Case Studies in Structural Engineering 1 (2014) 2025

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Structural Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csse

A case study on pre 1970s constructed concrete exterior

beam-column joints
Ravi Kiran a,, Giovacchino Genesio b
a
b

Dept. of Civil & Env. Engg. & Earth Sci., Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, United States
IEA, Hauptstr. 4, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 9 May 2014
Keywords:
Exterior beam-column joints
Micro plane model
Joint shear failure
Bar pullout

a b s t r a c t
The exterior beam-column (EBC) joints in the second generation concrete structures (built
prior to 1970s) were observed to underperform during earthquakes mainly due to the lack
of shear reinforcement and improper construction practices. In this paper, results of a
detailed parametric study conducted using 3D nite element analysis are presented to
illustrate the performance of three types of substandard EBC joints that are typical to
pre 1970s construction practices designed according to: (1) ACI 318-1971, (2) old Japanese
practice and (3) old Indian practice. In addition, the inuence of concrete strength, beam
and column exural reinforcements on the load carrying capacity of substandard EBC joints
are investigated. The substandard joints analyzed in this study failed in a brittle fashion
due to the shear failure of joint core concrete and anchorage slippage.
2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Introduction
The reinforced concrete frame structures constructed before the introduction of seismic design codes (prior to 1970s)
were found to be incompetent to withstand the loads generated during seismic events as they are primarily designed for
gravity loads. Lack of transverse beam-column joint [1] reinforcement, use of plain bars for longitudinal reinforcement, poor
anchorage detailing, and low concrete strength are the most common deciencies of pre 1970s reinforced concrete frame
structures [2]. The reinforced concrete frame structures located in seismically active zones that are still in their serviceable
life but incompetent to the anticipated seismic forces are to be retrotted. It is important to assess the existing strength of
these seismically decient structures to arrive at a retrotting strategy. Strength assessment of existing structures requires a
detailed understanding of structural behavior under critical loading scenarios. With the latest advances in solid mechanics
and availability of abundant computational resources, it is possible to simulate and analyze critical components of seismically decient structures to better understand their behavior and thereby assess their capacity prior to retrotting.
The current manuscript is concerned with 3D nite element analysis of exterior beam-column (EBC) joints typically found
in pre 1970s constructed reinforced concrete structures [25]. The two main objectives of this article are: (1) to compare the
performances of substandard EBC joints that were designed according to different pre 1970s design and construction
practices (ACI 318:1971 [1], old Japanese practice and old Indian practice) and (2) to qualitatively establish the effect of
0
various parameters (cylindrical concrete strength (fc ), percentage beam (qb) and column exural reinforcement (qc) on

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 5748078150.

E-mail address: ryellava@nd.edu (R. Kiran).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csse.2014.04.002
2214-3998/ 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

R. Kiran, G. Genesio / Case Studies in Structural Engineering 1 (2014) 2025

21

the performance of EBC joints. The objectives of this article have implications on arriving at a plausible shear strength assessment model for EBC joints which is the rst step for retrotting strategy.
Finite element analysis
Micro-Plane Analysis Program (MASA), an in house nite element solver developed at University of Stuttgart (Germany)
[6] that is capable of simulating fracture in concrete [7] and bond between reinforced steel and concrete [8,9] is employed in
this study. This nite element program was successfully used to study the behavior of reinforced concrete structures in a
previous study [10].
Validation of nite element model
The substandard EBC joints tested by Genesio [10] are used in the calibration of nite element models. Genesio [10] tested
EBC joints that were designed according to (a) ACI 318:1971 [1], (b) old Japanese practice and (c) old Indian practice. The
detailing of subassemblies and joint reinforcement is provided in Fig. 1(af). Detailed design details of all the specimens
can be found in [10].
In this study, the experimentally obtained cyclic behavior of EBC joints designed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] and old
Japanese practice are matched with nite element results for the validation of nite element models. Three dimensional
hexahedral elements with side length of approximately 20 mm were adopted for the mesh in the Joint (Fig. 1g). The load
is applied on the beam and hinge boundary conditions are used at the column ends as shown in the Fig. 1(g). The mechanical
properties of steel and concrete are obtained from [10] and [11] respectively. A cylindrical concrete strength (fc0 ) of 26 MPa is
used for the analysis purpose. The bond slip properties of longitudinal deformed bars and plain round bars corresponding to
this concrete strength are obtained from Lettow [8] and Fabbrocino et al. [12] and can be found in [10]. Finally, the cyclic load
displacement behavior predicted by the nite element model is compared with the experimental results for EBC joints
designed according to ACI 318:1971 and old Japanese practice in the Fig. 2(a and b). The cracking pattern obtained from
the nite element analysis is compared to the experimental results in the Fig. 3(a). From the Figs. 2 and 3(a) it is clear that
the calibrated nite element model is able to fairly predict the load displacement behavior and ultimate cracking patterns of
ACI 318:71 [1] and old Japanese specimens. In the further sections, the nite element models are employed to investigate the
inuence of various parameters on the load carrying capacity of substandard EBC joints.
Parametric study
Finite element models are used to conduct a detailed parametric study on factors that have a major inuence on the load
carrying capacity of substandard EBC joints. The critical factors chosen for the parametric study are: (1) anchorage

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(g)
(f)
Joint detailing in figure

19768 elements

Load

Fig. 1. Detailing of EBC joint sub-assemblages (a) beam and column shear reinforcement, (b) beam reinforcement and (c) column reinforcement (ref. [10]),
Joint detailing of (d) ACI 318:1971 (Fe 415 deformed bars used as exural reinforcement), (e) old Japanese practice (ref. [10]), (f) old Indian practice (Fe 250
plain round bars used as exural reinforcement) and (g) Finite element model of EBC joint.

22

R. Kiran, G. Genesio / Case Studies in Structural Engineering 1 (2014) 2025

(a)

(b)

70

Beam Capacity=76KN

Beam Capacity=76 KN

60
50

Load (KN)

Load (KN)

80

40
20

10

0
-75

-50

-25

30

0
-20
-40
-60

25

50

75

Displacement (mm)

-100

-50

-10

Experimental Results

50
Displacement (mm)

-30

100

Numerical Analysis

Numerical Analysis

Experimental Results

-50
-80
-70

-100

Fig. 2. Comparison of nite element results with experimental results for EBC joint designed according to (a) ACI 318:71 and (b) old Japanese practice.

(a)

(b)
80

Displacement = -40 mm

Load (KN)

60

Joint shear
failure

(1)

40

20

(2)
(3)

0
0

20

40
60
Displacement (mm)

80

Displacement = +40 mm Displacement = -40 mm

Fig. 3. (a) Comparison of crack patterns obtained from nite element analysis and experiments for EBC joint designed according to ACI 318:71 [1] and (b)
load displacement behavior of substandard EBC joints designed according to (1) ACI 318:1971 [1], (2) old Japanese practice and (3) old Indian practice (FE
Simulations).

conguration, (2) cylindrical concrete compressive strength (fc ), (3) percentage beam exural reinforcement (qb) and (4)
percentage column exural reinforcement (qc). As a part of the parametric study, monotonic load displacement behavior
of the EBC joints predicted by the nite element analysis obtained for different parameters are compared and the inuence
of individual parameters are highlighted in the following sections.

Anchorage conguration
The anchorage conguration (Fig. 1df) encompasses the following details in the design of substandard EBC joints: (1)
horizontal anchorage (ldh), (2) hook (90 hook or 180 hook) and (3) extension of the hook (lv) (7.5 U for ACI 318:1971
[1] and old Japanese specimen, 4 U for old Indian practice). The minimum horizontal anchorage (ldh) is necessary to transfer
the tensile stress in the exural reinforcement in to the joint. The hook is responsible for the formation of the compression
strut which in the case of substandard EBC joints is one of the major load transfer mechanisms [4,5,13] from beam to column
through the joint core. Sufcient extension (lv) of the hook is necessary to prevent the pullout of exural reinforcement. All
the EBC joints used in the parametric study do not have any joint reinforcement and these anchorage congurations typically
represent poor design and construction practices that are often observed in reinforced concrete structures built prior to
1970s. The three anchorage congurations used in the parametric study are: (1) ACI 318:1971 design: The main deciencies
of this joint design are (1) lack of joint core shear reinforcement and (2) insufcient vertical extension (lv) of the 90 hook (7.5
U tail extension according to ACI 318:1971 [1] vs. 12 U tail extension according to ACI 318:1995 [14]; (2) Old Japanese practice: This EBC joint design is performed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] but with an additional deciency of bending the bottom tail extension away from the EBC joint core (Fig. 1e). This construction practice was widely adopted in the old Japanese

23

R. Kiran, G. Genesio / Case Studies in Structural Engineering 1 (2014) 2025

constructions for the ease of compaction of joint core concrete; and (3) Old Indian practice: This EBC joint detailing was a
common practice in India prior to the introduction of IS 13920:1993 [15]. In these joints, 180 hooks with a 4 U anchorage
extension made of plain round bars are used as the anchorage conguration (Fig. 1f). Lack of joint shear reinforcement, decient anchorage and poor bonding properties of plain round bars are the major deciencies of EBC joints designed according
to old Indian practice.
The monotonic load displacement behavior of these anchorage congurations are compared in Fig. 3(b). Shear failure of
joint is observed in all the EBC joint congurations (Fig. 3a). This joint shear failure observed in all the EBC joints is a direct
consequence of the absence of shear reinforcement in the joint core. Among the considered anchorage congurations, the
EBC joint designed according to old Indian practice exhibited most brittle behavior when compared to other joints due to
the combined shear failure of the joint core and slippage of longitudinal bars due to the use of plain round bars (Fig. 3b).
Although the percentage exural reinforcement (qb) and vertical extension (lv) of the hooks are same for EBC joints designed
according to ACI 318:1971 [1] and old Japanese practice, the EBC joints designed according to old Japanese practice exhibited
brittle behavior due to the lack of proper connement of the core concrete resulted from not anchoring the hook in to the
joint core. From these numerical studies, it is observed that pre 1970s constructed EBC joints have brittle modes of failure as
a result of lack of shear reinforcement in the joint core, improper connement of core concrete and insufcient anchorage.

Inuence of cylindrical concrete strength

A major portion of the entire shear force has to be transferred by concrete alone due to the development of compressive
strut mechanism in the EBC joints with no joint shear reinforcement [4]. Hence it is important to examine the effect of cylindrical concrete strength (fc0 ) on the performance of substandard EBC joints. For this purpose the monotonic load displacement behavior of EBC joints designed according to ACI 318: 1971 [1] and old Japanese practice are obtained for
0
cylindrical concrete strength fc = 2 [23,58] N/mm2. The bond properties of the reinforced steel for different concrete strength
are obtained from [8]. The results of the parametric study are presented in the Fig. 4. From the Fig. 4(a and b), it can be concluded that the substandard EBC joints constructed using concrete with high cylindrical concrete strength (fc0 ) perform better
than their counterparts. This can be attributed to the increased load carrying capacity of the strut mechanism and enhanced
bond properties of the longitudinal bars. In addition, it is found that the increase in the concrete strength does not ensure
increase in the load carrying capacity after yielding of the longitudinal beam bars as shown in Fig. 4(a). The numerical studies
conclude that cylindrical concrete strength (fc0 ) plays an important role in determining the load carrying capacity of substandard EBC joints.

Inuence of percentage beam reinforcement

An increase in the percentage beam reinforcement (qb) increases the exural stiffness of the hook. The increased exural
stiffness of the hook provides better connement to the joint core concrete and also accommodates the formation of compression strut mechanism which in turn increases the load carrying capacity of the EBC joint. In this study, the percentage
beam reinforcement (qb) is varied between 0.57% and 3.0% to quantify its inuence on load carrying capacity of substandard
EBC joints. The results shown in the Fig. 5(a and b), indicate that the increase in the percentage beam reinforcement has a
positive effect on the load carrying capacity of the EBC joints. It can also be observed that the strength enhancement is more
evident in the case of EBC joints designed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] (Fig. 5a) when compared to joints designed according to old Japanese practice (Fig. 5b). This can be attributed to the better connement of joint core concrete in the case of EBC
joint designed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] when compared to EBC joint designed according to old Japanese practice. The

100

70

(b)

(a)
56

Load (KN)

Load (KN)

75

50

25

42
28
14

yielding of beam bars

0

0
0

20

40
60
Displacement (mm)

80

20
40
60
Displacement (mm)

80

Fig. 4. Inuence of concrete strength on load displacement behavior of EBC joints designed according to (a) ACI 318:1971 [1] and (b) old Japanese practice.
(FE Simulations).

24

R. Kiran, G. Genesio / Case Studies in Structural Engineering 1 (2014) 2025

60

90

(b)

50

1.0%

2.3%

40

60
Load (KN)

Load (kN)

75

3.0%

(a)

3.0%

45
30

0.77%
1.9%

15

1.4%

30
20
10

0
0

20
40
Displacement (mm)

60

80

20
40
Displacement (mm)

60

80

Fig. 5. Inuence of percentage beam reinforcement (qb) on load displacement behavior of EBC joints designed according to (a) ACI 318:1971 [1] and (b) old
Japanese practice (FE Simulations).

80

50

(b)

(a)
5.2%
2.6%

40

Load (KN)

Load (KN)

60

40

3.5%

20

5.2%

30

3.5%

20
10

0
0

20

40
60
Displacement (mm)

80

20

40
60
Displacement (mm)

80

Fig. 6. Inuence of percentage column reinforcement (qc) on load displacement behavior of EBC joints designed according to (a) ACI 318:1971 [1] and (b)
old Japanese practice (FE Simulations).

numerical analyses results highlight the role of percentage beam reinforcement (qb) in enhancing the load carrying capacity
of substandard EBC joints.
Inuence of percentage column reinforcement
With the increase in the column exural reinforcement the stiffness of the column increases and hence more loads are
transferred to the column. This increases the compression zone of the column in the joint core which helps in better connement of core concrete. But the load transfer to the column is possible only when beam and column are connected
through a properly designed joint. In cases where the joint is incompetent to transfer the load from beam to column, the
increase in the column reinforcement may not have much inuence on the load carrying capacity of the joint. In this study,
the percentage column reinforcement (qc) is varied between 1.8% and 5.2% to quantify its inuence on load carrying capacity
of substandard EBC joints. The results obtained from the numerical analysis are presented in the Fig. 6(a and b). The EBC joint
designed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] (Fig. 6a) is superior to the joint designed according to old Japanese practice (Fig. 6b)
in terms of transferring the load to the column. Hence increase in the percentage column reinforcement (qc) increased the
load carrying capacity of the EBC joint designed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] but this enhancement in the load carrying
capacity is not observed in the case of EBC joint designed according to old Japanese practice. This is due to the deciency
of the EBC joint designed according to old Japanese practice to transfer the load from beam to column. However, it should
be noted that the enhancement in load carrying capacity in EBC joints designed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] is not very
signicant. The numerical analysis highlights the fact that the EBC joints designed prior to 1970s do not have the capability
to facilitate complete load transfer from beam to column due to the lack of shear reinforcement and required anchorage and
hence the enhancement in the load carrying capacity due to increase in percent column reinforcement (qc) is not always
warranted.
Conclusions
The following are the important conclusions of the study

R. Kiran, G. Genesio / Case Studies in Structural Engineering 1 (2014) 2025

25

1) The anchorage conguration has a signicant inuence on load carrying capacity and failure mode of EBC joints. Shear
failure of joint core and slippage of exural reinforcement are found to be the modes of failure in substandard EBC
joints. While the EBC joints designed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] and old Japanese practice failed due to the lack
of shear reinforcement, the EBC joints designed according to old Indian practice failed due to slippage of exural reinforcement in addition to joint shear failure. Among the substandard EBC joints considered in the study, the joint
designed according to ACI 318:1971 [1] is observed to have better performance when compared to the other anchorage congurations. This can be attributed to the better connement to the joint core concrete provided by the anchorage conguration specied by ACI 318:1971 [1].
0
2) In the case of substandard EBC joints with no shear reinforcement, cylindrical compressive strength (fc ) of the concrete
is found to be the most inuential parameter that governs the load carrying capacity of the joint.
3) Increase in the percentage of beam reinforcement (qb) is found to increase the load carrying capacity of the joint. This
can be attributed to the increased exural resistance of the anchorage bars which in turn prevents opening of the hook
thereby preventing spalling of concrete cover and providing connement to the joint core concrete.
4) Increase in the percentage of column reinforcement (qc) increases the load carrying capacity only when the EBC joints
are designed properly. Especially in the case of substandard EBC joints, this effect can be neglected as the applied loads
are not completely transferred to the column due to poor joint design.

Acknowledgements
The presented work is supported in part by German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Bonn, Germany and Institute of
Construction Materials (IWB), University of Stuttgart, Germany. Any opinions, ndings, conclusions, and recommendations
expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views of the sponsors.
References
[1] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 31883), Detroit, MI, 1971.
[2] Hertanto E. Seismic assessment of pre-1970s reinforced concrete structures (MS Thesis). Canterbury, New Zealand: University of Canterbury; 2005.
[3] Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H. Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing details. ACI Struct J
2000;97:1125.
[4] Park R, Ruitong D. Comparison of the behaviour of reinforced concrete beam-column joints designed for ductility and limited ductility. Bull N Z Natl Soc
Earthquake Eng 1988;21:25578.
[5] Kurose Y. Recent studies on reinforced concrete beam-column joints in Japan. Austin, Texas: Austin Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory
report; 1987.
[6] Ozbolt J. Getting started with MASA-3A manual for using microplane analysis program. Stuttgart, Germany: Institute for Construction Materials;
2005.
[7] Ozbolt J, Li Y, Kozar I. Microplane model for concentre with relaxed kinematic constraint. Int J Solids Struct 2001;38:2683711.
[8] Lettow S. Ein verbundelement fr nichtlineare nite elemente analysen anwendung auf bergreifungsste (PhD Thesis-In German). Stuttgart,
Germany: University of Stuttgart; 2006.
[9] Bazant ZP, Oh BH. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Mater Construct 1983;16:15577.
[10] Genesio G. Seismic assessment of RC exterior beam-column joints and retrot with haunches using post-installed anchors (PhD Thesis). Stuttgart,
Germany: University of Stuttgart; 2012.
[11] CEB-FIP MC 90, Model Code: Comit Euro-International du Bton, London, United Kingdom, 1990.
[12] G. Fabbrocino, G.M. Verderame, G. Manfredi, Experimental behaviour of straight and hooked smooth bars in existing R.C. buildings, 12th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, Paper Reference 393, 2002.
[13] Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthquake Eng 1996;29:25672.
[14] ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 31895). Detroit, MI, 1995.
[15] IS 13920, Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces (reafrmed 2003), New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards,
India, 1993.