ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 102-S67

TECHNICAL PAPER

Headed Studs in Concrete: State of the Art

by Amin Ghali and Samer A. Youakim
The use of headed studs is proposed for several practical applications instead of conventional reinforcing bars anchored by hooks and bends. The main advantages are: simpler installation and less congestion of reinforcement and more effective anchorage. Experiments simulating the applications are discussed. Design recommendations are given. The paper discusses applications of headed studs in slabs and footings, beams with thin webs, crossties in columns and walls, precast beams, deep beams and pile caps, and in beam-column joints. Use of a headed bar, as opposed to a bar with a hook, is advantageous in applications where there is demand for the yield strength at a section of the bar close to its end.
Keywords: anchorage; development length; stirrups; studs; reinforcement.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REVIEW OF STATE OF THE ART The ACI 318 Code21 allows the use of mechanical anchorages that are capable of developing the strength of the reinforcement without damage to concrete. Designers, increasingly using the headed studs, cannot take full advantage of the superiority of anchorage when adhering to codes requirements. This is because the code does not allow the use of smaller amounts of reinforcement or larger spacing when headed bars are used. The present review of extensive research that shows many uses of headed bars and gives design recommendations should be of help to designers and writers of codes or technical reports. ANCHORAGE OF BARS Anchorage of reinforcing bars is often achieved by the use of 90-, 135-, or 180-degree hooks. If the tensile force and the stress developed in the hook are T and s, respectively, a radial force T/R per unit length is exerted by the bar on the concrete inside the bend; where R is the inner radius of the bend. The average bearing stress on the concrete is T/(Rdb); where db is the diameter of the bar. The ACI 318 Code21 requires that R 2db for db 5/8 in. (16 mm). With this radius, the average bearing stress on the concrete is (s db2/4)/ (2db2) = 0.4s. When s approaches the yield strength fy of the bar, the bearing stress can damage (split or crush) the concrete inside the bend and result in bend slip; thus, the hook cannot develop the stress fy in the bar. For this reason, building codes such as ACI 318-0521 require minimum values for the inner radius R and in many applications require that the bend engage a heavier bar, running perpen-

INTRODUCTION Headed studs are increasingly used to replace conventional reinforcement (Fig. 1). Headed studs are smooth or deformed bars, commonly short relative to the lengths of concrete members, and provided with forged or welded heads for anchorage at one or both ends. In this paper, the terms headed stud and headed bar have the same meaning. In many applications, the studs run in the transverse direction of the member. Projects in which headed studs have been used include offshore structures, bridges, and thousands of flat plates in Europe, Australia, East Asia, and North America. Headed studs can also be used advantageously to reduce congestion in beam-column joints and in zones of lap splices. Requirements for anchorage can create detailing problems due to the long development length or the presence of hooks and bends. The present paper reviews practical applications in which headed studs can be used to replace conventional reinforcing bars. Experimental research at the University of Calgary and at other research institutions, are reviewed. The specimens in these experiments represent practical applications of headed studs in slabs,1-4 beams,5,6 columns,7-9 walls,10 structural diaphragms (shearwalls),11 corbels,12 beam-column joints,13,14 and dapped ends of beams.15,16 Experiments17 have shown that an anchor head area equal to 9 or 10 times the cross-sectional area of the stem can provide secure mechanical anchorage with negligible slip and develop the full yield force for studs of yield stress fy up to 500 MPa. With this type of stud, the full yield strength of the studs can be employed immediately adjacent to the anchor head. A tapered head (Fig. 1(b)) with a maximum thickness at the stem 0.6 the diameter of the stem db is sufficient for strength. Minimizing the volume of the stud head simplifies its production by forging and reduces the congestion of the reinforcement in the concrete forms. Research at The University of Texas at Austin18-20 has shown that studs with smaller anchor heads and deformed stem can also be used in some applications, considering in their design that the full yield strength is developed at a specified development length away from the head. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

Fig. 1Conventional single-leg stirrup and headed stud: (a) hooks satisfying minimum requirements of ACI 318-0521 (1 in. = 25.4 mm); (b) stud with forged head at each end.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, September-October 2005. MS No. 03-484 received December 11, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2005, 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 July-August 2006 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2006.

657

Amin Ghali, FACI, is Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He is a member of ACI Committee 435, Deflection of Concrete Building Structures; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 343, Concrete Bridge Design; and 421, Design of Reinforced Concrete Slabs; and is a consulting member of ACI 318-E, Shear and Torsion (Structural Concrete Building Code). ACI member Samer A. Youakim is an assistant project scientist at the University of California, San Diego, San Diego, Calif. He received his PhD from the University of Calgary in 2002. His research interests include behavior of concrete structures under earthquake loading, finite element analysis, and serviceability of concrete structures.

dicular to the plane of the bend (Fig. 1(a)). Even when this requirement is satisfied, the slip that occurs at the hooks causes the full yield strength of the bars to be developed only at some distance away from the bends. Leonhardt and Walther22 measured the slip that occurs at the bends of 90-, 135-, and 180-degree hooks, when engaging heavier bars lodged inside the bends. At stress level of s = 400 MPa (60 ksi), with a concrete strength of f c = 25 MPa (3600 psi), the measured slip varied between 0.1 and 0.25 mm (0.004 and 0.010 in.) and increased rapidly with the increase of s, reaching between 0.2 and 0.9 mm at s = 500 MPa (0.008 and 0.035 in. at 70 ksi). With the headed studs in Fig. 1(b), Eligehausen17 measured slip varying between 0.013 and 0.033 mm at s = 400 MPa and between 0.023 and 0.045 mm at s = 500 MPa (0.5 103 and 1.3 103 in. at 60 ksi and between 0.9 and 1.8 103 in. at s = 70 ksi), with fc = 25 MPa (3600 psi). The lower bearing stress and the smaller slip make studs with a head at each end more effective than conventional stirrups in controlling concrete cracks that intersect the stems at any location between the heads (for example, cracks due to shear or splitting forces). ADVANTAGES OF HEADED STUDS When headed studs are used, the congestion and the time of installation can be reduced by the use of a smaller number of studs of larger diameter. For speedy and accurate installation, sets of double-headed studs can be fitted at specified spacing in nonstructural sheet metal troughs, as shown in Fig. 1(b).

A hook is required to engage a bar of larger diameter (Fig. 1(a)) that can enhance the anchorage. This mechanical participation to the anchorage, however, can be partly lost when, because of imprecise workmanship, the heavier bar is not in contact with the inner face of the hook. With studs, the head provides positive anchorage, without the need for enhancement. A stud is longer than the vertical effective part of a stirrup (compare Fig. 1(a) and (b)) and thus can intersect more shear cracks. A crack approaching a stirrup leg near a bend tends to follow the bend, rather than intersecting the leg and controlling the width of the crack. The cover to the longitudinal bars has to be greater than the specified minimum plus the diameter of the stirrups (Fig. 1(a)); thus, when stirrups are used in lieu of studs, the distance d between the centroid of the tensile reinforcement and the extreme compression fiber will have to be smaller by an amount equal to the diameter of the stirrups. The reduction in flexural and shear strength of the member, caused by the smaller d, has to be compensated for by the provision of a greater amount of flexural and shear reinforcements; the added amount can be significant in thin slabs. APPLICATIONS Punching shear of slabs and footings Figure 2(a) and (b) show two types of stud shear reinforcement (SSR) widely used in slabs and footings in many countries. The studs in Fig. 2(a) have forged heads at one end; at the other end, the studs are welded to a rail (steel strip) that serves for anchorage and holding the studs vertically at the appropriate spacing. The studs in Fig. 2(b) have forged heads at each end; the heads at the lower end snugly fit in a sheet metal trough (or in other nonstructural elements) that serves as a spacer. Typical arrangement of the studs in plan to resist punching shear at an interior column in slabs or footings is shown in Fig. 2(c). The shear-reinforced zone should extend outwards from the column to the vicinity of a critical section at which the shear stress due to the transfer of factored shear force combined with factored unbalanced moment does not exceed vc; where is the strength reduction factor and vc is the nominal shear strength of concrete. (According to ACI 318-05, = 0.7 and v c = ( 1 6 ) f c ( MPa ) = 2 f c ( psi ) The vertical section in Fig. 2(c), in the shear-reinforced zone of a slab, shows the position of the SSR relative to other reinforcements. For best performance, ACI 421.1R-992 recommends an optimum height of the stud equal to the thickness of the slab or footing minus the sum of the minimum specified covers with a tolerance equal to minus one-half the diameter of the flexural reinforcing bars. In slabs, the SSR are commonly fastened with their rail or trough on wood forms, before the installation of other slab reinforcement. Alternatively, particularly in footings, the SSR can be supported by the top reinforcement in an inverted position (with the rail or trough at the top). ACI 318-05 considers (in most cases) that the nominal shear strength at the critical section at d/2 from the column face is equal to v n = ( 1 3 ) f c ( MPa ) = 4 f c ( psi ) ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

Fig. 2Stud shear reinforcement for slabs and footings: (a) stud-rail system; (b) double-headed studs held by nonstructural sheet metal trough; and (c) top view and section showing typical arrangement of studs in vicinity of interior column. 658

when studs are used as shear reinforcement, ACI 421.1R-99 recommends that vn be less than or equal to ( 2 3 ) f c ( MPa ) = 8 f c ( psi ) It also recommends that within the shear-reinforced zone vc be equal to ( 1 4 ) f c ( MPa ) = 3 f c ( psi ) When stirrups are used, lower stresses are permitted by ACI 318-05 v n ( 1 2 ) f c ( MPa ) = 6 f c ( psi ) and v c = ( 1 6 ) f c ( MPa ) = 2 f c ( psi ) This is because the studs are more efficient than stirrups in concrete confinement. In addition, ACI 421.1R-99 allows the spacing between studs to be 0.75d compared with 0.5d for stirrups. These differences in design rules permit thinner slabs or require less amounts of shear reinforcement when studs are used. Beams with thin webs The thickness of the web of precast beams is often governed by constructability rather than by strength requirement. For ease in installation of the reinforcement and in casting concrete, the web should be wide enough to accommodate the two legs of closed stirrups, the minimum side covers, and a sufficient space in between for casting and vibrating the concrete. Additional width is required to accommodate draped pretensioned strands or ducts of post-tensioned tendons. The web thickness can be reduced by replacing the legs of conventional stirrups by double-headed studs (Fig. 3(a)). Draped external post-tensioned tendons can be located adjacent to the two sides of the web. Modern precast pretensioned girders,23 widely used in bridge decks, are made continuous by post-tensioned strands

inserted in sheet metal ducts located in the midsurface of the web. For ease in construction, the thickness of the web cannot be much less than 175 mm (7 in.). Figure 3(b) shows an alternative design24 using external post-tensioned tendons and double-headed studs in midsurface of a web of thickness 100 mm (4 in.). ACI 318-05 permits shear reinforcement spacing not exceeding d/2 or 3h/4 for nonprestressed or prestressed beams, respectively; h is the overall thickness of the member. Fabrication and accommodation of hooks of bars of diameter 16 mm (5/8 in.) is relatively difficult. For this reason, the spacing between stirrups in bridge I-girders is controlled by the practical bar diameter rather than code requirements. In these cases, one double-headed stud of diameter 25 to 30 mm (1 to 1-1/4 in.) can be used to replace several stirrup legs. The advantage is saving in the labor cost of installation of reinforcement. Crossties in columns and walls Double-headed studs are used in Fig. 4 as crossties in columns and walls. Each stud is a substitute for one or more single-leg stirrup(s) (Fig. 1(a)). In columns, the conventional closed stirrup following the perimeter of the cross sections should be maintained, with the studs used only as crossties (Fig. 4(a) and (b)). Unlike the hooks in stirrups, the heads of studs do not need to engage a vertical bar, as shown in Fig. 4(c). For ease in installation of reinforcement, the heads of studs may be placed adjacent to the vertical bars in columns, as shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b); but this is not a requirement to enhance the anchorage of the studs. Experiments on concrete columns under concentric compression loading7 and under simulated-seismic loading8 have shown that placing the vertical bars behind the heads is sufficient to prevent premature buckling of the vertical bars after spalling of concrete cover. Columns with headed studs as crossties have exhibited improved ductility and equal or greater strength than companion columns with conventional tie reinforcement. Shearwalls Reinforced concrete structural diaphragms (shearwalls) resisting lateral forces in buildings are subjected to compressive

Fig. 3Studs as shear reinforcement in beams: (a) cross section of tested beams;5 and (b) thin-web girders.23 NU-girder stands for Nebraska University girder.22 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 659

axial forces due to gravity loads combined with reversible bending moments. This combination causes concentration of normal stresses, often resisted by boundary elements containing high reinforcement ratios of vertical bars and confinement ties. ACI 318-05 specifies the volumetric ratio and the spacing of ties. Accordingly, the boundary elements of structural diaphragms are in many cases, especially in earthquake zones, congested with heavy vertical bars, closed stirrups, and crossties. Figure 5 shows horizontal sections of tested11 shearwalls having boundary elements. Single-leg stirrups, detailed as in

Fig. 1(a), are used as crossties in Fig. 5(a), whereas doubleheaded studs, as shown in Fig. 1(b), are used as crossties in Fig. 5(b). Almost the same strength and improved ductility were observed for the walls with the studs. Corbels A corbel is a short cantilever often supporting a precast beam on a bearing plate, exerting factored vertical and horizontal forces Vu and Nu (Fig. 6(a)). The strut-and-tie model presented in the figure has been shown12 to be an accurate design tool for corbels. The distance between the bearing plate and the tip of the corbel is not sufficient to develop the tensile force T in the top reinforcement. Welded cross bars or plates or horizontal loops are often used to enhance the anchorage. Headed studs resisting the tensile force T offer anchorage without congestion of conventional reinforcement. Figure 6(b) represents details of a tested corbel specimen and also represents a reduced model of a corbel supporting two precast girders. Precast beams Frequently, over a short length at the ends, the depth of precast beams is drastically reduced (refer to Fig. 7(a) representing a dapped end). The beams are commonly simply supported on bearing plates. Similar to corbels, dapped beam ends must be designed to carry factored forces Vu and Nu. Again, the strut-and-tie modeling is a valuable design tool. The model shown in Fig. 7(a) and the reinforcement arrangement

Fig. 4Double-headed studs as crossties: (a) and (b) column cross sections; (c) horizontal section in wall; and (d) Specimen SD-6 having double-headed stud replacing two single-leg stirrups.9 15M and 20M bars have cross-sectional areas of 200 and 300 mm2, respectively.

Fig. 6Double-headed studs in corbels: (a) forces on corbel and strut-and-tie system for design; and (b) tested12 arrangement of reinforcement in corbels.

Fig. 5Horizontal sections in structural diaphragms with boundary elements having single-leg stirrups or doubleheaded studs as crossties. 10M and 15M bars have crosssectional areas of 100 and 200 mm2, respectively. 660

Fig. 7Dapped end of precast beam:15 (a) strut-and-tie model; and (b) arrangement of headed studs. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

in Fig. 7(b), using headed studs, have been proposed for design.15 Recent tests at the University of Calgary verified the proposed reinforcing system and its capacity using both the strutand-tie model and the shear friction method.16, 25 Splitting forces Headed studs can be used to control cracking due to splitting forces caused by concentrated loading at prestressing anchors and at support bearings. The main advantage is the reduction of congestion of reinforcement shown in Fig. 8. Figure 9(a) shows the distribution of vertical tensile stresses at the anchorage of prestressing tendons in a concrete slab. The potential splitting of the slab in a horizontal plane near the middle surface is indicated. The anchor zone of a band of single-strand prestressing tendons is shown in Fig. 9(b). The

congestion of reinforcement in Fig. 8 is partly caused by hair-pin stirrups. In modern construction, the hairpin stirrups are replaced by vertical headed studs (Fig. 10(a) to (c)). Deep beams and pile caps Figure 11(a) represents a strut-and-tie model for the design of deep beam or a two-pile cap. A free-body diagram of Node A is shown. Often, the size of the node and the dimensions of the cap are not sufficient to anchor the tie by bond. In Fig. 11(a), the tie consists of plain (non-deformed) studs with heads located outside the node. With this arrangement, the anchorage of the stud relies solely on the bearing stress at the head. With head area 9 to 10 times the area of the stem, the three faces of the concrete prism representing node A can be considered subjected to compressive stress (C-C-C node); the anchor heads of the studs create the compression on the vertical face of the prism. ACI 318-05 permits higher stress for a C-C-C node, compared to the C-C-T node that will exist when the tie is anchored by bond within the node.

Fig. 8Congestion of anchor zone of post-tensioning strands at edge of slab with hair-pin stirrups used to control splitting.

Fig. 9Potential splitting of slab edge: (a) distribution of vertical tensile stresses; and (b) anchorage of band of single prestressing strands.4 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

Fig. 10Control of splitting cracks:4 (a) use of hair-pin stirrups; (b) use of headed studs; and (c) headed studs (stud-rails) in post-tensioned bridge deck (Calgary, Canada). 10M bar has cross-sectional area 100 mm2. 661

Beam-column joints Two connections of beams to columns are shown in Fig. 11(b) and (c). Single-headed studs are used for anchorage of the longitudinal bars of the beams and the columns to avoid congestion within the joint. Away from the joints, lap splices relying on bond or other types of splices can be used to extend the studs longitudinally in the beams or the columns. Tests13,14 subjecting the connections to the transfer of reversible moments have verified the suitability of singleheaded studs for use in seismic zones. Headed studs are widely used in California in the connections of bridge piers to their superstructures. Other applications It is advantageous to use a bar anchored mechanically by a head, as opposed to a hook, when there is demand for the yield strength at a section of the bar close to its end. The previous example applications do not cover all uses of headed bars. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS Results of some experiments that study the behavior of structures reinforced by headed studs are reviewed in the following. Slab punching shear3 The specimen in the inset of Fig. 12(a) (representing the connection of a reinforced concrete slab to an edge column extending above and below the slab) was simply supported on three edges. The column transferred to the slab a constant shearing force V representing gravity load and a reversible unbalanced moment M representing the effect of an earthquake. Shearing force V and unbalanced moment M were gradually increased, with M / V = constant, until a target serviceability shearing force Vu was reached. Then cyclic displacements of increasing amplitude were imposed at the ends of the

columns to produce the unbalanced moment. Cyclic moment transfer was continued after the peak moment Mu until the loss of 25% of Mu. Figure 12(a) and (b) compare the graphs3 of M versus the drift ratio for a slab without shear reinforcement and a slab having SSR (stud-rails having an area equal to nine times the cross-sectional area of the stem) arranged as shown in the inset of Fig. 12(b). In the compared tests, the value of Vu = 0.6Vc, with Vc being the nominal shear strength, without moment transfer or shear reinforcement according to ACI 318-05. Provision of SSR reduced significantly the rate of stiffness degradation (the slope of the ascending parts of the loops) due to the cyclic moment reversals. At 1.5% drift ratio, the stiffness of connection without SSR was approximately 50% of the stiffness with SSR. At 3% drift ratio, the stiffness of the connection without SSR was almost lost. The drift ratio with SSR reached approximately 4% without appreciable loss of strength. This is higher than what is commonly expected in a major earthquake. After the cyclic loading described above, the slab with SSR was subjected to V combined with M, at a constant M/V ratio, in load control to examine its residual strength. It was concluded that with SSR, the shear resistance to gravity load is maintained after severe earthquake. The highest drift ratio permitted by IBC26

Fig. 11Headed studs in longitudinal directions of members: (a) strut-and-tie model for two-pile cap; (b) exterior beam-column connection; and (c) corner beamcolumn connection. 662

Fig. 12Punching shear tests on slab-column connections:3 (a) and (b) variation of unbalanced moment due to cyclic displacement versus drift ratio for specimens without and with SSR, respectively (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip-in. = 113 N-m). ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

for concrete flat plate supported directly on columns is 2.5%; such a structure must have shearwalls or other bracing systems that limit the drift ratio to the value permitted by the code. Shear reinforcement in concrete I-beams5 and deep beams6 A series of concrete I-beams with web thickness of 100 mm (4 in.) and depth varying from 300 to 600 mm (12 to 24 in.) were tested for shear strength.5 The shear reinforcements were single-leg stirrups or double-headed studs, as shown in Fig. 3(a). The stirrups had 90- and 135-degree hooks at the ends; the studs were made of straight bars cut from the same stock used for fabricating the stirrups and were welded to circular heads of area nine times the cross-sectional area of the stem. All the beams failed in shear, as planned. In terms of strength and ductility, the performance of the beams with studs was equal to or slightly better than the beams with stirrups. The advantages of studs are ease of installation and control. Berner and Hoff6 presented results of tests on three largescale specimens representing a strip of approximate width and depth 1.0 x 0.7 m (40 x 28 in.) of a wall for offshore platforms. The specimens were restrained at the ends to behave as horizontal continuous deep beams of nominal center-to-center spans of 2.8 m (110 in.). The three beams had identical longitudinal top and bottom reinforcement. Vertical headed studs were used as shear reinforcement, of ratio 1, 1.5, and 2%. The ultimate central load, over a length equal to half the length of the clear span, was more than twice the value permitted by ACI 318 and the measured strengths increased with an increase in the shear reinforcement ratio. The authors concluded that the codes needed to be changed to reflect the superior behavior of the headed studs; in particular, ACI 318 unnecessarily limited fy for the shear reinforcement to 413 MPa (60 ksi) and its contribution to the shear strength to (2/3) f c ( MPa ) ( 8 f c ( psi ) ) . Columns7 Figure 13(a) to (d) show the cross sections of five specimens representing short columns tested in axial compression. The objective was to compare the confinement effect of doubleheaded studs with that of single-leg stirrups with 90- and 180-degree hooks at the ends. Within the test zone, Specimen 1 (not shown) had no reinforcement; Specimens 2 and 3, respectively, had stirrups and studs as confinement reinforcement without vertical bars; Specimens 4 and 5, respectively, had stirrups and studs as confinement reinforcement in addition to vertical bars. Closed stirrups, following the perimeter of the cross section, were provided in Specimens 2, 3, 4, and 5. The concrete strength f c for the five specimens was 20 MPa (3000 psi). The stirrups and the studs were made from bars of diameter 5.7 mm (0.20 in.) and yield strength of 595 MPa (86 ksi). The diameter of the stud heads was 18 mm (0.7 in.). Graphs for the load versus the axial strain in the five specimens are shown in Fig. 13(e). The failure load varied between 1580 and 2100 kN (356 and 472 kips), corresponding, respectively, to Specimen 1 (unconfined) and Specimen 5 (with vertical bars and studs). At failure of Specimen 3 (with studs but no vertical bars), spalling of the cover and horizontal cracking occurred, while the core remained intact. This is contrary to Specimen 2 (with stirrups but no vertical bars) where diagonal cracks traversed the thickness of the specimen. Spalling of the cover of Specimen 4 (with stirrups and vertical bars) occurred at the 90-degree hooks, where ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

their ends popped out of the cover and protruded from the column face. Similar observations were reported by other researchers.27,28 The strain measurements indicated yielding of the studs; the maximum strain in the single-leg stirrups was well below the yield strain. From Fig. 13(e) and the test observations, it was concluded that double-headed studs as crossties, while not requiring vertical bars behind the heads to enhance anchorage, exhibit large strain beyond yield at failure load of the column. Anchorage of crossties by 180- and 90-degree hooks engaging heavier bars is not sufficient to develop the yield stress in the ties. Columns exhibit better ductile behavior and greater ultimate strength when double-headed studs replace conventional crossties. Because of the superior performance of the studs, codes should allow a reduced volumetric ratio and/or larger spacing when studs are used as crossties in lieu of stirrups. Cyclic lateral loading of columns8,9 Nine column specimens, reinforced with either doubleheaded studs or conventional crossties, were tested under seismic loading.8,9 The columns had a cross section of 250 x 500 mm (10 x 20 in.) and a total height of 1500 mm (59 in.)

Fig. 13Short columns tested under axial loads;7 crosssectional dimensions 150 x 500 mm2: (a) and (b) Specimens 2 and 3 have no vertical bars, but with stirrups and studs, respectively; (c) and (d) Specimens 4 and 5 have vertical bars with stirrups and studs, respectively; and (e) axial load versus axial strain for Specimens 1 to 5. Specimen 1 had no reinforcement (unconfined). 10M bar has cross-sectional area of 100 mm2.

Fig. 14Bearing stress behind stud head (risk of spalling of cover). 663

and were laterally loaded to bend about their weak axis. The columns were subjected to a constant axial load P corresponding to either 20 or 30% of their nominal axial capacity Po combined with incrementally increasing lateraldisplacement reversals. The columns were made from 25 MPa (3600 psi) concrete and had a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 1.3%. Welding circular plates with a diameter three times that of the stem produced the double-headed studs. The same stock of bars was used for the stem of the studs and the stirrups. It was shown that, while columns with either type of lateral reinforcement attained the same strength, columns with double-headed studs exhibited superior behavior in terms of ductility and energy dissipation. All column cross sections had a closed peripheral stirrup. Several columns had two single-leg stirrups as crossties. In Column SD-6, shown in Fig. 4(d), a single double-headed stud, as shown in Fig. 4(d), replaced the two crossties. Although Column SD-6 contained almost half the volumetric ratio of ties of columns with single-leg stirrups and half the minimum amount required by ACI 318-05 for seismic design, the ultimate capacity and ductility of Column SD-6 were similar to the other column specimens. This shows that ACI 318 requirements for confinement reinforcement are overly conservative for columns subjected to axial loads levels less than 30% of their nominal capacity. Walls10 Sixteen wall elements were tested at the University of Toronto10 under monotonic in-plane vertical compression, with some of the elements being subjected to vertical compression combined with horizontal in-plane tension. In addition to the reinforcement layers running parallel to the surfaces, eight walls were confined with double-headed studs running in the direction normal to the wall surfaces; the other eight walls did not contain confining studs. The stud heads enclosed the reinforcement layers and had an area approximately equal to nine times the cross-sectional area of the stem. It was concluded that the double-headed studs increased both the strength and the ductility of the wall elements. Based on the experimental results, an analytical model was developed to predict the compressive strength of wall elements confined with headed studs. Repair and rehabilitation29,30 A series of circular columns29 representing bridge piers were severely damaged under simulated-earthquake loading, and then repaired and tested again. One of the repair techniques involved placement of a strong jacket along the damaged region so future flexural hinging would be forced to occur just above the jacket. To ensure that flexural yielding of longitudinal reinforcement would not occur at the column base, the jacketed region was reinforced with headed studs to avoid congestion of reinforcement. Subsequent testing of the repaired columns showed that their stiffness and strength were comparable to those of the original ones. Six pier walls were loaded in the weak direction under cyclic loading to near failure.30 Five of the damaged pier walls were repaired with conventional crossties with 90- and 135-degree hooks; one wall was repaired with doubleheaded studs as crossties. The area of the heads was 13 times the area of the stem. The six repaired pier walls were retested under the same loading conditions to compare their performance. Due to the additional confinement provided by 664

the heads, the wall repaired with studs performed better than similar walls repaired with conventional crossties. It was also found that the heads provided sufficient anchorage without the need to engage the longitudinal bars of the walls. Cyclic lateral loading on shearwalls11 A sustained 1000 kN axial load was applied on the shearwalls shown in Fig. 5, while at 3.3 m above the base, the walls were pushed back and forth to produce imposed reversals of horizontal top displacement of increasing amplitude. The stud heads had an area equal to nine times the cross-sectional area of the stem. The walls, having the same volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement, attained almost the same ultimate lateral strength and displacement; the envelope curves of the lateral force-displacement relationship for both walls were quite similar. The wall with double-headed studs, however, displayed better energy dissipation capacity (determined by the summation of the areas enclosed by the lateral forcedisplacement hysteresis loops). This research confirmed that double-headed studs could be a substitute for single-leg stirrups as crossties in the boundary elements of shearwalls. Vertical and horizontal forces on corbels12 Six corbels with the dimensions shown in Fig. 6(b) (with studs having head area equal to nine times the crosssectional area of the stud) were subjected to vertical forces Vu combined with horizontal forces Nu = Vu/5. The magnitudes of Vu and Nu were monotonically increased up to failure. The horizontal force represented the reaction component that can develop due to shrinkage or temperature drop of a precast beam supported by the corbel. The corbels were designed by the strut-and-tie model (Fig. 6(a)) to fail by the yielding of the tie or by crushing of the concrete at Node B. Plain or deformed studs of 20 mm (0.8 in.) diameter with forged heads of 60 mm (2.4 in.) diameter were used for the tie. The conclusion from this research was that both plain and deformed double-headed studs can be used as main tension reinforcement in corbels. Double-headed studs placed in the compression zone in the direction normal to the corbel faces can significantly increase the ductility; this was confirmed by experiments at The University of Texas at Austin31,32 on the overhangs of bridge piers. Slab splitting at anchors of prestressing tendons4 Tests were conducted at The University of Texas at Austin33 on the use of hair-pin stirrups, as shown in Fig. 10(a), to control splitting of slabs at the anchor zone of a band of posttensioned single strands (Fig. 9(b)). The Texas tests were duplicated at the University of Calgary,4 replacing the hairpin stirrups by headed studs (Fig. 10(b)). Seven 9.5 mm diameter hairpin stirrups used in the Texas tests were replaced by the same number of headed studs of the same diameter, welded to a rail. The studs had forged heads of area ten times the cross-sectional area of the stem. The edges of the specimens in Texas and in Calgary were subjected to compressive forces through a special adapter to closely simulate the anchors of a band of six strands. The ultimate loads in the tests in Calgary were higher than those of the Texas tests. Several studs reached yielding before failure, indicating the effectiveness of the anchors. Due to the confinement of concrete by the stud heads, the bearing stress under the anchor plates in the tests in Calgary could reach more than two times the compressive strength of ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

the concrete. The conclusion was that headed studs are effective in the control of splitting cracks in the anchor zones of prestressed slabs. In addition, the studs provide confinement of the concrete in the anchor zone. Equation (1) is suggested to give the cross-sectional area of headed studs Asv required to control the splitting crack due to prestressing. f pu 2 a A sv = 0.3 A ps ----- 1 ----3 h fy (1)

nominal yield strength fy MPa (72 ksi), the full fy value may be considered available at any section of the stem, provided that the ratio ( fy/f c ) does not exceed 25; however, more tests are needed to verify this statement; note that in some of the tests mentioned above, fy has exceeded 500 MPa (72 ksi). Studs made of deformed bars and heads of smaller areas have been used in research at The University of Texas at Austin.18-20 An empirical equation was developed for the bond length between the head and the section at which the nominal yield strength can be considered available. The equation is given in the following section. SPLITTING OF COVER A headed stud running parallel to an exterior surface of a concrete member is shown in Fig. 14. For protection against corrosion or fire, the distance c between the centerline of the stud and the surface must be greater than the radius of the head plus the specified clear cover cc. For example, when cc = 20 mm (0.8 in.) and the diameter of the stud and its head are 20 and 60 mm (0.8 and 2.4 in.), respectively, c 50 mm (2 in.). When c is small, the bearing stress behind the anchor head can cause splitting (side blow-out or spalling) of the cover and c needs to be greater than the required minimum for protection. Alternatively, spalling can be prevented by the use of closed stirrups in the plane perpendicular to the stud. The stirrups can be designed to resist a resultant splitting force of 0.3Ty, where Ty is the yield force of the stud. This empirical recommendation is based partly on analysis of the results of tests12 and partly on Eq. (1), assuming that the head diameter is 3db, c = 3db, ae = 0.75(3db) and the yield strength of the stud is developed by bearing at the head; Eq. (1) can be used, although it was not developed for this application. The stirrups are to be arranged so that the resultant of their forces4 is approximately at a distance c from the stud head, as shown in Fig. 14. For a stud having a head of area equal to 9 or 10 times the area of the stem, splitting of the cover need not be of a concern when c 3.5db; where db = stud diameter. Furthermore, the bar stress developed by the head can be assumed equal to fy, provided that ( fy /f c ) and the stud is close to no more than one exterior surface. This empirical recommendation is supported by an equation resulting from extensive testing by Thompson;20 the equation, given below, will show that when (Anh/Ab) 9 and c 3.5db, the bar stress fs head developed by the head can be equal to the yield strength fy when ( fy /f c ) 29; where Anh = the net area of the head (head area minus bar area Ab). For the steel and concrete used in most countries, ( fy /f c ) is normally less than 29. Thompson20 conducted tests on 46 specimens representing a C-C-T node in a strut-and-tie design model. Headed deformed studs were used as tie reinforcement; the head area was ten times the cross-sectional area of the stud. Thompson also conducted tests on 27 lap splices using deformed studs of head area ranging from 2.2 to 5.7 times the cross-sectional area of the stud. In all these tests, the stud ran close by and parallel to one exterior surface or two orthogonal exterior surfaces of the concrete member. Based on the experiments, Thompson proposed that the stress developed by the bearing of the head fs head can be computed by Eq. (2), dependent upon the cover or the side covers of the bar. A nh c 1 = 1.4 ------- ---- f fy A b d b c

where a is the vertical dimension of the anchor(s) of the prestressing tendon(s) (in Fig. 10(b)); h is the slab thickness; fy is the yield strength of the studs; and fpu and Aps are the ultimate strength and cross-sectional area of the tendon. The maximum prestressing force applied to the anchor is assumed equal to 0.7fpuAps according to the Post-Tensioning Manual.34 The studs should be arranged at a distance 0.40h ~ 0.55h from the anchor plate. Beam-column joints13,14 Four interior bridge beam-column joints with either conventional or headed reinforcement were tested under seismic loading13 to evaluate the current design requirements of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans35). Headed studs were used within the joints to resist shear stresses and to confine the concrete and were also used for longitudinal bars of the column. The head had a diameter equal to 3.2 times the diameter of the stem. It was concluded that headed studs produced comparable behavior to that of the conventionally reinforced joints; but the constructability of the joints was improved due to the use of fewer bars with larger diameters and the elimination of the hooks. Similar tests were conducted at the University of California at San Diego on bridge column-beam knee joints36 and pile-foundation connections37 with almost all the reinforcement consisting of headed studs. Again, the results demonstrated the effectiveness of headed studs in bridge joints under seismic loads. Five beam-column corner joints and two exterior beamcolumn joints were tested under seismic loading14 to evaluate the potential of using headed studs as longitudinal beam and column reinforcement within the joints. The area of the stud heads varied from 4 to 11 times the cross-sectional area of the stems. It was concluded that the behavior of joints with headed reinforcement performed as good as or better than similar joints with 90 degree hooks. Thirty-two tests on simulated beam-column joints were conducted by Bashandy19 to investigate the behavior of beam-column joints with headed stud anchorage. The tests were similar to earlier tests38,39 performed on hooked bar anchorage in beam-column joints. It was found that the anchorage performance of the headed studs was equivalent to or better than bars with conventional hooks. ANCHORAGE BY COMBINATION OF BOND AND BEARING In the research mentioned above, the studs were made of plain or deformed bars and mostly had head areas equal to nine or 10 times the area of the stem (Fig. 1(b)) and the ratio ( fy /f c ) was as high as 25; where fy is the yield strength of the studs and f c is the concrete strength. In design using such studs, nominal yield strength up to 500 MPa (72 ksi) can be considered available at any section of the stem with f c 20 MPa (2900 psi). When studs of this type have ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

fs

head

(2)

665

Table 1Anchorage of bars by combination of bond and bearing*

( fs head /fy) la/ld 0.95 1/6 0.90 1/3 0.85 1/2 0.80 2/3 0.75 5/6 0.7 1

*Development length l expressed as fraction of development length l of non-headed bars. a d

c 2 = 0.6 + 0.4 --- 2.0 c 1

(3)

where c1 = the minimum distance between the centerline of the bar and the surface of the member; c2 = the minimum distance between the centerline of the bar and an exterior surface perpendicular to c1; the distance c2 is greater than c1. When the bar runs parallel and close to only one exterior surface, set = 2.0 and replace c1 by c in Eq. (2); where c is the distance between the centerline of the bar and the exterior surface. Consider a headed stud of yield strength fy = 500 MPa (72 ksi) used in a concrete member with compressive strength f c = 20 MPa (2900 psi); assume that the stud head area is equal to 10 times the bar area (Anh = 9Ab). Assume further that the yield stress of the stud is entirely developed by bearing; thus, fs head = fy. To prevent spalling of the concrete cover, Eq. (2) gives c 3db when the stud runs parallel to one exterior surface. This example indicates that the empirical limit c 3db, recommended above, is conservative. When the stud runs parallel to an edge at the intersection of two orthogonal exterior surfaces, spalling need not be of concern when c1 = c2 6db. When fs head < fy, Thompson gives Eq. (4) for the distance la between the bearing face of the head and the section at which fy can be considered developed 1 - 1 f-----------s head l ; but 6 d b l a l d l a = ----- 0.3 fy d (4)

by bearing is sufficient to develop the yield strength of the stud, with negligible slip. In design, nominal yield strength fy 25f c can be considered available at the stem section adjacent to the head. The thickness of the anchor head must be sufficient so that the bearing pressure does not cause yielding by bending or shear of the head before the tensile stress in the stem reaches yield. The anchor heads are produced by forging or by welding a plate to the bar end. Forged heads are commonly tapered; the maximum thickness of the head at the perimeter of the stem needs not be more than approximately 0.6db; where db is the diameter of the stud. Experimental research has also shown that, in some applications, deformed studs can be used with heads of areas smaller than nine to 10 times the cross-sectional area of the stem. In this case, anchorage relies on the bearing stress at the head combined with the bond stress over a development length la shorter than that the development length ld for a deformed bar in tension required by ACI 318-05 having no bend or hook. The main advantages of using headed studs are more efficient anchorage, simpler installation, less congestion of reinforcement, and improved confinement. ACI 421.1R-99 recognizes these advantages and recommends rules for design for punching shear that permit thinner slabs and/or less shear reinforcement when studs are used instead of stirrups. REFERENCES
1. Ghali, A., and Dilger, W. H., Anchoring with Double-Head Studs, Concrete International, V. 20, No. 11, Nov. 1998, pp. 21-24. 2. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 421, Shear Reinforcement for Slabs (ACI 421.1R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, 15 pp. 3. Megally, S., and Ghali, A., Seismic Behavior of Edge Column-Slab Connections with Stud Shear Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 53-60. 4. Dilger, W. H.; Ghali, A.; Youakim, S. A.; and Hammill, N., Headed Studs in Anchor Zones of Post-Tensioned Slabs, Concrete International, V. 27, No. 4, Apr. 2005, pp. 45-50. 5. Gayed, R. B., and Ghali, A., Double-Head Studs as Shear Reinforcement in Concrete I-Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 4, JulyAug. 2004, pp. 549-557. 6. Berner, D. E., and Hoff, G. C., Headed Reinforcement in Disturbed Strain Regions of Concrete Members, Concrete International, V. 16, No. 1, Jan. 1994, pp. 48-52. 7. Dilger, W. H., and Ghali, A., Double-Head Studs as Ties in Concrete Walls and Columns, Concrete International, V. 19, No. 6, June 1997, pp. 59-66. 8. Youakim, S. A., and Ghali, A., Ductility of Concrete Columns with Double-Head Studs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-Aug. 2002, pp. 480-487. 9. Youakim, S. A., and Ghali, A., Behavior of Concrete Columns with Double-Head Studs Under Earthquake Loading: Parametric Study, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003, pp. 795-803. 10. Kuchma, D. A., and Collins, M. P., The Influence of T-Headed Bars on the Strength and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Wall Elements, ACI Spring Convention, Seattle, Wash., Apr. 1997, 30 pp. 11. Mobeen, S.; Elwi, A.; and Ghali, A., Double-Head Studs in Shearwalls, Concrete International, V. 27, No. 3, Mar. 2005, pp. 59-63. 12. Birkle, G.; Ghali, A.; and Schfer, K., Double-Head Studs Improve Corbel Reinforcement, Concrete International, V. 24, No. 9, Sept. 2002, pp. 77-84. 13. Naito, C. J.; Moehle, J. P.; and Mosalam, K. M., Evaluation of Bridge Beam-Column Joints under Simulated Seismic Loading, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2002, pp. 62-71. 14. 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. 15. Herzinger, R. M., and Elbadry, M. M., Stud Reinforcement in Dapped Ends of Precast Beams, PCI Journal. (in press) 16. Herzinger, R. M. and Elbadry, M. M., Stud Reinforcement in

where ld is the development length of a nonheaded deformed bar of the same diameter, ACI 318-05 gives equations for ld. The coefficient (1/0.3) is included in Eq. (4) because the tests show that a portion of the force in the bar developed by bond drops as the portion developed by the head approaches the value (Ab fs head). The validity of Eq. (4) is limited for la between 6db and ld; Thompson has set the lower limit of this range for the validity of his empirical equation. The upper limit is set because the development length of a headed stud la cannot exceed its development length in the absence of the head. Substitution of the upper limit la = ld in Eq. (4) gives ( fs head/fy) = 0.7. This means that when ( fs head/fy) 0.7, the development length la should be taken equal to ld. As an example of the results that Eq. (4) gives, calculate (la/ld) by varying ( fs head/fy). The results in Table 1 indicate that with a head that develops 85% of the yield strength, the development length can be taken equal to half that of a nonheaded bar. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Several practical applications of headed studs in concrete structures have been proposed and some results of supporting experimental research have been presented. For these applications, the studs are made of plain or deformed bars, and have head areas equal to nine or 10 times the crosssectional area of the stem. With this head area, the anchorage 666

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

Dapped Ends of Bridge Girders, Proceedings of the 2004 Bridge Conference, 2004CBC, Prestressed Concrete Institute, Charlotte, N.C., May 17-18, 2004, 18 pp. (CD-ROM). 17. Eligehausen, R., Report on Pull Tests on Deha Anchor Bolts, Report No. DE003/01-96/32, Institut fur Werkstoffe in Bauwesen, University of Stuttgart, Sept. 1996 (Research carried out on behalf of Deha Ankersysteme GMBH & Co. KG, Gross-Gerau). 18. DeVries, R. A., Anchorage of Headed Reinforcement in Concrete, PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., 1996, 294 pp. 19. Bashandy, T. R., Application of Headed Bars in Concrete Members, PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., 1996, 303 pp. 20. Thompson, M. K., The Anchorage Behavior of Headed Reinforcement in CCT Nodes and Lap Splices, PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., 2002, 503 pp. 21. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp. 22. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., Welded Wire Mesh as Stirrup ReinforcementsShear Tests on T-Beams and Anchorage Tests, Bautechnik, V. 42, Oct. 1965. (in German). 23. Green, K. L., and Tadros, M. K., The NU Precast/Prestressed Concrete Bridge I-Girder Series, PCI Structural Journal, V. 39, No. 3, May-June 1994, pp. 26-39. 24. Ariyawardena, N., and Ghali, A., Design of Precast Prestressed Concrete Members Using External Prestressing, PCI Structural Journal, V. 47, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2002, pp. 84-94. 25. Loov, R. E., Review of A23.3-94 Simplified Method of Shear Design and Comparison with Results Using Shear Friction, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 25, No. 3, June 1998, pp. 437-450. 26. IBC-03, International Building Code, International Code Council, Ill., 2003, 655 pp. 27. Tanaka, H.; Park, R.; and McNamee, B., Anchorage of Transverse Reinforcement in Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns in Seismic Design, New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 18, No. 2, June 1985, pp. 165-190.

28. Sheikh, S. A., and Yeh, C.-C., Tied Concrete Columns Under Axial Load and Flexure, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 116, No. 10, 1990, pp. 2780-2800. 29. Lehman, D. E.; Gookin, S. E.; Nacamuli, A. M.; and Moehle, J. P., Repair of Earthquake-Damaged Bridge Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 233-242. 30. Haroun, M.; Pardoen, G.; Bhatia, H.; Shahi, S.; and Kazanjy, R., Structural Behavior of Repaired Pier Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2000, pp. 259-267. 31. Armstrong, S. D.; Salas, R. M.; Wood, B. A.; Breen, J. E.; and Kreger, M. E., Behavior and Design of Large Structural Concrete Bridge Pier Overhangs, Center for Transportation Research Report CTR-1364-1, Austin, Tex., 1997. 32. Wood, B. A.; Kreger, M. E.; and Breen, J. E., Experimental Investigation of Design Methods for Large Cantilever Bridge Bents, Center for Transportation Research Report CTR-1364-3F, Austin, Tex., 1997. 33. Sanders, D. H.; Breen, J. E.; and Duncan, R. R., Strength and Behavior of Closely-Spaced Post-Tensioned Monostrand Anchorages, Post-Tensioning Institute, Phoenix, Ariz., Oct. 1987, 49 pp. 34. Post-Tensioning Institute, Anchorage Zone Design, Post-Tensioning Manual, 6th Edition, 2002, 51 pp. 35. Caltrans, Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.1, California Department of Transportation, Division of Structures, Sacramento, Calif., 1999. 36. Ingham, J. M.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., Seismic Performance of a Bridge Knee Joint Reinforced with Headed Reinforcement, Report No. SSRP-96/06, University of California, San Diego, Structural Systems Project, La Jolla, Calif., Sept. 1996, 113 pp. 37. Sritharan, S., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Testing of a Full-Scale Pile-Deck Connection Utilizing Headed Reinforcement, Report No. TR-98/14, University of California, San Diego, Structural Systems Project, La Jolla, Calif., Aug. 1998. 38. Marques, J. L. G., and Jirsa, J. O., A Study of Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-Column Joints, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 72, No. 5, May 1975, pp. 198-209. 39. Minor, J., and Jirsa, J. O., Behavior of Bent Bar Anchorages, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 72, No. 4, Apr. 1975, pp. 141-149.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005

667