Confinement of Columns and Wall Boundary Elements

Using Headed Bars

D. Mitchell, M.ASCE 1; W. D. Cook 2; Y. Deng 3; and J. Liu 4

Abstract: Two series of full-scale specimens were constructed and tested under pure axial load to investigate the effectiveness of confine-
ment provided by headed bars. One series consisted of columns and the other series represented boundary elements in shear walls. Each
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

series consisted of five specimens that included a specimen without any confinement, a specimen with closed ties, a specimen with seismic
hoops and crossties, a specimen with closed hoops and headed bars replacing the crossties, and a specimen that had all of the transverse
reinforcement replaced by headed bars. It was concluded that headed bars provided a viable solution when used to replace crossties,
offering similar confinement. In these monotonically loaded tests, it was also found that headed bars could be used to replace entirely
the hoops and the crossties, offering similar confinement effects. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000850. © 2013 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Headed bars; Crossties; Transverse reinforcement; Concrete and masonry structures.

Introduction
Transverse reinforcement in reinforced concrete columns provides
confinement to the concrete in compression, prevents premature
buckling of the longitudinal compression bars, and serves as shear
reinforcement. Under seismic loading, spalling of the concrete
cover could be extensive and the strength and ductility of members
would depend greatly on the effectiveness of the confinement pro-
vided to the concrete core. The use of headed bars as transverse
reinforcement offers many advantages. Heads that are properly
connected and adequately sized can enable the development of
the tensile strength of the bar at the extremities of the bar, unlike
hooked bars. Using headed reinforcing bars instead of hooked bars,
not only reduces reinforcement congestion, but also can make
construction of the reinforcing cages easier. In addition, the con-
tribution of the head size and the rigid head-to-bar connection
can increase the reinforcement’s confining effect. The research re-
ported in this paper is aimed at investigating the confining effect of
friction-welded headed bars serving as transverse reinforcement in
columns and boundary elements of walls subjected to monotonic
axial compressive loading. Although there has been a significant
number of experimental studies on columns containing hoops, ties,
and crossties (e.g., Sheikh and Uzumeri 1980; Mander et al. 1984,
1988; Razvi and Saatcioglu 1994; Cusson and Paultre 1994, 1995;
Légeron and Paultre 2003; Sharma et al. 2005), there are only a
few experimental results reported on columns (Youakim and
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill
Univ., Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0C3 (corresponding author). E-mail:
denis.mitchell@mcgill.ca
2
Research Associate, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied
Mechanics, McGill Univ., Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0C3.
3
Software Engineer, Microsoft, One Microsoft Way, Redmond,
WA 98052-6399.
4
Structural Engineer, Sargent & Lundy, LLC, 55 E. Monroe St.,
Chicago, IL 60603.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 20, 2012; approved on
April 8, 2013; published online on April 10, 2013. Discussion period open
until April 20, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04013080(9)/$25.00.
Ghali 2002) and walls (Dilger and Ghali 1997) containing headed
reinforcement.
Test Program
Five large-scale columns (500 × 500 × 2,000 mm) and five wall
boundary elements (530 × 400 × 2,000 mm) were tested under
concentric compressive loading. The clear covers for the column
and the boundary element specimens are 40 and 20 mm, respec-
tively, measured to the transverse reinforcement or outermost sur-
face of the heads of the headed bars. All column specimens were
constructed using 8–25M (db ¼ 25.2 mm, As ¼ 500 mm2 ) longi-
tudinal bars, while the boundary element specimens used 10–20M
(db ¼ 19.5 mm, As ¼ 300 mm2 ) longitudinal bars. Details of the
transverse reinforcement and the corresponding ACI code clauses
(ACI 2011) are summarized in Fig. 1. Specimens C1 and BE1 were
constructed without any transverse reinforcement. Specimens C2
and BE2 represent a column and a boundary element with poor
confinement, such as would be found in an older structure.
Specimen C2 contained No. 5 (db ¼ 16 mm, As ¼ 200 mm2 )
hoops with 90° bend anchorages at 400-mm spacing as required
for nonductile columns. Specimen BE2 contained U-shaped
No. 4 (db ¼ 12.7 mm, As ¼ 129 mm2 ) ties at a spacing of
500 mm. The ends of the U-bars had a 300-mm splice in the short
direction of the boundary element. It is noted that this detail does
not conform to the requirements of the 2011 ACI code. These
hoops have an excessive spacing as well as poor end anchorage
that will become ineffective once spalling of the concrete cover
occurs. Column C3 was designed and detailed as a ductile column
in a special moment frame. The details of boundary element
BE3 conform to the ACI code requirements for special structural
walls with a calculated maximum extreme fiber compressive
stress less than 0.2 times the specified concrete compressive
strength. The consecutive crossties were alternated end-for-end
along the longitudinal reinforcement in both Specimens C3
and BE3.
Specimens C4 and BE4 are companion specimens to Spec-
imens C3 and BE3 with friction-welded headed bars replacing
the crossties. No. 5 and No. 4 headed bars had circular heads,

© ASCE 04013080-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 Column Specimens Boundary Element Specimens Confinement
(500 mm x 500 mm) (530 mm x 400 mm)

C1 BE1 No confinement

C1 & BE1: No
8-25M bars 10-20M bars transverse reinforcement
(typ.) (typ.)

56 mm cover 33 mm cover

C2 BE2 Poor confinement

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

No.5 ties C2: ties (ACI 7.10.5.2)

@400 mm No.4 ties BE2: nominal ties
with 90° 6db @500 mm
extensions

40 mm cover 20 mm cover

C3 BE3 Seismic confinement

No.5 ties No.4 ties
@125 mm with @120 mm with
C3: Seismic hoops &
90° and 135° 90° and 135°
crossties (ACI 21.6.4)
6db extensions 6db extensions
BE3: Seismic hoops &
crossties (ACI 21.9.6.3)
No.5 hoops No.4 hoops
@125 mm @120 mm

40 mm cover 20 mm cover

C4 BE4 Seismic confinement

No.5 headed No.4 headed
bars @ 125 mm bars @120 mm C4: Seismic hoops &
with circular with circular headed crossties
heads, φ=50 mm heads, φ=40 mm (ACI 21.6.4)
BE4: Seismic hoops &
No.5 hoops No.4 hoops headed crossties
@125 mm @120 mm (ACI 21.9.6.3)
40 mm cover 20 mm cover

C5 BE5 Seismic confinement

No.5 headed No.4 headed C5: headed bars
bars @125 mm bars @120 mm BE5: headed bars
with circular with circular
heads, φ=50 mm heads, φ=40 mm

40 mm cover 20 mm cover
over heads over heads

Fig. 1. Specimen details

having diameters of 50 and 40 mm for C4 and BE4, respectively.
For Specimens C5 and BE5, the transverse reinforcement consisted
of only friction-welded headed bars, including the peripheral
reinforcement. These specimens are companion specimens to
C3 and BE3 that contained the conventional seismic hoops and
crossties.
The specimens were tested using an 11,400-kN capacity
computer-controlled universal testing machine. The load cell of
the testing machine measures the axial loads applied to the spec-
imens. A pair of linear voltage differential transformers (LVDTs)
were placed on the front and on the back faces of each specimen,
over a gauge length of 1,500 mm, to measure the shortening at
the four corners. Strains were measured using electrical resistance
strain gauges glued to the hoops, crossties, and vertical bars near
the midheight of the specimens.
Thin layers of high-strength capping compound were used to
cap the top and bottom of each specimen to ensure that the speci-
men was properly aligned and to provide uniform stress distribu-
tions at the column ends. A loading rate of 4 kN per s was used up
to 4,000 kN and then displacement control at a rate of 0.0025 mm
per s was used. The testing was continued until the specimen’s
resistance dropped to 50% of the peak load or the compressive
displacement reached 30 mm. Fig. 2 shows a column in the testing
machine.

© ASCE 04013080-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 Material Properties
Concrete
Two different batches of ready-mix concrete, both with a specified
28-day compressive strength of 30 MPa, were used for the column
and boundary element series. Standard cylinders and flexural
beams cast with each series were given the same curing regime
as the test specimens (moist cured for 5 days). The concrete proper-
ties were determined during the middle of the testing period at an
age of 35 days. The compressive strength, fc0 , and compressive
stress-strain relationships were determined from three 150-mm
diameter by 300-mm cylinders for each batch. The modulus of rup-
ture, fr , was determined from three 150 × 150 × 600-mm long
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
60,000 psi (414 MPa). The No. 5 and No. 4 headed bars had
two friction-welded heads having diameters of 50 and 40 mm
and thicknesses of 12.7 and 10.2 mm, respectively. The head sizes
were chosen such that the head provided an area of 10 times the bar
area, resulting in a net bearing area of the head of 9 times the
bar area enabling the development of the tensile strength of the
bar at the head (Ghali and Dilger 1998; CSA 2004). It is noted that
the head sizes used are larger than the minimum requirements of the
2011 ACI code. The mechanical properties of the reinforcing steel
are summarized in Table 2.
Test Results

flexural beams subjected to third-point loading over a span of Fig. 3 shows the total load versus average strain responses for the
450 mm. The splitting tensile strength, f sp , was determined from column and boundary element specimens. Four vertical LVDTs
three 150 × 300-mm cylinders. Table 1 summarizes the concrete
were used to obtain the average longitudinal strains. All specimens
properties.
behaved in a similar manner in the ascending portion of the loading
response until spalling of the concrete cover occurred. Unconfined
Reinforcement Specimens C1 and BE1 experienced a sudden drop off of load once
The 25M and 20M longitudinal bars were hot-rolled, weldable
grade 400 (minimum yield of 400 MPa) steel. The transverse
reinforcement was constructed from weldable grade No. 4 and Table 2. Properties of Reinforcing Steel
No. 5 U.S. bars with a minimum specified yield stress of Diameter Area fy εy εsh f ult εult
Bar (mm) (mm2 ) (MPa) (%) (%) (MPa) (%)
25M 25.2 500 426 0.213 1.55 539 17.25
20M 19.5 300 456 0.228 2.43 580 23.17
Number 5 16.0 200 483 0.241 1.10 686 12.60
Number 4 12.7 129 472 0.236 1.42 669 21.85

(a)

Fig. 2. Test setup

Table 1. Concrete Properties

f c0 εc0 f sp fr
Specimens Variability (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa)
Column Average 38.1 0.21 3.01 4.56 (b)
Standard deviation 1.08 0.01 0.33 0.17
Boundary Average 31.0 0.21 2.45 3.56 Fig. 3. Load versus average strain relationships: (a) column series;
element Standard deviation 0.53 0.01 0.04 0.11
(b) boundary element series

© ASCE 04013080-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 the peak load was reached. Specimens C2 and BE2 have very lim-
ited confinement and experienced brittle failures after reaching
their peak loads. The cover spalling, bar buckling, and poor con-
finement resulted in a sudden drop of load to 50% of their peak
loads. The anchorage of the transverse reinforcement was ineffec-
tive once spalling of the cover occurred. At the peak load level, the
stress in the transverse reinforcement was typically about 50% of
the yield stress. For the specimens with ductile detailing, the strains
in the transverse reinforcement increased significantly after the
cover concrete spalled and these specimens experienced yielding
of the transverse reinforcement. The appearance of the two series
of tests after testing is shown in Fig. 4.
Specimens C3 and BE3 both contain typical seismic details with
hoops and crossties. The influence of this improved confinement is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
an increase in the peak axial load and a significant increase in the
deformability after the peak load. The improved postpeak behavior
is due to the improved confinement of the core concrete and
the effectiveness of the closely spaced hoops and crossties in pre-
venting premature bar buckling. However, at significant axial com-
pressive strains, the 90° bend hooks of the crossties opened up
indicating some loss of anchorage [see Figs. 5(a and d)]. Strain
gauges near the 90° bend anchorages of the crossties indicated that
average strains of about 1.38 and 1.23 times the yield strain were
reached in Specimens C3 and BE3, respectively. Specimens C4 and
BE4, with the crossties replaced by headed bars, displayed better
postspalling response compared with Specimens C3 and BE3, re-
spectively. Both specimens exhibited more gradual strength decay.
After cover spalling, the heads of the headed bars in Specimens C4
and BE4 were exposed, however, the core concrete was extremely
Fig. 4. Photographs after testing: (a) column series; (b) boundary
element series
© ASCE 04013080-4
J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.
well confined by the heads and the vertical bars anchored by the
heads showed no signs of buckling. Strain gauges near the heads of
the crossties indicated that average strains of about 1.83 and 3.48
times the yield strain were reached in Specimens C4 and BE4, re-
spectively. The appearance of Specimens C4 and BE4 after testing
is shown in Figs. 5(b and e). The performance of the headed bars is
as good as or better than the performance of the crossties with alter-
nating 90° and 135° hooks. The significant increase of the postpeak
resistance of Specimen BE4 is due to the beneficial effects of the
heads and the improved end anchorage of the headed bars. Speci-
men BE4 experienced the highest ductility of all the boundary
element specimens [see Fig. 3(b)].
Specimens C5 and BE5 were confined entirely by headed bars.
Specimen C5 displayed a similar ductility to Specimens C3 and C4
and had a gradual decay in load carrying capacity even at very large
strains [see Fig. 3(a)]. The excellent postpeak behavior is due to
the beneficial effects provided by the interlocking headed bars.
Fig. 5(c) shows column Specimen C5 at the end of testing, indicat-
ing that at these large deformations, the peripheral headed bars
were still interlocked. Fig. 5(c) also shows the spreading of com-
pressive stresses in a conelike fashion emanating from the 50-mm
diameter heads at the corners of the column. These localized com-
pressive stresses not only contribute significantly to confinement,
but also assist in the interlocking of the peripheral headed bars at
the corners. This interlocking prevents the headed bars from open-
ing up at the corners allowing them to act as peripheral hoop
reinforcement. Strain gauges near the heads of the crossties indi-
cated that average strains of about 1.0 and 3.5 times the yield strain
were reached in Specimens C5 and BE5, respectively. The response
of Specimen BE5 was not quite as good as that of Specimen BE4,
but was better than the boundary element specimen with typical
seismic hoops and crossties (BE3). At a large axial compressive
strain of 0.007, the headed bars started losing some interlocking
at the corners and some local buckling of the longitudinal bars oc-
curred [see Fig. 5(f)]. It is believed that the smaller diameter
(40 mm) of the heads used in the boundary element specimens
was the cause of this loss of interlocking. The peripheral headed
bars yielded but they did not develop strains well above yield.
Comparison of Column Specimens
Table 3 summarizes the experimental results obtained for all of the
specimens. For the column specimens, the maximum axial load,
Pmax , for each specimen, varied between 9,418 and 10,838 kN.
Column C2 has a peak load about the same as that for Column
C1. Column C3 had much better confinement and had a capacity
15% greater than Column C2. Columns C3, C4, and C5 all have the
same amount of transverse reinforcement and have similar
peak loads.
The maximum loads are compared with their corresponding pre-
dicted axial capacities, computed according to the ACI code (ACI
2011) as
Po ¼ 0.85fc0 ðAg − Ast Þ þ fy Ast ð1Þ
where Ag = the gross concrete area; and Ast = the area of the lon-
gitudinal reinforcement.
The ratio, Pmax =Po , ranges from 0.97 to 1.12. The lower
ratios are observed in Columns C1 and C2 that had little or no
confinement.
Table 3 also shows the maximum load, Pc , carried by the con-
crete that was determined by subtracting the forces in the longitu-
dinal bars from the total applied load. The measured average
longitudinal strain, together with the elastoplastic stress-strain
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Photographs of failure regions: (a) C3; (b) C4; (c) C5; (d) BE3; (e) BE4; (f) BE5

Table 3. Summary of Experimental Results

Axial loads Axial strains
Specimens Pmax (kN) Pmax =Po Pc (kN) Pc =Poc Pcc (kN) Pcc =Pocc εcP max (%) εcP max =εc0 εcc (%) 0
εcc =εc0
C1 9,812 1.01 8,179 1.01 — — 0.206 0.98 — —
C2 9,418 0.97 7,853 0.97 — — 0.197 0.94 — —
C3 10,838 1.12 9,134 1.13 6,895 1.34 0.280 1.33 0.590 2.81
C4 10,226 1.06 8,522 1.05 6,817 1.32 0.248 1.18 0.586 2.79
C5 10,595 1.10 8,891 1.12 7,203 1.60 0.268 1.27 0.552 2.63
BE1 6,694 0.95 5,551 0.96 — — 0.194 0.92 — —
BE2 6,848 0.97 5,589 0.97 — — 0.212 1.01 — —
BE3 7,620 1.08 6,252 1.08 5,328 1.20 0.297 1.41 0.589 2.80
BE4 7,647 1.08 6,279 1.09 5,831 1.31 0.340 1.62 0.560 2.67
BE5 7,527 1.06 6,159 1.08 5,744 1.48 0.335 1.60 0.602 2.87

relationship for the steel, was used to determine the force carried by
the steel. The maximum force in the concrete, Pc , is compared with
the code expression for the maximum load carried by only the con-
crete, Poc ¼ 0.85fc0 ðAg − Ast Þ. It is noted that the ratios of Pc =Poc
are all above 1.0 for the confined column specimens. Following the
approach used by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1980), Cusson and Paultre
(1994), and Sharma et al. (2005), the maximum load carried by the
confined concrete in the core, Pcc , was determined for the speci-
mens with seismic confinement. This load is compared with the
load Pocc ¼ 0.85f c0 Acc where Acc = the confined concrete core area
taken as the net area inside centerline of perimeter hoops or headed
bars. The confined column specimens exhibited Pcc =Pocc ratios
varying from 1.32 to 1.60 indicating that the confined core concrete
was able to develop strengths well above that of the unconfined
concrete. Table 3 gives the concrete strain, εcP max , corresponding
to the maximum axial load. For the three confined columns, this
strain varies from 0.0025 to 0.0028. These values are somewhat
higher than the strain at maximum stress, εc0 , for the corresponding
unconfined concrete cylinders. The ratio, εcP max =εc0 , ranges from
1.18 to 1.33 for Columns C3, C4, and C5, whereas the unconfined
Specimens C1 and C2 have ratios slightly less than 1.0. Table 3 also
0
gives the confined concrete strain, εcc , corresponding to the peak
0
load on the confined core, Pcc and the ratios of εcc =εc0 . These ratios,
which vary from 2.63 to 2.81, indicate that there is a significant
increase in the strain at the peak stress in the confined core.
Comparison of Boundary Element Specimens
For the boundary element specimens, the maximum axial load,
Pmax , applied on each specimen during testing, varied between
6,694 and 7,647 kN (see Table 3). Specimen BE4 exhibited the
highest peak load, with Specimen BE3 having the next highest.
The ratio, Pmax =Po , ranges from 0.95 to 1.08. The lower ratios
are for Specimens BE1 and BE2. It is noted that the ratios of
Pc =Poc are all above 1.0 for the confined boundary element spec-
imens. The confined boundary element specimens exhibited
Pcc =Pocc ratios ranging from 1.20 to 1.48, indicating that the con-
fined core concrete was able to develop strengths well above that of
the unconfined concrete.
The strain, εcP max , corresponding to the maximum axial load,
ranges from 0.0019 to 0.0034. The ratio, εcP max =εc0 , ranges from
0.92 to 1.62. The higher ratios are observed in the well-confined
specimens, with the headed bar specimens having the highest

© ASCE 04013080-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 0
values. The ratios of εcc =εc0 range from 2.67 to 2.87, indicating the where wi = the clear distance between adjacent laterally supported
beneficial effects of confinement on the strain capacity of the longitudinal bars; s 0 = the clear vertical spacing between hoops; cx
confined core. and cy = the core dimensions measured to the centerline of the
hoops; and ρcc = the ratio of the area of longitudinal reinforcement
to the area of the confined core.
Analytical Model for Predicting Confinement Cusson and Paultre (1995) used the same expressions as that of
Mander et al. (1988) for determining the confinement effectiveness
Mander et al. (1984, 1988) proposed an approach that was modified coefficient, K e . Instead of calculating different effective confine-
from the analytical model proposed by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982) ment pressures in the x and y directions for a rectangular column,
to predict the confinement effectiveness of rectangular hoops with Cusson and Paultre (1995) simply determine an overall effective
or without crossties. The effective lateral confining pressure, fle0 , is lateral confining pressure, f le0 , given as
expressed as


K e f h Ashx þ Ashy
fle0 ¼ K e fl ð2Þ f le0 ¼ K e ρse f h ¼ ð4Þ
cx þ cy
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where fl = the lateral pressure on the confined concrete from the
transverse reinforcement, assumed to be uniformly distributed on
the concrete core. The confinement effectiveness coefficient, K e ,
is defined as the effective confined concrete area midway between
the transverse reinforcement divided by the net area of the con-
crete measured to the centerline of the transverse reinforcement.
Accounting for the arching of the confined concrete in both the
horizontal and vertical directions, the confinement effectiveness co-
efficient, K e , for a rectangular column can be expressed as
Pn
w2i
ð1 − i¼1 6cx cy Þð1
Ke ¼
ð1 − ρcc Þ
s
where ρse = the effective transverse reinforcement ratio; fh = the
stress in the hoops; s = the center-to-center spacing of the hoops;
and Ashx and Ashy = the areas of transverse reinforcement in the x
and y directions.
Légeron and Paultre (2003) provided a method for determin-
ing the stress in the transverse reinforcement, f h , at the peak
of the confined concrete stress-strain response and, hence, ena-
bling the determination of fle0 . Cusson and Paultre introduced
an effective confinement index at the peak confined concrete
0 0
− 2cs x Þð1 − 2cs y Þ stress as
ð3Þ

12000
C3
A
Concrete Axial Stress, fc (MPa)

f cc prediction
test
Confined concrete
8000
Load, kN

fc a confined
0.5f cc B core
C
Unconfined cover
0.5f c b 4000
concrete concrete
steel
Ec
c
ε c ε c50 ε cc ε c50c
0
Compressive Strain, ε c 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Strain, %
Fig. 6. Proposed stress-strain curve for confined high-strength concrete
(data from Cusson and Paultre 1995) Fig. 7. Predicted load-deformation response of Specimen C3

Table 4. Confinement Parameters and Predicted Confined Concrete Properties

Specimen wi a (mm) Acc (mm2 ) s 0 (mm) fle0 (MPa) fle0 =f c0 0
fcc (MPa) 0
f cc =f c0 0
εcc (%) 0
εcc =εc0
C2 w1 ¼ 338 159,200 384 0.07 0.002 39.5 1.04 0.22 1.03
w2 ¼ 338
C3, C4 w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 156 159,200 109 3.53 0.093 55.4 1.45 0.63 3.01
w3 ¼ w4 ¼ 156
C5 w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 144 139,300 109 3.73 0.098 56.1 1.47 0.66 3.15
w3 ¼ w4 ¼ 144
BE2 w1 ¼ 426 162,800 487 0.02 0.001 32.6 1.02 0.21 1.01
w2 ¼ 296
BE3, BE4 w1 ¼ w2 ¼ w3 ¼ 129 162,800 107 2.42 0.076 44.7 1.39 0.54 2.58
w4 ¼ w5 ¼ 138
BE5 w1 ¼ w2 ¼ w3 ¼ 120 146,400 107 2.84 0.089 46.2 1.44 0.61 2.91
w4 ¼ w5 ¼ 125
a
wi values given for two adjacent sides (other two sides are identical).

© ASCE 04013080-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 12000 9000
C2 BE2
test test
prediction prediction

8000 6000
Load, kN

Load, kN
4000 3000

(a) 0 (b) 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12000 9000
C3 BE3

8000 6000

Load, kN
Load, kN

4000 3000

(c) 0 (d) 0

12000 9000
C4 BE4

8000 6000
Load, kN

Load, kN

4000 3000

(e) 0 (f) 0

12000 9000
C5 BE5

8000 6000
Load, kN
Load, kN

4000 3000

0 0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
(g) Strain, % (h) Strain, %

Fig. 8. Comparison of predicted and measured load-deformation responses

© ASCE 04013080-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 fle0
I e0 ¼
fc0
Based on regression analyses, Légeron and Paultre (2003) pro-
posed equations for the peak concrete confined stress and strain as
well as the fitting parameters for the postpeak confined concrete
stress-strain relationship. The proposed relationship between the
0 =f 0 , and the effective con-
strength gain of confined concrete, fcc
c
finement index, I e0 , is given as
0 =f 0 ¼ 1 þ 2.4ðI 0 Þ0.7
fcc
c e
and proposed the following equation for the concrete strain at the
0
peak compressive stress of the confined concrete, εcc :
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Predicted Behavior of Test Specimens
ð5Þ
Specimens C1 and BE1 do not contain any transverse reinforce-
ment and, hence, the code design expression given in Eq. (1)
was used to predict the strength. The predicted responses for Spec-
imens C2, C3, C4, C5, BE2, BE3, BE4, and BE5 were made using
the expressions based on the research of Mander et al. (1988) as
modified by Légeron and Paultre (2003). This approach overesti-
mated the contribution of the cover concrete for this full-scale test
series. Hence, the stress-strain relationship for the concrete cover
ð6Þ was modified such that after reaching a strain in the unconfined
concrete of 0.003, the stress dropped linearly to zero at a strain
of 0.004.
Table 4 gives the confinement parameters that were assumed for

0
the predictions of the concrete stress-strain responses including the
εcc =εc0 ¼ 1 þ 35ðI e0 Þ1.2 ð7Þ clear spacings between the laterally supported longitudinal bars, wi .
The spacing, s 0 , was assumed to be the clear distance between the
Mander et al. (1984) proposed a unified stress-strain relation- peripheral ties. The ratio f le0 =fc0 is an index of confinement effi-
ship for confined concrete, applicable to both circular and rectan- ciency (Cusson and Paultre 1995), which accounts for the arching
gular shaped transverse reinforcement, which is based on an action occurring in the concrete core and for the actual stress in the
equation suggested by Popovics (1973). Based on Mander et al.’s transverse reinforcement at peak strength of the confined concrete.
approach, Cusson and Paultre (1995) proposed a stress-strain curve Table 4 also indicates the predicted peak confined concrete stress
(see Fig. 6). and strain. The predicted ratios of f cc0 =f 0 and ε 0 =ε 0 (Table 4) com-
c cc c
This relationship, in general form, for the confined concrete pare reasonably well with the experimentally determined ratios of
stress, fc , as a function of the concrete longitudinal strain, εc , Pcc =Pocc and εcc 0 =ε 0 (Table 3), respectively, for each of the
0 c
for cases when εc ≤ εcc is given as specimens.
 0 Þ
 Fig. 7 illustrates the three different components contributing to
0 kðεc =εcc
f c ¼ f cc 0 k
ð8Þ the overall response for Specimen C3. It is noted that the force in
k − 1 þ ðεc =εcc Þ
the concrete from the predictions was multiplied by the factor 0.85
where k = a factor that controls the initial slope and the curvature of to obtain the predicted force deformation responses. This factor of
the ascending branch, given by 0.85 is the same factor assumed in the ACI code for predicting the
concrete contribution to the axial load resistance of a column.
Ec Fig. 8 compares the predicted load-strain responses with the ex-
k¼ 0 0 ð9Þ
Ec − ðf cc =εcc Þ perimental responses for the column and boundary element spec-
imens that contained transverse reinforcement. Specimens C2 and
and Ec = the tangent modulus of the unconfined concrete. BE2 were poorly confined by widely spaced transverse reinforce-
For the relationship for the descending part of the stress-strain ment anchored with 90° bend tie hooks and, hence, in the prediction
0
curve (when εc ≥ εcc ), Légeron and Paultre (2003) made some a limiting compressive strain of 0.004 was used to account for the
modifications to the relationship proposed by Fafitis and Shah complete loss of the concrete cover and severe bar buckling for
(1985). This expression is given as these two specimens. As shown in Fig. 8, the predictions agree rea-
sonably well with the experimental results.
0 0 k2
f c ¼ fcc exp½k1 ðεc − εcc Þ
ð10Þ

where Conclusions
ln 0.5 The following conclusions arise from the research on axially loaded
k1 ¼ 0 Þk2
ð11Þ
ðεcc50 − εcc columns and boundary elements confinement, including the use of
friction-welded headed bars with heads having a net bearing area of
nine times the bar area:
k2 ¼ 1 þ 25ðI e50 Þ2 ð12Þ
1. The combination of peripheral seismic hoops, together with
headed bars acting as seismic crossties, resulted in columns
The strain, εcc50 , is defined as the strain in the confined concrete
and boundary elements that performed as well as or better
when the stress drops to 50% of the peak strength of confined con-
than specimens constructed with seismic hoops and seismic
crete. This strain is given as
crossties.
εcc50 =εc50 ¼ 1 þ 60I e50 ð13Þ 2. The replacement of seismic crossties with headed bars resulted
in columns and boundary elements, which were easier to
where I e50 ¼ ρse f hy =fc0 . construct.
Cusson and Paultre suggested that εc50 could be assumed to be 3. The replacement of all of the transverse reinforcement by
0.004 if no experimental data was available and they also suggested headed bars, while giving similar performance as the speci-
that the proposed confinement model could be used for the predic- mens with hoops and crossties, can be difficult to place in col-
tion of the behavior of unconfined concrete columns using umns without a peripheral hoop to maintain alignment.
k2 ¼ 1.5. Sharma et al. (2005) compared a number of analytical 4. The friction-welded heads having a net bearing area of nine
models with several column test series and concluded that the times the bar area offer the following advantages:
model proposed by Légeron and Paultre (2003) gave the most con- a. Spreading of the compressive stresses from under the
sistent predictions of the actual test responses. heads provides confinement to the core concrete;

© ASCE 04013080-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 b. The heads of these bars enable the development of high-
tensile strains close to the heads, even after concrete cover
spalling has occurred; and
c. The presence of the stiff heads reduces the effective spa-
cing between the transverse reinforcing elements, hence,
leading to better control of longitudinal bar buckling.
5. In predicting the responses, it was found that the stress-strain
relationship for the concrete cover had to be adjusted to ac-
count for the more brittle nature of cover spalling in these
full-scale test specimens.
6. Reasonably accurate predictions can be obtained for the stress-
strain relationship of the concrete confined by headed bars by
using the method described in this paper.
This research demonstrates that headed bars offer a practical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
method of providing confinement in columns and wall boundary
elements subjected to axial loading. Further research on the re-
versed cyclic loading behavior of columns and walls containing
headed bars is needed.
Acknowledgments
The donation of materials by Headed Reinforcement Corporation
(HRC) in Fountain Valley, CA, is greatly appreciated. Kjell L. Dahl
and Christian Dahl of HRC provided practical guidance on the use
of headed bars. David Mar and Leo Panian of Tipping Mar and
Associates provided valuable discussions and examples of applica-
tions of headed reinforcement. The financial support of the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2011). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-11, Detroit.
© ASCE 04013080-9
J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2004). “Design of concrete struc-
tures.” CSA A23.3-04, Rexdale, ON, Canada.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. (1994). “High-strength concrete columns con-
fined by rectangular ties.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1994)120:3(783), 783–803.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. (1995). “Stress-strain model for confined high-
strength concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)
121:3(468), 468–477.
Dilger, W. H., and Ghali, A. (1997). “Double-head studs as ties in concrete
walls and columns.” Concr. Int., 19(6), 59–66.
Fafitis, A., and Shah, S. P. (1985). “Lateral reinforcement for high-strength
concrete columns.” SP-87, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
213–232.
Ghali, A., and Dilger, W. H. (1998). “Anchoring with double-head studs.”
Concr. Int., 20(11), 21–24.
Légeron, F., and Paultre, P. (2003). “Uniaxial confinement model for
normal- and high-strength concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:2(241), 241–252.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1984). “Seismic design of
bridge piers.” Res. Rep. 84–2, Univ. of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804), 1804–1823.
Popovic, S. (1973). “A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain
curve of concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res., 3(5), 583–899.
Razvi, S. R., and Saatcioglu, M. (1994). “Strength and deformability of
confined high strength concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 91(6),
678–687.
Sharma, U. K., Bhargava, P., and Kaushik, S. K. (2005). “Behavior of con-
fined high strength concrete columns under axial compression.” J. Adv.
Concr. Technol., 3(2), 267–281.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. (1980). “Strength and ductility of tied
concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 1079–1102.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. (1982). “Analytical model for concrete
confinement in tied columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 2073–2722.
Youakim, S. A., and Ghali, A. (2002). “Ductility of concrete columns with
double-head studs.” ACI Struct. J., 99(4), 480–487.
J. Struct. Eng.