Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

XIX ANIDIS Conference, Seismic Engineering in Italy

Structural performance of unreinforced full-scale façade concrete

beam-column joint under cyclic load
Michele Angiolilli a, Amedeo Gregori b*, Roberto Tonelli c, Claudio Tonelli c, Edoardo
Ciuffetelli b, Alfredo Peditto b
a
Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso - INFN, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
b
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Architettura, Università dell’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
c
Tonelli Consulting S.r.l., 67051 Avezzano, Italy

Abstract

Post-earthquake observations have shown that poorly reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column joints in existing structures determine
premature brittle failures during seismic action. Failure of these critical parts, which transfer stresses and moments between beams
and columns, resulted in the catastrophic collapse of structures in low to moderate seismic risk zones. Exterior (i.e. corner or façade)
beam-column joints of buildings constructed without or with insufficient transverse reinforcements are commonly involved in the
failure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effective vulnerability of two full-scale exterior façade beam-column joints
under transverse cyclic loading. Both the specimen design strategy and the test setup were conceived to emphasize the vulnerability
of the joints and, therefore, to achieve shear failure in the joint panel prior to yielding both beam and column reinforcements under
the simulated seismic action. In particular: (i) joint was characterized by the absence of any capacity design principle (i.e. total lack
of stirrups in the joint panel) to highlight structural deficiencies typical of the 1960s-70s Italian construction practice; (ii) beams
and columns were adequately designed to remain in the elastic field during the tests; (iii) the specimen was evaluated in the absence
of axial load. In this work, the experimental seismic performance is compared to the one predicted by code/literature models. The
test is then simulated using a numerical three-dimensional model for modelling crack propagation and fracture in concrete using
the smeared crack technique. The model also allowed for a more comprehensive examination of the effects of certain assumptions
on the mechanical performance of the RC joint during the experiment.
Keywords: Reinforced Concrete; Joint; Heritage; Seismic behavior; Beam-column joints; Cyclic load

1. Introduction

The vulnerability of the existing building stock is a substantial economic and social problem, and the demand for
retrofitting develops as existing structures age and decay (Beschi et al. (2015), Marino et al. (2019), Lima et al. (2018)).
Recent earthquakes in Italy (herein: Molise 2002, L’Aquila 2009, Emilia 2012, Central Italy 2016-2017) as well as in

2452-3216 © 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the XIX ANIDIS Conference, Seismic Engineering in Italy
2 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

other earthquake-prone countries, proved that a considerable number of existing RC structures were unable to
withstand earthquake forces. This was mainly owing to a lack of capacity design principles as well as the structural
degradation due to the use of original materials featuring low mechanical characteristics, such as low-strength concrete
and low-adherence smooth bars, that are often combined with poor reinforcement detailing, such as insufficient column
longitudinal reinforcement, lack of transverse reinforcement in joint regions and inadequate anchorage detailing.
Furthermore, critical joint failure can also be caused by an unbalanced thrust of the masonry infill and a higher
displacement demand caused by global torsional effects.
Some of the construction details can be identified as possible essential causes of brittle failure mechanisms, which
diminish the overall structure ductility and result in insufficient lateral strength. Different failure modes for beam-
column joints have been recognized during recent earthquakes, namely the joint panel shear failure, which is
characteristic of a weak-column/strong-beam combination, and the bond-slip failure mode, which is dependent on
bond properties. In general, force distribution within joints generates diagonal cracking, resulting in a reduction in
joint strength and stiffness (Ricci et al. 2011). Diagonal stress caused by parts intersecting in the joint cannot exceed
concrete compressive stress. When concrete cracks, the existence of transverse reinforcement permits loads to be
transmitted via a strut and tie mechanism. This mechanism can be developed if longitudinal/ transverse reinforcement
and concrete struts contribute to truss formation. Preventing brittle failure in joints allows for the development of more
ductile mechanisms in other structural parts if capacity design prescriptions are followed.
Post-earthquake reconnaissance (e.g. Ricci et al. (2011)), experimental studies (e.g. Beschi et al. (205), Hakuto et
al. (2000), Hassan and Moehle (2012), Masi et al. (2013), Murad et al. (2020), Sharma et al. (2013)), and numerical
analyses (see §4) have all shown that existing RC joints constructed according to old standards/construction practices
often collapse prematurely. Furthermore, they have confirmed the experimental evidence in which key parameters
influencing the joint shear strength include concrete compressive strength, joint aspect ratio, joint width, column axial
load and joint transverse reinforcement. Many tests were carried out on sub-assemblies with interior or exterior beam-
column joints characterized by typical details of Italian construction practice in the 1960s-70s, namely using smooth
bars with hooked-end anchorages and poor reinforcing details. Most studies considered ribbed bars bent in the joint
while few tests focused on sub-assemblies with hooked-end smooth bars and only some of them were correctly
designed to develop a joint shear failure. Among them, Calvi et al. (2002) demonstrated the brittleness of this type of
external beam-column joint through tests on a 2:3 scaled RC frame, showing that the development of a shear failure
mechanism distinct from that provided in the case of a rigid joint behaviour, for which a soft floor mechanism would
be expected. The significance of adequately designing the test specimen reflects the likelihood of capturing shear
failure in the joints. Indeed, despite the lack of transverse reinforcement in the panel region, some poorly detailed sub-
assemblies showed flexural hinges in some experiments (e.g. Russo and Pauletta (2012) and Masi et al. (2013)), owing
to the low reinforcement ratio used in the beam, which reduced the shear demand in the joint panel.
The shear transfer mechanism in exterior beam-column joints with smooth bars and without transverse
reinforcement in the joint panel is based on a compression strut mechanism, whose efficiency depends on the concrete
strength and the anchorage adopted for longitudinal beam reinforcement. If hooked anchorages were adopted, the joint
strength would be impaired by the expulsion of a concrete wedge, due to the pushing action of the hooked-end
anchorages in compression and caused by bar slip within the panel region (Calvi et al. (2002).
Different available analytical models can be found in the current literature, including those developed solely based
on experimental evidence and those developed based on equilibrium and congruence considerations and then modified
by using simplifying assumptions derived from experimental evidence. Murad et al. (2020), Nicoletti et al. (2022)
describe some of the more well-known models available in the literature.
In this article, the attention is focused on the seismic behaviour of the exterior (façade) beam-column joint,
characterized by the lack of stirrups in the joint panel. Moreover, beams and columns were adequately designed to
remain in the elastic field during the tests. Hence, both the specimen design strategy and test setup were conceived to
emphasize the vulnerability of the joints and, therefore, to achieve pure shear failure in the joint panel without any
plastic hinges forming in beams or columns. The main goal is to understand whether the weakness of the joints affects
the overall behaviour of the sub-assemblies as well as if the models present in the current literature can predict correctly
the effective performance of the joints. A numerical 3D model was also developed to facilitate the design phase. The
validation of the model to the desired behaviour under monotonic loading compared to the cyclic behaviour of the
experimental test is then reported.
 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000 3

Nomenclature

Ecm , Es Young’s module of concrete and steel rebar, respectively

fc, fctm compression strength of concrete and tensile strength of concrete
fy, fu yielding strength of steel rebar and ultimate strength of steel rebar
G If Tensile energy fracture
h height of the RC specimen (from the bottom to the head column)
V, Vmax shear force measured at the head column (applied force during the experiment) and the maximum one
γc, γs Density of concrete and steel rebar, respectively
Δ lateral displacement of the head column
εsy , εsu Deformation in correspondence of yielding strength and ultimate strength of the steel rebar, respectively
εLVDT Axial strain of the LVDTs installed to the joint
θ Angular rotation under load of the column chord of the test module with respect to the beam chord (Δ/h)
νc, νs Poisson’s coefficient of concrete and steel rebar, respectively

2. Experimental program

A full reinforced concrete beam-column joint was constructed and tested for this study. The specimen represented
the exterior beam-column joints subassembly isolated at the mid-points of members of a multi-storey concrete frame
subjected to lateral loads. Fig. 1 shows the dimensions and reinforcement details of the specimen. In particular, beams
had a cross-section of 300 x 500 mm2 and extended 2,000 mm from the column face. The cross-section of the columns
was 300 x 500 mm2 and the total column height was 3,200 mm. A 300 x 500 mm2 transversal beam extending 300
mm from the column face was also realized to better replicate the real geometry of existing RC frames.

Fig. 1. Dimensions and reinforcement details of the RC specimen and details of the steel bars for the different concrete members.

Four steel rebars measuring 24 mm in diameter were disposed as longitudinal reinforcement on both the two short
sides of the column, whereas two bars of 24 mm in diameter plus three bars of 20 mm in diameter were used as
longitudinal reinforcement (both on top and bottom position) for the beams. The reinforcement of the short transversal
beam consisted of four bars measuring 16 mm in diameter, one at each of the corners. Transversal reinforcement for
both columns and beams consisted of 10 mm in diameter and steel stirrups spaced 100 mm. Stirrups were not inserted
in the joint space, which was finally characterized by the absence of any shear reinforcement. The concrete used for
casting specimens was normal weight concrete manufactured with Portland cement (type I), sand, and stone with a
maximum size of 20 mm.
4 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the concrete (*assumed from CEB-FIB for the numerical simulations)
fc (MPa) fctm (MPa) Ecm (MPa) γc (N/mm3) νc (-) GIf (Nm/m2)
29.3 2.85 30,373 2.5 E-3 0.2 50

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the steel rebars.

fy (MPa) fu (MPa) Es (MPa) γs (N/mm3) νs (-) εsy (‰) εsu (‰)
450 540 210,000 7.85 E-5 0.29 2.14 75

Specimens were tested imposing a precise sequence of increasing amplitude quasi-static cyclic displacements
among the two ends of the column (to simulate the seismic inter-floor drifts) in combination with null external forces
applied to the column. The condition of null axial load in the column was decided to reduce the positive effect by
which compressive axial forces generally play improving the capacity of the strut mechanism, as the diagonal strut
becomes wider with an increase of the depth of the compression zone (e.g. Nicoletti et al. (2022)). The test setup is
shown in Fig. 2. The beam-column specimen was placed horizontally on a steel loading frame fixed to the floor. The
column was positioned directly on hinge support to ensure that column bottom end was free to rotate but preventing
any horizontal/vertical movement. The column top end was supported to the loading frame allowing the upper end to
rotate and move horizontally. The load V was applied at the head column using an actuator with 500 kN capacity based
on a force-controlled regime. Loading history details for all specimens were based on ACI 374.1 (2005). Loading
procedure included several series of force sets; each one consisted of three fully reversed identical cycles. The drift
ratio is defined as the ratio between head column displacement and the length of the column by also considering the
encumbrance of the support frames (i.e., 3,340 mm). The drift ratio values were selected to evaluate the performance
of the joints at different loading stages such as elastic response, before and beyond yielding, and at failure. ACI 374.1
(2005) recommended that the end of the test should be at a drift ratio that equals or exceeds 3.5%. Two linear variable
displacement transducers (LVDTs), with base length of 560 mm, were used to measure the diagonal deformation in
the joint. Other LVDTs were used to measure displacement of the head column as well as of the two beam ends.

Fig. 2. Photos of the RC specimen with the details of the pushing machine placed at the head-column, the pinned support at the base-column and
the roller support at the beam end.

3. Test results and brief discussions

The cyclic behavior of Fig.3 (on the left) was almost symmetrical up to the attainment of the maximum strength
Vmax (equal to 218 kN) that was attained in the negative load direction. The initial hairline cracking in the joint panel
started at the beginning of the sixth complete load cycle for an imposed shear of 61.2k N corresponding to about 0.4%
of θ. Then, other cracks occurred in the joint panel, as highlighted in Fig.4. In particular, one can see that cracks occur
primarily on the exterior part of the joint (see cracks n. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Fig. 4). Hence, large cracks developed along
 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000 5

the main joint diagonals (n.6 and 7). The larger crack was the n. 8 (a few millimeters of length). Applying the force V
along the positive y direction (see Figs.1 and 2), the LVDT1 is compressed, whereas the LVDT2 is under tension. On
the contrary, applying the force V along the negative y direction, the LVDT1 is under tension whereas the LVDT2 is
compressed. The right part of Fig. 3 shows the deformation of both the LVDTs (εLVDT) differentiated between the
measurements that led to the diagonal under compression or tension. In particular, one can see that tensile deformation
tends to be higher than compressive deformation due to the development of micro cracks from the beginning of the
test. At the last instant of the test, LVDT1 resulted in tension whereas LVDT2 resulted in compression, meaning that
large cracks developed along the diagonal (see crack n. 10 in Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Load-drift curve (left) and LVDT deformation-drift curves (right) obtained experimentally.

Fig. 4. Crack evolution observed during the experimental test (from 1 to 10).

Experimental tests showed that the joint capacity is slightly lower than the NTC (2018) prevision. In fact, from
Formula 7.4.10 of NTC (2018), one can compute a resistance of 262 kN (about 20% overestimation) by considering
only the second part of the inequality (i.e. null joint steel rebars) and, therefore, only the concrete tensile strength.
Joint shear strength can also be predicted using formulation 4.7 of ACI-352R (2002) for cyclic loading cases that
ignore the steel reinforcement contribution and, thus, express the joint strength as a function of concrete compressive
strength and the joint geometry. For that code, Vmax is equal to 1011 kN (about 365% overestimation). Several other
proposals are currently available for evaluating the shear strength of RC joints (see Lima et al. (2012a)) and are
generally based on the sum of two basic contributions related to concrete and steel stirrups. By considering only the
first contribution (note that within the contribution of the only concrete, most of the formulations foresee a contribution
of the column/beam rebars passing through the joint), one can compute a shear strength of 540 kN according to Sarsam
and Philips (1985), in which the contribution of the column longitudinal reinforcement ratio is still considered.
6 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

Moreover, based on empirical data, Vollum and Newman (1999) proposed a formulation that provides a shear strength
of 729 kN. Finally, the formulation proposed by Bakir and Boduroglu (2002) led to a shear strength of 535 kN. In
light of the experimental data presented in this paper, it can be concluded that all formulations given in the literature
have a small to significant overestimation of the shear strength. The NTC (2018) result came the closest to matching
the experimental outcome.

4. Preliminary numerical investigation

Extensive research on numerical modelling and analysis focused on RC joints has been carried out (e.g. Grande et
al. 2021, Hakuto et al (2000), Hassan and Elmorsy (2022), Hu and Schnobrich (1990), Pampanin et al. (2003)).
However, reliable prediction of the structural performance of unreinforced beam-column joints, especially under cyclic
load, is still a challenge, which justifies the various methods proposed in the literature (see Nicoletti et al. (2022), Lima
et al. (2012a, 2012b)). In this study, a numerical model was developed using the concrete smeared crack (CSC) model
implemented in the commercial software MIDAS FEA NX v1.1. Note that the CSC was already successfully simulated
RC members under seismic loads (e.g. Asgarpoor et al. (2021), Di Carlo et al. (2017), Earij et al. (2017)). With respect
to the discrete models, in which the cracks are explicitly modelled merely through the separation of particles when
tensile strength is reached, in the CSC approach, the extension of cracks is predicted by using the concept of fracture
mechanics and studying the stress concentrations at the crack tip. Constitutive calculations are performed
independently at each integration point of the finite element model. In particular, the concrete structure is modelled
with eight-node solid brick elements, while the steel rebars and ties are defined as two-node one-dimensional elements.
Fig. 5 shows the numerical model geometry and steel reinforcements. The steel plates at the ends of the beams and at
the bottom of the column were simulated by rigid links.

Fig. 5. Numerical model with the indication of the geometry and steel rebar details.

Figure 6 shows the numerical curve obtained by applying a monotonic displacement, separately in the two
directions. First, one can see a good prediction of Vmax (equal to 231 kN; 6% overestimation). The main difference
with respect to the experimental response regards the slope of the numerical curve, which is higher as compared to the
experimental one. This is mainly due to the test type analysis performed for the experimental or numerical tests (i.e.
cyclic vs. monotonic) as well as a possible bar-slip phenomenon. The first important stiffness degradation observed
numerically is associated with the attainment of V=67 kN (see Fig. 6) that is investigated below.
 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000 7

Fig. 6. Numerical response (obtained by applying monotonic increasing displacement) compared with the cyclic experimental response.

Figure 7 focuses on the evolution of both microcracks and strain in three different steps (before, during, and after
the attainment of V=67 kN). Note that the figure refers to the application of the positive displacement (along Y +). In
the first step (on the left of Fig. 7), one can see that no significant microcrack involves the joint, which is subjected to
compressive strain along the diagonal. In correspondence of V=67 kN (central plots of Fig. 7), one can see that
microcracks developed along the diagonal under tension and that strain also developed in that direction. In the
successive step analysis (on the right of Fig. 7), one can see that the band of microcracking increased along the diagonal
under tension as well as that strain considerably increased in the joint. Hence, the attainment of that shear force, for
which a drastic stiffness decrement can be observed, can be associated with the first tensile crack. Therefore, the
maximum shear force can be attained by the contribution of the concrete strut developed in compression.

Fig. 7. evolution of both micro crack (first line) and strain (second line) in the numerical simulations.

5. Conclusions

The present work describes preliminary outcomes that are part of a larger experimental campaign performed on
different typologies of RC beam-column joints under both unreinforced and reinforced conditions. In order to
emphasize the joints' brittleness typical of 1960s-70s Italian RC buildings and, as a result, to produce shear failure
8 M. Angiolilli et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

only in the joint panel before yielding of both the beam and column reinforcements under the simulated seismic activity
(differently from other tests described in the current literature), both the specimen design strategy and test setup were
accurately developed. The optimization of steel reinforcement and member geometry, as well as the understanding of
certain physical mechanisms, were supported by numerical simulations. In particular, a three-dimensional model using
the smeared crack technique was adopted to simulate crack propagation and fracture in concrete. Despite the
differentiation of the test procedure between the experiment and simulations, the model well predicted the
experimental shear strength. Definitively, the work highlighted that current code or literature formulations can
overestimate the shear strength of joints of existing RC buildings characterized by almost null reinforcement.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the “Tonelli Consulting” company (Avezzano, Italy) and the
technicians E. Ciuffetelli and A. Peditto of the LPMS (University of L’Aquila) for the tests.

References

ACI 374.1, 2005, American Concrete Institute. Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Comm., Farmington Hills.
Asgarpoor, M., Gharavi, A., Epackachi, S., 2021. Investigation of various concrete materials to simulate seismic response of RC structures.
Structures (Vol. 29, pp. 1322-1351).
Bakir, P. G., Boduroğlu, H. M., 2002. A new design equation for predicting the joint shear strength of monotonically loaded exterior beam-column
joints. Engineering structures, 24(8), 1105-1117.
Beschi, C., Riva, P., Metelli, G., Meda, A., 2015. HPFRC jacketing of non seismically detailed RC corner joints. J. of Earth. Eng., 19(1), 25-47.
Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., Pampanin, S., 2002. Relevance of beam-column joint damage and collapse in RC frame assessment. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 6(spec01), 75-100.
Di Carlo, F., Meda, A., Rinaldi, Z., 2017. Numerical cyclic behaviour of un-corroded and corroded RC columns reinforced with HPFRC jacket.
Composite Structures, 163, 432-443.
Earij, A., Alfano, G., Cashell, K., Zhou, X., 2017. Nonlinear three–dimensional finite–element modelling of reinforced–concrete beams:
Computational challenges and experimental validation. Engineering Failure Analysis, 82, 92-115.
Grande, E., Imbimbo, M., Napoli, A., Nitiffi, R., Realfonzo, R., 2021. A macro-modelling approach for RC beam-column exterior joints: first
results on monotonic behaviour. Journal of Building Engineering, 39, 102202.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., Tanaka, H., 2000. Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing details.
Structural Journal, 97(1), 11-25.
Hassan, W. M., Moehle, J. P., 2012. Experimental assessment of seismic vulnerability of corner beam-column joints in older concrete buildings.
In Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 24-28).
Hassan, W. M., Elmorsy, M., 2022. Cyclic nonlinear modeling parameters for unconfined beam-column joints. ACI Structural J., 119(1), 89-104.
Hu, H. T., and Schnobrich, W. C., 1990. Nonlinear analysis of cracked reinforced concrete. Structural Journal, 87(2), 199-207.
Lima, C., Martinelli, E., Faella, C., 2012a. Capacity models for shear strength of exterior joints in RC frames: state-of-the-art and synoptic
examination. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 10(3), 967-983.
Lima, C., Martinelli, E., Faella, C., 2012b. Capacity models for shear strength of exterior joints in RC frames: experimental assessment and
recalibration. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 10(3), 985-1007.
Lima, C., Angiolilli, M., Barbagallo, F., Belletti, B., ... Verderame, G., 2018. Nonlinear modeling approaches for existing reinforced concrete
buildings: The case study of De Gasperi-Battaglia school building in Norcia. In Conf. on Italian Concrete Days (pp. 82-95). Springer, Cham.
Marino, E. M., Barbagallo, F., Angiolilli, M., Belletti, B., Camata, G., Dellapina, C., ... Verderame, G., 2019. Influence of nonlinear modeling on
capacity assessment of RC framed structures, COMPDYN 2019 (pp. 2781-2795). National Technical University of Athens.
Masi, A., Santarsiero, G., Nigro, D., 2013. Cyclic tests on external RC beam-column joints: role of seismic design level and axial load value on the
ultimate capacity. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17(1), 110-136.
Murad, Y., Abdel-Jabar, H., Diab, A., Hajar, H. A., 2020. Exterior RC joints subjected to monotonic and cyclic loading. Engineering Computations.
Nicoletti, V., Carbonari, S., Gara, F., 2022. Nomograms for the pre-dimensioning of RC beam-column joints according to Eurocode 8. Structures
(Vol. 39, pp. 958-973).
NTC, Norme tecniche per le costruzioni in zone sismiche, in Italian, Ministerial Decree DM; 2018.
Pampanin, S., Magenes, G., Carr, A. J., 2003. Modelling of shear hinge mechanism in poorly detailed RC beam-column joints. 4th FIB Sym. Proc.
Ricci, P., De Luca, F., Verderame, G., 2011. 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete building performance. Bulletin of
earthquake engineering, 9(1), 285-305.
Sarsam, K. F., Phipps, M. E., 1985. The shear design of in situ reinforced concrete beam–column joints subjected to monotonic loading. Magazine
of Concrete Research, 37(130), 16-28.
Sharma, A., Reddy, G., Vaze, K., Eligehausen, R., 2013. Pushover experiment and analysis of a full scale non-seismically detailed RC structure.
Engineering Structures, 46, 218-233.
Vollum RL, Newman JB, 1999. The design of external, reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Struct Eng. 77(23–24):21–27