Cyclic Behavior of Beams with Double-Perimeter and Continuous-Stirrup Hoops

International Concrete Abstracts Portal

The International Concrete Abstracts Portal is an ACI led collaboration with leading technical organizations from within the international concrete industry and offers the most comprehensive collection of published concrete abstracts.

  


Title: Cyclic Behavior of Beams with Double-Perimeter and Continuous-Stirrup Hoops

Author(s): Yu-Chen Ou, Hermawan Sutejo, Jyun-Lin Huang, and Sheng-I Yen

Publication: Structural Journal

Volume: 121

Issue: 3

Appears on pages(s): 187-200

Keywords: closed stirrups; deformation capacity; energy dissipation; hoops; plastic hinge region; reinforced concrete beams; reinforcement buckling; special moment frames

DOI: 10.14359/51740485

Date: 5/1/2024

Abstract:
Two types of hoop layouts, double-perimeter hoops (DPH) and continuous-stirrup hoops (CSH), were examined in this research for beams of special moment frames. Compared to conventional hoops (CH), the DPH and CSH have the advantage of better constructability. Full-scale beam specimens—specimen CH as a control specimen and specimens DPH and CSH as test specimens—were tested using lateral cyclic loading to examine their seismic performance. Test results showed that although specimen DPH violated the Code requirement for the number and spacing of laterally supported longitudinal bars, the specimen still exhibited seismic performance sufficient for beams of special moment frames. Specimen CSH showed better seismic performance than the control specimen (CH). The better performance of CSH was mainly attributed to the better concrete confinement and reinforcing bar buckling restraint ability of the intermediate hoops of the CSH than the intermediate stirrups of the CH.

Related References:

1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19) (Reapproved 2022),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019, 624 pp.

2. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Sept. 1988, pp. 1804-1826. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)

3. Pfister, J. F., “Influence of Ties on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 61, No. 5, May 1964, pp. 521-538.

4. DeGagné, B.; Erdogmus, E.; and Savage, J., “Longitudinal Bar Spacing and Intermediate Ties,” Concrete International, V. 38, No. 5, May 2016, pp. 43-46.

5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1963, 144 pp.

6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1983, 111 pp.

7. Elwood, K. J.; Maffei, J.; Riederer, K. A.; and Telleen, K., “Improving Column Confinement: Part 1: Assessment of Design Provisions,” Concrete International, V. 31, No. 11, Nov. 2009, pp. 32-39.

8. Elwood, K. J.; Maffei, J.; Riederer, K. A.; and Telleen, K., “Improving Column Confinement: Part 2: Proposed New Provisions for the ACI 318 Building Code,” Concrete International, V. 31, No. 12, Dec. 2009, pp. 41-48.

9. Visnjic, T.; Antonellis, G.; Panagiotou, M.; and Moehle, J. P., “Large Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame Beams under Simulated Seismic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 3, May-June 2016, pp. 469-480.

10. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-11),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.

11. Kang, S.-M.; Park, S.-W.; Jang, S.-W.; Jin, J.-M.; Eom, T.-S.; and Park, H.-G., “Constructability and Economic Evaluation of Continuous Hoop Reinforcement Method,” Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction, V. 13, No. 3, 2013, pp. 291-305.

12. Chalioris, C. E., and Karayannis, C. G., “Experimental Investigation of RC Beams with Rectangular Spiral Reinforcement in Torsion,” Engineering Structures, V. 56, Nov. 2013, pp. 286-297. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.05.003

13. De Corte, W., and Boel, V., “Effectiveness of Spirally Shaped Stirrups in Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Engineering Structures, V. 52, July 2013, pp. 667-675. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.032

14. Karayannis, C. G., and Chalioris, C. E., “Shear Tests of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Continuous Rectangular Spiral Reinforcement,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 46, Sept. 2013, pp. 86-97. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.04.023

15. Shahrooz, B. M.; Forry, M. L.; Anderson, N. S.; Bill, H. L.; and Doellman, A. M., “Continuous Transverse Reinforcement—Behavior and Design Implications,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2016, pp. 1085-1094. doi: 10.14359/51689154

16. Bill, H. L.; Miller, M. L.; Doellman, A. M.; and Shahrooz, B. M., “Evaluation of Continuous Transverse Reinforcement,” Concrete International, V. 35, No. 11, Nov. 2013, pp. 49-55.

17. ASTM A706/A706M-14, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Low-Alloy Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, 7 pp.

18. ACI Committee 374, “Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05) (Reapproved 2019),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 9 pp.

19. FEMA 356, “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000, 518 pp.




  

Edit Module Settings to define Page Content Reviewer