International Concrete Abstracts Portal

During past earthquakes, failures of beam–column joints have commonly been observed on the exteriors of buildings. However, only one side of these joints can be retrofitted because of the presence of beams on the other three sides. Therefore, this study aims to test four exterior beam–column joints with transverse beams, leaving the rear side as the only viable location for placing fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) laminate. All four test specimens are designed with insufficient joint shear strength, as determined by ACI 318 equations, while satisfying the criteria for a strong-column–weak-beam mechanism and sufficient development length for bar anchorage. A total of two un-retrofitted specimens, with and without joint hoops, are constructed as controls. Subsequently, two similar specimens are retrofitted by applying an FRP laminate on the rear side. The results show that sufficient FRP laminate can enhance the seismic performance of joints in terms of deformability, energy dissipation, and failure delay.

Corrosion—one of the major threats to the integrity of concrete structures—can consequently affect structure serviceability and ultimate limit state, possibly resulting in failure. Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) can be used as an innovative alternative for conventional steel reinforcement in concrete structures, effectively addressing corrosion issues. In addition to its corrosion resistance and high strength-to-weight ratio, GFRP is commonly selected for non-prestressed bars and stirrups due to its cost advantage over other FRP materials. The study endeavored to provide a comprehensive overview of the shear resistance in GFRP-RC beams with short shear spans. The manuscript aims to synthesize and analyze shear test data based on published studies on GFRP-RC beams with a short shear span (a/d = 1.5 to 2.5). A comprehensive literature review was conducted to compile a database comprising 64 short GFRP-RC beams to evaluate the efficiency of using the strut-and-tie model (STM) for predicting the shear resistance of GFRP-RC beams. The findings reveal that the ACI 318 (2019) STM yielded the most accurate predictions of the shear resistance of GFRP-RC beams with shear span-to-depth ratios of 1.5 to 2.5, since the current ACI 440.11 and ACI 440.1R design codes and guidelines do not include shear equations using the strut-and-tie model for predicting the shear resistance of GFRP-RC beams. Based on the findings of this study, the results could contribute to establishing shear equations in the upcoming revision of the ACI 440.11 and ACI 440.1R design codes and guidelines, specifically tailored for designing short GFRP-RC beams using the strut-and-tie model. The study also provides sufficient data to apply the strut-and-tie model in the design of GFRP-RC beams.

Recent tests showed that anchorage failure could be the primary mechanism that limits the strength and deformation capacity of column-footing connections. An experimental program consisting of the reversed cyclic load testing of 16 approximately full-scale column-footing subassemblages was thus conducted to investigate the effect of various reinforcement details on connection strength, drift capacity, and failure mode. The main parameters evaluated were type of anchorage for the column longitudinal bars (either hooks or heads), extension of column transverse reinforcement into the footing, and longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios in the footing. Test results indicate that even when column longitudinal reinforcement extends into the joint with a development length in accordance with ACI 318-19, a cone-shaped concrete breakout failure may occur, limiting connection strength and deformation capacity. The use of transverse reinforcement in the connection over a region extending up to one footing effective depth away from each column face proved effective in preventing a concrete breakout failure. However, for the specimens with column headed bars, extensive concrete crushing adjacent to the bearing side of the heads and spalling beyond the back side of the heads led to significant bar slip and “pinching” in the load versus drift hysteresis loops at drift ratios greater than 3%. The use of U-shaped bars in the joint between the column and the footing or slab, as recommended in ACI 352R-02, led to improved behavior in terms of strength and deformation capacity, although it did not prevent the propagation of a cone-shaped failure surface outside the joint region. Based on the test results, the basic concrete breakout strength, Nb, corresponding to a 50% fractile, in combination with a cracking factor ψc,N = 1.25, is recommended when using Section 17.6.2. of ACI 318-19 for calculation of concrete breakout strength in connections similar to those tested in this investigation.

Lap-splicing of longitudinal reinforcing bars in shear walls is often encountered in practice, and the transfer of forces in lap-spliced reinforcing bars to the surrounding concrete depends on the bond strength. Buildings with shear walls during an earthquake develop plastic hinges in the shear walls, particularly where the reinforcing bars are lap-spliced. Brittle failure is commonly observed in lap-spliced reinforced shear walls, which needs to be minimized by choosing the appropriate percentage of lap-spliced reinforcing bars. Therefore, it is essential to address the detailing of the lap-spliced regions of reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls. Several seismic design codes provide guidelines on lap-spliced detailing in shear walls related to its location, length of lap-splice, confinement reinforcement, and percentage of reinforcing bars to be lap-spliced. In this study, the percentage of reinforcing bars to be lap-spliced at a section is examined with staggered lap-splicing of 100, 50, and 33% of longitudinal reinforcing bars, in addition to a control RC shear wall without lap-splicing. This study tested four half-scale RC shear walls with boundary element (BE), designed as per IS 13920 and ACI 318, under quasi-static reversed cyclic loading. From the experimental study, it is observed that the staggered lap splicing of reinforcing bars nominally reduces the performance of shear walls under cyclic load in terms of the reduced flexural strength, deformation capacity, energy dissipation, and ductility of the shear walls compared to the control shear wall without lap splicing. It is also observed that the unspliced reinforcing bars do not sustain the cyclic loading in staggered lap-splice after the postpeak. Current provisions of ACI 318, Eurocode 2, and IS 13920 recommend staggered lap-splice detailing in shear walls. However, from the current study, shear walls with different percentages of staggered lap-splices show that the staggered lap-splice detailing in shear walls does not improve its seismic performance.

Reinforced concrete (RC) structure design codes stipulate various design limits to prevent the brittle failure of members, as well as ensure serviceability. In the structural design of RC walls, the maximum shear strength is limited to prevent sudden shear failure due to concrete crushing before the yielding of shear reinforcement due to over-reinforcement. Despite the increase in wall shear strength provided by a compression strut, the maximum shear strength limit for walls in the ACI 318-19 Code is the same as the maximum torsional strength. Consequently, the shear strength of large-sized walls with high-strength concrete is limited to an excessively low level. The ACI 318-19, Eurocode 2, CSA-19, and JSCE-17 standards provide similar equations for estimating wall strength, but their maximum shear strength limits for walls are all different. In this study, experimental tests were conducted on nine RC wall specimens to evaluate the maximum shear strength. The main variables of the specimens were shear reinforcement ratio, compressive strength of concrete, and failure mode. The experimental results showed that the maximum load was reached after yielding of shear reinforcement, even when the shear reinforcement ratio was 1.5 times higher than the maximum shear reinforcement ratio specified in the ACI 318-19 code. In addition, the measured shear crack width of all specimens at the service load level was less than 0.42 mm (0.017 in.). The shear strength limits for walls in the current codes were compared using 109 experimental results failing in shear before flexural yielding or shear friction failure, assembled from the literature. The comparison indicated that the ACI 318-19 Code limit underestimates the maximum shear strength of walls, and it particularly underestimates the maximum shear strength of walls with high-strength concrete or barbell-shaped cross sections. Additionally, this study proposes an equation for estimating the maximum shear strength limit of walls based on the truss model. The proposed equation predicted the maximum shear strength of RC walls with reasonable accuracy.