ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 116-S03
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints
by Composites—Part II: Analytical Study
by Cem Yalçın, Osman Kaya, Emre Biçer, and Azadeh Parvin
Beam-column joints (BCJs) in reinforced concrete (RC) structural
systems are the critical regions, especially when they are subjected
to high shear demands. According to earthquake reports and joint
subassembly tests in the literature, mostly brittle failures were
experienced due to inadequate design detailing. To avoid such fail-
ures, several strengthening techniques were developed for weak
BCJ regions such as externally applied steel and RC jackets, and
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) materials. Experimental results
revealed alleviation of these deficiencies and improved shear
capacities of the strengthened joints.
Shear capacity predictions of these retrofitted joint subassem-
blies for design purposes require analytical models. In this study,
an analytical model and computation procedure was proposed to
predict the lateral load capacities of the shear-critical joint subas-
semblies with or without carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
wrapping technique. Several failure mechanisms such as shear
failure in joint panel, crushing of concrete in the beam, yielding
of the beam reinforcement, or rupture of CFRP wrapping were
determined for each incremental lateral load level and most crit-
ical ultimate lateral load capacity was found. The predicted results
were compared with the experimental results in Part I of this paper
as well as other research in the literature, and they were in good
agreement.
Keywords: analytical model; beam-column joints; carbon fiber-reinforced
polymers (CFRPs); joint capacity; joint failure mechanisms; reinforced
concrete; shear strengthening.
INTRODUCTION
Beam-column joint regions in reinforced concrete (RC)
load-carrying structural systems are one of the most critical
parts, especially under seismic actions where shear demands
are considerably high due lateral inertia forces, resulting in
brittle failures. Therefore, the behavior of the joint region
directly affects the capacity of the overall structure. A signif-
icant amount of experimental research has been conducted
on various beam-column joint subassemblies such as exte-
rior and interior joints, with or without the inclusion of slabs
or seismic retrofitting. Brittle shear failures occur usually
with the effects of inadequate design detailing, lack of trans-
verse reinforcement, and low compressive strength concrete.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Experimental work on beam-column joins (BCJs)
conducted by the authors and other researchers were
discussed in detail in Part I of this study.
A significant number of analytical models and design
formulations were proposed by researchers based on exper-
imental results. Scarpas and Paulay1 in 1981 carried out a
study on the behavior of exterior BCJs. The experimental
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
results of three RC exterior beam-column subassemblies
under simulated seismic loading were presented. The main
variable studied was the amount of horizontal joint shear
reinforcement. A new tentative model for the mechanism
of exterior joint shear resistance was proposed. Durrani and
Wight2 in 1982 tested six full-scale interior BCJ specimens
under quasi-static loading. All specimens were designed
according to strong column-weak beam design philosophy.
Among the variables selected for this investigation included
the percentage of transverse reinforcement in the joint, the
joint shear stress level, and the presence of transverse beams
and slabs. It was concluded that the joint shear stress level
was critical for the satisfactory performance of BCJ connec-
tions without transverse beams and slabs. In the analytical
part of this study, a hysteretic model for BCJ subassemblies
was developed that could take into account the pinching
effect, stiffness degradation, reduced unloading stiffness,
and fixed-end rotations due to the slippage of reinforcing
steel through the joint. The maximum story level displace-
ments were found to be in good agreement with those
obtained from hysteretic models.2
In 1996, Scott3 carried out an experimental investigation
on 17 RC exterior BCJs. Effects of beam depth, amount
of tensile reinforcement and its detailing, as well as axial
load levels were examined. Strain distributions along the
beam and column reinforcing steels were measured. Bond
stresses along the beam tension steel were determined and
the load transfer by bond was evaluated with respect to
reinforcement detailing. Gergely et al.4 in 1998 calculated
the contribution of the FRP sheets to the shear capacity of
a joint by analogous transverse reinforcing steel, assuming
that the FRP crossing a potential shear crack region in the
beam would exhaust its tensile capacity. Antonopoulous and
Triantafillou5 in 2002 developed a model using the exper-
imental data obtained from the existing literature. Shear
strength predictions yielded good agreement with the analyt-
ical model.
Granata and Parvin6 and Parvin and Granata7 performed
numerical and experimental studies to examine the effects
of various FRPs such as kevlar, E-glass, and carbon and
wrap thickness on the joint models. The results indicated
that the external FRP wrapping increased the BCJs’ moment
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1, January 2019.
MS No. S-2016-036.R2, doi: 10.14359/51706923, was received January 5, 2018,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American
Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
31
capacity. In another numerical investigation by Parvin and
Wu,8 the effect of FRP ply angle on the BCJs’ was consid-
ered and recommendations were provided for the most suit-
able FRP retrofit scheme. Hwang and Lee9,10 developed a
joint model for exterior BCJ to determine the shear strength.
They also investigated the applicability of this model to inte-
rior beam-column joint and obtained good agreement with
existing experimental studies in the literature. For the exte-
rior case, they proposed a method, “softened strut-and-tie
model,” which is based on strut-and-tie concept and derived
to satisfy the equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitutive
laws of cracked RC members. The accuracy of the proposed
model was checked by comparing calculated shear strengths
with experimental data reported in the existing literature,
and a satisfactory correlation was found. This method was
also incorporated in the shear resisting mechanism, as postu-
lated by the softened strut-and-tie model, as a function of the
concrete strength, horizontal shear reinforcement, vertical
shear reinforcement and geometrical configuration of the
discontinuity regions.11 Bakir and Boduroğlu12 presented a
new design equation predicting the shear strength of mono-
tonically loaded exterior BCJs reasonably.
Lowes et al.13,14 developed a model representing the mech-
anism that would determine inelastic beam-column joint
behavior through the combined action of one-dimensional
shear panel, bar slip, and as well as shear component inter-
face of the model. Comparison of simulated and observed
response for a series of beam-column joint subassemblies
indicated that the model represented the behavior and the
fundamental characteristic of response for joints subjected
to moderate shear demands. Fleury et al.15 proposed a model
incorporating explicitly the modeling of concrete, rein-
forcing steel, and bond for the beam-column connections
of RC frame structures. Based on finite element modeling
of localized connection, simplifying assumptions were
proposed and implemented leading to a component-based
model. Both approaches (local and component-based) were
evaluated with an example.
Taghdi et al.16 in 2000 proposed a truss model applied
to the walls that were retrofitted with vertical and diagonal
structural steel strips. They presented a step-by-step design
procedure, performed based on strut-and-tie methodology.
The results of the analytical process were in good agreement
with experimental results. Shiohara17 in 2001 investigated
the irrationality in the existing models with 20 shear-critical
BCJ connections. Test data showed that the joint shear stress
was not proportional to the story shear. Furthermore, joint
shear increased until the end of the test in most specimens,
even if the joint shear deformation apparently increased and
the story shear decreased. A new mathematical model was
proposed for the shear behavior of beam-column connec-
tions to reflect this phenomenon. Pantelides et al.18 in 2002
investigated the seismic performance of BCJs with three
different details of beam and BCJ reinforcements. Six full-
scale exterior joints were tested. Lateral load, drift, plastic
rotation, joint shear strength, and ductility capacities were
examined. Also, two levels of axial compressive load in the
columns were investigated. A strut-and-tie model was devel-
oped to verify the experimental results.
32
Attaalla19 in 2004 proposed an analytical expression
developed to estimate the shear strength of joint cores in
beam-column connections. Also, the model was verified by
130 experiments carried out in the literature. The proposed
model indicated that the joint shear strength depended
primarily on the concrete compressive strength fc′ while
emphasizing the role of joint core confinement. The results
showed that the proposed model predicts the shear stress of
the joint region more accurately than that of formulations
given in the current ACI 318 and New Zealand Code, when
compared with the test results. Akguzel and Pampanin20
in 2012 developed an analytical model in which the prin-
cipal tensile stress was recommended to be the key criterion
controlling the shear strength of the retrofitted joints.
Pantazopoulou and Bonacci21 carried out a study on the
mechanics of BCJs in laterally loaded frame structures in
1992. The role of axial load and transverse reinforcement
on the overall behavior was studied. In addition to providing
an improved understating of the joint behavior, the deriva-
tion reflected the relationship between the design limit states
and corresponding deformations, giving an opportunity to
link joint design to the overall lateral drift. In 2009, Wang and
Hsu22 investigated the interior shear strength of non-ductile
frames strengthened with reinforced concrete jackets, but no
new joint shear reinforcement or dowel anchors were included
between the new and old concrete interface. The results
showed that the RC-jacketed scheme was able to efficiently
rehabilitate non-ductile frames with inferior joint detailing.
Wang et al.23 developed a shear strength model for RC BCJ.
The effects of transverse and longitudinal reinforcement as
well as the joint shear reinforcement were considered in the
model. The tensile strains in the transverse direction of the
compression strut were also considered in the joint region by
using the Kupfer-Gerstle biaxial tension-compression failure
envelope. They concluded that the model predictions were in
good agreement with the experiment results obtained from
literature.
Del Vecchio et al.24 proposed a new strength capacity
model to account for the FRP strengthening of poorly
detailed corner joints. A large database of experimental tests
was analyzed to assess the accuracy of the proposed model.
The simple theoretical approach and the use of experimen-
tally determined parameters made this model suitable for
practical applications.
De Risi and Verderame25 conducted an experimental and
analytical study on full-scale RC BCJs specimens with plain
steel reinforcement bars and with different joint aspect ratios.
The test results were compared with the main joint shear model
in the existing codes and literature. They also performed a
numerical analysis to reproduce the envelope of the exper-
imental responses of lateral load versus drift for monotonic
loading. The numerical results were in a good accordance
with experimental envelopes for the analyzed specimens.
Pantelides et al.26 in 2009 developed a softened strut-
and-tie model for interior BCJ specimens. They did not use
any ties in the joint region and the steel reinforcement that
was used for flexural capacity of the beam was left discon-
tinuous. The model was then compared with full-scale
interior beam-column joint experiments. They observed
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Fig. 1—Macromodel for exterior joint.
different failure modes such as anchorage failure of the
bottom beam reinforcement, crushing of the concrete in the
nodal zone, diagonal joint shear failure, and for the retro-
fitted joint, delamination of the CFRP laminate and crushing
of the concrete in the joint core. They concluded that model
was successful in estimating the ultimate shear strength of
the deficient and retrofitted joints. Wong and Kuang27 in
2014 were also presented a model for interior BCJs. They
analyzed 16 BCJs, and the results showed that the proposed
model was able to predict the shear strength of interior joints.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
There are numerous models proposed to estimate the
ultimate shear capacity of BCJs using close form empirical
equations. Although they are effective, they lack capturing
the overall behavior at critical shearing loads. There is a
need for an analytical procedure to capture the behavior of
BCJs at every stage of incremental loading and, ultimately,
the corresponding failure mechanism. In this study, shear
capacities of deficient BGJs retrofitted with CFRP sheets are
predicted through force-based analysis of beam and column
cross sections; while increasing the strains and converting
them into applied laterals loads, the ultimate loading and
their corresponding failure mechanisms are determined.
During the incremental computational process, effective
widths of concrete and CFRP layers are calculated based on
diagonal struts formed by compressive stress depths.
DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL MODEL
The proposed model is based on the strut-and-tie concept.
Before setting up a mathematical model, the forces around and
within the joint panel region should be identified. Figure 1(a)
illustrates the earthquake-induced forces acting on an exte-
rior joint structural component model with F and N being
the lateral earthquake and gravity loads, respectively. The
resulting reactions are given as R1, R2, and R3. Herein,
zero moments are assumed at mid-column heights (lc1 and
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
lc2) and at mid-beam length (lb), and thus the model has
two half-story columns (AB and BD) and half beam (BC),
all connected rigidly at beam-column joint at B. The upper
column end is free at A, the lower column end is pinned at
D, and the beam end has roller support at C, simulating the
free-body diagram of an exterior joint.
The horizontal joint shear force Vjh can be estimated from
Eq. (1).
Vjh = Tb – Vc1 (1)
where Tb is the tensile force resulting from the reinforcing
steel of the beam, and Vc1 is the horizontal column shear
above the joint, as shown in Fig. 1(b).
The derivation of the step-by-step calculation procedure
of the exterior joint macro model, as described in Fig. 1, was
determined as follows:
Step 1. Calculations of reactions and internal forces—
Under the constant gravity axial load N, the incremental
lateral load F and the reactions R1, R2, and R3 could be
calculated by using the static equilibrium equations for each
incremental lateral load level.
Step 2. Sectional analysis—Using sectional analysis
procedure applied to the beam and column cross sections,
the moment M, and the curvature κ values could be deter-
mined for both beam and column cross sections. Also, for
any lateral load level F applied at the tip of column, its corre-
sponding moment, and consequently, extreme fiber compres-
sive and tensile strain values of the sections (εc, εt), compres-
sion depth values of columns and beam sections (cc1, cc2,
cb), and tensile forces of beam longitudinal reinforcements
(Tb) could be readily determined from back calculation of
sectional analysis procedure, as shown in Fig. 2. The hori-
zontal joint shear force (Vjh) could then be found by using
Eq. (1).
Step 3. Determination of concrete and CFRP effective
areas of in joint panel—The forces originating from the
33
beam and the columns were transferred into the joint region.
The compression depths of the column and beam sections,
calculated in Step 2, would define the boundary of compres-
sion strut area in the joint panel as shown in Fig. 3(a). Due
to the geometry and the forces of the adjacent beam and
columns at the joint panel, the depth of compressive strut
area varies along the diagonal direction of the joint. There-
fore, the effective depth (as) should be defined for the calcu-
lation of the concrete shear. Converting the compression
Fig. 2—Moments and shear forces of joint region.
Fig. 3—Forces acting on joint region and compression and tension.
34
strut area into an equivalent rectangular area (Astr), the effec-
tive depth of compressive strut could be determined from the
depth of the equivalent rectangular area along the diagonal
axis of the joint region. The effective area of diagonal strut,
Astr, could be defined as
Astr = as × bs (2)
where as is the effective depth, and bs is the width of the
diagonal strut.
For the CFRP-strengthened specimens, the effective width
of the CFRP sheets is defined as the width of CFRP sheets
crossing the diagonal axis of the joint region (Fig. 3(b)). The
effective area of the CFRP sheets, ACFRP, is calculated by
using Eq. (3).
ACFRP = beff × n × t (3)
and
t = W/ρFRP (4)
where beff is the effective width of CFRP; n is the number
of the CFRP layers; t is the theoretical thickness of the one
layer of CFRP sheet, in microns (10–3 mm); W is the weight
of FRP sheet, in g/m2; and ρFRP is the density of FRP mate-
rial, in tons/m3. Effective width of CFRP is also calculated
as follows
beff = Ldia – 2hcsinα (5)
where α is the slope of the CFRP wrapping in the joint, and
Ldia is the corner to corner distance of the joint panel (shown
in Fig. 3(b)), which is expressed as
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Fig. 4—Forces acting on joint region and deformed shapes.

Ldia = hb2 + hc2 (6)

Therefore, the area of CFRP can be found by the following

expression

W
ACFRP = hb2 + hc2 − 2hc sin α × n × (7)
ρ
where hb and hc are the heights of beam and column cross
section areas, respectively.
Step 4. Truss system—The mechanism of the joint region
could be simplified as a truss system with compression and
tension members as seen in Fig. 4. The proposed truss model
is a statically indeterminate system. By applying unit lateral
force from the top corner joint of the truss, forces (F1 to F6)
exerted on each truss member could be calculated from any
structural analysis software or indeterminate analysis proce-
dures. Here, it was assumed that the outer members of the
truss were more rigid than that of the braces. Thus, no elonga-
tion was assumed in the outer members. The calculated forces
exerted on each member of the truss are illustrated in Fig. 4.
Step 5. Results—For each incremental lateral load level
(F), the forces in truss members (F1 to F6) that were obtained
in Step 4 should be checked. The stresses are calculated by
dividing the forces to effective areas. As the lateral load
increases, the stresses in concrete joint increase as well.
Therefore, if the stress level in compression or tensile
member reaches the ultimate capacity first, failure modes
and ultimate lateral load levels (Vmax) could be determined.
The concrete compressive stresses due to compressive force
(F6) and concrete tensile stresses due to tensile force (F5)
are calculated from Eq. (8) and (9), respectively, as follows
fc-truss = F6/Astr (8)
ft-truss = F5/Adia (9)
where Adia is the area of the diagonal joint cross section.
Because the concrete at the joint region was subjected to
both tensile stresses in one axis and compressive stresses in
Fig. 5—Possible failure mechanisms of control specimens.
the other axis, it should be checked that whether the point of
(fc-truss, ft-truss) is inside of the biaxial Kupfer envelope curve
of the concrete or not.28 Here, if no shear reinforcements
were used at the joint region, the envelope curve should be
drawn by using unconfined concrete compressive strength,
fc′. However, if the joint had shear reinforcements, confined
concrete compressive strength should be used in the envelope
curve to account for the effects of the shear reinforcements.
Therefore, if the coordinates of fc-truss and ft-truss fall inside of
the Kupfer curve, the concrete caries the stresses developed in
the joint region. The lateral load, which takes the coordinates
outside of the envelope curve, becomes the maximum load
that the joint could carry before the shear failure occurs.
The second possible failure mechanism is the yielding of
beam longitudinal reinforcements (Fig. 5(b)). The stresses of
the beam longitudinal reinforcements (fs) should be checked
for yielding. If fs value becomes greater than the reinforce-
ments’ yield stress value fy, the corresponding F value
reaches the maximum load that the specimen is able to carry
prior to the formation of plastic hinge in the beam.
The third possible failure mechanism is the rupture of
diagonal CFRP sheets for strengthened specimens (Fig. 6(a)

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 35

Fig. 6—Possible failure mechanisms of strengthened specimens.
Table 1—Experimental verification
Column to beam
flexural ratio Fcolumn-Experimental Fcolumn-Analytical Fcol-Expt/Fcol-Analy
Specimen ID fc′, MPa fy, MPa N/Ag fc′ Push Pull Push, kN Pull, kN Push, kN Pull, kN Push Pull Failure*
TR-1-Control 15.3 280 0.35 1.12 0.90 49.2 53.8 46.5 45.3 1.06 1.19 JS
TR-2-Control 12.8 280 0.35 1.03 0.83 39.6 41.5 36.3 35.8 1.09 1.16 JS
TR-3-Control 13.5 280 0.35 0.95 0.72 24.5 27.2 24.7 24.4 0.99 1.11 JS
TR-5-Control 14.2 280 0.35 1.08 0.87 32.0 47.0 36.7 37.2 0.87 1.26 JS
TR-5-FRP-1 14.6 280 0.35 1.09 0.88 76.0 79.3 77.7 70.6 0.98 1.12 BY/RF
TR-5-FRP-2 16.0 280 0.35 1.14 0.92 71.1 94.9 77.7 95.9 0.92 0.99 BY/DF
TR-5-FRP-3 16.0 280 0.35 1.14 0.92 73.4 102.8 77.7 95.9 0.94 1.07 BY
*
JS is joint shear; BY is yielding of beam reinforcing bar; DF is debonding of CFRP; and RF is rupture of CFRP.
Notes: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.

and (b)). The axial force developed on the diagonal CFRP
sheets is one of the beam’s tensile force components. The
stresses in the CFRP sheets are calculated from Eq. (10) and
(11). It should be noted that the presence of L-shaped CFRP
sheets would reduce the stress level in the diagonal CFRP
sheets.
Tb ⋅ cos( γ )
f CFRP + γ =
ACFRP
Tb ⋅ cos( γ )
f CFRP + γ =
ACFRP + AL − Shape ⋅ cos( γ )
where γ and AL-Shape are the slope and the cross-sectional area
of the L-shaped CFRP sheets, respectively. If the diagonal
CFRP stresses become greater than the ultimate stress of
fiber, the corresponding F value reaches the maximum load
that the specimen could is able to carry prior to the CFRP
ruptures.
The fourth possible failure mechanism is the yielding of
the beam’s reinforcements at the location where the CFRP
wrapping ends for the strengthened specimen, as shown in
Fig. 6(c). If the reinforcements’ stress (fs) is greater than fy,
the corresponding F value reaches the maximum load that
the specimen is able to carry prior to the formation of plastic
hinge in the beam.
The geometry of the compression strut in the joint was
determined by the compression depths of the beam and the
column sections and, subsequently, the forces exerted within
the joint regions were obtained.
COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The proposed model was used to predict the lateral load
(10)
capacity of the shear-critical beam-column joint specimens
given in Part I of this study. Three of the specimens had
different reinforcement details and cross section dimen-
sions, and the remaining three were strengthened with CFRP
(11)
sheets. Table 1 illustrates the beam to column flexural ratios
and a comparison of experimental and analytical lateral load
capacities of the joints. Additionally, the proposed model was
further validated through comparison of its analytical BCJs’
lateral load capacities with those of experimental studies in
the existing literature, and they were in good agreement as
well, as illustrated in Table 2 and Fig. 7. It should be noted
that, for example, for US-1-C specimen, the failure was due
to shear cracks at the joint prior to the yielding of beam’s
reinforcement. Therefore, the model predicted the forces
that cause shear cracks in the joint panel. The recorded
experimental load values in Table 2 thus correspond to the
predicted analytical ones, which depend on the governing
mode of failure; in this case, it is when the joint shear cracks
formed. However, for the US-1 FRP specimen, the analyt-

36 ACI Structural Journal/January 2019

Table 2—Experimental verification (literature)
Fcolumn-Experimental Fcolumn-Analytical Fcol-Expt/Fcol-Analy
Specimen ID *
fc′, MPa fy, MPa N/Ag fc′ Push, kN Pull, kN Push, kN Pull, kN Push Pull Failure†
PAR (US-1) 24 450 0.30 60 74 61 61 0.98 1.21 JS
PAR (US-1-FRP) 24 450 0.30 92 120 97 103 0.95 1.17 BY
EHS (1B) 33.6 340 0.09 142 — 129.7 — 1.09 — JS

EHS (2B) 35.0 350 0.07 135 — 128.8 — 1.05 — JS

EHS (3B) 40.9 350 0.06 178 — 161 — 1.11 — BY

EHS (4B) 44.6 350 0.09 156 — 140 — 1.10 — BY

EHS (6B) 39.8 340 0.07 156 — 163 — 0.96 — BY

GHO (T0) 30.6 425 0.20 86 — 78 — 1.10 — JS

TSO (M1) 34.0 500 0.20 52 — 46.2 — 1.13 — JS

TSO (M2) 33.5 500 0.20 45 — 43.1 — 1.04 — JS

ANT (C1-C2) 21.6 585 0.06 30 — 20 — 1.50 — JS

ANT (F11) 22.8 585 0.06 42.8 — 54.4 — 0.78 — RF

DEL (TC1) 12.6 470 0.20 27 33 19.5 21 1.38 1.57 JS
DEL (FL1) 13.5 470 0.20 38.8 33.1 32.9 32.6 1.18 1.01 JS/DF
DEL (FS1) 17.7 470 0.20 56.1 45.2 74.1 45.1 0.75 1.00 BY/DF
ALA (EN80) 80 500 0.00 35 70 22.5 44.0 1.60 1.58 JS
ALA (EH80) 80 700 0.00 50 85 32 62 1.56 1.37 JS
BEY (NS5) 38.5 530 0.02 80 — 76 — 1.05 — BY

JAH (Model1) 38.4 500 0.10 20 — 17.1 — 1.17 — JS

RIS (Test1) 28.8 470 0.10 70 — 64,4 — 1.08 — JS

RIS (Test2) 28.8 470 0.10 58 — 57.8 — 1.00 — JS

*
PAR is Parvin et al.29; EHS is Ehsani and Wight30; GHO is Ghobarah et al.31; TSO is Tsonos32; ANT is Antonopoulos and Triantafillou33; DEL is Del Vecchio et al.34; ALA is Alaee
and Li35; BEY is Beydokhty and Shariatmadar36; JAH is Jahan et al.37; and RIS is De Risi et al.38
†
JS is joint shear; BY is yielding of beam reinforcing bar; DF is debonding of CFRP; and RF is rupture of CFRP.
Notes: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

TR-5-Control test specimen was selected to demonstrate

step-by-step calculation of the ultimate load capacity and
the corresponding failure mechanism of the joint using the
proposed analytical model (refer to the Appendix).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Fig. 7—Experimental versus analytical comparison.
ical model predicted the load level that was governed by the
beam’s bar yielding and, therefore, the experimental lateral
load value recorded in Table 2 is at the beam’s yielding point
(not the maximum) for comparison purposes.
A comprehensive survey on existing structural systems
has been carried out in the literature to identify the main
deficiencies that influence the behavior of exterior beam-
column joints. Part I of this paper investigated the effects
of these common detailing deficiencies on the behavior
and lateral load capacities of beam-column joints, and then
several CFRP strengthening configurations were proposed
to increase the joint shear capacity. In the present paper
(Part II), a simple yet reliable analytical investigation was
developed and validated with experimental data presented
in Part I. Also, the predictions of lateral load capacities were
verified with a large experimental database in the literature.
The developed model revealed that concrete compressive
strength, use of smooth steel bars, joint transverse reinforce-
ment, and in-plane geometry could play important roles on
determining the joint shear capacity. The step-by-step calcu-
lation process could predict the lateral load capacities and

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 37

failure types of as-built and CFRP-strengthened joints with hb = height of beam cross section
hb′ = height of joint panel
various wrapping configurations. hc = height of column cross section
Finally, a spreadsheet program was developed using a hc′ = width of joint panel
macro for the proposed step-by-step calculation process. Ldia = corner-to-corner distance of joint panel
lb = length of beam
The computations not only provided the ultimate load state lc1 = height of top column
and failure mode of the BCJ, but also predictions were made lc2 = height of bottom column
at each lateral load increment as well. The input variables M = moments of section
N = axial force
were the joint’s geometric properties, mechanical properties, n = number of CFRP layers
and orientation and number of the CFRP sheets at the joint R1 = vertical reaction at column support
core. Then the software program can compute the lateral R2 = horizontal reaction at column support
R3 = vertical reaction at beam support
load history, the ultimate lateral load capacity, and identify Tb = tensile force of beam longitudinal reinforcement
the failure mode of exterior BCJs. The analytical model’s Tc1 = tensile force of top column longitudinal reinforcement
estimation of load capacity and failure mode prediction can Tc2 = tensile force of bottom column longitudinal reinforcement
t = theoretical thickness of one layer of CFRP
be extended to other types of FRP (that is, GFRP or Kevlar) V = shear force acting on joint
strengthened exterior BCJ. Additionally, analysis can be Vb = shear force acting on beam
carried out for interior BCJ by implementing the interior Vc1 = shear force acting top column
Vc2 = shear force acting on bottom column
joint forces impending from both beams. Vjh = horizontal joint shear force
Vjv = vertical joint shear force
AUTHOR BIOS W = weight of FRP sheet
Cem Yalçın is an Associate Professor at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, α = angle of diagonal cracks occurred at joint region
Turkey. He received his BS from Boğaziçi University; his MS from Tech- γ = slope of diagonal CFRP sheets
nical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, NS, Canada; and his PhD from the εc = compressive strain of extreme fiber of section
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. His research interests include εt = tensile strain of extreme fiber of section
strengthening and retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures and topics κ = curvature
related to energy-based design of structures under seismic loading. ρFRP = density of FRP material

Osman Kaya is an Assistant Professor at Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University,

Muğla, Turkey. He received his BS from Pamukkale University, Denizli,
REFERENCES
1. Scarpas, A., and Paulay, T., “The Inelastic Behavior of Earthquake
Turkey; and his MS and PhD from Boğaziçi University. His research inter-
Resistant Reinforced Concrete Exterior Beam-Column Joints,” Report
ests include strengthening and retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures.
No. 81-2, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1981.
2. Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., “Experimental and Analytical Study
Emre Biçer is a Civil Engineer. He received his BS and MS from Boğaziçi
of Internal Beam to Column Connections Subjected to Reversed Cyclic
University.
Loading,” Report No: UMEE 82R3, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, 1982.
Azadeh Parvin is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environ-
3. Scott, R. H., “Intrinsic Mechanism in Reinforced Concrete Beam
mental Engineering at the University of Toledo, Toledo, OH. Her research
Column Connection Behavior,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 3,
interests include analysis, design, and behavior of reinforced concrete
May-June 1996, pp. 336-346.
structures; repair and rehabilitation of structures by use of fiber compos-
4. Gergely, I.; Pantelides, C. P.; Nuismer, R. J.; and Reaveley, L. D.,
ites; analysis of impact loads with bridge components due to a truck colli-
“Bridge Pier Retrofit Using Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Composites,” Journal
sion; earthquake engineering of bridges and buildings; and laboratory
of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 2, No. 4, 1998, pp. 165-174. doi:
testing and finite element modeling of structural components.
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1998)2:4(165)
5. Antonopoulos, C. P., and Triantafillou, T. C., “Analysis of
FRP-Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of Composites
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS for Construction, ASCE, V. 6, No. 1, 2002, pp. 41-51. doi: 10.1061/
The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to (ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:1(41)
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) through grant OISE-0352947; 6. Granata, P. J., and Parvin, A., “An Experimental Study on Kevlar
the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Strengthening of Beam-Column Connections,” Composite Structures,
through grant ICTAG-I597-NSF (103I026) and Boğaziçi University Scien- V. 53, No. 2, 2001, pp. 163-171. doi: 10.1016/S0263-8223(00)00187-2
tific Research Project under Grant No. 05A401 for financing this research 7. Parvin, A., and Granata, P. J., “Investigation on the Effects of Fiber
work; and the BASF-YKS, the Chemical Company, for providing support Composites at Concrete Joints,” Composites. Part B, Engineering, V. 31,
in material supply. No. 6-7, 2000, pp. 499-509. doi: 10.1016/S1359-8368(99)00046-3
8. Parvin, A., and Wu, S., “Ply Angle Effect on Fiber Composite Wrapped
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Connections under Combined Axial
NOTATION and Cyclic Loads,” Composite Structures, V. 82, No. 4, 2008, pp. 532-538.
ACFRP = effective cross-sectional area of CFRP sheets doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2007.02.004
Adia = area of diagonal cross section of joint 9. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H., “Analytical Model for Predicting Shear
Ag = gross cross-section area Strengths of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for
AL-Shape= area of L-shaped CFRP sheets Seismic Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1999,
Astr = effective area of diagonal strut pp. 846-858.
as = effective depth of compressive strut 10. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H., “Analytical Model for Predicting Shear
beff = effective width of CFRP layers Strengths of Interior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic
bs = width of diagonal strut Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 35-44.
cb = compression force of beam 11. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H., “Strength Prediction for Discontinuity
cc1 = compression force of top column Regions by Softened Strut-and-Tie Model,” Journal of Structural Engi-
cc2 = compression force of bottom column neering, ASCE, V. 128, No. 12, 2002, pp. 1519-1526. doi: 10.1061/
F = applied lateral load (ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:12(1519)
F1-6 = internal forces of truss members 12. Bakir, P. G., and Boduroğlu, H. M., “A New Design Equation
fc′ = concrete compressive strength for Predicting the Joint Shear Strength of Monotonically Loaded Exte-
fc-truss = compressive stresses in truss system rior Beam-Column Joints,” Engineering Structures, V. 24, No. 8, 2002,
fs = stress of beam longitudinal bar pp. 1105-1117. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00038-X
ft-truss = tensile stresses in truss system 13. Lowes, L. N., Mitra, N., and Altoontash, A., “A Beam Column Joint
fy = yield strength of reinforcement Model for Simulating the Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete

38 ACI Structural Journal/January 2019

Frames,” Report No. PEER 2003-10, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, 2003.
14. Lowes, L. N., and Altoontash, A., “Modeling Reinforced-Concrete
Beam Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 129, No. 12, 2003, pp. 1686-1697. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:12(1686)
15. Fleury, F.; Reynouard, J. M.; and Merabet, O., “Multicomponent
Model of Reinforced Concrete Joints for Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 126, No. 8, 2000, pp. 804-811. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:8(804)
16. Taghdi, M.; Bruneau, M.; and Saatcioğlu, M., “Analysis and Design
of Low-Rise Masonry and Concrete Walls Retrofitted using Steel Strips,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 126, No. 9, 2000, pp. 1026-
1032. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:9(1026)
17. Shiohara, H., “New Model for Shear Failure of RC Interior Beam
Column Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127,
No. 2, 2001, pp. 152-160. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:2(152)
18. Pantelides, C. P., Hansen, J., Nadauld, J., and Reaveley, L. D.,
“Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Building Exterior Joints with
Substandard Details,” Report No. PEER 2002-18, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2002.
19. Attaalla, S., “General Analytical Model for Nominal Shear Stress of
Type 2 Normal and High-Strength Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2004, pp. 65-75.
20. Akguzel, U., and Pampanin, S., “Assessment and Design Procedure
for the Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Using
FRP Composite Materials,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
V. 16, No. 1, 2012, pp. 21-34. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000242
21. Pantazopoulou, S., and Bonacci, J., “Consideration of Questions
about Beam Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
1993, pp. 27-36.
22. Wang, Y. C., and Hsu, K., “Shear Strength of RC Jacketed Interior
Beam-Column Joints without Horizontal Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 106, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2009, pp. 222-232.
23. Wang, G. L.; Dai, J. G.; and Teng, J. G., “Shear Strength Model for
RC Beam-Column Joints under Seismic Loading,” Engineering Structures,
V. 40, July, 2012, pp. 350-360. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.038
24. Del Vecchio, C.; Di Ludovico, M.; Prota, A.; and Manfredi, G.,
“Analytical Model and Design Approach for FRP Strengthening of
Non-Conforming RC Corner Beam-Column Joints,” Engineering Struc-
tures, V. 87, No. 15, 2015, pp. 8-20. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.013
25. De Risi, M. T., and Verderame, G. M., “Experimental Assessment and
Numerical Modelling of Exterior Non-conforming Beam-Column Joints
with Plain Bars,” Engineering Structures, V. 150, Nov, 2017, pp. 115-134.
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.039
26. Pantelides, C. P.; Okahashi, Y.; and Reaveley, L. D., “Effectiveness
of Seismic Retrofit of RC Beam-Column Joints with FRP Composites
and Strut-and-Tie Model,” 9th International Symposium on Fiber-Rein-
forced (FRP) Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Paper 117,
July 13-15, Sydney, Australia, 2009.
27. Wong, H. F., and Kuang, J. S., “Predicting Shear Strength of RC
Interior Beam-Column Joints by Modified Rotating-Angle Softened-Truss
Model,” Computers & Structures, V. 133, March, 2014, pp. 12-17. doi:
10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.11.008
28. Kupfer, H.; Hilsdorf, H. K.; and Rusch, H., “Behavior of Concrete
under Biaxial Stresses,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 66, No. 8, Aug. 1969,
pp. 656-666.
29. Parvin, A.; Altay, S.; and Yalcin, C.; Kaya, O.; and Karpuz, E.,
“Experimental Investigation on Full-Scale Beam-Column Connections,”
7th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering
(CICE 2014), Vancouver, BC, Canada, Aug. 2014.
30. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., “Behavior of External Reinforced
Concrete Beam to Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake Type
Loading,” Report No. UMEE 82-R5, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, 1982.
31. Ghobarah, A.; Aziz, T. S.; and Biddah, A., “Rehabilitation of Rein-
forced Concrete Frame Connections Using Corrugated Steel Jacketing,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 3, May-June 1997, pp. 282-294.
32. Tsonos, A. G., “Lateral Load Response of Strengthened Reinforced
Concrete Beam-to-Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 46-56.
33. Antonopoulos, C. P., and Triantafillou, T. C., “Experimental Inves-
tigation of FRP-Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 7, No. 1, 2003, pp. 39-49. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:1(39)
34. Del Vecchio, C.; Di Ludovico, M.; Balsamo, A.; Prota, A.;
Manfredi, G.; and Dolce, M., “Experimental Investigation of Exterior RC
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Beam-Column Joints Retrofitted with FRP Systems,” Journal of Compos-
ites for Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 4, 2014, p. 04014002 doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000459
35. Alaee, P., and Li, B., “High-Strength Concrete Exterior Beam-
Column Joints with High-Yield Strength Steel Reinforcements,” Engi-
neering Structures, V. 145, Aug., 2017, pp. 305-321. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2017.05.024
36. Beydokhty, E. Z., and Shariatmadar, H., “Behavior of Damaged
Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints Strengthened by CFRP Composites,”
Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, V. 13, No. 5, 2016,
pp. 880-896. doi: 10.1590/1679-78252258
37. Jahan, M. K.; Ahmed, F.; Ahmed, S.; and Ahsan, R., “Experimental
Investigation of an RC Exterior Beam-Column Joint Behavior Strengthened
with FRP,” APFIS2017 - 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures,
Singapore, July 2017.
38. De Risi, M. T.; Ricci, P.; and Verderame, G. M., “Modelling Exterior
Unreinforced Beam-Column Joints in Seismic Analysis of Non-Ductile RC
Frames,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 46, No. 6,
2017, pp. 899-923. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2835
APPENDIX
Case study of TR-5-Control
In this section, a step-by-step calculation for the predic-
tion of lateral load capacity of TR-5-Control is presented as
an example problem. From the experimental results given
in Part I, it is known that TR-5-Control behaved the worst
in terms of joint shear failure with a maximum lateral load
capacity of 32 and 47 kN (7.194 and 10.566 kip) in push and
pull directions, respectively. The concrete compressive strength
was 14.2 MPa (2.06 ksi). The dimensions of column’s cross
section were 300 x 300 mm (11.81 x 11.81 in.) with 416 rein-
forcements, and the beam’s cross-section size was 300 x 500
mm (11.81 x 19.69 in.) with 516 and 416 for the top and
bottom reinforcements, respectively. The longitudinal rein-
forcements were plain steel bars. The yielding stress of steel
was taken as 280 MPa (40.61 ksi).
Step 1: For any F load incrementally applied to the top
of the column (point A), the reactions at the supports (R1,
R2, and R3) and the moments at the surface of the joint panel
were determined (Fig. 1(a)) according to the length of beam
and column. In TR-5-Control specimen, length of the beam
from support to the center of joint (lb) is 1.80 m (5.9 ft).
The length of the column from the bottom pin support to the
point of lateral load application at the top (lc1 + lc2) is 1.92 m
(6.3 ft). The reaction forces were determined as
∑Fy = 0 R1 = N (A1)
∑Fx = 0 R2 = F (A2)
F × 1.92
∑ MD = 0 R3 = = 1.067 F (A3)
1.80
The moment values at the surface of the joint at the beam
side (Mb) and column side (Mc1, Mc2) were calculated by
multiplying the reaction forces by moment arms (Fig. 2).
The moment arms of the beam and columns are 1.65 and
0.71 m (5.41 and 2.33 ft), respectively.
Mb = R3 × 1.65 (A4)
Mc1 = Mc2 = F × 0.71 (A5)
39
Fig. A1—Moment-curvature relations of beam and column
sections.
Step 2: In this step, the moment capacity and moment-ver- Fig. A2—Forces acting on joint truss system.
sus-curvature (M-κ) plot for beam and column cross sections
Step 3: The effective depth (as) and the equivalent rect-
were obtained. For the beam, due to different reinforcement
angular compression strut area are defined according to the
ratios at the top and bottom, M-κ curves were plotted for
compression depth values obtained in Step 2.
both pull and push directions and are given in Fig. A1.
Step 4: By applying unit shear force to the top of the joint
After the moments at the joint panel were calculated from
truss system with cross section dimensions of 300 x 500 mm,
Eq. (A4) and Eq. (A5) for each lateral load level, curvature
forces F1 to F6 exerted on each member are calculated and
values can be determined from M-κ curves. Also, from the
given in Fig. A2.
back-calculation of section analysis, compression depth
Step 5: During each lateral load step, the stress levels for
values (cc1, cc2, and cb) can be obtained. Once the curvature
each possible failure mode are checked. Because TR-5 was a
and compression depth values are known, the strain distribu-
control specimen, the joint core shear failure or beam’s tensile
tions of cross section can be calculated from
reinforcement yielding were expected. When the incremental
load reached the value of 37.5 kN (8.43 kip), the joint concrete
κ = ε/c (A6)
core crushed due to shear stresses and the beam’s top reinforce-
ment was going to yield at 55 kN (12.36 kip) lateral load level.
By using the shape of stress-strain (σ-ε) diagrams of steel
Therefore, it was concluded that the failure of the joint was
and concrete, stress distributions and internal compressive
due to the shear and the maximum lateral load capacity was
and tensile forces exerted on the cross section can be deter-
37.5 kN (8.43 kip).
mined (Fig. 3(a)).

40 ACI Structural Journal/January 2019