ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 106-S53

Anchorage Strength and Behavior of Headed Bars in

Exterior Beam-Column Joints
by Sung-Chul Chun, Bohwan Oh, Sung-Ho Lee, and Clay J. Naito

Thirty exterior beam-column joint specimens without transverse

reinforcement were tested to measure anchorage strength with
respect to anchorage configuration and embedment length. The
anchorage behavior of bars terminated with a head and with a
90-degree hook is investigated and compared with each other and
existing models. It is found that existing models based on idealized
failure modes do not properly predict the concrete contribution to
anchorage strength of headed bars terminated in exterior joints. A
new model that accounts for head bearing and bond capacity of
the anchored bars is proposed and calibrated using statistical
analysis of the experimental results. The model conservatively
estimates the anchorage strength of the headed bars terminated
within exterior beam-column joints with sufficient side cover.
Features of the new model are compared with the existing models.

Keywords: anchorage; bar(s); beam-column joint; bearing; bond; Fig. 1—Headed bars and hooked bars (No. 8, No. 11, and
CCT node. No. 18).

INTRODUCTION
Headed bars, as shown in Fig. 1, provide an alternative to
hooked bars and assist in alleviating steel congestion.1-3
Previous research on headed bars may be divided into two
categories: performance of headed bars in realistic structural
systems, and investigation of the mechanics of the headed
bars under idealized conditions.
Previous structural system studies include a number of
beam-column joint investigations,3-5 where headed bars
were used for longitudinal reinforcement, and slab-column
joint investigations,6,7 where headed bars were used for
shear reinforcement. The reliability and applicability of the
headed bars were validated in these studies and, consequently,
guidelines on the use of headed bars were introduced in
ACI 352R-028 and ACI 421.1R-08.9 These guidelines provide
guidance on general application of bars but do not provide direct
estimates for the anchorage strength of headed bars.
To assist in the development of models on anchorage
strength, previous studies on headed bars under idealized
conditions examined headed bar failures, such as side-face
blowout10-13 and concrete breakout10 modes. These studies
consisted of idealized evaluations where headed bars were
pulled from concrete blocks.
Headed bar anchorages are commonly used in areas where
development hooks or traditional reinforcement development
lengths cannot be achieved. A number of standard config-
urations are shown in Fig. 2. The anchorage mechanism of
headed bars is typically modeled according to strut-and-tie Fig. 2—Examples of headed bars developed in surface CCT
concepts with the bar head region classified as a compression- nodes and interior CCT nodes.
compression-tension (CCT) node. These nodes are further
classified as either surface CCT nodes or interior CCT
nodes, depending on the location of headed bars. ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009.
MS No. S-2007-003.R4 received May 16, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication
The surface CCT node may be formed at a support or at a policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
concentrated load point such as dapped-end beam or corbel. 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-August 2010
The interior CCT node is formed inside a member such as an ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2010.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 579


ACI member Sung-Chul Chun is a Principal Researcher at Daewoo Institute of
Construction Technology (DICT), Suwon, Korea. He received his BS, MS, and PhD
from Seoul National University in 1994, 1996, and 2007, respectively. His research
interests include steel anchorage to concrete, composite structures, and rehabilitation
of reinforced concrete structures.
ACI member Bohwan Oh is a Research Fellow at DICT. He received his BS from Yonsei
University, Korea, and MS and PhD from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. His
research interests include modeling of concrete behavior and high-rise building systems.
Sung-Ho Lee is a Senior Researcher at DICT. He received BS and MS from Korea
University in 2000 and 2002, respectively. His research interests include steel
anchorage to concrete and behavior of beam-column joints.
Clay J. Naito is an Associate Professor of structural engineering at Lehigh University. He
received his BS in 1993 from the University of Hawaii and MS and PhD from the
University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. His research interests include
predictive modeling and experimental validation of reinforced and prestressed
concrete structures subjected to extreme events.
Fig. 3—Failure modes regarding headed bar anchorage in
exterior beam-column joint.
exterior or corner beam-column joint and hanging headed
bars in a deep beam. The surface CCT node differs from the
interior CCT node in three ways. First, the strength of the
surface CCT node is typically higher than that of the interior
CCT node due to the surface bearing plate, which provides
transverse deformation restraint to the node concrete.
Second, the dimension of the surface CCT node is determined
by the size of the bearing plate, whereas the dimension of the
interior CCT node is determined from internal stress fields.
580
Third, the bond outside a nodal zone or an extended nodal
zone is easily lost at ultimate state in the surface CCT node
due to cracks near the nodal zone.13
An exterior beam-column joint is an ideal application for
headed bars due to the high level of reinforcement congestion
that occurs. In this application, the variation of bond strength
along the bar and the anchorage strength are dependent not
only on the materials but also on the geometry of the reinforcing
bar and the state of stress in the beam-column connection. In
this paper, idealized exterior beam-column joint tests were
conducted to evaluate the concrete contribution to the
anchorage strength of headed bars.
Failure modes regarding headed bar anchorage in an exterior
beam-column joint can be classified as shown in Fig. 3. All
failure modes are induced as a result of the tensile force on
the anchored headed bar. Side-face blowout failure occurs
when inadequate side cover is provided. This can be alleviated
when proper side cover is provided.8 Concrete breakout may
occur when an effective beam depth is greater than 1.5 times
an embedment length.14 This case is rare due to the typical
relative depths used for beams and columns as well as the
higher strength and stiffness provided by most columns. A
pullout mode of failure can occur if the net head area is less
than 4 times the bar cross-sectional area. The pullout capacity
of headed bars can be calculated using Section D.5.3 of
ACI 318-08.15 When proper embedment and head geometry
is used, a joint shear failure mode governs the response of the
exterior beam-column joint. In this paper, the anchorage
strength of headed bars under a joint shear failure mode is
investigated through experiments and a new model to predict
the strength is proposed.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The research examines 30 specimens simulating exterior
beam-column joints with headed or hooked beam reinforcement
anchorage. To investigate the concrete contribution to the
anchorage strength, transverse reinforcement was not placed
in the joints. The specimens were designed to reflect the
characteristics and boundary conditions of an interior CCT
node typical of an exterior beam-column joint. The
anchorage strength of the headed bars was found to consist
of a combination of head bearing and bond. Based on these
results, a new comprehensive model is developed that allows
for accurate prediction of the anchorage capacity of the headed
bars terminated within the exterior beam-column joints.
TEST PROGRAM
An experimental program was developed to investigate
anchorage behavior of headed bars. The test matrix is shown
in Table 1 and details of the specimens are presented in
Fig. 4. The test setup examines the anchorage of longitudinal
beam reinforcement in an exterior beam-column joint using
headed reinforcement. The specimens were tested with the
column in a horizontal position, as shown in Fig. 5. The
demands generated from beam flexure were idealized by
applying a compression/tension force couple to the face of
the column. The force couple was monotonically increased
until failure. The compressive force was applied to a bearing
plate across the full width of the column. The tension force
was applied through high-strength loading bars attached to
the anchored headed and hooked bars. No column axial load
was applied, as tests have shown that including axial load
tends to improve joint behavior.16 A length of column was
included to minimize boundary effects and to generate a
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
 Fig. 4—Details of specimens. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

typical ratio of column shear and flexure on the joint. The Table 1—Test matrix
testing condition generates flexural forces within the column
le † , Details of specimens,§
and mimics the clamping demands generated by the column. Specimen ID* mm (in.) Column bars N‡ mm (in.), MPa (ksi)
Thirty full-scale specimens were tested. The test specimens
No. 18-H-0.9L 908 (35.7) Four No. 11 1 B = 350 (13.8);
were similar to those by Marques and Jirsa17 from which a = 105 (4.1);
ACI 318 code provisions15 for hooked bars were derived. No. 18-M-0.9L 888 (35.0) Four No. 11 2 l = 6708 (264.1);
The specimens of Marques and Jirsa were tested in a vertical ln = 5748 (226.3);
No. 18-M-0.7L 684 (26.9) Four No. 11 2
Dc = d = 958 (37.7);
position and axial loads were applied. No. 18-M-0.7L-2R 684 (26.9) Eight No. 11 2 Hoop = No. 5 at 480
The specimens were designed to fail the anchorage. The (18.9);
No. 18-M-0.5L 479 (18.9) Four No. 11 2 fc′ = 24.2 (3.51); and
embedment length le was varied from 8.4db to 15.5db for
No. 18 specimens and from 6.3db to 10.4db for No. 11 specimens No. 18-H-0.5L 499 (19.6) Four No. 11 1 fy = 447.7 (64.92).
and No. 8 specimens, where db denotes a bar diameter. The No. 11-H-0.9L 384 (15.1) Four No. 8 1 B = 220 (8.7);
a = 65 (2.6);
largest embedment length tested is approximately 75% of No. 11-M-0.9L 372 (14.6) Four No. 8 2 l = 3044 (119.8);
the development length of hooked bars (ldh) required in No. 11-M-0.7L 295 (11.6) Four No. 8 2
ln = 2604 (102.5);
ACI 352R-028 (for Type 1 connections) and ACI 318-0815 Dc = d = 434 (17.1);
without modification factors. The anchorage of a single No. 11-M-0.7L-2R 295 (11.6) Four No. 11 2 Hoop = No. 4 at 300
(11.8);
longitudinal bar was examined to avoid interference of No. 11-M-0.5L 217 (8.5) Four No. 8 2 fc′ = 24.6 (3.57); and
multi-bar effects. No transverse reinforcement was included No. 11-H-0.5L 229 (9.0) Four No. 8 1 fy = 450.6 (65.34).
to minimize potential confining enhancements to the No. 8-H-0.9L 273 (10.7) Four No. 6 1 B = 160 (6.3);
anchorage. All specimen detailing and testing configuration a = 45 (1.8);
decisions were made to provide a lower-bound (conservative) No. 8-M-0.9L 264 (10.4) Four No. 6 2 l = 2258 (88.9);
2 ln = 1936 (76.2);
estimate of capacity. No. 8-M-0.7L 212 (8.3) Four No. 6
Dc = d = 323 (12.7);
The specimens were designed in accordance with No. 8-M-0.7L-2R 212 (8.3) Four No. 8 2 Hoop = No. 3 at 200
ACI 352R-028 except for the provisions regarding transverse No. 8-M-0.5L 161 (6.3) Four No. 6 2 (7.9);
reinforcement in the joint and the embedment length of a fc′ = 25.1 (3.64); and
No. 8-H-0.5L 170 (6.7) Four No. 6 1 fy = 454.8 (65.95).
headed bar. Main test variables include embedment length
* No. 1-2-3L-4R: 1 bar designation number; 2 H-hooked bar, M-headed
and bar diameter. Three bar diameters (25, 36, and 57 mm
bar; 3 embedment length to column depth ratio; 4 “2R” denotes that the
[No. 8, No. 11, and No. 18]) were chosen, which represent a specimen was reinforced with twice the normal column reinforcements.
†l = embedment length.
range of bars used for beam reinforcement. The width of the e
‡
specimen is 6 times the headed bar diameter (6db). The clear N = number of specimens.
§Refer to Fig. 4.
side cover of 2.5db for a beam bar in an exterior joint is a
common case, providing that the diameters of column bars
and hoops are equal to 1db and 0.5db, respectively. Side-face the yielding of the headed bar. As-built material properties
blowout failure is precluded with the clear side cover of of specimens are summarized in Table 1.
2.5db. For comparison, two specimens with hooked bars A new screw-on headed bar system was used and the head
were tested for each headed bar diameter examined. The was attached to the bar end using a parallel-threaded connection.
embedment lengths for the hooked bar specimens were The threads are formed by cold-rolling the bar with a press and
chosen to be equal to the longest and shortest embedment the sectional area of the thread is not reduced. The head shape
lengths of headed bars for each diameter. is circular with a net head area Anh, equal to 4 times of the bar
Material properties of the bars are in conformance with area Ab in accordance with the studies by Wallace.1,3 The
ASTM A61518 Grade 60 (Grade 420 in SI units) and the headed bars for the tests are shown in Fig. 1 and the head
design compressive strength of concrete at an age of 28 days dimensions refer to Hong et al.19
is 24 MPa (3480 psi). The low concrete strength was Strain gauges were used on the bar surface to assess the
intentionally chosen to produce anchorage failure prior to strain distribution over the embedded length. The strain

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 581

 Fig. 5—Test setup. (Note: units are in mm [in.].)
Fig. 6—Crack patterns after failure (grids are spaced at 100 mm [3.94 in.]).
gauges were spaced at 3db with the first gauge applied at 1db
from the face of the head. For the No. 18 specimens, two
strain gauges were affixed at each measurement point on
both sides of the bar, and the results were averaged. This
minimized the contribution of any localized bar flexure to
the strain. For the hooked bars, the strain gauges were
affixed on the straight portion but were not installed on the
hook. Slip was measured at the head of the headed bars and
at the beginning of the hook bend, as shown in Fig. 4. Load
was applied to the bars at a rate of 5 MPa/min (725 psi/min)
under load control. The tests were terminated when the
applied load decreased to 85% of the maximum load.
TEST RESULTS
Mode of failure and cracking behavior
For all specimens, cracks initiated at the face of the
column around the anchored bar (indicated as 1 in Fig. 6).
582
These cracks are thought to occur due to bond loss. The cracks
then propagated toward the head or the hook along the bar. In
specimens with an embedment length of 90% of the column
depth, bond cracks along the column bars and flexural cracks
in columns formed as 2 and 3 in Fig. 6(a) and (b). In some
specimens, diagonal cracks near column face occurred as 4 in
Fig. 6 due to a combination of shear stresses developed from
loaded bar and column bar. After the cracks along the anchored
bar reached the vicinity of the head or hook, diagonal cracks
formed from the head or hook toward the compressive zone of
the virtual beam (5 in Fig. 6). In specimens with a shallow
embedment length of 50% of column depth, cracks 3 and 4
did not occur and, instead, a cone-shaped concrete breakout
failure was observed, as shown in Fig. 6(c).
After diagonal crack 5 formed, two failure modes were
observed: concrete breakout and joint shear. Specimens with
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
 Fig. 7—Observed failure modes: (a) cone-shaped concrete breakout failure of 0.5L specimens;
(b) joint shear failure with extended diagonal cracks of 0.7L specimens; and (c) joint shear
failure of 0.9L specimens.

Fig. 8—Bar force-head and hook slip (Note: : at initial cracking; : at diagonal cracking; •: at maximum load; solid mark
for headed specimens; and void mark for hooked specimens.)

embedment length of 50% of column depth showed diagonal
cracks radiating from both sides of the head (7 in Fig. 6(c)).
The anchorage force decreased as a breakout cone formed
and separated. This type of failure is referred to as a concrete
breakout failure, as shown in Fig. 7(a). The other specimens
failed immediately after the diagonal crack 5 occurred
(Fig. 6(b) and (e)) as shown in Fig. 7(c) or after the diagonal
crack 5 extended to the other column side (Fig. 6(f)), as
shown in Fig. 7(b). This failure is a joint shear failure. Unlike
specimens with headed bars (denoted as headed specimen
hereafter), the specimens with hooked bars (denoted as
hooked specimen hereafter) did not fail immediately when
the diagonal crack 5 formed. This is attributed to the orien-
tation of the hook that crossed the primary diagonal crack 5.
Additional cracks (6 in Fig. 6(a) and (d)) formed across the
hook and tail with additional loading.
Both failure modes occurred in a brittle sudden manner
because no transverse reinforcement was provided in the
joints. The bar force at the occurrence of diagonal cracking
(Pcr) and maximum anchorage capacity (Pm) are reported in
Table 2.
Slip of heads and hooks
Measured force versus slip relationships for all specimens
except No. 11-M-0.5L-(2) and No. 8-M-0.9L-(1) are
presented in Fig. 8. Specimens having equivalent embedment
length are plotted together.
Specimens with embedment length of 90% of column
depth—The initial cracks along the anchored bar (marked as
 in Fig. 8) of the specimens having equivalent embedment
length occurred at similar loads. The load at initial vertical
crack occurrence are lower than the flexural cracking loads
of the columns (409, 117, and 64 kN [91.1, 26.3, and 14.4 kips]
for No. 18 series, No. 11 series, and No. 8 series, respectively).
Therefore, the vertical cracks are considered to be initiated by
bond loss. The diagonal cracking (marked as  in Fig. 8 and
5 in Fig. 6) loads of the specimens having equivalent
embedment length are also similar. After diagonal cracking,
the load of the headed specimens rapidly decreased, but
hooked specimens resisted additional load. The additional
load of hooked specimens is attributed to the hook crossing
the primary diagonal crack. The maximum loads for hooked
specimens are greater than those for headed specimens by

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 583

Table 2—Test results
Proposed model Failure
Diagonal cracking Maximum load Bond strength Pb-e, Bearing strength
Specimen ID load Pcr , kN (kips) Pm, kN (kips) kN (kips) Ph-e, kN (kips) Pb-e /Pcr Ph-e /Pcr Pcal, kN (kips) Pcr /Pcal mode*
No. 18-H-0.9L 760.7 (171.0) 843.3 (189.6) NA NA NA NA — — JS
No. 18-M-0.9L-(1) 701.3 (157.7) 701.3 (157.7) 298.3 (64.5) 414.3 (93.1) 0.41 0.59 0.95 JS
739.5 (166.2)
No. 18-M-0.9L-(2) 693.2 (155.8) 693.2 (155.8) 298.3 (67.1) 394.9 (88.8) 0.43 0.57 0.94 JS
No. 18-M-0.7L-(1) 434.4 (97.6) 434.4 (97.6) 292.1 (65.7) 142.3 (32.0) 0.67 0.33 0.87 JS
501.2 (112.7)
No. 18-M-0.7L-(2) 444.2 (99.8) 444.2 (99.8) 266.8 (60.0) 177.4 (40.0) 0.60 0.40 0.89 JS
No. 18-M-0.7L-2R-(1) 491.8 (110.6) 491.8 (110.6) 233.5 (52.5) 258.3 (58.1) 0.47 0.53 0.98 JS
501.2 (112.7)
No. 18-M-0.7L-2R-(2) 515.3 (115.8) 515.3 (115.8) 316.6 (71.2) 198.7 (44.7) 0.61 0.39 1.03 JS
No. 18-M-0.5L-(1) 309.4 (69.6) 309.4 (69.6) 164.7 (37.0) 144.7 (32.5) 0.53 0.47 1.18 CB
262.9 (59.1)
No. 18-M-0.5L-(2) 309.0 (69.5) 309.0 (69.5) 171.3 (38.5) 137.8 (31.0) 0.55 0.45 1.18 CB
No. 18-H-0.5L 284.2 (63.9) 307.1 (69.0) NA NA NA NA — — CB
No. 11-H-0.9L 217.0 (48.8) 322.8 (72.6) NA NA NA NA — — JS
No. 11-M-0.9L-(1) 228.8 (51.4) 228.8 (51.4) 106.8 (24.0) 122.0 (27.4) 0.47 0.53 1.03 JS
221.5 (49.8)
No. 11-M-0.9L-(2) 212.1 (47.7) 233.0 (52.4) NA NA NA NA 0.96 JS
No. 11-M-0.7L-(1) 192.5 (43.3) 192.5 (43.3) 81.5 (18.3) 111.0 (25.0) 0.42 0.58 1.27 JS
151.5 (34.1)
No. 11-M-0.7L-(2) 169.7 (38.2) 185.0 (41.6) NA NA NA NA 1.12 JS
No. 11-M-0.7L-2R-(1) 197.8 (44.5) 262.7 (59.1) NA NA NA NA 1.31 JS
151.5 (34.1)
No. 11-M-0.7L-2R-(2) 187.3 (42.1) 227.1 (51.1) 106.9 (24.0) 80.4 (18.1) 0.57 0.43 1.24 JS
No. 11-M-0.5L-(1) 116.8 (26.3) 194.2 (43.7) 47.8 (10.8) 69.0 (15.5) 0.41 0.59 1.45 CB
80.5 (18.1)
No. 11-M-0.5L-(2) 121.7 (27.4) 152.7 (34.3) 56.4 (12.7) 65.5 (14.7) 0.46 0.54 1.51 CB
No. 11-H-0.5L 106.1 (23.8) 127.7 (28.7) NA NA NA NA — — CB
No. 8-H-0.9L 113.6 (25.5) 149.5 (33.6) NA NA NA NA — — JS
No. 8-M-0.9L-(1) 123.7 (27.8) 123.7 (27.9) NA NA NA NA 1.14 JS
108.2 (24.3)
No. 8-M-0.9L-(2) 122.7 (27.6) 127.3 (28.6) NA NA NA NA 1.13 JS
No. 8-M-0.7L-(1) 93.7 (21.1) 122.1 (27.4) NA NA NA NA 1.25 JS
75.0 (16.8)
No. 8-M-0.7L-(2) 91.1 (20.5) 126.6 (28.5) NA NA NA NA 1.21 JS
No. 8-M-0.7L-2R-(1) 88.8 (20.0) 141.6 (31.8) 40.4 (9.1) 48.3 (10.9) 0.46 0.54 1.18 JS
75.0 (16.8)
No. 8-M-0.7L-2R-(2) 90.4 (20.3) 144.9 (32.6) 31.5 (7.1) 58.9 (13.3) 0.35 0.65 1.21 JS
No. 8-M-0.5L-(1) 59.4 (13.4) 73.1 (16.4) NA NA NA NA 1.40 CB
42.4 (9.5)
No. 8-M-0.5L-(2) 56.1 (12.6) 94.0 (21.1) NA NA NA NA 1.32 CB
No. 8-H-0.5L 67.2 (15.1) 80.3 (18.1) NA NA NA NA — — CB
Average 0.49 0.51 Average 1.16
COV 15%
*
JS: Joint shear failure, CB: concrete breakout failure.

20.9%, 40.0%, and 19.1% for No. 18 series, No. 11 series,
and No. 8 series, respectively.
The slip of all headed specimens (including specimens
with embedment length of 70% and 50% of column depth) at
diagonal cracking loads are less than 0.3 mm (0.012 in.), and
for most specimens, the slip is less than 0.2 mm (0.008 in.).
The slip of hooked specimens at diagonal cracking loads are
also small (from 0.17 to 0.69 mm [0.007 to 0.027 in.]) but
greater than those of headed specimens, especially for
No. 18-H-0.9L and No. 18-H-0.5L. Due to the bend
radius on the hooked bar, the straight segment of the hooked
bar is shorter than the headed bar for the same embedment.
As a result, the hook provides a greater proportion of the
anchorage strength for the hooked bar than the head does for
the headed bar anchorage. The concrete inside hook radius
may have crushed, resulting in slip at the face of the joint.20
After diagonal cracking, the slip rapidly increased for all
hooked specimens. For No. 18-H-0.9L, No. 11-H-0.9L, and
No. 8-H-0.9L, the slip at maximum load was 1.30, 1.03, and
3.14 mm (0.05, 0.04, and 0.12 in.), respectively. Generally, the
slip induces a significant pinching effect on the load-
deformation behavior of a beam-column joint under
cyclic loading. This behavior reduces the energy resistance
of the connection and, thus, the slip should be limited until
the design strength is developed. CEB-FIP MC9021 specifies
that the slip for headed bars between the bar and the concrete
at the loaded end shall not exceed 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) under 95%
of the ultimate force. Because the slip in Fig. 8 was measured
between the hook (or the head) and the concrete at the rear of
the joint, the slip relative to the face of the joint will be
greater than the measured slip due to the additional elongation
of the bar in the joint. Because the slip at the face of the joint
exceeds 0.5 mm (0.02 in.), the additional strength after diagonal
cracking should be ignored for safety of the overall structure.
Specimens with embedment length of 70% of column
depth—Graphs of Fig. 8(b), (e), and (h) show comparisons
of force versus slip relationships of specimens having heavy
column reinforcement with those of specimens having normal
column reinforcement. The normal column reinforcement
was determined in accordance with ACI 352R-028 and the
columns of specimens having “2R” in their identifications
were reinforced with twice the normal column reinforcements
(refer to Table 1). These specimens were tested to investigate
the influence of the amount of column reinforcement on the
anchorage capacity.

584 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

 There is no significant difference in behavior between the
specimens until diagonal cracking occurs. At diagonal
cracking, the average strengths of the two duplicate specimens
with heavy column reinforcement were greater than those
with normal column reinforcements by 14.6% and 6.3% for
No. 18 specimens and No. 11 specimens, respectively. The
average strength of two No. 8-M-0.7L-2R specimens,
however, was less than the average load of two No. 8-M-0.7L
specimens by 3.0% at diagonal cracking. The diagonal crack
occurred due to failure of the compressive strut from the
bearing head to the compressive zone of the idealized beam,
as illustrated in the strut-and-tie model of Fig. 2(b). Because the
column is elastic prior to diagonal cracking, the shear strength
was not affected by the amount of column reinforcement.
Consequently, there was little difference in diagonal
cracking loads with variations on the amount of column
reinforcement for No. 11 and No. 8 specimens. The column
reinforcement of No. 18-M-0.7L-2R, however, was placed
in double layers, whereas that of No. 18-M-0.7L was in single
layer as shown in Fig. 4 and Table 1. If the joints are modeled
by a strut-and-tie model, the widths of the longitudinal ties of
No. 18-M-0.7L-2R are greater than the widths of the ties of
No. 18-M-0.7L. The width of the diagonal strut of No.
18-M-0.7L-2R is greater than that of No. 18-M-0.7L and, there-
fore, the strut capacity of No. 18-M-0.7L-2R is enhanced.
After diagonal cracking, No. 18 specimens immediately
lost load-carrying ability. The loads of No. 11 and No. 8
specimens increased after a marginal decrease due to diagonal
cracking. These specimens reached maximum loads when the
extended diagonal crack (crack 8 of Fig. 6(f)) occurred. The
maximum loads of specimens with heavy column reinforcement
are higher than those with normal column reinforcement by
29.7% and 15.2% for No. 11 and No. 8 specimens, respectively.
The column reinforcements were located across the extended
diagonal crack. As more column reinforcement was
provided, the formation of the extended diagonal crack was
delayed. Therefore, the specimens with heavy column rein-
forcement could resist higher load than the specimens with
normal column reinforcement. The measured slip of the
specimens, which exceeded the cracking load, is greater than
the allowable value of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.). As mentioned
previously, the additional strength after diagonal cracking
should be ignored for safety of the overall structure.
Specimens with embedment length of 50% of column
depth—Unlike the specimens with deep embedment length,
the loads carried by specimens with embedment length of Fig. 9—Stress distribution along bar in No. 18 specimens.
50% of the column depth steadily increased after diagonal
cracking until additional diagonal cracks, completing a
breakout cone, were formed. The slip rapidly increased after resisted by bond. The slope of the line near the column face
diagonal cracking, such that additional strength after diagonal at a load of 400 kN (90 kips) approached zero, which means
cracking should be ignored. the bond resistance near the column face is deteriorated.
Bearing was evaluated from the bar strains at a distance of
Bar stress distribution 1db from the head face of headed bars and at the beginning
Figure 9 illustrates the stress distributions for the No. 18 of the hook bend. As load increases, head bearing starts to
specimens, which were calculated from the measured strains develop. At a load of 600 kN (135 kips), the head bearing
and the stress-strain response of the coupon tests. The resists almost half of the load. For the hooked specimen, the
horizontal axis represents the location of strain gauges stress distributions are similar to those of the headed specimen
with an origin at the column face. Because the beam until the bar load of 600 kN (135 kips). At a load of 701 kN
concrete was not placed, the strains measured outside the (158 kips), the slope of the line of the hooked specimen
joint are equal to the strains at the column face. is flatter than that of the headed specimen, which means
Figure 9(a) shows the stress distributions of No. 18-H-0.9L severe bond deterioration. Due to the shorter straight
(dashed lines) and No. 18-M-0.9L-(1) (solid lines). For the portion of the hooked specimen compared with the
headed specimen, the stress distributions at loads of 200 and headed specimen, most of the bar load is carried by the
400 kN (45 and 90 kips) show that most of the load is hook because the bond is deteriorated.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 585


Fig. 10—Bond and head bearing contribution to anchorage
strength of selected specimens.
The stress distributions of No. 18-H-0.5L (dashed lines) and
No. 18-M-0.5L-(1) (solid lines) are presented in Fig. 9(b). The
development of head bearing and bond resistance of No.
18-M-0.5L-(1) is similar to that of No. 18-M-0.9L-(1). For the
hooked specimen (No. 18-H-0.5L), however, the bond
resistance is lost earlier compared to No. 18-H-0.9L and No.
18-M-0.5L-(1). At a load of 200 kN (45 kips), that is, two
thirds of the maximum load, the dashed line is nearly flat,
which denotes that the bond resistance is almost lost. The
bond loss of the hooked specimen is considered to be
induced by the shorter straight portion.
Head bearing and bond contribution to
headed bar anchorage strength
The contributions of head bearing and bond to the total
anchorage force were determined from the measured strain
distributions. The head/hook anchorage contribution was
assumed to equal the stress at a distance of 1db from the head
face of headed bars or at the beginning of the hook bend of
hooked bars. The bond contribution was determined by
deducting the bearing from the stress outside the joint.
586
The components of the anchorage force provided by bond
and head (or hook) bearing are shown in Fig. 10. Loads at
initial cracking and diagonal cracking are marked in each
figure. In hooked specimens, the increase of bond contribution
begins to slow down and even decrease on initial bond crack
formation, and most of the bar force is carried by hook
bearing at failure. This may induce concrete crushing inside
the hook radius. Because of this concrete crushing, slip of the
hook was larger than that of the head at same load level, as
shown in Fig. 8.
Even after the initial bond crack formed, bond resistance
still increased in headed specimens. Because the straight
portion of the headed specimens is longer than that of the
hooked specimens, bond resistance of the headed specimens
was always greater than that of the hooked specimens. After
the bond contribution reached its maximum value, the
contribution from bond remained relatively constant or
slightly decreased while the head carried additional force
gain. At failure, approximately 60% of the bar force was
carried by head bearing and approximately 40% by bond for
No. 18-M-0.9L-(1), as shown in Fig. 10(a). In Table 2,
contributions from the head bearing and the bond to the total
load at diagonal cracking of each specimen are summarized.
EXISTING MODELS FOR ANCHORAGE
STRENGTH OF HEADED BARS
Models for predicting anchorage strength of headed bars
were proposed by Thompson et al.,22 Bashandy,11 and
DeVries.10 Thompson et al. conducted test programs of CCT
nodes and lap splices. Several failure modes were mixed in
the tests. The specimens of the CCT node test failed by side-
face blowout (laterally splitting), crushing of concrete, or
rupture of nodal zone,13 and the specimens of the lap-splice
test failed by rupture of cover concrete.23 Thompson et
al.’s22 model consists of two capacities induced by head
bearing and bond. Section 12.6 for the development of
headed bars is introduced in ACI 318-08 and it provides an
equation to calculate the development length of a headed bar,
which is based on the tests of Thompson. Bashandy tested 32
simulated exterior beam-column joints and proposed a model
from 18 tests that failed by side-face blowout. DeVries
proposed two models for anchorage strength of headed bars
depending on the failure mode: concrete breakout or side-
face blowout.
Section 12.6.2 of ACI 349-0614 stipulates that mechanical
anchorages shall be designed in accordance with Appendix D,
which is a specification for anchor design and is based on the
concrete capacity design (CCD) method.24 ACI 349-0614 defines
five failure modes for anchors in tension: steel failure, concrete
breakout, pullout, side-face blowout, and concrete splitting. The
anchorage strength is determined to be the lowest value among
the strengths calculated from the failure modes.
From comparisons of test results with the existing models
(refer to Table A in the Appendix), the existing models are
not suitable for predicting the concrete contribution of the
anchorage strengths of the specimens in this research
because the failure modes on which the existing models are
based are different from the failure modes of this study.
PROPOSED MODEL FOR ANCHORAGE
STRENGTH OF HEADED BAR
A strut-and-tie model for the anchorage of a headed bar in
an exterior beam-column joint without transverse reinforcement
was developed using a smeared nodal zone and a fan by
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Fig. 11—Relationship between normalized head bearing
and normalized embedment.
authors.19 A new model is developed from the experimental
results to predict the anchorage strength of the headed bar in
an exterior beam-column joint. It is observed from the tests
that the anchorage strength of the headed bar is developed
from a combination of head bearing and bond. Contribution
of each component to the total anchorage strength is statisti-
cally assessed from the measured data at the occurrence of
diagonal cracking.
Head bearing contribution Phead
According to the measured data, the head bearing stress is
proportional to the embedment length. The head bearing
stress is determined by dividing the bar force (Esεb Ab) by the
net head area (Anh), where Es denotes modulus of elasticity
of headed bar, εb is measured strain at 1db from the head face,
and Ab is headed bar area. Figure 11 shows the relationship
between normalized head bearing stress and normalized
embedment length. Because the strain gauges failed in some
specimens, the bearing strengths of nine specimens cannot
be determined, which are marked as “NA” in Table 2. In
Fig. 11, the x-axis represents the embedment length normal-
ized by column depth Dc and the y-axis represents the stress
developed by head bearing normalized by effective
compressive strength of concrete 0.85fc′ . The head bearing
cannot be fully developed in the specimens with shallow
embedment length. In the specimens with deep embedment
length, however, the stress induced by the head bearing is
greater than 0.85fc′ .
The head bearing may be affected by the joint strut. With
deep embedment length, the head is located in or behind the
joint strut and the head bearing can be fully developed. In the
case of shallow embedment length, the joint strut cannot
confine the head. Consequently, the head bearing is dependent
on the normalized embedment length. For simplicity, a linear
regression analysis is conducted and the following equation
is derived.
Phead = [1 + 2.27(le – 0.7Dc)/Dc]0.85fc′Anh (1)
When the embedment length is 0.7Dc , the stress induced
by head bearing is equal to the effective compressive
strength of concrete. With shallow embedment length, the
head bearing capacity decreases linearly, and the head
bearing capacity increases linearly with deep embedment
length longer than 0.7Dc.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Fig. 12—Shear stress distribution on headed bar.
It is worth comparing Eq. (1) with Thompson’s model22
for head bearing capacity as follows
fs,head = n5%2fc′ (c/db) A nh /A b Ψ (2)
where fs,head is the anchorage bar strength provided by head
bearing, n5% is a 5% fractile coefficient, c is a minimum
cover dimension measured to bar center, Ψ (= 0.6 + 0.4(c2/c) ≤
2.0) is a radial disturbance factor, and c2 is a minimum cover
dimension measured in direction orthogonal to c.
By substituting 3, 4, 2, 0.7 for (c/db), (Anh/Ab), Ψ, n5%,
respectively, into Eq. (2), Thompson’s model yields fs,head =
16.8fc′ . Multiplying (Ab/Anh) to the fs,head yields 4.2fc′ of a
bearing stress acting on the concrete in front of the head. The
maximum strength from Eq. (1) with le ≈ Dc is
1.93(0.85fc′ )Anh. Dividing the maximum value by Anh yields
the maximum bearing stress 1.6fc′ , which is approximately
40% of Thompson’s model. The difference between the head
bearing capacities calculated by Eq. (1) and (2) is due to the
node conditions of the tests on which each equation is based.
As previously mentioned, the node strength of the surface
CCT node is greater than that of the interior CCT node. The
head bearing strength in the interior CCT node such as
exterior beam-column joint may be determined by Eq. (1).
Bond contribution Pbond
The bond stress is determined by dividing the measured
bond strength (Pb-e) by the bar diameter (φb) and the length
(le – db), where the measured bond strength (Pb-e) is obtained
by subtracting the measured bearing strength (Esεb Ab) from
the bar load at the diagonal cracking. Traditionally, the bond
stress is expressed in terms of f c′ . The bond stresses are
scattered and had no relationship with the embedment
length. The average of bond stresses for 15 specimens is
0.504 f c′ (MPa) (6.07 f c′ [psi]) and is greater than the
bond strength calculated from Section 12.2.2 of ACI 318-08.
The directions of shear stresses on both interfaces between
headed bar and concrete in the interior CCT node are shown
in Fig. 12(b). In the case of the surface CCT node, however,
the directions of shear stresses on the interfaces of headed
bar are opposite (Fig. 12(a)). Even though the bearing plate
directly confines the node concrete, the bond capacity may
587
 Table 3—Comparison of test results in Reference 11
and proposed model
Proposed
model
Anh,
db, fc′, le , Dc, Pcal,
mm 2 Measured
Specimen mm MPa mm mm load P, kN
ID (in.) (ksi) (in.) (in.) (in.2) kN (kips) (kips) Pcal /P
35 26.7 280 381 4494 227 185.1
T1 (1.4) (3.87) (11.0) (15.0) (6.97) (51.0) (41.6)
1.23

35 29.4 280 381 4494 222 200.1

T2 1.11
(1.4) (4.26) (11.0) (15.0) (6.97) (49.9) (45.0)
35 29.4 285 381 7094 232 281.5
T3 0.82
(1.4) (4.26) (11.2) (15.0) (11.0) (52.2) (63.3)
25 26.7 211 305 2690 94 98.0
T4 (1.0) (3.87) (8.3) (12.0) (4.17) (21.1) (22.0) 0.96

35 22.5 280 381 4494 167 161.3

Fig. 13—Comparison between test results and predicted
values. *Values in parentheses are calculated including
data of Reference 11.
decrease in the surface CCT node due to the opposite direction
of the shear stresses. The bond capacity of the headed bar
terminated within the exterior beam column joint may be
determined by the following equation
Pbond = 0.504 f c′ φb(le – db) [MPa]
= 6.07 f c′ φb(le – db) [psi]
where φb (= πdb) is a bar perimeter.
Proposed model
By summing the bond and head bearing components, the
anchorage strength can be determined. The predicted values
calculated from Eq. (1) and (3) are summarized in Table 2
and Fig. 13 and compared to the test values for 24 specimens.
Test results of six specimens failing in shear conducted by
Bashandy11 were also compared with the proposed model in
Table 3 and Fig. 13. Figure 13 shows that the proposed
model can predict the strengths without bias on four specimen
series. The average of ratios of tests to predictions is 1.16 and
the coefficient of variation is 0.15. It is found that a coefficient
for 5% fractile25 is 0.78 from statistical analysis. The final form
of the proposed model is
P = n 5% ( P bearing + P bond )
= 0.78 ⎛ 1 + 2.27 ----------------------
l e – 0.7D c⎞
- 0.85f c′ A nh + 0.504 f c′ φ b ( l e – d b )
⎝ Dc ⎠
l e – 0.7D c⎞
= 0.78 ⎛ 1 + 2.27 ----------------------
- 0.85f c′ A nh + 6.07 f c′ φ b ( l e – d b )
⎝ Dc ⎠
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An experimental study was performed to assess the
anchorage capacity of the headed bar terminated within exterior
beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement. Tests
were conducted on 30 full-scale simplified specimens with
beam bars in diameters of 25, 36, and 57 mm (No. 8, No. 11,
and No. 18) with both 90-degree hooked bar and headed bar
anchorages. Tensile load was directly applied to the bar and
T5 1.04
(1.4) (3.26) (11.0) (15.0) (6.97) (37.5) (36.3)
35 33.3 209 305 2838 173 133.1
T31 1.30
(1.4) (4.83) (8.2) (12.0) (4.40) (38.9) (29.9)
Average 1.08
Coefficient of variation 16%
Note: db is bar diameter, le is embedment length, Dc is depth of column (refer to Fig. 4), and
Anh is net head area.
the same amount of compressive load was applied to the
compressive zone of an idealized beam. A new model
predicting anchorage strength of headed bars has been
(3) proposed using statistical analysis of test results. Based on
the test results and statistical analysis, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. The anchorage strength of headed bars consists of head
bearing and bond. Initial anchorage is carried by bond. As
load increases in the bar, head bearing starts to develop.
After bond contribution reaches its maximum value, bond
resistance remains constant or slightly decreases. The
anchorage capacity of headed bars is provided by peak head
bearing plus slightly reduced bond;
2. The head bearing strength contribution is proportional
to the embedment depth normalized by the column depth.
Greater bearing strength is provided at greater embedment
depths due to the confinement provided from the diagonal
compressive strut in the joint. When the embedment depth is
0.7 times the column depth, the head bearing strength is
equal to the effective compressive strength of concrete.
From statistical analysis, a model is derived to predict head
bearing strength as a function of a ratio of an embedment
length to a column depth;
3. The measured bond strength per unit area has no relationship
(4) with embedment length. The mean bond strength of specimens is
slightly higher than the bond strength calculated from Section
12.2.2 of ACI 318-08. Considering the safety factor of provi-
sions of the ACI 318 regarding development lengths, the
[MPa]
measured bond strengths are similar to bond strength determined
from ACI 318. The bond strength in the interior CCT node is
[psi] higher than that in the surface CCT node; and
4. The anchorage strength of the headed bars terminated
within exterior joint with sufficient side cover (greater than
3db from the bar center) can be accurately predicted by
Eq. (4). The formulation predicts the strength based on a
combination of head bearing and bond capacity. Failure
modes of headed bar anchorage are varied with given
geometric and material conditions and, therefore, a specific
model complying with the given condition of the anchorage
zone should be used rather than a general model for the
anchorage strength of headed bars.

588 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

 REFERENCES
1. Wallace, J. W., “Headed Reinforcement: A Viable Option,” Concrete
International, V. 19, No. 12, Dec. 1997, pp. 47-53.
2. Berner, D. E., and Hoff, G. C., “Headed Reinforcement in Disturbed
Strain Regions of Concrete Members,” Concrete International, V. 16, No. 1,
Jan. 1994, pp. 48-52.
3. Wallace, J. W.; McConnell, S. W.; Gupta, P.; and Cote, P. A., “Use of
Headed Reinforcement in Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Earthquake
Loads,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1998, pp. 590-606.
4. McConnell, S. W., and Wallace, J. W., “Use of T-Headed Bars in
Reinforced Concrete Knee-Joints Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Loading,”
Report No. CU/CEE-94/10, Department of Civil Engineering, Clarkson
University, Potsdam, NY, 1994, 44 pp.
5. Chun, S. C., and Kim, D. Y., “Evaluation of Mechanical Anchorage of
Reinforcement by Exterior Beam-Column Joint Experiments,” Proceedings
of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC,
Canada, 2004. (CD-ROM)
6. Mokhtar, A. S.; Ghali, A.; and Dilger, W. H., “Stud Shear Reinforcement
for Flat Concrete Plates,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 676-683.
7. Elgabry, A. A., and Ghali, A., “Tests on Concrete Slab-Column
Connections with Stud Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-
Moment Transfer,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1987,
pp. 433-442.
8. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
(ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002,
37 pp.
9. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421, “Guide to Shear Reinforcement for
Slabs (ACI 421.1R-08),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2008, 23 pp.
10. DeVries, R. A., “Anchorage of Headed Reinforcement in Concrete,”
PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1996, 294 pp.
11. Bashandy, T. R., “Application of Headed Bars in Concrete
Members,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX,
Dec. 1996, 302 pp.
12. Thompson, M. K., “The Anchorage Behavior of Headed Reinforcement
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
in CCT Nodes and Lap Splices,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX, 2002, 502 pp.
13. Thompson, M. K.; Ziehl, M. J.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E.,
“CCT Nodes Anchored by Headed Bars—Part 1: Behavior of Nodes,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005, pp. 808-815.
14. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-
Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-06) and Commentary,” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, 153 pp.
15. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 465 pp.
16. Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., “Shear Strength of R/C Beam-
Column Connections,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 107,
No. ST11, Nov. 1981, pp. 2227-2244.
17. Marques, J. L. G., and Jirsa, J. O., “A Study of Hooked Bar Anchor-
ages in Beam-Column Joints,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 72, No. 5,
May 1975, pp. 198-209.
18. ASTM A615-06, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain
Carbon Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, 6 pp.
19. Hong, S.-G.; Chun, S.-C.; Lee, S.-H.; and Oh, B., “Strut-and-Tie
Model for Development of Headed Bars in Exterior Beam-Column Joint,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2007, pp. 590-600.
20. Ghali, A., and Dilger, W. H., “Anchoring with Double-Headed
Studs,” Concrete International, V. 20, No. 11, Nov. 1998, pp. 21-24.
21. Comité Euro-International du Béton, “CEB-FIP Model Code, 1990,”
Thomas Telford, 437 pp.
22. Thompson, M. K.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., “Behavior and
Capacity of Headed Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103,
No. 4, July-Aug. 2006, pp. 522-530.
23. Thompson, M. K.; Ledesma, A.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., “Lap
Splices Anchored by Headed Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. 2006, pp. 271-279.
24. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; and Breen, J. E., “Concrete Capacity
Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 73-94.
25. Natrella, M. G., “Experimental Statistics,” National Bureau of Standards
Handbook 91, 1966.
589
 APPENDIX

Table A—Comparison of test values with predicted values

Predicted strength by
DeVries
Thompson Bashandy Concrete breakout Side-face blowout ACI 318-08 Proposed model
Diagonal cracking (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Specimen ID load Pcr , kN (kips) kN (kips) (1)/Pcr kN (kips) (2)/Pcr kN (kips) (3)/Pcr kN (kips) (4)/Pcr kN (kips) (5)/Pcr kN (kips) (6)/Pcr
No. 18-M-0.9L-(1) 701.3 (157.7) 1322.5 1.89 126.5 1.87 159.2 0.23 619.6 0.88 126.5 0.18 739.5 1.05
No. 18-M-0.9L-(2) 693.2 (155.8) (297.3) 1.91 (28.4) 1.89 (35.8) 0.23 (139.3) 0.89 (28.4) 0.18 (166.2) 1.07
No. 18-M-0.7L-(1) 434.4 (97.6) 1267.8 2.92 112.8 2.28 141.4 0.33 832.0 1.97 112.8 0.26 501.2 1.15
No. 18-M-0.7L-(2) 444.2 (99.8) (285.0) 2.85 (25.3) 2.23 (31.8) 0.32 (187.0) 1.87 (25.3) 0.25 (112.7) 1.13
No. 18-M-0.7L-2R-(1) 491.8 (110.6) 1267.8 2.58 112.8 2.02 141.4 0.29 832.0 1.69 112.8 0.23 501.2 1.02
No. 18-M-0.7L-2R-(2) 515.3 (115.8) (285.0) 2.46 (25.3) 1.93 (31.8) 0.27 (187.0) 1.61 (25.3) 0.22 (112.7) 0.97
No. 18-M-0.5L-(1) 309.4 (69.6) 1,212.8 3.92 97.1 2.16 121.0 0.39 997.6 3.22 97.1 0.31 262.9 0.85
No. 18-M-0.5L-(2) 309.0 (69.5) (272.8) 3.92 (21.8) 2.16 (27.2) 0.39 (224.3) 3.22 (21.8) 0.31 (59.1) 0.85
No. 11-M-0.9L-(1) 228.8 (51.4) 495.3 2.17 53.3 1.65 66.6 0.29 256.9 1.12 53.3 0.23 221.5 0.97
No. 11-M-0.9L-(2) 212.1 (47.7) (111.3) 2.13 (12.0) 1.62 (15.0) 0.29 (57.8) 1.10 (12.0) 0.23 (49.8) 1.04
No. 11-M-0.7L-(1) 192.5 (43.3) 482.3 2.51 48.4 1.50 60.2 0.31 284.5 1.48 48.4 0.25 151.5 0.79
No. 11-M-0.7L-(2) 169.7 (38.2) (108.4) 2.61 (10.9) 1.56 (13.5) 0.33 (64.0) 1.54 (10.9) 0.26 (34.1) 0.89
No. 11-M-0.7L-2R-(1) 197.8 (44.5) 482.3 1.84 48.4 1.10 60.2 0.23 284.5 1.08 48.4 0.18 151.5 0.77
No. 11-M-0.7L-2R-(2) 187.3 (42.1) (108.4) 2.12 (10.9) 1.27 (13.5) 0.27 (64.0) 1.25 (10.9) 0.21 (34.1) 0.81
No. 11-M-0.5L-(1) 116.8 (26.3) 469.2 2.42 42.9 1.02 53.1 0.27 284.5 1.47 42.9 0.22 80.5 0.69
No. 11-M-0.5L-(2) 121.7 (27.4) (105.5) 3.07 (9.7) 1.30 (11.9) 0.35 (64.0) 1.86 (9.7) 0.28 (18.1) 0.66
No. 8-M-0.9L-(1) 123.7 (27.8) 260.7 2.11 33.0 1.62 41.2 0.33 141.0 1.14 33.0 0.27 108.2 0.87
No. 8-M-0.9L-(2) 122.7 (27.6) (58.6) 2.05 (7.4) 1.58 (9.3) 0.32 (31.7) 1.11 (7.4) 0.26 (24.3) 0.88
No. 8-M-0.7L-(1) 93.7 (21.1) 254.4 2.08 30.2 1.26 37.5 0.31 152.3 1.25 30.2 0.25 75.0 0.80
No. 8-M-0.7L-(2) 91.1 (20.5) (57.2) 2.01 (6.8) 1.22 (8.4) 0.30 (34.2) 1.20 (6.8) 0.24 (16.8) 0.82
No. 8-M-0.7L-2R-(1) 88.8 (20.0) 254.4 1.80 30.2 1.09 37.5 0.26 152.3 1.08 30.2 0.21 75.0 0.84
No. 8-M-0.7L-2R-(2) 90.4 (20.3) (57.2) 1.76 (6.8) 1.06 (8.4) 0.26 (34.2) 1.05 (6.8) 0.21 (16.8) 0.83
No. 8-M-0.5L-(1) 59.4 (13.4) 248.1 3.39 27.1 1.48 33.4 0.46 152.3 2.08 27.1 0.37 42.4 0.71
No. 8-M-0.5L-(2) 56.1 (12.6) (55.8) 2.64 (6.1) 1.15 (7.5) 0.36 (34.2) 1.62 (6.1) 0.29 (9.5) 0.76
Average 2.46 0.31 1.53 0.25 0.88
COV 25% 18% 41% 18% 16%

590 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009