ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 97-S02
Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-Column
Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details
by Shigeru Hakuto, Robert Park, and Hitoshi Tanaka
Simulated seismic load tests on reinforced concrete one-way inte-
rior and exterior beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing
details typical of buildings constructed before the 1970s are
described. The interior beam-column joint cores lacked transverse
reinforcement and the longitudinal bars passing through the joint
core were poorly anchored. Some of the beam-column joint units
were also tested after retrofitting by jacketing with new reinforced
concrete. The limited ductility available from interior beam-column
joints with the substandard details, the improved ductility available
from the retrofitted joints, and a means of seismic assessment of inte-
rior beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement are
discussed. The exterior beam-column joint units contained very
little transverse reinforcement in the members and in the joint core.
In one beam-column joint unit the beam bar hooks were not bent
into the joint core. That is, the hooks at the ends of the top bars
were bent up and the hooks at the ends of the bottom bars were
bent down. This anchorage detail was common in many older
buildings constructed before the 1970s. In the other beam-column
joint unit the hooks at the ends of the bars were bent into the joint
core as in current practice. The improvement in performance of the
joint with beam bars anchored according to current practice is
demonstrated.
Keywords: anchorage (structural); earthquake-resistant structures; flexural
strength; shear strength.
INTRODUCTION
Substantial advances in the seismic design of reinforced
concrete moment resisting frames have occurred internation-
ally during the last 30 years. For example, in New Zealand,
a major step forward in seismic design standards occurred in
the late 1970s and early 1980s when capacity design and
detailing procedures for adequate ductility were introduced
into the standards.
In capacity design, the designer chooses the most desirable
mechanism for the structure to achieve the required displace-
ment ductility factor in the post-elastic range during a major
earthquake, normally by flexural yielding occurring at
selected plastic hinge positions. All other regions of the
structure are then made adequately strong to ensure that the
post-elastic deformations occur only at the selected plastic
hinge regions and that failures due to shear and loss of rein-
forcement anchorage are avoided. The capacity design
procedure aims to ensure an appropriate balance of flexural
strength between the selected plastic hinge regions and other
modes of failure. For example, columns can be vulnerable
elements of moment-resisting frames. If a number of
columns attain their flexural strength during severe earth-
quakes, a column sideway mechanism, such as that shown in
Fig. 1(b), can form, leading to very high ductility demands at
the plastic hinges. The result may be catastrophic soft story
failures. New Zealand and U. S. standards use the concept of
ensuring strong column-weak beam behavior for moment-
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
TECHNICAL PAPER
Fig. 1—Some mechanisms of postelasic deformation of
moment- resisting frames during earthquakes.
resisting frames.1-3 Hence, a beam sidesway mechanism, or
at the very least a mixed sidesway mechanism (Fig. 1(c) and
(d)), which makes more moderate demands on column
plastic hinge rotation, is sought. The design procedures spec-
ified in recent standards for detailing reinforcement in poten-
tial plastic hinge regions are also aimed at making certain that
the transverse reinforcement is sufficient to ensure adequate
ductility and shear strength, taking into account the need to
confine the concrete and prevent longitudinal bars from
buckling, and to prevent the degradation of shear strength
during cyclic loading in the postelastic range.
Damage caused by earthquakes through the years, including
the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake in Kobe, Japan, in January
1995,4 indicated that some reinforced concrete buildings
designed prior to the mid-1970s may have serious structural
deficiencies. These deficiencies are mainly a consequence of
a lack of capacity design approach and/or poor detailing of
reinforcement. As a result, the available ductility of the struc-
ture during the cycles of lateral loading in the post-elastic
range imposed by a severe earthquake may be inadequate.
A common seismic assessment procedure for existing rein-
forced concrete structures is a checklist-type approach in which
the reinforcing details are compared with the requirements of
current concrete design standards. More realistic force-based
procedures suggested by Priestley and Calvi5 and Park6 consider
the overall performance of the structure by determining the
available lateral load strength and ductility of the critical post-
elastic mechanism of deformation of the structure. Priestley7 has
also proposed a displacement-based procedure that gives an
even better indication of the ductility required of structures.
These approaches5-7 require information on the ductility
available from structural elements and joints containing the
poorly detailed reinforcement that was typical of older
concrete structures. However, there is a scarcity of such
basic information. Also, retrofit techniques for such struc-
tures need further development.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, January-February 2000.
Received March 31, 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.
11
Shigeru Hakuto is a research engineer in the Structural Laboratory of the Architectural
Research Department of the Technological Research Center of the Tokyu Construction
Co., Sagamihara, Japan. He received his PhD from the Department of Civil Engi-
neering of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, in 1995.

ACI Honorary Member Robert Park is Professor of Civil Engineering and Deputy
Vice-Chancellor at the University of Canterbury. He was corecipient of ACI’s
Raymond C. Reese Structural Research Award in 1984 and 1989. His research interests
include seismic behavior of concrete structures.

Hitoshi Tanaka is an associate professor in the Department of Architecture and Civil

Engineering at Toyohashi University of Technology, Toyohashi, Japan. He received
his PhD in civil engineering from the University of Canterbury.

This paper reports the results of simulated seismic load

tests on some poorly detailed reinforced concrete interior
and exterior beam-column joints, typical of pre-1970s
designed moment-resisting frames in New Zealand. Test
results from interior beam-column joints retrofitted by jack-
eting with new reinforced concrete are also reported. The
results may be seen reported in more detail elsewhere.8

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Designers are being confronted more with the task of
assessing the seismic risk of existing reinforced concrete
structures, and the retrofit, where necessary, of those struc-
tures. There is a lack of comprehensive experimental evidence
of the behavior of structures with poor reinforcement details,
typical of those designed before the mid-1970s, when
subjected to severe seismic actions. This paper reports the
results of some seismic load tests on interior and exterior
beam-column joints of older structures in which the anchorage
conditions of longitudinal bars in the joint and the amount of
transverse reinforcement in the joint do not satisfy the require-
ments of current codes. The results of the tests provide further
information for use in the assessment of the performance of
older structures when responding to severe earthquakes. Tests
on interior beam-column joints retrofitted by jacketing with
new reinforced concrete are also reported. A method of retro-
fitting by increasing the section size of the column to limit the
joint shear stress is proposed.
TYPICAL EARLY-REINFORCED CONCRETE
MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME INVESTIGATED
An existing seven-story reinforced concrete building that
was designed and built in New Zealand in the late 1950s was
considered. Typical details of the reinforcement of the frame
are shown in Fig. 2. As with many building structures designed
to codes created prior to the mid-1970s, the reinforcement is
adequate for gravity and wind loads, but some of the details of
the reinforcement are inadequate for earthquake forces if
ductile behavior is required. Assessment of the building
studied showed that when compared with the current code
requirements for ductile frames,2,3 some of the columns have
inadequate longitudinal reinforcement to ensure strong
column-weak beam behavior and inadequate transverse rein-
forcement for shear strength and ductility, and that the beams
have inadequate transverse reinforcement for shear resistance
and some have lap splices in the bottom longitudinal reinforce-
ment in potential plastic hinge regions. Also, the beam-column
joints have no transverse reinforcement for shear and confine-
ment, and the longitudinal reinforcement passing through or
terminating in the joints is poorly anchored. At the exterior
beam-column joints, the longitudinal beam bars are anchored
by bending the hooks out of the joint cores, which does not
meet the current NZS 3101:19952 and ACI 318-95.3
Fig. 2—Typical details of reinforced concrete moment-
resisting frame designed in New Zealand in late 1950s. (Note:
1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
ASSESSMENT OF INTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN
JOINTS
General
As shown in Fig. 2, it will often be found in the case of
interior joints of older frames that longitudinal beam bars of
relatively large diameter pass through interior columns of
relatively small depth. This will result in high bond stresses
and some bar slip during seismic loading. NZS 3101:19952
and ACI 318-953 both require the column depth to bar diam-
eter ratio to be large enough for the bond stress to be suffi-
ciently small to prevent significant bar slip. If significant slip
does occur, the bar will be in tension through the joint core
and the compression reinforcement in the beam on one side
of the column may actually be in tension, with a resulting
loss in beam flexural strength and ductility. Also, the stiffness
of the frame will be reduced significantly.
Probably the greatest uncertainty when assessing the
seismic performance of reinforced concrete frames is the
likely behavior of beam-column joints with limited transverse
reinforcement in the joint core. Most framed structures
designed before 1970 did not include any transverse reinforce-
ment in the joint core. Very limited testing has been conducted
on such joints to determine their shear strength and whether
buckling of longitudinal column bars occurs there. Shear
failure of beam-column joint cores without transverse rein-
forcement is due to extensive diagonal tension cracking that

12 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

 Fig. 3—Interior beam-column joint subjected to seismic loading.
may eventually lead to diagonal compression failure in the
joint core. The prevention of premature buckling of column
bars requires adequate ties.
Joint shear force and shear resistance
Figure 3(a) shows the forces acting on the joint core as a
result of the actions of the beams and columns.
The horizontal shear force acting on the joint core is
V jh = C s2 + C c2 + T 1 – V c′ (1)
For equilibrium of forces in the left-hand beam at the face of
the column
Cs2 + Cc2 = T2 (2)
Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) gives
V jh = T 1 + T 2 – V c′ (3)
Now Eq. (1) assumes that the resistance provided by total
bond force U along the top bars in the joint core is sufficient
to anchor the bars in the joint core (Fig. 3(b)). That is,
U = Cs2 + T1 (4)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
If the total bond force U becomes zero as a result of bond
deterioration in the joint core due to poor bond conditions
and bond degradation during cyclic loading in a major
earthquake, then from Eq. (4)
Cs2 = –T1 (5)
Eq. (5) implies that the top bars are in tension along the
whole length of the joint core and are anchored in the left-
hand beam. Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (2) gives
Cc2 = T1 + T2 (6)
Then substituting Eq. (5) and (6) into Eq. (1) gives
V jh = – T 1 + T 1 + T 2 + T 1 – V c′ = T 1 + T 2 – V c′ (7)
Eq. (3) and (7) are identical. Hence, the total horizontal shear
force acting on the joint core is unchanged by deterioration
of bond along the longitudinal beam bars in the joint core,
although the manner of application is changed.
Mechanisms of shear resistance that provide means of trans-
ferring the beam and column forces across the joint core after
diagonal tension cracking are shown in Fig. 3(c) and (d).9 When
the bond forces tend to zero, it is evident that the majority of the
shear will be transferred across the joint core by the diagonal
13
compression strut mechanism, and hence, diagonal tension to assume that the shear strength is reached at the stage of
cracking is less likely if bond deterioration occurs at an early initial diagonal tension cracking of the joint core. If the
stage of loading. tensile strength of the joint concrete is assumed to be k√f c′ ,
It should also be noted that T1 = Mb1/jd1 and T2 = Mb2/jd2 where k is an empirically determined constant, then from Eq.
where Mb1 and Mb2 are the beam moments at the face of the (15), the nominal horizontal joint shear stress at first diag-
joint core, and jd1 and jd2 are the lever arms between the onal cracking is given by
tensile forces and the centroids of the compressive forces, at
the right- and left-hand sides of the joint, respectively. N
Hence, Eq. (3) can also be written as v jh = k f c′ 1 + ----------------------- (16)
b j h c k f c′
M b1 M b2
- + --------- – V c′
V jn = -------- (8) As expected, Eq. (16) shows that the presence of axial
jd 1 jd 2 compression in the column will delay the appearance of
diagonal tension cracking.
Joint principal stresses The previously explained diagonal tension criteria for joint
The nominal horizontal shear stress at the mid-depth of the core failure may be too conservative, however, since the joint
joint core can be written as core may be capable of transferring significantly higher shear
forces after diagonal tension cracking by means of the diagonal
vjh = Vjh /bjhc (9) compression strut mechanism shown in Fig. 3(c).
In that case, joint failure of the joint core will finally occur
where as a result of diagonal compression failure. That is, crushing
bj = effective width of the joint core; and of the diagonal compression strut will occur when the
hc = depth of the column. compressive strength of the strut is sufficiently weakened by
NZS 3101:19952 defines bj as either the smaller of diagonal tension strains and by the repeated opening and
closing of diagonal tension cracks in alternating directions.
b j = b c or ( b w + 0.5h c ) when b c ≥ b w (10) The stage of diagonal compression failure is best estimated
by determining the value of vjh when a limiting diagonal
b j = b w or ( b c + 0.5h c ) when b c ≤ b w (11) compressive stress is reached. After diagonal tension cracking
initiates, however, the stress distribution in the joint core
where becomes much more complex, and the previously explained
bc = width of column; simple Mohr’s circle approach is inadequate for determining
bw = width of beam web; and the diagonal compression stress corresponding to a given vjh
hc = depth of column. and fa. Note that if fa is very large, diagonal compression
The nominal axial compressive stress on the column at the failure by crushing of the diagonal compression strut could
mid-depth of the joint core can be written as also occur before the vjh at first diagonal cracking is reached.
The most simple failure criterion for an interior beam-
fa = N/bjhc (12)
column joint without shear reinforcement would appear to be
where a diagonal compression failure criteria. This approach is
N = axial compressive load on column. recognized by NZS 3101:1995,2 which specifies that, to
The stresses vjh and fa are both nominal values since they avoid diagonal compression failure in beam-column joints,
are not uniform over the horizontal plane at the mid-depth vjh should not exceed 0.2fc′.
of the joint core. In this investigation, a series of simulated seismic load
Nevertheless, a measure of the principal tensile and tests were conducted on one-way interior beam-column
compressive stresses at the mid-depth of the joint core, as joints, most of which had no transverse reinforcement in the
found from Mohr’s circle, is given by joint core. The results of these tests and of some other inves-
tigators’ tests were studied to determine whether the previ-
ously explained simple procedure of limiting vjh was valid.
–f f 2
p = ------a- ±  ---a + v jh
2
(13)
2  2 ASSESSMENT OF EXTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN
JOINTS
where compressive stresses are taken as negative. The internal forces acting on a reinforced concrete exterior
The principal tensile stress then is beam-column joint during seismic loading are shown in Fig. 4.
After diagonal tension cracking in the joint core, the beam
–f f 2 and column forces are transferred across the joint core mainly
p t = ------a- +  ---a + v jh
2
(14)
2  2 by a diagonal compression strut. It is evident that the current
practice of bending the hooks at the ends of the longitudinal
from which beam reinforcement into the joint core permits the diagonal
compression strut to bear effectively against the hooks, since
f the bearing stresses at the bend in the bar act in the direction
v jh = p t 1 + ---a- (15) of the strut.
pt In the case of older frames, constructed before the 1970s
in New Zealand and some other countries, it was common to
Failure criteria for joint anchor the longitudinal beam bars at exterior beam-column
One approach for the assessment of the shear strength of joints by bending the hooks out of the joint core. This old
interior beam-column joints without shear reinforcement is detail does not provide the best configuration to enable the

14 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000


Fig. 4—Exterior beam-column joint subjected to seismic
loading.
tensile bar force at the bend in the bar to be transferred to the
diagonal compression strut.9
The situation is illustrated in Fig. 5, where Fig. 5(a) shows
the currently specified bar anchorage detail and Fig. 5(b)
shows the old detail. In Fig. 5(a), the bearing stresses at the
bend act in terms of strut and tie model considerations, and
the diagonal compression strut effectively engages the beam
reinforcement. The detail of Fig. 5(b) does not provide an
effective node point at the top of the diagonal compression
strut unless a considerable quantity of column hoops exists
above the joint core to equilibrate the horizontal component
of force of the compression strut, as shown in Fig. 5(c).
The New Zealand concrete design standard NZS
3101:19952 and ACI building code, ACI 318-95,3 both
require that the hooks be bent into the joint core so that the
bearing stresses at the inside of the bend are in the direction
of and at the end of the diagonal compression strut.
NZS 3101:1995 and ACI 318-95 also specify quantities of
transverse reinforcement required in the joint core for shear
reinforcement and confinement. In addition, NZS 3101:1995
specifies that the nominal horizontal joint shear stress for all
joints shall not exceed 0.2fc′ . ACI 318-95 specifies that
nominal horizontal joint shear stress for joints with a beam
entering on only one face of the joint shall not exceed 12√fc′
psi (1.0√fc′ MPa). For fc′ = 30 MPa (4300 psi), this ACI
limiting shear stress is 0.18fc′ , which is close to the New
Zealand limiting value for all joints.
The nominal horizontal joint shear stress is given by
vjh = Vjh/Aj (17)
where
Vjh = joint horizontal shear force defined as shown in
Fig. 4; and
Aj = effective area of the joint, as defined in the stan-
dards.2,3
For many cases of older buildings, Aj = Ag where Ag = gross
area of the column.
The matter of whether the limiting value of vjh should be
expressed as k1√fc′ as in ACI 318 or k2 fc′ as in the New
Zealand standard, where k1 and k2 are empirical constants, is
of interest. The use of k1√fc′ is a diagonal tension criterion,
since the tensile strength of the concrete is a function of √fc′ .
The joint, however, does not necessarily reach its maximum
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
Fig. 5—Main mechanisms of joint shear resistance of
Units O6 and O7.
lateral load-carrying capacity when diagonal cracking first
occurs. Diagonal tension is important because tension strains
at right angles to the concrete diagonal compression strut
will weaken the compressive strength of the strut. Diagonal
compression failure, which occurs when a limiting joint
shear stress k2 fc′ is reached, would appear to be a more
appropriate failure criterion.
INTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN JOINT TEST UNITS
Test units
Six one-way interior beam-column joint units were
constructed and tested. Figures 6 through 12 show the
dimensions of the units and the details of the reinforcement.
Details of as-built units
Figure 6 shows the reinforcement details of the three full-
scale as-built units constructed. These units were identical to
the interior beam-column joints shown in Fig. 2, except that
deformed bars were used as longitudinal reinforcement,
whereas plain round bars would have been used in the proto-
type structure. It is to be noted that reinforced concrete build-
ings constructed in New Zealand before the mid-1960s
contain plain round longitudinal reinforcement that would
lead to poorer bond conditions. Also, although the frames of
the existing structure were two-way, the units tested did not
contain beams at right angles to the direction of lateral
loading.
The longitudinal reinforcement in the columns and beams
of the as-built units was from deformed bars with a measured
yield strength of fy = 325 MPa (47,100 psi). The transverse
reinforcement was from plain round bar with a measured
yield strength of fyt = 339 MPa (49,200 psi).
The normalweight concrete of the as-built units at the
stage of testing had a compressive cylinder strength fc′ of 41
MPa (5950 psi). The units were cast in the horizontal plane.
As shown in Fig. 6, no shear reinforcement was present in
the beam-column joint core. The ratio of the theoretical flex-
ural strength of the column when the axial load was zero to
that of the beam was 0.69, calculated using the measured
material properties and a strength reduction factor of unity.
Hence, plastic hinges were expected to form in the columns
during the test. The ratio of beam bar diameter to column
depth was db/hc = 24/300 = 1/12.5, which did not satisfy the
requirements of NZS 3101:19952 for ductile frames.
Details of Units O1, R1, R2, and R3
One of the as-built units, Unit O1, was tested under simulated
seismic loading, and then the damaged specimen was retro-
fitted by jacketing the beams, columns and joint with new
15
Fig. 6—Dimensions and reinforcement details of as-built
Unit O1. (Note: All dimensions are in mm. 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 7—Reinforcement cage of as-built Unit O1.
reinforced concrete to become Unit R1, as shown in Fig. 8 and
9. The longitudinal reinforcement in the column jackets was
from deformed bars with a measured yield strength of fy =
462 MPa (67,000 psi), while those in the beam jackets were
deformed bars with a measured yield strength of fy = 330 MPa
(43,800 psi). The transverse reinforcement in both the
column and beam jackets was from deformed bars with
measured yield strengths of fyt = 302 and 330 MPa (43,800
and 47,900 psi), respectively. Plain round bars with a
measured yield strength of fyt = 436 MPa (63,200 psi) were
used for the horizontal joint core shear reinforcement in the
jacket, as illustrated in Fig. 8.
The new joint core hoops consisted of two U-shaped
segments of ties. After placing those segments through holes
drilled horizontally in the beams, both segments were
welded in place to form closed hoops. The reinforcement in
the beams, columns, and joint core met the requirements of
NZS 3101:1995,2 except that in the columns the horizontal
spacing of the tied longitudinal bars in the jacket exceeded
the code permitted maximum spacing of 200 mm (7.9 in.).
16
Fig. 8—Dimensions and reinforcement details of retrofitted
Units R1 and R2. (Note: All dimensions in mm. 1 mm =
0.039 in.)
Fig. 9—Reinforcement cage of jacket of Unit R1.
Another as-built unit, not previously damaged, was retro-
fitted in the same manner as Unit R1 to become Unit R2,
except that hoops were not placed in the joint core of Unit R2
(Fig. 8).
The other nondamaged as-built unit was retrofitted by
jacketing the columns only, to become Unit R3 (Fig. 10 and
11). The longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the
column jackets of Unit R3 were deformed bars with a
measured yield strength of fy = 308 MPa (44,700 psi) and fyt
= 358 MPa (51,900 psi), respectively.
The normal weight concrete used for the jackets of the
beams and columns of Units R1, R2, and R3 had a compres-
sive cylinder strength of 54, 61, and 42 MPa, (7830, 8850,
and 6090 psi), respectively, at the time of testing. The jackets
were cast with the units in the vertical position. Before
placing the concrete jackets, the surface of the concrete of
the as-built units was lightly roughened, and in the case of
the previously damaged Unit O1, all loose concrete was
removed. The cover concrete of top beam face of the as-built
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

Fig. 10—Dimensions and reinforcement details of retrofitted
Unit R3. (Note: All dimensions in mm. 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 11—Reinforcement cage of jacket of Unit R3.
units of Units R1 and R2 was chipped off to place the new
transverse reinforcement in the beam jackets.
The retrofitting of the beams, columns, and joints by
concrete jacketing was found to be very labor intensive.
Details of Units O4 and O5
Units O4 and O5 had bigger column sections than the as-
built Unit O1 and were tested to investigate different
anchorage conditions for the longitudinal beam bars in the
joint. Units O4 and O5 were identical except for the diame-
ters of the longitudinal beam bars passing through the beam-
column joint. These units were designed to form plastic
hinges in the beams during the test. The ratio of beam bar
diameter to column depth was db/hc = 1/25 for Unit O4 and
1/18.8 for Unit O5. As shown in Fig. 12, Units O4 and O5
lacked shear reinforcement in the joint core.
The normal weight concrete used for Units O4 and O5 had
measured compressive cylinder strengths of 53 and 33 MPa
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
Fig. 12—Dimensions and reinforcement details of Units O4
and O5. (Note: All dimensions are in mm. 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
(7690 and 4790 psi), respectively, at the time of testing the
units. The longitudinal reinforcement had measured yield
strengths of 308 MPa (44,700 psi) for the 24 mm (0.94 in.)
diameter bars, 321 MPa (46,500 psi) for the 28 mm (1.10 in.)
diameter bars, and 306 MPa (44,400 psi) for the 32 mm (1.26
in.) diameter bars. The measured yield strength of the trans-
verse reinforcement used in both the columns and beams was
398 MPa (57,700 psi).
EXTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN JOINT TEST UNITS
Test units
Figures 13 and 14 show the reinforcement details of the
two one-way exterior beam-column joint units that were
tested, Units O6 and O7.
Details of Units O6 and O7
Unit O7 was a full-scale replica of the exterior beam-
column joint of an existing reinforced concrete frame
constructed in New Zealand in the 1950s, in which the hooks
at the ends of the beam longitudinal bars were bent out of the
joint core. Unit O6 was identical to Unit O7 except that the
hooks at the ends of the beam longitudinal bars were bent
into the joint core.
For both units, deformed longitudinal reinforcement was
used rather than the plain round longitudinal reinforcement
that was typically used in New Zealand in the 1950s. Also,
although the frames of the existing structure were two-way,
the units tested did not contain beams at right angles to the
direction of lateral loading.
The 90 degree hooks at the ends of longitudinal beam bars
of Unit O6 had a straight extension at the tail of the hooks of
length 12db as is required by NZS 3101:1995,2 where db is
the bar diameter. For Unit 07, the 90 degree hooks at the ends
of the longitudinal beam bars had a straight extension at the
tail of the hooks of 4db , as was required by the New Zealand
standard in the 1950s. A plastic hinge was expected to occur
in the beam during seismic loading, and hence, the anchorage
details for the beam longitudinal reinforcement should ideally
be able to sustain several cycles of yielding of that reinforce-
ment. Units O6 and O7, however, contained only small quan-
17

Fig. 13—Dimensions and reinforcement details of Units O6
and O7. (Note: All dimensions are in mm. 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 14—Reinforcement in exterior beam-column joint units:
(a) Unit O6; and (b) Unit O7.
tities of shear reinforcement in the joint core, beam, and
columns, as in the prototype building shown in Fig. 2.
The normalweight concrete used for Units O6 and O7 had
measured compressive cylinder strengths of 34 and 31 MPa
(4930 and 4500 psi), respectively, at the time of testing the
units. The measured yield strength of the longitudinal rein-
forcement was 308 MPa (44,700 psi) and of the transverse
reinforcement was 398 MPa (57,710 psi).
18
Fig. 15—Loading frame used to apply simulated seismic
loading to units. (Note: All dimensions in mm. 1 mm =
0.039 in.)
Fig. 16—Test setup for exterior beam-column joint used.
(Note: All dimensions in mm. 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
METHOD OF LOADING
The beam-column joint units were subjected to simulated
seismic loading using the loading system shown in Fig. 15
for interior test units and Fig. 16 for the exterior test units,
respectively. The ends of the members of the subassemblage
coincided with the midspan and midheight points of the
building frame investigated. Cyclic horizontal loading was
applied to the top end of the columns of the test units using a
double acting hydraulic jack. For Unit O1, which was
expected to develop plastic hinges in the columns, the pinned
connection at the bottom of the column was modified so that
the column was held against lateral displacement there, but
the column was allowed to rotate and elongate. The ends of
the beams were connected by pin-ended steel members to the
reaction floor, so that the ends of the beams were free to
rotate and to translate horizontally but not vertically. To
simulate the negative moment in the beams at the column
faces due to gravity loading, the end of the bottom column of
the as-built unit was lifted up, before the cyclic horizontal
loading was applied, by an appropriate amount using a center
hole jack.
No axial load was applied to the columns during the tests
(N = 0), since axial compressive load applied across the joint
core would make conditions in the joint core more favorable.
In all tests, two cycles of horizontal loading to ±0.5Hi and
±0.75Hi were initially applied, where Hi is the lateral load at
the top of the column associated with the theoretical flexural
strength being reached at the critical sections of the beams or
columns, whichever is least, calculated using the conven-
tional compressive stress block for the concrete with an
extreme fiber concrete compressive strain of 0.003 and the
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
Fig. 17—Horizontal column force versus horizontal
displacement at top of column relationship for as-built
Unit O1. (1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 18—Observed cracking of as-built Unit O1 at first
load cycle to 2% story drift.
measured material strengths, and assuming a strength reduc-
tion factor of unity. The yield displacements Δy for all test
units were calculated by extrapolating the measured hori-
zontal displacement at 0.75Hi , linearly to Hi. The applied
cyclic loading in the inelastic range was displacement
controlled. The test units were subjected to two cycles of
loading to μ of ±1, ±2, ±4, ±6, and ±8, as far as possible, where
μ is the displacement ductility factor defined as Δ/Δy , where Δ
is the horizontal displacement at the top of the test unit.
TEST RESULTS OF INTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN
JOINT TEST UNITS
Unit O1
The measured hysteresis loops for horizontal column force
versus horizontal displacement at the top of column, and the
crack pattern at a story drift of 2%, for Unit O1 are shown in
Fig. 17 and 18. Also shown in Fig. 17 is the theoretical hori-
zontal load strength of the unit Hi , based on the flexural
strengths of the columns, calculated using the methods of
NZS 31012 and ACI 318-953 using the measured material
strengths and assuming a strength reduction factor φ of 1.0.
In addition, the theoretical stiffness of the beam-column unit
is shown, calculated assuming an effective moment of inertia
of the beams and columns of 0.5 of the gross (uncracked)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
Fig. 19—Horizontal column force versus horizontal
displacement at top of column relationship for retrofitted
Unit R1 (original specimen was damaged before retro-
fitted). (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
values and taking into account shear deformations of the
members9 and the shear deformation of the joint core. It was
assumed that the shear deformation of the joint core contrib-
uted 20% of the total displacement, as has been found previ-
ously.10 During the loading cycles, bond splitting cracks
occurred along the longitudinal beam reinforcement in the
joint core, and diagonal tension cracking developed in the
joint core (Fig. 18). As shown in Fig. 17, the flexural strength
of the columns was barely reached. The deformations due to
shear and bond slip in the joint core became very significant,
and pinching and severe degradation of stiffness were
observed in the hysteresis loops.
Units R1, R2, and R3
Figures 19 and 20 show the measured hysteresis loops for
horizontal column force versus horizontal displacement at
the top of the column for the retrofitted Units R1 and R2. The
increase in stiffness, strength, and ductility of the retrofitted
units can be observed by comparing Fig. 17 with Fig. 19 and
20. The measured hysteresis loops for Unit R1, which was
damaged before retrofitting, demonstrated stable and ductile
response with plastic hinges forming in the beams, although
some pinching was observed. Units R1 and R2 reached their
theoretical strengths based on the theoretical flexural
strengths of the retrofitted beams, calculated using the
measured material strengths and assuming a strength reduc-
tion factor of unity. Only a little reduction in strength was
evident up to the end of testing. The hysteresis loops shown
in Fig. 20 for Unit R2, which was not previously damaged,
are quite similar to those observed for Unit R1, although
diagonal cracks had developed in the joint core earlier for
Unit R1 than for Unit R2 due to the previous damage to the
as-built Unit O1. This suggests that the previous damage to
the as-built unit had little effect on the response of the unit
when retrofitted. Although diagonal tension cracks devel-
oped in the jacket of the joint core of the retrofitted Unit R2,
this cracking evidently had no detrimental effect on the
seismic performance of the unit, in spite of the fact that hori-
zontal shear reinforcement was not placed in the jacket of the
joint core. This is mainly due to the reduction in the hori-
zontal shear stress in the joint core as a result of the enlarge-
ment of the column area.
19
Fig. 20—Horizontal column force versus horizontal
displacement at top of column relationship for retrofitted
Unit R2 (original specimen was not damaged before retro-
fitted). (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 21—Horizontal column force versus horizontal
displacement at top of column relationship for retrofitted
Unit R3 (original specimen was not damaged before retro-
fitted). (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Figures 21 and 22 show the measured hysteresis loops for
horizontal column force versus horizontal displacement at the
top of the column, and the final crack pattern, for Unit R3,
which was not damaged before retrofitting the columns alone.
As can be seen in Fig. 22, after plastic hinging developed in
the beams at the critical regions, the diagonal tension cracks
extended and opened wide in the beams during negative
moment, causing beam shear failure at a storey drift of
approximately 0.7%. Figure 21 shows that the strength of Unit
R3 reduced significantly after a displacement ductility factor
of 4 was reached, which was the stage of initiation of the beam
shear failure. The strength of the beams then degraded rapidly
as the displacement ductility factor imposed on the test spec-
imen increased, mainly due to the reduced shear carried by the
concrete mechanisms, particularly by aggregate interlock.
Units O4 and O5
The measured hysteresis loops for horizontal column force
versus horizontal displacement at the top of the column for
Units O4 and O5 are shown in Fig. 23 and 24, respectively.
For both units, shear failure of the beams commenced during
20
Fig. 22—Observed cracking of retrofitted Unit R3 at end of
test at second load cycle to μ = –8.
Fig. 23—Horizontal column force versus horizontal displace-
ment at top of column relationship for Unit O4. (Note: 1 kN =
0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
the first loading cycle to a displacement ductility factor of 4.
The test was temporarily terminated after that loading cycle,
and the beams were retrofitted using external vertical stir-
rups that were tightened by nuts on threaded portions to
apply vertical clamping forces to the beams (Fig. 25 and 26).
The units were then retested to obtain further information
about the seismic behavior of the joints. In Fig. 23 and 24,
the response before beam retrofit is shown by dotted lines,
and that after beam retrofit by solid lines. Also shown are the
theoretical horizontal load strengths Hi based on the flexural
strength of the beams calculated using the measured material
strengths and assuming a strength reduction factor of unity.
Figures 25 and 26 show the observed cracking of Units O4
and O5 at the end of the tests.
For Unit O4, after diagonal tension cracking occurred in
the joint core, the flexural strengths of the beams were
reached in the loading cycle to a displacement ductility
factor μ of 2, as shown in Fig. 23. In the loading cycle to μ
of 6, the diagonal tension cracks in the joint core extended
and widened in conjunction with bond splitting cracks along
the column corner bars, as seen in Fig. 25. Severe degrada-
tion of strength and pinching were observed in the hysteresis
loops at this stage.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
 Fig. 26—Observed cracking of Unit O5 at end of test at
Fig. 24—Horizontal column force versus horizontal displace- second load cycle to μ = –8.
ment at top of column relationship for Unit O5. (Note: 1 kN =
0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

Fig. 27—Horizontal column force versus horizontal

displacement at top of column relationship measured for
Unit O6. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 25—Observed cracking of Unit O4 at end of test at
second load cycle to μ = –8.

For Unit O5, the measured hysteresis loops for horizontal

column force versus horizontal displacement at the top of the
column, shown in Fig. 24, and the observed cracking, shown
in Fig. 26, are quite similar to those for Unit O4, in spite of
the fact that the bond conditions along the beam bars passing
through the joint core were more severe for Unit O5 due to
the larger beam bar diameter-to-column depth ratio used.
Nevertheless, the degradation of strength was a little more
severe in the case of Unit O5, which can be attributed to the
smaller concrete compressive strength measured for Unit O5
as well as to the higher bond stresses.

TEST RESULTS OF EXTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN

JOINT TEST UNITS
Figures 27 and 28 show the measured hysteresis loops for
the horizontal force applied to the top of the column versus
the horizontal displacement at the top of column for Units
O6 and O7, respectively. The observed cracking of the two
units near the end of testing is shown in Fig. 29. The
measured stiffness of the units compared with the calculated
initial stiffness after cracking is shown in Fig. 27 and 28.
Units O6 and O7
The measured hysteresis loops for Unit O6, in which the
hooks at the ends of the beam bars were bent into the joint
Fig. 28—Horizontal column force versus horizontal
displacement at top of column relationship measured for
Unit O7. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
core, demonstrated stable and ductile response with the
plastic hinge forming in the beam, although negligible shear
reinforcement was present in the joint core and the quantity
of column hoops and beam stirrups was small (Fig. 27). The
theoretical flexural strength of the beam was reached during
the test. The measured stiffness in the elastic range after
cracking was generally lower than calculated.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000 21


(a)
(b)
Fig. 29—Observed cracking of units near end of testing at
displacement ductility factor of 8: (a) Unit O6; and (b) Unit O7.
The measured hysteresis loops obtained for Unit O7, in
which the beam bar hooks were not bent into the joint core (the
ends of the beam bar hooks of the top bars were bent up and
the ends of the beam bar hooks of the bottom bars were bent
down) were quite different from those observed for Unit O6
(Fig. 27 and 28). The measured stiffness in the elastic range
after cracking was generally lower than calculated. The flex-
ural strength of the beam was not reached in either direction of
22
loading. The joint core of Unit O7 failed in shear shortly after
the development of diagonal tension cracking there.
DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
Units O1, R1, R2, and R3
The test on Unit O1 confirmed that the performance of the
interior beam-column joint region of the as-built frame
would be poor in a major earthquake, mainly due to the lack
of transverse reinforcement and to the inadequate anchorage
of longitudinal beam bars in the joint core. The maximum
horizontal nominal joint shear stress calculated was 0.095fc′ ,
which can also be expressed as 0.61√fc′ MPa (7.32√fc′ psi).
The diameter of longitudinal beam bar to column depth ratio
was 1/12.5. The joint showed significant diagonal tension
cracking (Fig. 18), and the degradation of stiffness shown in
Fig. 17 was due to that cracking in the joint and to bond slip
of the longitudinal beam bars through the joint.
The ratio of the theoretical flexural strength of the column,
when the axial load was zero, to that of the beam was 0.69
for Unit O1, and hence, plastic hinges were expected to form
in the columns during the test. The columns, however, did
not reach their theoretical flexural strength in one direction
of loading because shear failure of the joint core occurred.
The increase in flexibility of the unit due to bond slip and
shear deformations became very large.
For Units R1 and R2, which were retrofitted by jacketing
the beams and columns, the maximum horizontal nominal
shear stress in the enlarged joint calculated from Vjh/Ag were
0.29√fc′ * and 0.27√fc′ * MPa (3.5√fc′ * and 3.2√fc′ * psi),
respectively, where fc′ * is the weighted average compressive
cylinder strength of the two concretes (existing and added)
of the joint core. This joint shear stress was evidently low
enough not to result in joint shear failure, since the joints of
Units R1 and R2 behaved satisfactorily, and almost simi-
larly, with ductile plastic hinge behavior in the beams in spite
of the fact that Unit R2 had no joint core hoops.
For Unit R3, which was retrofitted by jacketing the
column only, the maximum horizontal nominal shear stress
in the enlarged joint, calculated from Vjh/Ag , was 0.23√fc′ *
MPa (2.8√fc′ * psi), where fc′ * is the weighted average
compressive strength of the two concretes of the joint. The
joint behavior was satisfactory despite the absence of joint
core hoops, but the unit did not behave in a ductile manner
because shear failure of the beams occurred. The shear rein-
forcement in the beam was nominal, capable of carrying by
truss action, assuming 45 degree diagonal tension cracks,
less than 20% of the shear force at the flexural strength of the
beam. Shear failure in the beams occurred when, with beam
negative moment, the maximum nominal shear stress in the
beams reached approximately 0.18√fc′ MPa (2.2√fc′ psi). With
beam positive moment, the maximum nominal shear stress in
the beams was approximately 0.11√fc′ MPa (1.3√fc′ psi) and
shear failure for that direction of shear force did not occur.
The success of retrofitting the joint cores of Units R2 and
R3 by increasing the column section and not placing hoops
around the longitudinal column bars in the joint core should
be treated with caution. The axial compressive load on the
columns during the tests was zero. With an axial compres-
sive load present, buckling of the longitudinal column bars
in the concrete jacket surrounding the joint core would have
been more likely. Hence, some hoops should always be
placed in the jacket of the joint core around the longitudinal
column bars. NZS 3101:19952 requires such hoop sets in the
joint core to have a vertical spacing not exceeding 10 times
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
the diameter of the longitudinal column bar or 200 mm
(7.9 in.), whichever is least.
Units O4 and O5
For Units O4 and O5, the maximum nominal horizontal
joint shear stresses were 0.47√fc′ and 0.61√fc′ MPa (5.6√fc′
and 7.35√fc′ psi), respectively. The test results from Units O4
and O5 indicated that, after the plastic hinges had developed
in the beams, the performance of the interior beam-column
joints deteriorated due to extensive diagonal tension cracking
in the joint core. However, for such interior joints without
shear reinforcement in the joint core, where the beam bar
diameter to column depth ratio ranged from 1/25 to 1/18.8, the
seismic behavior was not significantly affected by the bond
conditions along the beam bars passing through the joint.
The db /hc ratio of 25 for Unit O4 satisfied the bond
requirements of NZS 3101:1995,2 but the db /hc ratio of 18.8
of Unit O5 did not. Although bar slip commenced at a lower
displacement ductility factor for Unit O5, the horizontal
column load versus horizontal displacement hysteresis loops
for the two units were almost identical for displacements up
to a displacement ductility factor of 6.
Units O6 and O7
For Unit O6, the maximum nominal horizontal joint shear
stress vjh , given by Eq. (17) with Aj = Ag and with Vjh calculated
as shown in Fig. 4, was 0.053fc′ , which evidently was not high
enough to cause joint shear failure. This maximum value of vjh
can also be expressed as 0.31√fc′ MPa (3.7√fc′ psi). Only a very
small reduction in strength was measured during the loading
cycles up to a displacement ductility factor μ of 10. In the final
stages of testing, shear failure occurred in the beam (Fig. 29(a)).
At the stage of beam shear failure, the maximum nominal shear
stress in the beam was 0.14√fc′ MPa (1.7√fc′ psi).
For Unit O7, the maximum horizontal joint shear stress vjh
was 0.045f c′ for one direction of lateral loading and
0.038fc′ for the other direction of lateral loading. These two
maximum values of vjh can also be expressed as 0.25√fc′ and
0.21√fc′ MPa (3.0√fc′ and 2.5√fc′ psi), respectively. The
maximum nominal shear stress reached in the beam was
0.10√fc′ MPa (1.2√fc′ psi), which was not great enough to
cause shear failure of the beam during the test.
The diagonal tension cracks in the joint core widened during
the test and connected to the bond splitting cracks along the
column outer bars as shown in Fig. 29(b). It is evident from
Fig. 29(b), and schematically in Fig. 5(b) for one direction of
loading, that the diagonal compression strut in the joint core
did not effectively engage the beam hook, but rather pushed
against the longitudinal column reinforcing steel, resulting in
a wide splitting crack along that column reinforcement. Had
the column hoops above and below the joint core been more
adequate, it is possible that the diagonal compression strut
could have been equilibrated by engaging the column hoops
outside the depth of the beam, as shown schematically in Fig.
5(c) for one direction of bending moment. The quantity of
column hoops, however, was very small.
A full analysis of the test results may be seen elsewhere.8
SHEAR STRENGTH OF INTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN
JOINTS WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
Joint shear strength when governed by diagonal
compression failure
The presence of diagonal tensile strains in the joint core
will reduce the diagonal compressive strength of the
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
concrete.11,12 When the joint shear stress is large, and trans-
verse reinforcement is not present in the joint core, signifi-
cant diagonal tension cracking in both directions will occur
in the joint core. Note that Fig. 3(b) shows only the diagonal
tension cracking in one direction. Under reversed cyclic
loading in the inelastic range, as a consequence of earth-
quake forces, these diagonal tension cracks will become
large, and disintegration of the concrete will begin because
of the repeated opening and closing of the cracks along
which shear sliding movements occur. This will be associ-
ated with a drastic volumetric increase of the joint core
concrete unless adequate confinement is provided (Fig. 25
and 26). These phenomena will reduce the diagonal
compressive strength of the concrete of the joint core.
Hence, it is evident that after diagonal tension cracking of
the core of interior beam-column joints without shear rein-
forcement, the eventual failure of the joint core will gener-
ally occur as a result of compression failure of the diagonal
compression strut. That failure may occur at a seismic force
higher than required to cause diagonal tension cracking of
the joint core, as is observed from the test results of the six
units shown in Fig. 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24. Diagonal
compression failure will occur regardless of the degree of
bond deterioration along the bars passing through the joint
core. If the bond is poor, the diagonal compression strut
mechanism will transfer the joint shear since the truss mech-
anism will not function (Fig. 3(d)) without bond forces. If the
bond is good, the truss mechanism cannot transfer the joint
shear without shear reinforcement in the joint core, and the
diagonal tension cracking in the joint core will lead to the
joint shear being carried mainly by the diagonal compression
strut mechanism. Bond forces will be transferred to the diag-
onal compression strut over the width of the compression
zone at the end of the strut.
To obtain the nominal joint shear stress at the stage of joint
failure, the test results of a number of other investigators
were analyzed. Figure 30 plots the relationship between the
maximum nominal horizontal joint shear stress vjh and the
concrete compressive cylinder strength fc′ , obtained from the
test results of six interior beam-column joint units without
joint shear reinforcement, as tested by Hanson and Conner,13
Bessho et al.,14 Blaikie,15 Pessiki et al.,16 and Kawachi et
al.17 The nominal horizontal joint shear stress was defined
by Eq. (9). The six units analyzed covered a wide range of
concrete strengths. The maximum nominal horizontal joint
shear stresses of all the units analyzed were reached before
the theoretical flexural strengths of the beams were attained,
except for the unit of Hanson and Conner.13 Although the
available test data is quite limited, the maximum nominal
horizontal joint shear stress was found to increase almost in
direct proportion to the compressive cylinder strength of
concrete (Fig. 30). This indicates that for these test units, the
maximum nominal horizontal joint shear stress was strongly
related to the stage of diagonal compression failure of the
joint core concrete. Based on this limited test data, the
following equation can be used to give the lower bound for
the test results.
v jh = 0.17f c′ (18)
For designers, it may be more convenient to express the
maximum nominal horizontal joint shear stress in terms of
√fc′ . In such a case, Eq. (18) can be replaced by the following
23
Fig. 30—Measured relationship between joint horizontal
shear stress vjh and concrete compressive strength f c′ . (Note:
1 MPa = 145 psi.)
Fig. 31—Measured relationship between vjh/f c′ and
displacement ductility factor μ.
more conservative equation for when the concrete compressive
strength is greater than 30 MPa (4350 psi) (Fig. 30).
v jn = 1.0 f c′ MPa (12 f c′ psi) (19)
Degradation of joint shear strength
Of particular interest is the deterioration of the shear
strength of beam-column joints under cyclic forces. The
diagonal tension cracking of the joint core in alternative
directions during seismic loading will reduce the diagonal
compressive strength of the concrete. Therefore, the joint
shear strength may degrade as the displacement ductility
factor imposed cyclically on the structure increases.
Figure 31 plots the relationship between the ratio of the
nominal horizontal joint shear stress to the concrete
compressive cylinder strength vjh /fc′ and the displacement
ductility factor μ obtained for the units tested in this study
and for Blaikie’s unit.15 The seismic behavior of these units
without shear reinforcement can be classified as follows. At
a joint shear stress vjh of approximately 0.17fc′ , joint shear
failure initiated at a displacement ductility factor μ of 1,
followed by rapid strength degradation as shown in Fig. 31.
When the joint shear stress vjh was in the range 0.11fc′ to
0.07fc′ , joint shear failure initiated during the loading to μ of
4 or 6, and the joint strength degraded moderately. When the
joint shear stress vjh, was less than 0.05fc′ , the joint did not
fail up to a displacement ductility factor μ of at least 8, and
the joint behavior did not affect the ductility of the adjacent
members in which flexural plastic hinges had developed.
24
Fig. 32—Model for degradation of available vjh/f c′ with
imposed displacement ductility factor μ.
Fig. 33—Model for degradation of available k = vjh/√f c′
with imposed curvature ductility factor φu/φy.
Based on the previously explained test data, a model
shown in Fig. 32 is proposed for the shear strength degradation
of interior beam-column joints without shear reinforcement.
The test data is shown by solid circles and linear interpolation
was used between the test data. The proposed model is based
on the results from beam-column joint specimens tested
without axial load acting on the columns. The effect of axial
load on the column on the degradation of the joint strength
needs to be investigated in future research.
Designers have become accustomed to specifying shear
strength in terms of √fc′ rather than fc′ . Figure 33 shows a
shear strength degradation model proposed by Park6 for the
assessment of interior beam-column joints of one-way
frames. The available joint horizontal shear stress vjh is spec-
ified in terms of √fc′ in Fig. 33, and the imposed ductility is
defined in terms of the curvature ductility factor φu/φy in the
beam plastic hinges at the faces of the column.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The test results indicate that the seismic performance of
typical interior beam-column joints of pre-1970s designed
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames without trans-
verse reinforcement in the beam-column joint cores would
be poor in a severe earthquake if the nominal horizontal joint
shear stress exceeds approximately 0.17fc′ ;
2. If the frame responds in the post-elastic range, the avail-
able shear strength of interior beam-column joint cores
without transverse reinforcement decreases with an increase
in the imposed ductility of the adjacent beam plastic hinge
regions. At an imposed displacement ductility factor of 6 for
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
the interior beam-column joint units tested, failure of the
joint core occurred if the nominal horizontal joint shear
stress exceeded approximately 0.07fc′ ;
3. The jacketing of beam-column joints with new rein-
forced concrete was identified as a useful technique for
enhancing the stiffness, strength, and ductility of poorly
detailed as-built beam-column joint regions. The technique,
however, is very labor-intensive and the placement of the
new joint core hoops, passing through holes to be drilled in
the existing beams, is difficult;
4. Based on the limited test data, it was found that, even
when no joint core hoops are present in existing one-way inte-
rior beam-column joints, no new joint core hoops are required
for shear reinforcement if the existing column is enlarged by
jacketing so that the horizontal nominal shear stress in the
joint core is reduced to less than 0.07f c′ . This finding was for
joints with no axial load on the columns. When axial compres-
sive load is present on columns, a greater horizontal joint shear
stress would be tolerable, but some joint core hoops would be
necessary to prevent column bar buckling;
5. A model for the available horizontal nominal shear stress in
a joint core versus the imposed curvature ductility factor at the
plastic hinges in the beams adjacent to the joint core is proposed
based on the above findings, which enables the shear strength of
interior beam-column joints of one-way frames without trans-
verse reinforcement in the joint core to be assessed;
6. The seismic performance of the one-way exterior beam-
column joints with very little transverse reinforcement in the
beam-column joint core and adjacent members, and with
moderate joint shear stresses, was significantly influenced
by the directions in which the ends of the beam bar hooks in
the joint core were bent. The performance under seismic
loading was significantly improved when the ends of the
hooks of the top and bottom longitudinal beam bars were
bent into the joint core as in current practice. Exterior beam-
column joints of early frames in which the ends of the hooks
of the beam bars were bent out of the joint core are likely to
behave unsatisfactorily during a severe earthquake;
7. The exterior beam-column joint tested in which the ends
of the hooks of the beam longitudinal bars were bent into the
joint core was able to withstand a nominal joint horizontal
shear stress of 0.053fc′ when plastic hinging occurred in the
beam. This nominal horizontal joint shear stress can also be
expressed as 0.31√fc′ MPa (3.7√fc′ psi). Very little degrada-
tion of flexural and shear strength occurred up to an imposed
displacement ductility factor of approximately 10; and
8. The other exterior beam-column joint tested, which was
identical except that the ends of the hooks of the beam longitu-
dinal bars were bent out of the joint core, failed in shear when a
maximum nominal joint horizontal shear stress of 0.045fc′ was
reached. This nominal horizontal joint shear stress can also be
expressed as 0.25√fc′ MPa (3.0√fc′ psi). The flexural strength of
the beam was not reached in either direction of loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial assistance provided by the Earthquake Commission of New
Zealand (Projects No. 91/15 and 93/102) is gratefully acknowledged. The
Tokyu Construction Co. of Japan is also thanked for their financial support.
NOTATION
Ag = gross area of column
bc = width of column
bj = effective width of joint
bw = width of beam web
Cc1,Cc2 = compressive forces in concrete at faces of beam-column
joint in Beams 1 and 2, respectively
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000
db = diameter of longitudinal bar in beam
f c′ = concrete compressive cylinder strength
fy = yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing steel
fyt = yield strength of transverse reinforcing steel
Hi = theoretical horizontal load strength of beam-column joint
unit, calculated from flexural strength of members using
measured material strengths and assuming strength reduc-
tion factor φ of unity
jd1, jd2 = lever arm between tension steel force and resultant compres-
sive forces in Beams 1 and 2, respectively
k = coefficient in joint shear strength equation
N = axial compressive load on column
T1, T2 = tensile forces in tension reinforcement in Beams 1 and 2,
respectively
vjh = nominal horizontal shear stress in beam-column joint core
Vjh, Vjv = horizontal and vertical shear forces acting on beam-column
joint core, respectively.
Vc′ = shear force acting in column at face of beam-column joint core
Δ = horizontal displacement
Δy = horizontal displacement at first yield
μ = Δ/Δy
φu = ultimate curvature
φy = curvature at first yield
REFERENCES
1. General Structural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings, NZS
4203:1992, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, 1992.
2. The Design of Concrete Structures, NZS 3101:1995, Standards New
Zealand, Wellington, 1995.
3. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 369 pp.
4. Park, R. et al., “The Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake (The Great
Hanshin Earthquake) of 17 January 1995. Report of the NZNSEE Recon-
naissance Team,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earth-
quake Engineering, V. 28, No. 1, Mar. 1995, pp. 1-98.
5. Priestley, M. J. N., and Calvi, G. M., “Towards a Capacity Design
Assessment Procedure for Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Earthquake
Spectra, V. 7, No. 3, 1991, pp. 415-437.
6. Park, R., “A Static Force-Based Procedure for the Seismic Assess-
ment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames,” Bulletin
of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 30,
No. 3, Sept. 1997, pp. 213-226.
7. Priestley, M. J. N., “Displacement-Based Seismic Assessment of
Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 29, No. 4, Dec. 1996,
pp. 256-272.
8. Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., “Retrofitting of Reinforced
Concrete Moment-Resisting Frames,” Research Report 95-4, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1995.
9. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley,
New York, 1975.
10. Cheung, P. C.; Paulay, T.; and Park, R., “Seismic Design of Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints with Floor Slab,” Research Report
91-4, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New
Zealand, 1991.
11. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., “Shear and Torsion Design of
Prestressed and Nonprestressed Concrete Beams,” Journal of the
Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 25, No. 5, 1980, pp. 32-101.
12. Stevens, N. B.; Uzumeri, S. M.; and Collins, M. P., “Reinforced
Concrete Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Shear—Experiments and Constitu-
tive Model,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 2, 1991, pp. 135-146.
13. Hanson, N. H., and Conner, H. W., “Tests of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints under Simulated Seismic Loading,” Portland Cement
Association Research and Development, Bulletin RD 012, 1972, 11 pp.
14. Bessho, S.; Okamoto, K.; and Hatamoto, H., “Lateral Loading Behav-
iour of Reinforced Concrete Wide Beam to Column Subassemblages,” Trans-
actions of Architectural Institute of Japan, 1989, pp. 481-482. (in Japanese)
15. Blaikie, E. L., “Behavior of Unreinforced and Lightly Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Proceedings of Pacific Concrete Confer-
ence, V. 1, Auckland, 1988, pp. 181-193.
16. Pessiki, S. P.; Conley, C. H.; Gergely, P.; and White, R. N., “Seismic
Behavior of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Column and Beam-Column Joint
Details,” Technical Report NCEER 90-0014, National Center for Earth-
quake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo,
N.Y., 1990.
17. Kawachi, T.; Jinno, Y.; Kadoriku, J.; and Kumagai, H., “An Experi-
mental Study on Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column
Joints Using High-Strength Materials,” Shimizu Technical Report, V. 55,
1992, pp. 41-50. (in Japanese)
25