4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Taipei, Taiwan
October 12-13, 2006

Paper No. 092



EVALUATION OF MECHANICAL ANCHORAGE OF ECCENTRIC
REINFORCED CONCRETE EXTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS
SUBJECTED TO CYCLIC LOADING


Hung-Jen Lee
1
Si-Ying Yu
2
and Jen-Wen Ko
3



ABSTRACT

This paper presents the cyclic responses of eight reinforced concrete exterior beam-column joints,
namely, four concentric and four eccentric joints, which are subjected to in-plane lateral displacement
reversals. The specimen variables are joint eccentricity, joint aspect ratio, and anchorage of the beam
bars terminating within the joint. Four joints used traditional reinforcement for the beam longitudinal
bars with standard 90-degree hooks anchored in the joint. The other four connections used headed
reinforcement consisting of screw-deformed bars and mechanical anchorage devices to improve the
anchorage of the beam bars, the constructability of steel cages, and the seismic performance of
connections. Performance of the beam-column joints are evaluated and compared with each other.
The behavior of joints with mechanical anchorage devices are as good as, or better than those
companion joints with 90-degree hooks. Use of double mechanical devices could avoid push-out
failure of the beam bar embedded in the joint, and further improve the ductility and energy
dissipation capacity. Joint eccentricity between the beam and column centerlines had detrimental
effects on the seismic performance of beam-column joints. Current ACI design produces for
estimating the nominal joint shear strength are not capable of preventing the test joints from shear
failure at large drift levels. Rather than ACI traditional cross-sectional approach, the proposed strut-
and-tie modeling agreed better with the test results. Experimental verification is provided to help
further understand the behavior of beam-column joints.

Keywords: beam-column; headed reinforcement; eccentric; joint; seismic design; shear; strut


INTRODUCTION

The current ACI design methods for beam-column connections are given in ACI 318-05 Building
Code Sec. 21.5 and its companion report of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002). In these
procedures, the nominal joint shear strength is calculated on the effective cross-sectional area within a
joint computed from joint depth multiplied to effective joint width. The effects of the columns aspect
ratio and joint eccentricity are considered by limiting or reducing the effective joint width. Joint
eccentricities between the beam and column centerlines are common in building frames for
architectural reasons. Because relatively few experimental programs of eccentric beam-column
connections have been verified to date, more experimental studies in this area are needed.

For the beam bars terminated in the exterior or corner joints, the use of standard hooks usually results
in congestion with column lateral reinforcement (Fig. 1). The use of headed reinforcement in place of

1
Assistant Professor, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan, leehj@yuntech.edu.tw
2
Former Graduate Research Assistant, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan.
3
PhD Student, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
standard hooks in joints is a viable option (Wallace 1997). Wallace et al. (1998) have shown that the
application of headed reinforcement within exterior or corner beam-column joints is appropriate.
Headed reinforcement refers to the process of reinforcing a bar terminated with a head or end anchor
plate. Figure 2 shows one type of headed reinforcement consisting of screw-deformed bars and
mechanical anchorage devices. The mechanical device is a cast iron forming an anchor plate with a
screw nut. The screw-deformed bar is a reinforcing bar with rolled-on deformations forming a screw
for mechanical connection and anchorage. Hence, the mechanical device can be screwed onto the bar
to provide a head. Because the rolled-on screws are quite loose, a nonshrink, high-strength mortar is
grouted into the mechanical device and around the bar using an injector. The outer diameter of an
anchor plate is
b
d 5 . 2 (
b
d is the nominal diameter of the bar). As a result, the net bearing area of an
anchor plate, or net head area
nh
A , is 5.25 times the nominal bar area
b
A . Clearly, the use of headed
reinforcement provides a promising way to solve the problem of reinforcement congestion in beam-
column joints.

Figure 1. Reinforcement congestion of an Figure 2. Mechanical devices for anchorage
eccentric beam-column corner joint of screw-deformed bars

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Test specimens

This paper selected eight joint specimens, four concentric and four eccentric specimens, from two
individual test series (Ko 2005 and Yu 2006). Figure 3 illustrates the test matrix, designation, and
reinforcing details of the test specimens. The primary specimen variables are the direction of shear,
joint eccentricity, and anchorage details of the beam bar within the joint. The test program was
designed to model the behavior of a corner beam-column joint isolated from a lateral-force-resisting
frame. A T-shaped assembly was chosen to represent a beam framing into a rectangular column. The
prototype corner column had a cross section of 400x600 mm, and it used 12 D22 longitudinal bars and
D10 hoops with crossties at a spacing of 100 mm throughout the column. Using a concrete
compressive strength of 30 MPa and a reinforcement of a specified yield strength of 420 MPa, the
column lateral reinforcement was designed to meet the minimum requirement in ACI Code Sec. 21.4.4.
The loading beam, which was anticipated to develop a plastic hinge adjacent to the column, had a
cross-section of 300x450 mm, and it used four D22 longitudinal bars (steel ratio of 1.29%) at both top
and bottom. Closed overlapping hoops were provided through the length of the beam to avoid beam
shear failure. Transverse beams and floor slabs were neglected to ease specimen construction and
testing.

The first group (Group A) was designed to investigate the strength of a corner joint subjected to shear
in a strong or weak direction with or without joint eccentricities. The first character (S or W) of the
designation represents the direction of the loading beam framing into the joint (South/strong or
West/weak). The subsequent numerals denote the eccentricity between the beam and column
centerlines in mm. All four joint specimens in Group A used traditional reinforcing details. The beam
longitudinal bars used a standard 90-degree hook bent into the joint which was embedded as close as
possible to the back of the joint. Leaving a 70 mm back cover behind the hook, the development
lengths measured from the beam-column interface were equal to
b
d 24 for specimen S0 and S50, but
b
d 15 for specimen W0 and W150. The development length for specimen W0 and W150 was designed
to meet the minimum requirement in ACI. Sec. 21.5.4.1.

Following testing and evaluation of the behavior of the first group, the second group (Group B) was
constructed to investigate the behavior of joints with mechanical anchorage. The design of specimen
in Group B duplicated the design of specimen W0 and W150 in Group A, except for the use of
mechanical anchorage for beam longitudinal bars. Specimen designation -M1 or -M2 denotes single or
double mechanical device on the beam bar terminating in the joint (Fig. 3). Figure 2 depicts the
mechanical anchorage device for screw-deformed bars used in Group B specimens. For comparison
with specimen W0 and W150, the embedded length of the headed bar within the joint is
b
d 15 , which
left a 70 mm concrete cover behind the end anchor plate.

Group A
Traditional
Reinforcement
Group B
Headed
Reinforcement
J oint Concentric Eccentric Anchorage
S0
W0
S50
W150
W0-M1
W0-M2
W150-M1
W150-M2

Figure 3. Test matrix and specimen designations

Material properties

Table 1 summarizes the material properties at testing date. Eight joint specimens were cast using four
batches of concrete with the same mix proportions. For the target design strength of 30 MPa, the
variation of the test-day concrete strengths within each batch is small. Thus, the average values for
test-day concrete strengths are presented in Table 1. Two sizes of reinforcement meeting ASTM A706
were used for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the test program. Group A used traditional
deformed bars with standard hooks within the joint, and Group B used screw-deformed bars with
mechanical anchorage devices for beam bars terminated in the joint. Lateral reinforcement with the
same properties was used in all specimens.

Testing method

To restrain the column from twisting along the column axis, each T-shaped joint specimen was rotated
90 degrees for test setup, as shown in Fig. 4. The column was tied down with reaction steel beams,
cover plates, and rods. Four one-dimensional rollers were seated beside the column to allow in-plane
rotation at both ends of the column. Specimens were loaded first by a column axial load of 0.1
c g
f A ,
which was manually held constant during testing. Then a typical lateral displacement history
consisting of three cycles at monotonically increasing drift levels (0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, and 8%) was applied using a displacement-controlled actuator in a quasi-static manner. Target
displacement amplitudes at the beam tip, , were computed using the following equation:

c b c
h . L L 5 0

ratio Drift
+
= = (1)
where = inter-story drift of a prototype building frame; =
b
L length of the beam measured from the
critical section to the actuator centerline; =
c
L length of the column between two roller supports; and
=
c
h full depth of column in the direction of joint shear to be considered.

Table 1. Material properties
Group Batch Specimen
Average
c
f
at testing date
Longitudinal
reinforcement
Lateral
reinforcement
S0
1
S50
33.2 MPa
W0
A
2
W150
29.5 MPa
5 . 454 =
y
f MPa
4 . 682 =
u
f MPa
W0-M1
3
W0-M2
30.7 MPa
W150-M1
B
4
W150-M2
35.8 MPa
3 . 473 =
y
f MPa
1 . 667 =
u
f MPa
3 . 471 =
y
f MPa
3 . 715 =
u
f MPa
R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

w
a
l
l

Figure 4. Test setup

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Cyclic loading response and failure modes

Figure 5 display the load-displacement curves and final crack patterns for specimens in Group A. All
specimens exhibited beam yielding in the 1.5% drift cycle, and then the development of the
anticipated beam plastic hinge in subsequent cycles. After beam yielding, the strength of each test
specimen continued to increase due to the strain hardening of the reinforcement, but it was limited by
failure in either the beam plastic hinge region or the joint region.

The cyclic loading responses of specimens S0 and S50 are very similar with fatter loops, which are
typical responses of flexure-dominated systems. Core concrete crushing and subsequent buckling of
longitudinal bars in the beam plastic hinge region terminated the tests of specimens S0 and S50 in the
6% and 5% drift cycle, respectively. Only a few hairline diagonal shear cracks and minor concrete
cover spalling appeared on the east face of the joint (Fig. 5). Both joints were capable of remaining
elastic during the formation of beam plastic hinges. The joint shear capacities of specimens S0 and
S50 were greater than the beam flexural capacity. The failure mode of specimen S0 or S50 is classified
as beam flexure failure (mode B).
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
push
pull
S0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
S50
push
pull
pull
push
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d


,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W0
pull
push
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d


,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W150

Figure 5. Cyclic loading responses and final crack patterns for specimens in Group A

On the other hand, the hysteretic curves of specimens W0 and W150 have significant pinching loops
(Fig. 5), which are typical responses of the shear or bond-slip mechanism. As the amplitudes of
deformations increase, the joint shear capacity may decrease. When the joint shear capacity falls
below the beam flexural capacity, the joint will fail in the shear after beam yielding. After beam
yielding, specimens W0 and W150 failed in the 5% and 4% drift cycle, respectively. Crushing and
spalling of concrete on the east and north faces of the eccentric joint specimen W150 was evident in
Fig. 5. For the concentric joint specimen W0, the spalling of concrete cover did not appear on the
north face of the column due to a larger distance between the beam and the column edges.
Nevertheless, visible expansion and extensive pushout cracks on the east face of the joint of specimen
W0 indicated the crushing of core concrete in the joint regions (Fig. 5). The failure mode of specimen
W0 or W150 was classified as joint failure after beam yielding (mode BJ). Thus, the strength of
specimen W0 or W150 was eventually limited by its joint shear capacity.

In Group B of the test matrix, the hysteretic curves of specimens W0-M1 and W150-M1 (Fig. 6) are
similar with those of specimens W0 and W150 up to the 4% drift cycle. The use of single mechanical
device provided good anchorage capacity for beam bar within the joint. Strength degradation did not
appear prior to the 4% drift cycle. The strength of specimen W0-M1 or W150-M1 was limited by its
joint shear capacity at a drift level of 4%. The crushing of concrete and widely opened diagonal cracks
E
E
N
N S0
E
E
N
N S50
E
E
N
N W0
E
E
N
N W150
on the north face of the joint showed the evidence of joint shear failure. The rapid strength reduction
from the skeleton curve to the backbone curve of specimen W0-M1 or W150-M1 at the 5% drift level
was attributed to the pushout of concrete cover on the east face of the column (Fig. 6).
pull
push
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d


,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W0-M1
push
pull
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d


,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W150-M1
pull
push
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d


,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W0-M2
pull
push
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d


,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W150-M2

Figure 6 Cyclic loading responses and final crack patterns for specimens in Group B

Toward the end of testing of specimens W0-M2 and W150-M2, the use of double mechanical devices
on each beam bar avoided the push-out of concrete cover on the east face of the column. As shown in
Fig. 6, the cyclic loading responses for specimens W0-M2 and W150-M2 had higher ductility and
lesser pinching than those for similar specimens in Group A or B. Both specimens W0-M2 and W150-
M2 reached maximum loads at the 6% drift level due to the limitation of the joint shear capacities. For
eccentric joint specimen W150-M2, rapid strength degradation followed the crushing and spalling of
concrete on the north side of the eccentric joint. The concentric specimen W0-M2 had a larger
distance between the beam and column edges (Fig. 3), hence the crushing or spalling of concrete did
not appear on the north face of the joint (Fig. 6). Nevertheless, the visible concrete expansion on the
east face of specimen W0-M2 indicated the crushing of core concrete in the joint region.



E
E
N
N W0-M1
E
E
N
N W150-M1
E
E
N
N W0-M2
E
E
N
N W150-M2
Strength and ductility

Table 2 compares the strength and ductility of the test specimens. The nominal yield load (
n
P ) was the
load corresponding to the nominal moment capacity (
n
M ) of the beam critical section, which was
calculated using the measured material properties. The nominal yield displacement (
y
) was
computed using the measured secant stiffness defined at the measured load of 0.75
n
P and the
corresponding displacement of 0.75
y
in the first cycle of the 1% drift.

As shown in column (4) of Table 2, specimens S0 or S50 had an over-strength factor of 1.20 or higher
due to a complete formation of a beam plastic hinge. Both joints had enough rigidity to support the
flexural compression and tension at the beam column interface. Core concrete crushing and the
subsequent buckling of the longitudinal bar in the beam plastic hinge region occurred at a ductility
factor greater than 5. For the other six W-series specimens, the buckling of the beam bar did not
appeared due to the softening and crushing of core concrete within the joints. As shown in column (4)
of Table 2, the over-strength factors for W-series specimens ranged from 1.05 to 1.11 only.

Table 2. Strength and ductility
n
P
y

max , jh
V
Specimen
kN mm n
P
P
max
y
P

max
y
P

max 8 . 0
kN c j c n
jh
h b f
V
352
max ,


Failure
mode
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
S0 158 18.9 1.22 5.41 5.41 832 0.68 B
S50 158 20.1 1.20 5.12 5.12 819 0.67 B
W0 147 23.5 1.11 4.58 5.87 778 0.80 BJ
W150 147 24.8 1.05 3.41 4.69 727 0.94 BJ
W0-M1 151 24.0 1.05 3.55 > 7.18 756 0.76 BJ
W150-M1 152 24.9 1.05 3.40 > 6.91 763 0.88 BJ
W0-M2 151 24.3 1.06 5.27 > 7.09 765 0.77 BJ
W150-M2 152 24.2 1.09 5.25 > 7.10 792 0.92 BJ

Specimens S0, S50, W0-M2, and W150-M2 reached each maximum load at a ductility factor greater
than 5, but different failure modes were observed during the tests. For specimens W0-M2 and W150-
M2, diagonal shear cracking and crushing of concrete strut led to the softening of the joint region, and
limited the maximum input shear from the loading beam. Nevertheless, both specimens sustained the
imposed cyclic loading up to a lateral drift of 6%, which is much beyond the expected drift level in the
seismic design of a building system. Therefore, the performance of specimen W0-M2 or W150-M2 is
satisfactory, even though it eventually failed in mode BJ.

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS

Evaluation of current ACI methods

The maximum joint shear force in the horizontal cross section within the joint measured during testing
can be estimated by

+
= =
c
c b b
col jh
L
h L
jd
L
P V T V
) 5 . 0 (
max max max ,
(2)
where =
max
T maximum force in the tension chord of the beam, kN; =
col
V shear in the column
calculated based on the loading for the beam, kN; = jd internal level arm of the beam section
adjacent to the joint, mm. According to a standard moment-curvature analysis of the beam section, the
internal lever arm, jd , is about 7/8 of the effective depth of the beam section. For simplicity, the
value of jd is assumed to be a constant of 350 mm in this paper.

The current ACI methods for the calculation of the nominal shear strength (
n
V
) of a beam-column
joint is given by

c j c n n
h b f V = (3)
where
c n
f is the nominal joint shear stress of
c
f 0 . 1 MPa for corner, interstory connections; The
effects of the columns aspect ratio and joint eccentricity are considered by limiting or reducing the
effective joint width.
ACI 352R-02 =
352
j
b the smaller of
( )

+
+
c
c b
c b
b
mh b
b b
2
2
(4)
where =
b
b full width of the beam, mm; =
c
b full width of the column, mm; =
c
h full depth of the
column in the direction of the joint shear to be considered, mm; and m is 0.3 when e is greater than
8
c
b ; otherwise, m is 0.5. The joint eccentricity, e , was designed to be 8
c
b for specimen S50 and
W75, and to be 4
c
b for specimen W150.

In the column (8) of Table 3, the applied maximum joint shear is about 70% of the nominal shear
strength for specimens S0 and S50, about 80% of those for specimens W0 and W0-M1/M2, and 90%
of those for specimens W150 and W150-M1/M2. Although all the maximum joint shear forces were
below the ACI nominal joint shear strengths, different behavior exhibited between loading in the
strong and week direction. Clearly, the joint shear capacity in the strong direction of the rectangular
joint (S0 or S50) was greater than that in the weak direction (W0 or W150). This point cannot be
reflected on the calculation of a cross-sectional approach within the joint. Following the ACI methods
could not avoid joint failure at a large drift level of 4% or 5%, but it is considered acceptable in a real
structural system. Conservative results are obtained in the column (8) of Table 3. The test results
showed some but not too much difference between each pair of specimens with or without eccentricity.

Joint shear-resisting mechanisms

Paulay, Park, and Priestly (1978) first discussed that there are two shear-resisting mechanisms exiting
in joints, the truss mechanism and the diagonal strut mechanism. The truss mechanism transfers the
forces uniformly from the beam and column bars through the bond mechanism. Adequate bond must
exist between the reinforcement and concrete to necessitate a truss mechanism, which also requires
considerable amounts of horizontal and vertical tie forces in the truss panel to be in equilibrium.

Figure 7 illustrates a conceptual model for the degradation of joint shear capacity under increasing
drift or ductility ratio. Joints subjected to inelastic displacement reversals often undergo significant
bond deterioration along the reinforcing bars from the adjacent beam plastic hinge. At this stage, a part
of the joint shear is transferred through the horizontal hoops with fan-shaped struts, while the
remainder is carried by the diagonal strut. As the drift or ductility ratio increases, the horizontal hoops
would yield progressively, the joint concrete may crack excessively, and the bond of the reinforcing
bars within the joint might be lost. Eventually, the joint shear force is directly transferred by the
diagonal strut mechanism.

Real shear-transferring mechanisms in joints may be a combination of the diagonal strut and the truss
mechanism, with the bond deterioration being at a certain degree of longitudinal reinforcement during
cyclic loading (Fig. 7). Hence, the joint shear capacity decreases as the cyclic inelastic loading
increases, which is referred to as the degradation of the joint shear capacity. When the joint shear
capacity falls below the shear demand from beam hinging, the joint will fail in the shear after beam
yielding (mode BJ). If the joint shear capacity is greater than the demand, the maximum strength is
limited by the beam flexure capacity (mode B).



Figure 7. Conceptual model for the degradation of joint shear capacity

Proposed model for the degradation of joint shear capacity

When good bond exist between reinforcing bars and the joint concrete struts, as shown in Fig. 8,
uniformly distributed shear stresses (
j
v ) on the effective cross-sectional area within the joint cab be
assumed. Therefore the potential joint shear capacity can be estimated by
Truss mechanism
c j j
truss
jh
h b v V =
352
(5)
where the maximum joint shear stress could be evaluated by the principal stress criteria

2
2
,
2 2
j
v h v h
t c
v
f f f f
p +

+
= (6)
Solving Eq.(6), the maximum joint shear stress
j
v is
c
f 194 . 0 when the vertical or axial stress acting
on the joint is
c
f 10 . 0 and the maximum principal compressive stress is assumed to be
c
f 25 . 0 , which
is referred to the ATC 32 report 1996.
j
v
v
f
j
v

c
p
t
p
j
v
j
v
j
v
c
p
t
p
t
p
c
p
v
f
v
f

(a) Stress acting on the joint panel (b) Principal stress criteria for truss mechanism
Figure 8. Potential joint shear capacity for the truss mechanism

Once bond is lost and the diagonal strut transferred all the shear forces, as shown in Fig. 9(a), the
horizontal joint shear capacity can be estimated by
cos =
cs ce
strut
jh
A f V (7)
where is the angle between the axis of the diagonal strut and the tension chord of the beam;
ce
f is
the effective strength of the diagonal strut;
cs
A is the effective cross sectional area of the diagonal strut.

The diagonal struts in these joints are bottle-shaped struts with crack-controlled reinforcement
satisfying ACI Sec. A3.3. Generally, the struts in joints subjected to cyclic loading have to cross the
diagonal cracks developed from the opposite loading direction. Therefore, a smaller value of
s

should be considered for the seismic design of beam-column joints. Therefore, the value of
s
is
selected to be 0.40. Accordingly, the effective compressive strength
ce
f is 0.85
c
f

0.40=0.34
c
f . A
design strength reduction factor of 0.75 or 0.85 is not considered because the analysis is based on the
actual material strength.

The width of the diagonal strut is assumed to be the effective joint width recommended by ACI 352R-
02. As shown in Fig 9(a), the depth of the diagonal strut can be estimated from the depths of the
compression zones in the beam and column.

( ) sin cos
352
+ =
c b j cs
a a b A (8)

Both
b
a and
c
a vary with the moment acting on the beam and the column. The depth of the
compression zone in the elastic column can be evaluated from a standard moment-curvature analysis
of the column section. Due to the formation of the beam plastic hinge, the depth of compression zone
in the beam can be estimated by

b c
b
b f
C or T
a

=
85 . 0
(8)





c
a
352
j
b
b
a
strut
jh
V

(a) Diagonal strut and nodal zone (b) Strut model for W150 (C) Strut model for W150-M1
Figure 9 Potential joint shear capacity for the truss mechanism

If pictures of the cracking pattern in similar structures are available, the locations of the struts and ties
can be arranged within the structure such that struts fall between the cracks (Macgregor 2002).
According to the observations on the crack patterns of test specimens, a simple diagonal strut model,
as shown in Fig. 9(b), is proposed to simulate the stress flow in the bend of the hooked beam bar
anchored in the joint. The outer node is arranged at the intersection point of the axis of the tension
chord and the tail extension of the 90-degree hook. For test specimens with headed bars, a refined
diagonal strut model with the outer node shifting inside, as shown in Fig. 9(c), is proposed to simulate
N
N
W150

= 1 . 52
avg

4 52 = .
N
N
W150-M1

= 8 . 57
avg

3 57 = .
the bearing cone of the head bar. For simplicity, the inner node for each specimen is arranged at the
intersection point of the extreme compression bars in the beam and the column.

As example illustrated in Fig. 9(b) and 9(c), the angles ( ) between the axis of the diagonal strut and
the tension chord are 52.4 and 57.3 degrees for specimens W150 and W150-M1, respectively. The
average angles between the principle diagonal cracks and the beam centerlines are found to be 52.1
and 57.8 degrees for specimens W150 and W150-M1, respectively.

The degradation of the potential joint shear capacity initiates when the bond condition deteriorates. As
shown in Fig. 10, the degradation will be delayed if good bond condition exists. The rate of
degradation is strongly related to the confined condition of the joint concrete. Within the limitations of
the test results, a 2%-to-6%-drift linear interpolation between the principal stress criteria and diagonal
strut model is proposed to predict the failure of the test beam-column joints, which had well-
distributed confining reinforcement.
Load
Joint shear capacity
Drift or Ductil ity
Bond condition
Good Poor
Load
Drift or Ductil ity
Lateral reinforcement
Well-confined
Poorly-
Joint shear capacity

Figure 10. Degradation of potential joint shear capacity

Figure 11 compares the predicted potential joint shear capacities with the measured skeleton and
backbone curves for specimens S0 and S50. Significant drops from the skeleton curves to the
backbone curves are attributed to the buckling of beam bars. The predicted joint shear capacities for
specimens S0 and S50 are greater than the beam flexural capacity. This agrees well with the failure
mode for specimens S0 and S50.

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
push
pull
S0

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
P
/
P
n
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%)
S50
push
pull


Figure 11. Predicted capacities and test results for specimens S0 and S50

The same 2%-to-6%-drift linear degradation model is proposed for specimens W0, W150, W0-M1,
and W150-M1. As shown in Fig. 12, the intersection point of the beam flexural capacity and the joint
shear capacity indicates the drift capacity of the joint shear failure. The predicted failure points at 5%
drift agree well with observed drift levels of joint failure for specimens W0 and W0-M1. For eccentric
joint specimens W150 and W150-M1, somewhat conservative predictions are obtained using Eq.(4)
for the effective joint width.

Displacement (mm)
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift (%)
W0
Predicted
flexural capacity
Predicted
shear capacity
A
A:Predicted failure point
]: J oint failure
]

Displacement (mm)
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift (%)
W150
Predicted
flexural capacity
Predicted
shear capacity
A
A:Predicted failure point
]: J oint failure
]

Displacement (mm)
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift (%)
W0-M1
Predicted
flexural capacity
Predicted
shear capacity
A
A:Predicted failure point
]: J oint failure
]

Displacement (mm)
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift (%)
W150-M1
Predicted
flexural capacity
Predicted
shear capacity
A
A:Predicted failure point
]: J oint failure
]

Figure 12. Predicted capacities and test results for specimens W0/150 and W0/150-M1

For the specimens W0-M2 and W150-M2, the use of double mechanical devices avoided the yield
penetration along the beam bar into the joint. Two gauge strain histories on the beam bars embedded
in the joints are illustrated in Fig. 13. For specimen W150-M1, the strain history of the beam bar
beyond the yield strain in the 3 to 4% drift cycle. For specimen W150-M2, however, the strain history
of the beam bar remained elastic up to the 5% drift cycle. Using the same 2%-to-6%-drift degradation
model for specimens W0-M2 and W150-M2, the potential joint shear capacities will meet the beam
flexural capacities at 4% drift, which is less than the observed failure at 7% to 8% drift cycles during
testing. A refined model for specimens with double mechanical devices is recommended.

According to the strain histories of specimens W0-M2 and W150-M2, a modified 4%-to-8%-drift
linear interpolation between the principal stress criteria and diagonal strut model is proposed. As
shown in Fig. 14, the potential joint shear capacities meet the beam flexural capacities at 7% drift for
specimen W0-M2 and 6% drift for specimen W150-M2. Actual failure points appeared at 8% drift for
specimen W0-M2 and 7% drift for specimen W150-M2. Figure 14 shows conservative prediction on
the failure points.


-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Micro strain
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d


,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
P
/
P
n
W150-M1
4%
3% 2% Drift
Gauge
failure
Monotonic
yield strain

-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Micro strain
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d


,

P

(
k
N
)
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
P
/
P
n
W150-M2
5%
Drift
Monotonic
yield strain
Available only
up to 5% drift
2%

Figure 13. Strain histories of Gauge 9 on the beam bar embedded in the joint

Displacement (mm)
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift (%)
W0-M2
Predicted
flexural capacity
Predicted
shear capacity
A
A:Predicted failure point
]: J oint failure
]

Displacement (mm)
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
A
c
t
u
a
c
t
o
r

l
o
a
d

,

P

(
k
N
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Drift (%)
W150-M2
Predicted
flexural capacity
Predicted
shear capacity
A
A:Predicted failure point
]: J oint failure
]


Figure 14. Predicted capacities and test results for specimens W0/150-M2


CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents the cyclic loading responses of eight specimens of T-shaped beam-column joints
that have been carried out to investigate the shear strengths of eccentric beam-column joints and the
use of headed reinforcement in place of standard hooks in joints. Two pairs of connections used the
standard 90-degree hooks anchored within the joint. Another two pairs of connections used headed
reinforcement consisting of screw-deformed bars and mechanical anchorage devices. Each eccentric
connection performed worse than each companion concentric connection. Using headed bars with
single mechanical device provided anchorage as good as using standard hooks. Specimens with double
mechanical devices had no pushout spalling and better seismic performance than companion
connections. The strut-and-tie models agree well with the strengths and failure modes of the test
specimens, whereas the ACI methods show somewhat unconservative predictions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to the National Science Council in Taiwan for the financial support under
Project No. NSC 93-2211-E-224-010 and No. NSC 94-2211-E224-014. The Fusheng Company
provided the screw-deformed bars and mechanical anchorage devices for the test specimens are also
acknowledged.



REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318 (2005), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
ACI-ASCE Committee 445 (1998), Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Structural Concrete, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 124(12), 1375-1417.
ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002), Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic
Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
ATC-32, (1996) Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations.
Applied Technology Council., Redwood City, California, 1996, Report No. ATC-32.
Ko, J.W. (2005), Cyclic Tests of Reinforced Concrete Corner Beam-Column Joints with Eccentricity, masters
thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan. (in Chinese)
Lee, H.J., and Ko, J.W. (2005), Performance Evaluation of Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints with
Eccentricity, Proceedings of The 7th Korea-Japan-Taiwan Joint Seminar on Earthquake Engineering for
Building Structures (SEEBUS 2005), Seoul, Korea, October 21-22, 2005, 65-74.
Lee, H.J., and Ko, J.W. (2006), Eccentric RC Corner Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Cyclic Loading
in Principal Directions, submitted to ACI Structural Journal.
MacGregor, J.G. (2002), Derivation of strut-and-tie models for the 2002 ACI Code, Reineck, K. H., ed,
Examples for the Design of Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models, SP-208, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 7-40.
Paulay, T., Park. R., and Priestly, M.J.N. (1978), Reinforced Concrete Beam -Column Joints under Seismic
Actions, ACI Journal, 75(11), 585-593.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John
Wiley & Sons, NY.
Wallace, J.W. (1997), Headed Reinforcement: A Viable Option, Concrete International, 19(12), 47-53.
Wallace, J.W., McConnell, S.W., Gupta, P., and Cote, P.A. (1998), Use of Headed Reinforcement in Beam-
Column Joints Subjected to Earthquake Loads, ACI Structural Journal, 95(5), 590-606.
Yu, S.Y. (2006), Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Exterior Beam-Column Connections with Screw-Deformed
Bars and Mechanical Devices, masters thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology,
Yunlin, Taiwan. (in Chinese)