DESIGN AND RETROFITTING STRATEGY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

Course Notes on
Recent Advances in Seismic Design of RC Buildings in Taiwan
S. J. HWANG1 and H. J. LEE2

SUMMARY

A simplified strut-and-tie model has previously been developed for determining the shear strength
of beam-column joints. Based on the existing model, a proposal for designing the shear strength
of beam-column joints to resist earthquake is made in this paper. The associated retrofitting
strategy of the existing beam-column joints of the low-rise buildings is also suggested. The
design approach proposed herein is simple, however, it takes into account various factors
influencing shear strength of beam-column joints, such as, geometrical configuration, concrete
strength, reinforcing steel quantity, strength and layout, softening phenomenon, and so on. The
proposed method is provided with illustrative example as well as comparison with ACI 318-99
Code on the beam-column joints being made.

Keywords: beam-column joint; design; reinforced concrete; seismic retrofit; shear strength;
strut-and-tie.

INTRODUCTION

Under seismic excitation, the beam-column joint region is subjected to horizontal and vertical shear forces
whose magnitudes are typically many times higher than those within the adjacent beams and columns. If the
joint shear strength is not carefully detailed, the beam-column joint may become the weak link in a chain. As
shown in Fig. 1, the poor performances of beam-column connections have been widely observed during the
Chi-Chi earthquake. This stimulates an urgent need of retrofitting the seismically insufficient joints of the
low-rise buildings in Taiwan.

The current design provisions on the beam-column joints of the ACI 318-99 Code (1999) are based empirically
on results of tests. Consequently they must be restricted to joints whose properties closely match those of the
tested joints. This leads to many design limitations, and little guidance is provided for the design of joints that
may not meet these limitations.

A good physical model is needed to predict the shear strength of joints under seismic attack. It becomes an
imperative necessity to the seismically insufficient joints, which typically fall outside of the limited range of
those considered in the ACI 318-99 Code (1999). This paper presents a rational model that is capable of
designing the shear strength of beam-column joints for seismic resistance. The associated retrofitting strategy
of the existing beam-column joints of the low-rise buildings is also recommended.

1 Professor, Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 10672,
R.O.C., e-mail: sjhwang@mail.ntust.edu.tw
2 Dr., Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 10672, R.O.C.,
e-mail: hjlee888@ms32.hinet.net

DIAGONAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

The main force flow in beam-column joint is through a major compression diagonal, and the failure in this
region was usually governed by crushing the diagonal compressive strut as depicted in Fig. 2. A softened

1
strut-and-tie model, satisfying equilibrium, compatibility, and constitutive laws of cracked reinforced concrete,
was proposed for determining the shear strength of beam-column joints (Hwang and Lee 1999, 2000). In order
to satisfy rigorously the three principles of mechanics of materials, a successful prediction of the previously
proposed model (Hwang and Lee 1999, 2000) lies on elaborate calculations, and hence the simplicity is lost.

For design purpose, a simplified approach based on the softened strut-and-tie model has been developed (Hwang
and Lee 2001 and Lee 2000), which can estimate the shear strength of beam-column joints without getting lost in
trivialities. In the following paragraphs, the simplified strut-and-tie model (Hwang and Lee 2001 and Lee 2000)
will be briefly illustrated. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the column intermediate bar as tension tie is also
introduced. Furthermore, precision of the simplified approach is reported.

Simplified Strut-and-Tie Model

Figure 3 shows an interior beam-column joint without detailing with any tie reinforcement (Hwang and Lee
2001 and Lee 2000). The diagonal compression Cd is carried only by the diagonal mechanism, which makes
the diagonal concrete strut more vulnerable to crushing. If a beam-column contains the tie reinforcement, the
diagonal compression can be carried by additional load paths instead of diagonal strut alone. This will activate
more concrete for shear resistance. Therefore, the compressive stress to crush the concrete is alleviated.

The flow of forces and the resulting statically indeterminate strut-and-tie idealization for an interior joint detailed
with horizontal and vertical tie reinforcement are exhibited in Fig. 4 (Hwang and Lee 2001 and Lee 2000). Due
to the presence of the horizontal and vertical ties, more sub-struts are developed. In consequence, the flow of
forces is turned away from the diagonal direction [Fig. 4(a)], which will certainly reduce the crushing pressure.

If the concrete strut of the beam-column joint is crushed with the horizontal and vertical ties remained in the
elastic range, the maximum diagonal compression of C d , max can be stated as (Hwang and Lee 2001 and Lee
2000)

C d , max = ( K h + K v − 1)ζ f c′ Astr (1)

1
Kh ≈ (2)
1 − 0.2(γ h + γ h2 )

1
Kv ≈ (3)
1 − 0.2(γ v + γ v2 )

2 tan θ − 1
γh = for 0 ≤ γ h ≤ 1 and γh =0 for Ath = 0 (4)
3
2 cot θ − 1
γv = for 0 ≤ γ v ≤ 1 and γv =0 for Atv = 0 (5)
3

3.35
ζ ≈ ≤ 0.52 (6)
f c′

where C d , max is the maximum diagonal compression with over-reinforced ties; K h and K v are the
horizontal and vertical tie indices; γ h is the fraction of horizontal shear transferred by the elastic horizontal tie
in the absence of the vertical tie; γ v is the fraction of vertical shear carried by the elastic vertical tie in the
absence of the horizontal tie; θ is the angle of inclination of the diagonal strut; Ath and Atv are the areas of
the horizontal and vertical ties; ζ is the softening coefficient of concrete in compression; f c′ is the
compressive strength of the standard concrete cylinder; and Astr is the effective area of the diagonal strut.

If the beam-column joint is detailed with under-reinforced ties, the diagonal compressive strength C d can be
estimated as (Hwang and Lee 2001 and Lee 2000)

2
 C d = ( K h + K v − 1)ζ f c′ Astr (7)

(
Kh =1 + K h −1 ) R CA th f yh
cos θ
≤Kh (8)
h d , max

(
K v = 1+ K v −1 ) R CA tv f yv
sin θ
≤ Kv (9)
v d , max

γ h (1 − γ v )
Rh = (10)
1 − γ hγ v

γ v (1 − γ h )
Rv = (11)
1 − γ hγ v

where K h is the modified horizontal tie index for cases with under-reinforced horizontal tie; K v is the
modified vertical tie index for cases with under-reinforced vertical tie; f yh and f yv are the yield strength of
bare mild steel of joint hoop reinforcement and intermediate column bars; and Rh and Rv are the ratios of
diagonal compression carried by the horizontal and vertical mechanisms.

Effectiveness of Tension Tie

The horizontal tie of the beam-column joint is made of the joint hoops whose end hooks can provide sufficient
anchorage. However, the vertical tie is consisted of the column intermediate bars whose anchorage should be
carefully examined (Hwang and Lee 2001 and Lee 2000). As shown in Fig. 5, the column intermediate bar
passes through the tension zones of the columns. Therefore, the tie force Fv of the column intermediate bar
can be transferred to the concrete node only by the bond stresses along the embedment length (Fig. 5).

According to the ACI 318-99 Code (1999), the development length  d of the uncoated column bar in the
normal weight concrete is

d 9 f y  db 
=   (12)
db 10 f c′  c + K tr 


where d b is the nominal diameter of the bar to be developed; f y is the yield strength of the bar; c is the
spacing or cover dimension; and K tr is the transverse reinforcement index. By taking the terms
d b /(c + K tr ) = 0.4 for the joint region and  d = hb / 2 , the tie-force Fv in Fig. 5 can be roughly estimated as

Fv T1 − T2 h Atv f yv − T2
= ≈ 1.4 f c′ b ≤ (13)
Atv Atv db Atv

where T2 is the tensile force of the vertical tie as a result of its participation in column flexure.

Comparison with Experiments

The proposed simple method is used to predict the shear strength of test specimens listed in References by
Hwang and Lee (1999, 2000). For the exterior beam-column joints, the depth of the diagonal strut ( a s )
includes only the contribution from the compression zone of the column ( a c ) and neglects the contribution from
the compression zone of the beam ( a b ) according to References by Hwang and Lee (1999, 2000). However,
the beneficial effect of beam, say a b = hb / 5 , is included in a s for the interior beam-column joints in this
paper.

Accuracy for the proposed procedures is gauged in terms of a strength ratio, which is defined as the ratio of the

3
measured to the computed strengths. Failure is predicted when the strength ratio reaches a value of unity.
Figure 6 shows satisfactory results for the comparison of the measured and computed strengths. The average
strength ratio for the specimens of exterior joints is 1.19 and the coefficient of variation is 21%. The average
strength ratio for the specimens of interior joints is 1.27 and the coefficient of variation is 17%.

PROPOSALS FOR DESIGN AND SEISMIC RETROFIT

Experimental Program

In order to study the design on beam-column joints, experimental tests were conducted on beam-column
assemblages that were subjected to reversed cyclic inelastic deformations representative of earthquake loadings
(Lee 2000). The overall test setup and the specimen details are shown in Fig. 7. Horizontal load was applied
with an actuator using displacement control. The loading pattern for the specimens consisted of two cycles at
lateral drift ratios of ±0.25% , ±0.5% , ±1% , ±2% , ±4% , ±6% , ±8% , and ±10% , unless failure
occurred first. Horizontal force-displacement hysteretic histories for the test specimens are shown in Figs. 8 to
10.

Specimen SST-0 was detailed without any horizontal reinforcement in the joint [Fig. 7(a)]. However, the
calculated shear strength of SST-0 according to the softened strut-and-tie model (Hwang and Lee 1999, 2000)
exceeds the design shear force generated by the flexural reinforcement of beam at a tensile stress of 1.25 f y .
Satisfactory hysteretic response was obtained for the Specimen SST-0 (Fig. 8), which indicates that to design the
joint with sufficient shear strength will ensure a certain level of performance. The joint shear failure was
observed for the Specimen SST-0 (Fig. 8).

Specimen SST-3T3 had the same dimensions and details as SST-0, but three sets of #3 hoops were added to the
joint region of SST-3T3 [Fig. 7(a)]. As shown in Fig. 9, the Specimen SST-3T3 developed more ductile
hysteretic behavior and larger deformation capacity than the Specimen SST-0. It is commonly believed that the
shear strength of the reinforced concrete elements will be decreased with increased displacement ductility. The
hoops of SST-3T3 were yielded during the displacement reversals (Fig. 9), which provided no reliable
mechanism to restrain the deterioration of the joint at larger displacement levels. Specimen SST-3T3 was
failed by the concrete crushed in the beam-column joint (Fig. 9).

Specimen ACI-3T44 was detailed with three sets of 2-#4 hoops in the joint region [Fig. 7(a)]. The hoops of
ACI-3T44 remained in elastic range during tests. As shown in Fig. 10, ACI-3T44 had the best performance
among the three specimens. The failure mode of ACI-3T44 was the beam bar buckling (Fig. 10).
Experimental observations of the above test specimens indicated that designing the joint with sufficient shear
strength would provide satisfactory seismic performance. Moreover, the deterioration of beam-column joint
under displacement reversals could be effectively retrained by the elastic joint hoops.

Design Recommendations

The requirements for seismic design are dependent on both the anticipated earthquake loading and the
displacement demand (ACI-ASCE Committee-352 1985). For the beam-column joints of the special
moment-resisting frames where large inelastic deformations must be tolerated, the reserved strengths are
required for these joints to provide improved performance under deformation reversals (ACI-ASCE
Committee-352 1985). In this circumstance, to design the beam-column joints with the limit state of the tie
yielding is especially appealing. Because the joints under diagonal compressions are failed by the crushing of
concrete, to design with the limit state of tie yielding will provide a wider margin of safety. Moreover, the
elastic ties can maintain the integrity of the joints during large cyclic reversals of displacements and
rotations.

For the beam-column joints of the building frame system where resistance to lateral loads is provided by
shearwalls, these joints are expected to sustain their gravity load carrying capacities at certain specified lateral
displacement. Therefore, strength and deformability are two major criteria for designing joints of this kind.
Figure 11 presents the peak strength and the associated drift ratio of shear walls and beam-column joints tested
in laboratory. The specimens of shear walls develop their peak strength below the drift ratio of 1%, whereas
most of the beam-column joints develop their peak strength above the drift ratio of 2%. Satisfaction of the

4
deformation compatibility requirement of beam-column joints seems to be guaranteed (Fig. 11). It is therefore
recommended that the beam-column joints not proportioned to resist earthquake be designed with the limit state
of concrete crushing.

Figure 12 illustrates the proposed design procedures, which also summarizes the design equations needed.

Retrofitting Strategy of Low-rise Buildings

During an earthquake, the joints are among the most critical areas of a nonductile reinforced concrete frame
structure. The lightly reinforced concrete beam-column joints are very vulnerable to reversed cyclic loading.
Seismic retrofitting of the beam-column joints is extremely difficult and expensive. For the existing low-rise
buildings, the seismically insufficient moment frame system could be retrofitted as the building frame system by
adding the lateral-force-resisting elements such as shear walls or shear trusses. The existing frames can be
treated as members that are not proportioned to resist forces induced by earthquake motions. Since the
deformability is usually not a problem of the beam-column joints (Fig. 11), the remaining issue of seismic
assessment is the shear strength of joints. The seismic retrofit of the lightly reinforced concrete beam-column
joints of the low-rise buildings may not be needed, if the shear strength of these joints is judged by the limit state
of concrete crushing. The above argument is only a supposition; experimental evidence is still needed.

DESIGN EXAMPLE

For the exterior joint shown schematically in Fig. 13, determine the horizontal shear reinforcement required if
the joint is needed to sustain strength under deformation reversals into the inelastic range. Designing shear
reinforcement in accordance with the limit state of tie yielding is preferred.

After checking the embedment situation for the beam reinforcement, the development length of the hooked bar is
taken as 4/5 of the depth of column, which gives  h = 320mm and θ = tan −1 (368 / 320) = 49° . The required
strength is then determined as C d , u = 940/ cos 49° = 1433 kN.

Examining the dimension of joint for the maximum shear is first to calculate γ h = 0.434 and γ v = 0.246, and
then get K h = 1.142 and K v = 1.065, the maximum diagonal compression is given as

(1.142 + 1.065 − 1) × 0.52 × 38 × 175 × 500

C d , max = = 2087 kN (14)
1000

Since Cd ,u / φ = 1433/0.85 = 1686 < Cd , max , the joint dimension is adequate for shear resistance.

The force ratios of the tie reinforcement are computed as Rh = 0.366 and Rv = 0.156. Therefore the tie
forces are required as

0.366 × 1433 × cos 49°

Ath f yh ≥ = 405 kN (15)
0.85

0.156 × 1433 × sin 49°

Atv f yv ≥ = 198 kN (16)
0.85

The vertical tie force is expected as provided by the column intermediate bars. The tensile stresses provided by
the column intermediate bars can be roughly estimated as

Fv 1.4 × 38 × 500
≈ = 170 MPa < fy (17)
Atv 25.4

The 4-#8 bars can provide the vertical tie force as Fv = 4 × 510 × 170 / 1000 = 347 kN, which exceeds the
requirement of 198 kN. Effect of T2 (Fig. 5) is not important in this case.

5
Two layers of #4 hoops are used as detailed in Fig. 13 for the horizontal tie. The horizontal tie force is
provided as Fh = 2 × 4 × 129 × 414 / 1000 =427 kN, which is satisfactory. The amount of horizontal hoop
required in this example is only 60% of that stipulated by the ACI 318-99 Code (1999).

If the exterior joint appeared in Fig. 13 is not part of the designated lateral-force resisting system, the strength of
joint is the primary criterion. Assuming that the joint details according to the limit state of concrete crushing be
adequate, we note that the horizontal shear reinforcement is not required ( K h = 1.0 ). This is ascertained as

(1.0 + 1.065 − 1) × 0.52 × 38 × 175 × 500

( K h + K v − 1)ζ f c′ Astr = = 1841 kN
1000
C d ,u
> = 1686 kN (18)
φ

However, the joint hoops might be designed for other purposes, such as preventing the outward buckling of the
column longitudinal bars.

COMPARISON WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS

The provisions on the joint shear strength and the transverse hoop reinforcement of the ACI 318-99 Code (1999)
are compared with the proposed method. A case study of exterior joint was performed to demonstrate the
variations in shear strengths and hoop requirements caused by various parameters as shown in Fig. 14. The
parameters reviewed include the concrete strength, the geometry of joint, and the axial force of column.

Figure 14(a) presents the selected joint under study, which is extended from the previous example defined in Fig.
13. The horizontal shear strengths in Fig. 14(b) are normalized with respect to the column gross section ( Ag )
and the square root of concrete strength ( f c′ ). The normalized shear strengths predicted by the ACI 318-99
Code (1999) are constant and insensitive to all the selected parameters under study [Fig. 14(b)].

A bilinear relationship between the normalized shear strength and the parameter f c′ was obtained for the
proposed method as demonstrated in Fig. 14(b). The shear carrying capacities are increased with increasing
f c′ at a greater rate for the joints using normal strength concrete but at a much lower rate for the joints using
high strength concrete. This phenomenon is attributed to the concrete softening effects. In high-strength
concrete, a significant portion of the aggregate particles will fracture during cracking of the concrete which
results in much pronounced effect of softening. The turning points of the bilinear curves in Fig. 14(b) are close
to f c′ = 42 MPa.

As shown in Fig. 14(b), the shear-strength predictions of the proposed model are comparable to the ACI’s
strength limit, except that lower strengths are obtained by the proposed model for the exterior joints using
normal strength concrete. However, test data (Ehsani and Wight 1985) showed that the strength value given in
the ACI 318-99 Code is unconservative for the exterior (corner) joints.

The strut-and-tie index K in the proposed model is a function only of the geometry of the discontinuity region
(i.e., θ ). As shown in Fig. 14(b), the joints with smaller θ can resist the horizontal shears more efficiently,
but the effectiveness of the vertical ties should also be carefully examined for the smaller hb . For example, the
joint strengths of the cases with θ = 35° in Fig. 14(b) are significantly reduced by the insufficient vertical tie
forces.

In the proposed model, the column axial load provides the beneficial effect on the joint shear strength because it
increases the depth of the strut as demonstrated in Fig. 14(b). In contrast to the beneficial effect, the high axial
compression load in the column was reported to accelerate the deterioration of the joint shear resisting
mechanism (Otani et al. 1984 and Kurose 1987). Considering the above detrimental effect and the uncertainty
of column axial forces during earthquake excitation, we suggest limiting the effect of the column axial load as to
increase the joint strength.

6
The ACI 318-99 Code (1999) assumes the transverse hoop reinforcement to confine the core concrete.
Therefore, the ACI requirements of joint hoops are directly proportioned to f c′ as indicated in Fig. 14(c). In
the case of high strength concrete, the ACI requirements result in congested joints, which are very difficult to
construct. Whereas the proposed method requires the transverse reinforcement to provide the force-transferring
path, the amount of hoop is needed in accordance with the joint design strength.

Figure 14(c) shows the largest amounts of the joint hoop required by the proposed model, which make the
concrete crushing and tie yielding occur simultaneously. As shown in Fig. 14(c), the proposed method requires
much less transverse reinforcement as compared to ACI requirements in many cases especially for the joints with
smaller angles of θ or using high strength concrete.

CONCLUSIONS

A design approach, based on the softened strut-and-tie model, is proposed for designing the shear strength of the
beam-column joints failing in diagonal compressions.

The proposed design procedure starts with the dimension check for maximum shear, and then the amounts of tie
reinforcement can be determined according to the selected limit state. The beam-column joints, where no
significant inelastic deformations are expected, can be proportioned for the ultimate limit state of concrete
crushing. For the beam-column joints, where there is a need for sustained strength under deformation reversals
into the inelastic range, it is recommended to design for the limit state of tie yielding. Proportioning the
members for the limit state of tie yielding will result in larger amount of tie reinforcement and wider margin of
safety. However, the integrity of the members under earthquake excitation could be maintained. A design
example of the exterior beam-column joint was supplied which illustrates the application of the proposed
equations.

Comparisons between the method suggested with the provisions on the beam-column joint of the ACI 318-99
Code were made. The proposed method was found to yield comparable shear strengths but to require much less
joint hoops as compared to the ACI method.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to the National Science Council of the Republic of China for financial support under
Project NSC 89-2211-E-011-011.

REFERENCES

ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (1985). “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic
Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI Journal, Proceedings, 82(3), 266-283.

“Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99),” (1999).
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, 391 pp.

Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K. (1985). “Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections
Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI Journal , 82(4), 492-499.

Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J. (1999). “Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Exterior Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, 96(5), 846-857.

Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J. (2000). “Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Interior Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, 97(1), 35-44.

Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J. (2001). “Strength Prediction for Discontinuity Regions Failing in Diagonal
Compressions by Softened Strut-and-Tie Model,” Tentatively accepted by Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE.

Kurose, Y. (1987). “Recent Studies on Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints in Japan,” PMFSEL Report
No.87-8, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, 164 pp.

7
Lee, H. J. (2000). “A Study of Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Earthquake
Resistance,” PhD Thesis, Department of Construction Eng., National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).

Otani, S.; Kobayashi, Y., and Aoyama, H. (1984). “Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column
Joints under Simulated Earthquake Loading,” 1st U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Monterey.