See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287751406

Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of exterior reinforced concrete

beam-column joints for seismic resistance

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · September 1999

CITATIONS READS

163 2,779

2 authors, including:

Hung-Jen Lee
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology
24 PUBLICATIONS   729 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Behavior and Modeling of Damage and Collapse in Reinforced Concrete Frame Joints Subjected to Near-Fault Earthquakes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hung-Jen Lee on 31 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 96-S93

Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Exterior

Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic
Resistance
by Shyh-Jiann Hwang and Hung-Jen Lee

A proposal for determining the shear strengths of exterior

beam-column joints for seismic resistance is made in this paper.
The proposed method, termed as the softened strut-and-tie
model, is based on the strut-and-tie concept and derived to sat-
isfy equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitutive laws of
cracked reinforced concrete. The accuracy of the proposed pro-
cedure was checked by comparing calculated shear strengths
with experimental data reported in previous literature, and a sat-
isfactory correlation was found. The proposed physical model
can provide valuable insights into the strength behavior of the
exterior beam-column joints under seismic loading.

Keywords: beams; columns; joints (junctions); reinforced concretes;

shear; strength.

INTRODUCTION
Under seismic excitation, the beam-column joint region is
subjected to horizontal and vertical shear forces whose magni-
tudes are typically many times higher than those within the ad-
jacent beams and columns. If the joint shear strength is not
carefully detailed, the beam-column joint may become the weak
link.
Currently, there is little consensus within the design and re-
search communities as to the determination of shear strength of
the reinforced concrete beam-column joint. The New Zealand
design recommendation1 postulates two kinds of resisting
mechanisms to carry the joint shear: the diagonal strut mecha-
nism, and the truss mechanism (Fig. 1). U.S. and Japanese
standards2,3 state implicitly that it is only necessary to consider
the diagonal strut mechanism when calculating joint shear resis-
tance. To further enhance discussions and lead to a common
conclusion, a trilateral cooperative research4 was conducted by
researchers in the U.S., New Zealand, and Japan. After this in-
ternational debate,4 the resisting mechanisms of joint shear are
still in dispute.5
The major difference between the NZS 3101:1995 standard1
and ACI 318-95 2 in the beam-column joint provisions is wheth-
er or not the truss mechanism [Fig. 1(b)] is adopted. To validate
the truss mechanism, the bond resistance of beam bars must be
secured within the joint area, which leads to strict limitation on
the bar size relative to the joint dimension. Additionally, the
truss mechanism results in a zone of uniform shear stress within
the joint core [Fig. 1(b)], which requires a large volume of hor-
izontal and vertical transverse reinforcement to carry these
stresses. Modeling joint load transfer using only the diagonal
strut mechanism allows the bond deterioration of the beam bars
in the joint. To insure a stable strut mechanism under cyclic
loading, a fixed quantity of joint transverse reinforcement based
on experiments is usually specified.
The discussions during the trilateral cooperative research on
the beam-column joint did not agree on a rational approach.5
Fig. 1—Mechanisms of shear transfer at exterior joint: (a)
diagonal strut mechanism; and (b) truss mechanism.
Therefore, the analytical model incorporated into the NZS
3101:1995 standard 1 could not explain why the joint speci-
mens that were designed by ACI 318-95 2 and did not necessar-
ily conform to NZ standard also showed satisfactory behavior.
The empirical approach of ACI 318-952 can hardly extend its
application to the retrofitting of the seismically insufficient
joints because the step function of joint shear limits2 gives lit-
tle information when extrapolating beyond experience. A ra-
tional approach to model shear transfer within the joint region
is needed.5
This paper develops a rational model for predicting the
shear strengths of exterior reinforced concrete beam-column
joints for seismic resistance. The precision of the analytical
model is gaged by the available experimental data. The appli-
cability of the proposed model to interior beam-column joints
is reported elsewhere.6
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Limitations on maximum shear stress at the beam-column joints
are intended to insure that joint shear failure will not curtail ductile
response of the frame under seismic loading. Currently, there are
three empirical limits for joint shear stress in ACI 318-95.2 A
code-specified level of shear strength can be achieved only if the
joint is detailed according to the Code.2 Therefore, it is difficult for
designers to determine when particular joint details may adversely
affect the shear strength or how to retrofit the seismically insuffi-
ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, September-October 1999.
Received April 20, 1998, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right  1999, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent dis-
cussion will be published in the July-August 2000 ACI Structural Journal if received
by March 1, 2000.

846 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999

ACI member Shyh-Jiann Hwang is a professor of construction engineering at the
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tapai, Taiwan, Republic of
China. He received his MS and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. His
research interests include bond and anchorage, deflection control of two-way slabs,
and seismic behavior of beam-column joints and shear walls.

Hung-Jen Lee is a PhD student in construction engineering at the National Taiwan

University of Science and Technology. His research interests include behavior and
design of beam-column joints.

cient joint. This paper presents a rational model that is capable of

predicting the shear strengths of exterior beam-column joints for
seismic resistance.

DERIVATION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL

Before selecting the mechanisms to model the load transfer
within the joint, several observations were noted. Test speci-
mens designed in conformance with the ACI Code showed sat-
isfactory behavior, 4 which indicates the soundness of American
provisions on joints. Further, Kitayama et al. 7 evaluated the
beam bar bond characteristics quantitatively and concluded that
excessive earthquake response would not occur (even if the
beam bar bond has deteriorated) if the bar size remains within
certain limits. Recognizing that beam bar bond deterioration
within a joint should be tolerated, the proposed model departs
from the philosophy of the truss mechanism.
The manner of joint lateral reinforcement on contribution to
the shear capacity is still controversial. Some researchers 8-10 re-
ported that the joint shear strength is affected by the amount of
transverse steel, but others11,12 have indicated that joint shear
strength is not affected by the amount of transverse steel. How-
ever, there is general agreement that a reasonable amount of
transverse steel improves the shear capacity of joints. A similar
situation occurs for the intermediate column bars. Park and
Keong 13 reported that the presence of intermediate column bars
could significantly improve the joint shear capacity, whereas
Kaku and Asakusa14 found that the existence of intermediate
column bars was only effective in increasing ductility. Accord-
ing to these observations, the particular choice of a model can-
not rely solely on the diagonal strut mechanism. The intended
model must address all of the critical components within the
joint, and a statically indeterminate load pattern should be cho-
sen.
The proposed model is based on the strut-and-tie concept. Usu-
ally, the strut-and-tie model applied to the joint region is consid-
ered to satisfy only the equilibrium conditions. 15 However, the
authors believe that a properly selected strut-and-tie model should
also satisfy the stress equilibrium, the strain compatibility, and the
constitutive laws of materials at the ultimate load stage when the
cracks in the concrete are abundant and the development of struts
and ties is then completed. To meet the three principles of me-
chanics of materials, the struts and ties should be properly oriented
to keep a natural load path without allowing excessive inelastic
deformation to occur.
Macromodel
Before formulating a mathematical model, the forces around
and within a joint should be identified. Fig. 2 shows the earth-
quake-induced forces acting on an exterior joint. The horizontal
joint shear force is estimated using the notation given in Fig. 2 as
V j h = Tb – V c 1
where Vjh is the horizontal joint shear force; Tb is the tensile
force resulting from the steel of the beam; and Vc1 is the hori-
zontal column shear above the joint.
Fig. 2—External actions and internal shears at exterior joint.
Regarding the rectangular area bounded by dashed lines in
Fig. 2 as a shear element, the intensity of the vertical joint shear
force V jv can be approximated
h b′
V j v ≈  ------- × V jh (2)
h c′
where h ′b and h c′ are the internal lever arms in the beam and col-
umn, respectively.
The proposed strut-and-tie model to transfer the joint shears
is composed of the diagonal, horizontal, and vertical mecha-
nisms as depicted in Fig. 3. The diagonal mechanism [Fig. 3(a)]
is a single diagonal compression strut whose angle of inclina-
tion θ is defined as
–1 h ″
θ = tan  --------
b
(3)
 h c″ 
where h′′b is the distance between the extreme longitudinal rein-
forcement in the beam; and h′′c is the distance measured from the
centroid of extreme longitudinal reinforcement in the column to
the centroid of bar extension at the free end of the 90-deg hooked
bar, but not greater than the distance between the extreme longi-
tudinal bars in the column for the case with beam stub. To orient
the diagonal strut using the distance between the centroids of the
extreme longitudinal steel instead of the dimension between the
tension and compression couples is to facilitate the calculation
with sufficient accuracy. Because the exterior joint may not be
fully engaged due to the required hook dimension, 3 the projected
length of hooked beam bars is incorporated into the definition of
h c′′ .
The effective area of the diagonal strut A str is defined as
As t r = a s × b s (4)
where as is the depth of the diagonal strut, and bs is the width of
the diagonal strut. Since the formation of a diagonal strut depends
(1) on the end conditions provided by the compression zones in
beams and columns, the depth of a strut without a beam hinge oc-
curring at the face of the column can be determined as16
as = ab2 + a c2 (5)

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999 847


Fig. 3—Joint shear resisting mechanisms: (a) diagonal mecha-
nism; (b) horizontal mechanism; and (c) vertical mechanism.
where a b and a c are the depths of the compression zones in the
beam and column, respectively. It has been observed that when
the joint fails, the spalling of the compression zone in the beam
hinges adjacent to the column faces occurs especially in the cy-
clic loading tests. Since the crushing produces a small compres-
sion zone in the beam, the neglect of ab in computing a s is
assumed for joints where a beam hinge occurs at the face of the
column. Therefore, the depth of the strut can be estimated as16
a s = ac (6)
To make a quick estimation, the depth of the flexural com-
pression zone of the elastic column can be approximated by 10
a c =  0.25 + 0.85 ------------ h c
N
 (7)
A f ′ g c
where N is the axial force acting on the column; f c′ is the com-
pressive strength of a standard concrete cylinder; A g is the gross
848
area of the column section; and hc is the thickness of the column
in the direction of loading.
The width of the diagonal strut bs can be taken as the effective
width of the joint. There are several definitions for the effective
joint width,1-3,17 but the effective width of joint as defined by
ACI 318-95 2 is used for calculation in this study.
With reference to Fig. 3(b), the horizontal mechanism con-
sists of one horizontal tie and two flat struts. The joint hoops
constitute the horizontal tie. Unequal participation of the joint
hoops in resisting shear forces was observed in tests. Strain pro-
files for joint core hoops indicated that the hoops near the mid-
height of the core were more effective than those near the beam
bars.18 Thus, it is roughly assumed that the joint hoops within
the center half of the core are fully effective when computing
the cross area of the horizontal tie, and that the other joint core
hoops are included at a rate of 50 percent.
The proposed vertical mechanism [Fig. 3(c)] contains one
vertical tie and two steep struts. The vertical tie is made up of
the intermediate column bars. The way to estimate the cross area
of the vertical tie is similar to that of the horizontal tie.
The proposed model is a statically indeterminate system. The
yielding of ties does not stop the development of the shear
strength of the joint18 because the diagonal strut is capable of
transferring shear force alone. Therefore, the shear strength of
the joint is defined as the concrete compressive stress on the
nodal zone as it reaches its capacity. The boundary of the nodal
zone coincides with the diagonal strut boundary, but the con-
crete bearing force to be examined is the summation of com-
pressions from the diagonal, flat, and steep struts (Fig. 3).
Equilibrium
Fig. 4(a) shows the proposed strut-and-tie model for an exte-
rior beam-column joint. Since the forces meeting at a node must
be in equilibrium, the horizontal joint shear to be resisted by the
strut-and-tie model is found from Fig. 4(b)
V j h = D cosθ + F h + F v cot θ (8)
where D is the compression force in the diagonal strut; F h is the
tension force in the horizontal tie; and F v is the tension force in
the vertical tie. Similarly, the vertical joint force is expressed as
V j v = D sinθ + F h tan θ + F v (9)
It is worthwhile to note that the ratio of Vjv /Vjh = tan θ is always
preserved for any combination of the selected mechanisms.
There are three load-paths in the joint region, and the joint shear
forces must be apportioned to the resisting mechanisms. If the inter-
mediate column bars do not exist or the yielding of the vertical tie
occurs, the horizontal shear (or increment) is then resisted only by
the diagonal and horizontal mechanisms, as shown in Fig. 5(a).
Schäfer19 and Jennewein and Schäfer20 suggested that the statically
indeterminate tie-force Fh in the reduced mechanisms [Fig. 5(a)] be
assumed as
F h = γ h × V jh (10)
2 tan θ – 1
γh = ----------------------- for 0 ≤ γ h ≤ 1
3
where γh is the fraction of horizontal shear transferred by the hor-
izontal tie with the absence of the vertical tie. Eq. (10) is a linear
interpolation of F h between two borderline cases, namely, that the
entire horizontal shear is carried by the indirect load-path (F h =
V jh) for θ ≥ tan-1 (2) and that the entire horizontal shear is trans-
1999
 Fig. 5—Forces in struts and ties: joint shears resisted only by
diagonal and (a) horizontal mechanisms; and (b) vertical

Eq. (12) can be restated as

1 Rd
D = ------------ × ----------------------------------- × V jh (13)
cos θ ( R d + R h + R v )

Fig. 4—Strut-and-tie model at maximum response: (a) forces Rh

acting on joint region; and (b) forces acting on nodes. F h = ----------------------------------- × V jh (14)
( Rd + Rh + Rv )

ferred by the direct compression strut (F h = 0) for for θ ≤ tan-1(1/

2).
The vertical shear (or increment) is resisted only by the diag-
onal and vertical mechanisms with the absence or yielding of
the horizontal tie. Fig. 5(b) presents the fraction of the vertical
shear assigned to the vertical tie19,20 in the previous case
F v = γv × V jv (11)
1 Rv
F v = ----------- × ----------------------------------- × Vj h (15)
cot θ ( R d + R h + R v )
where R d , R h , and R v are the ratios of the joint shears resisted by
the diagonal, horizontal, and vertical mechanisms, respectively.
The values of these ratios are defined as

( 1 – γh ) ( 1 – γv )
θ–1 R d = ------------------------------------- (16)
γ v = 2cot
----------------------- for 0 ≤ γ v ≤ 1 1 – γ hγ v
3

where γv is the fraction of vertical shear carried by the vertical γ h( 1 – γ v )

tie with the absence of the horizontal tie. R h = ----------------------- (17)
1 – γ hγ v
Based on Eq. (8), (10), and (11), the ratios of the horizontal
shear V jh assigned among three mechanisms are defined as
γv ( 1 – γ h )
R v = ----------------------- (18)
D cos θ : F h :F v cot θ = R d :R h :R v (12) 1 – γ hγ v

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999 849

Fig. 6—Ratios of force distribution among mechanisms.

Fig. 7—Softening of compressive stress-strain curve due to

Due to the layout of the proposed strut-and-tie model, the same
fractions of the vertical shear V jv are carried among three mech-
anisms
D sin θ : F h t a nθ : F v = R d : R h : R v
transverse tensile strain.
The softened stress-strain relationship of concrete with its
compressive strength ranging from 20 to 100 MPa22 is of inter-
(19) est. Since attention is focused on strength, only the ascending
branch of the softened stress-strain curve (Fig. 7) is presented22

It is carefully scaled such that the sum of R d , R h , and R v

εd   εd  2 εd
equals unity. Fig. 6 illustrates the ratios of the joint shears resist- σ d = ζ f c′ 2  -------- – -------- for -------- ≤ 1 (21)
ed by these three mechanisms. When the angle of inclination θ ζε o   ζε o  ζε o
= 45 deg, the diagonal mechanism carries the largest share of the
joint forces, that is Rd = 0.5. If the vertical tie is absent or yield-
ing, by assigning γv = 0, the value Rh converts to γh for the re- 5.8 1 0.9
ζ = --------- --------------------------- ≤ --------------------------- (22)
duced mechanisms. The same situation occurs between R v and f c′ 1 + 400ε r 1 + 400ε r
γv .
To check whether the joint strength is reached, the bearing where σ d is the average principal stress of concrete in the d-di-
pressure on the nodal zone (Fig. 3) where the compressive forces rection; ζ is the softening coefficient; f c′ is the compressive
from the diagonal, flat, and steep struts meet at a node (Fig. 4) strength of a standard concrete cylinder in units of MPa; ε d and
must be checked. With some algebraic efforts, the maximum εr are the average principal strains in the d- and r- directions, re-
compressive stress σ d,max acting on the nodal zone that is perpen- spectively; and ε o is the concrete cylinder strain corresponding
dicular to the d-direction is given by to the cylinder strength f c′ , which can be defined approximately
as25
 – 1 hb″  

 cos  θ – tan  -----------  f c′ – 2 0
1    2hc″    ε o = – 0.002 – 0.001  ----------------- for 20 ≤ f c′ ≤ 100 MPa (23)
σ d, max = ---------  D + -----------------------------------------------------  (20) 80 
A str  – 1 hb″   
cos  tan  -----------
   2h ″   
 c  By adopting Eq. (21), the shear strength of the joint is reached
whenever the compressive stress and strain of the concrete diag-
onal strut conform to the following formula (Fig. 7)
 – 1 2hb″

 cos  tan  ----------- – θ  σ d = ζ ⋅ f c′ (24)
  h″   
c
 F h + -----------------------------------------------------F v
  tan – 1  2h ″b   
 s i n
 -----------
 h c″    εd = ζ ⋅ ε o (25)
 
Neglecting the tension stiffening effect of concrete, the be-
Constitutive laws havior of bare mild steel bars is assumed to be elastic-perfectly-
plastic
Cracked reinforced concrete in compression has been ob-
served to exhibit lower strength and stiffness than uniaxially
compressed concrete (Fig. 7). The so-called compression soft- f s = E s ε s for ε s < ε y (26)
ening phenomenon has been quantified21,22 and enhanced the
understanding of the shear problem in reinforced concrete. 23 It
fs = fy f o r εs ≥ εy (27)
is believed that the shear strength of the beam-column joint
should also be governed by the softening effect of concrete. To
make analysis easier, it is assumed that one of the principal axes where Es is the elastic modulus of the steel bars; fs and ε s are the
coincides with the direction of the diagonal concrete strut. It is stress and strain in the mild steel, respectively. f s becomes f h or
possible to improve this assumption, 24 but not within the scope fv, ε s becomes ε h or ε v , fy becomes fyh or fyv when applied to joint
of this study. hoop reinforcement or intermediate column bars, respectively.

850 1999
 Based on the simplified constitutive equations for steel, the
relationship between forces and strains of the tension ties can be
constructed
F h = A t hE s ε h ≤ F y h (28)
F v = A t vE s ε v ≤ F y v (29)
where A th and Atv are the areas of the horizontal and vertical ties,
respectively; and Fyh and Fyv are the yielding forces of the hor-
izontal and vertical ties, respectively.
Compatibility
The two-dimensional compatibility condition expresses the
relationship among the average strains in different coordinate
systems (Fig. 8). Accepting the predetermined direction of the
principal compressive stress θ , the principal tensile strain εr can
be related to the horizontal strain εh , the vertical strain ε v, and
the magnitude of the principal compressive strain εd in the fol-
lowing manner26
2 is considered secondary, and therefore omitted.
ε r = ε h + ( ε h – ε d ) cot θ (30)
2
ε r = ε v + ( ε v – ε d ) tan θ (31)
Solution procedures
A set of solution procedures is proposed, as shown in the flow
charts in Fig. 9 and 10. The algorithm in Fig. 9 starts with a se-
lection of the horizontal joint shear Vjh and can be roughed out
into three steps. The first step employs the equilibrium equa-
tions to find the σ d,max acting on the nodal zone. By assuming
the strength of the concrete strut is reached, a value of the soft-
ening coefficient ζ is obtained through ζ = σd,max/f c′ . Secondly,
the constitutive laws are used to compute the strains of the struts
and ties. The third step applies the compatibility conditions to
compute a new value of ζ. If the assumed ζ value is close to the
computed ζ value, the V jh selected is the shear strength of joint;
otherwise, back to iterations.
The proposed analytical procedure contains 10 unknown
variables that are four forces ( Vjh, D, Fh , F v), one stress (σ d,max ),
one material coefficient ( ζ), and four strains (εd , ε r , εh , ε v). The
varied yielding conditions of the ties, when the concrete strut is
approaching its capacity, result in different solution algorithms.
The procedure in Fig. 9 is categorized into five types and de-
scribed as follows
Type E: F h < F yh and F v < F y v
The case of Type E means that the concrete strut reaches its
strength while the horizontal and vertical ties remain in the elastic
range. The details of this algorithm are explained as follows.
1. Select a value of horizontal shear force V jh.
2. Calculate D, Fh, and Fv from Eq. (13), (14), and (15), re-
spectively.
3. Calculate σd,max from Eq. (20).
4. Assume ζ from Eq. (24).
5. Calculate εd from Eq. (21).
6. Calculate εh and ε v from Eq. (28) and (29).
7. Calculate ε r from Eq. (30) if ε h ≥ ε v , or calculate εr from
Eq. (31) if εh < ε v.
8. Check ζ using Eq. (22).
9. If the assumed value for ζ determined in Step 4 is suffi-
ciently close to the value shown in Step 8, then the value Vjh se-
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
Fig. 8—Compatability conditions for diagonally cracked con-
crete: (a) strains averaged over area containing many cracks;
and (b) Mohr’s circle of average strains.
lected in Step 1 is the solution. If not, increase the value of V jh
and repeat Steps 1 through 9.
The previous explanation indicates that there are 11 equations
available for 10 unknown variables. It is necessary to delete one
equation. In Step 7, the smaller value of the elastic strain ε h or ε v
Type YH: F h = F yh and F v < F y v
The analysis of Type YH basically follows that of Type E, but
two discrepancies exist. First, if the yielding of the horizontal tie
occurs, part of the joint shears beyond the yielding of the hori-
zontal tie should be resisted by the reduced mechanisms—that
is, the diagonal and vertical mechanisms only. Fig. 10 presents
the force redistribution of the joint shears post the yielding of
the horizontal tie.
Second, the yielding of the horizontal tie invalidates the con-
straint εh from Eq. (28). As a consequence, both compatibility
Eq. (30) and (31) can be applied in solution, but it is more con-
venient to use Eq. (31)
Type YV: F h < F y h and F v = F y v
The Type YV analysis is quite similar to the Type YH analysis.
Fig. 10 also shows the force redistribution of the joint shears post
the yielding of the vertical tie. It is recommended in Fig. 9 to use
the quantity of εh to compute ε r by Eq. (30)
Type YHV: F h = F yh and then F v = F y v
The scope of Type YHV includes the case where the yielding of
the horizontal tie occurs and then the concrete strut arrives at its ca-
pacity after the second yielding of the vertical tie. The algorithm
of Type YHV is quite different from the former three cases.
To not overestimate the softening effect in situations where be-
havior is governed by yielding of all reinforcements crossing the
crack direction, defining a limiting value of εr to be used in the
softening formulations is proposed.21,27 With this aim in mind, the
value of εr corresponding to the point where the second-yielded
vertical tie is approaching the yielding strain (ε v = ε yv) is computed
as the limiting value. The material softening coefficient ζ related
to the imposed εr limit is used to calculate the strength of the con-
crete strut. The proposed procedure for the Type YHV analysis is
revealed in the lower half of Fig. 10
Type YVH: F v = F y v and then F h = F y h
851
 Fig. 9—Flow chart showing efficient algorithm.
The Type YVH analysis is quite similar to the Type YHV
analysis. It is recommended that the material softening coeffi-
cient ζ be calculated according to the value of ε r where the sec-
ond-yielded horizontal tie is reaching the yielding strain (ε h =
ε yh) as shown in Fig. 10.
For the joint specimen with the omission of the joint hoop
only, the analysis might fall in the categories of Type YH or
YHV. Similarly, for the joint specimen with an absence of the in-
termediate column bar only, the Type YV or YVH analyses
might be used. If neither the joint hoop nor the intermediate col-
umn bar is detailed within the joint region, it is recommended that
852
Type YHV and YVH analyses be performed, then choose the
smaller value as the prediction of the joint shear strength. The ε r
limit can be computed at the stage where ε v is assumed equal to
εy of the column bars for the Type YHV analysis, or at the stage
where ε h is taken as εy of the beam bars for the Type YVH anal-
ysis.
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
The proposed model was used to calculate the joint shear
strengths of 63 test specimens (Table 1) described in the literature.
Twenty-five of these joints were tested in the U.S., 30,33-36 six in
1999
 Fig. 10—Algorithm for post yielding cases.
New Zealand, 18,28,29,31 25 in Japan,11,14,32 and seven in Taiwan.37-
39
In selecting these test data, a number of screens were applied.
They were as follows:
1. Specimens with floor slab, transverse beam, beam bars
with plate anchorage, beam bottom bars bent downward into the
lower column, or eccentricity between column and beam axes
were omitted.
2. Only specimens failing in a joint or a beam adjacent to a col-
umn were considered; specimens with a relocated beam hinge or
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
those that had failed prematurely in a column or due to anchorage
were omitted.
3. The proposed model employed the projected length of hooked
beam bars in defining the inclination angle of the diagonal strut,
which means that the upper left node [Fig. 3(a)] does not coincide
with the centroid of the extreme longitudinal reinforcement in the
column. Owing to the limitation of this adopted assumption, spec-
imens with the inner face of the hooked end of beam bars closer
than 0.6hc to the inner face of the column were omitted.
853
Table 1—Experimental verification
Vjh,test , Failure Calcula- V jh,calc, Vjh,test/
Authors Specimens fc′ , MPa fyh , MPa fyv , MPa N /A g fc′ kN mode θ, deg A str , cm 2 A th, mm 2 Atv , mm2 tion type kN V jh,calc
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Megget 28 Unit A 22.1 317 365 0.07 576 J1 53 389 1330 774 E 419 1.38
Blakeley et al.29 Exterior 48.0 297 289 0.00 1104 F1 56 1176 5680 4914 E 2398 0.46
2 29.0 389 0 0.11 194 F1 42 194 426 0 YV 261 0.75
Lee et al.30 5 24.8 389 0 0.00 206 J1 42 142 426 0 YV 172 1.19
6 24.8 273 0 0.00 208 J1 42 142 126 0 YVH 155 1.34
Unit 1 22.6 326 296 0.05 754 J1 55 616 1356 1256 E 631 1.19
Paulay et al. 31 Unit 2 22.5 326 296 0.15 990 J1 55 788 942 1256 YH 711 1.39
Unit 3 26.9 316 296 0.05 753 F1 55 616 628 1256 YH 634 1.19
Park et al. 18 Unit 3 38.2 321 485 0.10 606 F1 49 415 471 628 YH 643 0.94
U40L 24.3 0 0 0.00 256 J3 59 404 0 0 YHV 203 1.26
U41L 26.7 294 0 0.00 339 J2 59 225 256 0 YVH 231 1.47
Kanada et al.32 U42L 30.1 294 0 0.00 337 J2 59 225 640 0 YVH 296 1.14
U20L 26.7 0 0 0.00 188 J2 59 225 0 0 YHV 124 1.52
U21L 30.1 294 0 0.00 198 J2 59 225 256 0 YVH 258 0.77
1B 33.6 437 490 0.06 554 J3 68 520 881 568 YH 483 1.15
3B 40.9 437 490 0.06 591 J2 68 271 881 568 YH 364 1.62
Ehsani et al. 33 4B 44.6 437 490 0.06 635 J1 66 267 881 568 YH 398 1.60
5B 24.3 437 414 0.13 571 J3 62 670 881 1019 YH 574 0.99
6B 39.8 437 490 0.07 469 J1 62 354 881 568 YH 514 0.88
J1 39.4 531 483 0.05 438 J2 57 271 516 1019 YH 436 1.01
Zerbe et al. 34
J3 39.9 531 483 0.05 449 F1 56 270 516 1019 E 425 1.06
1 64.7 455 455 0.02 486 F1 58 307 881 568 YH 625 0.78
2 67.3 455 455 0.04 609 J1 58 332 881 568 YH 670 0.91
Ehsani et al. 35
3 64.7 455 455 0.07 542 J1 60 275 881 568 YH 551 0.98
4 67.3 455 455 0.05 627 J2 60 266 881 774 YH 548 0.93
LL8 56.5 446 479 0.04 860 J2 58 360 1161 774 E 724 1.19
LH8 56.5 446 479 0.04 838 J2 58 360 1935 774 E 793 1.06
HL8 56.5 446 457 0.07 987 J3 57 662 1161 1019 YH 1133 0.87
HH8 56.5 446 457 0.07 986 J2 57 392 1935 1019 E 852 1.16
LL11 74.5 446 479 0.03 769 J2 59 349 1161 774 YH 758 1.01
Alameddine 36 LH11 74.5 446 479 0.03 934 J1 59 347 1935 774 E 861 1.08
HL11 74.5 446 457 0.06 967 J3 59 644 1161 1019 YH 1187 0.82
HH11 74.5 446 457 0.06 1021 J2 59 385 1935 1019 E 937 1.09
LL14 92.4 446 479 0.02 878 J2 59 338 1161 774 YH 799 1.10
LH14 92.4 446 479 0.02 890 J2 58 337 1935 774 E 922 0.97
HH14 92.4 446 457 0.04 1032 J2 57 360 1935 1019 E 978 1.06
B1 30.0 291 387 0.07 246 J3 51 223 112 508 YH 267 0.92
B2 30.0 291 387 0.07 214 J2 51 149 112 508 YH 188 1.14
Fujii et al.11
B3 30.0 291 387 0.24 273 J3 51 274 112 508 YH 319 0.86
B4 30.0 291 387 0.24 287 J3 51 274 336 508 YH 342 0.84
Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 kN = 0.2248 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

The specimens selected encompass a wide range of material
properties, geometry, loading, loading sequence, and reinforce-
ment detailing, as summarized in Table 1 according to chronolog-
ical order. The experimental joint strengths V jh,test in Table 1 were
either reported in the literature or derived using Eq. (1) based on
the maximum value of the beam shears measured during the test.
The failure modes of the selected specimens were classified
into F1, J1, J2, and J3 groups according to the seismic perfor-
mance of the beam-column subassemblages (Fig. 11). The letter
F designates the beam flexural failure, and the letter J indicates
the joint shear failure. The classification of F1 and J1 means that
the joint strength can reach its design value and that the ductility
of beam-column subassemblages is up to four (Fig. 11).
The design level of the joint shear strength was gaged by the
ratio Pmax /Py to exceed 1.1 (Fig. 11), which is explained as fol-
lows. The beam-column joints under seismic loading are de-
signed assuming that the tensile stress in the beam longitudinal
reinforcement equals 1.25 times greater than the nominal yield
stress.2 The statistics of the strengths of Grade 60 reinforcing
bars 40 indicated that an actual yield stress of reinforcement is
approximately 1.13 times greater than its nominal value.
Therefore, the design requirement of joint strength is consid-
ered to be satisfied when the strain hardening increases the
tensile stresses in the beam longitudinal reinforcement by ten
percent over the actual tensile yield stresses, that is, 1.1 = 1.25/
1.13 (Fig. 11).
The failure Mode J2 means that the yielding of the beam bars
precedes the joint shear failure, and the above sequence of J3 is in
reverse (Fig. 11). It is noted that, in the proposed model, the depth
of diagonal strut as of Specimens F1, J1, and J2 was determined by
Eq. (6), and that the as of Specimen J3 was calculated by Eq. (5).

854 1999
Table 1 (cont.)—Experimental verification
V jh,test , Failure Calcula- Vjh,calc , V jh,test/
Authors Specimens f c′ , MPa fyh , MPa fyv , MPa N A
/ g f c′ kN mode θ, deg A str, cm2 Ath , mm 2 A tv , mm 2 tion type kN Vjh,calc
1 31.1 250 0 0.17 249 F1 48 192 168 0 YVH 266 0.93
2 41.7 250 0 0.10 244 F1 48 162 168 0 YVH 300 0.82
3 41.7 250 0 0.00 212 J1 48 121 168 0 YVH 225 0.94
4 44.7 281 0 0.17 236 J1 48 189 42 0 YVH 349 0.68
5 36.7 281 0 0.09 220 J1 48 158 42 0 YVH 249 0.89
6 40.4 281 0 0.00 208 J1 48 121 42 0 YVH 210 0.99
7 32.2 250 395 0.12 249 F1 47 172 168 284 YH 239 1.04
8 41.2 250 395 0.08 243 F1 47 154 168 284 YH 265 0.91
Kaku et al.14
9 40.6 250 395 0.00 234 J1 47 121 168 284 YH 216 1.08
10 44.4 281 395 0.17 241 F1 47 190 42 284 YH 313 0.77
11 41.9 281 395 0.08 229 J1 47 153 42 284 YH 257 0.89
12 35.1 281 395 0.00 207 J1 47 121 42 284 YH 183 1.14
13 46.4 250 395 –0.04 207 J1 47 103 168 284 YH 202 1.02
14 41.0 281 282 0.08 224 J1 47 154 42 128 YHV 261 0.86
15 39.7 281 395 0.08 229 J1 47 155 42 71 YHV 233 0.98
16 37.4 250 381 0.00 250 F1 47 121 168 508 YH 214 1.17
Chen et al. 37 C1 25.0 400 323 0.35 639 F1 52 1106 852 2040 YH 1150 0.56
NN-28 33.4 434 463 0.00 1142 J3 59 1075 1161 1290 YH 1205 0.95
Hwang et al. 38 HL-28 33.4 434 463 0.00 1226 J3 49 1002 774 1290 YH 1365 0.90
HL-70 70.3 542 463 0.00 1397 J2 57 588 1200 1290 E 1010 1.38
NZS-70 70.0 476 448 0.00 1490 F1 47 576 1200 1638 E 1340 1.11
Hwang et al. 39 LHL-70 62.4 476 500 0.00 1092 J2 56 400 1200 1020 E 837 1.30
LHL-70-D 64.2 500 500 0.00 1063 J2 56 400 774 1020 YH 803 1.32
Total 63 Average 1.05
Coefficient of variation 0.22
Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 kN = 0.2248 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

Fig. 11—Classification of failure modes of beam-column subas-

In Fig. 12, the experimentally determined shear strengths from
63 joint tests are compared to the shear strengths predicted by the
method presented in this paper. The strength ratios that are defined
as the ratios of the measured to the calculated strength are listed in
Table 1 to indicate the precision of the proposed model.
Satisfactory results are obtained in Fig. 12 for the compari-
son of the measured and computed strengths. The average
strength ratio is 1.05 and the coefficient of variation is 22 per-
cent (Table 1). Data cover a broad spectrum of exterior beam-col-
Fig. 12—Correlation of experimental and predicted joint shear
strengths.
umn joints (Table 1) including variations in concrete strength (22
< f c′ < 93 MPa), axial loads (-0.04 ≤ N/Ag f c′ ≤ 0.35), joint shapes
(42 deg ≤ θ ≤ 68 deg), joint sizes (180 < V jh,test < 1500 kN), and the
omission of joint hoops or intermediate column bars in detailing.
Despite the difference in test specimens, the proposed model pre-
dicted their shear strengths reasonably well (Fig. 12).

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999 855

Table 2—Statistics of shear strength ratios It is noted that, traditionally, the crushing strength of the
between experimental and predicted values concrete in a strut is referred to as the effective compression
Failure mode strength,41 which is a value usually less than f c′ . Based on the
experience of this study, the effective compression strength41
Calculation
type F1 J1 J2 J3 Total should be strongly correlated with the compression softening
theory of the cracked concrete. 21,22 The possibility of unifying
0.88† 1.22 1.15 1.11
E 3* 3 8 None 14 these two approaches is attractive, but was not be pursued fur-
0.41‡ 0.12 0.12 0.20 ther in this paper.
0.92 1.10 1.19 0.92 1.03
YH 8 9 7 9 33
0.23 0.22 0.18 0.11 0.22 CONCLUSIONS
0.75 1.19 0.97 A proposal for determining the shear strength of exterior beam-
YV 1 1 None None 2
— — 0.33 column joints for seismic resistance is made. The so-called soft-
0.92 1.52 1.26 1.16 ened strut-and-tie model is derived from the concept of struts and
YHV None 2 1 1 4 ties, and it also satisfies equilibrium, compatibility, and the stress-
0.10 — — 0.26
strain characteristics of cracked reinforced concrete.
0.88 0.97 1.13 1.00
YVH 2 5 3 None 10 The proposed method was found to reproduce 63 test results
0.10 0.25 0.31 0.25 from the literature with reasonable accuracy.
0.89 1.07 1.18 0.96 1.05 The proposed physical model can provide valuable insights
Total 14 20 19 10 63
0.25 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.22 into the seismic behavior of exterior beam-column joints, and it
*No. of specimens. is in a ready format to serve analytical purposes such as the seis-
†
Average of V jh,test/Vjh,calc . mic evaluation of existing joints. Further development of joint
‡Coefficient of varation of V
jh,test/Vjh,calc . design methods may well incorporate this approach.

The accuracy of the proposed model under varied conditions is ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

further examined in Table 2. The proposed model predicted the This research study was sponsored by the National Science Council of the
shear strengths well for the specimens failing in the joints, while Republic of China under Project NSC 86-2211-E011-014. The authors
at least one of the ties was still effective in constraining the would like to express their gratitude for the support.
cracks. Table 2 shows that better precision was obtained for the
estimations of Groups J1 and J2 with Types E (COV = 12 per- NOTATIONS
cent), but that there was wider dispersion for Group F1 or Type ab = depth of compression zone in beam adjacent to joint
ac = depth of compression zone in column adjacent to joint
YVH specimens. Concerning the different failure models of
as = depth of diagonal strut
joints, the lower degree of correlation for Group F1 (COV = 25 Ag = gross area of column section
percent; Table 2) is consistent with its lower strength ratio (AVG Astr = effective area of diagonal strut
= 0.89). The reason is that the maximum stress was dictated by the Ath, Atv = areas of horizontal and vertical ties, respectively
beam flexural failure and that the joint strength might not be fully bs = width of diagonal strut
developed for the F1 specimen. Cb = compressive force resulting from compression zone of beam
C c1 , C c 2 = compressive forces resulting from compression zone of
With regard to the different calculation types, an interesting columns above and below joint, respectively
observation is noted. Speaking of the shear strength ratios of the d = direction of diagonal concrete strut; and assumed direction
specimens with the J1 failure mode in Table 2, the ratio of Type of principal compressive stress of concrete
E is larger, the values of Types YH and YV are medium, and the D = compression force in diagonal strut
Es = elastic modulus of steel bar
ratios of Types YHV and YVH are smaller. This phenomenon
f c′ = compressive strength of standard concrete cylinder
can be interpreted as follows. The occurrence of more yielding fh , fv = steel stresses in h- and v- directions, respectively
mechanisms leads to greater damage accumulating within the fs = average tensile stress of mild steel bars, taken as fh and fv in
joint. Consequently, less joint strength is expected. Since the h- and v-directions, respectively
proposed model does not consider the progressive deterioration fy = yield strength of bare mild steel
fyh, fyv = yield strength of bare mild steel of joint hoop reinforce-
of a joint due to the accumulated damage, overestimating the
ment and intermediate column bars, respectively
shear strength for the joint with more yielded ties might occur. Fh , F v = tension forces in horizontal and vertical ties, respectively
Table 2 also reveals that the proposed model may under-pre- Fyh, Fyv = yielding forces of horizontal and vertical ties, respectively
dict the shear strengths for Group J2 (AVG = 1.18) and over- h = direction of joint hoop reinforcement
predict the results for Group J3 (AVG = 0.96). This observation hb = beam depth
h′b = internal lever arm in beam
is attributed to the matter of selection for the depth of diagonal h′′b = distance between extreme longitudinal reinforcement in beam
strut as by Eq. (5) or (6). The estimations of Eq. (5) for J3 cases hc = thickness of column in direction of loading
may be large, and the predictions of Eq. (6) for J2 cases may be h′c = internal lever arm in column
too small. A formula giving multiple estimations of as for J2 h′′c = distance between centroid of extreme longitundinal rein-
cases seems to be needed. forcement in column and centroid of bar extension at free
end of 90-deg hooked bar, but not greater than distance
It is worthwhile to point out that there are two specimens, between extreme longitudinal bars in column for case with
U40L and U20L tested by Kanada et al.,32 which were not de- beam stub
tailed with the joint hoop nor the intermediate column bar. The N = axial force acting on column
proposed model yields conservative but reasonable estimations P = load applied at beam end
Pmax = maximum load of P
for these seismically insufficient joints (Table 1). This indicates
Py = load P at yielding of beam bar
the possible application of the proposed model in the seismic r = direction perpendicular to d; and assumed direction of
evaluation for retrofits. principal tensile stress
The analytical model in this paper was derived from the strut- Rd , R h , R v = ratios of joint shears carried by diagonal, horizontal, and
and-tie method, and it also satisfies the force equilibrium, strain vertical mechanisms, respectively
Tb = tensile force resulting from steel of beam
compatibility, and the constitutive laws of cracked reinforced T c1 , T c 2 = tensile forces resulting from tensile steel of columns above
concrete. Therefore, it is proposed to term the analytical proce- and below joint, respectively
dure as the softened strut-and-tie model. v = direction of intermediate column bars

856 1999
Vb = vertical beam shear adjacent to joint
V c1, V c2 = horizontal column shears above and below joint, respectively
V jh , V jv = horizontal and vertical joint shear forces, respectively
∆ = displacement measured at beam end
∆y = displacement ∆ at Py
εd, εr = average normal strains in d- and r-directions, respectively
(positive for tension); and assumed principal strains
εh, εv = average normal strains in the h- and v-directions, respec-
tively (positive for tension)
εo = strain at peak stress of standard concrete cylinder; and
–0.002 – 0.001(f c′ – 20)/80 (f c′ in units of MPa)
εs = average tensile strain of mild steel bars, taken as ε h and ε v
in h- and v-directions, respectively
γh = fraction of horizontal shear transferred by horizontal tie
with absence of vertical tie
γv = fraction of vertical shear carried by vertical tie with
absence of horizontal tie
θ = angle of inclination of h-axis with respect to d-axis
ζ = softening coefficient of concrete in compression
σ d , σr = average normal stresses in d- and r-directions, respectively
(positive for tension); and assumed principal stresses
σ d,max = maximum compressive stress exerting on nodal zone in d-
direction
REFERENCES
1. NZS 3101:1995, Concrete Structures Standard, NZS 3101: Part 1,
Commentary NZS 3101: Part 2, Standards Association of New Zealand,
Wellington, 1995.
2. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
3. Architectural Institute of Japan, Design Guidelines for Earthquake
Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based on Ultimate Strength Con-
cept and Commentary, Oct. 1990, 340 pp. (in Japanese)
4. Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O.
Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, 518
pp.
5. Aoyama, H., “Empirical versus Rational Approach in Structural Engi-
neering—What We Learned from New Zealand in Trilateral Cooperative
Research on Beam-Column Joints,” Recent Developments in Lateral Force
Transfer in Buildings , Thomas Paulay Symposium, SP-157, N. Priestly, M.
P. Collins, and F. Seible, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 1995, pp. 31-57.
6. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., “Analytical Model for Predicting Shear
Strengths of Interior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seis-
mic Resistance,” submitted to ACI Structural Journal for publication,
1998.
7. Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., “Development of Design
Criteria for Reinforced Concrete 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.
8. Hanson, N. W., “Seismic Resistance of Concrete Frames with Grade
60 Reinforcement,” Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of
ASCE, V. 97, No. ST6, June 1971, pp. 1685-1700.
9. Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., “Shear Strength of RC Beam-Column
Connections,” Journal of the Structural Division , Proceedings of ASCE, V.
107, No. ST11, Nov. 1981, pp. 2227-2244.
10. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Con-
crete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, 1992, 744 pp.
11. Fujii, S., and Morita, S., “Comparison between Interior and Exterior
RC Beam-Column Joint Behavior,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 145-165.
12. Otani, S., “The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) Proposal of
Ultimate Strength Design Requirements for RC Buildings with Emphasis
on Beam-Column Joints,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic
Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farming-
ton Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 125-144.
13. Park, R., and Keong, Y. S., “Tests on Structural Concrete Beam-Column
Joints with Intermediate Column Bars,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National
Society for Earthquake Engineering , V. 12, No. 3, Sept. 1979, pp. 189-203.
14. Kaku, T., and Asakusa, H., “Ductility Estimation of Exterior Beam-
Column Subassemblages in Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Design of
Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance , SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 167-185.
15. Hsu, T. T. C., “Toward a Unified Nomenclature for Reinforced Con-
crete Theory,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 122, No. 3,
Mar. 1996, pp. 275-283. Also, discussion by Y. L. Mo and author, V. 123,
No. 12, Dec. 1997, pp. 1691-1693.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
16. Zhang, L., and Jirsa, J. O., “Study of Shear Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” PMFSEL Report No. 82-1, University of
Texas at Austin, Feb. 1982, 118 pp.
17. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 266-283.
18. Park, R., and Milburn, J. R., “Comparison of Recent New Zealand
and United States Seismic Design Provisions for Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints and Tests Results from Four Units Designed Accord-
ing to the New Zealand Code,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Soci-
ety for Earthquake Engineering, V. 16, No. 1, Mar. 1983, pp. 3-24.
19. Schäfer, K., “Strut-and-Tie Models for Design of Structural Con-
crete,” Notes of Workshop, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Tai-
wan, Mar. 1996, 140 pp.
20. Jennewein, M., and Schäfer, K., “Standardisierte Nachweise von
häufigen D-Bereichen,” DAfStb. Heft No. 430, Beuth-Verlag, Berlin,
1992. (in German)
21. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “Compression Response of
Cracked Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 119, No. 12, Dec. 1993, pp. 3590-3610.
22. Zhang, L. X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior and Analysis of 100
MPa Concrete Membrane Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 124, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 24-34.
23. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; Adebar, P.; and Vecchio, F. J., “General
Shear Design Method,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
1996, pp. 36-45.
24. Pang, X. B. D., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Fixed Angle Softened Truss
Model for Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. 1996, pp. 197-207.
25. Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I., “Design of Nonflexural Members
with Normal and High-Strength Concretes,” ACI Structural Journal , V. 93,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 3-10.
26. Hsu, T. T. C., Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press,
Inc., Boca Raton, Fla., 1993, 336 pp.
27. Kollegger, J., and Mehlhorn, G., “Experimentelle Untersuchungen
zur Bestimmung der Druckfestigkeit des gerissenen Stahlbetons bei einer
Querzugbean-spruchung,” Report 413, Deutscher, Ausschuss Fur Stahlbe-
ton, Berlin, 1990. (in German)
28. Megget, L. M., “Cyclic Behaviour of Exterior Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering, V. 7, No. 1, Mar. 1974, pp. 22-47.
29. Blakeley, R. W. G.; Megget, L. M.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Seismic
Performance of Two Full-Size Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint
Units,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engi-
neering , V. 8, No. 1, Mar. 1975, pp. 38-69.
30. Lee, D. L. N.; Wight, J. K.; and Hanson, R. D., “RC Beam-Column
Joints under Large Load Reversals,” Journal of Structural Division, Pro-
ceedings of the ASCE, V. 103, No. ST12, Dec. 1977, pp. 2337-2350.
31. Paulay, T., and Scarpas, A., “Behavior of Exterior Beam-Column
Joints,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engi-
neering , V. 14, No. 3, Sept. 1981, pp. 131-144.
32. Kanada, K.; Kondon, G.; Fujii, S.; and Morita, S., “Relation Between
Beam Bar Anchorage and Shear Resistance at Exterior Beam-Column
Joints,” Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 6, 1984, pp. 433-
440.
33. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., “Exterior Reinforced Concrete
Beam-to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,”
ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 492-499.
34. Zerbe, H. E., and Durrani, A. J., “Effect of Slab on Behavior of Exte-
rior Beam-to-Column Connections,” Report No. 30, Rice University,
Houston, Tex., Mar. 1985, 159 pp.
35. Ehsani, M. R.; Moussa, A. E.; and Vallenilla, C. R., “Comparison of
Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Ordinary and High-Strength Concrete
Frames,” ACI Structural Journal , V. 84, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1987, pp. 161-
169.
36. Alameddine, F. F., “Seismic Design Recommendation for High-
Strength Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections,” PhD thesis, University
of Arizona, 1990, 257 pp.
37. Chen, G. K., and Chen, C. C., “Cyclic Behavior of Eccentric Corner
RC Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil and
Hydraulic Engineering, V. 8, No. 4, Dec. 1996, pp. 579-588. (in Chinese)
38. Hwang, S. J., and Lin, M. S., “Evaluation of Seismic Behavior of
Corner Beam-Column Joints Using High-Performance Concrete (I),”
National Science Council Project Report , No. NSC 85-2211-E-011-004,
Taiwan, Oct. 1996, 271 pp. (in Chinese)
39. Hwang, S. J., and Chen, C. S., “Evaluation of Seismic Behavior of
Corner Beam-Column Joints Using High-Performance Concrete (II),”
National Science Council Project Report , No. NSC 86-2211-E-011-014,
Taiwan, Dec. 1997, 291 pp. (in Chinese)
40. MacGregor, J. G.; Mirza, S. A.; and Ellingwood, B., “Statistical
857
Analysis of Resistance of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Members,”
ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 80, No. 3, May-June 1983, pp. 167-176.
41. MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design,
Prentice-Hall International, Inc., 1997, 939 pp.

858 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999

View publication stats