ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 116-S132

Effect of Joint Hoops on Seismic Behavior of Wide Beam-

Column Joints
by Roy Y. C. Huang, J. S. Kuang, and Srinivas Mogili

The effect of joint hoops on the seismic behavior and shear strength The effect of joint transverse reinforcement, usually in
of wide beam-column connections under earthquake-type loading the form of hoops, on the conventional beam-column joint
is investigated. Three full-scale exterior reinforced concrete wide aroused a heated debate globally since the last century.14 No
beam-column joints, with inadequate joint shear strength according consensus has yet been achieved, leading to two prevalent
to ACI 318-14 and ACI 352R-02, were designed, constructed, and
designed philosophies. One treated the joint transverse rein-
tested under reversed cyclic loading. Amount and spacing of joint
forcement as confinement only, represented by ACI codes,15,16
hoops are the primary parameter and ratios of the reinforcement
provided to that required by ACI codes were 1.71, 0.54, and 0. Test which indirectly admitted the concrete diagonal strut mecha-
results showed that the joint without any hoop exhibited similar nism in resisting joint shear only. The other recognized both
shear strength compared with others because spandrel beam concrete strut and steel truss mechanisms, such as the New
helped resist the joint shear in the form of torsion. It is therefore Zealand code,17 and the resistance of hoops, the so-called
suggested that the requirement of joint hoops in current codes of “joint shear reinforcement”, were considered apart from the
practice may be relaxed to reduce the reinforcement congestion in concrete strut. Either way, the joints were designed to be
joint core without significantly affecting the performance of joints. over-congested with steel reinforcement, which accordingly
made the construction difficult or impossible.
Keywords: joint hoop; shear strength; spandrel beam; wide beam-column joint.
Two kinds of experimental verification were conducted to
investigate the effectiveness of hoops. Hwang et al.18 tested
INTRODUCTION
the specimens designed with adequate joint shear strength
Wide-beam frames, whose beam width is larger than
and found that the amount of hoop has little effect on the
column width, are preferable in the reinforced concrete
overall shear strength. On the contrary, Wong and Kuang19
moment-resisting frame structures because of their architec-
designed a batch of specimens with larger joint shear demand
tural aesthetics, constructional simplicity, and reduction in
than joint shear strength, and the experimental results showed
steel congestion in the joint core. They are widely used in
that the shear strength increased by 30% when the stirrup
the places where large indoor volume without obstruction
ratio increased from 0 to 0.24%. Whether these conclusions
of the column is needed, such as car parks, sports stadiums,
drawn from the conventional beam-column joints can be
and atriums because they allow for larger beam span and
extrapolated to the wide beam-column joints need further
can reduce the clear ceiling height. Nevertheless, few
experimental verification.
experimental investigations were conducted on the seismic
With a view to investigating the effect of joint transverse
performance and shear strength of wide beam-column joints,
reinforcement on the seismic behavior and shear strength
which was the most vulnerable part of the frame due to the
wide beam-column joints, an experimental study of three
occurrence of large shear force under lateral loading, causing
full-scale specimens with different joint hoop arrangement
concerns on their application in seismic-prone zones.
is presented in this paper. Detailed analysis was conducted
Several experimental studies under earthquake-type
to evaluate the seismic performance of specimens, including
loading have beam carried out since the 1990s. These studies
crack patterns, hysteretic responses, joint shear distor-
have investigated the effect of: 1) the beam width to column
tion, the strain of the reinforcement, and energy dissipa-
width ratio1-5; 2) the spandrel beam dimension and rein-
tion capacity. The test results indicate the requirement of
forcement details4,5; and 3) post-tensioning6,7 on the seismic
joint hoops may be relaxed in to reduce the reinforcement
behavior of wide beam-column joints, and compared the
congestion in the joint core without significantly affecting
different seismic performance between: (a) wide beam-
the seismic behavior of the wide beam-column joints.
column joint versus conventional beam-column joint8-11; and
(b) seismic designed versus non-seismic designed joints.12,13
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the results, recommendations in designing a
The effect of joint hoops on the seismic behavior and shear
wide beam-column joint have been proposed, including: 1)
strength of exterior wide beam-column joints under reversed
limiting the beam to column width ratio; 2) reducing the rein-
cyclic loading is investigated. Experimental results reveal that
forcement anchored outside the joint core; and 3) ensuring
that the torsional strength of spandrel beam can resist the full
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 6, November 2019.
equilibrium torsion from beam bars anchored on the spandrel MS No. S-2018-446.R1, doi: 10.14359/51718006, received November 6, 2018, and
beam. Nonetheless, none of the researchers studied the role reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
of joint transverse reinforcement on the seismic behavior 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
and shear strength of wide beam-column joints. is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 131

Fig. 1—Dimensions and reinforcement details of specimens.
unlike conventional beam-column joints, joint hoops in wide longitudinal span. Dimensions of the structural elements
beam-column joints have an insignificant effect on the joint of all specimens were the same, including a 300 x 360 mm
shear strength, although the increase in the amount of joint (11.8 x 14.2 in.) column, a 600 x 300 mm (23.6 x 11.8 in.)
hoops improves the seismic performance. A design recommen- (width × depth) longitudinal wide beam, and a 360 x 300 mm
dation is made to reduce the reinforcement congestion in joint (14.2 x 11.8 in.) transverse spandrel beam. The column and
core while maintaining a satisfactory seismic performance. the longitudinal beam of the specimens were terminated
at their mid-height and midspan, respectively, where the
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM inflexion points were presumed to be located.
Three full-scale exterior reinforced concrete wide beam- Reinforcement details of each specimen were the same
column joints, labeled as S10, S11, and S12, were designed, except those in the joint core. The column consisted of 10
constructed, and tested under reverse quasi-static cyclic T16 longitudinal reinforcing bars, where T represents the
loading. The test aimed to investigate the effect of the joint high yield steel bars and 16 indicates the 16 mm (0.63 in.)
transverse reinforcement on the seismic behavior of the diameter of the reinforcement. The wide beam was designed
exterior wide beam-column joints. Thus, the primary design with symmetric top and bottom reinforcement, in which
variable for the specimens was the area and spacing of the one T25 (25 mm [0.98 in.] diameter) and two T20 (20 mm
joint transverse reinforcement. In addition, all specimens [0.79 in.] diameter) were anchored inside the column while
were designed to fail in joint shear by providing a larger four T16 were anchored in the spandrel beam, with a 200 mm
joint shear demand than shear strength in accordance with (7.9 in.) 90-degree standard bent hook. The spandrel beam
ACI codes, so that the effect of transverse reinforcement on was reinforced symmetrically with four T16 longitudinal
the overall joint shear strength can be investigated. All other bars at each side along with the 70 mm (2.8 in.) spaced
parameters of these specimens were the same and strictly closed hoops to resist the full equilibrium torsion from the
designed in line with ACI 318-1415 and ACI 352R-02.16 moment induced by the wide beam longitudinal reinforce-
ment anchored outside the column. Reinforcement ratios
Test specimens of the column, wide beam, and spandrel beam were 1.86%,
Figure 1 depicts the dimensions and reinforcement details 1.28%, and 0.89%, respectively. All the hoops and crossties
of the tested specimens. These specimens were designed to were made of T10 (10 mm [0.39 in.] diameter) steel bars
simulate a prototype moment-resisting frame structure with and their ends were bent additional 45 degrees to satisfy the
2700 mm (106.3 in.) story height and 2640 mm (103.9 in.) seismic design criteria.

132 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

Table 1—Concrete properties
Reinforcement
T25 T20 T16 T10
Concrete fc′,
Specimen MPa (psi) fy, MPa (ksi) fu, MPa (ksi) fy, MPa (ksi) fu, MPa (ksi) fy, MPa (ksi) fu, MPa (ksi) fy, MPa (ksi) fu, MPa (ksi)
S10 31.1 (4511)
S11 33.0 (4786) 612 (88.8) 708 (102.7) 583 (84.6) 736 (106.8) 502 (72.8) 622 (90.2) 464 (67.3) 585 (84.8)
S12 33.7 (4888)

Table 2—Calculated capacities by ACI and joint shear predictions

Horizontal joint hoops
Specimen Mr Vb,e, kN (kip) Vu/Vn Amount s, mm (in.) Ash/AshACI
S10 1.46 167.5 (37.7) 1.66 Three layers four legs 75 (2.95) 1.71
S11 1.46 168.9 (38.0) 1.61 Two layers two legs 112.5 (4.43) 0.54
S12 1.46 169.4 (38.1) 1.59 None — 0

The primary variance among the specimens is the arrange- Vu = 1.25fyAs – Vcol (1)
ment of the joint transverse hoops inside the joint core. Spec-
imen S10 has the same number of horizontal hoops as that Vn = 1.25 f c′b j hc (MPa)
in the column critical region, including three layers (spaced (2)
75 mm [2.95 in.]) with four legs each. The number of hoops = 15.05 f c′b j hc (psi)
was reduced to two layers (spaced 112.5 mm [4.43 in.]) with
two legs each in Specimen S11 and no reinforcement was where fy and As are the yield strength and area of longitudinal
provided in Specimen S12. beam reinforcement, respectively; Vcol is the column shear
force; fc′ is the concrete cylinder strength; bj is the effective
Material properties joint width; and hc is the column depth. The shear-strength
Table 1 summarizes the cylinder compressive strength of ratios are all greater than unity indicating that, based on
concrete and yield strength and ultimate strength of steel the prediction of ACI codes, all specimens should fail in
reinforcement. The concrete of specimens was obtained joint shear.
from a local ready mix supplier containing river sand, The various arrangement of the horizontal hoops in joint
uncrushed gravel aggregates with a nominal size of 12 mm core resulted in different ratios of the actual area of the hori-
(0.47 in.), and ordinary portland cement. The concrete zontal hoop reinforcement (Ash) to that required by ACI
compressive strengths on the test day were tested using the (AshACI ). The joint core was deemed to be confined adequately
average strength of three 150 mm (5.9 in.) concrete cubes for to transmit the column axial load through the joint region
each specimen. The cylinder strength fc′ as then calculated and the shear demand from columns and beams into the
as 80% of the cube strength. High yield deformed steel bars joint when the ratio is larger than unity and vice versa. The
were used for the reinforcement. Three tensile tests were value of AshACI was calculated based on Clause 4.2.2.2 in ACI
conducted for each size of bar and the yield strength and 352R-02 by
ultimate strength were obtained using the average value. The
yield strain can be calculated assuming a 200 GPa (29.0 msi)  s b ′′f ′  Ag  s b ′′f ′ 
Young’s modulus for all bars. Ash = max 0.3 h c c  − 1 , 0.09 h c c  (3)
 f yh  Ac  f yh 
Specimen parameters
where sh is the spacing of hoops; bc″ is the core dimension
The main parameters based on the true material proper-
of tied column; fyh is the specified yield strength of hoop but
ties and calculating in ACI codes are summarized in Table 2.
is no more than 420 MPa (60,916 psi); Ag is the gross area
The flexural strength ratios Mr, defined as the summation of
of the column section; and Ac is the area of column core
column flexural strengths ∑Mnc divided by the beam flex-
measured from outside edge to outside edge of hoop.
ural strength Mnb, are 1.46 for all specimens, conforming to
the strong-column/weak-beam principle, which requires the
Experimental setup
value to be larger than 1.2 in ACI codes. Vb,e is the lateral
Figure 2 illustrates the experimental setup of the spec-
load capacity at beam tip, assuming that the beam reached its
imens. Each specimen was placed on a platform and was
flexural strength. It was calculated by Mnb over the distance
rotated 90 degrees from the actual orientation for the conve-
between the beam-column interface and point of lateral
nience of testing. Both column tips were roller-supported to
force application (1320 mm [52.0 in.]).
simulate the inflexion points at the midheight of the proto-
The shear-strength ratio without safety factors is obtained
type structure. A hydraulic jack with 1000 kN (224.8 kip)
by the joint shear demand Vu over joint shear strength Vn,
capacity applied a 500 kN (112.4 kip) axial load to the
where

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 133

Fig. 2—Experimental setup.
with a capacity of 460 kN (103.4 kip) applied the reversed
cyclic loading to the centerline of the steel plate, where a
load cell and a linear variable displacement transformer
(LVDT) were installed to record the corresponding loading
and displacement. In addition, several LVDTs were set up at
various locations to measure the beam and column flexural
rotation, joint shear distortion, and transverse beam torsional
rotation. Electrical resistance strain gauges were attached to
the selected reinforcing bars near the joint core and the loca-
tions are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Loading sequence
Figure 3 shows the loading history based on the sugges-
tion of the ACI Committee.21 The displacement-controlled
Fig. 3—Reversed cyclic loading schedule. reversed cyclic loading followed the sequence of 1.5, 2, 3,
6, 7.5, 11.25, 15, 22.5, 30, 45, 60, up to 75 mm (0.06, 0.08,
column. The axial compression ratios were 14.9%, 14.0%, 0.12, 0.24, 0.30, 0.44, 0.59, 0.89, 1.18, 1.77, 2.36, up to
and 13.7% for S10, S11, and S12, respectively, and were 2.95 in.) displacement (Δ), which can be then normalized to
considered to be a practical value.20 Similarly, the tip of the the drift ratio (θ). The test started from the positive displace-
beam was clamped by two steel plates, whose centerline ment to the negative displacement in a cyclic manner. The
models the beam inflexion point at midspan. An actuator positive displacement was defined as pulling to the right

134 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

while the negative displacement meant pushing to the left
in this study according to the back view in Fig. 2(a). All
displacement levels consist of three cycles except for the
first three loading levels.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Crack patterns and failure mechanisms
The crack development was carefully marked, where the
blue mark represented the cracks that occurred in the posi-
tive loading cycle while red represented those in the negative
cycle. The photos taken at the last loading cycle at 5% drift
ratio are presented in Fig. 4. It was observed that the crack
patterns of all specimens were similar before 0.75% drift
ratio. Hairline flexural cracks at wide beam occurred at 0.1%
and 0.13% drift ratio around the beam-column interface and
developed across the full width of the beam at 0.2% drift
ratio. The number of flexural cracks continued increasing in
the following drift ratios from the beam-column interface to
the beam tip with around one hoop spacing from one crack to
another. At 0.75% drift ratio, the beam flexural cracks closest
to the beam-column interface became noticeable to approxi-
mately 1 mm (0.04 in.) and the hairline joint diagonal shear
cracks as well as spandrel beam torsional cracks emerged.
Widening of the beam flexural cracks around the beam-
column interface and the joint diagonal shear cracks domi-
nated in the failure mechanisms from 1 to 5% drift ratio.
For Specimen S10, two wide flexural cracks were observed
at the beam-column interface and at one and a half hoop
spacing away from the interface, with a crack width of 6 mm
(0.24 in.) and 4 mm (0.16 in.), respectively, at the last loading
cycle. Several diagonal shear cracks were noticed in the joint
core and the crack widths ranged from 1 to 3 mm (0.04 to
0.12 in.). Similar beam flexural cracks developed in Spec-
imen S11 at 5% drift ratio but the latter emerged less than
one hoop spacing away from the interface. The crack widths
were 6 and 2 mm (0.24 and 0.08 in.) for the former and the
latter cracks, respectively. A distinct inclined crack with a
width of 6 mm (0.24 in.) was observed splitting the joint
diagonally. Besides, the inclined cracks that occurred on the
spandrel beam top and bottom surface were more and larger
than those in S10 with crack width up to 2 mm (0.08 in.).
Joints of both Specimens S10 and S11 remained the integ-
rity of concrete, although a small portion of concrete at the
endpoint of concrete strut crushed due to the large compres-
sion force. It was concluded that both specimens failed in
joint shear after beam yielding.
For Specimen S12, only one 6 mm wide (0.24 in. wide)
flexural crack was found at the beam-column interface at the
end of the test. The diagonal joint shear cracks propagated
up to 8 mm (0.31 in.) and extended outside the joint core Fig. 4—Crack patterns at 5% drift ratio.
to two-hoop spacings away from the interface on the wide
beam. The spandrel beam torsional cracks more severe than the increase of joint hoops, while that of joint shear diagonal
those in the other two. Moreover, loss of concrete integ- cracks and spandrel beam torsional cracks decreased with
rity was observed at the bottom of the joint. The premature the increase of joint hoops.
joint shear failure occurred because the specimen only had
preliminary development of beam plastic hinge, which was Load-displacement hysteretic behavior
then suspended by the propagation of diagonal joint shear Figure 5 presents the hysteresis curves of specimens by
cracks. In addition, it was indicated that the severity of flex- plotting the lateral load at beam tip against the drift ratio.
ural cracks in the beam plastic hinge region increased with The expected lateral load Vb,e capacity is highlighted in the

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 135

 Fig. 7—Envelope of load-displacement curves.
dashed line as calculated in Table 2. The beam shear force
gradually increased in all specimens with the increase of
drift ratio until it reached a maximum at 3% drift ratio. Spec-
imen S10 exceeded the expected lateral load capacity by
0.2% while the forces in S11 and S12 were 0.6% and 3.0%
less than the expected capacity, taking the average maximum
loads of the positive and negative loading direction.
Envelopes of the corresponding hysteresis curves are
compared in Fig. 6. Although the differences were small,
S12 showed the lowest stiffness before reaching the peak
load while S10 had the largest. The losses of strength at 5%
drift for all specimens were all limited within 10% compared
with the peak lateral load.
The strength degradation (SD) due to cyclic loading at
each drift ratio was examined by the average reduction of
beam shear force at the third cycle compared with that at the
first cycle of both loading directions

Vb+1 +Vb−1 Vb+3 +Vb−3

SD = / (4)
2 2

where Vb1+and Vb1– are the maximum beam shear forces at

the first cycle in positive and negative loading direction,
respectively; and Vb3+and Vb3– are the maximum beam shear
forces at the third cycle in positive and negative loading
direction, respectively.
Fig. 5—Hysteresis curves of specimens.
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the degradation of all specimens
remained below 10% before 2% drift but increased suddenly
at 3% drift ratio when all specimens attained their ultimate
lateral capacity. The strength degradation of S10 decreased
to 7% after peak while that of S11 and S12 continued
increasing to 20% and 24% at 5% drift ratio. This can be
explained by the more and wider diagonal joint shear cracks
in Specimens S11 and S12. It can be inferred that the hori-
zontal joint hoops greatly reduce the strength degradation
due to the cyclic loading by limiting the propagation of joint
diagonal cracks.
Calculation of the displacement ductility μ was presented
in Fig. 8. Due to the shear lag of beam longitudinal rein-
forcement in wide beam specimens, it was hard to define the
yielding of wide beam-column joints based on the yielding
of beam reinforcing bars.3 Hence, a more general method
Fig. 6—Strength degradation due to cyclic loading. based on the envelope curve was applied in this study.22

136 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

Table 3 summarizes the relevant information for the test LVDTs installed at the outermost of joint core. Figure 9(a)
specimens. It shows that, although the ductility of the wide presents the lateral load versus the joint shear distortion of
beam-column joints decreased with the decrease of hori- specimens before 3% drift ratio. All curves remained compact
zontal hoops in the joint core, the ductility of Specimen S12 before 1.0% drift and the distortions were all below 0.002 rad.
without any hoop had only 11% reduction compared with The distortions increased sharply then due to the onset of the
that of S10 with more than enough hoops, using the lowest yielding of beam longitudinal bars. Overall, the hysteresis
ductility in both loading directions. loops of all specimens showed a similar response before 5%
drift ratio. Figure 9(b) shows the same curves but including the
Joint shear distortion data after 3% drift ratio. It was observed that the distortion of
The joint shear distortion γ of the specimens was estimated S10 stopped at 0.016 while that of S11 and S12 reached 0.037
by the joint geometry and the relative displacement of the and 0.040, respectively. The larger values in S11 and S12
was mainly due to the widening of diagonal shear cracks and
spalling of the concrete where the LVDTs were installed, as
shown in Fig. 10. The latter accounted for the disparate orien-
tation for the increase of distortion in Specimens S11 and S12.

Local strain analysis

Electrical resistance strain gauges were attached to the
selected reinforcing bars including the longitudinal bars of
column, wide beam and spandrel beam, and the transverse
hoops in joint core and spandrel beam, as indicated in Fig.
1. Variations of the strain against the drift ratio were plotted
in Fig. 11 to 14.
Figures 11(a) and (b) presented the typical beam bars that
anchored inside and outside the joint core, respectively. All
the longitudinal reinforcement in wide beam yielded during
the test at approximately 2% drift ratio. The strain of Spec-
Fig. 8—Displacement ductility. imen S10 increased to a very high level at 3% drift ratio,

Fig. 9—Variation of joint shear distortion during test.

Table 3—Summary of test results

Yield state Ultimate strength state Displacement ductility
Specimen LD *
Vy, kN (kip) Δy, % Initial stiffness Vu, kN (kip) Drift ratio, % μ = Δmax/Δy
+ 145.0 (32.6) 1.59 6.05 167.7 (37.7) 3 3.14
S10
– –145.0 (–32.6) –1.55 6.34 –167.9 (–37.7) –3 3.23
+ 143.5 (32.3) 1.67 5.73 167.2 (37.6) 3 3.00
S11
– –145.8 (–32.8) –1.61 6.04 –168.5 (–37.9) –3 3.11
+ 141.5 (31.8) 1.68 5.62 163.9 (36.8) 3 2.97
S12
– –143.8 (–32.3) –1.81 5.30 –164.6 (–37.0) –3 2.76
*
Loading directions (Fig. 2).

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 137

which caused permanent damage to the strain gauge. The ratio, respectively, due to the large strain. It was revealed
strain of S11 continuously increased to 6088 με and 4111 that the interior column bars exhibited a higher participation
με for the bars located inside and outside, respectively, in transferring the moment and the hoops in exterior wide
leading to plastic deformation. The strain of S12 reached its beam-column joints helped alleviate the stress concentration.
maximum at 3% drift ratio and decreased afterwards. The According to the equilibrium equation, the selected
incapability in the strain increase was attributed to the severe bars shown in the figure should be in compression (nega-
diagonal shear cracks in the joint core, which led to the loss tive strain) during positive loading direction and in tension
of concrete integrity. (positive strain) during the negative loading if there was no
Strain variations of the joint transverse reinforcement are slippage. Nevertheless, slippage was observed for all the
shown in Fig. 12. The strain of S10 kept increasing with the selected bars except the bar of S10 at the exterior face of
increase of drift ratio but did not yield throughout the test. bottom column. It was found that the slippage for the bars at
By contrast, the strain of S11 yielded at 3.27% drift ratio the interior face of the column was more serious than that at
and reached the peak at 4% drift ratio. A sharp decrease in the exterior face, and the extent of column bars slippage at
strain was observed at 5% drift ratio, indicating the occur- both interior and exterior faces of column increased with the
rence of bond deterioration. It is demonstrated that a reason- decrease of joint transverse reinforcement, indicating that
able amount of joint transverse reinforcement is needed for such reinforcement in wide beam-column joints can help
the wide beam-column joints to prevent the occurrence of reduce the slippage of column bars.
plastic response and severe bond deterioration. The torsional demands generated by the wide beam longi-
Similarly, strain variations of column bars near the beam- tudinal bars anchored on the spandrel beam were 57.8,
column interface are shown in Fig. 13. All bars were not 58.3, and 58.4 kNm (511,572, 516,000, and 516,888 in.-lb)
expected to yield because the flexural capacity of the column for Specimens S10, S11, and S12, respectively. The torsional
was 1.46 times larger than that of the beam, as given in Table strengths of all specimens calculated by Clause 22.7.6.1
2. However, the bars at the interior face of top column of in ACI 318-14 were 66.7 kNm (590,340 in.-lb). Therefore,
S11 and S12 yielded at approximately 1.5% drift ratio and elastic responses of all the spandrel beam reinforcement were
the corresponding strain gauges broke at 3% and 4% drift expected. Strain variations spandrel beam longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement are shown in Fig. 14. The strain of
these bars increased continuously throughout the test and no
slippage was detected. None of the longitudinal reinforcement
yielded and the strain variations of all three specimens were
similar. In terms of the transverse reinforcement closest to
the joint core, the bars of S10 and S11 were far below yield
throughout the test, while that of S12 yielded at 3.35% drift
ratio. Given that all the spandrel beams were designed to
resist the full equilibrium torsion generated by the wide beam
longitudinal bars anchored in the spandrel beam, it was further
inferred that the spandrel beam help resist the joint shear in
the form of torsion in wide beam-column joints, especially in
the absence of joint transverse reinforcement.

Energy dissipation capacity

The energy dissipation capacity is one of the most
important seismic behavior indexes. It was first assessed
Fig. 10—Back view of S12 at 5% drift ratio.

Fig. 11—Strain of wide beam longitudinal bars.

138 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

by the energy dissipated in each loading level as presented 752,313, and 628,403 in.lb), respectively, by summing up
in Fig. 15. The energy dissipation of each loading level, the energy dissipated in all loading levels. The energy dissi-
including all three cycles, is included to address of effect of pation in the elastic stage was minor compared with that in
cyclic loading, except for the first three loading levels with the plastic stage; hence it was demonstrated that the energy
only one loading cycle, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The energy dissipation capacity increased greatly with the increase of
dissipation among specimens was similar before 1.5% drift horizontal hoops.
ratio but started to differentiate from 2% drift ratio, which To normalize the energy dissipation capacity and enable
conformed with the analysis that all three specimens yielded a comparison with the specimens done by other researchers,
between 1.5 and 2% drift ratio. The total energy dissipation the equivalent viscous damping ratio ξeq was computed based
for S10, S11, and S12 were 113, 85, and 71 kJ (1,000,134, on the method used by LaFave and Wight.5 The average ξeq
of three cycles at each loading level after 1.0% drift ratio are
plotted in Fig. 16. The values were similar for all specimens
at 1.5% and started differentiating when yielding occurred
between 1.5 and 2% drift ratio. The values of Specimens S10
and S11 had similar increase rates while that of Specimen
S12 almost did not increase from 2 to 4% drift ratio. The
equivalent viscous damping ratios for Specimens S10, S11,
and S12 at 5% drift were 0.19, 0.14, and 0.13, respectively,
and it was indicated that the equivalent viscous damping
ratio increased with the increase of horizontal hoops in the
joint core.

EVALUATION ON JOINT SHEAR

Because all specimens failed in joint shear after beam
Fig. 12—Strain variation of joint transverse reinforcement. yielding, the shear strengths of each joint can be represented

Fig. 13—Strain of column longitudinal bars at beam-column interface.

Fig. 14—Strain of spandrel beam reinforcement.

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 139

 by the tested joint shear stresses and the effect of joint hoops
on the shear strength can be investigated accordingly. The
tested joint shear force Vjh,test for exterior beam-column
joints is computed by

Vjh,test = T – Vcol (5)

where T is the tensile force from the beam reinforcement;

and Vcol is the column shear force, which can be calculated
from the moment equilibrium condition. Because all beam
reinforcement yielded during the test, T can be then esti-
mated by

T = Vb,testLb/0.9d (6)
Fig. 15—Energy dissipation in each loading level.
where Lb is the beam length; and 0.9d is the estimated
internal lever arm. The tested joint shear stresses were then
computed as the joint shear force divided by the effective
joint area based on the ACI codes (bc × hc).
Table 4 summarizes the peak lateral force Vb,test, tested
joint shear force Vjh,test, tested joint shear stress vjh,test, and
normalized tested joint shear stress vjh,test/√fc′ for each loading
direction. In ACI 318-14, the normalized joint shear strength
for Type 2 connection is expected to be 1.25 for the joints
confined by beams on three faces. The tested values were all
larger than that stipulated in the code by 20 to 30%, which
was consistent with the previous research findings that the
shear strength of wide beam-column joints was larger than
the prediction of ACI codes.3,23
Figure 17 shows the relationship between the normalized
Fig. 16—Equivalent viscous damping. joint shear strength versus the gross joint hoop ratio (area
of joint hoop divided by the gross joint area) based on the
experimental results. Compared with the specimen without
joint hoop, only 3 and 8% increases in joint shear strengths
were found in the specimens with 0.35 and 1.05% hoop
ratio, respectively. This finding was very different from that
in the conventional beam-column joints. Wong and Kuang19
noticed that there was a 19% and 30% increase in shear
strength when the hoop ratio increased from 0 to 0.12% and
0.24%, respectively. The discrepancy between the conven-
tional and wide beam-column joints was mainly due to the
contribution of spandrel beam torsion. In this experiment,
it was noticed that the spandrel beam participated more in
resisting joint shear in the form of torsion for the specimens
with less joint hoop ratio.
Among the popular seismic codes of practice, ACI
codes15,16 require the hoops as a confinement of joint core,
Fig. 17—Variation of normalized joint shear strength to
while Eurocode, New Zealand code, and Chinese code17,24-26
gross joint hoop ratio.
Table 4—Comparison of tested joint shear strength
Specimen LD* Vb,test, kN (kip) Vjh,test, kN (kip) vjh,test, MPa (psi) vjh,test/√fc′, MPa (psi)
+ 167.7 (37.7) 983.8 (221.2) 9.11 (1321) 1.63 (19.67)
S10
– –167.9 (–37.7) 985.0 (221.4) 9.12 (1323) 1.64 (1970)
+ 167.2 (37.6) 980.9 (220.5) 9.08 (1317) 1.58 (19.04)
S11
– –168.5 (–37.9) 988.5 (222.2) 9.15 (1327) 1.59 (19.18)
+ 163.9 (36.8) 961.5 (216.2) 8.90 (1291) 1.53 (18.46)
S12
– –164.6 (–37.0) 965.7 (217.1) 8.94 (1297) 1.54 (18.55)
*
Loading directions (Fig. 2).

140 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

assume the hoops to not only confine the joint core but also joint core. More experimental studies are needed to support
participate in resisting the joint shear force. However, both this recommendation.
design philosophies would result in a highly congested
joint core as well as extraordinary difficulties in construc- AUTHOR BIOS
tion. Therefore, based on the finding that the increase of Roy Y. C. Huang is a PhD Candidate in civil engineering at the Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong. His research
joint hoops had little influence on the shear strength of interests include seismic performance and strength of reinforced concrete
wide beam-column joints, particularly when the specimens elements—in particular, beam-column joints and discontinuity regions.
were designed to fail in joint shear as per ACI codes, it was
J. S. Kuang is a Professor of civil engineering at the Hong Kong University
inferred that the joint hoop would have had even little influ- of Science and Technology. He received his PhD from the University of
ence on the shear strength if the joint was designed with Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. His research interests include seismic design
adequate shear strength. Moreover, it is recommended that and behavior of reinforced concrete and seismic vulnerability assessment
of building structures.
a minimum 0.4% gross horizontal joint reinforcement ratio
is adequate for a satisfactory performance. This value agrees Srinivas Mogili is a PhD Candidate in civil engineering at the Hong Kong
well with the research results from conventional beam- University of Science and Technology. His research interests include seismic
performance and strength of reinforced concrete elements—in particular,
column joints.27 Nevertheless, more experimental studies beam-column joints and discontinuity regions.
should be conducted to testify this conclusion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CONCLUSIONS The study was supported in part by the Research Grants Council of Hong
Kong under Grant Number 16209115.
An experimental study was conducted to investigate the
effect of horizontal hoops on the seismic behavior and shear
NOTATION
strength of wide beam-column joints. The experimental Ac = area of column core measured from outside edge to outside edge
results of three full-scale reinforced concrete exterior wide of hoop
beam-column joints, with gross joint hoop ratios of 1.05%, Ag = gross area of column section
As = area of longitudinal tension reinforcement
0.35% and 0%, are presented in this paper. Based on the Ash = actual area of horizontal hoop reinforcement
evaluation of the cyclic loading responses, the following = area of horizontal hoop reinforcement required by ACI
conclusions can be drawn. bc = column width
bc′′ = core dimension of tied column
1. All specimens failed in joint shear after beam yielding, bj = effective joint width
where the severity of flexural cracks in the beam plastic hinge d = effective beam depth
region increased with the increase of joint hoops, whereas fc′ = cylinder compressive strength of concrete
fy = yield strength of steel bars
that of joint shear diagonal cracks and spandrel beam fyh = specified yield strength of hoop but no more than 420 MPa
torsional cracks decreased with the increase of joint hoops. hc = column depth
2. All specimens yielded between 1.5 and 2% drift ratio, L = beam length
Mnb = nominal flexural strength of beam
and attained their maximum strength at 3% drift ratio where Mnc = nominal flexural strength of column
Specimen S10 reached its calculated lateral capacity while Mr = flexural strength ratio of column to beam
the maximum forces of Specimens S11 and S12 were 0.6% sh = spacing of hoops
T = tensile force from beam reinforcement
and 3.0% less than the expected values. In addition, less joint Vb,e = expected lateral load capacity
hoop resulted in poorer cyclic behavior because the strength Vb,test = tested maximum lateral load
degradation within each loading level increased with the Vcol = shear force in column
Vjh,test = tested joint shear force
decrease of joint hoops. vjh,test = tested joint shear stress
3. Although ratios of the torsional demand to the torsional Vn = nominal joint shear strength
strength of the spandrel beam were almost the same among Δ = lateral displacement of actuator
γ = joint shear distortion
the specimens and were all less than unity, Specimen S12 μ = displacement ductility
without joint hoops exhibited the largest spandrel beam θ = drift ratio
participation under cyclic loading. It was inferred that the ξeq = equivalent viscous damping ratio
spandrel beam helped resist the joint shear in the form of
torsion for wide beam-column joints, especially in the REFERENCES
1. Hatamoto, H.; Bessho, S.; and Matsuzaki, Y., “Reinforced Concrete
absence of joint hoop. Wide-Beam-to-Column Subassemblages Subjected to Lateral Load,”
4. The increase in joint hoops greatly increased the energy Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa,
dissipation capacity, which was quantified by cumulative ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991, pp. 291-316.
2. Gentry, T. R., and Wight, J. K., “Wide Beam‐Column Connections
energy dissipation and equivalent viscous damping ratio, under Earthquake-Type Loading,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 10, No. 4, 1994,
particularly in the plastic stage. pp. 675-703. doi: 10.1193/1.1585793
5. The joint shear strengths of the tested specimens were 3. Behnam, H.; Kuang, J. S.; and Huang, R. Y. C., “Exterior RC Wide
Beam-Column Connections : Effect of Beam Width Ratio on Seismic
20 to 30% larger than that predicted by ACI codes even Behaviour,” Engineering Structures, V. 147, 2017, pp. 27-44. doi: 10.1016/j.
when the requirement of joint confinement was not satisfied engstruct.2017.05.044
in Specimens S11 and S12. 4. Quintero, C. G.; LaFave, J. M.; and Wight, J. K., “Behavior of Slab-
Band Floor Systems Subjected to Lateral Earthquake Loading,” 1996.
6. Joint hoops had insignificant effect on the shear 5. LaFave, J., and Wight, J., “Reinforced Concrete Exterior Wide Beam-
strength of wide beam-column joints, and it was therefore Column-Slab Connections Subjected to Lateral Earthquake Loading,” ACI
suggested that the requirement of joint transverse rein- Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug. 1999, pp. 577-585.
6. Siah, W. L.; Stehle, J. S.; Mendis, P.; and Goldsworthy, H., “Inte-
forcement may be relaxed to reduce the steel congestion in rior Wide Beam Connections Subjected to Lateral Earthquake Loading,”

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 141

Engineering Structures, V. 25, No. 3, 2003, pp. 281-291. doi: 10.1016/ 17. NZS 3101-1 (2006), “Concrete Structures Standard - The Design
S0141-0296(02)00150-5 of Concrete Structures,” New Zealand Standards, V. 2, Wellington, New
7. Behnam, H.; Kuang, J. S.; and Abdouka, K., “Effect of Post-Ten- Zealand, 2006.
sioned Spandrel Beam on Wide Beam-Column Connections,” Maga- 18. Hwang, S. J.; Lee, H. J.; Liao, T. F.; Kuo-Chou, W.; and Tsai, H. H.,
zine of Concrete Research, V. 70, No. 1, 2018, pp. 28-41. doi: 10.1680/ “Role of Hoops on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
jmacr.17.00071 Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005.
8. LaFave, J. M., and Wight, J. K., “Reinforced Concrete Wide Beam 19. Wong, H. F., and Kuang, J. S., “Effects of Beam-Column Depth
Construction vs Conventional Construction: Resistance to Lateral Earth- Ratio on Joint Seismic Behaviour,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
quake Loads,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 17, No. 3, Aug. 2001, pp. 479-505. Engineers. Structures and Buildings, V. 161, No. 2, 2008, pp. 91-101. doi:
9. Fadwa, I.; Ali, T. A.; Nazih, E.; and Sara, M., “Reinforced Concrete 10.1680/stbu.2008.161.2.91
Wide and Conventional Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Lateral 20. Kuang, J., and Wong, H., “Effects of Beam Bar Anchorage on Beam-
Load,” Engineering Structures, V. 76, 2014, pp. 34-48. doi: 10.1016/j. Column Joint Behaviour,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
engstruct.2014.06.029 Structures and Buildings, V. 159, No. 2, 2006, pp. 115-124. doi: 10.1680/
10. Mirzabagheri, S.; Tasnimi, A. A.; and Soltani Mohammadi, M., stbu.2006.159.2.115
“Behavior of Interior RC Wide and Conventional Beam-Column Roof Joints 21. ACI Committee 374, “Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames
under Cyclic Load,” Engineering Structures, V. 111, 2016, pp. 333-344. Based on Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05),” American
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.12.011 Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.
11. Mirzabagheri, S., and Tasnimi, A. A., “Reinforced Concrete Roof 22. Park, R., “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural Assem-
Exterior Wide and Conventional Beam-Column Joints under Lateral blages from Laboratory Testing,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National
Load,” Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, V. 25, No. 9, 2016, Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 22, No. 3, 1989, pp. 155-166.
pp. 397-411. doi: 10.1002/tal.1264 23. Huang, R. Y. C.; Kuang, J. S.; and Behnam, H., “Cyclic Behaviour of
12. Elsouri, A. M., and Harajli, M. H., “Seismic Response of Exterior RC Wide Beam-Column Joints with Shear Strength Ratios of 1.0 and 1.7,” 19th
Wide Beam-Narrow Column Joints: Earthquake-Resistant versus As-Built International Conference on Civil, Structural and Earthquake Engineering
Joints,” Engineering Structures, V. 57, 2013, pp. 394-405. doi: 10.1016/j. (ICCSEE 2017), Paris, France, Apr. 18-19, 2017.
engstruct.2013.09.032 24. BSI, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1-1 : General
13. Elsouri, A. M., and Harajli, M. H., “Interior RC Wide Beam-Narrow Rules and Rules for Buildings,” British Standards Institution, V. 1, London,
Column Joints: Potential for Improving Seismic Resistance,” Engineering UK, 2004, 230 pp.
Structures, V. 99, 2015, pp. 42-55. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.04.020 25. BSI, “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance,
14. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., “Analytical Model for Predicting part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings,” British Stan-
Shear Strengths of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for dards Institution, London, UK, 2004.
Seismic Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1999, 26. Chinese Standard, “Code for Design of Buildings (GB 50011-2010),”
pp. 846-857. China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, China, 2010.
15. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural 27. Kaung, J. S., and Wong, H. F., “Effectiveness of Horizontal Stir-
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American rups in Joint Core for Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Nonseismic
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp. Design,” Procedia Engineering, V. 14, 2011, pp. 3301-3307. doi: 10.1016/j.
16. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of proeng.2011.07.417
Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
(ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002.

142 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019