COMPARATIVE STUDY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS WITH

VARYING 90-DEGREE ANCHORAGE ORIENTATION AND PLACEMENT

USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

A Research Paper submitted to the

College of Engineering and Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
Tarlac State University
Tarlac City

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Major in Structural Engineering

by:
ABALOS, Kyle Eduard R.
ATENCIO, Arvie B.
BELTRAN, Vincent D.
DEL ROSARIO, Roma Jeane N.
MACAMOS, Kent Paolo A.

October 2023
 Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

1.1. Introduction

Concrete is a versatile composite material present in all kinds of structures today

making it the most important building material in construction (Choo and MacGinley,

2018). Its main components are cement, sand and gravel aggregates, and water. The most

important property of concrete is its compressive strength which provides the material the

capacity to withstand loads that tend to create a reducing effect on the size of the material.

On the other hand, the tensile strength of concrete that enables it to resist loads that causes

elongation is significantly lower than its compressive strength rendering the structure

susceptible to cracks due to tensile forces. Thus, the practice of using materials possessing

high tensile strength, such as steel, to reinforce concrete was developed.

Reinforced Concrete is a popular building material known for its versatility,

durability, strength, adaptability, and economical benefits (Hamakareem, 2019). It is

composed of concrete with embedded steel reinforcements providing the composite

material a combination of compressive and tensile strength. Among the different types of

steel reinforcement bars or rebar available for reinforcement, deformed bars are named to

be the most excellent and preferred class (Shrestha, 2021). Deformed bars are fabricated

with ribs, lugs, and indentations on their surfaces which results to better bonding with

concrete compared to plain bars with smooth sides. This feature of deformed bar plays a

fundamental role in strengthening a reinforced concrete structure.

1
 In order to strengthen a reinforced concrete section under tension, there must be a

compatibility between the two materials to be able to resist an external load together.

Consequently, the reinforcement must experience the same strain or deformation as the

concrete to guarantee that the reinforcement will not slip and separate from the concrete

when load is applied. The parameter in which the adhesion between bonded surfaces is

measured is termed as the bond strength (N.A., 2020).

In reinforced concrete, the bond strength is measured in terms of the load transfer

between the concrete and the steel reinforcement. The factors that affect the bond strength

in a reinforced concrete structure include the diameter, shape, and spacing of the bar,

gripping effect caused by the concrete shrinkage, rebar deformation and surrounding

concrete interlocking at shear, resulting friction against sliding and interlock as tensile

stress is applied on the reinforcing element, effects of anchorage mechanisms of rebars

through development length, splicing, hooks, and crossbars, number of confining

reinforcements, and properties of concrete. It is important to ensure that a suitable bond

between the concrete and rebar is formed to prevent slippage of steel bars on concrete due

to the presence of bond stress being transferred across the bonded materials. The loss of

this bond between the concrete and steel reinforcement, due to corrosion for instance, can

lead to the failure of the structure.

The formulation of development length, or anchorage in general, comes from the

idea of bond stresses being developed inside the cross-section of a reinforced concrete

element. This becomes more relevant for flexural members since anchorage is essential for

such members to achieve serviceable capacity. A basic assumption made in reinforced

concrete design is that there would be no slippage between concrete and steel reinforcement

2
to ensure that the relation of concrete and reinforcement exhibit a single unit in designing

(Castro, M.J., 2023). Bond stresses allow force transfer between concrete and

reinforcement. As such, imposing an equilibrium condition for a rebar inside the reinforced

concrete, the tensile stress exhibited by the rebar is equivalent to the total bond stress

around the circumferential area of the rebar. Figure 1.1 represents the equilibrium equation

of rebar and concrete.

Figure 1.1
Equilibrium equation between rebar and concrete

Σ𝐹 = 0
𝑇− 𝜇=0
𝜋𝑑𝑏 2
𝑓𝑦 − 𝜋𝑑𝑏 𝑙𝑏 𝜇 = 0 (1)
4
𝒇𝒚 𝒅𝒃
𝒍𝒃 =
𝟒𝝁

Note: fy is the specified yield strength of steel, μ is the bond stress.

Equation 1 is the foundation of development length, and embedment length. In

codes such as ACI318-14 and NSCP 2015, this formula is then used after factoring in

constants dependent to the design of the reinforced element.

In the construction of reinforced concrete beams, especially knowledge pertaining

to the subject being discussed in academic settings, more emphasis is being given to the

design of beams in terms of the amount, size, and grade of reinforcing bars to be used and

in-depth discourse about the importance of anchorage length can somewhat be overlooked

(Premjit, 2022). Anchorage length refers to the required length of reinforcement to develop

3
stress and acquire the capacity to carry loads by providing hooks or bends if conditions do

not allow the provision of required development length. Development length, on the other

hand, is basically the length of bar required to transfer stresses or loads between the

reinforcement bar and concrete in areas of connection between structural members such as

a beam and a column. In particular cases, the term anchorage length is used when axial

compression or tension is being considered while development length is employed with

regards to flexural compression or tension. The figure below demonstrates the development

length of longitudinal bars used for anchorage in connections of different structural

members.

Figure 1.2
Development length of longitudinal bar

Note: The image above is adapted from IS-456 clause 26.2.2.2

Anchorage in beams is provided for additional support and to create more effective

connections with other structural members such as a column by ensuring that bond forces

are being properly transferred to the concrete to prevent slippage in the form of longitudinal

bars with angled bends at the end or simply hooked bars. Hooked bars are commonly used

when adequate anchorage cannot be provided by straight bars due to smaller column

4
dimensions or when plain bars are being used since they do not have the geometric features

similar to deformed bars that strengthen bond with the surrounding concrete.

Conventionally, anchorages in beam to column connections are provided based on

design provisions found in structural codes but these codes do not include specific

configurations for efficient anchorage strength. Factors such as the placement of hooked

bars with regards to the longitudinal reinforcement of column and orientation of the bend

of beam longitudinal bars are not considered in the general equation for development length

published in codes. In actual practice, beam-column joints are reinforced with hooked

longitudinal bars placed inside the confining reinforcement of column with their bend

orientation pointing downwards.

Taking all these into consideration, the researchers came up with the study which

seeks to determine the most optimal configuration of 90° hooked bar anchorage in exterior

beam-column joints through Finite Element Analysis provided by ANSYS software. These

configurations include placement of hooked bars inside and outside the column

longitudinal reinforcement and orienting the bends downwards, inwards, and outwards.

1.2.Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to provide a comparative study of beam-column

connections with reinforced concrete beams having different 90° anchorage placements

with respect to the column longitudinal reinforcement bars and tension anchorage

orientation relative to its adjacent column using Finite Element Analysis provided by

ANSYS. Specifically, the study engaged in the following:

5
 1. Examine the relationship between beam reinforcement and capacity of

connection, i.e., anchorage strength, using a reference beam.

2. Design diverse beam reinforcement configurations using the reference beam as

the basis.

3. Conduct Finite Element Analysis to determine the relative effects of each

configuration in comparison to the reference beam and with other proposed

configurations.

4. Identify the most optimal reinforcement configuration concerning the strength

of beam-column connections.

1.3. Conceptual Framework

This section depicts the forecasted output of the study along with the necessary

processes involving relevant variables and their prospective relationships significant to

the attainment of the objectives of the study. The first phase covers the generation of

design and modelling of the reference beam, identification of the flexural strength,

bond stress, and failure of section at joint. The relationship between the beam

reinforcement and the anchorage strength will also be investigated in this phase. It is

followed by the formulation of design for different reinforcement configurations to be

applied. The third phase is comprised of the execution of Finite Element Analysis using

ANSYS to determine the relative effects of each configuration on the beam capacity

compared to the reference beam and identify the most optimal configuration by

comparing the proposed anchorage configurations with each other. The results of the

analysis will be used in drafting the conclusions and recommendations of the study.

6
1.4. Assumptions

This study will be conducted to provide a comparative study of beam-column

connections with reinforced concrete beams having different 90° anchorage placements

7
 and orientation relative to its adjacent column using Finite Element Analysis provided

by ANSYS. In order to proceed with the study, some assumptions are made.

The researchers will assume the following:

1. The effect of column to anchorage. The researchers will assume that there is

a certain percentage of axial stress effect from column to hook bars (Naqeeb Et.

Al., 2022). The exact value cannot be determined.

2. The occurrence of slippage between reinforcement and concrete. It is

assumed that there would be no slippage between concrete and steel

reinforcement in the design of beam-column connection models using ANSYS.

1.5. Significance of the Study

This research will be conducted with the goal of identifying the most optimal

configuration for 90° anchorage in reinforced concrete beam-column connections by

comparing the flexural strength and anchorage strength of beams with varying

anchorage placements and orientations using Finite Element Analysis provided by

ANSYS.

This study will benefit the following:

• Civil Engineers. The result of this study will give information to the civil

engineers, particularly the site engineers, about the optimal bar arrangement and

location of reinforcement bar for flexural strength and the ideal hook bars

placement for tension effects from beams. It will help provide the beam to

column connection a better strength capacity for future constructions.

8
 • Contractors. Through the use of this research, contractors will have a better

understanding about the best placement of reinforcement rebar for flexural

strength and hook bars for tension strength from beams. The findings of this

study aim to contribute to the fabrication of a more efficient design in plans for

rebar and hook bars.

• Future Researchers. This research gives information about the effect of

reinforcement bar arrangement and location on beam’s flexural strength and

tension effect of beams to anchorage. Furthermore, the result of this study can

be used for future research about the effect of reinforcement bar arrangement

and location on beam’s flexural strength and tension effect of beams to

anchorage in different code provisions and other parameters such as high

strength concrete and other connections in the structure using rebar and hook

bar. It can also be used for future study of possible placements of rebar and

hook bars.

1.6. Scope and Limitations

This study will use the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) provided by ANSYS to

conduct a comparative study of beam-column connections with reinforced concrete

beams having varying tension anchorage placement and orientations relative to its

adjacent column. ANSYS will be the software that will serve as a tool to determine the

effect of reinforcement bar arrangement and location on beam’s flexural strength and

effects on hooked bars. In addition, this study will use the guidelines provided by the

NSCP 2015 provisions.

This research will be conducted from October 2023 to May 2024.

9
1.6.1. Limitations and Delimitations

1.6.1.1. Column Dimension

The researchers will use the same column dimensions for

comparative study of beam-column connections with reinforced concrete

beams having different anchorage placement and orientation. This

consistent dimension will be used to have a uniform effect from the column.

Furthermore, it will focus the results of the effects of different beam tension

anchorage configurations on the flexural strength and anchorage strength of

the beam.

1.6.1.2. Shear Strength in Beam

The study will focus on the modification of the flexural

reinforcement of the beam. Thus, shear failure will not be considered in the

study. The results of this study will not use the effects of shear strength of

beam.

1.6.1.3. Experimental

Finite Element Analysis provided by ANSYS will be used to

conduct a comparative study of beam-column connections with varying

anchorage placements with respect to the column longitudinal

reinforcement bars and tension anchorage orientations relative to its

adjacent column. This study will focus on the results of the Finite Element

Analysis. The resulting data from ANSYS will be used in the methodology

10
 and discussions of the research. Experimental work will not be included in

the research methodology as well as the discussions.

1.6.1.4. Bend Angle

The standard bend angle of the deformed longitudinal bar in beams

to be used in the study will only be limited to 90° hook bar. The study will

not employ the utilization of 180° bend angle. Thus, a comparative study

between 90° hook bars with varying placements and orientations will be

conducted.

1.7. Definition of Terms

The listed terms below which have been included in the setting of this study, are

defined in order to inform any individual with the following unfamiliar and complex

terms and to give a better understanding according to its meaning. The following

terminologies are as follows:

• Anchorage. The means to connect a structural or non-structural component to

a concrete structure.

• ANSYS. A finite element analysis (FEA) software used to perform structural

analysis using advanced solver options, including linear dynamics,

nonlinearities, thermal analysis, materials and more.

• Bond. The adhesion formed between the steel reinforcement and the

surrounding concrete

• Column. Structural elements that transmit loads from a structure’s slab to its

foundation and the ground beneath it.

11
• FEA (Finite Element Analysis). A computerized method for predicting how a

product reacts to real-world forces, vibration, heat, fluid flow, and other

physical effects.

• Flexural Strength. The capacity of a material to resist deformation when

subjected to applied loads.

• Hook bars. Used to anchor reinforcing steel where member dimensions prevent

straight bars from developing their full yield strength.

• NSCP 2015 (National Structural Code of the Philippines). The primary

design code in the Philippines, providing guidance to civil and structural

engineers on the design and assessment of buildings and any other structures.

• Rebar. Steel Reinforcement bars or rebars used to improve the tensile strength

of the concrete.

• Reinforced Concrete Beams. Structural Elements that are designed to carry

transverse external loads.

• Tensile Strength. The measure of maximum load a material can resist under

forces that causes stretching or elongation.

12
 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents some books, published thesis, and articles. Most of the

published master’s thesis having relation to this study were analyzed carefully by the

researchers but more so far has been found to have written at the same time or setting as

their study. Series of related studies and literature are presented relatively.

2.1. Related Literature

Ahamed et. al. (2014) stated that the beam-column joint is one of the most critical

sections in a reinforced concrete structure since failure in beams often occur in this region.

In previous practices, the design of joints heavily relies on the satisfaction of anchorage

requirements. Further research found that some of the factors affecting the behavior of

joints include their geometrical design, amount and detailing of reinforcement, strength of

concrete, and pattern of loading. In general, these requirement criteria were used in

designing joints for reinforced concrete structures:

a) The strength of the joint should not be less than the maximum demand

corresponding to development of the structural plastic hinge mechanism for the

frame. This will eliminate the need for repair in a relatively inaccessible region

and for energy dissipation by joint mechanisms, which, as will be seen

subsequently, undergo serious stiffness and strength degradation when

subjected to cyclic actions in the inelastic range.

13
 b) The capacity of the column should not be jeopardized by possible strength

degradation within the joint. The joint should also be considered as an integral

part of the column.

c) The joint reinforcement necessary to ensure satisfactory performance should

not cause undue construction difficulties.

In the design practice enforced by the National Structural Code of the Philippines

(NSCP) 2015, one of the major factors in designing beam-column connection is the

development length. Development length are extension of reinforcement bars of a beam

into the support to anchor them or develop their strength. According to NSCP 2015 section

425.4.3, the development length 𝓵dh for deformed bars in tension terminating in a standard

hook shall be greater of (a) through (c).

𝑓 Ψ𝑒 Ψ𝑐 Ψ 𝑟
a. (𝑦 ) 𝑑𝑏 with Ψe ,Ψc ,Ψr , and 𝜆 given in Table 1
4.17𝜆√𝑓′𝑐

b. 8𝑑𝑏

c. 150mm

Table 2.1
Modification Factors for Development of Hooked Bars in Tension
Modification
Condition Value of factor
factor
Lightweight concrete 0.75
In accordance
Lightweight
Lightweight concrete, where fct is specified with Section
𝜆
419.2.4.3
Normal-weight concrete 1.0

Epoxy Epoxy-coated or zing and epoxy dual coated reinforcement 1.2

Ψ𝑒 Uncoated or zinc-coated (galvanized) reinforcement 1.0

For 36 mm ø bar and smaller hooks with side cover (normal

Cover to plane of hook) ≥ 65mm. and for 90-degree hook with 0.7
Ψ𝑐 cover on bar extension beyond hook ≥ 50mm
Other 1.0

14
 For 90-degree hooks of 36 mm ø and smaller bars
1. enclosed along 𝓵dh within ties or stirrups perpendicular to
Confining 𝓵dh at s ≤ 3db or
0.8
reinforcement [2] 2. enclosed along the bar extension beyond hook including
Ψ𝑟 the bend within ties or stirrups perpendicular to 𝓵ext as s ≤
[1]

3db
Other 1.0
[1]
The first tie or stirrup shall enclose the bent portion of the hook within 2d b of the outside of the bend.
[2]
db is the nominal diameter of the hooked bar.
Note: Adapted from Table 425.4.3.2 of NSCP 2015, Chapter 4. p. 4-165

When adequate space is not available to anchor tension bars when placed straightly

along the direction of the beam for their required development as required by the code,

hooks are then considered into the design. From NSCP 2015 Section 425.3, the standard

hook geometry for development of deformed bars in tension is as shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2
Standard Hook Geometry for Development of Deformed Bars in Tension
Type of Minimum inside Straight
standard Bar size bend diameter, extension 𝓵ext, Type of standard hook
hook mm. mm.
10mm⌀
through 6db
25mm⌀
28mm⌀
90-degree
through 8db 12db
hook
36mm⌀
40mm⌀ and
10db
58mm⌀
10mm⌀
through 6db
25mm⌀
28mm⌀
180-degree Greater of
through 8db
hook 4db and 65mm
36mm⌀
40mm⌀ and
10db
58mm⌀
Note: Adapted from Table 425.3.1 of NSCP 2015, Chapter 4. p. 4-162

15
 Furthermore, NSCP 2015 includes a guideline for the arrangement of reinforcing

bars for the most efficient rectangular beam section. The most efficient rectangular beam

has reinforcing bars arranged in such a way that the effective depth is the maximum. The

Minimum cover for beams not exposed to weather or in contact with the ground is 40mm,

and the minimum spacing between parallel bars is the greater of the main bar diameter or

25mm. In the cases where the beam’s total steel reinforcement arranged in a single layer

produces a clear space of less than those two criteria, allocating the steel reinforcement into

multiple layers is the common practice. Figure 2.1 shows the typical beam section

following design practice from NSCP 2015.

Figure 2.1
Typical beam section following design practice from NSCP 2015

bmin =2cc +2ds +ndb +(n-1)sc

where:
cc =concrete cover
ds =diameter of stirrup
db =diameter of longitudinal bar
sc =spacing between longitudinal bar
n=number of longitudinal bar
bmin =minimum width of a rectangular beam
h=depth of a rectangular beam
deff =effective depth of a rectangular beam

Note: Adapted from Simplified Reinforced Concrete Design 2nd Edition by Castro, M.J.
2023. p. 10.

16
2.2. Related Studies

A study titled "Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour Using Finite

Element Analysis by ABAQUS" was conducted by Hamid Sinaei, Mahdi Shariati, Amir

Hosein Abna, Mohammad Aghaei, and Ali Shariati on year 2012. This study sought to

determine the tensile strain in the reinforcing bars of the model, the compressive strain in

the concrete, the midspan deflection of the beam, and the patterns of cracking in the

concrete. The materials being applied to the modeled beam were based on the previous

study by Kachlakev et al. (2001). Numerical results using Finite Element Analysis

generated by ABAQUS software were compared to the previous experimental results.

Based on the data, it was concluded that results generated by Finite Element

Method using ABAQUS software are well matched in the experimental results in terms of

tensile strain in rebars (Figure 2.2), compressive strain in concrete (Figure 2.3), load-

deflection curve at mid-span (Figure 2.4), and evolution of crack patterns for concrete

(Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.2
Load-tensile strain plot for main steel rebar

Note: Adapted from Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour Using Finite
Element Analysis using ABAQUS by Sinaei et. al. 2012, p. 6.

17
Figure 2.3
Load-compressive strain plot for concrete

Note: Adapted from Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour Using Finite
Element Analysis using ABAQUS by Sinaei et. al. 2012, p. 7.

Figure 2.4
Load-deflection plot for the beam

Note: Adapted from Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour Using Finite
Element Analysis using ABAQUS by Sinaei et. al. 2012, p. 7.

18
Figure 2.5
Crack patterns in process of analysis

Note: Adapted from Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beam Behaviour Using Finite
Element Analysis using ABAQUS by Sinaei et. al. 2012, p. 8.

In 2015, a study conducted by Ajaam et. al. determined the critical factors that

affect the anchorage strength of hooked bars in concrete and to develop new design

guidelines for development length paving the way for the use of high strength reinforcing

steel and concrete. The study tested a total of 337 beam-column joint samples. Parameters

included number of hooks (2, 3, or 4), concrete compressive strength (4,300 to 16,510 psi),

bar diameter (No. 5, No. 8, and No. 11), concrete side cover (1.5 to 4 in), amount of

transverse reinforcement in the joint region, hooked bar spacing (3 db to 11 db center-to-

center), hook bend angle (90-degree or 180-degree), placement of the hook (inside or

19
outside the column core, and inside or outside of the column compressive region), and

embedment length.

The results of the study show that current ACI 318-14 code provisions were

unconservative for larger hooked bars and higher compressive strength concrete. The

addition of confining transverse reinforcement in the hook region increases the anchorage

capacity of hooked bars. The resulting value of the increase depends on the quality of

confining reinforcement per hooked bar. Hooked bars with 90-degree and 180-degree bend

angles show similar strength capacities. In addition, there is no increase in capacity was

observed when increasing side cover from 2.5 to 3.5 inches. Anchoring the hooks at the far

side of a beam-column joint or in a wall with a high side cover provides more capacity than

anchoring a hooked bar outside the column core or outside the compressive region of a

column. Hooked bars also exhibit a reduction in capacity when the center-to-center spacing

is less than seven bar diameters. These observations are used to develop a new design

equation that gives way for the conservative design of hooked bars.

Based on the results of the study and with its comparison with ACI 318-14 it was

determined that the current code provisions for development length may result in unsafe

designs for No. 9 bars and larger bars with concrete compressive strengths of 6,000 psi and

below. For the angle of bend for hooked bars, it was confirmed that the differences between

the anchorage strengths of 90-degree and 180-degree hooks are not statistically significant

for bars with sizes No.5 and No.8. Prior to the test for bend angle, evaluation of test data

from hooked bar specimens without confining transverse reinforcement in the joint region

was conducted. The general result shows that an increase in embedment length produces

an increase in anchorage capacity.

20
 For the effect of hook location, inside or outside the column core or outside

compression region of the column on the anchorage strength, the results show that the

hooked bars placed inside the column core had a larger anchorage strength than hooked

bars placed outside the column core, with respective average bar stresses at failure of

74,900 and 93,400 psi. Moreover, the results indicate that hooked bars cast outside the

column core exhibit lower anchorage capacity than hooked bars cast inside the core.

Furthermore, hooked bars anchored in the middle of the column core show lower

anchorage capacity than hooked bars anchored on the far side of the column.

In the study published by Arvydas Rimkus in 2017 which is entitled “Effects of Bar

Reinforcement Arrangement on Deformations and Cracking of Concrete Elements”, the

researcher investigated the influence of steel rebar reinforcement on the serviceability of

concrete elements subjected to short-term loading. Specifically, the study focused on

understanding the deformation and cracking behavior of beams and ties with different

reinforcements. The study experimentally validates concepts and analysis regarding the

effective concrete area and cracking process of reinforced concrete members while

emphasizing the effects of bar reinforcement arrangement.

The study reports the test results of 9 beams and 119 ties with different

reinforcement and loading layouts. The bending test on nine beams with different

reinforcement arrangements involved specimens divided into two groups regarding their

reinforcement layout. The first group of specimens, in relation to their reinforcement

layout, had a conventional reinforcing – the bars were distributed in one layer with

minimum cover. The second group contains specimens with the same reinforcement ratio

as the conventional beam, but the tensile reinforcement is well placed in three layers. They

21
kept a relatively constant reinforcement ratio throughout the specimens, having only beams

with reinforcement ratios of ρ≈0.6% and ρ≈1.0%. A third of the samples were also

reinforced with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP), while the rest were not. The study

reveals a correlation between the number of reinforcement layers in a section and the

flexural stiffness of the beam.

As shown in Figure 2.6, the nomenclature of the specimens is as follows: "S" is for

"beams"; The first number corresponds to the reinforcement ratio, "1" is for ρ≈1.0%, and

"2" is for ρ≈0.6%; "nm" refers to non-metallic or GFRP.

Figure 2.6
Cross-sections of the beams with different arrangement of reinforcement bars

Note: Obtained from Effects of Bar Reinforcement Arrangement on Deformations and

Cracking of Concrete Elements by A. Rimkus. 2017, p. 36.

In 2017, a study conducted by David Darwin, Matthew O’Reilly, and Samir Yasso

entitled “Anchorage Strength of Standard Hooked Bars in Simulated Exterior Beam-

Column Joints” investigated the anchorage strength of hooked bars in relation to different

spacings between the hooked bars, placing the hooked bar anchorage outside the column
22
core or halfway through the column depth, concrete tail cover to 90° hooks, and the effect

of tail kickout at failure. The study used 338 beam-column joint specimens for the

simulated tests at the University of Kansas reinforced with two, three, or four No. 5, 8, or

11 (No. 16, 25, or 36) hooked bars with 90° or 180° hooks. Similar tests by others were

conducted on 31 beam-column joint and 30 slab-wall joint specimens. The researchers

aimed to determine the effects of modifying the aforementioned parameters on the

anchorage strength of hooked bars and generate a descriptive expression for anchorage

strength accounting for such parameter changes. The output of this study was proposed to

be included in the design provisions of ACI 318 Building Code.

Based on the results recorded from the beam-column joint simulation tests, it was

concluded that the number of 90° or 180° reinforcing hooked bars, hooked bar spacing,

anchorage placement inside and outside of the column core or halfway through the column

depth, concrete tail cover, and tail kickout failure have an effect on the anchorage strength

of hooked bars. It was found that the corresponding anchorage strength for increasing

hooked bar reinforcement remained constant or only increased moderately. Steel hooked

bars placed outside the column core generated an anchorage strength 84% equal to the

strength of hooked bars located inside the column core, showing that the location of the

hooked bars in relation to the column core can affect the anchorage strength of the

connection. Using different bar diameters as anchorage and placing them outside the

column core also indicated different points of failure with smaller diameters experiencing

front failure and bigger diameters failing in sides.

As for hooked bars with 90° bend, the test results have proven that tail kickout does

not affect the anchorage strength but failure due to kickout increases as the bar diameter

23
increases. Using the results from the simulations tests and anchorage strength expressions

from previous studies and ACI Building code, the researchers derived a new descriptive

expression for the computation of development length equipped with a modification factor

accounting for the effects of bar spacing, and a modification factor of 1.25 to consider the

reducing effect on anchorage strength of placing hooked bars outside the column core. In

conclusion, the proposed design provisions by the researchers were found to be more

realistic and in parallel with experimental results. The descriptive expression is as follows:

The development length 𝓵dh for deformed bars in tension terminating in a standard hook

shall be greater of (a) through (c).

𝑓𝑦 Ψ𝑒 Ψ𝑟 Ψ𝑚 Ψ𝑜
a. ℓ𝑑ℎ = [0.0018 ] 𝑑𝑏 1.5 with 𝛹𝑒 , 𝛹𝑟 , 𝛹𝑚 , 𝛹𝑜 , and 𝜆 given in Table
𝜆𝑓′𝑐 0.25

25.4.3.2 of ACI 318-14; the value of 𝑓′𝑐 shall not exceed 16,000 psi.

b. 8𝑑𝑏

c. 6in.

In the same year of 2017, David Darwin, Ali Ajaam and Matt O’Reilly conducted

a research study to expand the understanding regarding the behavior of hook bars in high-

strength concrete and developed design guidelines allowing for the use of high-strength

reinforcing steel and high-strength concrete. In this study, 122 simulated beam-column

joints were analyzed to continue the previous works at the University of Kansas. The

parameters used in the included bar size (No. 5, No. 8, and No. 11), hook bend angle (90°

or 180°), embedment length of 5.5 to 23.5 inches, amount of confining reinforcement

within the joint (no confining reinforcement to nine No.3 hoops), location of the hooked

bar with respect to member depth, hooked bar stresses (22,800 to 138,800 psi), concrete

24
compressive strength (4,490 to 14, 050 psi), center-to-center spacing between hooked bars

(2 to 11.8 db), number of hooked bars (2, 3, 4, and 6), arrangement of hooked bars (one or

two layers), and ratios of beam effective depth to embedment length (0.6 to 2.13). Other

specimen contained strain gauges mounted along the straight portion of the hooked bars

and on the confining reinforcement within the joint region. The purpose of this study is to

develop descriptive equations for the anchorage strength of hooked bars using the results

of the tests in this study along with the test results from earlier work about specimens with

or without confining reinforcements, concrete compressive strengths between 2,570 and

16,510 psi, and bar stresses at anchorage failure ranging from 22,800 and 144, 100 psi.

The results in this study concluded that the current Code provisions overestimate

the contribution of the concrete compressive strength and size of bar on the anchorage

strength of hooked bars. The combination of modification factors for cover and confining

reinforcements in the provisions in the Building Code ACI (ACI 318-14) produces an

unconservative estimation of anchorage strength of hooked bars, specifically with large

hook bars and closely spaced hooked bars, hooked bars with center-to-center spacing less

than 6 db. Widely spaced hooked bars show greater anchorage strength than closely spaced

hooked bars. The decreased in anchorage strength of closely spaced hooked bars are a

function resulted from the spacing between hooked bars and the amount of confining

reinforcement. The hooks and the straight portion of the hooked bars both contribute to the

strength of anchorage. The hooked bars anchored in beam-column joints with the ratio of

beam effective depth to embedment below 1.5 exhibit high anchorage strengths than to

hooked bars with a ratio greater than 1.5. The results are used to develop and proposed

25
code provisions for the development length of reinforcing bars anchored with standard

hooks.

The discussion for the spacing between hooked bars states for the first of two

groups cast from the same batch of concrete, show the average bar force at failure for eight

specimens; four specimens contained three No. 5 hooked bars and four contained four No.

5 hooked bars. The nominal embedment length was 6 inches, the hooked bars had a 90-

degree bend angle, and the concrete compressive strengths ranged from 6,700 to 6,950 psi.

For each set of four specimens, two had a nominal center to center spacing hooked bars

cch (center to center spacing) of 4db, and two had cch of 6db. Confining reinforcement of

two levels were used: no confinement and No.3 hoops spaced at 3 db. As shown in the

results table, the average bar force increased when hoops were added. Average bar force

also increased with increasing center-to-center spacing between the hooked bars with an

observed lower increase when confining reinforcement was used.

The second group cast using the same batch of concrete, shows the average bar

force at failure for six specimens that contained three No. 8 hooked bars with a 90-degree

bend angle. For the second group cast, the nominal embedment length used is 10 inches,

and the compressive strength ranged from 4,490 to 4,850 psi. From the six specimens, three

had cch equal to 3db, and three had cch equal to 5db. There three levels of confining

reinforcement used: no confinement, 2 No. 3 hoops, and No. 3 hoops spaced at 3db. As for

the first group of specimens, the average bar force at failure increased as the amount of

confinement and spacing between hooked bars increased. There is a similar increase in

anchorage strength with increasing spacing between hooked bars for with specimens

without confining reinforcement and with 2 No. 3 hoops as confining reinforcement. In

26
comparison with No. 5 bars, the specimens with five No. 3 hoops exhibited a higher,

increase in anchorage strength when confining reinforcement was used; therefore the

specimen with the 5db spacing had a different distribution of column longitudinal

reinforcement (with the reinforcement distributed along the front face of the column for

specimen with 5db spacing compared to reinforcement placed only at the corners for other

specimens in this group), which might be the reason of the high increase in anchorage

strength. The tests suggests that the reduction in anchorage strength of hooked bars is a

function of the spacing between the bars and the amount of confining reinforcement.

Tests for hooked bar location with respect to column core used thirteen specimens

with two hooked bars placed outside the column core from the same batch of concrete.

Specimens contained No.8 or No. 11 hooked bars with 90-degree and 180-degree bend

angles embedded to the far side of the column with a nominal tail cover of 2 inches. Two

levels of confining reinforcement were tested, first is no confinement and second is No. 3

hoops spaced at 3 db (5 No. 3 hoops for No. 8 hooked bars and six No. 3 hoops for No. 11

hooked bars). The nominal concrete compressive strength used for the test were 5,000,

8,000, and 12,000 psi. Actual strengths ranged from 5,270 to 12, 370 psi. There is a nominal

concrete side cover of 2.5 in., except for two specimens with No. 8 hooked bars without

confining reinforcement that had 3.5 and 4 in. nominal concrete side cover. The result of

the test indicates that the placement of hooked bars outside a column core provides, on

average, about 15% less anchorage strength than placing hooked bars inside a column core.

For the hooked bars with a 90-degree bend angle, at peak load, confining

reinforcement provided in form of hoops within the joint region mostly exhibit the greatest

strain at the hoop closest to the straight portion of the bar. Hooked bars anchored in the

27
beam-column joints with a ratio of beam effective depth to embedment length greater than

1.5 show low anchorage strengths.

To further develop their studies, David Darwin, Matthew O’Reilly, and Samir

Yasso along with Ali Ajaam and Jayne Sperry conducted a study entitled “Anchorage

Strength of Closely Spaced Hooked Bars” in 2018. The purpose of the study was to

investigate the effects of having close spacing between hooked bar reinforcements on the

anchorage strength of beam-column connections and comparing its effects against using

wider spacings. Simultaneously, the effects of hooked bar size, use of staggering, total

confining reinforcement at joint region, varying concrete compressive strength, and

development length were also studied.

A simulated beam-column joint test was conducted on 67 specimens made out of

normal weight reinforced concrete each containing three, four, or six No. 5, 8, or 11 (No.

16, 25, or 36) hooked bars placed in one or two layers having a center-to-center spacing of

two to six bar diameters. The results of the tests were compared to the data gathered from

the simulation tests of 202 beam-column joint specimens with two hooked bars arranged

six to 12 diameters away from each other as a supplementary study conducted by Sperry

et.al.

28
Figure 2.7
Side view of beam-column joint specimens

Note: Obtained from “Anchorage Strength of Closely Spaced Hooked Bars” by Ajaam et.
al. 2018, p.2.

The anchorage strength of hooked bars was determined by taking the average force

per hooked bar in correlation to the maximum total force applied during the simulation

tests. Based on the results, the specimens exhibited three types of failure modes. About

66% of the specimens experienced concrete breakout failure, around 24% failed under a

combination of side splitting and concrete breakout with the latter being dominant, while

only side-splitting failure was observed for the remaining 10%. In comparison to widely

spaced hooked bars, a higher percentage of beam-column joints having a breakout failure

was recorded on closely spaced hooked bars. The anchorage strength between closely

spaced hooked bars and two widely spaced hooked bars were compared through an

empirically based descriptive equation derived from a previous study of Ajaam et.al. The

recorded results for the anchorage strength of the specimens from the simulation tests were

29
also further examined in contrast with the computed anchorage strengths using the

development length provisions of ACI 318-14.

It was concluded that the anchorage strength decreases as the center-to-center

spacing between hooked bars reduces from six bar diameters as opposed to hooked bars

with wider spacing. Furthermore, the provisions stated in ACI 318-14 tend to misrepresent

the actual anchorage strength of beam-column joints in relation to the usage of increasing

bar diameters, stronger concrete compressive strength, and decreasing hooked bar spacing.

In a study conducted by Abdulsamee Halahla in 2018, the researcher focused on

understanding the behavior of reinforced concrete beam using finite element analysis when

it is subjected to transverse loadings and comparing the result to the experimental based

testing and hand calculated data. The study also sought to investigate and evaluate the

credibility of the finite element method in analyzing a reinforced concrete beam. The finite

element software, ANSYS, has been utilized in this study to generate a 3D nonlinear finite

element model. In which Solid 65 is used for modeling the concrete, Link 8 for the

reinforcing bars, and Solid 45 element is applied for modeling the steel plate at the support.

The reason behind the use of Solid 65 for concrete is to obtain the result for the property

of cracking under tension, crushing under compression, and plastic deformation. While

Link 8 is used for the reinforcing bars since it is capable for plastic deformation. The study

applied two point loads for testing the model, with 5210 lbs. each and both are 5 feet away

from the supports. The study aims to obtain the initial cracking, deflection, yielding of the

steel reinforcement, and strength limit state of the model.

The study applied loads incrementally up to failure to determine the limit of the

model before cracking and determine the effects before the first cracking occurs. Every

30
load increment that is being applied, the restart button is being used for assessing each

result per increment and determine the most efficient result. After surpassing the initial

cracking of 5220 lbs., the load increment was increased slightly until the beam experience

subsequent cracking at 14,000 lbs. On the other hand, if the yielding of the reinforcing bars

is reached, it will again decrease the increment. The steel yielded at 13,350 lbs, which leads

to the reduction of load increment size by 2 lbs. to capture the failure of the beam. The

initial cracking of the beam, deflection of the beam, yielding of the steel reinforcement,

and the strength limit state of the beam are shown in Figure 2.8 and the comparison at

Table 2.3.

Figure 2.8
a) Concrete Stress at the extreme tension fiber. b) Steel Stress at the 5210 load step.
c) Failure of the Concrete Beam.

Note: Obtained from Study the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam Using Finite
Element Analysis by Halahla. 2018, p. 7.

31
Table 2.3
Deflections and Stress Comparisons at First Cracking
Extreme
Tension Reinforcement Deflection Load at first
Model
Fiber Stress Steel Stress (Psi) (in.) Crack
(Psi)
Hand Calculation 530 3024 0.0529 5118
ANSYS 536 2840 0.0534 5216
Note: Obtained from Study the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam Using Finite
Element Analysis by Halahla. 2018, p. 7.

A study entitled “Study of Crack Patterns in Beam Column Joint Due to Upwards

Anchoring Beam Effect” published in 2018 by Bambang Sabariman and Mochamad

Firmansyah Sofianto focused on the analysis of crack patterns and displacement ductility

of beam-column joints with two different anchorage orientations namely upwards and

downwards. Two beam-column joint specimens, one with 90° hooked bars conventionally

placed pointing downwards while the other one was fabricated with 90° hooked bars

anchored upwards, were subjected to monotonic static loadings in a laboratory.

Figure 2.9
Details of upward and downward anchorage orientation

32
Note: Adapted from Study of Crack Patterns in Beam Column Joint Due to Upwards
Anchoring Beam Effect by Sabariman and Sofianto. 2018, p. 6.

The observed crack pattern for the beam-column joint reinforced with 90° hooked

bars anchored downwards exhibited the first cracks around the plastic hinges spreading to

the lower portion of the beam until it reaches the front part of the column and eventually

collapses. On the other hand, the beam-column joint specimen with an upward anchorage

orientation resulted with visibly longer crack patterns occurring at the joint region

ultimately at the connection of the section. The visual representation of the results for crack

pattern is shown below.

Figure 2.10
a) Crack Pattern of Downward Anchorage b) Crack Pattern of Upward Anchorage

Note: Adapted from Study of Crack Patterns in Beam Column Joint Due to Upwards
Anchoring Beam Effect by Sabariman and Sofianto. 2018, p. 8.
33
 In the calculation of the displacement ductility of the beam-column joint specimens,

the use of the formula 𝜇∆ = ∆𝑢/∆𝑦 was employed in order to compare computed values

with a ductility limit value of 𝜇∆ = 3.5. The established predicted maximum displacement

limit before failure was ∆ = 10.45 𝑚𝑚 resulting from a force P = 6.7658 ton, which was

exceeded by all the specimens which means that they are in safe condition to endure higher

displacements at a minimum of 13.15 mm acquired from a force amounting to P = 7.932

ton before ultimately collapsing. A graph consisting of the displacement values and M/M-

max of the two specimens was drawn to provide a comparison between the predicted values

and their corresponding results derived from laboratory experimentation. Based on the

findings, the displacement ductility value of the specimen with downward anchorage was

recorded to be 𝜇∆ = 3.164 which is closer to the threshold of 𝜇∆ = 3.5 while the other

specimen equipped with upward anchorage yielded a value of 𝜇∆ = 1.628. Thus, this only

proves that the conventional anchorage orientation of placing hooked bars pointing

downwards is significantly safer and appropriate for structures in contrary to using the

proposed upward anchorage orientation that exhibited failure at the joint region.

In 2020, researchers Gemechu Abdissa Diro and Worku Feromsa Kabeta conducted

research to explore the critical factors influencing joint shear failure in the context of

column axial load, beam longitudinal reinforcement ratio, joint panel geometry, and

concrete compressive strength. To achieve this, we conducted a nonlinear finite element

analysis of an interior beam-column connection within reinforced concrete subjected to

lateral loads using the ABAQUS software. We investigated various aspects of the joint's

shear failure mode, including joint shear capacity, deformations, and crack patterns. In

replicating concrete behavior, we employed a 3D solid model utilizing the 3D stress

34
hexahedral element type (C3D8R), while the behavior of reinforcement was simulated

using a wire-shaped model with truss-shaped elements (T3D2). The integration of concrete

and reinforcement bars was accomplished through the embedded modeling technique. To

accurately model the nonlinear properties of the concrete material, our numerical model

incorporated concrete damage plasticity (CDP) as a distributed plasticity applied uniformly

across the entire geometry.

As observed in Figure 2.11, the data produced by the ABAQUS software

demonstrated that, according to the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) results, the most

prominent factor influencing the prediction of joint shear failure was the concrete's

compressive strength at points B and C. The correlation between joint shear stress and the

square root of compressive strength displayed consistent patterns at critical points for both

interior and exterior connections. Enhancing the compressive strength of the concrete

resulted in an enhancement of the joint's shear resistance, arising from both the transfer of

forces to the joint panel through bearing (originating from the compression zones of the

beam and column) and the bonding between the reinforcement and the surrounding

concrete. Notably, joint shear stress exhibited comparable trends concerning the square

root of compressive strength at specific critical points in exterior connections.

35
Figure 2.11
Influence of concrete compressive strength

Note: Acquired from Finite Element Analysis of Key Influence Parameters in Reinforced
Concrete Exterior Beam Column Connection Subjected to Lateral Loading by Diro and
Kabeta. 2020, p. 7.

Also in 2020, a research study entitled “Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced

Concrete Interior Beam-Column Connection Subjected to Lateral Loading” conducted by

Gemechu Abdissat investigated the most influential parameters affecting joint shear failure

due to column axial load, beam longitudinal reinforcement ratio, joint panel geometry, and

concrete compressive strength. The ABAQUS software was utilized to conduct a nonlinear

finite element analysis of an interior beam-column connection in reinforced concrete when

subjected to lateral loads to explore the joint's shear failure mode by examining factors

such as joint shear capacity, deformations, and the pattern of cracks. A 3D solid model

employing the 3D stress hexahedral element type (C3D8R) was employed to replicate the

behavior of concrete, while a wire-shaped model utilizing truss-shaped elements (T3D2)

was utilized to simulate the behavior of reinforcement. The coupling of concrete and

reinforcement bars were achieved through the embedded modeling technique. To account

36
for the nonlinear characteristics of the concrete material, the numerical model incorporated

concrete damage plasticity (CDP) as a distributed plasticity applied across the entire

geometry.

Based on the data generated by ABAQUS software, the Finite Element Analysis

(FEA) results indicated that the primary determining factor in predicting joint shear failure

was the compressive strength of the concrete as shown in Figure 2.12. The relationship

between joint shear stress and the square root of compressive strength exhibited similar

patterns at specific critical points for both interior and exterior connections. The correlation

coefficient at point B was 0.876 and 0.969 for exterior connections, while it was 0.824 at

Point B and 0.832 at point C for interior connections. Elevating the concrete's compressive

strength triggered an enhancement in the joint's shear resistance, stemming from the

transmission of forces to the joint panel through bearing (derived from the compression

zones of both the beam and column) and the adhesion between the reinforcement and the

surrounding concrete.

Figure 2.12
Influence of concrete compressive strength

Note: Acquired from Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam
Column Connection Subjected to Lateral Loading by Abdissa. 2020, p. 8.

37
 In the study of Basem S. Abdelwahed, Mosbeh R. Kaloop and Waleed E.

Demerdash which is entitled Nonlinear Numerical Assessment of Exterior Beam-Column

Connections with Low-Strength Concrete (2021), the different effects of a three low-

strength concrete joint model for an exterior beam-column connection were examined

using finite element analysis. ABAQUS has been used in modeling a non-linear numerical

model for the beam-column connection. The joint models are classified as J1 for the

standard joint, J2 for the sub-standard joint with lack of joint stirrups, and J4 for the sub-

standard with no joint stirrups or proper joint anchorage. In using the models, the study

aims to determine the cracking, joint shear resistance, and the maximum joint capacity. In

addition, the study also wants to determine the comparison of numerical, empirical, and

analytical data to increase the reliability of the study.

The result of the ultimate strength capacity of the joint of a beam-column

connection considers two parameters, the dilation angle, and the mesh sizes. This study

wants to investigate the impact of different mesh sizes on the joint ultimate capacity of

concrete, various numerical models were developed with different element sizes of 35, 40,

45, and 50 mm. The initial crack pattern of the J1 specimen started with a flexural crack

at the top fibers of the beam near the face of the column. The element size, 40 mm,

produced a similar result with the experimental records with a first numerical cracking load

of 4.73 kN and a vertical displacement of 2.9 mm. Furthermore, the numerical and

experimental ultimate capacities of the specimen J1 were found to be close to each other

with 13.3 kN and 12.97 kN, respectively. On the other hand, the ultimate capacity of J2

and J4 specimen is 10.5 kN and 5.22 kN, which contains lesser value than the J1 specimen.

Among the three reference joints, the joint J1 has the highest ultimate carrying capacity,

38
where in the presence of the stirrups contributed greatly to reaching the yield limit of beams

longitudinal bars.

A recent study of 2022 conducted by Mohamed H. El-Naqeeb, Basem S.

Abdelwahed and Salah E. El-Metwally titled “Strength of Exterior Beam-Column

Connections Considering Column Axial Stress: Numerical Investigation” numerically

investigates the influence of the column axial stress level on the joint strength using the

nonlinear finite element analysis provided by ABAQUS. Connections have been modeled

under several column axial stress levels with different concrete strengths. This study

discovered that increasing the column axial stress level leads to a delay in the joint crack’s

initiation and therefore increases the joint strength. On the other hand, the column axial

stress level improves the joint shear strength up to a certain level depending on the concrete

strength. Afterwards, a reduction in the joint strength is observed. The improvement degree

in the capacity of joint under different axial stress levels should be related to the concrete

uniaxial strength. Results helped in the developing a proposed equation to give a better

prediction for the joint strength for exterior connections with L-bars.

In 2023, Hind T. Jaber, Kaiss F. Sarsam, and Bassman R. Muhammad conducted a

study entitled “Numerical Study on the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams”

using ABAQUS. The study examined the behavior of a simply supported beam under static

loadings through the software and compared these results to the data derived from

experimental testing. The researchers created various specimen model with different

dimensions to observe the difference of results in terms of the maximum load capacity and

deflection under point load application. These specimens have been modeled using

39
ABAQUS by inputting the proper material properties from the experimental testing data

for the concrete compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and Modulus of Elasticity.

Based on the results of the study, the data gathered from the finite element analysis

presented a satisfactory outcome in terms of overall behavior, failure mechanism, load-

deformation, and load capacity compared to the experimental test results. The ultimate load

capacity of the experimental test was 1.9% lower than the predicted result of the finite

element method. On the other hand, there is also a difference of 2.3% in terms of deflection

under ultimate loadings between experimental and numerical results. The Table 2.4 shows

the result of each specimen in terms of ultimate load and deflection at the midspan of the

beam, along with the difference ratio between experimental and finite element method.

Table 2.4
Summarizing the finite element results for all tested beams
Ultimate Load FE/EXP. Deflection at FE/EXP.
Observed
Beam Specimen (kN) Ultimate Midspan (mm) Deflectio
Failure Mode
EXP. FE load ratio EXP. FE n ratio
BA75*150-45-(3-8) 33.44 34.84 1.04 9.908 10 1.01 Diagonal
BA75*150-65-(3-8) 43.23 44.53 1.03 12.802 13 1.02 tension-shear
BA75*150-45-(4-8) 45 44 0.97 13.654 14 1.03 failure
BA75*150-65-(4-8) 46.52 47.5 1.02 15.526 15 0.97 Flexure failure
BB100*200-45-(2-10) 57.4 57.94 1.01 9.188 10 1.09
BB100*200-65-(2-10) 73.17 72 0.98 11.277 11 0.98
BB100*200-45-(3-10) 65.45 65.8 1.01 7.923 8 1.01 Diagonal
BB100*200-65-(3-10) 83.94 86.1 1.03 11.029 11 1 tension-shear
BC125*250-45-(2-12) 87.25 92 1.05 8.72 9 1.03 failure
BC125*250-65-(2-12) 120.1 118 0.98 11.956 12 1
BC125*250-45-(3-12) 102.6 105 1.02 8.55 9 1.05
BC125*250-65-(3-12) 157.3 158.2 1.01 13.424 13.5 1
BD150*300-45-(2-16) 161.2 166 1.03 9.707 10 1.03
BD150*300-65-(2-16) 171.2 174 1.02 10.8 10.3 0,95
BD150*300-45-(3-16) 200.5 206 1.03 10.77 11 1.02
BD150*300-65-(3-16) 285.1 280 0.98 7.011 7 1
Note: Acquired from Table 2 of the study Numerical Study on the Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beam using ABAQUS by Jaber et. al., p. 3-4.

40
2.3. Synthesis and Justification

With respect to the objectives and findings of the related studies presented dating

from 2012 to 2023, the researchers aim to investigate the behavior of beam-column

connections with regards to different bar placements and anchorage orientation. Spacing

of hooked bars and its location with respect to column longitudinal reinforcement will also

be analyzed in the study. In addition to these, hooked bars with 90-degree bend angle will

be used in the samples of hooked bars subjected to analysis. Anchorage and flexural

strength of the beam with modified placements and orientations of rebar will be determined

using Finite Element Analysis generated by ANSYS software in comparison with the

design provisions of the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015.

The researchers believe that it is necessary to conduct this study for the purpose of

contributing a more efficient anchorage design for beam-column connections through the

determination of the most optimal reinforcement configuration based on anchorage

strength and flexural strength of joints considering various placements (inside and outside

the column longitudinal reinforcement) of 90° hook bars and diverse orientation of

anchorage (downwards, inwards, and outwards). It appears that the aforementioned factors

to be evaluated in this study were not accounted for in the formulation of design provisions

for anchorage in structural codes, particularly, NSCP 2015. The findings of this study will

provide better understanding of beam-column connections which is one of the most critical

sections of a structure. This research will be of significance to the construction industry in

building safer and stronger structures in the Philippines and in the development of better

guidelines in structural codes.

41
 Chapter 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This chapter presents the methods used to provide a comparative study of beam-

column connections with reinforced concrete beams having various and tension anchorage

orientation and placement relative to its adjacent column using Finite Element Analysis

provided by ANSYS. It is composed of the research method, research design, research

setting, data gathering procedure, and data gathering instruments that will be utilized in the

study.

3.1 Research Method

Specifically, the study will engage in the following procedures:

1. Examine the relationship between beam reinforcement and capacity of

connection (anchorage strength), using a reference beam.

a. Prior to modifications 90° hooked bars placement and orientation, the

researchers will use a reference beam as a baseline for various

reinforcement configurations to be used.

b. The study will use the same columns parameters to show significant

results from different reinforcement bar modifications in beams and

anchorage strength.

42
2. Design diverse beam reinforcement configurations using the reference

beam as the basis.

a. Relative to the reference beam, the researchers will design various

beams with varying placement of 90° hook bars with reference to the

column longitudinal reinforcement bars.

b. The researchers will also subject those beam designs to have different

tension anchorage orientation compared to the conventional practices

used on anchorage.

3. Conduct the Finite Element Analysis to determine the relative effects of

each arrangement compared to the reference beam.

a. The researchers will conduct a Finite Element Analysis on the reference

beam and the beams subjected to reinforcement configurations.

b. Monotonic loading will be imposed upon each beam design to

determine the relative effects of each reinforcement configuration to the

beam-column connection.

4. Identify the most optimal reinforcement configuration concerning the

strength of beam-column connections.

a. The resulting data from the Finite Element Analysis will be used to

determine the most optimal reinforcement configuration concerning the

strength of the beam-column connections.

b. The result of the study will serve as a reference for the development of

design guidelines for the NSCP 2015 for anchorage strength and beam

reinforcement bar arrangements.

43
3.2 Research Design

The researchers will implement a quantitative research design for this study. The

researchers will use the software ANSYS to conduct a Finite Element Analysis to provide

comparative study of beam-column connections with reinforced concrete beams having

different anchorage placement and tension anchorage orientation relative to its adjacent

column. The results will be utilized to find the best reinforcement configuration for the

strength of beam-column connections.

3.3 Research Setting

The study, from data-collection to analysis, will be conducted on the 2nd Semester

of the academic year 2023-2024 at the Tarlac State University in the Philippines. The

design procedure to be used in the modeling of the reinforced beam-column connection

would be based on the NSCP 2015.

3.4 Data Gathering Procedure

This section provides a description of the parameters that will be used in the model

to be employed and an explanation of the method used in the modelling process of the

reinforced beam-column connections, along with the software that will be used for the

finite element analysis to acquire the required data to determine the tension anchorage

strength of the proposed reinforcement configuration.

44
Beam-to-Colum Samples

The researchers will utilize a single span reinforced concrete beam, bounded by

two reinforced concrete columns to represent a beam-column connection, designed

accordingly based on NSCP 2015 guidelines.

Description of Parameters of the FEA Models

This section presents the data and parameters that will be utilized in developing the

models to determine the tension anchorage strength of reinforced beam-column

connections. The researchers will model reinforced beam-column frames using rectangular

sections and varying reinforcement configurations and arrangement.

A. Finite Element Analysis

a. Open ANSYS Workbench and drag static structural.

b. Select engineering data and create materials such as concrete, reinforcing bar

and stirrups.

c. Define the density, Young’s Modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ratio, yield

strength and Tangent Modulus of each material under engineering data.

d. Go back to ANSYS Workbench and select geometry.

e. Sketch the designed dimension of beam-column connection along with the

reinforcing bars adjacent to the anchorage orientation and stirrups.

f. Go back to ANSYS Workbench and open the model.

g. Change the material property of each material under geometry through material

assignment.

h. Create a mesh of the model.

45
 i. Set boundary conditions at the bottom of the column.

j. Set transverse monotonic loadings.

k. Under solution insert Total Deformation and Equivalent Stress.

l. Run the automatic solver.

m. View the results for deformation, stress, and failure.

3.5 Data Gathering Instrument

Microsoft EXCEL would be used for plotting the results of the Finite Element

Analysis provided by ANSYS and for visualizing the effects of the various parameters set

by the researchers regarding 90° hook bar placement, tension anchorage orientation, and

load application.

Furthermore, the capacity of the beam-column connection having different

reinforcement configurations would also be represented by utilizing Microsoft EXCEL in

terms of their anchorage strength and mode of failure provided by ANSYS.

46