Assessment and Design Procedure for the Seismic

Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column

Joints using FRP Composite Materials
Umut Akguzel, Ph.D.1 and Stefano Pampanin2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In this study, an analytical procedure for the evaluation of the expected performance of existing reinforced concrete (RC) beam-
column joints before and after being retrofitted using fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials is presented. Focus is given on the
evaluation of the shear-strength versus deformation properties of the panel zone region either in the as-built or FRP-retrofitted configuration.
Based on experimental and numerical evidence as well as on physical models representing the mechanics of the joint region, principal tensile
stresses versus joint shear deformation relationships are adopted and preferred to more traditional nominal shear-strength rules, to evaluate,
within a step-by-step iterative procedure, the combination of the joint shear contribution provided by the FRP composite material and that
provided by the concrete core alone. The use of principal stresses allows one to directly account for the effects of variation of axial load,
typically neglected in the assessment and retrofit of beam-column joints. The hierarchy of strength and sequence of events (damage mech-
anisms) expected within a beam-column subsystem are visualized via M-N interaction performance domains, used as a basis for a
performance-based retrofit philosophy. Specific limit states or design objectives are targeted, with attention given to both strength and de-
formation limits. The proposed analytical procedure is validated on the results of a set of experimental tests available in the literature. With
the intention to provide a simple design tool that can be easily implemented by practicing engineers, a worked example for the evaluation of
the expected performance of an FRP retrofitted beam-column joint is provided and used as a basis for a parametric study to illustrate the
effects of different strengthening schemes on the behavior of strengthened exterior joint panels under various axial load levels. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000242. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Rehabilitation; Fiber reinforced polymer; Analytical techniques; Beam columns; Reinforced concrete;
Shear failures; Composite materials.
Author keywords: Rehabilitation; Fiber reinforced polymers; Analytical techniques; Beam columns; Concrete; Reinforced; Shear failure.

Introduction sudden loss of vertical load-carrying capacity with partial or

Field reports and observations after earthquake events have pro-
vided further confirmation of the inherent vulnerability of existing
reinforced concrete (RC) structures designed and built before the
development of more recent seismic codes in the early mid-1970s.
As a consequence of lack of capacity design principles and inad-
equate structural detailing, such as the use of smooth (plain round)
bars, the lack of shear reinforcement (stirrups) in the joint, and gen-
eral deficiencies in the anchorage details (e.g., hook-ended bars, lap
splices, 90° opened stirrups), the beam-column joint regions of
older construction practice have been identified, already for many
years, as potentially high critical links within a frame system, being
a likely cause of the brittle mechanism at a local level leading to
1
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources
Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Private Box 4800, Christchurch 8140,
New Zealand; formerly, Ph.D. Candidate, Univ. of Canterbury. E-mail:
umutakguzel@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor (Reader), Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources
Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Private Box 4800, Christchurch 8140,
New Zealand (corresponding author). E-mail: stefano.pampanin@
canterbury.ac.nz
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 29, 2010; approved
on July 8, 2011; published online on July 11, 2011. Discussion period open
until July 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Construction,
Vol. 16, No. 1, February 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2012/1-21–
34/$25.00.
collapse failure of the entire structure (Ghannoum et al. 2006;
Priestley 1997).
During the last two decades, several strengthening methodol-
ogies have been proposed and implemented to enhance the shear
resistance of RC joints. Among alternative solutions and technol-
ogies, the use of externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymers
(FRPs) has been receiving particular attention for the recognized
advantages of low weight/strength ratio, relatively low invasive-
ness in terms of geometric modification of the existing structure,
corrosion protection, and more simplified installation processes.
Various researchers have conducted tests on different layouts of
FRP fabric and sheets bonded to RC beam-column connections
(e.g., Pantelides et al. 1999; Tsonos et al. 1999; Gergely et al.
2000; Prota et al. 2001; Pantelides et al. 2001; Ghobarah et al.
2001; El-Amoury et al. 2002; Calvi 2002; Antonopoulos and
Triantafillou 2003; El-Amoury and Ghobarah El-Amoury and
Ghobarah 2005; Pampanin et al. 2007; Akguzel and Pampanin
2007, 2010; Al-Salloum et al. 2007a). In general and unanimously,
a significant performance enhancement was noted in all these
tests, in terms of strength, stiffness, and ductility of the retrofitted
specimens when compared to the as-built ones.
Despite the number of experimental studies on the behavior of
FRP retrofitted beam-column joints, relatively less work has been
dedicated on the development of simple but reliable analysis and
design procedure for FRP-strengthened joints. Gergely et al. (2000)
presented a design example for an interior joint of bridge bent
tested by Pantelides et al. (1999): the behavior of externally bonded

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 21

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 FRP layers was proposed to be evaluated in terms of equivalent
external steel stirrups. The additional contribution of FRP to the
shear strength of the as-built joint could thus be predicted with
a relatively simple method. Ghobarah and Said (2001) and
El-Amoury and Ghobarah (2002) proposed a similar design meth-
odology to calculate the required FRP reinforcement to replace the
missing joint shear reinforcement and upgrade the shear capacity of
existing RC beam-column joints. Antonopoulos and Triantafillou
(2002) proposed an extended version of the Pantazopoulou and
Bonacci (1992) model to account for the effects of externally
bonded FRP on the shear capacity of the panel zone region. By
utilizing stress equilibrium and strain compatibility at the center
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
details on the step-by-step procedure are provided in this study
along with practical design formulas, a full worked example,
and results of parametric investigations and experimental-analytical
comparisons.
Limit-state design principles are followed in the seismic assess-
ment and retrofit design phases. When assessing the nominal
strength of a member, the possible failure mechanisms should
be predicted and associated with material strains and stress levels.
According to the aforementioned procedure, the capacities of the
structural elements within the beam-column-joint subassembly
(e.g., beam, column, and joint) can be evaluated by referring to

of the planar region, formulations were derived to represent differ-
ent damage-limit states associated with the crushing of the concrete
or the debonding or failure of the FRP. Almusallam and Al-Salloum
(2007b) more recently applied the aforementioned model on FRP-
strengthened “interior joints” and further extended it to predict
diagonal tensile stresses in the joint. In both applications, computer
programs were developed to track the state of stress and strain in
strengthened RC joints. It should be noted that the formulation
given in the Pantazopoulou and Bonacci (1992) model was origi-
nally derived for interior beam-column joints designed according to
current code provisions and thus was based on many assumptions
such as a good bond of the beam-column reinforcements, which is
harder to assume when dealing with joints designed according to
preseismic codes.
specified limit states (e.g., beam or column hinging, “cracking,”
equivalent “yielding” or extensive damage of the joint core, as well
as FRP debonding or failure) and written in terms of equivalent
moment in the column corresponding to the occurrence of that
specific limit state. This can be easily achieved following equilib-
rium considerations within the beam-column-joint system. At a
later stage, in order to evaluate and control the governing mecha-
nisms in the joint subassembly under different demand conditions
of a retrofitted beam-column joint, the actual sequence of events
should be determined by comparing demand and capacities. This
can be done within an M-N (moment-axial load) diagram, also re-
ferred to by the authors as performance domain. An appropriate
rehabilitation solution would aim to rearrange the existing sequence
of events according to capacity design considerations.

Research Significance

Studies on assessment and strengthening design procedures for

existing RC beam-column joints using FRPs are relatively limited.
Recently refined analytical procedures proposed for the evaluation
of strengthened beam-column joints are still somehow too complex
to be implemented and adopted by practitioner engineers on a daily
basis. This study aims at proposing a rational step-by-step pro-
cedure, relatively simple to implement in a spreadsheet program,
for the assessment of RC beam-column joints in their as-built
and retrofit configurations. To fulfill the aforementioned objective,
a full worked example of an FRP retrofitted exterior beam-column
joint is provided in half a page of this manuscript as a confirmation
of the conciseness and ease of the design approach.

Design Methodology: Hierarchy of Strength and

Sequence of Events

The retrofit design strategy follows, in general terms, capacity de-

sign principles (Paulay and Priestley 1992): selected components of
the beam-column subassembly are upgraded to achieve a ductile
behavior through the development of plastic hinge mechanisms
in the beam (weak-beam, strong-column mechanism), whereas
other regions are protected from inelastic brittle mechanisms. As
a critical step before any retrofit solution is designed, the assess-
ment of the expected behavior and performance (damage under a
given intensity of loading) of an existing beam-column joint in its
as-built configuration needs to be properly carried out. The internal
hierarchy of strength of the system, combined with the likely de-
mand, would provide critical information on the expected sequence
of events (or damage-failure mechanism, such as beam or column
flexural yielding/hinging, joint shear failure, etc.). A simple pro-
cedure to evaluate the internal hierarchy of strength has been con-
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of M-N performance domain of as-built
ceptually proposed in the literature (Pampanin et al. 2007), based
and retrofitted specimens with sequence of events under different
on the construction of capacity and demand curves within M-N
demand curves (images by U. Akguzel)
(moment-axial load) performance domains. Background and further

22 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 M -N Performance Domain
Fig. 1 shows the experimental results of quasi-static cyclic tests on
beam-column joints before [Fig. 1(a)] and after [Fig. 1(b)] being
retrofitted with FRP. The as-built specimen (typical of pre-1970s
design) failed in a brittle mode, due to the formation of a joint shear
mechanism. In the FRP retrofitted specimen, the joint shear damage
and failure was protected while a beam plastic hinge was developed
and relocated away from the beam-column interface. Details on the
experimental program can be found in the study by Akguzel and
Pampanin (2010). Of interest for the scope of this paper is to note
that the experimental results confirmed the efficiency of the targeted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
design. Hence, brittle local mechanisms, such as shear failure of the
joint and column, and global mechanisms, such as weak column,
strong beam, were prevented by upgrading the internal hierarchy
of strength such that the beam plastic hinging (thus insuring a
beam-sway mechanism) became the first predicted “event.” The ex-
pected hierarchy of strength and sequence of events for the as-built
and retrofitted joints were evaluated using the concept of M-N per-
formance domain (Pampanin et al. 2007), as shown in Fig. 1(c).
Effects of Varying Axial Load
Two different demand conditions corresponding to either a constant
axial load or a varying axial load are illustrated, in order to dem-
onstrate the influence of the axial load variation in the sequence
of events formation. It is, in fact, important to note that most of
the experimental work regarding the retrofitting of exterior beam-
column joints is typically conducted under constant axial load.
Because of the effects of lateral loads on a frame as well as the
vertical component of ground motions, a high level of axial load
variation in the exterior beam-column joint can be experienced.
As shown in Fig. 1(c) for the as-built condition, the sequence of
events or damage (e.g., 1 ¼ joint, 2 ¼ beam, 3 ¼ column) are,
in this case, the same under both demand curve conditions, regard-
less of the assumption of the axial load (see the numbers in circles).
Two different retrofit schemes (in this study referred as Scheme 1
and Scheme 2) on the same joint may produce totally different se-
quences of events (see the numbers in rectangular boxes) when
considering the actual variation of axial load demand.
If assuming, for the sake of simplicity, a constant axial load, the
joint-strengthening Scheme 1 may seem sufficient and adequate to
protect the joint region while inducing a ductile flexural hinge in
the beam. However, due to the reduction of axial load during the
frame sway, the actual strength of the joint would be lower (in the
direction of reduction of axial load) of that of the beam, thus
leading to a premature damage of the joint even after the retrofit
intervention.
Hence, an alternative retrofit Scheme 2 would be required to
guarantee an appropriate ductile failure mode, with the formation
of flexural hinges in the beam in all realistically predicted demand
conditions (see number 3 in rectangular box). Recent experimental
studies conducted by the authors have confirmed the importance of
accounting for the variation of axial load (Akguzel and Pampanin
2010) and will be used in the following paragraphs as a validation
of the analytical assessment and retrofit procedure.
Analytical tools to assess the capacity of each element within
the beam-column-joint system are given in the following sections.
As suggested in many FRP design guidelines [Federation Inter-
national du Beton (FIB) 2001, 2006; American Concrete Institute
(ACI) Committee 440.2, 2007], additional (material-based or
section-related) strength reduction factors may be used to reflect
higher uncertainty (or better lesser existing knowledge) on the FRP
material and system behavior, when compared to more traditional
reinforced and prestressed concrete solutions.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 23
J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34
Evaluation of Beam and Column Section Capacities:
As-Built and Retrofitted Conditions
To develop and visualize the actual hierarchy of strength within a
beam-column-joint system, which would depend on the geometri-
cal and mechanical properties of the subassemblies and on the axial
load ratio (demand) and upgrading scheme, the capacities (flexural
and shear) of beams and columns before and after the retrofit need
to be evaluated. It is intended that the capacity design principle
would be targeted in the retrofit solutions, thus providing protection
of any internal (to the element) shear failure when compared to a
more favorable flexural mechanism. Similarly in the assessment
phase, both shear and flexural capacity of the elements need to
be evaluated and compared.
A layer-by-layer iterative procedure (sort of fiber-section
analysis) is utilized to obtain the moment-curvature response of
the critical sections by idealizing the cross section as a series of
rectangular layers to evaluate the sectional forces corresponding
to a given strain distribution. The Bernoulli-Navier hypothesis
of “plane sections remain plane” after bending is assumed. The po-
sition of the neutral axis is first estimated, and a series of iterations
are carried out until both equilibrium and compatibility conditions
are satisfied [Fig. 2, Eq. (1)]. Using the nomenclature given in Fig. 2
for axial force N h , force equilibrium at any level of response can be
written as
Z
X X
N h ¼ f c ðyÞbw ts þ f si Asi þ f f i Af i ð1Þ
The moment capacity of the retrofitted section can be found by
taking moments of the stress resultants about the section centroid
Z X X
M b;Rij ¼ f c ðyÞbw t s yi þ f si Asi yi þ f f i Af i yi ð2Þ
The material constitutive relationships include refined models
for the confined and unconfined concrete (Mander et al. 1988), for
the reinforcing steel (Dodd et al. 1995) and a simplified linear-
elastic stress-strain relationship for the FRP composite material
provided by the supplier. For the sake of simplicity, instead of using
a smeared concrete model (Mander et al. 1988), a “segmented core
model” (Allington 2003) approach, along with the simplified
method for discretization proposed by Manfredi et al. (2001), has
been adopted in this study in the section analysis. The cross section
is thus divided into two regions: unconfined and effectively con-
fined. The effectively confined area is subjected to the full lateral
confining pressure, due to yielding of the transverse reinforcement
and confining pressure provided by an equivalent FRP jacket
(Wang and Restrepo 2001). According to the segmented core
model and the simplified form proposed by Manfredi et al. (2001),
the confined region is determined. The confinement effects of the
FRP on the section can be taken into account following procedures
available in the literature (e.g., Spoelstra and Monti 1999).
Fig. 2. Layer-by-layer sectional analysis of strengthened RC beam
section with n layers of rebar
 Evaluation of the Joint Shear Capacity in the
As-Built Configuration
Experimental studies on old-type beam-column joints have re-
ported that the shear degradation of the joint panel zone can cause
the collapse of complete structural components before any signifi-
cant damage takes place in either beams or columns. Based on
a series of experimental investigations on exterior beam-column
joints with plain round bars with an end hook (Pampanin et al.
2002), a peculiar damage mechanism referred to as “concrete
wedge,” has been identified. Because of the combination of
(1) slippage of the beam reinforcement, due to the use of smooth
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bars and of inadequate anchorage in the joint area, (2) punching
effects at the level of the hook anchorage on the exterior face of
the joint subassembly when the beam bars are in compression,
and (3) cyclic shear diagonal cracking in the joint panel zone, a
concrete wedge mechanism develops. As a consequence, a sudden
and severe joint shear-strength reduction after first diagonal crack-
ing (at a relatively low level of interstory drift, 0.6–0.8%) occurs
because of the inefficiency of the diagonal strut mechanism within
the joint region and the stress concentration at the beam bar
end hooks.
Obviously, this behavior is significantly different from what is
expected in joints designed with modern detailing and cannot be
properly predicted nor quantified by using traditional models re-
ported in the literature for beam-column joints. More recently,
an alternative approach in design/assessment of beam-column
joints has been based on the use of limit states associated with
a critical level of principal tensile or compression stresses, which
is arguably more consistent (when compared to the use of the nomi-
nal shear strength only) with the underlying mechanics of the prob-
lem, as also confirmed by the recognition of the influence of axial
load acting on the beams or columns on the joint cracking and ul-
timate strength (FIB 2003). Furthermore, instead of a “truss mecha-
nism” that relies upon the presence of stirrups and can be developed
only when good bond stress transfer is maintained along the beam
and column reinforcing bars, thus mainly for new or well-designed
beam-column joints (Paulay et al. 1992), a simple “diagonal strut
mechanism,” accounting for the concrete contribution to joint
shear, which can develop without any bond stress transfer from
the beam and column reinforcing bars within the joint, is suggested
to be used to qualitatively describe such observed behavior. Note
that since both mechanisms depend on the strength of the core con-
crete, the ultimate shear capacity of the joint is governed by the
failure of the concrete, which is itself limited by the gradual crush-
ing along the cross-diagonal cracks along the potential failure
planes.
Research on poorly designed joints (Priestley et al. 1996; Calvi
et al. 2002; Pampanin et al. 2002) has provided suggestions for
such limit states based on principal stresses and referring to the
shear-strength degradation curve, i.e., shear strength envelops ex-
pressed in terms of average value of principal tensile or compres-
sion stresses as a function of the shear distortion in the joint,
depending on different structural detailing or joint type. Based
on experimental evidence (Pampanin et al. 2002; Hertanto 2006)
for tee-joints with plain round bars and end hooks, the first crack
in the joint core can
pffiffiffiffibe assumed to occur at a principal tensile stress
level, pt ¼ 0:19 f 0c , which should be considered an upper limit
for first diagonal cracking, with significant reduction for the second
cracking as a consequence of reverse cyclic deterioration. For the
assessment of as-built exterior joints with plain round bars and end
hooks, the proposed strength degradation curve is given in Fig. 3
from the experimental findings conducted by the authors (Akguzel
and Pampanin 2010).
24 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012
J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34
Fig. 3. Strength degradation curves for exterior joints in terms of
principal tensile stress versus shear deformation
To generate the M-N performance domains and evaluate the in-
ternal hierarchy of strength and sequence of events, the equivalent
joint moment M jo , for the as-built configuration (prior to retrofit)
corresponding to different limit states (damage level) in the joint,
needs to be evaluated and compared with the yielding moment in
the beam and columns. The external and internal actions considered
for an exterior beam-column joint are illustrated in Figs. 4(a) and 5.
The purpose is to write such capacities in terms of equivalent mo-
ment in the column (or shear in the column) versus axial load.
Using the nomenclature given in these figures, the horizontal
shear force acting on the joint core is
V jh ¼ T
V c ð3Þ
where T = tensile force at the bottom beam bars; and V c = hori-
zontal column shear force. By equilibrium of the subassembly,
external actions V c lc ¼ V b lb , where V b = beam shear force;
lc = height of column; and lb = distance from column center to con-
traflexure point. The beam yielding moment, M byo , acting at the
face of the joint core can be evaluated as:
 
hc
M byo ¼ V b lb
¼ Tjd ð4Þ
2
where jd = internal forces lever arm in the beam section; and hc =
overall depth of column in the direction of the horizontal shear to be
considered. For the sake of simplicity, jd can be taken in this study
as 0:9d, where d = effective depth. This moment capacity is not
affected by any variation of axial load and thus is constant with
varying axial load. After rearranging T in Eq. (4), replacing V b
by V c lc =lb, substituting into the joint horizontal shear force equa-
tion, leads to
   
lc hc
V jh ¼ V c l

1 ð5Þ
lb jd b 2
Because the column moment at the top of the joint, M col ¼
V c ðlc
hb Þ=2, where hb = height of beam, after rearranging
Eq. (5), the moment in the column M col can be written in terms
of horizontal joint shear force, V jh , as follows:
 
V jh l c
hb
M col ¼ h i ð6Þ
2
lb jd ðlb
2 Þ
1
lc hc
The nominal horizontal shear stress, vjh , at the middepth of
the joint core is V jh =ðbj hc Þ. The effective width of the joint, bj ,
is given by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Exterior RC joint shear resisting mechanisms: (a) forces acting on as-built joint; (b) kinematics of as-built joint; (c) forces acting on a
retrofitted joint; (d) horizontal force equilibrium; (e) vertical force equilibrium
Fig. 5. Exterior RC joint strengthening with FRP: schematic illustra-
tion of design dimensions
bj ¼ minðbc ; bc þ 0:5hc Þ if bc ≥ bw
bj ¼ minðbw ; bc þ 0:5hc Þ if bc ≤ bw
where bc and bw = width of the column and beam, respectively; and
hc = depth of the column.
As mentioned, because the principal stresses have been shown
to be a more appropriate damage indicator for beam-column joints,
the Mohr’s circle can be used along with the kinematics of the
as-built joint [Fig. 4(b)] to evaluate the corresponding principal
tensile, pt , and compression, pc , stresses in the joint panel
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pt ¼
f v =2  ðf v =2Þ2 þ ν 2jh
where f v = nominal compressive stress on the column at the
middepth of the joint core and is given by
f v ¼ N v =ðhc bc Þ
where compressive stress, N v , is taken as positive.
A general formulation/expression for the equivalent joint mo-
ment, M j , thus corresponding to identified levels of damage-limit
states expressed in terms of principal stresses, in this case is found
after substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (6) as follows:
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 25
J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
p2t þ pt hNc bvc bj hc ðlc
hb Þ
Mj ¼ ð11Þ
½lc ðlb
hc =2Þ=0:9dlb
1 2
A more condensed expression of Eq. (11) can be written as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p2t þ pt f v
Mj ¼ ð103 Þ ½kNm ð12Þ
ω
where ω is regarded as a geometric coefficient, related to the nota-
tions given in Fig. 5
2l0b lc
1:8dlb
ω¼ ð13Þ
0:9dlb Ae ðlc
hb Þ
where l0b = half clear span length; and Ae = effective area in the joint.
In the as-built and retrofitted conditions, the equivalent joint
moment, M j , would be referred to as M jo and M j;Rij , respectively.
Rij, which stands for the retrofitting scheme, is explained in the
design example section.
ð7Þ
Evaluation of Joint Shear Capacity after FRP
ð8Þ Strengthening
Pantazapoulou and Bonacci (1992) proposed a formulation for
the assessment of joint design parameters based on the mechanics
of interior beam-column joints in laterally loaded frames. Their
formulation established the compatibility of the strain and stress
equilibrium states at the center of a planar joint region throughout
the range of response up to failure and assumes good bond condi-
tions of the beam and column reinforcement. It was shown that the
joint capacity could be limited by the crushing of the principal
diagonal strut or by the yielding of the vertical reinforcement after
ð9Þ hoop reinforcement yielding in the joint panel.
Antonopoulos and Triantafillou (2002) proposed an extended
version of the aforementioned model to evaluate the shear strength
of beam-column joints of known geometry, reinforcement quan-
tities, and retrofitted with externally bonded FRP. A comprehensive
ð10Þ computer program was developed to trace several possible stages of
the response, such as (1) yielding of the transverse or longitudinal
reinforcement, (2) crushing of the concrete along the diagonal, or,
in case of retrofitted specimens, (3) debonding or failure of FRP
sheets.
In light of the previous discussions, a new analytical model is
presented here to evaluate the shear resistance of the retrofitted
 joint, based on a combination of a mechanically based model A closed form of the quadratic polynomial equation of tan2 θ can
and empirical observations. According to the proposed model, the be obtained by substituting Eqs. (17) and (18) into Eq. (16) after
total shear strength of the retrofitted joint can be regarded as rearranging and replacing εl and εt [as per Eqs. (14) and (15)] into
the parallel combination, for the same joint shear distortion, of the obtained equation along with Eq. (21). The procedure described
the effects/strength of the intrinsic as-built (unretrofitted) condition above leads to
and the contribution from the composite materials attached to the    
specimen. The evaluation of the as-built shear capacity of the joint 1 1 Nv
þ tan4 θ þ tan2 θ
has already been discussed in the previous section. A mechanically E c ρf t E f hc bc ρf l ρf t E2f εt
based model is utilized in order to determine the joint shear resis-  
1 1
tance due to composite material following the basic considerations
þ ¼0 ð22Þ
used by aforementioned researchers, and extending to account E c ρf l E f
for limit states based on principal tensile and compression stresses
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

versus joint shear deformation.

In Figs. 4(c)–4(e) and 5, a schematic illustration of the average Iterative Procedure to Evaluate the Joint Shear
stresses, the external and internal actions, with the nomenclature Capacity after FRP Strengthening
used in the design and assessment of exterior RC joint strengthened
with FRP, are shown with the idealization of the joint as a three- The shear capacity of the strengthened exterior RC joint, including
dimensional element. The joint shear stresses, assumed to be uni- the current state of stress and strain in the joint, can be determined
formly distributed over the boundaries of the joint, are introduced by a simple iterative procedure. The input consists of the following:
by direct member action as well as by a bond that develops between 1. Geometric data: hb , bw , hc , bc ;
the composite material and the joint core concrete. Under the equi- 2. Material properties: compressive strength of concrete, f 0c ;
librium and compatibility conditions, the average compressive elastic modulus of concrete, Ec ; tensile strength of concrete,
transverse and longitudinal stresses in the concrete, σt and σl , are f ct ; FRP thickness per layer, t f ; design rupture strain in the
expressed as FRP, εf u ; elastic modulus of the fibers, E f ;
3. FRP application scheme details: depth of FRP sheet on beam
σt ¼
ρf t E f εt ð14Þ surface, d f b ; depth of FRP sheet on column surface, d f c ; num-
ber of sheet on beam, nf b ; number of sheet on column, nf c ;
Nv number of beam sides covered with FRP, nsf ;b ; number of col-
σl ¼
ρf l E f εl
ð15Þ
hc bc umn sides covered with FRP, nsf ;c . The FRP reinforcement
ratio in the transverse or longitudinal direction can be found
where ρf t and ρf l = FRP reinforcement ratio in the transverse and as follows:
longitudinal direction, respectively; E f = elastic modulus of fiber;
and εl and εt = average normal strain along normal directions l ρf t ¼ ðnf b nsf ;b t f d f b Þ=ðhb bw Þ ð23Þ
and t, respectively.
Plane stress and strain components can be written in terms of
nominal shear stress in the joint, vjh , and direction of the principal ρf l ¼ ðnf c nsf ;c tf d f c Þ=ðhc bc Þ ð24Þ
stresses, tan θ, using well known in-plane shear and normal stress
expressions given in Eqs. (16)–(20). It is assumed that (1) the maxi-
mum principal stress in the concrete, σ1 , is always less than the As an initial step, the transverse strain, εt , is incremented. For
tensile capacity (for simplicity, taken in this study as zero); and each value of εt , Eq. (22) is solved for tan θ so that the shear stress
(2) the directions of principal strains and stresses coincide (nearly due to FRP, ν f , can be calculated by Eq. (21). Next, the normal
correct if the reinforcement has not yielded) stress in the FRP, f f t ¼ E f εt , along the direction t (at midheight
of the joint) is evaluated. It is important to note that, as shown
σ2 ¼ σt þ σl ð16Þ in Fig. 4(c), the external moment in the beam would be twice
of that in each column based on the equilibrium conditions. Hence,
σt ¼
vjh · tan θ ð17Þ this phenomena implies that strain demand in the beams will be
higher than those of columns. Based on these observations, it is
deemed to be sufficient to check FRP debonding limit states in
vjh
σl ¼
ð18Þ the beam element. In other words, due to higher strain demand
tan θ in the beam compared to the columns, it is expected that FRP de-
bonding would initiate in the beam elements before the column
ε1
εt elements, which in turn governs the response of the joint subassem-
tan2 θ ¼ ð19Þ
ε1
εl bly. At the end of each iteration step, two failure conditions should
be checked.
2ðε1
εt Þ 1. Debonding or failure of FRP: The FRP will fail by tensile frac-
γ¼ ð20Þ ture when the tensile stress reaches the tensile strength, f f u , or
tan θ
corresponding ultimate FRP strain, εf u . Debonding is treated
where σ2 = minimum principal stress in the concrete; ε1 = here according to the fractural mechanics-based model of
maximum principal strain in the joint panel; γ = average angle Holzenkampfer (1994). This model is slightly modified here to
of shear distortion, respectively. give the maximum tensile stress in an FRP strip of thickness,
The nominal shear stress contribution due to the FRP, ν f , can be t f , in millimeters when debonding occurs (i.e., on beam side),
easily calculated by rearranging Eq. (17) and equals
ρ f t E f εt qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vf ¼ ð21Þ f f ;max ¼ f f ;deb ¼ c1 ðEf f ct Þ=ðtf nf b Þ for lbt ≥ lb;max ð25Þ
tan θ

26 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 where c1 = an empirical coefficient taken as 0.64 for carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), as suggested by Neubauer
and Rostasy (1997); and lbt = FRP development length along
the direction t (in millimeters)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
lb;max ¼ ðE f tf Þ=c2 f ct Þ ð26Þ

where c2 can be taken as 2, according to Holzenkampfer

(1994).
2. Diagonal compression failure of the concrete in the joint panel
zone: Experimental studies have shown that, for interior joints,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the use of diagonal tensile failure criteria in the joint core

(assuming that the shear strength is reached at the stage of
initial diagonal tension cracking of the joint core) may be
too conservative (Hakuto et al. 2000). It is interesting to note
that recent studies have shown that FRP externally bonded ex-
terior beam-column joints are capable of developing a suffi-
cient compressive strut mechanism in the joint panel zone
similar to interior joints (Pampanin et al. 2007a; Akguzel and
Pampanin 2010). By means of such a diagonal compression
strut mechanism, the joint core may be capable of transferring
significantly higher shear forces after the first diagonal tension
cracking occurred under the composite layer. When the com-
pressive strength of the strut is sufficiently weakened by the
diagonal tension cracks due to repeated opening and closing,
crushing of the diagonal compression strut will finally occur. In
order to satisfy capacity design considerations, the diagonal
compression stress in the joint panel zone should be limited
to prevent premature brittle failure of the compression strut,
especially after the development of multiple diagonal cracks
as shown in Fig. 1(a), which would reduce the width of the
compression strut. The confinement of the joint panel zone
via a U-shape FRP layer anchored back in the beam would
not only increase the strength and efficiency of the diagonal
compression strut but would also help in controlling the lateral
expansion of the joint core. In general, principal compression
stressed in the joint has been suggested to be limited by
(Priestley et al. 1996) Fig. 6. Flow chart for determining the joint shear capacity of the
retrofitted specimen
pc ≤ 0:3f 0c ð27Þ

Prota et al. (2001) also confirmed that the limit of 0:3f 0c for the
principal compression stress at failure of the joint could be a rea-
sonable design criterion, even though it could be conservative for
high axial load ratios. By using the aforementioned relationships,
the FRP contribution to the increase in the joint shear capacity of
poorly detailed beam-column joints can be adequately estimated in
terms of principal tensile stress, ptf , as a function of the amount and
layout of the externally bonded reinforcement.
The whole procedure without iteration (as a valid option to the
iterative approach) to assess the capacity of FRP retrofitted exterior
beam-column joints with plain round bars and end hooks is sum-
marized as a flow chart in Fig. 6.
Design Example
A full design example of the FRP retrofit intervention, following
the aforementioned analytical procedure, is in this study given
with reference to the specimen 2DR4 tested at the University of
Canterbury. One single level of axial load, N v ¼ 50 kN, is consid-
ered for this design example. By varying the level of N v , a M-N
interaction diagram could be established for the as-built and
retrofitted configuration. Therefore, the evaluation of hierarchy
of strength and sequence of events are carried out to support the
definition of the most appropriate retrofit solutions to adopt.
The specimen 2DR4 was retrofitted according to the R21
scheme. Note that the retrofitting scheme is expressed as Rij, where
i = number of sheets applied on the beam surface; and j = number of
sheets on the column (e.g., R12 suggests one FRP horizontal layer
on the beam and two vertical layers on the column). SikaWrap®-
100G type high-strength E-glass unidirectional fiber polymers were
used for the retrofitting. More information regarding the actual FRP
application and testing can be found in the study by Akguzel and
Pampanin (2010). The summary of geometric and material proper-
ties and FRP retrofit layout is given as follows.
• Geometric data: hb ¼ 330 mm, bw ¼ 230 mm, hc ¼ 230 mm,
bc ¼ 230 mm, lb ¼ 1;524 mm, lc ¼ 2;000 mm, l0b ¼ 1;409 mm,
d ¼ 305 mm pffiffiffiffi
• Material properties: f 0c ¼ 18:4 MPa, Ec ¼ 5;700 f 0c ¼
24;450 MPa, E f ¼ 76;000 MPa, t f ¼ 0:36 mm, εf u ¼ 2:8%
• Beam and column FRP scheme: nf b ¼ 2, nsf ;b ¼ 2, d f b ¼
300 mm, nf c ¼ 1, nsf ;c ¼ 2, d f c ¼ 200 mm

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 27

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 Step 1. Calculate FRP reinforcement ratio Calculate geometric coefficient

ρf l ¼ ðnf c nsf ;c t f d f c Þ=ðhc bc Þ ¼ ½ð1Þð2Þð0:36Þð200Þ=½ð230Þð230Þ 2l0b lc
1:8dlb 2ð1:409Þð2Þ
1:8ð0:305Þð1:524Þ

ω¼ ¼
0:9dlb Ae ðlc
hb Þ 0:9ð0:305Þð1:524Þð0:0529Þð2
0:33Þ
¼ 0:00272
¼ 129:86
ρf t ¼ ðnf b nsf ;b t f d f b Þ=ðhb bw Þ ¼ ½ð2Þð2Þð0:36Þð300Þ=½ð330Þð230Þ
¼ 0:00569 Step 2. Solve quadratic equation for tan2 θ

A ¼ ð1=E c þ 1=ρf t Ef Þ ¼ ð1=24;450 þ 1=ð0:00569Þð76;000ÞÞ

Calculate debonding strain and optimum anchorage length
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 0:0024
f f ;deb ¼ f f ;max ¼ c1 ðE f f ct Þ=ðt f nf b Þ B ¼ ðN v =hc bc ρf l ρf t E2f εf deb Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ ð0:64Þ fð76;000Þ½ð0:3Þð18:4Þð2=3Þ g=½ð0:36Þð2Þ ¼ ðð50;000Þ=ð230Þð230Þð0:00272Þð0:00569Þð76;000Þ2 ð0:004ÞÞ

¼ 300:1 kN ¼ 0:0027

εf deb ¼ f f ;deb =E f ¼ ð300:1Þ=ð76;000Þ ¼ 0:40%

C ¼ ð
1Þð1=E c þ 1=ρf l E f Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
lb;max ¼ ðEf t f Þ=c2 f ct Þ ¼ ½ð76;000Þð0:36Þ=½ð2Þð2:1Þ ¼ ð
1Þð1=24;450 þ 1=ð0:00272Þð76;000ÞÞ ¼
0:0049
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 81 mm
B þ B2
4AC
Δ¼
2A
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
According to Eq. (25), lbt should be larger than lb;max . On the
ð0:00266Þ þ ð0:0027Þ2
4ð0:0024Þð
0:0049Þ
other hand, an optimal anchorage length should be chosen in order ¼ ¼ 0:98
2ð0:0024Þ
to achieve the desired sequence of events [e.g., in order to develop a pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
plastic hinge in the beam, the equivalent moment at the FRP-ending → tan θ ¼ 0:98 ¼ 0:99
section M by;Rij should be smaller than the capacity of the retrofitted
section at the beam-column interface M b;Rij (Fig. 4)]. Step 3. Calculate principal tensile strain

Fig. 7. Effects of GFRP strengthening on the principal tensile stress versus shear deformation behavior of the joint under varying axial load

28 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 Ef εt ðρf l
ρf t Þ þ f v tan2 θ ð76;000Þð0:004Þð0:00272
0:00569Þ þ fð50;000Þ=½ð230Þð230Þgð0:98Þ
ε1 ¼ ¼ ε1 ¼ ¼ 0:007
E f ρf l ð1
tan2 θÞ ð76;000Þð0:00272Þð1
0:98Þ

Step 4. Shear deformation angle Step 7. Calculate principal tensile strength contribution due to
FRP
2ðε1
εt Þ 2ð0:007
0:004Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
γ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:006 ptf ¼
f v =2 þ ðf v =2Þ2 þ v2f
tan θ 0:99
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

¼
ð0:95Þ=2 þ ðð0:95Þ=2Þ2 þ ð1:75Þ2 ¼ 1:3 MPa

Step 5. Determine the principal tension strength contribution
due to plain concrete: Step 8. Calculate total principal tensile strength
By using the strength degradation curve in Fig. 3 for the given
shear deformation, principal tension stress is found as ptt ¼ ptc þ ptf ¼ 0:64 þ 1:3 ¼ 1:94 MPa

pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Step 9. Calculate the capacity of the FRP retrofitted joint in
0:15 f 0c ¼ 0:15 18:4 ¼ 0:64 MPa terms of equivalent moment
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p2tt þ ptt f v ð1:94Þ2 þ ð1:94Þð0:95Þ
Step 6. Calculate nominal shear-strength contribution due to M j;Rij ¼ ð103 Þ ¼ ð103 Þ
FRP ω 129:86
¼ 18:2 kNm
ρf t E f εt ð0:00569Þð76;000Þð0:004Þ
vf ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:75 MPa As evident in this numerical example, the proposed assessment
tan θ ð0:99Þ procedure can be easily implemented into a worksheet/spreadsheet

Table 1. Comparison of Analytical Model Predictions with Experimental Test Results

Specimen details FRP retrofit properties Result comparison
pffiffiffiffi
f 0c Maximum ρf b ρf c Ejj f 0c
Exp:
ptt =pffiffiffiffi Analytical/
Title (MPa) fv load (kN) ðL=θÞa (%) (%) (GPa) Type ptt = f 0c
Anal: experimental
AT(F11)b 22.8 1.15 42.8 2=0°, 2=90° 0.13 0.13 230 Carbon sheet 0.86 0.83 0.97
AT(F12) 29.5 1.15 44.4 2=0°, 4=90° 0.13 0.26 230 Carbon sheet 0.78 0.87 1.11
AT(F21) 27 1.15 50.7 4=0°, 2=90° 0.26 0.13 230 Carbon sheet 0.95 0.91 0.96
AT(F22) 27.2 1.15 50.0 4=0°, 4=90° 0.26 0.26 230 Carbon sheet 0.93 0.99 1.06
AT(F22A) 27.8 2.88 57.4 4=0°, 4=90° 0.26 0.26 230 Carbon sheet 0.94 0.97 1.04
AT(F22W) 29.2 1.15 55.8 4=0°, 4=90° 0.26 0.26 230 Carbon sheet 1.02 0.99 0.98
AT(F22in) 21 1.15 41.9 4=0°, 4=90° 0.26 0.26 230 Carbon sheet 0.87 0.99 1.14
AT(S33) 26 1.15 35.3 3=0°, 3=90° 0.26 0.39 150 Carbon strip 0.64 0.77 1.19
AT(S33L) 26.3 1.15 42.5 3=0°, 3=90° 0.26 0.39 150 Carbon strip 0.79 0.77 0.97
AT(S63) 24.2 1.15 39.8 3=0°, 3=90° 0.52 0.39 150 Carbon strip 0.77 0.91 1.19
AT(GL) 19.5 1.15 43.6 2:5=0°, 2:5=90° 0.42 0.42 70 Glass sheet 0.95 0.79 0.84
GPR(4) 20 0 187 2=45°, 2=
45° 0.74 0.74 64.7 Carbon sheet 0.53 0.59 1.12
GPR(8) 20 0 187 2=45°, 2=
45° 0.74 0.74 64.7 Carbon sheet 0.53 0.59 1.12
GPR(9) 20 0 216 2=45°, 2=
45° 0.74 0.74 64.7 Carbon sheet 0.57 0.59 1.03
GPR(12) 34 0 184 2=45°, 2=
45° 0.74 0.74 64.7 Carbon sheet 0.44 0.56 1.26
GPR(13) 34 0 204 2=45°, 2=
45° 0.74 0.74 64.7 Carbon sheet 0.44 0.56 1.27
GPR(14) 34 0 229 2=45°, 2=
45° 0.74 0.74 64.7 Carbon sheet 0.51 0.56 1.10
PGR(5R) 21 0 1,606 2=45°, 2=
45° 0.58 0.58 64.7 Carbon sheet 0.58 0.58 1.00
PGR(6) 21 0 1,619 2=45°, 2=
45° 0.58 0.58 64.7 Carbon sheet 0.60 0.58 0.97
GS(T1R) 38 6 130 1=45°, 1=
45° 0.69 0.69 19 Glass sheet 0.50 0.51 1.02
GS(T2R) 25 6 132 4=0° 0.56 0 71 Glass sheet 0.64 0.61 0.95
GS(T4) 25 6 118 1=45°, 1=
45° 0.69 0.69 19 Glass sheet 0.54 0.53 0.98
AA(IS1) 30 6 85.2 1=0°, 1=90° 1.25 1.25 62 Carbon sheet 0.91 1.18 1.30
AA(IS2) 25 5 63.3 1=0°, 1=90° 1.25 1.25 62 Carbon sheet 1.02 1.09 1.07
Note: AT = Antonopoulos and Triantafillou (2003); GPR = Gergely et al. (2000); PGR = Pantelides et al. (2001); GS = Ghobarah et al. (2001);
AA = Almussallam et al. (2007).
a
L denotes total number of layers on both sides of joint at angle θ from horizontal.
b
Notation in parentheses denotes specimens as defined by those who conducted tests.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 29

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 and used to choose the desired FRP material properties and retrofit
layout on a case-by-case basis.
Fig. 7 shows, as an example, a parametric investigation on the
effects of the R11, R12, and R22 retrofit schemes. The shear
strength of the joint is significantly enhanced due to the GFRP even
with the minimum retrofit scheme, R11. The column axial load
increases, as expected, the joint overall strength, with more pro-
nounced effects with an increased number of GFRP layers placed
on the beam (e.g., R21 and R22). However, this results in a 20%
reduction in ductility capacity.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The M-N performance domain and sequence of events under
different demand conditions produced analytically according to
proposed methodology are given in Fig. 8 and Table 2, respectively.
Note that the nomenclature given in Fig. 4 is used in Fig. 8 to
indicate the capacities of the elements. Comparison with experi-
mental results not only confirm the validity of the assessment meth-
odology and of the analytical model but also clearly emphasize the
unconservative assumptions of retrofit design if a constant axial
load was assumed. As clearly shown in Fig. 8 an inadequate con-
sideration of the actual demand may result in unforeseen damage
in the retrofitted joint panel, which in turn may affect the global

Validation of the Analytical Model

To validate the proposed analytical model for the evaluation of

the joint shear capacity of FRP-strengthened beam-column joints,
five sets of test results available in the literature were used. The first
four sets of tests were conducted on T-joints strengthened with
FRP materials under the simulated seismic testing of scaled spec-
imens (Antonopoulos and Triantafillou 2003; Gergely et al. 2000;
Pantelides et al. 2001; Ghobarah et al. 2001). The last test set is that
of Alumssallam et al. (2007a), who tested interior connections
strengthened with CFRP.
The methodology for the evaluation and analytical-experimental
comparison is briefly described below. First, the as-built test results
were reprocessed in order to obtain the principal tensile strength
of the unretrofitted joints. For this purpose, the load versus dis-
placement curves was used to determine the shear force at the
column face V c and the tensile force in the main beam reinforce-
ment T b . Hence, the nominal shear-strength of the joint, vjh , and the
corresponding principal tensile strength, pt , was calculated accord-
ing to Eqs. (9) and (10), using the actual axial load used in the tests.
At a second stage, following the flow chart given in Fig. 6, the
contribution of the FRP retrofit was calculated referring to the
material properties and retrofitting scheme used by the researchers.
As given in Table 1, the posttest evaluation (postdiction) of the
shear strength was found in remarkably good agreement with 24
experimental results found in the literature.
While calculating the principal stress contribution of the as-built
concrete core, the slope of the strength degradation curve proposed
by Priestley (1997) (Fig. 3) is used. Once the strength of the as-built
joint is determined (e.g., load at first shear cracking in the joint), it
is relatively simple to construct the degradation curve and find the
principal tensile strength corresponding to the joint shear deforma-
tion at the defined limit state of FRP. Note that the proposed curve
obtained from test results conducted by the authors exhibits a sim-
ilar trend and thus can be suggested to be used for the assessment of
exterior T-joints with plain round bars and end hooks.

Verification of the Proposed Design Procedure

As mentioned previously, most of the experimental studies in the

literature have concentrated on a two-dimensional (2D) response
using a unidirectional cyclic loading testing protocol under con-
stant axial load. To validate the proposed methodology along with
the analytical model and to obtain a better understanding of the
effects of various parameters on the overall beam-column-joint
behavior, a comprehensive test campaign has been performed re-
cently by the writers on 2D and three-dimensional two-thirds scale
as-built and retrofitted beam-column joints under low and high
varying axial load conditions. Details about these tests can be found
in the recent article of Akguzel and Pampanin (2010). In this study,
Fig. 8. Evaluation of hierarchy of strengths and sequence of events:
only the response of the 2D as-built and retrofitted specimens tested
M-N performance domains
under high varying axial load will be discussed.

30 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 Table 2. Sequence of Events for As-Built and Retrofitted Specimens
Loading Critical events Analytical results Test results
Specimen Axial load Direction Number Failure type V c (kN) N v (kN) V c (kN) N v (kN)
2DB2 Varying Pull 1 Joint shear failure 11.9 55 14.3 47
2 Beam yielding 19.9 — Not applicablea —
Push 1 Joint shear failure 18.2 195 19.2 194
2 Beam yielding 19.5 — Not applicable —
2DR2 Constant Pull–push 1 Beam yielding 18.7 — 20.2 —
2 Beam FRP debonding 21.2 — Not applicable —
3 Joint failure 22.4 110 N/A —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2DR3 Varying Pull 1 Joint FRP debondingb 17.2 30 From 20.3 15

to 12.8 50
2 Beam yielding 18.7 — 20.2 —
3 Beam FRP debonding 21.2 — 21.0 —
Push 1 Beam yielding 18.7 — 23.1 —
2 Beam FRP debonding 21.2 — 22.4 —
2DR4 Varying Pull 1 Beam yielding 18.7 — 21.3 —
2 Joint FRP debonding 20.1 — Not applicable —
3 Column FRP debonding 23 5 Not applicable —
Push 1 Beam yielding 18.7 — 20.4 —
2 Beam FRP debonding 22.4 — Not applicable —
a
Not observed, hence the failure was governed by the previous event.
b
Test values are taken at the initiation and propagation in the joint panel zone.

Fig. 9. Debonding in specimen 2DR3: (a) comparison of hysteresis loops of 2DR2 (constant axial load) and 2DR3 (varying axial load); (b) average
strain distribution in the joint FRP during debonding initiation in the bottom of the joint; (c) joint damage under FRP sheet at the end of test (images by
U. Akguzel)

behavior of the structure. This is also confirmed by the experimen-

tal results of the specimen 2DR3 (high varying axial load with R11
scheme) as seen in Fig. 9: debonding of the FRP and extensive
damage in the joint panel after the test has been observed. However,
the alternative retrofit scheme (R21), applied to the specimen
2DR4, has proven to be sufficient enough based on both experi-
mental and analytical results [Fig. 8(c) and Table 2]. Results for
the beam section analysis with different limit-state conditions
(e.g., debonding and rupture of FRP) and retrofit schemes are also
given in Fig. 10. When constructing the M-N domains, yielding and
debonding limit states are used for the as-built and retrofitted beam,
respectively.
Last but not least, debonding calculations are proven to be in a
good agreement with the strain readings obtained during the initia-
tion and propagation of the debonding through the beam into the
Fig. 10. Effects of FRP on the flexural behavior of a beam section
joint as shown in Fig. 9(b).

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 31

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 Conclusions Notation

A simple analytical procedure has been proposed here for the as- The following symbols are used in this paper:
sessment of the seismic behavior of existing exterior beam-column A, B, C = quadratic equation coefficients;
joints and the design of a performance-based FRP-retrofitting Ae = effective area in the joint;
intervention. Af = FRP area;
A detailed assessment of each joint component within the beam- As = reinforcement area;
column-joint subassembly is first performed in its as-built configu- bc = width of column;
ration. The component capacities are compared within a M-N bj = effective width of joint;
(moment-axial load) performance domain in order to establish bw = width of beam;
the internal hierarchy of strength and the sequence of events before C c = compressive force provided by concrete;
the retrofit intervention, while accounting for the correct demand C s = compressive force provided by reinforcement;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

conditions (e.g., the variation of axial loads). c = neutral axis depth;

A semiempirical analytical procedure has been presented to d = effective depth;
evaluate the shear strength of the FRP retrofitted joints. The total d f b = depth of FRP sheet on beam;
shear strength of the retrofitted joint is evaluated as sum in parallel d f c = depth of FRP sheet on column;
(for the same joint shear deformation or distortion) of the strength Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete;
contributions of the as-built plain concrete and the composite E f = modulus of elasticity of FRP;
material attached to the plain concrete. f c ðyÞ = compressive stress of concrete as a function of
Emphasis is given to the use of principal tensile (or compres- distance y from the centroidal axis;
sion) stresses versus joint shear deformation strength degradation f 0c = cylinder compressive strength of concrete;
curves. The analytical model and design procedure have been com- f ct = tensile strength of concrete;
pared and validated with experimental results available in existing f f l = average normal stress in the FRP in the transverse
literature. Parametric analyses have been carried out to indicate the longitudinal direction (at midwidth of the joint);
effectiveness of strengthening with different composite materials, f f t = average normal stress in the FRP in the transverse
configurations, and failure limit-states (i.e., debonding or rupture direction (at midwidth of the joint);
of composite material, failure of concrete). The selection of the f f = stress in FRP;
most appropriate retrofit solution can be thus carried out using f f ;deb = debonding stress in FRP;
the same M-N performance domain. f f ;max = maximum stress in FRP;
Conclusive remarks can be summarized as follows. (1) The fail- f f u = tensile fracture stress of FRP;
f l = average stress of longitudinal reinforcement of the
ure mechanism in the beam-column-joint can be predicted by
column inside the joint core at the midheight of the
means of M-N performance domain, where information related
joint;
to the joint strength degradation curves (principal tensile stressed
f t = average stress in the horizontal stirrups (at midwidth
versus joint shear deformation) before and after retrofit intervention
of the joint);
are merged with those related to the capacity of beams and col- f s = stress in reinforcement;
umns. (2) From the analysis, it is shown that, provided a proper f v = compressive stress on the column at the middepth of
hierarchy of strength and sequence of events is evaluated and tar- the joint core;
geted, external bonded FRP reinforcement has a significant effect hb = height of beam;
on the enhancement of the joint shear capacity even in the appli- hc = overall depth of column in the direction of the
cation of a “minimum” retrofit strategy. (3) Shear strength of the horizontal shear to be considered;
joint either as built or retrofitted depends on the usable compressive jd = internal forces lever arm in the beam section;
strength of concrete and debonding characteristics of the composite l = longitudinal (column) direction;
material. (4) The proposed simplified analytical approach and step- lb = distance from column center to contraflexure point;
by-step assessment and design procedure can be easily adopted by l0b = half clear span length;
designers as a powerful tool for assessment and retrofit interven- lbt = FRP bond length along t direction;
tions. In this way, solutions can be adopted to bring the proper lb;max = the effective bond length of FRP sheet;
sequence of events and hierarchy of strength to meet the capacity lbl = FRP bond length along l direction;
design principles, leading to a more ductile and dissipating hyste- lc = height of column;
resis behavior. (5) As a final step, a deformation-based retrofit M b;Rij = moment capacity of the beam with FRP retrofit
strategy can be carried out based on more refined damage-limit scheme Rij;
states, after linking the joint deformation demand (before and after M bdeb;Rij = debonding moment capacity of beam with FRP
the retrofit) with the overall interstory drift demand in the frame retrofit scheme Rij;
system. M by;Rij = yielding moment capacity of beam with FRP retrofit
scheme Rij;
M boy = yielding moment capacity of as-built beam;
Acknowledgments M col = column moment at the top of the joint;
M c;Rij = moment capacity of the column with FRP retrofit
The financial support provided by the NZ Foundation for scheme Rij;
Research, Science and Technology (FRST) through the Research M cdeb;Rij = debonding moment capacity of column with FRP
Program “Retrofit Solutions for New Zealand Multi-Storey Build- retrofit scheme Rij;
ings” is gratefully acknowledged. The assistance and cooperation M cy;Rij = yielding moment capacity of column with FRP
of A. Vecchietti and R. Nassi in the early stages of this research are retrofit scheme Rij;
also acknowledged. M coy = yielding moment capacity of as-built column;

32 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34

 M j;Rij = moment capacity of joint with FRP retrofit scheme
Rij;
M jdeb;Rij = debonding moment capacity of joint with FRP
retrofit scheme Rij;
M j = equivalent joint moment;
M jo = equivalent as-built joint moment;
N v = compressive axial force of the column;
N h = compressive axial force of the beam;
N g = gravity load value in the column;
nf b = number of sheet on beam;
nf c = number of sheet on column;
nsf ;b = number of beam sides covered with FRP;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
nsf ;c = number of column sides covered with FRP;
pc = principal compression stress;
pt = principal tensile stress;
ptc = principal tension strength contribution due to plain
concrete;
ptf = principal tensile strength contribution due to FRP;
ptt = total principal tensile strength;
Rij = FRP retrofit scheme;
T = tensile force at the bottom beam bars;
T f = tension force in FRP;
T s = tension force in steel;
tan θ = average direction of the principal stresses;
t = transverse (column) direction;
tf = FRP thickness per layer;
ts = strip thickness in the cross section;
V b = beam shear force;
V c = horizontal column shear force;
V jh = horizontal shear force acting on the joint core;
y = distance from the centroidal axis;
α = proportionality coefficient for axial load variation;
γ = average angle of joint shear distortion;
ε1 = maximum principal strain in the joint panel;
ε2 = minimum principal strain in the joint panel;
εc = concrete strain;
εf = FRP strain;
εf deb = debonding FRP strain;
εf u = ultimate FRP strain;
εl = average normal strain along normal direction l of
joint panel;
εs = reinforcement strain;
εt = average normal strain along normal direction t of
joint panel;
θ = direction of the principal compression stresses;
vjh = joint nominal shear stress;
vf = nominal shear stress contribution due to the FRP;
ρb = total main beam reinforcement ratio;
ρf t = FRP reinforcement ratio in the transverse direction;
ρf l = FRP reinforcement ratio in the longitudinal
direction;
ρs = stirrup reinforcement ratio;
σ1 = maximum principal stress in the concrete;
σ2 = minimum principal stress in the concrete;
σl = average in concrete along direction l;
σt = average in concrete along direction t;
ϕ = curvature of reinforced concrete section; and
ω = geometric coefficient.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440.2. (2002). “Guide for
the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 33
J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34
strengthening concrete structures,” ACI 440.2R-02, Farmington
Hills, MI.
Akguzel, U., and Pampanin, S. (2007). “Experimental behaviour of exterior
beam-column joint subassemblies retrofitted using GFRP composites.”
Proc., New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE)
Conf., Paper No. 15, Palmerston, New Zealand.
Akguzel, U., and Pampanin, S. (2010). “Effects of variation of axial load
and bi-directional loading on seismic performance of GFRP retrofitted
reinforced concrete exterior beam-column joints.” J. Compos. Constr.,
14(1), 94–104.
Allington, C. J. (2003). “Seismic performance of moment resisting frame
members produced from lightweight aggregate concrete.” Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Al-Salloum, Y. A., and Almusallam, T. H. (2007a). “Seismic response of
interior beam-column joints upgraded with FRP sheets. I: Experimental
study.” J. Compos. Constr., 11(6), 575–589.
Al-Salloum, Y. A., and Almusallam, T. H. (2007b). “Seismic response of
interior beam-column joints upgraded with FRP sheets. II: Analysis and
parametric study.” J. Compos. Constr., 11(6), 575–590.
Antonopoulos, C., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2002). “Analysis of FRP-
strengthened beam-column joints.” J. Compos. Constr., 6(1), 41–51.
Antonopoulos, C., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2003). “Experimental investi-
gation of FRP-strengthened RC beam-column joints.” J. Compos.
Constr., 7(1), 39–49.
Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., and Pampanin, S. (2002). “Relevance of beam-
column damage and collapse in RC frame assessment.” J. Earthquake
Eng., 6(1), 75–100.
Dodd, L. L., and Restrepo, J. I. (1995). “Model for predicting cyclic behav-
ior of reinforcing steel.” J. Struct. Eng., 121(3), 433–445.
El-Amoury, T., and Ghobarah, A. (2002). “Seismic rehabilitation of beam-
column joints using GFRP sheets.” Eng. Struct., 24(11), 1397–1407.
El-Amoury, T., and Ghobarah, A. (2005). “Seismic rehabilitation of
deficient exterior concrete frame joints.” J. Compos. Constr., 5(1),
408–416.
Federation International du Beton (FIB). (2001). “Externally bonded
FRP reinforcement for RC structures.” FIB Bull. No. 14, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Federation International du Beton (FIB). (2003). “Seismic assessment and
retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings.” FIB Bull. No. 24, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Federation International du Beton (FIB). (2006). “Retrofitting of concrete
structures by externally bonded FRPs with emphasis on seismic appli-
cations.” FIB Bull. No. 35, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gergely, J., Pantelides, C. P., and Reaveley, L. D. (2000). “Shear strength-
ening of R.C. T-joints using CFRP composites.” J. Compos. Constr.,
4(2), 56–64.
Ghannoum, W. M., Moehle, J. P., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2006) “Collapse of
lightly confined reinforced concrete frames during earthquakes.” Proc.,
8th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Institute (EERI), El Cerrito, CA.
Ghobarah, A., and Said, A. (2001). “Seismic rehabilitation of beam-column
joints using FRP laminates.” J. Earthquake Eng., 5(1), 113–129.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. (2000). “Seismic load tests on interior
and exterior beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing details.”
ACI Struct. J., 97(1), 11–25.
Hertanto, E. (2006). “Seismic assessment of pre-1970s reinforced concrete
beam-column joint subassemblies.” M.E. dissertation, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Holzenkämpfer, P. (1994). “Ingenieurmodelle des verbundes geklebterbe-
wehrung für betonbauteile.” Ph.D. dissertation, TU Braunshwieg (in
German).
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804–1826.
Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo (2001). “Modellazione del comportamento di
elementi presso-inflessi in c.a. confinati con tessuti in materiale com-
posito.” Tech. Rep., 10 Convegno Nazionale “L’ingegneria Sismica in
Italia,” Potenza-Matera, Italy.
Neubauer, U., Rostasy, F. S. (1997). “Design aspects of concrete structures
strengthened with externally bonded CFRP-plates.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf.
on Structural Faults and Repair, London, 109–118.
 Pampanin, S., Bolognini, D., and Pavese, A. (2007). “Performance-based
seismic retrofit strategy for existing RC frame systems using FRP com-
posites.” J. Compos. Constr., 11(2), 211–226.
Pampanin, S., Calvi, G. M., and Moratti, M. (2002). “Seismic behavior
of RC beam-column joints designed for gravity loads.” Proc., 12th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (ECEE), London.
Pantazopoulou, S., and Bonacci, J. (1992). “Consideration of questions
about beam-column joints.” ACI Struct. J., 89(1), 27–36.
Pantelides, C. P., Gergely, J., Reaveley, L. D., and Volnyy, V. (1999).
“Retrofit of RC bridge pier with CFRP advanced composites.” J. Struct.
Eng., 125(10), 1094–1099.
Pantelides, C. P., Gergely, J., and Reaveley, L. D. (2001). “In-situ
verification of rehabilitation and repair of reinforced concrete bridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bents under simulated seismic loads.” Earthquake Spectra, 17(3),
507–530.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced con-
crete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N. (1997). “Displacement-based seismic assessment
34 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012
J. Compos. Constr., 2012, 16(1): 21-34
of reinforced concrete buildings.” J. Earthquake Eng., 1(1),
157–192.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic design and
retrofit of bridges, Wiley, New York.
Prota, A., Nanni, A., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2001). “Selective
upgrade of beam-column joints with composites.” Proc., Int. Conf.
on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Vol. I, Elsevier Science,
New York, 919–926.
Spoelstra, M. R., and Monti, G. (1999). “FRP-confined concrete model.”
J. Compos. Constr., 3(3), 143–150.
Tsonos, A. D., and Stylianidis, K. A. (1999). ‘‘Pre-seismic and postseismic
strengthening of reinforced concrete structural subassemblages using
composite materials (FRP).’’ Proc., 13th Hellenic Concrete Conf.,
Vol. 1, Rethymno, Greece, 455–466 (in Greek).
Wang, Y. C., and Restrepo, J. I. (2001). “Investigation of concentrically
loaded reinforced concrete columns confined with glass fiber-reinforced
polymer jackets.” ACI Struct. J., 98(3), 377–385.