ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 99-S80
Seismic Behavior of Nonseismically Detailed Interior
Beam-Wide Column Joints—Part I: Experimental Results
and Observed Behavior
by Bing Li, Yiming Wu, and Tso-Chien Pan
Four full-scale reinforced concrete interior beam-wide column joints
with nonseismic detailing and limited seismic detailing were
designed and tested to investigate the seismic behavior of the joints
at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. In this first part of
a two-part paper,* experimental observation and results of tests on
the four joints under quasistatic cyclic loading simulated earthquake
actions are presented. The two variables in the test specimens were
the amount of joint transverse reinforcement and the lap splice
details for column and beam reinforcement. The overall perfor-
mance of each test assembly was found to be unsatisfactory in terms
of lateral load capacity, stiffness, drift, and displacement ductility.
Two as-built specimens failed at a low displacement ductility level,
while the other two modified specimens reached a limited displace-
ment ductility level. It was demonstrated that even limited seismic
detailing could improve the seismic behavior of the joints. Column
main bars lap spliced within plastic hinge regions were detrimental.
The beams and columns remained essentially undamaged while
shear failure formed in the joints. Further comparisons between
experimental and analytical work are given in a companion paper.
Keywords: beam; ductility; joints; reinforced concrete.
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete structures consisting of wall-like wide
column elements are very common in regions of low to mod-
erate seismicity and are predominant structural systems in
Singapore and Malaysia. The wide-column frames are quite
stiff in one direction, flexible in the other, and are usually de-
signed according to BS 81101 without the consideration of
seismic loading. Beam-column joint regions in such frames
are of special interest because they are usually nonseismical-
ly detailed and their joint dimensions are quite unusual. The
lack of seismic reinforcing details is in sharp contrast to
those used in modern seismic design. Therefore, it is of con-
cern that the strength, ductility, and energy dissipation ca-
pacity of these beam-wide column joints may not be
adequate to sustain earthquake-induced loads due to the lack
of seismic reinforcement details in this type of joint.
By reviewing previous studies in beam-column joints, it was
found that although beam-column joints have been studied
worldwide for more than 30 years, more attention2-8 was
drawn to the seismic design of ductile beam-column joints,
and only until recently have a few studies9-12 been done on
the assessment of seismic performance of nonseismically
and limited seismic detailed beam-column joints. In addi-
tion, proposed seismic assessment methods and
approaches12 were obtained purely from tests on normal
types of beam-column joints, which differ largely from the
beam-wide column joints in terms of joint dimensions.
*Part 2 to be published in the Jan.-Feb. 2003 issue of ACI Structural Journal.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
TECHNICAL PAPER
Because joint dimensions have been found to have a great in-
fluence on the seismic behavior of joints,10 the previous
findings for normal types of beam-column joints may not ap-
plicable to beam-wide column joints.
This paper reports the experimental results of four full-
scale reinforced concrete interior beam-wide column joints,
two of which were typical of wide-column moment-resisting
frames in Singapore and designed according to BS 8110,1
while the other two were modified in reinforcement details
and were tested for comparisons with the as-built ones. The
results may be seen reported in more detail elsewhere.13
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Beam-wide column joints have rarely been studied before.
Paulay and Priestley14 predicted that the potential failure plane
of such joints might be the corner-to-corner plane. Due to the
lack of relevant studies, however, they recommended that addi-
tional considerations be required when such joints were to be
designed. This paper aims at correcting this insufficiency and
concentrates on the seismic behavior of nonseismically detailed
interior beam-wide column joints, in which column main bars
were lap spliced just above the floor level and there was no joint
transverse reinforcement in the joint cores. The results of the
tests not only provide information on the assessment of the per-
formance of nonseismically detailed beam-wide column joints
when responding to earthquakes, but also demonstrate that by
providing a small quantity of joint transverse reinforcement and
relocating the column bar lap splices to other positions, the per-
formance of such joints can be improved.
TYPICAL REINFORCED CONCRETE
WIDE-COLUMN MOMENT-RESISTING
FRAME INVESTIGATED
A six-story reinforced concrete wide-column moment-
resisting frame designed according to BS 81101 was inves-
tigated (refer to Fig. 1). The frame was designed to sustain
the gravity loading and a notional horizontal load required by
BS 8110.1 In addition, no seismic loading was considered. The
typical reinforcement details of such frame were: 1) column
main bars were lap spliced just above the floor level; 2) beam
bottom bars were terminated and lap spliced within the joint
core; and 3) there was no joint transverse reinforcement
within the joint core.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 6, November-December 2002.
MS No. 01-350 received October 23, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includ-
ing the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the September-October 2003 ACI Structural
Journal if received by May 1, 2003.
791
ACI member Bing Li is an assistant professor in the School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He received his PhD
from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. His research interests include reinforced
concrete and precast concrete structures, particularly in design for earthquake and
blast resistance.

ACI member Yiming Wu is a research associate in the School of Civil & Environmental
Engineering at Nanyang Technological University. He received his BEng from Tongji
University, China, and his MEng from Nanyang Technological University.

Tso-Chien Pan is a professor and Director of Protective Technology Research Center

in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Nanyang Technological
University. He received his PhD from the University of California at Berkeley. His research
interests include damage assessment of buildings subjected to dynamic loading and
vibration isolation for structures and equipment.

(a) (b)
Fig. 3—Shear resisting mechanisms in beam-column joints:
(a) diagonal compression strut; and (b) truss mechanism.
forces (refer to Fig. 2). The moments and the shear forces
generated in the beams and the columns of a building frame
introduce internal stress reactions at the faces of joint cores.
These stress reactions cause both the horizontal and vertical
shear forces to act on the joint cores. As a result, internal
diagonal tension and compression stresses, referred as fdt
and fdc, respectively, occur; if large enough, these will lead
to diagonal cracking of the core concrete.
There are two mechanisms existing in joints:15,16 the diagonal
compression strut and the truss mechanism, as shown in
Fig. 3. The diagonal compression strut sustains the compression
forces transferred from the column and beam compression
zones, while the truss mechanism sustains the forces transferred
from the column and beam main bars by the bond mechanism.
The two mechanisms are supplementary to each other and
are connected by bond. Because the joint shear input is deter-
mined for any given joint, more input force will be sustained
by the truss mechanism if the bond condition is good enough.
Otherwise, the diagonal compression strut will sustain more.

Fig. 1—Reinforced concrete wide-column frame. Failure criteria of interior beam-column joints
Based on the two basic mechanisms and a large amount of
previous test data, the failure criteria of nonseismically detailed
interior beam-column joints might be summarized into three
categories as follows:17
Category 1—This category of failure is dominated by the
principal tension stress within the joint. For joints with lightly
reinforced beams, or with columns with high axial force levels,
the truss mechanism may be too weak to develop joint cracking.
Based on the studies conducted by Priestley and Calvi,18 the
diagonal tension strength of the concrete may conservatively
be taken as √fc′ . Thus

f f 2
f dt = ---c –  ---c + v jh ≤ 0.29 f c ′
2
(1)
2  2
Fig. 2—External and internal actions of internal beam-
column joints.15 Category 2—This category of failure is dominated by the
principal compression stress within the joint. Based on the studies
ASSESSMENT OF INTERIOR BEAM-WIDE of Pessiki et al.11 and Beckingsale,19 the diagonal compression
COLUMN JOINTS strength of the concrete may be taken as 0.5√fc′ . Thus
Joint shear resisting mechanisms of interior
beam-column joints
f f 2
f dc = ---c +  ---c + v jh ≤ 0.5f c′
When a frame is subjected to an earthquake attack, the interior 2
(2)
beam-column joints are normally subjected to large shear 2  2

792 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

Table 1—Summary of test Specimens A1 and M1
A1 M1
Size 300 x 600
Top bar 5T16 (ρ′t = 0.63%)
3T16 (ρt = 0.38%)
Beam
Bottom bar 3T16 lap spliced
within joint Continuous

Stirrups R10@200
Size 900 x 300
14T25 (ρc = 2.55%)
Column Main bar 14T25 lap spliced
above floor level Continuous

Hoops R8@250
R8@150
Joint Hoops None (ρj = 0.15%)

Table 2—Summary of test Specimens A2 and M2

A2 M2
Size 300 x 600
Top bar 3T25 + 2T16 (ρ′t = 1.17%)
Fig. 5—Reinforcing detailing of Specimen M1.
3T25 (ρt = 0.92%)
Beam
Bottom bar 2T25 lap spliced
within joint Continuous

Stirrups R10@100
Size 300 x 900
14T25 (ρc = 2.55%)
Column Main bar 14T25 lap spliced
above floor level Continuous

Hoops R8@250
R8@150
Joint Hoops None (ρj = 0.075%)

Fig. 6—Reinforcing detailing of Specimen A2.

interior beam-wide column joints was usually greater than

0.29√fc′ , while the principal compression stress was usually
smaller than 0.5fc′ . Based on the previously mentioned failure
criteria, such joints may fail due to joint shear, bond slip of the
reinforcing bars through the joint, or beam flexural ductility.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF INTERIOR BEAM-

Fig. 4—Reinforcing detailing of Specimen A1.
Category 3—For beam-column joints with principal tension
stress fdt > 0.29√fc′ and principal compression stress fdt <
0.5fc′ , failure may be due to joint shear, bond slip of the re-
inforcing bars through the joint, or beam flexural ductility.
Interior beam-wide column joints in wide-
column frame
The seismic response of the reinforced concrete moment-
resisting frame described in Fig. 1 has been investigated by
Wu.13 The results showed that the principal tension stress of the
WIDE COLUMN JOINTS
Test specimens
Four full-scale interior beam-wide column joints were
constructed and tested. Table 1 and 2 summarize the test
specimens, and Fig. 4 through 7 show the dimensions and
reinforcement details of all the specimens. Strong column-
weak beam criterion is satisfied by all four specimens (Table 3).
As-built Specimen A1—The dimensions and reinforcement
details of Specimen A1 are shown in Fig. 4. This unit was a
replica of the critical joint regions in the wide-column
moment-resisting frame described in Fig. 1. The length of
the beam span and the height of the column were modified to
fit the test setup, while the dimensions of the beam and column

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002 793

 Table 3—Ratios of column flexural strength versus
beam flexural strength of test specimens
Column Beam negative Beam positive
flexural flexural flexural
strength, kN-m strength, kN-m strength, kN-m ΣMc /ΣMb
Specimen A1
386.4 250.2 155.0 1.91
Specimen M1
Specimen A2
1052.8 414.9 224.8 3.29
Specimen M2

Table 4—Measured concrete properties

At 28 days fc′, MPa Just before testing fc′ , MPa
Specimen A1 27.3 32.3 (83 days)
Specimen M1 27.3 32.0 (75 days)
Specimen A2 27.3 32.5 (90 days)
Specimen M2 27.3 30.3 (55 days)
Note: fc′ = compressive strength of 150 mm diameter x 300 mm concrete cylinder;
each value was obtained from average of three specimens.

Fig. 7—Reinforcing detailing of Specimen M2.

Table 5—Measured reinforcing steel properties
used for Specimens A1, M1, A2, and M2
Grade of steel 250 460
Bar size R8 R10 T16 T25
Yield strength fy,
499 383 503 460
MPa
Yield strain εy 0.002765 0.002146 0.003414 0.002947
Ultimate strength
fu, MPa 633 522 627 632

Note: R8 = plain round bar of 8 mm diameter; R10 = plain round bar of 10 mm diameter;
T16 = deformed high-strength bar of 16 mm diameter; and T25 = deformed high-strength
bar of 16 mm diameter. Each value was obtained from average of three coupons.

wide-column moment-resisting frame shown in Fig. 1.

Specimen A2 had the same dimensions as Specimen A1 but
it was orientated along the column long direction.
Modified Specimen M2—The details of the reinforcement
of Specimen M2 are shown in Fig. 7. Specimen M2 had the
same geometrical dimensions as Specimen A2, and the same
improved details in lap splice were provided with 3R8@50
transverse reinforcement added to the joint core region.

Fig. 8—Test setup.
sections and the reinforcement details were left unchanged.
In the test, the beam span was 4.0 m and the height of the
column was 2.725 m.
Modified Specimen M1—The dimensions and reinforcement
details of Specimen M1 are shown in Fig. 5. Specimen M1
had the same geometrical dimensions as Specimen A1.
Some improvements in the reinforcing detail, however, were
made. Compared with Specimen A1, the lap splices in the
main column bars and the beam bottom bars were removed
by using continuous column and beam main bars. A small
quantity of joint transverse reinforcement was added into the
joint core region.
As-built Specimen A2—The reinforcing detailing of
Specimen A2 is shown in Fig. 6. Similar to Specimen A1,
this unit was also a replica of the critical joint regions in the
Properties of materials
The longitudinal reinforcement used for all test specimens
was deformed bars of Grade 460. The transverse reinforcement
used for all test specimens was plain round bars of Grade
250. The concrete used for all specimens was of Grade 30.
The properties of reinforcing steels and concrete are summa-
rized in Table 4 and 5.
Loading arrangements
All test specimens were loaded under quasistatic simulated
seismic loading. Figure 8 shows the test setup. A reversible
horizontal load was applied to the top of the columns using a
double-acting 400 kN capacity hydraulic jack. The bottom of
the column was pinned to a strong floor, and the beam ends
were also connected to the strong floor by steel links that
permitted rotation and free horizontal movement of the
beam but not vertical movement, thus providing the vertical
reactions to the beams. The quasistatic cyclic loading applied to
all test specimens is shown in Fig. 9. The first two cycles
were simulated by load control and the remainder of the test
was displacement controlled.

794 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

Fig. 9—Cyclic lateral loading and displacement history
used in tests.
Fig. 11—Story shear force versus horizontal displacement relationship.
In all tests, two cycles of horizontal loading up to ±0.5Pi
and ±0.75Pi were initially applied; the load Pi is the horizontal
load at the top of the column associated with the theoretical flex-
ural strength Mi, which is reached in the critical sections of the
members and calculated using the conventional compressive
stress block for the concrete with an extreme fiber concrete
compressive strain of 0.0035 and the measured concrete and the
steel strengths. The yield displacement ∆y for all test specimens
was extrapolated linearly to Pi based on the stiffness at the inter-
story horizontal displacement when the lateral load was 0.75Pi
(Fig. 10). The cyclic loading applied in the inelastic range was
displacement controlled. The test specimens were subjected to
two cycles of loading to µ = ±1, ±2, ±3... where µ is the
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
Fig. 10—Definition of yield displacement.
displacement ductility factor defined as ∆ /∆y, and ∆ is the inter-
story horizontal displacement of the test specimen.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF INTERIOR
BEAM-WIDE COLUMN JOINTS
Specimen A1
Global behavior—The measured horizontal story shear
force versus horizontal displacement hysteresis loops and
the successive crack patterns are shown in Fig. 11(a) and 12,
respectively. In addition, the theoretical ideal story horizontal
load strength Pi when the beam plastic hinges were developed
and the theoretical stiffness Ktheoretical are also shown in
Fig. 11(a). The theoretical initial stiffness Ktheoretical of
795
Fig. 12—Observed cracking patterns of Specimen A1.
Fig. 13—Definition of effective joint width.
Specimen A1 is 12.7 kN/mm, assuming that the effective
moment of inertia of the beams and the columns is 0.5Ig and
that the deformation due to joint shear distortion contributes
20% of the total horizontal displacement, where Ig is the moment
of inertia based on the uncracked gross concrete area.
In the loading to ± 0.5Pi, flexural cracks were initiated in
both the columns and the beams. No crack was observed
within the joint core region. In the loading to ± 0.75Pi, diagonal
cracks were initiated within the joint core region. In the column
side face, a few flexural cracks were initiated, accompanied
by a few diagonal cracks. Some pinching was observed in the
hysteresis loop (Fig. 11(a)). In the loading to a displacement
ductility factor of 1, diagonal tension cracks in the joint core
region extended and the number of those cracks increased rap-
idly. At this stage, more pinching of the hysteresis loop was
observed due to the formation of the diagonal tension cracks
within the joint core region, the formation of splitting cracks
along the column longitudinal bars, and bond deterioration
along the beam bars and the column bars.
In the first positive cycle of loading to a ductility factor of
2, the maximum horizontal load strength of 162.4 kN, which
was equal to the ideal story horizontal load strength of
Specimen A1, was reached at a corresponding story drift angle
of approximately 2%. A maximum nominal horizontal shear
stress vjh in the joint core of 0.84√fc′ or 0.15fc′ was obtained
in the first positive cycle of loading to a ductility factor of 2,
where vjh is the nominal joint shear stress; Vjh is the joint
shear force; bj is the effective joint width as defined in Fig. 13;
and hc is the column depth.
V jh
v jh = --------- (3)
bj h c
Within the joint core region, a few diagonal cracks opened
widely. Bond-splitting cracks along the column longitudinal
bars extended opened wide and connected with the joint diag-
796
Fig. 14—Observed cracking patterns of Specimen M1.
onal tension cracks. In the negative loading cycle, the measured
maximum horizontal load strength is 149.5 kN, which did
not reach the ideal load strength of Specimen A1. The hys-
teresis loops were significantly pinched due to severe bond
deterioration along the beam and column bars and the joint
diagonal tension cracking. In the second positive cycle of
loading to a ductility factor of 2, severe strength and stiffness
degradation due to joint diagonal tension cracking and bond
deterioration along both the beam bars and column bars were
observed. The measured maximum horizontal load strength
was 123 kN, which is only equal to 76% of that measured in
the first positive cycle. According to the criteria commonly
employed in New Zealand,20,21 this specimen failed in this
displacement ductility.
Specimen M1
The measured horizontal story shear force versus horizontal
displacement hysteresis loops and the successive crack patterns
are shown in Fig. 11(b) and 14, respectively.
In the loading to ±0.5Pi, flexural cracks were initiated in
both the columns and the beams. No crack was observed
within the joint core region. In the loading to ±0.75Pi, diagonal
cracks were initiated within the joint core region and in the
column side face, and a few flexural cracks were initiated
accompanied with a few diagonal cracks. Some pinching
was observed in the hysteresis loop, but it was not very obvious.
Next, in the loading to a displacement ductility factor of 1,
diagonal tension cracks in the joint core region extended, and
the number of those cracks increased rapidly. Some diagonal
cracks were initiated from the beam faces and gradually
extended, to the column face. At this stage, more pinching of
the hysteresis loop was observed due to the formation of the
diagonal tension cracks within the joint core region, and the
bond deterioration along the beam bars and the column bars.
At a ductility factor of 2, the top beam bar strain measured at the
column face surpassed the yield strain, and yield penetration
into the joint core was observed. Tensile strain of beam bars
was observed from one column face to the other column face.
The supposed compression reinforcement was actually in
tension. Within the joint core region, a few diagonal cracks
opened wide. Bond-splitting cracks along the column longitu-
dinal bars extended, opened wide, and then connected with
the joint diagonal tension cracks. In the first positive cycle
of loading to a ductility factor of 2, the maximum horizontal
load strength of 188.7 kN, which was larger than the ideal
story horizontal load strength of Specimen M1, was reached
at a corresponding story drift angle of approximately 2%. In
the negative loading cycle, the maximum horizontal load
strength measured was 171.9 kN, which was also larger than
the ideal load strength of Specimen M1. The hysteresis loops
were significantly pinched due to severe bond deterioration
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
Fig. 15—Observed cracking patterns of Specimen A2.
along the beam and column bars and the joint diagonal tension
cracking. It is noteworthy that in the loading cycle with a
ductility factor of 2, the strains of the internal joint hoops
reached their yield strains, while the strains of the external
joint hoops still did not reach their yield strains. This shows
that to ensure an effective confinement of the joint core, the
joint hoops should be placed within the effective joint core
region. Later, in the first positive cycle of loading to a duc-
tility factor of 3, the maximum horizontal load strength
measured was 162.3 kN, which was about the ideal story hor-
izontal load strength of Specimen M1. In the negative loading
cycle, the maximum horizontal load strength measured was
147.8 kN, which did not reach the ideal story horizontal load
strength of Specimen M1. A maximum nominal horizontal
shear stress in the joint core of 0.85√fc′ or 0.15fc′ was obtained in
the first positive cycle of loading to a ductility factor of 3. In
the second positive cycle of loading to a ductility factor of 3,
severe strength and stiffness degradation occurred due to
joint diagonal tension cracking; bond deterioration along
both the beam bars and column bars also occurred. The mea-
sured maximum horizontal load strength of Cycle 2 was
110.5 kN, which is only equal to 68% of that measured in the
first positive cycle. According to the criteria commonly em-
ployed in New Zealand,20,21 this specimen had failed by this
displacement ductility. It is noteworthy that at both the top
and bottom beam faces the strains in the central column bars
and side column bars were similar, and this may suggest that
there was no moment transferred from the central section of
the wide column to its edge sections.
Specimen A2
The measured horizontal story shear force versus the
horizontal displacement hysteresis loop and the final cracking
pattern are shown in Fig. 11(c) and 15, respectively. Also,
the theoretical ideal story horizontal load strength Pi when
the beam plastic hinges were developed and the theoretical
stiffness Ktheoretical are also shown in Fig.11(c).
First, in the loading to ±0.5Pi, flexural cracks were initiated
in both the columns and the beams. A few diagonal tension
cracks were observed within the joint core region, and there
was a small joint shear distortion and expansion observed. In
the loading to ±0.75Pi , a large number of diagonal cracks
were initiated within the joint core region, while the joint
shear distortion and expansion increased rapidly. No obvious
pinching was observed in the hysteresis loop. As the loading
reached a displacement ductility factor of 1, with the opening
of diagonal tension cracks in the joint core region, the joint
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
Fig. 16—Joint shear distortion and expansion of Specimen A2.
Fig. 17—Components of story drift angle of Specimen A2.
distortion and expansion continued to increase. The flexural
cracks in the beams opened widely and were accompanied
by wide flexure-shear cracks, and the concrete in the beam
compression zone began to be crushed. In the column, although
no flexural cracks appeared, there were a few diagonal tension
cracks extending from the joint core region into mainly the
upper part of the column. In the first cycle with a ductility
factor of 1, the maximum horizontal load strength of 322.1 kN,
which was larger than the ideal story horizontal load strength
of Specimen A2, was reached at a corresponding story drift
angle of 1.02%. At this stage, some pinching of the hysteresis
loop was observed due to the formation of the diagonal tension
cracks within the joint core region and the large flexural
cracks at the column faces. In the loading to a ductility factor
of 2, within the joint core region, diagonal cracks increased
rapidly and opened wider. These cracks finally connected with
the bond-splitting cracks along the column main bars, and at
the same time, the joint distortion and expansion increased
rapidly. The maximum joint distortion observed was
0.595%, and the maximum joint expansion was 4.34 mm
(Fig. 16). Beam flexural cracks opened wider, especially at
the column faces, and much more concrete was crushed and
spoiled in the beam compression zones. A maximum nominal
horizontal shear stress in the joint core of 0.61√fc′ or 0.11fc′
was obtained. In the first positive cycle of loading to ductility
factor of 2, the maximum horizontal load strength of 367.6
kN, which was greater than the ideal story horizontal load
strength of Specimen A2, was reached at a corresponding
story drift angle of approximately 2.04%. Bond deterioration
was obvious in the bottom beam bars where bond stresses
decreased rapidly in the loading to ductility factor of 2. No
797

Fig. 18—Observed cracking patterns of Specimen M2.
Fig. 19—Joint shear distortion and expansion of Specimen M2.
bond deterioration was observed in the columns, and this
was due mainly to the low stress in the column main bars. In
the second cycle of loading to a ductility factor of 2, the max-
imum horizontal load strength measured in the positive loading
cycle and negative loading cycle were 281.0 and 256.5 kN,
respectively. These were about 76 and 78% of those mea-
sured in the first loading cycle. According to the criteria
commonly employed in New Zealand, 20,21 this specimen
failed in this displacement ductility.
Figure 17 shows the components of the horizontal displace-
ment measured for Specimen A2 at the peak of the selected
loading cycles, expressed as a percentage of the story drift
angle. The major source of the story drift was the beam displace-
ment, indicating a strong-column weak-beam response. The
contributions to the total drift from beam flexure and fixed-end
rotation were 13 to 20% and 32 to 40%, respectively. The
contribution to the total drift from column flexure and fixed-end
rotation did not change significantly during the testing. The
contribution of the displacement due to joint shear distortion
increased gradually. The maximum contribution of 16.5% was
obtained in the loading to a ductility factor of 1, and in the loading
of a ductility factor of 2, the contribution remained unchanged.
Specimen M2
Figure 11(d) and 18 show the measured horizontal story
shear force versus horizontal displacement hysteresis loops
and the final cracking pattern. In addition, the theoretical
ideal story horizontal load strength Pi when the beam plastic
hinges were developed and the theoretical stiffness Ktheoretical
are also shown in Fig. 11(d).
Flexural cracks were initiated in both the columns and the
beams in the loading to ±0.5Pi. A few small cracks were
798
Fig. 20—Components of story drift angle of Specimen M2.
observed within the joint core region, and little joint shear
distortion and expansion occurred. In the loading to ±0.75Pi,
a large number of diagonal cracks were initiated within the
joint core region, and the joint shear distortion and expansion in-
creased rapidly. In the negative loading cycle, a few flexural
cracks ran through the whole beam depth. No obvious pinching
was observed, however, in the hysteresis loop. In the loading
to a displacement ductility factor of 1, diagonal tension
cracks in the joint core region kept increasing, but they did
not open widely. The flexural cracks in the beams opened
widely, accompanied with wide flexure-shear cracks. Concrete
in the beam compression zone began to be crushed. In the
column, although no flexural cracks appeared, there were a
few diagonal shear cracks extending from the joint core region
into both the upper and lower parts of the column. In the first
cycle with a ductility factor of 1, the maximum horizontal
load strength of 307.1 kN, which was slightly larger than the
ideal story horizontal load strength of Specimen M2, was
reached at a corresponding story drift angle of 0.9%. At this
stage, with the opening of diagonal tension cracks, the joint
distortion and expansion continued to increase. Some pinching
of the hysteresis loop was observed due to the formation of
the diagonal tension cracks within the joint core region and
the large flexural cracks at the column faces. In the first
positive loading cycle with a ductility factor of 2, within the
joint core region, diagonal cracks increased rapidly as well,
and opened widely. Beam flexural cracks opened widely,
especially at the column faces, and much more concrete was
crushed and spoiled in the beam compression zones. In the first
positive cycle with a loading to ductility factor of 2, the max-
imum horizontal load strength of 389.7K, which was larger
than the ideal story horizontal load strength of Specimen M2,
was reached at a corresponding story drift angle of approxi-
mately 1.8%. In the negative loading cycle, the measured
maximum horizontal load strength was 330.6 kN, which was
also larger than the ideal load strength of Specimen M2. In the
first positive cycle of loading to a ductility factor of 3, the
measured maximum horizontal load strength was 311.7 kN,
which was only a little higher than the ideal story horizontal
load strength of Specimen M2. The strains of the joint hoops
increased rapidly and reached their yield strain, and a maximum
nominal horizontal shear stress in the joint core of 0.62√fc′ or
0.11fc′ was obtained in the first positive cycle of loading to duc-
tility factor of 3. In the negative loading cycle, the measured
maximum horizontal load strength was 279.7 kN, which did not
reach the ideal story horizontal load strength of Specimen M2.
In the second positive cycle of loading to ductility factor of 3,
severe strength and stiffness degradation were observed due to
joint diagonal tension cracking and bond deterioration along
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
both the beam bars and column bars. The measured maximum
horizontal load strength was 238.3 kN, which was only equal to
76% of that measured in the first positive cycle. According to
the criteria commonly adopted in New Zealand,20,21 this speci-
men failed in this displacement ductility.
The measured joint shear distortion and expansion are shown
in Fig. 19. The maximum joint distortion and joint expansion
were obtained in the loading cycle of ductility factor of 3, which
were 1.06% and 7.8 mm, respectively. Figure 20 shows the
components of the horizontal displacement measured for Spec-
imen M2 at the peak of the selected loading cycles, expressed as
a percentage of the story drift angle. The major source of the sto-
ry drift was the beam displacement, indicating a strong-column Fig. 21—Peak story shear forces of Specimens A1, M1, A2,
weak-beam response. The contributions to the total drift from and M2.
beam flexure and fixed-end rotation were 12 to 19% and 35 to
52%, respectively. The contribution to the total drift from col-
umn flexure and fixed-end rotation did not change significantly
during the test. The contribution of the displacement due to joint
shear distortion increased gradually. The maximum contribu-
tion of 22.5% was obtained in the loading with a ductility factor
of 1, whereas in the loading with a ductility factor of 2 the con-
tribution decreased slightly.

DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

Comparison of behavior of as-built specimens and
modified specimens
Global behavior—The as-built Specimen A1 failed at dis-
placement ductility factor of 2 or at story drift ratio of 2.4%,
while the modified Specimen M1 failed at displacement ductil-
ity factor of 3 or at story drift ratio of 3.3%. By comparing the
story shear forces of the two specimens (Fig. 21(a)), it can be
seen that both specimens reached their ideal horizontal strength
in the first cycle with a ductility factor of 2. In the second cycle
with a ductility factor of 2, however, the horizontal strength of
Specimen A1 dropped significantly, and the specimen failed at
this stage. For Specimen M1, the significant drop in horizontal
strength occurred in the second cycle with a ductility factor of 3.
For Specimens A2 and M2, based on test data, the as-built
Specimen A2 failed at displacement ductility factor of 2 or at
story drift ratio of 2.04%, while the modified Specimen M2
failed at displacement ductility factor of 3 or at story drift ratio
of 2.7%. By comparing the story shear forces of the two spec-
imens (Fig. 21(b)), it can be seen that both specimens reached
their ideal horizontal strength in the first cycle with a ductility
factor of 2. In the second cycle with a ductility factor of 2, the
horizontal strength of Specimen A2 dropped significantly and
the specimen finally failed at this stage. Specimen M2 did not
suffer a significant drop of horizontal strength, however, until
the second cycle of ductility factor of 3.
Cracking patterns—The cracking patterns of Specimens
A1, M1, A2, and M2 have been illustrated in a separate paper.
All specimens suffered severe joint diagonal cracking. For
Specimen A1, due to the locations of lap splicing of the col-
umn main bars, bond-splitting cracking occurred and the
cracks passed through the whole lap splice plane and were fi-
nally connected with the joint diagonal cracks. As shown in
Fig. 22 for the joint panel of Specimen A1, the internal
compression forces, which are produced in the column and
beam compression zones, tended to use the corner-to-corner
path to balance each other. As a result, the main diagonal
cracks were produced along the major force paths. For the
joint panel of Specimen M1 (Fig. 23) due to the participation of
joint transverse reinforcement, a part of the internal com-
pression forces was needed to balance it, and thus paths from
Fig. 22—Internal force flows and cracking patterns of
Specimen A1.
the column and beam compression zones to the middle parts
of the beams were produced. As a result, the cracking pattern
was different from that of Specimen A1. Therefore, the ma-
jor difference in the cracking patterns between Specimens
A1 and M1 may have been due to the presence of joint trans-
verse reinforcement.
Both Specimens A2 and M2 suffered severe joint diagonal
cracking. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the presence
of the joint transverse reinforcement had an obvious influence
on the cracking patterns. As shown in Fig. 24, the internal
compression forces for Specimen A2 were mainly balanced
by intermediate column bars, and the angles of the force
paths were steeper. For Specimen M2 (Fig. 25), however, due to
the presence of joint transverse reinforcement, a part of these
forces was balanced by it, and as a result the angles of the
force paths were not as steep as Specimen A2.
Initial stiffness and stiffness degradation—The initial
stiffness of Specimens A1 and M1 obtained from the tests
were 4.82 and 5.4 kN/mm, respectively. That was equal to 38
and 42% of the theoretical stiffness. The low stiffness was
due to the early diagonal cracking within the joint core region
and the bond deterioration along the beam and column main
bars. The modification of the reinforcing details in Specimen
M1 did not show any significant effect on the initial stiffness
because the initial stiffness depends mainly on the column
and beam section properties, which were kept unchanged for
two specimens. The modification of reinforcing details also
did not significantly affect the stiffness degradation of the
specimens, as shown in Fig. 26, where the stiffness of the
two specimens degraded at almost the same rates throughout
the entire test.
The initial stiffness of Specimens A2 and M2 obtained
from tests were 10.98 and 12.44 KN/mm, respectively,

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002 799

 Fig. 23—Internal force flows and cracking patterns of Specimen M1.

Fig. 24—Internal force flows and cracking patterns of Specimen A2.

Fig. 25—Internal force flows and cracking patterns of Specimen M2.

of those of the top bars. During cyclic loading in the inelastic

Fig. 26—Stiffness degradation traces in Specimens A1, M1,
A2, and M2.
which were equal to 38% and 45% of the theoretical stiffness.
The low stiffness was due to the early diagonal cracking
within the joint core region. As discussed previously, the
modification of reinforcing details in Specimen M2 did not
show any obvious effect on the initial stiffness and was also
found to have negligible effects on the stiffness degradation of
the specimens (Fig. 26). The stiffness of the two specimens
degraded at approximately the same rate through the entire test.
Beam behavior—For the beams in Specimens A1 and M1,
the steel ratios of the bottom bars were approximately 60%
range, full depth cracking in the beams at the column faces
could only occur during the application of the positive mo-
ment due to the unsymmetrical beam reinforcement. For
Specimen A1, the beam bottom bars were lap spliced within
the joint core. Based on the test results, however, the strains
of the beam bottom bars reached yielding, and the ideal hor-
izontal strength of the specimen was developed. Therefore, test
results showed that the lap splice detail did not worsen the per-
formance of the beam bottom bars. This phenomenon may be
due to the confinement of the surrounding concrete. In Spec-
imen A1, the reinforcing bars lap spliced within the core
were confined by a large volume of core concrete, and this pre-
vented the occurrence of lap splice failure. The same results
were reported by Englekirk and Huang22 in their beam-col-
umn joint test, where the failure of the lap-spliced beam bot-
tom bars was not observed.
For the beams in Specimens A2 and M2, the steel ratios of
the bottom bars were approximately 50% of those of the top
bars. Due to the unsymmetrical beam reinforcement, during
cyclic loading in the inelastic range, full depth cracking in
the beams at the column faces could only occur during the appli-
cation of positive moment. For Specimen A2, the beam bot-
tom bars were lap spliced within the joint core. Based on the

800 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

test results, however, the lap splice details were not detri-
mental to the performance of the beam bottom bars.
Column behavior—In Specimens A1 and M1, the col-
umns were stronger than the beams. When the beam plastic
hinges were formed, the columns remained elastic. For Spec-
imen A1, the lap splice failure of the column main bars was ob-
served during the testing. The splitting plane at failure
extended completely across the plane of the splices leading
to a simultaneous failure of all splices at one level. A similar
failure mode was reported by Lukose, Gergely, and White23
in a test with four splices at one level plus a clear splices
spacing of 2.4 db (No. 6 reinforcing bars).
For multiple lap splices to a section, Tepfers24 reported
that for monotonic loads, the cover splitting pattern at failure
was a function of bar size, cover, and bar spacing, and was
largely independent of the load history. Lukose, Gergely, and
White23 also showed that, under high-intensity reversed cyclic
loads, splitting patterns were determined by bar size and bar
spacing. For the column cross section of Specimen A1, the
diameter of the reinforcing bars was 25 mm and the clear
splice spacing was 75 mm or 3.0db. This showed that the lap
splice failure of Specimen A1 might have been due to the effect
of a large column bar size and small clear splices spacing.
On the other hand, by avoiding the lap splicing of column
main bars, bond-splitting cracking did not occur in the test of
Specimen M1, and the columns performed well also.
In Specimens A2 and M2, the columns were much stronger
than the beams. When the beam plastic hinges were formed, the
columns remained elastic. For Specimen A2, the lap splice fail-
ure of the column main bars did not occur due to the large clear
spaces between the adjacent column bars. For Specimen M2,
the strains in the column main bars were slightly less than those
in Specimen A2. This may have been due to the presence of
joint transverse reinforcement in the joint shear resistance,
which reduced the tension stresses in the column bars.
Bond stresses of longitudinal beam and column bars in the
joint—Bond condition is determined mainly by the ratio of the
beam and column bar diameter to the column and beam depths.
As discussed in a separate paper, the ratio of the beam bar diam-
eter to the column depth of both Specimens A1 and M1 does not
satisfy the requirement given by NZS 3101.16 Hence, it is not
surprising that bond deterioration was occurred. Comparison of
the maximum bond stresses sustained during testing for the
beam and column bars in Specimens A1 and M1 showed that
the joint transverse reinforcement has no obvious influence on
the bond conditions, which is consistent with the conclusions
drawn by Kamimura, Takeda, and Tochio.25
As discussed in a separate paper, the ratio of the beam bar
diameter to the column depth for Specimens A2 and M2 satisfies
the requirement of NZS 3101,16 and, as a result, bond deteri-
oration was not observed during the testing. The maximum
bond stresses obtained during testing for the beam and
column bars in both specimens are generally similar.
Joint behavior—For oblong joints A1 and M1, a maximum
nominal horizontal shear stress in the joint core of 0.84√fc′
or 0.15fc′ was obtained in the first positive cycle of loading
to a displacement ductility factor of 2 and 3, respectively.
The maximum nominal horizontal shear stress obtained in
the joint core for the wall-like column joints A2 and M2 was
0.61√fc′ or 0.11fc′ , which occurred in the first positive cycle
of loading to a displacement ductility factor of 2 and 3, respec-
tively. Based on the experimental results, it was found that
the maximum joint shear stresses occurred in the two oblong
joints, A1 and M1, and the two wall-like column joints, A2
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
and M2, were the same. Specimens M1 and M2 achieved
higher ductility levels than Specimens A1 and A2, however.
The reason for such improvement may be due to the presence
of joint transverse reinforcement in Specimens M1 and M2.
In Specimens A1 and A2, there was no joint transverse rein-
forcement provided in the joint core. The joint shear force
was carried purely by the diagonal compression struts. The
specimens failed when the capacity of the diagonal compression
strut was reached. For Specimens M1 and M2, however, due
to the presence of joint transverse reinforcement, the joint
shear forces were carried by both the truss mechanisms and
diagonal compression struts
V jh = V ch + V sh (4)
where Vjh is the total joint shear force, Vch is the force carried by
the diagonal compression strut, and Vsh is the force carried by
horizontal shear reinforcement. The joint transverse reinforce-
ment in Specimens M1 and M2 helped the joints share a part
of the total joint shear force. Thus, it prevented the diagonal
compression strut being overloaded at an earlier ductility
stage, and the specimens survived until the higher displacement
ductility levels. On the basis of the experimental results, it
can be concluded that:
a) For oblong joint cores such as Specimen M1, the horizontal
joint core shear force resisted by the concrete was
V ch = 0.74V jh
and hence that horizontal shear reinforcement was present to
resist
V sh = 0.26V jh ; and
b) For wall-like column joint cores such as Specimen M2, the
horizontal joint core shear force resisted by the concrete was
V ch = 0.85V jh
and hence that horizontal shear reinforcement was present
to resist
V sh = 0.15V jh .
The results not only explained the reason why the modified
specimens performed better than the as-built ones, but also
offered another possibility. Dai and Park26 suggested that the
diagonal concrete strut carry approximately 60% of the total
joint shear force for beam-column joints of limited ductility
frame. According to this experimental result, however, it
showed that more than 74% of the joint shear force could be
carried by the diagonal concrete strut.
In addition to the measurement of joint shear stress, the
pairs of LDVTs placed diagonally on the side faces of the
joint cores, the joint shear deformation was measured during
the testing of Specimens A2 and M2. For Specimen A2, the
joint deformation contributed 10 to 16.5% towards the total
horizontal displacement, while for Specimen M2, joint
deformation contributed 13 to 24% towards the total hori-
zontal displacement. The increased contribution of the joint
deformation towards the total horizontal displacement of Spec-
imen M2 could also be attributed to the presence of joint trans-
verse reinforcement. In Specimen M2, the presence of the
joint transverse reinforcement formed a relatively flexible
truss mechanism other than the relatively stiff diagonal com-
801
pression strut. Thus, a part of the joint shear force in Speci-
men M2 was transferred by the relatively flexible truss
mechanism rather than purely by the relatively stiff diagonal
compression strut. The relatively flexible joint core thus allowed
the increase of the joint deformation to occur in Specimen M2.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on these experimental results, for nonseismically
detailed oblong joint A1 and wall-like column joint A2, the
maximum nominal horizontal shear stress in the joint core is
0.15√fc′ and 0.11fc′ , respectively. Both joints failed at a
displacement ductility factor of 2, and this correlates well
with the model proposed by Hakuto, Park, and Tanaka,12
which suggested that joint shear failure occurs around a
displacement ductility factor of 2, when the joint shear stress
is between 0.11fc′ and 0.17fc′ . While for the modified oblong
joint M1 and wall-like column joint M2, which contains 15 and
24% of joint horizontal transverse reinforcement required
by NZS 3101,16 respectively, the joint shear forces are the
same as those of the Specimens A1 and A2. Due to the presence
of the joint transverse reinforcement, however, both specimens
achieved a limited ductility factor of 3. Additionally, more
energy was dissipated in the modified joints, observed from
the hysterisis loops of the specimens.
For wall-like column joints of limited ductility frames
having joint shear stress ratio (vjh /fc′ ) of less than 0.15, the
column depth is so large that even when the large-diameter
beam bars are used, the ratio of beam bar diameter to column
depth can still satisfy the strict requirement given by NZS
3101.16 Therefore, no restriction is put on the beam bar diameter.
A minimum amount of horizontal joint reinforcement of
vsh /Vjh = 0.2 is sufficient.
For oblong joints of limited ductility frames having a joint
shear stress ratio (vjh /fc′ ) of less than 0.2, the improvement
of the behavior of this kind of joints cannot depend on the
restriction of beam bar diameters rather than the increase of
the joint transverse reinforcement. A minimum amount of
horizontal joint reinforcement of Vsh /Vjh = 0.35 is sufficient.
It is also suggested that the requirement on the ratio of beam bar
diameter to column depth, which is recommended by Joint
ACI-ASCE Committee 352,27 should be stricter.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial assistance provided by the Protective Technology Research
Center in the School of Civil and Structural Engineering at Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore, is gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATION
bj = effective joint width
fc = compressive stress
fdc = diagonal compression stress
fdc′ = diagonal compressive strength
fdt = diagonal tension stress
hc = column depth
Ig = moment of inertia based on uncracked gross concrete area
Vjh = joint shear force
vjh = joint nominal shear stress
µ = ductility factor
ρc = ratio of total longitudinal reinforcement of column
ρj = ratio of total joint transverse reinforcement
ρt = ratio of tension reinforcement
ρ′t = ratio of compression reinforcement
∆ = interstory horizontal displacement
∆y = yield displacement
REFERENCES
1. BS 8110, “Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1. Code of Practice for
Design and Construction,” British Standard, 1997.
2. Hanson, N. W., and Conner, H. W., “Seismic Resistance of Reinforced
802
Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of the Structural Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, V. 93, No. 5, Oct., pp. 533-560.
3. Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., “Shear Strength of R.C. Beam-Column
Connections,” Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, V. 107, No. 11, Nov. 1981, pp. 2227-2244.
4. Paulay, T., “Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Seismic
Actions,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1978, pp. 585-593.
5. Uzumeri, S. M., “Strength and Ductility of Cast-in-Place Beam Column
Joints,” Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, N. Hawkins,
ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1977, pp. 293-350.
6. Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., “Behavior of Interior Beam-Column
Connections under Earthquake Type Loading,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 343-350.
7. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., “Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-
to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 492-499.
8. Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., “Development of Design
Criteria for RC Interior Beam-Column Joints,” Design of Beam-Column
Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 97-123.
9. Kurose, Y., “Recent Studies on Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joints
in Japan,” Report 87-8, Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., 1987,
164 pp.
10. Kurose, Y.; Guimaraes, G. N.; Liu, Z.; Kreger, M. E.; and Jirsa, J. O.,
“Study of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Uniaxial and
Biaxial Loading,” PMFSEL Report No. 88-2, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., Dec. 1988, 146 pp.
11. Pessiki, S. P.; Conley, C. H.; Gergely, P.; and White, R. N.; “Seismic
Behavior of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Column and Beam-Column Joint
Details,” NCEER Technical Report No. 90-0014, State University of New
York at Buffalo.
12. Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., “Retrofitting of Reinforced
Concrete Moment Resisting Frames,” Research Report 95-4, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 1995, 390 pp.
13. Wu, Y. M., “Experimental and Analytical Study of Reinforced Concrete
Interior Beam-Wide Column Joints for Seismic Performance,” thesis,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2001.
14. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Willey & Sons, N.Y., 1992, 744 pp.
15. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Willey
& Sons, N.Y., 1975, 744 pp.
16. NZS 3101, “Concrete Structures Standard (1995): Part 1—The
Design of Concrete Structure,” 1995.
17. Comite Euro-International du Beton, Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Structures for Controlled Inelastic Response, Thomas Telford
Ltd, 1997, pp. 160-161.
18. Priestley, M. J. N., and Calvi, G. M., “Toward a Capacity-Design
Assessment Procedure for Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Earthquake
Spectra, V. 7, No. 3, 1991, pp. 413-437.
19. Beckingsale, C. W., “Post-Elastic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joint,” Research Report No. 80-20, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Canterbury, 1980, 398 pp.
20. NZS 4203, “Code of Practice for General Structural Design and
Design Loadings for Buildings,” V. 2, 1992.
21. Park, R., “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural
Assemblages from Laboratory Testing,” Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 22-3, 1989, pp. 155-166.
22. Englekirk R. E., and Huang, S. C., “Strengthening of a Nonductile
Concrete Frame to a Dynamic Response Criterion,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 89, No. 3, May-June 1992, pp. 305-314.
23. Lukose, K.; Gergely P.; and White R. N., “Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Lapped Splices for Inelastic Cyclic Loading,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 79, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1982, pp. 355-365.
24. Tepfers, R., “A Theory of Bond Applied to Overlapped Tensile
Reinforcement Splices for Deformed Bars,” Publication No. 73:2, Division of
Concrete Structures, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, 1973.
25. Kamimura, T.; Takeda, S.; and Tochio, M., “Influence of Joint
Reinforcement on Strength and Deformation of Interior Beam-Column
Subassemblages,” Paper No. 2267, 12th WCEE Conference, 2000.
26. Dai, R., and Park, R., “A Comparison of the Behavior for Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints Designed for Ductility and Limited Ductil-
ity,” Research Report 87-4, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1987, 65 pp.
27. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI
352R-91),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., June
1991, 27 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002