ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 115-S133
Shear Strength of Exterior and Corner Beam-Column
Joints without Transverse Reinforcement
by Wael M. Hassan and Jack P. Moehle
Exterior and corner beam-column joints without transverse rein-
forcement can be vulnerable to shear failure under earthquake
loading. A database of past tests on such joints is presented, empha-
sizing joints that failed in shear prior to yielding of the framing
members. Trends in the behavior are observed. Available shear-
strength models are evaluated. Two new shear-strength models are
introduced: one based on strut-and-tie modeling and another based
on an empirical study of critical parameters. The new models show
good correlations with test results.
Keywords: beam-column; existing buildings; joints; nonductile; seismic;
shear strength, strength model; strut and tie; transverse reinforcement.
INTRODUCTION
Beam-column joints connect beams and columns together
and enable framing action in moment-resisting frames. They
also provide a continuous load path for column axial forces,
including those required to support gravity loads. Consequently,
beam-column joints are key components to ensure structural
integrity of reinforced concrete frame buildings under seismic
loading. Earthquake reconnaissance has identified substantial
damage that can result from inadequate beam-column joints
(Moehle and Mahin 1991). In some cases, failure of inadequate
joints is believed to have led to building collapse (Moehle 2000).
Since the 1960s, many advances have been made to
improve seismic performance of reinforced concrete building
components. For beam-column joints in buildings located
in regions of highest seismicity, these advances include the
requirement to make a joint stronger than the members that
frame into it plus reinforcement details to toughen the joint.
For buildings in regions of lower seismicity and buildings
built prior to the aforementioned advances, joints commonly
lack transverse reinforcement (designated in this manuscript
as unconfined joints) and may be weaker than the members
framing into them. Exterior and corner joints can be partic-
ularly vulnerable to shear failure during earthquake shaking.
The shear strength of such joints is the focus of this paper.
The study begins with the development of a database of
laboratory test results from reinforced concrete exterior and
corner beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement.
Study of the data enabled quantification of the most important
parameters affecting joint performance. Knowledge of these
parameters fostered the development of two new models for
joint shear strength, which are presented herein. The database
also serves as a means of testing the predictive accuracy of
the new models and of several existing models.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The research assembles a database of results from labora-
tory tests on reinforced concrete exterior and corner beam-
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
TECHNICAL PAPER
column joints that can serve as a basis for calibrating joint
behavior models. The data are used to identify those param-
eters that affect joint shear strength, and to test the predictive
accuracy of various joint shear-strength models. The results
are of value for assessment of existing reinforced concrete
buildings and for consideration of design requirements for
new buildings in regions of low and moderate seismicity.
LABORATORY TEST DATABASE
The existing literature was surveyed to identify laboratory
tests on isolated exterior and corner beam-column joints
without joint transverse reinforcement and subjected to
simulated seismic loading. Hassan (2011) summarizes the
complete database. In this paper, a subset of the complete data-
base is presented, restricted by the following characteristics:
• The exterior connections comprise a single beam framing
into one face of the joint and a column extending above
and below the joint, without slab or transverse spandrel
beams (Fig. 1). The corner connections (Hassan and
Moehle 2012) comprise beams framing into two adja-
cent faces of the joint, with or without a slab, and with
a column extending above and below the joint; either
both beams were subjected to cyclic loads or one beam
was subjected to equivalent gravity load while the other
was subjected to cyclic load reversals.
• The beam longitudinal reinforcement had a stan-
dard hook bent into the joint (Fig. 1) to prevent bar
pullout failure.
• The joints sustained apparent joint shear failure prior to
yielding of the beam or column longitudinal reinforce-
ment; such joints are defined to have a J-failure mode.
Table 1 presents relevant parameters from the test data-
base. Variables fc′, fyc, and fyb refer to measured compres-
sive strength of concrete and yield strengths of column and
beam longitudinal reinforcement, respectively. Dimensions
hb, bb, hc, and bc are shown in Fig. 1. Column axial force P is
normalized by gross cross-sectional area of the column bchc
and concrete compressive strength fc′. Horizontal joint shear
Vjh was calculated by a horizontal cut through the joint at
middepth and then normalized by joint area bjhc and concrete
compressive strength √fc′. A joint shear strength coefficient γj
is then calculated as
ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 6, November 2018.
MS No. S-2017-413.R1, doi: 10.14359/51702416, was received November 1,
2017, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2018, 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.
1719
 (Fig. 3). For a given joint shear, a bigger joint aspect ratio
hb/hc results in a bigger diagonal compression force. A
more steeply inclined strut may also have reduced effec-
tive concrete compressive strength in comparison with a
45-degree strut.
Axial load is known to result in an increase in the shear
at onset of cracking in concrete subject to multi-axial
stress states, which could explain the second observation.
However, joint shear strength is generally realized well after
and at greater joint shear than at onset of cracking (Moehle
2014), making this explanation seem less plausible. An alter-
native explanation is that axial compression increases the
Fig. 1—Details of joint subassemblies used in database. column flexural compression depth and, thus, the width of
the diagonal compression strut (Fig. 3). All of the columns
V jh in the test database had axial load less than or approximately
γj = (1)
b j hc f c′ equal to the balanced axial load. Axial loads well above the
balanced point could crush the diagonal compression strut,
in which effective joint width bj is in accordance with Joint thereby reducing joint shear strength, although there is no
ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002). Values of γj based on evidence for this conjecture.
measured strengths are reported in Table 1 for lb and in. units. The third observation suggests that ASCE 41 and ACI
369R-11 are conservative for the case of J-failure mode
TRENDS IN DATA (joint failure without beam or column yielding).
Figure 2 plots the relation between the normalized joint
shear parameter PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED JOINT STRENGTH
MODELS
V jh Several models for shear strength of beam-column joints
γj = have been proposed. This section reviews the main char-
b j hc f c′
acteristics of a representative subset of those models and
and joint aspect ratio. Data for exterior joints are plotted compares model strengths with measured strengths (Table 1).
with circles and corner joints are plotted with squares. The
symbols are open for Hwang and Lee (1999)
Hwang and Lee (1999) presented a softened strut-and-tie
P model (SSTM) that is intended to accommodate confined
< 0.2 and unconfined joints. The model features a primary diagonal
bc hc f c′
strut with secondary struts equilibrated by beam transverse
reinforcement and column-distributed longitudinal reinforce-
and closed for
ment. For a joint with transverse reinforcement, joint failure is
assumed to be initiated by yielding of the transverse reinforce-
P
≥ 0.2 ment. Hwang and Lee (1999) applied the model to unconfined
bc hc f c′ beam-column joints by interpreting the case of unconfined
joints as being similar to the case of yielding, inefficient
The following observations are made: hoops. This assumption has been adopted in the current study
1. Joint shear strength decreases with increasing joint to assess strengths of joints in the database.
aspect ratio hb/hc. Figure 4 compares measured and calculated joint strengths.
2. Joint shear strength is bigger in joints with bigger axial (The continuous lines correspond to equal calculated and
load ratio measured strengths, while the dashed lines correspond to
the “mean plus or minus one standard deviation from the
P mean” for model calculated strength.) The model tends to
bc hc f c′ underestimate strength for lower γj values and overestimate
strength for higher γj values. Overall mean and coefficient of
3. According to ASCE 41 (2013) and ACI Committee 369 variation of ratio of test to calculated strengths are AVG =
(2011), nominal joint shear strength for exterior and corner 1.54 and COV = 0.33.
joints is defined by Eq. (2), in which γn = 6 (psi units). Shear
strength of all the joints exceeds this nominal shear strength Parker and Bullman (1997)
The monotonic fixed-angle SSTM by Parker and Bullman
Vn = γ n f c′b j hc (2) (1997) was developed originally for shear-controlled beams
and interpreted to define joint shear strength by the expression
The first observation is consistent with the concept that
joint shear is resisted by a diagonal compression strut Vf = ανfcubchc (3)

1720 ACI Structural Journal/November 2018

 Table 1—Database of J-failure exterior and corner unconfined joints
Materials Beam Column Test details Joint strength
fc′, fyc, fyb, Variable Astr, θ, γjtest/γj γjtest /
Investigator Specimen ID ksi ksi ksi Lb, in. hb, in. bb, in. ρ ρ′ Lc, in. hc, in. bc, in. ρc P/fc′Ag Axial γj TEST bj, in. as, in. in.2 hb/hc degrees γj STM γj EMP STM γj emp.
Hanson and Connor (1967) V 3.30 64.8 51.0 120 20.0 12.0 0.02 0.01 137 15.0 15.0 0.05 0.86 No 11.6 13.5 9.2 125 1.33 55.8 10.1 11.4 1.14 1.01
Unit 3 4.90 68.1 66.5 63.0 16.0 16.0 0.02 0.02 166 16.0 16.0 0.02 0.10 No 10.8 16.0 6.7 107 1.00 44.4 11.5 11.0 0.94 0.98
Unit 4 4.90 68.1 66.5 63.0 16.0 16.0 0.02 0.02 166 16.0 16.0 0.02 0.25 No 12.4 16.0 8.4 134 1.00 44.4 12.8 11.6 0.97 1.07
Pantelides et al. (2002)
Unit 6 4.90 68.1 66.5 63.0 16.0 16.0 0.02 0.02 166 16.0 16.0 0.02 0.25 No 11.7 16.0 8.5 136 1.00 44.4 12.4 11.6 0.94 1.01
Unit 5 4.60 68.1 66.5 63.0 16.0 16.0 0.02 0.02 166 16.0 16.0 0.02 0.10 No 10.4 16.0 7.2 116 1.00 44.4 11.1 11.0 0.93 0.94
BS-L 4.48 75.6 75.4 52.0 17.7 10.2 0.01 0.01 98.1 11.8 11.8 0.02 0.15 No 8.13 11.0 6.3 69.0 1.50 59.5 9.16 8.98 0.89 0.91
BS-U 4.50 75.6 75.4 52.0 17.7 10.2 0.01 0.01 98.1 11.8 11.8 0.02 0.15 No 8.78 11.0 6.3 69.0 1.50 59.5 9.17 8.98 0.96 0.98
BS-LL 6.12 75.6 75.4 52.0 17.7 10.2 0.01 0.01 98.1 11.8 11.8 0.02 0.15 No 8.80 11.0 6.1 67.3 1.50 59.5 10.4 8.98 0.84 0.98
Wong (2005) BS-L-LS 4.58 75.6 75.4 52.0 17.7 10.2 0.01 0.01 98.1 11.8 11.8 0.02 0.15 No 8.79 11.0 6.2 68.9 1.50 59.5 9.25 8.98 0.95 0.98
BS-L-V2T10 4.73 75.6 75.4 52.0 17.7 10.2 0.01 0.01 98.1 11.8 11.8 0.02 0.15 No 10.0 11.0 6.2 68.7 1.50 59.5 9.37 8.98 1.07 1.11
BS-L-V4T10 4.10 75.6 75.4 52.0 17.7 10.2 0.01 0.01 98.1 11.8 11.8 0.02 0.15 No 10.8 11.0 6.3 69.5 1.50 59.5 8.83 8.98 1.23 1.21

ACI Structural Journal/November 2018

BS-L-600 5.28 0.0 75.4 52.0 23.6 10.2 0.01 0.01 98.1 11.8 11.8 0.02 0.15 No 6.74 11.0 6.8 75.1 2.00 67.7 8.11 7.78 0.83 0.87
.
T1 4.48 61.7 61.6 65.8 15.8 9.84 0.01 0.01 108 15.7 9.84 0.02 0.19 No 12.1 9.84 7.7 75.8 1.00 44.0 12.0 11.3 1.01 1.08
Ghobarah and Said (2001)
T2 4.48 61.7 61.6 65.8 15.8 9.84 0.01 0.01 112 15.7 9.84 0.02 0.10 No 12.2 9.84 6.9 67.8 1.00 44.0 10.7 11.0 1.14 1.11
B0 4.59 84.3 84.3 39.4 11.8 7.87 0.01 0.01 59.0 11.8 7.87 0.01 0.05 No 8.18 7.87 4.5 35.5 1.00 42.0 9.79 11.0 0.84 0.74
Karayannis et al. (2008)
C0 4.59 84.3 84.3 39.4 11.8 7.87 0.01 0.01 59.0 11.8 7.87 0.01 0.05 No 8.60 7.87 4.5 35.3 1.00 42.8 9.62 11.0 0.89 0.78
L1 2.61 66.8 70.5 35.4 11.8 7.88 0.01 0.01 55.1 7.87 7.87 0.02 0.21 No 10.2 7.87 4.7 36.8 1.50 58.8 7.99 9.21 1.27 1.10
Tsonos and Stylianidis (2002) L2 2.61 66.8 70.5 35.4 11.8 7.88 0.01 0.01 55.1 7.87 7.87 0.02 0.21 No 11.6 7.87 4.7 36.8 1.50 59.7 7.79 9.21 1.49 1.26
O1 2.61 66.8 70.5 35.4 11.8 7.88 0.01 0.01 55.1 7.87 7.87 0.02 0.21 No 10.2 7.87 4.7 36.8 1.50 59.7 7.79 9.21 1.30 1.10
Antonopoulos and Triantafillou C1 2.82 66.8 84.8 39.4 11.8 7.87 0.01 0.01 50.9 7.87 7.87 0.02 0.06 No 7.04 7.87 3.9 30.8 1.50 59.6 6.79 8.98 1.04 0.78
(2003) C2 3.44 66.8 84.8 39.4 11.8 7.87 0.01 0.01 50.9 7.87 7.87 0.02 0.05 No 7.31 7.87 3.8 29.8 1.50 59.6 7.27 8.98 1.00 0.81
Sarsam and Phipps (1985) EX2 7.50 61.6 80.0 56.0 12.0 5.98 0.01 0.01 60.0 8.03 6.18 0.03 0.19 No 9.15 6.08 4.3 26.1 1.49 59.8 11.9 9.15 0.77 1.00
Filiatrault and Lebrun (1996) S1 4.93 69.0 69.0 78.8 17.7 13.8 0.01 0.01 118 13.8 13.7 0.03 0.08 No 12.0 13.7 6.6 90.8 1.29 52.8 10.4 9.70 1.16 1.24
Hoffschild et al. (1993) — 3.82 65.4 83.2 32.2 7.9 6.50 0.01 0.01 99.8 7.48 7.48 0.01 0.13 No 10.5 6.99 3.4 23.9 1.05 41.7 10.8 10.7 0.97 0.97
UJ2-EW 3.96 68.1 72.2 96.0 30.0 16.0 0.01 0.01 145 18.0 18.0 0.03 0.17 Yes 8.76 17.0 9.9 168 1.67 59.9 8.81 8.57 0.99 1.02
Park (2010)*
UJ2-NS 3.96 68.1 72.2 96.0 30.0 16.0 0.01 0.01 145 18.0 18.0 0.03 0.15 Yes 8.37 17.0 9.9 168 1.67 60.1 8.79 8.52 0.95 0.98
UJ1-EW 4.30 70.0 68.0 96.0 18.0 16.0 0.02 0.02 145 18.0 18.0 0.03 0.31 Yes 14.4 17.0 9.3 158 1.00 40.2 13.2 12.0 1.09 1.20
UJ1-NS 4.30 70.0 68.0 96.0 18.0 16.0 0.02 0.02 145 18.0 18.0 0.03 0.31 Yes 13.1 17.0 9.4 159 1.00 40.5 13.2 12.0 0.99 1.09
UJ2-EW 4.43 70.0 77.0 96.0 30.0 16.0 0.01 0.01 145 18.0 18.0 0.03 0.45 Yes 9.97 17.0 11 179 1.67 59.2 10.2 9.55 0.98 1.04
Hassan (2011)*
UJ2-NS 4.43 70.0 77.0 96.0 30.0 16.0 0.01 0.01 145 18.0 18.0 0.03 0.45 Yes 9.47 17.0 11 183 1.67 59.3 10.4 9.55 0.91 0.99
BJ1-EW 4.41 70.0 77.0 96.0 18.0 16.0 0.02 0.02 145 18.0 18.0 0.03 0.45 Yes 11.4 17.0 9.4 121 1.00 40.8 10.1 9.06 1.13 1.26
BJ1-NS 4.41 70.0 77.0 96.0 18.0 16.0 0.02 0.02 145 18.0 18.0 0.03 0.45 Yes 10.8 17.0 9.4 121 1.00 40.0 10.2 9.06 1.06 1.19
Salim (2007) S1 4.39 68.1 66.8 35.8 11.8 5.91 0.02 0.01 74.8 7.09 7.09 0.02 0.09 No 8.59 6.50 4.3 28.2 1.67 63.1 9.34 8.52 0.92 1.01
BCJ1 4.93 66.8 104 NA 15.8 7.87 0.01 0.00 NA 11.8 7.87 0.02 0.00 No 8.95 7.87 5.3 42.0 1.33 54.9 9.31 9.53 0.96 0.94
BCJ3 4.78 66.8 104 NA 15.8 7.87 0.01 0.00 NA 11.8 7.87 0.03 0.00 No 9.38 7.87 5.4 42.2 1.33 55.3 9.11 9.53 1.03 0.98
Ortiz (1993)
BCJ5 5.51 66.8 104 NA 15.8 7.87 0.01 0.00 NA 11.8 7.87 0.04 0.08 No 8.69 7.87 5.7 45.2 1.33 55.7 10.4 9.53 0.84 0.91
BCJ6 5.07 66.8 104 NA 15.8 7.87 0.01 0.00 NA 11.8 7.87 0.04 0.09 No 9.08 7.87 5.9 46.4 1.33 55.7 10.2 9.53 0.89 0.95
*
All joints in table are exterior joints except those marked with *, which are corner joints.
Notes: fc′ is test date cylinder compressive strength; fyb is beam bar measured yield strength; fyc is column bar measured yield strength; ρc is column reinforcement ratio; Lb is beam clear span from loading point to face of column; Lc is column height between
points of lateral support; γjTEST is test measured joint shear strength coefficient, (psi)0.5; N/fc′Ag is axial load ratio; Astr is strut area calculated by proposed STM (Eq. (19)); γjSTM is joint shear strength coefficient calculated by proposed STM (based on Eq.
(19)); (psi)0.5; γjtEMP is joint shear strength coefficient calculated by proposed empirical model (based on Eq. (20)), (psi)0.5; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

1721
 In Eq. (3), fcu is concrete cube strength; and ν is a strut where ρc is the reinforcement ratio of the layer of steel
softening coefficient that varies with concrete compressive farthest from the maximum compression fiber in the column;
strength, expressed as dc is the effective depth of that layer; db is the effective beam
depth (mm); P is the column axial load (N); Ag is the gross
ν = 0.56 – fcu/310 ≥ 0.40 (MPa) cross-sectional area of the column (mm2); bc is the column
(4) width (mm). A monotonic beam-column joint test database
ν = 0.56 – fcu/44,950 ≥ 0.40 (psi) was used to derive the empirical coefficients.
Figure 4 compares measured and calculated joint
The strut capacity is included using the factor α in Eq. (5) strengths. The model tends to underestimate shear strength.
Overall mean and coefficient of variation of ratio of test to
α = (1 – δtanθcrit)/(tanθcrit + 1/tanθcrit) (5) calculated strengths are AVG = 1.42 and COV = 0.32.

where δ is dependent on effective beam depth db, effective Vollum and Newman (1999)
column depth dc, and radius of beam bar bent R hooked into Vollum and Newman (1999) presented an empirical
the joint as monotonic, fixed-angle, strut-and-tie model for shear-
strength evaluation. The model does not include a method
0.8 to explicitly evaluate the strut dimensions and capacity or
δ= (db − R) (6)
dc the mode of failure, as the authors speculated the high inac-
curacy of models with explicit strut dimensions. The only
and tanθcrit represents strut inclination and is given by two model configurational parameters are the joint aspect
δ ratio and beam bar detail inside the joint. The effect of axial
tan θcrit = 1 − for δ < 0.5 load is not included. The model equations, specialized for
2
(7) unconfined joints, are
1 (δ 2 − 0.75)
tan θcrit = + for δ > 0.5
2δ (6δ 3 + 2.5δ ) V j = 0.624β(1 + 0.555(2 − hb /hc ))b j hc f c′ (MPa)
When applied to the tests in the current database, the model (10)
V j = 7.52β(1 + 0.555(2 − hb /hc ))b j hc f c′ (psi)
significantly underestimates the unconfined joint cyclic
shear strength with a test to model strengths of AVG = 2.0
and COV = 0.35, as shown in Fig. 4. Some possible reasons
V j < 0.97b j hc f c′(1 + 0.555(2 − hb /hc )) < 1.33b j hc f c′ (MPa)
for model discrepancy are discussed in Hassan (2011).
V j < 11.7b j hc f c′(1 + 0.555(2 − hb /hc )) < 16b j hc f c′ (psi)
Tsonos (2009)
(11)
The Tsonos (2009) joint shear-strength model was devel-
oped based on principal stress-strain relations for reinforced
where β is a factor to account for beam bar details within
panels combining both strut and truss mechanisms. The truss
the joint, taken equal to 1.0 for bars bent into the joint.
mechanism is absent when the model is interpreted for unre-
The upper limits set on joint shear strength (Eq. (10)) were
inforced joints. According to the model, the unreinforced joint
imposed because of the limitations of the test database the
shear strength can be obtained by solving for Vj the expression
authors used to calibrate the model.
5
Figure 4 compares measured and calculated joint strengths.
 hbV j  4hc   5hbV j  4h  Overall mean and coefficient of variation of ratio of test to
  1 + 1 +   +  1 + c − 1 = 1 (8) calculated strengths are AVG = 0.97 and COV = 0.14.
 2b j hc f c′ 
2
hb   b j hc f c′ 
2
hb 
Bakir and Boduroğlu (2002)
Figure 4 compares measured and calculated joint The Bakir and Boduroğlu (2002) empirical model for joint
strengths. The model tends to overestimate shear strength. shear strength of exterior joints is expressed in Eq. (12). The
Overall mean and coefficient of variation of ratio of test to model is based upon a parametric study to quantify the effect
calculated strengths are AVG = 0.82 and COV = 0.28. of different parameters on joint strength such as beam rein-
forcement ratio, joint aspect ratio, and beam reinforcement
Sarsam and Phipps (1985) anchorage details. The effect of parameters was calibrated inde-
The empirical model by Sarsam and Phipps (1985) was pendently and collectively based on test results of a monotonic
derived based on shear strength of shear-critical beams with exterior joint database. The model does not explicitly account
low shear span-depth ratio. The shear strength is expressed as for the effect of column axial load on joint shear strength.
1.33
d   hb 
−0.61
 bc + bb 
V j = 5.47( f c′ρc )0.33  c  (1 + 0.29 P /Ag )0.5 bc d c (MPa) V j = 0.71βγ (100ρ)  2  hc f c′ (MPaa)
0.4289
 db   h 
c
1.33 (9) −0.61 (12)
 dc   hb   bc + bb 
V j = 28.3( f c′ρc ) (1 + 0.29 P /Ag ) bc d c (psi)) V j = 8.56βγ (100ρ)
0.33 0.5
 2  hc f c′ (psi)
0.4289
 d   h 
b c

1722 ACI Structural Journal/November 2018

Fig. 2—Effect of joint aspect ratio, axial load ratio, and joint
configuration on normalized joint shear strength (J-failure
joints); high axial load ratio is above 0.20.
where β = 1 for joints with standard hooked-in beam rein-
forcement; γ = 1 for non-inclined bars in the joint; and ρ is
beam reinforcement ratio.
Figure 4 compares measured and calculated joint strengths.
Overall mean and coefficient of variation of ratio of test to
calculated strengths are AVG = 1.29 and COV = 0.17, indi-
cating moderate underestimation of joint strength.
LaFave and Kim (2011)
Kim and LaFave (2009, 2012) and LaFave and Kim (2011)
used a Bayesian approach to develop a joint shear-strength
model considering a test database. The resulting joint shear-
strength equation, interpreted for exterior and corner beam-
column joints without transverse reinforcement, is
V j = α t βt ηt λ t (0.0128)0.15 ( BI )0.30 ( f c′)0.75 b j hc (MPa)
(13)
V j = 41.8α t βt ηt λ t (0.0128)0.15 ( BI )0.30 ( f c′)0.75 b j hc (psi)
where αt is a parameter describing in-plane geometry, taken
as 0.7 for exterior connections; λt is a calibration factor,
taken as 1.31; βt is a parameter for describing out-of-plane
geometry, = 1.0 for subassemblies with 0 or 1 transverse
beams and 1.18 for subassemblies with 2 transverse beams;
ηt describes joint eccentricity, = 1.0 with no joint eccen-
tricity; 0.0139 is a “virtual” joint reinforcement index used
in the case of unconfined joints to yield unbiased test to
model shear strength; and BI is beam reinforcement index
defined as ρfy/fc′. The database used to construct this model
had only three J-failure unconfined exterior joints.
Figure 4 compares measured and calculated joint strengths.
Overall mean and coefficient of variation of ratio of test
to calculated strengths are AVG = 1.17 and COV = 0.18,
indicating good estimation of joint strength with relatively
moderate scatter. However, the model adopts a black box
statistical approach by not accounting for the main physical
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Fig. 3—Strut-and-tie model.
joint strength influence parameters in the J-failure case—
namely axial load ratio and joint aspect ratio. The model
does not also distinguish the governing failure mode.
PROPOSED SHEAR-STRENGTH MODELS
An evaluation of the test data in Fig. 2 and of existing
analysis models suggests an opportunity to develop new
models for the J-failure strength of exterior and corner
beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement. Two
models are considered: one based on the ACI 318 strut-
and-tie model and another based on an empirical evaluation
of the main parameters affecting joint strength.
Strut-and-tie model
The test data in Fig. 2 show that joint shear strength is
strongly affected by joint aspect ratio and less strongly affected
by column axial load. These trends can be replicated using a
strut-and-tie modeling approach. Softened strut-and-tie models
require definition of the strain field, which can be a challenge
and, in turn, a disadvantage for plain concrete (Hillerborg et al.
1976). Consequently, rather than pursuing a strain-based strut-
and-tie model, an empirical approach using a global softening
coefficient is adopted. To facilitate its use, the method is based
on the ACI 318 strut-and-tie modeling approach.
Figure 3 depicts the strut-and-tie model for the case of beam
moment producing tension in the top longitudinal reinforce-
ment. The strut geometry is determined by assumed depths
of the flexural compression zones ab in the beam and ac in
the column, and the overall dimensions of the joint. Depth ab
is approximated as the flexural compression depth of a beam
responding in the linear elastic range—that is, ab = kdb, where
k is defined based on elastic beam section analysis by
12
  d′ 
k = (ρ + ρ′ ) 2 n 2 + 2  ρ + ρ′ b  n  − (ρ + ρ′ )n (14)
 db  

1723
Fig. 4—Evaluation of existing shear strength models. Continuous lines correspond to equal calculated and measured strengths,
while dashed lines correspond to “mean plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean” for model calculated strength.
(Note: 1 psi = 12 MPa .)
in which ρ and ρ′ are steel ratios for tension and compression
reinforcement; db and db′ are depths from extreme compres- as = ab2 + ac2 (18)
sion fiber to centroids of tension and compression reinforce-
ment; and n is modular ratio. Depth ac is approximated as The effective strut compressive strength fcu is

fcu = 0.85βs fc′ (19)

 P 
ac =  0.25 + 0.85 hc ≤ 0.4hc (15)
 f c′Ag  where βs is concrete softening coefficient defined in ACI
318-14. For the case of a bottle-shaped strut with no crack
where P is column axial load; and Ag is gross column section control reinforcement, βs = 0.6.
area (Eq. (15) is based on Paulay and Priestley [1992] with an Joint shear strength is thus
upper bound calibrated based on joint database in Table 1).
Angle θ of the diagonal compression strut is determined Vj = fcuasbjcosθ (20)
from the joint aspect ratio, and is defined as
where bj is the effective joint width defined by ACI 352R-02.
 d − db′  The joint shear strength coefficient γj is defined by Eq. (1).
θ = tan −1  b (16)
 d c − d c′  Figure 5 compares measured and calculated joint strengths.
The model works equally well for exterior and corner
From trigonometry, the width of the diagonal compression connections. Overall mean and coefficient of variation of
strut is ratio of test to calculated strengths are AVG = 1.02 and COV
= 0.15. It is worth mentioning that the strut-and-tie model
as = abcosθ + acsinθ (17) has been recently used successfully to predict the strength of
interior joints (Okahashi and Pantelides 2017), which further
The following simpler expression can be used as a close supports the current proposed method.
approximation of Eq. (17)

1724 ACI Structural Journal/November 2018


Fig. 5—Evaluation of proposed strut-and-tie model
(Eq. (20)). Continuous lines correspond to equal calculated
and measured strengths, while dashed lines correspond to
“mean plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean”
for model calculated strength. (Note: 1 psi = 12 MPa .)
J-failure empirical shear-strength model
An empirical expression for joint shear strength can be
considered as an alternative to the strut-and-tie model. The
main variables affecting J-failure joint strength, identified in
Fig. 2, are joint aspect ratio, axial load ratio, and concrete
compressive strength. The form of the shear-strength expres-
sion was considered as a product of these three parameters,
each to a power. The resulting expression was then simpli-
fied for practical application in consideration of the approx-
imate nature of the empirical expression. The proposed joint
shear strength expression is given by
hc
V j = 11 κb j hc f c′ (psi)
hb (21)
h The dataset and models presented earlier in this paper are
V j = 0.91 c κb j hc f c′ (MPa)
hb
The inverse proportionality of joint shear strength and
joint aspect ratio hb/hc was discussed earlier. The factor
kappa accounts for the effect of column axial compression.
An examination of the test data did not show any signifi-
cant trends for P/Agfc′ < 0.2. However, for higher axial loads,
axial compression showed a positive effect on joint shear
strength, but to a lesser extent for joints with high aspect
ratio. An expression that approximated the trend is given by
Eq. (22) and plotted in Fig. 6.
4 P  stress levels. To illustrate this phenomenon for exterior and
κ = 1+  − 0.15 1 ≤ κ ≤ 1.2 (22)
9  f c′Ag 
It is noted that the data suggest that the upper limit of κ
could be dependent on joint aspect ratio, but the available
data are limited (Hassan 2011; Hassan and Moehle 2014). In
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Fig. 6—Axial load enhancement factor, empirical model.
view of the limited data set, the upper bound on kappa was
made independent of aspect ratio.
Figure 7 compares measured and calculated joint
strengths. In this figure, the shear-strength coefficient γj is
calculated according to Eq. (1). Overall mean and coeffi-
cient of variation of ratio of test to calculated strengths are
AVG = 1.02 and COV = 0.14. It is noteworthy that two joint
shear-strength models were developed in Park (2010) in
parallel to the current models as a part of the same NEES
project at University of California, Berkeley. These models,
presented in detail in Park and Mosalam (2012), were gener-
alized models that are not particularly designed for J-failure
joints. Furthermore, these models did not account for axial
load ratio, which turned out by further joint tests with high
axial load ratios (Hassan and Moehle 2012; Hassan et al.
2018) to be an important influential shear strength param-
eter. Yet, Park and Mosalam (2012) models give acceptable
correlation with J-failure joint test strengths with low axial
load ratios.
EFFECT OF FAILURE MODE ON JOINT STRENGTH
restricted to the case where connection strength is limited
by joint failure that occurs prior to reaching the strength
of the members framing into the joint. It is also possible
for the strength of a connection to be limited by strength
of the members framing into the joint. Any evaluation of
the strength of a beam-column connection should consider
this possibility.
Studies (Hassan 2011; Moehle 2014; Park 2010; Hwang
and Lee 1999; Kitayama et al. 1991; Walker 2001; Escalera
et al. 2009; Hassan et al. 2010; Hassan and Moehle 2012)
have shown that yielding of framing members (beams or
columns) can trigger joint failure at reduced joint shear-
corner beam-column connections without joint transverse
reinforcement subjected to reversed cyclic loading, consider
the data in Fig. 8 (Hassan 2011). Solid circles correspond to
the case of joint shear failure prior to yielding of the beams
or columns (referred to as J-failure in this paper and repre-
senting the database in Table 1), while open triangles corre-
1725

Fig. 7—Evaluation of proposed empirical strength model
(Eq. (21)). Continuous lines correspond to equal calculated
and measured strengths, while dashed lines correspond to
“mean plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean”
for model calculated strength. (Note: 1 psi = 12 MPa .)
Fig. 8—Joint shear strength coefficients as function of
failure mode.
spond to beam yielding followed by joint failure and open
diamonds correspond to column yielding followed by joint
failure (representing a different database in Hassan 2011).
The joint shear coefficients tend to be smaller for the case
of beam or column yielding than for the case where beams
and columns do not yield. Thus, as a major simplification
advantage of the current models, the practicing engineer is
advised to compute the pure J-failure shear strength using
the proposed models, along with the joint shear demands
corresponding to column and beam yielding, based on simple
elastic analysis, and take the least value as the connection
limiting strength. Furthermore, there could be cases of bond-
slip failure of insufficiently embedded beam reinforcement
without triggering joint shear failure, (Pantelides et al. 2002)
and (Pantelides et al. 2017). This failure mode, denoted
as S-failure, was discussed in detail in Hassan (2011) and
1726
Hassan and Moehle (2015), where a bond model to predict the
joint subassemblage capacity is proposed. In this latter case,
the least of the joint shears corresponding to bond failure,
J-failure, column yielding, and beam yielding is the limiting
connection strength.
CONCLUSIONS
A study is reported on the strength of exterior and corner
beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement
subjected to reversed cyclic loading to simulate earthquake
effects. Joint aspect ratios, defined by ratio of beam depth
to column depth, ranged from 1 to 2. Concrete compressive
strength ranged from fc′ = 2500 to 6500 psi (17 to 45 MPa).
Beam longitudinal reinforcement was anchored within the
joint using standard hooks. Within the range of parameters
investigated, the following conclusions are made:
1. Joint shear strength decreases with decreasing column
axial force, increasing ratio of beam depth to column depth,
and yielding in the adjacent framing members.
2. Several existing joint shear-strength models are investi-
gated, and calculated strengths by each of these models are
compared with measured strengths. Some of these models
provide good estimates of measured joint shear strength,
but others result in relatively poor estimates. It is noted that
some of these models were developed for joint conditions
different from those considered in this study, such as rein-
forced joints and joints experiencing broader failure modes.
3. A strut-and-tie model based on the ACI 318 strut-and-tie
modeling provisions is presented. The results of the model
correlate well with the test results.
4. An empirical model is also developed. The model incor-
porates effects of joint aspect ratio, column axial load, and
concrete compressive strength. The results of the empirical
model correlate well with the test results.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Wael M. Hassan is an Associate Professor of Structural Engi-
neering at University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. He received his BS and
MS in civil engineering from Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; and his MA in
applied mathematics and PhD in structural engineering from the University
of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. He is a member of ACI Committees
318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 369, Seismic Repair and Reha-
bilitation; 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings;
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns; and ACI
Subcommittee 341-A, Earthquake Resistant Bridges-Columns (Earth-
quake-Resistant Concrete Bridges). His research interests include experi-
mental and numerical simulation of reinforced concrete structures under
seismic loads, macro-modeling of concrete components, and strengthening
and retrofit of concrete structures.
Jack P. Moehle, FACI, is the Ed and Diane Wilson Presidential Professor
of Structural Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. A past
member of the ACI Board of Direction and Technical Activities Committee,
he is currently Chair of ACI Committee 318, Structural Concrete Building
Code, and a member of ACI Committee 369, Seismic Repair and Rehabil-
itation, and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in
Monolithic Concrete Structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial assistance provided by the U.S. National Science Founda-
tion (NSF) Award #0618804 through George E. Brown Jr. Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) and the Egyptian Department
of Education award #2005292 through Housing and Building National
Research Center is greatly appreciated.
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
 REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.
ACI Committee 369, 2011, “Guide for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Concrete Frame Buildings and Commentary (ACI 369R-11),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Antonopoulos, C. P., and Triantafillou, T. C., 2003, “Experimental
Investigation of FRP Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 7, No. 1, pp. 39-49. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:1(39)
ASCE/SEI 41/13, 2013, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Bakir, P. G., and Boduroğlu, H. M. 2002, “A New Design Equation for
Predicting the Joint Shear Strength Of Monotonically Loaded Exterior
Beam-Column Joints,” Engineering Structures, V. 24, No. 8, pp. 1105-
1117. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00038-X
Escalera, V. M.; Lloyd, B.; Hassan, W. M.; and Moehle, J. P., 2009,
“Evaluation of Non-Ductile Reinforced Concrete Building Corner Joint
Experiencing Early Column Failure,” NEES REU Report, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, Aug.
Filiatraut, A., and Lebrun, I., 1996, “Seismic Rehabilitation of Rein-
forced Concrete Joints by Epoxy Pressure Injection Technique,” Seismic
Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, SP-160, G. M. Sabnis, A. C. Shroff,
and L. F. Kahn, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Ghobarah, A., and Said, A., 2001, “Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam
Column Joints Using FRP Laminates,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
V. 5, No. 1, pp. 113-129. doi: 10.1080/13632460109350388
Hanson, N. W., and Connor, H. W., 1967, “Seismic Resistance of Rein-
forced Concrete Beam Column Joints,” Journal of the Structural Division,
V. 93, Oct., pp. 533-560.
Hassan, W., and Moehle, J., 2012, “Seismic Vulnerability of Corner
Beam-Column Joints in Existing Concrete Buildings: An Experimental
Investigation,” Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Lisbon, Portugal, Sept.
Hassan, W., and Moehle, J., 2014, “Seismic Strength Models for Beam-
Column Joints in Existing Concrete Buildings,” Proceedings, 11th Cana-
dian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Victoria, BC, Canada, July.
Hassan, W.; Refaie, F. A.; and Belal, A., 2018, “Seismic Vulnerability
of Concrete Beam-Column Joints in Older Construction under High Axial
Loads,” Proceedings, 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Thessaloniki, Greece, June 18-21.
Hassan, W. M., 2011, “Analytical and Experimental Assessment of
Seismic Vulnerability of Beam-Column Joints without Transverse Rein-
forcement in Concrete Building,” doctoral dissertation, University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, May, 471 pp.
Hassan, W. M.; Park, S.; Lopez, R. R.; Mosalam, K. M.; and Moehle,
J. P., 2010, “Seismic Response of Older-Type Reinforced Concrete Corner
Joints,” Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 25-29.
Hillerborg, A.; Modéer, M.; and Petersson, P. E., 1976, “Analysis of
Crack Formation and Crack Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture
Mechanics and Finite Elements,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 6,
No. 6, pp. 773-782. doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7
Hoffschild, T. E.; Prion, H. G. L.; and Cherry, S., 1993, “Seismic Retrofit
of Beam-to-Column Joints with Grouted Steel Tubes,” Proceedings, Tom
Paulay Symposium on Recent Development in Lateral Force Transfer in
Buildings, pp. 403-431.
Hwang, S., and Lee, H., 1999, “Analytical Model for Predicting Shear
Strengths of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic
Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 846-858.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 2002, “Recommendations for Design
of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures (ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Karayannis, C. G.; Chalioris, C. E.; and Sirkelis, G. M., 2008, “Local
Retrofit of Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints Using Thin RC Jackets: An
Experimental Study,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
V. 37, No. 5, pp. 727-746. doi: 10.1002/eqe.783
Kim, J., and LaFave, J. M., 2009, “Joint Shear Behavior of Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Connections subjected to Seismic Lateral
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Loading,” Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University
of NSEL Report Series Report No. NSEL-020, Nov.
Kim, J., and LaFave, J. M., 2012, “Simplified Approach to Joint Shear
Behavior Prediction of RC Beam-Column Connections,” Earthquake
Spectra, V. 28, No. 3, pp. 1071-1096. doi: 10.1193/1.4000064
Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., 1991, “Development of
Design Criteria for RC Interior Beam-Column Joints,” Design of Beam-
Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 97-123.
LaFave, J. M., and Kim, J., 2011, “Joint Shear Behavior Prediction for RC
Beam-Column Connections,” International Journal of Concrete Structures
and Materials, V. 5, No. 1, pp. 57-64. doi: 10.4334/IJCSM.2011.5.1.057
Moehle, J., P., 2014, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 760 pp.
Moehle, J. P., 2000, “State of Research on Seismic Retrofit of Concrete
Building Structures in the US,” US-Japan Symposium and Workshop on
Seismic Retrofit of Concrete Structures—State of Research and Practice.
Moehle, J. P., and Mahin, S. A., 1991, “Observations on the Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings during Earthquakes,” Earthquake-Resistant
Concrete Structures—Inelastic Response and Design, SP-127, S. K. Ghosh,
ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 67-89.
Okahashi, Y., and Pantelides, C. P., 2017, “Strut-and-Tie Model for Inte-
rior RC Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Details Retrofitted with
CFRP Jackets,” Composite Structures, V. 165, pp. 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.
compstruct.2017.01.004
Ortiz, I. R., 1993, “Strut-and-Tie Modeling of Reinforce Concrete Short
Beams and Beam-Column Joints,” PhD dissertation, University of West-
minster, London, UK.
Pantelides, C. P.; Hansen, J.; Nadauld, J.; and Reaveley, L. D., 2002,
“Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Building Exterior Joints With
Substandard Details,” Technical Report PEER 2002-18, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA.
Pantelides, C. P.; Hansen, J.; Ameli, M. J.; and Reaveley, L. D., 2017,
“Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Building Exterior Joints
with Substandard Details,” Journal of Structural Integrity and Mainte-
nance, V. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-11. doi: 10.1080/24705314.2017.1280589
Park, S., 2010, “Experiential and Analytical Studies on Old Reinforced
Concrete Buildings with Seismically Vulnerable Beam-Column Joints,”
PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, Dec.
Park, S., and Mosalam, K. M., 2012, “Analytical Model for Predicting
Shear Strength of Unreinforced Exterior Beam-Column Joints,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 109, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 149-160.
Parker, D. E., and Bullman, P. J. M., 1997, “Shear Strength within Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Structural Engineering, V. 75,
No. 4, pp. 53-57.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1992, 744 pp.
Salim, I. B., 2007, “The Influence of Concrete Strengths of the Behavior
of the External Beam-Column Joints,” MSc thesis, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, May.
Sarsam, K. F., and Phipps, M. E., 1985, “The Shear Design of In-situ Rein-
forced Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Monotonic Loading,” Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 37, No. 130, pp. 16-28. doi: 10.1680/macr.1985.37.130.16
Tsonos, A. G., 2009, “Performance Enhancement of R/C Building
Columns and Beam-Columns Joints through Shotcrete Jacketing,”
Engineering Structures, V. 32, No. 3, pp. 726-740. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2009.12.001
Tsonos, A. G., and Stylianidis, K., 2002, “Seismic Retrofit of Beam-to-
Column Joints with High Strength Fiber Jackets,” European Earthquake
Engineering, No. 16, pp. 56-72.
Vollum, R. L., and Newman, J. B., 1999, “Strut and Tie Models for the
Analysis/Design of External Beam-Column Joints,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 51, No. 6, pp. 415-425. doi: 10.1680/macr.1999.51.6.415
Walker, S. G., 2001, “Seismic Performance of Existing RC Beam–
Column Joints,” MSc thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Wong, H. F., 2005, “Shear Strength and Seismic Performance of
Non-Seismically Designed Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,”
PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, The Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, Aug.
1727
 NOTES:

1728 ACI Structural Journal/November 2018