ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 114-S108
High-Strength Reinforcement in Exterior Beam-Column
Joints under Cyclic Loading
by Hung-Jen (Harry) Lee and Chia-Jung Chang
This paper presents cyclic responses of five exterior beam-
column joints made with 100 ksi (690 MPa) longitudinal bars,
115 ksi (790 MPa) transverse reinforcement, and 10 ksi (70 MPa)
concrete. The test joints satisfied the existing ACI 318 design
provisions for special moment frames, except for the joint shear
demands, the anchorage limitations of the maximum bar yield
strength, the maximum concrete strength, and the minimum clear
spacing between headed bars. The test results show that the
minimum development length can be used for anchorage of closely
spaced headed bars in well-confined joints. It is found that the
deformation capacity of beam-column joints could be increased by
reducing the joint shear demand or increasing the joint transverse
reinforcement ratio. The presented test results were assembled with
previous research data for assessing the design provisions. This
paper proposes several modifications to the existing design provi-
sions for beam-column joints using high-strength reinforcement
and concrete.
Keywords: beam-column joint; confinement; cyclic testing; headed
reinforcement; high-strength steel; shear strength.
INTRODUCTION
Special moment frame systems are widely used in concrete
building structures for earthquake-resistant design because
of their architectural flexibility and structural efficiency. To
provide more available space in multi-story buildings, beam
and column sections are often designed to be as compact
as possible. This often causes steel congestion at beam-
column joints. Today, several reinforcement producers
are cable of producing Grades 80 (550), 100 (690), and
120 (830) reinforcement, where the number refers to the
minimum specified yield strength fy in ksi (MPa), with
similar manufacturing costs per unit weight. Therefore, the
use of higher-strength reinforcement could not only relieve
steel congestion but also reduce construction cost, espe-
cially for high-rise building structures in regions of high
seismicity. However, the ACI 318 Building Code1 only
permits Grade 60 (420) for primary reinforcement of special
seismic systems because of insufficient data to confirm the
applicability of existing code provisions for structures using
the higher grades. In view of this, the Applied Technology
Council recently formed a team2 to review the available data
and evaluate the feasibility of using higher-grade reinforcement
in earthquake-resistant concrete structures. Kelly et al.3
concluded that ASTM A7064 Grade 80 (550) could be used
with little change to ACI 318, but additional experimental
research was needed before complete recommendations
could be made for using Grade 100 (690) and Grade 120
(830) reinforcement.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
TECHNICAL PAPER
Fig. 1—Stress-strain plots for different grade reinforcement.
In a major earthquake event, flexure reinforcement in
special framing members is designed to develop strains
well in excess of the yield strain for the formation of plastic
hinges; therefore, reinforcement with a controlled yield
strength, sharp yield plateau, and adequate ductility are
preferred for special seismic systems. Several reinforcement
specifications with grades higher than 60 ksi (420 MPa) were
developed for earthquake-resistant concrete structures, such
as ASTM A7064 Grade 80 (550) in the United States, Grade
500E5 (specified fy = 72.5 ksi = 500 MPa) in New Zealand,
and USD6856 (specified fy = 99.3 ksi = 685 MPa) in Japan
and Taiwan. The aforementioned reinforcement grades are
conventional hot-rolled low-alloy steel reinforcement without
special chromium content or heat treatment (quenching),
and thus the stress-strain characteristics in tensile tests are
very similar to those of Grade 60 (420), except for the higher
yield strength and the shorter fracture elongation. As shown
in Fig. 1, the ascending stress-strain curve of the Grade 100
(690) reinforcement tested in Taiwan is similar to the Grade
100 (690), 80 (550), and 60 (420) bars tested by Sokoli
and Ghannoum7 in Texas. Notably, the uniform elongation
corresponding to the peak stress (circle symbols in Fig. 1)
for Grades 100 (690), 80 (550), and 60 (420) bars were all
at approximately 9 to 10%, but the fracture elongations
decreased significantly with increasing grade, indicating less
necking behavior for higher-grade bars. In addition, Fig. 1
shows a typical stress-strain curve for the Grade 115 (790)
transverse reinforcement used in this study. It did not have
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 5, September-October 2017.
MS No. S-2016-427, doi: 10.14359/51700788, was received December 5, 2016, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2017, 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.
1325
a clear yield plateau, but its high yield point is good enough
for confinement purposes.
Whenever high-strength reinforcement is used, the
development and anchorage length become critical issues
at locations with limited space, such as beam-column joints.
To shorten the anchorage length, the use of headed bars
in place of hooked bars is a viable option. However, the
anchorage length of headed bars specified in ACI 318-141
does not allow designers to use a bar fy exceeding 60 ksi
(420 MPa), nor does it take advantage of concrete strength
fc′ exceeding 6000 psi (42 MPa). In addition, ACI 318-14
places a strict minimum clear spacing of 3db between headed
bars in the joint. This discourages the use of headed bars
in place of hooked bars, especially for group headed bars
in multiple layers. To liberate the aforementioned design
limitations and to update the design recommendations,8
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 assigned task groups to
review and perform experimental studies regarding the
use of high-strength reinforcement and headed bars. After
a literature review and a database investigation,9 several
large-scale experimental programs of beam-column connec-
tions made with high-strength reinforcement were designed
and conducted at the National Center for Research on Earth-
quake Engineering (NCREE) in Taiwan. This paper presents
one experimental program on exterior beam-column joints
that evaluates the joint shear strength and anchorage of
closely spaced headed bars for special moment frames.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Current building code places strict limits on using high-
strength reinforcement in special moment frames because
of insufficient data to support the applicability of existing
code provisions. To extend the existing code provisions, this
study designed and tested five exterior beam-column joints
reinforced with Grade 100 (690) longitudinal and Grade 115
(790) transverse reinforcement. The cyclic test results
demonstrate acceptable seismic behavior of high-strength
headed bars anchored in well-confined beam-column joints.
The available test data for exterior beam-column joints
reinforced with Grade 100 (690) headed bars were assem-
bled herein to confirm the applicability of the existing
design provisions.
RESEARCH REVIEW
From the 1960s to date, numerous experiments were
conducted on reinforced concrete beam-column joints using
all grades of reinforcement. Comprehensive reviews of the
available test data were completed by several task groups9-11
from Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 to update the design
recommendations for beam-column connections.8 For the
use of high-strength reinforcement, Lee and Hwang9 assem-
bled a database of cyclic tests for 357 beam-column joints
(202 interior joints and 155 exterior joints) made with all
grades of reinforcement. In this database investigation, all
357 reinforced concrete joint specimens are planar beam-
column joints without eccentric beams or transverse beams.
Only 19 exterior beam-column joints were made with
Grade 100 (690) longitudinal bars that terminated in the
joints by heads. These limited test data were obtained from
1326
experiments conducted in Japan12-18 and Taiwan19 with
USD6856 reinforcing bars and shown in Table 1 to support
the assessment of existing design requirements. Notably,
these 19 exterior joint specimens were made with high-
strength concrete (the measured fc′ ranges between 6400 and
26,100 psi [44.4 and 180 MPa]). The anchorage performance
of all grades of headed bars in exterior beam-column joints
can be referred to the database investigations conducted by
Kang et al.11 and Ou et al.20
Table 1 lists the key test parameters recalculated for each
joint specimen using the existing ACI design provisions
without limitations on the maximum fc′ and fy. Based on the
data review, the unacceptable “J” failure (joint shear failure
without yielding in beam) and “BJa” failure (anchorage
failure of beam bars in the joint, concrete breakout, or side
blowout) happened because the test joints were subjected to
large shear demands (Vexp/Vn > 1.0); the headed beam bars
did not extend beyond 3/4 of the joint depth to the far face of
the confined core (ℓa/hc < 0.75), or the provided anchorage
lengths of the headed bars were less than 70% of the required
length per ACI 318 (ℓa/ℓdt < 0.70).
To promote the development of a diagonal compression
strut mechanism within the joint, ACI 352R-028 recom-
mends that the bar heads should be located in the confined
core within 2 in. (50 mm) from the back of the confined
core. Based on the database investigation, Lee and Hwang9
indicted that the shear strengths of exterior joints are strongly
related to the ratio of the anchorage length to the joint depth.
To ensure the nominal joint shear strength and to preclude
premature anchorage failure, Lee and Hwang9 recommends
that the anchorage length of headed beam bars in the joint
should not only exceed the minimum development length
per ACI 318 but also be at least 3/4 of the joint depth. For the
research review in Table 1, only 10 joint specimens satisfied
the aforementioned conditions for anchorage length (ℓa/ℓdt ≥
1.0 and ℓa/hc ≥ 0.75). Seven of 10 joint specimens exhib-
ited satisfactory seismic performance under cyclic tests and
achieved ductile “B” failure (beam flexure failure at the
hinging zone) beyond a drift ratio of 4%. Notably, Specimen
No. 12 tested by Kiyohara et al.16 exhibited “BJ” failure at a
drift ratio of 4%, which may be insufficient for special frame
systems, because its joint transverse reinforcing ratio was
less than 50% of that required by ACI 318-14.1 Moreover,
Specimens J15-3 and J10-1 tested by Iwaoka et al.18 did
not achieve yielding in beam before the joint shear failure
because their joint transverse reinforcing ratios were far
below the ACI code-required amount.
Because the AIJ Guideline21 in Japan only requires a
minimum transverse reinforcing ratio of 0.003 in the joint,
the joint transverse reinforcing ratios in Japanese beam-
column joints are usually much lower than required by
ACI 318, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the potential joint
shear capacity of ACI code-conforming beam-column joints
cannot be determined using Japanese data alone. To address
this, the first author and his colleague19 designed and tested
two ACI code-conforming exterior joint specimens: Spec-
imens T70 and T100. Because Specimens T70 and T100
had sufficient anchorage lengths of the headed bars and low
shear demands in the joint, both performed quite well until
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Table 1—Exterior beam-column joints with 100 ksi (690 MPa) headed beam bars
Materials Bar and head Anchorage conditions Ash,ratio* Failure
Without
Authors Joint fc′, ksi fy, ksi db, in. Abrg/Ab Cs/db ℓa/db ℓa/hc ℓa/ℓdt fyt, ksi fyt,max With fyt,max Vexp/Vn Mode† Drift ratio
J-1 18.4 105 0.75 5.9 2.4 14.9 0.79 1.22 201 0.48 0.24 0.90 B 0.05
Nakazawa et al.12
J-2 18.4 105 0.75 5.9 2.4 14.9 0.79 1.22 201 0.48 0.24 0.88 B 0.058
No. 6 7.5 105 1.00 5.5 2.2 11.8 0.75 0.62 50 0.31 0.31 0.96 J 0.04
Kawakatsu et al.13
No. 7 7.5 105 1.00 5.5 8.7 11.8 0.75 0.62 50 0.31 0.31 0.58 BJa 0.04
O-6 6.4 104 1.00 5.8 2.3 10.5 0.67 0.51 47 0.33 0.33 0.80 J 0.02
Takeuchi et al.14
O-7 9.0 104 1.00 5.8 2.3 10.5 0.67 0.61 47 0.24 0.24 0.80 J 0.02
No. 1 13.8 103 1.13 5.9 1.9 12.8 0.66 0.93 124 0.52 0.42 0.62 BJ 0.04
No. 2 21.5 103 1.13 5.9 1.9 12.8 0.66 1.16 124 0.34 0.27 0.63 BJ 0.04
Watanabe et al. 15
No. 3 6.4 103 1.13 5.9 4.8 12.8 0.66 0.63 124 1.12 0.91 0.63 BJa 0.04
No. 4 13.8 103 1.13 5.9 1.9 16.1 0.84 1.17 124 0.52 0.42 0.66 B 0.04
No. 5 13.8 103 1.13 5.9 1.9 9.6 0.50 0.70 124 0.52 0.42 0.56 BJa 0.035
No. 11 15.0 100 1.13 5.7 1.9 12.8 0.66 0.99 119 0.46 0.39 0.62 BJ 0.04
Kiyohara et al.16
No. 12 15.2 100 1.13 5.7 1.9 16.1 0.84 1.26 119 0.46 0.38 0.87 BJ 0.04
No. 7 15.5 105 0.75 6.6 2.4 17.8 0.85 1.34 206 1.01 0.49 0.89 B 0.05
Hara et al.17
No. 8 22.8 105 0.75 6.6 2.4 17.8 0.85 1.62 206 0.69 0.33 0.97 B 0.05
J15-3 26.1 99 0.88 5.1 1.6 12.8 0.75 1.33 136 0.12 0.09 1.02 J 0.03
Iwaoka et al.18
J10-1 16.7 99 0.88 5.1 1.6 12.8 0.75 1.06 136 0.18 0.14 1.17 J 0.02
T70 15.9 108 1.00 5.5 2.0 20.9 0.88 1.55 75 0.60 0.60 0.72 B 0.06
Kuo19
T100 17.2 108 1.00 5.5 2.0 20.9 0.88 1.61 127 0.98 0.78 0.68 B 0.06
*
Provided-to-required confinement reinforcing ratio per ACI 318, with or without limiting fyt,max = 100 ksi (690 MPa).
†
Failure mode: B is beam flexure; J is joint shear failure without yielding in beam; BJ is joint shear failure with yielding in beam; BJa is anchorage failure of beam bars in the joint.
Notes: db is beam bar diameter; Abrg is net bearing area of head; Ab is nominal bar area; Cs is clear spacing between bars; ℓa is provided anchorage length of headed bars; ℓdt is
required anchorage length of headed bars; hc is overall column depth; fyt is measured yield strength of transverse reinforcement; Vexp is experimental joint shear force; Vn is nominal
joint shear strength per ACI 318; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

beam flexure failure in 6% drift cycles. However, the joint
shear demands in Specimen T70 and T100 were below 75%
of the nominal joint shear strength and therefore it was not
crucial for assessment of the ACI design provisions. In view
of this, this study designed five exterior beam-column joints
with low to high joint shear demands to test the potential
joint shear capacity of code-conforming joints with marginal
confinement and anchorage conditions with respect to
current ACI design provisions.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Five large-scale exterior beam-column joint specimens
with high-strength reinforcement were constructed and tested
under constant column axial loads and quasi-static reversed
cyclic lateral loading. The test specimens satisfied most of
the ACI 318 seismic provisions for special moment frames,
except that they omitted the limitations of the maximum bar
fy, the minimum clear spacing between headed bars, and the
joint shear demands for determining the potential joint shear
capacity. Each specimen was designed to develop beam bar
yielding adjacent to the joint face to test the bar anchorage
capacity and the degradation of joint shear capacity. Other
premature failures such as beam shear, column shear, and
column flexure are precluded in the design.
Specimen design and material properties
Five geometrically identical beam-column joints were
constructed and tested at NCREE. All beam and column
longitudinal bars were Grade 100 (690) No. 8 (D25) thread-
like deformed bars that can be mechanically anchored by
matching threaded anchorage devices with high-strength
grout in the devices (Fig. 2). The mechanical device is made
by austempered ductile cast iron and the head diameter is
2.56 in. (65 mm) with a net bearing area Abrg of 5.55Ab,
where Ab is the bar nominal area. All transverse hoops and
crossties were Grade 115 (790) No. 4 (D13) deformed bars
with 135- or 180-degree end hooks for seismic resistance.
Figure 3 shows the geometry and reinforcing details for the
test specimens. Each column had a square cross section of
20 x 20 in. (500 x 500 mm) reinforced with 12 No. 8 (D25)
longitudinal bars and No. 4 (D13) hoops at a spacing of 5 in.
(125 mm) along the unit column height of 126 in. (3.2 m),
except for the joint panel zone. The primary test variables
are the spacing (5 in. or 3 in.) of the joint transverse reinforce-
ment and the joint shear demand. The latter is proportional to
the numbers of beam longitudinal bars.
Each joint specimen was attached with at least 50 strain
gauges at key locations of reinforcement and then monolith-
ically cast with regular ready mixed concrete in a steel form
lying on the ground (Fig. 2(b)). The target concrete strength

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017 1327

Fig. 2—Anchorage devices for beam longitudinal reinforcement.
Fig. 3—Specimen design and reinforcing details.
was 10,000 psi (70 MPa). For each joint specimen, six 4 x
8 in. (100 x 200 mm) standard cylinders were sampled during
concrete casting and cured together with joint specimens.
The three-cylinder average compressive strengths were
obtained at 28 days of age and on the day of joint testing for
each joint specimen, as listed in Table 2.
At least three reinforcing bar coupons were sampled per
bar size and grade and then tested in tension to measure the
engineering stress-strain curves in an 8 in. (200 mm) gauge
length, as shown in Fig. 1. The three-coupon average yield
and tensile strengths were 106.5 and 134.3 ksi (734 and
926  MPa) for the No. 8 (D25) longitudinal bars, respec-
tively, and were 122.3 and 148.5 ksi (843 and 1024 MPa)
for the No. 4 (D13) hoops. Notably, the tested Grade 100
(690) No. 8 (D25) bars had a tensile-to-yield strength ratio
of only 1.26.
Connection test parameters
Table 2 shows key test parameters for the five beam-
column joint specimens designated A5, B5, B3, C5, and C3,
where the characters A, B, and C represent low, moderate,
and high joint shear demands, respectively, and the numbers
5 or 3 represent the joint hoop spacing in inches. According
to the design requirements given in ACI 318-141 and ACI
352R-02,8 a code-conforming beam-column joint should
1328
have a column-to-beam flexure strength ratio Mr exceeding
1.2, be confined by transverse reinforcement as for those
required in special column ends, have a joint shear strength
exceeding the joint shear demand, and have an adequate
development length for all reinforcing bars. To control
yielding in beams rather than in the columns, the Mr ratio for
each joint specimen was kept above 1.20 (Table 2).
For confinement, Kim and LaFave10 identified that the “Ash
ratio” (Table 1 and Table 2) could be a key parameter for
joint behavior, where the “Ash ratio” is the provided amount
of joint transverse reinforcement divided by following
amount required in ACI 318-141 and ACI 352R-028
Ash  Ag  f′ f′
≥ 0.3  − 1 c and 0.09 c (1)
sbc  Ach  f yt f yt
where Ash is the total cross-sectional area of the transverse
reinforcement, including crossties, within spacing s and
perpendicular to dimension bc, which is the cross-sectional
dimension of the column core without concrete cover; Ag
and Ach are the gross area and the core area of the column,
respectively; and fyt is the specified yield strength of the
transverse reinforcement.
Notably, ACI 318 places a limit on the maximum fyt
of 100  ksi (690 MPa) for the calculation of transverse
reinforcement. Substituting an average concrete strength of
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Table 2—Key test parameters and results
Specimen ID
Parameters and results A5 B5 B3 C5 C3
28-day concrete strength fc′, psi (MPa) 10,196 (70.3) 11,269 (77.7) 9239 (63.7) 9384 (64.7) 9906 (68.3)
Testing-date concrete strength fc′, psi (MPa) 10,196 (70.3) 9297 (64.1) 9949 (68.6) 10,196 (70.3) 10,254 (70.7)
Testing age, days 71 82 113 87 120
Flexure strength ratio Mr *
2.05 1.53 1.55 1.27 1.27
Confinement Ash,ratio† 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.00 1.67
Confinement Ash,ratio‡ 1.20 1.32 2.05 1.20 1.99
Joint shear demand-capacity ratio Vu/Vn 0.79 1.12 1.12 1.45 1.45
Experimental-to-nominal joint strength ratio Vexp/Vn 0.85 1.20 1.17 1.29 1.39
Failure mode §
BJ BJ BJ J BJ
Beam flexure strength Mnb, kip-ft (kN-m) 706 (957) 928 (1258) 931 (1262) 1141 (1547) 1141 (1547)
Peak strength ratio Mmax/Mnb 1.11 1.08 1.09 0.97 1.04
Yield drift ratio 0.017 0.022 0.022 0.025 0.025
*
Mr = ΣMn (columns)/ΣMn (beams).
†
Provided-to-required confinement reinforcing ratio per ACI 318 with limiting fyt,max = 100 ksi (690 MPa).
‡
Provided-to-required confinement reinforcing ratio per ACI 318 without limiting fyt,max = 100 ksi (690 MPa).
§
Failure mode: B is beam flexure; J is joint shear failure without yielding in beam; BJ is joint shear failure with yielding in beam.

10,000 psi (69 MPa) into Eq. (1) shows that the required
transverse reinforcement ratio (Ash/sbc) is equal to 0.009 with
a maximum fyt of 100 ksi (690 MPa) for the test specimens.
The provided transverse reinforcement ratios were 0.009 in
Specimens A5, B5, and C5 (5 in. [125 mm] hoop spacing)
and 0.015 in Specimens B3 and C3 (3 in. [75 mm] hoop
spacing), respectively. Obviously, in Table 2, all joint speci-
mens were well-confined by transverse reinforcement. Spec-
imens B3 and C3 were expected to have greater joint shear
capacities, with respect to those of Specimens B5 and C5.
To explore the potential joint shear capacity, this study
varied the numbers of beam flexure reinforcement to control
the joint shear demands Vu, which can be determined using
the following equations for an exterior joint
Vu = αofyAs – Vcol (2)
where Vu is the demand of horizontal joint shear force; As is
the area of beam flexure tension reinforcement; αofy is the
probable strength of beam flexure reinforcement; and Vcol is
the column shear in equilibrium with the moment and shear
forces acting on the joint.8
The strength design requirement is
γ For headed deformed bars terminating in the joint, the
Vu ≥ φVn = φγ f c′b j hc (psi) = φ
12
where ϕ is the reduction factor of 0.85 in practice but 1.0
herein for specimen design22; Vn is the nominal joint shear
strength of γ√fc′ times the effective joint width bj and the
column overall depth hc, calculated on a horizontal plane at
mid-height of the joint; and γ√fc′ is the nominal or permissible
joint shear stress. Definitions of the bj term per ACI 318-141
and ACI 352R-028 are not fully consistent. This study takes
the ACI 318 definition, in which bj is equal to the overall
column width for test joints.
Values of constant γ depend on beam continuity, column
continuity, confinement of transverse beams, and connection
loading conditions (Type 1 or Type 2).8 A Type 1 connec-
tion is composed of frame members without significant
inelastic deformation, such as an ordinary moment frame. A
Type 2 connection is designed to have sustained strength under
inelastic deformation reversals as for members in intermediate
or special moment frames. For an exterior interstory beam-
column joint without transverse beams, ACI 352R-028 recom-
mends values of γ = 12 for Type 2 and γ = 15 for Type 1
connections, respectively, which implies that the poten-
tial joint shear capacity decreases as imposed ductility
increases.23 To develop the anticipated beam hinging adja-
cent to the joint face with adequate ductility, the joint shear
demand-to-capacity ratio should be kept below certain
limits. Table 2 shows the joint shear demand-capacity ratios
(Vu/Vn) for the test specimens, which are calculated using
an αo factor of 1.15 for the Grade 100 (690) reinforcement
and a γ value of 12 for exterior joints of special moment
frames. It can be expected that Specimen A5 with a lower
Vu/Vn would be more ductile than Specimens B5 and C5 with
higher Vu/Vn.
Anchorage of headed bars in the joint
f c′b j hc (MPa) (3)
development length requirements between ACI 318-141
and ACI 352R-028 are not fully consistent.11 To investigate
the seismic anchorage behavior of Grade 60 (420) headed
bars, Chiu et al.24 tested 12 large-scale beam-column joints
with varying development lengths and bar spacings and
concluded that the development length requirements per
ACI 318 are relatively conservative. For headed deformed
bars anchored in the joints of special moment frames, ACI
318 gives a minimum development length ℓdt not less than
8db or 6 in. (150 mm), measured from the beam-column
interface to the bearing face of the head, as follows

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017 1329

Fig. 4—Test setup and instrumentations.
0.016 f y 0.19 f y
 dt = db(psi) = db (MPa) (4)
f c′ f c′
where db is the bar diameter and ℓdt can be used with limita-
tions of (a) value of fc′ not exceeding 6000 psi (42 MPa);
(b) bar specified fy not exceeding 60 ksi (420 MPa); (c) bar
size not exceeding No. 11 (D36); (d) the net bearing area of
the head shall be at least four times the nominal bar area;
(e) normalweight concrete; (f) minimum clear cover of 2db
for each bar; and (g) minimum clear spacing of 3db between
parallel bars in frame joints.
The headed bars tested in this study satisfied the afore-
mentioned limitations except (a), (b), and (g). Kang et al.11
extensively reviewed previous research on the use of headed
bars in beam-column joints and concluded the above code
limitations on the maximum fc′ and fy could be expanded
up to 15,000 psi (100 MPa) and 78 ksi (540 MPa). Further-
more, Kang et al.11 proposed that the minimum clear
spacing between headed bars can be reduced to 2db in beam-
column joints confined by transverse reinforcement. Similar
conclusions for minimum clear spacing of 2db can also be
found in recent experiments of beam-column joints.24,25 In
common design practice, the minimum clear spacing of 3db
1330
is not very practical for special frame beams. Therefore,
this study decided to test the anchorage capacity of headed
beam bars with a clear spacing of 2db (between bars and
layers) in beam-column joints (Fig. 3). Substituting the bar
fy of 100 ksi (690 MPa) and fc′ of 10,000 psi (69 MPa) into
Eq. (4), the required development length is 16db for the test
joints. Thus, the provided anchorage length is set to be 16db
for each headed bar in each joint to evaluate the applicability
of Eq. (4) for Grade 100 ksi (690 MPa) reinforcing bars.
Test setup, instrumentation, and loading protocol
Figure 4 shows the setup, instrumentation, and loading
protocol for testing the beam-column joints in the NCREE
laboratory. For each test, the column was first bolted onto the
supporting base followed by the application of a column axial
compression of 0.05Agfc′ with two pretension rods linked to
the strong floor. Thereafter, two horizontal hydraulic actu-
ators were connected to the column top and held in posi-
tion. Finally, another vertical actuator was connected at the
beam tip to impose quasi-static cyclic displacement rever-
sals, which consisted of three fully reversed drift cycles at
gradually increasing drift ratios (0.25, 0.375, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0,
1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 6%). As shown in Fig. 4(a), each specimen
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Fig. 5—Cyclic loading responses and joint deformation histories.
was instrumented with load cells, displacement transducers,
and strain gauges to measure the applied loads in the beam
and column, joint shear deformation, beam end rotation,
and reinforcing bar strain. The cyclic loading protocol and
the test method are compliant with the recommendations of
ACI 374.1-05.22
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overall behavior
Figure 5 shows the cyclic response of the drift ratio θ
versus the applied vertical load F for all specimens, where
the applied load F was normalized to the idealized yield
load Fy corresponding to the nominal beam moment strength
(Mnb, Table 2) calculated at the joint face using the measured
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
material properties, and where the drift ratio θ is the beam tip
displacement divided by 118 in. (3000 mm, Fig. 4(a)).The
drift ratio is equal to the angular rotation between the beam
and column centerlines at the centroid of the joint. Ductility
ratios μ = θ/θy were also shown in Quadrants 1 and 3 for each
specimen, where each idealized yield drift θy was equal to
Fy divided by the secant stiffness of the load-displacement
curve at 0.75Fy prior to yielding.26
The relation of applied load F versus joint shear deforma-
tion (γj, in radians) was also plotted in quadrant 4 for each
specimen in Fig. 5, where the axis of γj ranged between –0.06
and 0.06 radians. The joint shear deformation was measured
using four displacement transducers (Fig. 4(a)) attached on
four rods embedded in each joint (Fig. 2(b)). The experi-
1331
mental joint shear stresses at positive peak drift ratios for test
specimens were also compared in the upper right of Fig. 5.
Test results show that all joints remained roughly elastic
until the joint shear deformation exceeding 0.005 radian.
As shown at the top of Fig. 5, Specimen A5 demonstrated
a beam flexure-dominated hysteresis behavior with only 9%
strength degradation in the third cycle of the 4% drift ratio.
In the first cycle of the 6% drift ratio, diagonal shear cracks
cut through the joint of Specimen A5, resulting in signifi-
cant joint distortion, joint hoop fracture, and global strength
degradation in the following repeated cycles. Clearly, the
failure mode of Specimen A5 is joint shear failure with beam
yielding (“BJ” failure). Due to the low shear demand, the
experimental-to-nominal joint shear strength ratio (Vexp/Vn)
for Specimen A5 was 0.85 (Table 2), where the maximum
experimental joint shear strength Vexp was back-calculated
using the force couples in the beam resisting the maximum
applied load at the 4% drift ratio. Although Specimen A5
eventually failed in the joint shear, its seismic performance
including strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation within
4% drift cycles fully satisfied the acceptance criteria of
ACI 374.1-0522 for special moment frames. The joint shear
failure of Specimen A5 at 6% drift cycles was attributed to
the cumulative joint damage of the inelastic load reversals.
Such joint shear failure can be precluded to achieve the beam
flexure failure by providing more transverse reinforcement
in the joint or reducing the beam longitudinal reinforcement
in Specimen A5.
As shown in the middle of Fig. 5, Specimens B5 and B3
with moderate shear demands still exhibited “BJ” failure at
4% and 6% drift cycles, respectively. The experimental joint
shear stresses of Specimens B5 and B3 exceeded the nominal
joint strength of 12√fc′ psi (1.0√fc′ MPa) per ACI 318. During
testing, however, a sudden load drop occurred in the first
4% drift cycle in Specimen B5 due to hoop fracture in the
joint with excess shear forces and deformation (Fig. 5). The
strength degradation from peak strength to the third cycle
of 4% drift exceeded 25%, and therefore the performance
of Specimen B5 was evaluated as unacceptable using the
acceptance criteria per ACI 374.1-05. By reducing the hoop
spacing from 5 to 3 in. (125 to 75 mm, or increasing Ash,ratio
from 1.0 to 1.67, Table 2), the significant joint distortion or
joint failure was postponed from 4% in Specimen B5 to the
6% drift cycles in Specimen B3. In other words, the poten-
tial joint shear capacity can be enhanced by providing more
transverse reinforcement in the joint. Similar hoop fracture
also occurred in the first 6% drift cycle in Specimen B3,
where the joint distortion initiated. Nevertheless, the overall
cyclic response of Specimen B3 was similar to that of Spec-
imen A5.
Specimens C5 and C3 were subjected to the highest shear
demands in excess of the nominal joint strength, resulting in
shear-dominated responses as shown in the bottom of Fig. 5.
Specimen C5 did not attain the idealized yield strength at the
3% drift ratio when the joint concrete was crushed. As shown
in Table 2, the experimental joint shear stress measured in
Specimen C5 was 29% higher than the nominal strength
per ACI 318. An obvious joint shear failure (“J” failure)
occurred in Specimen C5, which is definitely unacceptable
1332
for special seismic systems. On the other hand, Specimen
C3 was barely able to achieve the idealized yield strength at
the 3% drift ratio followed by joint shear failure in the first
cycle of the 4% drift. The strength degradation in the 4%
drift cycles in Specimen C3 or C5 was obviously beyond
25% of the peak resistance, which is not acceptable.
Comparing the test results of Specimens C5 and C3 in
Table 2, the experimental-to-nominal joint shear strength
ratio was increased from 1.29 to 1.39, approximately a 10%
enhancement in strength, by increasing Ash,ratio from 1.0
to 1.67. To conclude, providing joint transverse reinforce-
ment in excess of the required amount per ACI 318 could
not significantly enhance the joint shear strength but could
increase joint ductility to a certain value.
Visual observations
The damage patterns at the limiting drift ratio of 4% are
displayed in Fig. 6, in which the cracks were marked in
blue at positive drift and in red at negative drift (refer to the
online version of this article for the full-color figures). Joint
shear failure occurred in Specimens B5, C5, and C3 within
the 4% drift cycles and thus clear shear diagonal cracks and
concrete crushing in the joint panel were shown in Fig. 6. As
expected, more damage appeared in the joints subjected to
higher shear demands, and more extensive shear cracks were
distributed in the joint with closer spaced hoops. It seems
that the excessive joint transverse reinforcement provides
more load-transferring paths as a strut-and-tie mechanism
in the joint.
The crack orientations in the joint of Specimen A5 were
somewhat different from the other specimens, as illustrated
in Fig. 6. The average angle between the joint diagonal cracks
(compression struts) and the headed beam bars (tension ties)
θ is approximately 55 degrees for Specimen A5 with beam
bars in a single layer, but θ ≅ 50 degrees for the other four
specimens with beam bars in double layers, which reduces the
internal lever arms between the beam flexure force couples
at the joint face. Assuming a joint diagonal strut compression
Cd, the force equilibrium of the CCT node at the heads gives
Vj = T – Vcol = Cdcosθ (5)
Accordingly, the smaller the θ value, the larger the joint
shear force that could be resisted by the strut.
The change of θ from 55 to 50 degrees could result in a
12% increase in resistance from the cosine component. This
factor should be modeled in a further analytical investigation
of the test specimens.
Bar strain profiles
The anchorage capacity of the headed beam bars can be
evaluated using the test results of the “BJ” failure Specimens
A5, B5, and B3 with significant yielding in beams. Figure 7
shows the strain profiles along the top or bottom beam bars
recorded at peak drift ratios. Under inelastic load reversals,
the beam bars initially yielded at the joint face in the 2% drift
cycles and then spread the bar yielding out approximately
one overall depth in the beam in the following 3 and 4% drift
cycles, as shown in Fig. 7. On the other sides, the bar forces
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Fig. 6—Damage patterns at 4% drift ratio for north and west faces of test specimens.
anchored by the heads were monitored by the gauges at 0.5hc
along the bars into the joint. Clearly, the head bearing, plus
a small portion of bond along the bar from 0.5hc to the head,
could resist 90% or more of the bar yield strength. Notably,
the group headed bars are closely spaced at a clear spacing
of 2db between bars. It is concluded that the ℓdt of Eq. (4) can
be used for taking fc′ = 10,000 psi (70 MPa) for Grade 100
(690) reinforcing bars anchored by heads of Abrg/Ab 5.5 at a
clear spacing of 2db in a code-conforming joint.
Figure 8 compares the profiles of tie bar strain along the
column height for each specimen at positive and negative
peak drift ratios. Comparing the measured strains at the 3%
drift ratio for all specimens, the tie bars in the joints of Spec-
imens B5 and C5 went beyond the yield strain but those of
Specimens A5, B3, and C3 remained in elastic. Accordingly,
the three sets of hoops and crossties (Ash,ratio = 1.0) were
barely enough for Specimen A5 with a low shear demand
of Vexp/Vn = 0.85, but Ash,ratio = 1.0 was insufficient for Spec-
imens B5 and C5 with higher shear demands. For higher
shear demands, the five sets of hoops and crossties (Ash,ratio =
1.67) in Specimens B3 and C3 could effectively confine the
joint at the 3% drift ratio, but such closely spaced hoops and
crossties would make construction difficult.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
It should be noted that most of the tie bar strains could
exceed the actual yield strain, indicating that many tie bars
attained a tensile stress in excess of the actual fyt = 122.3 ksi
(843 MPa). It is definitely conservative to place a maximum
fyt of 100 ksi (690 MPa) for transverse reinforcement as
given in ACI 318-14.1
ASSESSMENT OF CONNECTION DESIGN
PARAMETERS
The available reviewed test data (Table 1) and the presented
test results (Table 2) are assembled herein for assessing the
applicability of the existing design provisions for special
moment frame joints using high-strength reinforcement.
Anchorage requirements
Where closely spaced headed bars are used, either concrete
breakout or side blowout failure should be precluded by
providing sufficient anchorage length and adequate confine-
ment. For typical headed beam bars located in the confined
core of a continuous column, the surrounding concrete is
typically detailed with column hoops, crossties, and longi-
tudinal bars and the thickness of the side concrete cover to
the corner beam bars usually exceeds 2db. Therefore, side
blowout failure is relatively unlikely to occur in a joint in
1333
Fig. 7—Strain profiles along beam bars anchored in the joints. (Note: 1 mm = 0.04 in.)
a special moment frame. In common design practice, steel
congestion at beam-column joints may make designers use
large diameter bars in beams, and the development length
requirement or the potential of concrete breakout failure
may become critical.
Figure 9 shows the relations between the failure modes,
the experimental-to-nominal joint shear strength ratio, the
anchorage length ratio, and the confinement reinforcement
ratio. Due to lack of ductility, either “J” or “BJa” failure
should be precluded for special moment frames. As shown
in Fig. 9(a), the test results presented in this study had
provided-to-required anchorage length ratios of ℓa/ℓdt ≅ 1.0
and demonstrated satisfactory anchorage capacity for the
development of yielding in beams, except for Specimen
C5, which had a high joint shear demand and exhibited
failure before yielding in the beam (Table 2). With respect
to Specimen C5, Specimen C3 was subjected to the same
shear demand but it reached yielding in the beam because
of its joint shear capacity was enhanced by closed spaced
transverse reinforcement. Accordingly, the anchorage length
provided for each test specimen in this study is sufficient. On
the other hand, the three “J” failure and three “BJa” spec-
imens fall in the third quadrant of Fig. 9(a), in which the
anchorage length ratios (ℓa/ℓdt) are less than 0.70. It is not
1334
surprising that an insufficient anchorage length can not only
increase the potential of anchorage failure, but also reduce
the joint shear strength.
As shown in Table 1, the three “J” failure specimens
tested by Kawakatsu et al.13 and Takeuchi et al.14 used an
anchorage length of 0.75hc and 0.67hc, respectively, where
the heads were not extended to the far face of the confined
core. Consequently, the experimental joint shear strengths
of these three “J” failure specimens were even less than
the nominal strength of 12√fc′ psi (1.0√fc′ MPa) for Type 2
connections. In other words, the nominal joint shear strength
for the exterior may not be ensured unless the headed
beam bars are extended through the joint, over 3/4 of the
column depth, and near the back of the confined core. For
the presented test specimens in this study, the heads were
located 2 in. (50 mm) from the back of confined core with
an anchorage length of 0.82hc. All headed beam bars were
effectively anchored, and the benchmark Specimen A5 did
demonstrate acceptable performance under cyclic testing.
Influence of joint transverse reinforcement
Figure 9(b) shows that the experimental joint shear
strength is not sensitive to the Ash,ratio, which is the provided
amount of joint transverse reinforcement divided by the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Fig. 8—Profiles of tie bars along column height. (Note: 1 mm = 0.04 in.)
amount required by Eq. (1) without limiting fyt,max of 100 ksi
(690 MPa). The difference in joint shear strengths between
Specimens C5 and C3, or between Specimens B5 and B3,
were minimal with respect to the change in the Ash,ratio. Also
as shown in Table 1, Specimens J15-3 and J10-1 tested by
Iwaoka et al.18 were made with ultra-high-strength concrete,
reinforced with a low Ash,ratio due to high fc′, but still had
experimental joint shear strengths exceeding 12√fc′ psi
(1.0√fc′ MPa). Obviously, the amount of joint transverse
reinforcement is not an influencing parameter for joint shear
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
strength, and thus existing design codes set the nominal
strength as a function of fc′ only.
As shown in Fig. 9(b), the Ash,ratio of those “B” failure spec-
imens range from 0.48 to 1.01 without affecting the experi-
mental joint shear stress, which are dominated by the beam
hinging rather than the joint shear strength. In other words,
a lower amount of joint transverse reinforcement, such as
hoops without crossties, could be used in a beam-column
joint subjected to a lower shear demand. Similar observa-
tions can be found in the work of Hwang et al.27 However,
the minimum amount of joint transverse reinforcement
1335
Fig. 9—Relations between failure modes, experimental-to-nominal joint shear strength ratio, provided-to-required anchorage
length ratio, and confinement ratio for test joints.
Fig. 10—Observed drift capacity for joint shear failure with
or without adequate confinement.
required by Eq. (1) is still necessary for maintaining the
joint integrity and delaying the joint strength deterioration
under large inelastic deformation reversals. For the “J” or
“BJ” failure specimens listed in Table 1, joint shear failure
(with or without beam yielding) occurred at a drift ratio
not exceeding 4% due to low Ash,ratio in these specimens, as
shown in Fig. 10.
The experimental joint shear strengths of Specimens C5,
B5, and A5 decrease as the imposed drift increases. The
strength envelopes of Specimens C5, B5, and A5 with an
Ash,ratio of approximately 1.20 cross the nominal shear
strength of 12√fc′ psi (1.0√fc′ MPa) at approximately 5%
drift, which is considered good enough for a maximum-
consideration earthquake. Obviously, as compared in Fig. 10,
a higher Ash,ratio provided in Specimens C3 and B3 could delay
the deterioration of joint shear capacity and further increase
the drift capacity corresponding to the joint shear failure. The
effect of joint transverse reinforcement ratio on the degrada-
tion of joint shear capacity was illustrated in Fig. 11. Similar
conceptual models for joint strength degradation associated
1336
with the formation of beam hinging have been discussed by
Joh et al.23 and Lee and Ko.28 A refined analytical model has
been proposed by Lee et al.29 and verified with experiments
on normal-strength reinforced concrete beam-column joints.
It is desirable to develop a simple and practical degradation
model in future research for prediction of the shear strength
and deformation capacity of beam-column joints made with
all grades of reinforcement and concrete.
FURTHER RESEARCH
The role of transverse reinforcement on the joint shear
strength and deformation capacity is complicated but worth
further research, especially for the use of high-strength
concrete combined with high-strength transverse reinforce-
ment. Currently, ACI 318-141 does not allow designers to
take advantage of hoop yield strengths exceeding 100  ksi
(690  MPa), which is conservative but may be further
expanded with more research support.
CONCLUSIONS
Five exterior beam-column joints reinforced with Grade 100
(690) longitudinal and Grade 115 (790) transverse reinforce-
ment were tested under reversed cyclic loading. The test
results presented herein are combined with prior test data for
assessing the applicability of existing ACI 318 design provi-
sions for special moment frame joints using high-strength
reinforcement. Based on the available test results and obser-
vations, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. To promote compatible structural behavior, the use of
Grade 100 (690) reinforcement should be combined with
concrete strength in excess of 6000 psi (42 MPa). Based on
reviews of previous research, it is recommended to increase
the maximum fc′ up to 15,000 psi (100 MPa) for the calcula-
tions of the nominal shear strength and the anchorage length
in the joint.
2. For headed deformed bars terminating in the beam-
column joint detailed with code-conforming transverse
reinforcement, the minimum anchorage length ℓdt of headed
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Fig. 11—Effect of transverse reinforcement ratio on joint shear strength and deformation capacity.
bars given in ACI 318 is capable of developing actual yield
strength of Grade 100 (690) headed bars at a clear spacing
of 2db. The limitations of maximum fy of 60 ksi (420 MPa)
and minimum clear spacing of 3db for headed bars could
be relaxed.
3. To preclude anchorage failure and to promote the
development of a diagonal compression strut in the joint for
shear resistance, headed bars should satisfy the minimum
anchorage length requirement of ℓdt and extend through the
joint, over 3/4 of the overall joint depth, to the far face of the
confined core, even though the resulting anchorage length
exceeds the ℓdt.
4. Providing joint transverse reinforcement in excess of
the code-specified amount does not significantly enhance
the joint shear strength. The minimum amount of joint trans-
verse reinforcement required by ACI 318 is necessary for
delaying joint strength deterioration and achieving a failure
drift ratio beyond 4%.
5. The limitation of a maximum fyt of 100 ksi (690 MPa)
for confinement reinforcement is conservative and may be
further studied. The measured strain profiles showed that
most of the hoops and crossties in the presented test joints
could develop the actual yield strength of Grade 115 (790)
reinforcement at drift cycles of 3 or 4%.
6. By varying the joint shear demands, this study demon-
strates a clear trend of degrading joint shear capacity with
increasing inelastic deformation among the test joints. It is
recommended to develop a simple and practical degradation
model in future studies.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Hung-Jen (Harry) Lee is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering at National Yunlin
University of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan. He is a member of
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic
Concrete Structures. His research interests include testing of structural
concrete elements, behavior of beam-column connections, and seismic
design of concrete structures.
Chia-Jung Chang is a Technician in the Service Center for Construction
Technology and Materials at National Yunlin University of Science and
Technology, where he received his MS from the Department of Civil and
Construction Engineering in 2014. His research interests include structural
concrete elements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are very grateful to the Ministry of Science and Technology
in Taiwan for financing this research work through a group project. The
authors also wish to thank all the participants in this project, including the
staff at NCREE and the group leader, S.-J. Hwang, at National Taiwan
University. The presented experimental work may not be possible without
the support of NCREE in Taiwan.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
2. NEHRP Consultant Joint Venture, “Use of High-Strength Reinforce-
ment in Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures,” Applied Technology
Council for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST GCR
14-917-30, Gaithersburg, MD, 2014.
3. Kelly, D.; Lepage, A.; Mar, D.; Restrepo, J.; Sanders, J.; and Taylor, A.,
“Use of High-Strength Reinforcement for Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Structures,” Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Anchorage, AK, 2014.
4. ASTM A706/A706M-15, “Standard Specification for Low-Alloy Steel
Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015, 7 pp.
5. AS/NZS 4671:2001, “Steel Reinforcing Materials,” Standards
Australia, Sydney, Australia, 2001, 41 pp.
6. Nishiyama, M., “Mechanical Properties of Concrete and Reinforce-
ment—State-of-the-art Report on HSC and HSS in Japan,” Journal of
Advanced Concrete Technology, V. 7, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 157-182.
7. Sokoli, D., and Ghannoum, W. M., “High-Strength Reinforcement
in Columns under High Shear Stresses,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113,
No. 3, May-June 2016, pp. 605-614.
8. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
1337
(ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002,
38 pp.
9. Lee, H.-J., and Hwang, S.-J., “High-Strength Concrete and Rein-
forcing Steel in Beam-Column Connections,” Structures Congress 2013,
Pittsburgh, PA, 2013, pp. 1606-1615.
10. Kim, J., and LaFave, J. M., “Key Influence Parameters for the Joint
Shear Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete (RC) Beam-Column Connec-
tions,” Engineering Structures, V. 29, No. 10, 2007, pp. 2523-2539.
11. Kang, T. H.-K.; Shin, M.; Mitra, N.; and Bonacci, J. F., “Seismic
Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints with Headed Bars,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2009, pp. 868-877.
12. Nakazawa, H.; Kumagai, H.; Saito, H.; Kurose, Y.; and Yabe, Y.,
“Development on the Ultra-High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Structure:
Part 3. Loading Tests on Exterior Beam-Column Joints,” Proceedings of the
Annual Meeting of the Architectural Institute of Japan (Tohoku Chapter),
No. C-2, Structures IV, 2000, pp. 611-612.
13. Kawakatsu, K.; Tasai, A.; Kiyohara, T.; and Kubota, T., “Shear Perfor-
mance of Exterior Beam Column Joint with Beam Main Bars Anchored
Mechanically,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 22, No. 3,
2000, pp. 703-708.
14. Takeuchi, H.; Nakamura, K.; Hayakawa, K.; and Ichikawa, M.,
“Experiments of Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Mechanical Anchorage
of Circular Anchor Plate,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute,
V. 25, No. 2, 2003, pp. 913-918.
15. Watanabe, K.; Kiyohara, T.; Tasai, A.; and Hasegawa, Y., “Deforma-
tion Capacity of High Strength RC Exterior Beam Column Joint with Beam
Main Bars Anchored Mechanically,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete
Institute, V. 26, No. 2, 2004, pp. 481-486.
16. Kiyohara, T.; Hasegawa, Y.; Fujimoto, T.; Akane, J.; Amemiya, M.;
Tasai, A.; and Adachi, T., “Seismic Performance of High Strength RC Exte-
rior Beam Column Joint with Beam Main Bars Anchored Mechanically:
Part 5-9,” Proceedings of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan
(Kinki Chapter), V. 2005, No. C-2, Structures IV, July 31, 2005, pp. 33-42.
17. Hara, T.; Watanabe, H.; Kosaka, H.; Hattori, A.; Komuro, T.; and Kai,
T., “Structural Performance on RC Beam-Column Joints Using Ultra High
Strength Materials: Part. 1 Outline of Test,” Proceedings of Annual Meeting
Architectural Institute of Japan (Kinki Chapter), No. C-2, Structures IV,
2005, pp. 241-242.
18. Iwaoka, S.; Hori, S.; Naruse, T.; Watanabe, T.; Yamamoto, K.; and
Konno, S., “Experimental Study on the Beam-Column Joints of Ultra-
1338
High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Structure,” Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the Architectural Institute of Japan (Kinki Chapter), 2005,
pp. 245-246.
19. Kuo, C.-H., “Seismic Performance of High-Strength Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” MS thesis, National Yunlin University of
Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan, 2011, 239 pp.
20. Ou, Y.-C.; Canseco, H. A.; and Kurniawan, D. P., “Anchorage Perfor-
mance of Headed Deformed Bars in Exterior Beam-Column Joints under
Cyclic Loading,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2017, pp. 1-13. doi:
10.1007/s12205-017-1868-z
21. Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), Design Guidelines for Earth-
quake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based on Inelastic Displace-
ment Concept, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 1999, 440 pp.
22. ACI Committee 374, “Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames
Based on Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 9 pp.
23. Joh, O.; Goto, Y.; and Shibata, T., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints with Eccentricity,” Design of Beam-Column Joints
for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991, pp. 317-357.
24. Chiu, C.-K.; Chi, K.-N.; and Lin, K.-C., “Experimental Investigation
on the Seismic Anchorage Behavior of Headed Bars Based on Full-Size
Specimens of Exterior and Interior Beam-Column Joints,” Advances in
Structural Engineering, V. 19, No. 5, 2016, pp. 777-794.
25. Kang, T. H.-K.; Kim, W.; and Shin, M., “Cyclic Testing for Seismic
Design Guide of Beam-Column Joints with Closely Spaced Headed Bars,”
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 16, No. 2, 2012, pp. 211-230.
26. ACI Committee 374, “Guide for Testing Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tural Elements under Slowly Applied Simulated Seismic Loads (ACI
374.2R-13),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013,
18 pp.
27. Hwang, S.-J.; Lee, H.-J.; Liao, T.-F.; Wang, K.-C.; and Tsai, H.-H.,
“Role of Hoops on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005, pp. 445-453.
28. Lee, H. J., and Ko, J. W., “Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Connections Subjected to Cyclic Loading in Principal Directions,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 459-467.
29. Lee, J.-Y.; Kim, J.-Y.; and Oh, G.-J., “Strength Deterioration of Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” Engi-
neering Structures, V. 31, No. 9, 2009, pp. 2070-2085.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017