ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 104-S45

Cyclic Load Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

Beam-Column Subassemblages of Modern Structures
by Alexandros G. Tsonos

The seismic performance of four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages (A1, E1, E2, and G1) had the same general
subassemblages is examined. All subassemblages were typical of new and cross-sectional dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1.
structures and incorporated full seismic details in current building Subassemblages E1, E2, and G1 had the same longitudinal
codes, such as a weak girder-strong column design philosophy.
The subassemblages were subjected to a large number of inelastic
column reinforcement, eight bars with a diameter of 14 mm,
cycles. The tests indicated that current design procedures could while the longitudinal column reinforcement of A1 consisted of
sometimes result in excessive damage to the joint regions. eight bars with a diameter of 10 mm (0.4 in.). The longitudinal
column reinforcement of A1 was lower than that of the other
Keywords: beam-column frames; connections; cyclic loads; reinforced three subassemblages (E1, E2, and G1) due to the restrictions
concrete; structural analysis. of ACI 352R-026 for the column bars passing through the
joint. Subassemblages E1 and G1 had the same percentage
INTRODUCTION of longitudinal beam reinforcement (ρE1 = ρG1 = 7.7 × 10–3)
The key to the design of ductile moment-resisting frames and Subassemblages A1 and E2 also had the same percentage
is that the beam-to-column connections and columns must of longitudinal beam reinforcement (ρA1 = 5.23 × 10–3 and
remain essentially elastic throughout the load history to ρE2 = 5.2 × 10–3), but different from the percentage of E1 and
ensure the lateral stability of the structure. If the connections G1. The longitudinal beam reinforcement of A1 consisted of
or columns exhibit stiffness and/or strength deterioration four bars with a diameter of 10 mm, while the beam reinforce-
with cycling, collapse due to P-Δ effects or to the formation ment of E2 consisted of two bars with a diameter of 14
of a story mechanism may be unavoidable.1,2 mm. Subassemblage A1 had smaller beam reinforcing bars
Four one-half scale beam-column subassemblages were than Subassemblage E2 due to the restrictions of ACI 352R-026
designed and constructed in turn, according to Eurocode 23
for the beam bars passing through the joint. The joint shear
and Eurocode 8,4 according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-02,6
reinforcements of the subassemblages used in the experiments,
and according to the new Greek Earthquake Resistant
Code7 and the new Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced are as follows: Ø6 multiple hoop at 5 cm for Subassemblage A1
Concrete Structures.8 (Fig. 1(a)), Ø6 multiple hoop at 5 cm for Subassemblage E1,
The subassemblages were subjected to cyclic lateral load (Fig. 1(b)), Ø6 multiple hoop at 4.8 cm for Subassemblage E2
histories so as to provide the equivalent of severe earthquake (Fig. 1(a)) and Ø8 multiple hoop at 10 cm for Subassemblage G1
damage. The results indicate that current design procedures (Fig. 1(b)). All subassemblages incorporated seismic details.
could sometimes result in severe damage to the joint, despite The purpose of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 was to
the use of a weak girder-strong column design philosophy. represent details of new structures. As is clearly demon-
strated in Fig. 1(a) and (b), all the subassemblages had high
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE flexural strength ratios MR. The purpose of using an MR ratio
Experimental data and experience from earthquakes indicate (sum of the flexural capacity of columns to that of beam(s))
that loss of capacity might occur in joints that are part of significantly greater than 1.00 in earthquake-resistant
older reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures.9-12 There is constructions is to push the formation of the plastic hinge in
scarce experimental evidence and insufficient data, however, the beams, so that the safety (that is, collapse prevention) of
about the performance of joints designed according to the structure is not jeopardized.1,2,4-7,9,10,13 Thus, in all these
current codes during strong earthquakes. This research subassemblages, the beam is expected to fail in a flexural mode
provides structural engineers with useful information about during cyclic loading.
the safety of new RC frame structures that incorporate The concrete 28-day compressive strength of both
seismic details from current building codes. In some cases, Subassemblages A1 and E2 was 35 MPa (5075 psi), while the
safety could be jeopardized during strong earthquakes by concrete 28-day compressive strength of both Subassemblages
premature joint shear failures. The joints could at times E1 and G1 was 22 MPa (3190 psi). Reinforcement yield strengths
remain the weak link even for structures designed in accordance are as follows: Ø6 = 540 MPa (78 ksi), Ø10 = 500 MPa (73 ksi),
with current model building codes. and Ø14 = 495 MPa (72 ksi) (note: Ø6 [No. 2]), Ø10 [No. 3],
and Ø14 [No. 4]) are bars with a diameter of 6, 10, and 14 mm).
DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS—
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
were designed and constructed for this experimental and MS No. S-2006-230.R1 received June 21, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publi-
cation policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includ-
analytical investigation. Reinforcement details of the ing the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-
subassemblages are shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). All the June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

468 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 respect to static conditions leads to a moderate increase in
ACI member Alexandros G. Tsonos is a Professor of reinforced concrete structures,
Department of Structural Engineering, the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the strength of concrete
Thessaloniki, Greece. He received his PhD from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
in 1990. His research interests include the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete
2
structures, structural design, fiber-reinforced concrete, seismic repair and rehabilitation
of reinforced concrete structures, and the seismic repair and restoration of monuments.
f c, dyn = [ 1.48 + 0.160 × log ε· + 0.0127 ( log ε· ) ] × f c, stat (1)

Approximately 10 electrical-resistance strain gauges were Scott et al.15 tested column subassemblages with various
bonded on the reinforcing bars of each subassemblage of amounts of hoop reinforcement under strain rates ranging
the program. from 0.33 × 10–5 sec–1 (static loading), to 0.0167 sec–1
(seismic loading). Their test results conformed with the
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND results obtained from Eq. (1).
LOADING SEQUENCE
The general arrangement of the experimental setup is Using the aforementioned expression, it is estimated that for
shown in Fig. 2(a). All subassemblages were subjected to a strain rate of ε· = 0.0167 sec–1, concrete strengths increase
11 cycles applied by slowly displacing the beam’s free end by approximately 20% (compared with the static one). An
according to the load history shown in Fig. 2(b) without expression similar to Eq. (1) can be found in the CEB code.16
reaching the actuator stroke limit. The amplitudes of the Thus, the strengths exhibited by Subassemblages A1, E1,
peaks in the displacement history were 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, E2, and G1 during the tests are somewhat lower than the
45, 50, 55, 60, and 65 mm. One loading cycle was performed strengths they would exhibit if subjected to load histories
at each displacement amplitude. An axial load equal to 200 kN similar to actual seismic events.
was applied to the columns of the subassemblages and kept
constant throughout the test. The experimental loading EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
sequence used is a typical one, commonly used in previous Failure mode of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1
studies.1,11,13 It was not the objective of this study to investigate The failure mode of Subassemblages A1 and E2, as
the effect of other, nonstandard loading histories on the expected, involved the formation of a plastic hinge in the
response of the subassemblages. beam at the column face. The formation of plastic hinges
As previously mentioned, all the subassemblages were loaded caused severe cracking of the concrete near the fixed beam end
slowly. The strain rate of the load applied corresponded to of each subassemblage (Fig. 3). The behavior of Subassem-
static conditions. In the case of seismic loading, the strain blages A1 and E2 was as expected and as documented in the
rate ε· is higher than the rate corresponding to static conditions. seismic design philosophy of the modern codes as will be
Soroushian and Sim14 showed that an increase in ε· with explain in the following.4-7

Fig. 1—Dimensions and cross-sectional details of: (a) Subassemblages A1 and E2; and (b) Subassemblages E1 and G1. (Note:
dimensions are in cm. 1 cm = 0.0394 in.)

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 469

Fig. 2—(a) General arrangement of experimental setup and
photograph of test setup (dimensions are in m; 1 m = 3.28 ft);
and (b) lateral displacement history. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

Fig. 4—Applied shear versus strain in beam-column joint

hoop reinforcement of: (a) Subassemblages A1 and E2;
and (b) Subassemblages E1 and G1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)

the joint hoop reinforcement for both subassemblages was

below the yield strain of 2.500με, which was in agreement with
the observed failure modes of Subassemblages A1 and E2.17
Fig. 3—Views of collapsed Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1. One difference between the failure modes of Subassemblages
A1 and E2 was that hairline cracks appeared in the joint region
Significant inelastic deformations occurred in the beams’ of E2, and partial loss of the concrete cover in the rear face of
longitudinal reinforcement in both Subassemblages A1 and E2 the joint of E2 took place during the three last cycles of loading
(strains of over 40.000με were obtained in the beams’ (ninth, tenth, and eleventh) when drift Angle R ratios
longitudinal bars), while joint shear reinforcement remained exceeded 4.5 while the joint region of Subassemblage A1
elastic. Figure 4(a) shows strain gauge data of joint hoop remained intact at the conclusion of the test (refer to Fig. 3).
reinforcement for both Subassemblages A1 and E2. As is The connections of both Subassemblages E1 and G1,
clearly shown in Fig. 4(a), the maximum strain recorded in contrary to expectations, exhibited shear failure during the

470 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 5—Maximum strain during each cycle of loading in
beam longitudinal reinforcement of Subassemblages A1, E1,
E2, and G1.

Fig. 6—Gradual cracking configuration of Subassemblage E1

during test.

early stages of cyclic loading. Damage occurred both in the

joint area and in the columns’ critical regions. Figure 4(b)
shows strain gauge data for the joint hoop reinforcement for
Subassemblages E1 and G1. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the
maximum strain recorded in the joint hoop reinforcement of
both Subassemblages E1 and G1 was significantly higher
than the yield strain 2.500 με. Joint shear damage has been Fig. 7—Hysteresis loops of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and
shown to occur after yielding of the joint hoop reinforcement, G1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
which is in agreement with the damage observed in the joints
of these subassemblages.18 The maximum strain recorded in A major concern in the seismic design of RC structures is
the longitudinal bars of the beams of both Subassemblages the ability of members to develop their flexural strength before
E1 and G1 was below 2.500με (refer to Fig. 5). In Fig. 6, the failing in shear. This is especially true for members framing
progression of cracking of Subassemblage E1 during the test at a beam column joint (beams and columns), where it is
is demonstrated. important to develop their flexural strengths before joint
shear failure. Moreover, by designing the flexural strengths
Load-drift angle curves of columns in RC frame structures to meet the strong-column
Plots of applied shear force versus drift angles for all the weak-beam rule, all members against premature shear failure,
Subassemblages (A1, E1, E2, and G1) are shown in Fig. 7. and by detailing plastic hinge (critical) regions for ductility,
The beam calculated flexural capacities of the subassemblages RC frame structures have been shown to exhibit a controlled
are shown as dashed lines in Fig. 7. and very ductile inelastic response.2,4,9

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 471

 As can be seen in Fig. 7, the beam of Subassemblage A1 Table 1—Comparison of joint of Subassemblage A1
developed maximum shear forces higher than those corre- design parameters with ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026
sponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the sixth cycle hbeam/
of loading. This is an indication of the flexural response of column bar
2
this beam because it developed its flexural strength until a Subassemblage γ ldh, cm Ash, cm sh, cm diameter MR
drift Angle R ratio of 4.0 was reached and exceeded. Also, a 0.67 < 17 (15.65)* 0.95 5.0 30 1.72
A1
flexural failure was observed for this beam, caused by (1.0)*† (17)† (0.66)*† (5.0)*† (23.80)† (1.20)*†
crushing of the concrete cover of the longitudinal reinforcement, *
Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ACI 318-05.5
and subsequent inelastic buckling of the longitudinal bars. †
Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ACI 352R-02.6
The beam of Subassemblage E2 also developed maximum Note: γ is shear strength factor reflecting confinement of joint by lateral members, ldh
is development length of hooked beam bars, Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse
shear forces higher than those corresponding to its ultimate steel in joint, and sh is spacing of transverse reinforcement in joint. Numbers outside
flexural strength until the eleventh upper half cycle of loading parentheses are provided values. 1 cm = 0.394 in.
and until the seventh lower half cycle of loading. In particular,
during the final cycles of loading beyond drift Angle R ratios
of 4.5 when large displacements were imposed, crushing of Table 2—Comparison of joints of Subassemblages
the concrete cover of the reinforcement took place and the E1 and E2 design parameters with Eurocode 84 and
beam’s hoops could not provide adequate support to the longi- Eurocode 23
tudinal reinforcement. As a result, buckling of the beam longi- Ash, Asv , lb,net, sw ,
tudinal reinforcement in Subassemblages A1 and E2 occurred Subassemblage Vjh, kN cm2 cm2 dbl , mm MR cm cm
after the sixth and seventh cycles of loading, respectively. 126 < 6.85 3.08 14 2.60
The beam of Subassemblage E1 developed maximum E1 45 (43)† 5 (5)*
(168)* (2.85)* (1.06)* (9.15)* (1.20)*
shear forces very close to those corresponding to its ultimate 75.6 < 6.85 3.08 14 3.30
flexural strength only during the second and third cycle of E2 45 (32)† 5 (5)*
(222)* (2.85)* (1.06)* (11.20)* (1.20)*
loading. For the remaining cycles (four through 11), the *Numbers inside parentheses are required values of Eurocode
8.4
premature joint shear failure did not allow the beam in this †
Numbers inside parentheses are required values of Eurocode 2.3
subassemblage to develop its flexural capacity (Fig. 6 and 7). Note: Vjh is horizontal joint shear force, Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse
steel of joint, Asv is vertical joint shear reinforcement, dbl is diameter of hooked beam
The premature joint shear failure of Subassemblage G1 bars (in both E1 and E2 setup recommended by EC8 and shown in Fig. 5 was applied), lb,net
also did not allow the beam in this subassemblage to develop is development length of hooked beam bars, and sw is spacing of transverse reinforcement
its flexural capacity. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the beam of of joint. Numbers outside parentheses are provided values. 1 m = 0.394in.; 1 mm =
0.039 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.
Subassemblage G1 developed maximum shear forces
significantly lower than those corresponding to its ultimate
flexural strength.
One of the basic provisions of all modern structural codes considerable loss of strength, stiffness, and unstable hysteretic
is to provide the structures with sufficient strength and sufficient behavior, but beyond drift Angle R ratios of 4.5 (Fig. 7).
ductility to undergo post-elastic deformations without losing Subassemblages E1 and G1, which exhibited premature joint
a large percentage of their strength.2,4,7,9 As can be seen in shear failure (refer to Fig. 3 and 7) showed a considerable loss of
Fig. 7, this criterion is fulfilled for Subassemblies A1 and E2. strength, stiffness, and unstable degrading hysteresis beyond
By contrast, it is not fulfilled for Subassemblies E1 and G1 drift Angle R ratios of 2.5 and 2.0%, respectively (Fig. 7).
because they exhibited significant loss of strength during
cyclic loading. CODE REQUIREMENTS
The beam-column Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 are Despite the fact that all the subassemblages were designed
similar to real modern frame structures. If the sequence in the according to their corresponding modern codes, two developed
breakdown of the chain of resistance of these real frame failure modes dominated by joint shear failure (Fig. 3). For
structures follows the desirable hierarchy during a catastrophic this reason, it is discussed how requirements of these codes
earthquake, the formation of plastic hinges in the beams of used for the design of the joints of Subassemblages A1,5,6 E1,
these structures would be expected, because the use of a E23,4 (for DC”M” structures), and G17,8 were satisfied.
weak girder-strong column design philosophy is adopted by Table 1 clearly indicates that the joint of A1 satisfied the
the modern codes.2,4,5,7,9 The aforementioned desirable design requirements of ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 for
failure mode (with formation of a plastic hinge in the beam) exterior beam-column joints for seismic loading.
was developed by Subassemblages A1 and E2. Thus, the Table 2 indicates that the joints of both E1 and E2 satisfied the
magnitude of loads resisted by Subassemblages A1 and E2 design provisions for exterior beam-column joints of
are consistent with the expected values from actual events. Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 for DC”M” structures.
Story drifts allowed by modern codes are on the order of 2% In both subassemblages, two 8 mm diameter short bars
of the story height.4,7,8 While it was reassuring that story were placed and were tightly connected on the top bends of
drifts of as much as 4% of the story height were achieved in the beam reinforcing bars and two on the bottom, running in
most reported tests referring to the seismic response of beam- the transverse direction of the joint, as shown in Fig. 5. This
column specimens, it should be remembered that drifts in is the setup recommended by Eurocode 8 when the requirement
excess of 2% are not likely to be readily accommodated in of limitation of beam bar diameter (dbl) to ensure appropriate
high rise frames. This is due to significant and detrimental anchorage through the joint is not satisfied (refer to Table 2).
influence of P-Δ phenomena on both lateral load resistance It was considered worthwhile, however, to determine the
and dynamic response.19 beam bar pull-out. Strain gauge measurements were used to
Subassemblages A1 and E2, which developed plastic determine beam bar pull-out. If the maximum strains in a
hinges in their beams (Fig. 3 and 7), showed stable hysteretic beam’s longitudinal bar during each two consecutive cycles
behavior up to drift Angle R ratios of 4.0. They showed a of loading remained the same or decreased, as long as buckling

472 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 Fig. 8—(a) Exterior beam-column joint; (b) internal forces around exterior beam-column
joint as result of seismic actions;10,12 (c) two mechanisms of shear transfer (diagonal concrete
strut and truss mechanism);10,12,19 and (d) forces acting in joint core concrete through
Section I-I from two mechanisms.27,28

Table 3—Comparison of joint of Subassemblage G1 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

design parameters with ERC-19957 and CDCS-19958 A new formulation published in recent studies20-26 predicts
the beam-column joint ultimate shear strength and was used in
Subassemblage Ash, cm2 lb,net, cm MR the present study to predict the failure modes of Subassemblages
G1 2.01 (2.01) *
45 (43) *
2.60 (1.40)† A1, E1, E2, and G1. A summary of this formulation is presented.
*Numbers inside parentheses are required values of CDCS-1995.8 Figure 8(a) shows an RC exterior beam-column joint for a
†
Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ERC-1995.7 moment resisting frame and Fig. 8(b) shows the internal
Note: Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse steel of joint and lb,net is forces around this joint.10,12 The shear forces acting in the
development length of hooked beam bars. Numbers outside parentheses are provided
values. 1 cm = 0.394 in. joint core are resisted partly by a diagonal compression strut
that acts between diagonally opposite corners of the joint
core (refer to Fig. 8(c)) and partly by a truss mechanism
of this bar had not taken place, it was concluded that a pull- formed by horizontal and vertical reinforcement and concrete
out of this bar had occurred.13,18 As shown in Fig. 5, the compression struts.10,12,19 The horizontal and vertical
beam’s longitudinal reinforcement in Subassemblages E1 reinforcement is normally provided by horizontal hoops in
and E2 maintained adequate anchorage throughout the tests the joint core around the longitudinal column bars and by
due to the short bars placed and tightly connected under the longitudinal column bars between the corner bars in the side
bends of a group of reinforcing bars (refer to Fig. 5). faces of the column.10,12,27 Both mechanisms depend on the
Table 3 also clearly indicates that the joint of G1 satisfied core concrete strength. Thus, the ultimate concrete strength
the design provisions for exterior beam-column joints of of the joint core under compression/tension controls the
both the new Greek codes.7,8 ultimate strength of the connection. After failure of the
The codes prescribe minimum MR values. So, as can be concrete, strength in the joint is limited by gradual crushing
seen from Tables 1 through 3, the minimum value for the MR along the cross-diagonal cracks and especially along the
ratio according to ACI 318-05 and ACI 352R-02, as well as potential failure planes (Fig. 8(a)).
according to Eurocode 8 (DC”M”), is 1.20.4-6 The minimum For instance, consider Section I-I in the middle of the joint
value for the MR ratio according to the new Greek Earthquake height (Fig. 8(a)). In this section, the flexural moment is
Resistant Code is 1.40.7 Thus, a good target MR for most almost zero. The forces acting in the concrete are shown in
structures is between 1.20 and 1.40. Fig. 8(d).27,28 Each force acting in the joint core is analyzed
Neither the New Greek Code for the Design of RC into two components along the x and y axes (Fig. 8(d)). The
Structures8 nor the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code7 values of Ti are the tension forces acting on the longitudinal
require limitations for the joint shear stress. Of course both of column bars between the corner bars in the side faces of the
these codes need to add requirements to limit joint shear stress. column. Their resultant is ΣTi. An equal and opposing

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 473

compression force (–ΣTi) must act in the joint core to balance fc = K × fc ′ (9a)
the vertical tensile forces generated in the reinforcement.
This compression force was generated by the resultant of the
vertical components of the truss mechanism’s diagonal Also, f ′c is the concrete compressive strength and K is a
compression forces D1, D2 …Dv.27 Thus, D1y + D2y + … + parameter of the model15 expressed as
Dvy = ΣTi = T1 + T2 + T3 + T4.27 The column axial load is
resisted by the compression strut mechanism.12 The summation ρ s × f yh
K = 1 + ----------------
- (9b)
of vertical forces equals the vertical joint shear force Vjv fc ′

D cy + ( T 1 + ... + T 4 ) = D cy + D sy = V jv where ρs is the volume ratio of transverse reinforcement and

↓ ↓ fyh is its yield strength.
compression strut truss model (2a) Substituting Eq. (5) through (7) into Eq. (8) and using τ =
γ f c gives the following expression
The summation of horizontal forces equals the horizontal
joint shear force Vjh 5
αγ
----------- ⎛ 1 + 1 + ------⎞ + --------- ⎛ 1 + -----
- – 1⎞ = 1
4 5αγ 4
(10)
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
D cx + ( D 1x + D 2x … + D vx ) = D cx + D sx = V jh (2b) 2 fc α fc α

Assume herein that

The vertical normal compressive stress σ and the shear
stress τ uniformly distributed over Section I-I are given by
αγ
Eq. (3) and (4) x = ----------- (11)
2 fc
D cy + D sy V jv
σ = ----------------------
- = -------------------
- (3) and
hc ′ × bc ′ hc ′ × bc ′

αγ 4
V jh
τ = -------------------
- (4) ψ = ----------- 1 + -----2- (12)
hc ′ × bc ′ 2 fc α

where h ′c and b ′c are the length and the width of the joint Then Eq. (10) is transformed into
core, respectively.
It is now necessary to establish a relationship between the 5
( x + ψ ) + 10ψ – 10x = 1 (13)
average normal compressive stress σ and the average shear
stress τ. From Eq. (3) and (4)
The solution of the system of Eq. (11) to (13) gives the
beam-column joint ultimate strength τult = γult f c (MPa).
V
σ = ------jv- × τ (5) This system is solved each time for a given value of the joint
V jh aspect ratio using standard mathematical analysis. The joint
ultimate strength τult depends on the increased joint concrete
It has been shown that compressive strength due to confining fc and on the joint
aspect ratio α. Thus, typical values of τult for comparison with
the values of ACI 318-05,5 ACI 352R-02,6 and Eurocode 84
V h
------jv- = ----b- = α (6) are not possible to derive. A particular value, however, for
V jh hc each joint would be calculated as in the following example.

where α is the joint aspect ratio.4,10,12 Example for Subassemblage A1

The principle (σI = maximum, σII = minimum) stresses are The value α = 1.5 and the solution of the system of Eq. (11)
calculated to (13) gives x = 0.1485 and y = 0.248; f ′c(A1) = 35 MPa,
K(A1) = 1.558 according to the Scott et al.15 model and
2 fc(A1) = K(A1) × f ′c(A1) = 54.53 MPa.
σ σ 4τ
σ I, II = --- ± --- 1 + -------- (7) Equation (11) gives
2 2 2
σ
2 ( 0.1458 ) 54.53
Equation (8)29 was adopted for the representation of the γ ult ( A1 ) = ------------------------------------------ = 1.46
1.5
concrete biaxial strength curve30 by a fifth-degree parabola
and finally τult(A1) = 1.46 54.53 MPa = 10.78 MPa (refer to
σ σ II 5
– 10 -----I + ------ = 1 (8) Table 4).
fc fc
COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND
where fc is the increased joint concrete compressive strength EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
due to confinement by joint hoop reinforcement, which is The proposed shear strength formulation can be used to
given by the model of Scott et al.15 according to the equation predict the failure mode of the subassemblages and thus the

474 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 4—Joint ultimate strength and ratios τpred /τexp study was the verification of the shear strength formulation
and γcal /γult for Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 presented herein for beam-column joints designed according
According to Park and
to modern codes.
According to proposed shear
Paulay10 strength formulation The horizontal joint shear stresses are mainly produced
Subassemblage τult , MPa τpred /τexp γcal /γult τult, MPa τpred /τexp γcal /γult
by the longitudinal beam reinforcement as clearly
described by Eq. (14). The longitudinal beam reinforcement of
A1 6.05 1.19 1.0 10.78 1.17 0.47
Subassemblages A1 and E2 was purposely chosen to
E1 8.94 1.31 1.0 6.92 1.19 1.08 produce low joint shear stresses during the tests, that is, a ratio
E2 5.96 1.24 1.0 10.78 1.20 0.46 τcal/τult = γcal/γult less than 0.5.
G1 8.34 1.28 1.0 6.60 1.19 1.04 Table 6 shows that γcal/γult is equal to 0.47 in Subassemblage
Note: 1 MPa = 144.93 psi. A1 (that is, lower than 0.5) and γcal/γult is equal to 0.46 in
Subassemblage E2 (that is, lower than 0.5). Thus, the formation
of a plastic hinge in the beams near the columns is expected
actual values of connection shear stress. Therefore, when the without any serious damage in the joint regions and, as a
calculated joint shear stress τcal is greater or equal to the joint result, there will be satisfactory performance for both
ultimate strength (τcal = γcal f c ≥ τult = γult f c ), then the Subassemblages A1 and E2. As predicted, both subassemblages
predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near failed in flexure, exhibiting remarkable seismic performance
τult(τult = γult f c ). This is because the connection fails (Fig. 3 and 7). Values τpred of A1 and E2, which are shown
earlier than the adjacent beam(s). When the calculated joint in Table 6, are equal to their τcal values (because γcal < γult)
shear stress τcal is lower than the connection ultimate and are significantly different from their τult values, which
strength (τcal = γcal f c < τult = γult f c ), then the predicted are shown in Table 4.
actual value of connection shear stress will be near τcal
because the connection permits its adjacent beam(s) to yield. The percentage of longitudinal beam reinforcement of
τult = γult f c is calculated from the solution of the system of Subassemblages E1 and G1 was purposely chosen to be
higher than that of Subassemblages A1 and E2 to produce
Eq. (11) to (13). The value of τcal is calculated from the
horizontal joint shear force assuming that the top reinforcement higher joint shear stresses than those corresponding to their
of the beam yields (Fig. 8(a)). In this case, the horizontal ultimate capacities. The joint region of E1, however, satisfied
all the design requirements of Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84
joint shear force is expressed as
and the joint regions of G1 satisfied all the design requirements
of the two Greek codes.7,8
V jhcal = 1.25A s1 × f y – V col (14) Table 6 also shows that for both Subassemblages E1 and
G1, the calculated joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c when the
where As1 is the top longitudinal beam reinforcement (Fig. 8(a)), beams reach their ultimate strength is higher than the joint
fy is the yield stress of this reinforcement, and Vcol is the ultimate capacity τult = γult f c . Therefore, the joints of both
column shear force (Fig. 8(a)). For Type 2 joints, the design these subassemblages will fail earlier than their beams
forces in the beam according to ACI 352R-026 should be according to the aforementioned methodology, because the
determined using a stress value of α × fy for beam longitudinal joints of both E1 and G1 reach their ultimate shear strength
reinforcement, where α = 1.25. during the tests before the beams reach their ultimate strength.
The improved retention of strength in the beam-column Thus, according to the aforementioned methodology, a joint
subassemblages, as the values of the ratio τcal/τult = γcal/γult shear failure is expected for both Subassemblages E1 and G1
decrease was also demonstrated. For τcal/τult = γcal/γult ≤ 0.50, without any serious damage in their beams and, as a result, the
the beam-column joints of the subassemblages performed performance of both subassemblages will not be satisfactory.
excellently during the tests and remained intact at the As expected, both Subassemblages E1 and G1 demonstrated
conclusion of the tests.20-26 premature joint shear failure starting from the early stages of
The validity of the formulation was checked using test seismic loading and damage concentrated mostly in this
data from more than 120 exterior and interior beam-column region (Fig. 3). As also predicted, both Subassemblages E1
subassemblages that were tested in the Structural Engineering and G1 exhibited poor seismic performance, which was
Laboratory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,20-26 as characterized by significant loss of strength, stiffness, and
well as data from similar experiments carried out in the U.S., energy dissipation capacity during the tests. Furthermore, the
Japan, and New Zealand.1,12,13,31-36 A part of this verification volume ratios of joint transverse reinforcement for Subassem-
is presented in Table 5 where the comparison is shown blages E1 and G1 were 0.025 and 0.017, respectively. Thus,
between experimental and predicted results by the preceding the joint of Subassemblage E1 was more confined than the
methodology for 39 exterior and interior beam-column joint joint of Subassemblage G1, which explains why the hysteretic
subassemblages from the literature. A very good correlation response of the former was better than that of the latter (Fig. 7).
is observed (Table 5). In Table 5, the limiting values of joint The concrete compressive strength significantly increases
shear stress according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 the joint ultimate strength τult. Thus, if the Subassemblages
(1.0 f c ′ MPa for exterior beam-column joints and 1.25 f c ′ E1 and G1 had higher values with concrete compressive
MPa for interior beam-column joints) are included for each strengths, they would have behaved as well as Subassemblages
reference subassemblage. In Table 5, the limiting values of A1 and E2. This would have happened for values with
joint shear stress according to Eurocode 84 (15τR MPa for concrete compressive strength of approximately 50 MPa,
exterior beam-column joints and 20τR MPa for interior which would have resulted in values of ratio γcal/γult lower
beam-column joints) are also included. than 0.5. The value of concrete 28-day compressive
The shear capacities of the connections of Subassemblages strengths of 22 MPa for both Subassemblages E1 and G1,
A1, E1, E2, and G1 were also computed using the aforemen- however, is acceptable for Eurocode 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and for
tioned methodology. One of the motivations behind this both Greek codes.7,8

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 475

Table 5—Experimental verifications
Joint Concrete
Type of aspect compressive Longitudinal Joint Predicted shear Observed
Sub- subassem- ratio strength f ′c, τACI, τEC8, beam bar fy , hoop fy , strength τpred, shear strength μ = τpred /
Reference assemblage blage * α = hb/hc MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa γcal γexp γult MPa τexp, MPa τexp
No. 1 E 1.00 31.10 5.58 7.80 391 250 0.78 0.88 0.92 4.46 5.03 0.89
No. 2 E 1.00 41.70 6.46 9.45 391 250 0.68 0.74 1.06 4.50 4.90 0.92
No. 3 E 1.00 41.70 6.46 9.45 391 250 0.68 0.67 1.06 4.50 4.43 1.01
No. 4 E 1.00 44.70 6.69 9.90 391 281 0.66 0.67 1.08 4.43 4.50 0.99
No. 5 E 1.00 36.70 6.06 8.63 391 281 0.74 0.69 0.99 4.50 4.20 1.07
No. 6 E 1.00 40.40 6.35 9.30 391 281 0.70 0.69 1.03 4.47 4.41 1.01
No. 7 E 1.00 32.20 5.67 7.95 391 250 0.77 0.82 0.93 4.47 4.76 0.94
No. 8 E 1.00 41.20 6.42 9.40 391 250 0.68 0.72 1.06 4.47 4.74 0.94
34
No. 9 E 1.00 40.60 6.37 9.30 391 250 0.69 0.67 1.05 4.51 4.40 1.03
No. 10 E 1.00 44.40 6.65 9.83 391 281 0.67 0.69 1.08 4.49 4.62 0.97
No. 11 E 1.00 41.90 6.47 9.48 391 281 0.69 0.70 1.05 4.49 4.55 0.99
No. 12 E 1.00 35.10 5.92 8.34 391 281 0.75 0.74 0.96 4.47 4.40 1.01
No. 13 E 1.00 46.40 6.81 10.16 391 250 0.64 0.64 1.12 4.47 4.47 1.00
No. 14 E 1.00 41.00 6.40 9.36 391 281 0.70 0.69 1.03 4.50 4.44 1.01
No. 15 E 1.00 30.70 5.54 7.74 391 281 0.71 0.74 1.02 3.95 4.12 0.96
No. 16 E 1.00 37.40 6.11 8.76 391 250 0.72 0.76 1.01 4.51 4.76 0.95
A1 I 1.14 40,20 7.93 12.33 1070 291 4.62 1.34 1.11 7.21 8.70 0.83
A2 I 1.14 40.20 7.93 12.33 409 291 1.76 1.23 1.11 7.21 7.99 0.90
A3 I 1.14 40.20 7.93 12.33 1070 291 4.62 1.34 1.11 7.21 8.70 0.83
A4 I 1.14 40.20 7.93 12.33 1070 291 4.48 1.33 1.14 7.62 8.88 0.86
33
B1 E 1.14 30.00 5.48 7.65 1070 291 2.68 0.93 0.96 5.39 5.22 1.03
B2 E 1.14 30.00 5.48 7.65 409 291 1.02 0,83 0.96 5.39 4.66 1.16
B3 E 1.14 30.00 5.48 7.65 1070 291 2.68 1.03 0.96 5.39 5.78 0.93
B4 E 1.14 30.00 5.48 7.65 1070 291 2.60 1.05 0.99 5.71 6.06 0.94
UNIT1 I 1.126 41.30 8.03 12.54 315 320 1.20 1.13 1.26 8.96 8.44 1.06
UNIT2 I 1.126 46.90 8.56 13.65 307 320 1.31 1.08 1.33 10.23 8.43 1.20
12
UNIT3 E† 1.126 38.20 6.18 8.70 473 321 1.17 0.90 1.09 7.06 5.85 1.21
UNIT4 E 1.126 38.90 6.23 8.55 473 321 2.32 0.90 1.11 7.29 5.91 1.23
SHC1 I 1.14 56.50 9.39 15.9 413 551 1.00 0.91 1.31 7.81 7.11 1.10
36 SHC2 I 1.14 59.50 9.64 16.5 413 551 0.97 0.91 1.36 7.90 7.41 1.07
SOC3 I 1.14 47.10 8.58 13.71 413 551 1.06 1.00 1.22 7.70 7.26 1.06
SP1 ठ1.33 30.70 5.54 7.74 347 0 0.90 0.78 1.03 4.99 4.32 1.15
E
SP2 E‡ 1.33 31.10 5.58 7.80 349 0 0.90 0.77 1.04 5.02 4.30 1.17
SP3 § 1.33 27.00 5.20 7.11 350 427 0.94 0.83 1.00 5.17 4.56 1.13
E
SP4 E§ 1.33 31.00 5.57 7.79 349 379 0.86 0.87 1.09 5.13 5.19 0.90
35
SP5 Eठ1.33 32.00 5.66 7.92 347 0 0.88 0.75 1.05 4.97 4.24 1.17
SP6 E 1.33 36.20 6.02 8.55 352 357 0.78 0.78 1.20 5.16 5.16 1.00
SP7 E 1.33 30.70 5.54 7.74 352 365 0.87 0.83 1.08 5.16 4.93 1.05
SP8 E 1.33 26.30 5.13 7.00 352 365 1.19 1.02 1.11 6.44 5.92 1.09
Total 39 Average 1.02
COV 0.10
*
I equals interior beam-column subassemblage; E equals exterior beam-column subassemblage.
†
Beam bars of UNIT3 were anchored in beam stub at far face of column.
‡Unreinforced joints.
§Subassemblages with one transverse beam for γ
cal < γult, γpred = γcal, τpred = τcal and for γcal ≥ γult, γpred = γult, τpred = τult.
Notes: τACI is the limiting values of joint stress according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-02;6 τEC8 is the limiting values of joint shear stress according to Eurocode 8.4 Neither relevant Greek
codes7,8 provide information regarding limiting values for joint shear stress. All subassemblages have flexural strength ratios MR higher than 1.0. Overstrength factor a = 1.25 for
beam steel is included in computations of joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c MPa. 1 MPa = 144.93 psi; 1.0 f c MPa = 12.05 f c psi.

476 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

 A question arises regarding how concrete slabs, which are Table 6—Experimental and predicted values of
typical in buildings, affect the performance of the joints of strength of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1
subassemblages such as A1, E1, E2, and G1. Ehsani and Joint
Wight31 found that “the flexural strength ratio MR at the aspect Predicted Observed
connections is reduced significantly due to the contribution Sub- ratio shear shear μ=
assem- α = strength strength τpred/ γcal/
of the slab longitudinal reinforcement.” They recommended γcal γexp γult τpred, MPa τexp, MPa τexp γult
blage hb/hc K
that, to ensure flexural hinging in the beam, flexural strength
A1 1.50 1.558 0.685 0.584 1.46 5.05 4.31 1.17 0.47
ratios should be no less than 1.20.31 The flexural strength
ratios of all the Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 tested in E1 1.50 1.593 1.26 0.98 1.17 6.92 5.80 1.19 1.08
this study were significantly higher than 1.20 (refer to Fig. 1(a) E2 1.50 1.558 0.675 0.554 1.46 5.00 4.10 1.20 0.46
and (b)); thus, the presence of a concrete slab would not have G1 1.50 1.50 1.20 0.96 1.15 6.60 5.56 1.19 1.04
had any influence on the response of these subassemblages. Notes: For γcal < γult, γpred = γcal, τpred = τcal and for γcal ≥ γult, γpred = γult, τpred = τult.
It would be of interest to learn whether simpler procedures 1 MPa = 144.93 psi; 1.0 f c MPa = 12.05 f c psi. Overstrength factor a = 1.25 for beam
for arriving to the beam-column joint ultimate strength such steel is included incomputations of joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c MPa.
as that proposed by Park and Paulay,10 would lead to similar
findings as those derived from the solution of the system of
3. It was demonstrated that the design assumptions of Euro-
Eq. (11) to (13). To this end, Table 4 presents the joint ultimate
code 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and those in the Greek codes7,8 did not
strength and ratios, τpred/τexp and γcal/γult for Subassemblages
avoid premature joint shear failures because the resulting
A1, E1, E2, and G1 according to the aforementioned procedures.
design can not ensure that the joint shear stress will be signif-
The ultimate joint shear strengths of Subassemblages A1, E1, icantly lower than the joint ultimate strength τult and did not
E2, and G1 derived from the solution of the system of Eq. (11) ensure the development of the optimal failure mechanism with
to (13) depend on the increased joint concrete compressive plastic hinges occurring in the beams while columns remained
strength due to confining fc, as well as on the joint aspect elastic, according to the requisite strong column-weak beam.
ratio α. These values differ significantly from those of Park Thus, provisions in Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 and those in
and Paulay,10 which mainly depend on the percentage of top the two Greek codes7,8 related to the design of beam-column
longitudinal beam reinforcement. Thus, Table 4 shows that joints need improvement.
the values of ultimate joint shear strengths of Subassemblages
A1 and E2 derived from the solution of the system of Eq. (11)
NOTATION
to (13) are higher than those of Subassemblages E1 and G1 ∅ = bar diameter
derived by the same methodology. This clearly explains why a = overstrength factor
the Park and Paulay10 values of ultimate joint shear strength b ′c = width of joint core
in Table 4 are larger than the values from Eq. (11) to (13) for f ′c = compressive strength of concrete
hb = total depth of beam
E1 and G1 and less than the values from Eq. (11) to (13) for h ′c = length of joint core
A1 and E2. Finally, as can be seen from Table 4, the proposed hc = total depth or width of square column
shear strength formulation predicted the failure mode for MR = sum of flexural capacity of columns to that of beam
Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 with significant accuracy, N = applied column axial load during test
Vjh = horizontal joint shear force
while the Park and Paulay10 procedure predicted only the Vjv = vertical joint shear force
failure mode of Subassemblages A1 and E2. α = hb/hc
γcal = design values of parameter [γcal = (τcal / f c )]
γexp = actual values of parameter [γexp = (τexp/ f c )]
CONCLUSIONS γult = values of parameter γ at ultimate capacity of connection [γult =
Based on the test results described in this paper, the (τult/ f c )]
following conclusions can be drawn. τ = joint shear stress
1. The behavior of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was as
expected and as documented in the seismic design philosophy REFERENCES
1. Leon, R. T., “Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior Beam-
of ACI 318-05,5 ACI 352R-02,6 and Eurocode 8.4 The beam- Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 3-11.
column joints of both Subassemblages A1 and E2 performed 2. Penelis, G. G., and Kappos, A. J., Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
satisfactorily during the cyclic loading sequence to failure, Structures, E&FN Spon, London, 1997, 572 pp.
allowing the formation of plastic hinges in their adjacent beams. 3. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC2, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1992-1-1),”
Both subassemblages showed high strength without any appre- CEN, Berlin, Germany, 1991, 61 pp.
ciable deterioration after reaching their maximum capacity; 4. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC8, “Eurocode 8: Earthquake Resistant
2. Despite the fact that Subassemblages E1 and G1 represented Design of Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV
beam-column subassemblages of contemporary structures, they 1998-1-1/2/3),” CEN, Berlin, Germany, 1995, 192 pp.
5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
performed poorly under reversed cyclic lateral deformations. Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
The joints of both Subassemblages E1 and G1, contrary to Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
expectations based on Eurocode 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and the two 6. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
Greek codes7,8 exhibited shear failure during the early stages Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
(ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
of cyclic loading. This happened because, for both Subas- 2002, 37 pp.
semblages E1 and G1, the calculated joint shear stress τcal 7. “New Greek Earthquake Resistant Code (ERC-1995),” Athens,
was higher than the joint ultimate strength τult (Table 6). Greece, 1995, 145 pp. (in Greek)
Damage occurred both in the joint area and in the columns’ 8. “New Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
(CDCS-1995),” Athens, Greece, 1995, 167 pp. (in Greek)
critical regions. This effect cannot be underestimated as it may 9. Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., “Seismic Load Tests on Interior
lead to premature lateral instability in ductile moment- and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details,”
resisting frames of modern structures; and ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 11-25.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 477

 10. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley Engineering, No. 1, 2001, pp. 48-64.
Publications, New York, 1975, 769 pp. 24. Tsonos, A. G., “Seismic Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete
11. Park, R., “A Summary of Results of Simulated Seismic Load Tests Joints by the Removal and Replacement Technique,” Journal of European
on Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Beams and Columns with Earthquake Engineering, No. 3, 2001, pp. 29-43.
Substandard Reinforcing Details,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 6, 25. Tsonos, A. G., “Seismic Repair of Exterior R/C Beam-to-Column
No. 2, 2000, pp. 147-174. Joints using Two-Sided and Three-Sided Jackets,” Structural Engineering
12. Paulay, T., and Park, R., “Joints of Reinforced Concrete Frames and Mechanics, V. 13, No. 1, 2002, pp. 17-34.
Designed for Earthquake Resistance,” Research Report 84-9, Department 26. Tsonos, A. G., “Effectiveness of CFRP-Jackets and RC-Jackets in Post-
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Earthquake and Pre-Earthquake Retrofitting of Beam-Column Subassem-
Zealand, 1984, 71 pp. blages,” Final Report, Grant No. 100/11-10-2000, Earthquake Planning and
13. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., “Exterior Reinforced Concrete Protection Organization (E.P.P.O.), Sept. 2003, 167 pp. (in Greek).
Beam-to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,” 27. Paulay, T., “Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 492-499. Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 635-643.
14. Soroushian, P., and Sim., J., “Axial Behavior of Reinforced Concrete 28. Park, R., “The Paulay Years,” Recent Developments in Lateral Force
Columns under Dynamic Loads,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 6, Transfer in Buildings, SP-157, N. Priestley, M. P. Collins, and F. Seible,
Nov.-Dec. 1986, pp. 1018-1025. eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, pp. 1-30.
15. Scott, B. D.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Stress-Strain Behavior 29. Tegos, I. A., “Contribution to the Study and Improvement of Earth-
of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain quake-Resistant Mechanical Properties of Low Slenderness Structural
Rates,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1982, pp. 13-27. Elements,” PhD thesis, Appendix 13, V. 8, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
16. CEB-FIP, “Model Code 1990,” Bulletin d’ Information, CEB, Lausanne, 1984, pp. 185. (in Greek)
Switzerland, 1993, 490 pp. 30. Kupfer, H.; Hilsdorf, H. K.; and Rusch, H., “Behavior of Concrete
17. Mitchel, D., “Controversial Issues in the Seismic Design of Connections under Biaxial Stresses,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 8, Aug.
in Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Recent Developments in Lateral Force 1969, pp. 656-667.
Transfer in Buildings, SP-157, N. Priestley, M. P. Collins, and F. Seible, 31. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., “Effect of Transverse Beams and
eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, pp. 75-96. Slab on Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections,”
18. Ehsani, M. R.; Moussa, A. E.; and Vallenilla, C. R., “Comparison of ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1985, pp. 188-195.
Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Ordinary- and High-Strength Concrete 32. Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., “Behavior of Interior Beam-to-Column
Frames,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1987, pp. 161-169. Connections under Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
19. Paulay, T., “Seismic Behavior of Beam-Column Joints in Reinforced V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 343-349.
Concrete Space Frames, State-of-the Art Report,” Proceeding of the Ninth 33. Fujii, S., and Morita, S., “Comparison Between Interior and Exterior
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. VIII, Tokyo, Japan, RC Beam-Column Joint Behavior,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for
1988, pp. 557-568. Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute,
20. Tsonos, A. G., “Towards a New Approach in the Design of R/C Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 145-166.
Beam-Column Joints,” Technika Chronika, Scientific Journal of the Technical 34. Kaku, T., and Asakusa, H., “Ductility Estimation of Exterior Beam-
Chamber of Greece, V. 16, No. 1-2, 1996, pp. 69-82. Column Subassemblages in Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Design of
21. Tsonos, A. G., “Shear Strength of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed.,
Beam-to-Column Connections for Seismic Resistant Structures,” Journal American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 167-185.
of European Association for Earthquake Engineering, No. 2, 1997, pp. 54-64. 35. Uzumeri, S. M., “Strength and Ductility of Cast-in-Place Beam-Column
22. Tsonos, A. G., “Lateral Load Response of Strengthened Reinforced Joints,” Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American
Concrete Beam-to-Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1977, pp. 293-350.
Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 46-56. 36. Attaalla, S. A., and Agbabian, M. S., “Performance of Interior Beam-
23. Tsonos, A. G., “Seismic Retrofit of R/C Beam-to-Column Joints Column Joints Cast from High Strength Concrete Under Seismic Loads,”
using Local Three-Sided Jackets,” Journal of European Earthquake Journal of Advances in Structural Engineering, V. 7, No. 2, 2004, pp. 147-157.

478 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007