Experimental and Numerical Investigations on the

Seismic Behavior of Lightly Reinforced Concrete

Beam-Column Joints
Bing Li1; Cao Thanh Ngoc Tran2; and Tso-Chien Pan3

Abstract: The experimental and analytical investigations carried out on lightly reinforced concrete beam-column joints subjected to
seismic loading are presented in this paper. Five 3/4-scale reinforced concrete beam-column joints were tested to investigate the seismic
behavior of the joints. The variables in the tested specimens include column orientations and the presence of slabs on the top of beams.
The specimens were subjected to quasi-static load reversals to simulate earthquake loadings. Experimental results obtained include joint
shear stresses, joint shear strains, observed cracking and initial stiffness. The test results provided some information about the seismic
behavior of the specimens. However, due to the unique nature of the specimens, several key parameters could not be varied. Therefore,
to elucidate further information, a numerical study consisting of three-dimensional nonlinear finite-element FE models was carried out.
The FE models were then validated with the experimental results. This was followed by parametric studies, carried out to understand the
effects of several critical factors, including column axial load, ratio of column depth to beam reinforcement bar diameter, and effective
slab width, on the complex behavior of the joints.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCEST.1943-541X.0000040
CE Database subject headings: Reinforced concrete; Beam columns; Drift; Finite element method; Bonding; Axial loads; Joints;
Seismic effects.

Introduction of thirty full-scale LRC beam-column joints with typical rein-

A large number of existing multistorey reinforced concrete RC
framed structures in zones of low seismicity has not been de-
signed following the requirements of modern seismic design
codes. Vital deficiencies in such structures include the typical
reinforcement details such as 1 little or no transverse reinforce-
ment within the beam-column joint regions; 2 low longitudinal
reinforcement ratios for columns; and 3 large spacing between
the column transverse reinforcement. These are generally termed
as lightly RC LRC structures. Despite the lack of proper seismic
provisions in their design, these structures may be still capable of
resisting some minor to moderate levels of earthquakes. There-
fore, a thorough evaluation of these structures is needed to under-
stand the behavior of LRC structures when subjected to seismic
loads.
The earliest experimental investigations in United States on
the seismic behavior of LRC beam-column joints were conducted
at Cornell University by Pessiki et al. 1990 and Beres et al.
1991. Pessiki et al. 1990 and Beres et al. 1991 tested a total scale nonseismically detailed interior beam-wide column joints to
1
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore 639798, Singapore correspond-
ing author. E-mail: cbli@ntu.edu.sg
2
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore 639798, Singapore.
3
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological Univ., Singapore 639798, Singapore.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 7, 2008; approved
on March 9, 2009; published online on August 14, 2009. Discussion
period open until February 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submit-
ted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 9, September 1, 2009. ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/2009/9-10071018/$25.00.
forcement details of beam-column joints found in the Central and
Eastern United States. They include lightly confined lap splices in
columns, discontinuous beam reinforcement in the beam-column
joints, and joints with little or no transverse reinforcement. It was
observed that the mode of failure in these joints was pull out of
the discontinuous beam reinforcement. The maximum horizontal
forces of the specimens with discontinuous beam reinforcement
were approximately 20% smaller than the ones with continuous
beam reinforcement.
Hakuto et al. 1995 reported the test results of five interior
beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing details, which
were typical of buildings constructed before the 1970s. The test
results indicated that the seismic performance of interior beam-
column joints without transverse reinforcement in the joint core
would be poor if joint shear stress exceeds 0.17f c . The effect of
bond conditions on the seismic performance of the joints was also
investigated.
Li et al. 2002 carried out experiments involving two full-
investigate the seismic behavior of the joints. The two variables in
the test specimens were the amount of transverse reinforcement
provided within the joint and the lap splicing details of the col-
umn and beam reinforcement. The maximum nominal horizontal
shear stress in the joint core was determined to be 0.15f c based on
the experimental results. The joint without horizontal transverse
reinforcement failed at a displacement ductility factor of 2, which
correlates well with the model proposed by Hakuto et al. 2000.
This suggests that joint shear failure occurs around a displace-
ment ductility factor of 2, where the joint shear stress would lie
between 0.11f c and 0.17f c . It must be noted that the modified
joint achieved a limited ductility factor of 3 due to the presence of
transverse reinforcement within the joint.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1007

 Recently, a series of tests on interior beam-column joints with-
Column bars
out transverse reinforcement in the joint core was conducted by Specimen
SpecimenAL1
AL1 Column bars
lapped above Specimen
Specimen AS1AS1

R10@200
R10@200
Walker 2001 and Alire 2002 at University of Washington. lapped above
floor level
floor level
Walker 2001 used a rich array of displacement histories, includ- Slab

100
Slab

300 100
A
A
ing some with highly asymmetric patterns and others with many

2460
2460
400
cycles of constant amplitude displacement, in addition to the

300
more common symmetric, increasing-amplitude cycles. Alire A
A
BB BB

R10@200
2002 studied a wide range of joint shear stress demands. It was

R10@200
Transverse
Transverse beam
beam
concluded from the test results that the level of joint shear stress
and displacement history had the largest influence on the joint
behavior. Of several alternative displacement histories that were R10@150 200 R10@150
examined, the most severe strength degradation was observed in R10@150 R10@150
4500
4500
specimens subjected to three symmetric cycles at each drift level.
Although existing literature on LRC beam-column joints pro-
vides some experimental investigations, the effects of several (a) Specimens AL1 and AS1
critical factors, such as typical seismic detailing, slab width, col-
umn orientation, column axial load, etc., are not clearly under-
Column bars
stood. The present investigation was planned to carry out Specimen AL2 Column
lapped bars
above Specimen AS2

R10@200
experimental and finite-element FE studies with the aim to pro- lapped above

R10@200
Specimen AL2 floor level Specimen AS2
floor level
vide further contribution to this field of research. The first part Slab

100
100
contains the test results of five 3/4-scale specimens, which were AA

tested under quasi-static cyclic load reversals to simulate seismic

2460
2460
400

300
300
loadings. The second part of the study includes the comparison of
C
C C
C A
A
the experimental results with FE models and a critical parametric

R10@200
R10@200
Transverse beam
Transverse beam
study conducted to elucidate further information.

R10@150 400 R10@150

R10@150 R10@150
Test Program 4500
4500

Specimen Details (b) Specimens AL2 and AS2

Figs. 1 and 2 show the details of the five 3/4-scale LRC test
specimens. They are labeled as AL1, AL2, AS1, AS2, and MAS1.
R10@150 8T20
AL, AS, and MAS stand for as-built lightly RC beam-column 1T16
2T20 R10@200
joints, as-built lightly RC beam-column joints with a slab and 8T20
100

modified as-built RC beam-column joints with a slab, respec- R10@200

tively. The joints in Specimen AL1 and Specimen AL2 consisted

400
R10@150
300

200
of a plane beam-column connection, while Specimen AS1 and
Specimen AS2 had an additional slab cast along the top of beams 2T20
200 200 400
and the transverse beams that extended from the connection re- 1000
gion. The columns of Specimens AL1, AS1, and MAS1 were Section A-A Section B-B Section C-C
oriented in the direction of their weak bending axes, whereas the
columns of Specimen AS2 and Specimen AL2 were aligned about Specimens Specimens Specimens
their strong bending axes. The overall dimensions and the longi- AS1, and AS2 AL1 and AS1 AL2 and AS2
tudinal reinforcement of Specimen MAS1 were similar to those of
Specimen AS1 except that the spacing of transverse reinforce- Fig. 1. Dimensions and details of Specimens AL1, AS1, AL2, and
ment within Specimen MAS1 at the beams and columns near the AS2 in mm
joint region was reduced and only limited transverse reinforce-
ments were provided within its joint core see Figs. 1 and 2.
Reinforcement Details
Material Proprieties The specimens were designed according to the provisions of Brit-
ish Standards 8110 1997. Beams were reinforced using 2T20
Longitudinal reinforcement for the beams, columns, and trans- 20-mm diameter bars at the bottom and a combination of 2T20
verse beams consisted of deformed bars, designated using letter T and 1T16 16-mm diameter bars at the top. As / Ag and As / Ag
and were characterized by a yield strength f y of 473 MPa. The ratios of the beams were 1.13 and 0.86%, respectively. Beam bars
transverse reinforcement of all specimens comprised of mild steel were made continuous through the entire span. A total of 8T20
bars, denoted by R and was characterized by a yield strength f y of longitudinal bars, lapped above the floor level, were used in col-
252 MPa. The average compressive strength of concrete, f c , ob- umns. This resulted in the ratio of column steel area to the gross
tained from the concrete cylinder samples, was found to be 30.3, area of column to be 3.14%. Transverse reinforcement of the
31.4, 31.2, 32.1, and 31.9 MPa for Specimens AL1, AS1, MAS1, beams and columns, required for resisting shear, confining the
AL2, and AS2, respectively. concrete, and preventing premature buckling of the longitudinal

1008 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

 dance with the recommendation provided by ACI-ASCE Com-

R10@200
R10@100 R10@200
mittee 352 1991. The column to beam flexural strength ratio of
430
430
Column
bars lapped the specimens M r which were loaded about their strong or weak
3R10 R10@100 above floor
axis of columns were 1.66 and 0.89, respectively. When the slab
600
600

level

100
Slab
D

300 100
D bars were considered fully effective in resisting the negative
2460

bending moments, these ratios about the strong and weak loading
2460

R10@100 3R10
400
400

300
1T16
1T16 axes of the columns were reduced to approximately 1.09 and
R10@200R10@100

2T20
2T20 EE DD
EE 0.58, respectively.
600
600

300 100
100

8T20
8T20

400
400
Transverse R10@100
R10@150
R10@150 beam R10@100
300

2T20
2T20
R10@200

D-D
D-D 200
200
430
430

200
200
1000
1000 E-E
E-E Test Setup
1550
1550 600 200
600 600
600 1550
1550 Fig. 3 shows the test setup. The test specimens were subjected to
R10@150
R10@150 R10@100
R10@100 R10@100
R10@100 R10@150
R10@150
4500 quasi-static load reversals that simulated earthquake loading. The
4500 bottom of the column was pinned to the strong floor of the labo-
ratory and the ends of the beams were connected to this strong
Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcing details of Specimen MAS 1 in floor by steel links which permitted rotations and free horizontal
mm translations of the beams, and thus provided the vertical reactions
to the beams. A reversible horizontal load was applied to the
column using a double acting 300 kN 67.4 kip hydraulic jack.
bars, was detailed according to the provisions of BS8110. No
The cyclic loading history showing applied cycles versus the sto-
transverse reinforcement was provided within the joint core of all
rey drift ratio DR is shown in Fig. 4.
specimens with the only exception being MAS1. In this specimen,
the ends of the hoops were bent at an angle of 135 in contrast to
90 bent used in other specimens. Potential hinge regions, located
at 1.5 times the depth of beam or column, were provided with a Experimental Results and Observations
reduced spacing of 150 to 100 mm between transverse reinforce-
ment. The joint core was confined by using three sets of column Specimen AL1
hoops see Fig. 2.
The storey shear force versus horizontal displacement relationship
of Specimen AL1 is shown in Fig. 5a. The specimen did not
Nominal Capacities
reach its theoretical capacity till the end of the test. In both the
Table 1 summarizes the design parameters of the specimens. They loading directions, the maximum capacity attained was approxi-
were estimated using the tested material properties and in accor- mately 53 kN, which was 87% of its theoretical capacity, corre-

Table 1. Design Parameters and Initial Stiffness of the Specimens

Py / Pys Ki-exp Ki-FEMA 356 Ki-modified Ki-exp / Ki-exp /
Specimen kN Mr kN/mm kN/mm kN/mm Ki-FEMA 356 Ki-modified
AL1 60.6 0.89 2.1 3.0 2.4 0.70 0.88
AS1 63.1/97.3 0.89/0.58 3.1 3.4 2.7 0.91 1.15
MAS1 63.1/97.3 0.89/0.58 3.4 3.4 2.7 1.00 1.26
AL2 63.9 1.66 3.0 5.9 4.7 0.51 0.64
AS2 66.7/102.7 1.66/1.08 3.9 6.4 5.1 0.61 0.76

Fig. 3. Test setup showing Specimen AS2

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1009

 5.0%
5.0%
4.0%
4.0% 4.0%
4.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
ratio.

1.0%
1.0%
ratio

1.0%
1.0%
Drift

0.0%
0.0%
Drift

0 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30
-1.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-2.0%

-3.0%
-3.0%
-4.0%
-4.0%

-5.0%
-5.0%
Fig. 6. Observed cracking of Specimen AL1 and Specimen AS1 at
the end of the test: a Specimen AL1; b Specimen AS1
Fig. 4. Cyclic horizontal loading history
joint core due to the opening of diagonal tension cracks and at the
column compression zone due to crushing was observed as illus-
sponding to a DR of 1.4%. When the specimen was loaded to a
trated in Fig. 6a.
DR of 0.5%, the beams and columns experienced the initiation
of flexural and shear cracks almost simultaneously. In the subse-
quent loading run corresponding to DRs of 1.0 and 2.0%, the Specimen AS1
specimen developed some diagonal tension cracks that appeared
Fig. 5b shows the storey shear force versus the horizontal dis-
in the joint core as well as bond splitting cracks along the column
placement hysteresis loops of Specimen AS1. The dotted and
bars. At a DR of 3.7%, the specimen experienced a substantial
solid lines represent the theoretical capacities, which were esti-
loss of more than 20% of its load-carrying capacity, which led to
mated by accounting for and neglecting slab effects on the speci-
the test being stopped. At this stage, spalling of concrete at the
men, respectively. The specimen first attained its theoretical
capacity in the positive loading direction at a DR of 0.8%, while
in the negative direction it reached its theoretical capacity at a DR
Storydrift
Storey drift ratio
ratio of 1.0%. In the subsequent loading cycles, the specimen reached
-4%
-4% -3%
-3% -2%
-2% -1%
-1% 0%0% 1%
1% 2%
2% 3%
3% 4%
4%
its maximum capacities of approximately 80 kN, in the positive
80
80
Experimental
Experimental
P yP=60.6
y=60.6kNkN loading direction and 70 kN, in the negative loading direction
Analytical
Analytical 60
60
corresponding to DRs of 2.0 and 1.5%, respectively. The speci-
(kN )
force(kN)

40
40 men indicated over-strengths of 27% in the positive and 11% in
Initial stiffness
Initial stiffness the negative loading directions as compared to its theoretical ca-
force

20
20
pacity estimated by neglecting slab effects, respectively. These
shear
shear

0
-109 -82 -55 82 109
capacities were higher by 51 and 32% in comparison to those
-109 -82 -55 -27 0 27
27 55
55 82 109
Storey

-20 attained by Specimen AL1 in the respective loading directions.

Story

-40
-40
Although participation of the slab enhanced the moment resisting
capacity of the specimen, due to inadequate connection between
-60
-60
the slab bars and the beams, the developed moment strength did
Pyy=-60.6
=-60.6 kN
kN
-80
-80 not reach the theoretical capacity estimated by accounting for the
Horizontaldisplacement
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(mm) slab. The specimen showed a significant pinching behavior
throughout the test.
a) Specimen AL1
Fine flexural cracks were initiated and spread along the beams
Storydrift
Storey drift ratio
ratio and columns during the elastic loading cycles up till a DR of
-4%
-4% -3%
-3% -2%
-2% -1%
-1% 0%
0% 1%
1% 2%
2% 3%
3% 4%
4%
0.75%. The flexural crack development along the top chord of the
100
100
Experimental
Experimental beams was restricted at this stage. This could be attributed to the
Analytical 80
80
Analytical
PPys = 97.3kN PPyy=63.1
=63.1 kN
kN presence of the slab. In the subsequent inelastic cycles, flexural
=97.3
ys kN 60
60
cracks spread along the spans of the beams and propagated to-
Storey shear force (kN)
Story shear force (kN)

Initial
Initialstiffness
stiffness 40
40
ward its compression zone. The specimen began to develop
20
20
cracks along the top chord of the beams as the loading run
0 reached a DR of 1.0%. Subsequently, the bottom column, nearer
-109
-109 -82
-82 -55
-55 -27 0 27
27 55
55 82
82 109
109
-20 to the joint core, developed diagonal cracks at a DR of 2.0%. This
-40
-40 was followed by the concrete in the compression zone of the
-60
-60 column getting crushed at a DR of 3.6%. This caused the concrete
PPys=-97.3 kN
= -97.3kN
PPyy=-63.1
=-63.1kN
kN -80
-80 to spall, resulting in the specimen losing its load-carrying capac-
-100
-100 ity, as illustrated in Fig. 6b.
Horizontal
Horizontal displacement (mm)
displacement (mm)

b) Specimen AS1 Specimen MAS1

Fig. 7 illustrates the hysteresis loops of the storey shear force
Fig. 5. Comparison of hysteretic behavior between the experimental versus the horizontal displacement for Specimen MAS1, which
and the FE numerical test results: a Specimen AL1; b Specimen was quite analogous to Specimen AS1. The specimen reached its
AS1 theoretical capacity at a DR of 0.8%. In the negative loading

1010 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

 Storydrift
Storey drift ratio
ratio Story
Storeydrift ratio
drift ratio
--4%
4% -3%
-3% -2%
-2% -1%
-1% 0%
0% 1%
1% 2%
2% 3%
3% 4%
4% --4%
4% -3%
-3% -2%
-2% -1%
-1% 0%
0% 1%
1% 2%
2% 3%
3% 4%
4%
100
100 100
100
Experimental
Experimental Experimental
Experimantal
Analytical
Analytical
80
P ys =97.3 kN80 PPy=63.1
y =63.1kN
kN Analytical
Analytical 80
80 P
Pyy=63.9
=63.9 kN
Pys=97.3 kN60
60 60
60

(kN)
(kN)

Initial
Initialstiffness
force(kN)

stiffness

(kN)
Initial stiffness 40
40 40
40
Initial stiffness

force
20 20
20
force

20

force
shearshear
shear

0 0
shear

-109
-109 -82
-82 -55
-55 -27 0 27
27 55
55 82
82 109
109 -109
-109 -82
-82 -55
-55 -27
-27 0 27
27 55
55 82
82 109
109

Storey
-20 -20
Storey

-40
Story

Story
-40
-40 -40

-60
-60 -60
-60
P y =-63.1 kN PPys
ys=-97.3 kN
=-97.3 kN
Py=-63.1 kN -80
-80 PPyy=-63.9
=-63.9kN
kN -80
-80

-100
-100 -100
-100

Horizontal
Horizontal displacement (mm)
displacement (mm) Horizontaldisplacement
Horizontal displacment (mm)
(mm)

a) Specimen AL2
Fig. 7. Comparison of hysteretic behavior between the experimental
Story drift
Storey driftratio
ratio
and the FE numerical test results for Specimen MAS1
-4%
-4% -3%
-3% -2%
-2% -1%
-1% 0%
0% 1%
1% 2%
2% 3%
3% 4%
4%
120
120
Experimental
Experimental
Analytical
Analytical 90
90
P ysP=102.7 kNkN PPyy=66.7 kN
=66.7 kN
=102.7
ys
60
60

force (kN)
(kN)
direction, the specimen attained the theoretical capacity at a DR Initial
Initialstiffness
stiffness
30
30

shearforce
of 1.0%. Maximum capacities of 73.8 kN in the positive and 69.6
kN in the negative loading directions were reached at DRs of 1.5 0

Storeyshear
-109
-109 -82
-82 -55
-55 -27
-27 0 27
27 55
55 82
82 109
109
and 2.0%, respectively. The maximum capacity of Specimen -30
MAS1 in the positive direction was 92% of the maximum capac-
Story -60
-60
ity of Specimen AS1. This indicates that the modification on the P
Pysys=-102.7
=-102.7 kN
kN
reinforcing details in Specimen MAS1 did not contribute signifi- PPyy=-66.7
=-66.7kN
kN -90
-90

cantly to its overall performance. At a DR of 1.5%, the specimen -120

-120
experienced stiffness degradation and a significant pinching be- Horizontaldisplacement
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
(mm)
havior after the second loading cycle. The specimen reached its
maximum load-carrying capacity of 52 kN at a DR of 3.8%. The b) Specimen AS2
progressive damage and cracking patterns exhibited by Specimen
MAS1 were quite analogous to Specimen AS1. Fig. 8. Comparison of hysteretic behavior between the experimental
and the FE numerical test results

Specimen AL2
Specimen AS2
The storey shear force versus horizontal displacement relationship
of Specimen AL2 is presented in Fig. 8a. At a DR of 0.8%, the Fig. 8b presents hysteresis loops of the storey shear force versus
specimen reached its theoretical capacity of 63.9 kN in both of the horizontal displacement relationship of Specimen AS2. At a
the loading directions. In the subsequent loading cycles, the speci- DR of around 0.65%, the specimen reached its theoretical capac-
men reached its maximum capacities of 82 kN in the positive and ity of approximately 66.7 kN in both the loading directions. At a
75 kN in the negative loading directions at a DR of 1.5%. This DR of 2.0%, the specimen reached its maximum capacities of 98
indicates that the specimen attained an overstrength of 28% in its kN in the positive and 83 kN in the negative loading directions,
positive and 17% in its negative loading cycles. The specimen indicating an overstrength of 47 and 24%, respectively. These
experienced a significant pinching effect in the hysteresis loops capacities were higher by 19 and 11% in comparison to those
that began to show at a DR of 1.5%. At a DR of 3.7%, the attained by Specimen AL2 in the respective loading directions.
specimen lost 20% of its lateral load-carrying capacity, indicating The specimen experienced a limited pinching behavior in the hys-
its failure.
The cracks that were formed on Specimen AL2 observed at the
end of the test are shown in Fig. 9a. The specimen developed
flexural cracks in the beams at a DR of 0.5%. This was followed
by the formation of very fine cracks within the joint core region.
In the subsequent cycles of up to a DR of 0.75%, the flexural
cracks began to spread along the beam span on both the top and
bottom chords and propagated vertically. As a result, full depth
cracks were also developed. Flexural and shear cracks also
formed on the columns at the regions close to the joint. At a DR
of 2.0%, there was an intensive formation of diagonal tension
cracks within the joint core. Some of these cracks eventually con-
verted into full-length corner-to-corner diagonal cracks. The con-
crete in the compression zone of the beam was crushed and began Fig. 9. Observed cracking of Specimen AL2 and Specimen AS2 at
to spall at a DR of 3.7%. the end of the test: a Specimen AL1; b Specimen AS1

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1011

Table 2. Joint Shear Strains and Stresses Obtained from the Experimental and the Numerical Results
Joint shear stress experimental Joint shear stress numerical
f c f c f c
Specimen MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
AL1 7.52 0.25 1.29 7.87
AS1 8.5 0.27 1.51 7.93
MAS1 8.0 0.25 1.42 8.06
AL2 6.26 0.2 1.06 5.1
AS2 6.34 0.2 1.06 4.92
teresis loops that began from a DR of 1.5%. After a DR of 2.0%,
it exhibited progressive loss in its load-carrying capacity coupled
with a significant pinching effect in its hysteresis loops. At a DR
of 4.0%, the specimen lost 20% of its load-carrying capacity.
Fig. 9b illustrates the formation of cracks on Specimen AS2
at the end of test. At a DR of 0.5%, the specimen developed
flexural cracks that were mostly concentrated along the bottom
chords of the beam. There were only limited shear cracks at the
top chord of the beams below the bottom face of the slab at a DR
of 0.75%. At a DR of 0.5%, a few flexural cracks formed at the
lower column and when the DR reached 1.0%, these cracks
propagated through the full depth of the column. However, the
cracks at the upper part of the column did not develop until the
test ran beyond the elastic loading cycles, which corresponded to
DRs of greater than 1.0%. In the following loading cycles, the
diagonal cracks in the joint core region propagated extensively
and therefore, it can be expected that the diagonal concrete com-
pression strut failure might have dominated the failure mecha-
nism of the joint.
Discussion of Experimental Results
Comparison with Seismic Assessment Models
The joint shear strength of all specimens was compared with
FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356 2000 as shown in Table 2.
For Specimen AL1 and Specimen AL2 without transverse beams
and volumetric ratio of horizontal confinement reinforcement in
the joint, of less than 0.003, FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356
2000 guidelines suggest a value of 0.83 MPa 10 psi. The
Specimen AS1 and Specimen AS2 with transverse beams and a
value of less than 0.003, a joint shear strength of 1.00 MPa 12
psi was recommended by the FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356
2000 guidelines. Specimen MAL1 with transverse beams and a
value of larger than 0.003, a value of 1.66 MPa 20 psi is
suggested by the FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356 2000 guide-
lines. The test results showed that FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA
356 2000 guidelines provided a conservative prediction of the
joint shear strength of Specimens AL1, AL2, AS1, and AS2.
The model for use in the assessment of existing joints should
reflect the dependence of strength on deformation and represent a
trend of strength degradation with the increase in imposed drift.
FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356 2000 guidelines suggested
one such model as shown in Fig. 10 for both conforming and
nonconforming joints i.e., joints having old-type reinforcement
details. In this model, d, e, and c are the joint shear strains at the
end of peak strength, at the collapse level and the residual
strength level, taken as 0.005, 0.02, and 0.2 respectively for non-
conforming joints. In this experimental program, the test was
stopped at the 20% drop point of the maximum shear strength.
1012 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009
FEMA-273/356
f c f c
MPa MPa d experimental d FEMA-273/356
0.26 1.30 0.83 0.013 0.005
0.25 1.22 1.00 0.012 0.005
0.26 1.25 1.66 0.005
0.16 0.87 0.83 0.005
0.16 0.82 1.00 0.005
Therefore, only the joint shear strain at the end of peak strength d
was obtained from the test. The experimental joint shear strains
were achieved by using diagonally placed transducers in the joint
core. Due to the presence of the transverse beams at the joint
core, the joint shear strains of Specimens AS1, MAS1, and AS2
could not be experimentally evaluated. The experimental joint
shear strains of Specimen AL1 and Specimen AL2 at a DR of
3.0% were 0.013 and 0.012. The test results of Specimen AL1 and
Specimen AL2 showed that FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356
2000 guidelines provided a conservative assessment of joint
shear strains at the end of peak strength.
Initial Stiffness
The experimental initial stiffness of all test specimens was esti-
mated using the secant of the horizontal shear force versus the
horizontal displacement relationship passing through the point at
which 75% of the theoretical strength was obtained. The initial
stiffness obtained from the test was then compared with FEMA
273 1997 and FEMA 356 2000 as shown in Table 1. Accord-
ing to FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356 2000, the initial stiff-
ness is defined considering flexural and shear deformations of
beams and columns. Joint deformations were ignored in FEMA
273 1997 and FEMA 356 2000 guidelines. The flexural rigid-
ity is defined as 0.5EcIg for RC members without axial loading,
and shear stiffness for rectangular cross sections is defined as
0.4EcAg as suggested by FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356
2000 guidelines. As shown in Table 1, the initial stiffness pre-
dicted by using FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356 2000 guide-
lines, Ki-FEMA 356 was higher than the experimental initial stiffness
for all specimens, Ki-exp. The higher initial stiffness predicted
from FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA 356 2000 guidelines could
be attributed to the assumption of constant flexural rigidity for
beams and columns and the joint deformations which were ig-
nored in calculating the initial stiffness. To improve the accuracy
in prediction of the initial stiffness, the flexural rigidity of beams
and columns as suggested by Paulay and Priestley 1992 was
used. According to Paulay and Priestley 1992, the flexural rigid-
Fig. 10. FEMA 273/356 modeling parameters
 Stress
Failure point in compression

Stress
fc
f ds
Start of
inelastic
behavior
Es
Unload or reload
response (elastic) Strain

Strain
f ds

(a) Concrete in compression (c) Steel reinforcement

Stress

ft Failure point
max
Tension softening

Bond stress
f

ucr Strain
Unload or reload s1 s2 s3 Slip, s
response (elastic)
(b) Concrete in tension (d) Bond-slip law by CEB-FIP Code 1990

Fig. 11. Material modeling: a concrete in compression response; b concrete in tension; c steel reinforcement; and d bond-slip law by
CEB-FIP Code 1990

ity of RC members is dependent on the longitudinal reinforce-
ment and axial load ratios. The shear deformation of the joint core
was assumed to be 20% of the total displacement, as has been
found previously by Cheung et al. 1993. As shown in Table 1,
better results were obtained by using the above described method
than the guidelines provided by FEMA 273 1997 and FEMA
356 2000.
Finite-Element Analysis
General
The following sections present a nonlinear FE numerical investi-
gation carried out on LRC beam-column joints to further enhance
the understanding of its complex behavior. In this study, the
specimens were modeled using a three-dimensional 3D model-
ing technique. 3D modeling helps in accurately defining the ge-
ometry of joints and positioning of the rebars that lie within the
specimen. It also provides accurately the complex nature of
stresses at various key sections such as around the columns, in-
side the joint and on top of wide beams. However, the computa-
tional efforts required for 3D modeling are higher than those
required for the two-dimensional modeling.
Material Modeling
Modeling of Concrete
The analysis uses a constant stress cutoff criterion for concrete
cracking. According to this model, a crack is assumed to be ini-
tiated perpendicular to the major principal stress if its value ex-
ceeds the concrete tensile strength, independent of the value
assumed by the other principal stresses. The orientation of the
crack is then stored and the material response perpendicular to the
crack is determined by a stress-strain relationship for the cracked
material volume. Additional cracks may appear at the same loca-
tion, but they are assumed to form at an orientation greater than
15 to the existing cracks. If the angle is less than that, the sec-
ondary cracks are assumed not to have been generated even when
the tensile stress has reached its fracture envelope Hajime and
Kohichi 1991.
The fracture energy GF and the tensile strength f t of the con-
crete were used to calculate the value of ultimate crack opening
wu. The fracture energy GF of the concrete was calculated using a
three-point bending test based upon the recommendations of
RILEM 50-FMC Committee 1985. A bilinear tension stress-
strain curve was used as shown in Fig. 11b in which cr u was
taken as 0.001 to simulate the softening effect of the concrete in
tension after cracking. The value was based on the assumption
that the strain softening after failure reduces the stress linearly to
zero at a total strain of about 10 times the strain at failure of
concrete in tension, which is typically 0.0001. Tensile strength of
concrete f t used in the analysis was determined from the compres-
sive strength f c in accordance to CEB-FIP model code 1990
1993
f t = 0.30f c2/3 MPa 1
The response of the concrete in compression was taken into ac-
count by an elastic-plastic model. The elastic state of stress was
limited by a Drucker-Prager yield surface. Isotropic hardening

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1013

with an associated flow rule was used after yielding of the surface
had occurred. The DIANA software evaluates the yield surface
using the current state of stress, the angle of internal friction ,
and the cohesion c. As per the recommendations of the DIANA
software manual, the angle of internal friction in concrete can be
approximated to be 30. The cohesion used in the analysis is
given by formula as follows:

1 sin
c = f cuniaxial
p
2
2 cos
where f cuniaxial
p
is the hardening or softening parameter as a
function of the plastic strain in the direction of the uniaxial com-
pression stress. Standard uniaxial tests on concrete cylinders were
used to define the stress-strain relations up to the peak stress.
CEB-FIP model code 1990 1993 recommendations can be used
to evaluate the postpeak behavior of the concrete using cylinder
compression strength tests. A Poissons ratio of 0.15 was used in
the analysis.
Fig. 12. Three-dimensional finite-element discretization of the speci-
When the cracked concrete is unloaded in tension, the secant
mens: a Model AL1; b Model AL2; c Model AS1; and d Model
modulus is used to evaluate the stiffness, based on the fact that
AS2
the strain across the crack is linearly reduced to zero as the stress
approaches zero. The unloading or reloading response of the post-
peak behavior, which is linearly elastic, is shown in Fig. 11b.
For the post peak behavior of concrete in compression, when
concrete is unloaded/reloaded, the response is evaluated using the Geometry Modeling
initial elastic stiffness Fig. 11a.
The DIANA software was used for the FE analysis. 20-node 3D
quadratic solid elements were used for the concrete, while the
Modeling of Reinforcement embedded reinforcing bars were modeled using truss elements.
The von Mises yield criterion with isotropic strain hardening and The FE discretization of the specimens is presented in Fig. 12.
an associated flow rule were used to describe the constitutive
behavior of the reinforcement. The bars were modeled with the Verification of Finite-Element Analysis Results
DIANA options of separate truss elements. Fig. 11c defines the
stress-strain relationship for the reinforcing steel, which was mod- Figs. 5, 7, and 8 present the comparison of hysteretic behavior
eled with an elastoplastic curve. During the test, bond deteriora- obtained through the FE numerical predictions and the experi-
tion along the beam longitudinal bars and column main bars, mental investigations. There was a good agreement between the
particularly within the joint region, was found and necessary slip- analytical and the experimental results. The FE numerical models
page of the steel bars was expected to occur. Bond-slip models attained the maximum capacities at a DR of approximately 1.5%
with the DIANA options were accounted for the reinforcement and moderate strength and stiffness degradations were followed
and surrounding concrete. thereafter. All the numerical models exhibited a significant pinch-
ing in the loops which was quite similar to those observed during
Bond-Slip Law the experiments.
As shown by Fig. 5a, comparison of hysteresis loops of be-
The bond law used in the analysis is based on CEB-FIP model tween the analytical and the experimental loops of Specimen AL1
code 1990 1993, as shown by Fig. 11d. Equations of bond showed that the load-carrying capacities of the predicted results
stress for different parts of the curve are described below were slightly higher at early stages. At a DR of 1.5%, the FE

analysis results of Specimen AL1 exceeded the theoretical capac-

s ity and gained its maximum capacity of 65 kN, which was of 22%
= max for 0 s s1 3 higher than the measured value in the positive loading direction.
s1
The experimental results of Specimen AL2 showed a higher load-
carrying capacity as compared with the predicted results as shown
= max for s1 s s2 4 in Fig. 8. The maximum capacity of Specimen AL2 obtained by
the FE analysis, corresponding to a DR of 0.5%, was 90% in both
loading directions. In Specimen MAS1, the load-carrying capaci-
s s1
= max max f for s2 s s3 5 ties obtained from FE results were higher compared to the experi-
s3 s2 mental observations as shown in Fig. 7. The maximum capacity
attained by FE predictions were 11 and 5% greater than the ex-
perimental results in the positive and negative loading directions,
= f for s3 s 6
respectively. Comparison between the FE numerical and the ex-
The bond law model parameters depend on the properties of the perimental results of Specimen AL2 and Specimen AS2 showed a
bar surface, and can be referred from the CEB-FIP model code very good agreement besides exhibiting a significant pinching in
1990 1993. hysteresis loops. From the aforementioned discussions of the FE

1014 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

models, it is clear that these models are acceptable, despite some Story drift ratio
-3.7% -1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 3.7%
minor variations, and therefore, they can be used to predict the 80
joint behavior by varying critical parameters.
60
40

Story shear force (kN)

Parametric Studies
20
After verification of the FE models against the experimental re- 0 N/f'cAg= 0
sults, this section presents a parametric investigation to elucidate -20 N/f'cAg= 0.1
more information about the complex behavior of the LRC beam- N/f'cAg= 0.2
-40
column joints. The structural response of the joints was studied by N/f'cAg= 0.35
-60 N/f'cAg= 0.4
varying some key parameters such as column axial loading, col-
umn depth to beam bar diameter ratio, and effective slab width. -80
-100 -50 0 50 100
Horizontal displacement (mm)
Effect of Column Axial Load
(a) Specimen AL1
The investigations into the effect of column axial load on the
performance of beam-column joints began in the late 1980s Story drift ratio
Paulay et al. 1978; Paulay and Park 1984 and thereafter, this -3.7% -1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 3.7%
area has attained enormous interest with extensive research stud-
60
ies. However, the column axial load level at which the joint shear
strength and bond condition significantly influence the joint be- 40

Story shear force (kN)

havior is highly complex NZS3101 Concrete Structures Standard
1998. Paulay 1989 pointed out that column axial force was
beneficial to the joint shear resistance. A larger portion of the
bond forces from the beam bars could be assumed to be trans-
ferred to the diagonal strut because the neutral axis depth in the
column increased with axial compression, thus increasing the
contribution of the concrete to joint shear resistance. This point of
view is accepted by NZS3101 Concrete Structures Standard
1998, in which the concrete shear strength is considered to in-
crease with the column axial loading. However, Kurose et al.
1988 pointed out from the experimental results that the level of
axial force did not seem to influence joint shear strength. In the
study conducted by Pessiki et al. 1990, two nonductile interior
beam-column joints with different axial loading levels were
tested. However the test results could not be used to evaluate the
influence of axial loading because both of the specimens failed
due to the pull-out of the embedded beam bottom bars instead of
joint shear failure. Recently a number of researchers have noticed
that the effect of axial loads may vary at different axial loading
levels or at different joint shear levels. Fu et al. 2000 pointed out
by testing ten interior beam-column joints that if the shear was
high, the increase in axial loads was unfavorable, whereas if the
shear was small, the increase in axial loading was favorable. In
the study of Lin 2000, it was found that axial compression in
excess of N / f c Ag 0.3 became detrimental to the joints.
In this present study, the influence of column axial load on the
seismic behavior of the LRC beam-column joints was investi-
gated using the FE analysis. The same loading histories as those
used in the experimental tests of the specimens were applied, and
the corresponding storey shears versus horizontal displacements
under different axial loading levels were plotted. Due to the limi-
tation in space, only the plots of Specimen AL1 and Specimen
AL2 are presented see Fig. 13. The column applied axial load
varied from zero to 0.4f c Ag. As observed by Fig. 13a, the storey
shears of Specimen AL1 increased by around 2 and 6%, as the
axial load was enhanced to 0.1f c Ag and 0.25f c Ag, respectively.
However, any increase in the axial load further reduced the storey
shears. An analogous trend was observed in Specimen AS1,
whose storey shears experienced an increase by around 3 and 8%
for the axial load levels of 0.1f c Ag and 0.25f c Ag, respectively.
Specimen AL2 and Specimen AS2 showed similar optimal en-
hancements corresponding to a column axial load level of
20
0 N/f'cAg= 0
N/f'cAg= 0.1
-20
N/f'cAg= 0.2
-40 N/f'cAg= 0.25
N/f'cAg= 0.4
-60
-100 -50 0 50 100
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(b) Specimen AL2
Fig. 13. Influence of column axial load predicted by FE analysis for
Specimen All: a Specimen AL1; b Specimen AL2
0.35f c Ag, with an increase in axial load by 8% and 9%, respec-
tively. However, further enhancement of axial loads led to the
reduction in storey shears and a degradation of stiffness. The
aforementioned discussion clearly indicated that when the axial
load level was approximately 0.25f c Ag, the LRC strong beam-
weak column joints Specimen AL1 and Specimen AS1 experi-
enced an optimum enhancement in the storey shears of around
7%. In contrast, the specimens with weak beam-strong column
connections Specimen AL2 and Specimen AS2 exhibited an op-
timum increase in storey shears of approximately 9% correspond-
ing to an axial load level of 0.35f c Ag.
Influence of Column Depth to Beam Bar Diameter
Ratio
The column depth to beam bar diameter ratio has a significant
effect on the performance of joints. In specimens with strong
beam-weak column connection, the column depth to beam bar
diameter ratio did not satisfy the design limits suggested by ACI
Committee 318 2005. As a result, tensile strains were found in
either the joint core or the compression zone of the beam, and
yield penetration in the joint core could not be prevented. To
study the effect of column depth to beam bar diameter ratio, the
bar diameters of the specimens were varied and FE analyses was
performed. Comparison of strains in the beam longitudinal bars of

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1015

 2.5E-3
2.5E-3
0.75%
0.75%
mostly attributed from the weak column-strong beam configura-
Column width
Column width 1.0%
1.0% tion, where the deformation demand on the beam elements was
y 2.0%
2.0%
2.0E-3
2.0E-3 3.0%
3.0%
substantially limited and the presence of slabs significantly en-
hanced the stiffness of the beam. Furthermore, due to the loss of
1.5E-3
1.5E-3
the torsional moment carrying capacity in the lightly reinforced
Strain

transverse beam at an early stage, the tensile forces in the slab

Strain

Beamtop
Beam top bar
bar bars could not be adequately developed and transferred to the
1.0E-3
1.0E-3
core of the joint. In contrast, Specimen AS2 exhibited a different
Slab strain distribution Fig. 15. The slab bars within a distance of
5.0E-4
5.0E-4 Slab bar
bar
approximately 200 mm on either side of the beam faces yielded at
a DR of 1.0%. This was around 0.75 times the effective width of
0.0E-0
0.0E+0 the slab, which was taken as Bb + 2Db. The reason for this is due
-500 -400
-500 -400 -300
-300 -200
-200 -100
-100 00 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 to the deformation demand on the beam elements, which was
Distance
Distance from
from thethecenter
centerof
of the
the column
column(mm)
(mm) moderately high, inducing a high level of tensile stresses on the
bars within the slab.
Fig. 14. FE predicted strain profiles in the beam top bars and slab Current codes and recommendations provide guidelines for the
bars of Specimen AS1 effective width of a slab to be considered as flexural bars for the
beam subjected to lateral loadings. According to ACI Committee
318 2005, the effective slab width in tension is computed as the
beam width plus 16 times slab thickness. Pantazopoulou 1990
Specimen AL1 and Specimen AL2 showed that increasing the suggested that the effective slab width to be equal to beam width
column depth to beam bar diameter ratio bc / db also improved plus 3 times beam depth. The effective width of slab obtained
the strain distributions in the beam bars. The top bars of the from this study was approximately 0.42 and 0.54 times the effec-
beams of Specimen AS2 in the compression zone were found to tive width of slab suggested by ACI Committee 318 2005 and
maintain the tensile strains during a majority of the loading Pantazopoulou and Moehle 1990, respectively.
cycles, despite the fact that the bc / db ratio was less than 20, which
did not satisfy ACI Committee 318 2005 requirements for the
slippage prevention of bars. The reason for this may be the pres- Conclusions
ence of the slab that must have provided adequate lateral confine-
ment to the bars within the beams. The seismic performance of the lightly reinforced beam-column
joints was evaluated through the experimental and analytical ap-
proaches. Based on these investigations, the conclusions summa-
Influence of Effective Slab Width
rized are as follows:
The strain distribution in the main bars of LRC specimens with 1. Performance of the test specimens was found to be satisfac-
slabs was thoroughly evaluated to investigate the participation of tory in terms of strength and stiffness up to a DR of 2.0%,
slab in effectively resisting seismic forces. Figs. 14 and 15 present beyond which a significant degradation in the strength and
the strain profile plots of bars within slabs through FE numerical stiffness generally occurred. Among the five specimens, the
predictions for Specimen AS1 and Specimen AS2, respectively. performance of Specimen AL1 was very poor. This was
As shown by Fig. 14, the yield strain in the beam bars of Speci- mainly due to the insufficient amount of joint transverse re-
men AS1 was attained at a DR of approximately 2.0%. However, inforcement and inadequate anchorage of the beam longitu-
until the final stage of analysis, the magnitude of strains in the dinal bars within the joint core.
slab bars was relatively lower than its yield value. This could be 2. Experimental and finite-element investigations showed that
in Specimens AL1, AS1, and MAS1 i.e., specimens with
strong beam-weak column, the maximum nominal joint
shear stress values exceeded the limit of 0.25f c MPa as
suggested by NZS3101 Concrete Structures Standard 1998
5.0E-3
5.0E-3
0.75%
0.75% and therefore, a joint failure mechanism could be expected in
4.5E-3
4.5E-3 1.0%
1.0% these specimens. After diagonal tension cracking, tensile
Column width
Column width 2.0%
2.0%
4.0E-3
4.0E-3 3.0%
3.0% strains prevailed in the beam and column bars in the joint
3.5E-3
3.5E-3 core region resulting in a significant joint expansion. There-
3.0E-3
3.0E-3 fore, it was important to provide shear reinforcement within
the joint to resist shear forces.
Strain
Strain

2.5E-3
2.5E-3
Beam
Beamtop
topbar
bar 3. In Specimen MAS1, the provided transverse reinforcement
2.0E-3
2.0E-3 y
in the joint core and the reduced spacing of the transverse
1.5E-3
1.5E-3 Slab bar
Slab bar reinforcement within the potential hinge regions did not im-
1.0E-3
1.0E-3
prove its overall performance. The measured strains in the
5.0E-4
5.0E-4 joint hoops were very low and therefore, the joint shear re-
0.0E-0
0.0E+0 sistance mechanism was mainly attributed to the diagonal
-500
-500 -400 -300
-400 -300 -200
-200 -100
-100 00 100
100 200
200 300300 400
400 500
500
concrete compression strut mechanism. The joint transverse
Distancefrom
Distance fromthe
the center
center of
ofthe
thecolumn
column(mm)
(mm) reinforcement did not help in enhancing the truss mechanism
due to the worsening bond condition within the joint.
Fig. 15. FE predicted strain profiles in the beam top bars and slab 4. Finite-element analyses results clearly indicated the influence
bars of Specimen AS2 of axial load on the horizontal load-carrying capacities of the

1016 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

 specimens. At an axial load level of approximately 0.25f c Ag,
the strong beam-weak column joints Specimen AL1 and
Specimen AS1 experienced an optimum enhancement in the
storey shears by approximately 7%. In contrast, specimens
with weak beam-strong column connections Specimen AL2
and Specimen AS2 exhibited an optimum increase in storey
shear of approximately 9% when the axial load level was
0.35f c Ag. A further increase in axial load, however, adversely
affected the joint performance with a substantial reduction in
the storey shears and stiffness.
5. Increasing the column depth to beam bar diameter ratio im-
proved the strain distributions of the bars within the beams
when the strains in the longitudinal bars within the beams of
Specimen AL1 and Specimen AL2 were compared. How-
ever, in Specimen AS2, despite the ratio bc / db being less
than the ACI Committee 318 2005 code specification of 20,
the beam top bars in the compression zone were found to
maintain the tensile strains for a majority of the loading
cycles, which may be attributed to the presence of the slab.
6. Finite-element numerical investigations clearly indicated the
influence of slab participation in strong column-weak beam
joint Specimen AS2. In contrast, the effect of slabs on the
behavior of Specimen AS1 and Specimen MAS1 was mar-
ginal. At a DR of approximately 1.0%, the specimen exhib-
ited tensile stresses in the slab bars that were significantly
above the yield values at around 200 mm distance from the
beam faces, that is, 0.75 times the effective slab width.
Acknowledgments
The financial assistance provided by the Protective Technology
Research Centre in the School of Civil and Structural Engineering
at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore is gratefully ac-
knowledged.
Notations
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A area of a truss element;
Ag gross area of section;
As area of bars in tension;
As area of bars in compression;
bb beam width;
bc column width;
Db depth of beam;
db diameter of bar;
f c concrete compressive strength;
f y yielding strength of main bars;
Ig moment of inertia based on the uncracked gross
concrete area;
Ki initial stiffness;
N column axial load;
Py theoretical lateral load;
s bond-slip;
bond stress; and
max maximum bond stress.
References
ACI-ASCE Committee 352. 1991. Recommendations for design of
beam-column joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1017
ACI manual of concrete practice, ACI 352R91, Farmington Hills,
Mich.
ACI Committee 318. 2005. Building code requirements for structural
concrete ACI 31805 and commentary. ACI 318R05, Farmington
Hills, Mich.
Alire, D. A. 2002. Seismic evaluation of existing unconfined rein-
forced concrete beam-column joints. MS thesis. Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Wash., 291.
Beres, A., Pessiki, S. P., White, R. N., and Gergely, P. 1991. Behavior
of existing reinforced concrete frames designed primarily for gravity
loads. Proc. International Meeting on Earthquake Protection of
Buildings, Section B, Anocona, Italy.
British Standards 8110. 1997. Structural use of concrete BS 8110. Part
1: Code of practice for design and construction. U.K.
CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. 1993. Design code, Thomas Telford, Lau-
sanne, Switzerland.
Cheung, P. C., Paulay, T., and Park, R. 1993. Behavior of beam-
column joints in seismically-loaded RC frames. Struct. Eng., 718,
129137.
DIANA users manualVersion 7. 2000. Finite-element analysis users
manualNonlinear analysis. TNO Building and Construction Re-
search. Delft, The Netherlands.
FEMA 273. 1997. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wash.
FEMA 356. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic reha-
bilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Wash.
Fu, J., Chen, T., Wang, Z., and Bai, S. 2000. Effect of axial load ratio
on seismic behavior of interior beam-column joints. Proc., 12th
WCEE Conference, Paper No. 2707.
Hajime, O., and Kohichi, M. 1991. Nonlinear analysis and constitutive
models of reinforced concrete, Gihodo, Tokyo.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 1995. Retrofitting of reinforced
concrete moment resisting frames. Research Rep. No. 95-4, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
390.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 2000. Seismic load test on interior
and exterior beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing de-
tails. ACI Struct. J., 971, 1124.
Kurose, Y., Guimaraes, G. N., Liu, Z., Kreger, M. E., and Jirsa, J. O.
1988. Study of reinforced concrete beam-column joints under
uniaxial and biaxial loading. PMFSEL Rep. No. 882, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Li, B., Wu, Y. N., and Pan, T.-C. 2002. Seismic behavior of nonseis-
mically detailed interior beam-wide column jointsPart I: Experi-
mental results and observed behavior. ACI Struct. J., 996, 791
802.
Lin, C. M. 2000. Seismic behavior and design of reinforced concrete
interior beam-column joints. Research Rep. No. 2000-1, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
471.
NZS3101 Concrete Structures Standard. 1998. Part-1The design of
concrete structures standards, Standard Association of New Zealand,
New Zealand.
Pantazopoulou, S. J., and Moehle, J. P. 1990. Identification of the
effect of slabs on flexural behavior of beams. J. Eng. Mech., 1161,
91106.
Paulay, T. 1989. Equilibrium criteria for reinforced concrete beam-
column joints. ACI Struct. J., 866, 635643.
Paulay, T., and Park, R. 1984. Joints in reinforced concrete frames
designed for earthquake resistance. Research Rep. No. 84-9, Dept. of
Civil Eng., Univ. Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Paulay, T., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. 1978. Reinforced concrete
beam-column joints under seismic actions. J. ACI, Proc., 7511,
585593.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. 1992. Seismic design of reinforced
concrete masonry buildings, Wiley, N.Y.
Pessiki, S. P., Coloney, C., Gergely, P., and White, R. N. 1990. Seismic
 behavior of lightly reinforced concrete column and beam column joint
details. Technical Rep. No. NCEER-900014, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of New York at Buf-
falo, N.Y.
RILEM 50-FMC Committee. 1985. Determination of the fracture en-
1018 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009
ergy of mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests on
notched beams. Mater. Struct., 184, 287290.
Walker, S. G. 2001. Seismic performance of existing reinforced con-
crete beam-column joints. MS thesis. Dept. of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Wash., 300.