Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete beam-column joints using various

confinement techniques: A review
Chin-Boon Ong a, Chee-Loong Chin a, Chau-Khun Ma a, b, *, Jia-Yang Tan a,
Abdullah Zawawi Awang a, Wahid Omar a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
b
Forensic Engineering Centre, Institute for Smart Infrastructure and Innovative Construction, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The catastrophic seismic events have urged the need for effective retrofitting techniques for the non-seismically
External confinement designed structures built in the seismic active zone. The design and detailing of beam-column joints are often
Seismic retrofit ignored in early designed structures, thus the retrofit of the beam-column joints is important to ensure the
Beam-column joint
stability of the structures. Over the years, external confinement has emerged to be one of the most effective
Concrete jacketing
retrofit techniques. However, several factors have restricted the application of external confinement in practice.
Steel jacketing
Ferrocement laminate jacketing These factors include the lack of analysis, design, and confinement scheme guidelines. This paper aims to provide
Fibre-reinforced polymer a state-of-the-art review on different confinement techniques that had been proposed to retrofit deficient beam-
column joints. The influential parameters, testing method, effectiveness, and reliability of the confinement
techniques are critically analysed. The important seismic characteristics of beam-column joint are discussed.
Finally, recommendations are provided for future adoption in research and practice.

1. Introduction component can be classified into low, moderate, or high based on

Table 1.
Previous seismic events around the world [1–6] caused major dam­ The deficient beam-column joints constructed in accordance with
ages to reinforced concrete (RC) structures. These seismic events have earlier design codes can be categorised into insufficient column lap-
increased researchers’ attention toward the integrity of existing non- splice, joint shear deficient, and inadequate bottom beam reinforce­
seismically designed structures. In the field investigation after the ment anchorages. Fig. 1 illustrates the detailing of the non-seismically
seismic events, for example, at Borneo Malaysia in 2015, it was found designed and the seismically designed beam-column joints. It is shown
that most of the structures experienced major damages due to the poor that the column lap-splice in the non-seismically designed beam-column
detailing of reinforcement at beam-column joints [7]. This means that joint is located above the joint face (Fig. 1a). This may cause the pre­
these early designed structures do not meet the existing seismic design mature slippage of the column’s longitudinal reinforcements and wide
requirements [8]. Therefore, these structures have a very limited pullout crack at the column above the slab [18]. The transverse re­
ductility and energy dissipation capacity, and cannot withstand mod­ inforcements of the columns are not provided in the beam-column joint.
erate to high seismic excitations. This makes the beam-column joint prone to joint shear failures. The
Previous experimental tests revealed that the seismic performance of beam bottom reinforcement is not anchored with sufficient length, and
structures can be enhanced by retrofitting on the beam-column joints not bent at 90◦ or 180◦ . This results in the slippage of reinforcements
[9–13]. This is typically done by strengthening both the column and and contributes to the low ductility and energy dissipation capacity of
beam-column joint to achieve a ductile structural behaviour. By doing so the beam-column joint. Conversely, the column lap-splice is located at
allows the formation of plastic hinges on beam and ensures a ductile the mid-height of the column in the seismically designed beam-column
structural failure mode [14]. According to ASCE 41–17 [15], ACI 369.1 joint (Fig. 1b). The transverse reinforcements of the columns are pro­
M− 17 [16] and FEMA 273 [17], the ductility of the structural vided in the beam-column joint. This ensures sufficient beam-column

* Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia.
E-mail address: machaukhun@utm.my (C.-K. Ma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.114
Received 12 September 2021; Received in revised form 31 May 2022; Accepted 31 May 2022
Available online 13 June 2022
2352-0124/© 2022 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Table 1 it was clarified that the external confinement was the promising ap­
Classification of structural component ductility demand (Adapted from proaches on retrofitting deficient beam-column joints [25–29] as well as
[15–17]). wide beam-column joints [30,31]. At the same time, it was also evi­
Displacement Ductility Remark denced that external confinement can be used to retrofit damaged beam-
<2 Low ductility demand
column joints [32–37]. Despite its efficiency, the retrofitting of beam-
2–4 Moderate ductility demand column joint while performing the retrofitting strategy on the defi­
>4 High ductility demand cient structures is often ignored due to several restrictions.
To this end, this paper targets to provide an in-depth assessment and
evaluation of the confinement techniques available in the literature
joint shear capacity during the seismic events [19]. The beam bottom
proposed to retrofit beam-column joints. A state-of-the-art review on
reinforcement is anchored with sufficient anchorage lengths and bent in
different types of confinement techniques that had been proposed in the
the beam-column joint regions.
past studies is presented herein, as well as its advantages and disad­
To provide the seismic characteristics of a structure, especially the
vantages. Critical analysis is also provided on the influential confine­
ductility and energy dissipation capacity, a beam sway mechanism that
ment parameters of the proposed retrofitting techniques. Subsequently,
allows the occurrence of flexural plastic hinge at the beam’s end should
the seismic characteristics, including stiffness, displacement ductility,
be ensured. This can prevent damages on the columns and beam-column
energy dissipation, equivalent viscous damping, joint shear distortion,
joints according to the capacity design principle [8,20]. This principle is
and damage index of beam-column joint are scrutinized. At the end of
typically adopted in the seismic design philosophy which is termed as
this paper, recommendations are provided for the future adoption of
the “strong column-weak beam” design. To ensure beam-sway mecha­
research works. This paper is believed to accommodate and facilitate
nism instead of the column-sway mechanism of a structure, EN 1998–1
bridging the gap between research and practical use of existing retro­
[21] and ACI 318–14 [22] specified that the column-to-beam moment
fitting techniques in the industry.
ratio should be >1.3 and 1.2, respectively. NZS-3101 [23] did not
specify the column-to-beam moment ratio requirement, but it should be
2. Retrofit techniques using external confinement
>1.0 to ensure the “strong column-weak beam” philosophy. Further­
more, a closer spacing of column and beam transverse reinforcements
Various retrofit techniques using external confinements have been
should be provided at a distance of lo and lcr, respectively, as shown in
investigated in the previous studies. These techniques were critically
Fig. 1(b). The joint diagonal compression induced by the diagonal strut
reviewed and grouped according to the materials and techniques used to
mechanism should be checked to avoid exceeding the compressive
confine deficient beam-column joints. The factors which caused the re­
strength of concrete with the presence of the joint transverse re­
striction of using these techniques in practical are also discussed.
inforcements. In other words, the joint shear forces (of both modern
structures and the retrofitted ones) should be low, and the joint region
needs to remain intact during seismic events [19]. Subsequently, the 2.1. Reinforced concrete (RC) jacketing
transverse reinforcements’ anchorage should be bent 135◦ instead of 90◦
to prevent the opening of the transverse reinforcement during seismic The notion of RC jacketing is to increase the structural capacity by
event. The detailed specifications of the seismic requirements accor­ enlarging the structure members’ cross-section with additional steel
dance to the codes of practice are summarised in Table 2. reinforcements. This jacketing is done by roughening the existing con­
Various retrofit strategies have been investigated in previous crete surfaces, placing a new steel reinforcement cage (Fig. 2), erecting
research works. The proposed local retrofit techniques for beam-column formwork, and casting a new batch of concrete into the prepared
joint include haunch elements, steel props, near surface-mounted (NSM) formwork. Special attentiveness is necessary for the bonding between
techniques, and external confinements. Amid the proposed techniques, the existing and new concrete. This is because the bonding can govern

Fig. 1. Comparison between the detailing of the beam-column joint with (a) non-seismically designed and (b) seismically designed.

222
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Table 2
Comparison between the non-seismically and seismically design codes of practice.
Specification Non-seismic EN 1998–1 [21] ACI 318–19 [22] NZS-3101 [23]
design
guidelines

Column-to-beam No specified ≥1.3 ≥1.2 > 1.0

∑
MRc
moment ratio,∑
MRb
Column transverse Design min(bo/3; 125 mm; 6dcL) min(bc/4; 6dcL for reinforcement grade min(bc/4; 6dcL)
spacing, s within lo accordingly 420; 5dcL for reinforcement grade 550;
so)
Length of lo No specified max(1.5hc; lcl/6; 600 mm) max(dc; at the section where flexural hc N ≤ 0.25fc Ag
′

yielding is likely to occur; lcl/6; 450 mm) lo = 2hc 0.25fc Ag < N ≤ 0.5fc Ag
′ ′

3hc 0.5fc Ag < N ≤ 0.7Nn,max

′

Beam transverse link Design min(hb/4; 24dbw; 175 mm; 6dbL) for DCH min(db/4; 150 mm; 6dbL for min(db/4, 6dbL)
spacing, sh within lcr accordingly reinforcement grade 420; 5dbL for
reinforcement grade 550) for special
moment frame
Length of lcr No specified 1.5hb 2db; over the length of 2db on both sides 2db
of a section where flexural yielding is
likely to occur
Beam anchorage length Design Design according to EN 1992 [24] with fy dbL 0.5αa fy
ldb = √̅̅̅̅ ldb = √̅̅̅̅ dbL
into joint, ldb accordingly measured at a distance 5dbL inside the face
5.4 f c fc
′ ′

of joint
Maximum column axial Design <0.65Ag fc’ <0.8 Po <0.7 Nn,max
force accordingly
√̅̅̅̅
dbL No specified Exterior: 1/20 for reinforcement grade 420; 1/26
fc
′

hc 7.5fctm for reinforcement grade 550 3.3αf αd

≤ (1 + 0.8vd ) 1.25fy
γRd fy
Interior:
7.5fctm 1 + 0.8vd
≤ •
γRd fy 1 + 0.75kD ρ′ /ρmax
Minimum total column max(0.002; 0.1 >0.01 Ag >0.01 Ag >0.008 Ag
longitudinal N
)
reinforcement fy
( )
Vertical column No specified 2 hjc No specified fyh hb
≥ Ajh αv Ajh
reinforcement passing 3 hjw fyv bc
through the joint, Ajv
)2 ′ (
Joint transverse link, Ash No specified ( V
jhd sbfc Ag ) Interior joint:
i) Greater of (0.3 − 1 and ( )
Ash • fyh bj • hjc fyh Ac 6Vojh αi fy As
≥ − fctd
bj • hjw fctd + vd fc′ sbfc fc bj hc fyh
′ ′

0.09 ) for N ≤ 0.3 Ag fc’ with fc’≤ 70

fyh Exterior joint:
( )(
MPa 6Vojh βfy As Cj N
)
Vojh
′ (
sbf Ag ) sbf
′
0.7 − ′ ≥ 0.4
ii) Greater of (0.3 c − 1 , 0.09 c fc bj hc
′
fyh fc Ag fyh
fyh Ac fyh
where,
Nsb ( 6V )
and 0.2kf kn ) for N > 0.3 Ag fc’ with ojh
fyh Ac 0.85 ≤ ≤ 1.20
fc bj hc
′

fc’ > 70 MPa

Note: MRc is the total column moment around the joint; MRb is the total beam moment connected to the joint; lo is the critical column length; bo is the minimum
dimension of the concrete core (to the inside of the link); bc is the minimum column dimension; dcL is the minimum diameter of the column longitudinal bars; so = 100+
(350 − hx)/3; 100 mm < so < 150 mm; hx is the nearest transverse link distance; hc is the largest cross-sectional dimension of the column (m); lcl is column clear length
(m); dc is the depth of column; fc’ is the concrete strength; Ag is the gross area of section member; N is the maximum design load in compression; Nn,max = α1fc’(Ag-Ast) +
fyAst; α1 = 0.85–0.004(fc’-55) > 0.75; Ast is the total area of longitudinal reinforcement; hb is height of beam; dbw is the diameter of transverse link; dbL is the diameter of
beam longitudinal reinforcement; fy is the steel yield strength; db is the beam depth; lcr is the critical beam length; ldb is the bond development length; αa = 1.3 for top
reinforcement where>300 mm of fresh concrete is cast in the member below the bar, or 1.0 for all other cases; Po = 0.85 fc’(Ag− Ast) + fyAst; fctm is the concrete tensile
strength; γRd is the design factor owing to strain-hardening of the beam longitudinal steel, taken as 1.2 or 1.0, respectively for DCH or DCM; vd is the normalised design
column axial force (N/fc’Ag); kD is 1 and 2/3 for DCH and DCM, respectively; ρ’ is the compression steel ratio of the beam bar passing through the joint; ρmax is the
maximum allowed tension steel ratio; αf = 0.85 and 1.0 for two-way and one way frame, respectively; αd = 1.0 for ductile plastic region; Ajh is the total area of the
horizontal joint transverse link; hjc is the distance between extreme layers of column reinforcement; hjw is the distance between the top and the bottom reinforcement of
the beam; Ac is the area of column core; fyh is the characteristic yield strength of horizontal joint transverse link; fyv is the characteristic yield strength of vertical joint
transverse link; αv = 0.7/(1 + N/fc’Ag)); bj is the effective joint width; Vjhd is the horizontal shear force of joint; fctd is the design tensile strength of concrete; b is the
cross-sectional dimension of member core measured to the outside edges of the transverse reinforcement compositing area Ash; s is the spacing of transverse links; Vojh is
the overstrength horizontal shear force of joint; As is the greater of the area of top or bottom beam reinforcement passing through the joint; β is the ratio of area of
compression beam reinforcement to area of tension beam reinforcement, not to be taken larger than unity; Cj = Vjh/(Vjx + Vjz); Vjx and Vjz is the nominal horizontal
shear force transferred in × and z direction, respectively; αi = 1.4αn or (1.4–1.6(Cj N)/(fc’Ag))αn; αn = 0.85 or 1 for limited or ductile potential plastic region,
respectively; kf = fc’/175 + 0.6 ≥ 1.0; kn = nl/(nl-2), nl is the number of longitudinal bars or bar bundles around the perimeter of a column core with link that are
laterally supported by the corner link.

the efficiency of the RC jacketing directly. the ACI 318–19 [22] concept. The authors found that these externally
Alcocer et al. [39] proposed to use normal strength concrete rein­ bonded steel angles can provide confinement to the beam-column joint.
forced with externally bonded steel angles as an alternative jacketing Tsonos [41] attempted to reduce the confinement thickness by using
method. This confinement scheme has been adopted by CEB-FIP 24 [40] shotcrete and high strength mortar as the confining material. The pos­
which does not require any drilling through the beams and conformed to sibility of two sides jacketing on the column was also studied. It was

223
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

it non-shrink grout to ensure continuity with the existing beam-column

joint. It was shown that extending the steel confinement to the beam
region induced the beam failure mode. A similar finding was obtained in
an experimental investigation conducted by Campione et al. [48] with
the extension of the confinement to the beam region.
The active pre-tensioned confinement had gained popularity
recently due to its effectiveness to enhance the seismic behaviours of the
columns and beams. It was observed that the post-tensioned metal straps
confinement on structure able to improve stiffness, reduce stiffness
degradation, inter-storey drift, and enhance the structural capacity [54].
Santarsiero et al. [55] proposed to retrofit the exterior joint by using
stainless steel ribbons with steel dissipation elements. This steel dissi­
pation element improved the seismic behaviour and reduced the tensile
stress in the beam-column joint. Yang et al. [50] investigated the
effectiveness of post-tensioned steel strips in retrofitted interior joints.
The retrofitting schemes included steel strips confinement with and
without additional L-shaped steel plates bonded on the beam-column
joints as depicted in Fig. 3(c). It was revealed that the additional L-
shape steel plate offered higher deformability, shear strength, and en­
ergy dissipation capacity. However, these confinement schemes
Fig. 2. Typical RC jacketing at beam-column joint region (Adapted from [38]). required drilling on the web of beams to ensure the continuity of the
confinement around the joint area as shown in Fig. 3(c).
revealed that the two side jacketing is comparable to the four sides A new retrofitting strategy termed “joint enlargement” uses pre-
jacketing. Bindhu et al. [42] introduced a new type of reinforcement stressed steel angles or steel plates was proposed by Yurdakul et al.
detail (diagonally crossed transverse reinforcement) for RC jacketing. [51], Torabi et al. [56], Ruiz-Pinilla et al. [57], Shafaei et al. [58], Adibi
This reinforcement detail was shown to be able to improve the behav­ et al. [52], Maddah et al. [59], and Khodaei et al. [60] to confine beam-
iour of beam-column joints with the transformation of the joint shear column joints as illustrated in Fig. 3(e). This confinement strategy re­
failure into the beam failure. Kalogeropoulos et al. [43] studied the quires less labour and space [61]. The results showed that this strategy
effectiveness of using high strength mortar with the extension bars to with properly designed the steel angle dimensions can enhance the
retrofit the deficient beam anchorage length anchored in the beam- behaviour of beam-column joints and transform the joint shear failure
column joint. The manipulation of the extension bars (threaded end into beam failures. For plain reinforcement bars constructed beam-
anchored at the backside of the joint via steel plate and bolts) prevented column joints, the slippage of plain reinforcements was drastically
the beam bars from extensive slipping under loading. It exhibited min­ reduced after the confinement [52]. Yurdakul et al. [51] concluded that
imal slippage of the beam reinforcement bars, and improved the stiffness this confinement technique with pre-tensioning was much more effec­
and lateral strength of the beam-column joint. It also repositioned the tive than the confinement without pre-tensioning. Hence, the steel angle
plastic hinge to the beam. size and pre-tensioning level are the important affecting parameters for
It is confirmed that RC jacketing can improve the strength, stiffness, active pre-tensioning confinement.
ductility, and energy dissipation of beam-column joints, and can also Dang et al. [62] and Truong et al. [63] proposed to use the single
transform the plastic hinge away from the joint region to the beam. This haunch elements (Fig. 3f) as the retrofitting strategy. It was found that
transformation of failure mode is important as the beam plastic hinge the haunch element was able to transform the joint failure into the beam
can dissipate a large amount of energy and prevent the total collapse of failure although some cracks occurred at the joint region. Similar result
the structure. It is worth noting that, the joint region should be remained were observed from the experimental study done by Kanchanadevi et al.
intact even the strain hardening of the beam longitudinal reinforcement [53], which used single haunch elements to retrofit deficient beam-
occurred in the beam plastic hinge region. The latter implied that the column joints. The retrofitted beam-column joint enhanced the
retrofitted beam-column joints should be designed to remain intact and seismic behaviours, including load-carrying capacity, energy dissipa­
allows both the formation of the plastic hinge in the beam and the tion, ductility, with lesser stiffness degradation and damage index.
concentration of damage or cracks remained at the beam region during Zabihi [64] proposed a design procedure for retrofitting beam-column
seismic event. It is also proven that using externally bonded steel angles joints using fully fastened single haunch elements. It was highlighted
as reinforcement, two sides jacketing, and diagonal transverse re­ that the length of the fully fastened single haunch elements in retrofit­
inforcements for RC jacketing are favourable. RC jacketing can be ting beam-column joints is an important parameter which will affect the
applied in different types of structures due to the flexible design of transformation of the failure mode from joint shear failure into beam
reinforcement and concrete. However, the downside of RC jacketing is failure [65]. Recently, Marchisella et al. [66] proposed to use the double
the extensive construction efforts required [44]. This jacketing will in­ fully-fastened-haunch to retrofit beam-column joints. It was observed
crease the structure’s member size, therefore contributing to the addi­ that the bonded anchor type is much more effective than the concrete
tional weight, and resulting in a change of the confined structure’s screw anchor type in transforming the joint failure into beam away from
dynamic properties [45]. These disadvantages undoubtedly hinder its the column face. Therefore, the length of haunch element and the type of
application in practice. anchorage are the important parameters for the fully-fastened-haunch
element retrofitting strategy which will affect the behaviour of the
plastic hinge relocation [65,67].
2.2. Steel jacketing Based on the conducted research, it can be summarised that the steel
jacketing is able to enhance the seismic behaviour of the deficient beam-
Steel jacketing refers to the confinement technique which uses steel column joints as well as transform the joint shear failure into beam
material to retrofit beam-column joints. This technique can be in failure mode with properly designed dimensions. Past research works
different forms such as steel tubes, straps, angles, or cages [46] as shown have proven the effectiveness of pre-tensioning confinement which
in Fig. 3. makes the steel jacketing unique, as other confinement techniques are
Biddah et al. [47] used corrugated steel sheet (Fig. 3a) and filled with unable to provide pre-tensioning confinement to date. However, a

224
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Fig. 3. Different forms of proposed steel jacketing: (a) corrugated steel sheet (Adapted from [49]); (b) steel cages (Adapted from [48]); (c) steel straps (Adapted from
[50]); (d) steel angles with pre-stressed rod (Adapted from [51]); (e) pre-stressed steel angles (Adapted from [52]); and (f) fully fastened haunch element (Adapted
from [53]).

225
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

rational explanation on the effect of pre-tensioning force level toward 2.4. Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) confinement
the confinement effect and the failure mode of the beam-column joint
still lacks for the right design purpose. Steel jacketing also enhances the The concept of adopting FRP confinement is via bonding the FRP to
deficient lap-splice of columns [68] and can transform plastic hinges the concrete surface by using a bonding agent such as epoxy resin. The
from joint region into the beam. Recent proposed pre-tensioning steel bonding between the FRP and the concrete surface permits them to act
angles can be easily applied in practice, but the design guidelines for the as a composite structure. It is capable to enhance the seismic behaviours
sizing and the pre-tensioning force level are still lacking. The proposed of the beam-column joint by being properly designed and constructed
confinement scheme of steel straps is difficult to be applied during the [73]. FRP is an anisotropic natural material which has superior me­
retrofitting work in practice due to the existence of transverse beams and chanical properties developed only along the direction of the reinforcing
slabs. Nevertheless, the corrosion problem associated with steel material fibre, and is weak in the transverse direction. Hence, the confinement of
should be considered to ensure long term serviceability. In conclusion, the structure in the FRP’s principal fibre direction is highly recom­
these influential parameters need further research works for the adop­ mended [40]. The application of FRP starts with the cleaning of the
tion of steel jacketing to retrofit the beam-column joints. concrete’s surface, painting it with a layer of primer and epoxy, and
finally laying up the FRP sheets together with epoxy until the desired
2.3. Ferrocement laminate jacketing number of layers is achieved.
A miscellany of FRP materials have been utilized to retrofit beam-
Ferrocement laminate jacketing is another confinement technique column joints, such as carbon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
suggested for retrofitting beam-column joints. There are various types of [74–76], glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) [77–79], aramid fibre-
mortar used to construct the ferrocement laminate jacketing, namely reinforced polymer [80], basalt fibre-reinforced polymer [81], FRP
cement-sand mortar, cementitious mortar, and epoxy-based mortar. The hybrid composite [82–84], quasi-isotropic laminate [85], and sprayed
construction procedure of ferrocement laminate jacketing is similar to FRP [86]. Among these composite materials, CFRP is the most prevalent
the reinforced concrete jacketing, which installs a thin wire mesh due to its superior mechanical properties [84,87].
around the beam-column joint (Fig. 4a), and casting it with high- The high flexibility of the FRP sheet allows different confinement
strength flowable mortar (Fig. 4b). schemes which can be proposed to retrofit beam-column joints. Overall,
Li et al. [70] probed the feasibility of dissimilar types of ferrocement the confinement schemes proposed consist of X-wrapping, horizontal
materials, including cement-sand mortar, cementitious mortar, and bonding, and U-bonding for the exterior joints, horizontal bonding for
epoxy-based mortar. They deduced that epoxy-based mortar is the pre- interior joints, and lastly L-bonding for corner joints as shown in Fig. 5.
eminent material, compared to other types of mortar. Li et al. [69], Among these confinement schemes, the U-bonding is the most popular
Bansal et al. [71], and Shaaban et al. [72] proposed a diagonal wire confinement scheme adopted to retrofit exterior beam-column joints.
mesh as a reinforcement in the ferrocement jacketing. Shaaban et al. In general, the failure modes of FRP confined beam-column joints
[72] concluded that the 60◦ orientated angle of wire mesh is much more can be characterised by FRP tensile fractures, or by debonding between
effective than the 45◦ one. However, Li et al. [69] concluded that the the FRP and the concrete surface. These failure modes significantly
grid type reinforcement is able to transform the joint shear failure mode depend on the types of confinement scheme and the FRP types, i.e., fully
into the beam shear failure, as compared to diagonal reinforcements. wrapped (closed confinement), or a confinement using the low strain
The reason for the different results obtained was that the grid type capacity of the FRP, which is more likely to fracture than debonding as
reinforcement extended beyond the beam-joint interface during retro­ compared to partially wrapped (open confinement), or a confinement
fitting. Therefore, the confinement scheme is an important affecting using the high strain capacity FRP, or vice versa [40].
parameter for ferrocement laminate jacketing too. The anchorage of the FRP is a vital influential factor for the FRP
Past research works revealed an important relationship between the confined beam-column joints. The lack of anchorage will lead to the
wire mesh ratio and the wire mesh orientation on the seismic behaviour most undesired failure mode (early FRP debonding before the structure
of the retrofitted beam-column joints. The ferrocement laminate jack­ member reaches its ultimate strength), and indefinitely cause the loss of
eting makes use of a thinner jacketing layer, in contrast with RC jack­ composite effects [27,88,89,92,93,95,100,102–107]. This critical issue
eting. Thus, it helps in minimizing the structural size increment, has garnered the attention of researchers. Against this background,
dynamic effect, and the self-weight of the structure [45]. However, the various types of anchorage systems were proposed to warrant the
confinement scheme proposed for ferrocement laminate jacketing is too debonding, so that it does not occur in the early stages of loading. These
complex to be applied in practice, as the proposed confinement schemes proposed anchorage, including transverse wrapping at beam [35,92,93],
covers the joint area. mechanical anchorage [100,107–109], self-tapping screw [110], steel
plate [111], steel cage [112], adding concrete cover with CFRP warping
[97,113], externally bonded reinforcement on grooves (EBROG)

Fig. 4. Procedure of ferrocement laminate jacketing construction. (a) Installation of wire mesh and skeletal reinforcement and (b) After casting of high-strength
flowable mortar (Adapted from [69]).

226
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Fig. 5. Proposed FRP confinement schemes: (a) X-wrapping [28,76,88–91]; (b) Horizontal bonding exterior joint [89]; (c) U-bonding [35,88,92–99]; (d) Horizontal
bonding for interior joint [100]; and (e) L-bonding for corner joint [92,94,101,102].

technique [114], and the combination of a FRP fan with the EBROG this failure mode will result in a lower drift, load carrying capacity and
technique [99,115–117]. These anchorage systems have proven the stiffness, as well as sudden stiffness degradation [95]. Ghobarah et al.
ability to prevent early debonding of the FRP which can be used in [25] proposed various methods to retrofit this deficient beam-column
accordance with the suitability of the geometry of the beam-column joint. The use of steel rods with steel plates welded to the deficient
joints. anchorage length of beam reinforcement bars and bonding the FRP in a
In order to increase the effectiveness of the FRP confinement on L-shape at the bottom of the beam successfully eliminated the joint shear
rectangular shaped columns, Hadi et al. [113] proposed to change the failure together with the slippage of beam reinforcement bars.
rectangular shape columns into a circular shape by bonding the D-shape Mukherjee et al. [87] retrofitted the interior joint using a L-shape FRP at
concrete cover on the column faces as shown in Fig. 6. The results the top and bottom of the beam. This confinement scheme successfully
showed that the increased number of FRP was able to transform the prevented the slippage of the beam reinforcement bar with deficient
plastic hinge from beam-column joints into the beam [97]. These studies anchorage as well. Hence, these confinement schemes are suitable to be
indicated that the number of layers is an important factor for ductility adopted for mitigating the slippage problems associated with deficient
enhancement [89,95]. However, the increase of the FRP layers does not beam reinforcement anchorages length.
guarantee a proportional increase of the ductility enhancement [92]. Seismic retrofitting using FRP jacketing encourages bonding the FRP
For repairing of beam-column joints, the general procedure involves in the main fibre direction perpendicular to the cracks plane, to help
the replacement of the beam-column’s joint core with new materials for mitigate possible cracks or failure lines in the beam-column joint (di­
major cracks [118], whilst using epoxy resin injections agonal cracking) under cyclic load. Nevertheless, most of the studies
[98,104,119,120] or epoxy mortar [121] for minor cracks before showed it is not able to avoid joint shear failure completely but can
confinement. Findings showed that the performance of the repaired enhance the shear strength resistance of the beam-column joints. As the
joints was comparable with the strengthened joints, owing to the in­ diagonal joint shear failure is initiated at the latter stage of loading, the
jection of the high strength epoxy into the joint region, and thus propagation of the crack will induce the debonding of the FRP.
enhanced the joint shear capacity [35,93,97,107]. It was also reported The enhanced behaviours and transfer of the joint failure mode to the
that the pre-damage of up to 85% of the beam-column joint’s ultimate beam failure mode of the confined beam-column joints confirmed its
capacity [90] or storey drift up to 1.5% [98], can be classified as effectiveness. However, the application of the proposed FRP confine­
repairable using FRP confinement. ment schemes is only effective in retrofitted two-dimensional (2D)
FRP confinement can delay or prevent the slippage of the bottom beam-column joints except for the corner joints. This is due to the ex­
beam reinforcement with insufficient anchorage length. Slippage of the istence of the slab and transverse beams connected to the exterior and
beam reinforcement is much more critical than the joint shear failure, as interior joints in practices, rendering the proposed confinement schemes

Fig. 6. Change of square section of column to circular section by adding the segmental circular concrete cover (D-shape) (Adapted from [97]).

227
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

irrelevant. Moreover, the existence of slab and transverse beams will confinement schemes were proposed on the 2D beam-column joint
reduce the effectiveness of the FRP confinement [92]. It was also without a slab or transverse beams.
observed that the different confinement schemes will lead to dissimilar In a nutshell, these proposed confinement techniques are promising
behaviour and failure modes of the confined beam-column joints. Past to retrofit beam-column joints. Each confinement technique comes with
studies showed that the FRP confinement schemes for retrofitting three- its advantages and disadvantages, therefore should be considered while
dimensional (3D) structures are only able to be confined the column and designing and applying the retrofit strategy. The development of
the beams only, instead of the joint region for both the interior and confinement techniques needs to be enhanced or upgraded, by contin­
exterior joints [29,91,122–127]. Hence, the 3D structure confinement uously exploring and discovering how to eliminate or reduce the dis­
schemes are unable to be fully integrated as well as the current proposed advantages of the previously proposed confinement techniques or
analysis and the design recommendations. In other words, the proposed schemes. It is observed that the extension of the confinement scheme to
joint shear strength enhancement from the contribution of the FRP re­ the beam region is beneficial for the transformation of the failure mode
mains unclear. As can be seen, the confinement scheme with a rational from a brittle joint shear into a beam failure. However, most of the
explanation of the 3D beam-column joint needs to be proposed together confinement is difficult to be applied in practice using the proposed
with its design to ensure its application in practice. In short, the confinement schemes. In this regard, further research works are required
confinement scheme is a consequential consideration for FRP confine­ for the development of new confinement schemes along these design
ment as well. guidelines. Therefore, the analysis and design of the confined joint shear
strength needs to be reformulated too, as the new confinement schemes
2.5. Other confinement materials are proposed. Apart from that, the relationship between the confinement
effect (both the steel angle size and the pre-tensioning level) with its
Several different confining materials have been developed for ret­ failure modes should be further investigated for the design purpose. This
rofitting beam-column joints apart from the previous confinement relationship is important to ensure the successfully transformation of the
techniques. Al-Salloum et al. [128] showed that textile-reinforced joint shear failure into the beam failure across the different structures
mortar (TRM) can improve the shear strength, ductility, and energy with different designs and detailing. The overview of existing studies on
dissipation of the beam-column joints. TRM is a material which consists the different confinement techniques proposed to retrofit beam-column
of textiles and mortars which the latter serve as a binder containing joints is shown in Table 3.
polymeric additives. Esmaeeli et al. [129,130] tested the strain-
hardening cementitious composite (SHCC) reinforced with laminates 3. Assessment methods of retrofit technique approaches
of CFRP in retrofitted beam-column joints. They used this material to
repair the beam-column joints by replacing the concrete cover around RC jacketing, steel jacketing, ferrocement laminate jacketing, FRP
the beam-column joint [129], or by bonding in a plate form called a confinement, and other confinement materials are the main groups of
Hybrid Composite Plate (HCP) with chemical anchorage [130]. This confinement techniques from the literature review. Among these groups,
material can increase the seismic behaviours of the beam-column joints. the most popular confinement technique is the FRP confinement as
Shannag et al. [131,132] and Beschi et al. [133] demonstrated that extensive research works have been conducted on it. Deficient joint
the high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete (HPFRC) was able to transverse reinforcements and weak column-strong beams are popular
improve the behaviour of the beam-column joints. The HPFRC is a problems which are being tackled, as well as deficient beam anchorage
highly ductile composite material, due to the post-cracking tensile re­ lengths. Each of the confinement techniques have different character­
sidual strength provided by fibres in the concrete mixture [134]. Sharma istics, behaviours, performances, advantages, and disadvantages on the
et al. [135] repaired the exterior joint using an ultra-high-performance confined beam-column joints. Hence, it is important to evaluate the
hybrid fibre reinforced concrete (UHP-HFRC). Different pre-damaged testing parameters, methods, and the effectiveness for each of the pro­
levels were included in the study and concluded that as the pre- posed confinement techniques to verify its applicability to retrofit all the
damaged level increased, the enhancement of the ductility, stiffness, different types of deficient beam-column joints, including the exterior,
strength, and energy dissipation diminished. They also reported that this interior, and corner joints.
confinement can increase the load-carrying capacity, energy dissipation Most of the beam-column joints were tested under cyclic loading
capacity, and the ductility of the beam-column joint. Different types of with or without column axial load to evaluate its seismic behaviour
confinement material were also studied by Khan et al. [136] using ultra- before and after retrofitting. The effectiveness of retrofit using
high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). The confinement confinement is through the assessment of strength, stiffness, ductility,
can be cast in-situ or epoxy bonded in prefabricated UHPFRC plates to and the energy dissipation capacity of the beam-column joints. Addi­
retrofit the beam-column joints. The authors concluded that the tionally, several research works determined the effectiveness of the
confinement using this material was able to enhance and improve the confined beam-column joints by evaluating the damage indices, joint
seismic properties of deficient beam-column joints, and the results were shear distortion, equivalent hysteresis damping, and the stiffness
comparable with the experimental results reported in previous studies degradation as well.
[41,70,129,130].
Recently, Vita et al. [137] proposed a steel reinforced polymer (SRP) 3.1. Testing variables and parameters
as a confining material, which is made up of twisted high tensile strength
steel cords within a micro-fine brass or galvanized coating, and bonded To determine the behaviour of retrofitted beam-column joints using
with epoxy resin. They proposed the confinement schemes on the confinement, various testing variables and parameters were adopted to
exterior joints with transverse beams, and left a gap for the slab in order ascertain its effectiveness. The parameters and variables can be sepa­
to mimic the condition in practice. The results showed an improvement rated into tested beam-column joint parameters, and the tested
in the seismic behaviours, and were comparable with the FRP confinement parameters are shown in Fig. 7. Each of the confinement
confinement. parameters will influence the results and seismic behaviour of the
Overall, these proposed innovative materials have the potential to be confined beam-column joint. Hence, it is important to determine the
used as an alternative material to retrofit beam-column joints, as the influencing parameters and variables for future development and design
results are comparable with the FRP jacketing [128,137]. Nevertheless, purpose of confined the beam-column joints.
further investigation is required for developing a reliable database using For the RC and ferrocement laminate jacketing, the type of jacketing
these materials in beam-column joint confinement. Moreover, the pro­ materials, reinforcement ratio, and the reinforcement orientation at the
posed confinement schemes are difficult to apply in practice as the joint region are the main parameters. The denser the jacketing

228
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Table 3
An overview of existing studies on retrofitting reinforced concrete beam-column joint using confinement.
Confinement Researcher (s) Confining Number, scale Confinement Parameter (s) Loading Remarks
type materials and joint type type scheme

Reinforced Alcocer et al. Normal strength 4 2/3 scale Passive Confinement scheme, Bidirectional Steel cage is effective to
Concrete [39] concrete interior joints jacketing reinforcement CL confine beam-column joint
Jacketing configuration and prevent concrete from
spalling.
Tsonos [41] Shotcrete, high 5 1/2 scale Passive Jacketing materials type, CL + CAL Increase strength, stiffness,
strength mortar exterior joints confinement scheme and energy dissipation
capacity.
Bindhu et al. Normal strength 3 1/3 scale Passive Jacketing reinforcement CL Diagonally crossed
[42] concrete exterior joints configuration reinforcement performed
better than conventional
reinforcement.
Kalogeropoulos High strength 4 1/2 scale Passive Confinement scheme CL + CAL Higher performance can be
et al. [43] mortar exterior joints achieved with extension bar
as compared with normal
concrete jacketing.
Karayannis et al. High strength 10 medium Passive Pre-damage, column size, CL + CAL Retrofitted beam-column
[45] mortar scale exterior CRR, CTRR, BRR, BTRR, joint had lower damage
joints JRR, confinement factor as compared with
reinforcement ratio original beam-column joint.
Steel Jacketing Biddah et al. Corrugated steel 6 1/3 scale Passive CTRR, JRR, confinement CL + CAL Grouting inside corrugated
[47] sheet exterior joints scheme, steel sheet steel jacketing provide more
thickness, beam anchorage uniform confining stress
length across concrete members’
sections.
Campione et al. Steel angle with 6 full scale Passive Confinement scheme CL + CAL Special care needed at the
[48] battens exterior joints weld section of the steel
angles and battens.
Yang et al. [50] High strength 6 1/2 scale Active Confinement scheme, LCL + CAL The post-tensioned steel
steel strips interior joints column axial load, strips restrained the crack
volumetric confinement development and eliminate
ratio the damages in the joint core
area.
Garcia et al. [54] Galvanised steel 1 full scale one Active Type of beam bar anchorage Shake Table Improved from near
straps bay one storey collapse prevention to near
frame immediate occupancy
performance level.
Ruiz-Pinilla et al. Steel angle with 20 full scale Passive BRR, confinement scheme, CL + CAL Steel capitals improved the
[57] threated rod interior joints column axial load column bending strength
and joint resistant.
Shafaei et al. Steel angle with 7 1/2 scale Active JRR, beam anchorage CL + CAL Enhanced strength, stiffness,
[58] pre-stressed rod exterior joints length, steel angles size energy dissipation, and
ductility.
Adibi et al. [52] Steel angle with 5 1/2 scale Active Column axial load ratio, LCL + CAL Increase ductility, energy
pre-stressed rod exterior joints confinement scheme, pre- dissipation, and strength for
tensioning level plain bars constructed
beam-column joints.
Marchisella et al. Double fully- 4 full scale Passive Anchorage type CL The presents of slab
[66] fastened-haunch exterior joints enhanced the flexural
strength of beam which
adversely affected the joint
shear and haunch element
anchorage capacity.
Ferrocement Li et al. [69] High strength 6 2/3 scale Passive Column axial load ratio, LCL + CAL The U-shape reinforcement
Laminate mortar exterior joints jacketing reinforcement in jacketing improve the
scheme moment capacity at beam-
column intersection.
Li et al. [70] Various types of 4 2/3 scale Passive Jacketing material type LCL + CAL Anchor bolts can improve
mortar interior joints bonding between
ferrocement and concrete
surface which able to
prevent delamination of
ferrocement.
Shaaban et al. Cement mortar 9 full scale Passive Number of layers, CL + CAL Increased number of
[72] exterior joints orientation angle of wire reinforcement layers in the
mesh, confinement scheme ferrocement laminate
jacketing can improve the
seismic behaviour of beam-
column joint.
Fibre- Allam et al. [84] Various types of 8 full scale Passive FRP types, beam anchorage LCL + CAL The hybrid composite
Reinforced FRP interior joints length connector successfully
Polymer transforms the joint failure
(FRP) into beam failure away from
column face.
(continued on next page)

229
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Table 3 (continued )
Confinement Researcher (s) Confining Number, scale Confinement Parameter (s) Loading Remarks
type materials and joint type type scheme

Mukherjee et al. CFRP and GFRP 13 small scale Passive Beam anchorage length, CL + CAL Increased yield strength,
[87] flange bonding interior joints confinement scheme, displacement stiffness, and
number of layers energy dissipation of
retrofitted beam-column
joint.
Le-Trung et al. Horizontal 8 1/3 scale Passive JRR, confinement scheme, CL Changing joint brittle failure
[89] bonding, CFRP exterior joints number of layers to beam flexural failure.
X-warping

Antonopoulos CFRP strips, 15 2/3 scale Passive Confinement scheme, FRP Seismic load + High axial load increased
et al. [92] horizontal exterior joints type, number of layers, axial load joint shear capacity.
bonding, CFRP external anchorage scheme,
and GFRP U- column axial load, pre-
wrapping damaged level, transverse
beam, JRR
Alsayed et al. CFRP U- 6 1/2 scale Passive Confinement scheme, pre- LCL + CAL Enhanced ultimate load,
[107] wrapping exterior joints damage ductility, initial stiffness,
bond, shear strength, and
reduce stiffness
degradation.
Realfonzo et al. CFRP U-warping 8 full scale Passive Pre-damage, confinement CL + CAL J-04 confinement scheme
[111] exterior joints scheme, BRR, CRR performed better among
other confinement schemes.
Esmaeeli et al. GFRP sheets + 2 full scale Passive Strengthening CL in Degradation in the storey
[112] steel cage corner joints bidirectional shear strength of the
loading + CAL confined beam-column joint
due to adverse effect of
biaxial loading was almost
negligible.
Hadi et al. [113] U-bonding CFRP 4 full scale Passive Number of layers CL Enhance the shear capacity
warping with exterior joints of beam-column joint and
concrete cover the effectiveness of CFRP
confinement.
Mostofinejad CFRP X-bonding 6 1/2 scale Passive Confinement scheme, LCL + CAL EBROG and FRP fans
et al. [99] with EBROG exterior joints anchorage length successfully eliminate
debonding of FRP.
Mostofinejad CFRP X-bonding 6 1/2 scale Passive Confinement scheme, LCL + CAL Increased strength,
et al. [116] with EBROG corner joints anchorage type and length ductility, energy dissipation,
stiffness, and equivalent
hysteresis damping of beam-
column joint.
Garcia et al. U-bonding CFRP 3 full scale Passive Beam anchorage, number of CL + CAL Enhanced strength and
[118] + high strength exterior joints layers ultimate drift of the
concrete retrofitted beam-column
joint.
Singh et al. [90] CFRP X-warping 9 small scale Passive Initial stress level CL Increase axial load reduced
exterior joints stiffness of confined beam-
column joint.
Corte et al. CFRP vertical 1 full scale two- Passive Repairing LCL Transformed the plastic
[123] bonding storey frame collapse mechanism from
column-sway into beam-
sway type.
Garcia et al. CFRP L-bonding 1 full scale Passive Repairing Shake Table Less damage occurred at
[125] frame confined frame.
(Equivalent to
corner joint)
Cosgun et al. X-bonding CFRP 4 full scale Passive Confinement scheme LCL + CAL FRP able to transform the
[91] frames joint shear failure to beam
(Equivalent to failure.
corner joint)
Ha et al. [138] CFRP warping 5 1/2 scale Passive Confinement scheme, type ML/ CL + CAL Minimize flexural cracks
and CFRP bars exterior joints of loading, seismic design and damage of concrete near
beam-column joint
interface.
Akguzel et al. GFRP U and L- 6 2/3 scale Passive JRR, confinement scheme, LCL + axial Establish hierarchy strength
[94] bonding exterior joints, 4 axial load variation load of beam-column joint and
2/3 scale corner able to transform plastic
joints hinge to beam.
Others Al-Salloum et al. TRM 5 1/2 scale Passive Jacketing material type LC + CAL Improved shear strength,
[128] exterior joints ductility, and energy
dissipation.
Esmaeeli et al. SHCC 2 full scale Passive Pre-damage, CRR, jacketing LCL + CAL Four side jacketing
[129] interior joints reinforcement performed better than two
configuration side jacketing.
HPFRC Passive LCL
(continued on next page)

230
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Table 3 (continued )
Confinement Researcher (s) Confining Number, scale Confinement Parameter (s) Loading Remarks
type materials and joint type type scheme

Shannag et al. 5 1/3 scale JRR, beam anchorage, CRR, HPFRC able to reduce
[131] interior joints lap splice extensive cracks at confined
beam-column joint.

Vita et al. [137] SRP 5 medium scale Passive Pre-damage, confinement CL + CAL Increased strength,
exterior joints scheme ductility, and restored early
strength.

Note: BRR-Beam Reinforcement Ratio; CRR-Column Reinforcement Ratio; JRR-Joint Reinforcement Ratio; CTRR-Column Transverse Reinforcement Ratio; BTRR-
Beam Transverse Reinforcement Ratio; CL-Cyclic Load; LCL-Lateral Cyclic Load; VAL-Vary Axial Load; CAL-Constant Axial Load; ML-Monotonic Loading.

reinforcement in the RC or ferrocement laminate, the better the seismic the reinforcement and concrete [145]. Hence, the relationship between
behaviour of the retrofitted beam-column joint [45,72]. The addition of the pre-tensioning force level toward the behaviour of the beam-column
the jacketing reinforcement in the joint region gives higher load capacity joint should be investigated with a rational explanation.
and energy dissipation, but lower ductility as compared with the ret­ As evidenced from past research works, steel jacketing, ferrocement
rofitted specimen without jacketing reinforcement in the joint region laminate jacketing, FRP confinement, and other material confinement
[42]. The higher the strength of the RC and ferrocement laminate schemes find it difficult to employ full confinement on the joint region
jacketing materials used, the better the seismic performance of the ret­ with the presence of transverse beams and slab in practice. Although full
rofitted beam-column joints [70]. confinement schemes provide more enhancement of seismic properties,
For the steel jacketing, the confinement scheme, pre-tensioning practicality becomes an issue to implement in practice. Hence, a new
force, steel angle size, steel straps spacing, and the steel thickness are practical and effective confinement scheme had to be proposed for the
the main affecting parameters. The dimension of haunch elements and existing types of beam-column joints.
steel angles on retrofitted beam-column joints will influence the length The exterior joint is the most popular type of joint studied, while the
of failure or plastic hinges on beams measured from the column face corner joint is the least studied [146]. This is because of the disconti­
[58,65]. The pre-stressing level of the steel jacketing using steel angles nuity of structural geometry and inferior confinement conditions, of
with bolts and nuts is recommended to be at least 50% of the bolt yield which, the exterior beam-column joints are much more vulnerable to
stress [52]. seismic load than the interior beam-column joints [1,20,147–152]. The
For FRP confinement, the confinement scheme corresponding to the corner joint is often considered an exterior joint due to its geometry
number of layers and the type of FRP are the main parameters which will being almost the same as the exterior joint. However, it is not recom­
yield different failure modes and behaviours. The increase in the number mended to represent the corner joint with the exterior joint as the per­
of FRP layers enhances the seismic behaviour [89,95,113] but not pro­ formance of the corner joint is reduced when subjected to bidirectional
portionally to the number of FRP layers [92]. This is due to the FRP loading [94]. Therefore, existing knowledge of confinement on corner
fracture failures at the joint face or debonding of the FRP. It is worth beam-column joints was extremely limited.
noting that, increasing the number of FRP layers in the beam region is
more effective than in the column region. It is important to ensure that
3.2. Testing method
the increase of the FRP layers should not cause early debonding prior to
the development of the FRP strength [106]. For the different forms of
There are two types of testing methods for testing the beam-column
FRP, the FRP sheets performed better compared to the FRP strips.
joints, namely displacement-controlled and yield displacement-
Antonopoulos et al. [92] compared the effectiveness between CFRP and
controlled method. The displacement-controlled testing method is
GFRP, and concluded that GFRP was slightly more effective than CFRP
based on the storey drift ratio of the beam-column joint in terms of
in terms of strength and energy dissipation. The high modulus-low
percentage. In terms of the yield displacement-controlled testing
strength FRP will attract more stresses in the joint region, and as a
method, the two phases of testing are required. Initially, the force-
result, causes earlier strength degradation, and limits the plastic joint
controlled test is conducted until the maximum value corresponding
deformation which results in a low overall ductility of the retrofitted
to 75% of the predicted analytical yield load. The testing is then changed
beam-column joints as compared to the high strength-low modulus FRP
to the displacement-controlled testing method, and reaches the first
[84].
yielding of the beam reinforcement (yield displacement, 1Δy). Subse­
In addition, the experimental testing results [14,88,95] showed that
quently, the testing continues corresponding to the increment of the
the increase of the column axial load from 0.1 Agfc’ to 0.24 Agfc’ does not
yield displacement (2Δy, 3Δy, 4Δy, 5Δy … …) until the specimen’s
influence the behaviour of the retrofitted beam-column joints. Some of
failure. It is noted that without changing to the displacement-controlled
the experimental results [50,132] showed that a column axial load of up
testing method, it is impossible to record the softening branch beyond
to 0.24 Agfc’ is able to enhance the behaviour of the retrofitted speci­
the maximum load-carrying capacity.
mens while showing a slight reduction for the ductility. On the other
The measurement of the storey drift ratio depends on the location of
hand, Li et al. [69] concluded that the high column axial load (0.4 Agfc’)
the loading and is shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. The drift ratio for the beam
has a detrimental effect on the seismic behaviour of the retrofitted beam-
end loading for all types of beam-column joints can be calculated using
column joints. Whereas, the beam-column joint without a column axial
the following equation:
load will cause the column is governed by bending [57]. Therefore, the
column axial load is important in the testing of beam-column joints with Δ Δ1 + Δ2
Drift Ratio = (%) = (%) (1)
and without retrofit. L L
To date, for steel jacketing, the relationships between pre-tensioning For the column end loading, the drift ratio can be calculated using
levels toward the beam-column joint behaviour and failure mode the following equation:
together with its design recommendation are still lacking. The retrofit­
ting using pre-tensioned confinement on other structural elements have Drift Ratio = Δ/H(%) (2)
been studied, and are effective in increasing the seismic properties of the where Δ, Δ1 and Δ2 are the displacement under loading; L is the beam
column [139–142], beam [143,144], and the bond anchorage between length measured from the column’s centreline to the loading point; H is

231
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Fig. 7. Research development of retrofitting beam-column joint using confinement.

232
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

3.3. Testing protocol

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed the

testing protocol using displacement-controlled testing method for
testing drift-sensitive non-structural and structural components. The
quasi-static cyclic loading is used to determine the performance of the
behaviour of the non-structural or structural components, of which its
behaviour is primarily controlled by the application of seismic forces or
seismic-induced displacements [153].
The conceptual diagram of the recommended loading protocol
following FEMA 461 [153] is depicted in Fig. 10. This loading protocol
consists of two repeated cycles at each deformation level with a stepwise
increasing deformation amplitude. The amplitude of the subsequent
cycles increased by 40% against the previous amplitude as given in Eq.
(3). Fig. 10 shows the first amplitude, a1 is Δ0 and the last planned
amplitude, an is Δm. The amplitude Δ0 must be smaller than the ampli­
tude at which the lowest damaged state is observed with at least six
cycles. FEMA 461 [153] recommended that the amplitude Δ0 value
needed to be 0.0015 in terms of the storey drift ratio. The amplitude Δm
is estimated based on the imposed deformation, at which the most se­
Fig. 8. Drift of the exterior and corner joint under cyclic loading (a) on beam vere damage level is expected. The loading cycle should be continued by
(b) on column. using further increments of the amplitude of 0.3Δm instead of using Eq.
(3) if the most severe damage state has not yet occurred at the targeted
value. Generally, the number of increments should be>10 in the loading
protocol.
ai+1 = 1.4ai (3)

where ai is the amplitude of the preceding step; ai+1 is the amplitude

of the subsequent steps.
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) proposed the yield
displacement-controlled method loading protocol. This testing protocol
consists of a minimum of two repeated cycles at each deformation level
and the amplitude increased in yield displacement (φy) as shown in
Fig. 11 [154]. The analytical yield load prediction of the specimen
response needed to be made to determine the initial yield displacement
and carried out in the force-controlled test. This initial yield displace­
Fig. 9. Drift of interior joint under cyclic loading (a) on beam (b) on column. ment is important in establishing the elastic and inelastic ranges of
testing and developing a suitable loading protocol. The yield load can be
the column’s height measured from the support to the loading point. predicted using the material properties, or during the actual monotonic
As mentioned earlier, the loading can be located either at the col­ or cyclic experimental testing associated with significant yielding of the
umn’s end or the beam’s end. When loading at the beam’s tip, the critical section. The number of repeated cycles at each deformation in
consideration of the P-Δ effect on the column’s flexural demand of the the loading protocol is dependent on the judgement of the researcher
beam-column joint will be eliminated. In the experimental study by and the degradation characteristics of the specimen being tested. If the
Adibi et al. [52], there was a relatively large P-Δ effect in the specimen degradation with each cycle is gradual, then three cycles at
load–displacement curves of both the with and without retrofitted
beam-column joints. However, the testing procedure will become too
complicated to consider the P-Δ effect as the horizontal-moving and
always vertical hydraulic jack at the top of the column would be
required in the testing frame [57]. Therefore, the P-Δ effect is often
ignored in most of the testing procedures of the exterior joints, as this
effect is negligible when a low axial force is imposed on the column’s
end, or for specimens with low column slenderness. The difference in the
enhancement of the seismic properties between the existing P-Δ effect,
and without the P-Δ effect is relatively small [52]. On the other hand, for
the interior joint testing procedure, the loading at the beam’s end is
much more complicated because it requires two coordinated actuators.
Therefore, most of the experimental testing applied the loading at the
column’s end for the interior joint. While for the corner joint, the testing
procedure is the same as the exterior joint, but loading in two transverse
beams simultaneously.

Fig. 10. Example of loading protocol according to FEMA 461 [153] (Adapted
from [153]).

233
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

[25,27,28,33,54–57,72,76,77,95,97,102–105,109,111–113,118,122,123,125,129,130,133,137,164,165]
[14,26,32,34,35,41,43,45,50,52,58,69,70,92–94,106,128,138]
Fig. 11. Loading protocol of ACI 374.2R-13 [154] (Adapted from [154]).

[29,42,71,75,87,89,90,119,131,132,135,136]
each deformation is allowed. Whereas, if the specimen degradation with
each cycle is rapid, two cycles at each deformation is sufficient to allow a
wider range of deformation levels before the specimen loses its strength.
It is noted that these testing protocols should not be applied to non-
structural or structural components which are significantly affected by
the dynamic responses. In other words, the speed of using these testing
protocols should be slow, so as to not develop the dynamic inertia effect
and strain rate effects on these materials or components. This high
loading speed will increase the cracks, seismic behaviour, and affect the

Source (s)
failure mode of the specimens [155–158].

3.4. Testing scales level

RC jacketing, steel jacketing, ferrocement, FRP,

RC jacketing, steel jacketing, ferrocement, FRP,

The adoption of different scales of the beam-column joint can be

Steel jacketing, FRP, ferrocement, others

classified into small, medium, and full scale for assessing the effective­
ness of the confinement. Undeniably, the full-scale beam-column joint is
the most preferred for determining the effectiveness of the beam-column
joints. However, due to the availability of resources and the capacity of
testing equipment, some of the research works were conducted in small
Confinement technique

or medium scale beam-column joints. The general size ranges for the
tested beam and column in the existing database are summarised in
Table 4. The length of the columns and beams were determined from the
deflected inflection points, or the contra-flexure of a structure under the
others

others

horizontal lateral load acting on it. This point assumes an occurrence at

the location of the column’s mid-height and beam’s mid-span in the
structure as shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. The beam’s length in Table 4 was
Beam length

400 ~ 1500

850 ~ 1805

measured from the column’s face to the end of the beam.

1325 ~

Table 4 indicates that most of the research works were concentrated

3000

on the full scale tests. Several tests have been conducted in the medium
scale and a very limited number of tests were carried out on small scale
Beam size

beam-column joints. The reason for such little testing done on small-
100 ~

160 ~

250 ~

scale beam-column joints is due to the limited availability of small

550

400

800

diameter ribbed high strength reinforcements (460 MPa and above). The
plain reinforcement bars have a different performance as it is easy to slip
1300 ~ 2500

2000 ~ 4200

during loading, and thus is not applicable to represent the actual

774 ~ 1700
Specimens size range (mm)

structure behaviour.
Different sizes range of structural test.

Column
height

It is recommended to use the full-scale specimen for determining the

structural behaviour as recommended by FEMA 461 [153] and ACI
374.2R-13 [154]. Nevertheless, previous studies [159,160] indicated
100 ~ 250

160 ~ 300

200 ~ 820

that specimen scales 1/4 and above able to represent full-scale beam-
Column

column joints for design, as the variance between them in terms of

size

strength and stiffness were small. The size effect is much more pro­
nounced for joint shear failures than a beam’s flexural failure, while the
failure mode is the same across the various scales of beam-column joints
Scale of test

Small scale

Full scale

[161–163]. Hence, it is worth mentioning that the size effect becomes

Medium
scale
Table 4

insignificant as the failure mode of the retrofitted beam-column joint is

able to transform from joint shear failure into beam flexural failure.

234
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

3.5. Seismic performance of confinement techniques Table 6

Confinement repairing methods and measure variables.
Most of the research works determined the effectiveness of the pro­ Confinement Measured variables (restorability) Reference (s)
posed confinement technique by comparing the results obtained from Technique Variable Increment
the retrofitted beam-column joints with the control (unconfined) beam- Concrete Strength Increased 3.2 [39]
column joint. The maximum increment of the tested results for Jacketing times
strengthening and repairing beam-column joints using different Steel Jacketing Strength Increased [56]
confinement techniques are summarised in Table 5 and Table 6, 35%
Ferrocement Ultimate load Increased [71]
respectively. Different seismic behaviours can be observed in Table 5 laminate Yield load 59%
and Table 6, for example, concrete jacketing and other confinement Increased
materials have a higher increment of strength with a little increment of 72%
ductility as compared with other confinement techniques. Besides, it is FRP Strength At least 100% [33,77,93,97,118,123]
Stiffness At least 50%
clearly shown that the retrofitted beam-column joints using RC jacket­
Ductility At least 60%
ing, steel jacketing, FRP jacketing, and other confinement materials are Energy At least 135%
superior to the ferrocement laminate jacketing. Therefore, future dissipation
development of ferrocement laminate jacketing is recommended to capacity
adopt a higher strength material with an increase in the jacketing Others Ductility Increased [129,135]
Energy 56%
reinforcement ratios or the number of layers to increase its effectiveness.
dissipation Increased
Apart from that, the effectiveness of these confinement techniques capacity 95%
can be determined from the resulted failure mode instead of comparing
the seismic behaviour alone. This is because different parameters and
variables were used for beam-column joint specimens across all research 4. Seismic characteristic of beam-column joint
works making it hard to compare directly. The ability of changes the
failure mode from joint shear failure to beam failure is preferred and Structural seismic characteristics are important for the limit states of
considered effective as this failure mode is the ultimate retrofit solution. serviceability, structural damage control, and collapse mechanism of a
The ferrocement laminate jacket can transform the plastic hinge from structure in a seismic active zone for reducing the downtime, controlling
the column or joint into the beam indicating its effectiveness too. repair costs, and protecting lives, respectively. These three-parameter
In lieu of evaluating the confinement’s effectiveness by comparing it limit states match well with the seismic characteristics such as stiff­
with the unconfined deficient beam-column joint, it was suggested that ness, strength, and ductility. By virtue of the fact that, these seismic
to compare it with the seismically detailed beam-column joint characteristics are the function of the deformation capacity that is well-
[55,76,78,106,138,166]. Accordingly, the degree of effectiveness could integrated with the deformation-based design and the multi-limit state
be clearly indicated and easily compared across the different types of design concepts, which is referred to as performance-based design
retrofitted beam-column joints. concept [167]. Therefore, the seismic parameters for beam-column
In conclusion, the selection decisions on the suitability for imple­ joint, including load-carrying capacity, stiffness, ductility, energy
menting a retrofitting technique on beam-column joints should be dissipation capacity, equivalent viscous damping, joint shear distortion,
considered for both the targeted seismic characteristic results and the and the damage index should be accounted for. In general, most of the
failure modes. Subsequently, the confinement scheme is selected ac­ confinement techniques are able to enhance the seismic behaviours of
cording to the geometric and current structural conditions for deciding deficient beam-column joints, including the stiffness, strength, ductility,
whether to drill the slab or transverse beams in order to ensure the and the energy dissipation capacity.
continuity of the confinement. It is advisable to minimize the disruption
of the existing structural members as much as possible during retrofit­
ting to ensure its serviceability unless otherwise design intention.

Table 5
Confinement strengthening methods and measure variables.
Confinement Technique Measured variables Reference (s)

Variables Increment

Concrete Jacketing Strength At least 145% [39,41–43]

Stiffness At least 135%
Energy dissipation capacity At least 197%
Ductility Increased 87%
Steel Jacketing Strength At least 67% [57,58]
Ductility Increased 352%
Energy dissipation capacity Increased 341%
Stiffness Increased 120%
Equivalent hysteresis damping Increased 120%
Ferrocement laminate Strength At least 16% [69,70]
Ductility Increased 34%
Energy dissipation capacity Increased 30%
Joint shear strength Increased 15%
FRP Strength At least 157% [25,27,29,35,84,87,89,92,93,97,109,111–113,138]
Stiffness At least 70%
Ductility At least 87%
Energy dissipation capacity At least 200%
Others Strength Increased 3 times [131,132,136]
Ductility At least 28%
Stiffness Increased 3.3 times
Energy dissipation capacity At least 3.1 times

235
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

4.1. Stiffness column joint.

The displacement ductility index, µΔ is defined as the ratio of the
During a seismic event, the vibration of the structure will induce ultimate displacement, Δu to yield displacement, Δy of the
inertial forces in the horizontal direction. Thus, the horizontal stiffness load–displacement envelope curve, as Eq. (5) below depicts:
of the structure is an important factor to ensure its serviceability during
μΔ = Δu /Δy (5)
low or moderate seismic events. The low stiffness (high deformability)
structure will reduce the structural functionality by causing damages to However, this Eq. (5) does not represent the actual maximum de­
non-structural components and discomfort the human who lives in the formations of the structure under cyclic responses. Therefore, Elnashai
structure [167]. et al. [167] proposed two definitions for determining the displacement
Stiffness can be defined as the ability of a structural member or a ductility index for the structure under cyclic loading.
structure to resist deformations when subjected to load. During the in­ (i) Ductility factor based on cyclic response:
elastic behaviour of a structure under reversal cyclic loading, the ⃒ +⃒ ⃒ − ⃒
⃒Δ ⃒ + ⃒Δ ⃒
degradation in the stiffness can progressively occur. The stiffness μ = ⃒⃒ u ⃒⃒ ⃒⃒ u ⃒⃒ (6)
degradation is usually attributed to a concrete’s non-linear deformation, ⃒Δ+ −
y ⃒ + ⃒Δy ⃒
concrete cracking, yielding of longitudinal bars, and steel reinforcement
bonding-slippage. where Δ+ -
u and Δu are the positive and negative ultimate displacement,
To measure the stiffness degradation, the secant stiffness, Ks in each respectively; Δy and Δ-y are the yield displacement in the positive and
+

cycle of the hysteresis curves needs to be estimated. The Ks is determined negative direction of the load–displacement envelope curve,
by using the slope of the peak-to-peak line in the positive and negative respectively.
direction of each hysteresis curve corresponding to the displacement as The definition of yield displacement has various methods due to the
shown in Fig. 12. The experimental relationship between the mean value fact that the load–displacement envelope curves did not have an obvious
of the stiffness for the ith cycle (Ks,i) is estimated by using the following or a well-defined yield point. To date, there are seven methods available
ratio [56,58,99,111,136,137]: to determine the yield displacement of the load–displacement envelope
⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⃒ + ⃒ ⃒ − ⃒
⃒ curve.
⃒Fmax,i ⃒ + ⃒Fmax,i ⃒ a) The yield displacement is obtained from the first yield of beam
Ks,i = (4)
|Δ+ −
i | + |Δi | longitudinal reinforcement which is near to the joint region
[89,97,100,107,116,128].
where F+max and F-max are the forces in the push and pull directions,
b) It is also defined as the line extending from the first crack load
respectively; Δ+ and Δ- are the corresponding displacement in a hys­
point on the load–displacement curve to the intersection of 80% load
teresis curve in the push and pull direction, respectively. The stiffness of
capacity of the envelope curve [42]. However, this method is difficult to
each cycle is normalised with respect to the first cycle stiffness, and
apply as the confinement materials covered the beam-column joint, and
therefore, provides a measure of the stiffness degradation.
hence, the crack of the beam becomes difficult to be observed.
c) This method required to draw a line from the origin and inter­
4.2. Displacement ductility secting with the 50% of the maximum load, 0.5Pmax of the curve. Then,
the yield displacement is determined between the line intersection with
Ductility is defined as the ability to undergo large inelastic defor­ the horizontal line drawn at 80% of the maximum load capacity, 0.8Pmax
mation with only a slight reduction in its ultimate lateral load-carrying as shown in Fig. 13 [131,132,135].
capacity prior to the collapse of a lateral load resisting system. It also d) Based on the method of reduced stiffness equivalent elasto-plastic
includes the capacity to absorb seismic energy via a hysteretic behaviour yield curve. This method is almost similar to the above method (c) but
with acceptable stiffness and strength reduction [167]. Generally, the intersection point of the secant stiffness is at 0.75Pmax and intersects
ductility is quantified as a normalised displacement or a rotation index with the maximum horizontal peak load line, Pmax as depicted in Fig. 14
depending on the assessment of global or local behaviour, respectively. [58]. The corresponding displacement of the intersection is defined as
However, through an extensive literature review, the displacement the yield displacement.
ductility index is used to determine the ductility of the tested beam- e) Based on the energy balance method by producing an equivalent
elasto-plastic energy absorption curve. A secant line is drawn from the

Fig. 13. Yield displacement, Δy determined from intersection between the line
(pass through the origin and the 0.5Pmax of the curve) to the 0.8Pmax horizontal
Fig. 12. Definition of secant stiffness, Ks,i (Adapted from [56,70,91,129,136]). line (Adapted from [132,135]).

236
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Fig. 14. Reduced stiffness equivalent elasto-plastic yield curve (Adapted

Fig. 16. Based on general yielding method (Adapted from [50,70]).
from [63]).

origin and intersects the peak load horizontal line. By adjusting the
secant line so that the area A1 equals the area A2, the yield displacement
is determined as shown in Fig. 15 [63,70,113]. After equalising the area
A1 and the area A2, the yield displacement is determined from the
intersection between the final adjusted secant line and the peak load
horizontal line.
f) Based on the general yielding method as illustrated in Fig. 16. An
elastic line is drawn from the origin to Point H of peak load and a vertical
line is drawn to intersect with the curve (Point I). Another line drawn
from the origin intersects with Point I and the peak load horizontal line
(Point A). The corresponding Point A displacement is defined as the
yield displacement [50,70].
g) Produce a bi-linear curve assumed an equivalent elasto-perfect
plastic relationship as shown in Fig. 17. This method was proposed by
Paulay et al. [20] and Priestley et al. [168]. This bi-linear curve is meant
to equalises the areas under this curve to the load–displacement enve­
lope curve. In other words, energy absorption capacities are the same
Fig. 17. Equivalent bi-linear curve to determine the displacement ductility
between the load–displacement envelope curve and the bi-linear curve
(Adapted from [56,129]).
[56,99,112,116,117,129,130,169].
The definition of ultimate displacement is rather straightforward. It
can be defined as the first occurrence of a drop of the post-peak response shown in Fig. 18.
of the load–displacement envelope curve, buckling of longitudinal (ii) Ductility factor based on total hysteretic energy:
reinforcement, or fracturing of longitudinal or transverse reinforcement. μ = ED,i /Ey (7)
Usually, the ranges for the drop of peak response between 10%
[89,97,100,107,128–130], 15% [70,99,112,113,116,117], and 20% where Ey is the elastic energy (strain energy) at yield; ED,i is the cumu­
[42,50,58,63,94,100,107,128,131,132,135,169] are acceptable as lative hysteretic energy dissipated of all the hysteresis curves.
1
Ey = P y Δ y (8)
2

Fig. 15. Based on Equivalent Elasto-Plastic Energy Absorption (Adapted Fig. 18. Definition of ultimate displacement, Δu (Adapted from
from [70]). [50,52,58,63,96,129,130,132,135,170]).

237
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

where Py and Δy are the load and displacement at first yield, 4.4. Equivalent viscous damping
respectively.
As discussed in the section above, damping is one of the important
4.3. Energy dissipation forms of energy dissipation mechanism too. Damping is a non-
dimensional energy-based parameter that can be defined as the reduc­
Energy dissipation can be defined as the amount of energy that can tion of structural system response motions during a seismic event [172].
be dissipated before the structure loses its stability and collapses during There are three types of damping, i.e., hysteretic, friction, and viscous
a seismic event. Therefore, the energy dissipation of the beam-column damping. Hysteretic damping is too complex to be expressed in simple
joint is one of the significant parameters for assessing the performance forms, therefore, equivalent viscous damping is always chosen in the
of a structure during a seismic event. There are four types of energy dynamic analysis of a structure, which is proportional to velocity.
dissipation in a structure namely, kinematic energy, equivalent viscous Friction (Coulomb) damping results from the interfacial mechanisms
damping, recoverable elastic strain energy, and irrecoverable inelastic between the structural members and the beam-column joints of the
(hysteretic) energy [33,47,87,136,167]. To design a seismic resistance structure, and between the structural and the non-structural elements
structure economically, the major portion of the seismic energy should such as walls and infills [172]. It is independent of velocity and
be dissipated either through inelastic deformations or through equiva­ displacement, which mainly depends on the materials and the type of
lent viscous damping. This can be achieved by designing the structure construction. Therefore, in assessing the behaviour of beam-column
with medium or high ductility (strong column-weak beam design). joints under cyclic load, the equivalent viscous damping ratio is
Hence, ductility is directly related to energy dissipation, that is, a large commonly used.
amount of seismic energy can be dissipated by designing the structure The equivalent viscous damping can be calculated as the ratio of
with high ductility. energy dissipated for one complete load–displacement curve, ED to 2π
Energy dissipation capacity of an RC structural element is achieved times the total strain energy, ES measured at the peak of an equivalent
through energy dissipated by the steel reinforcement, energy dissipated linear elastic system [173] as shown in Fig. 20. In general, the equivalent
by friction along existing cracks in concrete, and energy dissipated viscous damping ratio increased with displacements or drift angles.
during the formation of new cracks [56,58,77,106,128,171]. The latter 1 ED 1 EDi
implied that the opening and closing of concrete cracks can contribute ξeq (%) = × 100 = × 100 (10)
2 π ES 2π Pmi Δmi
significantly to the energy dissipation capacity, as well [129]. The en­
ergy dissipation is calculated as the enclosed area (EDi) under the hys­ where EDi, Pmi, and Δmi represent the dissipated energy, average peak
teretic load–displacement curve for a loading cycle as shown in Fig. 19. load, and displacement for cycle i, respectively [98].
The cumulative energy dissipation of the beam-column joint is ob­
tained by summing the areas calculated for each loading cycle as Eq. (9) 4.5. Joint shear distortion
below [95]. This is an indication of the maximum capacity of a beam-
column joint to be stressed until failure. Some research works found When horizontal loading is imposed on a structure, the beam-column
that the increased column axial load contributed to the energy dissipa­ joints will experience distortion as shown in Fig. 21. This distortion is
tion capacity of beam-column joint [92,95,120]. This is due to the in­ known as joint shear distortion. In general, joint shear distortion will
crease in an axial force delaying the slippage of the beam longitudinal increase with the increase of the imposed loading, indicating an increase
reinforcements in the joint region, and subsequently improving the of the distress in the joint region. To measure the average shear distor­
amount of dissipated energy. tion of the joint core, two linear variable displacement transducers
∑N [ ∮ ] (LVDTs) were placed diagonally on the joint panel. The joint shear
Cumulative Energy Dissipation = (F)dΔ (9) distortion, γj formulars are summarised in Table 7 and the definition of
i=1
cycle i the parameters can refer to Fig. 21.

where N is the number of response cycle; F is the applied load corre­

4.6. Damage index
sponding to the displacement, Δ.
Stiffness, ductility, energy dissipation, and equivalent viscous
damping ratio are discussed qualitatively to reveal the seismic charac­

Fig. 19. Energy dissipation capacity in ith cycle, EDi (Adapted from Fig. 20. Definition of equivalent viscous damping with parameters (Adapted
[56,58,62,63,91,98,129,136]). from [50,58,63,98]).

238
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

Table 8
Classification of different damage levels of a structure by Park and Ang’s damage
model (Adapted from [175]).
Damage Damage Damage Measure
Level Index

I D < 0.1 No damage; localised minor cracking

II 0.1 ≤ D < Minor damage; light cracking throughout
0.25
III 0.25 ≤ D < Moderate damage; severe cracking localised
0.4 spalling
IV 0.4 ≤ D < 1.0 Severe damage; crushing of concrete,
reinforcement exposed
V D ≥ 1.0 Loss of element load resistance

∫
maximum displacement under the monotonic loading; dE is the cu­
mulative dissipated energy; Qy is the yielding strength; β is the non-
negative parameter representing the effect of cyclic loading on struc­
tural damage. The value of parameter β for control beam-column joint
(joint shear failure) is taken as 0.25 [58,69,70,99,175], whereas 0.15 for
the confined beam-column joint (flexural failure) [58,69,70,98,99,176].
∫
The values of δM, Qy, and dE can be determined from the experi­
mental testing results of the beam-column joints, whereas the value of δu
can be adopted from the displacement ductility method (Section 4.2),
Fig. 21. Definition of joint shear distortion of joint core (Adapted which the deformations contributed from beam, columns, and joint. The
from [62,69,100]). ultimate drift or displacement can be calculated using the empirical
formula in Eq. (12) according to EN 1998–3 [68]. If the calculated ul­
teristics of the beam-column joints. It is also important to quantitatively timate displacement, δu had a higher value than the experimentally
evaluate the damage level of the structural responses under seismic observed value, the latter is used.
loading (refer to Table 8), and thus, damage index is employed. Most ( ′ )0.225 ( )0.35
1 max(0.01, ω ) LV fyw
studies utilised the damage index model proposed by Park et al. [174]. δu = 0.016 • 0.3v fcm 25αρs fcm (1.25)100ρd
γ el max(0.01, ω) h
This model is a combining model of the inelastic damage accumulated
(12)
by reversal cyclic loading and the dissipated energy of the structure. This
model has been adopted in the beam-column joint analysis because of its where γel = 1.5 for primary seismic element, and 1.0 for secondary
simplicity, and it has been calibrated with data from various damaged seismic elements; v = N/(b h fcm) is the column axial load ratio; b and h
structures during the past seismic events [35]. The damage index pre­ are the width and height of the section, respectively; ω and ω’ are the
sents as Eq. (11): mechanical reinforcement ratio of the tension and compression longi­
∫
δM β tudinal reinforcement, respectively; fcm is the concrete compressive
D= + dE (11)
δu Qy δu strength; LV = M/V is the shear span index; ρs = (b0h0/bs) is the ratio of
the transverse steel reinforcement; b0 and h0 are the width and height of
where δM is the maximum displacement in each hysteresis cycle; δu is the the confined concrete core, respectively; s is the spacing of stirrups; fyw is

Table 7
Joint shear distortion equations in the existing literature.
Equation Parameters Definition Reference (s)

δj − δj
(
1
′ ) δj, δj’ = change in diagonal LVDT
[100,107]
γj = γ1 + γ 2 =
2Lj
tanαj +
tanαj (+for lengthening and – for
shortening)
Lj = original diagonal LVDT
length
αj = angle of the diagonals to the
horizontal
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
lh = horizontal joint length
l2h + l2v [62,69,89]
γj = γ1 + γ 2 = (δ1 − δ2 ) lv = vertical joint length
2lh lv
δ1, δ2 = change in diagonal LVDT
(+for lengthening and – for
shortening)
π (L2 + L2 − L2 ) Lv = final vertical LVDT length
v
γ = − + cos− 1 h d [76]
2 2Lv Lh Lh = final horizontal LVDT
length
Ld = final diagonal LVDT length
δ δ
′
δ, δ’ = change in diagonal LVDT
γj = γ1 + γ 2 = + [164]
hj b j length
hj = vertical joint length
bj = horizontal joint length
⎤
[ h = vertical joint length
2h [95]
γj = tan − 1 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⎥
⎦ d1, d2 = final diagonal LVDT length
d21 − h2 − d22 − h2

239
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

the yield stress of the transverse reinforcement (stirrups); ρd is the di­ selecting the suitable retrofit techniques to be implemented for the
agonal reinforcement ratio; α is the confinement effectiveness factor: retrofitting works.
( )( )( ∑ 2) i) The efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed retrofitting tech­
s s bi
α = 1− 1− 1− (13) niques were measured by compared with the control (unconfined)
2b0 2h0 6b0 h0 beam-column joint on the seismic properties, such as strength,
stiffness, ductility, energy dissipation capacity, equivalent viscous
where bi denotes the centreline spacing of the longitudinal bars laterally
damping, joint shear distortion, and damage index.
restrained by a transverse reinforcement corner.

5. Summary and conclusion

5.1. Future research recommendations
This study examined and discussed several types of the confinement
It is imperative to highlight the research works needed in this field
techniques proposed to retrofit deficient beam-column joints. These
for industrial acceptance. Future research works are suggested as
techniques were evaluated to determine the causes of the limited
follows:
applicability in practices. Based on this study, the confinement tech­
niques can be categorised into 5 groups, i.e., RC jacketing, steel jack­
5.1.1. Design tests
eting, ferrocement laminate jacketing, FRP confinement, and other
confinement materials. Based on the review presented, several conclu­
i) More experimental studies on the new confinement scheme are
sions can be made as follows:
needed, especially for the steel jacketing, ferrocement laminate
jacketing, FRP confinement, and other confinement materials due
a) The RC jacketing is enlarging the structural members’ cross-section
to the presence of the transverse beams and slabs. The analysis
with the addition of concrete and reinforcements which increases
and design that corresponding to the newly proposed confine­
the retrofitted structure’s weight. The steel jacketing is the only
ment scheme should be proposed together.
technique that enables both the passive and active confinement on
ii) Study on the retrofit strategies or confinement scheme that en­
retrofitting beam-column joints. The ferrocement laminate jacketing
sures the relocation of the plastic hinge from joint into beam.
provides a thin mortar with wire mesh around the beam-column
iii) The rational explanation on the relationship of the steel jacket­
joints which is thinner and lighter than RC jacketing but less effec­
ing’s pre-tensioning force and the sizes to the relocation of plastic
tive. Whilst the FRP confinement with high flexibility enables
hinges from the joint region into the beam region needs further
different confinement schemes on different types and shapes of
research.
beam-column joints. The early debonding issues can be solved by
using the additional anchorage systems. Lastly, the other proposed
5.1.2. Feasibility tests
materials such as SHCC, HCP, HPFRC, UHP-HFRC, UHPFRC, and SRP
potentially can be used as an alternative retrofitting material to
i) Testing on the reliability and feasibility of the confinement
retrofit beam-column joint due to its effectiveness.
scheme in practice with less disturbance on the existing structural
b) All the confinement techniques showed their effectiveness to retrofit
members.
beam-column joints in terms of improved seismic characteristics and
ii) Investigate the reinforcement layers and higher strength mate­
able to transform the failure mechanism of beam-column joints into a
rials for ferrocement laminate jacketing to ensure its
preferred beam failure.
effectiveness.
c) Most of the proposed confinement schemes encounter difficulty
iii) The study on determining the optimum confinement length ex­
applying to the joint region in practice due to the existence of the
tends toward the beam region for ensuring the beam failure mode
transverse beams and slabs. In general, the analysis and design
after retrofitting beam-column joints. This is because several
procedures were proposed along with the proposed confinement
arbitrary confinement lengths had been proposed do not always
scheme. Consequently, the usability of the existing analysis and
ensure the beam failure mode.
design procedures in practice is limited too. Hence, as new practical
iv) Experimental testing on the proposed retrofit techniques to
confinement schemes are proposed, the analysis and the design
retrofit the deficient column lap-splice and the deficient beam
procedures respective to the new confinement scheme needed to be
anchorage length problems of beam-column joints.
reformulated.
d) Past studies had covered a wide range of steel jacketing confinement
The above is presented based on the authors’ observation and
parameters. However, the lack of analysis and design on the pre-
knowledge. More studies are required to address these gaps before these
tensioning force level and the size of the steel angles needed
confinement techniques can be used confidently in practice.
further investigation and elaboration.
e) The interior and corner beam-column joint need more research
Declaration of Competing Interest
works on it as the exterior beam-column joint is the most popular
type of joint being studied.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
f) Most of the exterior beam-column joints testing methods ignore the
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
P-Δ effect as a low axial force is imposed at the column tip, or
the work reported in this paper.
specimen with low column slenderness.
g) Three different scales of the specimen have normally been carried
Acknowledgement
out, termed as small, medium, and full scale. Most of the previous
studies have focused on full and medium scale tests due to the lack of
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support for this research
small ribbed reinforcement. The scale effect is negligible for the
from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia under the Fundamental
retrofitted beam-column joints in which the failure mode is ductile
Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), Registration Proposal no.: [FRGS/1/
beam plastic hinge.
2019/TK01/UTM/02/14] for the financial support. Financial supports
h) Targeted seismic characteristics and the failure mode of the retro­
received from the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Grant no: [Q.
fitted beam-column joints should be considered together while
J130000.2651.16 J31] and [Q.J130000.2451.09G87] are highly
appreciated.

240
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

References [32] Tsonos AG. Lateral load response of strengthened reinforced concrete beam-to-
column joints. ACI Struct J 1999;96:46–56.
[33] Ghobarah A, Said A. Seismic Rehabilitation of Beam-Column Joints Using FRP
[1] Zhao B, Taucer F, Rossetto T. Field investigation on the performance of building
Laminates. J Earthquake Eng 2001;05:113–29.
structures during the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Eng Struct
[34] Tsonos AG. Seismic repair of exterior R/C beam-to-column joints using two-sided
2009;31:1707–23.
and three-sided jackets. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2002;13:17–34.
[2] Mulas MG, Perotti F, Coronelli D, Martinelli L, Paolucci R. The partial collapse of
[35] Karayannis CG, Sirkelis GM. Strengthening and rehabilitation of RC
“Casa dello Studente” during L’Aquila 2009 earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 2013;34:
beam–column joints using carbon-FRP jacketing and epoxy resin injection.
566–84.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37:769–90.
[3] Ates S, Kahya V, Yurdakul M, Adanur S. Damages on reinforced concrete
[36] Hadi MNS. Rehabilitating destructed reinforced concrete T connections by steel
buildings due to consecutive earthquakes in Van. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2013;
straps. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:851–8.
53:109–18.
[37] Chen W, Shou W, Qiao Z, Cui S. Seismic performance of non-ductile RC frames
[4] Ruiz-Pinilla JG, Adam JM, Pérez-Cárcel R, Yuste J, Moragues JJ. Learning from
strengthened with CFRP. Compos Struct 2019;221:110870.
RC building structures damaged by the earthquake in Lorca, Spain, in 2011. Eng
[38] Sabu DJ, Pajgade P. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building.
Fail Anal 2016;68:76–86.
Int J Sci Eng Res 2012;3:1–8.
[5] Kam WY, Pampanin S, Elwood K. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete
[39] Alcocer SM, Jirsa JO. Strength of reinforced concrete frame connections
buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttleton) earthquake. Bulletin of the
rehabilitated by jacketing. ACI Struct J 1993;90:249–61.
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2011;44:239–78.
[40] CEB-FIB 24. Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings.
[6] Sharma K, Deng L, Noguez CC. Field investigation on the performance of building
CEB-FIB Bulletin no 24. Lausanne: CEB-FIP (Comite Euro-International du Beton);
structures during the April 25, 2015. Gorkha earthquake in Nepal Engineering
2003.
Structures 2016;121:61–74.
[41] Tsonos A-D-G. Performance enhancement of R/C building columns and
[7] Alih SC, Vafaei M. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings and wooden
beam–column joints through shotcrete jacketing. Eng Struct 2010;32:726–40.
structures during the 2015 Mw 6.0 Sabah earthquake in Malaysia. Eng Fail Anal
[42] Bindhu KR, Mohana N, Sivakumar S. New Reinforcement Detailing for Concrete
2019;102:351–68.
Jacketing of Nonductile Exterior Beam-Column Joints. J Perform Constr Facil
[8] Park RL, Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John Wiley
2016;30:04014192.
& Sons; 1975.
[43] Kalogeropoulos GI, Tsonos A-D-G, Konstandinidis D, Tsetines S. Pre-earthquake
[9] Beres A, El-Borgi S, White RN, Gergely P. Experimental results of repaired and
and post-earthquake retrofitting of poorly detailed exterior RC beam-to-column
retrofitted beam-column joint tests in lightly reinforced concrete frame buildings.
joints. Eng Struct 2016;109:1–15.
Technical report NCEER-92-0025, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
[44] Hakuto S, Park R, Hitoshi T. Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-
Research. State University of New York at Buffalo; 1992.
Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details. ACI Struct J 2000;97.
[10] Bracci JM, Reinhorn AM. Mander JB. Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete
[45] Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE, Sirkelis GM. Local retrofit of exterior RC
Buildings Designed for Gravity Loads: Performance of Structural Model.
beam–column joints using thin RC jackets—An experimental study. Earthquake
Structural Journal; 1995. p. 92.
Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37:727–46.
[11] Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H. Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-
[46] Chin C-L, Ma C-K, Tan J-Y, Ong C-B, Awang AZ, Omar W. Review on development
Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details. Structural Journal 2000;97.
of external steel-confined concrete. Constr Build Mater 2019;211:919–31.
[12] Calvi GM, Magenes G, Pampanin S. Relevance of Beam-Column Joint Damage and
[47] Biddah A, Ghobarah A, Aziz TS. Upgrading of Nonductile Reinforced Concrete
Collapse in Rc Frame Assessment. J Earthquake Eng 2002;6:75–100.
Frame Connections. J Struct Eng 1997;123:1001–10.
[13] Pantelides CP, Clyde C, Reaveley LD. Performance-Based Evaluation of
[48] Campione G, Cavaleri L, Papia M. Flexural response of external R.C.
Reinforced Concrete Building Exterior Joints for Seismic Excitation. Earthquake
beam–column joints externally strengthened with steel cages. Eng Struct 2015;
Spectra 2002;18:449–80.
104:51–64.
[14] Andrea Prota ANGM, Edoardo C. Selective Upgrade of Underdesigned Reinforced
[49] Ghobarah A, Aziz TS, Biddah A. Seismic rehabilitation of reinforced concrete
Concrete Beam-Column Joints Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymers.
beam-column connections. Earthquake Spectra 1996;12:761–80.
Structural Journal 2004;101:699–707.
[50] Yang Y, Xue Y, Wang N, Yu Y. Experimental and numerical study on seismic
[15] Asce. 41–17. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. American
performance of deficient interior RC joints retrofitted with prestressed high-
Society of Civil Engineers 2017.
strength steel strips. Eng Struct 2019;190:306–18.
[16] ACI 369.1M-17. Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
[51] Yurdakul Ö, Avşar Ö. Strengthening of substandard reinforced concrete beam-
Existing Concrete Building (ACI 369.1M-17) and Commentary. Farmington Hills,
column joints by external post-tension rods. Eng Struct 2016;107:9–22.
MI :American Concrete Institute: ACI Committee 369; 2017.
[52] Adibi M, Marefat MS, Esmaeily A, Arani KK, Esmaeily A. Seismic retrofit of
[17] FEMA 273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal
external concrete beam-column joints reinforced by plain bars using steel angles
Emergency Management Agency. 1997.
prestressed by cross ties. Eng Struct 2017;148:813–28.
[18] Kalogeropoulos GI, Tsonos A-D-G. Improvement of the cyclic response of RC
[53] Kanchanadevi A, Ramanjaneyulu K. Non-Invasive Hybrid Retrofit for Seismic
columns with inadequate lap splices-Experimental and analytical investigation.
Damage Mitigation of Gravity Load Designed Exterior Beam-Column Sub-
Earthquakes and Structures 2019;16:279–93.
Assemblage. J Earthquake Eng 2019;25:1590–615.
[19] Tsonos A-D, Kalogeropoulos G, Iakovidis P, Bezas M-Z, Koumtzis M. Seismic
[54] Garcia R, Hajirasouliha I, Guadagnini M, Helal Y, Jemaa Y, Pilakoutas K, et al.
Performance of RC Beam-Column Joints Designed According to Older and
Full-Scale Shaking Table Tests on a Substandard RC Building Repaired and
Modern Codes: An Attempt to Reduce Conventional Reinforcement Using Steel
Strengthened with Post-Tensioned Metal Straps. J Earthquake Eng 2014;18:
Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Fibers 2021;9:45.
187–213.
[20] Paulay T, Priestley MN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
[55] Santarsiero G, Masi A. Seismic performance of RC beam–column joints retrofitted
buildings. 1992.
with steel dissipation jackets. Eng Struct 2015;85:95–106.
[21] EN 1998-1. Design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 1: General rules,
[56] Torabi A, Maheri MR. Seismic Repair and Retrofit of RC Beam-Column Joints
seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1: 2004. Brussels: CEN (Comité
Using Stiffened Steel Plates. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology,
Européen de Normalisation). ; 2004. p. 229.
Transactions of Civil Engineering 2017;41:13–26.
[22] ACI 318-19. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19)
[57] Ruiz-Pinilla JG, Pallarés FJ, Gimenez E, Calderón PA. Experimental tests on
and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). Farmington Hills, MI :American Concrete
retrofitted RC beam-column joints underdesigned to seismic loads. General
Institute: ACI Committee 318; 2019.
approach Engineering Structures 2014;59:702–14.
[23] Nzs 3101:2006.. Concrete structures standards, Part 1 - The design of concrete
[58] Shafaei J, Hosseini A, Marefat MS. Seismic retrofit of external RC beam–column
structures. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Standard; 2006.
joints by joint enlargement using prestressed steel angles. Eng Struct 2014;81:
[24] EN 1992. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General ruels and
265–88.
rules for buildings. EN 1992-1: 2005. Brussels: CEN (Comité Européen de
[59] Maddah A, Golafshar A, Saghafi MH. 3D RC beam–column joints retrofitted by
Normalisation). ; 2005.
joint enlargement using steel angles and post-tensioned bolts. Eng Struct 2020;
[25] Ghobarah A, El-Amoury T. Seismic Rehabilitation of Deficient Exterior Concrete
220:110975.
Frame Joints. J Compos Constr 2005;9:408–16.
[60] Khodaei M, Saghafi MH, Golafshar A. Seismic retrofit of exterior beam-column
[26] Pampanin S, Bolognini D, Pavese A. Performance-Based Seismic Retrofit Strategy
joints using steel angles connected by PT bars. Eng Struct 2021;236:112111.
for Existing Reinforced Concrete Frame Systems Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
[61] Arzeytoon A, Hosseini A, Goudarzi A. Seismic Rehabilitation of Exterior RC Beam-
Composites. J Compos Constr 2007;11:211–26.
Column Joints Using Steel Plates, Angles, and Posttensioning Rods. J Perform
[27] Pantelides CP, Okahashi Y, Reaveley LD. Seismic Rehabilitation of Reinforced
Constr Facil 2016;30:04014200.
Concrete Frame Interior Beam-Column Joints with FRP Composites. J Compos
[62] Dang C-T, Dinh N-H. Experimental Study on Structural Performance of RC
Constr 2008;12:435–45.
Exterior Beam-Column Joints Retrofitted by Steel Jacketing and Haunch Element
[28] Ilki A, Bedirhanoglu I, Kumbasar N. Behavior of FRP-Retrofitted Joints Built with
under Cyclic Loading Simulating Earthquake Excitation. Advances in Civil
Plain Bars and Low-Strength Concrete. J Compos Constr 2011;15:312–26.
Engineering 2017;2017:1–11.
[29] Zhu J-T, Wang X-L, Xu Z-D, Weng C-H. Experimental study on seismic behavior of
[63] Truong GT, Dinh NH, Kim J-C, Choi K-K. Seismic Performance of Exterior RC
RC frames strengthened with CFRP sheets. Compos Struct 2011;93:1595–603.
Beam-Column Joints Retrofitted using Various Retrofit Solutions. International
[30] Santarsiero G, Masi A. Seismic Upgrading of RC Wide Beam-Column Joints Using
Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 2017;11:415–33.
Steel Jackets. Buildings 2020;10:203.
[64] Zabihi A. Seismic Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Using
[31] Masi A, Santarsiero G, Mossucca A, Nigro D. Viable seismic strengthening
Diagonal Haunch. Swinburne University of Technology; 2020 [Doctoral
solutions for RC wide beam-column joints. Applied Engineering, Materials and
dissertation]:.
Mechanics. p. 229-37.

241
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

[65] Zabihi A, Tsang H-H, Gad EF, Wilson JL. Design procedure for seismic retrofit of [97] Hadi MNS, Tran TM. Retrofitting nonseismically detailed exterior beam–column
RC beam-column joint using single diagonal haunch. Structural Engineering and joints using concrete covers together with CFRP jacket. Constr Build Mater 2014;
Mechanics, An Int’l Journal 2019;71:341–50. 63:161–73.
[66] Marchisella A, Muciaccia G, Sharma A, Eligehausen R. Experimental investigation [98] Zamani Beydokhti E, Shariatmadar H. Strengthening and rehabilitation of
of 3d RC exterior joint retrofitted with fully-fastened-haunch-retrofit-solution. exterior RC beam–column joints using carbon-FRP jacketing. Mater Struct 2016;
Eng Struct 2021;239:112206. 49:5067–83.
[67] Sharma A, Reddy GR, Eligehausen R, Genesio G, Pampanin S. Seismic Response of [99] Mostofinejad D, Akhlaghi A. Experimental Investigation of the Efficacy of EBROG
Reinforced Concrete Frames with Haunch Retrofit Solution. ACI Struct J 2014; Method in Seismic Rehabilitation of Deficient Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
111. Joints Using CFRP Sheets. J Compos Constr 2017;21:04016116.
[68] EN 1998-3. Design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 3: Assessment and [100] Al-Salloum YA, Almusallam TH. Seismic Response of Interior RC Beam-Column
retrofitting of building. EN 1998-3: 2005. Brussels: CEN (Comité Européen de Joints Upgraded with FRP Sheets. I: Experimental Study. J Compos Constr 2007;
Normalisation); 2005. p. 89. 11:575–89.
[69] Li B, Lam ES-s, Wu B, Wang Y-y. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete exterior [101] Murat Engindeniz LFK, Abdul-Hamid Z. Performance of an RC Corner Beam-
beam-column joints strengthened by ferrocement composites. Earthquakes and Column Joint Severely Damaged Under Bidirectional Loading and Rehabilitated
Structures. 2015;9:233-56. With FRP Composites. Special Publication 2008;258:19–36.
[70] Li B, Lam ES-s, Wu B, Wang Y-y. Experimental investigation on reinforced [102] Vecchio CD, Ludovico MD, Balsamo A, Prota A, Manfredi G, Dolce M.
concrete interior beam–column joints rehabilitated by ferrocement jackets. Experimental Investigation of Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints Retrofitted with
Engineering Structures. 2013;56:897-909. FRP Systems. J Compos Constr 2014;18:04014002.
[71] Bansal PP, Kumar M, Dar MA. Retrofitting of exterior RC beam–column joints [103] Li B, Kai Q. Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Wide Column
using ferrocement jackets. Earthquakes and Structures 2016;10:313–28. Joints Repaired Using FRP. J Compos Constr 2011;15:327–38.
[72] Shaaban IG, Seoud OA. Experimental behavior of full-scale exterior beam-column [104] Elsouri AM, Harajli MH. Repair and FRP Strengthening of Earthquake-Damaged
space joints retrofitted by ferrocement layers under cyclic loading. Case Stud RC Shallow Beam-Column Joints. Adv Struct Eng 2015;18:237–49.
Constr Mater 2018;8:61–78. [105] Li B, Chua HYG. Seismic Performance of Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beam-
[73] Fema. 356. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Column Joints Using FRP Composites. J Struct Eng 2009;135:1177–90.
Buildings. FEMA356. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington DC: [106] Al-Salloum YA, Almusallam TH, Alsayed SH, Siddiqui NA. Seismic Behavior of As-
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers); 2000. Built, ACI-Complying, and CFRP-Repaired Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints.
[74] Vatani-Oskouei A. Repairing of seismically damaged RC exterior beam—column J Compos Constr 2011;15:522–34.
connection using CFRP. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010;29:3257–74. [107] Alsayed SH, Al-Salloum YA, Almusallam TH, Siddiqui NA. Seismic Response of
[75] Eslami A, Ronagh HR. Experimental Investigation of an Appropriate Anchorage FRP-Upgraded Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints. J Compos Constr 2010;14:
System for Flange-Bonded Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymers in Retrofitted RC 195–208.
Beam-Column Joints. J Compos Constr 2014;18:04013056. [108] Alsayed SH, Almusallam TH, Al-Salloum YA, Siddiqui NA. Seismic Rehabilitation
[76] Yurdakul Ö, Avşar Ö. Structural repairing of damaged reinforced concrete beam- of Corner RC Beam-Column Joints Using CFRP Composites. J Compos Constr
column assemblies with CFRPs. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2015;54: 2010;14:681–92.
521–43. [109] Lee WT, Chiou YJ, Shih MH. Reinforced concrete beam–column joint
[77] El-Amoury T, Ghobarah A. Seismic rehabilitation of beam–column joint using strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymer. Compos Struct 2010;92:
GFRP sheets. Eng Struct 2002;24:1397–407. 48–60.
[78] Sasmal S, Novák B, Ramanjaneyulu K, Srinivas V, Roehm C, Lakshmanan N, et al. [110] Sezen H. Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints
Seismic retrofitting of damaged exterior beam–column joints using fibre with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites. J Compos Constr 2012;16:499–506.
reinforced plastic composite–steel plate combined technique. Struct Infrastruct [111] Realfonzo R, Napoli A, Pinilla JGR. Cyclic behavior of RC beam-column joints
Eng 2013;9:116–29. strengthened with FRP systems. Constr Build Mater 2014;54:282–97.
[79] Agarwal P, Gupta A, Angadi RG. Effect of FRP wrapping on axial behavior of [112] Esmaeeli E, Danesh F, Tee KF, Eshghi S. A combination of GFRP sheets and steel
concrete and cyclic behavior of external RC beam column joints. KSCE J Civ Eng cage for seismic strengthening of shear-deficient corner RC beam-column joints.
2014;18:566–73. Compos Struct 2017;159:206–19.
[80] Granata PJ, Parvin A. An experimental study on Kevlar strengthening of [113] Hadi MNS, Tran TM. Seismic rehabilitation of reinforced concrete beam–column
beam–column connections. Compos Struct 2001;53:163–71. joints by bonding with concrete covers and wrapping with FRP composites. Mater
[81] Zhoudao LU, Lei SU, Jiangtao YU. Experimental Study on the Seismic Behaviour Struct 2016;49:467–85.
of Strengthened Concrete Column-Beam Joints by Simulated Earthquake. [114] Sattarifar AR, Sharbatdar MK, Dalvand A. RC connections strengthened with FRP
Procedia Eng 2011;14:1871–8. sheets using grooves on the surface. International Journal of Civil Engineering
[82] Li J, Bakoss SL, Samali B, Ye L. Reinforcement of concrete beam–column 2015;13:432–43.
connections with hybrid FRP sheet. Compos Struct 1999;47:805–12. [115] Mostofinejad D, Akhlaghi A. Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
[83] Li J, Samali B, Ye L, Bakoss S. Behaviour of concrete beam–column connections Beam- Column Joints Using Innovative Anchorage System. ACI Struct J 2017;114.
reinforced with hybrid FRP sheet. Compos Struct 2002;57:357–65. [116] Mostofinejad D, Hajrasouliha M. 3D beam–column corner joints retrofitted with
[84] Allam K, Mosallam AS, Salama MA. Experimental evaluation of seismic X-shaped FRP sheets attached via the EBROG technique. Eng Struct 2019;183:
performance of interior RC beam-column joints strengthened with FRP 987–98.
composites. Eng Struct 2019;196:109308. [117] Ilia E, Mostofinejad D. Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete strong beam–weak
[85] Mosallam AS. Strength and ductility of reinforced concrete moment frame column joints using EBROG method combined with CFRP anchorage system. Eng
connections strengthened with quasi-isotropic laminates. Compos B Eng 2000;31: Struct 2019;194:300–19.
481–97. [118] Garcia R, Jemaa Y, Helal Y, Guadagnini M, Pilakoutas K. Seismic Strengthening of
[86] Yang Z, Liu Y, Li J. Study of Seismic Behavior of RC Beam-Column Joints Severely Damaged Beam-Column RC Joints Using CFRP. J Compos Constr 2014;
Strengthened by Sprayed FRP. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2018;2018:10. 18:04013048.
[87] Mukherjee A, Joshi M. FRPC reinforced concrete beam-column joints under cyclic [119] Attari N, Amziane S, Chemrouk M. Efficiency of Beam-Column Joint Strengthened
excitation. Compos Struct 2005;70:185–99. by FRP Laminates. Adv Compos Mater 2010;19:171–83.
[88] Ghobarah A, Said A. Shear strengthening of beam-column joints. Eng Struct 2002; [120] Li B, Kai Q, Xue W. Effects of Eccentricity on the Seismic Rehabilitation
24:881–8. Performance of Nonseismically Detailed Interior Beamwide Column Joints.
[89] Le-Trung K, Lee K, Lee J, Lee DH, Woo S. Experimental study of RC beam–column J Compos Constr 2012;16:507–19.
joints strengthened using CFRP composites. Compos B Eng 2010;41:76–85. [121] Sasmal S, Ramanjaneyulu K, Novák B, Srinivas V, Saravana Kumar K,
[90] Singh V, Bansal PP, Kumar M, Kaushik SK. Experimental studies on strength and Korkowski C, et al. Seismic retrofitting of nonductile beam-column sub-
ductility of CFRP jacketed reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Constr Build assemblage using FRP wrapping and steel plate jacketing. Constr Build Mater
Mater 2014;55:194–201. 2011;25:175–82.
[91] Cosgun C, Cömert M, Demir C, İlki A. Seismic Retrofit of Joints of a Full-Scale 3D [122] Balsamo A, Colombo A, Manfredi G, Negro P, Prota A. Seismic behavior of a full-
Reinforced Concrete Frame with FRP Composites. J Compos Constr 2019;23: scale RC frame repaired using CFRP laminates. Eng Struct 2005;27:769–80.
04019004. [123] Corte GD, Barecchia E, Mazzolani FM. Seismic Upgrading of RC Buildings by FRP:
[92] Antonopoulos CP, Triantafillou TC. Experimental Investigation of FRP- Full-Scale Tests of a Real Structure. J Mater Civ Eng 2006;18:659–69.
Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints. J Compos Constr 2003;7:39–49. [124] Ludovico MD, Manfredi G, Mola E, Negro P, Prota A. Seismic Behavior of a Full-
[93] Tsonos AG. Effectiveness of CFRP-jackets and RC-jackets in post-earthquake and Scale RC Structure Retrofitted Using GFRP Laminates. J Struct Eng 2008;134:
pre-earthquake retrofitting of beam–column subassemblages. Eng Struct 2008;30: 810–21.
777–93. [125] Garcia R, Hajirasouliha I, Pilakoutas K. Seismic behaviour of deficient RC frames
[94] Akguzel U, Pampanin S. Effects of Variation of Axial Load and Bidirectional strengthened with CFRP composites. Eng Struct 2010;32:3075–85.
Loading on Seismic Performance of GFRP Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete [126] Gallo PQ, Akguzel U, Pampanin S, Carr A, Bonelli P. Shake table tests of non-
Exterior Beam-Column Joints. J Compos Constr 2010;14:94–104. ductile RC frames retrofitted with GFRP laminates in beam column joints and
[95] Parvin A, Altay S, Yalcin C, Kaya O. CFRP Rehabilitation of Concrete Frame Joints selective weakening in floor slabs. In Proc., 2012 NZSEE Conf. Wellington, New
with Inadequate Shear and Anchorage Details. J Compos Constr 2010;14:72–82. Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
[96] Mahini SS, Ronagh HR. Web-bonded FRPs for relocation of plastic hinges away [127] Akguzel U, Quintana Gallo P, Pampanin S. Seismic strengthening of a non-ductile
from the column face in exterior RC joints. Compos Struct 2011;93:2460–72. RC frame structure using GFRP sheets. Auckland, New Zealand: 9th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering (PCEE 2011): Building an Earthquake-
Resilient Society.

242
C.-B. Ong et al. Structures 42 (2022) 221–243

[128] Al-Salloum YA, Siddiqui NA, Elsanadedy HM, Abadel AA, Aqel MA. Textile- [152] Gur T, Pay A, Ramirez JA, Sozen MA, Johnson AM, Irfanoglu A, et al.
Reinforced Mortar versus FRP as Strengthening Material for Seismically Deficient Performance of School Buildings in Turkey During the 1999 Düzce and the 2003
RC Beam-Column Joints. J Compos Constr 2011;15:920–33. Bingöl Earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 2009;25:239–56.
[129] Esmaeeli E, Barros JAO, Sena-Cruz J, Fasan L, Li Prizzi FR, Melo J, et al. [153] Fema. 461. Interim protocols for determining seismic performance characteristics
Retrofitting of interior RC beam–column joints using CFRP strengthened SHCC: of structural and nonstructural components through laboratory testing. Federal
Cast-in-place solution. Compos Struct 2015;122:456–67. Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2007.
[130] Esmaeeli E, Barros JAO, Sena-Cruz J, Varum H, Melo J. Assessment of the [154] ACI 374.2R-13. Guide for Testing Reinforced Concrete Structural Elements under
efficiency of prefabricated hybrid composite plates (HCPs) for retrofitting of Slowly Applied Simulated Seismic Load. Farmington Hills, Michigan.
damaged interior RC beam–column joints. Compos Struct 2015;119:24–37. [155] Gutierrez E, Magonette G, Verzeletti G. Experimental studies of loading rate
[131] Shannag MJ, Barakat S, Abdul-Kareem M. Cyclic behavior of HPFRC-repaired effects on reinforced concrete columns. J Eng Mech 1993;119:887–904.
reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints. Mater Struct 2002;35:348–56. [156] Xiao S, Cao W, Pan H. Experiment of reinforced concrete beams at different
[132] Shannag MJ, Alhassan MA. Seismic Upgrade of Interior Beam-Column loading rates. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2012.
Subassemblages with High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Jackets. [157] Adhikary SD, Li B, Fujikake K. Effects of High Loading Rate on Reinforced
Structural Journal 2005;102. Concrete Beams (with Appendix). ACI Structural Journal.111.
[133] Beschi C, Meda A, Riva P. Column and Joint Retrofitting with High Performance [158] Sharma A, Ožbolt J. Influence of high loading rates on behavior of reinforced
Fiber Reinforced Concrete Jacketing. J Earthquake Eng 2011;15:989–1014. concrete beams with different aspect ratios – A numerical study. Eng Struct 2014;
[134] di Prisco M, Plizzari G, Vandewalle L. Fibre reinforced concrete: new design 79:297–308.
perspectives. Mater Struct 2009;42:1261–81. [159] Philleo PR, Abrams DP. Scale relationships of concrete beam-column joints.
[135] Sharma R, Bansal PP. Behavior of RC exterior beam column joint retrofitted using Boulder: University of Colorado; 1984.
UHP-HFRC. Constr Build Mater 2019;195:376–89. [160] Daniel PA. Scale Relations for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints.
[136] Khan MI, Al-Osta MA, Ahmad S, Rahman MK. Seismic behavior of beam-column Structural Journal 1987;84.
joints strengthened with ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete. [161] Marthong C, Dutta A, Deb SK. Study on size effect of RC and rehabilitated exterior
Compos Struct 2018;200:103–19. beam-column connections under cyclic loading. European Journal of
[137] Vita A, Napoli A, Realfonzo R. Full Scale Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Environmental and Civil Engineering 2016;20:586–610.
Joints Strengthened with Steel Reinforced Polymer Systems. Front Mater 2017;4. [162] Barbhuiya S, Choudhury AM. A study on the size effect of RC beam–column
[138] Ha G-J, Cho C-G, Kang H-W, Feo L. Seismic improvement of RC beam–column connections under cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2015;95:1–7.
joints using hexagonal CFRP bars combined with CFRP sheets. Compos Struct [163] Jin L, Miao L, Han J, Du X, Wei N, Li D. Size effect tests on shear failure of interior
2013;95:464–70. RC beam-to-column joints under monotonic and cyclic loadings. Eng Struct 2018;
[139] Rousakis TC, Tourtouras IS. RC columns of square section – Passive and active 175:591–604.
confinement with composite ropes. Compos B Eng 2014;58:573–81. [164] Ma C, Wang D, Wang Z. Seismic retrofitting of full-scale RC interior beam-
[140] Teng JG, Xiao QG, Yu T, Lam L. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of column-slab subassemblies with CFRP wraps. Compos Struct 2017;159:397–409.
reinforced concrete columns with FRP and/or steel confinement. Eng Struct 2015; [165] Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Seismic strengthening of an
97:15–28. under-designed RC structure with FRP. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37:
[141] Harajli MH, Hantouche EG. Effect of Active versus Passive Confinement on 141–62.
Seismic Response of Wide RC Columns with Lap Splices. J Struct Eng 2015;141: [166] Sasmal S, Lakshmanan N, Ramanjaneyulu K, Iyer NR, Novák B, Srinivas V, et al.
04014221. Development of upgradation schemes for gravity load designed beam–column
[142] Ma C-K, Awang AZ, Garcia R, Omar W, Pilakoutas K, Azimi M. Nominal Curvature sub-assemblage under cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:3625–38.
Design of Circular HSC Columns Confined with Post-tensioned Steel Straps. [167] Elnashai AS, Di Sarno L. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering: Wiley Online.
Structures 2016;7:25–32. Library 2008.
[143] Ma C-K, Awang AZ, Garcia R, Omar W, Pilakoutas K. Behaviour of over-reinforced [168] Priestley MJN, Park R. Strength and Ductility of Concrete Bridge Columns Under
high-strength concrete beams confined with post-tensioned steel straps – an Seismic Loading. ACI Struct J 1987;84.
experimental investigation. Structural Concrete 2016;17:768–77. [169] Yurdakul Ö, Tunaboyu O, Avşar Ö. Retrofit of non-seismically designed beam-
[144] Shahverdi M, Czaderski C, Motavalli M. Iron-based shape memory alloys for column joints by post-tensioned superelastic shape memory alloy bars. Bull
prestressed near-surface mounted strengthening of reinforced concrete beams. Earthq Eng 2018.
Constr Build Mater 2016;112:28–38. [170] Mahini SS, Ronagh HR. Strength and ductility of FRP web-bonded RC beams for
[145] Sulaiman MF, Ma C-K, Apandi NM, Chin S, Awang AZ, Mansur SA, et al. A Review the assessment of retrofitted beam–column joints. Compos Struct 2010;92:
on Bond and Anchorage of Confined High-strength Concrete. Structures 2017;11: 1325–32.
97–109. [171] Wang G-L, Dai J-G, Bai Y-L. Seismic retrofit of exterior RC beam-column joints
[146] Pohoryles DA, Melo J, Rossetto T, Varum H, Bisby L. Seismic Retrofit Schemes with bonded CFRP reinforcement: An experimental study. Compos Struct 2019;
with FRP for Deficient RC Beam-Column Joints: State-of-the-Art Review. 224:111018.
J Compos Constr 2019;23:03119001. [172] Stevenson JD. Structural damping values as a function of dynamic response stress
[147] Moehle JP, Mahin SA. Observations on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete and deformation levels. Nucl Eng Des 1980;60:211–37.
Buildings During Earthquakes. ACI Symposium. Publication 1991;127. [173] Alcocer SM. Reinforced concrete frame connections rehabilitated by jacketing.
[148] Miller DK. Lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake. Eng Struct 1998;20: PMFSEL Report No 91-1. University of Texas, Austin, Texas: Ferguson Struct.
249–60. Engrg. Lab.; 1991.
[149] Sezen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ, Mosalam KM. Performance of reinforced [174] Park YJ, Ang AHS. Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete.
concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and J Struct Eng 1985;111:722–39.
seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng Struct 2003;25:103–14. [175] Altoontash A. Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of
[150] Doǧangün A. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, reinforced concrete beam-column joints. California: Stanford university Stanford;
2003 Bingöl Earthquake in Turkey. Eng Struct 2004;26:841–56. 2004.
[151] Ghobarah A, Saatcioglu M, Nistor I. The impact of the 26 December 2004 [176] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R. The use of damage functionals in earthquake
earthquake and tsunami on structures and infrastructure. Eng Struct 2006;28: engineering: A comparison between different methods. Earthquake Eng Struct
312–26. Dyn 1993;22:855–68.

243