+)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))), * MCP Application Notes: * * * * 1. Character(s) preceded & followed by these symbols (. -) or (+ ,) * * are super- or subscripted, respectively.

* * EXAMPLES: 42m.3- = 42 cubic meters * * CO+2, = carbon dioxide * * * * 2. All table notes (letters and numbers) have been enclosed in square* * brackets in both the table and below the table. The same is * * true for footnotes. * .))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-

ACI 352R-91 (Reapproved 1997)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS IN MONOLITHIC REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 352 Clarkson W. Pinkham, Chairman; Norman W. Hanson; Secretary; James K. Wight; Subcommittee Chairman; J. D. Aristizibal; David A. Hunter; Mehdi Saiidi; Vitelmo V. Bertero; James O. Jirsa; Donald R. Strand; Marvin E. Criswell; Cary Kopczynski; S. M. Uzumeri; Ahmad J. Durrani; Donald F. Meinheit; Sudhakar P. Verma; Mohammad R. Ehsani; John J. Otrembiak; Loring A. Wyllie, Jr.; Edward S. Hoffman; Robert Park; Liande Zhang Members of the committee voting on the 1991 revisions are: James K. Wight, Chairman; Mohammad R. Ehsani; Secretary; Ahmad J. Durrani, Chairman, Editorial Subcommittee; James R. Cagley; Clarkson W. Pinkham; Marvin E. Criswell; Mehdi Saiidi; Luis E. Garcia ; Mustafa Seckin; Cary S. Kopczynski; Gene R. Stevens; Michael E. Kreger; Donald R. Strand; Donald F. Meinheit ; S.M. Uzumeri; Jack P. Moehle ; Sudhakar P. Verma; Loring A. Wyllie, Jr. These recommendations are a revision of earlier recommendations from this committee. Recommendations are given for member proportions and reinforcement details required for satisfactory confinement of the column core in the joint region, adequate joint shear strength, the proper ratio of column-moment strength versus beam-moment strength at the joint, and development of reinforcing bars either terminating in or passing through the joint. Commentary is provided to amplify the recommendations and identify available reference material. The recommendations are based on laboratory testing as well as field studies and provide a state-of-the-art summary of current information. Areas needing research are identified. Design examples are presented to illustrate the use of the design recommendations. Keywords: beam-column joints, anchorage(structural); beams (supports); bond(concrete to reinforcement); columns(supports); confined concrete; connections; earthquake resistant structures; hooked reinforcement; joints (junctions); reinforced concrete; reinforcing steels; shear strength; stresses; structural design; structures. CONTENTS Chapter 1--Introduction and scope 1.1--Introduction 1.2--Scope for concrete 1.3--Scope for Type 2 joints

Chapter 2--Classification of beam-column joints 2.1--General 2.2--Definition Chapter 3--Design considerations 3.1--Critical sections 3.2--Forces 3.3--Serviceability 3.4--Strength considerations Chapter 4--Nominal strength considerations 4.1--Compression 4.2--Transverse reinforcement 4.3--Shear for Type 1 and Type 2 joints 4.4--Flexure 4.5--Development of reinforcement Chapter 5--Notation Chapter 6--References Appendix A--Areas needing research Appendix B--Design examples This report supersedes ACI 352R-85 effective June 1, 1991. Numerous editorial and minor revisions were made to the report. References have been added and updated. Copyright 1985, American Concrete Institute: All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by any electronic or mechanical device, printed or written or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors. ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Commentaries are intended for guidance in designing, planning, executing, or inspecting construction, and in preparing specifications. Reference to these documents shall not be made in the Project Documents. If items found in these documents are desired to be a part of the Project Documents, they should be phrased in mandatory language and incorporated into the Project Documents.

CHAPTER 1--INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE* 1.1--Introduction These recommendations are for determining joint proportions

and design of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement at the intersection of beams and columns in cast-in-place concrete frame construction. The recommendations are written to satisfy strength and ductility requirements related to the function of the joint. In the past, the design of joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures was primarily limited to satisfying anchorage requirements for the reinforcement. Because of the use of highstrength materials (concrete and steel), smaller member sections, and larger reinforcing bars, special attention to the design and detailing of the joint has become more important. In many designs, column sizes may be defined by the requirements of joint detail design. Attention is focused on the joint to ensure proper structural performance under all loading conditions that may reasonably be expected to occur and to alert the designer to possible congestion of reinforcement. This report considers typical beam-column joints in cast-inplace reinforced concrete structures, as shown in Fig. 1.1. Specifically excluded from these recommendations are slab-column joints and precast structures where connections are made near the beam-to-column intersection. Design examples illustrating the use of these recommendations are given in Appendix B.

The material presented here is an update of a previous report from ACI-ASCE Committee 352[49]. A partial listing of research information available to the committee at that time is given in References 1-38. Research information available in References 39-66 and Chapter 21 of ACI 318 have been received during the updating of these provisions. This report addresses joints in both seismic and nonseismic regions, whereas Chapter 21 of ACI 318 addresses only joints in seismic regions. 1.2--Scope for concrete These recommendations apply only to structures using normal weight concrete in the joints. 1.3--Scope for Type 2 joints For Type 2 joints as defined in Section 2.1, only joints in which the column width is equal to or greater than the beam width are covered by these recommendations. For Type 2 joints, the recommendations provide guidance only in cases where the beam bars are located within the column core. All currently available research results are for connections

where the beam width is less than or equal to the column width and the beam centerline passes through the column centroid. Connections where the beam centerline does not pass through the column centroid are included if all beam bars are anchored in or pass through the column core. However, the torsion resulting from this eccentricity should be considered. Connections where the beam bars pass outside the column core are excluded for Type 2 joints because of a lack of research data on the anchorage of such bars under large load reversals. *Design recommendations of Committee 352 are set in standard type; commentary and explanations follow each section in italic type. CHAPTER 2--CLASSIFICATION OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS 2.1--General Structural joints are classified into two categories, Type 1 and Type 2, based on the loading conditions for the joint and the anticipated deformations of the joint when resisting lateral loads. 2.1.1 Type 1 -- A Type 1 joint connects members designed to satisfy ACI 318 strength requirements and in which no significant inelastic deformations are anticipated. 2.1.2 Type 2 -- A Type 2 joint connects members designated to have sustained strength under deformation reversals into the inelastic range. The requirements for joints are dependent on the deformations at the joint implied by the design loading conditions. Typical examples of each joint type are: Type 1 is a joint in a continuous moment resisting structure designed on the basis of strength without considering special ductility requirements. Any joint in a typical frame designed to resist gravity and normal wind loads would fall into this category. Type 2 is a joint that connects members that are required to dissipate energy through reversals of deformation into the inelastic range. Joints in moment resisting frame structures designed to resist earthquake motions, very high winds, or blast effects are of this category. 2.2--Definition A joint is defined as that portion of the column within the depth of the beam(s), including the slab, that frame into the column. CHAPTER 3--DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 3.1--Critical sections A beam-column joint should be proportioned to resist the forces specified in Section 3.2 at the critical sections. The critical sections for transfer of member forces to the joint are

at the joint-member interfaces. Critical sections for shear forces within the joint are defined in Section 4.3.1. Critical sections for bars anchored in the joint are defined in Section 4.5.1. Design recommendations are based on the assumption that the critical sections are immediately adjacent to the joint. Exceptions are made for joint shear and reinforcement anchorage. Fig. 3.1 shows the joint as a free body with forces acting on the critical sections.

T = tension force C = compression force V = shear force, subscript b for beam and subscript c for column 3.2--Forces 3.2.1--The joint should be designed for the interaction of the multidirectional forces which the members transfer to the joint including axial loads, bending, torsion, and shear. These forces are a consequence of the effects of externally applied loads as well as those resulting from creep, shrinkage, temperature, or settlement. The joint should resist all forces that may be transferred by adjacent members, using those combinations that produce the most severe force distribution at the joint, including the effect of any member eccentricity. Forces produced by deformations resulting from time-dependent effects and temperature should be taken into account. For Type 2 joints the design forces that the members transfer to the joint are not limited to the forces determined from a conventional analysis, but should be determined from the nominal strengths of the members as defined in Section 3.2.2. Strength reduction factors are not used. 3.2.2--At every joint, consideration should be given to determine which members will reach initial flexural yielding due to gravity loads, lateral loads, and secondary effects, and the design forces in the flexural reinforcement at the member-joint interfaces should be determined using the stress "f+y,, where f+y, is the specified yield strength of the reinforcing bars and " is a stress multiplier

For Type 1 For Type 2

" $ 1.0 " $ 1.25

The analysis of the forces acting on a Type 1 or Type 2 joint is identical. For Type 2 joints for which the sum of the column flexural capacities exceed the sum of the beam flexural capacities along any principal plane, the forces in Fig. 3.1(b) representing tension and compression from the beams should be based on the area of steel provided and the specified yield stress modified by ". The corresponding column forces are then a function of the column axial load and the moments and shears required to keep the connection in equilibrium. For Type 1 joints [represented in Fig. 3.1(a)], the same approach is used unless the column sections reach their capacities before the beam sections. In the latter case, the columns are assumed to be at their flexural capacities, with due consideration of column axial load, and the beam moments and shears have magnitudes required to keep the joint in equilibrium. The factor " is intended to account for the following: (a) the actual yield stress of a typical reinforcing bar is commonly 10 to 25 percent higher than the nominal value, and (b) the reinforcing bars will strain harden at member displacements only slightly larger than the yield rotation. A research study[8] demonstrates typical laboratory results for a statically determinate test specimen. The results, which were discussed in detail in a previous committee report[13], show a significant increase in steel stress above the actual yield stress attributable to strain hardening when plastic hinging occurs. A value of " = 1.0 is permitted for Type 1 joints because only limited ductility is required in members adjacent to this type of joint. As pointed out in the previous committee report[13], a value of " = 1.25 should be regarded as a minimum for Type 2 joints. For reinforcing steels whose properties are not controlled properly, a value of " larger than the recommended minimum may be appropriate. 3.3--Serviceability Cracking and concentrated rotation are to be expected near the joint faces where bending moments usually reach their maximum values. The section proportions of the framing members at the joint should satisfy the requirements of ACI 318 for cracking and deflection under service loads. Serviceability requirements are intended primarily for members meeting at a joint. No additional requirements over those given in ACI 318 are specified. However, the designer should consider the possible effect of joint rotations on cracking and deflection. 3.4--Strength considerations All joints should be designed, according to Chapter 4, to resist the most critical combination of forces as defined in Section 3.2.

CHAPTER 4--NOMINAL STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS 4.1--Compression 4.1.1--Transmission of the column axial load through the joint region requires adequate lateral confinement of the concrete in the column core by a combination of longitudinal column reinforcement plus either transverse members framing into the column or transverse reinforcement, as defined in Section 4.2, or both. 4.1.2--Longitudinal column reinforcement passing through the joint should satisfy Sections 10.9.1 and 10.9.2 of ACI 318. For Type 1 joints, longitudinal column bars may be offset within the joint. The provisions of ACI 318 for offset bars should be followed. For Type 2 joints, longitudinal column bars extending through the joint should not be offset at the joint and the area of column reinforcement should be distributed around all perimeter faces of the column core. Further, the center-tocenter spacing between adjacent longitudinal bars should not exceed the larger of either 8 in.(200 mm) or one-third of the column diameter or cross section dimension in the direction the spacing is being considered. In no case should the spacing exceed 12 in.(300 mm). Research on columns[21,23, 25,29,31] subjected to severe load reversals has shown that a uniform distribution of the column longitudinal reinforcement area improves confinement of the column core. The requirements of this section are intended to insure a relatively uniform distribution of the longitudinal bars in Type 2 joints. 4.2--Transverse reinforcement 4.2.1--Type 1 joints 4.2.1.1 Transverse reinforcement, as defined in Section 4.2.1.3, should be provided through the total depth of the joint except for locations or in directions as defined in Section 4.2.1.2. 4.2.1.2 Within the depth of the shallowest member framing into the joint, the following exceptions to Section 4.2.1.3 are permitted: (a) Where beams frame into all four sides of the joint and where each beam width is at least three-quarters of the column width and does not leave more than 4 in.(100 mm) of the column width uncovered on either side of the beams, Section 4.2.1.3 does not need to be satisfied. (b) Where beams frame into only two opposite sides of the joint and the beam widths are at least three-quarters of the column width and no more than 4 in.(100 mm) of the column width remains uncovered on either side of the beams, Section 4.2.1.3 does not need to be satisfied in the direction perpendicular to the two sides of the joint into which the beams frame.

Transverse reinforcement satisfying Section 4.2.1.3 should be provided in the direction parallel to those two sides. The primary function of ties in a tied column is to prevent the outward buckling of the column longitudinal bars and to provide some confinement to the column core. For Type 1 joints, ties may be omitted within the joint if there are transverse members framing into the joint that are of a sufficient size to effectively replace the confinement provided by ties. Some typical cases are shown in Fig. 4.1.

4.2.1.3 Transverse reinforcement should satisfy Section 7.10 of ACI 318 as modified in this section. At least two layers of transverse reinforcement should be provided between the top and bottom levels of beam longitudinal reinforcement of the deepest member framing into the joint. The center-to-center spacing should not exceed 12 in.(300 mm). If the beam-column joint is part of the primary system for resisting nonseismic lateral loads, the center-to-center spacing of the transverse reinforcement should not exceed 6 in.(150 mm). To facilitate placement of transverse reinforcement in Type 1 joints, cap or split ties may be used provided the lap length is sufficient to develop the tie strength. When required, ties in the joint should satisfy the requirements of ACI 318 for tied columns plus additional recommendations which confine the column bars through the joint. When ties are recommended in a joint which is part of the primary system for resisting nonseismic lateral loads, the recommended spacing is limited to 6 in.(150 mm), center to center, to provide additional confinement to the joint. 4.2.2--Type 2 joints 4.2.2.1 When spiral transverse reinforcement is used, the volumetric ratio +s, should be f'+c, +s, $ 0.12 ))))))))) f+yh, but should not be less than that required by ACI 318. 4.2.2.2 Where rectangular hoop and crosstie transverse reinforcement as defined in Chapter 21 of ACI 318 is used, the total cross-sectional area in each direction of a single hoop, (4.1)

overlapping hoops, or hoops with crossties of the same size should be at least equal to s+h,h"f'+c, A+sh, = 0.3 ))))))))))))))) (A+s,/A+c,-1) f+yh, but should not be less than s+h,h"f'+c, A+h, = 0.09 )))))))))))))))) f+yh, (4.3) (4.2)

The specified reinforcement is expected to provide adequate confinement to the joint during anticipated earthquake loading and displacement demands. The provided confinement is also expected to be sufficient for necessary force transfers within the joint. Eq. (4.1) and (4.2) are the same as those given in Chapter 21 of ACI 318. The coefficient 0.09 in Eq. (4.3) was selected based on the observed improved behavior of tied columns[25,29,31] which have properly detailed hoops and crossties. 4.2.2.3 For joints connecting members which are part of the primary system for resisting seismic lateral loads, the center-to-center spacing between layers of transverse reinforcement (hoops or hoops and crossties) s+h, should not exceed the least of one-quarter of the minimum column dimension, six times the diameter of longitudinal column bars to be restrained, or 6 in. (150 mm). Crossties, when required, shall be provided at each layer of transverse reinforcement. The lateral center-to-center spacing between crossties or legs of overlapping hoops should not be more than 12 in. (300 mm) and each end of a crosstie should engage a peripheral longitudinal reinforcing bar. 4.2.2.4 If a joint connects members which are not part of the primary system for resisting seismic lateral loads, but the members must be designed to sustain reversals of deformation in the inelastic range for deflection compatibility with the primary system for resisting seismic lateral loads, the vertical centerto-center spacing between layers of transverse reinforcement, s+h,, should not exceed the smaller of one-third of the minimum column dimension or 8 in. (200 mm). In the design of building systems resisting earthquake forces, it is assumed that loads have been reduced to a level wherein member forces are determined by elastic theory. The inelastic response that is expected at the anticipated level of earthquake excitation is provided for by the special detailing of the members and joints which comprise the primary system for resisting seismic lateral loads. Members which are not included in this system should also be capable of undergoing the same deformations as the primary system without a loss of vertical load strength. Thus, members which are not part of the primary system should be either flexible enough to respond elastically to the anticipated ground motion (not the reduced seismic design lateral forces) or else the nominal hooping recommended in Section 4.2.2.4 should be provided to minimize joint deterioration.

The limitations on size and spacing of transverse reinforcement given in this section, when combined with the limitations of Section 4.1.2 for spacing of longitudinal bars in Type 2 joints, are intended to create a steel gridwork capable of adequately confining the column core. Crossties are required to maintain the stiffness of the sides of the gridwork. 4.2.2.5 Transverse reinforcement, as defined in Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2, should be provided unless the joint is confined on all sides by structural members which satisfy Section 4.2.1.2(a), in which case the reinforcement should not be less than half that required in Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2. Spacing limitations of Sections 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4 apply regardless of confinement conditions. Recent research results[28,32,33,46,48,56,62] have shown that smaller percentages of transverse reinforcement can be used when adequately sized transverse members are present. 4.2.2.6 All hoops should be closed with hooks of not less than 135 deg at their ends and 6 bar-diameter extensions. Single leg crossties should have a 135 deg bend with a 6 bar-diameter extension on one end and the other end may have a standard tie hook, as defined in Section 7.1 of ACI 318. If used, the 90 deg ends should be alternated on opposite faces of the column. In exterior and corner joints, the crossties should be arranged such that the 135 deg bend is at the exterior face of the joint. Recommended shapes of closed hoops and single leg crossties are shown in Fig. 4.2. The preferred shape for a single leg crosstie would have a 135 deg bend at both ends. However, installation of such crossties usually is difficult. A standard 90 deg tie hook is permitted, but does not provide effective anchorage because the extension beyond the bend runs along the outside edge of the confined column core. Further, a shorter extension is permitted for the 90 deg bend because increasing the extension would offer only a slight improvement. Thus it is recommended that when a 90 deg bend is used it should be alternated on opposite faces along the column. However, in the case of exterior and corner joints, where the loss of cover could affect the anchorage of cross ties at the 90 deg bend, it is recommended that only 135 deg bend be used at the exterior face of the joint.

4.2.2.7 Transverse reinforcement layers required in the joint should be extended into the columns above and below the joint as required by Chapter 21 of ACI 318. Transverse reinforcement as required by Chapter 21 of ACI 318 should also be provided in the beams adjacent to the column. Minimum distances for extending the joint transverse reinforcement into the columns to provide confinement to the column core above and below a joint are given in Section 21.4.4.4 of ACI 318. The committee has reservations about the adequacy of the specified extensions[26], such as at the top story or at the base of a first story column, where the potential flexural hinging zone may extend further into the story height than the minimum distances specified. In such cases the joint transverse reinforcement should be extended to cover the entire potential flexural hinging zone. 4.3--Shear for Type 1 and Type 2 joints 4.3.1--For joints with beams framing in from two perpendicular directions, the horizontal shear in the joint should be checked independently in each direction. The design shear force V+u, should be computed on a horizontal plane at the midheight of the joint by considering the shear forces on the boundaries of the free body of the joint and the normal tension and compression forces in the members framing into the joint as specified in Section 3.2.2. The following equation should be satisfied N V+n, $ V+u, (4.4)

where N = 0.85 and V+n,, the nominal shear strength of the joint is V+n, = 0.083 ) %f'+c, (MPa) b+j,h V+n, = ) %f'+c, (psi) b+j,h

(4.5)

where b+j, is the effective joint width and h is the thickness of the column in the direction of load being considered. The effective joint width b+j, should be taken as (b+b, + b+c,) b+j, = )))))))))))))))) 2 (4.6)

but not greater than column width b+c, or greater than beam width b+b, plus half the column depth h on each side of the beam. The term b+b, is the width of the beam in the direction of loading. Where beams of different width frame into opposite sides of the column in the direction of loading, b+b, should be taken as the average of the two widths. The constant ) for Eq. (4.5) is given in Table 1 and depends on the joint classification, as defined in Section 4.3.2, and joint type, as defined in Chapter 2. The value for the compressive strength f'+c, in Eq. (4.5) should not be larger than 6000 psi (42 MPa). 4.3.2--An interior joint has horizontal members framing into

all four sides of the joint. However, to be classified as an interior joint for Table 1, the horizontal frame members should cover at least three-quarters of the width of the column and the total depth of the most shallow horizontal member should not be less than three-quarters of the total depth of the deepest horizontal member framing into the joint. If the four horizontal members do not satisfy this requirement, then the ) value for this joint should be selected from Column (b) of Table 1. An exterior joint has at least two horizontal members framing into opposite sides of the joint. However, to be classified as an exterior joint for Table 1, the widths of the horizontal frame members on the two opposite faces of the joint should cover at least three-quarters of the width of the column and the total depth of these two members should be not less than three-quarters of the total depth of the deepest member framing into the joint. If the two horizontal frame members do not satisfy this requirement, then the ) value for this joint should be selected from Column (c) of Table 1. All other joints should be classified as corner joints when selecting a value for ) in Table 1. The geometric descriptions of interior, exterior, and corner joints are given in Fig. 4.3.

Not all joints which have horizontal members framing into all four sides of the joint can be classified as interior joints when using Table 1. If the dimensions of the horizontal members do not satisfy the given requirements, then a lower value of ) is specified. Similarly, not all joints which have horizontal members framing into two opposite sides of the joint can be classified as exterior joints when using Table 1. Again, if the dimensions of the horizontal members do not satisfy the given

requirements, then a lower value of ) is specified. Although the joint may be designed to resist shear in two perpendicular horizontal directions, only one classification is made for a joint. That is, only one value for ) is selected from Table 1 for the joint, and that value is used when checking the joint shear capacity in both directions. Table 1 -- Values of ) for beam-to-column joints
64444444444444444L44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 5 * Joint classification 5 K))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))0)))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))M 5 Joint type * (a)Interior * (b)Exterior * (c)Corner 5 K))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))M 1 * 24 * 20 * 15 5 5 K))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))M 5 2 * 20 * 15 * 12 5 94444444444444444N444444444444444N44444444444444444N4444444444448

The concrete compressive strength in Eq. (4.5) is limited to 6000 psi(42 MPa) because only limited research data are available on the behavior of connections constructed using higher strength concrete[38]. The normal procedure for calculating the horizontal design shear in an interior and an exterior joint is shown in Fig. 4.4. The procedure for determining the joint width in cases when the beam width is less than the column width is shown in Fig. 4.5.

In cases where the beam centerline does not pass through the column centroid, torsion may occur. At the present time, there is insufficient research on eccentric connections to develop specific design recommendations, but such eccentricities have resulted in apparent increased earthquake damage[3]. The designer should consider the possible consequences of member eccentricities on joint performance when designing and detailing the joint. The design philosophy embodied in Eq. (4.5) is that during anticipated earthquake loading and displacement demands, the joint can carry the specified shear forces if the concrete within the joint is adequately confined. To provide this confinement, Sections 4.1 and 4.2 contain recommended details for column longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the joint region. Some researchers[20,43] have pointed out the need to consider also vertical shear forces in the joint. It is expected that the recommendations for the distribution of the column longitudinal reinforcement given in Section 4.1.2 will provide adequate vertical reinforcement in the joint to carry that component of joint shear. The shear provisions adopted by Committee 352 are intended for limited displacement and rotation levels and also anticipate the beneficial effects of load redistribution in a redundant frame structure. Committee 352 has also addressed the construction problems resulting from congestion of reinforcement in beam-column joints. 4.4--Flexure 4.4.1--Flexural design of members at the joint should be based on the provisions of ACI 318. 4.4.2--For Type 2 joints which are part of the primary system for resisting seismic lateral loads, the sum of the nominal moment strengths of the column sections above and below the joint, calculated using the axial load which gives the minimum column-moment strength, should not be less than 1.4 times the sum of the nominal moment strengths of the beam sections at the joint. For joints with beams framing in from two perpendicular directions, this ratio should be checked independently in each direction. 4.4.3--For Type 2 joints which are not part of the primary system resisting seismic lateral loads, the ratio of column to beam moment strengths should be greater than 1.0. If this provision is not met, transverse reinforcement as specified in Section 4.2.2.5 should be used both above and below the joint and should extend a distance at least equal to twice the effective depth of the column cross section, both above and below the joint boundaries. The requirement that the sum of the nominal moment strengths of the column sections above and below a Type 2 joint be 40 percent greater than the nominal moment strengths of the beam sections framing into the joint is intended to produce flexural hinging in the beams rather than in the columns, as is normally preferred in the seismic design of moment resisting reinforced concrete frame structures. Therefore, the 1.4 factor is a

minimum value and a higher value could be necessary to develop beam hinging in structures with heavily reinforced slabs. Appropriate slab width should be included in calculating the beam moment strengths. Recent studies [37,42-44,50,48,54-56,58, 60,62,63] have shown the presence of a slab to have a significant effect on the performance of connections. The committee continues to review this data. However, at this time there is no clear consensus on the effective width of slab to use in determining the beam flexural strength. For portions of the structure which are not part of the primary system resisting seismic lateral loads, column hinging due to a severe earthquake is not critical as long as proper transverse reinforcement is used. In certain cases, frames are designed with deep long-span beams and relatively small columns. It is recommended that such frames not be part of the primary system resisting seismic lateral loads. 4.5--Development of reinforcement 4.5.1 Critical sections for development of beam reinforcement--The critical section for development of reinforcement should be taken at the face of the column for Type 1 joints and at the outside edge of the column core for Type 2 joints. During intense seismic loading, moment reversals are to be expected at beam-to-column joints which cause stress reversals in the beam and column longitudinal reinforcement at the connection. Research results[11] have shown that the concrete cover over the column bars quickly becomes ineffective for bar development in Type 2 joints. Thus, the critical section for development is taken at the face of the confined column core (see Fig. 4.6).

4.5.2 Hooked bars terminating in the joint 4.5.2.1 Bar sizes should not exceed No. 11 and hooks should be located as far from the critical section as possible. The minimum development length l+dh,, as defined in the following sections, should not be less than 8d+b, or 6 in. (150 mm). 4.5.2.2 For Type 1 joints, the development length l+dh, of

a bar terminating in a standard hook should be computed as follows f+y, (psi) d+b, l+dh, = )))))))))))))))))))) 50 %f'+c, (psi) (4.7) f+y, (MPa) d+b, l+dh, = )))))))))))))))))))) 4.2 %f'+c, (MPa) (a) For No. 11 and smaller bars, if side cover normal to the plane of the hook is not less than 2-1/2 in. (65 mm) and cover on the bar extension beyond the hook is not less than 2 in.(50 mm), l+dh,, as given in Eq. (4.7), may be multiplied by 0.7. (b) For No.11 and smaller bars, if the hook is enclosed vertically or horizontally within ties or stirrup-ties which are provided along the full development length at a spacing not greater than 3d+b,, where d+b, is the diameter of the hooked bar, then l+dh,, as given in Eq. (4.7), may be multiplied by 0.8. (c) Where reinforcement in the flexural member is provided in excess of that required for flexural strength and anchorage for f+y, is not specifically required, l+dh,, as given in Eq. (4.7), may be reduced by the ratio A+s,(required)/A+s,(provided). 4.5.2.3 For Type 2 joints, all terminating bars should be hooked within the transverse reinforcement of the joint using a 90 deg standard hook. The development length, measured from the critical section as defined in Section 4.5.1, should be computed as follows " f+y, (psi) d+b, l+dh, = ))))))))))))))))))))))) 75 %f'+c, (psi) " f+y, (MPa) d+b, l+dh, = ))))))))))))))))))))))) 6.2 %f'+c, (MPa) 4.5.2.4 If transverse joint reinforcement is provided at a spacing less than or equal to three times the diameter of the bar being developed, l+dh,, as given in Eq. (4.8), may be multiplied by 0.8. 4.5.2.5 For multiple layers of reinforcement, the bars in each layer must satisfy the given criteria. For most Type 1 and all Type 2 exterior connections, bars terminating at a connection will be anchored using a standard hook as defined by ACI 318. The tail extension of the hooks should project toward, and usually through, the midheight of the connection. The required development length is given by Eq. (4.7) and (4.8), which were derived from work done by ACI Committee 408[22]. Eq. (4.7) is a combination of the provision in ACI 318, Sections 12.5.2 and 12.5.3.1. Sections 4.5.2.2(a), (b), and

(4.8)

(c) are identical to Section 12.5.3.2, 12.5.3.3, and 12.5.3.4 of ACI 318. The differences between Eq. (4.7) and (4.8) reflect several factors including: (1) the hook in a Type 2 joint must be enclosed within the confined core so the 0.7 factor of Section 4.5.2.2(a) is included, (2) an increase in length is factored into the equation to reflect the detrimental effects of load reversals[11], and (3) the increase in stress under large deformations is included with the factor ". Section 4.5.2.4 reflects the beneficial effects of very closely spaced transverse reinforcement. In most cases, the spacing of transverse reinforcement will be greater than specified in Section 4.5.2.4 to avoid congestion problems. 4.5.3--Straight bars terminating in Type 1 joints 4.5.3.1 Straight bars should be No. 11 or smaller and the development length for a straight bar terminating in the connection should be taken as f+y, (psi) A+b, (in.) l+d, = )))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 25 %f'+c, (psi) f+y, (MPa) A+b, (mm) l+d, = )))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 53 %f'+c, (MPa) but not less than 0.0004d+b,f+y,(psi) [0.058d+b,(mm)f+y,(MPa)]

(4.9)

Eq. (4.9) assumes the bar is contained within the core of the column. Any portion of the straight embedment length not within the confined core should be increased by 30 percent. (a) If the depth of concrete cast in one lift beneath the bar exceeds 12 in.(300 mm), l+d, should be increased by 30 percent. (b) Where reinforcement in the flexural member is provided in excess of that required for flexural strength and anchorage for f+y, is not specifically required, l+d, may be reduced by the ratio A+s,(required)/A+s,(provided). 4.5.4 Beam and column bars passing through the joint--For Type 1 joints, no recommendations are made. For Type 2 joints, all straight beam and column bars passing through the joint should be selected such that h(column)/d+b,(beam bars) h(beam)/d+b,(column bars) $ $ 20 20

Various researchers[14,19,32,33,40,51,64] have shown that straight beam and column bars may slip within the beam-column joint during a series of large moment reversals. As shown in Fig. 4.7, the bond stresses on these straight bars may be very large. The purpose of the recommended value for h/d+b, is to

limit slippage of the beam and column bars through the connection. Slip of reinforcing bars is not usually accounted for in normal design. However, when modeling a frame structure for inelastic dynamic analysis, this slippage should be considered. To reduce the bond stresses to a value low enough to prevent bar slippage under large load reversals would require very large connections. A thorough treatment of this topic is found in Reference 38.

CHAPTER 5--NOTATION A+b, A+c, A+g, A+sh, b+b, b+c, b+j, d+b, f'+c, f+y, f+yh, f+ys, h h" l+d, l+dh, M+n, M'+n, s+h, V+n, V+u, " ) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = area of individual bar area of column core measured from outside edge to outside edge of either spiral or hoop reinforcements gross area of column section total cross-sectional area of all legs of hoop reinforcement, including crossties, crossing a section having a core dimension h" design width of beam width of column transverse to the direction of shear effective width of joint transverse to the direction of shear nominal diameter of bar specified compressive strength of concrete in the joint specified yield strength of reinforcement specified yield strength of hoop and crosstie reinforcement specified yield strength of spiral reinforcement full depth of column or full depth of beam core dimension of tied column, outside to outside edge of bar, perpendicular to the transverse reinforcement area A+sh, being designed development length for a straight bar development length for a hooked bar, measured from the critical section to the outside end of the hook nominal moment capacity of section increased moment capacity of section when using " > 1.0 center-to-center spacing of hoops or hoops plus crossties nominal shear strength of joint design shear force in joint stress multiplier for flexural reinforcement at jointmember interface shear strength factor reflecting confinement of joint by lateral members

+s, N

= =

ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of core (out-to-out of spirals) strength reduction factor CHAPTER 6--REFERENCES

Referenced standard ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89)," American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp. Cited references [1] Hanson, Norman W., and Connor, Harold W., "Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," Proceedings, ASCE V. 93, ST5, Oct. 1967, pp. 533-560. Higashi, Y., and Ohwada, Y., "Failing Behaviors of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Lateral Loads," Memoirs No. 19, Faculty of Technology, Tokyo Metropolitan University, 1969, pp. 91-101. Ohno, K., and Shibata, T., "On the Damage to the Hakodate College by the Tokachioki Earthquake, 1968," Proceedings, U.S.-Japan Seminar of Earthquake Engineering with Emphasis on the Safety of School Buildings, Sendai, Sept. 1970, pp. 129-144. Hanson, Norman W., "Seismic Resistance of Concrete Frames with Grade 60 Reinforcement," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, ST6, June 1971, pp. 1685-1700. Megget, L. M., and Park, R., "Reinforced concrete Exterior Beam-Column Joint Under Seismic Loading," New Zealand Engineering (Wellington), V. 26, No. 11, Nov. 15, 1971, pp. 341-353. Renton, G.W., "The Behavior of Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Joints under Cyclic Loading," ME thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 1972. Park, R., and Sampson, Richard A., "Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Column Sections in Seismic Design," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 69, No. 9, Sept. 1972, pp. 543-551. Wight, J. K., and Sozen, M. A., "Shear Strength Decay in Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Large Deflection Reversals," Report No. SRS 403, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Aug. 1973, 290 pp. Uzumeri, S. M., and Seckin M., "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Slow Load Reversals," Publication No. 74-05, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Mar. 1974, 84 pp.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] Park, R., and Thompson, K. J., "Behavior of Prestressed, Partially Prestressed, and Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Assemblies under Cyclic Loading: Test Results

of Units 1 to 7," Research Report No. 74-9, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 1974, 42 pp. [11] Hawkins, N. M., Kobayashi, A. S., and Fourney, M. E., "Reversed Cyclic Loading Bond Deterioration Tests, "Structures and Mechanics Report No. SM 75-5, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Nov. 1975. [12] Priestly, M. J.N., "Testing of Two Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Assemblies under Simulated Seismic Loading,"Report No. 5-75/1, New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington, 1975. [13] ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Recommendations for Design of BeamColumn Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures, "ACI Journal, Proceedings V, 73, No. 7, July 1976, pp. 375-393. [14] Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., "The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," Report No. 77-1, Department of Civil Engineering, Structures Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin, Jan. 1977. [15] Fenwick, R. C., and Irvine, H. M., "Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Loading," Report No. 142, University of Auckland, Mar. 1977. [16] Lee, Duane L. N., Wight, James K., and Hanson, Robert D., "RC Beam-Column Joints under Large Load Reversals, "Proceedings, ASCE, V. 103, ST12, Dec. 1977, pp. 2337-2350. [17] Uzumeri, S. M., "Strength and Ductility of Cast-In-Place Beam-Column Joints, "Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1977, pp. 293-350. [18] Vallenas, J., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., "Concrete Confined by Rectangular Hoops Subjected to Axial Loads, "Report No. UCB/EERC-77/13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Aug. 1977, 114 pp. [19] Briss, G. R., Paulay, T., and Park R., "The Elastic Behavior of Earthquake Resistant R. C. Interior Beam-Column Joints," Report No. 78-13, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Feb. 1978. [20] Paulay, T., Park, R., and Priestly, M. J. N., "Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Under Seismic Actions," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 75, No. 11, nov. 1978, pp. 585-593. [21] Gill, W. D., Park, R., and Priestly, M. Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns Research Report No. 79-1, Department of Univeristy of Canterbury, Christchurch, J. N., "Ductility of With Axial Load," Civil Engineering, Feb. 1979, 136 pp.

[22] ACI Committee 408, "Suggested Development, Splice, and Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension," (ACI 408.1R-79), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1979,

3 pp. [23] Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., "Properties of Concrete Confined by Rectangular Ties," AICAP-CEB Symposium on Structural Concrete Under Seismic Actions (Rome, May 1979), Bulletin d'Information No. 132, Comite Euro-International du Deton, Paris, Apr. 1979, pp. 53-60. [24] Bertero, V. V., Popov,E. P., and Forzani, B., "Seismic Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 77, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1980, pp. 44-52. [25] Sheikh, Shamim A., and Uzumeri, S. M., "Strength and Ductility of Tied Concrete Columns," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 106, ST5, May 1980, pp. 1079-1102. [26] Selna, L., Martin, I., Park, R., and Wyllie, L., "Strong and Tough Concrete Columns for Seismic Forces," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 106, ST8, Aug. 1980, pp. 1717-1734. [27] Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestly, M. J. N., "StressStrain Relationships for Confined Concrete,: Research Report No. 80-6, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 1980, 106 pp. [28] Meinheit, Donald F., and Jirsa, James O., "Shear Strength of R/C Beam-Column Connections," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 107, ST11, Nov. 1982, pp. 2227-2244. [29] Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestly, M. J. M., "StressStrain Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1982, pp. 13-27. [30] Zhang, Liande, and Jirsa, J. O., "A Study of Shear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," PMFSEL Report No. 82-1, University of Texas at Austin, Feb. 1982. [31] Park, Robert; Priestly, M. J. Nigel; and Gill, Wayne D., "Ductility of Square-Confined Concrete Columns," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 108, ST4, Apr. 1982, pp. 929-950. [32] Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., "Behavior of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam to Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake Type Loading," Report No. UMEE 82R5, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, July 1982, 243 pp. [33] Durrani, A.J., and Wight, J.K., "Experimental Analytical Study of Internal Beam to Column Connections Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loadings," Report No. UMEE 82R3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1982, 275 pp. [34] Rabbat, B. G., Daniel, J. I., Weinmann, T. L. and Hanson, N. W., "Seismic Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Columns," PCA Construction Technology Laboratory/National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Sept. 1982. (Available as PB83-204 891 from NTIS.)

[35] "Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures," (NZS 3101, Part 1:1982), Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington, 1982, 127 pp. [36] "Commentary on The Design of Concrete Structures," (NZS 3101, Part 2:1982), Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington, 1982, 156 pp. [37] Suzuki, N., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H., "The Effective Width of Slabs in Reinforced Concrete Structures," Transaction of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 5, 1983, pp. 309-316. [38] Zhu, Sosngchao, and Jirsa, James O., "A Study of Bond Deterioration in Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," PMFSEL Report No. 83-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, July 1983. [39] Aoyama, H. "Overview of the Japanese Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete Beam- Column Joints and Design Examples," Paper Prepared for the U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar on the Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Monterey, California, July 30-August 1, 1984. [40] Kanada, K., Kondo, G., Fujii, S., and Morita, S., "Relation Between Beam Bar Anchorage and Shear Resistance at Exterior Beam-Column Joints," Transaction of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 6, 1984, pp. 433-440. [41] Kanada, K., Fujii, S., and Morita, S., "Effect of Joint Shear Reinforcement on Behaviors of Exterior Beam-Column Joints under Reversed Cyclic Loadings," Transaction of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 7, 1985, pp. 559-566. [42] Aoyama, H., "Problems Associated with 'Weak-Beam' Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames," Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo (B), Vol. 38, No. 2, 1985, pp. 75-105. [43] Paulay, T., and Park, R., "Joints in Reinforced Concrete Frames Designed for Earthquake Resistance," Research Report 84-9, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, June 1984. [44] Leon, R.T., "The Effect of Floor Member Size on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," Proceedings, 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, July 1984, pp. 445-452. [45] Yoshimura, M., and Kurose, Y., "Inelastic Behavior of the Building, Earthquake Effects on Reinforced Concrete Structures," U.S.-Japan Research, ACI Publication SP-84, Detroit 1985, pp. 163-201. [46] Joglekar, M., Murry, P., Jirsa, J., and Klingner, R., "Full Scale Tests of Beam-Column Joints," Earthquake Effects on Reinforced Concrete Structures, U.S.-Japan Research, ACI Publication SP-84, Detroit 1985, pp. 271-304. [47] Zerbe, H.E., and Durrani, A.J., "Effect of a Slab on the Behavior of Exterior Beam to Column Connections," Report No. 30, Department of Civil Engineering, Rice University,

Houston, Texas, March

1985.

[48] Ehsani, M.R., and Wight, J.K., "Effect of Transverse Beam and Slab on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-toColumn Connections," ACI Journal, March-April 1985, pp. 188-195. [49] ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Recommendations for Design of BeamColumn Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures," ACI Journal, Vol. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 266-283. [50] Sattary-Javid, V., and Wight, J.K., "Earthquake Load on R/C Beams: Building Versus Single Beam," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 7, July 1986, pp. 1443-1508. [51] Otani, S., Kitayama, K., and Aoyama, H., "Beam Bar Bond Requirements for Interior Beam-Column Connections," Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fundamental Theory of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete, Nanjing Institute of Technology, China, September, 1986. [52] Abdel-Fattah, B. and Wight, J. K., "Study of Moving Beam Plastic Hinging Zones for Earthquake-Resistant Design of R/C Buildings," ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 1, JanuaryFebruary 1987, pp. 31-39. [53] Ehsani, M. R., Moussa, A. E., and Vallenilla, C. R., "Comparison of Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Ordinaryand High-Strength Concrete Frames," ACI Journal, Vol. 84, March-April 1987, pp. 161-169. [54] Fujii, S., and Morita, S., "Behavior of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column-Slab Subassemblages under BiDirectional Loading," Paper Prepared for the U.S.-N.Z.Japan-China Seminar on the Design of R.C. Beam-Column Joints for Earthquake Resistance, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New- Zealand, August, 1987. [55] Kitayama, K., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H., "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Connections with Slabs," Paper Prepared for the U.S.-N.Z.-Japan-China Seminar on the Design of R.C. Beam-Column Joints for Earthquake Resistance, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NewZealand, August, 1987. [56] Durrani, A.J., and Wight, J.K., "Earthquake Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Interior Connections Including a Floor Slab," ACI Structural Journal, September-October 1987, pp. 400-406. [57] Aktan, A.E., and Bertero, V.V., "Evaluation of Seismic Responce of RC Buildings Loaded to Failure," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 5, May 1987, pp. 1092-1108. [58] Durrani, A.J., and Zerbe, H.E., "Seismic Resistance of R/C Exterior Connections with Floor Slab," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987, pp. 1850-1864.

[59] Otani, S., Li, S., and Aoyama, H., "Moment-Redistribution in Earthquake Resistant Design of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Frames," Transaction of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 9, 1987, pp. 581-588. [60] Pantazopoulou, S.J., Moehle, J.P., and Shahrooz, B.M., "Simple Analytical Model for T-Beam in Flexure, "Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 7, July 1988, pp. 1507-1523. [61] Kokusho, S., Hayashi, S., Wada, A., and Sakata, H., "Elastic and Plastic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam in Consideration of Axial Restriction Effect of Deformation," Report of the Research Laboratory of Engineering Materials, Tokyo Institute of Technology, No. 13, 1988, Nagatsuta, Yokohama 227, Japan, pp. 253-270. [62] French, C. W., and Boroojerdi, A., "Contribution of R/C Floor Slab in Resisting Lateral Loads," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, January 1989, pp. 1-18. [63] Ammerman, O.V., and French, C. W., "R/C Beam-Column-Slab Subassemblages Subjected to Lateral Loads," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 6, Jun 1989, pp. 1298-1308. [64] Leon, R.T., "Interior Joints with Variable Anchorage Length," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 9, September 1989, pp. 2261-2275. [65] Zerbe, H.E., and Durrani, A.J., "Seismic Response of Connections in Two-Bay R/C Frame Subassemblies,"Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 11, November 1989, pp.2829-2844. [66] Paultre, P. et al.,"Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Frame Subassemblages - A Canadian Perspective," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 5, 1989, pp. 627-649.

APPENDIX A--AREAS NEEDING RESEARCH To help identify areas where research is needed, the committee contacted some 60 design firms asking their views on needed research topics. The following list is based on the opinion of the committee members and designers. The order of the items listed is arbitrary. A.1--Connections with beams wider than columns The current recommendations are based on results of tests of connections where the column width is equal to or greater than the beam width. This allows all of the beam longitudinal reinforcement to be located within the column longitudinal reinforcement. Information is needed on the behavior of connections where beams are wider than columns and beam longitudinal reinforcement cannot be placed within column longitudinal reinforcement.

A.2--Effect of eccentric beams All connections tested to date have included concentric beams where the axes of the column and beams are coincident. Connections in which beam axes are eccentric to the column axis are also common. This type of connection is frequently used in exterior frames of buildings where beams frame into columns such that the outside faces of beams and columns are flush. It is not clear to what extent the presence of torsion and the increase of associated stresses will affect the capacity of these connections. A.3--Biaxially loaded joints Only limited research[44,46,53] is available on the effects of biaxial loading on joint behavior. This research indicates that for small columns the loss of section due to corner spalling combined with the loss of bond and slip of the highest strained bars can lead to premature column failure. Research is needed to clarify biaxial joint behavior, particularly with reference to larger column sizes, different beam geometries, effects of floor slabs and different anchorage lengths for both beam and column bars. A.4--Relocation of plastic hinges away from the joint Limited results[52] are available for the capacity of joints where the hinging region has been moved away from the joint. Guidelines are needed for proper detailing to move plastic hinges away from the face of the column and for evaluating the capacity of the connection when such details are used. A.5--Fiber reinforcement in the joint Using fiber reinforcement may be an effective way to reduce the required confinement steel in the joint or to increase the maximum allowable shear capacity of the beam-column joint. Experimental data are needed to quantify these effects. A.6--High strength concrete in the joint Current limitations on allowable joint shear stresses are based on tests of normal weight and typical strength concrete. The compressive strength of the concrete used in test specimens varied from 3500 psi (24 MPa) to approximately 5500 psi(38 MPa). In recent years high-strength concrete, with compressive strengths up to 19,000 psi(130 MPa), has been used in construction of columns. Clearly, these recommendations were not developed for such high-strength concretes. Research is needed to evaluate the behavior and capacity of high strength concrete joints[53]. A.7--Knee joints The majority of beam-column joint studies reported are limited to connections in which the column continues above and below the joint. Knee joints, which are usually present at the roof level of a building, require special attention because both column and beam longitudinal reinforcement may terminate at that point and usually are anchored in the joint. Experimental data

are particularly needed for cyclically loaded specimens. A.8--Behavior of indeterminate systems Experimental results for beam-column joints have been primarily obtained from tests of statically determinate joint assemblies. There is a need to establish the effect of force redistribution and joint deformation on the behavior of statically indeterminate structural systems[65]. A.9--Lightweight aggregate concrete Additional studies are needed to evaluate all aspects of joint behavior where various types of lightweight aggregate concrete is used[24,34]. A.10--Effect of slabs The contribution of the slab to stiffness and strength of connections has been investigated in a number of recent studies[37,42-44,47,48,54-58,60,62,63,66]. However, no definitive conclusions have been developed on how the presence of a slab affects the requirements for confinement and the moment capacities of the beams. A.11--Steel congestion Type 2 connections in many structures require a significant amount of steel, thus making the construction process very difficult. Means to reduce steel congestion need to be studied and recommendations need to be made. A.12--Distribution of plastic hinges Not all the joints within a structure located in an area with high seismicity will experience significant inelastic deformations. Guidelines are needed to identify "Type 2" joints within a structure without having to do a comprehensive inelastic analysis. A.13--Limit on joint shear The current limits on joint shear are overly conservative in the opinion of many designers for certain combinations of configurations, size of members, material strengths, etc. More experimental studies are needed to determine if these limits can be raised. A.14--Joints in existing structures Joints in structures built prior to the development of current design guidelines do not conform to the current requirements. These joints need to be studied in detail to establish their adequacy. APPENDIX B--EXAMPLES Four design examples are presented. Each example presents given member sizes and reinforcement and demonstrates the application

of the committee's joint design recommendations. In all of the examples, it is assumed that the joints are part of the primary structural system for resisting lateral loads, that is, wind loads for Type 1 joints and earthquake loads for Type 2 joints. The examples are similar to those used in the first committee report.[13] A short discussion of how the changes in the committee's recommendations affected the design of these joints is given at the end of this appendix. DESIGN EXAMPLE 1--EXTERIOR TYPE 1 JOINT

Column longitudinal reinforcement (Section 4.1.2) The indicated arrangement of twelve No, 11 bars is acceptable. Transverse reinforcement (Section 4.2.1) A permissible arrangement of No. 4 ties is shown. Spacing between sets of ties should be less than or equal to 6 in. (Section 4.2.1.3). Joint shear force (Section 4.3.1) Shear is not a problem in the transverse (spandrel) direction because large unbalanced moments are not anticipated in this direction. For shear in the normal direction, the maximum possible joint shear is a function of the flexural capacity of the beam normal to the connection.

Joint shear strength This is an exterior Type 1 joint which meets the geometry restrictions of Section 4.3.2. Therefore, use ) = 20 from Table 1 b+j, V+n, V+n, V+n, = (24 in. + 21 in.)/2 = 21.5 in. = 20 %f'+c, b+j,h(col) = 20 %4000 psi

(22.5 in.)(24 in.)

= 683,000 lb = 683 kips

NV+n, = 0.85 (683 kips) = 581 kips > 315 kips (OK) Hooked bar anchorage (Section 4.5.2.1) f+y, d+b, l+dh, = ))))))))))))) 50 %f'+c, 60,000 psi (1.41 in.) =
)))))))))))))))))))))))) = 26.8 in.

50 %4000 psi

The reduction factor of Section 4.5.2.2(a) applies, so mod l+dh, = (26.8 in.)(0.7) = 18.7 in. Available space = 24 in. - 1.5 in. (back cover) - 0.5 in. (tie diameter) = 22 in. (OK) DESIGN EXAMPLE 2--INTERIOR TYPE 1 JOINT

Column longitudinal reinforcement (Section 4.1.2) The arrangement of eight No. 14 bars shown above is acceptable. Transverse reinforcement (Section 4.2.1) Neither beam covers three-quarters of the column width.

Therefore, typical transverse reinforcement is required. A permissible arrangement of No. 4 ties is shown. Spacing between sets of ties should be less than or equal to 6 in. (Section 4.2.1.3). Shear--Shear is not a problem because large unbalanced moments are not anticipated in either direction. Anchorage--Top beam bars should be continuous through the joint. It is recommended that bottom bars also be continuous through the joint because the joint is part of the primary system for resisting lateral loads. Before starting the examples for Type 2 joints, it is important to point out that to satisfy the anchorage and shear requirements, a designer will probably have to use larger column sections than have previously been required. Wider beam sections will be necessary to cover the column faces and thus allow the use of higher shear stress values. Table B.1 is based on anchorage requirements for bars terminating in a joint (Section 4.5.2). Table B.2 is based on requirements for the ratio of joint dimensions (actually beam and column dimensions) to the diameter of beam and column bars (Section 4.5.4). These tables should be useful for selecting main reinforcing bar diameters and joint dimensions. Values for l+dh, were calculated from Eq. (4.8) using " = 1.25, f+y, = 60 ksi and f'+c, 4000 psi. In Table B.1, an extra 3-1/2 in. has been added to l+dh, to determine the minimum column dimension required to anchor a given bar. The quantity 3-1/2 in. comes from two times the clear cover (typically 1-1/2 in. front and back) plus one tie-bar diameter. The 20 percent reduction factor for close spacing of transverse reinforcement is included in Column 5 of Table B.1. Table B.1--Minimum column depth for Type 2 joints based on anchorage of terminating beam longitudinal reinforcement
644444L444444L444444L44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 5 * * * h(min) for column 5 5 Bar * * *))))))))))))))))))))))0)))))))))))))))))))))))M 5size * d+b,,*l+dh,,* For column hoops at * For column hoops at 5 5 No. * in. * in. *a spacing > 3d+b,, in.* a spacing # 3d+b,, in.5 5 (1) * (2) * (3) * (4) * (5) 5 K)))))3))))))3))))))3))))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))))))))))M 5 6 *0.750 * 11.9 * 15.4 * 13.0 5 5 7 *0.875 * 13.8 * 17.3 * 14.6 5 5 8 *1.00 * 15.8 * 19.3 * 16.1 5 5 9 *1.13 * 17.8 * 21.3 * 17.8 5 5 10 *1.27 * 20.1 * 23.6 * 19.6 5 5 11 *1.41 * 22.3 * 25.8 * 21.3 5 944444N444444N444444N4444444444444444444444N444444444444444444444448

Table B.2--Minimum column or beam depth for Type 2 joints based on size of longitudinal reinforcement
6444444L444444444L4444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 5 * * h(min) for column based on size of beam 5 5 Bar * * longitudinal reinforcement or h(min) for 5 5 size,* d+b,, * beam based on size of column 5 5 No. * in. * longitudinal reinforcement, in. 5 :444444P444444444P444444444444444444444444444444444444444444<

5 6 * 0.750 * 15.0 5 5 7 * 0.875 * 17.5 5 5 8 * 1.00 * 20.0 5 5 9 * 1.13 * 22.6 5 5 10 * 1.27 * 25.4 5 5 11 * 1.41 * 28.2 5 5 14 * 1.69 * 33.9 5 9444444N444444444N4444444444444444444444444444444444444444448

DESIGN EXAMPLE 3--EXTERIOR TYPE 2 JOINT Preliminary design

Column longitudinal reinforcement (Section 4.1.2) The arrangement of twelve No. 11 bars acceptable. Transverse reinforcement (Section 4.2.2) Provided A+sh, = 4 legs (0.20 in./leg) A+sh, = 0.80 in. (each direction) from Eq. (4.2)
+) * A+g, A+sh, = 0.3 )))))))))))))))) *)))))))) f+yh, * A+c, .) )), * - 1 * * ))+) ), * (24 in.) * *))))))))))) - 1 * * (21 in.) * .) )-

s+h, h" f'+c,

(6 in.)(21 in.)(4 ksi) A+sh, = 0.3 ))))))))))))))))))))))))) 60 ksi

A+sh, = 0.771 in. < 0.80 in. (OK) from Eq. (4.3) s+h, h" f'+c, A+sh, = 0.09 ))))))))))))))) = 0.756 in. < 0.80 in. (OK) f+yh, Shear (Section 4.3) For the bending analysis which follows, ignore the effect of compression reinforcement and assume, in most locations, d = h 2.7 in. In locations where there is interference between bars from the normal and spandrel beams, assume d = h - 3.7 in. in the spandrel beam.

Joint shear strength--The spandrel beam dimensions are sufficient for classifying this as an exterior joint, so use ) = 15 (Table 1). b+j, = (b+b, + b+c,)/2 < b+b, + 2[h(col)/2] = (21 in. + 24 in.)/2 = 22.5 in. (governs) V+n, = ) %f'+c,(psi) b+j, h(col) = 15 %4000 psi (22.5 in.)(24 in.) = 512,000 lb = 512 kips

N V+n, = 0.85 (512 kips) = 435 kips > 404 kips (OK)

Flexural strength ratio (Section 4.4.2) When determining the column flexural strength, the axial load was assumed to be zero (conservative for this check). Also, " was set equal to 1.0 for this calculation. Using these assumptions, M+n, = 848 k-ft. The beam flexural strengths have been found earlier using " = 1.25. Those beam strengths will be divided by 1.25 to obtain an approximate value for the beam flexural strength if " = 1.0. If the strength ratio is close to the allowable value, a more accurate determination of the beam flexural strength for " = 1.0 could be made. Normal direction M+n, 872 k-ft/1.25 = 698 k-ft Spandrel direction M+n1, 596 k-ft/1.25 = 477 k-ft M+n2, 383 k-ft/1.25 = 306 k-ft Strength ratio check Normal direction 2 (848) E M+n,(col) ))))))))))))) = )))))))) = E M+n,(beam) 698 Spandrel direction E M+n,(col) 2 (848) )))))))))))))) = )))))))))))) E M+n,(beam) 477 + 306 = 2.17 > 1.4 (OK) 2.43 > 1.4 (OK)

Hooked bars terminating in a joint (Section 4.5.2) Only the No. 10 bars for the normal beam need to be checked. Referring to Table B.1, the required column dimension is 23.6 in., which is less than the provided dimension of 24 in.

Beam and column bars passing through the joint (Section 4.5.4) The No. 9 bars in the spandrel beam govern the column size h(col) > 20 (1.13 in.) = 22.6 in. < 24 in. (OK) The total beam depths are governed by the column bars h(beams) > 20 (1.41 in.) = 28.2 in. 28 in. (say OK) DESIGN EXAMPLE 4--INTERIOR TYPE 2 JOINT Preliminary design

Anticipated changes 1. Change column to 28 x 28 in. and use twelve No. 11 bars. The dimension increase is required to satisfy shear and bar development requirements. The increase in the number of longitudinal bars is required to give a more uniform distribution of longitudinal steel. 2. Change longitudinal beams to 21 x 30 in. and use five No. 10 bars as top reinforcement. The beam width is increased to help satisfy confinement and shear requirements. The beam bar diameters are decreased to satisfy Section 4.5.4 and the beam depth is increased to satisfy Section 4.5.4 for the column bars. 3. Change transverse beams to 21 x 28 in. and use the same reinforcement. The width is increased to help satisfy confinement and shear requirements and the beam depth is increased to satisfy Section 4.5.4 for the column bars. The depth of the transverse beams is set differently than the depth of the longitudinal beams to avoid reinforcing bar interference.

Column longitudinal reinforcement (Section 4.1.2) The indicated arrangement of twelve No. 11 bars is acceptable. Transverse reinforcement (Section 4.2.2) Provided A+sh, = 4 legs (0.20 in./leg) = 0.80 in. (each direction). Because beam dimensions satisfy Section 4.2.2.5, the value for A+sh, obtained from Eq. (4.2) and (4.3) may be reduced by 50 percent in the joint. From Eq. (4.2)
+) ), * (28) * A+sh, = 0.3 )))))))))))))))))) *)))))))) - 1 * = 0.763 in. 60 ksi * (25) * .) )-

(6")(25")(4 ksi)

From Eq. (4.3) (6")(25")(4 ksi) A+sh, = 0.09 )))))))))))))))))))) = 0.900 in. 60 ksi Required A+sh, = 0.5 (0.90 in.) = 0.45 in. < 0.80 in. (OK) Thus, for this joint the maximum allowable spacing (6 in.) and the minimum tie size for a No. 11 bar govern the design. Shear (Section 4.3) Clearly the longitudinal direction is critical because of the larger beam steel area and the larger beam depth. Using the same assumptions for the flexural analysis as were made in the previous example

The beams have been made wide enough to classify this as an interior joint, so ) = 20 (Table 1)

b+j, = (28 + 21 in.)/2 = 24.5 in. < b+b, + 2[h(col)/2] 1 kip NV+n, = (0.85)(20) %4000 psi (24.5 in.)(28 in.) ))))))) 1000 lb = 738 kips > 713 kips (OK) Flexural strength ratio (Section 4.4.2) Using the same assumptions used in Example 3, the column flexural strength is M+n, = 1070 k/ft. Beam flexural strengths for " = 1.0 are approximated as was done in Example 3. Only the longitudinal beams need to be considered because they are stronger than the transverse beams M+n1, 951 k-ft/1.25 = 761 k-ft M+n2, 782 k-ft/1.25 = 626 k-ft Flexural strength ratio = E M+n,(col) 2 (1070)
))))))))))))) = ))))))))))))) E M+n,(beam) 761 + 626

= 1.5 > 1.4 (OK) Beam and column bars passing through the joint (Section 4.5.4) The column dimension is governed by the largest beam bar h(col) > 20 (1.27 in.) = 25.4 in. < 28 in. (OK) Beam depths are controlled by the column bars h(beam) > 20 (1.41 in.) = 28.2 in. 28 in. (say OK) Comparison to the results of the previous committee report For Type 1 joints, use of the new committee design recommendations led to no changes from the prior committee report[13] for these design examples. For the Type 2 joint examples there were some significant differences. Changes were required in the column (joint) size for Example 4, and for Examples 3 and 4 there was a large decrease in the required amount of transverse reinforcement in the joint. These changes clearly reflect the committee's current philosophy of requiring larger columns (joints) and less transverse reinforcement. Other significant changes were the increases in beam widths to better confine the joint and decreases in beam bar sizes to reduce the tendency of bars to slip through the joint during earthquake-type loading. SI METRIC TABLES AND EXAMPLE Tables B.1 (metric) and B.2 (metric) are given to aid in the selection of joint dimensions when using standard metric bars. In Column 4 of Table B.1 (metric), an extra 95 mm has been added to l+dh, when determining the minimum column dimension required to anchor a given bar. This quantity represents two times the

clear cover (typically 40 mm) plus one tie bar diameter (15 mm). The 20 percent reduction factor for close spacing of transverse reinforcement is included in Column 5 of Table B.1 (metric). Table B.1 (metric) -- Minimum column depth for Type 2 joints based on anchorage of terminating beam bars
644444L444444L444444L44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 5 * * * h(min) for column 5 5 Bar * * *))))))))))))))))))))))0)))))))))))))))))))))))M 5size * d+b,,*l+dh,,* For column hoops at * For column hoops at 5 5 No. * mm * mm *a spacing > 3d+b,,(mm)* a spacing # 3d+b,,(mm)5 5 (1) * (2) * (3) * (4) * (5) 5 K)))))3))))))3))))))3))))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))))))))))M 5 15 * 16.0 * 236 * 331 * 320 5 5 20 * 19.5 * 287 * 382 * 325 5 5 25 * 25.2 * 371 * 466 * 392 5 5 30 * 29.9 * 440 * 535 * 447 5 5 35 * 35.7 * 526 * 621 * 516 5 944444N444444N444444N4444444444444444444444N444444444444444444444448

Table B.2 (metric) -- Minimum column or beam depth for Type 2 joints based on size of longitudinal reinforcement
6444444L444444444L4444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 * * h(min) for column based on size of beam 5 5 5 Bar * * longitudinal reinforcement or h(min) for 5 5 size,* d+b,, * beam based on size of column 5 5 No. * mm * longitudinal reinforcement, mm 5 :444444P444444444P444444444444444444444444444444444444444444< 5 15 * 16.0 * 320 5 5 20 * 19.5 * 390 5 5 25 * 25.2 * 504 5 5 30 * 29.9 * 598 5 5 35 * 35.7 * 714 5 5 45 * 43.7 * 874 5 9444444N444444444N4444444444444444444444444444444444444444448

Design example 3 (metric) is included to show the use of metric dimensions and units for beam-column joint design. This example is very similar to Example 3. DESIGN EXAMPLE 3 (METRIC)--EXTERIOR TYPE 2 JOINT

Notes on joint geometry--Dimensions of the spandrel and normal beams, when compared to the column dimensions, allow this joint

to be classified as an exterior joint. The reinforcement in the normal beam satisfies the requirements of Section 4.5.2.3 [Column 4 of Table B.1 (metric)]. The reinforcement in the spandrel beams satisfies the requirements of Section 4.5.4 [Table B.2 (metric)]. Transverse reinforcement (Section 4.2.2) The arrangement of twelve No. 35 bars is acceptable. Column longitudinal reinforcement (Section 4.1.2) Provided A+sh, = 4 legs (200 mm/leg) A+sh, = 800 mm From Eq. (4.2)
+) * A+g, A+sh, = 0.3 ))))))))))))))) * )))))) f+yh, * A+c, .)

s+h, h" f'+c,

), * 1 * * )), * 1 * = 582 mm * )-

+) * (600) A+sh, = 0.3 )))))))))))))))) * ))))))))) 400 * (520) .)

(150)(520)(30)

< 800 mm (OK) From Eq. (4.3) s+h, h" f'+c, A+sh, = 0.09 )))))))))))))))) f+yh, (150)(520)(30) A+sh, = 0.09 )))))))))))))))) = 527 mm < 800 mm (OK) 400 Shear (Section 4.3) For the bending analysis, ignore the effect of compression reinforcement and in most locations assume d = h - 70 mm. In locations where there is interference between bars from the normal and spandrel beams, assume d = h - 100 mm in the spandrel beam.

Flexural strength ratio (Section 4.4.2) When determining the column flexural strength, the axial load was assumed to be zero (conservative for this check), and " was set equal to 1.0 for this calculation. Using these assumptions, M+n, = 1075 kN@m. The beam flexural strengths have been found earlier using " = 1.25. Those beam strengths will be divided by 1.25 to obtain an approximate value for the beam flexural strengths when " = 1.0. Normal direction M+n, 1250 kN@m/1.25 1000 kN@m Spandrel direction M+n1, 867 kN@m/1.25 = 694 kN@m M+n2, 485 kN@m/1.25 = 388 kN@m

Strength ratio check Normal direction E M+n,(col) ))))))))))))) = E M+n,(beam) Spandrel direction E M+n,(col) 2(1075) = 1.99 > 1.4 (OK)
)))))))))))) = )))))))))))) E M+n,(beam) 694 + 388

2(1075)
)))))))))))

= 2.15 > 1.4 (OK)

1000

Hooked bars terminating in the joint and beam and column bars passing through the joint (Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.4) As mentioned previously, the joint dimensions were selected to satisfy these requirements which are summarized in Tables B.1 (metric) and B.2 (metric).
))))))))))))))))))))))

This report was submitted to letter ballot of the committee and approved in accordance with Institute procedures.