Anchorage Behavior of 90-Degree Hooked Beam Bars in Reinforced Concrete Knee Joints
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 Anchorage behavior of 90-degree hooked beam bars in reinforced concrete knee joints O. Joh& Y. Goto Division of Social and Geotechnical Engineering Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido University Kita-ku Kita 13nisi 8 Sapporo 060-8628, Japan Email: joh@eng. hokudai. ac.jp Abstract Beam bars of reinforced concrete structures are usually anchored with 90-degree hooks in exterior beam-column joints. However, there have been far fewer studies on the anchorage behavior of 90-degree hooked-bar than on straight-bar anchorage. In our previous paper, we divided the anchorage failure of 90-degree hooked bars in exterior beam-column joints in a middle storey in a building into three modes: side split failure; local compression failure; and raking-out failure, in which a concrete block, approximating the inside dimensions of the hooked bar in size, is raked out toward the beam side of the column due to the presence of many beam bars and/or to short development length within the joint The purpose of this paper was to clarify the anchorage performances on the raking- out failure mode of beam top-bars with 90-degree hooks arranged in an exterior beam-column joint in the roof story of a building. Fifteen specimens of knee joints with various arrangements of L-shaped beam bar anchorage and various material properties, were subjected to pull-out loading on the beam top-bars. From the experimental results, we were able to conclude that: (1) the anchorage mechanism depends on stress transmission from the tail portion of the beam bar hooks to the adjacent column bars in a joint and that the anchorage mechanism in a knee joint was quite different from that in a exterior beam-column joint in a middle story; (2) the main factors in influencing anchorage strength are tail length, horizontal distance between tail and column bars and between tail bars and the beam end, lateral reinforcement ratio within the joint and concrete strength; and (3) accurate estimation of anchorage strength can be obtained by taking into account the influence of the above mentioned factors. Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 34 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures I. Introduction When the main bars of a reinforced concrete member are anchored to an adjacent member, in case in which the adjacent member is shallow, such as in the connection of girders to an exterior column, of a beam to an exterior girder, of a slab to an exterior wall, and of a wall to a transverse wall, the bar ends are usually arranged with a 90-degree hook. It is generally thought that pull-out resistance of a bar anchorage with a 90-degree hook is shared amonge the horizontal straight portion, the bent portion and the tail of the bar. Some design codes for reinforced concrete structures, including that of Japan, demand that the total length of such a hook in an exterior beam-column joint in a middle story of a building is the same development length as that required for a non-hooked straight-bar anchorage. However, in a previous paper [Ref.l], we demonstrated the tail portion of a 90-degree hook provides little pull-out resistance. On the other hand, the above mentioned design codes also demand that in an exterior beam-column joint in an roof story the tail portion alone of 90-degree hook is the same development length as that required for a non-hooked straight-bar anchorage. This requirement is based on the assumption that the horizontal straight portion of a hook is not confined by the above column, thus no bond resistance can be expected from this portion. Therefore, the design requirements for hooked anchorages differ between beam-column joints in middle and roof stories. There have been far fewer studies on anchorage behavior of 90-degree hooked bars, especially on hooked bar anchorage in knee joints (the connection of an exterior column to a beam in a roof story), than on straight bar anchorage. The purpose of this study was to clarify the anchorage performances of beam top-bars with a 90-degree hook in reinforced concrete knee joints. 2. Experiment 2.1 Test Specimens Columns, about half normal size and with exterior beam-column joints at either ends, were used as specimens in this study. As shown in Figure 1, no beam concrete or compressive beam bar were attached in order to simplify production of the specimens. Two series of specimens were tested: the TA series, with a horizontal development length L^ (the distance the from beam end to the tail center) of 340mm; and the TB series, with an L^ of 270mm. Specimens TA19-2 and TB19-2 were standard specimens from each series and the other specimens differed from theses standard specimens in only one of test variables. The main variable, vertical development length L^ (distance from tail end to horizontal bar center), was tested at values of 8d, 16d and 24d, where d is the nominal diameter of beam bar. These values are denoted by -1, -2 and -3, respectively, being added to the specimen number. Other variables tested are shown in Table 1. The dimensions of the beam longitudinal bars were identical: four bars were arranged in a single layer; the spacing between the center of each bar was Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures 35 Table 1: Variations of specimens Table 2: Measured properties Ldh LA> • CONCRETE £1/3 £2/3 emax Specimen Variations (mm) (mm) (example) (GPa)(GPa) (u) TA19-1 340 8d (TB=26.3MPa 21.8 18.8 2760 TA19-2 340 I6d | (Standard<7B=34.2MP) a 25.5 21.4 2830 TA19-3 340 24d CB=44.7MPa 26.8 23.8 2920 TA19-2CL 340 16d fc=20MPa TA19-2CH 340 16d fc=45MPa STEEL OV Sy CTmax ts TA19-2A 340 16d P D19(SD685) 667 3560 892 187 TA19-2S 340 I6d L D19(SD345) 386 2140 582 192 TA13-1 340 8d B.B.: 6-D13 D16(SD685) 795 4250 911 187 TA13-2 340 16d B.B.: 6-D13 TB19-1 270 8d D13(SD685) 728 3590 927 199 TB19-2 270 16d MStandard) 6j)(SR345) 369 1720 486 215 TB19-3 270 24d cr:MPa,E:( TB19-2P2 270 16d TB19-2P3 270 16d Horizonal debelopment length TB19L-2 270 16d B.B*: SD345 u. r --H C TB19R-2 270 16d <U | - A^dh (^ O (Note) •=12-1| |'jjI'l'S8 *B.B.: Beam bar *d: Diameter of B.B. Horaizontal straight ^Standard specimen: bar/portion fc=30MPa,/7w=0.21%, Dc=400mm, bc=300mm, r=3d,jb=328mm, Column bar 180°Hook, compression^ < Beam bar: 4-D19/SD685 corner/zone | I *P:Plate anchorage -»-* _t of column bar T Imaginary S *L:90-degree hooked beam g anchorage of column bar beam side Z^=340(TA series) =270(TB s(me ^ fO >p 1 ... "\. u i- "~00 ^r Rl ' (™ Figure 1: Details of specimens Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 36 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures equiverent to 3d, or 57 mm; and the bars were covered with 2d, or 36 mm, of concrete. The column specimens were all 300 mm in width and 400 mm in depth. The depth of the imaginary beam was 400 mm, with a moment arm of 328 mm. The values of variables in the standard specimens were L^ = 16d, oB (concrete compression strength) = 33 MPa (in design strength) and p^ (lateral reinforcement ratio within the joint) = 0.21%. The reinforcement bars of the columns were hooked 180-degrees. The beam bars were high-strength threaded deformed bar of 19 mm in diameter. The inside radius of the beam bar 90-degree hook was 57 mm, or 3d. The mechanical properties of the steel bars and typical concrete used in the specimens are shown in Table 2. The aggregate used was crushed stone with a maximum size of 13 mm matched to the scale of specimens. The beam bars used were a high-strength threaded and normal deformed bars of 19 mm and 13 mm in diameter, respectively. 2.2 Instrumentation and Loading Tensile load P was applied horizontally to the beam bars by a 2000kN oil-jack, as shown in Figure 1. Reaction Rl was applied at the compression zone of the imaginary beam cross section by a steel plate with a height of one-fifth beam depth, and reaction R2 was applied to the mid-point of the out-side of the column. The four beam bars were controlled so as to distribute the pull-out displacement equally among the bars in order to simulate actual beam bar conditions. Thus the tensile loads on each bar varied slightly. 3. Experimental Results and Discussion 3.1 Behavior of Cracks and Failure Figure 2 is a schema showing a typical crack pattern that appeared on the side of specimens at the final loading stage and showing the mark of each crack. The cracking process occurred as follows: (1) a flexural crack F appeared at the bottom of the joint in the tensile region but did not open widly; (2) the crack SF appeared in the end of the column near the mid-point of the horizontal straight portionof the bar in the joint and extended to the compression corner reducing the stiffness of the joint; (3) the crack S appeared at the bend of the bar, extended to the compression corner severely reducing the stiffness of the joint and led usually specimens of the TA series to the ultimate stage; (4) the crack V started along the bar bend, extended along the tail of bar and led usually specimens of the TB series tothe ultimate stage; and (5) the crack SH branched out from the crack V and extended towards the compression zone.