Journal of King Saud University Engineering Sciences (2015) 27, 142152

King Saud University

Journal of King Saud University Engineering Sciences

www.ksu.edu.sa
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Investigation on the seismic behavior of exterior

beamcolumn joint using T-type mechanical
anchorage with hair-clip bar
S. Rajagopal *, S. Prabavathy

Department of Civil Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi 626005, Tamil Nadu, India

Received 20 April 2013; accepted 9 September 2013

Available online 19 September 2013

KEYWORDS Abstract In reinforced concrete structures, it is essential to enhance the performance of beam
Reinforced concrete struc- column joints in moderate and severe seismic susceptibility areas. An attempt has been made to
ture; study and evaluate the performance of exterior beamcolumn joint using proper reinforcement
Exterior beamcolumn joint; anchorage and joint core detail. The anchorages are detailed as per ACI-352 (Mechanical anchor-
Seismic; age), ACI-318 (90 Standard bent anchorages) and IS-456 (Full anchorage) along with connement
Mechanical anchorage; as per IS-13920. Signicant improvements were observed in seismic performance, ductility and
Hair clip bar; strength while using proposed hair-clip bar plus X-cross bar in combination with mechanical
Reversal loading
anchorage detail for higher seismic prone areas, apart from resolution to reducing congestion of
reinforcement in joint core. To assess the performances of anchorages and joint details, two groups
of three specimens each were tested under reversal loading. The test results are evaluated and
presented in this paper.
2013 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

Introduction on use of headed bars in joints is needed as per the ACI-352

Beamcolumn joints in higher seismic zones are critical regions
in the reinforced concrete framed structure. For proper
anchorage with joints, details of reinforcement are essential,
innovative joint designs that are able to reduce reinforcement
congestion are particularly desirable and additional research
* Corresponding author. Mobile: +91 98411 08296.
E-mail address: srajagopals@gmail.com (S. Rajagopal).
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
1018-3639 2013 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2013.09.002
(2002). The investigation of the beamcolumn joint reinforce-
ment details for the longitudinal beam reinforcement bar with
90 bent standard hook anchorage and mechanical anchor for
joint connement detail arrangement under the reversal load-
ing conditions has been a research area for many years. Some
of the experimental studies and analytical studies in the litera-
ture are presented below.
Park and Paulay (1975) recommended the detailing of joints
for the earthquake resistance structures using bent-up bars,
stub-beam with bent-up bars and mechanical anchorage for
serving as anchorage as well as effective ties for connement
in the joint core of the exterior beamcolumn joints. Paulay
(1989) suggests that, as in the case of linear element, joint shear
reinforcement is necessary to sustain a diagonal compression
Investigation on the seismic behavior of exterior beamcolumn joint using T-type mechanical anchorage
Notations
Ac area of column core measured from outside edge
to outside edge of spiral or hoop reinforcement
Ag gross area of column cross section
Ash area of the bar cross section (IS-Code)
Ash total cross-sectional area of all legs of hoop rein-
forcement, including crossties, crossing a section
having core dimension b00c
Ak area of conned concrete core in the rectangular
hoop measured to its outside dimensions
As area of tension reinforcement
b width of the compression face
b00c core dimension of tied column, outside to outside
edge of transverse reinforcement bars, perpendicu-
lar to the transverse reinforcement area Ash being
designed
bj effective width of the joint transverse to the direc-
tion of shear
d effective depth
db nominal diameter of bar
f c0 compressive strength of concrete
fck characteristic compressive strength of concrete
fy yield stress of reinforcement
fyh yield stress of spiral, hoop, and crosstie reinforce-
ment
h longer dimension of the rectangular conning
hoop measured to its outer
hc depth of the column
hst height of the column
Ld development length
Ldh development length for a hooked bar, measured
from the critical section to the outside edge of
the hook extension
eld rather than to provide connement to compressed con-
crete in joint core. Tsonos et al. (1993) suggested that the use
of crossed inclined bars in the joint region was one of the most
effective ways to improve the seismic resistance of exterior
beamcolumn joints. Wallance et al. (1998) suggested that the
use of headed reinforcement had eased specimen fabrication,
concrete placement and improved the behavior equal to that
of specimens with standard 90 hooks for beamcolumn corner
joint. Murty et al. (2003) reported that the standard hooks for
anchorage of the longitudinal beam bar with hair clip-type
transverse joint reinforcement as per ACI were more effective
and such combination of anchorage with joint reinforcement
is easy to construct and can be used in locations demanding
moderate ductility. Chutarat and Aboutaha (2003) reported
that the use of straight-headed bars in the exterior beamcol-
umn joints for cyclic response is very effective in relocating po-
tential plastic regions. Uma et al. (2006) in their review of codes
of practices considered ACI318, NZS 3101: Part-1 and Euro-
code-8 EN1998-1 regarding the design and detailing aspects
of interior and exterior beamcolumn joint. The use of headed
bars has become increasingly popular for relatively large rein-
forced concrete (RC) structures that are exposed to extreme
loads such as strong earthquakes or blasts, often providing
an adequate solution to steel congestion (Chun et al., 2007;
Kang et al., 2009, 2010). Lee and Yu (2009) proposed extension
143
Ldt development length for a headed bar, measured
from the critical section to the outside end of the
head
Mu,lim limiting moment of resistance of the section with-
out compression reinforcement
Mpr beam support moment
Mu ultimate beam moments
Sh center-to-center spacing of hoops or hoops plus
crossties
S pitch of spiral or spacing of hoop, (the spacing of
hoops used as special conning reinforcement shall
not exceed of minimum member dimension but
need not be less than 75 mm nor more than
100 mm)
Tb tension force in the reinforcement
Vn nominal shear strength of the joint
Vcol shear in the column calculated based on Mpr for
beam.
xu depth of the neutral axis (xu,max limiting value of
xu is IS-456, 38.1)
rS stress in bar (0.87 * fy) at the section considered at
design load
sbd design bond stress of concrete (can be increased by
60% for deformed bars)
a stress multiplier for longitudinal reinforcement at
joint-member interface for Type-2, a P 1.25
c shear strength factor reecting connement of
joint by lateral member
nominal diameter of the bar
of ACI design methods to cover the use of mechanical anchor-
age for beamcolumn joints. They also reported that cyclic
behavior of exterior beamcolumn joints can be signicantly
improved by attaching double mechanical device on each beam
bar within the joint. Bindhu et al. (2008) in their experimental
investigations validated with analytical studies and concluded
that additional cross bracing reinforcement improves the seis-
mic performance of the exterior reinforced concrete beamcol-
umn joints. Sagbas et al. (2011) in their FEA Computational
analysis compared the experimental test results of seismically
and non-seismically designed joint detailing for the shear defor-
mations. Asha and Sundararajan (2012) reported that the use
of square spiral connement in joint along with different rein-
forcement detailing for anchorage of beam bars and additional
inclined bars from column to beam connection can successfully
move the plastic hinge away from the column face.
It is noted that the anchorage requirements for the beam
longitudinal reinforcement bar and the joint connement are
the main issues related to problems of congestion of reinforce-
ment in the beamcolumn connections. An attempt has been
made to evaluate the performance of the exterior beam
column joint by replacing the 90 standard bent bar anchor-
ages by T-type mechanical anchorage and additional hair-clip
bar (U-bar) with X-cross bar in the exterior beamcolumn
joint core for the moderate and severe seismic prone zones.
144
The seismic zones are followed as per IS-1893 (2002) and IS-
13920 (1993). It is found that these combinations were effective
in reducing the congestion of reinforcement in joint core and
eased pouring of concrete without compromising the ductility
and stiffness of beamcolumn joints under reversal loading.
Research signicance
The experimental study has been carried out for different types
of anchorages and joint details in the exterior beamcolumn
joint. The T-type headed bar anchorage in combination with
additional hair clip (U-bars) with X-cross bar as joint detail
is having a signicant improvement in the moment capacity.
These types of beamcolumn joint core details improve the
ductility and stiffness behavior without compromising the
strength. In addition, it also reduces the congestion of
reinforcement in the joint core with placement of concrete
and fabrication easier at site.
Experimental details
Testing program
The test involves six numbers of specimens simulating the exte-
rior beamcolumn joint for the experimental program. The
specimens have been divided into two groups of three specimens
each, with different anchorages. These anchorage details are
designated as A, B and C and joint details are designated as 1
and 2. Anchorage detail-A is T-type headed bar followed as
per ACI-352 (2002), anchorage detail-B is standard conven-
tional 90 bent hook followed as per ACI-318M (2011) and
anchorage detail-C is full anchorage followed as per IS-456
(2000). Joint detail-1 has the proposed additional hair-clip (U-
bar) with X-type cross bar reinforcement and joint detail-2 has
standard conventional shear ties arrangement in the joint core.
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of test setup.
S. Rajagopal, S. Prabavathy
Experimental research program
The testing of half-scale exterior beamcolumn joint specimen
was carried out at MEPCO Engineering College, Sivakasi,
India. The Joint assemblage was subjected to reversal loading
using Hydraulic jack of 25 Ton capacity. The specimen column
is kept in horizontal direction and beam is kept vertical as
illustrated in Fig. 1. Both ends of the RCC columns are
restrained in vertical (Fy) and in both horizontal (Fx, Fz)
directions by using strong built up steel boxes which in turn
are connected to the reaction oor using holding down anchor
bolts. To facilitate the application of reversal load (Left Hand
SideLHS and Right Hand SideRHS) on either side of the
RCC beam, hydraulic jacks are used which are connected to
the strong steel frame using mechanical fasteners and the
RCC beam was loaded as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The Linear
Variable Differential Transducer (LVDT) was connected on
either side of the specimen to monitor the displacements.
Fig. 3 shows loading cycle of the test assemblage. To record
the loads accurately, the testing was load controlled with load
increments of 10 kN. The specimen was tested to reach its
maximum failure load.
Details of test specimens
All the six numbers of test specimens of beam and column
are of identical size. The beam sizes are 200 300 mm (width
by depth) and the column cross-section is 300 200 mm as
shown in Fig. 4. The length of the beam is 1200 mm from
the column face and the height of the column is 1500 mm.
The various types of anchorages used are shown in Figs. 5
7 and the joint details used are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. In
Group-I, the anchorages A, B and C are combined with joint
detail-1 and these specimens are named as A1, B1 and C1. In
Group-II, the anchorages A, B and C are combined with
Investigation on the seismic behavior of exterior beamcolumn joint using T-type mechanical anchorage 145

Figure 2 Experimental setup.

Figure 3 Loading sequence.

joint detail-2 and these specimens are named as A2, B2 and

C2.

Material properties used

Concrete was made with 43 grade cement with sand and 20 mm

coarse aggregate. The quantities of material per cubic meter of
concrete used were; cement = 435.45 kg/m3, ne aggregate =
626.673 kg/m3, coarse aggregate = 1188.22 kg/m3, water =
191.6 kg/m3, water/cement ratio = 0.45 and the 28th day
average cube compressive strength was 28.30 MPa. The rein-
forcement bars used were 6,8,12 and 16 mm diameter, all of
HYSD steel of grade Fe-415 (fy = 415 N/mm2) as shown in
Figs. 49 and the grade of headed bar used was E410
(Fe-540) with yield strength of 410 MPa as shown in Fig. 9.
Beamcolumn joint core reinforcement
Joint core reinforcement anchorage
ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002) classied beamcolumn
joints as Type-1 and Type-2. For joints of Type-1, no inelastic
deformations are anticipated whereas joints of Type-2 are
Figure 4 Beam and column size.
designed to sustain strength under deformation reversals in
the inelastic range. It should be noted that this paper deals
only with Type-2 joints, i.e., seismic beamcolumn joints.
The ACI report species that for beams with Type-2 connec-
tions, the critical section for development length of reinforce-
ment either hooked or headed should be taken at the outside
edge of the column core. The development length (Ldh) mea-
sured from the critical section should be computed as shown
in Table 1. The development length Ldt of a headed bar should
be taken as 3/4 of the value computed for hooked bars. In
headed bar, the bar head should be located in the conned core
within 2 in. (50 mm) from the back of the conned core. The
minimum development length Ldt should not be less than 8
146 S. Rajagopal, S. Prabavathy

Figure 5 Specimen Type-A. Figure 7 Specimen Type-C.

Figure 8 Joint rebar detail arrangement.

 
Sh b00c f0c Ag Sh b00c f00c
Ash 0:3  1 P 0:09 1
fyh Ac fyh
The center to center spacing between layers of transverse
reinforcement Sh should not exceed the least of 1/4 of the min-
imum column dimension, six times the diameter of the longitu-
Figure 6 Specimen Type-B. dinal column bars to be restrained, and 6 in (150 mm.).
As per IS-13920 (1993), the area of cross section, Ash of the
db or 6 in. (150 mm) for Type-1 and Type-2 connections. As bar forming rectangular hoop shall be used as special conning
per IS-456 (2000), the development length (Ld) of the hooked reinforcement which shall not be less than (241.30 mm2 <
reinforcement bar should be computed as shown in Table 1. 301.6 mm2 provided).
 
fck Ag
Transverse reinforcement within the joint core Ash 0:18Sh  1:0 2
fy A k

The ACI-352 (2002) committee report recommends adequate

lateral connement of concrete in the joint core for the shear
demand in the form of spirals or rectangular hoops for both
Type-1 and Type-2 joints. For Type-2 joints, the total cross
sectional area of transverse reinforcement within the joint in
each direction should be equal to or greater than Ash as given
in the Eq. (1) (301.6 mm2 provided > 228.82 mm2 P
71.57 mm2).
Results and discussions
Joint shear strength and beam moment
For connection with beams framing in the perpendicular direc-
tion, the horizontal shear in the joint should be checked in
beam direction. The design shear force Vu should be computed
Investigation on the seismic behavior of exterior beamcolumn joint using T-type mechanical anchorage 147

Figure 9 Connement bar and welted T-type headed bar details.

Table 1 Provided and required development lengths for beam bars used for joint subassemblies.
Code details Equations Required development Provided development Beam bars anchorage type Specimen types
length (mm) length (mm) with groups
ACI-352 Ldt 34  Ldh 200.63 250.00 T-type mechanical anchorage A1-I & A2-II
afy db
ACI-318 Ldh p 0 267.50 272.00 90-degree standard bent anchorages B1-I & B2-II
6:2 fc
/rs
IS-456 Ld 4sbd
644.73 710.00 90-degree standard bent full anchorage C1-I & C2-II

Table 2 Moment and joint shear of test specimens.

Specimens Average Theoretical value Tested value of Mu/Mu,lim Vcol (kN) Vu (kN)Joint a Vn (kN) a Vn P Vu as
ultimate of beam moments- beam moments column shear shear nominal shear per ACI-352
load (kN) Mu,lim (kN-m) Mu(kN-m) strength
A1-I 89.5 53.19 62.65 1.18 52.20 260.70 317.90 Ok
A2-II 80.5 53.19 56.35 1.06 46.96 208.54 397.40 Ok
B1-I 90.0 53.19 63.00 1.18 52.50 260.70 317.90 Ok
B2-II 79.0 53.19 55.30 1.04 46.00 208.54 397.40 Ok
C1-I 89.0 53.19 62.30 1.17 51.90 260.70 317.90 Ok
C2-II 79.5 53.19 55.65 1.05 46.40 208.54 397.40 Ok

on a horizontal plane at the mid height of the joint by consid-
ering the shear force on the boundaries of the free body of the
joint as well as the normal tension and compression forces in
the members into the joint, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
The ACI-352 (2002) requirements for the nominal shear
strength of the joint should be satised as per the below
equations.
p Lateral load versus lateral displacement
/Vn /0:083c f0c bj hc P Vu 3
The horizontal joint shear force demand Vu is calculated based
on the amount of beam, slab and other reinforcements within
the beam area as
Vu Tb  Vcol afy As  Vcol
Shear in column calculated based on Mpr for beams
Mpr
Vcol
hst
From Table 2 it is exhibited that the amount of horizontal
joint shear of the Group-I specimens A1, B1 and C1 is higher
than Group-II specimens A2, B2 and C2 by 25%. From the
above test results, it can be inferred that the proposed
additional hair clip bar with joint details signicantly increases
the horizontal shear capacity in addition to the increasing mo-
ment carrying capacity of the beams.
The moment of resistance of rectangular beam section is
calculated by the following expression as per IS-456 (2000)
annex-G.
xu;max h xu;max i 2
Mu;lim 0:36 1  0:42 bd fck 6
d d
The hysteresis loops obtained from the experimental test re-
sults of lateral load versus displacement are shown in Figs. 12
14 and the corresponding peak load versus displacement are
shown in Fig. 15. It is observed that in Group-I, the average
4 ultimate load carrying capacity of the specimens A1, B1 and
C1 are 89.50, 90.00 and 89.00 kN with the corresponding lat-
eral displacement as 47.50, 47.50 and 44.30 mm respectively.
5 Among these, B1 exhibits the maximum load carrying capacity
which is marginally higher than A1 by 0.5% and C1 by 1.1%.
The hysteresis loops (of Group-II) obtained from the exper-
imental test results of lateral load versus displacement are
shown in Fig. 1618, and the corresponding peak load versus
displacement are shown in Fig. 19. It is observed that in
Group-II, the average ultimate load carrying capacity of the
specimens A2, B2 and C2 is 80.50, 79.00 and 79.50 kN with
the corresponding lateral displacement as 45.37, 35.55 and
148 S. Rajagopal, S. Prabavathy

Figure 10 Typical RC frame.

Figure 12 Load vs displacement (A1).

Figure 11 Side sway to right and left.

48.12 mm respectively. Among these, A2 exhibits the maxi-

mum load carrying capacity than B2 by 1.86% and C2 by
1.24%.
The test specimens ultimate load carrying capacity was
assessed from Table 3 and Fig. 20, it was observed that the
ultimate load carrying capacity of Group-I specimens namely
A1, B1 and C1 exhibits higher load carrying capacity than
Group-II specimens namely A2, B2 and C2 by 10%, 12.2%
and 10.67%, respectively. From the above test results, it can
Figure 13 Load vs displacement (B1).
be inferred that the proposed additional hair clip bar with
X-cross bar joint details signicantly increases the ultimate
strength in addition to moment carrying capacity of the beam. several cycles of lateral loads in the inelastic range. Ductility
is the property which allows the structure to undergo a large
Ductility behavior deformation beyond the initial yield deformation without
losing its strength abruptly. Ductility (l) can be dened as
It is essential that an earthquake resistant structure should be the ratio between ultimate deections (du) to initial yielding
capable of deforming in a ductile manner when subject to deection (dy). l = (du/dy).
Investigation on the seismic behavior of exterior beamcolumn joint using T-type mechanical anchorage
Figure 14 Load vs displacement (C1).
Figure 15 Peak load vs displacement (Group-I).
Figure 16 Load vs displacement (A2).
From Table 3, it is observed that Group-I specimens
namely A1 (ACI-352, mechanical anchorage), B1 (ACI-318,
90 bent hook anchorage) and C1 (IS-456, full anchorage)
exhibit higher ductility than Group-II specimens namely A2,
B2 and C2 by 10.70%, 36. 97% and 20.58%, respectively,
wherein additional hair-clip with X-cross bar joint details are
used in Group-I and standard conventional shear ties are used
as joint connement in Group-II specimens. Among these six
specimens, A1 exhibits better performance. This combination
149
Figure 17 Load vs displacement (B2).
Figure 18 Load vs displacement (C2).
Figure 19 Peak load vs displacement (Group-II).
of anchorage and joint details can be used in severe ductility
demanding situations.
Stiffness behavior
In the case of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints, stiff-
ness of the joint gets degraded when the joint is subjected to
reversal loading. During the reversal loading, concrete and
reinforcement steel bars are subjected to several loading,
unloading and reloading cycles. The joints initially develop mi-
cro cracks inside which leads to the lowering of energy limit of
the materials thereby resulting in the increase of deformation
150 S. Rajagopal, S. Prabavathy

Table 3 Observed displacement, ultimate load, ductility and stiffness of test specimens.
Specimen Yielding Ultimate load in kN (Pu) Average Ultimate displacement in mm (du) Average Average Average
name and displacement ultimate displacement displacement stiness in
Left Right Left Right
groups in mm (dy) load for ultimate ductility factor kN/mm
Side Side Side Side
in kN load l = (du/dy) K = (Pu/dy)
(Pu) in mm (du)
A1-I 2.15 89.00 90.00 89.50 42.00 53.00 47.500 22.093 41.628
B1-I 2.40 89.00 91.00 90.00 45.00 50.00 47.500 19.792 37.500
C1-I 2.20 88.00 90.00 89.00 43.50 45.36 44.430 20.195 40.455
A2-II 2.30 80.00 81.00 80.50 42.15 48.60 45.375 19.728 35.000
B2-II 2.85 78.00 80.00 79.00 30.85 40.25 35.550 12.474 27.719
C2-II 3.00 78.50 80.50 79.50 45.63 50.60 48.115 16.038 26.500

Figure 20 Peak load vs displacement. Figure 21 Stiffness vs displacement.

inside the joints. This may consequently cause the reduction in
the stiffness. Therefore it becomes essential to assess the degra-
dation of stiffness in the beam column joints subjected to
reversal loading.
Referring to Fig. 21, the stiffness is plotted in the vertical
direction and average displacement plotted in the horizontal
direction. To obtain the stiffness (K = (P/d)), the average load
(P) which is the peak value of each hysteresis loop was divided
by average displacement (d). From the stiffness versus
displacement graph (Fig. 21) found between Groups-I and
Group-II, specimens A1 and A2 have higher values, than spec-
imens B1, C1, B2 and C2.
Table 3 shows only the average Initial stiffness (Initial stiff-
ness K = Pu/dy .wherein Pu is the Ultimate load and dy is the
Yielding displacement). It has been observed from the experi-
mental results that in Group-I, specimen A1 is having higher
stiffness than specimens B1 and C1 and in Group-II, specimen
A2 is having higher stiffness than specimens B2 and C2. The
specimen A1 which has the proposed additional hair clip
(U-bar) with X-cross bar joint details exhibits better perfor-
mance among these six specimens against stiffness degradation
(stiffness of A1 is higher than A2 by 15.92%). Between the two
groups, the Group-I is having the higher stiffness.
Crack study
On visual examination of crack pattern shown in Figs. 22 and
23, exural cracks have been developed on the beamcolumn
junction and shear cracks on the column in all the specimens.
Further to these cracks, the specimens B1, C1, B2 and C2 have
90 bent tensile anchorage bars, which induce a compressive
stress in the joint diagonally forming a compression strut
due to contact pressure under the bent. Tension tie developed
in the joint perpendicular to the direction of the diagonal ten-
sion tie in the shear panel area will result in diagonal cracks on
the beamcolumn joint. Besides the formation of wide open
cracks in the junction due to the exural failure, the concrete
had also crushed and spalled out from the specimens B1, B2,
C1 and C2 due to failure of compressive strut action on the
either side of the beam in the location of the beamcolumn
joint under reversal loading. The specimens A1 and A2 with
mechanical anchorage show the lesser crack pattern than other
specimens using conventional joint details in Group-I and II
without losing the strength. However specimen A1 with T-type
mechanical anchorage (ACI-352, mechanical anchorage) in
combination with hair clip (U-bar) plus X-cross bars shows
lesser cracks and much better control of crack capacity with
improvement in seismic performance than other specimens.
In addition to the above, it was easy to repair with FRP com-
posite wrap techniques to restore the exural strength, ductility
of earthquake damaged concrete structure beamcolumn
joints since the plastic hinge forming at face of the column
and also there is no diagonal crack in the joint core shear panel
area.
It can therefore be concluded that these types of anchorage
with proposed joint core details are much more effective in con-
trolling beamcolumn joint than conventional joint details. It is
apparent that the use of T-type mechanical anchored bars is a
Investigation on the seismic behavior of exterior beamcolumn joint using T-type mechanical anchorage 151

Figure 22 Crack pattern of Group-I (A1, B1, and C1).

Figure 23 Crack pattern of Group-II (A2, B2, and C2).

viable alternative to the use of standard 90 hook anchorages in
exterior beamcolumn joints in moderate and severe seismic
prone area, for reducing congestion of reinforcement, easier
concrete placement and aids in faster construction at site.
Conclusions
The following suggestions for the detailing of reinforced con-
crete structure exterior beamcolumn joints are made from
the knowledge gathered through the experimental test results.
1. In Group-I, specimen A1 which has proposed additional
hair clip (U-bar) and X-cross bar with the combination of
T-type mechanical anchorage joint detail offers a better
moment carrying capacity thereby improving the seismic
performance without compromising the ductility and stiff-
ness. Further, this arrangement of reinforcement detail in
the exterior beamcolumn joint core reduces congestion
of reinforcement, easier placement of concrete and aids in
faster construction at site as compared to A2 specimen in
Group-II.
2. It has been observed from the experimental test results that
the T-type mechanical anchorage systems as per ACI-352
(specimens A1 and A2) offer better performance with much
better control of cracks than the specimens reinforced with
conventional 90 bent hook anchorage as per ACI-318
(Specimens B1 and B2) and full anchorage as per IS-
456(specimens C1 and C2).
3. The use of conventional 90 bent hook anchorage arrange-
ments in the beamcolumn connection region for severe
earthquake leads to an increase in size of column to accom-
modate the required amount of beam reinforcement in the
joint core, whereas the use of mechanical anchorage results
in the reduction of reinforcement and rebar congestion in
the joint core area. The T-type mechanical anchored bar
is a viable alternative to the use of conventional 90 bent
hook anchorages.
152
References
American concrete Institute, ACI-352, 2002. Recommendations for
design of beamcolumn connections in monolithic reinforced
concrete structures, (reported by joint ACI-ASCE committee
352), Farmington Hiils, Michigan, U.S.A.
American Concrete Institute, ACI-318M, 2011. Building code require-
ments for structural Concrete and commentary, (reported by ACI
committee 318), Farmington Hiils, Michigan, U.S.A.
Asha, P., Sundararajan, R., 2012. Seismic behavior of exterior beam
column joints with square spiral connement. Asian Journal of
Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) 13 (4), 571583.
Bindhu, K.R., Jeya, K.P., Manickaselvam, V.K., 2008. Seismic
resistance of exterior beam column joints non-conventional rein-
forcement detailing. Structural Engineering and Mechanics an
International Journal 30 (6), 733761.
Chutarat, N., Aboutaha, R.S., 2003. Cyclic response of exterior
reinforcement concrete beamcolumn joints reinforcement with
headed bars-experimental investigation. ACI Structural Journal
100 (2), 259264.
Chun, S.-C., Lee, S.-H., Kang, T.H.-K., Oh, B., Wallace, J.W., 2007.
Mechanical anchorage in exterior beamcolumn joints subjected to
cyclic loading. ACI Structural Journal 104 (1), 102113.
IS-1893, 2002. Indian Standard Code on Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
IS-13920, 1993. Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced
Concrete Structure Subjected to Seismic Forces, Code of Practice.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
IS-456, 2000. Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Code of
Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
S. Rajagopal, S. Prabavathy
Lee, H.-J., Yu, Si-Ying, 2009. Cyclic response of exterior beam
column joints with different Anchorage methods. ACI Structural
Journal 106 (3), 329339.
Murty, C.V.R., Raj, D.C., Bajpai, K.K., Jain, S.K., 2003. Effective-
ness of reinforcement details in exterior reinforcement concrete
beamcolumn joints for earthquake resistance. ACI Structural
Journal 100 (2), 149156.
Paulay, T., 1989. Equilibrium criteria for reinforcement concrete
beamcolumn joints. ACI Structural Journal 86 (6), 635643.
Park, R., Paulay, T., 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sagbas, G., Vecchio, F.J., Christopoulos, C., 2011. Computational
modeling of the seismic performance of beamcolumn sub assem-
blies. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15 (4), 640663.
Tsonos, A.G., Tegos, I.A., Penelis, G.Gr., 1993. Seismic resistance of
Type 2 exterior beamcolumn joints reinforcement with inclined
bars. ACI Structural Journal 89 (1), 312.
Wallance, J.W., McConnell, S.W., Guta, P., Cote, P.A., 1998. Used of
headed reinforcement in beamcolumn joints subjected to earth-
quake loads. ACI Structural Journal 95 (5), 590606.
Uma, S.R., Jain, Sudhir K., 2006. Seismic design of beamcolumn
joints on RC moment resisting frames-review of codes. Structural
Engineering and Mechanics an International Journal 23 (5), 579
597.
Kang, T.H.-K., Shin, M., Mitra, N., Bonacci, J.F., 2009. Seismic
design of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints with headed
bars. ACI Structural Journal 106 (6), 868877.
Kang, T.H.-K., Ha, S.-S., Choi, D.-U., 2010. Bar pullout tests and
seismic tests of small-headed bars in beamcolumn joints. ACI
Structural Journal 107 (1), 3242.