7/21/2017 One Column vs. Two Beams - Is It A Fair Game?

One Column vs. Two Beams - Is It A Fair Game?

Posted on 2017-07-10

Topics: ACI 318, Seismic Provisions

The strong column-weak beam requirements in our codes and standards for the
design of special moment frames ensure that under high seismic loading the plastic
hinge occurs in the beam ends instead of the column ends. But what about a joint
where two beams frame into one column? Does the column still need to be
stronger than the two beams? The correspondence below sheds some light on the
topic.

Q. We have a question about the Strong Column Weak Beam (SC/WB)

requirement of ACI 318-14. We have a two-story reinforced concrete building. Do
we need to conform to SC/WB at the top story of the moment frame, or is the
intent of the code to allow us to ignore it since it will be difficult to achieve a
SC/WB condition with two beams framing into just one column below? For the
design of structural steel buildings, AISC 341 Section E3.4a exempts the columns
used in a one-story building or in the top story of a multistory building from the
SC/WB requirement. Does ACI 318-14 have an exemption like that?

A. We concur that it is rather impractical to try to meet the SC/WB requirement at

locations where two beams frame into one column. And under ACI 318-11 and
earlier codes, the top-level column usually had a factored axial compressive force
that was less than 0.10 Agfc and thus the SC/WB check was not required.

Unfortunately, under the ACI 318-14 code all columns are treated the same and Section 18.7.3.2 does not provide
any exception to the SC/WB requirement like ACI 318-11 did and AISC 341-10 Section E3.4a does for steel. (See
figure below for SC/WB requirement in concrete.)

Thus, not meeting the SC/WB requirement for two beams framing into one column is not currently sanctioned by
ACI 318-14.

This is the intellectual property of S.K.Ghosh Associates Inc.

https://skghoshassociates.com/SKGAblog/viewpost.php?id=86 1/3
7/21/2017 One Column vs. Two Beams - Is It A Fair Game?

Now in actuality, even if plastic hinges were to form near the top-end of the columns of your two-story moment
frames, that should have no significant detrimental effect on the inelastic performance of the building or its gravity
load carrying capacity.

In fact, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 1 (NIST GCR 16-917-40), Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Special Moment Frames: A Guide to Practicing Engineers, Second Edition, issued by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology in August 2016, offers the following guidance on the topic:

"It may be reasonable to make an exception to the ACI 318 strong-column/weak-beam requirement at
the roof level of a building Columns at such locations commonly support relatively low axial
forces, and flexural hinging of the columns at this level will not adversely affect the overall frame
mechanism Where a column is weaker than the beams framing into the column at such locations,
the column should be detailed to enable it to develop a flexural hinge without critical strength
degradation. At the roof level or other similar location, either the column should extend a short
distance above the roof level, or the longitudinal bars should be hooked toward the center of the
column to allow for diagonal compression struts to be developed within the joint."

If the first alternative is chosen, the column needs to extend above the top of the beam to height that enables all
column longitudinal bars to develop their full yield strength at the interference between the column and the top of
the beam (see figure below).

If the second alternative is chosen, the only NEHRP requirement is that the column longitudinal steel be hooked in
towards the center of the column as shown in the figure below. However, we recommend that vertical transfer
reinforcing (U-bars) should be added to provide confinement to the top face of the beam-column joint.

ACI Committee 352 on Joints also recommends these U-bars be added at knee joints in ACI 352R-02
Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures, 2002
(Reapproved 2010) see Section 4.2.1.5 (including Figure 4.2) and its commentary. (See figure below.)

This is the intellectual property of S.K.Ghosh Associates Inc.

https://skghoshassociates.com/SKGAblog/viewpost.php?id=86 2/3
7/21/2017 One Column vs. Two Beams - Is It A Fair Game?

In addition, ACI 318-14 Section 18.8.3.4 codifies these recommendations for knee joints with headed deformed
beam bars that terminate in the joint. Therefore, if an engineer chooses not to follow the SC/WB requirement at the
top level of a concrete moment frame, we recommend that the engineer use one of the two options provided above.

This is the intellectual property of S.K.Ghosh Associates Inc.

https://skghoshassociates.com/SKGAblog/viewpost.php?id=86 3/3