ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 657

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.
ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
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.
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
Experiments
17
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 f
y
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 d
b
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 Austin
18-20
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 speci-
fied development length away from the head.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REVIEW OF
STATE OF THE ART
The ACI 318 Code
21
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 recommenda-
tions 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/(Rd
b
);
where d
b
is the diameter of the bar. The ACI 318 Code
21
requires that R 2d
b
for d
b
5/8 in. (16 mm). With this
radius, the average bearing stress on the concrete is (
s
d
b
2
/4)/
(2d
b
2
) = 0.4
s
. When
s
approaches the yield strength f
y
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 f
y
in the bar. For this reason,
building codes such as ACI 318-05
21
require minimum
values for the inner radius R and in many applications
require that the bend engage a heavier bar, running perpen-
Title no. 102-S67
Headed Studs in Concrete: State of the Art
by Amin Ghali and Samer A. Youakim
Fig. 1Conventional single-leg stirrup and headed stud:
(a) hooks satisfying minimum requirements of ACI 318-05
21
(1 in. = 25.4 mm); (b) stud with forged head at each end.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 658
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 Walther
22
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), Eligehausen
17
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 10
3
and 1.3 10
3
in. at 60 ksi and between 0.9 and 1.8 10
3
in.
at
s
= 70 ksi), with f
c
= 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 longitu-
dinal 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 diam-
eter 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 reinforce-
ment (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 v
c
; where is the
strength reduction factor and v
c
is the nominal shear strength
of concrete. (According to ACI 318-05, = 0.7 and
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-99
2
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
c
1 6 ( ) f
c
MPa ( ) 2 = f
c
psi ( ) =
v
n
1 3 ( ) f
c
MPa ( ) 4 = f
c
psi ( ) =
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.
Fig. 2Stud shear reinforcement for slabs and footings: (a)
stud-rail system; (b) double-headed studs held by nonstruc-
tural sheet metal trough; and (c) top view and section showing
typical arrangement of studs in vicinity of interior column.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 659
when studs are used as shear reinforcement, ACI 421.1R-99
recommends that v
n
be less than or equal to
It also recommends that within the shear-reinforced zone
v
c
be equal to
When stirrups are used, lower stresses are permitted by
ACI 318-05
and
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 accommo-
date 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 design
24
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 loading
7
and under simulated-seismic loading
8
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
2 3 ( ) f
c
MPa ( ) 8 = f
c
psi ( )
1 4 ( ) f
c
MPa ( ) 3 = f
c
psi ( )
v
n
1 2 ( ) f
c
MPa ( ) 6 = f
c
psi ( )
v
c
1 6 ( ) f
c
MPa ( ) 2 = f
c
psi ( ) =
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
660 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005
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 tested
11
shearwalls
having boundary elements. Single-leg stirrups, detailed as in
Fig. 1(a), are used as crossties in Fig. 5(a), whereas double-
headed 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 hori-
zontal forces V
u
and N
u
(Fig. 6(a)). The strut-and-tie model
presented in the figure has been shown
12
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) repre-
senting 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 V
u
and N
u
. 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 mm
2
, respectively.
Fig. 5Horizontal sections in structural diaphragms with
boundary elements having single-leg stirrups or double-
headed studs as crossties. 10M and 15M bars have cross-
sectional areas of 100 and 200 mm
2
, respectively.
Fig. 6Double-headed studs in corbels: (a) forces on
corbel and strut-and-tie system for design; and (b) tested
12
arrangement of reinforcement in corbels.
Fig. 7Dapped end of precast beam:
15
(a) strut-and-tie
model; and (b) arrangement of headed studs.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 661
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 strut-
and-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 stir-
rups 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 dimen-
sions 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
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 mm
2
.
662 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005
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.
Tests
13,14
subjecting the connections to the transfer of
reversible moments have verified the suitability of single-
headed 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 shear
3
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 V
u
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 M
u
until the
loss of 25% of M
u
.
Figure 12(a) and (b) compare the graphs
3
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 V
u
=
0.6V
c
, with V
c
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 approxi-
mately 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 IBC
26
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 beam-
column connection.
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 663
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-beams
5
and deep beams
6
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 Hoff
6
presented results of tests on three large-
scale 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 f
y
for the shear
reinforcement to 413 MPa (60 ksi) and its contribution to the
shear strength to (2/3) .
Columns
7
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 double-
headed 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 rein-
forcement without vertical bars; Specimens 4 and 5, respec-
tively, 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
f
c
MPa ( ) 8 f
c
psi ( ) ( )
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 columns
8,9
Nine column specimens, reinforced with either double-
headed 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. 14Bearing stress behind stud head (risk of spalling of
cover).
Fig. 13Short columns tested under axial loads;
7
cross-
sectional dimensions 150 x 500 mm
2
: (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 mm
2
.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 664
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 P
o
combined with incrementally increasing lateral-
displacement 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.
Walls
10
Sixteen wall elements were tested at the University of
Toronto
10
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 rehabilitation
29,30
A series of circular columns
29
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 double-
headed 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
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 shearwalls
11
A sustained 1000 kN axial load was applied on the shear-
walls 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 force-
displacement hysteresis loops). This research confirmed that
double-headed studs could be a substitute for single-leg stir-
rups as crossties in the boundary elements of shearwalls.
Vertical and horizontal forces on corbels
12
Six corbels with the dimensions shown in Fig. 6(b) (with
studs having head area equal to nine times the cross-
sectional area of the stud) were subjected to vertical forces
V
u
combined with horizontal forces N
u
= V
u
/5. The magni-
tudes of V
u
and N
u
were monotonically increased up to
failure. The horizontal force represented the reaction compo-
nent 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
Austin
31,32
on the overhangs of bridge piers.
Slab splitting at anchors of prestressing tendons
4
Tests were conducted at The University of Texas at
Austin
33
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 post-
tensioned single strands (Fig. 9(b)). The Texas tests were
duplicated at the University of Calgary,
4
replacing the hair-
pin 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 665
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 A
sv
required
to control the splitting crack due to prestressing.
(1)
where a is the vertical dimension of the anchor(s) of the
prestressing tendon(s) (in Fig. 10(b)); h is the slab thickness;
f
y
is the yield strength of the studs; and f
pu
and A
ps
are the
ultimate strength and cross-sectional area of the tendon. The
maximum prestressing force applied to the anchor is
assumed equal to 0.7f
pu
A
ps
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 joints
13,14
Four interior bridge beam-column joints with either
conventional or headed reinforcement were tested under
seismic loading
13
to evaluate the current design requirements
of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans
35
).
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 joints
36
and pile-foundation
connections
37
with almost all the reinforcement consisting of
headed studs. Again, the results demonstrated the effective-
ness of headed studs in bridge joints under seismic loads.
Five beam-column corner joints and two exterior beam-
column joints were tested under seismic loading
14
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 Bashandy
19
to investigate the behavior of
beam-column joints with headed stud anchorage. The tests
were similar to earlier tests
38,39
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 ( f
y
/f
c
) was as high as 25; where f
y
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
nominal yield strength f
y
MPa (72 ksi), the full f
y
value may
be considered available at any section of the stem, provided
that the ratio (f
y
/f
c
) does not exceed 25; however, more tests
are needed to verify this statement; note that in some of the
tests mentioned above, f
y
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 c
c
. For example, when c
c
=
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 0.3T
y
, where T
y
is the yield force of the stud. This
empirical recommendation is based partly on analysis of the
results of tests
12
and partly on Eq. (1), assuming that the
head diameter is 3d
b
, c = 3d
b
, a
e
= 0.75(3d
b
) 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 forces
4
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 3.5d
b
; where d
b
= stud diameter. Furthermore,
the bar stress developed by the head can be assumed equal to
f
y
, provided that (f
y
/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
(A
nh
/A
b
) 9 and c 3.5d
b
, the bar stress f
s

head
developed by the
head can be equal to the yield strength f
y
when (f
y
/f
c
) 29;
where A
nh
= the net area of the head (head area minus bar
area A
b
). For the steel and concrete used in most countries,
(f
y
/f
c
) is normally less than 29.
Thompson
20
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 f
s

head
can be computed by Eq. (2), dependent
upon the cover or the side covers of the bar.
(2)
A
sv
0.3A
ps
f
pu
f
y
------ 1
2a
3h
------


=
f
s head
1.4
A
nh
A
b
--------
c
1
d
b
-----


f
c
f
y
=
666 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005
(3)
where c
1
= the minimum distance between the centerline of the
bar and the surface of the member; c
2
= the minimum distance
between the centerline of the bar and an exterior surface
perpendicular to c
1
; the distance c
2
is greater than c
1
. When the
bar runs parallel and close to only one exterior surface, set =
2.0 and replace c
1
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 f
y
= 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 (A
nh
= 9A
b
). Assume
further that the yield stress of the stud is entirely developed
by bearing; thus, f
s

head
= f
y
. To prevent spalling of the
concrete cover, Eq. (2) gives c 3d
b
when the stud runs
parallel to one exterior surface. This example indicates that
the empirical limit c 3d
b
, recommended above, is conser-
vative. When the stud runs parallel to an edge at the intersection
of two orthogonal exterior surfaces, spalling need not be of
concern when c
1
= c
2
6d
b
.
When f
s

head
< f
y
, Thompson gives Eq. (4) for the distance
l
a
between the bearing face of the head and the section at
which f
y
can be considered developed
(4)
where l
d
is the development length of a nonheaded deformed
bar of the same diameter, ACI 318-05 gives equations for
l
d
. 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 (A
b
f
s

head
). The validity of Eq. (4) is limited for l
a
between 6d
b
and l
d
; 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
l
a
cannot exceed its development length in the absence of the
head. Substitution of the upper limit l
a
= l
d
in Eq. (4) gives
( f
s

head
/f
y
) = 0.7. This means that when ( f
s

head
/f
y
) 0.7, the
development length l
a
should be taken equal to l
d
.
As an example of the results that Eq. (4) gives, calculate
(l
a
/l
d
) by varying (f
s

head
/f
y
). 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 cross-
sectional area of the stem. With this head area, the anchorage
0.6 0.4
c
2
c
1
----


2.0 + =
l
a
1
0.3
-------


1
f
s head
f
y
------------


l
d
but 6d
b
l
a
l
d
; =
by bearing is sufficient to develop the yield strength of the
stud, with negligible slip. In design, nominal yield strength
f
y
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 0.6d
b
; where d
b
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 l
a
shorter than that the development length l
d
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 Reinforce-
ment in Concrete I-Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-
Aug. 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 Shear-
walls, 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
Table 1Anchorage of bars by combination of
bond and bearing
*
( f
s

head
/f
y
) 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.7
l
a
/l
d
1/6 1/3 1/2 2/3 5/6 1
*
Development length l
a
expressed as fraction of development length l
d
of non-headed bars.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2005 667
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, Uni-
versity 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 Con-
crete, PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.,
1996, 294 pp.
19. Bashandy, T. R., Application of Headed Bars in Concrete Mem-
bers, 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 Depart-
ment 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.