ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 329

ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 3, May-June 2009.

MS No. S-2007-313.R2 received April 23, 2008, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the March-
April 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2009.
ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
This paper presents the cyclic response of six exterior beam-
column joints with or without eccentricity to evaluate the use of
mechanical anchorages in place of hooked bar anchorages. In high
seismic zones, the hooked beam bars often cause steel congestion
in a joint at building corners. From previous tests of beam-column
joints, the use of mechanical anchorages in place of hooked bar
anchorages provides a promising solution for steel congestion, but
it has not been verified in eccentric beam-column joints. The
presented experimental program demonstrates that eccentric
beam-column joints with mechanical anchorages can exhibit
satisfactory performance and adequate anchorage capacity for a
limiting drift ratio. Extending ACI design methods to cover the use
of mechanical anchorages for eccentric beam-column joints is an
appropriate code modification. Test results also indicate that the
cyclic behavior of exterior beam-column joints can be significantly
improved by attaching double mechanical devices on each beam
bar within the joint.
Keywords: anchorage; beam-column joint; connection; headed bar;
seismic design.
INTRODUCTION
Hooked bar anchorages are commonly used for longitudinal
beam flexural reinforcing bars terminating within a building
beam-column joint. To promote the development of a diagonal
compression strut within a beam-column joint under earthquake-
type loading, it is well accepted that hooked bars should be bent
into the joint with the hook embedded as far as possible from the
critical section. This requirement and the specified dimension of
standard hooks in ACI 318-08,
1
however, often cause steel
congestion in an exterior or corner beam-column joint, as shown
in Fig. 1, thereby making fabrication and construction difficult.
To ease the congestion problem within the beam-column joint,
the use of headed bars in place of hooked bars is a viable option.
Headed bars are fabricated by attaching an anchor plate or
forged head onto the end of a reinforcing bar to provide
mechanical anchorage by head bearing. The pullout behavior
and anchorage capacity of headed bars have been extensively
studied at the Universities of Calgary,
2
Kansas,
3
and Texas at
Austin.
4-8
Researchers
4-6
used a simple and convenient
definition to distinguish shallowly-embedded headed bars
from deeply-embedded headed bars, from which embedment
depth to the bearing face of head was at least five times the
least cover dimension, as shown in Fig. 2. Concrete breakout
is the primary failure mechanism of shallowly-embedded
headed bars, similar to that of anchor bolts embedded into
concrete (ACI 318-08,
1
Appendix D). For a deeply-embedded
headed bar, the primary failure mechanism is side-face blowout
of cover concrete when the headed bar is close to a side face.
If headed bars are closely spaced, crushing of the concrete at
the head may occur.
Previous studies
5-8
have shown that the anchorage
capacity of a headed bar is strongly related to the relative
head area ratio, A
brg
/A
b
, which is defined as the ratio of net
head bearing area, A
brg
, to the nominal bar area A
b
. The
larger the relative head area ratio, the greater the tensile stress
that can be developed near the head. A headed deformed bar
with smaller relative head area plus an additional bonded
length can also be used. It is typical that longitudinal bars
terminated within a beam-column joint are deeply embedded.
Therefore, headed bars with a smaller relative head area can
be used by considering the head bearing component plus the
bond component within the joint. With a smaller relative head
area, however, the possibility of side-face blowout and
concrete crushing at the head should be checked.
In the early 1990s, Wallace et al.
9
conducted cyclic
loading tests of isolated beam-column joints to address the
Title no. 106-S32
Cyclic Response of Exterior Beam-Column Joints with
Different Anchorage Methods
by Hung-Jen Lee and Si-Ying Yu
Fig. 1Congestion of hooks in eccentric beam-column
connection during fabrication.
Fig. 2Shallow versus deep embedment for headed bars.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 330
use of headed bars in high seismic zones. Two exterior joints
and three roof corner joints were constructed with threaded
or friction-welded headed bars. Wallace et al.
9
concluded
that the behavior of the specimens with headed bars was as
good as, or better than, that of similar specimens with
standard 90-degree hooks. Based on limited test data
available, Wallace et al.
9
recommended a minimum
anchorage length of 12d
b
and a minimum relative head area
ratio of 4. To date, the Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352
report, Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column
Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
(ACI 352R-02),
10
adopted the recommendations of
researchers
3,4,9
to allow the use of headed bars terminating
in beam-column joints. ACI 352R-02,
10
Section 4.5.3, points
out that any headed bar meeting ASTM A970 specifications can
be used in a beam-column joint if its embedded length is not less
than 8d
b
, 150 mm (6 in.), or 3/4 of the development length for a
hooked bar. Although the minimum development length of a
headed bar is shorter than that of a hooked bar, either bar heads
or hooks should be located within 50 mm (2 in.) from the back
of the confined core to promote a better force-transferring
mechanism. The embedded length, therefore, should be the
same for either headed or hooked bars; but fewer headed bars of
larger diameter could be used because of the shorter development
length. This advantage can be used for easing the steel congestion
in beam-column joints.
More recently, Chun et al.
11
tested beam-column joints
with large-diameter bars (22, 32, and 36 mm [No. 7, No. 10,
and No. 11]) and a relatively small head area ratio (between
3 and 4) because prior tests
9
of beam-column joints used
small-diameter bars (16, 20, and 25 mm [0.63, 0.79, and
1.0 in.]) with a relatively large head area ratio between 4.0
and 11.4. Five exterior and four roof corner joint specimens
were constructed with threaded headed bars and tested under
a cyclic loading up to 3.5% drift ratio or higher. The
researchers concluded that a relative head area ratio between
3 and 4 is sufficient to anchor the beam bars effectively
within exterior beam-column joints. Thus, the research
extended the ACI 352R-02
10
provisions to cover multiple
layers of large-diameter bars with closely-spaced heads.
The previous cyclic tests
9,11
of headed bars were conducted
on exterior or roof corner beam-column joints without eccen-
tricity. In practice, eccentric beams are often used at the edge or
corner of a building frame. LaFave et al.
12
noted that eccentric
connections had somewhat lower joint shear strengths than
similar concentric connections in most of the available studies.
It is known that the existence of slabs and transverse beams
framing into the joint can reduce the effect of eccentric beams
on edge beam-column-slab connections.
13,14
Due to the lack of
slabs and beams confined on two opposite faces, however,
corner beam-column joints are more vulnerable to deterioration
than edge or interior joints under an earthquake-type loading.
The use of headed bars in place of hooked bars in eccentric
beam-column joints at building corners, therefore, need to be
evaluated due to the possibility of side-face blowout at the heads
close to free surface. An experimental investigation was
conducted to evaluate cyclic response of concentric and
eccentric beam-column joints with different anchorage
methods. The connection parameters were designed to
meet the requirements for special moment frames in high
seismic zones. This paper also evaluates the performance
of the beam-column joints with different anchorage
methods in compliance with ACI 374.1-05,
15
which
discusses the acceptance criteria for moment frames
based on structural testing.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
No available data exist showing that headed bars can be safely
used in eccentric beam-column joints. Cyclic loading tests of
exterior beam-column joints with concentric or eccentric beams
were conducted to evaluate the use of mechanical anchorage
devices in place of the standard 90-degree hooks on longitudinal
beam bars. The test results demonstrate that eccentric beam-
column joints with mechanical anchorage have satisfactory
performance with respect to modern seismic design. This paper
also presents an innovative arrangement of double mechanical
anchorages for longitudinal beam bars within the joints. The
double anchorage design improved the cyclic response of beam-
column joints significantly.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
This paper presents results from six exterior beam-column
joint specimens with different anchorage methods. The primary
test variables were the anchorage methods of longitudinal beam
bars and the eccentricity between the beam and column
centerlines. Figure 3 shows the designation and reinforcing
details for the test specimens. The first pair of joint specimens
(W0 and W150), which was selected from five specimens
tested by Lee and Ko,
16
used standard 90-degree hooks for the
beam bar anchorage. The next two pairs of joint specimens
ACI member Hung-Jen Lee is an Assistant Professor at the National Yunlin University
of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan. He received his BS from the National
Taiwan University in 1995, and his MS and PhD from the National Taiwan University
of Science and Technology in 1997 and 2000, respectively. His research interests
include testing on structural concrete elements, behavior of beam-column connections,
and strut-and-tie models.
Si-Ying Yu is a Supervision Engineer at the Wu Chang-Cheng Architect Business
Office, Taiwan. She received her BS and MS from the National Yunlin University of
Science and Technology in 2004 and 2006, respectively.
Fig. 3Specimen designation and reinforcing details.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 331
(W0-M1 and W150-M1, W0-M2 and W150-M2) used screw-
deformed bars with mechanical anchorage devices in place
of hooked bars in the joints. As shown in Fig. 4, a screw-
deformed bar is a reinforcing bar with rolled-on ribs that are
spaced like screw threads. Therefore, a steel coupler or
anchor head can be screwed onto the bar as a flange nut.
Resin or nonshrink high-strength mortar is grouted into the
steel coupler or anchor head to avoid a loose condition.
As shown in Fig. 3, the first character of the specimen
designation, W, represents a west beam framing into the joint.
The subsequent numerals (0 or 150) denote the eccentricity
between the beam and column centerlines in mm. The north
faces of the beam and column were flush when the eccentricity
was 150 mm (5.9 in.); thus, the possibility of side-face blowout
of headed bars was increased. Finally, specimen designation
-M1 or -M2 denotes that each beam bar had a single or double
mechanical device within the joint, respectively. In general, the
test specimens had conventional reinforcing details except for
the use of mechanical anchorage.
Connection design parameters
ACI-352R-02
10
recommendations define Type 1 and
Type 2 connections as essentially nonseismic and seismic
design, respectively. The scope of this paper discusses the
Type 2 connection for special moment frames. For an exterior
beam-column connection, ACI 352R-02
10
addresses four
major design parameters, as follows:
1. To produce flexural hinging in the beams rather than the
columns, the flexural strengths of the beams and columns
framing into a joint should satisfy
(1)
where M
nb
and M
nc
are the sum of nominal flexural
strengths of beams and columns, respectively, evaluated at
the face of the joint. The beam hinging mechanism is much
preferred for building frames resisting earthquake forces.
2. To prevent joint shear failure before beam hinging, the
shear strength V
n
computed on a horizontal plane within the
joint shall satisfy
(2)
where is the strength reduction factor of 0.85 and
is the nominal joint shear stress of 1.0 MPa (12 psi) for
corner, interstory beam-column connections. For an exterior
joint without slabs, the design shear force can be estimated
by V
u
= 1.25f
y
A
s
V
col
, where the probable overstrength of
1.25f
y
is typical for Type 2 connections using ASTM A706
or equivalent reinforcement.
The effects of the columns aspect ratio and joint eccentricity
are considered by limiting or reducing the effective joint
width as defined by
(3)
M
r
M
nc
M
nb
------------- 1.2 =
V
n
f
c
b
j
h
c
V
u
=
f
c

f
c
f
c

b
j
the smaller of
b
b
b
c
+ ( ) 2
b
b

mh
c
2
--------- +
b
c

=
where the summation term is applied on each side of the joint
where the column edge extends beyond the beam edge, and
the slope m is 0.3 when the eccentricity between beam and
column centerlines is greater than b
c
/8; otherwise, m is 0.5.
3. To control joint deterioration during earthquake loading
and displacement demands, a specified amount of transverse
reinforcement should be provided within the joint. For a tied
column with rectangular hoops and crossties, the total cross-
sectional area in each direction of transverse reinforcement
within the joint should be at least equal to
(4)
but not less than 0.09sb
c
f
c
/f
yt
.
4. The minimum development length of longitudinal beam
bars with standard hooks anchored in the joint is determined by
(5)
while the minimum development length of headed bars is
0.75l
dh,352
.
Critical sections for the development of longitudinal beam
bars should be taken at the outside edge of the confined core
for Type 2 connections as defined in ACI 352R-02,
10
Section 4.5.1. Either bar heads or hooks should be located
within 50 mm (2 in.) from the back of the confined core,
where heads or hooks can be anchored within the diagonal
strut. In practice, the beam bars should be extended into the
joint as far as possible.
The provisions written in ACI 318-08
1
for the development of
hooked or headed bars are slightly different from ACI 352R-02.
10
Critical sections for the development of longitudinal beam
bars could be taken at beam-column faces, and the minimum
A
sh
0.3sb
c

f
c

f
yt
-----
A
g
A
ch
-------- 1
\ .
| |
=
l
dh 352 ,
f
y
d
b
5 f
c

------------- N-mm
f
y
d
b
60 f
c

---------------- lb-in.
\ .
|
| |
=
Fig. 4Details of mechanical devices for test specimens
(plan view).
332 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009
development length for a hooked beam bar anchored in a
joint can be determined following ACI 318-08
1
, Section 21.7.5.1
(6)
Headed bars are not mentioned in Chapter 21 of ACI 318-08
1
for special moment frames, but new provisions for the
development of headed deformed bars in tension can be
found in ACI 318-08,
1
Section 12.6. Based on available
monotonic loading tests,
5-7
ACI Committee 318 wrote that
the minimum development length for a headed bar,
measured from the critical section to the bearing face of the
head, shall be determined by
(7)
for headed deformed bars satisfying: (a) specified f
y
of 420 MPa
(60 ksi) or less; (b) bar size of 36 mm (No. 11) or smaller; (c)
normalweight concrete; (d) relative head area ratio A
brg
/A
b
of 4 or more; (e) minimum clear cover of 2d
b
for each bar;
and (f) minimum clear spacing of 4d
b
between bars.
The length l
dt,318
is longer (more conservative) than
0.75l
dh,352
, even though the effect of load reversals is not
addressed in ACI 318-08,
1
Section 12.6. In all cases, the
aforementioned development lengths shall not be less
than the larger of 8d
b
or 150 mm (6 in.).
Specimen design and reinforcing details
This experimental program was designed using a concrete
compressive strength of 30 MPa (4.35 ksi) and a specified
yield strength of 420 MPa (60.9 ksi) for reinforcing steel.
l
dh 318 ,
f
y
d
b
5.4 f
c

----------------- N-mm
f
y
d
b
65 f
c

---------------- lb-in.
\ .
|
| |
=
l
dt 318 ,
f
y
d
b
5.2 f
c

----------------- N-mm
f
y
d
b
62.5 f
c

-------------------- lb-in.
\ .
|
| |
=
Two sizes of reinforcement meeting ASTM A706 requirements
were used for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.
Specimens W0 and W150 used traditional deformed bars
with standard 90-degree hooks within the joint, whereas the
other four specimens used screw-deformed bars with
mechanical devices for the anchorage of beam bars. Transverse
reinforcement used consistent properties for all specimens.
Table 1 shows the material properties measured at the date
of testing and the connection design parameters with respect
to the recommendations of ACI 352R-02.
10
Flexural hinging
in the beam was anticipated because the flexural strength
ratios M
r
were much greater than the specified value of 1.2.
Thus, the demand of the joint shear force V
u
was dominated
by the probable moment capacity of the beam, which had a
cross section of 300 x 450 mm (12 x 18 in.) and had four D22
(No. 7) longitudinal bars (steel ratio of 1.29%) at both the top
and bottom (Fig. 3). The relative head area ratio A
brg
/A
b
was
equal to 5.14 for the D22 (No. 7) longitudinal bars terminated
within the joints.
The values of V
u
in Table 1 were computed based on
1.25f
y
(measured) and an internal lever arm of 0.875d in the
beam. Due to the eccentric beams, the nominal joint shear
capacities of eccentric beam-column joints were smaller
than those of concentric joints. Therefore, the joint shear
demand-to-capacity ratios of eccentric joints were greater
than those of concentric joints. Notably, all joint shear
demand-to-capacity ratios were below 1.0, as listed in Table 1.
The joint capacity should be sufficient for the development
of the adjacent beam hinging.
To meet the minimum requirement of transverse reinforcement
in a joint and adjacent column end, D10 (No. 3) hoops with
seismic crossties at a spacing of 100 mm (4 in.) were
provided throughout the column (Fig. 3). As shown in Table 1,
the amount of provided transverse reinforcement was close
to the requirement given in Eq. (4) along both the N-S or
E-W directions. Thus, the joint is considered to be code-
compliant to sustain earthquake loading and inelastic
displacement reversals.
In this experimental program, both headed and hooked
bars were extended into the joints as far as possible, with a
total embedment length of 330 mm (13 in.), or 14.9d
b
was
used for all specimens, leaving a 70 mm (2.8 in.) back cover
behind the outside edge of heads or hooks. For hooked bars
in the test specimens, this embedded length of 14.9d
b
was
less than the development length of 16.7d
b
determined using
Eq. (5) plus cover thickness, but slightly greater than the
development length of 14.2d
b
determined using Eq. (6). For
the other specimens, the embedded length of a headed bar
measured from the column face to the bearing face of the
head was equal to 14.5d
b
, which was close to the development
length of 14.7d
b
per ACI 318-08
1
(Eq. (7)), but greater than
the 12.8d
b
length per ACI 352R-02.
10
All longitudinal beam bars were closely spaced at a center-
to-center spacing of 2.2d
b
, but the outer diameter of the
mechanical device was 2.48d
b
. As shown in Fig. 4, staggering
heads were used to prevent the overlapping of anchor heads.
Notably, the side cover dimension from the north face to the
edge of extreme beam bars was only 3d
b
for eccentric beam-
column joint specimens. The headed bars, however, were not
restrained by additional transverse reinforcement for side-face
blowout failure.
Table 1Material properties and connection
design parameters
Connection
specimen ID
Parameters
Conventional Mechanical anchorage
W0 W150 W0-M1 W150-M1 W0-M2 W150-M2
Concrete strength
f
c
, MPa (ksi)
29.5
(4.28)
30.7
(4.45)
35.8
(5.19)
30.7
(4.45)
35.8
(5.19)
Bar yield strength f
y
,
MPa (ksi)
455 (66) 473 (68.6)
Bar tensile strength
f
u
, MPa (ksi)
682 (99) 667 (96.7)
Flexural strength
ratio M
r
*
3.11 3.11 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19
Shear demand-
capacity ratio V
u
/V
n

0.77 0.96 0.79 0.91 0.79 0.91

NS-dir confinement
A
sh,provided
/
A
sh,required

1.09 1.09 1.05 0.90 1.05 0.90

EW-dir confinement
A
sh,provided
/
A
sh,required

1.14 1.14 1.10 0.94 1.10 0.94

*
M
r
= (M
top
nc
+ M
bottom
nc
)/M
nb
was computed with target column axial load of 0.1A
g
f
c
.

Joint shear demand V

u
and nominal joint shear capacity V
n
were computed using Eq. (2)
and (3).

Measured yield strength of transverse reinforcement was 471 MPa (68.3 ksi).
Note: All parameters are based on measured material properties at testing date.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 333
Test setup and loading procedure
Following an earlier experimental program
16
of eccentric
beam-column joints, the same testing framework was used
for specimens with mechanical anchorage. Each T-shaped
one-way joint specimen was rotated 90 degrees to ease test
setup, as shown in Fig. 5. The column was simply supported
and anchored on the strong floor with four one-dimensional
rollers. This arrangement was used to simulate contraflection
points of zero moment as the column was subjected to lateral
loads, and also to restrain the column for twisting about the
column axis. Prior to applying lateral force, a manually
controlled axial load of 0.1A
g
f
c
was applied along the
column axis during testing. A displacement-controlled actuator
applied a lateral force at the beam centerline using a
predefined procedure consisting of three fully reversed cycles
at gradually increasing drift ratios (0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8%). The predetermined target displacement
at beam tip, , was computed by target drift ratio
(8)
Note that the positive drift ratio corresponds to displacing the
beam tip to the right in Fig. 5, causing a positive bending
moment at the column face.
Using the testing method recommended by ACI 374.1-05,
15
the initial drift ratio should be within an elastic range. Subsequent
drift ratios should be between 1.25 and 1.50 times the previous
drift ratio, and testing should continue to a 3.5% drift ratio. The
loading procedure in this experimental program is relatively
severe with respect to ACI 374.1-05.
15
The presented tests
continued up to an 8% drift ratio for observations of failure
modes. The performance of test specimens should be evaluated
prior to 4% drift, however, because a drift ratio of 4 or 5% is too
large for well-designed moment frames. Figure 5 also shows a
typical instrumentation installed on a test specimen. One pair of
displacement transducers was used to measure the shear
deformation on the north face of the joint, while another two
pairs of displacement transducers were used to measure the
beam plastic hinge (PH) rotation and rotation from beam bar
slip and yield penetration. Furthermore, electrical resistance
strain gauges attached to reinforcing bars at key positions and
were used to monitor the strain histories of reinforcing bars.
EVALUATION OF CYCLIC LOADING RESPONSE
Cyclic loading response and damage progression of
Specimens W0 and W150 has been presented by Lee and
Ko.
16
The performance of four specimens with mechanical
anchorage are evaluated with respect to that of Specimens
W0 or W150, which are referred to as the benchmark
specimens in this paper.
Overall load-displacement response
All six specimens developed the anticipated beam
hinging and behaved in a ductile manner consistent with the
seismic design objectives. Figure 6 shows the measured
lateral load-displacement loops and final damage patterns
for test specimens. The lateral load P was normalized to the
nominal lateral resistance P
n
determined using measured
material properties and a strain compatibility analysis for
the flexural strength of the beam section at the column face.
As shown in Fig. 6, the lateral displacement was also
converted to drift ratios by Eq. (8). Prior to the 4% drift

L
b
0.5h
c
+
------------------------- =
level, the test specimens had similar stiffness and strength
because the anticipated beam hinging dominated the load-
displacement response. After reaching maximum load at the
4% drift level or more, the load-displacement loops showed
pinching due to the beam bar slip from the joint and joint
shear distress. The response of Specimens W0-M2 and
W150-M2 shows relatively more ductility and less pinching
due to the contribution of double mechanical devices on each
beam bar.
As observed by Lee and Ko
16
for Specimens W0 and W150,
the damage progression commenced with a beam flexural
yielding followed by joint cracking, the spalling of the column
concrete cover, crushing of the joint diagonal strut, and eventual
expansion and distortion of the joint region. It can be observed
in Fig. 6 that the significant joint damage of Specimens W0 and
W150 after 5% drift corresponds to significant degradation in
load capacity from the first to third cycle of the 5% drift ratio.
The damage progressions of Specimens W0-M1 and W150-M1,
respectively, were very similar to those of W0 and W150,
except for the pushout of concrete on the east face of the
column. The failure mechanisms of Specimens W0-M1 and
W150-M1 were a complete loss of bond along the headed bars
into the joint and subsequent crushing of the joint diagonal
struts during the 5% drift cycles. As shown in Fig. 6, the load
capacity of Specimens W0-M1 and W150-M1 degraded from
the first to the third cycle of the 5% drift ratio and subsequent
loops became very pinched. Notably, Specimens W0-M1 and
W150-M1 had smaller strength degradation in the post-peak
range than Specimens W0 and W150, respectively. The use of
a single mechanical device in place of the 90-degree hook in the
joint resulted in at least an equivalent or somewhat better
performance under large displacement reversals.
The use of double mechanical devices changed the failure
mechanism and further improved the cyclic response of test
specimens. As shown in Fig. 6, the pushout of concrete on
the east face of the column did not appear at the end of
testing for Specimens W0-M2 and W150-M2. It is evident
that double mechanical devices are very effective for beam
bars subjected to cyclic loading. The most deeply embedded
mechanical device is effective for developing bars in
tension, but might not be as effective in compression because
the concrete cover behind the head is weak. The intermediate
mechanical device was found to effectively transfer the
compression of the beam bar into the joint diagonal strut.
Thus, the pushout of concrete on the east face of the column
Fig. 5Test setup and loading procedure.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 334
can be prevented. As a result, Specimen W0-M2 could fully
develop a beam PH with minimal joint damage, whereas
Specimen W150-M2 had more visible joint damage on the
east and north face of the column due to the joint eccentricity.
Nevertheless, the resistance of both specimens was maintained
up to 7 or 8% drift, which is more than enough for seismic
design of buildings.
Experimental joint shear stresses
Because all test specimens underwent beam hinging, the
measured maximum resistance P
max
exceeded their nominal
resistances P
n
, as shown in Fig. 6 and Table 2. The experimental
maximum joint shear forces V
j,max
were computed based on
P
max
by assuming an internal lever arm of 0.875d in the
beam section. When dividing V
j,max
by the shear area with
different definitions of effective joint width, as listed in
Table 2, the imposed joint shear stresses were all kept below
the limit of 1.0 MPa (12 psi) set by ACI 352R-02
10
for joints that are not confined on opposite faces.
It can be expected that the greater the imposed joint shear
stress obtained by using effective joint area, the poorer the
seismic performance of such a joint. Data in Fig. 6 show that
the cyclic loading responses of eccentric specimens were
very similar to those of concentric specimens within 4 or 5%
f
c
f
c

Fig. 6Cyclic loading response and final damage patterns.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 335
drift, but the final damage on the north (flush) face of eccentric
specimens was obviously more than those of the concentric
specimens. Minor damage for concentric specimens was
attributed to that the effective joint width participating in
shear resistance was less than the column width b
c
. The
width of severely damaged concrete in the concentric joints
was approximately (b
b
+ b
c
)/2, which is the basic definition
of b
j
used by ACI 352R-02
10
for concentric connections.
Accordingly, the experimental shear stresses determined
using b
j
= (b
b
+ b
c
)/2 for concentric specimens can be taken
as baselines, and those for eccentric specimens should be
somewhat higher. Table 2, however, shows that the basic
definition of b
j
= (b
b
+ b
c
)/2 was not conservative for eccentric
specimens, and the definition of b
j
= b
b
+ 0.3h
c
/2 was
conservative. According to Eq. (3), the effective joint width
for eccentric specimens should be determined by the definition of
b
j
= b
b
+ mh
c
/2, where the slope m is reduced from 0.5 to
0.3 because the eccentricity is greater than b
c
/8. Neglecting
this restriction and assuming b
j
= b
b
+ 0.5h
c
/2, the difference
of experimental joint shear stresses between concentric and
eccentric specimens becomes more rational (Table 2).
Previous researchers
12-14
recommended that the simple
definition of b
j
= (b
b
+ b
c
)/2 can be used for the design of
eccentric beam-column connections, while it was also not
conservative for available experimental results of eccentric
connections without slabs. The simple definition of b
j
=
(b
b
+ b
c
)/2, however, may be unrealistic for a narrow
beam framing into a wide column with large eccentricity,
as were the eccentric specimens discussed in this paper.
Performance evaluation at limiting drift ratio
Table 3 summarizes the test results for comparison with
the acceptance criteria in ACI 374.1-05.
15
For acceptance,
test results of the third complete cycle to a limiting drift ratio
not less than 3.5% should satisfy the following criteria: 1) the
strength degradation shall not be greater than 1/4 of the
maximum load resistance in the same loading direction;
2) the relative energy dissipation ratio shall not be less
than 1/8; and 3) the secant stiffness between drift ratios of
1/10 and +1/10 of the limiting drift ratio shall not be less than
0.05 times the initial stiffness obtained from the first cycle.
In this experimental program, a conservative limiting drift
ratio of 4% is considered due to the lack of 3.5% drift cycles.
Therefore, the characteristics of the third cycle of the 4% drift
ratio for test specimens are listed in Table 3. Using the
ACI 374.1-05
15
criteria, all specimens had satisfactory
performance, except Specimen W150, which had just
acceptable performance. Relative to all the criteria, it can be
observed in Table 3 that the performance of an eccentric
beam-column joint with mechanical anchorages was superior
to that of an eccentric beam-column joint with standard 90-degree
hooks. Comparing the test results with the ACI 374.1-05
15
criteria
suggests that the use of mechanical devices in place of
hooks can improve the seismic behavior of an eccentric
beam-column connection.
Figure 7 compares the average dissipated energy of every
three loops at each target drift level. By focusing on the
energy dissipation capacities prior to the limiting drift ratio
of 4%, the beam-column joints with mechanical anchorages
Table 2Evaluation of imposed shear stresses on test joints
Connection
specimen ID
Results
Conventional Mechanical anchorage
W0 W150 W0-M1 W150-M1 W0-M2 W150-M2
Nominal resistance P
n
, kN (kips) 147 (33.0) 147 (33.0) 151 (33.9) 152 (34.2) 151 (33.9) 152 (34.2)
Maximum resistance P
max
, kN (kips) 163 (36.6) 155 (34.8) 158 (35.6) 160 (35.9) 160 (35.6) 166 (35.9)
Over-strength factor P
max
/P
n
1.11 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.09
Maximum joint shear V
j,max
,
*
kN (kips) 778 (175) 739 (166) 756 (170) 763 (172) 765 (172) 792 (178)

0.80 0.76 0.76 0.71 0.77 0.74

0.85 0.80 0.83
0.94 0.89 0.92
*
V
j,max
= where jd = 0.875d is assumed.

is nominal joint shear stress of MPa ( psi) for test joints.

V
j max ,
f
c
b
j
h
c
----------------------
b
j
b
b
b
c
+
2
----------------


=
b
j
b
b
0.5h
c
2 + ( ) =
b
j
b
b
0.3h
c
2 + ( ) =
P
max
L
b
jd
-----
L
b
0.5h
c
+ ( )
L
c
-----------------------------


f
c
1.0 f
c
12 f
c

Table 3Test results for comparison with acceptance criteria in ACI 374.1-05
Connection
specimen ID
Parameters
Conventional Mechanical anchorage
W0 W150 W0-M1 W150-M1 W0-M2 W150-M2
Initial stiffness for first cycle of 0.25% drift,
kN/mm (kips/in.)
Positive 9.16 (52.3) 9.01 (51.4) 9.19 (52.5) 9.03 (51.5) 9.47 (54.1) 9.71 (55.4)
Negative 8.97 (51.2) 8.18 (46.7) 8.94 (51.0) 9.53 (54.4) 8.97 (51.2) 8.60 (49.1)
Percentage degradation in load capacity from
first to third cycle
of 4% drift
Positive 4% 11% 3% 4% 2% 1%
Negative 5% 20% 5% 5% 3% 2%
Relative energy dissipation ratio
*
0.31 0.22 0.33 0.29 0.32 0.35
Ratio of secant stiffness

around zero drift to

initial stiffness
Positive 0.17 0.08 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.21
Negative 0.16 0.07 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.21
*
Relative energy dissipation ratio is energy-dissipated in third complete cycle of 4% drift ratio divided by idealized elastoplastic energy. Elastoplastic energy was calculated for
positive and negative loading direction using initial stiffness in first cycle of 0.25% drift ratio and peak load resistances in third complete cycle of 4% drift ratio.

Secant stiffness around zero drift was obtained for positive and negative loading direction between 0.4% and +0.4% drift ratios in third compete cycle of 4% drift ratio.
336 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009
performed as good as, or even better than, those joints with
90-degree hooks. Figure 7 implies that the use of a single
mechanical device in place of the 90-degree hook is good
enough for a drift ratio of 4%. The use of double mechanical
devices further enhanced the energy dissipation capacities
up to an unrealistic drift level of 7%. Nevertheless, this
innovative detailing of double mechanical devices can be a
possible option to improve the cyclic loading behavior of
headed bars. Further tests for improving bond performance
of beam bars passing through interior joints with double
mechanical devices are under investigation by Lee et al.
17
Fabrication of double mechanical devices is easy for screw-
deformed bars. Doubling the costs of mechanical devices
may be the only drawback.
Drift contributions
The external instrumentation of this experimental program
measured the major drift components, illustrated in Fig. 8.
The three drift components were: 1) rotation from beam bar
slip and yield penetration at the beam end; 2) rotation in the
anticipated beam PH zone within an effective depth of the
beam; and 3) shear deformation measured on the north face
of the joint. Other drift components such as elastic flexural
and shear deformation in the beam and columns were minor
and not relevant in this experimental program.
As shown in Fig. 9, rotation from beam bar slip and yield
penetration contributed most to the total drift angle for three
eccentric connections. At 4% drift, the contribution of beam
bar slip and yield penetration was approximately 40 to 45%
of the total drift angle, whereas that of beam PH rotation was
approximately 30% of the total drift angle. Beyond this drift
level for Specimens W150 and W150-M1, the percent of
beam bar slip and yield penetration increased rapidly and
that of beam PH rotation decreased simultaneously. These
readings are consistent with the damage observations on
both Specimens W150 and W150-M1. As the joint degraded
due to the crushing of joint concrete initiated at 5% drift, the
beam bars lost bond transfers for tension and compression. This
resulted in large slip deformations within the joint and extensive
pushout cracking behind the joint. Consequently, a greater
portion of the rotation was concentrated between the column
face and beam end. The joint shear deformations shown in Fig. 9
were measured on the north face (eccentric side) of the joint.
Beyond 5% drift for Specimen W150 and 6% for Specimens
W150-M1 and W150-M2, the expansion and spalling of joint
concrete made the readings inaccurate.
For Specimen W150-M2 at 5 or 6% drift, the contribution of
beam bar slip and yield penetration was below 50%, and that of
beam PH rotation remained at 30% of the total drift angle. It is
evident that the joint maintained its integrity to support the
complete formation of an adjacent beam PH up to 6% drift. It
seems that the intermediate mechanical device was effective not
only for transferring compression force of the beam bar, but also
for reducing the slip and yield penetration of the beam bar in
tension. The beam bar slip, yield penetration, and PH components
of Specimens W0, W0-M1, and W0-M2 were, respectively,
similar to those shown in Fig. 9. The shear deformation
component measured on the joint face of Specimens W0,
W0-M1, and W0-M2, however, was minimal due to the
distance between the beam and column faces.
EVALUATION OF ANCHORAGE CAPACITY
Anchorage behavior
Strains along one bottom beam bar adjacent to the north
face (eccentric side) were measured and converted to tensile
stress at peak drift ratios by assuming an elastoplastic stress-
strain relationship. Figure 10 compares the bar tensile
stresses f
s1
measured at the column face and f
s2
measured at
Fig. 7Average dissipated energy of three cycles at each
drift level.
Fig. 8Major drift components to total drift angle for test
specimens.
Fig. 9Contributions to total drift after beam yielding for
eccentric specimens.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 337
0.5h
c
along the beam bar into the column. The measured
strain readings show that all beam bars were adequately
anchored to reach the yield strength at a drift ratio of 1.5% or
more. Before the bar yielded at the column face, the strain
readings showed that 50% of the bar tensile stress was transferred
by the hook or head bearing component plus some bond of
the straight portion in the back 0.5h
c
, while the remainder
was transferred by the bond component of the straight
portion in the front 0.5h
c
. After the bar yielded at the column
face, the bond component in the front 0.5h
c
deteriorated and
vanished at the 4% drift level except for Specimens W0-M2
and W150-M2. This shows that Specimens W0 and W150 as
well as W0-M1 and W150-M1 underwent significant bond
deterioration along the straight portion of the beam bar
because of the adjacent beam PH. Beyond the 4% drift level,
the bond along the straight portion of the beam bar was
almost lost and the entire bar tensile force was transferred by
end anchorage.
The strain histories of Specimens W150-M1 and W150-M2
are compared in Fig. 11. The strain gauge was attached at 0.5h
c
along the beam bar into the column. The strain history of the beam
bar with a single mechanical device in Specimen W150-M1 was
very similar to that of the hooked bar in Specimen W150,
as reported by Lee and Ko.
16
The strain readings for
Specimen W150-M1 remained elastic in the 3% drift cycles
but went into a yielding plateau in the first cycle of 4% drift.
Due to yield penetration and bond deterioration, the shear-
resisting mechanisms changed and the joint shear capacity
decreased as the drift ratio increased. The degradation of the
joint shear capacity can be delayed if good bond is maintained
along the bonded length of beam bars. As shown in Fig. 11,
the strain readings for the beam bar with double mechanical
devices in Specimen W150-M2 remained elastic until the
gauge was damaged in the first cycle of 5% drift. It is evident
that the use of an intermediate mechanical device enhanced
the bond condition under cyclic loading and delayed the
yield penetration along the beam bars into the joint. This
enhancement resulted in Specimens W0-M2 and W150-M2,
sustaining the joint shear forces up to the 8% drift ratio with
limited joint damage (Fig. 6).
On the other hand, the side cover of the north face beam
bars was only 3d
b
for Specimens W150-M1 and W150-M2.
The anticipated side-face blowout failure, however, was not
observed during testing. The provided joint hoops and crossties
were apparently effective in restraining the headed bars.
Section 4.5.3.3 of ACI 352R-02
10
refers to prior knee joints
tested by Wallace et al.
9
and conservatively recommends
providing some U-shaped reinforcement for restraining
headed bars adjacent to a free face. Notably, there is a top
layer of beam bars adjacent to a free face in a knee joint. For
eccentric beam-column joints with a continuous column,
only one of the top or bottom beam bars is adjacent to the
eccentric joint face. The side-face blowout failure of one of
the heads does not result in the loss of anchorage of all
headed bars. Therefore, the additional restraining reinforcement
could be unnecessary.
Comparison of test results with model combining
bond and head bearing
Thompson et al.
8
reviewed numerous test results of
headed bars and proposed a refined model for determining
the anchorage capacity of headed bars by a combination of
head bearing and bond. The following equations based on
the research
4-8
at the University of Texas at Austin can be
taken to represent the state of the art of headed bar
anchorage. First, the anchorage capacity provided by head
bearing can be estimated by
(9)
f
s head ,
f
y
-------------- n
5%
2
c
b
d
b
-----
\ .
| |
A
brg
A
b
----------
f
c

f
y
----- =
Fig. 10Bar tensile stresses measured at beam-column
interface and half column depth into test joints.
Fig. 11Bar strain histories measured at half column depth into
joint: (a) Specimen W150-M1; and (b) Specimen W150-M2.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 338
where n
5%
is equal to 0.7 for the 5% fractile value for design
purposes. Without the n
5%
term, Eq. (9) estimates the mean
capacity of head bearing.
For the mechanical devices used in Fig. 4, the relative head
area ratio A
brg
/A
b
is equal to 5.14 and the minimum cover
dimension c
b
is equal to 1/2 the center-to-center spacing of
bars being developed. The radial disturbance factor is a
modification factor for stress disturbance caused by the
proximity of a bar to a corner. Thompson et al.
8
recommended
that the factor equals 0.6 + 0.4(c
2
/c
b
) but is not greater
than 2.0, where c
2
is the minimum cover dimension
measured in the direction orthogonal to c
b
. For connections
with a continuous column, as shown in Fig. 3, the c
2
value is
much greater than c
b
. Thus, the factor can be taken as 2.0.
Substituting forgoing parameters except the n
5%
term
into Eq. (9), the predicted head bearing capacity of a
headed bar was 0.65f
y
and 0.76f
y
for Specimens W0-M1
and W150-M1, respectively.
Secondly, Thompson et al.
8
proposed that the bar stress
contributed from bond be calculated using the ratio of available
bonded length l
a
to development length l
d
for straight
deformed bars in tension, assuming that the distribution of
bar stress is linear over l
d
. Thompson et al.
8
observed a
certain degree of bond deterioration when the head bearing
component achieved peak capacity in their tests of headed
bars. Thus, a reduction factor for considering the reduced
bond was also recommended.
(10)
The development length l
d
= 46d
b
was determined using
ACI 318-08,
1
Section 12.1 for the bars used in the test
specimens. The additional bonded length for the headed bars
in the back 0.5h
c
is equal to 74 mm (2.9 in.) or 3.3d
b
(Fig. 4).
Substituting l
d
= 46d
b
and l
a
= 3.3d
b
into Eq. (10), the bar
stress contributed from this bonded length is only 0.02f
y
.
Finally, the summation of the head bearing capacity and
bond capacity from the bonded length in the back 0.5h
c
ranged between 0.67f
y
and 0.78f
y
for Specimens W0-M1 and
W150-M1, respectively, but the measured stress f
s2
achieved
1.0f
y
in all test specimens (Fig. 10). It is concluded that Eq. (9)
underestimates the head bearing capacity for closely-spaced
headed bars used in this experimental program. This is
attributable to the fact that the smaller c
b
= 1.1d
b
, as half of
the center-to-center spacing between bars shown in Fig. 4, is
a conservative assumption recommended by Thompson et al.
8
due to no available test data for anchorage capacity of
multiple headed bars.
In fact, the lower limit of c
b
used in previous tests
5-7
on
headed bars to derive the head bearing model was 2.5d
b
. This
lower limit is also incorporated in ACI 318-08,
1
Section 12.6.1
as a restriction for the use of the development length equation:
(a) minimum clear cover for a headed bar should not be less
than 2d
b
; and (b) clear spacing between headed bars should
not be less than 4d
b
. The test specimens shown in Fig. 4 did
not meet the latter restriction but did demonstrate adequate
anchorage capacities by the staggering heads. The heads of
longitudinal beam bars were anchored within the column
core, which was confined by lateral reinforcement and the
column axial load. Both helped the anchorage of headed bars
in exterior beam-column joints. These parameters, however,
have not been considered in available models or codes. More
tests on the use of staggered headed bars and multiple
layers of headed bars are recommended to refine the model
for their development.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this experimental program, the
following conclusions are drawn:
1. The use of a single mechanical anchorage device in place
of the 90-degree hook terminating in the joint resulted in an
equivalent or better performance under large inelastic
displacement reversals. Comparing the test results with the
acceptance criteria given in ACI 374.1-05
15
suggested that the
use of mechanical anchorages in place of hooked anchorages
is appropriate, or even better;
2. Attaching double mechanical anchorage devices on
each beam bar within the joint can enhance the anchorage
and further improve the cyclic behavior of beam-column
connections. The experimental data showed that double
mechanical devices could prevent pushout on the back of the
joint and reduce the yield penetration and bond deterioration
along the beam bar into the joint. Therefore, the degradation
of potential joint shear capacity could be delayed beyond the
limiting drift ratio of 4%;
3. For the presented eccentric beam-column joint specimens,
the evaluation of the experimental joint shear stresses
showed that the definition of b
j
= (b
b
+ b
c
)/2 for computing
the shear area of the joint were not conservative, whereas the
ACI 352R-02
10
effective joint width was conservative and
could be further widened;
4. The side-face blowout failure was not observed during
tests of eccentric beam-column joints with mechanical
anchorage, even though there was only 3d
b
side cover for the
extreme headed bar without any additional restraining
stirrups; and
5. The available head bearing model derived from monotonic
loading tests of headed bars underestimates the anchorage
capacity of closely-spaced headed bars used in this cyclic
loading test. It is concluded that the minimum clear spacing
of 4d
b
between headed bars could be further reduced for
longitudinal beam bars terminated within a continuous
column. Due to a limited number of test results, further
investigation of single or multiple layers of closely-spaced
headed bars is recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the National Science Council in Taiwan for
funding this project (No. NSC 94-2211-E-224 -014). The Fu-Sheng Co. Ltd.
in Taiwan is also acknowledged for donating screw-deformed bars and
mechanical anchorage devices.
NOTATION
A
b
= nominal bar area, mm
2
(in.
2
)
A
brg
= net bearing area of headed bar, gross head area minus bar area,
mm
2
(in.
2
)
A
ch
= cross-sectional area of column core, measured to outside edges
of hoops, mm
2
(in.
2
)
A
g
= gross area of column section, mm
2
(in.
2
)
A
s
= area of longitudinal tension reinforcement in beam section,
mm
2
(in.
2
)
A
sh
= total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement (including
crossties) within spacing s and perpendicular to column core
dimension b
c
, mm
2
(in.
2
)
b
b
= beam width, mm (in.)
b
c
= column width transverse to direction of shear, mm (in.)
b
c
= column core dimension, measured to outside edges of hoops,
mm (in.)
b
j
= effective joint width transverse to direction of joint shear,
mm (in.)
f
s bond ,
f
y
---------------
l
a
l
d
---- where 1 0.7
A
brg
A
b

5
--------------------
\ .
| |
0.3 = =
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 339
c
2
= minimum cover dimension, measured in direction orthogonal to
c
b
, mm (in.)
c
b
= relative concrete cover dimension, smaller of: (a) distance from
bar center to nearest free surface; and (b) one-half of center-to-
center spacing between bars, mm (in.)
d = effective depth of beam section, mm (in.)
d
b
= nominal bar diameter, mm (in.)
f
c
= concrete compressive strength, MPa (psi)
f
s1
= measured bar tensile stress at beam-column interface, MPa (psi)
f
s2
= measured bar tensile stress at 0.5h
c
along bar into joint, MPa (psi)
f
s,bond
= bar stress provided by bond, MPa (psi)
f
s,head
= bar stress provided by head bearing, MPa (psi)
f
u
= ultimate strength of reinforcement, MPa (psi)
f
y
= yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement, MPa (psi)
f
yt
= yield strength of transverse reinforcement, MPa (psi)
h
c
= column depth parallel to direction of joint shear, mm (in.)
L
b
= vertical distance from column face to actuator centerline, 1950
mm (76.8 in.)
L
c
= horizontal distance between roller supports at column ends,
2700 mm (106.3 in.)
l
a
= additional anchorage length, mm (in.)
l
d
= development length for straight deformed bar in tension, mm (in.)
l
dh
= minimum development length for hooked bar, mm (in.)
l
dt
= minimum development length for headed bar, mm (in.)
M
nb
= nominal flexural strength of beam framing into joint, kN-m (ft-kips)
M
nc
= nominal flexural strength of column framing into joint, kN-m
(ft-kips)
M
r
= column-to-beam flexural strength ratio
m = slope to define effective width of joint
n
5%
= 5% fractile coefficient
P
max
= maximum lateral resistance of test specimen, kN (kips)
P
n
= M
nb
/L
b
, nominal lateral resistance of test specimen, kN (kips)
V
col
= column shear calculated based on probable beam moment at
column face, kN (kips)
V
j,max
= experimental maximum joint shear force, calculated based on
P
max
, kN (kips)
V
n
= nominal shear strength of joint, kN (kips)
V
u
= design shear force acting on horizontal plane within joint, kN (kips)
= bond reduction factor for headed deformed bars
= beam tip displacement, mm (in.)
= target drift ratio, or angular rotation of beam chord with respect
to column chord
= radial disturbance factor, 0.6 + 0.4(c
2
/c
b
) 2.0
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 465 pp.
2. Ghali, A., and Youakim, S. A., Headed Studs in Concrete: State of the
Art, ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 657-667.
3. Wright, J. L., and McCabe, S. L., The Development Length and
Anchorage Behavior of Headed Reinforcing Bars, SM Report No. 44,
Structural Engineering and Materials, University of Kansas, Center for
Research, Lawrence, KS, Sept. 1997, 147 pp.
4. DeVries, R. A.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Bashandy, T., Anchorage Capacity in
Concrete of Headed Reinforcement with Shallow Embedments, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1999, pp. 522-530.
5. Thompson, M. K.; Ziehl, M. J.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., CCT Nodes
Anchored by Headed BarsPart 1: Behavior of Nodes, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 102, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005, pp. 808-815.
6. Thompson, M. K.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., CCT Nodes Anchored by
Headed BarsPart 2: Capacity of Nodes, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2006, pp. 65-73.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Chun, S. C.; Lee, S. H.; Kang, T. H.-K.; Oh, B.; and Wallace, J. W.,
Mechanical Anchorage in Exterior Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic
Loading, ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2007, pp. 102-112.
12. LaFave, J. M.; Bonacci, J. F.; Burak, B.; and Shin M., Eccentric
Beam-Column Connections, Concrete International, V. 27, No. 9,
Sept. 2005, pp. 58-62.
13. Shin, M., and LaFave, J. M., Seismic Performance of Reinforced
Concrete Eccentric Beam-Column Connections with Floor Slabs, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 403-412.
14. Canbolat, B. B., and Wight, J. K., Experimental Investigation on Seismic
Behavior of Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column-Slab Connections,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2008, pp. 154-162.
15. ACI Committee 374, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on
Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 9 pp.
16. Lee, H. J., and Ko, J. W., Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Connections Subjected to Cyclic Loading in Principal Directions, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 459-467.
17. Lee, H. J.; Kang, J. Y.; and Lin, Y. J., Improving Seismic Behavior of RC
Interior Beam-Column Connections with Headed Reinforcement, Proceedings
of the 9th Korea-Japan-Taiwan Joint Seminar on Earthquake Engineering for
Building Structures (SEEBUS 2007), Hsinchu, Taiwan, 2007, pp. 103-112.