ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
MS No. S-2012-303.R3
Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames with
Haunch Retrofit Solution
by Akanshu Sharma, G. R. Reddy, R. Eligehausen, G. Genesio, and S. Pampanin
Haunch retrofit solution (HRS) has been investigated as a viable
alternative for retrofitting of beam-column joints of reinforced
concrete (RC) frame structures. For connecting the haunch
elements to the frame members, partially prestressed rods were
used. This solution, however, makes it difficult for implementation
in practice due to the requirement of drilling holes through the slab.
A more practical solution is to connect the haunch elements using
post-installed anchors, resulting in fully fastened HRS (FFHRS).
The solution has been tested at the subassembly level, and encour-
aging results were obtained. To verify the performance of the
FFHRS to retrofit the frame structures subjected to real-life seismic
loads, shake-table tests were performed on non-seismically detailed
two-dimensional (2-D) RC frame structures. This paper presents the
results of the experiments with the detailed discussion of the perfor-
mance of the FFHRS under earthquake ground motions.
Keywords: haunch retrofit solution; non-seismic detailing; post-installed
anchors; reinforced concrete; seismic performance; shake-table tests.
INTRODUCTION
The performance of reinforced concrete (RC) frame struc-
tures, especially designed and constructed with non-seismic
provisions, under seismic loads is largely governed by the
performance of beam-column joints. Several past earth-
quakes have exposed that one of the most severe deficien-
cies in such RC frame structures that make it vulnerable
against earthquakes is the inadequate shear resistance of
beam-column joints. Under the action of seismic forces,
beam-column joints are subjected to large shear stresses in
the core. The axial and joint shear stresses result in principal
tension and compression that leads to diagonal cracking
and/or crushing of concrete in the joint core.1 These stresses
in the joint core are resisted by the so-called strut and tie
mechanism.2 Due to the absence of shear reinforcement
in the joints of old non-seismically detailed structures, the
joints suffer from insufficient shear strength, which leads to
their failure in the event of an earthquake. To extract better
seismic performance from such structures, retrofitting of
beam-column joints is essential.
Relatively recently, Pampanin et al.3 developed and
validated the haunch retrofit solution (HRS) for RC beam-
column joints. The solution consists of a haunch element,
which primarily consists of a diagonal axial element in the
form of a machined bar/plate connected to plates at both ends,
connected to a beam and column (Fig. 1). The underlying
principle of the HRS is to relocate the plastic hinge away
from the vulnerable joint panel/core while enhancing the
global response of non-seismically designed RC joint subas-
sembly by altering the hierarchy of strength suitably. This
would reduce the shear force transferred to the joint core.
ACI Structural Journal
TECHNICAL PAPER
Fig. 1—Schematic of haunch retrofit solutions tested at
subassembly level.
To connect the haunch element, two types of connections
between diagonal axial element and plates—namely, hinged
and welded—were studied.3 In one specimen, a yielding-type
fuse element was used as an axial element. To connect the
haunch element with beams and columns, two partially
prestressed external rods along with two anchors directly
fastened to both beam and column were used. Figures 1(a) and
(b) show the schematic of the HRS used by Pampanin et al.3
It was reported1 that the retrofitted specimens displayed
a substantially enhanced response when compared with the
non-retrofitted specimens: damage to the joint was elim-
inated, and a flexural plastic hinge formed in the beam at
the location of the beam-haunch connection. One prohibitive
requirement of the connection proposed by them, however,
was to use external partially prestressed rods to connect the
haunch to the frame. Though, in laboratory tests, it could
be easily achieved, to do the same in real structures would
require drilling through holes in the slabs of the structure,
which renders the solution prohibitive.
To eliminate this limitation, further investigations were
carried out at the subassembly level to evaluate the perfor-
mance of haunch elements connected to the frame members
by using post-installed mechanical anchors.4-6 The exper-
imental program on beam-column joints retrofitted with a
fully fastened haunch retrofit solution (FFHRS), as shown
in Fig. 1(c), produced encouraging results that proved the
efficacy of the FFHRS to prevent the joint failure5 (Fig. 2).
The tests clearly demonstrated that FFHRS can successfully
modify the hierarchy of the joint subassembly, and lead to
desirable failure mechanisms such as beam flexure.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 1-6, January-December 2014.
MS No. S-2012-303.R3 received March 8, 2013, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2014, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion is received within four
months of the paper’s print publication.
1
Fig. 2—Comparison of as-built and retrofitted joint5.
Fig. 3—Mechanics of conventional exterior joint.
The seismic performance of any system or structure can
be best assessed by performing a shake-table test. To verify
the suitability of the FFHRS for retrofitting of the joints of
structures when subjected to dynamic earthquake loading,
tests were performed on two-dimensional (2-D) RC frame
structures. Two RC frame structures exactly the same were
constructed and tested on the shake table: 1) without FFHRS
(as-built structure); and 2) with FFHRS (retrofitted struc-
ture). The frames were designed such that the exterior joints
of the frames are a two-thirds scale replica of the joints
tested previously.4-6 This paper provides the details of the
tests conducted on 2-D frame structures without and with
FFHRS. The experiments clearly proved the efficacy of the
FFHRS for retrofitting and improving the seismic perfor-
mance of non-seismically detailed RC frame structures.
Further experimental data, however, is required to support
the findings of this study.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper presents an experimental study, in terms of
shake-table tests, carried out to verify the suitability and effi-
cacy of the FFHRS to improve the seismic performance of
the non-seismically detailed RC frame structures. The paper
presents the results on the seismic behavior of non-seis-
2 ACI Structural Journal
mically detailed RC frame structures (especially joints),
including the seismic response and failure modes. It further
provides the results of test on the retrofitted structure to
understand the seismic behavior of RC structures with joints
retrofitted with FFHRS under real seismic situations.
MECHANICS OF JOINTS RETROFITTED WITH HRS
To understand the behavior of beam-column joints retro-
fitted with HRS, it is important to understand the effect of
the same in redistributing the forces and moments in a joint.
Consider an exterior beam-column joint subassembly formed
by the assumed points of inflexion at midheight of columns
and midspan of beams, as shown in Fig. 3(a). The dashed lines
depict the physical dimensions of the members, while the solid
lines with rounded ends depict the frame element to model the
members and their end nodes, respectively. The joint is applied
by a beam end load Vb. The bending moment and shear force
diagrams for the joint subassembly are as depicted in Fig. 3(b)
and (c), respectively. Due to the applied load Vb, the joint panel
is subjected to a horizontal joint shear force given by
Mb L L + 0.5hc 
V jh = − Vc = Vb  b − b  (1)
Zb  Zb Lc
Fig. 4—Mechanics of joint retrofitted with diagonal haunch elements.
where Zb is the lever arm of internal forces in the beam at
column face. Other symbols are explained in Fig. 3. This
shear force is the major cause of failure of the joint panel.
Consider the same joint subassembly, retrofitted with two
diagonal haunch elements, as shown in Fig. 4(a). The phys-
ical dimension of the joint is shown by a dotted line, and
the central solid line depicts the frame element to model the
same. To take into account for the physical dimensions of
beam and column, a rigid link is used to connect the end
nodes of the haunch element to the beam and column. The
bending moment and shear force diagrams for the joint
subassembly are as depicted in Fig. 4(b) and (c), respec-
tively. As seen in Fig. 4(b), under the applied beam end load
Vb, the maximum bending moment in the beam occurs at the
point of connectivity of the haunch Mbh, given by
Mbh = Vb(Lb – Lh) (2)
where Lh is the horizontal projected length of the
haunch element.
Beyond the point of connectivity of the haunch element,
the bending moment in the beam gradually reduces. The
rate of reduction on bending moment depends on the rela-
tive stiffness of the beam and the haunch element.3,4 Thus, at
the face of the column, the moment in the beam Mb′ is less
than the moment Mbh. Similarly, the bending moment was
reduced in the column at the face of the beam Mc′, and the
reduced shear forces in the beam Vb′ and column Vc′, beyond
the haunch element. The reduced joint horizontal shear force
for the haunch retrofitted joint Vjh′ can now be obtained as
M b′
V jh = − Vc′ (3)
Z b′
where Zb′ is the lever arm of the internal forces in the beam
at the face of the column. A more detailed discussion on
the mechanics of joints retrofitted with HRS can be obtained
from Reference 1. Based on the aforementioned mechanics,
it can be observed that the effect of haunch in reducing the
joint horizontal shear force is essentially two-fold: 1) modi-
ACI Structural Journal
fying the critical section for flexure and thereby reducing
the maximum bending moment in the beam for a given
applied load (effect of geometry); and 2) further reducing
the bending moment at the face of the column due to redis-
tribution of forces (effect of stiffness).
Therefore, by designing the haunch element suitably, the
horizontal joint shear stress can be significantly reduced
compared with the as-built joint. It should be considered,
however, that at the point of connectivity of haunch with
beam and column, the shear force suddenly rises. Therefore,
this system should not be used for the case where the members
are or may become shear critical due to the haunch element.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST STRUCTURE
The geometry of the structure considered for the experi-
ments is shown in Fig. 5. The structure is a plane frame RC
structure with two storys, and one bay configuration. The
sizes and reinforcement details of the structural elements
were decided so that a typical exterior joint of the structure
corresponds to two-thirds scale of the joint subassembly
tested by Genesio and Sharma.5 The scaling was essential to
accommodate the limitations of the shake table.
Due to a linear scaling factor SL of 1.5, the column height,
which was 3230 mm (127.2 in.) in case of beam-column
joints,4-6 was reduced to 2150 mm (84.65 in.), while the
beam clear span, which was 3450 mm (135.83 in.) in case
of joints4-6 was reduced to 2300 mm (90.55 in.) in this struc-
ture. Similarly, the dimensions of the beam length, as well
as beam and column sections, were linearly scaled. Due
to limitations on material availability, the material scaling
factor was kept as unity for both steel and concrete. The
maximum size of aggregate (msa), however, was limited to
12 mm (0.47 in.), while the msa of 20 mm (0.79 in.) was
used for casting of beam-column joints. For material scaling
factor of unity, according to similitude requirements,7 the
required model reinforcement area to provide the scaled
bar yielding force was calculated by dividing the area of
reinforcement in the prototype (beam-column joint) by the
square of linear scaling factor. The evaluated area of rein-
forcement was provided within the constraints of avail-
3
Fig. 5—Geometry of frame structure tested. (Note: Dimensions in mm.)
ability of reinforcement bar sizes. Because the density and
modulus of elasticity of concrete in the prototype and model
was practically equal, a mass simulation approach given in
References 8 through 10 was followed to evaluate the addi-
tional inertial mass to be placed on the beams. Basically,
the amount of mass was defined to comply with a period of
vibration of the prototype.
Typical non-seismic design philosophy was followed for the
structure. The details of the beam and column sections for the
structure are given in Fig. 5. The clear cover to the reinforcing
bars of the beam was kept as 20 mm (0.79 in.), while that for the
column was kept as 25 mm (0.98 in.). The beam reinforcement
bars were bent into the joint core for all the joints, while no
shear reinforcement was provided in the joint core.
The concrete mixture consisted of 371 kg/m3 (23.16 lb/ft3) of
cement, 1005 kg/m3 (62.74 lb/ft3) of fine aggregate (sand),
and 872 kg/m3 (54.44 lb/ft3) of coarse aggregate. The
water-cement ratio was maintained as 0.40. The average
cubic concrete compressive strength at the day of testing was
obtained as 28.29 MPa (4103 psi). High-strength deformed
bars were used as reinforcement. The average yield and ulti-
mate strength of the reinforcing bars was 518 and 608 MPa
(75.13 and 88.18 ksi), respectively, for the 16 mm (0.63 in.)
bar; 534 and 620 MPa (77.45 and 89.92 ksi), respectively,
for the 12 mm (0.47 in.) bar; and 529 and 616 MPa (76.72
and 89.34 ksi), respectively, for the 8 mm (0.31 in.) bar.
FULLY FASTENED HAUNCH RETROFIT SOLUTION
For joints retrofitted with FFHRS, the extent of redistribu-
tion of the shear around the joint core is decided by the stiff-
4 ACI Structural Journal
ness of the haunch element, which depends on its dimensions
and material, as well as by the stiffness of the anchors in
case of FFHRS. It is desirable to keep the size of the haunch
element in the range of approximately 0.1 to 0.2 times the
length of the beam, considering anchor layout and architec-
tural and structural requirements. A smaller size of haunch
would result in a closer critical section to the joint, while a
bigger haunch size would make it closer to bracing, and may
not be architecturally acceptable. If the haunch is designed
well and the anchors deliver good performance, the failure
mode of the subassembly should essentially be beam flexure.
Pampanin et al.3 proposed an iterative procedure for the
design of the HRS, where a factor expressing the effectiveness
(capability of redistribution of shear) of the HRS is determined
while giving due consideration to beam and column deform-
ability. Based on the tests at the beam-column joint sub-as-
semblies and numerical parametric studies, Genesio4 extended
the guidelines to consider the stiffness of the anchors while
designing the FFHRS using post-installed anchors. The typical
input parameters for the design of FFHRS include the dimen-
sions, geometry, and material properties of members framing
into the joint and of the trial haunch element, along with
the stiffness of the anchors proposed to connect the haunch
element. The design of the anchors is performed based on
the guidelines given by Eligehausen et al.11 The details of the
design procedure can be obtained from References 3 and 4.
The design of the haunch elements in this work was performed
following the design procedure recommended by Genesio.4
The haunch elements used in the retrofitting of the frame
structure consisted of three machined steel plates welded

Fig. 6—Schematic of haunch elements used for retrofitting
of frame. (Note: Dimensions in mm.)
together. Figure 6 shows the schematic drawing of the
haunch elements used in this work. All plates used were
10 mm (0.39 in.) thick. The haunch elements were connected
to the frame using bonded anchors, which were comprised of
10 mm (0.39 in.) diameter high-strength threaded rods glued
using two-component epoxy-based mortar. The effective
embedment depth of anchors was 100 mm (3.9 in.). Figure 7
represents an installed haunch element using bonded anchors.
TEST SETUP
The experiment was carried out on the triaxial shake-table
system. The system features a 100 kN (22,481 lb) payload
capacity shake table of size 3 x 3 m (118.1 x 118.1 in.). In
this work, only unidirectional tests were performed due to
the 2-D geometry of specimen. In such tests, certain out-of-
plane small vibrations are inevitable. To prevent any acci-
dental out-of-plane movement of the 2-D frame structures,
two steel frames were fabricated and placed on either side
of the frame on shake table. The frames were provided with
rollers, capable of rolling about the vertical axis at the first
and top story level. Figures 8(a) and (b) show the layout of the
as-built and retrofitted structure, respectively, along with the
supporting structure on the shake table. The shake table has a
grid of holes at 300 mm (11.81 in.) center-to-center spacing
to which the foundation of the test structure was bolted.
To simulate the floor mass, 1.0 tonne (2205 lb) of mass
concentrated in the middle 800 mm (31.5 in.) length of the
beam was added at each floor level. Considering the clear
dimension of the beam, the mass was concentrated in middle
third length of the beam in the as-built structure, and middle
half of the same in the case of the retrofitted structure. The
center of the mass was approximately 200 mm (7.9 in.) from
the top of the beam. The flanges of the mass were tightly bolted
so that the mass had a tight grip on the beam, and slipping
was prevented. It is true that distributed load is closer to real-
istically simulating the floor loads; however, in this case, the
load was kept concentrated partly due to the ease of fabrication
ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 7—Haunch element installed using bonded anchors.
Fig. 8—Layout on shake table.
and setup, and partly because it was not desirable to get too
close to the haunch element to avoid any accidental pounding
of mass on the retrofit. The supporting structures were placed
on either side of the frame in such a way that the rollers at each
floor level just barely touched the flange of the mass to prevent
out-of-plane motion. Figures 9(a) and (b) show the arrange-
ment of mass on the first floor beam of the structure.
The instrumentation for the 2-D frame consisted of the
accelerometers to measure the response acceleration history
at each floor as well as of the shake table (input), strain
gauge on reinforcing bars to measure strains at critical loca-
tions, and potentiometers to measure beam, column, and
joint shear deformations. The locations of strain gauges on
reinforcing bars are included in Fig. 5.
The time history compatible to the shape of the site-spe-
cific response spectrum used for seismic design of safety-re-
lated structures in Mumbai was used in the tests. Figure 10(a)
shows the 5% damped response spectrum for a peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of 0.2g, which was used to generate the
compatible acceleration time history. The obtained time
history was time scaled7,12 by a factor (1/SL)0.5. The typical
acceleration time history for a PGA of 0.2g, which was used
in the experiment, is shown in Fig. 10(b).
After completing the test setup, a sine sweep test was
performed to evaluate the natural frequencies of the struc-
ture. The natural time periods were obtained by the half-
5
Fig. 9—Arrangement of mass placed on structure.
Fig. 10—Response spectrum and time history corresponding
to 0.2g PGA used for experiment.
power bandwidth method.13 The structure was then subjected
to simulated seismic loading by providing the acceleration
time history corresponding to the spectral shape, as shown
in Fig. 10. The tests started with the time histories corre-
sponding to the PGA of 0.1g, and it was gradually increased
in steps of 0.1g until 1.0g, which was the limit of the shake-
table facility. After each loading wave, the test was paused
to mark the crack patterns on the structure.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Results of sine-sweep tests
The structures were first subjected to a sine sweep test to
evaluate the natural time periods of the structures. The time
period corresponding to the first mode was obtained as 0.31 s
(3.23 Hz) for the as-built structure, and 0.23 s (4.35 Hz) for
the retrofitted structure, while the same for second mode was
6 ACI Structural Journal
Fig. 11—Response spectrums from roof response time
history corresponding to 0.1g PGA.
obtained as 0.076 and 0.062 s (13.16 and 16.13Hz) for the
as-built structure and retrofitted structure, respectively. The
periods obtained are also shown in the 5% damped accel-
eration and displacement response spectrums for the two
structures in Fig. 11(a) and (b), respectively, obtained from
the roof response time history corresponding to 0.1g PGA
seismic loading. Due to this difference in the fundamental
time period of the two structures, the zero period acceler-
ation (ZPA) for the as-built structure (0.48g) is higher than
the ZPA for the retrofitted structure (0.41g).
Results of simulated seismic tests on
as-built structure
The structure was subjected to uni-axial seismic loading
stages for increasing levels of PGA. During the ground motion
corresponding to a PGA of 0.1g, no cracks were observed in
the structure, suggesting that the structure behaved essentially
in linear elastic fashion. The very first cracks, as expected,
appeared at the base of the column and on the column just
below the first floor beam during the loading wave with a
PGA of 0.2g. After the loading wave corresponding to a PGA
of 0.3g, several new cracks at the base of the column were
observed (Fig. 12(a)), as well as at the ends of the beams. It
is well known from the fundamental structural mechanics that
for such frame structures subjected to lateral loads as in the
case of earthquakes, the maximum bending moments occur
at the base of the structure, which is the reason for typical
flexural cracking at the base of the columns. In the case of
Fig. 12—Crack patterns corresponding to different input acceleration levels.
0.4g PGA, several new cracks were observed at the first floor
beam level on both sides (Fig. 12(a)). This is attributed to
the fact that once the cracks form at the base of the column,
the local stiffness reduces, and the increase in moment is
not observed. Consequently, the beam is subjected to higher
bending moments, resulting in significant cracking. During
the loading wave of 0.5g PGA, the first diagonal shear cracks
appeared at the joint (Fig. 12(a)). This highlights the vulnera-
bility of the beam-column joints of non-seismically designed
structures subjected to earthquakes. Further, this confirms that
to develop a suitable retrofit for this structure, the joints are
required to be strengthened or safeguarded, which is essen-
tially one of the major focuses of this work. During the loading
wave of 0.6g PGA, the diagonal shear cracks appeared on the
right-side joint as well (Fig. 12(a)). A few hairline diagonal
cracks also appeared on the joint. On the left-side joint, the
existing diagonal cracks propagated further and the existing
cracks opened up. At the base of column, a few more flexural
tensile cracks appeared. Corresponding to the loading wave
of 0.7g PGA, on the joint, the existing cracks opened, and a
small amount of spalling was observed from the point of inter-
section of the diagonal cracks. From this point onward, the
existing cracks opened, and more spalling was observed from
the joints. Figure 13(a) represents the final crack patterns and
failure modes observed in the test for all joints of the as-built
structure. As expected, the damage suffered by the roof corner
joints was much less compared with the exterior joints of
first floor. It can be concluded that joint shear failure was the
fundamental mode of failure for the structure.
For each loading wave, the response at the first floor and
roof level were measured using accelerometers. Figures
14(a) and (b) show the typical response at the first floor and
ACI Structural Journal
roof level, respectively, obtained for the as-built structure
corresponding to an input loading wave with a PGA of 0.2g,
as shown in Fig. 10. The peak floor acceleration (PFA) was
obtained from the measured acceleration-time histories for
each floor. The plot of PFA versus PGA thus obtained for the
as-built structure is depicted in Fig. 15. It can be observed
that during the initial loading waves, the PFA rises linearly
(though not proportionally) with the increasing PGA. When
the PGA reaches a value of 0.5g, the rise in PFA is blocked,
which is attributed to the joint cracking at this stage. The
PFA again rises with increasing PGA before it gets saturated
for PGA values of 0.8g, 0.9g, and 1.0g. This is attributed
to the corresponding increase in hysteretic damping of the
system due to induced damage. This also explains why no
further damage was observed in the tests during last three
loading waves. A summary of experimental results on the
as-built structure is given in Table 1.
To further investigate the system characteristics, the time
history obtained from the experiment corresponding to each
PGA level was used to generate a Fourier spectrum from
which the natural time period of the structure corresponding
to fundamental mode was obtained. Figure 16 shows the
plot of the variation of vibration period corresponding to
first mode as a function of the PGA. The plot clearly shows
that the fundamental time period of the structure elongates
with increasing PGA due to the damage inflicted in the
structure. The fundamental time period was increased from
0.31 s (for undamaged structure) to 0.45 s after completion
of the whole test series. This implies that the structural stiff-
ness for the damaged structure is approximately 50% of the
structural stiffness of the undamaged structure. As per the
response spectrum corresponding to input ground motion,
7
Fig. 13—Final failure modes observed in structures.
with an elongated time period, the structure would attract
less seismic forces compared with the undamaged structure.
Further, more damage implies more energy dissipation, and
hence, higher damping. These two reasons are responsible
for the saturation of peak floor accelerations and damage in
the structure. With further increase in PGA or with a higher
duration of loading, however, more damage could possibly
be inflicted; it was not, however, the objective of the test.
Figure 17 displays the plot of the peak displacement
obtained from the displacement time histories for the first
floor and roof as a function of PGA. For the as-built structure,
it can be seen that with the increasing PGA, the story displace-
ments keep rising, which is attributed to increasing PFA (Fig.
15) as well as an elongated time period (Fig. 16). From the
theory of structural dynamics, it is known that the flexible
structure (elongated time period) has a higher displacement
response for the same acceleration. Thus, in the case of the
as-built structure, the displacement demand is as high as 121
mm (4.76 in.) at the roof (approximately 2.8% global drift).
Joint shear deformations were measured by using diago-
nally installed potentiometers on the joint panel (Fig. 18).
The undeformed length of diagonal potentiometers is lj, and
8 ACI Structural Journal
they make an angle αj with horizontal. The joint deforms in
such a way that one potentiometer is elongated by an amount
δj, and the corresponding compression in the other diagonal
potentiometer is δj′. The joint shear deformation γj can then
be obtained as4
δ j − δ ′j  1 
γ j = γ1 + γ 2 =  tan α j + 
2l j  tan α j 
(4)
Figure 19 displays the variation of maximum joint shear
deformation for exterior joints of the frame as a function of
increasing PGA. It can be observed that there is a significant
increase in the joint shear deformation corresponding to 0.5g
PGA, which is attributed to the development of joint shear
cracks. A further increase in PGA results in a high increase of
joint shear deformation, and the maximum shear deformation
corresponding to 1.0g PGA was obtained as 0.0088 radians.
The experiment clearly displayed the vulnerability of the
beam-column joints of non-seismically designed frames
subjected to earthquake loading, and the structure success-
fully served its purpose as a benchmark specimen.
Table 1—Summary of experimental results on as-built and retrofitted structure
As-built Retrofitted
Peak response acceleration, g Peak response acceleration, g
PGA, g Roof First floor Observations Roof First floor Observations
0.1 0.48 0.30 No cracks 0.39 0.29 No cracks
Flexure cracks at base and top of Single flexural crack at base of
0.2 0.81 0.56 0.69 0.52
bottom column bottom column
New flexural cracks at base of bottom New cracks at base of bottom
0.3 1.20 0.83 0.96 0.76
column and at ends of first-floor beam column
Single crack on first floor beam at
0.4 1.53 1.12 New cracks at ends of first-floor beam 1.29 0.98
farthest anchor of haunch
Diagonal shear cracks on left-side Cracks on top of bottom column at
0.5 1.68 1.32 1.59 1.17
exterior joint (first-floor level) farthest anchor
Diagonal shear cracks on right-side
0.6 1.79 1.38 1.78 1.33 Extension of earlier cracks in beam
exterior joint. New cracks in column
Diagonal shear cracks opened and
0.7 2.02 1.66 2.08 1.54 Extension of earlier cracks
propagated. Little spalling observed
0.8 2.23 1.89 Existing cracks opened and propagated 2.43 1.60 Extension of earlier cracks
0.9 2.34 1.89 Existing cracks opened and propagated 2.76 1.86 Extension of earlier cracks
1.0 2.41 1.88 Existing cracks opened and propagated 2.90 2.01 Extension of earlier cracks

Fig. 14—Acceleration time histories measured corresponding to 0.2g PGA input excitation.
Results of simulated seismic tests on
retrofitted structure
The retrofitted structure was also subjected to same test
schedule as that of the as-built structure. For 0.1g PGA
input ground motion, no cracks were observed in the struc-
ture. At 0.2g PGA, a single crack at the column-foundation
interface was observed. Several new cracks at the base of the
column were observed during 0.3g excitation (Fig. 12(b)).
No cracks, however, were observed at the beam of the first
floor level, which was in contrast to the test on the as-built
structure where the cracks appeared at the beam of the first
floor level as well. During the test corresponding to a PGA of
0.4g, a single crack appeared also on the beam at the farthest
anchor of the haunch. The anchor farthest from the face of the
column serves as the critical section for flexure in the beam
for the retrofitted structure, and therefore, the first flexural
crack appears there. No flexural cracks, however, appeared
on the column in the vicinity of the first floor level. This
shows that the desirable hierarchy of strength is maintained
in the joint region with beam cracking before joint or column.
During the loading wave of 0.5g PGA, on the left-side
column, the cracks appeared on the column just below the

ACI Structural Journal 9

 Fig. 17—Peak floor displacements as function of PGA for
two structures.
Fig. 15—PFA as function of PGA for two structures.

Fig. 18—Calculation of joint shear deformation.

ting the joints using FFHRS. Figures 14(c) and (d) show the
typical response at the first floor and roof level, respectively,
obtained for the retrofitted structure corresponding to an input
Fig. 16—Variation of fundamental time period of structure loading wave with PGA of 0.2g.
with increasing input acceleration. In Fig. 15, the PFA recorded in the experiment on the retro-
fitted structure for the first floor level and roof level are plotted
first floor beam at the farthest anchor location of the haunch
as a function of the PGA. In the case of the retrofitted structure,
(Fig. 12(b)). During the tests on the as-built structure, at the
this plot is practically linear until the end of the test series, unlike
base excitation level of 0.5g, clear shear cracks appeared in
the as-built structure. This is expected because the damage in
the joint. The same is not the case for the retrofitted struc-
the structure is minimal; therefore, large hysteretic damping
ture, however, proving the efficacy of the HRS. For 0.6g
is not expected in the system. Figure 16 also shows the plot
PGA input excitation, the crack patterns were essentially
of the variation of time period corresponding to the first mode
the extension of the previously formed cracks on the beams
as a function of the PGA as obtained from the Fourier spec-
(Fig. 12(b)), while no new cracks were formed at the base
trum of the response corresponding to each PGA level. In this
of the columns. On further loading, the earlier-formed cracks
case, the change in fundamental time period of the structure
propagated further in the beams, and new cracks were formed
is nominal with increasing PGA, and it increased from 0.23 s
at the anchor locations and beyond the haunch element in the
(for the undamaged structure) to 0.265 s after completion of
beam. Figure 14(b) presents the final crack pattern observed
the whole test series. The only significant variation in the time
in the test. Unlike the test on the as-built structure, no diagonal
period occurs for a PGA of 0.3g, which corresponds to various
shear cracks were observed in the joint panels for the retro-
cracks formed at the column base. A summary of experimental
fitted structure, clearly showing the efficacy of the FFHRS in
results on an as-built structure is given in Table 1.
safeguarding the beam-column joints. The crack patterns were
Figure 17 also displays the plot of the peak displacement
limited to the crack formation in beams and columns, while
for the first floor and roof as a function of PGA for retro-
the joint region was essentially crack-free. Also, the cracks
fitted structure. In the case of the retrofitted structure, the
formed in beams and columns were only hairline cracks. No
maximum displacement demand is approximately 50.54 mm
spalling was observed in the test. No diagonal cracks were
(1.99 in.) at the roof (approximately 1.18% global drift).
observed in the corner joints, and only a few minor cracks
Thus, due to the lower time period of the retrofitted structure
were observed at the bottom of the beam. As expected, the
until the end of the test, the displacement demands are rather
damage at the roof members was much less compared with
limited compared with that of the as-built structure.
that at the first floor. The test was stopped due to the limitation
Figure 19 also displays the variation of the maximum joint
of the shake table to provide maximum input acceleration as
shear deformation for exterior joints of the frame as a func-
1.0g. Nevertheless, the experiment clearly showed a signifi-
tion of increasing PGA for the retrofitted structure. It can
cantly improved seismic behavior of the structure by retrofit-

10 ACI Structural Journal


Fig. 19—Joint deformation as function of increasing PGA.
be observed that the maximum joint shear deformation in
this case (0.0032 radians) is much less compared with that
obtained in the case of the as-built structure (0.0088 radians).
The measured shear deformation suggests no significant
distortion of the joint, as also seen from the crack patterns.
The experiment clearly displayed that the structure retro-
fitted with the HRS behaved in an almost linear fashion until
the end of the test, and successfully proved the efficacy of
the retrofit solution.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the experimental investigations carried
out on 2-D RC frame structures without and with FFHRS
are presented. Previously, HRS was investigated at the
subassembly level using various configurations to connect
the haunch elements with the frame members. The solu-
tion tested by Pampanin et al.3 where partially prestressed
external rods were used to connect the haunch element with
the frame members, proved the efficiency of the system, but
has practical limitations for implementation in real life. The
FFHRS system using post-installed anchors to connect the
haunch element with frame members as tested by Genesio
and Sharma5 promises to remove this limitation. The tests
at the subassembly level proved the efficacy of the FFHRS
system in improving the joint behavior provided that the
anchor system behaves in desirable fashion.
No tests, however, have been carried out to test the retrofit
solution at structural level under real dynamic loads. The
same has been attempted in this work. It should be noted that
the conclusions provided herein are based on the measured
response of one retrofitted specimen only. Further experi-
mental data is needed to augment the conclusions.
In the case of the as-built structure, severe diagonal shear
cracks were observed in the exterior joints, which initiated at
input ground motion corresponding to PGA of 0.5g. Most of
the damage was concentrated in the beam-column connec-
tion region. It should be noted that beams had high-strength
reinforcement, which may also be the reason for lower
damage levels in the beams. In case the beams were cast
with plain round bars, the damage in the beams may have
arguably been more. The retrofitted structure behaved in an
almost linear fashion until the end of the test program at 1.0g
PGA. Only hairline cracks were observed in the beams and
columns, while the joint region remained essentially elastic.
ACI Structural Journal
Analysis of response time history showed a significant elon-
gation in fundamental time period for the as-built structure,
while the same remained almost unchanged for the retrofitted
structure. Significant joint distortion for joints was obtained
in the case of the as-built structure, while in the case of the
retrofitted structure, the joint distortion was rather limited.
To have an estimation of the effectiveness of the FFHRS,
strain data obtained from the strain gauge located on the first
floor beam closest to the column face (critical location for
as-built structure) was evaluated. The highest strain obtained
at that location, corresponding to the PGA of 1.0g, was
obtained as 1321 microns for the as-built structure, and as
827 microns for the retrofitted structure. This clearly indi-
cates a strong influence of the presence of haunch elements in
reducing the bending moments in the beam, and hence, joint
shear forces. Based on the crack patterns, joint shear deforma-
tions, acceleration and displacement responses, time period
variation, and strain data, it can be said that the experimental
program clearly displayed and successfully proved the effi-
cacy of the retrofit solution in improving the seismic perfor-
mance of non-seismically designed RC frame structures.
The static tests at joint level and the dynamic tests at struc-
tural level highlight certain interesting aspects. The experi-
ments at the beam-column joint sub-assemblies were carried
out with different post-installed anchor systems, namely
bonded anchors, concrete screws, and expansion anchors.4-6
It was observed that in the case when anchors served their
purpose well, for example, bonded anchors, a clear beam hinge
was formed instead of the joint shear failure, as shown in Fig.
20(a). In the case when the anchor system did not work well,
however, (for example, in case of concrete screws) the anchor
failure was immediately followed by the joint shear failure,
which resulted in a non-ductile undesirable failure mode
(Fig. 20(b)). This aspect cannot be commented upon based
on this work because only one type of anchor has been used.
It is important to note, however, that in the case of the tests at
the subassembly level, once a crack is initiated at the anchor
level (Fig. 2(b)), it grew severely and resulted in concrete
cone failure. In the case of the dynamic tests at the structural
level, the crack initiated at the farthest anchor location of the
haunch did not grow very severely, and therefore, the perfor-
mance of the FFHRS was better. This may be attributed to the
fact that in the case of seismic loading, the crack growth is
only instantaneous due to the dynamic reversing nature of the
loading. Based on these findings, it appears that the FFHRS
may offer a practical and efficient solution to retrofit struc-
tures against seismic loading, but these conclusions must be
supported by further tests. Though, the FFHRS seems to be
a practical and efficient retrofit solution, the following points
must be kept in mind while suggesting the system for seismic
retrofitting of existing structures:
1. As discussed previously, based on the tests at joint level,
the FFHRS is clearly sensitive to the performance of the anchors
used to connect the haunch element to frame members (Fig. 20);
2. It has been shown from the tests that there is a high prob-
ability that fasteners installed in non-cracked concrete will be
intercepted by a crack when cracks form.11,14 Therefore, to
connect the FFHRS, it is recommended that only anchors suit-
able for performing in cracked concrete should be used; and
11

Fig. 20—Influence of anchor performance on failure mode
of retrofitted joints4-6.
3. The HRS leads to a reduction in shear forces transferred
to the joint, but increases shear forces in the members, as
shown in Fig. 2(c). In the case of the retrofitted joint, the beam
member experienced a peak shear force of approximately
120 kN (27 kip) against 80 kN (18 kip) experienced by the
beam of the as-built joint. Therefore, one should verify while
designing the HRS that it does not make a structure shear crit-
ical, resulting in an undesirable brittle failure mode.
AUTHOR BIOS
Akanshu Sharma is a Postdoctoral Research Engineer at the Institute for
Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, before
which he served as a Scientific Officer at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
in Mumbai, India. He received his PhD from the University of Stuttgart
in 2013. He completed his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in civil and
structural engineering from the Regional Engineering College, Silchar,
India, and the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, India, in 2001 and
2004, respectively. His research interests include inelastic seismic analysis
and retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures and behavior of concrete
under high loading rates.
G. R. Reddy is a Senior Scientific Officer and Head of the structural and
seismic engineering section of the Reactor Safety Division at Bhabha
Atomic Research Center. He received his master’s degree from IIT Bombay,
Mumbai, and PhD in earthquake engineering from Tokyo Metropolitan
University, Tokyo, Japan, in 1998. His research interests include seismic
behavior and retrofitting of structures.
R. Eligehausen, FACI, is Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Construc-
tion Materials at the University of Stuttgart, Germany. He received his
Doctor of Engineering from the University of Stuttgart in 1979. He is a
member of ACI Committees 349, Concrete Nuclear Structures, and 355,
Anchorage to Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 408, Development
and Splicing of Deformed Bars. His research interests include fasteners for
concrete structures, bond behavior of reinforcement, and seismic behavior
of beam-column joints.
G. Genesio works at Eligehausen and Asmus, Stuttgart, Germany. He
received his PhD from the University of Stuttgart. His research inter-
ests include beam-column joints, seismic retrofitting of structures, and
anchorage in concrete construction.
S. Pampanin is an Associate Professor of structural design and earthquake
Engineering in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering
at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. He studied
civil engineering at the University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; received his
master’s degree in structural engineering at the University of California,
San Diego, San Diego, CA; and his PhD in earthquake engineering at the
Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The tests reported herein were carried out at the Central Power Research
Institute (CPRI), Bangalore, under the funded project by BARC. The
authors are extremely thankful to R. Ramesh Babu and his team at CPRI for
12
successfully conducting the tests, and to K. K. Vaze for providing necessary
support and encouragement to carry out the work.
NOTATION
Hh = vertical projected height of haunch element
hb = overall depth of beam
hc = overall depth of column
Lb = length of beam from loading point to face of column
Lc = length of column between point of contraflexure above and
below beam
Lh = horizontal projected length of haunch element
Mb = bending moment in beam at column face in conventional joint
Mb′ = bending moment in beam at column face in retrofitted joint
Mbh = bending moment in beam at face of haunch element
Mc = bending moment in column at beam face
Mc′ = bending moment in column at beam face in retrofitted joint
Mch = bending moment in column at face of haunch element
SL = linear scaling factor
Vb = beam end load
Vc = shear force in column
Vjh = horizontal joint shear force
Zb = lever arm of internal forces in beam at column face
REFERENCES
1. Sharma, A.; Eligehausen, R.; and Reddy, G. R., “A New Model to
Simulate Joint Shear Behavior of Poorly Detailed Beam—Column Connec-
tions in RC Structures under Seismic Loads, Part I: Exterior Joints,” Engi-
neering Structures, V. 33, 2011, pp. 1034-1051.
2. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1992, 768 pp.
3. Pampanin, S.; Christopoulos, C.; and Chen, T. H., “Development
and Validation of a Metallic Haunch Seismic Retrofit System for Existing
Under-Designed RC Frame Buildings,” Earthquake Engineering & Struc-
tural Dynamics, V. 35, 2006, pp. 1739-1766.
4. Genesio, G., “Seismic Assessment of RC Exterior Beam-Column
Joints and Retrofit with Haunches using Post-Installed Anchors,” PhD
thesis, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2012, 311 pp.
5. Genesio, G., and Sharma, A., “Seismic Retrofit Solution for Rein-
forced Concrete Exterior Beam-Column Joints Using a Fully Fastened
Haunch, Part 2-2: Retrofitted Joints,” Test Report No. WS 221/08-10/02,
IWB, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2010, 136 pp.
6. Genesio, G.; Sharma, A.; Eligehausen, R.; Pampanin, S.; and Reddy,
G. R., “Development of Seismic Retrofit Technique of RC Frame Using
Fully Fastened Haunch Elements: Static to Dynamic Testing,” 14th Sympo-
sium on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. A 0017, Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 2010, 10 pp.
7. Harris, H. G., and Sabnis, G. M., Structural Modelling and Experi-
mental Techniques, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, 1999, 808 pp.
8. Morcarz, P., and Krawinkler, H., “Theory and Application of Exper-
imental Model Analysis in Earthquake Engineering,” Report No. 50, John
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1981, 263 pp.
9. Quintana-Gallo, P.; Pampanin, S.; Carr, A. J.; and Bonelli, P., “Shake
Table Tests of Under-Designed RC Frames for the Seismic Retrofit of
Buildings—Design and Similitude Requirements of the Benchmark Spec-
imen,” Proceedings of New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering
(NZSEE) Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, Paper No. 39, 2010, 12 pp.
10. Sharma, A.; Reddy, G. R.; and Vaze, K. K., “Shake Table Tests on a
Non-Seismically Detailed RC Frame Structure,” Structural Engineering &
Mechanics, V. 41, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-24.
11. Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.; and Silva, J., Anchorage in Concrete
Construction, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 2006, 391 pp.
12. Bracci, J. M.; Reinhorn, A. M.; and Mander, J. B., “Seismic Resis-
tance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed for Gravity
Loads: Performance of Structural System,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1995, pp. 597-609.
13. Chopra, A. K., Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to
Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007,
912 pp.
14. Eligehausen, R., and Sharma, A., “Seismic Safety of Anchorages in
Concrete Structures of Nuclear Power Plants,” Proceedings of Post-SMiRT
Conference Seminar on Advances in Seismic Design of Structures, Systems
and Components of Nuclear Facilities, Mumbai, India, 2011, pp. 209-228.
ACI Structural Journal