencia (UPV), Valencia, Spain. He is member of the Institute of Science and Concrete (9)
Technology (ICITECH) at UPV. He received his degree in civil engineering and his PhD
1 f pi
from UPV. His research interests include bond behavior of reinforced and prestressed δ all3 = ---------- -----f d (SI units)
concrete structural elements, durability of concrete structures, and strut-and-ties models. 62.1 E p se b
César A. Arbeláez is a PhD Assistant Researcher in the Department of Construction
Engineering and Civil Engineering Projects at Polytechnic University of Valencia. He where fse is the effective stress in the prestressing strand after
is member of ICITECH at UPV. He received his civil engineering degree from Quindío
University, Armenia, Quindío, Colombia, and his PhD from UPV. His research interests allowance for all prestress losses, db is the nominal diameter of
include bond properties of prestressed concrete structures and the use of advance prestressing strand, δall2 is the implied allowable value of free
cement-based materials in structural applications. end slip when α = 2, and δall3 is the implied allowable value of
Pedro Serna-Ros is a Professor of civil engineering in the Department of Construction free end slip when α = 3 (Lt , fpi , and Ep, as previously described).
Engineering and Civil Engineering Projects at Polytechnic University of Valencia. He To apply Guyon’s end slip theory to determine transfer
is a member of ICITECH at UPV. He received his degree in civil engineering from
UPV and his PhD from l’Ecole National des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France. His
length is easy, but the measurements of slips are affected by
research interests include self-consolidating concrete, fiber-reinforced concrete, and the local bond loss at the ends. Equations (1) to (6) are not
bond behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete. applicable to elements of a poor bond quality.14 In this case,
Carmen Castro-Bugallo is a PhD candidate in the Department of Construction
greater slips are measured resulting in incorrect transfer
Engineering and Civil Engineering Projects at Polytechnic University of Valencia. length estimation.
She is member of ICITECH at UPV. She received her degree in civil engineering from The other disadvantages of Guyon’s method are larger
UPV. Her research interests include bond properties of reinforced concrete and
prestressed concrete structures and strut-and-ties models. scatter of experimental results,15 difficulty to measure
accurately smaller slips,13 breakage of gauges to measure
the strand end slip when a flame cutting process is applied,27
Table 2—Proposed equations for transfer length and excessive free end slip in prestressed members with poor
from strand end slip concrete consolidation around the strand.7
Equation
Reference no. Equation (U.S. units) Equation (SI units)
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
δ- δ- This research study provides information on the transfer
Lt =--- L t = ---
Marshall and K K length of a seven-wire prestressing strand in twelve
(3)
Krishnamurthy25 K = 0.00009 in.–1 for K = 0.0000035 mm–1 concretes of different compositions and properties. A test
0.5 in. seven-wire for 12.7 mm seven-
strand wire strand method based on the measurement and analysis of the force
supported by the strand has been used. This paper analyzes
3⁄2 3⁄2
δ - δ - the reliability of transfer length determination from free end
Balázs26 (4) Lt = 218db 4 -------- Lt = 105db 4 --------
f ci′ f ci′ slips according with proposed expressions in the literature.
24.7δ
0.625
111δ
0.625 Findings of the research are presented in procedures for the
11
L t = -----------------------------
-
0.4
L t = -----------------------------
-
0.4 experimental determination of transfer length measuring forces
Balázs (5) 0.15 ⎛ f pi ⎞ 0.15 ⎛ f pi ⎞
f ci′ ----- f ci′ ----- or slips. The information is valuable for all parties involved
⎝ E p⎠ ⎝ E p⎠
in the precast/prestressed concrete industry: manufacturers,
Rose and E E producers, designers, builders, and owners.
(6) L t = 2δ -----p + 5.4 L t = 2δ -----p + 137.16
Russell22 f pi f pi
Notes: For U.S. units: fpi, f ′ci , and Ep in ksi; db, δ, and Lt in inches; for SI units: fpi, EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
f ′ci, and Ep in MPa; db, δ, and Lt in mm. 1 in. = 25 mm; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
An experimental program has been conducted to determine
the transfer length of prestressing strands: the ECADA*
Some researchers conducted experimental studies to obtain test method33-34 (*Ensayo para Caracterizar la Adherencia
the transfer length from the strand end slip at the free end in mediante Destesado y Arrancamiento [Test to Characterize
hollow-core slabs,7,13-15 in beams,16,18,19,22,27-29 in piles,20,30 the Bond by Release and Pull-out]).
in prisms,31 and in specimens to simulate bond behavior along
transfer length.32 Materials
Several authors7,14,20,30 have established an allowable Twelve different concretes with a range of water-cement
free end slip as the strand end slip which results in a transfer ratios (w/c) from 0.3 to 0.5, cement content from 590 to
length equal to that computed by the ACI provisions for 843 lb/yd3 (350 to 500 kg/m3) and a compressive strength at the
transfer length (Eq. (7)).1 By setting Eq. (2) to be equal to the time of testing fci′ from 3.5 to 8 ksi (24 to 55 MPa) were tested.
Eq. (7) and substituting α = 2 and α = 3 in Eq. (2), the Concrete components were a) cement CEM I 52.5 R;35 b)
implied allowable value of end slip can be calculated by crushed limestone aggregate (0.275 to 0.472 in. [7 to 12 mm]);
Eq. (8) and (9), respectively. c) washed rolled limestone sand (0 to 0.157 in. [0 to 4 mm]);
and d) policarboxilic ether high-range water-reducing additive.
1 1 The mixtures of the tested concretes are shown in Table 3.
L t = --- f se d b (U.S. units) L t = ---------- f se d b (SI units) (7) The prestressing strand was a low-relaxation seven-wire
3 20.7
strand specified as UNE 36094:97 Y 1860 S7 13.036 with a
guaranteed ultimate strength of 270 ksi (1860 MPa). The
1 f pi main characteristics were adopted from the manufacturer:
δ all2 = --- -----f d (U.S. units)
6 E p se b diameter 0.5 in. (12.7 mm), cross-sectional area 0.154 in.2
(8) (99.69 mm2), ultimate strength 43.3 kips (192.60 kN), yield
1 f pi
δ all2 = ---------- -----f d (SI units) stress at 0.2% 40 kips (177.50 kN), and modulus of elasticity
41.4 E p se b 28,507 ksi (196,700 MPa). The prestressing strand was

488 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 3—Concrete mixtures from test program
′ (at time of
f ci
Cement, Gravel/sand testing, 24 hours),
Designation lb/yd3 (kg/m3) w/c ratio ksi (MPa)
M-350-0.50 0.50 3.8 (26.1)
M-350-0.45 590 (350) 0.45 5.4 (37.3)
M-350-0.40 0.40 6.8 (46.7)
M-400-0.50 0.50 3.5 (24.2)
M-400-0.45 0.45 4.1 (28.3)
674 (400)
M-400-0.40 0.40 6.0 (41.4)
1.14 Fig. 1—Test equipment layout.
M-400-0.35 0.35 6.6 (45.3)
M-450-0.40 0.40 5.3 (36.3)
758 (450)
M-450-0.35 0.35 6.7 (46.6)
M-500-0.40 0.40 4.5 (30.8)
M-500-0.35 843 (500) 0.35 6.8 (46.6)
M-500-0.30 0.30 7.9 (54.8)

tested in the as-received condition (free of rust and free of

lubricant). The strand was no treated in any special manner.
The strand was stored indoors, and care was taken not to drag
the strand on the floor. Fig. 2—LVDT at free end of specimen.

Testing technique
The ECADA test method is based on the measurement and
analysis of the force supported by the strand in a series of
pretensioned concrete specimens with different embedment
lengths. Figure 1 shows the test equipment layout.
An anchorage-measurement-access (AMA) system is
placed at one end (stressed end) of a pretensioning frame to
simulate the sectional stiffness of the specimen. The AMA
system is made up of a sleeve in the final stretch of the specimen
to prevent the influence of the confinement caused by the
end frame plate, the stressed end frame plate, and an
anchorage plate supported on the frame by two separators.
The step-by-step test procedure was described in detail in Fig. 3—LVDT at stressed end of specimen.
Martí-Vargas et al.,34 and may be summarized as follows:
Preparation stage— Test parameters
1. The strand is placed in the frame; The specimens had a 4 x 4 in.2 (100 x 100 mm2) cross section
2. Strand tensioning; with a concentrically located single strand at a prestress level
3. Strand anchorage by an adjustable strand anchorage; before release of 75% of guaranteed ultimate strand strength.
4. The concrete is mixed, placed into the formwork in the All specimens were subjected to the same consolidation and
frame, and consolidated; and curing conditions. Release was gradually performed 24 hours
5. After concrete placement, the specimen is cured to after concreting at a controlled speed of 0.18 kips/s (0.80 kN/s).
achieve the desired concrete properties at the time of testing. A stabilization period of 2 hours from release was established.
Testing stage— With these test parameters, visible splitting cracks have not
1. The adjustable strand anchorage is relieved using the happened in any of the tested specimens.
hydraulic jack; and
2. Strand release is produced at a controlled speed, and the Instrumentation
prestressing force transfer to the concrete is performed. The The instrumentation used was a hydraulic jack pressure
strand is completely released. The specimen is supported at sensor to control tensioning and release operations; a hollow
the stressed end frame plate. force transducer included in the AMA system to measure the
Stabilization period—The level of force during this time is force supported by the strand; and two linear variable differential
zero at the free end. The force in the strand at the stressed end transducers (LVDTs), one at the free end (Fig. 2) to measure
depends on the strain compatibility with the concrete specimen. the draw-in (δ, free end slip), and another at the stressed end
This force requires a stabilization period to guarantee its (Fig. 3) to measure the strand slip to the last embedment
measurement. The strand force in the AMA system is concrete cross-section of the specimen (δl, stressed end slip).
recorded continuously during the test. No internal measuring devices were used in the test specimens
Although it is not included in this study, the test can so as to not distort the bond phenomenon.
continue with the pull-out operation positioning the hydraulic
jack at the stressed end to increase the force in the strand, Criterion to determine transfer length
separating the anchorage plate of the AMA system from With the ECADA test method, the transfer length is
the frame. obtained with a series of specimens with different embedment

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 489

 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Determination of transfer length
Transfer length is determined for each concrete mixture in
accordance with the exposed criterion. As an example, Fig. 5
shows the results of force loss versus the embedment length
for the concrete M-350-0.50 (designation according with
Table 3). Two curves are shown, one with the force losses
registered just after release (ΔP), and another with the force
losses registered after the stabilization period (ΔP). Both
curves present a bilinear tendency with a descendent initial
branch with a strong slope and a practically horizontal
branch starting from 21.7 in. (550 mm) embedment length.
The transfer length determined by the ECADA test method
for this concrete mixture is 21.7 in. (550 mm).
Fig. 4—Determination of transfer length through ECADA The difference between the two curves corresponds to the
test method. increment of force loss registered during the stabilization
period. When specimens have an embedment length below
21.7 in. (550 mm), the force loss after the stabilization period
is greater than the force loss registered just after release.
When specimens have an embedment length equal to or
greater than 21.7 in. (550 mm), however, the force loss is
similar at both points of time.
As it can be observed in Fig. 5, for this concrete, the
beginning of the horizontal branches coincides at both
points of time. In some cases, however, increases of force
loss have taken place during the stabilization period in the
first point of the resulting horizontal branch just after release.
For this reason, the transfer length must be always determined
on the curve measured after the stabilization period.

Comparison of test results with Guyon’s formula

Fig. 5—Force loss versus embedment length for Concrete Figure 6 shows the transfer length results obtained by the
M-350-0.50. ECADA test method for each concrete mixture, as well as
the transfer length obtained from the free end slips by
lengths. For each specimen, the strand force loss in the AMA applying Guyon’s formula (Eq. (2)). This formula has been
system directly after the stabilization period is measured. applied to free end slips registered after the stabilization
The force loss values are arranged according to the specimen period in specimens with an embedment length equal to or
embedment length (Fig. 4). The obtained curve shows a greater than the transfer length. Between four and 18 specimens
bilinear tendency. The transfer length corresponds to the for each concrete mixture, with a total of 121 specimens,
smallest specimen embedment length that marks the beginning have been considered.
of the horizontal branch.33,34 Two intervals are drawn for each concrete mixture. The
The resolution in the determination of the transfer length interior interval corresponds to the extreme transfer length
will depend on the sequence of lengths of the specimens values obtained by applying Guyon’s formula with α = 2.8
tested. For an embedment length sequence of 2 in. (50 mm), (adopted by RILEM3) to the minimum and maximum free
the transfer length obtained by the ECADA test method is end slips. The exterior interval corresponds to the extreme
repeated when a same concrete mixture is tested.34 transfer length values according to the hypotheses by Guyon
obtained as follows: the lower limit was calculated by
Transfer length over-estimation applying α = 2 to the minimum free end slip, and the upper
The ideal AMA system must have the same sectional limit was calculated by applying α = 3 to the maximum free
rigidity as the specimen. This rigidity depends on the end slip.
concrete properties, the age of the concrete at the time of The amplitude of the transfer length intervals is very variable
testing, and the specimen cross section. It would not really be for the different concrete mixtures, as shown in Fig. 6. The
feasible to design a system for each specific test conditions. results obtained by the ECADA test method are located
For this reason, in this experimental work, the rigidity of within both intervals in all cases except for the M-500-0.30
the AMA system designed is slightly greater than the concrete mixture for the interior interval.
sectional rigidity of the specimens. A discontinuity section is Figure 7 shows the transfer length results obtained by the
generated in the border between the specimen and the AMA ECADA test method in the corresponding series versus the
system. In these conditions, the strand force measured in the free end slip registered after the stabilization period in each
AMA system after release will be slightly higher than the specimen. Only the specimens with an embedment length
effective prestressing force of the strand in the specimen. equal to or greater than the transfer length have been
This difference of forces gives rise to a small over-estimation of included. The predicted transfer lengths by Guyon’s formula
the real transfer length.34 Consequently, even if the specimen are also plotted in Fig. 7. It is shown that 38.8% of the
embedment length is greater than the transfer length, a small experimental results fall outside the limits (33.0% show a
slip of the strand at the stressed end is registered. transfer length greater than the predicted maximum values,

490 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 6—Graphical comparison between experimental transfer Fig. 8—Comparison between results of present tests and
length and predicted transfer lengths from Guyon’s formula those of other researchers.
and RILEM provisions.

Fig. 9—Comparison of measured transfer lengths with

calculated values according to Eq. (6).

Table 4—Comparison between measured

Fig. 7—Transfer length versus free end slip for specimens with and calculated transfer lengths
embedment length equal to or greater than transfer length. Average
Equation no. Lt (calculated)/L t (measured) Coefficient of correlation R2
(3) 1.18 0.07
and 5.8% show a transfer length smaller than the predicted (4) 1.17 0.54
minimum values). A value of α = 2.44 from the regression (5) 1.11 0.35
analysis of the test results has been obtained. (6) 1.01 0.21
Figure 8 shows the experimental transfer lengths versus (2) with α = 2.44 0.95 0.20
the registered free end slips obtained in beams by several
authors. The predicted transfer length according to ACI 318-051 Comparison of test results with other expressions
(LtACI) and the allowable free end slips δall2 (Eq. (8)) and δall3 The experimental results obtained with both the ECADA
(Eq. (9)) are also plotted in Fig. 8. The LtACI, δall2, and δall3 test method and the theoretical predictions from Eq. (3) to (6)
values have been calculated by considering that fpi = 202 ksi, have been compared. As an example, Fig. 9 illustrates the
fse = 0.8fpi = 162 ksi, Ep = 28,528 ksi and db = 0.5 in. (fpi = comparison with Eq. (6). Table 4 summarizes these
1395 MPa, fse = 0.8fpi = 1116 MPa, Ep = 196,700 MPa and comparisons. Besides, the comparison with Eq. (2) by
db = 12.7 mm). The percentages of results included in each substituting α = 2.44 (obtained value from the experimental
sector delimited by LtACI, δall2, and δall3 are indicated in Fig. 8. results of this study) is included. It can be observed that the
The range of free end slip registered is very ample for one expressions based on Guyon’s formula (Eq. (6) and Eq. (2)
same transfer length, as observed in Fig. 8. Also the range of with α = 2.44) show a good prediction of the average
transfer length values is very variable for one same free end measured transfer length. The coefficient of correlation
slip. Figure 8 also shows that when a transfer length is smaller improves when the expressions include, in addition to the
than LtACI, the δall2 limit is exceeded in 2.8% of the cases, and slips, other parameters like the concrete compressive strength.
the δall3 is exceeded in 32.3% of the cases (2.8% + 29.5%).
On the other hand, for registered free end slips smaller than Use of end slips sequences to determine
δall3 or δall2, transfer lengths greater than LtACI are measured transfer length
in some cases (2.3 and 4.6%, respectively). Consequently, the The possibility of determining the transfer length from the
use of an assurance procedure for bond quality based on a limit sequences of end slip values at both ends versus the embedment
value for the allowable free end slip is not completely reliable. length of specimens was considered.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 491

Fig. 10—Free end slip versus embedment length for Fig. 12—Ratios ΔP/ΔPAVE , δ/δAVE , and δl/δlAVE versus
Concrete M-350-0.50. embedment length for Concrete M-350-0.50.

Similarly, Fig. 11 shows the stressed end slip just after

release δl, and the stressed end slip after the stabilization
period δl versus the embedment length for the same concrete
mixture. Both curves present a bilinear tendency. The beginning
of the horizontal branch coincides with the result obtained by
the ECADA test method (21.7 in. [550 mm]). In regard to the
force losses, the stressed end slip only increases during the
stabilization period in specimens whose embedment length
is smaller than the transfer length.
Figure 12 summarizes the results of the three variables
(force loss and slip at both ends) for the concrete M-350-0.50
after the stabilization period. The shown ratios are the
quotient between each specimen test result (ΔP, δ, and δl),
and the average test results (ΔPAVE, δAVE, and δlAVE) of
Fig. 11—Stressed end slip versus embedment length for specimens with an embedment length equal to or greater
Concrete M-350-0.50. than the transfer length. Again, a bilinear tendency is observed
with a descendent initial branch and a perceptibly horizontal
Table 5—Transfer length obtained from three branch from 21.7 in. (550 mm) embedment length. Although
sequences of results (ΔP, δ, and δl) the slope of the descendent initial branch is very pronounced
in the cases of force loss and stressed end slip, it is very weak in
Transfer length, in. (mm)
the case of free end slip. Consequently, the beginning of the
Designation ECADA test method ΔP Free end slip δ Stressed end slip δl horizontal branch is more easily identifiable by analyzing the
M-350-0.50 21.7 (550) 21.7 (550) 21.7 (550) force loss and stressed end slip than the free end slip.
M-350-0.45 21.7 (550) 21.7 (550) 21.7 (550) This procedure of test results analysis for each concrete
M-350-0.40 21.7 (550) 21.7 (550) 21.7 (550) mixture has been applied. The transfer lengths from the three
M-400-0.50 25.6 (650) — 25.6 (650) sequences of results obtained from the test instrumentation
M-400-0.45 21.7 (550) — 21.7 (550) (ΔP, δ, and δl) versus the embedment length have been
M-400-0.40 21.7 (550) 21.7 (550) 21.7 (550) determined. Table 5 summarizes the obtained results. The
M-400-0.35 19.7 (500) 19.7 (500) 17.7 (450)
transfer lengths obtained from the stressed end slip and by
the ECADA test method coincide in 11 out of the 12 concrete
M-450-0.40 21.7 (550) — 21.7 (550)
mixtures, and only a 2 in. (50 mm) difference is observed in
M-450-0.35 19.7 (500) 19.7 (500) 19.7 (500)
the concrete M-400-0.35. The transfer lengths obtained from
M-500-0.40 23.6 (600) — 23.6 (600) the free end slip coincide in eight out of the 12 concrete
M-500-0.35 17.7 (450) 17.7 (450) 17.7 (450) mixtures. Given the wide dispersion of the measured free
M-500-0.30 15.7 (400) 15.7 (400) 15.7 (400) end slip, no bilinear behavior was detected in the remaining
cases (see range of free end slip to one same transfer length
in Fig. 7). It was not possible to determine the transfer length
Figure 10 shows the free end slip results versus the if the beginning of the horizontal branch was not clearly
embedment length for the concrete mixture M-350-0.50. defined. These cases correspond to concrete mixtures with
Two curves are shown, one with the free end slip just after greater water content in their mixture.
release δ, and the other with the free end slip registered after the
stabilization period δ. Both curves present a bilinear tendency, CONCLUSIONS
with a descendent initial branch and a practically horizontal Based on the results of this experimental investigation, the
branch starting from 21.7 in. (550 mm) embedment length. following conclusions are drawn:
This embedment length coincides with the result obtained by 1. The feasibility of applying the ECADA test method to
the ECADA test method (refer to Fig. 5). The free end slip determine the transfer length of prestressing strands has been
increases during the stabilization period in all the specimens. verified, even in concretes with a low compressive strength;

492 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 2. An average value of α = 2.44 for Guyon’s formula has REFERENCES
been obtained from the experimental results of this study. An 1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
ample range of free end slip values has been obtained for one Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
same transfer length. Furthermore, the range of transfer 2. Thorsen, N., “Use of Large Tendons in Pretensioned Concrete,” ACI
length values for one same free end slip is very variable; JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 53, No. 6, Feb. 1956, pp. 649-659.
3. Consequently, a great variability of results for one same 3. RILEM RPC6, “Specification for the Test to Determine the Bond
concrete mixture has been observed in transfer length estimation Properties of Prestressing Tendons,” Réunion Internationale des Laboratoires et
Experts des Matériaux, Systèmes de Constructions et Ouvrages, Bagneux,
from the experimental free end slips when Guyon’s formula France, 1979, 7 pp.
was applied; 4. Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte, “Report on Prestressing
4. The prediction range of transfer lengths from expressions Steel: 7. Test for the Determination of Tendon Transfer Length under Static
proposed by several authors relating the transfer length to the Conditions,” FIP, London, UK, 1982, 19 pp.
free end slip is very ample; 5. IRANOR UNE 7436, “Bond Test of Steel Wires for Prestressed
Concrete,” Instituto Nacional de Racionalización y Normalización, Madrid,
5. Determining transfer length from the free end slip is Spain, 1982, 13 pp.
relatively easy, although it can lead to a false perception that 6. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, “Transfer Length
the transfer length value is very variable; Determination. Test Method Applicable for Prestressed Reinforcement,”
6. Using a limit value for the allowable free end slip as an Techniques et Méthodes, No. 53, LCPC, Paris, France, 1999, pp. 45-55.
7. Anderson, A. R., and Anderson, R. G., “An Assurance Criterion
assurance procedure for bond quality may give rise to for Flexural Bond in Pretensioned Hollow Core Units,” ACI JOURNAL,
uncertain situations; Proceedings V. 73, No. 8, Aug. 1976, pp. 457-464.
7. In relation to the results from the ECADA test method, 8. Guyon, Y., Pretensioned Concrete: Theoretical and Experimental
the sequence of stressed end slip values versus the embedment Study, Paris, France, 1953, 711 pp.
length is a reliable assurance procedure for the experimental 9. Olesniewicz, A., “Statistical Evaluation of Transfer Length of Strand,”
Research and Design Centre for Industrial Building (BISTYP), Warsaw,
determination of transfer length; and Poland, 1975.
8. The sequence of free end slip values versus the embedment 10. Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte, “Report on Prestressing
length is not a reliable assurance procedure for the experimental Steel: 2. Anchorage and Application of Pretensioned 7-Wire Strands,” FIP,
determination of transfer length. The beginning of the horizontal London, UK, 1978, 45 pp.
11. Balázs, G., “Transfer Length of Prestressing Strand as a Function of
branch is not clearly defined when the dispersion of measured Draw-In and Initial Prestress,” PCI Journal, V. 38, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993,
free end slip is wide. This particularly occurs when concrete pp. 86-93.
has a low compressive strength. 12. den Uijl, J. A., “Bond Modelling of Prestressing Strand,” Bond and
Development of Reinforcement, SP-180, R. Leon, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1998, pp. 145-169.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contents of this paper are within the framework of a line of research 13. Jonsson, E., “Anchorage of Strands in Prestressed Extruded Hollow-
that is currently being carried out by the Concrete Technology and Science Core Slabs,” Proceedings of the International Symposium Bond in Concrete:
Institute (ICITECH) of the Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, From Research to Practice, Riga Technical University and CEB, eds., Riga,
in collaboration with the companies PREVALESA and ISOCRON. Financial Latvia, 1992, pp. 2.20-2.28.
support provided by the Ministry of Education and Science and FEDER funds 14. Brooks, M. D.; Gerstle, K. H.; and Logan, D. R., “Effect of Initial
(Project MAT2003-07157 and Project BIA2006-05521) made this research Strand Slip on the Strength of Hollow-Core Slabs,” PCI Journal, V. 33,
possible. The authors appreciate the collaboration of the aforementioned No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1988, pp. 90-111.
companies and organizations, as well as the participation of the technical 15. Balogh, T., “Statistical Distribution of Draw-in of Seven-Wire
staff of the Concrete Structures Laboratory at the Polytechnic University of Strands,” Proceedings of the International Symposium Bond in Concrete:
Valencia for their assistance in preparing and testing specimens. From Research to Practice, Riga Technical University and CEB, eds., Riga,
Latvia, 1992, pp. 2.10-2.19.
16. Russell, B. W., and Burns, N. H., “Measured Transfer Lengths of 0.5
NOTATION and 0.6 in. Strands in Pretensioned Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 44, No. 5,
db = nominal diameter of prestressing strand Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 44-65.
Ep = modulus of elasticity of prestressing strand 17. Logan, D. R., “Acceptance Criteria for Bond Quality of Strand for
′
fci = compressive strength of concrete at time of prestress transfer Pretensioned Prestressed Concrete Applications,” PCI Journal, V. 42, No. 2,
(cylinder) Mar.-Apr. 1997, pp. 52-90.
fpi = strand stress immediately before release 18. Steinberg, E.; Beier, J. T.; and Sargand, S., “Effects of Sudden Prestress
fse = effective stress in the prestressing strand after allowance for all Force Transfer in Pretensioned Concrete Beams,” PCI Journal, V. 46, No. 1,
prestress losses Jan.-Feb. 2001, pp. 64-75.
Lt = transfer length 19. Oh, B. H., and Kim, E. S., “Realistic Evaluation of Transfer Lengths
LtACI = predicted transfer length according ACI 318-05 in Pretensioned, Prestressed Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal,
α = coefficient to take into account assumed shape of bond stress V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2000, pp. 821-830.
distribution 20. Wan, B.; Harries, K. A.; and Petrou, M. F., “Transfer Length of
δ = strand end slip at free end Strands in Prestressed Concrete Piles,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5,
δall2 = allowable free end slip when α = 2 Sept.-Oct. 2002, pp. 577-585.
δall3 = allowable free end slip when α = 3 21. Comité Euro-International du Béton-Fédération Internationale de la
δ = free end slip just after release Précontrainte, “Model Code for Concrete Structures,” CEB-FIP, Lausanne,
δAVE = average free end slip after stabilization period obtained in all Switzerland, 1993, 437 pp.
specimens of series with embedment length equal to or greater 22. Rose, D. R., and Russell, B. W., “Investigation of Standardized Tests
than transfer length to Measure the Bond Performance of Prestressing Strand,” PCI Journal,
δl = stressed (loaded) end slip V. 42, No. 4, July-Aug. 1997, pp. 56-80.
δl = stressed end slip just after release 23. Fédération Internationale du Béton, “Bond of Reinforcement in
δlAVE = average stressed end slip after stabilization period obtained in all Concrete: State-of-Art Report,” Bulletin d’Information, No. 10, fib,
specimens of series with embedment length equal to or greater Lausanne, Switzerland, 2000, 427 pp.
than transfer length 24. Lopes, S. M., and do Carmo, R. N., “Bond of Prestressed Strands to
ΔP = force loss after stabilization period Concrete: Transfer Rate and Relationship between Transfer Length and
ΔPAVE = average force loss after stabilization period obtained in all Tendon Draw-in,” Structural Concrete, V. 3, No. 3, 2002, pp. 117-126.
specimens of series with embedment length equal to or greater 25. Marshall, W. T., and Krishnamurthy, D., “Transfer Length of
than transfer length Prestressing Tendons from Concrete Cube Strength at Transfer,” The
ΔP = force loss just after release Indian Concrete Journal, V. 43, No. 7, July 1969, pp. 244-275.
εpi = initial strand strain 26. Balázs, G., “Transfer Control of Prestressing Strands,” PCI Journal,

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 493

V. 37, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 60-71. 32. Abrishami, H. H., and Mitchell, D., “Bond Characteristics of Preten-
27. Kahn, L. F.; Dill, J. C.; and Reutlinger, C. G., “Transfer and sioned Strand,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 90, No. 3, May-June 1993,
Development Length of 15-mm Strand in High-Performance Concrete pp. 228-235.
Girders,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 128, No. 7, July 2002, 33. Martí, J. R., “Experimental Study on Bond of Prestressing Strand in
pp. 913-921. High-Strength Concrete,” PhD thesis, Polytechnic University of Valencia,
28. Cousins, T. E.; Johnston, D. W.; and Zia, P., “Transfer Length of ProQuest Information and Learning Co., UMI number 3041710, Mich.,
Epoxy-Coated Prestressing Strand,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 87, No. 3, 2003, 355 pp. (in Spanish)
May-June 1990, pp. 193-203.
34. Martí-Vargas, J. R.; Serna-Ros, P.; Fernández-Prada, M. A.; Miguel-
29. Cousins, T. E.; Stallings, J. M.; and Simmons, M. B., “Reduced
Sosa, P. F.; and Arbeláez, C. A., “Test Method for Determination of the
Strand Spacing in Pretensioned, Prestressed Members,” ACI Structural
Transmission and Anchorage Lengths in Prestressed Reinforcement,”
Journal, V. 91, No. 3, May-June 1994, pp. 277-286.
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 58, No. 1, Feb. 2006, pp. 21-29.
30. Petrou, M. F.; Wan, B.; Joiner, W. S.; Trezos, C. G.; and Harries, K. A.,
“Excessive Strand End Slip in Prestressed Piles,” ACI Structural Journal, 35. Comité Européen de Normalisation, “Cement. Part 1: Compositions,
V. 97, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2000, pp. 774-782. Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements,” European
31. Mahmoud, Z. I.; Rizkalla, S. H.; and Zaghloul, E. R., “Transfer Standard EN 197-1:2000, CEN, Brussels, Belgium, 2000, 30 pp.
and Development Lengths of Carbon Fiber Reinforcement Polymers 36. Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación, “UNE
Prestressing Reinforcing,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug. 36094: Steel Wire and Strand for Prestressed Concrete,” AENOR, Madrid,
1999, pp. 594-602. Spain, 1997, 21 pp.

494 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S43

Seismic Design Criteria for Slab-Column Connections

by Mary Beth D. Hueste, JoAnn Browning, Andres Lepage, and John W. Wallace

Two-way slabs without beams are popular floor systems because of present a practical approach for PBSD of slab-column
their relatively simple formwork and the potential for shorter story connections. The PBSD material is presented in a format
heights. Earthquakes, however, have demonstrated that slab-column consistent with the limit states suggested in FEMA 356
frames are vulnerable to brittle punching shear failures in the slab-
(ASCE 2000) and is intended to provide guidance primarily for
column connection region and dropping of the slab, which are
costly to repair. This paper focuses on the behavior and design of new construction. The criteria, however, could also be applied
slab-column connections under combined gravity and lateral loading to existing structures that contain subpar seismic details where
and reviews current design procedures, performance-based design a moderate seismic demand is expected. As a significant benefit
approaches, and relevant experimental data. An equation relating for design approaches outside the PBSD framework, a practical
the gravity shear ratio at a slab-column connection to drift capacity is equation that relates drift capacity to gravity shear ratio is
presented. Finally, practical recommendations are provided for presented (Eq. (23)).
defining specific performance objectives.
SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES AND CONNECTIONS
Keywords: deformation capacity; effective slab width; performance-based Slab-column frame construction can deliver several
design; punching shear.
desirable architectural features, including larger open space,
lower building heights for a given number of stories, and
INTRODUCTION efficient construction. The FEMA 356, “Prestandard and
Two-way slabs without beams are popular floor systems
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”
because of their relatively simple formwork and the potential
(ASCE 2000) classifies slab-column moment frames as
for shorter story heights due to their shallow profile. This
frames that meet the following conditions:
structural system is common in regions of low to moderate
1. Framing components shall be slabs (with or without beams
seismic risk, where it is allowed as a lateral-force-resisting
in the transverse direction), columns, and their connections;
system (LFRS), as well as in regions of high seismic risk for
2. Frames shall be of monolithic construction that provides
gravity systems where moment frames or shear walls are
for moment transfer between slabs and columns; and
provided as the main LFRS. Earthquakes, however, have
3. Primary reinforcement in slabs contributing to lateral
demonstrated that slab-column frames are not suitable as a main
load resistance shall include nonprestressed reinforcement,
LFRS in regions of high seismic risk because they are relatively
prestressed reinforcement, or both.
flexible and because of the potential for brittle punching shear
This classification includes both frames that are or are not
failures in the slab-column connection region.
intended to be part of the LFRS for new, existing, and
In the last 40 years, a significant number of experiments
rehabilitated structures.
have been conducted to evaluate the performance of slab-
The connections between the slab and a column can be
column connections under cyclic lateral loading. This infor-
accomplished in several ways including direct connection
mation has formed the basis of current code provisions and
(whether from solid or waffle slab construction), with
guidelines for the design of slab-column connections under
column drop panels, and with column or shear capitals.
combined gravity and lateral loading. As performance-based
Shear capitals are provided to increase the shear capacity at
seismic design (PBSD) becomes more common in structural
the slab-column connection and are defined by Joint ACI-
engineering practice, it is important to evaluate the
ASCE Committee 352 (1989) as a thickened portion of the
recommended limits for various structural systems with
slab around a column that does not meet the ACI 318 plan
respect to the latest experimental data and post-earthquake
dimension requirements for drop panels. A column capital is
observations. This paper focuses on the behavior and
defined as a flared portion of the column below the slab that
design of interior slab-column connections under combined
is cast monolithically with the slab.
gravity and lateral loading and serves to review current design
Slab-column connections in structures subjected to
procedures, PBSD approaches, and relevant experimental data.
earthquake or wind loading must transfer forces due to both
Equation (23), for drift capacity of these systems in terms of
gravity and lateral loads. This combination can create large
the gravity shear ratio, is derived using the collected experi-
shear and unbalanced moment demands at the connection.
mental data. Finally, practical recommendations are provided
Without proper detailing, the connection can be susceptible
for the PBSD of slab-column connections.
to two-way (punching) shear failure during response to
lateral loads. The flexibility of a slab-column frame can lead
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE to large lateral deformations, which may increase the potential
The objectives of this paper, developed by a task group
within ACI Committee 374, Performance-Based Seismic
Design of Concrete Buildings, are: 1) to review the current state ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
MS No. S-2006-222 received June 1, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
of practice and PBSD approaches for slab-column connections; policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
2) to summarize experimental data for slab-column connections 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 May-June 2008
tested under combined gravity and lateral loads; and 3) to ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

448 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

ACI member Mary Beth D. Hueste is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex. She is a member of
ACI Committees 374; Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings; 375,
Performance-Based Design of Concrete Buildings for Wind Loads; E803, Faculty
Network Coordinating Committee; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and
Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. Her research interests include
earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete structures, structural rehabilitation
including seismic retrofitting, performance-based seismic design, and design and
evaluation of prestressed concrete bridge structures.

ACI member JoAnn Browning is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil,

Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kans. She is a member of ACI Committees 314, Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings;
318-D, Flexure and Axial Loads; Beams, Slabs, and Columns; 341, Earthquake-
Resistant Concrete Bridges; 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete
Buildings; and 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement. Her research interests
include the performance of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loads, Fig. 1—Critical sections for two-way shear for interior
design and analysis of concrete structures, and durability of concrete structures.
slab-column connection with shear capital.
Andres Lepage, FACI, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architectural
Engineering at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. He is a member of is the effective slab depth within the thickened shear capital
ACI Committees 318-H, Seismic Provisions; 335, Composite and Hybrid Structures; region and d2 is the effective slab depth).
369, Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation; 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of
Concrete Buildings; and 375, Performance-Based Design of Concrete Buildings for Existing methods for calculating the shear strength of slab-
Wind Loads. His research interests include the design of concrete, steel, and hybrid column connections include applications of elastic plate
structural systems subjected to extreme events.
theory, beam analogies, truss analogies, strip design methods,
John W. Wallace, FACI, is a Professor of civil engineering at the University of and others. The design method specified by ACI 318-05
California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. He is a member of ACI Committee 318-H, (ACI Committee 318 2005) provides acceptable estimates of
Seismic Provisions; 335, Composite and Hybrid Structures; 369, Seismic Repair and
Rehabilitation; 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings;
shear strength with reasonable computational effort. The
E803, Faculty Network Coordinating Committee; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee procedure is based on the results of a significant number of
352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research interests experimental tests involving slab-column specimens.
include response and design of buildings and bridges to earthquake actions, laboratory
and field testing of structural components and systems, and structural health monitoring The eccentric shear stress model is the basis of the general
and use of sensor networks. design procedure embodied in ACI 318 for determining the
shear strength of slab-column connections transferring shear
for punching failures; therefore, in regions of high seismic and moment. The model was adopted by the 1971 version of
risk, slab-column frames are used in conjunction with beam- the ACI 318 and only minor modifications have been
column moment frames or shear walls. Compatibility of included in subsequent versions. Recently, ACI 318-05 has
lateral deformations between the slab-column frame and the incorporated special provisions related to the lateral-load
LFRS, however, must be considered to determine the capacity of slab-column connections in structures located in
demands on the connections. regions of high seismic risk or structures assigned to high
The seismic performance of reinforced concrete structures seismic performance or design categories.
with flat-slab construction has demonstrated the vulnerabilities The design approach presented in this section of the paper is
of the system. For example, following the 1985 Mexico City based on the design procedures given in ACI 318-05 comple-
earthquake, punching shear failures were noted in a 15-story mented by ACI 421.1R-99 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421
building with waffle flat-plate construction (Rodriguez and 1999) and 352.1R-89 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 1989).
Diaz 1989). This failure was partly attributed to a high
flexibility combined with low-ductility capacities of the ACI 318 eccentric shear stress model
waffle slab-to-column connection. In a department store Slab-column connections experience very complex
during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, discontinuous behavior when subjected to lateral displacements or unbalanced
flexural reinforcement at slab-column connections led to gravity loads. This involves transfer of flexure, shear, and
punching failures at column drop panels (Holmes and torsion in the portion of the slab around the column.
Somers 1996). Punching failures around shear capitals were Combined flexural and diagonal cracking are coupled with
also noted in the post-tensioned floor slabs of a four-story significant in-plane compressive forces in the slab induced
building during the same event (Hueste and Wight 1997). by the restraint of the surrounding unyielding slab portions.
Relatively simple design equations have been derived by
CURRENT DESIGN APPROACH considering the critical section to be located at d/2 away
General from the face of the column and by assuming that shear stress
The shear strength of slabs in the vicinity of columns is on the critical perimeter varies linearly with distance from
governed by the more severe of two conditions, either beam the centroidal axis. This eccentric shear stress model is based
action or two-way action. In beam action, the slab acts as a on the work by DiStasio and Van Buren (1960) and reviewed
wide beam with the critical section for shear extending by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1962).
across the entire width of the slab. This critical section is For a slab-column connection transferring shear and
assumed to be located at a distance d (effective slab depth) moment, the ACI 318-05 design equations for limiting the
from the face of the column or shear capital. For this condition, shear stresses vu are given by
conventional beam theory applies and will not be discussed
in detail herein. For the condition of two-way action, the critical vu ≤ φvn (1)
section is assumed to be located at a distance d/2 from the
perimeter of the column or shear capital, with potential diagonal
V γv Mu c
tension cracks occurring along a truncated cone or pyramid vu = -------u- ± --------------
- (2)
passing through the critical section (refer to Fig. 1, where d1 bo d J

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 449

where vu is the factored shear stress; φ is the strength reduction For prestressed slabs without shear reinforcement, Eq. (6)
factor for shear; vn is the nominal shear stress; Vu is the is replaced by
factored shear force acting at the centroid of the critical
section; Mu is the factored unbalanced bending moment
acting about the centroid of the critical section; d is the ⎧ Vp
⎪ 3.5 f c′ (psi) + 0.3f pc + --------
distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid ⎪ bo d
v c = min ⎨
of the longitudinal tension reinforcement; bo is the length of
the perimeter of the critical section; c is the distance from the
⎪
⎪ ⎛α sd Vp
- + 1.5⎞ f c′ (psi) + 0.3f pc + --------
--------
⎩ ⎝b ⎠ b d
centroidal axis of the critical section to the point where shear o o
stress is being computed; J is a property of the critical
section analogous to the polar moment of inertia; and γv is (7)
the fraction of the unbalanced moment considered to be trans-
ferred by eccentricity of shear, defined by
⎧ Vp
⎪ 0.29 f c′ (MPa) + 0.3f pc + --------
1 ⎪ bo d
γ v = 1 – ---------------------- (3) v c = min ⎨
2 b ⎪ αs d Vp
1 + --- ----1- ⎪ 0.083 ⎛⎝ --------- + 1.5⎞⎠ f c′ (MPa) + 0.3f pc + --------
3 b2 ⎩ b o b od

where b1 and b2 are the widths of the critical section measured where αs equals 40, 30, and 20 for interior, edge, and
in the direction of the span for which Mu is determined corner columns, respectively; bo and d are defined previously;
(Direction 1) and in the perpendicular direction (Direction 2). βc is the ratio of long side to short side of column; fc′ is the
For an interior column and a critical section of rectangular specified concrete compressive strength (psi units); fpc is the
shape, bo and J are determined by average compressive stress in two vertical slab sections in
perpendicular directions, after allowance for all prestress
bo = 2(b1 + b2) (4) losses; and Vp is the vertical component of all effective
prestress forces crossing the critical section.
The use of Eq. (7) is restricted to cases where fc′ is less than
3 3 2
db b 1 d db 2 b 1 5000 psi (35 MPa); fpc ranges between 125 and 500 psi (0.9 and
J = -------1- + ----------
- + -------------- (5) 3.5 MPa) in each direction; and no portion of the column
6 6 2
cross section is closer than four times the slab thickness to a
discontinuous edge. If these conditions are not satisfied, the slab
The first term of Eq. (2), the shear stresses due to direct should be treated as nonprestressed and Eq. (6) applies.
shear, is assumed uniformly distributed on the critical
When vu > φvn, the slab shear capacity can be increased by: (a)
section, and the fraction γv Mu is assumed to be resisted by
thickening the slab in the vicinity of the column with a
linear variation of shear stresses on the critical section. The
column capital, shear capital, or drop panel; (b) adding
portion of the moment not carried by eccentric shear is to be
shear reinforcement; (c) increasing the specified compressive
carried by slab flexural reinforcement placed within lines 1.5h on
strength of concrete; or (d) increasing the column size. In a flat
either side of the column (h is the slab thickness, including drop slab with shear capitals or drop panels, stresses must be checked
panel, if any). This flexural reinforcement is also used to resist at all critical locations—both at the thickened portion of the slab
slab design moments within the column strip. near the face of the column and at the section outside the shear
The provisions of the ACI 318 specify that in absence of shear capital or drop panels (refer to Fig. 1).
reinforcement, the nominal shear strength (in stress units) Shear reinforcement, which can be in the form of bars or
carried by the concrete vc in nonprestressed slabs is given by wires and single- or multiple-leg stirrups properly anchored,
increases both the shear strength and the ductility of the
⎧ 4 f c′ (psi) connection when transferring moment and shear. Shear
⎪ reinforcement consisting of structural steel shapes (shearheads)
⎪
⎪ ⎛ 2 + ---- 4⎞
- f ′ (psi) is also effective in increasing the shear strength and ductility
v c = min ⎨ ⎝ β c⎠ c of slab-column connections. Design procedures for shear-
⎪ head reinforcement are presented in Corley and Hawkins
⎪ ⎛ αs d
- + 2⎞ f c′ (psi)
⎪ ⎝ -------- (1968) and are not discussed in this paper. For members with
b ⎠
⎩ o shear reinforcement other than shearheads, the nominal
shear strength (in stress units) is calculated using
(6)
v c = v c + v s ≤ 6 f c′ (psi) or 0.5 f c′ (MPa) (8)
⎧ 0.33 f c′ (MPa)
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.17 ⎛ 1 + ---- 2⎞
- f ′ (MPa) v c = 2 f c′ (psi) or 0.17 f c′ (MPa) (9)
or v c = min ⎨ ⎝ β c⎠ c
⎪
⎪ ⎛ α s d- + 2⎞ f ′ (MPa) A v f yv
⎪ 0.083 ⎝ --------
bo ⎠ c v s = -----------
- (10)
⎩ bo s

450 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

where vs is the nominal shear stress provided by shear fyv ≤ 72,000 psi (500 MPa) (14)
reinforcement; Av is the area of shear reinforcement; fyv is
the specified yield strength of shear reinforcement; s is the The justification for these higher values is mainly due to
spacing of shear reinforcement; and vc, fc′ , and bo are defined the almost slip-free anchorage of the studs and that the
previously. mechanical anchorage at the top and bottom of the stud is
When lightweight aggregate concrete is used, the value of capable of developing forces in excess of the specified yield
f c′ in Eq. (6) through (9) is multiplied by 0.75 for all strength at all sections of the stud stem.
lightweight concrete or by 0.85 for sand-lightweight
concrete. The extent of the shear-reinforced zone is ACI 352.1R-89 recommendations
determined to ensure that punching shear failure does not occur ACI 352.1R-89 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 1989)
immediately outside this region for the design actions. includes recommendations for the determination of connection
The nominal ultimate concrete shear stress along the critical proportions and details to ensure adequate performance of
section acting with shear reinforcement is taken as monolithic, reinforced concrete slab-column connections. The
2 f c′ (psi) ( 0.17 f c′ [MPa] ) because at approximately this recommendations address connection strength, ductility, and
stress, diagonal tension cracks begin to form and cracking is structural integrity for resisting gravity and lateral forces.
needed to mobilize the shear reinforcement. The shear ACI 352.1R-89 only applies to nonprestressed slab-
reinforcement or shear capital must be extended for a sufficient column connections with fc′ less than 6000 psi (42 MPa),
distance until the critical section outside the reinforced with or without drop panels or shear capitals, and without
region satisfies Eq. (9). In nonprestressed slabs, the maximum slab shear reinforcement. The provisions are limited to
spacing of shear reinforcement is 0.5d. In prestressed slabs, connections where severe inelastic load reversals are not
the spacing of shear reinforcement is allowed to reach 0.75h expected, and do not apply to slab-column connections that
but not to exceed 24 in. (0.61 m). are part of a primary LFRS in regions of high seismic risk
For both prestressed and nonprestressed slabs, ACI 318 because slab-column frames are generally considered to be
mandates continuity reinforcement to give the slab some inadequate for multi-story buildings in these areas.
residual capacity following a single punching shear failure at ACI 352.1R-89 classifies slab-column connections as one
a single support. Thus, in nonprestressed slabs, all bottom of two types: 1) Type 1—connections not expected to
bars within the column strip shall be continuous and at least undergo deformations into the inelastic range; and 2) Type 2—
two of the column strip bottom bars in each direction shall connections requiring sustained strength under moderate
pass through the column core (ACI Committee 318 2005, deformations into the inelastic range. In structures subjected
Section 13.3.8.5). In prestressed slabs, a minimum of two to high winds or seismic loads, a slab-column connection
tendons shall be provided in each direction through the should be classified as Type 2 even though it is not designated
critical shear section over columns (ACI Committee 318 as part of the primary LFRS.
2005, Section 18.12.4). To ensure a minimal level of ductility, ACI 352.1R-89
references the work by Pan and Moehle (1989) and
ACI 421.1R-99 refinements recommends that for all Type 2 connections—without
ACI 318 sets out the principles of design for slab shear shear reinforcement—the direct factored shear Vu acting on
reinforcement but does not make specific reference to the connection, for which inelastic moment transfer is
mechanically anchored shear reinforcement, also referred to anticipated, must satisfy
as shear studs. ACI 421.1R-99 (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee
421 1999) gives recommendations for the design of shear Vu ≤ 0.4Vc = 0.4vcbod (15)
reinforcement using shear studs in slabs. This report also
includes equations for calculating shear stresses on
nonrectangular critical sections. where vc is determined by either Eq. (6) or (7).
The limitation defined by Eq. (15) was based on a review
Shear studs have proven to be effective in increasing
of test data that revealed that the deformation capacity of
the strength and ductility of slab-column connections.
interior connections without shear reinforcement is inversely
ACI 421.1R-99 suggests treating a shear stud as the equivalent
related to the direct shear on the connection. Connections not
of a vertical branch of a stirrup and to use higher limits on
complying with Eq. (15) exhibit virtually no post-yield
some of the design parameters used in ACI 318. In particular,
deformation capacity under lateral loading. Pan and Moehle
ACI 421.1R-99 suggests higher allowable values for vn, vc,
(1989) found that when the stress due to direct shear
s, and fyv, as follows
approaches 0.4vc, the connection experiences a brittle failure
for story drift ratios of approximately 1.5%. No additional
v c = v c + v s ≤ 8 f c′ (psi) or 0.66 f c′ (MPa) (11) statements are made in ACI 352.1R-89 regarding other
combinations of shear stress and story drift ratio. The report
states that Eq. (15) may be waived if calculations demonstrate
v c = 3 f c′ (psi) or 0.25 f c′ (MPa) (12) that the imposed displacement will not induce yield in the
slab system. For example, the use of structural walls may
adequately limit the imposed drifts on slab-column frames
⎧ such that yield at the slab-column connection may not occur.
vu
⎪ 0.75d when ----
⎪ ≤ 6 f c′ (psi) or 0.5 f c′ (MPa) The approach by ACI 352.1R-89 suggests that the deformation
s≤⎨ φ (13) capacity of slab-column connections may be defined as a
⎪ vu function of the shear stress due to direct shear only. This
⎪ 0.5d when ---- > 6 f c′ (psi) or 0.5 f c′ (MPa) approach has been developed further by Moehle (1996) and
⎩ φ
Megally and Ghali (2000). ACI 318-05 has incorporated this

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 451

 Vu
VR = ----------------
- (17)
φv c b o d

The term vc is calculated using Eq. (6) or (7). The factored

shear force Vu on the slab critical section for two-way action
is determined for the load combination 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.2S,
where D, L, and S are the dead, live, and snow loads.
If the DR exceeds the limit given by Eq. (16), shear
reinforcement must be provided (or the connection can be
redesigned). When adding shear reinforcement, ACI 318-05
prescribes that the term vs, defined by Eq. (10), must exceed
3.5 f c′ (psi) ( 0.29 f c′ [MPa] ) and the shear reinforcement
Fig. 2—ACI 318-05 relationship for determining adequacy must extend at least four times the slab thickness from the
of slab-column connections in seismic regions. face of the support. Given that this approach is relatively simple,
and that the added cost of providing shear reinforcement at
connections is not significant for structures designed for
high seismic performance categories, use of this prescriptive
approach is likely to be common. The representative design
steps are shown in Fig. 3.
If shear capitals, column capitals, or drop panels are used,
all potential critical sections must be investigated. ACI 318-05
does not prescribe a minimum extension of shear capitals.
Wey and Durrani (1992), however, recommend a minimum
length equal to two times the slab thickness from the face of
the column.

ANALYTICAL MODELING
The shear stresses due to the combined factored shear and
moment transferred between the slab and the column under
the design displacement can be determined by creating an
appropriate analytical model of the slab-column frame and
directly assessing the potential for punching. Recommendations
Fig. 3—Design steps when adding shear reinforcement. by Hwang and Moehle (2000) may be used to establish the
effective stiffness of the slab and to include the impact of
concept into a general approach for addressing the deformation cracking. Hwang and Moehle (2000) recommend that the
capacity of slab-column connections not designated as part uncracked effective stiffness for a model with rigid joints,
of the LFRS. for ratios of c2/c1 from 1/2 to 2 and a slab aspect ratio l2/l1
greater than 2/3, be determined using an effective beam
Requirements of ACI 318-05, Section 21.11.5 width represented as
Model building codes (SEI/ASCE 2005) have deformation
compatibility requirements for members that are not designated
as part of the LFRS. These members should be able to resist l
b int = 2c 1 + ---1 (18)
the gravity loads at lateral displacements corresponding to 3
the design level earthquake. ACI 318-05, Section 21.11.5,
has incorporated a design provision to account for the where bint is the effective width for interior frame connections
deformation compatibility of slab-column connections. (interior connections and edge connections with bending
Instead of calculating the induced effects under the design perpendicular to the edge); c1 and l1 are the column dimension
displacement, ACI 318-05 describes a prescriptive approach. and slab span parallel to the direction of load being considered;
The connection is evaluated based on a simple relationship and c2 and l2 correspond to the orthogonal direction. For
between the design story drift ratio (DR) and the shear stress exterior frame connections (corner connections and edge
due to factored gravity loads. The design DR (story drift connections with bending parallel to the edge), half the width
divided by story height) should be taken as the largest value defined in Eq. (18) is used. Effects of cross section changes,
for the adjacent stories above and below the connection. The such as slab openings, are to be considered. One way to
maximum DR (in percent) that a slab-column connection can accomplish this is to vary the width of the effective beam
tolerate, in the absence of shear reinforcement, is given by along the span (Hwang and Moehle 1990).
the following relationship and illustrated in Fig. 2.
To account for cracking, a stiffness reduction factor β has
been proposed by Hwang and Moehle (2000) for nonpre-
⎧
DR = ⎨ 3.5 – 5.0VR ( for VR < 0.6 ) (16) stressed slabs and is given by
⎩ 0.5 ( for VR ≥ 0.6 )
c 1
β = 4 -- > --- (19)
where VR is the shear ratio, defined as l 3

452 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

where c and l are the column dimension and slab span
parallel to the load direction. Kang and Wallace (2005)
recommend β = 0.5 for post-tensioned floor systems with
approximate values for span-to-slab thickness ratios of 40,
c1/l1 of 1/14, and precompression of 200 psi (1.4 MPa).
The analytical model of the slab-column frame should
capture the potential for both slab yielding and connection
failure due to punching as recommended in FEMA 356.
Figure 4 shows an approach where yielding within the slab
column strip is modeled using slab-beam elements (in this
case, an elastic slab-beam with stiffness properties defined
by the effective beam width model, and zero-length plastic
hinges on either side of the connection). Further details of
this model are described by Kang et al. (2006). Punching
failures can occur if the capacity of the connection element
is reached or if a limiting story drift ratio is reached for a
given gravity shear ratio. Hueste and Wight (1999)
suggested an approach for incorporating this behavior into a
nonlinear analysis program, where, after prediction of a Fig. 4—Modeling of slab-column connection (adapted from
punching shear failure, the member behavior is modified to Kang et al. 2006).
account for the significant reduction in stiffness and
strength. Kang and Wallace (2005) suggest a direct approach an action is classified as either deformation-controlled or
by employing a limit state model. force-controlled. Deformation-controlled actions are applicable
The FEMA 356 guidelines note that the analytical model for for components that have the capacity to undergo deformations
a slab-column frame should consider all potential failures into the inelastic range without failure. Based on the demand
including flexure, shear, shear-moment transfer, and reinforce- to capacity ratio (DCR), calculated using the linear static or
ment development at any section. The modeling information dynamic analysis procedures, components are classified as
mentioned previously gives a convenient and relatively having low (DCR < 2), moderate (2 ≤ DCR ≤ 4), or high
straightforward approach to modeling the behavior of slab- (DCR > 4) ductility demands.
column frames for nonlinear static and dynamic analysis. The acceptance criteria based on linear analysis procedures
are expressed in terms of m-factors. The factor m is intended to
PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA provide an indirect measure of the total deformation
A review of current practice with respect to performance-based capacity of a structural element or component. As such,
design is needed to provide context to the material presented the factor m is only used to evaluate the acceptability of
subsequently on performance objectives for slab-column deformation-controlled actions
connections. The FEMA 356 prestandard (ASCE 2000)
provides analytical procedures and criteria for the performance- mκQCE ≥ QUD (20)
based evaluation of existing buildings and for designing
seismic rehabilitation alternatives. This prestandard includes where κ is the knowledge factor used to reduce the strength of
recommended limits for deformation capacities based on the existing components based on quality of information, QCE is the
calculated gravity shear ratio, as well as a general framework expected strength of a component or element at the deformation
for creating performance levels and objectives. level considered, and QUD is the deformation-controlled
In FEMA 356, performance levels describe limitations on design action. Equation (20) can be rearranged for direct
the maximum damage sustained during a ground motion, comparison of the DCR to m to determine acceptability
while performance objectives define the target performance
level to be achieved for a particular intensity of ground Q UD
motion. Structural performance levels in FEMA 356 include DCR ≤ m = ------------- (21)
immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention. κQ CE
Structures at collapse prevention are expected to remain
standing, but with little margin against collapse. Structures at The FEMA 356 limiting values for m-factors for two-way
life safety may have sustained significant damage, but still slabs and slab-column connections are provided in Table 1.
provide an appreciable margin against collapse. Structures at The m-factors for slab-column connections range from 1 to
immediate occupancy should have only minor damage. In 4 and depend on several parameters: the gravity-shear ratio,
FEMA 356, the Basic Safety Objective is defined as life the presence of continuity reinforcement through the column
safety-performance for the basic safety earthquake 1 (BSE-1) cage, the development of reinforcement, and the selected
earthquake hazard level and collapse prevention performance performance level. The connections must also be classified
for the BSE-2 earthquake hazard level. BSE-1 is the smaller as primary or secondary elements to determine the limits
event corresponding to 10% probability of exceedance in for life safety and collapse prevention. Secondary
50 years (10% in 50 years) and 2/3 of the BSE-2 (2% in elements are those typically not considered to provide
50 years) event. resistance to earthquake effects.
For a given design event and a target performance level, For nonlinear static and dynamic analysis procedures,
FEMA 356 provides acceptance criteria when using either FEMA 356 restricts inelastic response values determined
static or dynamic analysis based on linear and nonlinear from the analytical model in terms of maximum plastic
procedures. To evaluate acceptability using linear procedures, rotations. Generally, plastic rotation is computed as the

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 453

 Table 1—Acceptance criteria for linear procedures—
two-way slabs and slab-column connections
(adapted from FEMA 356 [ASCE 2000])
m-factors by performance level*
Component type
Primary Secondary
Conditions IO LS CP LS CP
†
1. Slab controlled by flexure and slab-column connections
Continuity
Vg /Vo‡
reinforcement§
≤ 0.2 Yes 2 2 3 3 4
≥ 0.4 Yes 1 1 1 2 3
≤ 0.2 No 2 2 3 2 3
≥ 0.4 No 1 1 1 1 1

Fig. 5—Test data for interior slab-column connection 2. Slabs controlled by inadequate development or splicing along span†
specimens with no shear reinforcement. — — — 3 4
3. Slabs controlled by inadequate embedment into slab-column joint†
2 2 3 3 4
*IO = immediate occupancy; LS = life safety; and CP = collapse prevention.
†
When more than one of Conditions 1, 2, and 3 occurs for given component, use
minimum appropriate numerical value from table.
‡
Vg = gravity shear acting on slab critical section and Vo = direct punching shear
strength as defined by ACI 318.
§Under heading “Continuity reinforcement,” use “Yes” where at least one of the main
bottom bars in each direction is effectively continuous through column cage. Where
that slab is post-tensioned, use “Yes” where at least one of post-tensioning tendons in
each direction passes through column cage. Otherwise, use “No.”

combination of flexure and punching shear (F-P) where a

punching shear failure occurred at a higher drift level
following yielding of the slab reinforcement. The gravity
shear ratio and peak drift are also provided for each specimen.
The peak drift is defined as the drift corresponding to the
peak lateral load. Therefore, the maximum drift attained for a
Fig. 6—Test data for interior slab-column connection particular specimen may be larger than the reported peak drift.
specimens with shear reinforcement. The maximum drift at which an interior connection will
fail can be estimated from the gravity shear ratio Vg/Vo (Pan
difference between the maximum rotation during analysis and Moehle 1989; Luo and Durrani 1995). The gravity shear
and the yield rotation at the member end. Therefore, it is ratio represents the unfactored vertical gravity shear Vg
critical for the nonlinear model to represent the maximum divided by the theoretical punching shear strength without
plastic rotation for a certain level of demand. The plastic moment transfer Vo determined using
rotation limits in FEMA 356 range from 0.0 to 0.02 radians
for primary slab-column connections and from 0.0 to 0.05 Vo = vc bo d (22)
radians for secondary slab-column connections. These limits are
based on the gravity-shear ratio, the presence of continuity The term vc is calculated using Eq. (6) or (7). A similar
reinforcement through the column cage, the development ratio can be computed for slabs with shear reinforcement by
of reinforcement, and the selected performance level (immediate replacing vc with vn defined by Eq. (8) through (10).
occupancy, life safety, or collapse prevention). Figure 5 provides a plot of peak drift as a function of Vg/Vo for
interior slab-column connection specimens with no shear
EXPERIMENTAL DATA reinforcement. The figure shows the direct influence of the
Over the past 40 years, experimental studies have been gravity shear ratio on the lateral drift capacity of slab-
conducted by researchers at a number of universities. Much column connections. It may be observed that punching shear
of the earlier data has been summarized by Pan and Moehle occurs for a large range of Vg/Vo values (approximately 0.1 to
(1989), Megally and Ghali (1994), and Luo and Durrani 0.9), while flexural failures primarily occur for Vg/Vo values
(1995). Tables 2 and 3 provide information on interior slab- of 0.3 or less.
column connection test specimens, with and without shear Figure 6 provides a similar plot for interior slab-column
reinforcement. Limited tests have been conducted for connection specimens with shear reinforcement. The
nonductile slab-column connections where the bottom slab experimental data indicates that larger drift ratios are possible
reinforcement is discontinuous at the interior slab-column when shear reinforcement is used. In particular, a number of
connection (Durrani et al. 1995; Dovich and Wight 1996; slab-column specimens with stud-shear reinforcement (SSR)
Robertson and Johnson 2006) and available data is included attained story drift ratios well over 3% before failure.
in Table 2. The failure mode for each specimen is provided, The data from slab-column connection tests, with and
when available, as either: punching shear P, flexure F, or a without shear reinforcement, are compared in Fig. 7, along

454 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 2—Test data for interior slab-column connection test specimens with no shear reinforcement
Source Label Vg/Vo Peak drift, % Mode Source Label Vg/Vo Peak drift, % Mode
CD 1 0.85 0.90 NA I.I 0.08 5.00 F
Dilger and Cao (1991) CD 2 0.65 1.20 NA INT1 0.43 NA P
Luo and Durrani (1995)
CD 8 0.52 1.40 NA
INT2 0.50 NA P
DNY 1* 0.20 3.00 F
DNY 2* 0.30 2.00 P MG-2A 0.58 1.17 P
Durrani et al. (1995)
* 0.24 2.00 F MG-7 0.29 3.10 F-P
DNY 3
Megally and Ghali (2000)
DNY 4* 0.28 2.60 F-P MG-8 0.42 2.30 F-P
Elgabry and Ghali (1987) 1 0.46 NA P MG-9 0.36 2.17 F-P
1 0.00 4.81 F S1 0.03 4.70 F
2 0.00 4.04 F S2 0.03 2.80 F
Farhey et al. (1993)
3 0.26 3.56 P Morrison and Sozen (1983) S3 0.03 4.20 F
4 0.30 2.40 P S4 0.07 4.50 F
SM 0.5 0.31 6.00 F S5 0.15 4.80 F
Ghali et al. (1976) SM 1.0 0.33 2.70 F-P AP 1 0.37 1.60 F-P
SM 1.5 0.30 2.70 F-P AP 2 0.36 1.50 F-P
Pan and Moehle (1989)
A12 0.29 NA P AP 3 0.18 3.70 F-P
A13L 0.29 NA P AP 4 0.19 3.50 F-P
B16 0.29 NA P 1 0.35 1.50 P
Hanson and Hanson (1968)
B7 0.04 3.80 F-P 2 0.35 1.50EW/0.79NS P
Pan and Moehle (1992)
C17 0.24 NA F-P 3 0.22 3.10 F-P
C8 0.05 5.80 F 4 0.22 3.20EW/1.75NS P
S1 0.33 3.75 P 1 0.21 2.75 F
S2 0.45 2.00 P 2C 0.22 3.50 F-P
Hawkins et al. (1974)
S3 0.45 2.00 P 3SE 0.19 3.50 F
S4 0.40 2.60 P Robertson and Durrani (1990) 5SO 0.21 3.50 F
Hwang and Moehle (1990) 4 Int. Joints 0.24 4.00 NA 6LL 0.54 0.85 P
1 0.25 3.67 P 7L 0.40 1.45 P
Islam and Park (1976) 2 0.23 3.33 P 8I 0.18 3.50 F-P
3C 0.23 4.00 F-P Robertson et al. (2002) 1C 0.17 3.50 P
* 0.23 3.00 to 5.00 F-P S6 0.86 1.10 P
ND1C
Symonds et al. (1976)
ND4LL* 0.28 3.00 F-P S7 0.81 1.00 P
* 0.47 1.50 P SC 0 0.25 3.50 P
ND5XL
Robertson and Johnson (2006) ND6HR * 0.29 3.00 P SC 2 0.18 6.00 F
Wey and Durrani (1992)
NC7LR* 0.26 3.00 F-P SC 4 0.15 6.00 F
SC 6 0.15 5.00 P
ND8BU* 0.26 3.00 F-P
Zee and Moehle (1984) INT 0.21 3.30 F-P
*Bottom slab reinforcement is discontinuous at interior connection.
Note: EW = east-west lateral load for biaxial test; NS = north-south lateral load for biaxial test; F = flexural failure; P = punching shear failure; and F-P = flexural and punching
shear failure. NA: Not available.

with the ACI 318-05 limits for assessing the need for shear frames to ensure an accurate representation of the overall
reinforcement. The line defined by ACI 318-05 is a reasonable building stiffness and allow an evaluation of the magnitude
lower-bound limit for the data corresponding to specimens of the lateral load that must be resisted by the slab-column
without shear reinforcement. A strength reduction factor frame members. The appropriate parameters that should be
of φ = 1 is used when determining Vg/Vo for the test data. included in such a model were highlighted previously (effective
slab width for equivalent beams, cracked section properties,
PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC and hysteretic behavior for nonlinear models).
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Performance-based seismic design (PBSD) criteria are
Research studies and past structural performance have suggested in the following. The criteria are based on
shown that slab-column frames provide lateral stiffness experimental data of interior slab-column connections under
contributions to the overall LFRS and, as such, they do resist combined gravity and lateral load. The suggested criteria
lateral loads during a seismic event even if they were reference FEMA 356 performance levels (immediate
designed for gravity loads only. For this reason, compatibility of occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention) and seismic
deformations must be considered to calculate the demands at design requirements for slab-column connections that are
the slab-column connections. Likewise, the analytical model adopted in ACI 318-05. As noted previously, in regions of
should include the strength and stiffness of the slab-column high seismic risk, the slab-column connections of two-way

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 455

Table 3—Test data for interior slab-column Table 4—Key points for recommended PBSD
connection test specimens with shear criteria for interior slab-column connections
reinforcement Drift ratio, %, by performance level
Gravity shear
Shear ratio (Vg /Vo) IO LS CP
Source Label Vg /Vo Peak drift, % reinforcement Mode
0.0 1.75 3.5 5.0
SJB-1 0.48 5.50 SSR S1 0.6 0.25 0.5 0.75
SJB-2 0.47 5.70 SSR S1 1.0 0.25 0.5 0.75
SJB-3 0.48 5.00 SSR S2 Note: IO = immediate occupancy; LS = life safety; and CP = collapse prevention.
Dilger and
Brown (1995)
SJB-4 0.43 6.40 SSR S2
SJB-5 0.47 7.60 SSR S1
SJB-8 0.46 5.70 SSR S2
SJB-9 0.49 7.10 SSR S2
CD 3 0.91 3.50 SSR NA
Dilger and Cao CD 4 0.62 4.80 SSR NA
(1991) CD 6 0.64 5.40 SSR NA
CD 7 0.51 5.60 SSR NA
2 0.47 NA SSR P
Elgabry and 3 0.87 NA SSR P
Ghali (1987) 4 0.85 NA SSR P
5 1.20 NA SSR P
SS1 0.49 3.50 Stirrups C3
SS2 0.47 3.43 Stirrups P Fig. 7—Comparison of recommended performance-based
Hawkins et al.
(1975) SS3 0.48 4.10 Stirrups F seismic design limits with slab-column connection test data.
SS4 0.47 5.50 Stirrups NA
SS5 0.42 4.90 Stirrups F Thus, the mean for the data gives the following expression
4S 0.23 4.33 Bent up P for the maximum story drift ratio (in percent)
5S 0.23 4.17 Shear head P
Islam and Park
6CS 0.24 4.00 Stirrups P V
(1976) DR = 5 – 7 -----g (23)
7CS 0.24 3.70 Stirrups P Vo
8CS 0.27 5.00 Stirrups P
2CS 0.16 4.50 Closed hoop F
Robertson et al. The PBSD criteria suggested herein use Eq. (23) as a
(2002) 4HS 0.15 5.00 Headed stud F reference for selecting the collapse prevention performance
3SL 0.10 4.50 Single leg F level limits. The life safety performance level was initially
MG-10 0.60 5.20 SSR NA defined as 2/3 of the values used for collapse prevention; and
MG-3 0.56 5.40 SSR NA for immediate occupancy, 1/3 of the values for collapse
Megally and prevention was used. The drift limits determined using the
MG-4 0.86 4.60 SSR F-P
Ghali (2000)
MG-5 0.31 6.50 SSR F-P aforementioned parameters were the basis for finalizing the
MG-6 0.59 6.00 SSR F-P key points of the graphed PBSD criteria. Table 4 summarizes
Robertson and the key points for the recommended PBSD criteria and the
4S 0.19 3.50 Closed hoop F values are shown graphically in relationship to the test data
Durrani (1990)
Note: SSR = stud-shear reinforcement; S = shear failure outside shear reinforced zone; S2
1 in Fig. 7.
= shear failure in shear in zones without shear reinforcement; C3 = crushing failure at For the suggested PBSD criteria, the drift limits for the
column face without apparent punching shear failure; F = flexural failure; P = punching
shear failure; and F-P = flexural and punching shear failure. NA: not available. immediate occupancy performance level are relatively low
so that the slab-column frame members remain at or near the
elastic range of behavior. The suggested line for life safety
slabs without beams must be checked for the induced effects corresponds to the ACI 318-05 design limits (refer to Fig. 2).
caused by the lateral displacement expected for the design- The life safety performance level includes the combination
basis earthquake. It is important to note the direct influence of Vg/Vo = 0.4 and a drift of 1.5%, which is consistent with
of the gravity shear ratio on the lateral drift capacity of slab- the recommendation in ACI 352.1R-89 that the gravity shear
column connections without shear reinforcement illustrated by ratio should be kept below 0.4 to ensure some minimal
the test data in Fig. 5. As suggested by the FEMA 356 limits ductility with the availability of approximately 1.5% drift
for slab-column connections, this relationship is critical to the capacity. The collapse prevention limits correspond to approx-
development of appropriate PBSD criteria for slab-column imately the mean of the experimental data for specimens
connections. The ACI 318-05 seismic design limits for slab- without shear reinforcement. For all performance levels, a
column connections given in Eq. (16) also underscore the direct constant story drift ratio capacity is assigned for gravity
relationship between these two parameters. shear ratios in excess of 0.6.
Linear regression analysis on the experimental data for As the approximate mean of the data for specimens
slab-column connections without shear reinforcement and without shear reinforcement (Fig. 7), the collapse prevention
having a gravity shear ratio Vg/Vo less than 0.6, results in a limits correspond to a 50% probability of failure (without
line defined by a slope of –6.95 and a zero intercept of 4.97. considering the load and resistance factors provided in the

456 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

code). Assuming a normal distribution, the life safety analysis. A relationship between drift capacity and gravity
limits, defined as 2/3 of collapse prevention, correspond shear ratio is provided in Eq. (23), representing an average of
to approximately 5% probability of failure, and the the collected experimental data. Three performance levels
immediate occupancy limits, defined as 1/3 of collapse are used to match those in FEMA 356: immediate occupancy,
prevention, correspond to less than 1% probability of failure. life safety, and collapse prevention. The proposed limits
When the story drift limit corresponding to the acting correlate well with the ACI 318-05 seismic design provisions
gravity shear ratio is exceeded for the performance level for slab-column connections and provide a practical approach
considered, various options exist, including: 1) reduce the for conducting PBSD for slab-column connections.
gravity shear ratio by thickening the slab, adding shear capitals,
or adding drop panels; 2) reduce the story drift ratio to be ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
within the allowable limit by stiffening the lateral system; or The authors wish to thank the members of ACI Committee 374, Performance-
Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings, for their input. The contribution of
3) add shear reinforcement as prescribed by ACI 318-05. For Y.-H. Kim, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, College Station,
Options 1 and 2, consideration must be given to increased lateral Tex., is also appreciated.
forces resulting from the structural modification. For Option 3,
the experimental data indicates that larger drift ratios are REFERENCES
possible when shear reinforcement is used (refer to Fig. 6). ACI Committee 318, 2005, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
The data for the shear reinforced specimens are included in Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Fig. 7 for comparison. Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 430 pp.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000, “Prestandard and Com-
A direct comparison of the suggested PBSD criteria to the mentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA Publication 356),”
FEMA 356 acceptance criteria is not simply accomplished Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 528 pp.
because FEMA limits are in terms of plastic rotations rather Corley, W. G., and Hawkins, N. M., 1968, “Shearhead Reinforcement
than drift ratios. FEMA 356 is intended for assessing for Slabs,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No. 10, Oct., pp. 811-824.
Dilger, W., and Brown, S. J., 1995, “Earthquake Resistance of Slab-
existing structures and also addresses cases involving Column Connection,” Festschrift Professor Dr. Hugo Bachmann Zum 60,
several possible deficiencies, including: 1) inadequate Geburtstag, Institut F&Uuml;R Baustatik Und Konstruktion, Eth
development or splicing along the slab span; 2) inadequate Z&Uuml;Rich, Switzerland, pp. 22-27.
embedment into the slab-column joint; and 3) lack of continuity Dilger, W., and Cao, H., 1991, “Behaviour of Slab-Column Connections
reinforcement through the column cage. In addition, a under Reversed Cyclic Loading,” Proceedings of the Second International
Conference of High-Rise Buildings, China, 10 pp.
distinction is made between primary and secondary components. DiStasio, J., and Van Buren, M. P., 1960, “Transfer of Bending Moment
In general, the proposed PBSD limits appear to be in the range of between Flat Plate Floor and Column,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 57,
the corresponding FEMA 356 limits. One exception is that No. 3, Mar., pp. 299-314.
FEMA 356 does not allow plastic rotation in primary Dovich, L., and Wight, J. K., 1996, “Lateral Response of Older Flat Slab
Frames and Economic Effect on Retrofit,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 12,
components when the gravity shear ratio is above 0.4. No. 4, pp. 667-691.
The aforementioned PBSD criteria are intended primarily Durrani, A. J.; Du, Y.; and Luo, Y. H., 1995, “Seismic Resistance of
for new construction. The criteria, however, could also be Nonductile Slab-Column Connections in Existing Flat-Slab Buildings,”
applied to existing structures that contain subpar seismic ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 479-487.
Elgabry, A., and Ghali, A., 1987, “Tests on Concrete Slab-Column
details where a moderate seismic demand is expected. For Connections with Stud-Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-Moment
assessing the expected performance of a structure, the value Transfer,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 433-442.
of Vo should be computed with φ = 1.0, whereas for new Farhey, D. N.; Adin, M. A.; and Yankelevsky, D. Z., 1993, “RC Flat
building design, Vo should include a strength reduction Slab-Column Subassemblages under Lateral Loading,” Journal of the
factor for shear, currently φ = 0.75 in ACI 318-05. Structural Division, V. 119, No. 6, ASCE, pp. 1903-1916.
Ghali, A.; Elmasri, M. Z.; and Dilger, W., 1976, “Punching of Flat Plates
under Static and Dynamic Horizontal Forces,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS V. 73, No. 10, Oct., pp. 566-572.
This paper focuses on the behavior and design of interior Hanson, N. W., and Hanson, J. M., 1968, “Shear and Moment Transfer
slab-column connections under combined gravity and lateral between Concrete Slabs and Columns,” Journal, V. 10, No. 1, PCA
Research and Development Laboratories, pp. 1-16.
loading and serves to review current design procedures, Hawkins, N. M.; Mitchell, D.; and Sheu, M. S., 1974, “Cyclic Behavior
performance-based seismic design (PBSD) approaches, and of Six Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Specimens Transferring Moment
relevant experimental data. Practical recommendations are and Shear,” Progress Report 1973-74 on NSF Project GI-38717, Section II,
provided for PBSD of slab-column connections under University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 50 pp.
Hawkins, N. M.; Mitchell, D.; and Hanna, S. N., 1975, “Effects of Shear
seismic loading conditions that can be readily implemented Reinforcement on the Reversed Cyclic Loading Behavior of Flat Plate
into design practice. Structures,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 2, pp. 572-582.
An assessment of the experimental data versus the ACI 318-05 Holmes, W. T., and Somers, P., 1996, “Northridge Earthquake of January 17,
recommendations for slab-column connections indicate 1994: Reconnaissance Report,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 11, Supplement C,
pp. 224-225
that the limits for determining the necessity of slab shear Hueste, M. D., and Wight, J. K., 1997, “Evaluation of a Four-Story
reinforcement are a reasonable lower bound of the test data. Reinforced Concrete Building Damaged During the Northridge Earthquake,”
Very few reports for slab-column connection specimens Earthquake Spectra, V. 13, No. 3, pp. 387-414.
include plastic rotation data. FEMA 356, however, provides Hueste, M. D., and Wight, J. K., 1999, “Nonlinear Punching Shear Failure
limits in terms of plastic rotations for nonlinear analysis Model for Interior Slab-Column Connections,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 9, pp. 997-1008.
procedures that are determined in part by the gravity shear Hwang, S. J., and Moehle, J. P., 1990, “An Experimental Study of Flat-
ratio at the slab-column connections. The recommended Plate Structures Under Vertical and Lateral Loads,” Report No. UCB/
PBSD criteria in this paper use two key parameters for SEMM-90/11, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., 271 pp.
assessing slab-column connections: the gravity shear ratio at Hwang, S. J., and Moehle, J. P., 2000, “Models for Laterally Loaded Slab-
Column Frames,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 345-353.
the connection and the maximum story drift ratio. The use of Islam, S., and Park, R., 1976, “Tests on Slab-Column Connections with
story drift ratio allows a direct comparison to the experimental Shear and Unbalanced Flexure,” Journal of the Structural Division, V. 102,
data and is readily available when conducting a structural No. ST3, ASCE, pp. 549-568.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 457

 Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, 1962, “Shear and Diagonal Tension, Pan, A., and Moehle, J. P., 1989, “Lateral Displacement Ductility of
Slabs,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 3, Mar., pp. 353-396. Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 3,
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 1989, “Recommendations for Design May-June, pp. 250-258.
of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Pan, A., and Moehle, J. P., 1992, “An Experimental Study of Slab-
Structures (ACI 352.1R-89),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Column Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.,
Hills, Mich., 22 pp. pp. 626-638.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421, 1999, “Shear Reinforcement for Slabs Robertson, I., and Durrani, A. J., 1990, “Seismic Response of Connections in
(ACI 421.1R-99),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., Indeterminate Flat-Slab Subassemblies,” Report No. 41, Department of
15 pp. Civil Engineering, Rice University, Houston, Tex., 266 pp.
Kang, T. H. K., and Wallace, J. W., 2005, “Dynamic Response of Flat Robertson, I.; Kawai, T.; Lee, J.; and Enomoto, B., 2002, “Cyclic Testing of
Plate Systems with Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, Slab-Column Connections with Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural
No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 763-773. Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 605-613.
Kang, T. H. K.; Elwood, K. J.; and Wallace, J. W., 2006, “Dynamic Tests Robertson, I., and Johnson, G., 2006, “Cyclic Lateral Loading of Nonductile
and Modeling of RC and PT Slab-Column Connections,” Paper 0362, Slab-Column Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 3, May-
Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, June, pp. 356-364.
San Francisco, Calif., 10 pp. (CD-ROM) Rodriguez, M., and Diaz, C., 1989, “Analysis of the Seismic Performance of
Luo, Y., and Durrani, A. J., 1995, “Equivalent Beam Model for Flat-Slab a Medium Rise, Waffle Flat Plate Building,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 5, No. 1,
Buildings—Part 1: Interior Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, pp. 25-40.
No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 115-124. SEI/ASCE, 2005, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other
Megally, S., and Ghali, A., 1994, “Design Considerations for Slab-Column Structures (SEI/ASCE 7-05),” Structural Engineering Institute, ASCE,
Connections in Seismic Zones,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 3, May- Reston, Va., 376 pp.
June, pp. 303-314. Symonds, D. W.; Mitchell, D.; and Hawkins, N. M., 1976, “Slab-Column
Megally, S., and Ghali, A., 2000, “Punching Shear Design of Earth- Connections Subjected to High Intensity Shears and Transferring Reversed
quake-Resistant Slab-Column Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, Moments,” Progress Report on NSF Project GI-38717, Department of
No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 720-730. Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 80 pp.
Moehle, J. P., 1996, “Seismic Design Considerations for Flat Plate Wey, E. H., and Durrani, A. J., 1992, “Seismic Response of Interior
Construction,” Mete A. Sozen Symposium: A Tribute from his Students, Slab-Column Connections with Shear Capitals,” ACI Structural Journal,
SP-162, J. K. Wight and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 682-691.
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 1-35. Zee, H. L., and Moehle, J. P., 1984, “Behavior of Interior and Exterior
Morrison, D. G., and Sozen, M. A., 1983, “Lateral Load Tests of R/C Flat Plate Connections Subjected to Inelastic Load Reversals,” Report
Slab-Column Connections,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, No. UCB/EERC-84/07, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
V. 109, No. 11, pp. 2699-2714. of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., 130 pp.

458 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S37

Shake Table Studies of Bridge Columns with Double

Interlocking Spirals
by Juan F. Correal, M. Saiid Saiidi, David Sanders, and Saad El-Azazy

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) code recommendations exist, however, with respect to the
provides the only guidelines in the U.S. for the design of columns distance between spiral sets and uncertainties about the need
with interlocking spirals. Previous studies have shown that for supplemental crossties between adjacent spiral sets. For
columns with interlocking spirals have a satisfactory behavior, but example, the BDS upper limit on the distance between the
none of them have addressed the Caltrans upper limit on centers of adjacent spirals is 1.5 times the radius of the spiral
horizontal spacing between centers of the spirals in detail and
R, whereas the study in Reference 3 places an upper limit of
none used dynamic testing. Six large-scale column models were
designed and tested on a shake table at the University of Nevada- 1.2R. To address these issues, a study was undertaken using
Reno to study the effects of the shear level, spiral distance, and large-scale testing of bridge column models on one of the
crossties. The observed damage progression, load-displacement shake tables of the University of Nevada-Reno. The study
responses, reinforcement strains, and the apparent plastic hinge included both experimental and analytical components to
lengths were examined to evaluate the response. The results evaluate the seismic performance of bridge columns with
revealed that the Caltrans upper spiral distance limit of 1.5 times double interlocking spirals with different parameters, including
the spiral radius is satisfactory. However, supplementary crossties the spread between the spiral sets, the level of shear, and
are needed to prevent premature vertical shear cracking and crossties. The focus of this paper is on the experimental
strength degradation in columns with relatively high shear. phase of the investigation. Details of all aspects of the study
are presented in Reference 6.
Keywords: bridge; columns; interlocking spirals; seismic behavior.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
INTRODUCTION Interlocking spirals are used in the columns of many
The current seismic design philosophy for reinforced bridges. The spirals are designed based on provisions that
concrete structures relies on confinement of concrete to have yet to be verified and, in part, are in conflict with some
provide the necessary ductility and energy dissipation of the recommendations that are based on the limited available
capacity of structural members. Confinement is mainly past studies. The research presented in this paper was used
provided by the transverse reinforcement, which in columns to: 1) evaluate the dynamic performance of bridge columns
usually consists of spirals in members with circular or square that are designed based on the current Caltrans provisions; 2)
shape and ties in those with square or rectangular cross determine if the limits in the provisions are satisfactory; and
sections. Spirals confine concrete more effectively than 3) identify cases and limit states in which supplemental
rectilinear ties because they counteract the dilation of crossties are needed.
concrete through hoop action instead of a combination of
bending and hoop action that takes place in rectilinear ties. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
As a result, to provide the same level of confinement, the Test specimens
amount of tie reinforcement is greater than that provided by Six large-scale specimens were designed, constructed, and
spirals. Another advantage of spirals is that they are generally tested. The limit of 1.2R on the horizontal distance of the
easier to construct. The circular shape of spirals makes them centers of the spirals, di, recommended in Reference 3 is to
suitable for circular and square columns. To use the benefits ensure sufficient vertical shear transfer between adjacent
of spirals in rectangular columns, two or more sets of spiral sets. Because vertical shear is a function of horizontal
interlocking spirals are used. shear, the test parameters were selected to capture the effect of
The Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS)1 and a range of realistic horizontal shear stresses. The test variables
Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)2 are currently the only codes were: 1) the level of average shear stress; 2) the horizontal
in the U.S. that include provisions for the design of columns distance between the centers of the spirals, di; and 3) supple-
with interlocking spirals. Because the amount of research on mentary horizontal crossties. The test variables are listed in
interlocking spirals has been limited, the design provisions Table 1. The effect of other parameters such as axial load and
are driven mainly by research on single spirals. Studies3-5 material strength was not considered because the variation of
were conducted on the effect of several design parameters, these parameters in real bridges is relatively small.
including a comparison between interlocking spirals and The average horizontal shear stress was calculated as the
ties, horizontal distance between centers of the spirals, lateral load divided by the effective shear area taken equal to
quantity of transverse reinforcement, variation of the axial
load ratios, appropriate size and spacing of longitudinal bars
in the interlocking region, and cross section shape. These ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
MS No. S-2005-200 received August 8, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication
studies generally concluded that flexural and shear policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
capacities of columns with interlocking spirals can be 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 May-June
conservatively estimated using current procedures. Conflicting 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 393

 Table 1—Test variables
Juan F. Correal is an Assistant Professor of civil and environmental engineering at
the University of Los Andes, Colombia, where he received his BS and MSCE. He Steel reinforcement
received his PhD in 2004 from the University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev. His Scale Shear Aspect
research interests include the seismic design of bridges and applications of innovative Specimen factor index ratio di (× R) ρl , % ρs ,* %
materials for design, repair, and rehabilitation of structures.
ISL1.0 3.0 3.3 1.0 2.0 1.1
0.25
M. Saiid Saiidi, FACI, is a Professor of civil and environmental engineering and is the ISL1.5 3.0 3.6 1.5 2.0 1.1
Director of the Office of Undergraduate Research at the University of Nevada-Reno. He ISH1.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 2.9 0.6
is a Past Chair and a member of ACI Committee 341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Bridges, and is member of ACI Committees 342, Bridge Evaluation; E803, Faculty ISH1.25 7.0 2.0 1.25 2.8 0.9
Network Coordinating Committee; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and 0.2
ISH1.5 7.0 2.1 1.5 2.9 0.9
Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research interests include analysis
and shake table studies of reinforced concrete bridges and application of innovative ISH1.5T 7.0 2.1 1.5 2.9 0.9*
materials. *
Steel ratio from additional crossties is not included.
Note: ρl = ratio of longitudinal reinforcement and ρs = ratio of transversal reinforcement.
David Sanders, FACI, is an Associate Professor of civil and environmental
engineering at the University of Nevada-Reno. He is Chair of ACI Committee 445,
Shear and Torsion, is Past Chair of ACI Committee 341, Earthquake-Resistant
Concrete Bridges, and is a member of the ACI Technical Activities Committee; ACI
Committees 318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 369, Seismic Repair and
Rehabilitation; 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete; E803, Faculty Network Coordinating
Committee; E804, Educational Awards Nomination Committee; and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete. His research interests include shake table
studies of reinforced concrete bridges.

Saad EI-Azazy is the Seismic Research Program Manager at the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans). He received his BS from Cairo University, Giza, Egypt,
and his MS and PhD from Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. His research
interests include bridge seismic retrofit and performance of new bridges.

80% of the gross area (SDC).2 A shear stress index was

defined as the average shear stress divided by 0.083√f ′c
(MPa) (√f ′c [psi]). This index represents the level of shear in
the column. In this study, two levels of shear were selected:
low index equal to 3 and high index equal to 7. These indexes
represent column shear stresses in real bridges. Actual
bridge columns are designed to be ductile and the load
capacity is controlled by flexure, although shear damage is
expected to increase as the shear index increases.
The Caltrans BDS1 states that when more than one cage is
used to confine an oblong column core, the spirals must be
interlocked or the pier must be designed as though it consists
of multiple single columns. A maximum limit of 1.5 times Fig. 1—Test specimens cross sections.
the radius of the spirals, R, (where R is measured to the
outside edge of the spiral) for the horizontal distance of the 2.8% were selected for the longitudinal reinforcement. The
spirals, measured center-to-center of the spirals, di, is transverse steel ratio was designed to provide sufficient
specified. A minimum distance of 1.0R is recommended to confinement for the columns to reach the target displacement
avoid overlaps of more than two spirals in multiple spiral ductility capacity. Additional crossties with the same bar
cases. Of the six models used in this study, two were size as the spirals and spacing of two times the spacing of the
designed with a di of 1.0R, one with a di of 1.25R, and three spirals were used based on a design recommendation
with a di of 1.5R. described in Reference 6. An axial load index, defined as the
Three alphabetical characters followed by a number were axial load divided by the product of the gross cross-sectional
used to identify the test specimens. The initials I and S area and the specified concrete compressive strength of 10%,
represented interlocking and spirals, respectively. The third was used to represent the axial load level in real bridge columns.
initial L or H was for the shear index of low or high, The details of the cross section and the elevations of the
respectively. A numeral indicated the fraction of R used for specimens are shown in Fig. 1 and 2, respectively. The
di. In one specimen an initial T was added at the end of the spirals were continuous with constant pitch throughout the
specimen, designation to indicate the presence of height of the specimens. The spirals were extended along the
supplementary crossties (Fig. 1). height of the footing and the top loading head. The
The experimental program was developed to use one of longitudinal reinforcement was continuous with 90-degree
the shake tables at the Large-Scale Structures Laboratory at standard hooks at the ends. In the specimens with low shear,
the University of Nevada-Reno. Scale factors of 1/4 for the the height was taken from the top of the footing to the center
specimens with low shear and 1/5 for the columns with high of the lateral loading head because these columns were
shear were selected. These were the largest scales that could tested in single curvature cantilever mode. The height for
be used without exceeding shake table capacity. The others was taken as the clear distance between the top of the
displacement-based design procedure in the SDC2 was used footing and the bottom of the loading head because these
for a target displacement ductility capacity of 5. In the SDC,2 columns were tested in double curvature.
the displacement ductility is defined as the displacement The specified concrete compressive strength was 34.5 MPa
divided by the effective yield displacement excluding bond (5000 psi) with 9.52 mm (3/8 in.) maximum aggregate size. The
slip and shear deformations. Typical steel ratios of 2.0% and average measured concrete strength of the standard cylindrical

394 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

samples on the day of testing was 36.8 MPa (5339 psi) for
Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5, 31.1 MPa (4514 psi) for
Specimens ISH1.0 and ISH1.5, and 45.1 MPa (6542 psi) for
Specimens ISH1.25 and ISH1.5T. The specified yield stress for
all the reinforcement was 420 MPa (60 ksi). The average
measured yield stress of the steel samples was 462 MPa (67 ksi)
for Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5, 443 MPa (64 ksi) for
Specimens ISH1.0 and ISH1.5, and 431 MPa (63 ksi) for
Specimens ISH1.25 and ISH1.5T.

Test setup, instrumentation, and testing procedure

Figure 3 shows the shake table setup for the high shear
specimens. The test setup for the low-shear specimens was
similar but with only one link between the mass rig and the
column to achieve single-curvature testing. All specimens
were tested in the strong direction. The lateral load was
applied through an inertial mass system off the table for better
stability. Two sets of swiveled links were used to connect the
inertial mass system to the specimens. One set consisted of
one link connected at the column loading head to test the
Fig. 2—Test specimens elevations.
specimens as a cantilever member with single curvature. The
other set consisted of two links connected at the top of the
column, allowing the specimens to be tested in double
curvature. The double-link system was designed to prevent
rotation of the loading head. The specimens with low shear
(ISL1.0 and ISL1.5) were tested in single curvature whereas
the specimens with high shear (ISH1.0, ISH1.25, ISH1.5, and
ISH1.5T) were tested in double curvature. The total equivalent
weight of the inertia mass was 445 and 356 kN (100 and
80 kips) for specimens tested in single and double curvature,
respectively. The axial load was applied through a steel
spreader beam by prestressed bars connected to hydraulic jacks
and an accumulator to limit axial load fluctuation. Electrical
strain gauges were attached to the longitudinal and transverse
steel to measure strain variation. A series of curvature Fig. 3—Double cantilever test setup.
measurement instruments were installed in the plastic
hinge zones. Additional displacement transducers forming Intermittent free vibration tests were conducted to measure
panels were placed along the height of the columns with high the change in frequency and damping ratio of the columns.
shear. Load cells were used to measure both the axial and
lateral forces. The acceleration at the top of the columns was EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
measured using an accelerometer placed on the link Important aspects of the seismic performance of the test
connecting the mass rig to the specimens. Wire potentiometers columns were evaluated. The observed damage progression,
were used to measure the lateral displacements of the columns. load-displacement response, and strains were used to judge
Preliminary moment-curvature analysis was performed to the behavior of the columns. Additional response parameters,
estimate the lateral load and displacement capacities of the the curvature and plastic hinge length, were computed based
specimens. Once the capacity was estimated, a series of on the measured data and used in performance evaluation.
dynamic analyses were conducted to select the input motion
to be simulated in the shake table tests. The 1994 Northridge Observed response
earthquake, recorded at the Sylmar Hospital (0.606g peak Specimens with low shear—The observed performance was
ground acceleration [PGA]) was selected as the input motion correlated with the displacement ductility μd, which represents
based on the maximum displacement ductility demand the displacement divided by the effective measured yield
placed on the columns without exceeding the shake table displacement. Only flexural cracks were observed during the
capacity. The earthquake record is referred to as “Sylmar” first three runs (displacement ductility of up to 0.8) in
hereafter. The time axis of the input record was compressed Specimen ISL1.0 and during the first six runs (μd of up to 1.5)
to account for the scale effect and the minor differences in Specimen ISL1.5. Most of these cracks were located in the
between the axial load and the effective mass. lower 1/3 of the column height. First spalling and shear cracks
Each column was subjected to multiple simulated were seen in Specimen ISL1.0 after 0.5 × Sylmar (μd = 1.5) and
earthquakes, each referred to as a “run.” The amplitude of in Specimen ISL1.5 after 1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 2.4). The shear
the motions was increased in subsequent runs. Small cracks were located in the interlocking region in the lower 1/3
increments of the Sylmar record (10 to 20% of the full of the height of the column and were extensions of the flexural
Sylmar amplitude) were initially applied to the specimens to cracks. Considerable spalling at the bottom of the column, as
determine the initial stiffness, the elastic response, and the well as propagation of flexural and shear cracks, was observed
effective yield point. Once the effective yield was reached, after 1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 2.8) in Specimen ISL1.0 and 1.5 ×
the amplitude of the input record was increased until failure. Sylmar (μd = 3.1) in Specimen ISL1.5. Spirals were visible

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 395

Fig. 4—Specimen ISL1.0 after failure. Fig. 6—Specimen ISH1.25 after failure.

Fig. 5—Vertical crack (µd = 0.7) Specimen ISH1.5. Fig. 7—Specimen ISH1.5T after failure.

after 1.5 × Sylmar (μd = 4.1) and longitudinal bars were 1.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1.2). Localized small vertical cracks were
exposed after 1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 5.6) in Specimen ISL1.0. observed in Specimen ISH1.5T under 1.0 × Sylmar. After
The spirals were visible in Specimen ISL1.5 after 1.75 × 1.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1.4), first spalling at the top and bottom of
Sylmar (μd = 4.5) and became exposed over a large area after the column was observed in Specimens ISH1.0 and ISH1.5,
2.0 × Slymar (μd = 7.5). There was no visible core damage in whereas in Specimens ISH1.25 and ISH1.5T, the first spalling
either specimen. Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5 failed during was observed during 1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 1.6 in Specimen
2.0 × Sylmar (1.21g PGA and μd = 9.6) and 2.125 × Sylmar ISH1.25 and 1.7 in Specimen ISH1.5T). Flexural and shear
(1.29g PGA and μd = 10.4), respectively. Figure 4 shows the cracks propagated and more concrete spalled during 1.5 ×
damage after failure in Specimen ISL1.0. The failure in both Sylmar (μd = 2.5) in Specimen ISH1.0, 1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 2.2)
columns was similar and was due to rupture of the spirals and in Specimen ISH1.25, 1.25 × Sylmar (μd = 1.7) in Specimen
buckling of the longitudinal bars at the bottom of the column in ISH1.5, and 1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 2.5) in Specimen ISH1.5T.
the plastic hinge zone. The spirals were visible at the top and bottom of the column
Specimens with high shear—Even though these columns after 2.125 × Sylmar (μd = 2.9) in Specimen ISH1.25. The
had a relatively high shear index, they were flexural members longitudinal bars were exposed after 1.75 × Sylmar (μd = 3.6)
and, hence, only flexural cracks were formed during the initial in Specimen ISH1.0, 2.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3.7) in Specimen
three or four runs. The measured displacement ductilities ISH1.25, 1.5 × Sylmar (μd = 2.2) in Specimen ISH1.5, and
associated with initial flexural cracks were 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, and 2.0 × Sylmar (μd = 2.8) in Specimen ISH1.5T. Specimens
0.6 in Specimens ISH1.0, ISH1.25, ISH1.5, and ISH1.5T, ISH1.0 and ISH1.25 (Fig. 6) failed in flexure/shear during
respectively. The flexural cracks were located in the plastic 2.0 × Sylmar (μd = 4.7) near the bottom and 2.375 × Sylmar
hinge zones near the top and bottom of the columns. These (μd = 4.7) near the top, respectively.
cracks were concentrated mainly at the top and bottom 1/3 of Damage in the core was observed in Specimen ISH1.5 after
the column height. A vertical crack in the interlocking region 2.125 × Sylmar (μd = 4.7) and in Specimen ISH1.5T after
extending from the top of the column to the midheight was 2.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3.0). The longitudinal bars buckled at the
observed after 0.4 × Slymar (μd = 0.7) in Specimen ISH1.5 bottom of the column during 2.25 × Sylmar (μd = 3.4) in
(Fig. 5). Diagonal cracks were formed in the interlocking Specimen ISH1.5 and 2.5 × Sylmar (μd = 3.4) in Specimen
region in the plastic hinge zones of all the specimens. These ISH1.5T Specimens ISH1.5 and ISH.5T (Fig. 7) failed
cracks began to form starting with 0.5 × Sylmar (μd = 0.6) and during 2.375 × Sylmar (μd = 4.0) and 2.625 × Sylmar (μd =
became noticeable under 0.75 × Sylmar (μd = 0.9) in Specimen 3.8), respectively. Failure in Specimen ISH1.5, was due to
ISH1.0, and 1.0 × Sylmar (μd = 1.4) in Specimen ISH1.25. In fracture of the spirals and buckling of the longitudinal bars,
Specimen ISH1.5, shear cracks were visible starting with whereas in Specimen ISH1.5T, failure was due to fracture of
0.75 × Sylmar (μd = 1.0) and in Specimen ISH1.5T under the spirals and one of the longitudinal bars.

396 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 Fig. 8—Hysteretic curves and envelopes for low-shear specimens.

Fig. 9—Hysteretic curves and envelopes for high-shear specimens.

Force-displacement relationships low and high shear, respectively. Based on the elasto-plastic
The accumulated measured hysteresis curves for the ISL curves, displacement ductility capacities of 9.5 and 10.4 were
and ISH groups are plotted in Fig. 8 and 9, respectively. For obtained for Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5, respectively. In
each column, a backbone force-displacement envelope was Specimens ISH1.0, ISH1.25, ISH1.5, and ISH1.5T, the
developed based on the peak forces with corresponding measured displacement ductility capacities were 4.7, 5.0,
displacements for all the motions before failure. The failure 4.0, and 3.8, respectively.
point in the backbone curve was assumed either at the point The column section total depths were different within each
of maximum displacement or at a point with 80% of the peak
specimen group due to different distances between the spiral
force with the corresponding displacement. The latter was
sets. As a result, the lateral load capacity varied among the
used when the force at the maximum displacement dropped
more than 20% of the pick force (Fig. 8 and 9). The columns. To compare the performance of the specimens,
backbone curves for the predominant direction of the motion forces were normalized with respect to the effective yield
were idealized by elasto-plastic curves to quantify the force of each specimen and the normalized force-
ductility capacity. The force corresponding to the first displacement envelopes were compared (Fig. 10). The effect
reinforcement yield and the corresponding displacement on of a large distance between the spiral sets in low-shear
the measured envelope was used to define the elastic portion columns can be seen in Fig. 10(a). The overall ductility
of the idealized curve. Once the elastic portion was defined, capacity of the two low-shear specimens was comparable.
the yield level was established by equalizing the area The strength of the specimen with di of 1.5R (Specimen ISL1.5),
between the measured backbone and the idealized curves. however, degraded starting with displacement ductility of
Figures 8 and 9 show the idealized curves for specimens with 7.4, whereas the strength of the column with di of 1.0R

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 397

 to the difference in the column responses. Symmetric cyclic
displacements tend to place higher demands on reinforced
concrete members. It is hence concluded that, had the
displacements in the two columns been identical, Specimen
ISH1.5T would have shown a higher ductility capacity.
Nonetheless, the ductility capacity of approximately 4
measured in Specimens ISH1.5 and ISH1.5T was considered
to be satisfactory. The displacement ductility at which
strength degradation began in columns with di of 1.0R and
1.25R was approximately 3.7, and in those with di of 1.5R
was approximately 3. The larger spread of the spirals clearly
shows some effect on the overall load-displacement
Fig. 10—Normalized lateral force-displacement envelopes.
response. The addition of the crossties reduced the slope of
the degradation part of the responses (Fig. 10(b)).
The displacement ductility capacity versus the average
shear stress index is shown in Fig. 11. The measured
concrete compressive strengths were used in this graph. In
general, the displacement ductility capacity decreased when
the average shear stress index increased. This was because
columns subjected to high shear failed in shear/flexural
mode, whereas those with low shear failed in flexure with no
significant shear damage.

Measured curvatures
Displacement transducers were used to measure curvature
in the plastic hinge regions at the bottom of the ISL group
and at the top and bottom of the ISH group. The strain on
each side of the column was calculated from the vertical
displacement measured by each external transducer divided
Fig. 11—Measured displacement ductility capacity versus by the gauge length. The average curvature over the gauge
average shear stress index. length was computed as the difference between the strains on
the opposite sides of the column divided by the horizontal
distance between the instruments. This procedure assumes
that sections remained plane.
The curvature profiles for the predominant direction of
motion are shown in Fig. 12 and 13 for specimens with low
and high shear, respectively. High values of curvature were
measured in the plastic hinges, as expected. The curvatures
at the ends are influenced by the localized longitudinal
reinforcement bond slip and are not purely due to flexural
deformation of the plastic hinge.
The maximum ultimate curvatures in Specimens ISL1.0
and ISL1.5 were comparable, indicating that the change in
distance of the spiral sets did not affect the curvature
Fig. 12—Measured curvature for ISL group. performance. This observation was in agreement with the
displacement ductility capacities of the two models. The
(Specimen ISL1.0) did not drop until failure. At a maximum curvatures in the columns with high shear were
displacement ductility of 9, the strength degradation in the also comparable within the group, but were approximately 2/3
column with di of 1.5R was 10% whereas it was 4% when di of the curvatures of the ISL group. The lower curvatures are
was 1.0R. Nevertheless, degradation started at a relatively consistent with the smaller displacement ductility capacities
high ductility and hence is not of concern. Note that the that were observed for this group. The peak top and bottom
target design displacement ductility for the columns was 5. curvatures in Specimens ISH1.0 and ISH1.25 were comparable,
In specimens with high shear, the displacement ductility confirming that the loading mechanism to bend the columns
capacity was comparable in the two columns with di of 1.0R in double-curvature fixed-fixed mode was successful. In
or 1.25R. The ductility capacity dropped by approximately Specimens ISH1.5 and ISH1.5T, the peak top curvatures
20% when di was increased to 1.5R. The slightly lower were 20 to 25% lower than the bottom curvature due to slight
ductility of Specimen ISH1.5T versus Specimen ISH1.5 (3.8 rotation of the loading head that occurred under high loads
versus 4) suggests that the addition of crossties had little and prevented fully fixed response at the top.
effect on the ductility capacity. A comparison of Fig. 9(c)
and (d) indicates that the response of Specimen ISH1.5 Measured strains
contained limited excursions into the negative displacement The strain gauges on the longitudinal reinforcement were
range, whereas the Specimen ISH1.5T response was some- placed at the potential plastic hinge regions of all the
what symmetric. Variations of concrete strength properties, columns and the footings, and in the loading heads of the
column stiffness, and the shake table response are attributed ISH group. In all specimens, the longitudinal bars yielded

398 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 Fig. 13—Measured curvature for ISH group.

extensively and flexural deformations dominated the

response. Higher strains were measured at or near the base of
all the columns and also at the top of the ISH group. Because
the response in all the specimens was dominated by flexure,
the test variables did not significantly affect the trends in the
longitudinal and spiral bar strains except as noted in the
following.
The correlation between the apparent damage and the longi-
tudinal bar strains was studied. Five damage states were
selected representing an increasing level of damage: 1) flexural
cracks; 2) first spalling and shear cracks; 3) extensive cracking
and spalling; 4) visible spirals and longitudinal bars; and 5)
imminent failure. The fifth damage state refers to the case where
core damage is observed or is about to occur and some of the
longitudinal bars show signs of bending that might lead to
buckling and failure in subsequent runs. This damage state Fig. 14—Longitudinal bars strain versus observed damage.
corresponded to the run before the failure run in the shake table
tests. Figure 14 shows the average of the highest three strain yield strain was recorded when extensive cracking and
data in the longitudinal bars versus the damage states in each spalling was observed in the columns. Average strains of 18
model. The average data for three gauges, rather than the and 19 times the yield strain were recorded for the last two
maximum strain, were used because local bar strains are damage states.
influenced by cracks and present erratic patterns. The data for The correlation between the spiral bar strains and different
all specimens were averaged and shown on the graph. damage states was also reviewed. It was found that spiral bar
It can be seen in Fig. 14 that, within each damage state, the strains remain small (generally less than 2/3 of the yield
longitudinal bar strains were generally higher in the ISL strain) until the run before failure. These data are presented
group. This is because the moment gradient in the high-shear and discussed in more detail in Reference 7. It was
columns is relatively high, making the strain more localized determined that it would be more useful if the trends in spiral
and the average strains lower. The larger distance between bar strains are studied as a function of displacement
the spiral sets in Specimen ISL1.5 led to higher bar strains in ductilities. The average of peak spiral strains is plotted
the first three damage states. Within the ISH group, the bar against displacement ductilities in Fig. 15. It can be seen that
strains did not seem to be sensitive to the distance between average strain was below yield until higher ductilities were
the spiral sets. reached. The larger distance between the spiral sets in
The average bar strains in all specimens increased Specimen ISL1.5 led to higher strains than those of
especially during the first three damage states. Average Specimen ISL1.0 under large ductilities. The higher spiral
strains of approximately 3.5 times the yield strain were strains are attributed to the slight degradation of the load
recorded when flexural cracks were observed in the capacity (Fig. 10) observed in Specimen ISL1.5. In addition,
columns. When first spalling and shear cracks were visible, Fig. 15 shows slightly smaller strains in Specimen ISH1.0
the strain in the longitudinal bars increased to approximately compared with the rest of the high-shear specimens until the
7.5 times the yield strain. An average strain of 14.5 times the last motion. The average maximum spiral strains in

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 399

 In Eq. (1), the average of the measured curvatures over the
extreme two gauge lengths (203 mm [8 in.] in low-shear
columns and 254 mm [10 in.] in high-shear columns) was used
because most of the plastic deformation was concentrated over
that region according to the measured curvatures and strains.
Table 2 lists the data used to determine the measured lp for
Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL 1.5. The values of lp of 0.75 and
0.83 times the total depth of the column were found for
Specimens ISL1.0 and ISL1.5, respectively. It can be seen that
the larger spiral distance in Specimen ISL1.5 led to an increase
in the ratio of the PHL over the column depth by
approximately 10%. The aspect ratio (column height divided
Fig. 15—Maximum average strain in the spirals. by the column section depth in the loading direction) of
Specimen ISL1.5 was approximately 10% larger than the
Table 2—Data for plastic hinge length Specimen ISL1.0 aspect ratio. Under equal conditions,
Specimen Specimen ISL1.5 would experience a smaller shear
Variables ISL1.0 ISL1.5 ISH1.0 ISH1.25 ISH1.5 ISH1.5T deformation. The larger spread of the spirals in Specimen
φp , Rad/mm
ISL1.5, however, appear to have led to higher shear
0.204 0.159 0.124 0.116 0.101 0.074
(Rad/in.) (0.008) (0.006) (0.005) (0.005) (0.004) (0.003) deformations that necessitated a larger PHL to match the
16.901 18.172 21.1 21.1 32.1 26.7
measured displacement.
Δy, mm (in.)
(0.67) (0.72) (0.83) (0.83) (1.26) (1.05) The values of lp of 0.98, 0.96, 1.12, and 1.27 times the total
Δu, mm (in.) 161 188 98.6 105 127 102 depth of the columns were found for Specimens ISH1.0,
(6.34) (7.4202) (3.88) (4.15) (5.02) (4.00) ISH1.25, ISH1.5, and ISH1.5T, respectively. The aspect
L, mm (in.) 1473 1828 1473 1600 1753 1753 ratios for these columns were nearly the same. In high-shear
(58) (72) (58) (63) (69) (69)
columns, the increase in the distance between the spirals
lp , mm (in.) 351 428 363 384 480 541 from 1.0R to 1.5R appears to have increased displacement
(13.8) (16.84) (14.3) (15.1) (18.9) (21.3)
due to shear, thus increasing the apparent plastic hinge
length by approximately 20%.
Specimens ISH1.25 and ISH1.5T were nearly the same, and
the average maximum spiral strain in Specimen ISH1.5 was CONCLUSIONS
the highest until a displacement ductility of approximately Based on the observations and the experimental results of
1.6 was reached. this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The seismic performance of columns with relatively
Plastic hinge length low shear with spiral distance di of 1.0R and 1.5R was similar
The plastic hinge length (PHL) is used to estimate post- and satisfactory with displacement ductility capacities of
yield lateral displacements based on the moment curvature near 10. The strength degradation was slightly larger when di
properties of the plastic hinge while empirically taking into was 1.5R. This degradation began at a displacement ductility
account displacements due to bond slip and shear of 7.4, however, which exceeded the target design
deformation. To determine the sensitivity of PHL to the displacement ductility of 5;
spiral set distance and the level of shear, the PHL for each 2. Because the low-shear column with di of 1.5R did not
column was estimated using the measured plastic curvatures experience significant shear cracking, and based on the
and displacements. The moment area method was used to satisfactory displacement ductility capacity, it appears that
relate displacements and curvatures assuming that the plastic the Caltrans provision of allowing a di value of up to 1.5R is
rotation θp over the equivalent PHL, lp, is defined by appropriate for columns with low shear;
3. The seismic performance of column models with di of
θ p = ( φ u – φ y )l p (1) 1.0R and 1.25R subjected to high shear was similar and
satisfactory. Even though the columns failed in shear/flexure
mode, they were ductile and achieved the design
where φu equals the ultimate curvature capacity, and φy displacement ductility capacity of 5;
equals the idealized yield curvature. 4. Vertical cracks in the interlocking region were observed
The center of rotation was assumed to be at the center of under small earthquakes in the column with high shear and
the plastic hinge. Equation (2) was assumed to relate plastic di of 1.5R. The large area of plain concrete in the interlocking
rotation and plastic displacements. The PHL was determined zone is susceptible to cracking when di is 1.5R and the
using this equation. In the ISH group, two plastic hinges column shear is relatively high. The addition of horizontal
were formed and, hence, the average measured curvatures at crossties connecting the interlocking hoops not only reduced
the top and bottom were used. and delayed vertical cracks in the interlocking region, but
also reduced the strength degradation;
l 5. The measured displacement ductility capacity was
Δ p = θ p ⎛ L – ---p⎞ (2) approximately 4 in columns with high shear and a di of 1.5R.
⎝ 2⎠
Even though the desired ductility capacity was 5, the column
is considered to be sufficiently ductile for most applications.
where L equals the distance from point of maximum moment Crossties are recommended to reduce premature vertical
to the point of contraflexure. cracking in these columns; and

400 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 6. The plastic hinge length to match the measured plastic Version 1.2,” Engineering Service Center, Earthquake Engineering Branch,
lateral displacement increased as the distance of the spirals Calif., Dec. 2001, 133 pp.
3. Tanaka, H., and Park, R., “Seismic Design and Behavior of Reinforced
sets increased from 1.0R to 1.5R by 10 to 20%, depending on Concrete Columns with Interlocking Spirals,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,
the level of shear. No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 192-203.
4. Buckingham, G. C., “Seismic Performance of Bridge Columns with
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Interlocking Spirals Reinforcement,” MS thesis, Washington State University,
The research presented in this paper was sponsored by the California Pullman, Wash., 1992, 146 pp.
Department of Transportation. The dedicated assistance of P. Laplace, J. 5. Benzoni, G.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Seismic Shear Strength
Pedroarena, and P. Lucas of the University of Nevada-Reno bridge of Columns with Interlocking Spiral Reinforcement,” 12th World Conference
laboratory is gratefully acknowledged. Specials thanks are expressed to N. on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000, 8 pp.
Wehbe of South Dakota State University for developing a moment-curvature 6. Correal, J.; Saiidi, M.; and Sanders, D., “Seismic Performance of RC
analysis program for interlocking spiral columns. Bridge Columns Reinforced with Two Interlocking Spirals,” Report No.
CCEER-04-6, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev., Aug. 2004,
REFERENCES 438 pp.
1. California Department of Transportation, “Bridge Design Specifications,” 7. Correal, J., and Saiidi, M., “Lessons Learned from Shake Table Testing of
Engineering Service Center, Earthquake Engineering Branch, Calif., RC Columns in Relation to Health Monitoring,” IMAC-XXIII—A Conference
July 2000, 250 pp. & Exposition on Structural Dynamics—Structural Health Monitoring,
2. California Department of Transportation, “Seismic Design Criteria Orlando, Fla., 2005, 9 pp.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 401

 DISCUSSION
Disc. 103-S67/From the Sept.-Oct. 2006 ACI Structural Journal, p. 656

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete T-Beams without Transverse Reinforcement. Paper by A. Koray
Tureyen, Tyler S. Wolf, and Robert J. Frosch

Discussion by Himat Solanki

Professional Engineer, Building Dept., Sarasota County Government, Sarasota, Fla.

The authors have presented an interesting paper on the REFERENCES

shear strength of reinforced concrete T-beams without 10. Kato, K., Concrete Engineering Data Book, Nihon University,
transverse reinforcement. However, the discusser would like Koriyama-City, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, 2000.
11. Eurocode No. 2, “Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1: General
to offer the following comments: Rules and Rules of Buildings,” ENV 1992-1-1, Commission of the European
1. The authors have mentioned the basic outline of a Communities,1991.
derivation of Eq. (1), but Eq. (1) appears to be based on the 12. British Standard Institution, “Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1:
Code of Practice for Design and Construction,” BS 8110:Part 1:1997, London,
neutral axis (NA) located at the center of the beam in a UK, 1997.
typical homogeneous rectangular concrete beam. The
authors’ Eq. (2) was a simplification of Eq. (1) based on the
experimental database of reinforced concrete beams, which AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
is inconsistent with the Rankine’s failure criteria of a plain The authors thank the discusser for his interest in this
homogeneous concrete beam. paper. The comments are addressed in the same order as
presented by the discusser.
Based on ft = 6 f c′ (or 0.1fc′ ) and assuming the Rankine’s The detailed derivation of Eq. (1) and its simplification
failure criteria of plain concrete, and by considering various into Eq. (2) are presented in Reference 2 of the paper. This
strength ratios of flexural stress σm versus concrete compressive derivation was not based on the neutral axis located at the
stress fc′ (σm/f ′c = 14.2%,10 the flexural stress σm of a plain center of a beam, but rather based on the location of the
homogeneous concrete beam equals to 114.2%10 of the tensile neutral axis as calculated based on a cracked section analysis.
strength of plain concrete ft . Based on the aforementioned The discusser is referred to Reference 2 for further clarification.
assumptions, the discusser arrived at the authors’ Eq. (2) As noted in Reference 2, Eq. (1) was derived considering
without considering the experimental database of reinforced that failure initiates when the principal stress in the compression
concrete beams. zone reaches the tensile strength of concrete ft. It was shown
Another simplified approach is that Eq. (2) can also be that this equation could be simplified for an assumed tensile
derived from the current ACI Building Code9 (that is, strength (6 f c′ ) and considering the flexural stress σm. The
authors’ Eq. (5)) by assuming an average depth of NA equals experimental results, however, were considered so that a
0.4d11,12 and by substituting c = 0.4d in the authors’ Eq. (5), complete perspective of the performance of the simplified
which would result in authors’ Eq. (2). Based on the afore- expression could be accessed.
mentioned two approaches, the discusser believes that there The discusser notes that Eq. (2) can be derived from the
is no need to have a reinforced concrete beam database, that ACI code. It appears that the discusser is referring to ACI
is, Fig. 1 and 2. Is this consistent with the shear strength of Eq. (11-3) rather than (11-5). Perhaps a better view is that
reinforced concrete T-beams without transverse reinforce- Eq. (11-3) is a subset of Eq. (2). For k = 0.4, Eq. (2) simplifies
ment plain concrete? it to 2 f c′ bwd. The neutral axis depth, c = kd varies according
2. The authors’ concept on shear funnel (Fig. 8 and 10) is to the flexural reinforcement ratio ρ and the modular ratio n.
somewhat unclear. Please note that there is no reinforcement Therefore, Eq. (2) accounts for the reinforcement ratio and
within the compression and/or flange area. Based on Fig. 8, the concrete compressive strength, whereas ACI 318 Eq. (11-3)
considering a simplified approach, a portion of the cross- is insensitive except with respect to its inclusion in the term f c′ .
sectional area above NA in the T-beam could be converted Unfortunately, the discusser’s question “Is this consistent
into an equivalent rectangular section, but not the entire with the shear strength of reinforced concrete T-beams
section of the T-beam when a shear force is computed. The without transverse reinforcement plain concrete?” is unclear
discusser has computed over 100 specimens of T-beams and cannot be addressed.
from Reference 1 by assuming the flange depth as one unit The results presented in Fig. 10 are based on an angled
and the overall depth and web width were transferred into the approach using a 45-degree angle. Simplification can be
flange depth units with varying depths of NA (that is, NA achieved using an effective flange width approach. Based on
was assumed within the flange and within the web of the the area achieved from the 45-degree shear funnel, an effective
T-beams) and found that approximately 20% of the cross- overhanging flange width of 0.5 times the flange depth on
sectional area increases above NA as compared with its each side of the web can be considered for shear. If the
equivalent rectangular section and approximately 10% of the neutral axis falls within the thickness of the flange, this
cross-sectional area increases to its equivalent rectangular effective width approach is conservative. It should be noted
section, if the entire beam was compared with the rectangular that in either the shear funnel or equivalent flange width
section. These values are somewhat inconsistent in the approach, the neutral axis depth should be computed using
authors’ Table 2. an effective flange width that is based on flexural behavior

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 503

and that is different from the flange width considered effective neutral axis depth with the flanges considered. This may
for shear. explain the perceived inconsistencies in the discusser’s anal-
Table 2 presents a statistical comparison of the performance ysis if he was directly comparing the results provided in
of the various design methods considering the ratio of Vtest/ Table 2. Regardless, the main premise is that additional
Vcalc. Therefore, it is unclear what inconsistencies the
discusser is referring to. However, as emphasized in the shear area beyond that bounded by the web can be considered
paper, for the evaluation of the shear area when the flanges as effective in shear transfer. The percentage of flange area
were ignored, the neutral axis depth was calculated ignoring considered will vary depending on the section considered and
the flanges while the shear funnel approach computed the the location of the neutral axis.

Disc. 103-S71/From the Sept.-Oct. 2006 ACI Structural Journal, p. 693

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete T-Beams. Paper by Ionanis P. Zararis, Maria K. Karaveziroglou, and
Prodromos D. Zararis

Discussion by Himat Solanki

Professional Engineer, Building Dept., Sarasota County Government, Sarasota, Fla.

The authors have presented an interesting concept in their reinforcement in the flange would improve the value of c
paper on shear strength of reinforced concrete T-beams. (depth of NA) as well as the value of Vcr in Eq. (8) and Vu in
However, the discusser would like to offer the following Eq. (10).
comments: 5. The discusser has calculated all T-beams except
1. The authors have considered εco = 0.002 and fct = Beam ET1, which is a rectangular beam from References 1 and
0.30f ′c2/3 (Eq. (4)) based on Reference 10, but no consideration 2, as outlined in the authors’ Table 1, by considering the
was given to the depth of compression zone equals 0.8c reinforcement in the flange width and by using authors’
value as suggested in Reference 10. Also, the authors have Eq. (10) for a calculation of NA, c, and then Vcr and Vu were
not thoroughly explained the assumption of 0.667c value (in calculated. Based on this concept, a mean value of Vu,exp /Vu,th
the Appendix) other than the test result values versus their of 1.006 and a standard deviation value of 0.05 were found.
theoretical values. Please note that BS 8110:Part 1:199715 It was also noticed from Table 11,2,4-8 that the thinner web
considers the depth of compression zone equal a value of width with higher reinforcement ratios (both longitudinal
0.9c. and shear reinforcement ratios) do not have any advantage over
2. Based on Eq. (7) and Fig. 7, the authors assumption for wider web width with lower reinforcement ratio in T-beams.
a 45-degree projection angle from web to flange appears to
be inconsistent with Fig. 6(b) and other researchers. The REFERENCES
45-degree projection angle was a simplified assumption 15. British Standard Institution, “Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1:
Code of Practice for Design and Construction,” BS 8110:Part 1:1997,
based on the depth of compression equals the depth of London, UK, 1997.
flange, that is, the neutral axis (NA) is located at the interface
of the bottom of flange and the top of web. AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
3. In conclusion, the authors’ statement “An increase of The authors would like to thank the discusser for his
stirrups does not give any advantage to T-beams over the interest in the paper and his kind comments. The authors
rectangular beams” is a little confusing without thorough would like to reply to his comments in the order they are asked.
explanation, because the authors have converted a T-beam In the case of rectangular or T-section beams, the true
into a rectangular beam with bef web width in lieu of bw web distribution of stresses in the compressive zone is usually
width. Let’s consider beam pairs from Table 1: Beam Pair replaced for simplification by an equivalent rectangular
TA11-TA12 of Reference 2; Beam Pair T2-T3 and Beam stress block. In the ultimate limit state, that is, when the
Pair T15-T16 of Reference 4; Beam Pair T3a-T3b of compressive strain in concrete at extreme fiber is εc = 0.0035,
Reference 5; and Beam Pair A00-A75 of Reference 7. These the true distribution of stresses in the compressive zone
beam pairs all have test parameters such as concrete strength follows a parabola-rectangular diagram. Then, the compressive
fc′ , longitudinal reinforcement ρ%, and shear span-to- force of concrete, as a resultant of stresses, is Fc = 0.81bcfc′ .
depth ratio a/d approximately identical, except for the Thus, the equivalent rectangular stress distribution has an
shear reinforcement ρv fvy; but the shear strength increases approximate height equal to 0.8c. In this case, however, the
with an increase in shear reinforcement ρv fvy. This means authors choose a state where the strain of concrete at extreme
the shear reinforcement ρv fvy does have some influence on fiber is εco = 0.002. This strain corresponds in a true, exactly
the shear strength. parabolic distribution of stresses in the compressive zone. In
4. The authors’ Eq. (9) and the calculated values of A s′ of this case, the corresponding compressive force of concrete is
the depth of compression block in Fig. A (of the authors’ Fc = 0.667bcfc′ . Thus, the equivalent rectangular stress
Appendix) are unclear. It appears that the authors have distribution (shown in Fig. A) has a height equal to 0.667c.
considered a routine rectangular beam with compression There has never been made a 45-degree projection angle by
reinforcement but have not considered the reinforcement the authors. As it is written in the text of the paper, the failure
within the flange width when a T-beam section was occurs due to a splitting of concrete that takes place in the
converted into a rectangular beam section above NA. The compression zone of the T-beam. Taking into account Fig. 2

504 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

and 6, the splitting takes place in an inclined area, the projection ratio ρ′ = As′ bwd. Nevertheless, an increase of As′ does not
of which, on a cross section of the beam, is approximately increase the shear strength of a beam; on the contrary, it
defined from the shaded part of the section in Fig. 7. decreases the shear strength, exactly because the reinforcement
Equation (7), giving the effective width, results simply from As′ improves the value of c. Equations (8) and (10) show that
the area of this shaded part of cross section of the T-beam. a decrease of the depth c decreases the strength. This has
This statement means that the contribution of stirrups in the
been observed both in T-beams and rectangular test beams.
shear strength is the same for T-beams and rectangular beams,
as it results from the second part of Eq. (10). The increase in The compression reinforcement A s′ has not been considered
the strength of the beams that the discusser has mentioned is in the calculations of Table 1, because of the lack of data
due to an increase of the first part of Eq. (10). regarding this reinforcement for all the test beams. As it
The compression reinforcement As′ within the flange results from the discusser’s calculations, however, the small
width has been considered and takes part in Eq. (9) with the ratios of ρ′ have only a small effect on the shear strength.

Disc. 103-S76/From the Sept.-Oct. 2006 ACI Structural Journal, p. 736

Effect of Reinforced Concrete Members Prone to Shear Deformations: Part I—Effect of Confinement.
Paper by Suraphong Powanusorn and Joseph M. Bracci

Discussion by Himat Solanki

Professional Engineer, Building Dept., Sarasota County Government, Sarasota, Fla.

Though the authors have presented an interesting concept 0.0024 + (0.0024 + 0.002) cot2 35 degrees = 0.0114. Now,
on shear deformations in their paper, they have not fully εcc = εco[1 + R((f ′cc/f ′co) – 1)].
explained all necessary assumptions other than the use of Based on the test results of Mander et al. (1988) and
Mander et al.’s methodology. Also, the authors have not Scott et al. (1980), f ′cc/f ′co ≈ 1.75 and εco ≈ 0.002 (Richart
provided the details as outlined by Mander et al. (1988). et al. 1928).
Without a detailed explanation and information, particularly In the previous equation, the R value varies from 3 to 6
of the test specimens supplemented by the associated (Park and Paulay 1990). Based on the authors’ Fig. 1 and 2,
assumptions, it is very difficult to verify the author’s results the transverse reinforcement details with respect to the longi-
as well as published results available elsewhere; therefore, the tudinal reinforcement, R = 5, as suggested by the authors in
discusser has the following comments: their Eq. (14) appears to be on the low side. Therefore, R
1. The discusser has tried to understand the authors’ = 6 was appropriate and was assumed in the aforementioned
methodology, and has described the authors’ methodology equation by the discusser. That is, εcc = 0.002 [1 + 6((1.75) – 1)]
to the best as follows. In the following concept, there are = 0.011.
several assumptions that were neither mentioned by Mander Based on the Mander et al. (1988) and Scott et al. (1980)
et al. (1988), nor by the authors. test results, εcc ≈ 0.0115.
The authors’ Eq. (12) is expressed as Based on an average value of εcc = 0.01125

βf ′cc xr
σ c = ---------------------
- 1
r β = --------------------------------------------- ≤ 1
r–1+x 0.8 + 0.34 ( ε 1 ⁄ ε cc )

where Also, based on an average value of εcc = 0.01125 and εc ≈

0.0048 was chosen due to lateral expansion (biaxial tension-
1 compression)
β = --------------------------------------------- ≤ 1
0.8 + 0.34 ( ε 1 ⁄ ε cc )
x = εc/εcc = 0.0048/0.01125 = 0.425
in which
Esec = f ′co/εcc = 1.75f ′co /3.52εco
ε1 = εs + (εs + 0.002)cot2α
≈ 0.5Ec
Ferguson (1964) suggested that the stress in steel develops
from 1.15fy to 1.20fy. Therefore, an average value of 1.175fy Ec Ec
was considered. That is, εs = 1.175fy/Es, where Es = 29,000 ksi. Now, r = --------------------
- = ------------------------
- = 2.0Ec
E c – E sec E c – 0.5E c
Furthermore, it was assumed that the tensile strain is
causing approximately a 35-degree skew angle crack to the
strut’s axis. The 35 degrees falls within the range from 25 to βf ′cc xr
45 degrees, and this angle is consistent with Cusson and Now σc = ---------------------
-
r
Paultre (1994) and Fig. 5 and 13 of Ferguson (1964): ε1 = r–1+x

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 505

 Substituting β, x, and r values in the previous equation V. I, Strength and Ductility of Concrete Substructures of Bridges,” RR
Bulletin 84, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., 1928, “A Study of Failure
( 0.8737 )f ′cc ( 0.425 ) ( 2.0 )
σ c = ------------------------------------------------------------ = 0.629f ′cc of Concrete under Combined Compressive Stresses,” Bulletin 185, University
2.0 – 1 + 0.425 ( 2.0 ) of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, Champaign, Ill.
Rodrigues, R. V., and Muttoni, A., 2004, “Influence des Déformations
Plastiques de l’Armature de Flexion sur la Résistance a l’Effort Trenchant
Because f ′cc ≈ 1.75fc′ des Pouters sans étriers: Rappart d’essai,” Laboratoire de Construction en
Béton (IS-BETON), Istitut de Structures, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de
σc = 1.1008fc′ or ≈ 1.10fc′ Lausanne, Oct.
Scott, B. D.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., 1980, “Stress-Strain
Relationships for Confined Concrete: Rectangular Sections,” Research
This means approximately 10% compressive stress Report 80-6, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
increases due to the confinement. This value is consistent Christchurch, New Zealand, Feb.
with Vecchio’s (1992) concept as well as the authors’ tests
results as shown in Tables 1 through 3. AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
Based on Vecchio’s study (Vecchio 1992), an average The authors would like to express a sincere gratitude to the
stress in shear panels was increased by approximately 5.6%, discusser for comments that give the authors an opportunity
while an average stress in shearwalls was increased by to clarify certain issues in the article. The authors’ response
approximately 13.4%, that is, an overall average value to the discusser is as follows:
increased in stress would be 9.5%. Is this consistent with the
methodology/concept/logic used in this paper? General
2. Based on Fig. 1(a), the authors have considered a The purpose of the article under discussion was to present
symmetrical loading case, but the symmetrical loading case an alternative method that incorporates the effects of
may not be the case for all structures in the practice. Because confinement into the constitutive equations of the Modified
asymmetrical loading conditions would create unbalanced Compression Field Theory (MCFT), first proposed by
loading, it would require some additional reinforcement per Vecchio and Collins (1986). In essence, the extension of the
truss analogy in the dark area, as shown by the authors in MCFT proposed by the authors is based on two-dimensional
Fig. 9(a) and (b), depending on the unbalanced load due to stress and strain analysis. All necessary assumptions were
the asymmetrical loading condition. stated at the beginning of the article under the section
3. It is unclear how the theoretical values stated in Tables 1 Proposed analytical model.
through 3 were calculated. Was any correction for variable
depth considered? Or was a uniform depth considered? Response to discusser comments
Though the authors stated the advantage of overlapping stirrups 1. The discusser demonstrates the application of Eq. (12)
versus single stirrups, the effectiveness of stirrups as on the constitutive relationship of concrete in compression
compared with the longitudinal reinforcement was unclear taken into account the effect of confinement given in the
from Table 1 through 3. paper with assumptions on a few parameters shown in the
4. The discusser would like to point out that because the equation. It was concluded that the results from applying
shear strength and shear deformations relate to the strength Eq. (12) led to an approximate 10% increase in compressive
of concrete, a simplified method proposed by Muttoni strength of concrete, which was compared with a study by
(2003) could be extended to the authors’ specimens. Vecchio (1992) on shearwalls and panels and also by the
5. Using the aforementioned concept outlined in this authors’ reinforced concrete (RC) bent cap tests. From the
discussion and Muttoni’s (2003) methodology, the discusser authors’ point of view, however, the application of Eq. (12)
has also analyzed other test specimens available in the literature alone to obtain an increase in strength is only part of the
elsewhere (Rodrigues and Muttoni 2004; Fukui et al. 2001; comparative study. It is the force-deformation behavior that
Ferguson 1964). The results are found to be in good agreement is important for comparative purposes, especially for
with the test results. Due to brevity, the results are not members prone to shear deformations near ultimate loading.
included in the discussion. MCFT is generally developed on the basis of: 1) two-
dimensional states of stress and strain; 2) the superposition
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS of stresses in the concrete and reinforcing steel as shown in
The discusser gratefully appreciates S. Unjoh, Leader, Earthquake Eq. (1); and 3) the compatibility of strains in the concrete and
Engineering Team, Public Works Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan; A. reinforcing steel as shown in Eq. (2). The model can be
Muttoni, Institut de Structures, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, categorized into the so-called rotating crack model to maintain
Lausanne, Switzerland; and N. Pippin and A. Wards, TTI, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Tex., for providing publications related to the
the coaxiality between the concrete principal stresses and
shear strength of beams. principal directions. For two-dimensional states of stress and
strain, three components of stresses and strains, which are εx,
REFERENCES εy, and γxy and σx, σy, and τxy, are required to define a state
Fukui, J.; Shirato, M.; and Umebara, T., 2001, “Study of Shear Capacity of stress and strain at a given point within the member. The
of Deep Beams and Footing,” Technical Memorandum No. 3841, Public constitutive relationships under the context of MCFT,
Works Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japanese) however, have been defined in the principal stress and strain
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., 1994, “High Strength Concrete Columns
Confined by Rectangular Ties,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, components (σ1, σ2) and (ε1, ε2). The general state of stress
V. 120, No. 3, Mar., pp. 783-804. and strain, εx, εy, and γxy and σx, σy, and τxy, are related to the
Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., 1988, “Observed Stress principal stress and strain components (σ1, σ2) and (ε1, ε2)
and Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, using Mohr’s circle of stress and strain. The concrete
ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Aug., pp. 1827-1849.
Muttoni, A., 2003, “Schubfestigkeit und Durchstanzen von Platten ohne
constitutive equation in compression defined in the principal
Querkraftbewehrung,” Beton und Stahlbetonbau, V. 98, No. 2, Feb., pp. 74-84. stress and strain directions are given in Eq. (4) through (8)
Park, R., and Paulay, T., 1990, “Bridge Design and Research Seminar: and (11) through (13). The special emphasis of the article is

506 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

on the incorporation of the beneficial effects of lateral in this work and would require further experimental and
confinement of the transverse reinforcement on the concrete analytical research to justify recommendations.
stress-strain relationship in the principal compressive direction 3. To justify the proposed model, the authors implemented
using an approach adopted by Mander et al. (1988) using the the proposed model into a finite element code using a user-
five-parameter failure surface derived by Willam and defined material subroutine. It is the results from FEM analysis
Warnke (1974). Due to space limitations, the authors did not that are summarized in Tables 1 through 3.
include the complete development of five-parameter failure 4 and 5. The authors agree with the discusser that the shear
surface in the article. Interested readers should consult the strength and deformation are related to the compressive
original paper by Willam and Warnke (1974) or books by strength of concrete and would like to look into further
Chen (1982), Chen and Han (1988), and Chen and Saleeb details on the article by Muttoni (2003).
(1982) for further details.
Regarding the discusser’s comments on the R value for REFERENCES
Chen, W.-F., 1982, Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, McGraw-Hill, New
determining the peak strain corresponding to the peak York, 474 pp.
concrete stress, additional studies by the authors have shown Chen, W.-F., and Han, D. J., 1988, Plasticity for Structural Engineers,
that the use of R = 6 led to only a marginal change in the Springer-Verlag, New York, 606 pp.
strength prediction. Chen, W.-F., and Saleeb, A. F., 1982, “Constitutive Equations for Engineering
Materials,” Elasticity and Modeling, V. 1, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2. The MCFT was formulated on the basis of three Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., 1988, “Theoretical Stress-
fundamental principles of structural mechanics, which are: Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
1) equilibrium; 2) compatibility; and 3) material constitutive ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.
relationships. The rationality and generality of the MCFT Willam, K. J., and Warnke, E. P., 1974, “Constitutive Model for the Triaxial
Behavior of Concrete,” Concrete Structures Subjected to Triaxial Stresses,
should make the theory applicable to any loading pattern. Paper III-1, International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers
The case of unsymmetric loading, however, was not considered Seminar, Bergamo, Italy, pp. 1-30.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 507

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S42

Simplified Punching Shear Design Method for Slab-Column

Connections Using Fuzzy Learning
by Kyoung-Kyu Choi, Mahmoud M. Reda Taha, and Alaa G. Sherif

An alternative approach for predicting the punching shear strength compressive strain at the shear crack. Even though Kinnunen
of concentrically loaded interior slab-column connections using fuzzy and Nylander’s model8 did not provide high accuracy in
learning from examples is presented. A total of 178 experimental punching shear strength predictions, it significantly contributed
datasets obtained from concentric punching shear tests of reinforced
to a better understanding of the failure mechanism of the
concrete slab-column connections from the literature are used in
training and testing of the fuzzy system. The fuzzy-based model is slab-column connections and enabled visualizing a rational
developed to address the interaction between various punching flow of forces in such connections. Alexander and
shear modeling parameters and the uncertainties between them, Simmonds2 proposed a strut-and-tie model with concrete ties
which might not be properly captured in classical modeling to describe the load transfer in the slab-column connections.
approaches. The model is trained using 82 datasets and verified Bažant and Cao9 developed a punching shear strength model
using 96 datasets that are not used in the training process. The considering size effect of concrete based on principles of
punching shear strength predicted by the fuzzy-based model is fracture mechanics. The size-effect model was able to
compared with those predicted by current punching shear strength explain the experimental observations of decreasing
models widely used in the design practice, such as ACI 318-05, punching failure shear stresses of slab-column connections
Eurocode 2, CEB-FIP MC 90, and CSA A23.3-04 codes. It is noted
without reinforcement with increasing slab thickness.
that the fuzzy-based model yields a significant enhancement in the
prediction of the punching shear strength of concentrically loaded Numerous models suggested modifications to these general
interior slab-column connections while still respecting the funda- directions outlined previously (flexure, combined stress-
mental failure mechanisms in punching shear of concrete. strength criteria, plasticity, strut and tie, and size effect). A
recent review of such models can be found elsewhere.10 In
Keywords: fuzzy systems; punching shear; slab-column connections. spite of the importance of these models in understanding the
failure mechanism of slab-column connections, there is
INTRODUCTION considerable difficulty in using these models in the daily
design practice. Moreover, the level of complexity encountered
Flat plates consist of slabs directly supported on the
in using these models for design might be difficult to justify
columns without beams. For this simple appearance, flat
given the fact that most of these models do not usually show
plate systems have various economic and functional advantages
high accuracy in the prediction of punching shear strength.11
over other floor systems such as fast construction, low story
height, and irregular column layout. From a viewpoint of To develop simple strength equations, most design codes
structural mechanics, however, flat plates are structures of use the so-called control perimeter approach12-15 depicted in
complex behavior. Moreover, flat plates usually fail in a Fig. 1. The applied punching shear stress is calculated at a
brittle manner by punching at the slab-column connections defined critical perimeter and compared with an allowed
within the discontinuity region known as the D-region.1,2 At value based on the calibration of existing test results. The
these connections, three-dimensional stresses are developed various design codes show significant difference in defining
due to the combined high shear and normal stresses creating the location of the critical section as well as the allowed
a stress state that is complex to analyze accurately.3 punching shear stress. It becomes apparent that the complexity
of the punching problem and the dependence of the punching
For the last three decades, a significant amount of research shear strength on a number of interacting variables necessitate
has been performed to investigate this complex problem of the use of empirical modeling approach to estimate the punching
concentric punching shear of reinforced concrete flat plates shear strength. While classical empirical techniques used by
by using various methods ranging from mechanical models many design codes show limited accuracy, a more robust
up to purely empirical models. In early models including empirical modeling technique that respects fundamental
Yitzhaki4 and Long and Rankin,5 punching shear strength failure mechanisms of the punching shear is needed.
was defined considering the flexural capacity of reinforced
concrete slabs. This was based on the experimental observation
that the punching shear strength was close to the flexural RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
capacities of the concrete slabs. Pralong6 and Nielsen7 The present study introduces a new approach for predicting
derived lower bound and upper bound values for punching shear the punching shear strength of concentrically loaded interior
strength based on the theory of plasticity. These formulations slab-column connections using fuzzy learning from examples.
did not consider the effect of flexural reinforcement on the The proposed approach incorporates the control perimeter
punching shear strength. Kinnunen and Nylander8 developed
the first mechanical model for punching shear strength using ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
failure criteria based on the observation of shear cracks in the MS No. S-2006-214 received May 27, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
experiments. In this model, the failure criteria were defined 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 May-June 2008
by the inclined radial compressive stress and the tangential ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

438 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

ACI member Kyoung-Kyu Choi is a Research Assistant Professor at the University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. Mex. He received his BE, MS, and PhD in architecture
from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. He is an associate member of ACI
Committees 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; 548, Polymers in
Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. His research
interests include shear strength and seismic design of reinforced concrete structures
and application of artificial intelligence in structural engineering.

ACI member Mahmoud M. Reda Taha is an Assistant Professor in the Department

of Civil Engineering at the University of New Mexico. He received BSc and MSc from
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, and his PhD from the University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in 2000. He is a member of ACI Committees 209, Creep
and Shrinkage in Concrete; 235, Electronic Data Exchange; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement; 548, Polymers in Concrete; and E803, Faculty Network Coordinating
Committee. His research interests include structural monitoring, using artificial intelligence
in structural modeling, and fiber-reinforced polymers.

ACI member Alaa G. Sherif is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering

Department, Helwan University, Mataria-Cairo, Egypt. He received his BSc from
Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, and his MSc and PhD from the University of Calgary.
He is an associate member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in
Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research interests include the behavior and service-
ability of reinforced concrete structures and systems for multi-span cable-stayed bridges.

approach and targets predicting the punching shear strength

of the slab-column connections based on various geometric
and material parameters. The proposed fuzzy-based model
presented in a simple form respects the failure mechanics of
punching shear by learning its rules from the experimental
database with the ability to address the interaction between
the modeling variables and the uncertainty in these variables.
The fuzzy-based model shows high accuracy in predicting
punching shear strength. Fig. 1—Current design codes for punching shear.

FUZZY LEARNING OF PUNCHING concrete compressive strength, slab thickness and effective
SHEAR DATABANK depth, span length, column geometry, punching shear
Fuzzy systems have been widely used in the last decade perimeter, and compression and tension reinforcement
for modeling complex engineering systems (for example, ratios. Assuming the geometry of punching shear perimeter
modeling robots16 and in assessing concrete durability17) to be known a priori, the Bayesian analysis showed that for
and their feasibility as universal approximators has been circular and square columns (c1/c2 ratio equals to 1.0), the
proven.18 The capability of the fuzzy systems to model most significant parameters that affect the punching shear
complex systems is attributed to their inherent ability to strength are concrete compressive strength fc′, slab thickness
accommodate a tolerance for uncertainty in the modeling h, and tension reinforcement ratio ρ. The assumption of the
parameters.19,20 While probabilistic empirical models are punching shear perimeter to be known a priori is based on the
limited to random uncertainties, fuzzy systems have the ability fact that the punching shear databank does not include
to consider random and nonrandom types of uncertainties detailed information about the failure pattern and the
that arise due to vagueness and/or ambiguity in the modeling punching shear perimeter. This hinders the ability to learn
parameters/process.18-20 the failure patterns of slab-column connections as part of the
The fundamental concept in modeling complex phenomena new model. It is also noted that the results of Bayesian analysis
using fuzzy systems is to establish a fuzzy rule-base that is showed that the compression reinforcement does not have a
capable of describing the relationship between the input significant effect on the maximum punching shear strength.
parameters and the output parameters while considering This finding is in agreement with the literature8,23 showing
uncertainty bounds.19 This fuzzy rule-base captures individual that the primary effect of compression reinforcement is on
and group relationships that distinguish the internal complex post-punching behavior providing a membrane action.
relations between the system parameters.20 As such, system Hereafter, these three parameters have been used as input
nonlinearity is not recognized by using nonlinear equations parameters to the fuzzy-based model for predicting the
but through establishing a number of fuzzy rules (that could punching shear strength. By considering these three parameters,
use linear relations) such that the fuzzy system becomes the fuzzy-based model considers the major criteria on punching
capable of describing the phenomena to a pre-specified level shear examined by many researchers.24-28 These include shear
of accuracy.20 A group of successful techniques to establish a strength and cracking capacity conventionally represented
fuzzy rule-base using exemplar observations was recently by the cubical or square root of the compressive strength,6,24,27
developed.20,21 size effect related to slab thickness,9 and membrane effect28
Here, the use of the fuzzy set theory to model the punching represented by the flexural reinforcement ratio.
shear strength of a slab-column connection is demonstrated. While the ratio of the column dimensions of rectangular
Preliminary investigations using Bayesian analysis of columns and the perimeter-to-depth ratio (bo/d) have been
significance22 have been performed to identify the most reported to affect the punching shear strength of slab-column
primary input parameters that have a significant influence on connections,24,29 the experimental database for rectangular
the punching shear strength. Possible parameters included columns or for slabs with significantly large perimeter-to-

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 439

 failure as observed by many researchers.6-9 The choice of the
critical perimeter to be considered at a distance d/2 from the
column face is attributed to the possible use of this location
to estimate the average ultimate shear strength vc for usually
intersecting most plausible failure planes, as shown in Fig. 2,
which is similar to the value (h/2) proposed in Nielsen.7
The modeling is started by defining N fuzzy sets A over the
domain of each input parameter x. This definition˜ provides
each value of the parameter x with N membership values
representing its level of belonging to the N fuzzy set A . The
concept of membership or degree of belonging represents ˜ the
18,20,21 The
basis in the formulation of fuzzy set theory.
membership denoted μ A(x) ranges between 0.0 and 1.0.
Fig. 2—Cross section of slab-column connection showing μ A(x) does not express probability
˜ of x but characterizes the
critical section at distance d/2 from column face to intersect ˜
extent to which x belongs to fuzzy set A .20 Several methods
most plausible failure planes (angle θ ranges between 30 for establishing membership functions˜with different levels
and 45 degrees). Choice of d/2 allows obtaining good estimate of complexity exist. While simplified methods can be used
of average ultimate punching shear strength vc. according to expert opinion, complex automated methods
using artificial neural networks or inductive reasoning are
usually considered to be efficient for modeling complex
phenomena.20,30 A technique is adopted herein that is based
on providing an initial definition of the fuzzy sets using
k-means clustering31 followed by the automated update of
the fuzzy sets during the learning process.20,21
The modeling process depends on fuzzifying all three
input domains and constructing a fuzzy rule-base, which
describes the relationship between the fuzzy sets defined on
the input domains and the punching shear strength using a
group of linear equations. Exemplar rule in the fuzzy rule-
base can be defined as

k k k
If f ′c∈ A f , h ∈ A h , and ρ∈ A p , (2)
˜ ˜ ˜
then vi = ai f c′ + bih + ciρ + di
Fig. 3—Pictorial representation of bell-shaped membership
function used to represent fuzzy sets defined over input k k k
domains. where A f , A h , and A p are the k-th fuzzy set (k = 1, 2, … Nj)
defined˜ on ˜the fuzzy˜ domains of compressive strength f ′c,
slab thickness h, and tension reinforcement ratio ρ, respectively.
depth ratio (bo/d > 15) is insufficient to develop the knowledge The value of Nj is the total number of fuzzy sets defined over
rule base that is necessary for the fuzzy-based model to the j-th input parameter. In the present study, ρ is defined
consider both effects on the punching shear strength. There- with respect to effective depth. Equation (2) represents the i-th
fore, first, the fuzzy-based model is trained by using the rule in the fuzzy rule-base. The values ai, bi, ci, and di are
experimental data with square and circular columns only and known as the consequent coefficients that define the output
with perimeter to depth ratio (bo/d) < 15. Based on this fact, side of the i-th rule in the fuzzy rule-base.
prediction of the fuzzy-based model will be modified to A bell-shape membership function is employed to represent
consider the effect of rectangularity of columns or high the fuzzy sets defined on the input domains. The use of other
perimeter-to-depth ratios in excess of that used in the training membership functions (for example, gaussian and triangular) is
(bo/d > 15) as shown in the Results and discussion section. possible, but constrained by having a differentiable membership
In the present study, the punching shear failure load of function.21 The bell-shape membership function to represent
slab-column connections without shear reinforcement Vc is the k-th fuzzy set of the j-th input parameter xj can be
defined as k
described as μ A (x).
˜
Vc = vcbod (1)
k 1
μ A ( x j ) = -----------------------------------k (3)
˜ k 2q
where Vc equals the punching failure load and bo equals the x j – x cj j
1 + --------------- -
critical perimeter at a distance d/2 from the column face; k
bo = (2c1 + 2c2 + 4d) for a square column and bo = π(D + d) wj
for a circular column. The values c1 and c2 equal the short
k
and long sizes of a rectangular column, D equals the diameter where x cj , w jk, and q kj represents the center, the top width,
of a circular column, and vc represents the average ultimate and the shape parameters of the membership function
punching shear strength, which is defined with respect to defining the k-th fuzzy set defined over the j-th input parameter.
defective depth. Equation (1), although simplified, has been A pictorial representation of the bell-shaped membership
adopted by almost all current design codes and respects the function is shown in Fig. 3. By considering the T-norm
fundamental mechanics governing the slab-column punching (product) operator (Π) to capture the influence of the interaction

440 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

between the input parameters32 on the output, the weight of Table 1—Dimensions and properties of specimens
the i-th rule (λi) in the fuzzy rule-base can be computed as No. of specimens f ′c,
Investigator*† Training Verification MPa h, mm ρ, %
T 1
Π j =1 -----------------------------------k Hallgren and Kinnunen
k 2q (1993a), Hallgren and 79.5 to 239 to 0.6 to
x j – x cj j 3 3
Kinuunen (1993b), 108.8 245 1.2
1 + --------------- - Hallgren (1996)
k
wj
λ i = ------------------------------------------------------------ for i = 1...R (4) Tomaszewicz (1993) 7 6
64.3 to 120 to 1.5 to
119.0 320 2.6
R T 1
Σ i =1 Π j =1 -----------------------------------k Ramdane (1996), 28.9 to 1.0 to
k 2q 4 4 125
x j – x cj j Regan et al. (1993) 74.2 1.3
1 + --------------- -
k 30.0 to 90 to 0.4 to
wj Marzouk and Hussein (1991) 6 8
80.0 150 2.1
Lovrovich and McLean (1990) 2 2 39.3 100 1.7
Factors affecting the choice of the implication operator are 20.1 to 120 to 0.4 to
Tolf (1988) 4 3
discussed in the following. The value T represents the total 25.1 240 0.8
number of input parameters (herein, T = 3). The number of Regan (1986) 11 11
8.4 to 80 to 0.8 to
fuzzy rules R is a function of the number of input variables T and 37.5 250 2.4
the number of fuzzy sets Nj defined over each input domain. 37.4 to 0.6 to
Swamy and Ali (1982) 1 1 125
40.1 0.7
The punching shear strength vc can then be computed as
Marti et al. (1977), 23.1 to 180 to 1.2 to
1 1
Pralong et al. (1979) 30.4 191 1.5
⎛ R
⎞ ⎛ R
⎞
∑ ∑
23.1 to 143 to 0.6 to
vc = ⎜ λ i v i⎟ ⁄⎜ λ i⎟ (5) Schaefers (1984) 1 1
23.3 200 0.8
⎝i = 1 ⎠ ⎝i = 1 ⎠
Ladner et al. (1977),
24.6 to 110 to 1.2 to
Schaeidt et al. (1970), 2 3
29.5 280 1.8
where vi is the output of the i-th rule in the fuzzy rule-base Ladner (1973)
and λi represents the weight of the i-th rule in the fuzzy rule- Corley and Hawkins (1968) 1 1 44.4 146
1.0 to
base as computed using Eq. (4). 1.5
The process for learning from example aims at extracting 14.0 to 1.0 to
Bernaert and Puech (1996) 9 9 140
41.4 1.9
a knowledge rule-base from a group of input-output datasets.
This knowledge rule-base can be used later to model the 24.2 to 0.5 to
Manterola (1966) 4 4 39.7 125 1.4
behavior of the system (herein the punching shear of slab-
8.6 to 0.7 to
column connections) for input datasets not used in the Yitzhaki (1966) 5 6 102
19.0 2.0
training process. While other techniques capable of building 20.5 to 1.1 to
similar learning systems were reported in the literature (for Moe (1961) 7 7 152
35.2 2.6
example, artificial neural networks), the advantage of fuzzy Kinnunen and Nylander 21.6 to 149 to 0.5 to
6 6
systems is being able to consider nonrandom uncertainty in the (1960) 27.7 158 2.1
modeling process and thus yields robust modeling systems.20 Elstner and Hognestad
8 9
9.0 to
152
1.2 to
The learning process starts by initializing the premise (1956) 35.6 3.7
parameters (parameters describing the membership functions 25.9 to 138 to 0.77 to
Hawkins et al.34 0 6
32.0 142 1.12
x kcj , w kj , and q kj ) using the k-means clustering technique.31
33.0 to
This is followed by computing the consequence coefficients Teng et al.29 0 4
40.2
150 1.24
(ai, bi, ci, and di) using least square techniques33 such that the
Criswell35 0 1 35.4 146 1.24
root mean square prediction error E of the punching shear
strength does not exceed a target root mean square prediction 8.4 to 80 to 0.4 to
Total 82 96
119.0 320 3.7
error, herein 1.0 × 10–5. The root mean square prediction *
Reference to investigators work, unless otherwise noted, can be found in Reference 3.
error E is defined as †
Properties and dimensions of these test specimens were collected from fib Bulletin 12.3
Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 mm = 0.04 in.
Nd

∑ ( vpn – vdbn )
2
k k ∂E ( m )
w j ( m ) = w j ( m – 1 ) + η ------------------ (8)
E = n---------------------------------------
=1 - (6) ∂w j ( m )
Nd
k k ∂E ( m )
q j ( m ) = q j ( m – 1 ) + η ----------------- (9)
where vpn is the predicted punching shear strength for the n-th ∂q j ( m )
dataset, vdbn is the punching shear of the n-th dataset from
the database, and Nd is the total number of training datasets.
As the target mean square prediction error will not be where x kj (m), w kj (m), and q kj (m) are the center, the top width,
achieved from the first learning trial (using the initial fuzzy and the shape of the membership function, respectively,
sets and consequence coefficients), the premise parameters defining the k-th fuzzy set defined over the j-th input parameter
describing the fuzzy sets can be updated using the gradient in the m-th learning epoch (trial). The values x kj (m – 1),
descent method as w kj (m – 1), and q kj (m – 1) are the center, the top width, and
the shape of the membership function, respectively, defining
the k-th fuzzy set defined over the j-th input parameter in the
k k ∂E ( m ) (m – 1) learning epoch. The value η is the learning rate and
x cj ( m ) = x cj ( m – 1 ) + η ------------------- (7)
∂x cj ( m ) ∂E(m)/∂xj(m), ∂E(m)/∂wj(m), and ∂E(m)/∂qj(m) are components

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 441

 or a maximum number of training epochs is reached. The
update process therefore allows the fuzzy-based model to
reduce the root mean square prediction error and thus learn
from examples in a much more robust manner compared with
any other empirical techniques.
For training and testing of the fuzzy-based model, 178 test
specimens performed by 21 researchers as reported in the fib
bulletin3 and other reports in the literature29,34,35 were used.
Only specimens that were reported to fail in pure punching
shear (no flexural shear failure) were considered. A specimen
reported by Lovrovich and McLean36 was excluded in this
study because its span length was extremely short (l1/c1 = 2).
Also, six specimens by Yitzchaki,4 Elstner and Hognestad,37
and Tolf38 were also excluded because their tension rein-
forcement ratios were extremely beyond practical design
range (ρ ≥ 6.9%). The specimens had two types of boundary
geometries (circular and rectangular flat plates) and two types of
column shapes (circular and square columns). The dimensions
and properties of the specimens are summarized in Table 1.
The test specimens had a broad range of design parameters:
8.4 ≤ f′c ≤ 119.0 MPa (1.2 ≤ f ′c ≤ 17.3 ksi), 80 ≤ h ≤ 320 mm
(3.1 ≤ h ≤ 15.6 in.), 0.4 ≤ ρ ≤ 3.7%, and 5.5 ≤ bo/d ≤ 24.
These data cover a wide range of the material and geometric
properties of slab-column connections. Eighty-two specimens
were used for training of the fuzzy-based model while 96
specimens were used for testing the model. All specimens used in
Fig. 4—Fuzzy sets used to describe concrete compressive the testing were not used in training the fuzzy-based model.
strength, slab thickness, and tension reinforcement ratio.
Before training (left) and after training (right): MF1 All modeling parameters were normalized to their maximum
(Membership Function 1), MF2 (Membership Function 2), values determined from the database (178 data sets). The
and MF3 (Membership Function 3). normalization process is necessary to avoid the influence of
numerical weights on the learning process.39 The fuzzy rule-
base that achieved the lowest root mean square error during
Table 2—Parameters describing premise training was used for testing and verification of the model capa-
parameters (membership functions)* bility to predict punching shear strength in slab-column connec-
Compressive strength f ′c tions. The optimum number of fuzzy sets for each modeling
xc, MPa (ksi) w, MPa (ksi) q parameter was developed using the k-means clustering tech-
nique.31 The number of membership functions defined on the
1
Af –23.83 (–3.40) 29.9 (4.34) 1.98 domain of any variable x can be used to indicate the sensitivity
˜
2
of the model to this variable x. The higher the sensitivity of the
Af 78.30 (11.40) 78.2 (11.30) 2.02 model to the variable x, the larger the number of membership
˜
Slab thickness h functions used to describe the variable x. It is worth noting,
xc, mm (in.) w, mm (in.) q however, that increasing the number of membership functions
does not guarantee enhancing the model accuracy.20,21
1
Ah 42.05 (1.66) 68.0 (2.68) 1.982 It was found that the best learning represented by the
˜
2 lowest root mean square prediction error was achieved while
Ah 127.07 (5.00) 89.4 (3.52) 2.011
˜ using two fuzzy sets to represent the compressive strength
Ah
3
272.58 (10.73) 126.7 (4.99) 1.994
and the tension reinforcement ratio. Three fuzzy sets were
˜ necessary for describing the slab thickness (N1 = N3 = 2,
Tension reinforcement ratio ρ N2 = 3). The initial and final fuzzy sets, as established by the
xc w q learning algorithm, are shown in Fig. 4 and Table 2. The total
1 number of rules in the rule-base can be computed by
Aρ -0.001 0.012 1.997
˜ multiplying the number of membership functions of the
Aρ
2
0.035 0.018 2.005
three variables as R = N1N2N3. Thus, 12 rules (R = 12) were
˜ needed to describe the relationship between the input
*For compressive strength f c′ , slab thickness h, and reinforcement ratio ρ. parameters: concrete compressive strength, slab thickness,
tension reinforcement ratio, and the punching shear strength.
of the gradient vector of the mean square prediction error While reduction of the total number of rules in the fuzzy
with respect to the premise parameters of the j-th input rule-base is possible for limiting combinatorial explosion,20
parameter evaluated at the m-th learning epoch. The updated researchers showed that the efficient reduction of the number
premise parameters are then used to recompute a new set of of rules shall be performed considering both accuracy and
consequence parameters and a new root mean square prediction robustness of the model. Exemplar methods for rule reduction
error. The process continues and the fuzzy rule-base parameters in the fuzzy rule-base include the Combs and Andrews40
(premise and consequent parameters) are updated in each method and the method suggested by Lucero41 but are
training epoch until the target root mean square prediction error beyond the scope of this work.

442 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 3—Testing to predicted punching shear
The fuzzy-based model was trained using test results with strength ratio using existing design codes and
specific geometrical limits: circular and square columns and fuzzy-based model
slabs with perimeter-to-slab-depth ratio (bo/d) ranging between Fuzzy-
5.8 and 14.9. Therefore, the punching shear strength of any CSA based
slab-column connection within the geometrical limitations ACI 318-05 CEB-FIP Eurocode 2 A23.3-04 model
VTest/ VTest/ VTest/ VTest/ VTest/
listed previously can be computed using Eq. (10) to (12).
Investigator* Vpredicted† Vpredicted† Vpredicted† Vpredicted† Vpredicted†
Equation (10) can be used to compute the weight λ for each
rule in the rule-base using the premise parameters listed in Hallgren and
Kinnunen
Table 1. Equation (11) presents the 12 rules forming the (1993a), Hallgren 0.88 to 0.83 to 0.86 to 0.93 to 0.96 to
fuzzy knowledge rule-base. and Kinuunen 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.02 1.07
(1993b), Hallgren
(1996)
3 1 Tomaszewicz 1.39 to 0.80 to 0.94 to 1.41 to 0.70 to
Π j =1 -----------------------------------k (1993) 1.64 1.17 1.29 1.64 1.23
k 2q
x j – x cj j Ramdane (1996),
1 + --------------- - Regan et al. 1.46 to 1.15 to 1.20 to 1.27 to 1.25 to
k 1.66 1.31 1.37 1.47 1.41
wj (1993)
λ i = ------------------------------------------------------------ for i = 1...12 (10)
12 3 1 Marzouk and 0.71 to 1.13 to 0.97 to 0.63 to 0.91 to
Σ i =1 Π j =1 -----------------------------------k Hussein (1991) 1.61 1.84 1.64 1.40 1.42
k 2q
x j – x cj j Lovrovich and 1.18 to 0.73 to 0.79 to 1.02 to 0.87 to
1 + --------------- - McLean (1990) 1.26 0.78 0.85 1.10 0.94
k
wj 0.88 to 0.92 to 0.82 to 0.77 to 0.91 to
Tolf (1988)
1.21 1.34 1.15 1.05 1.02
1.17 to 0.97 to 1.04 to 1.02 to 0.60 to
Regan (1986)
1 1
R = 1: if f c ′ ∈ A f , h ∈ A h, and ρ ∈ A ρ
1 1.78 1.47 1.47 1.54 1.29
˜ ˜ ˜ Swamy and Ali
then v 1 = 0.247f c ′ + 0.008h + 153.7ρ + 4.90 (1982)
1.10 1.19 1.12 0.96 1.00
1 1 2
R = 2: if f c ′ ∈ A , h ∈ A , and ρ ∈ A
f h ρ Marti et al. (1977),
˜ ˜ ˜ Pralong et al. 1.32 0.97 1.00 1.15 0.77
then v 2 = – 0.506f c ′ + 0.026h + 835.4ρ – 11.42
(1979)
1 2 1
R = 3: if f c ′ ∈ A , h ∈ A , and ρ ∈ A
f h ρ Schaefers (1984) 1.19 1.14 1.05 1.04 1.00
˜ ˜ ˜
then v 3 = 0.174f c ′ + 0.028h + 63.9ρ – 8.12 Ladner et al.
1 2
R = 4: if f c ′ ∈ A f , h ∈ A h, and ρ ∈ A ρ
2 (1977), Schaeidt 1.48 to 1.22 to 1.26 to 1.29 to 0.89 to
˜ ˜ ˜ et al. (1970), 1.79 1.34 1.47 1.56 1.26
then v 4 = 0.149f c ′ + 0.031h – 136.65ρ – 3.49 Ladner (1973)
1 3 1
R = 5: if f c ′ ∈ A f , h ∈ A h, and ρ ∈ A ρ Corley and
0.87 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.72
˜ ˜ ˜ Hawkins (1968)
then v 5 = – 0.248 f c ′ + 0.001h – 236.32ρ + 3.91
1 3 2
Bernaert and 0.88 to 0.80 to 0.81 to 0.76 to 0.70 to
R = 6: if f c ′ ∈ A f , h ∈ A h, and ρ ∈ A ρ Puech (1996) 1.93 1.28 1.43 1.68 1.45
˜ ˜ ˜
then v 6 = 0.243f c ′ – 0.006h – 53.35ρ + 3.16 (11) 0.88 to 0.81 to 0.85 to 0.76 to 0.65 to
Manterola (1966)
2 1 1 1.36 0.96 0.98 1.18 0.92
R = 7: if f c ′ ∈ A f , h ∈ A h, and ρ ∈ A ρ
˜ ˜ ˜ 1.51 to 1.01 to 1.01 to 1.31 to 0.80 to
then v 7 = – 0.005 f c ′ – 0.031h – 84.38ρ + 3.14 Yitzhaki (1966)
1.98 1.54 1.53 1.72 1.16
2 1 2
R = 8: if f c ′ ∈ A , h ∈ A , and ρ ∈ A
f h ρ 1.24 to 0.70 to 0.83 to 1.07 to 0.68 to
˜ ˜ ˜ Moe (1961)
then v 8 = 0.006f c ′ + 0.116h – 136.57ρ – 2.67 1.65 1.38 1.40 1.43 1.12
2 2 1 Kinnunen and 0.83 to 0.93 to 0.92 to 0.72 to 0.85 to
R = 9: if f c ′ ∈ A f , h ∈ A h, and ρ ∈ A ρ Nylander (1960) 1.75 1.23 1.23 1.52 1.36
˜ ˜ ˜
then v 9 = 0.006f c ′ – 0.002h – 30.73ρ + 0.05 Elstner and 1.19 to 0.88 to 1.05 to 1.03 to 0.79 to
2 2
R = 10: if f c ′ ∈ A f , h ∈ A h, and ρ ∈ A ρ
2 Hognestad (1956) 2.23 1.20 1.30 1.94 1.27
˜ ˜ ˜ 0.90 to 0.87 to 0.89 to 0.78 to 0.88 to
then v 10 = 0.021f c ′ + 0.043h + 19.19ρ – 7.58 Hawkins et al.34 1.05 1.10 1.05 0.91 1.19
2 3 1
R = 11: if f c ′ ∈ A , h ∈ A , and ρ ∈ A
f h ρ 0.88 to 0.89 to 0.92 to 0.76 to 1.02 to
˜ ˜ ˜ Teng et al.29 1.15 1.15 1.19 1.00 1.49
then v 11 = 0.001f c ′ – 0.006h + 49.86ρ + 1.96
2 3
R = 12: if f c ′ ∈ A f , h ∈ A h, and ρ ∈ A ρ
2 Criswell35 0.94 0.89 0.96 0.82 0.86
˜ ˜ ˜ Mean 1.375 1.098 1.139 1.219 1.019
then v 12 = 0.004f c ′ + 0.018h + 36.19ρ – 6.36
Standard deviation 0.314 0.207 0.198 0.280 0.189
*
Reference to investigators work, unless otherwise noted, can be found in Reference 3.
where vi, f ′c, and h are in MPa, MPa, and mm, respectively. †
Strength ratio (= VTest/Vpredicted), where VTest equals actual strengths (test results),
The punching shear strength vcf can be computed using Eq. (11) and Vpredicted equals predicted strengths by current design methods (ACI 318-05,
and (12) CEB-FIP, Eurocode 2, and CSA A23.3-04) or fuzzy-based model, respectively.

⎛ 12 ⎞ ⎛ 12 ⎞ of information, the influence of the fused output on the

v cf = ⎜
⎝i = 1
∑
λ i v i⎟ ⁄ ⎜ λ i⎟
⎠ ⎝i = 1 ⎠
∑ (12) model prediction, and the effect of the fusion method on the
computational efficiency of the learning algorithm. The
product implication Π was selected herein for three reasons.
It is important to emphasize the fact that several implication First, to perform the fuzzy and operation as indicated by
operators exist.42 The selection of the implication operator is Eq. (4). Second, the product implication tends to dilute the
governed by three main issues: the needed logical implication influence of joint membership values that are small and

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 443

 Fig. 5—Strength prediction by current design method and fuzzy-based model. (Note: 1 MPa =
0.145 ksi; 1 mm = 0.04 in.)

therefore magnify the contribution of the rules associated product operator in artificial neural networks as an efficient
with high membership values in computing the shear Hebbian-type learning algorithm.20 Finally, the choice of the
strength (Eq. (4) and (5)). This fact promoted the use of the product implication was also controlled by the need to

444 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

produce a continuous and differentiable error function (Eq. (6))
to enable efficient computation of the error gradients during
the learning process.
Table 3 presents a summary of punching shear strength of
the specimens predicted by the fuzzy-based model. In the
verification, the 96 specimens, which were not used in the
learning process, were used. Figure 5(a) shows the ratios
between the actual test to the fuzzy-based model predicted
strength (Vtest /Vpredicted) to have a mean value 1.019 and a
standard deviation of 18.9%. Figures 5(b) to (e) show the ratios
between actual to predicted strength (Vtest /Vpredicted) using
the CEB-FIP MC 90,12 the Eurocode 2,13 ACI 318-05,14 and
CSA A23.3-04,15 to have mean values of 1.098, 1.139, Fig. 6—Variation of strength-prediction by fuzzy-based
1.375, and 1.219, respectively, with standard deviations of model according to bo /d.
20.7, 19.8, 31.4, and 28.0%, respectively (refer to Table 3).
The results show that the fuzzy-based model can be used to
predict the punching shear strength of slab-column connections
with various slab thicknesses, reinforcement ratios, and
circular and square columns. Moreover, higher prediction
accuracy of the fuzzy-based model can be observed compared
with predication accuracies for all existing design codes.
It is interesting to note that, except for Eurocode 2,13 current
design methods show a considerable scatter represented by
high standard deviations of test-prediction ratios. Moreover,
observing Fig. 5(c), the CEB-FIP MC 90 code underestimates
the punching shear strength of specimens with low tension
reinforcement ratios while it overestimates the punching
shear strength of specimens with high tension reinforcement
ratios. The Eurocode 213 shows good accuracy in predicting Fig. 7—Variation of strength-prediction by fuzzy-based
the punching shear strength at different reinforcement ratios. model according to c2/c1 higher than 1.
Finally, ACI 318-0514 and CSA A23.3-0415 underestimate the
punching shear strength of specimens with high reinforcement n = 1.0 as similar to the ACI equation is used, the model will
ratios while they overestimate the punching shear strength of significantly overestimate the punching slab-column
specimens with low reinforcement ratios. This is attributed connections with rectangular columns and with bo/d higher
to the fact that ACI 318-05 and CSA A23.3-04 codes do not than 15. A mean value and a standard deviation of the
account for the effect of the tension reinforcement ratio on the strength-prediction ratios (Vtest /Vpredicted) of the specimens
punching shear strength. It is also evident from Fig. 5(a) that (Table 3) using n = 1 are 0.977 and 0.193, respectively, while
the fuzzy-based model predicts punching shear strength at those using n = 2 are 1.019 and 0.189. Therefore, the authors
both low and high reinforcement ratios with consistent accu- recommend the use of n = 2. The model prediction with n = 2
racy. It is worth noting that the slab thickness and the tension for a wide range of bo/d and for rectangular columns are
reinforcement ratio in addition to the compressive strength are shown in Fig. 6 and 7. The choice of n = 2 for the second and
found to have a significant influence on modeling punching third components of Eq. (13) was based on examining each
shear strength using the fuzzy-based model. These parameters component separately. It has become evident that refinement
have also been promoted by other researchers before because of in the value of n for each part would not yield any enhancement
their influence on the size effect43 and their possible role in in the prediction accuracy of the model.
developing shear friction.44 Figure 6 demonstrates the fact that the modified fuzzy-
To consider other rectangularity ratios c2/c1 (>1) and high based model using a modification factor (Eq. (13)) can
perimeter to depth ratios bo/d (>15.0), a design approach accurately predict the punching shear strength of slab-
based on the fuzzy-based model is proposed as column connections with various bo/d (5.8 ≤ bo/d ≤ 24.0)
even though the fuzzy-based model (Eq. (12)) was developed
⎧ within the geometrical limits (5.8 ≤ bo/d ≤ 14.9) due to the
⎪ v cf lack of test data. This is attributed to the fact that the fuzzy-
⎪ ⎛ 0.5 + ---- 1⎞ based model was developed by using the average ultimate
⎪ ⎝
- v
n⎠ cf shear strength vc considering bo and d (Eq. (1)). It is evident
v c = min ⎨ βc (13)
⎪ that the modified fuzzy-based model can properly consider
⎪ ⎛ ⎛ 10 -⎞ n⎞ v the interaction between bo/d and vc in its strength equation
⎪ ⎝ 0.5 + ⎝ b----------- ⎠ ⎠ cf
o⁄d
(Eq. (13)). In Fig. 7, the fuzzy-based model also accurately
⎩
predicts the punching shear strength of slab-column connections
with rectangular columns (c2/c1 > 1). From this result, it is
where βc = c2/c1, c1 and c2 equal the short and long sizes of noted that the modified fuzzy-based model properly considers
rectangular columns, vcf is the fuzzy-based shear strength the effect of rectangularity of columns in practical design range
estimated using Eq. (12), and n is a power coefficient. (1 ≤ c2/c1 ≤ 5). It is worth noting that, if enough experimental
Equation (13) is modeled in a format similar to that of the data with high bo/d ratios and rectangular columns were
ACI equation for predicting the punching shear strength. If available in the literature, the use of modification factors for

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 445

 for a wide range of primary design parameters: 20 ≤ f ′c ≤
100 MPa (2.9 ≤ f ′c ≤ 14.5 ksi), 100 ≤ h ≤ 300 mm (3.9 ≤ h ≤
11.8 in.), and 0.8 ≤ ρ ≤ 2.0%. For space limitations, only four
design charts are developed herein covering the aforemen-
tioned range of parameters. Additional design charts can be
developed using the model equations described previously.
The φ factor of 0.6 corresponds conservatively to the lowest
bound shown in Fig. 5(a). Obtaining a refined shear strength
reduction factor (higher than 0.6) can be done using principles
of load and resistance factor design (LRFD),45 but is beyond
the scope of this study.
It can be observed from Fig. 8(a) to (d) that the punching
shear strength decreases as slab thickness increases, which
respects previous findings of the size effect by Bažant and Cao9
and Eurocode 2.13 In cases with high reinforcement
ratios, however, this size effect is disturbed by the combined
effect of size and membrane force generated by the tension
reinforcement. As observed in Fig. 8(c) and (d), for high
tension reinforcement ratios and low concrete compressive
strength, the punching shear strength increases as the slab
Fig. 8—Design chart for punching shear strength using thickness increases. This can be attributed to the possibility
fuzzy-based model. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 mm = 0.04 in.) that the increase in the slab thickness with high reinforcement
ratios results in an increase in the axial membrane
force,24,26,27 which contributes to punching shear strength
due to the increase in the shear friction effect.44 This possible
shear friction contribution to the punching shear strength has
been argued by other researchers in shear analysis.44,46
This phenomenon is due to the combined effect of the
primary parameters (compressive strength, slab thickness,
and tension reinforcement ratio) and can be also observed in
previous test results from the punching shear database.3
Figure 9 shows the punching shear strength reported in
existing test results. For this study, Elstner and Hognestad,37
Fig. 9—Strength variation according to primary design Shaeidt el al.,47 Regan,48 Marzouk and Hussein,25 Hallgren
parameters.25,37,44-47 and Kinnunen,49 and Tomaszewicz’s50 specimens were
used. Each data set itself has similar dimension and property.
The dimensions and properties of the specimens are
addressing these issues can be completely omitted. This summarized in Table 1. As expected, for all data sets with
indicates the fact that a refined fuzzy-based model would high concrete compressive strength, the punching shear
always be possible to develop, once experimental data strength of thick slabs is always less than that of thin slabs
beyond these geometrical limitations becomes available. due to the size effect24,38,43 (see Fig. 9(a)). In Fig. 9(b),
however, for low concrete compressive strength and high
PROPOSED DESIGN CHART reinforcement ratios (ρ ≥ 0.012), the punching shear strength
For design purposes, the direct use of the fuzzy-based of thick slabs may be greater than that of thin slabs, which
model as an empirical method using Eq. (10) to (13) and the indicates the trade-off between size effect and shear friction
premise parameters from Table 2 might not be feasible for effect. These combined effects can be successfully described
designers. To avoid such complexity and to make use of the by the fuzzy-based model.
demonstrated ability and relative high accuracy of the fuzzy-
based model in design of slab-column connections without CONCLUSIONS
shear reinforcement, the authors suggest a simplified design A new alternative design method and a set of design charts
model that is developed based on a set of design charts that based on fuzzy learning from examples are proposed. The
are developed using the fuzzy-based model. Following a new method can accurately predict the punching shear
format similar to that used in ACI 318-05, the design strength of simply supported interior slab-column connections
strength for punching shear of slab-column connections is without shear reinforcement. One hundred and seventy eight
defined as test specimens from the punching shear databank were used
for training and testing the proposed model (82 for training
φVn = φvcbod (14) and 96 for testing). The training and testing data sets cover a
wide range of the material and geometric properties. The
where vc is calculated according to Eq. (13) using n = 2, and testing data set was not used in the training process. Investi-
φ is the strength reduction factor taken equal to 0.6. The gations for developing a model with good accuracy showed
punching shear strength vcf can be estimated using Fig. 8. that concrete compressive strength, slab thickness, and
Figures 8(a) to (d) show a group of design charts to estimate tension reinforcement ratio are the primary parameters that
the punching shear strength vcf of slab-column connections dominate the punching behavior of slab-column connections.
using the fuzzy-based model. The design charts are developed This finding is limited to circular and rectangular columns

446 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

and slabs with perimeter-to-slab-depth ratios (bo/d) ranging Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992,
between 5.8 and 24.0 and column size ratios (c2/c1) ranging pp. 626-638.
24. Sherif, A. G., and Dilger, W. H., “Critical Review of the CSA A23.3-94
between 1.0 and 5.0. The fuzzy-based model demonstrates for Punching Shear Strength Provisions for Interior Columns,” Canadian
higher prediction accuracy compared with all current design Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 23, 1996, pp. 998-1011.
codes including ACI 318-05, Eurocode 2, CEB-FIP MC 90, 25. Marzouk, H., and Hussein, A., “Experimental Investigation on the
and CSA A23.3-04 in predicting the punching shear strength Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1991, pp. 701-713.
of slab-column connections. The proposed model, while 26. Hawkins, N. M., and Mitchell, D., “Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate
addressing uncertainty and interactions between modeling Structure,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 76, No. 7, July 1979, pp. 775-808.
parameters, was shown to respect the fundamental mechanics 27. Regan, P. E., and Braestrup, M. W., “Punching Shear in Forced
of punching shear as described by many researchers. Concrete: A State of the Art Report,” Bulletin d’information, Comité Euro-
International du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland, Jan. 1985.
28. Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E., “Predicting the Enhanced Punching
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Strength of Interior Slab-Column Connections,” Proceedings of the Institution
The financial support by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) of Civil Engineers, V. 82, 1987, pp. 1165-1186.
University Strategic Partnership to the University of New Mexico is greatly 29. Teng, S.; Cheong, H. K.; Kuang, K. L.; and Geng, J. Z., “Punching
appreciated. Shear Strength of Slabs with Openings and Supported on Rectangular
Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2004, pp. 678-687.
REFERENCES 30. Laviolette, M.; Seaman, J. W.; Barrett, J. D.; and Woodall, W. H., “A
1. Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., “Toward a Consistent Probabilistic and Statistical View of Fuzzy Methods,” Technometrics, V. 37,
Design of Structural Concrete,” Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1995, pp. 249-261.
V. 32, No. 3, 1987, pp. 74-150. 31. Duda, R. O.; Hart, P. E.; and Stork, D. G., Pattern Classification, 2nd
2. Alexander, S. D. B., and Simmonds, S. H., “Ultimate Strength of Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, 680 pp.
Slab-Column Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May- 32. Gupta, M. M., and Qi, J., “Theory of T-Norms and Fuzzy Inference
June 1987, pp. 255-261. Methods,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, V. 40, No. 3, 1991, pp. 431-450.
3. CEB-FIP Task Group, “Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs,” fib 33. Fan, J. Y., and Yuan, Y. X., “On the Convergence of a New Levenberg-
12, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2001, 314 pp. Marquardt Method,” Technical Report, AMSS, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
4. Yitzhaki, D., “Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” ACI 2001, 11 pp.
JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 63, No. 5, May 1966, pp. 527-542. 34. Hawkins, N. M.; Fallsen, H. B.; and Hinojosa, R.C., “Influence of
5. Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E., “Predicting the Punching Strength Column Rectangularity on the Behaviour of Flat Plate Structures,” Cracking,
of Conventional Slab-Column Specimens,” Proceedings of the Institution Deflection and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab Systems, SP-30, American
of Civil Engineers, V. 82, 1987, pp. 327-346. Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1971, pp. 127-146.
6. Pralong, J., “Poinçonnement Symétrique des Plachers-Dalles,” IBK- 35. Criswell, M. E., “Strength and Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Bericht No. 131, Insitut für Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zürish, 1982. Slab-Column Connections Subjected to Static and Dynamic Loading,”
Technical Report N-70-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
7. Nielsen, M. P., Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, 2nd Edition,
Vicksburg, Miss., Dec. 1970.
CRC Press, New York, 1999, 463 pp.
36. Lovrovich, J., and McLean, D., “Punching Shear Behaviour of Slab
8. Kinnunen, S., and Nylander, H., “Punching of Concrete Slabs without
with Varying Span-Depth Ratios,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 5,
Shear Reinforcement,” Transactions No. 158, Royal Institute of Technology,
Sept.-Oct. 1990, pp. 507-511.
Stockholm, Sweden, 1960, 112 pp.
37. Elstner, R. C., and Hognestad, E., “Shearing Strength of Reinforced
9. Bažant, Z. P., and Cao, Z., “Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of
Concrete Slabs,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 53, No. 7, July 1956,
Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 44-53.
pp. 29-58.
10. Birkle, G., “Flat Slabs: The Influence of the Slab Thickness and the
38. Tolf, P., “Plattjocklekens Inverkan På Betongplattors Hållfasthet vid
Stud Layout,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
Genomstansning,” Försök med Cikulåra Plattor, TRITA-BST Bull, 146,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2004.
KTH Stockholm, Sweden, 1988, 64 pp.
11. Theodorakopoulos, D. D., and Swamy, R. N., “Ultimate Punching 39. Berenji, H. R., and Khedkar, P., “Learning and Tuning Fuzzy Logic
Shear Strength Analysis of Slab-Column Connections,” Cement and Concrete Controllers Through Reinforcements,” IEEE Transactions on Neural
Composites, V. 24, 2002, pp. 509-521. Networks, V. 3, No. 5, 1992, pp. 724-740.
12. CEB-FIP MC 90, “Design of Concrete Structures,” CEB-FIP Model 40. Combs, W. E., and Andrews, J. E., “Combinatorial Rule Explosion
Code 1990, Thomas Telford, 1993, 437 pp. Eliminated by a Fuzzy Rule Configuration,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
13. EC 2, “Design of Concrete Structures Part I: General Rules and Rules for Systems, V. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Buildings,” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2002, 230 pp. 41. Lucero, J., “Fuzzy Systems Methods in Structural Engineering,” PhD
14. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural dissertation, University of New Mexico, Department of Civil Engineering,
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete Albuquerque, N. Mex., 2004.
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp. 42. Yager, R., “On a General Class of Fuzzy Connectives,” Fuzzy Sets
15. CSA Technical Committee on Reinforced Concrete Design, “A23.3-04 and Systems, V. 4, 1980, pp. 235-242.
Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, 43. Bažant, Z. P., Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasi
Ontario, Canada, 2004, 250 pp. Brittle Materials, CRC Press, New York, 1997, 280 pp.
16. Chatterjee, A., and Watanabe, K., “An Adaptive Fuzzy Strategy for 44. Loov, R. E., “Review of A23.3-94 Simplified Method for Shear
Motion Control of Robot Manipulators,” Soft Computing, V. 9, No. 3, Design and Comparison with Results Using Shear Friction,” Canadian
2005, pp. 185-193. Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 25, No. 3, 1998, pp. 437-450.
17. Zongjin, L.; Chau, C. K.; and Zhou, X., “Accelerated Assessment 45. Nowak, A. S., “Calibration of LRFD Bridge Code,” Journal of
and Fuzzy Evaluation of Concrete Durability,” Journal of Materials in Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 121, No. 8, 1995, pp. 1245-1251.
Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 17, No. 3, 2005, pp. 257-263 46. Kani, G. N. J., “The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its Solutions,” ACI
18. Kosko, B., “Fuzzy Systems as Universal Approximators,” IEEE JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61, No. 4, Apr. 1964, pp. 441-468.
Trans. Comp, V. 43, No. 11, 1993, pp. 1329-1333. 47. Schaeidt, W.; Ladner, M.; and Rösli, A., “Berechnung von Flach-
19. Klir, G. J., Uncertainty and Information: Foundations of Generalized decken auf Durchstanzen,” Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs-und Versuch-
Information Theory, John Wiley and Sons, N. J., 2006, 499 pp. sanstalt, Dübendort, 1970.
20. Ross, T. J., Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, 2nd Edition, 48. Regan, P., “Symmetric Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,”
Wiley & Sons, UK, 2004, 650 pp. Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 38, 1986, pp. 115-128.
21. Jang, J. S. R.; Su, C. T.; and Mizutani, E., Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft 49. Hallgren, M., and Kinnunen, S., “Punching Shear Tests on Circular
Computing, A Computational Approach to Learning and Machine Intelligence, High Strength Concrete Slabs,” Utilization of High Strength Concrete,
Prentice Hall, N. J., 1997, 614 pp. Proceedings, Lillehammer, 1993.
22. Carlin, B. P., and Chib, S., “Bayesian Model Choice via Markov 50. Tomaszewicz, A., “High-Strength Concrete: SP2-Plates and Shells—
Chain Monte Carlo Methods,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Report 2.3,” Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,
Series B, V. 57, No. 3, 1995, pp. 473-484. Report No. STE70 A93082, SINTEF Structures and Concrete, Trondheim,
23. Pan, A. D., and Moehle, J. P., “An Experimental Study of Slab-Column 1993, 36 pp.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 447

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 104-S46

Tensile-Headed Anchors with Large Diameter and Deep

Embedment in Concrete
by Nam Ho Lee, Kang Sik Kim, Chang Joon Bang, and Kwang Ryeon Park

This paper presents test results for large cast-in-place anchor method (CCD method),3 which is a derivative of the Kappa
bolts in concrete. The tests were performed to evaluate the tensile method4 described in Reference 5.
performance of large anchors, that is, anchors with a diameter According to the CCD method, the average concrete breakout
greater than 2 in. (50 mm) or an embedment depth greater than 25 in. capacity of headed anchors in uncracked concrete is given by
(635 mm), which are not addressed by ACI 318, Appendix D, and
ACI 349, Appendix B. The tests were also intended to investigate
Eq. (1). This equation is valid for anchors with a relatively
the safety of such anchors for use in nuclear power plants and the small head (mean bearing pressure at breakout load of
effects of regular (conventional) and special reinforcement on the approximately 13fc′ ).3 In ACI 318, Appendix D,1 the 5%-fractile
strength of such anchors. The test results are used to assess the of the concrete cone breakout loads are predicted, which is
applicability of existing design formulas valid for smaller anchors assumed as 0.75 times the mean value. This leads to Eq. (2).
to large anchors. Suggestions are made for incorporating the ACI 318-05, Appendix D,1 allows the use of Eq. (4) for
effects of deep embedment or large diameter in existing design calculating the nominal breakout capacity of headed anchors
provisions for cast-in-place tensile anchor bolts under tension load. with an embedment depth hef ≥ 11 in. (279 mm) in uncracked
concrete. Equation (4) modifies the CCD method slightly by
Keywords: anchor; anchor bolt; cast-in-place; embedment; tension test. changing the exponent on the embedment depth hef from 1.5
to 1.67. The mean concrete capacity may be calculated
INTRODUCTION according to Eq. (3). In ACI 349-97,6 a 45-degree cone
Current anchorage designs for nuclear power plants in model is used to calculate the concrete breakout capacity
Korea use large anchor bolts with diameters exceeding 2 in. (Eq. (5)). Because Eq. (5) was used in design, it may be
(50 mm), embedment depths exceeding 25 in. (635 mm), a considered to predict approximately the 5%-fractile of test
specified yield strength of 140 ksi (980 MPa), and a specified results. A summary of the proposed predictors are given as
ultimate strength of 155 ksi (1085 MPa). Whereas the tensile
behavior of smaller anchors has been studied extensively, Equation
number Predictor Remark
large anchors have not been adequately addressed. In the
Mean breakout strength,
research described herein, large anchors were tested in 1.5
(1) N u, m = 40 f c′ h ef ( lb ) CCD-method with
tension to develop design criteria for anchors that are not exponent 1.5 on hef
addressed by ACI 318-05, Appendix D,1 or ACI 349-01, 1.5 Nominal breakout strength,
Appendix B,2 and to evaluate the applicability of (2) N u = 30 f c′ h ef ( lb ) ACI 318-05, Appendix D
capacity-prediction methods developed for smaller anchors. Mean breakout strength for
To evaluate the tensile behavior of anchors with large diameters 1.67 anchors with hef ≥ 10 in.
(3) N u, m = 26.7 f c′ h ef ( lb ) (254 mm), CCD-method
and embedment depths, various anchors, with diameters from with exponent 1.67 on hef
2.75 to 4.25 in. (69.9 to 108 mm) and embedment depths from
Nominal breakout strength
25 to 45 in. (635 to 1143 mm) were tested. for anchors with
(4) 1.67
N u = 20 f c′ h ef ( lb ) hef ≥ 10 in. (254 mm)
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE according to ACI 318-05,
Appendix D
The research described herein is the first experimental
Nominal breakout strength,
information on the tensile behavior of very large headed (5) 2
N u = 4 f c ′πhef ( 1 + d k ⁄ h ef ) ( lb ) ACI 349-97
anchor bolts (hef ≥ 21 in. [525 mm]). It is important because (45-degree cone model)
although such anchor bolts are commonly used in power Note: fc′ = specified concrete compressive strength (psi); hef = effective embedment
plants and for the anchorage of tanks, no design provisions (in.); and db = diameter of anchor head (in.).
validated by tests exist for them.
DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
EXISTING FORMULAS FOR PREDICTING TENSILE Test specimens
CAPACITY OF ANCHOR BOLTS IN CONCRETE To evaluate the effects of embedment depth, anchor diameter,
Presuming the head of the anchor is large enough to and supplementary reinforcement patterns on the tensile
prevent pull-out failure (refer to ACI 318, Appendix D), the capacity of large anchors, five different test configurations
tensile capacity of large anchor bolts is governed by tensile were selected and four test replicates with each configuration
yield and fracture of the anchor steel or by tensile breakout
of the concrete in which the anchor is embedded. Steel yield ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
MS No. S-2006-232 received June 6, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
and fracture are well understood. The breakout formulas of policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
current U.S. design provisions (ACI 318-051 and ACI the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
349-012) are based on the concrete capacity design (CCD) discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2008
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 479

 minimize the width of eventual shrinkage cracks, the top and
ACI member Nam Ho Lee is a Senior Research Engineer in the Civil Engineering
Department of the Korea Power Engineering Co. He received his BS from Seoul bottom of the test member were reinforced in both directions
National University and his MS and PhD from the Korea Advanced Institute of with No. 10 bars at 16, 10, and 10 in. (406.4, 254, and 254 mm)
Science & Technology. He is a member of ACI Committees 349, Concrete Nuclear
Structures, and 355, Anchorage to Concrete, and Joint ACI-ASME Committee 359,
spacing for Specimens T1, T2, and T3, respectively. This
Concrete Components for Nuclear Reactors. His research interests include the surface reinforcement does not significantly influence the
nonlinear behavior of concrete structures and anchorage to concrete. concrete breakout load. As shown in Fig. 1, wooden and steel
Kang Sik Kim is a Senior Researcher, Environment and Structure Laboratory, Korea
frames were constructed to suspend the cast-in-place
Electric Power Research Institute, Daejeon, Korea. His research interests include the anchors in the correct position and at the correct embedment
behavior of concrete-filled steel plate structures and anchorage to concrete. depth. The concrete mixture for the test specimens is shown
Chang Joon Bang is a Project Engineer at Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd.,
in Table 2(a). The concrete used in the test specimens was
Seoul, Korea. He is currently a Graduate Student of civil engineering, Lehigh comparable to the concrete used in the Korean Nuclear Plant,
University, Bethlehem, Pa. except that 20% by weight of the Type I cement was substituted
Kwang Ryeon Park is a Research Engineer, Civil Engineering Department, Korea
by fly ash and 1 in. (25 mm.) crushed aggregate was used
Power Engineering Co. instead of 3/4 in. (19 mm). The target concrete strength at
42 days was fc′ = 5500 psi (37.9 MPa). The actual concrete
were performed giving 20 specimens in total. The test strength at the time of testing is given in Table 2(b). The
program is summarized in Table 1. The test specimens are concrete for the specimens of one test series was placed from
shown in Fig. 1. All anchors were fabricated of ASTM A540 one batch. Whereas in test Series T1 to T3, no special reinforce-
Gr. B23 Class 2 steel (equivalent to ASME SA 549 Gr. B23 ment was used to resist the applied tension load, in test Series T4
Class 2 used in Korean nuclear power plants) with fy = 140 ksi and T5, supplementary reinforcement (refer to Fig. 3) was
(980 MPa) and fu = 155 ksi (1085 MPa). The anchor head used to increase the ultimate load. The supplementary
consisted of a round thick plate which was fixed to the bolt reinforcements consisted of vertical stirrups (eight No. 8 bars
by clamping nuts (Fig. 2). The diameter of the round plate and 16 No. 8 bars for test Series T4 and T5, respectively), as
was dh = 6 in. (152.4 mm) (db = 2.75 in. [69.9 mm]), dh = shown in Fig. 3.
8.5 in. (215.9 mm) (db = 3.75 in. [95.3 mm]), and dh = 10 in.
(254.0 mm) (db = 4.25 in. [108.0 mm]). The size of the Table 1—Description of tension test specimens
concrete test block was large enough to avoid splitting
failure. The concrete volume (width/length/depth) available Concrete
Diameter volume
for each anchor is shown in Table 1. Furthermore, to Anchor of anchor Effective available for
diameter, head, embedment each anchor
Reinforce- db, in. dh , in. hef , in. (width/length/
Specimen ment (mm) (mm) (mm) depth)
2.75 6.0 25 5.9hef /5.0hef /
T1-A,B,C,D None
(69.9) (152.4) (635) 2.9hef
3.75 8.5 35 5.4hef/4.7hef /
T2-A,B,C,D None
(95.3) (215.9) (889) 2.0hef
4.25 10.0 45 5.0hef /3.6hef /
T3-A,B,C,D None
(108.0) (254.0) (1143) 2.0hef
2.75 6.0 25 5.9hef /5.0hef /
T4-A,B,C,D Supp. No. 1
(69.9) (152.4) (635) 2.9hef
2.75 6.0 25 5.9hef /5.0hef /
T5-A,B,C,D Supp. No. 2
(69.9) (152.4) (635) 2.9hef

Fig. 1—Tension test Specimens T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5.
Table 2(a)—Concrete mixture proportioning
Nominal
strength,
psi, at W/ S/a, W, FA, WRA,* AEA,†
42 days (C + FA) % lb C, lb lb S, lb G, lb mL mL
5500 0.44 44 525 514 128 1257 1617 474 26
*Water-reducing admixture.
†
Air-entraining admixture.

Table 2(b)—Concrete strength at time of testing

Test specimen Curing ages, days Compressive strength, psi (MPa)
5771 (39.8)/5630 (38.8)/
T1-A/B/C/D 58/50/44/42
5508 (38.0)/5464 (37.7)
5177 (35.7)/5248 (36.2) /
T2-A/B/C/D 41/45/47/49
5291 (36.5)/5320 (36.7)
5448 (37.6)/5348 (36.9) /
T3-A/B/C/D 61/56/54/50
5305 (36.6)/5220 (36.0)
5945 (41.0)/5917 (40.8)/
T4-A/B/C/D 57/55/54/50
5903 (40.7)/5817 (40.1)
6144 (42.4)/6130 (42.3)/
T5-A/B/C/D 71/70/69/68
Fig. 2—Details of anchor head. 6130 (42.3)/6116 (42.2)

480 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Test setup surface varied from α = 20 to 30 degrees, following the
The test setup consisted of a loading frame, loading plate, typical crack profiles shown in Fig. 6(b).
jack assembly, load cell, and other items, as shown in the In general, test Specimens T4 and T5, with supplementary
schematic and photo in Fig. 4. The load was applied to the reinforcement (Fig. 3), were not tested to failure. At the
anchor under force-control in an increment of approximately applied peak load, the measured steel strains exceeded the
3.5% of ultimate steel strength of the anchor bolt (Fu = 925, yield strain and because of safety concerns a sudden rupture
1683, and 2192 kips [4114.6, 7486.4, and 9750.5 kN], for of the bolt was avoided. Only Specimen T4-A was tested to
bolts with a diameter of 2.75, 3.25, and 4.25 in. [69.90,
82.55, and 107.95 mm], respectively), that is, 30, 60, 77,
68, and 48 kips (133.4, 266.9, 342.5, 302.5, and 213.5 kN)
for Series T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. It was
reacted in two directions by a stiff frame to minimize the
bending moment in the test specimen. The clear distance
between the supports was 4.0 hef for Specimens T1 through
T5, thus allowing for an unrestricted formation of a concrete
cone. The applied load was measured by a load cell. Additionally,
the strain along the embedment length of the anchor bolt was
measured (Fig. 5). Furthermore, the displacement of the top
end of the anchor was measured by LVDTs (Fig. 5).

TEST RESULTS
Failure loads, failure modes and load
displacement behavior
The average failure loads are summarized in Table 3(a)
(Series T1 to T3) and Table 3(b) (Series T4 and T5). The
values given in the tables are normalized to fc′ = 5500 psi
(37.9 MPa) by multiplying the measured peak load of each
test with the factor (5500/fc,test)0.5. In test Series T1 to T3,
failure was caused by concrete cone breakout well below the
anchor bolt steel capacities (Fu = 925, 1683, and 2192 kips
[4114.6, 7486.4, and 9750.5 kN] for bolts with diameters of
2.75, 3.25, and 4.25 in. [69.90, 82.55, and 107.95 mm],
respectively). The cracking patterns in the specimen after the
test are depicted in Fig. 6(a). Generally, one major longitudinal
crack was observed, centered approximately on the sides of
the block, in combination with a horizontal crack and some
transverse cracks. On the top surface of the block, the cracks
formed a circular pattern around the anchor. To identify the
internal crack propagation defining the roughly conical breakout
body, one replicate of each specimen type was selected, and
the concrete was cored on two orthogonal planes whose
intersection coincided with the axis of the anchor. The cores
confirmed a breakout cone whose angle with the concrete

Fig. 4—Tension test setup: (a) schematic; and (b) photo.

Fig. 3—Supplementary reinforcement in Specimens T4 and T5. Fig. 5—Location of LVDTs and strain gauges (Specimen T1).

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 481

Table 3(a)—Tension test results and predictions Table 3(b)—Tension test results and predictions
for unreinforced Specimens T1, T2, and T3 for reinforced Specimens T4 and T5
Concrete breakout capacities, kips (kN), Concrete breakout capacities, kips (kN),
by embedment by embedment
Specimen T1 Specimen T2, Specimen T3, Specimen T4 Specimen T5, Specimen T1,
25 in. 35 in. 45 in. 25 in. 25 in. 25 in.
Classification Reference (635 mm) (889 mm) (1143 mm) Classification Reference (635 mm) (635 mm) (635 mm)
ACI 349-97, ACI 349-97,
676 (3006) 1305 (5804) 2138 (9510) 676 (3006) 676 (3006) 676 (3006)
Eq. (5) Eq. (5)
ACI 318-05, ACI 318-05,
320 (1423) 562 (2499) 855 (3803) 320 (1423) 320 (1423) 320 (1423)
Eq. (4) Eq. (4)
CCD method CCD method
Predictions with 371 (1650) 614 (2731) 895 (3981) Predictions with 371 (1650) 371 (1650) 371 (1650)
1.5 1.5
h ef Eq. (1) h ef Eq. (1)
CCD method CCD method
with 428 (1903) 750 (3336) 1142 (5079) with 428 (1903) 428 (1903) 428 (1903)
1.67 1.67
h ef Eq. (3) h ef Eq. (3)
Mean 509 (2264) 744 (3309) 1242 (5524) Mean 733 (3260) 725 (3224) 509 (2264)

COV, % 5.8 2.8 6.1 COV, % 1.7 3.5 5.8

Tests Tests
5%-fractile 393 (1748) 662 (2944) 944 (4199) 5%-fractile 685 (3047) 625 (2780) 393 (1748)
5%-fractile/ 5%-fractile/
mean 0.77 0.89 0.76 mean 0.93 0.86 0.77

Ratios of observed to predicted capacities Ratio of observed to predictions

Sym- (hef = 25 in. [635 mm])
Sym- Specimen T1 Specimen T2, Specimen T3, bol in
Classi- bol in Com- 25 in. 35 in. 45 in. Classification Fig. 9 Comparison T4 T5 T1 T4/T1
fication Fig. 9 parison (635 mm) (889 mm) (1143 mm) Mean
5% fractile of (I) Nu,5%/Eq. (5) 1.01 0.92 0.58 1.74
5% Nu,5%/ test results
(I) 0.58 0.51 0.44 0.51 (II) Nu,5%/Eq. (5) 2.16 1.97 1.24 1.74
fractile Eq. (5)
of test Nu,5%/ Mean of test (III) Mean/Eq. (1) 1.98 1.96 1.37 1.45
results (II) 1.24 1.19 1.12 1.18 results
Eq. (4) (IV) Mean/Eq. (3) 1.71 1.70 1.19 1.44
Mean/
Mean (III) Eq. (1) 1.37 1.21 1.39 1.32
of test
results Mean/
(IV) 1.19 0.99 1.09 1.09
Eq. (3)

failure. Failure of this specimen was caused by forming a

concrete cone. From the load-displacement curves (Fig. 7), it
can be concluded that in test Series T4, the applied maximum
loads were almost identical with the failure loads. In test
Series T5, however, the failure load of the anchors was not
reached. Because Specimens T4 and T5 showed no cracking
at the concrete surface, no cores were taken to check whether
a cone had begun to form.
The load-displacement curves for Specimens T1, T2, T3,
T4, and T5 are shown in Fig. 7(a) through 7(e), using the
displacement measured at the top of each anchor. The
load-displacement relationship for each test replicate varied
based on the concrete strength at the time of testing. The
projecting lengths of the anchor shafts from the concrete
surface to the top of the anchor for Specimens T1, T2, T3, (a)
T4, and T5 were 41.7, 48.6, 53.1, 41.7, and 41.7 in. (1059,
1234, 1348, 1059, and 1059 mm), respectively. Because the
measured displacements shown in Fig. 7 include the steel
elongation of the projecting anchor length, the actual anchor
displacements at the top of the concrete surface, which are
accumulated along the embedded portion of the anchor, are
much smaller than shown in Fig. 7. In Fig. 8, the relationship
between load and anchor displacement at the surface of the
concrete (calculated from the displacements measured at the (b)
anchor top end subtracting the steel elongation of the
projecting length) are plotted for test Series T1 to T5. In Fig. 6—(a) Cracking pattern for four test replicates (A, B,
some tests, the calculated displacements at the concrete C, and D) of Specimens T1, T2, and T3; and (b) typical
surface are negative for low loads. It is believed that this is internal crack profile in Specimen T1.

482 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 7—Measured load-displacement relationships.
Fig. 8—Relation between load and anchor displacement at
concrete surface.
caused by bending of the anchors if they were not installed
perfectly perpendicular to the concrete surface. It can be seen
that the anchor displacements at peak load of Specimens T1 EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS FOR
to T3 (concrete cone failure) are rather small. This can be UNREINFORCED SPECIMENS T1, T2, AND T3
explained by the rather large anchor heads that, due to the According to the 45-degree cone model (Eq. (5)), the
breakout capacities increase in proportion to hef 2 . The
low concrete stresses, did not slip much. For head sizes
allowed by ACI 318-05, Appendix D, the breakout failure predicted capacities Nu,calc are much higher than the
loads increase approximately proportional to hef1.5. With measure values Nu,test and the ratio Nu,test /Nu,calc decreases
much larger heads, the power on the embedment depths is with increasing embedment depth (Fig. 10(a)). On average,
greater than 1.5.7 In the present tests, at failure, the related the 5%-fractiles of the observed capacities are approximately
pressure under the head was on average p/fc′ = 4.37, 3.36, half the capacities predicted by ACI 349-97 (Table 3(a)).
and 5.31 for test Series T1, T2, and T3. It was much smaller This demonstrates that the 45-degree cone model is
than the pressure allowed by ACI 318-05 for uncracked unconservative for deep anchors. This agrees with the findings
concrete (pn = 10fc′ ). by Fuchs et al.3 and Shirvani et. al.8 In contrast, the predictions
according to the CCD method are conservative. The
Comparison of predicted and tested tensile measured average breakout loads are approximately 30%
breakout capacities higher than the values predicted according to Eq. (1) (Nu
In Table 3(a), tension test results for unreinforced proportional to hef1.5) with no significant influence of the
Specimens T1, T2, and T3, and results in Table 3(b) for embedment depth (Fig. 10(b)). On average, the ratio of
reinforced Specimens T4 and T5, are compared with predicted measured failure loads to the values predicted by Eq. (3) (Nu
capacities. The measured mean failure loads are compared proportional to hef1.67) is 1.09 (Table 3(a)). It decreases
with the predicted mean capacities according to Eq. (1) and
slightly with increasing embedment depth (Fig. 10(c)).
(3), respectively, and the 5%-fractiles of the measured
failure loads calculated by assuming an unknown standard In Fig. 10(d) to 10(f), the breakout failure loads of headed
deviation are compared with the values according to Eq. (4) anchors with an embedment depth hef ≥ 8 in. (200 mm)
and (5). In Fig. 9, the ratios of measured capacities to measured in the present tests and taken from other sources3,8
predicted values are plotted. Figure 10 shows the measured are compared with values predicted by the CCD method.
failure loads of each test compared with the values predicted According to Fig. 10(d), the prediction according to Eq. (1)
according to Eq. (5), Fig. 10(a); Eq. (1), Fig. 10(b); and Eq. (3), is conservative for large embedment depths. The failure
Fig. 10(c), as a function of the embedment depth. In Fig. 11, loads predicted by Eq. (3) agree quite well with the measured
the measured concrete breakout loads, as well as the failure values (Fig. 10(e)). Figure 10(f) shows that the CCD method
loads according to best fit equations using the current test changing the exponent on hef from 1.5 to 1.67 at an effective
results and Eq. (1), (2), (3), and (5), are plotted as a function embedment depth of 10 in. (250 mm) predicts the failure
of the embedment depth. loads of anchors with hef ≥ 8 in. (200 mm) best. Only two

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 483

test points at hef = 8 in. (200 mm) fall below the assumed the mean capacity (compare Eq. (4) with Eq. (3)). When
5%-fractile, which is equal to 75% of the average value. applying this reduction factor, one gets pn/fc′ = 3.2 ~ 3.0.
The 5%-fractiles of the capacities observed in the present This limiting value is supported also by the numerical analysis
tests average approximately 120% of the values predicted by results.7 For smaller heads, for which the nominal pressure
ACI 318-05, Appendix D (Eq. (4)) (refer to Table 3(a)). The under the head is pn > 3fc′ , the breakout capacities in uncracked
higher ratio Nu,test /Nu,calc when comparing the 5% fractiles concrete should be predicted by Eq. (2).
with each other instead of the average values is due to the In cracked reinforced concrete, lower breakout capacities
rather low scatter of test results. On average, the coefficient than in uncracked concrete are observed.9 Therefore, ACI
of variation (COV) was approximately 5%. This results in an 318-05, Appendix D, reduces the nominal breakout capacities of
average ratio Nu,5%/Nu,m of 0.81, whereas in ACI 349-01, headed anchors in cracked reinforced concrete by a factor
a ratio of 0.75 is assumed. In actual structures, the concrete 0.8 compared with uncracked concrete. Therefore, in
strength, and thus the concrete cone resistance, might vary more cracked concrete Eq. (4) with hef1.67, multiplied by the factor
than in the present test specimens. Therefore, the ratio 0.8, should only be used for deep anchors if the pressure
Nu,5%/Nu,m assumed in ACI 318-05, Appendix D, should under the head is pn ≤ 2.4fc′.
be maintained.
Numerical investigations by Ozbolt et al.7 using a
sophisticated three-dimensional nonlinear finite element
model demonstrates that the concrete breakout capacity of
headed anchors is influenced by the head size, that is, the
pressure under the head, related to the concrete compressive
strength as described previously.
Based on the previous evaluations, it is recommended to
predict the nominal concrete breakout capacities of anchors
with an embedment depth hef ≥ 10 in. (250 mm) in uncracked
concrete by Eq. (4). Equation (4) is valid, however, only if
the head size is large so that the pressure under the head at
the nominal capacity is pn ≤ 3fc′ . This limiting value is
deduced from the results of the test Series T1 to T3. In these
tests, the pressure under the head was pn/fc′ = 3.4 to 5.3, on
average 4.3. The nominal capacity is approximately 75% of

Fig. 10—Ratios of observed to predicted concrete tensile

breakout capacities as function of embedment depth.

Fig. 9—Ratios of test results (5% fractile and mean) to

predicted capacities; compare with Table 3. Fig. 11—Test results and comparison with predicted capacities.

484 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTARY REINFORCEMENT Therefore, it is not possible to formulate a general model
Reinforced Specimen T4 from the test results. The results, however, show that with
Test Specimens T4, with supplementary reinforcement, supplementary reinforcement arranged as in Specimens T4
are shown in Fig. 3. The mean tested failure load (733 kips and dimensioned for about 80 to 100% of the expected
[3260 kN]) is close to the sum (806 kips [3585 kN]) of the ultimate concrete breakout capacity, the failure load was
calculated reinforcement strength (378 kips [1681 kN]) and increased by approximately 50% over the unreinforced case.
the unreinforced concrete strength (428 kips [1904 kN]) by This result can reasonably be used in the calculation of
Eq. (3). It can be inferred that the adopted reinforcement ultimate strength.
pattern effectively acted in the anchorage system to resist
tension load. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The tested breakout strength of the unreinforced test Tensile load-displacement behavior of large
Specimen T1 with the same embedment depth as Specimen T4 anchors without supplementary reinforcement
was 509 kips (2264 kN). Comparison of the mean tested The test results show that ACI 349-97 (Eq. (5)) significantly
strengths of Specimens T1 and T4 shows that the effective overestimates the tensile breakout capacity of large anchors.
increase in capacity due to supplementary reinforcement is The ratio Nu,test /Nu, calc decreases with increasing embedment
roughly 224 kips (996 kN), or approximately 60% of the depth (Fig. 10(a)). Furthermore, the slope of the concrete
calculated yield strength of the supplementary reinforcement. cone was much flatter than 45 degrees. Therefore, the
The loading on Specimen T4-A was increased to the overestimation of the failure loads would be even larger for
expected total yield force of the supplementary reinforcement so anchors at an edge or for anchor groups. For these reasons,
that the load distribution to each of the two reinforcement this formula in ACI 349-97 should not be used in design.
groups could be estimated. The load resisted by the The CCD method with hef1.5 (Eq. (1)) is conservative for
supplementary reinforcement in the inner concentric large anchors (Fig. 10(b)). This is probably due to the fact
circle (4.2 in. [106 mm] from the axis of the anchor) was that this method is based on linear fracture mechanics, which
2.2 times the load resisted by the equal area of supplementary is valid only for anchors with high bearing pressure, that is,
reinforcement in the outer concentric circle (8.5 in. [216 mm] anchors with small heads. The tested anchors, however, had
from the axis of the anchor). rather large heads. The test results can best be predicted by
According to the measured strains in the strain gauges the CCD method with (Eq. (3)) (refer to Fig. 9 and 10(e)). On
attached to reinforcing bars, the reinforcing bars close to the average, the measured failure loads are approximately 10%
anchor were more effective in increasing the tensile capacity higher than the predicted values. If all available results are
and their maximum stress was measured close to the taken into account (refer to Fig. 10(f)), however, a change of
anchor head. Eq. (3) seems not to be justified.
It is proposed to calculate the characteristic resistance of
Reinforced Specimen T5 single anchor bolts with hef ≥ 10 in. (250 mm) and low
The mean tested capacity (725 kips [3225 kN]) of the four bearing pressure (pressure under the head at nominal
replicates of test Specimen T5, with supplementary reinforce- breakout load pn ≤ 3fc′ [uncracked concrete] or pn ≤ 2.4fc′
ment as shown in Fig. 3 was much smaller than the sum [cracked concrete]) according to ACI 318-05, Appendix D,
(1129 kips [5021 kN]) of the calculated reinforcement or ACI 349-01, Appendix B, using the equation with hef1.67).
strength, 16 x 60 ksi x 0.79 in.2 = 758 kips (3371 kN) and According to the test results, however, the average cone
concrete breakout strength per the CCD method given by angle was not 35 degrees (as assumed in the CCD method)
Eq. (1), 371 kips (1650 kN). These test results indicate that but only approximately 25 to 30 degrees. Therefore, the
this layout of supplementary reinforcement contributes with characteristic spacing scr,N and characteristic edge distance
a low level of effectiveness to the capacity of the anchor. ccr,N are probably larger than scr,N = 2ccr,N = 3hef as assumed
This conclusion is corroborated by measured strains in the in ACI 318-05. Therefore, it seems prudent to calculate the
gauges attached to the reinforcing bars, which indicates little resistance of anchorages at an edge or corner, or of group
strain in the reinforcement. As noted previously, however, anchorages, according to ACI 318-05, but with scr,N = 4.0
Specimen T5 were not fully loaded up to failure due to safety hef instead of scr,N = 3.0 hef as given in ACI 318-05.
concerns. As a consequence, the results of Series T5 are judged
to not be useful in verifying the absolute effectiveness of the Tensile load-displacement behavior of large
supplementary reinforcement. By comparing results from anchors with supplementary reinforcement
Specimens T4 with those of Specimens T5, however, it is still In Series T4, the supplementary reinforcement was not
possible to judge the relative effectiveness of the different strong enough to resist the applied load. Even in Test T4-A,
supplementary reinforcement patterns. For a given applied load, in which the supplementary reinforcement yielded, only
stresses in the supplementary reinforcement of Specimens T5 approximately 1/3 (246/759 ≈ 0.33) of the applied peak load
along the outer circles are less than half of those along the inner was resisted by the reinforcement. In Series T5, which had a
circle. The relative trends of stress distribution are similar for stronger reinforcement, the tests had to be stopped because
each reinforcement in both Series T4 and T5. Therefore, it can of tensile yielding of the anchors before the supplementary
be inferred that the increase in tensile capacity is approximately reinforcement had been fully mobilized. Therefore, the
proportional to the amount of supplementary reinforcement. results of these tests cannot be used to develop a general design
The load-displacement curves of Series T4 show that the model for anchors with supplementary reinforcement.
peak load was nearly reached in the tests. In Series T5, the Nevertheless, the results of test Series T4 showed that the
load could still be increased. In Series T4, the supplementary peak load could be increased by approximately 50%
reinforcement was not strong enough to resist the concrete compared with the results from test Series T1 without
breakout load. In Series T5, the loading was stopped before supplementary reinforcement. Therefore, it is proposed to
the supplementary reinforcement could be fully activated. increase the concrete breakout resistance calculated as described

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 485

previously by a factor of 1.5 if supplementary reinforcement REFERENCES
is present around each anchor of an anchor group. The 1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
supplementary reinforcement must be arranged as in Tests T4 Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
(four U-shaped stirrups at a distance ≤ 4 in. (100 mm) or 2. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related
≤ 0.15hef from the anchor) and dimensioned for the character- Concrete Structures (ACI 349-01),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 2001, 134 pp.
istic concrete breakout resistance according to Eq. (4)). 3. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; and Breen, J. E., “Concrete Capacity
In a more general model, the supplementary reinforcement Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete,” ACI Structural
should be dimensioned to take up 100% of the applied load, Journal, V. 92, No. 1., Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 73-94.
4. Rehm, G.; Eligehausen, R.; and Mallée, R., “Befestigungstechnik”
thus neglecting the contribution of the concrete. The (Fastening Technique), Betonkalender 1995, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin,
supplementary reinforcement should be designed using a Germany, 1995.
strut-and-tie model. The characteristic resistance of the 5. Comité Euro-International du Beton, “Fastening to Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Structures,” State-of-the-Art Report, CEB, Thomas
supplementary reinforcement is given by the bond capacity Telford, London, 1991, pp. 205-210.
of the supplementary reinforcement in the anticipated 6. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
concrete cone, which should be assumed to radiate from the Concrete Structures (ACI 349-97),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington
head of the anchor at an angle of 35 degrees. The bond Hills, Mich., 1997, 123 pp.
7. Ozbolt, J.; Eligehausen, R.; Periskic, G.; and Mayer, U., “3D FE
capacity should be calculated according to codes of practice Analysis of Anchor Bolts with Large Embedment Depths,” Fracture Mechanics
(for example, ACI 318-051 or Eurocode 210). The design of Concrete Structures, V. 2, No. 5, Apr. 2004, Vail, Colo., pp. 845-852.
strength is limited by the yield capacity of the bars. This 8. Shirvani, M.; Klingner, R. E.; and Graves III, H. L., “Behavior of Tensile
Anchors in Concrete: Statistical Analysis and Design Recommendations,”
model is described in detail in References 11 and 12. ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2004, pp. 812-820.
9. Eligehausen, R., and Balogh, T., “Behavior of Fasteners Loaded in
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Tension in Cracked Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 365-379.
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and technical help of
10. Eurocode 2, “Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1: General Rules
Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd. and Korea Electric Power Research and Rules for Buildings,” 2004.
Institute for financing this research work and several on-going research 11. Technical Committee CEN/TC 250, “Design of Fastening for
projects related to the capacity of anchorage to concrete structures. The Use in Concrete, Part 2: Headed Fasteners,” Final Draft, CEN Technical
authors are also grateful for the valuable advice of R. Eligehausen, University Specifications, 2004.
of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany; R. Klingner, University of Texas at Austin, 12. Comité Euro-International du Beton (CEB), Design Guide for
Austin, Tex.; and members of ACI Committee 355, Anchorage to Concrete. Anchorages to Concrete, Thomas Telford, London, 1997.

486 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007