Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Probabilistic model for failure initiation of reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn connections subjected to seismic loading
Nilanjan Mitra a, , Sudeshna Mitra a , Laura N. Lowes b
a b

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

article

info

abstract
The results of previous experimental tests indicate that reinforced concrete interior beam column joints may exhibit significant strength and stiffness loss under earthquake loading, and the results of postearthquake reconnaissance indicate that joint failure may result in structural collapse. Thus seismic evaluation and design of reinforced concrete frames requires accurate prediction of the potential for joint failure. This paper presents a binomial logit model, developed using data from 110 experimental tests, which define the probability that a reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn building connection, with a specific set of design parameters, will exhibit either a non-ductile joint shear failure prior to beam yielding or a ductile failure that initiates with beam yielding. The calibrated model identifies the relative importance of various design parameters in determining the connections response mechanism. The model can be used by an engineer designing a new connection, constructed of normal or high-strength materials, to estimate the likelihood of joint failure initiation. The model can also be used by an engineer evaluating an existing structure to estimate the likelihood of joint failure, determine the factors that most significantly affect this likelihood, and, thereby, develop a suitable and efficient retrofit strategy. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 21 April 2009 Received in revised form 26 September 2010 Accepted 30 September 2010 Available online 25 October 2010 Keywords: Probabilistic model Reinforced concrete Beam-column connections Logistic regression Failure initiation Joint shear failure Beam yielding

1. Introduction In a reinforced concrete frame subjected to earthquake loading, beamcolumn joints are critical for developing frame action and ensuring that inertial loads are transferred through the frame to the foundation. Post-earthquake reconnaissance efforts have attributed the collapse of many reinforced concrete frames to the failure of joints [1]. Similarly, analyses of building frames, using models that simulate joint stiffness and strength loss, show that nonlinear joint action reduces lateral load resistance and that joint failure may result in structural collapse [2]. Given the importance of these components, numerous previous experimental investigations have addressed the seismic behavior of beamcolumn joints, the mechanisms that determine behavior, and the design parameters that affect behavior. The results of previous experimental investigations show that joints may exhibit significant stiffness and strength loss under lateral loading. The results of previous research suggest also that, in addition to material properties and geometric configuration, a number of different design parameters may affect

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 3222 283430. E-mail addresses: nilanjan@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in (N. Mitra), sudeshna@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in (S. Mitra), lowes@u.washington.edu (L.N. Lowes). 0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.029

joint response. These design parameters include joint shear stress demand [313], joint transverse reinforcement ratio [3,6,1417], bond stress demand for beam longitudinal reinforcement passing through the joint [3,7,1823], and column axial load [7,9,14,17, 2429]. For joints with sufficient strength to develop the yield strength of the beams framing into the joint, experimental data indicate also that drift history affects strength deterioration of the joint [30,31]. Experimental investigations at the University of Washington [30,31] also indicate that drift has minimal impact on connection strength. The ACI Committee 352 [32] defines a beamcolumn joint as that portion of the column within the depth of the deepest beam that frames into the column, and a connection as the joint plus the columns, beams and slabs adjacent to the joint. The strength of a beamcolumn connection may be determined by the flexural yield strength of the beams or columns framing into the joint, or by the joint region. The results of previous research provide a basis for the current ACI Code [33] requirements that are intended to ensure that connection response is determined by flexural yielding of beams and that connection strength is determined by beam flexural strength. These requirements include a minimum volume of transverse reinforcement, a minimum anchorage length for beam longitudinal reinforcement, a minimum column-to-beam flexural strength ratio, and a limit on the joint shear stress demand. Joints designed prior to 1967 [18,27,30,34,35,31] typically do not comply with the current ACI Code [33] requirements and may

N. Mitra et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162

155

result in connections that exhibit joint failure or column yielding prior to beam yielding. Very limited guidance is provided by the ACI Code [33] for design of structures with high-strength materials; however, high-strength materials have been used in recent construction project. Joints designed using high-strength materials may result in connections for which seismic behavior is determined by joint failure and not beam yielding [12,14,16,19,3640]. In recent years, high strength concrete (concrete with compressive strength in excess of 59 MPa (8.6 ksi), as specified by ACI-363 committee [41]) has been used successfully to reduce member sizes in cast-inplace concrete buildings and high-rise structures [39]. However, research studies by Noguchi et al. [37] report that the use of smaller, high-strength concrete column increases the potential for joint shear failure prior to beam yielding. High strength reinforcing steel has been used also in recent construction to reduce the congestion of reinforcing bars in slender members [16,19,38]. However, research studies by Fujii and Morita [14] concluded that high strength reinforcing steel in beams may increase beam flexural strength and joint shear demand such that joint shear failure precedes beam yielding. Identification of the mechanism that determines connection strength and seismic behavior (i.e., beam yielding, column yielding, joint failure) provides insight into the performance of the connection. Previous research indicates that connections that exhibit joint failure prior to flexural yielding of beams and columns exhibit minimal ductility and minimal drift capacity [5,7,9,12, 14,16,19,38]. Connections for which strength is determined by column yielding may develop a soft-story mechanism leading to structural collapse at relatively low drift demands [18, 35]. However, connections in which joints exhibit minimal stiffness loss and for which strength is determined by beam yielding typically exhibit a ductile response and significant drift capacity [3,6,12,16,22,23,40,42,43]. In evaluating and retrofitting existing structures and designing new structures, it is appropriate to assess the potential for beamcolumn connections to exhibit a non-ductile response as well as the impact of inelastic joint action on frame response. To address this issue, a number of previous studies have focused on the development of mechanistic models for simulation of connection response. Simple mechanistic models [4447] are computationally efficient, but require the engineer to make a number of assumptions about beam, column and joint behavior, including the mechanism that determines connection strength and drift capacity. A detailed discussion of examples of relatively simple models can be found in Mitra [48]. Previous research has resulted also in more sophisticated models [4955] that provide improved prediction of the mechanism that determines the connections behavior. These models require far fewer assumptions by engineers, but are typically both computationally intensive as well as time consuming to calibrate for a particular connection with specific design parameters. The reader is referred to Mitra and Lowes [53] for an example of one of these sophisticated models and Mitra [48] for a detailed discussion of the models referenced above. The above models enable the engineer to assess the potential for non-ductile connection response as well as the impact of inelastic joint action on frame response. However, use of the above models typically requires a significant investment of an engineers time. The objective of the research present here was to develop a simple, easily applied, computationally efficient model that the engineer can use to assess the potential for non-ductile connection response and thereby the need for further investigation using more sophisticated and time consuming analysis methods. 2. Research objectives, motivation and activities The research presented here seeks to fill the need for a simple and efficient tool for preliminary assessment of connection

performance. Specifically, the objectives of the research are to 1. Use existing experimental data to develop a simple model that will define the probability of failure initiation of reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn connection, either by a nonductile joint failure mechanism or a ductile, beam-yielding mechanism, subjected to seismic loading. 2. Quantify the impact of various design parameters on the likelihood of the connection exhibiting joint failure. It is expected that this model will provide 1. An engineer designing new connections with the ability to estimate the likelihood of joint failure controlling connection response. With this model, an engineer can determine the parameters determining the connections response and, thereby, modify a new design to reduce the likelihood of a joint failure mechanism for a strong-column-weak-beam building frame subjected to earthquake loading. While the building code provides guidance for design of connections using normal-strength materials, it provides very limited guidance for design using high strength materials. 2. An engineer evaluating or retrofitting as existing structure with the ability to assess the likelihood of joint failure controlling connection response as well as improved understanding of the design parameters in determining the increased likelihood of joint failure. This information could be used to develop a suitable, efficient retrofit scheme. 3. A researcher with an estimate of the relative importance of various design parameters to the likelihood of a connection exhibiting a brittle joint failure as well as an example of the application of logistic models for prediction of the behavior of structural components and systems. To accomplish the above objectives, 1. A large experimental data set was assembled that includes data characterizing the response of building frame connections, with a wide range of design parameters, subjected to simulated earthquake loading. 2. These experimental data were used to calibrate a binomial logit model which determines the probability of initiation of connection failure initiation due to either joint failure or beam yielding. 3. Statistical goodness-of-fit tests were employed to validate the logit model. 4. The calibrated logit model was used in example applications to assess the relative importance of various connection design parameters on the likelihood of joint failure. 3. Experimental data set An extensive experimental data set was used to support development of the statistical model. The data set comprises 110 laboratory tests of two-dimensional interior beamcolumn connections conducted by 20 research teams from around the world during the last 40 years [3,5,7,9,1214,16,19,2123,30,34, 31,36,38,40,42,43,56]. Mitra [48] provide a detailed presentation of the data set, including material, geometric and design parameters for each test specimen. The specimens in the data set span a wide range of joint design parameters. However, the data set is limited to two-dimensional connections in which a continuous column intersects a continuous beam and specimen response is determined by flexural yielding of beams at the beam-joint interface and/or joint failure. Too few tests were found in the literature in which connection failure was determined by column hinging to enable use of these data in the analysis. To improve the accuracy of the model, connections with slabs, eccentric beams

156

N. Mitra et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162

(axis of the beam and column are not aligned), or out-of-plane beams were not included in the data set. Test specimens with plain round (smooth) reinforcing steel bars were also eliminated from the data set. Since too few tests were found in literature, the dataset does not include specimens in which the beam-hinging effect has been shifted from the beamcolumn joint interface to a distance away from the interface and also experimental investigations in which the columns axial load was varied during the test. All specimens were subjected to quasi-static, cyclic loading to develop load distributions that are representative of those that develop in a frame under earthquake loading. 3.1. Design parameters Based on the results of previous research, a number of potential design parameters were identified to determine the response of building connections. These include concrete compressive strength, joint shear stress demand, bond stress demand, ratio of anchorage length to longitudinal bar diameter, column axial load, aspect ratio of the joint, transverse horizontal steel reinforcement ratio within the joint, interior column longitudinal reinforcement ratio within the joint, yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing steel, and the ratio of the total strength of the beam top longitudinal steel to that of the bottom. Drift demand and drift history were not considered as experimental data since drift has a minimal impact on connection strength, though drift demand and history may affect strength deterioration once a failure mechanism forms [30,31]. A preliminary calibration of a probabilistic model (explained in detail in Section 4), using all of the considered parameters, resulted in identification of a reduced set of parameters that have a significant impact on connection response. These parameters, as well as previous experimental research confirming the importance of these parameters in determining the seismic performance of connections, are discussed in the following subsections. Table 1 provides statistics (e.g. minimum, maximum, mean) for these parameters for the entire experimental data set; computed values for individual test specimens are provided in Mitra [48]. 3.1.1. Nominal joint shear stress demand To ensure that joint failure does not determine connection response, ACI 31805 [33] and ACI 35202 [32] limit joint shear stress demand for special moment resisting frames (SMRFs), which are expected to experience multiple post-yield cycles of loading during an earthquake. This limit is defined as 15 fc psi where fc is the concrete compressive strength in psi (1.2 fc MPa for fc in MPa). ACI 35202 [32] provides recommendations for calculating this quantity. The results of a number of previous experimental investigations indicate that high joint shear stress demand can result in significant joint damage, loss of joint stiffness and loss of joint strength prior to flexural yielding of the beams that frame into the joint (i.e. joint failure) [313]. For the current study, nominal joint shear stress, , is defined as the shear stress in the joint when beams reach nominal flexural strength on either side of the joint, normalized by the square root of the concrete compressive stress:

352 with the exception that it (1) employs a slightly larger joint volume with the result that horizontal and vertical shear stresses are equal and (2) defines demand on the basis of frame member flexural strengths rather than longitudinal steel areas with the result that the determination of the frame member moments and column shear is consistent. It should be noted that because the nominal joint shear stress demand defined by Eq. (1) is computed using the nominal flexural strengths of the beams framing into the joint, it is neither the maximum shear stress demand carried by nor the true joint shear strength of the experimental test specimens The nominal shear stress is used in the model because it is a value that is computed easily for an existing or newly designed connection, and the maximum strength of existing or newly designed connections is not readily available. 3.1.2. Nominal bond stress demand within the joint ACI 31805 [33] requires that for joints in SMRFs the width of the joint should exceed 20 times the maximum diameter of the beams longitudinal reinforcement. This requirement is intended to limit the bond stress demand for beam reinforcement, which is expected to yield under seismic loading. The results of previous research indicate that short anchorage lengths and high average bond stress demand can result in joint damage, reduced joint strength, joint failure preceding beam yielding, and reduced drift capacity when connection strength is determined by beam yielding [3,6,7,12,16,1923,40,42,43]. For evaluation of joints of variable design, the ratio of column dimension to bar diameter is of limited value as it does not account for the impact of concrete strength on bond strength or steel strength on bond demand. Thus, for the current study, bond stress demand is characterized using the bond index, , proposed by Kitayama et al. [7]:

fy db 2hc

fc

(2)

where fy is the actual yield strength of the beam reinforcement, db is the beam bars diameter, and hc and fc are as defined previously. The bond index is the maximum bond stress demand within the joint, normalized by the square root of the concretes compressive strength, assuming that beam steel yields in tension and compression on opposite sides of the joint. 3.1.3. Joint transverse steel contribution to nominal joint shear force The results of previous research show that the volume of transverse reinforcement within the joint can determine joint strength and deformation capacity under seismic loading. Restrepo and Lin [17] show that the volume of transverse reinforcement within the joint determines the flow of forces in the joint core. Joh et al. [6] conclude that joint transverse reinforcement reduces slippage of the beam bars in the joint, and thereby enhances joint stiffness after cracking. These conclusions have been supported by the experimental investigations [3,1416]. ACI 31805, on the basis of the above research, requires a minimum transverse reinforcement ratio within the joint. Thus, for the current study, the transverse reinforcement ratio is included in the model as the ratio of the total force carried by the joints transverse reinforcement, assuming it yields, to the nominal joint shear force demand:

ML + MR hb

Vc
(1)

f c hc b j

where hc is the height of the column, bj is the maximum out-ofplane dimension of the beam or column, hb is the height of the beam, fc is the concretes compressive strength, ML and MR are the flexural strengths of the beam on the right and left of the joint computed in accordance with ACI 31805, and Vc is the lateral load applied to the top of the column at the nominal strength of the beams. This definition is similar to that provided by ACI Com.

= fc hc bj

Ast_T fyt

(3)

where Ast_T is the total area of joint transverse reinforcement passing through a plane normal to the beam axis, fyt is the actual yield strength of the joints transverse reinforcement, and , fc , hc and bj are as defined previously.

N. Mitra et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162 Table 1 Summary statistics for joint design parameters for data set presented in Mitra [48]. Parameter Units Minimum value 0.23 0.92 0.00 0.02 0.99 Maximum value 2.32 4.28 2.76 0.48 2.50 Mean 0.86 1.92 0.63 0.14 1.25

157

Coefficient of variation. 0.49 0.40 1.04 0.62 0.32

MPa
MPa Unitless Unitless Unitless

3.1.4. Column axial load ratio There is no consensus within the research community as to the impact of column axial load on the seismic response of joints. It has been argued that axial load improves the shear resistance of the beamcolumn joint by confining the joint core or by equilibrating part of the load transferred by an inclined compressive strut that forms in the joint as a result of joint shear action [17,27,29]. Agababian et al. [24] conclude that column axial load affects both strength and deformation capacity, stating that an increase in column axial load induces an increase in joint shear capacity of approximately 30% and an increase in the deformation capacity of approximately 50%. Kitayama et al. [7], however, conclude that while a column axial stress less than 0.5f c does not affect joint strength, high axial stress accelerates strength loss in the diagonal compression strut that forms in the joint core. Similarly, Fu et al. [26] conclude that while an increase in column axial load prior to the formation of a diagonal strut in the joint inhibits yield penetration for beam longitudinal reinforcement, an increase in column axial load after formation of a diagonal strut increases the compression force in the strut and the likelihood of crushing of joint core concrete. Based on experimental observations, it has also been concluded by others that column axial load affects only joint deformation and damage but not strength [14,25,28]. Meinheit and Jirsa [9] conclude merely that changes in column axial load result in changes in the pattern of cracking in the joint as well as the shear at which joint cracking initiates. Given the above, the impact of column axial load on connection response was investigated by including the column axial load ratio, p, in the model: p= P Ag fc (4)

stressstrain histories on the top and bottom of the beam and, thus, significantly different joint boundary and loading conditions. On the side of the beam with lower steel strength, cyclic loading will result in yielding of steel in compression as well as tension, minimal accumulated plastic strain, and likely the closing of concrete cracks. This could be expected to result in premature deterioration of beam flexural strength. On the side of the beam with greater steel strength, cyclic loading will result in accumulated tensile strain in the steel, progressive widening of concrete cracks, and no closing of cracks under compressive loading. This could be expected to impact the formation of a concrete compression strut within the joint as well as increase yield penetration into the joint, and thereby reduce drift capacity. Thus, the beam top to bottom steel strength ratio, is included in the model:

(n.fy .As )bt (n.fy .As )bb

(5)

where the subscript (.)bt refers to the top longitudinal beam bars and subscript (.)bb refers to the bottom, n is the number of bars, fy is the actual yield strength of the steel, and As is the cross-sectional area of a single bar. 3.2. Response parameters For the current study, specimens are considered to exhibit either joint failure, in which the maximum strength of the connection is less than that required to develop the yield strength of the beams, or beam yielding, in which the joint strength is sufficient to enable beams to develop yield strength. Beam yield strength was defined by first yield of the beam reinforcement, in either positive or negative bending. Beam yield strength was computed by performing a moment curvature analysis of a fibertype discretization of the beam section in which concrete fibers were modeled based on a modified KentPark model and steel fibers were modeled by a bilinear steel hardening response. The classification of each specimen in the data set is provided in Mitra [48]. For the data set used in the study, 72 specimens exhibited beam yielding prior to joint failure and 38 specimens exhibited joint shear failure prior to beam yielding. 3.3. The relationship between design and response parameters The results of previous experimental research suggest that the joint design parameters defined above determine the likelihood of a connection response being determined by joint failure or beam yielding. However, the results of previous experimental research do not provide models that (1) directly link design parameters with a response mechanism, (2) quantify the likelihood of connection response being determined by a particular mechanism, and (3) quantify the relative importance of individual design parameters in determining the response. To provide preliminary information about the relationship between connection design and response parameters, these data were plotted for the specimens in the data set (Fig. 1). The data in Fig. 1 support the following conclusions.

where P is the column axial load, Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of the column, and fc is as defined previously. It should be noted that the columns axial load was held approximately constant for all of the experimental tests included in the data set. A few previous studies have addressed the impact on structural response of variation in column axial load due to the overturning effect and vertical excitation of earthquake loading. Agababian et al. [24] and Higazy et al. [57] conclude that variations in column axial force due to earthquake can result in a significant deterioration in the structural response. However, too few tests were found in the literature in which variable column axial loading was applied to the specimen to enable calibration of the statistical model for this effect. 3.1.5. Ratio of top to bottom beam longitudinal steel strength Research by Ichinose [58] indicates that the difference in the total strength provided by the top and bottom beam reinforcement influences connection behavior. If there is a significant difference in the strength of top and bottom steel, it is more likely that the beam will reach the lower flexural yield strength (associated with yielding of the smaller volume of longitudinal steel) prior to joint failure. Once beam yielding occurs, if there is a significant difference in the strength of top and bottom reinforcement, cyclic loading will result in significantly different steel and concrete

The data in Fig. 1(a,b), on average, support the commonly held

understanding [e.g., 3, 16, 38, 43] that high joint shear stress demand and high bond stress demand increase the likelihood of

158

N. Mitra et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162 Table 2 Logit model results. Covariate Estimated 1.63 3.90 1.40 1.64 3.04 0.66 t-stat 1.86 3.44 1.88 2.59 2.24 p-value 0.0624 0.0060 0.0603 0.0095 0.0249 Odds ratio 5.10 49.4 0.25 0.19 0.05

a brittle joint shear failure prior to beam yielding. However, the data in these figures show that there are exceptions, suggesting that other design parameters must also be considered to accurately predict the likelihood of joint failure prior to beam yielding. The data in Fig. 1(c) show that connections in which joints have a high ratio of transverse steel strength to total shear demand Eq. (3) are more likely to exhibit beam yielding prior to joint failure. Similar observations have been made by others using smaller data sets [6,15,16,25]. The results of previous research suggest that column axial load [7,9,14,17,2429] and the ratio of beam top to bottom longitudinal reinforcement ratio [14,16,58] also influence connection response. However, the data in Fig. 1(d,e) do not suggest a strong relationship between failure mode and these parameters individually. 4. Methodological approach Experimental observations (Section 3.1) provide a qualitative measure of the impact of various design parameters on connection response. For the current study, a statistical model linking quantitative design parameters and qualitative connection response was desired. Linear and/or nonlinear regression is one possible approach for developing such a model; however, this is not ideal because it requires assigning a quantitative measure to the qualitative connection response parameter [59]. Logistic regression, however, is ideally suited for developing this type of model. This method allows for quantification of the conditional probability of a qualitative measure occurring based on quantitative data. Logistic regression is an established technique, in fields other than structural engineering, for developing relationships between qualitative response variables and a set of independent quantitative parameters [6065]. Additionally, logistic regression was used by Liao et al. [66] to define the probability of soil liquefying under earthquake excitation. For the current study, logistic regression was used to develop a relationship between the mechanism that determines the connection response described in Section 3.2 (a qualitative measure) and the set of independent design parameters described in Section 3.1 (quantitative measures). In comparison with linear/nonlinear regression, the logistic regression model has less stringent requirements since it does not assume linearity (or nonlinearity) of relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable, does not require normally distributed variables, and does not assume homoscedasticity [62]. Both the linear and the logistic models employ the regression relationship: Y = 0 + 1 X1 + 2 X2 + 3 X3 + k Xk . (6)

/mean /mean /mean p/pmean / mean

constant

4.1. The binomial logit model In this study, the dependent variable Y in Eq. (6) represents the likelihood of observing a brittle joint failure described as joint failure prior to beam yielding versus a more ductile joint response described as beam yielding prior to joint failure. To facilitate presentation of the calculations, the case of joint failure prior to beam yielding is referred to as Event 1 and the case of beam yielding prior to joint failure is referred to as Event 0. It should be noted that the values 0 and 1 do not have any physical significance, and other values could have been used, such as 200 and 150. Additionally, only event values of 0 and 1 are acceptable and event values between 0 and 1 are meaningless. In Eq. (6), the likelihood of observing a discrete event of brittle joint failure is defined by the log of the odds ratio for that event. The odds ratio for Event 1 is the ratio of the probability of occurrence of Event 1, PE =1 , to the probability of occurrence of Event 0, PE =0 . Thus,

Y = log

P E =1 1 P E =1

= log

P E =1 P E =0

= 0 +

K k=1

k Xk

(7)

where i are logistic regression parameters, Xi are the joint design parameters, normalized by the mean value for the specimens in the data set, and K is total number of design parameters considered. As described in Ben-Akiva and Lerman [60], Eq. (7) may be manipulated to define the probability of occurrence of Events 1 and 0: e
0 +
K k=1

k Xk
K

P E =1 =

(8a)
k Xk

1+e P E =0 = 1+e

0 +

k=1

1
0 +
K

.
k Xk

(8b)

k=1

However, while an ordinary linear regression model defines a relationship between continuous variables, Xi , and a continuous dependent variable, Y , a logistic regression model defines a relationship between continuous variables, Xi , and the likelihood of occurrence of a discrete event, Y . For a linear regression model, model parameters, i in Eq. (6), are computed to minimize an error function, typically the sum of the squares of the difference between the measured and computed (Eq. (6)) response parameter Y . In a logistic regression model, the discrete nature of the variable Y precludes this approach. Thus, the method of maximum likelihood [64], which provides a means of choosing an asymptotically efficient estimator for a set of parameters, typically is used to compute logistic regression parameters, i . A logistic model may be used to predict the likelihood of multiple discrete outcomes. For the current study, only two outcomes of joint failure prior to beam yielding and/or beam yielding prior to joint failure were considered. Thus, a binomial logit model was developed for the study.

5. Analysis results and the logit model The STATA econometric software package [67] was used to obtain the regression parameters, i in Eq. (7), using the method of maximum likelihood. For each of the independent variables, Table 2 shows the computed regression parameters, i , as well as statistical parameters for use in model evaluation. Having determined the logistic regression parameters i, one can use Eq. (8) to evaluate the probability of occurrence of Event 1 and Event 0. 5.1. Impact of design parameters on connection failure The computed regression parameters provide insight into the impact of individual design parameters on connection response. Given the definition of Y in Eq. (7), the sign of a regression parameter indicates whether an increase in the associated design parameter increases or decreases the likelihood of joint failure

N. Mitra et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162

159

(a) Variation of nominal joint shear stress demand with failure initiation mode.

(b) Variation of bond stress demand with failure initiation mode.

(c) Variation of column axial load ratio with failure initiation mode.

(d) Variation of transverse steel contribution to nominal joint shear stress with failure initiation mode.

(e) Variation of ratio of the total force of the top and the bottom longitudinal beam bars with failure initiation mode. Fig. 1. Variation of demand parameters with failure initiation mode.

prior to beam yielding. A positive (negative) regression parameter indicates that increasing the associated design parameter increases (decreases) the likelihood of a joint failure prior to beam yielding. Similarly, a negative (positive) regression parameter indicates that increasing the associated design parameter increases (decreases) the likelihood of beam yielding prior to joint failure. The relative magnitude of a coefficient indicates the relative importance of the parameters in determining connection response. The following paragraphs compare the analysis results with those of previous experimental investigations of joint behavior. 5.1.1. Influence of nominal joint shear stress demand The positive sign of the regression coefficient associated with nominal joint shear stress demand (Table 2) indicates that higher shear stress results in an increased probability of brittle joint failure prior to beam yielding. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, a similar conclusion has been reached by others [410,13,40]. The

relative magnitude of the regression parameter indicates that nominal joint shear stress is not the most critical design parameter in determining the likelihood of joint failure prior to beam yielding but is instead significantly less important than either bond stress demand or beam reinforcement ratio. While no previous studies have sought to identify and quantify the relative importance of the design parameters identified in Section 3.1 in determining connection response, this result contradicts general understanding within the community, as incorporated in the ACI Code [33] that shear stress demand is the most critical parameter in determining connection response. 5.1.2. Influence of beam bar bond stress demand Analysis results in Table 2 indicate also that increased beam bar bond stress demand results in increased likelihood of joint failure determining connection response. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, this conclusion is supported by previous

160

N. Mitra et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162

experimental research [3,20,21] The relative magnitude of the regression coefficient indicates that bond stress demand is the most influential parameter in predicting the connection response mechanism. The importance of bond in determining connection response is also supported by previous research [6870] as well as the ACI Code [33]. However this study represents the first attempt to quantify the relative importance of this parameter in comparison with other parameters that influence connection response. 5.1.3. Influence of transverse steel contribution to nominal joint shear force Statistical analysis results (Table 2) indicate that increasing the ratio of joint transverse steel strength to nominal joint shear demand reduces the likelihood of joint failure prior to beam yielding. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, this conclusion is supported by the results of previous experimental studies. The experimental investigations [3,1416] conclude that increasing the volume of joint transverse steel inhibits joint failure prior to beam yielding, and the investigations [6,16] conclude that reducing shear stress demand reduces the likelihood of joint failure. The relative magnitude of the regression parameter indicates that the transverse steel ratio defined by Eq. (3) is the least important of the design parameters considered in determining the likelihood of joint failure determining connection response. 5.1.4. Influence of column axial load ratio The data in Table 2 show that increasing column axial load ratio reduces the likelihood joint failure prior to beam yielding. As discussed in Section 3.1.4, there is no consensus within the community as to the impact of column axial load on connection response. Thus, this result supports the conclusions of some previous studies [17,24,26]. 5.1.5. Influence of the ratio of the top to bottom beam longitudinal steel strength The analysis results presented in Table 2 support the conclusion of Ichinose [58] that an increase in the ratio of the strength of beam top to bottom reinforcement will increase the likelihood of beam yielding. The relative magnitude of the regression coefficients indicates that the ratio of beam steel strengths is one of the most important parameters in determining if beam yielding will precede joint failure. The paucity of previous experimental studies investigating this parameter, suggests that few in the community consider this parameter to be important in determining connection behavior. Thus, this result indicating the importance of this parameter, both contradicts general understanding of the parameters that affect connection response as well as suggests an important direction for future experimental testing. 5.2. The odds ratio for evaluation of the relative importance of model variables The relative importance of independent variables in determining the likelihood of an Event occurring can also be assessed using the odds ratio. When quantitative or continuous independent variables are used in binomial logistic estimation, the natural logarithmic exponential of the logistic coefficient equals a multiplicative factor by which the predicted odds changes given a unit increase in the predictor variable and holding constant all other predictor variables in the equation. The odds ratio is estimated as follows:

1.0 (i.e., i , = 0), then changes in the predictor have no effect on the predicted odds. If the natural logarithmic exponential of the coefficient is greater than 1.0 (i.e. i , > 0), then an increase in the predictor will yield an increase in the predicted odds. If the natural logarithmic exponential of the coefficient is less than 1.0 (i.e. i , < 0), then an increase in the value of the predictor will yield a decrease in the predicted odds. The relative magnitudes of the odds ratios for each independent variable in the logit model can be compared to assess the relative importance of each variable in determining the likelihood of occurrence of either of the events. To determine the relative importance of all of the independent variables, odds ratios greater than 1.0 must be compared with the reciprocal of odds ratios less than 1.0. It should be noted that this evaluation of odds ratio is identical to evaluation of the relative magnitudes of the model coefficients. 6. Evaluation of the model 6.1. Statistical verification of the significance of the model parameters To identify the significance of the independent variables tstatistic and p-values were computed. The t-statistic determines whether the coefficient of a particular parameter is significantly different from zero, i.e. whether the null hypothesis H0 : i = 0 can be rejected or not, and the p-value provides the probability at which the null hypothesis cannot be rejected [61,65]. The computed t-statistics and p-values, as shown in Table 2, indicate that except variables /mean and /mean , all parameters are significant at least at the 5% level. Variables /mean and /mean are significant at about the 6% level, which indicates that all the parameters in this study are significant at least at the 10% level. Hence, the null hypothesis that these variables have no influence on the failure mechanism could be rejected and the relationship between the dependent variable and a set of independent variables cannot be attributed by chance. 6.2. Goodness-of-fit of the model To further evaluate the model, two goodness-of-fit tests are performed, since no single test can be considered comprehensive. The first test is the Hosmer and Lemeshow test [62] where the test statistic follows a chi-square distribution as shown by Hosmer and Lemeshow and the second one is the log-likelihood ratio test [64,65]. To compute the Hosmer and Lemeshow statistic [62], the total number of specimens is partitioned into 10 equal-sized groups on the basis of the predicted probability of joint failure preceding beam yielding. The statistic, which follows a chi-square distribution with 8 degrees of freedom, was computed as 7.67 with p-value of 0.47. Since this p-value is more than 0.05 it is not considered to be significant and we fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between observed and model-predicted values. Thus, the test implies that the models estimates fit the data. The likelihood ratio test [65] statistic is X 2 = 2[LL(R ) LL(U )] (10)

. (9) PY =0 The odds ratio ranges in value from zero to positive infinity. If the natural logarithmic exponential of the coefficient is equal to
odds ratio =

PY =1

=e

0 +

K k=1

k Xk

where LL(R ) is the log likelihood at convergence of the restricted model (i.e. model in which all the parameters except constant term is equal to 0), and LL(U ) is the log likelihood at convergence of the full or unrestricted model (i.e. model under investigation defined by values listed in Table 2). The X 2 statistic is chi-square distributed with the degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the number of parameters in the restricted and unrestricted model. For the proposed logit model, the value of the obtained log-likelihood for the unrestricted or full model is 44.9 whereas for the restricted model is 70.91. The chi-squared

N. Mitra et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162

161

The second connection, identified by Goto and Joh as PH in the BJ-Series, was observed under laboratory loading to exhibit beam yielding prior to joint failure. This specimen had an average joint shear stress demand, low bond stress demand, high joint transverse reinforcement ratio, average column axial load, and a significantly greater top beam reinforcement strength than the bottom ( = 0.89; = 1.54; = 0.08; p = 0.17 and = 1.4). The computed probability of joint failure prior to beam yielding for this specimen is 19% in comparison to the probability of beam yielding followed by joint failure, which was obtained as 81%. Thus, the statistical model, expressed by Eq. (8) and Table 2 predicts the observed connection response mechanism given the material and geometric properties of the specimen.
Fig. 2. Probability of occurrence of Event 1 with different failure initiation modes.

8. Summary, conclusions and future research A probabilistic model, predicting the mechanism (joint failure or beam yielding) that will determine the connection strength and seismic response, was developed using the results of 110 laboratory tests of interior beamcolumn connections. The model predicts the likelihood that the connection response will be determined by joint failure versus beam yielding on the basis of five, easily computed, joint design parameters: nominal joint shear stress demand, average bond stress demand, the ratio of joint transverse reinforcement strength to joint shear stress demand, column axial load ratio, and the ratio of beam top to bottom longitudinal reinforcement strength. Model calibration factors indicate the relative importance of these design parameters in determining the connections response mechanism. The primary conclusions of the research presented in the manuscript are:

value obtained is 52.63 with 5 degrees of freedom, resulting in a p-value of less than 0.001. Thus, inclusion of the independent parameters in the predictive model significantly improves the goodness-of-fit. 6.3. Predictive efficiency of the model To assess the predictive efficiency of the statistical model, the likelihood of joint failure prior to beam yielding (Event 1), computed using Eq. (8a) with i from Table 2, and was plotted versus the observed event. Specimens from the data set exhibiting beam yielding prior to joint failure (Event 0) are plotted as circles and specimens exhibiting joint failure prior to beam yielding (Event 1) are plotted as squares. If the model were perfect, all specimens exhibiting Event 0 would have a computed probability of occurrence of Event 1 of 0.0; while all specimens exhibiting Event 1 would have a computed probability of occurrence of 1.0. The data in Fig. 2 show that the model is not perfect. However, using a probability of 50% as indicative of response, the model correctly predicts the connection response mechanism for 82% of the specimens. 7. Application of the logit model The previous sections describe the models calibration as well as the statistical significance, goodness-of-fit, and predictive efficiency of the model. Following is the recommended process for using the model to predict the mechanism that determines the seismic response of a particular connection: 1. Compute the nominal flexural strength of the beams framing into the joint per the ACI Code [33]. 2. Compute the critical design parameters included in the logit model using Eqs. (1)(5). 3. Normalize the design parameters by the mean values computed for the data set used in the model calibration (Table 1). 4. Use Eqs. (8a) and (8b) with the values listed in Table 2 to obtain, respectively, the probabilities of joint shear failure preceding beam yielding and beam yielding preceding joint failure. To further evaluate the model, the above process was used to predict the response mechanism for two connections tested by Goto and Joh [50] but not included in the data set used for model calibration. The first of these connection, identified by Goto and Joh as LO in the J-Series, had a high joint shear stress demand, high bond stress demand, low transverse reinforcement ratio, high column axial load and equal top and bottom beam reinforcement strength ( = 1.56; = 3.15; = 0.0067; p = 0.3 and = 1). The computed probability of joint failure prior to beam yielding for this specimen is 94% in comparison to the probability of beam yielding followed by joint failure, which was obtained as 6%.

The binomial logit probabilistic model, developed in this

research, is able to identify, with reasonable accuracy, the mechanism that will determine connection response. The proposed probabilistic model provides a relative quantitative estimate of the design parameters found to determine connection response. The beam bar bond stress demand parameter was found to be the most important parameter which determines connection response. From the perspective of probabilistic determination of failure of structural components, this research presents a new approach for establishing the relationship between a qualitative parameter, such as failure mechanism, and quantitative design parameters. It is recommended that similar models be developed for other structural components. It is also recommended that a similar logistic regression strategy be developed for other qualitative parameters, such as the damage state of the structure or component; this type of model could be used to advance performance-based design. Finally, the predictive efficiency (as discussed in Section 6.3) of the proposed probabilistic model could be improved by employing a Bayesian logistic regression framework in which the prior information about the effect of the demand parameter on the type of failure initiation of RCBC connection is incorporated. With such prior information exact shape of posterior distribution of coefficients can be assessed from repeated sampling from the posterior, thus improving the overall explanatory power of the model. References
[1] Hall J. Northridge earthquake preliminary reconnaissance report. Tech. rep., EERI, January 1994. [2] Theiss AG. Modeling the earthquake response of older reinforced concrete beamcolumn building joints. Masters thesis, Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. of Washington (Seattle, WA): 2006. [3] Durrani AJ, Wight JK. Experimental and analytical study of beam to column connections subjected to reverse cyclic loading. Tech. Rep. UMEE 82 R3, Dept Civil Eng, Univ. Michigan: 1982.

162

N. Mitra et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 154162 [33] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 31805) and commentary (ACI 318R05). ACI (Farmington Hills, MI). 2005. [34] Lehman D, Stanton J, Anderson M, Alire D, Walker S. Seismic performance of older beamcolumn joints. In: Proc. 13th world conf. earthquake engineering. 2004. Paper no. 1464. [35] Pessiki SP, Conley C, Gergely P, White RN. Seismic behavior of lightly reinforced concrete column and beamcolumn joint details. In: Tech. Report NCEER 900014. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo. 1990. [36] Attaalla SA, Agbabian MS. Performance of interior beamcolumn joints cast from high strength concrete under seismic loads. Advances in Structural Eng 2004;7(2):14757. [37] Noguchi H, Fujii S, Teraoka M. Beam column joints with high strength materials. In: Proc. 2nd USJapanNew-ZealandCanada multilateral meeting on structural performance of high strength concrete in seismic regions. 1994. [38] Noguchi H, Kashiwazaki T. Experimental studies on shear performances of RC interior column-beam joints. In: Proc. 10th. world conf. earthquake engineering. 1992, p. 31638. [39] Sanada A, Maruta M. Seismic performance of high rise RC frame structure using ultra high strength concrete. In: Proc. 13th world conf. earthquake engineering. 2004. Paper no. 443. [40] Teraoka M, Kanoh Y, Hayashi K, Sasaki S. Behavior of interior beam-andcolumn sub-assemblages in an RC frame. In: Proc. 1st international conference on high strength concrete. 1997, p. 93108. [41] ACI Committee 363. State of art report on high strength concrete (ACI 363R92). ACI (Farmington Hills, MI) 1992, Reapproved. 1997. [42] Beckingsale CW. Post elastic behavior of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 1980. [43] Otani S, Kobayashi Y, Aoyama H. Reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn joints under simulated earthquake loading. In: Proc. US-New Zealand-Japan seminar on design of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. 1984. [44] Alath S, Kunnath SK. Modeling inelastic shear deformation in RC beamcolumn joints. In: Proc. 10th. conf. eng. mechanics. 1995. p. 8225. [45] Biddah A, Ghobarah A. Modeling of shear deformation and bond slip in reinforced concrete joints. Struct Eng Mech 1999;7(4):41332. [46] El-Metwally SE, Chen WF. Moment rotation modeling of reinforced-concrete beamcolumn connections. ACI Struct J 1988;85(4):38494. [47] Otani S. Inelastic analysis of reinforced-concrete frame structures. J Struct Div ASCE 1974;100(ST7):142249. [48] Mitra N. An analytical study of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joint behavior under seismic loading. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. Washington; (Seattle, WA) 2007. [49] Altoontash A, Deierlein GG. A versatile model for beamcolumn joints. ASCE structures congress (Seattle, WA) 2003. [50] Elmorsi M, Kianoush MR, Tso WK. Modeling bond-slip deformations in reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Canad J Civil Eng 2000;27(3): 490505. [51] Fleury F, Reynouard JM, Merabet O. Multi-component model of reinforced concrete joints for cyclic loading. J Eng Mech ASCE 2000;126(8):80411. [52] Lowes LN, Altoontash A. Modeling reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints subjected to cyclic loading. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;129(12):168697. [53] Mitra N, Lowes LN. Evaluation, calibration and verification of a reinforced concrete beamcolumn joint model. J Struct Eng ASCE 2007;133(1):10520. [54] Tajiri S, Shiohara H, Kusuhara F. A new macroelement of reinforced concrete beam column joint for elasto-plastic plane frame analysis. In: Proc. 8th. national conf. earthquake engineering. 2006. Paper no. 674. [55] Youssef M, Ghobarah A. Modeling of RC beamcolumn joints and structural walls. J Earthq Eng 2001;5(1):93111. [56] Birss GR. The elastic behavior of earthquake resistant reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn joints. In: Tech. Rep. 78-13, Dept. Civil Eng, Univ Canterbury, New-Zealand. 1978. [57] Higazy EMM, Elnashai AS, Agbabian MS. Behavior of beamcolumn connections under axial column tension. J Struct Eng ASCE 1996;122(5):50111. [58] Ichinose T. Shear reinforcement of reinforced concrete inelastic interior beamcolumn joints. Bull New-Zealand National Society Earthquake Eng 1987;20(2):11626. [59] Zhu L, Elwood KJ, Haukaas T. Assessment of expected failure mode for reinforced concrete columns. In: Proc. 8th US national conference on earthquake engineering. 2006. Paper no. 1001. [60] Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to predict travel demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1985. [61] Greene WH. Econometric analysis. Singapore: Pearson Education; 2000. [62] Hosmer DWJ, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Wiley- Interscience; 2000. [63] Jaccard JJ. Interaction effects in logistic regression. Sage Publications Inc; 2001. [64] Menard SW. Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage Publications Inc; 2001. [65] Washington SP, Karlaftis MG, Mannering FL. Statistical and econometric methods for transportation data analysis. Chapman and Hall, CRC; 2003. [66] Liao SSC, Veneziano D, Whitman RV. Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability. J Geotechnical Eng ASCE 1988;114(4):389411. [67] STATA, Release 9. Stata Press College Station. Texas. 2006. [68] Pantazopoulou SJ, Bonacci JF. Consideration of questions about beamcolumn joints. ACI Struct J 1992;89(1):2736. [69] Pantazopoulou SJ, Bonacci JF. On earthquake resistant reinforced concrete frame connections. Canad J Civil Eng 1994;21:30728. [70] Shiohara H. New model for shear failure of RC interior beamcolumn connections. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127(2):15260.

[4] Goto Y, Joh O. An experimental study on shear failure mechanism of reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn joints. In: Proc. 11th world conf. earthquake engineering. 1996. Paper no. 1194. [5] Higashi Y, Ohwada Y. Failing behaviors of reinforced concrete beam column connections subjected to lateral load. Mem Fac Technol Tokyo Metrop Univ Japan 1969;19:91101. [6] Joh O, Goto Y, Shibata T. Influence of transverse joint, beam reinforcement and relocation of plastic hinge region on beamcolumn joint stiffness determination. In: ACI SP 12312: design of beamcolumn joints for seismic resistance. (Farmington Hills, MI): ACI; 1991. p. 187223. [7] Kitayama K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Earthquake resistant design criteria for reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn joints. In: Pacific conference on earthquake engineering. 1987, p. 31526. [8] Leon RT. Shear strength and hysteretic behavior of interior beamcolumn joints. ACI Struct J 1990;87(1):311. [9] Meinheit DF, Jirsa JO. The shear strength of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. In: Tech. Rep. CESRL Report no. 77-1, Univ. Texas at Austin. 1977. [10] Morita S, Kitayama K, Kishida S, Nishikawa T. Shear force and capacity in reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints with good bond along beam and column bars. In: Proc. 13th world conf. earthquake engineering. 2004. Paper no. 1761. [11] Murakami H, Fujii S, Ishiwata Y, Morita S. Shear strength and deformation capacity of interior reinforce concrete beamcolumn joint sub-assemblage In: Proc. 12th world conf. earthquake engineering. 2000. Paper no. 679. [12] Teraoka M, Kanoh Y, Tanaka K, Hayashi K. Strength and deformation behavior of RC interior beamcolumn using high-strength concrete. In: Proc. 2nd USJapanNew-ZealandCanada multilateral meeting on structural performance of high strength concrete in seismic regions. 1994. [13] Zaid SSS. Behavior of reinforced concrete beamcolumn connections under earthquake loading. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Architecture, Univ. of Tokyo; Japan. 2001. [14] Fujii S, Morita S. Comparison between interior and exterior RC beamcolumn joint behavior. In: ACI SP 12312: design of beamcolumn joints for seismic resistance. (Farmington Hills, MI): ACI; 1991. p. 14565. [15] Kamimura T, Takeda S, Tochio M. Influence of joint reinforcement on strength and deformation of interior beamcolumn sub-assemblages. In: Proc. 12th world conf. earthquake engineering. 2000. Paper no. 2267. [16] Oka K, Shiohara H. Tests on high-strength concrete interior beamcolumn joint sub-assemblages. In: Proc. 10th. world conf. earthquake engineering. 1992. p. 32117. [17] Restrepo JI, Lin CM. Evaluation of the shear strength of beamcolumn joints of reinforced concrete frames subjected to earthquake loading. In: Proc. 12th world conf. earthquake engineering. 2000. Paper no. 522. [18] Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H. Effect of deterioration of bond on beam bars passing through interior beamcolumn joints on flexural strength and ductility. ACI Struct J 1999;96(5):85864. [19] Hayashi K, Teraoka M, Mollick AA, Kanoh Y. Bond properties of main reinforcing bars and restoring force characteristics in RC interior beamcolumn sub-assemblage using high strength materials. In: Proc. 2nd USJapanNewZealandCanada multilateral meeting on structural performance of high strength concrete in seismic regions. 1994. [20] Leon RT. Interior joints with variable anchorage lengths. J Struct Eng ASCE 1989;115(9):226175. [21] Otani S, Kitayama K, Aoyama H. Beam bar bond requirements for interior beamcolumn connections. In: Proc. int. symposium on fundamental theory of reinforced and prestressed concrete, Nanjing Univ. Tech. China. 1986. [22] Park R, Milburn JR. Comparison of recent New Zealand and United States seismic design provisions for reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints and test results from four units designed according to the New Zealand code. Bull New Zealand National Society Earthquake Eng 1983;16(1):324. [23] Park R, Ruitong D. A comparison of the behavior of reinforced concrete beam column joints designed for ductility and limited ductility. Bull New-Zealand National Society Earthquake Eng 1988;21(4):25578. [24] Agbabian MS, Higazy EM, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Experimental observations on the seismic shear performance of RC beam-to-column connections subjected to varying column axial force. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1994;23:85976. [25] Bonacci JF, Pantazopoulou SJ. Parametric investigation of joint mechanics. ACI Struct J 1993;90(1):6171. [26] Fu J, Chen T, Wang Z, Bai S. Effect of axial load ratio on seismic behavior of interior beamcolumn joints. In: Proc. 12th world conf. earthquake eng, 2000. Paper no. 2707. [27] Hanson NW, Conner HW. Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. J Struct Divi ASCE 1967;93(5):53360. [28] Kurose Y. Recent studies on reinforced concrete beam column joints in Japan. Tech. Rep. PMFSEL Report no. 87-8, Department of Civil Eng., Univ. of Texas at Austin. 1987. [29] Paulay T, Park R, Priestley MJN. Reinforced concrete beam column joints under seismic action. J American Concrete Institute 1978;75(11):58593. [30] Alire DA. Seismic evaluation of existing unconfined reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Masters thesis, Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. Washington, Seattle. 2002. [31] Walker SG. Seismic performance of existing reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Masters thesis, Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. of Washington (Seattle, WA). 2001. [32] ACI Committee 352. Recommendations for design of beamcolumn connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures (ACI 352R-02). ACI (Farmington Hills, MI). 2002.