ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 97-S4

TECHNICAL PAPER

Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Interior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance
by Shyh-Jiann Hwang and Hung-Jen Lee
A softened strut-and-tie model has previously been developed for determining the shear strengths of exterior beam-column joints for seismic resistance. This existing model originates from the strut-andtie concept and satisfies equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitutive laws of cracked reinforced concrete. This paper examines the applicability of the previously proposed model to interior beamcolumn joints. The calculated shear capacities of 56 interior joints were compared with the experimental results, and good agreement was obtained.
Keywords: beams (supports); compressive strength; reinforced concrete; shear properties; strength.

INTRODUCTION Beam-column joints are critical because they ensure continuity of a structure and transfer forces from one element to another. The flow of forces within beam-column joints may be interrupted if the shear strengths of the joints are not adequately provided. Understanding the strength behavior of a beam-column joint under seismic actions and being able to model it analytically are important aims in the achievement of safe reinforced concrete structures. A rational model for determining the shear strengths of exterior beam-column joints for seismic resistance has been proposed in a companion paper.1 The proposed model, called the softened strut-and-tie model, is based on the concept of struts and ties and derived to satisfy equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitutive laws of cracked reinforced concrete. This paper represents a continuation of the previously mentioned research. The applicability of the proposed model1 to interior beam-column joints is explored. Also, the precision of the analytical model is further gaged by the available experimental data. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The current design provisions on the beam-column joints of the ACI 318-95 Code2 are based empirically on results of tests. Consequently, they must be restricted to joints whose properties closely match those of the tested joints. This leads to many design limitations, and little guidance is provided for the design of joints that may not meet these limitations. A good physical model is needed to predict the shear strengths of joints under seismic attack. It becomes an imperative necessity to the seismically insufficient joints that typically fall outside of the limited range of those considered in the ACI 318-95 Code.2 This paper presents a rational model that is capable of predicting the shear strengths of interior beam-column joints for seismic resistance. ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

Fig. 1External actions and internal shears at interior joint. SOFTENED STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL Before introducing the analytical model, the forces around and within a joint should be identified. Figure 1 shows the earthquake-induced forces acting on an interior joint. The horizontal joint shear force can be calculated as V jh = T b 1 + C b 2 V c 1 (1)

where Vjh is the horizontal joint shear force; Tb1 is the tensile force resulting from the steel of the beam at the right of the joint; C b 2 is the compressive force resulting from the compression zone of the beam at the left of the joint; and Vc1 is the horizontal column shear above the joint. Actually the tensile force T b 1 is not necessarily coincided with the compressive force C b 2 , and Fig. 1 is only a simplified version on this matter. Considering the dimensions of beam and column tensioncompression couples (Fig. 1), the intensity of the vertical joint shear force Vjv can be approximated h b V jv ------ V jh h c (2)

ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, January-February 2000. Received June 18, 1998, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2000, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-December 2000 ACI Structural Journal if received by July 1, 2000.

35

ACI member Shyh-Jiann Hwang is Professor of Construction Engineering at the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. He received his MS and PhD from the University of California at Berkeley. His research interests include seismic behavior of beam-column joints, shear strengths of reinforced concrete members, and bond and anchorage. Hung-Jen Lee is a PhD candidate in construction engineering at the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. His research interests include behavior and design of RC beam-column joints.

The proposed model consists of the diagonal, horizontal, and vertical mechanisms as shown in Fig. 2. The diagonal mechanism (Fig. 2(a)) is a single diagonal compression strut whose angle of inclination is defined as
1 h b = tan ------- h c

(3)

where hb and hc are the distances between the extreme longitudinal reinforcement in the beams and columns, respectively. It is also assumed that the direction of the diagonal concrete strut coincides with the direction of the principal compressive stress of the concrete. The effective area of the diagonal strut Astr is defined as Astr = as bs (4)

where as is the depth of the diagonal strut, and bs is the width of the diagonal strut, which can be taken as the effective width of the joint as per the ACI 318-95 Code.2 According to the recommendation of Zhang and Jirsa,3 the depth of a strut without a beam hinge occurring at the face of the column can be determined as as = ab + a c
2 2

(5)

where ab and ac are the depths of the compression zones in the beam and column, respectively. For joints where a beam hinge occurs at the face of the column, the spalling of the compression zone in the beam is frequently observed. Since the crushing of concrete produces a small compression zone in the beam, the neglect of ab in computing as is assumed. Therefore, the depth of the strut can be estimated as3 as = ac (6)

Following the suggestion of Paulay and Priestley,4 the depth of the flexural compression zone of the elastic column can be approximated by N a c = 0.25 + 0.85 ----------- h c A g f c (7)

Fig. 2Joint shear-resisting mechanisms. where hb and hc are the internal lever arms in the beams and columns, respectively. The column axial load coupled with moment will increase the vertical joint shear force Vjv and decrease the internal lever arm in the column hc . Macromodel Statically indeterminate strut-and-tie load paths are proposed to model the force transferring within the joint.1 36

where N is the axial force acting on the column; f c is the compressive strength of a standard concrete cylinder; Ag is the gross area of the column section; and hc is the thickness of the column in the direction of loading. The horizontal mechanism (Fig. 2(b)) is composed of one horizontal tie and two flat struts. The joint hoops constitute the horizontal tie. It is roughly assumed that the joint hoops within the center half of the core are considered fully effective when computing the cross area of the horizontal tie, and that the other joint core hoops are included at a rate of 50%. Figure 3 explains how to determine the area of the horizontal tie. The proposed vertical mechanism (Fig. 2(c)) includes one vertical tie and two steep struts. The vertical tie is made up of the intermediate column bars. The way to estimate the cross area of the vertical tie is also presented in Fig. 3. The proposed model is a statically indeterminate system. The yielding of ties does not stop the development of the ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

Fig. 3Determination of areas of horizontal and vertical ties. shear strength of the joint5 because the inherent diagonal strut is capable of transferring shear force alone. Failure is defined as the crushing of concrete in the compression strut adjacent to the nodal zone (Fig. 1). Therefore, the shear strength of the joint is calculated as the concrete compressive stress on the nodal zone as it reaches its capacity. The boundary of the nodal zone coincides with the diagonal strut boundary, but the concrete bearing force to be examined is the summation of compressions from the diagonal, flat, and steep struts (Fig. 2). Equilibrium Figure 4 shows the proposed strut-and-tie model for an interior beam-column joint. The horizontal joint shear to be resisted by the strut-and-tie model is found as V jh = D cos + F h + F v cot (8)

Fig. 4Strut-and-tie model at maximum response.

Schfer,7 the statically indeterminate tie-force Fh in the reduced mechanisms (Fig. 5(a)) is assumed to be F h = h V jh 2 tan 1 - for h = -------------------3 0 h 1 (10)

where D is the compression force in the diagonal strut; Fh is the tension force in the horizontal tie; and Fv is the tension force in the vertical tie. Similarly, the vertical joint force is expressed as (Fig. 4) V jv = D sin + F h tan + F v (9)

where h is the fraction of horizontal shear transferred by the horizontal tie in the absence of the vertical tie. Equation (10) is a linear interpolation of Fh between two borderline cases, namely, that the entire horizontal shear is carried by the indirect load-path (Fh = Vjh) for tan1(2) and that the entire horizontal shear is transferred by the direct compression strut (Fh = 0) for tan1(1/2). The vertical shear (or increment) is resisted only by the diagonal and vertical mechanisms in the absence or yielding of the horizontal tie. Figure 5(b) presents the fraction of the vertical shear assigned to the vertical tie6,7 in the previous case F v = v V jv 2 cot 1 - for v = ---------------------3 0 v 1 (11)

It is of interest to note that the ratio of Vjv/Vjh = tan is always maintained for any combination of the selected mechanisms. There are three load-paths in the joint region, and the ratios to divide the joint shear forces among the resisting mechanisms should be determined. If the intermediate column bars do not exist or the yielding of the vertical tie occurs, the horizontal shear (or increment) is then resisted only by the diagonal and horizontal mechanisms as shown in Fig. 5(a). According to Schfer et al.6 and Jennewein and ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

where v is the fraction of vertical shear carried by the vertical tie in the absence of the horizontal tie. 37

Rd 1 - V jh D = ----------- ---------------------------------cos ( R d + R h + R v ) Rh - V jh F h = ---------------------------------( Rd + Rh + Rv ) Rv 1 - V jh - ---------------------------------F v = ---------cot ( R d + R h + R v )

(17)

(18)

(19)

To check whether the joint strength is being reached, the bearing pressure on the nodal zone (Fig. 2) where the compressive forces from the diagonal, flat, and steep struts meet at a node (Fig. 4) should be estimated. Since the inclined joint shear is mainly transferred in the d-direction (Fig. 1), the maximum compressive stress d,max acting on the nodal zone is assumed to govern the failure. With some algebraic efforts, the value of d,max is given by
1 h b cos tan ---------- 2 h 1 c - Fh = -------- D ----------------------------------------------------A str 1 h b cos tan ---------- 2 h c

d, max

(20)

Fig. 5Forces in struts and ties.

Based on the previous finding of Schfer et al.6 and Jennewein and Schfer,7 it is further assumed that the ratios of the horizontal shear Vjh assigned among the three mechanisms are defined as D cos : F h : F v cot = R d : R h : R v (12)

1 2 h b - cos tan ---------- h c - Fv ---------------------------------------------------- 2 h 1 b sin tan ---------- h c

Constitutive laws The ascending branch of the softened stress-strain curve of the cracked concrete, as proposed by Zhang and Hsu,8 is as follows d = f c d d 2 - ------2 ------ o o for d -------1 o (21)

Also, the same fractions of the vertical shear Vjv are shared among the three mechanisms D sin : F h tan : F v = R d : R h : R v (13)

where Rd , Rh , and Rv are the ratios of the joint shears resisted by the diagonal, horizontal, and vertical mechanisms, respectively. The values of these ratios are defined as ( 1 h ) ( 1 v ) R d = -----------------------------------1 h v h ( 1 v ) R h = ---------------------1 h v v ( 1 h ) R v = ---------------------1 h v (14)

0.9 1 5.8 - -------------------------- ------------------------- = -------1 + 400 r f c 1 + 400 r

(22)

(15)

where d is the average principal stress of concrete in the ddirection; is the softening coefficient; f c is the compressive strength of a standard concrete cylinder in units of MPa; d and r are the average principal strains in the d- and r- directions, respectively; and o is the concrete cylinder strain corresponding to the cylinder strength f c that can be defined approximately as9 f c 20 - for o = 0.002 + 0.001 --------------- 80 20 fc 100 MPa By recognizing Eq. (21), the shear strength of the joint is assumed to be reached whenever the compressive stress and ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

(23)

(16)

It is carefully scaled such that the sum of Rd, Rh, and Rv equals unity. To facilitate the calculation, Eq. (12) can be restated as 38

strain of the concrete diagonal strut arrive at the following situations d = fc d = o (24) (25)

If the stress-strain relationships of bare mild steel for the joint hoops and the intermediate column bars are assumed to be elastic-perfectly-plastic, then f s = E s s for s < y f s = f y for s y (26) (27)

where Es is the elastic modulus of the steel bars; and fs and s are stress and strain in the mild steel, respectively. fs becomes fh or fv, s becomes h or v, and fy becomes fyh or fyv when applied to joint hoop reinforcement or intermediate column bars, respectively. Neglecting the tension stiffening effect due to concrete, the relationship between forces and strains of the tension ties can be constructed. F h = A th E s h F yh F v = A tv E s v F yv (28) (29)

where Ath and Atv are the areas of the horizontal and vertical ties, respectively; and Fyh and Fyv are the yielding forces of the horizontal and vertical ties, respectively. Compatibility Accepting the predetermined angle of inclination of the principal compressive stress , the principal tensile strain r can be related to the horizontal strain h, the vertical strain v , and the magnitude of the principal compressive strain d based on the two-dimensional compatibility condition10 Fig. 6Flow chart showing efficient algorithm. r + d = h + v (30) constraining the cracks. The Type-YV analysis treats the case that the yielding of the vertical tie precedes the reaching of the concrete strength, whereas the horizontal tie is still in the elastic range. The scope of the Type YHV includes the case where the yielding of the horizontal tie occurs first, then the vertical tie yields, and finally the concrete strut arrives at its capacity. The yielding sequence of the ties for Type YVH is in reverse. More details of these analyses can be found in Reference 1. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION The proposed model was used to calculate the joint shear strengths of 56 test specimens (Table 1) described in the literature. Twenty of these joints were tested in the United States,12,15,18,21,23 ten in New Zealand,5,11,13,14,16,17 and 26 in Japan.19,20,22,24-27 In selecting these test data, a number of screens were applied. They were as follows: 1. Specimens with floor slab, transverse beam, lightweight concrete, or eccentricity between column and beam axes were omitted; and 39

This equality states that the sum of the normal strains in the perpendicular direction is a constant. Equation (30) is used to estimate the value of the principal tensile strain r , which is directly related to the extent of softening of the concrete as per Eq. (22). The treatment of Eq. (30) is different from that which had been used in Reference 1, and Eq. (30) is a simple but effective way for solution procedures. Solution procedures A set of solution procedures is proposed, as shown in the flow charts in Fig. 6 and 7. The solution procedure is categorized into five types of analyses (Type E, YH, YV, YHV, and YVH) for varied yielding conditions of the ties. The case of Type E means that the concrete strut reaches its strength while the horizontal and vertical ties remain in the elastic range. The Type-YH analysis deals with the case that the yielding of the horizontal tie precedes the reaching of the concrete strength but the vertical tie is still effective in ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

Table 1Experimental verification

Authors (1) Blakeley et al.11 Specimens (2) Interior I II III IV V VI VII XII XIII XIV Unit 1 Unit 3 BI B2 BC3 BC4 B11 B12 B13 Interior Unit 1 X1 X2 X3 J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 C1 C2 C3 LIJ3 LIJ4 No. 2 No. 4 No. 5 No. 7 BCJ2 BCJ3 BCJ4 B8-HH HL MH LH MHUB A1 B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A3 A4 56 fc , MPa (3) 48.5 26.2 41.8 26.6 36.1 35.9 36.8 37.2 35.2 41.3 33.2 42.9 39.3 27.9 31.5 31.1 31.5 35.9 34.6 31.4 34.0 41.3 34.3 33.6 31.0 25.6 24.0 24.0 25.7 28.7 28.7 25.6 25.6 25.6 31.1 34.3 32.9 32.9 28.5 28.5 30.3 27.4 27.2 25.6 27.4 28.1 26.9 26.1 30.6 24.5 24.5 24.5 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 fyh, MPa (4) 297 409 409 409 409 409 409 409 423 409 409 275 275 346 398 448 448 336 336 336 305 320 352 352 352 367 367 367 367 367 367 324 324 324 400 400 330 330 330 330 414 414 414 1320 1320 377 377 377 320 235 235 235 291 291 291 291 fyv, MPa (5) 289 457 449 402 438 449 449 438 449 449 438 280 318 427 427 490 490 423 422 398 412 473 414 414 345 374 374 374 374 374 374 422 422 422 470 470 348 348 348 348 448 448 448 404 404 404 404 404 540 351 351 371 644 387 644 644 N/Ag fc (6) 0.03 0.39 0.25 0.39 0.29 0.04 0.47 0.46 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.44 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.04 0.26 0.24 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.23 Vjh,test kN (7) 1722 1090 1597 1228 1454 1530 1646 1468 1948 1557 1539 521 437 1217 1213 793 874 965 982 1015 966 1001 840 853 629 516 536 576 503 491 336 436 432 410 724 789 553 623 570 605 358 394 462 272 277 275 274 239 689 570 570 515 412 380 412 421 Failure mode degree (8) (9) F1 J3 J3 J3 J3 J3 J2 J3 J2 J3 J3 J1 J1 J2 J1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 J2 J1 J2 J1 J1 J1 J1 J1 J1 J1 F1 F1 F1 F1 J1 F1 J1 J1 F1 F1 J2 J1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F2 J3 J1 J2 J1 J3 J3 J3 J3 Average COV 54 44 45 46 59 45 45 59 46 45 59 45 47 55 55 42 42 55 55 55 49 50 51 51 51 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 33 34 45 45 45 45 52 45 40 50 50 50 50 50 46 46 46 45 51 51 51 51 48 0.11 Astr , cm2 (10) 1285 980 804 973 903 593 979 110 755 808 932 188 188 617 1302 1038 1030 596 599 976 559 415 388 389 386 284 288 288 400 277 277 284 284 284 392 392 271 271 278 278 161 194 226 342 335 332 337 340 355 286 286 286 223 223 269 269 Ath , mm2 (11) 9088 516 516 516 1032 516 516 1032 2000 1290 2580 1533 1799 1520 398 633 633 3096 3096 2580 1608 2413 881 881 881 128 256 640 128 128 256 128 512 512 284 284 64 64 640 64 190 190 190 400 400 280 168 280 168 168 168 420 112 112 112 336 Atv , mm2 (12) 4914 1548 3276 6036 1290 3276 3276 1290 3276 3276 1290 402 452 1810 1810 1136 1136 1548 1548 1548 628 905 1020 1020 568 762 762 762 762 0 284 762 762 762 0 0 762 762 762 762 774 774 516 762 762 762 762 0 1194 1194 1194 762 762 762 762 762 Calculation Vjh,calc , Vjh,test/ Vjh,calc kN type (13) (14) (15) E YH YH YH YH YH YH YH E E E E E E YH E E E E E E E E E E YH E E YH YVH E YH E E YV YV YH YH E YH YH E E E E YH YH YVH YH YH YH E YH YH YH YH 2669 1142 1476 1180 1138 971 1582 1375 1315 1562 1309 391 365 759 1405 1444 1451 977 949 1328 841 799 592 583 529 330 328 353 455 308 349 334 364 364 554 598 396 396 398 356 205 252 323 380 394 387 365 371 486 331 331 348 353 353 421 441 Average COV 0.65 0.95 1.08 1.04 1.28 1.58 1.04 1.07 1.48 1.00 1.18 1.33 1.20 1.60 0.86 0.55 0.60 0.99 1.03 0.76 1.15 1.25 1.42 1.46 1.19 1.56 1.63 1.63 1.11 1.60 0.96 1.31 1.19 1.13 1.31 1.32 1.40 1.57 1.43 1.70 1.75 1.56 1.43 0.72 0.70 0.71 0.75 0.64 1.42 1.72 1.72 1.48 1.17 1.08 0.98 0.95 1.2 0.27

Meinheit et al.12

Fenwick et al.13 Birss14 Viwathanatepa et al.15 Beckingsale16 Park et al.17 Park et al.
5

Durrani et al.18

Otani et al.19,20

Otani et al.19,20 Abrams 21

Noguchi et al.22

Leon23

Joh et al.24

Kitayama et al.25

Fujii et al.26

Total

40

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

Fig. 7Algorithm for post-yielding cases. 2. Only specimens failing in a joint or a beam adjacent to a column were considered; specimens with a relocated beam hinge or those that had failed prematurely in a column were omitted. The specimens selected encompass a wide range of material properties, geometry, loading, loading sequence, and reinforcement detailing, as summarized in Table 1 according to chronological order. The experimental joint strengths (Vjh,test) in Table 1 were either reported in the literature or derived using Eq. (1) based on the maximum value of the column or beam shears measured during the test. ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000 According to the seismic performance of the beamcolumn subassemblages, the failure modes of the selected specimens were classified into F1, J1, J2, and J3 groups (Fig. 8). The letter F designates beam flexural failure, and J indicates joint shear failure. The behavior of the subassemblage (Fig. 8) is judged by the H - response. The quantity H represents the equivalent horizontal load capacity of the subassemblage, including the P - effect, and it can be expressed as28 H = H + N ---Lc

(31)

41

Fig. 8Classification of failure modes of interior beamcolumn subassemblage. where H is the horizontal load applied at the column end; is the horizontal displacement measured at the column end; and Lc is the hinge-to-hinge distance of the column. The classification of F1 and J1 means that the joint strength can reach its design value and that the ductility of beam-column subassemblages is up to 4 (Fig. 8). The design level of the joint shear strength was gaged by the ratio of Hmax/Hy to exceed 1.1 (Fig. 8), which is explained in Reference 1. Yielding load Hy is defined as the equivalent horizontal load when yielding of the subassemblage occurred. Yielding of the subassemblage occurred when the yielding moment was exceeded in both beams at the column face. The failure Mode J2 means that the yielding load H y precedes the joint shear failure, and the above sequence of J3 is in reverse (Fig. 8). It is noted that, in the proposed model, the depth of the diagonal strut as of Specimens F1, J1, and J2 was determined by Eq. (6), and that the as of Specimen J3 was calculated by Eq. (5). For J3 specimens, the ab in Eq. (5) corresponds to the smaller value of the depths of the compression zones in the elastic beams at the right and left of the joint. In Fig. 9 the experimentally determined shear strengths from 56 joint tests are compared to the shear strengths predicted by the method presented in this paper. The strength ratios that are defined as the ratio of the measured to the calculated strength are listed in Table 1 to indicate the precision of the proposed model. Figure 9 shows that satisfactory results were obtained for the comparison of measured and computed strengths. The average strength ratio is 1.20 and the coefficient of variation is 27% (Table 1). The accuracy of the proposed model under varied conditions is further examined in Table 2. Table 2 displays a similar tendency as obtained in the previous analyses for the shear strengths of the exterior joints.1 For F1 specimens, the value of V jh , test was determined mainly by the beam flexural strength and not necessarily by the joint shear strength. Therefore, Table 2 shows a wider dispersion for F1 specimens (COV = 34%) and also the lowest strength ratio (mean = 1.0). The occurrence of more yielding mechanisms leads to greater damage accumulating within the joint. Because the proposed model does not include the effect of progressive deterioration, the strength ratios of Type E are larger than those of Type YH for cases with joint failures (J1; Table 2). 42

Fig. 9Correlation of experimental and predicted joint shear strengths. Table 2Statistics of shear strength ratios between experimental and predicted values
Calculation type E YH YV YVH Total
*

Failure mode F1 13* 4 1 0.93 0.32 1.12 0.42 1.32 None 18 1.0 0.34 9 6 1 1 17 J1 1.42 0.13 1.37 0.24 1.31 1.60 1.40 0.16 4 3 J2 1.41 0.14 1.50 0.27 2 11 J3 1.09 0.12 1.14 0.18 Total 28 24 2 1 55 1.17 0.28 1.24 0.26 1.31 0.01 1.60 1.21 0.27

None None 7 1.45 0.19

None None 13 1.14 0.17

No. of specimens. Average of Vjh,test/Vjh,calc. COV of Vjh,test/Vjh,calc.

Examination of existing experimental data indicated that the proposed model is also capable of predicting the shear strengths of the interior beam-column joints. Table 2 shows that the proposed model yields higher strength ratio for the interior joint with the J1 failure mode (mean = 1.40) than that of the exterior joint (mean = 1.07).1 The higher strength ratio for the interior joint, approximately 1.3 (1.40/1.07) times higher, is attributed to the better end conditions of its diagonal strut provided by the compression zones in beams and columns. Further investigation on selecting the depth of diagonal Strut a s seems to be needed. It is interesting, however, to note that the predicting ratio 1.3 (1.40/1.07) between the interior to exterior joints is close to the shear strength ratio 1.25 (15/12) recommended by the ACI 318-95 Code2 for different conditions of joint confinement provided by the framing beams. The proposed model suggests that the bond strength between member longitudinal reinforcement and joint core concrete deteriorates under reversed cyclic loading. The complete loss of the bond strength along the beam reinforcement, however, may impair the development of the vertical mechanism, since the horizontal force needed for the equiACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

librium of vertical tie and steep strut (Fig. 4) is probably missing. Specimen MHUB, tested by Joh et al.,24 was given the unbond treatment of the beam bars within the joint by using vinyl chloride pipes. This specimen, categorized as the F2 failure mode (Table 1), failed by flexure of the beams but it did not reach the strain hardening range.24 Because the beam bars had no bond within the joint, it is recommended to remove the vertical mechanism from the shear resistance by setting Atv = 0 in the analytical model (Table 1). The detailed calculation of the specimen MHUB is provided in the Appendix.* A similar approach may be applied to the precast beam-to-column joint with unbonded tendons. The strength behavior of the beam-column joints under seismic actions is very complicated. The sensitivities of the related parameters are still not very clear. The proposed model maintains consistency in its estimations from one situation to another. Therefore, the model proposed herein can be used as a tool to clarify the roles of different parameters. The effect of column axial load on the joint shear strength is briefly evaluated in the following paragraphs. In the proposed model, the column axial load provides the beneficial effect on the joint shear strength because it increases the depth of the strut (Eq. (7)). Figure 10(a) shows the strength ratios predicted by the proposed model if the beneficial effect of the column axial load is removed. As shown in Fig. 10(a), the normalized tested results indicate that the increasing column axial loads do increase the strength ratios. By using Eq. (7) to include the effect of column axial load, Fig. 10(b) presents the strength ratios listed in Table 1. It seems that the proposed model with Eq. (7) can reasonably estimate the joint shear strength for the range of N/Ag fc less than 0.1 (Fig. 10(b)). The proposed model overestimates the joint shear strengths for the cases with higher axial loads (Fig. 10(b), N/Ag fc 0.2). The overestimations in Fig. 10(b) come from the adopted assumption of the proposed model. The angle of inclination of the diagonal strut is assumed to be oriented between the extreme longitudinal reinforcement in the columns for simplicity, but this assumption is violated by the high axial loads in the columns. To direct the angle of inclination within the centroids of the compression zones of the elastic columns (ac /3) is more realistic for the high axial loads in the columns, and this results in a steeper (Fig. 10(c)). Considering the previously mentioned adjustments, the overestimations for shear strengths of the joints with N/Ag fc greater than 0.35 are corrected (Fig. 10(c)). In contrast to the beneficial effect of the column axial load to increase the depth of the diagonal strut, the high axial compression load in the column was reported to accelerate the deterioration of the joint shear resisting mechanism.19,27 This detrimental effect of the column axial load can be read from Fig. 10(c), where the predicting strength ratios are decreased with increased column axial load. With a sufficient amount of test data, the beneficial, as well as detrimental, effects of the column axial loads on the joint shear strength can be estimated with the aid of the proposed model. CONCLUSIONS Examination of existing experimental data indicated that the previously proposed model1 is also capable of predicting
* The Appendix is available in xerographic or similar form from ACI headquarters, where it will be kept permanently on file at a charge equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at time of request.

Fig. 10Effect of column axial load on joint shear strength. the shear strengths of the interior beam-column joints for seismic resistance. The so-called softened strut-and-tie model is based on the strut-and-tie concept and derived to satisfy equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitutive laws of cracked reinforced concrete. The proposed method was found to reproduce 56 test results from the literature with reasonable accuracy. The effect of column axial load on the shear strength of the interior joint was briefly studied. One illustrative example that describes the computational procedures for the joint specimen with unbonded beam reinforcement is also provided. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research study was sponsored by the National Science Council of the Republic of China under Project NSC 88-2211-E-011-011. The authors would like to express their gratitude for the support.

NOTATION
ab ac as Ag Astr Ath , Atv bs Cb1,Cb2 = = = = = = = = depth of compression zone in beam adjacent to joint depth of compression zone in column adjacent to joint depth of diagonal strut gross area of column section effective area of diagonal strut areas of horizontal and vertical ties, respectively width of diagonal strut compressive forces resulting from compression zones of beams at right and left of joint, respectively compressive forces resulting from compression zone of columns above and below joint, respectively direction of diagonal concrete strut assumed direction of principal compressive stress of concrete compression force in diagonal strut (negative for compression) elastic modulus of steel bar compressive strength of standard concrete cylinder

Cc1, Cc2 = d D Es fc = = = = =

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000

43

steel stresses in h- and v-directions, respectively average tensile stress of mild steel bars, taken as fh and fv in hand v- directions, respectively = yield strength of bare mild steel fy fyh, fyv = yield strength of bare mild steel of joint hoop reinforcement and intermediate column bars, respectively Fh, Fv = tension forces in horizontal and vertical ties, respectively (positive for tension) Fyh, Fyv = yielding forces of horizontal and vertical ties, respectively h = direction of joint hoop reinforcement hb = beam depth = internal lever arm in beam h'b = distance between extreme longitudinal reinforcement in beams hb = thickness of column in direction of loading hc = internal lever arm in column h'c hc = distance between extreme longitudinal reinforcement in columns H = horizontal load applied at column end = equivalent horizontal load capacity of subassemblage H including the P- effect = H + N/Lc Hmax = maximum value of H Hy = load H at the yielding of both beams at column face Lc = hinge-to-hinge distance of column N = axial force acting on column (positive for compression) r = direction perpendicular to d = assumed direction of principal tensile stress Rd,Rh,Rv = ratios of joint shears carried by diagonal, horizontal, and vertical mechanisms, respectively = spacing of joint hoops sh sv = spacing of intermediate column bars Tb1, Tb2 = tensile forces resulting from steel of beams at right and left of joint, respectively Tc1, Tc2 = tensile forces resulting from tensile steel of columns above and below joint, respectively v = direction of intermediate column bars Vb1, Vb2 = vertical beam shears at right and left of joint, respectively Vc1, Vc2 = horizontal column shears above and below the joint, respectively Vjh, Vjv = horizontal and vertical joint shear forces, respectively = horizontal displacement measured at column end = horizontal displacement at Hy y = fraction of horizontal shear transferred by horizontal tie in h absence of vertical tie = fraction of vertical shear carried by vertical tie in absence of v horizontal tie = 0.002 + 0.001(fc 20)/80 (fc in units of MPa) d, r = average normal strains in d- and r- directions, respectively, (positive for tension) = assumed principal strains h, = average normal strains in h- and v- directions, respectively, (positive for tension) = strain at peak stress of standard concrete cylinder o = 0.002 + 0.001(fc 20)/80 (fc in units of MPa) = average tensile strain of mild steel bars, taken as h and v in s h- and v- directions, respectively yh, yv = yield strain of bare mild steel of horizontal and vertical reinforcement, respectively = angle of inclination of h-axis with respect to d-axis = softening coefficient of concrete in compression d, r = average normal stresses in d- and r- directions, respectively, (positive for tension) = assumed principal stresses d,max = maximum compressive stress exerting on nodal zone in ddirection

fh, fv fs

= =

REFERENCES
1. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.1998, pp. 846-857. 2. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp. 3. Zhang, L., and Jirsa, J. O., A Study of Shear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, PMFSEL Report No. 82-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Feb. 1982, 118 pp. 4. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, 1992, 744 pp. 5. Park, R., and Milburn, J. R., Comparison of Recent New Zealand and United States Seismic Design Provisions for Reinforced Concrete Beam-

Column Joints and Tests Results from Four Units Designed According to the New Zealand Code, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 16, No. 1, Mar. 1983, pp. 3-24. 6. Schfer, K., Strut-and-Tie Models for the Design of Structural Concrete, Notes of Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Mar. 1996, 140 pp. 7. Jennewein, M., and Schfer, K., Standardisierte Nachweise von hufigen D-Bereichen, DAfStb. Heft No. 430, Beuth-Verlag, Berlin, 1992. (in German) 8. Zhang, L. X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 24-34. 9. Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I., The Design of Nonflexural Members with Normal and High-Strength Concretes, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 3-10. 10. Hsu, T. T. C., Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 1993, 336 pp. 11. Blakeley, R. W. G.; Megget, L. M.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Performance of Two Full Size Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint Units, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 8, No. 1, Mar. 1975, pp. 38-69. 12. Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, CESRL Report No. 77-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Jan. 1977, 271 pp. 13. Fenwick, R. C., and Irvine, H. M., Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Joints for Seismic Loading, School of Engineering Report No. 142, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, Mar. 1977, 50 pp. 14. Birss, G. R., The Elastic Behaviour of Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Research Report No. 78-13, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, Feb. 1978, 105 pp. 15. Viwathanatepa, S.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., Seismic Behavior of R/C Interior Beam-Column Subassemblages, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC-79/14, University of California, Berkeley, 1979, 184 pp. 16. Beckingsale, C. W., Post-Elastic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Research Report No. 80-20, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, Aug. 1980, 379 pp. 17. Park, R.; Gaerty, L.; and Stevenson, E. C., Tests on an Interior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 14, No. 2, June 1981, pp. 81-92. 18. Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., Behavior of Interior Beam-toColumn Connections under Earthquake-Type Loading, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 343-349. 19. Otani, S.; Kobayashi, Y.; and Aoyama, H., Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Joints under Simulated Earthquake Loading, First U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Monterey, July-Aug. 1984. 20. Otani, S.; Kitayama, K.; and Aoyama, H., Beam Bar Bond Stress and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Connections, Second U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Tokyo, May 1985. 21. Abrams, D. P., Scale Relations for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1987, pp. 502-512. 22. Noguchi, H., and Kurusu, K., The Effects of Beam Bar Bond and Joint Shear on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Joints, Third U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Christchurch, Aug. 1987. 23. Leon, R. T., Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior Beam-Column Joints, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 3-11. 24. Joh, O.; Goto, Y.; and Shibata, T., Influence of Transverse Joint and Beam Reinforcement and Relocation of Plastic Hinge Region on BeamColumn Joint Stiffness Deterioration, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 187-224. 25. Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., Development of Design Criteria for RC Interior Beam-Column Joints, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 97-123. 26. Fujii, S., and Morita, S., Comparison between Interior and Exterior RC Beam-Column Joint Behavior, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 145-165. 27. Kurose, Y., Recent Studies on Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints in Japan, PMFSEL Report No. 87-8, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, Dec. 1987, 164 pp. 28. Bertero, V. V.; Popov, E. P.; and Forzani, B., Seismic Behavior of Lightweight Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 77, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1980, pp. 44-52.

44

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2000