ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 97-S4

Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Interior

Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic
Resistance
by Shyh-Jiann Hwang and Hung-Jen Lee

A softened strut-and-tie model has previously been developed for

determining the shear strengths of exterior beam-column joints for
seismic resistance. This existing model originates from the strut-and-
tie concept and satisfies equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitu-
tive laws of cracked reinforced concrete. This paper examines the
applicability of the previously proposed model to interior beam-
column joints. The calculated shear capacities of 56 interior joints
were compared with the experimental results, and good agreement
was obtained.

Keywords: beams (supports); compressive strength; reinforced concrete;

shear properties; strength.

INTRODUCTION
Beam-column joints are critical because they ensure conti-
nuity of a structure and transfer forces from one element to
another. The flow of forces within beam-column joints may
be interrupted if the shear strengths of the joints are not
adequately provided. Understanding the strength behavior of
a beam-column joint under seismic actions and being able to
model it analytically are important aims in the achievement
of safe reinforced concrete structures.
A rational model for determining the shear strengths of exte-
rior beam-column joints for seismic resistance has been
proposed in a companion paper.1 The proposed model, called
the softened strut-and-tie model, is based on the concept of
struts and ties and derived to satisfy equilibrium, compatibility,
and the constitutive laws of cracked reinforced concrete.
This paper represents a continuation of the previously
mentioned research. The applicability of the proposed
model1 to interior beam-column joints is explored. Also, the
precision of the analytical model is further gaged by the
available experimental data.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The current design provisions on the beam-column joints
of the ACI 318-95 Code2 are based empirically on results of
tests. Consequently, they must be restricted to joints whose
properties closely match those of the tested joints. This leads
to many design limitations, and little guidance is provided
for the design of joints that may not meet these limitations.
A good physical model is needed to predict the shear
strengths of joints under seismic attack. It becomes an imper-
ative necessity to the seismically insufficient joints that typi-
cally fall outside of the limited range of those considered in
the ACI 318-95 Code.2 This paper presents a rational model
that is capable of predicting the shear strengths of interior
beam-column joints for seismic resistance.
Fig. 1—External actions and internal shears at interior joint.
SOFTENED STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL
Before introducing the analytical model, the forces around
and within a joint should be identified. Figure 1 shows the
earthquake-induced forces acting on an interior joint. The
horizontal joint shear force can be calculated as
V jh = T b1 + C b2 – V c1 (1)
where Vjh is the horizontal joint shear force; Tb1 is the tensile
force resulting from the steel of the beam at the right of the
joint; C b2 is the compressive force resulting from the
compression zone of the beam at the left of the joint; and Vc1
is the horizontal column shear above the joint. Actually the
tensile force T b1 is not necessarily coincided with the
compressive force C b2 , and Fig. 1 is only a simplified
version on this matter.
Considering the dimensions of beam and column tension-
compression couples (Fig. 1), the intensity of the vertical
joint shear force Vjv can be approximated
h′b 
V jv ≈  ------
- × V jh (2)
 h′c 
ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, January-February 2000.
Received June 18, 1998, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 2000, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discus-
sion will be published in the November-December 2000 ACI Structural Journal if
received by July 1, 2000.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000 35


ACI member Shyh-Jiann Hwang is Professor of Construction Engineering at the
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. He received his MS and PhD
from the University of California at Berkeley. His research interests include seismic
behavior of beam-column joints, shear strengths of reinforced concrete members, and
bond and anchorage.
Hung-Jen Lee is a PhD candidate in construction engineering at the National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology. His research interests include behavior
and design of RC beam-column joints.
Fig. 2—Joint shear-resisting mechanisms.
where hb′ and hc′ are the internal lever arms in the beams and
columns, respectively. The column axial load coupled with
moment will increase the vertical joint shear force Vjv and
decrease the internal lever arm in the column hc′ .
Macromodel
Statically indeterminate strut-and-tie load paths are
proposed to model the force transferring within the joint.1
36
The proposed model consists of the diagonal, horizontal, and
vertical mechanisms as shown in Fig. 2. The diagonal mech-
anism (Fig. 2(a)) is a single diagonal compression strut
whose angle of inclination θ is defined as
– 1 h′′
θ = tan  ---------
b
(3)
 h′′c 
where hb′′ and hc′′ are the distances between the extreme
longitudinal reinforcement in the beams and columns,
respectively. It is also assumed that the direction of the diag-
onal concrete strut coincides with the direction of the prin-
cipal compressive stress of the concrete.
The effective area of the diagonal strut Astr is defined as
Astr = as × bs (4)
where as is the depth of the diagonal strut, and bs is the width
of the diagonal strut, which can be taken as the effective
width of the joint as per the ACI 318-95 Code.2
According to the recommendation of Zhang and Jirsa,3 the
depth of a strut without a beam hinge occurring at the face of
the column can be determined as
2 2
as = ab + a c (5)
where ab and ac are the depths of the compression zones in
the beam and column, respectively. For joints where a beam
hinge occurs at the face of the column, the spalling of the
compression zone in the beam is frequently observed. Since
the crushing of concrete produces a small compression zone
in the beam, the neglect of ab in computing as is assumed.
Therefore, the depth of the strut can be estimated as3
as = ac (6)
Following the suggestion of Paulay and Priestley,4 the depth
of the flexural compression zone of the elastic column can be
approximated by
a c =  0.25 + 0.85 ----------- h c
N
(7)
 A g f c ′
where N is the axial force acting on the column; f c′ is the
compressive strength of a standard concrete cylinder; Ag is
the gross area of the column section; and hc is the thickness
of the column in the direction of loading.
The horizontal mechanism (Fig. 2(b)) is composed of one
horizontal tie and two flat struts. The joint hoops constitute the
horizontal tie. It is roughly assumed that the joint hoops within
the center half of the core are considered fully effective when
computing the cross area of the horizontal tie, and that the other
joint core hoops are included at a rate of 50%. Figure 3 explains
how to determine the area of the horizontal tie.
The proposed vertical mechanism (Fig. 2(c)) includes one
vertical tie and two steep struts. The vertical tie is made up
of the intermediate column bars. The way to estimate the
cross area of the vertical tie is also presented in Fig. 3.
The proposed model is a statically indeterminate system.
The yielding of ties does not stop the development of the
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
Fig. 3—Determination of areas of horizontal and vertical ties.
shear strength of the joint5 because the inherent diagonal strut
is capable of transferring shear force alone. Failure is defined
as the crushing of concrete in the compression strut adjacent
to the nodal zone (Fig. 1). Therefore, the shear strength of the
joint is calculated as the concrete compressive stress on the
nodal zone as it reaches its capacity. The boundary of the
nodal zone coincides with the diagonal strut boundary, but the
concrete bearing force to be examined is the summation of
compressions from the diagonal, flat, and steep struts (Fig. 2).
Equilibrium
Figure 4 shows the proposed strut-and-tie model for an
interior beam-column joint. The horizontal joint shear to be
resisted by the strut-and-tie model is found as
V jh = – D cos θ + F h + F v cot θ (8)
where D is the compression force in the diagonal strut; Fh is
the tension force in the horizontal tie; and Fv is the tension
force in the vertical tie. Similarly, the vertical joint force is
expressed as (Fig. 4)
V jv = – D sin θ + F h tan θ + F v (9)
It is of interest to note that the ratio of Vjv/Vjh = tanθ is
always maintained for any combination of the selected
mechanisms.
There are three load-paths in the joint region, and the
ratios to divide the joint shear forces among the resisting
mechanisms should be determined. If the intermediate
column bars do not exist or the yielding of the vertical tie
occurs, the horizontal shear (or increment) is then resisted
only by the diagonal and horizontal mechanisms as shown in
Fig. 5(a). According to Schäfer et al.6 and Jennewein and
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
Fig. 4—Strut-and-tie model at maximum response.
Schäfer,7 the statically indeterminate tie-force Fh in the
reduced mechanisms (Fig. 5(a)) is assumed to be
F h = γ h × V jh (10)
2 tan θ – 1
γ h = --------------------- for 0 ≤ γh ≤ 1
3
where γh is the fraction of horizontal shear transferred by the
horizontal tie in the absence of the vertical tie. Equation (10)
is a linear interpolation of Fh between two borderline cases,
namely, that the entire horizontal shear is carried by the indi-
rect load-path (Fh = Vjh) for θ ≥ tan–1(2) and that the entire
horizontal shear is transferred by the direct compression strut
(Fh = 0) for θ ≤ tan–1(1/2).
The vertical shear (or increment) is resisted only by the
diagonal and vertical mechanisms in the absence or yielding
of the horizontal tie. Figure 5(b) presents the fraction of the
vertical shear assigned to the vertical tie6,7 in the previous case
F v = γ v × V jv (11)
2 cot θ – 1
γ v = ----------------------- for 0 ≤ γv ≤ 1
3
where γ v is the fraction of vertical shear carried by the
vertical tie in the absence of the horizontal tie.
37
 –1 Rd
D = ------------ × ----------------------------------
- × V jh (17)
cos θ ( R d + R h + R v )

Rh
- × V jh
F h = ---------------------------------- (18)
( Rd + Rh + Rv )

1 Rv
F v = ----------- × ----------------------------------- × V jh (19)
cot θ ( R d + R h + R v )

To check whether the joint strength is being reached, the

bearing pressure on the nodal zone (Fig. 2) where the
compressive forces from the diagonal, flat, and steep struts
meet at a node (Fig. 4) should be estimated. Since the
inclined joint shear is mainly transferred in the d-direction
(Fig. 1), the maximum compressive stress σd,max acting on
the nodal zone is assumed to govern the failure. With some
algebraic efforts, the value of σd,max is given by

 – 1 h′′
cos  θ – tan  -----------
b 
   2h′′
-

= --------  D – ------------------------------------------------------ F h
1 c
σ d, max (20)
A str  – 1 h′′
cos  tan  -----------
b 
 -
   2h′′ c


– 1 2h ′′ 
Fig. 5—Forces in struts and ties. cos  tan  ----------- b 
- – θ 
  h c′′  
– ------------------------------------------------------ F v 
– 1 2h b′′   
sin  tan  ----------- - 
Based on the previous finding of Schäfer et al.6 and Jenne-   h c′′   
wein and Schäfer,7 it is further assumed that the ratios of the
horizontal shear Vjh assigned among the three mechanisms
are defined as Constitutive laws
The ascending branch of the softened stress-strain curve of
the cracked concrete, as proposed by Zhang and Hsu,8 is as
– D cos θ: F h :F v cot θ = R d :R h :R v (12) follows

Also, the same fractions of the vertical shear Vjv are shared –ε –ε 2 –ε
among the three mechanisms σ d = – ζ f c′ 2  -------d- –  -------d- for -------d- ≤ 1 (21)
 ζε o  ζε o ζε o
– D sin θ: F h tan θ:F v = R d :R h :R v (13)
5.8 1 0.9
ζ = --------- --------------------------- ≤ --------------------------- (22)
where Rd , Rh , and Rv are the ratios of the joint shears resisted f c′ 1 + 400ε r 1 + 400ε r
by the diagonal, horizontal, and vertical mechanisms,
respectively. The values of these ratios are defined as where σd is the average principal stress of concrete in the d-
direction; ζ is the softening coefficient; f c′ is the compressive
( 1 – γh ) ( 1 – γv ) strength of a standard concrete cylinder in units of MPa; εd
R d = ------------------------------------
- (14) and εr are the average principal strains in the d- and r- direc-
1 – γh γv
tions, respectively; and εo is the concrete cylinder strain
corresponding to the cylinder strength f c′ that can be defined
γh ( 1 – γv ) approximately as9
R h = ----------------------
- (15)
1 – γh γv
f c′ – 20
ε o = 0.002 + 0.001  ----------------
- for (23)
γv ( 1 – γh )  80 
R v = ----------------------
- (16)
1 – γh γv
20 ≤ fc′ ≤ 100 MPa
It is carefully scaled such that the sum of Rd, Rh, and Rv
equals unity. To facilitate the calculation, Eq. (12) can be By recognizing Eq. (21), the shear strength of the joint is
restated as assumed to be reached whenever the compressive stress and

38 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

strain of the concrete diagonal strut arrive at the following
situations

σd = –ζ · fc′ (24)

εd = –ζ ⋅ εo (25)

If the stress-strain relationships of bare mild steel for the

joint hoops and the intermediate column bars are assumed to
be elastic-perfectly-plastic, then

f s = E s ε s for ε s < ε y (26)

f s = f y for ε s ≥ ε y (27)

where Es is the elastic modulus of the steel bars; and fs and

εs are stress and strain in the mild steel, respectively. fs
becomes fh or fv, εs becomes εh or εv, and fy becomes fyh or
fyv when applied to joint hoop reinforcement or intermediate
column bars, respectively.
Neglecting the tension stiffening effect due to concrete,
the relationship between forces and strains of the tension ties
can be constructed.

F h = A th E s ε h ≤ F yh (28)

F v = A tv E s ε v ≤ F yv (29)

where Ath and Atv are the areas of the horizontal and vertical
ties, respectively; and Fyh and Fyv are the yielding forces of
the horizontal and vertical ties, respectively.

Compatibility
Accepting the predetermined angle of inclination of the
principal compressive stress θ, the principal tensile strain εr
can be related to the horizontal strain εh, the vertical strain
εv , and the magnitude of the principal compressive strain εd
based on the two-dimensional compatibility condition10
Fig. 6—Flow chart showing efficient algorithm.
εr + εd = εh + εv (30)

This equality states that the sum of the normal strains in the
perpendicular direction is a constant.
Equation (30) is used to estimate the value of the principal
tensile strain εr , which is directly related to the extent of soft-
ening of the concrete as per Eq. (22). The treatment of Eq.
(30) is different from that which had been used in Reference
1, and Eq. (30) is a simple but effective way for solution
procedures.
constraining the cracks. The Type-YV analysis treats the case
that the yielding of the vertical tie precedes the reaching of the
concrete strength, whereas the horizontal tie is still in the elastic
range. The scope of the Type YHV includes the case where the
yielding of the horizontal tie occurs first, then the vertical tie
yields, and finally the concrete strut arrives at its capacity. The
yielding sequence of the ties for Type YVH is in reverse. More
details of these analyses can be found in Reference 1.

Solution procedures EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION

A set of solution procedures is proposed, as shown in the
flow charts in Fig. 6 and 7. The solution procedure is catego-
rized into five types of analyses (Type E, YH, YV, YHV, and
YVH) for varied yielding conditions of the ties. The case of
Type E means that the concrete strut reaches its strength
while the horizontal and vertical ties remain in the elastic
range. The Type-YH analysis deals with the case that the
yielding of the horizontal tie precedes the reaching of the
concrete strength but the vertical tie is still effective in
The proposed model was used to calculate the joint shear
strengths of 56 test specimens (Table 1) described in the
literature. Twenty of these joints were tested in the United
States,12,15,18,21,23 ten in New Zealand,5,11,13,14,16,17 and 26
in Japan.19,20,22,24-27 In selecting these test data, a number of
screens were applied. They were as follows:
1. Specimens with floor slab, transverse beam, lightweight
concrete, or eccentricity between column and beam axes
were omitted; and

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000 39

Table 1—Experimental verification
fc′ , fyh, fyv, Vjh,test Failure Astr , Ath , Atv , Calculation Vjh,calc , Vjh,test/
Authors Specimens MPa MPa MPa N/Ag fc′ kN mode θ degree cm2 mm2 mm2 type kN Vjh,calc
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Blakeley et al.11 Interior 48.5 297 289 0.03 1722 F1 54 1285 9088 4914 E 2669 0.65
I 26.2 409 457 0.39 1090 J3 44 980 516 1548 YH 1142 0.95
II 41.8 409 449 0.25 1597 J3 45 804 516 3276 YH 1476 1.08
III 26.6 409 402 0.39 1228 J3 46 973 516 6036 YH 1180 1.04
IV 36.1 409 438 0.29 1454 J3 59 903 1032 1290 YH 1138 1.28
V 35.9 409 449 0.04 1530 J3 45 593 516 3276 YH 971 1.58
Meinheit et al.12
VI 36.8 409 449 0.47 1646 J2 45 979 516 3276 YH 1582 1.04
VII 37.2 409 438 0.46 1468 J3 59 110 1032 1290 YH 1375 1.07
XII 35.2 423 449 0.29 1948 J2 46 755 2000 3276 E 1315 1.48
XIII 41.3 409 449 0.25 1557 J3 45 808 1290 3276 E 1562 1.00
XIV 33.2 409 438 0.31 1539 J3 59 932 2580 1290 E 1309 1.18
Unit 1 42.9 275 280 0.00 521 J1 45 188 1533 402 E 391 1.33
Fenwick et al.13
Unit 3 39.3 275 318 0.00 437 J1 47 188 1799 452 E 365 1.20
BI 27.9 346 427 0.05 1217 J2 55 617 1520 1810 E 759 1.60
Birss14
B2 31.5 398 427 0.44 1213 J1 55 1302 398 1810 YH 1405 0.86
Viwathanatepa BC3 31.1 448 490 0.36 793 F1 42 1038 633 1136 E 1444 0.55
et al.15 BC4 31.5 448 490 0.36 874 F1 42 1030 633 1136 E 1451 0.60
B11 35.9 336 423 0.04 965 F1 55 596 3096 1548 E 977 0.99
Beckingsale16 B12 34.6 336 422 0.04 982 F1 55 599 3096 1548 E 949 1.03
B13 31.4 336 398 0.26 1015 F1 55 976 2580 1548 E 1328 0.76
Park et al.17 Interior 34.0 305 412 0.24 966 J2 49 559 1608 628 E 841 1.15
5 Unit 1 41.3 320 473 0.10 1001 J1 50 415 2413 905 E 799 1.25
Park et al.
X1 34.3 352 414 0.05 840 J2 51 388 881 1020 E 592 1.42
Durrani et al.18 X2 33.6 352 414 0.06 853 J1 51 389 881 1020 E 583 1.46
X3 31.0 352 345 0.05 629 J1 51 386 881 568 E 529 1.19
J1 25.6 367 374 0.08 516 J1 45 284 128 762 YH 330 1.56
J2 24.0 367 374 0.08 536 J1 45 288 256 762 E 328 1.63
J3 24.0 367 374 0.08 576 J1 45 288 640 762 E 353 1.63
Otani et al.19,20
J4 25.7 367 374 0.23 503 J1 45 400 128 762 YH 455 1.11
J5 28.7 367 374 0.07 491 J1 45 277 128 0 YVH 308 1.60
J6 28.7 367 374 0.07 336 F1 45 277 256 284 E 349 0.96
C1 25.6 324 422 0.08 436 F1 45 284 128 762 YH 334 1.31
Otani et al.19,20 C2 25.6 324 422 0.08 432 F1 45 284 512 762 E 364 1.19
C3 25.6 324 422 0.08 410 F1 45 284 512 762 E 364 1.13
LIJ3 31.1 400 470 0.00 724 J1 33 392 284 0 YV 554 1.31
Abrams 21
LIJ4 34.3 400 470 0.00 789 F1 34 392 284 0 YV 598 1.32
No. 2 32.9 330 348 0.06 553 J1 45 271 64 762 YH 396 1.40
No. 4 32.9 330 348 0.06 623 J1 45 271 64 762 YH 396 1.57
Noguchi et al.22
No. 5 28.5 330 348 0.07 570 F1 45 278 640 762 E 398 1.43
No. 7 28.5 330 348 0.07 605 F1 45 278 64 762 YH 356 1.70
BCJ2 30.3 414 448 0.00 358 J2 52 161 190 774 YH 205 1.75
Leon23 BCJ3 27.4 414 448 0.00 394 J1 45 194 190 774 E 252 1.56
BCJ4 27.2 414 448 0.00 462 F1 40 226 190 516 E 323 1.43
B8-HH 25.6 1320 404 0.15 272 F1 50 342 400 762 E 380 0.72
HL 27.4 1320 404 0.14 277 F1 50 335 400 762 E 394 0.70
Joh et al.24 MH 28.1 377 404 0.14 275 F1 50 332 280 762 YH 387 0.71
LH 26.9 377 404 0.15 274 F1 50 337 168 762 YH 365 0.75
MHUB 26.1 377 404 0.15 239 F2 50 340 280 0 YVH 371 0.64
A1 30.6 320 540 0.06 689 J3 46 355 168 1194 YH 486 1.42
B1 24.5 235 351 0.08 570 J1 46 286 168 1194 YH 331 1.72
Kitayama et al.25
B2 24.5 235 351 0.08 570 J2 46 286 168 1194 YH 331 1.72
B3 24.5 235 371 0.08 515 J1 45 286 420 762 E 348 1.48
A1 40.2 291 644 0.08 412 J3 51 223 112 762 YH 353 1.17
A2 40.2 291 387 0.08 380 J3 51 223 112 762 YH 353 1.08
Fujii et al.26
A3 40.2 291 644 0.23 412 J3 51 269 112 762 YH 421 0.98
A4 40.2 291 644 0.23 421 J3 51 269 336 762 YH 441 0.95
Average 48 Average 1.2
Total 56
COV 0.11 COV 0.27

40 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

 Fig. 7—Algorithm for post-yielding cases.
2. Only specimens failing in a joint or a beam adjacent to
a column were considered; specimens with a relocated beam
hinge or those that had failed prematurely in a column were
omitted.
The specimens selected encompass a wide range of
material properties, geometry, loading, loading sequence,
and reinforcement detailing, as summarized in Table 1
according to chronological order. The experimental joint
strengths (Vjh,test) in Table 1 were either reported in the
literature or derived using Eq. (1) based on the maximum
value of the column or beam shears measured during the
test.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
According to the seismic performance of the beam-
column subassemblages, the failure modes of the selected
specimens were classified into F1, J1, J2, and J3 groups (Fig. 8).
The letter “F” designates beam flexural failure, and “J” indi-
cates joint shear failure. The behavior of the subassemblage
(Fig. 8) is judged by the H-Δ response. The quantity H
represents the equivalent horizontal load capacity of the
subassemblage, including the P-Δ effect, and it can be
expressed as28
Δ
H = H + N ----- (31)
Lc
41
Fig. 8—Classification of failure modes of interior beam- Fig. 9—Correlation of experimental and predicted joint shear
column subassemblage. strengths.
where H is the horizontal load applied at the column end; Δ
is the horizontal displacement measured at the column end; Table 2—Statistics of shear strength ratios
and Lc is the hinge-to-hinge distance of the column. between experimental and predicted values
The classification of F1 and J1 means that the joint Failure mode
Calculation
strength can reach its design value and that the ductility of type F1 J1 J2 J3 Total
beam-column subassemblages is up to 4 (Fig. 8). The design
0.93† 1.42 1.41 1.09 1.17
level of the joint shear strength was gaged by the ratio of E 13* 9 4 2 28
Hmax/Hy to exceed 1.1 (Fig. 8), which is explained in Refer- 0.32‡ 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.28
ence 1. Yielding load Hy is defined as the equivalent hori- 1.12 1.37 1.50 1.14 1.24
YH 4 6 3 11 24
zontal load when yielding of the subassemblage occurred. 0.42 0.24 0.27 0.18 0.26
Yielding of the subassemblage occurred when the yielding 1.32 1.31 1.31
YV 1 1 None None 2
moment was exceeded in both beams at the column face. — — 0.01
The failure Mode J2 means that the yielding load H y 1.60 1.60
precedes the joint shear failure, and the above sequence of J3 YVH None 1 None None 1
— —
is in reverse (Fig. 8). It is noted that, in the proposed model, 1.0 1.40 1.45 1.14 1.21
the depth of the diagonal strut as of Specimens F1, J1, and J2 Total 18 17 7 13 55
0.34 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.27
was determined by Eq. (6), and that the as of Specimen J3 *
No. of specimens.
was calculated by Eq. (5). For J3 specimens, the ab in Eq. (5) †
Average of Vjh,test/Vjh,calc.
corresponds to the smaller value of the depths of the ‡
COV of Vjh,test/Vjh,calc.
compression zones in the elastic beams at the right and left
of the joint.
In Fig. 9 the experimentally determined shear strengths Examination of existing experimental data indicated that
from 56 joint tests are compared to the shear strengths the proposed model is also capable of predicting the shear
predicted by the method presented in this paper. The strength strengths of the interior beam-column joints. Table 2 shows
ratios that are defined as the ratio of the measured to the that the proposed model yields higher strength ratio for the
calculated strength are listed in Table 1 to indicate the preci- interior joint with the J1 failure mode (mean = 1.40) than that
sion of the proposed model. Figure 9 shows that satisfactory of the exterior joint (mean = 1.07).1 The higher strength ratio
results were obtained for the comparison of measured and for the interior joint, approximately 1.3 (1.40/1.07) times
computed strengths. The average strength ratio is 1.20 and higher, is attributed to the better end conditions of its diag-
the coefficient of variation is 27% (Table 1). onal strut provided by the compression zones in beams and
The accuracy of the proposed model under varied conditions columns. Further investigation on selecting the depth of
is further examined in Table 2. Table 2 displays a similar diagonal Strut a s seems to be needed. It is interesting,
tendency as obtained in the previous analyses for the shear however, to note that the predicting ratio 1.3 (1.40/1.07)
strengths of the exterior joints.1 For F1 specimens, the value between the interior to exterior joints is close to the shear
of V jh,test was determined mainly by the beam flexural strength ratio 1.25 (15/12) recommended by the ACI 318-95
strength and not necessarily by the joint shear strength. Code2 for different conditions of joint confinement provided
Therefore, Table 2 shows a wider dispersion for F1 speci- by the framing beams.
mens (COV = 34%) and also the lowest strength ratio (mean The proposed model suggests that the bond strength
= 1.0). The occurrence of more yielding mechanisms leads to between member longitudinal reinforcement and joint core
greater damage accumulating within the joint. Because the concrete deteriorates under reversed cyclic loading. The
proposed model does not include the effect of progressive complete loss of the bond strength along the beam reinforce-
deterioration, the strength ratios of Type E are larger than ment, however, may impair the development of the vertical
those of Type YH for cases with joint failures (J1; Table 2). mechanism, since the horizontal force needed for the equi-

42 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

librium of vertical tie and steep strut (Fig. 4) is probably
missing. Specimen MHUB, tested by Joh et al.,24 was given
the unbond treatment of the beam bars within the joint by
using vinyl chloride pipes. This specimen, categorized as the
F2 failure mode (Table 1), failed by flexure of the beams but
it did not reach the strain hardening range.24 Because the
beam bars had no bond within the joint, it is recommended
to remove the vertical mechanism from the shear resistance
by setting Atv = 0 in the analytical model (Table 1). The
detailed calculation of the specimen MHUB is provided in
the Appendix.* A similar approach may be applied to the
precast beam-to-column joint with unbonded tendons.
The strength behavior of the beam-column joints under
seismic actions is very complicated. The sensitivities of the
related parameters are still not very clear. The proposed
model maintains consistency in its estimations from one situ-
ation to another.
Therefore, the model proposed herein can be used as a tool
to clarify the roles of different parameters. The effect of
column axial load on the joint shear strength is briefly eval-
uated in the following paragraphs.
In the proposed model, the column axial load provides the
beneficial effect on the joint shear strength because it increases
the depth of the strut (Eq. (7)). Figure 10(a) shows the strength
ratios predicted by the proposed model if the beneficial effect
of the column axial load is removed. As shown in Fig. 10(a),
the normalized tested results indicate that the increasing
column axial loads do increase the strength ratios.
By using Eq. (7) to include the effect of column axial load,
Fig. 10(b) presents the strength ratios listed in Table 1. It
seems that the proposed model with Eq. (7) can reasonably
estimate the joint shear strength for the range of N/Ag fc′ less Fig. 10—Effect of column axial load on joint shear strength.
than 0.1 (Fig. 10(b)). The proposed model overestimates the
joint shear strengths for the cases with higher axial loads
(Fig. 10(b), N/Ag fc′ ≥ 0.2). the shear strengths of the interior beam-column joints for
The overestimations in Fig. 10(b) come from the adopted seismic resistance. The so-called softened strut-and-tie
assumption of the proposed model. The angle of inclination model is based on the strut-and-tie concept and derived to
θ of the diagonal strut is assumed to be oriented between the satisfy equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitutive laws
extreme longitudinal reinforcement in the columns for of cracked reinforced concrete.
simplicity, but this assumption is violated by the high axial The proposed method was found to reproduce 56 test
loads in the columns. To direct the angle of inclination θ results from the literature with reasonable accuracy. The
within the centroids of the compression zones of the elastic effect of column axial load on the shear strength of the inte-
columns (ac /3) is more realistic for the high axial loads in the rior joint was briefly studied. One illustrative example that
columns, and this results in a steeper θ (Fig. 10(c)). Consid- describes the computational procedures for the joint spec-
ering the previously mentioned adjustments, the overestima- imen with unbonded beam reinforcement is also provided.
tions for shear strengths of the joints with N/Ag fc′ greater
than 0.35 are corrected (Fig. 10(c)). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In contrast to the beneficial effect of the column axial load This research study was sponsored by the National Science Council of the
Republic of China under Project NSC 88-2211-E-011-011. The authors
to increase the depth of the diagonal strut, the high axial would like to express their gratitude for the support.
compression load in the column was reported to accelerate
the deterioration of the joint shear resisting mechanism.19,27 NOTATION
This detrimental effect of the column axial load can be read ab = depth of compression zone in beam adjacent to joint
from Fig. 10(c), where the predicting strength ratios are ac = depth of compression zone in column adjacent to joint
decreased with increased column axial load. With a suffi- as = depth of diagonal strut
cient amount of test data, the beneficial, as well as detri- Ag = gross area of column section
Astr = effective area of diagonal strut
mental, effects of the column axial loads on the joint shear Ath , Atv = areas of horizontal and vertical ties, respectively
strength can be estimated with the aid of the proposed model. bs = width of diagonal strut
Cb1,Cb2 = compressive forces resulting from compression zones of
CONCLUSIONS beams at right and left of joint, respectively
Cc1, Cc2 = compressive forces resulting from compression zone of
Examination of existing experimental data indicated that columns above and below joint, respectively
the previously proposed model1 is also capable of predicting d = direction of diagonal concrete strut
= assumed direction of principal compressive stress of concrete
* D = compression force in diagonal strut (negative for compression)
The Appendix is available in xerographic or similar form from ACI headquarters,
where it will be kept permanently on file at a charge equal to the cost of reproduction Es = elastic modulus of steel bar
plus handling at time of request. fc′ = compressive strength of standard concrete cylinder

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000 43

fh, fv = steel stresses in h- and v-directions, respectively
fs = average tensile stress of mild steel bars, taken as fh and fv in h-
and v- directions, respectively
fy = yield strength of bare mild steel
fyh, fyv = yield strength of bare mild steel of joint hoop reinforcement
and intermediate column bars, respectively
Fh, Fv = tension forces in horizontal and vertical ties, respectively
(positive for tension)
Fyh, Fyv = yielding forces of horizontal and vertical ties, respectively
h = direction of joint hoop reinforcement
hb = beam depth
h'b = internal lever arm in beam
hb′′ = distance between extreme longitudinal reinforcement in beams
hc = thickness of column in direction of loading
h'c = internal lever arm in column
hc′′ = distance between extreme longitudinal reinforcement in columns
H = horizontal load applied at column end
H = equivalent horizontal load capacity of subassemblage
including the P-Δ effect
= H + NΔ/Lc
Hmax = maximum value of H
Hy = load H at the yielding of both beams at column face
Lc = hinge-to-hinge distance of column
N = axial force acting on column (positive for compression)
r = direction perpendicular to d
= assumed direction of principal tensile stress
Rd,Rh,Rv = ratios of joint shears carried by diagonal, horizontal, and
vertical mechanisms, respectively
sh = spacing of joint hoops
sv = spacing of intermediate column bars
Tb1, Tb2 = tensile forces resulting from steel of beams at right and left of
joint, respectively
Tc1, Tc2 = tensile forces resulting from tensile steel of columns above
and below joint, respectively
v = direction of intermediate column bars
Vb1, Vb2 = vertical beam shears at right and left of joint, respectively
Vc1, Vc2 = horizontal column shears above and below the joint, respectively
Vjh, Vjv = horizontal and vertical joint shear forces, respectively
Δ = horizontal displacement measured at column end
Δy = horizontal displacement Δ at Hy
γh = fraction of horizontal shear transferred by horizontal tie in
absence of vertical tie
γv = fraction of vertical shear carried by vertical tie in absence of
horizontal tie
= 0.002 + 0.001(fc′ – 20)/80 (fc′ in units of MPa)
εd, εr = average normal strains in d- and r- directions, respectively,
(positive for tension)
= assumed principal strains
εh, εϖ = average normal strains in h- and v- directions, respectively,
(positive for tension)
εo = strain at peak stress of standard concrete cylinder
= 0.002 + 0.001(fc′ – 20)/80 (fc′in units of MPa)
εs = average tensile strain of mild steel bars, taken as εh and εv in
h- and v- directions, respectively
εyh, εyv = yield strain of bare mild steel of horizontal and vertical rein-
forcement, respectively
θ = angle of inclination of h-axis with respect to d-axis
ζ = softening coefficient of concrete in compression
σd, σr = average normal stresses in d- and r- directions, respectively,
(positive for tension)
= assumed principal stresses
σd,max = maximum compressive stress exerting on nodal zone in d-
direction
REFERENCES
1. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., “Analytical Model for Predicting Shear
Strengths of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.1998,
pp. 846-857.
2. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
3. Zhang, L., and Jirsa, J. O., “A Study of Shear Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” PMFSEL Report No. 82-1, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Feb. 1982, 118 pp.
4. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, 1992, 744 pp.
5. Park, R., and Milburn, J. R., “Comparison of Recent New Zealand and
United States Seismic Design Provisions for Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joints and Tests Results from Four Units Designed According to the
New Zealand Code,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earth-
quake Engineering, V. 16, No. 1, Mar. 1983, pp. 3-24.
6. Schäfer, K., “Strut-and-Tie Models for the Design of Structural
Concrete,” Notes of Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering, National
Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Mar. 1996, 140 pp.
7. Jennewein, M., and Schäfer, K., “Standardisierte Nachweise von
häufigen D-Bereichen,” DAfStb. Heft No. 430, Beuth-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
(in German)
8. Zhang, L. X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior and Analysis of 100
MPa Concrete Membrane Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 124, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 24-34.
9. Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I., “The Design of Nonflexural Members
with Normal and High-Strength Concretes,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 3-10.
10. Hsu, T. T. C., Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press,
Inc., Boca Raton, 1993, 336 pp.
11. Blakeley, R. W. G.; Megget, L. M.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Seismic
Performance of Two Full Size Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint
Units,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engi-
neering, V. 8, No. 1, Mar. 1975, pp. 38-69.
12. Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., “The Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” CESRL Report No. 77-1, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Jan. 1977, 271 pp.
13. Fenwick, R. C., and Irvine, H. M., “Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joints for Seismic Loading,” School of Engineering Report No.
142, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand, Mar. 1977, 50 pp.
14. Birss, G. R., “The Elastic Behaviour of Earthquake Resistant Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Research Report No. 78-13,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand, Feb. 1978, 105 pp.
15. Viwathanatepa, S.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., “Seismic
Behavior of R/C Interior Beam-Column Subassemblages,” Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC-79/14, University of
California, Berkeley, 1979, 184 pp.
16. Beckingsale, C. W., “Post-Elastic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints,” Research Report No. 80-20, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, Aug.
1980, 379 pp.
17. Park, R.; Gaerty, L.; and Stevenson, E. C., “Tests on an Interior Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joint,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National
Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 14, No. 2, June 1981, pp. 81-92.
18. Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., “Behavior of Interior Beam-to-
Column Connections under Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 343-349.
19. Otani, S.; Kobayashi, Y.; and Aoyama, H., “Reinforced Concrete Inte-
rior Beam-Column Joints under Simulated Earthquake Loading,” First
U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Monterey, July-Aug. 1984.
20. Otani, S.; Kitayama, K.; and Aoyama, H., “Beam Bar Bond Stress
and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Connec-
tions,” Second U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Tokyo, May 1985.
21. Abrams, D. P., “Scale Relations for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1987, pp. 502-512.
22. Noguchi, H., and Kurusu, K., “The Effects of Beam Bar Bond and
Joint Shear on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column
Joints,” Third U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Christchurch, Aug. 1987.
23. Leon, R. T., “Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior
Beam-Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
1990, pp. 3-11.
24. Joh, O.; Goto, Y.; and Shibata, T., “Influence of Transverse Joint and
Beam Reinforcement and Relocation of Plastic Hinge Region on Beam-
Column Joint Stiffness Deterioration,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance, SP-123, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 187-224.
25. Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., “Development of Design
Criteria for RC Interior Beam-Column Joints,” Design of Beam-Column
Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 97-123.
26. Fujii, S., and Morita, S., “Comparison between Interior and Exterior
RC Beam-Column Joint Behavior,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance, SP-123, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 145-165.
27. Kurose, Y., “Recent Studies on Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Joints in Japan,” PMFSEL Report No. 87-8, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Texas, Austin, Dec. 1987, 164 pp.
28. Bertero, V. V.; Popov, E. P.; and Forzani, B., “Seismic Behavior of
Lightweight Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 77, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1980, pp. 44-52.

44 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000