Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic retrofit of exterior RC beam-column joint using diagonal haunch T

⁎
Alireza Zabihi, Hing-Ho Tsang , Emad F. Gad, John L. Wilson
Centre for Sustainable Infrastructure, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Exterior beam-column joint is typically the weakest link in a limited-ductile RC frame structure. The use of
Limited-ductile diagonal haunch element has been considered as a desirable seismic retrofit option for reducing the seismic
RC frame demand at the joint. Previous research globally has focused on implementing double haunches, whilst the
Exterior beam-column joint performance of using single haunch element as a less-invasive and more architecturally favourable retrofit
Seismic retrofit
option has not been investigated. In this study, the feasibility of using a single haunch system for retrofitting RC
Single diagonal haunch
exterior beam-column joint is explored. This paper presents the derivation of the key formulations for the im-
plementation of a single diagonal haunch as well as the generalization of the formulations for all three systems:
the non-retrofitted subassembly, the double haunch retrofitting system, and the single haunch retrofitting
system. The formulations have then been validated by available experimental data for non-retrofitted sub-
assembly and double haunch retrofitting system. Finally, the effectiveness of the single haunch retrofitting
system is compared with that of the double haunch retrofitting system through a parametric study.

1. Introduction
A large number of habitable non-seismically designed RC frame
buildings exist all over the world. The poor performance of this kind of
buildings has been observed in past earthquake events worldwide
[1–4]. Previous analytical and experimental studies proved that lim-
ited-ductile beam-column joint is the most vulnerable structural ele-
ment when it is subjected to lateral loads [5–9]. This deficiency gen-
erally arises from poor detailing in the joint area and consequently lack
of capacity design principles in the overall response behaviour of the
structures [10,11]. To improve the global seismic behaviour of the
structure, enhancement of the weakest links is essential which can be
achieved by seismic retrofitting.
Early attempts have been made to strengthen the joint by fibre re-
inforced polymer (FRP) wrapping (Fig. 1a, b) [12,13], or using different
types of jacketing (Fig. 1c) [14,15]. More recently, research has been
conducted on redirecting the stress-flow around the joint region and
reducing the shear demand in the joint zone by implementing ferro-
cement jacket with chamfer/s (Fig. 1d, e) [16], or externally clamped
double haunch retrofitting system (ECDHRS) (Fig. 1f) [11], and after-
ward fully fastened double haunch retrofitting system (FFDHRS)
(Fig. 1g) [17].
Strengthening by FRP or jacketing and the ECDHRS could be con-
veniently installed in the laboratory, but these are challenging to be
implemented in practice because of limited accessibility to the joint
zone due to the presence of wall and floor slab. Although this limitation
has been eliminated by using post-installed anchors in the FFDHRS, the
use of upper diagonal haunch (located on the floor) still remains as an
aesthetic and functional restriction. Hence, the fully fastened single
haunch retrofitting system (FFSHRS) (Fig. 1h) is proposed herein this
paper as a preferred alternative. Thus, a comprehensive study on the
seismic behaviour of beam-column joint subassembly after applying
FFSHRS is needed.
2. Shear demand in exterior beam-column joint
Occurrence of shear cracking at the joint core, which is defined as
the region surrounded by upper column-joint interface, beam-joint in-
terface, and lower column-joint interface, cannot provide a reliable
source of energy dissipation under cyclic loading due to the limited
deformation capacity and it may cause the collapse of the whole
structure. Therefore, an accurate prediction of the shear demand in this
fragile link before and after applying haunch retrofitting system is a
prerequisite for a proper design.
2.1. Mechanics of exterior beam-column joint subassembly
Based on the applied shear and axial loads, Vc and Nc (Fig. 2), the
shear force and bending moment diagrams of the subassembly for the
non-retrofitted subassembly (NRS), the double haunch retrofitting

⁎
Corresponding author at: Centre for Sustainable Infrastructure, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia.
E-mail address: htsang@swin.edu.au (H.-H. Tsang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.100
Received 15 September 2017; Received in revised form 28 February 2018; Accepted 30 July 2018
0141-0296/ Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams of various retrofit techniques for exterior RC beam-column joint: (a, b) fibre-reinforced polymer wrapping [12,13], (c) jacketing [14,15],
(d, e) Ferro-cement jacketing [16], (f) externally clamped double haunch retrofitting system [11], (g) fully fastened double haunch retrofitting system [17], (h) fully
fastened single haunch retrofitting system.

Fig. 2. Exterior beam-column joint subassembly: (a) non-retrofitted subassembly (NRS), (b) double haunch retrofitting system (DHRS), and (c) single haunch
retrofitting system (SHRS).

754
A. Zabihi et al.
Fig. 3. Shear force diagram: (a) non-retrofitted subassembly (NRS), (b) double haunch retrofitting system (DHRS), and (c) single haunch retrofitting system (SHRS).
Fig. 4. Bending moment diagram: (a) non-retrofitted subassembly (NRS), (b) double haunch retrofitting system (DHRS), and (c) single haunch retrofitting system
(SHRS).
system (DHRS), and the single haunch retrofitting system (SHRS) are
plotted in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.
To determine the shear demand in the joint panel zone of an ex-
terior beam-column joint subassembly, generalized equations for all
three different cases (i.e. NRS, DHRS, and SHRS) are proposed in the
following sub-section.
2.2. Generalized expression of external actions and horizontal shear force
at the joint zone for NRS, DHRS, and SHRS
The external actions at the joint zone induced by the above-men-
tioned applied loads (refer Fig. 2), are depicted by F1, F2, …, F12 in
Fig. 5. Forces F1 and F2 represent the axial force in the upper and lower
column. Shear forces in the upper column, the lower column, and the
beam at the joint interface are denoted by F3, F4, and F5, respectively. In
case of NRS (Fig. 2a), since F9 and F10, F11 and F12 are equal to zero
(refer Table 1), the bending moment in the cross section of the upper
column, the lower column, and the beam at the joint interface will just
be generated by the couples of F6, F7, and F8, respectively. By im-
plementing SHRS (Fig. 2c), due to the presence of the lower haunch,
forces F9 and F10 will be exerted at the bottom corner of the joint zone
and reduce the bending moment in the cross section of the lower
column, and the beam at the joint interface by the amount of (hc/
2) × F9 and (hb/2) × F10, where hc and hb are column and beam section
depth, respectively. Adding the upper haunch, in case of using DHRS
(Fig. 2b), will lead to the presence of F11 and F12, in addition to F9 and
F10. These forces reduce the bending moment in the cross section of the
upper column, the lower column, and the beam at the joint interface by
the amount of (hc/2) × F12, (hc/2) × F9, and (hb/2) × (F10 + F11), re-
spectively. All these external actions at the joint zone are summarised in
Table 1.
755
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767
Based on the free body diagram as shown in Fig. 5a and the ex-
pressions in Table 1, the beam flexural moment at the joint interface
(refer Fig. 4.), Mbi, can be given by:
hb
Mbi = jb × F8− × (F10 + F11)
2 (1)
where jb is the lever arm of internal forces in the beam section which
can be evaluated through a moment-curvature analysis or approxi-
mately assumed as 0.8–0.9 (hb − c); whereas c is the concrete cover.
As the ratio Vb/Vc is equal to the ratio He/Le, Mbi can be expressed as
a function of applied shear force at the column, Vc, for all three systems
(i.e. NRS, DHRS, and SHRS):
L hb ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ He ⎞
Mbi = ⎡ n −⎛a + β ⎜ Vc⎟
⎢
⎣2 ⎝ 2tanα ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎝ Le ⎠ (2)
where Ln = net beam span length between column faces; a = horizontal
length of the haunch; α = angle between the haunch and the beam;
β = zero, βDHRS, and βSHRS for NRS, DHRS, and SHRS (refer Section 3 for
the derivation); He = effective height of column between two vertical
consecutive inflection points; and Le = beam half length. Likewise, the
flexural moment at the upper and lower columns at the joint interface
(refer Fig. 4), Mci-top and Mci-bot, can be obtained based on the free body
diagram as demonstrated in Fig. 5a and the expressions in Table 1.
The horizontal shear force, Vjh, at the mid-height of the exterior RC
beam-column joint (section A-A in Fig. 5b) for all three systems (i.e.
NRS, DHRS, and SHRS) can be obtained by solving the equation of
horizontal force equilibrium. By considering the upper segment, we
have:
Vjh = F8−F3−F11 (3)
And from the lower segment, we get:
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Fig. 5. Generalised free body diagram of the exterior joint panel zone for all three systems: non-retrofitted subassembly (NRS), double haunch retrofitting system
(DHRS), and single haunch retrofitting system (SHRS): (a) external actions at the interfaces with upper column, lower column and beam, (b) the definition of
horizontal shear force at the mid-height of the exterior RC beam-column joint (section A-A).

Table 1 has been derived for SHRS and also generalized for both DHRS and
Forces acting at the joint panel zone: (a) non-retrofitted subassembly (NRS), (b) SHRS.
double haunch retrofitting system (DHRS), and (c) single haunch retrofitting
system (SHRS). 3. Shear transferring factor
No. (a) NRS (b) DHRS (c) SHRS
The shear transferring factor is a pivotal parameter in determining
F1 Nc − top Nc − top Nc − top
the amount of shear force that is transmitted from the adjacent beam or
F2 Nc − bot Nc − bot Nc − bot
column element to the haunch system. This governs the redistribution
F3 Vc ′
(1−βDHRS ) Vc Vc
of internal forces in beam, column and joint after applying a haunch
F4 Vc ′
(1−βDHRS ) Vc ′
(1−βSHRS ) Vc
retrofitting system. In fact, this factor works as a gauge for evaluating
F5 Vb (1−βDHRS ) Vb (1−βSHRS ) Vb
F6
the effectiveness of retrofitting. The expressions of the shear transfer-
[(Hn/2) Vc ]/ jc ′
[(Hn/2−bβDHRS ) Vc ]/ jc [(Hn/2) Vc ]/ jc
F7
ring factor can be derived based on the deformation compatibility
[(Hn/2) Vc ]/ jc ′
[(Hn/2−bβDHRS ) Vc ]/ jc ′
[(Hn/2−bβSHRS ) Vc ]/ jc
F8
principle at the points where the haunch is connected to the beam and
[(Ln /2) Vb]/ jb [(Ln /2−aβDHRS ) Vb]/ jb [(Ln /2−aβSHRS ) Vb]/ jb
F9 0 ′
(βDHRS tanα ) Vc ′
(βSHRS tanα ) Vc
the column, respectively. The comprehensive formulation resulted from
F10 0 (βDHRS /2tanα ) Vb (βSHRS /tanα ) Vb
this theory may involve axial, flexural and shear deformations in
F11 0 (βDHRS /2tanα ) Vb 0 beams, columns, and joints. Yu et al. [18] firstly derived the equation of
F12 0 ′
(βDHRS tanα ) Vc 0 β-factor for a triangular haunch for steel beam-column joint. However,
only beam flexural deformation has been considered in their derivation.
Note: Hn = net column height between beam faces; β'DHRS = column shear The equation of β-factor has been further developed by Pampanin et al.
transferring factor for DHRS (refer Section 3); β'SHRS = column shear transfer- [11] for the application of double diagonal haunches for RC beam-
ring factor for SHRS (refer Section 3); b = vertical length of the haunch; jc = the column joint. It was shown that elastic deformation of the joint has no
lever arm of internal forces in the column section; and all other parameters have significant effect on the value of the shear transferring factor [11].
been defined earlier. Hence, by considering beam and column deformation concurrently, this
section presents the original derivation of the β-factor for single diag-
Vjh = F8−F4−F10 (4) onal haunch at RC beam-column joint.
By substituting F3, F4, F8, F10, and F11 for each case from Table 1 to
Eqs. (3) or (4), the horizontal joint shear force, Vjh, can be expressed by 3.1. Derivation of beam shear transferring factor for SHRS (βSHRS)
Eq. (5). It is noted that the beam shear transferring factor, β, is the sole
parameter in Eqs. (2) and (5) that leads to differences between the three The lengthening or shortening of a single haunch, δh, in terms of the
systems. This will be discussed in detail in the next section. horizontal and vertical component of the beam and column deforma-
tion (uB, uC, vB, vC) at the haunch tips can be determined by (Fig. 6):
H L
Vjh = ⎡ e ⎛ n −aβ ⎞−1⎤ Vc δh ≈ (uB + uC )cosα + (vB + vC )sinα (6)
⎢ j Le ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥ (5)
⎣ b ⎦
where uB and vB are the horizontal and vertical component of beam
In the next section, the shear transferring factor as a key parameter deformation at the haunch tip that can be expressed by:

756
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Fig. 6. (a) Lengthening and (b) shortening of single diagonal haunch, δh, due to an applied lateral force at exterior beam-column joint subassembly.

a ⎡ hb L (1−βSHRS ) ahb βSHRS hb2 βSHRS Ib ⎤ D4 = 12Ib/ Ab

uB = + − − Vb
⎢
Ec Ib ⎣ 2 4 4tanα Ab tanα ⎥ (7)
⎦ in which,

a2 ⎡ L (1−βSHRS ) a βSHRS hb ⎤ λ1 = Ib b/(Ic a)

vB = + − Vb
Ec Ib ⎢
⎣ 2 3 4tanα ⎥ ⎦ (8) λ2 = Le b/(He a)
in which, Ec = the modulus of elasticity of concrete; Ib = second mo- Kh= haunch stiffness; and all other parameters have been defined ear-
ment of area of the beam cross section; Ab = area of the beam cross lier.
section; and Vb = applied shear force at the beam. uC and vC are the
horizontal and vertical component of the column deformation at the
3.2. Generalized expression of beam shear transferring factor (β) for DHRS
haunch tip that can be determined by:
and SHRS
b2 ⎡ H ′ ) b βSHRS
(1−βSHRS ′ hc tanα ⎤
uC = + − V The formula of beam shear transferring factor (Fig. 3), β, for DHRS,
Ec Ic ⎢ 2 3 4 ⎥ c (9)
⎣ ⎦
and SHRS can be generalized by Eq. (14).
b ⎡ hc H (1−βSHRS ′ hc2tanα βSHRS
′ ) bhc βSHRS ′ Ic tanα ⎤ κ N1 N1 + κ N2 N2
vC = + − − ⎥ Vc β= tanα
Ec Ic ⎢
⎣ 2 4 4 Ac ⎦ (10) κ D1 D1 + κ D2 D2 + κ D3 D3 + κ D4 D4 (14)

in which, Ic = second moment of area of the column cross section; where κ is non-dimensional coefficient depending on the type of ret-
Ac = area of the column cross section; and the column shear transfer- rofitting system (Table 2).
ring factor at the joint interface, β′SHRS, after applying a single haunch, It is noted that the equation of beam shear transferring factor, β, for
can be expressed by: DHRS, that was originally derived by Pampanin et al. [11], has been
refined in this study. Specifically, the second term 6hcbtanα and the
He
′
βSHRS = β fourth term (12Ictan2α)/Ac of D3 in Eqs. (13) & (14) have respectively
Le tanα SHRS (11)
replaced 6hctanα and (12Ictanα)/Ac as in the original expression. Shear
On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 6, lengthening and shortening of transferring factor plays an important role in the estimation of shear
the single haunch can be estimated by considering the haunch axial demand and consequently the hierarchy of strength. Thus, assigning an
force: imprecise value to β will provide unrealistic prediction and it may in-
dicate a wrong sequence of failure modes in the strength hierarchy
βSHRS Lh
δh = δh − B + δh − C = Vb assessment. Further comparison with reference to experimental results
Ah Es sinα (12) can be found in Section 6.
where δh−B = change in haunch length due to beam deformation;
δh−C = change in haunch length due to column deformation; 3.3. Generalized expression of column shear transferring factor (β') for
Lh = length of the haunch; Ah = cross section of the haunch; and DHRS and SHRS
Es = the modulus of elasticity of steel.
By substituting Eqs. (7)–(10) and (12) into Eq. (6), the shear The formula of column shear transferring factor (Fig. 3) for DHRS,
transferring factor, βSHRS, can be derived as: and SHRS can be expressed by Eq. (15).
N1 + N2 He ⎞
βSHRS = tanα β′ = κ ′ ⎛
⎜ ⎟β
D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 (13) ⎝ Le tanα⎠ (15)
where N1, N2, D1, D2, D3 and D4 can be defined as follows: where κ' is non-dimensional coefficient depending on the type of ret-
N1 = 4ab + 3hb a + 6Lb + 6hb L rofitting system (Table 2).

N2 = λ1 λ2 (4ab + 3hc b + 6Ha + 6hc H ) Table 2

Shear transferring factor coefficients.
D1 = 4abtanα + 3hb atanα + 3hb b + 3hb2
κ N1 κ N2 κ D1 κ D2 κ D3 κ D4 κ′
D2 = 12Ec Ib/(Kh. acos2 α )
DHRS 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0 1.0
SHRS 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5
D3 = λ1 (4abtanα + 6hc btanα + 3hc2tan2 α + 12Ic tan2 α /Ac )

757
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Fig. 7. Stresses in the finite block located in the middle of joint core (Section A-A).

4. Shear capacity of exterior beam-column joint Table 3

Limit states for RC beam-column joint based on principal tensile stress.
To evaluate the joint shear strength, the principal tensile stress Joint type Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
(Fig. 7), pt, as a function of both joint shear forces and column axial load
is a more appropriate damage indicator than joint shear force alone
[11,19]. It is worthwhile to mention that Hakuto et al. [20] stated that
the principal tensile stress approach may yield conservative results as
the diagonal compression strut mechanism developed in the joint can
provide higher shear resistance. On the contrary, Sharma et al. [21]
reported this approach as a preferred one for the typical range of
column axial loads (less than 30% of column capacity) as it is a
straightforward approach and also takes the shear strength degradation Limit state 1st Shear pt = 0.29 fc′ pt = 0.29 fc′ pt = 0.20 fc′
of joint into account. In addition, using this approach leads to sa- Crack
tisfactory correlation between the analytical results and the experi- Peak Load pt = 0.42 fc′ pt = 0.29 fc′ pt = 0.20 fc′
mental data (Section 6). Hence, the authors opine that this approach Reference Priestley [19] Priestley [19] Pampanin et al.
can be used to estimate the joint shear strength. The absolute value of [25]
the principal tensile stress, pt, and the principal compressive stress, pc,
at mid-depth of the joint core can be expressed with the use of Mohr’s
circle theory [22]: both equal to 0.29√fc′ [19]. Pampanin et al. [25] proposed a value of
0.20√fc′ as the limiting principal tensile stress for smooth bars with end
pt = −(σ /2) + (σ /2)2 + τ 2 (16a) hooks (Case 3 in Table 3). In these two cases, significant and sudden
strength reduction is expected to occur after crack formation without
pc = (σ /2) + (σ /2)2 + τ 2 (16b) any additional source for hardening behaviour.
To estimate the maximum lateral force that can be applied at the
where, the average shear stress, τ, and the average normal compressive
column ends, Vc, before reaching the joint shear strength, the following
stress, σ, uniformly distributed over the section A-A (Figs. 5 and 7) can
procedure can be adopted:
be given by:
τ = Vjh/(wj hj ) (17) 1. Assume a value of column shear force, Vc
2. Calculate horizontal joint shear force, Vjh, from Eq. (5)
σ = (NC + Vjv )/(wj hj ) (18) 3. Calculate horizontal joint shear stress, τ, from Eq. (17)
in which, wj and hj are width and depth of joint core, respectively. The 4. Calculate vertical joint shear force, Vjv, from Eq. (19)
horizontal joint shear force, Vjh, can be calculated by using Eq. (5) and 5. Calculate vertical joint shear stress, σ, from Eq. (18)
the vertical joint shear force, Vjv, can be obtained from force equili- 6. Calculate principal tensile stress, pt, from Eq. (16a)
brium in the vertical direction and approximated by [21–24]: 7. Repeat the procedure above if the obtained value of pt is not suffi-
ciently close to the limiting value (Table 3).
Vjv = (hb/ hc ) Vjh (19)
For RC exterior beam-column joint with no transverse reinforce- The use of this procedure is illustrated in the Appendix. Once the
ment, the diagonal tension is mainly resisted by concrete. The limiting allowable column shear force, Vc, corresponding to the joint shear
values of principal tensile stresses for various arrangements of long- failure mechanism is obtained, comparison will be made with the va-
itudinal bar anchorage are summarised in Table 3. In the joint with 90- lues corresponding to other failure mechanisms in order to estimate the
degree hooked beam bars (Cases 1 and 2 in Table 3), initial cracking is most probable failure mode of the subassembly.
assumed to occur when pt = 0.29√fc′. However, bending the long-
itudinal beam bars 90° into the joint (Case 1 in Table 3) leads to con- 5. Strength hierarchy assessment approach
finement of the concrete diagonal strut in the joint core, and accord-
ingly, enhancement of joint shear strength [21]. The permissible tensile Each of the constituent elements of the beam-column joint sub-
strength is assumed to be pt = 0.42√fc′ beyond which shear hinge is assembly may fail due to excessive lateral load under different modes,
assumed to have formed at the joint [19]. namely, joint shear, beam flexural, beam shear, column flexural, and
When the beam bars are bent away from the joint (Case 2 in column shear failure [26]. The most probable failure modes can be
Table 3), it is assumed that the limiting values for principal tensile predicted by the aid of strength hierarchy assessment [27–30]. In this
stress corresponding to the initial shear crack and the peak load are paper, a capacity-demand ratio diagram, as shown in Fig. 8, is

758
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Fig. 8. Conceptual representation of the strength hierarchy assessment (non-retrofitted limited-ductile RC beam-column joint subassembly).

introduced to assess the hierarchy of strength. The capacity-demand H

Mc − max = ⎛ n −b⎞ Vc
ratio is plotted as a function of a demand parameter, such as base shear ⎝ 2 ⎠ (23)
force, VBase, or column shear force, Vc. The possible failure modes are
presented in chronological order of occurrence (e.g. 1–5). Failure is where Vb-max = maximum beam shear demand; Mb-max = maximum
assumed to occur when the capacity-demand ratio is smaller than 1.0, beam flexural demand; Vc-max = maximum column shear demand;
and hence, the failure threshold is defined at the point when the ratio Mc-max = maximum column flexural demand; and all other parameters
equals 1.0. have been defined earlier.
The estimation of the shear demand and capacity of joint element The location and the magnitude of maximum shear demand in the
can be obtained through the procedure discussed in the previous sec- beam, as well as in the column, can vary depending on the value of
tions. The shear and flexural capacities of beam and column can be shear transferring factor [29]. Referring to Fig. 3, in cases when the
determined using traditional ultimate strength methods for reinforced shear transferring factor is less than 2, the maximum shear demand
concrete structural design, while the maximum shear and flexural de- occurs between the endpoint of the element and the point where the
mands imposed on these elements can be obtained for all three systems haunch meets the element, while it occurs on the other side when the
(i.e. NRS, DHRS, and SHRS) using basic mechanics (refer Figs. 3 and 4): shear transferring factor is larger than 2. Thus, two equations are pro-
posed for the determination of the maximum shear demand at each
element (i.e. beam and column). In the next section, the proposed
Vb − max =
⎧
⎪ ( ) V ;if β ⩽ 2
He
Le c
analytical procedure is validated with the experimental data reported in
⎨ the literature.
⎪
⎩
( ) (β−1) V ;if β > 2
He
Le c
(20)

6. Experimental validation
L H
Mb − max = ⎛ n −a⎞ ⎛ e ⎞ Vc ⎜ ⎟

⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ Le ⎠ (21) The proposed analytical model has been used to predict the ultimate
strength as well as the failure mode of three non-retrofitted sub-
Vc; if β′ ⩽ 2 assemblies and three subassemblies retrofitted with double haunch
Vc − max = ⎧ retrofitting system. The geometry, material properties and test set-up of
⎨
⎩ (β ′−1) Vc ; if β′ > 2 (22)
specimens can be found in [26,31] for JT1-1, JT1-2, JT1-3, and JT1-4

Table 4
Comparison between observed results from experiments in the literature and the predictions based on the formulations derived in this study.
Specimen JT1-1 Test #2 Test #5 JT1-2 JT1-3 JT1-4
Type NRS NRS NRS DHRS DHRS DHRS
Carried out by [26,32] [31] [31] [26,32] [26,32] [26,32]

Ultimate Strength Predicted Vb (kN) 82 243 271 119 119 95

Observed (↓) Vb (kN) 63 289 262 100 117 88
Error (%) 30.2 15.8 3.3 18.8 1.7 7.9
Observed (↑) Vb (kN) 80 247 267 118 114 102
Error (%) 2.5 1.5 1.4 0.7 4.4 6.9
Observed (average) Vb (kN) 72 268 265 109 116 95
Error (%) 14.7 9.2 2.3 9 3 0.1
*
Failure Type Predicted J/S J/S J/S B/F B/F B/F
Observed J/S J/S J/S B/F B/F B/F

* J/S = Joint Shear, B/F = Beam Flexural.

759
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Fig. 9. Validation of proposed analytical model against experimental data.

and in [32] for Test #2, and Test #5. The key results of this experi-
mental validation exercise for all the six specimens are summarised in
Table 4, while three of them (i.e. JT1-1, Test #5, and JT1-4) have been
selected for illustration in Fig. 9. The right panels of Fig. 9 display the
experimental results reproduced from [26,31,32], while analytical re-
sults are shown on the left panels.
The comparison of analytical predictions and experimental results
obtained for the non-retrofitted subassemblies (i.e. JT1-1, Test #2, and
Test #5) is provided in Table 4. The rationale behind choosing these
subassemblies was to verify the validity and robustness of the proposed
analytical model under different levels of axial load on column. JT1-1
(Fig. 9a), Test #2, and Test #5 (Fig. 9b) were tested with an axial load

760
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Fig. 10. Geometry of case study model: (a) full-scale RC moment resisting frame, (b) exterior beam-column joint, (c) column section, (d) beam section.

equal to 0%, 10%, and 25% of fc′Ag, respectively. It can be observed
that the analytical results match reasonably well with the experimental
results and as expected, failure occurs due to formation of undesirable
shear hinge at the joint panel zone. Furthermore, it has proven that the
consideration of column axial load is essential for giving satisfactory
estimates of joint shear capacity through the analytical procedure.
On the other hand, the comparison of analytical and experimental
results obtained for the subassembly retrofitted with double haunch
retrofitting systems (i.e. JT1-2, JT1-3, and JT1-4) is given in the last
three columns of Table 4. Applying double diagonal haunches results in
relocating the plastic hinge to the beam element. Since the im-
plemented anchors are assumed to be fully bonded in analytical cal-
culations, JT1-2, JT1-3, and JT1-4 (Fig. 9c) have been selected from
[26,31] for the validation. It can be observed that the analytical results
match quite well with the experimental results.
As previously discussed, shear transferring factor, β, is a pivotal
parameter in the analytical procedure, therefore, a precise value of β is
indispensable in order to establish a correct strength hierarchy. For
these three double haunch retrofitting systems, the original equation
from [11] gives a value of 2.2 for βDHRS instead of 1.94 as calculated
from Eq. (14) (derived in this study). As a result, the beam end load, Vb,
corresponding to the peak shear strength of the joint zone, will be
changed from 308 kN, 328 kN, and 346 kN to 478 kN, 510 kN, and
538 kN for JT1-2, JT1-3, and JT1-4, respectively. In other words, the
differences will provide an inaccurate prediction of joint shear strength
with up to 55% error. Moreover, referring to the last paragraph of the
previous section, assuming a value of β larger than 2 will lead to a
wrong prediction of the magnitude and the location of maximum shear
demand through the beam element and it may even affect the order of
hierarchy of strength.
7. Application
After the validation of the analytical model developed in this study,
as the principles and procedure for establishing the strength hierarchy
for single haunch retrofitting system (SHRS) are the same as non-ret-
rofitted subassembly (NRS) and double haunch retrofitting system
(DHRS), the efficiency of SHRS can be compared with DHRS through a
parametric study.
7.1. Case study building
A full-scale three-storey RC moment resisting frame considered in
this study has been designed based on the requirements in Melbourne,
the capital city in the state of Victoria, Australia, in the 1980s
(Fig. 10a). The frame is 9 m tall, 10 m wide, and is assumed being lo-
cated on a deep or very soft soil site (i.e. Class D or E as defined in the
Australian Standard AS1170.4-2007 [33]). The seismic weight was
calculated by assuming 10 kPa gravity loads for all three levels in-
cluding dead loads and 30% of imposed loads (the earthquake-imposed
load combination factor, ψc, is considered to be equal to 30% according
to Equation 6.2(6) in AS1170.4:2007 [33]). Each bay perpendicular to
the plane frame is assumed to be 4 m wide. Hence, the weight of half of
the bay (2 m) on each side is supported by the frame being considered
in the case study.

Table 5
Material properties.
Concrete fc′ = 25 MPa Ec = 26.7 GPa α2 = 0.85 γ = 0.85 εcu = 0.003
Steel reinforcement fy = 500 MPa fu = 700 MPa Es = 200 GPa

Note: fc′ = the characteristic compressive strength of concrete; α2 = the ratio of equivalent concrete compressive stress developed under flexure to the characteristic
compressive strength (fc′); γ = the ratio, under design bending or design combined bending and compression, of the depth of the assumed rectangular compressive
stress block to kud; whereas d = effective depth of a cross-section, and ku = neutral axis parameter being the ratio, at ultimate strength under any combination of
bending and compression, of the depth to the neutral axis from the extreme compressive fibre to d; εcu = the ultimate concrete strain; fy = yield strength of steel
reinforcing bar; fu = ultimate strength of steel reinforcing bar; and all other parameters have been defined earlier.

761
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Table 6 Sp
Geometry of the exterior beam-column joint (A1) subassembly. VBase = ⎡kp ZCh (T1) ⎤ Wt
⎢
⎣ μ⎥ ⎦ (24)
Beam Column Joint
where kp = probability factor; Z = earthquake hazard factor;
hb = 400 mm hc = 300 mm hj = 300 mm
Ch(T1) = spectral shape factor for the fundamental natural period of the
wb = 300 mm wc = 350 mm wj = 350 mm
Le = Lb1/2 He = (Hc1 + Hc2)/2 Shear Rein N/A
structure; μ = structural ductility factor; Sp = structural performance
Long. Rein 2 N20 + 1 Long. 3 N20 The beam bars bent 90° into factor; and Wt = total design seismic weight of the building.
N16 Rein. the joint for both bottom and Structures are typically categorised into various classes in codes of
top bars practice based on their nature of occupancy. In AS1170.4, as in many
Shear. Rein N10/ Shear N10/150 mm
other codes of practice, the spectral ordinates could be multiplied by an
200 mm Rein.
Cover = 30 mm Cover 30 mm importance factor, or probability factor, kp, for the design of structures
= that are considered more important and required to perform better than
ordinary structures. According to Table B1.2b in the Australia’s
Note: wb = beam section width; Lb1 = beam span length between centreline of National Construction Code (NCC) [34] and Table 3.1 in
columns A and B (Fig. 10a); wc = column section width; Hc1 = height of the AS1170.4:2007 [33], low-rise residential construction is considered as
first-storey column; Hc2 = height of the second-storey column; and all other
an ordinary structure with kp being equal to 1.0. The hazard factor, Z, is
parameters have been defined earlier.
the design peak ground acceleration (PGA) (in unit of g) which is 0.08
for Melbourne as given in Table 3.2 in AS1170.4:2007 [33]. This is also
the minimum value of Z factor that will be enforced for structural de-
7.2. Seismic base shear sign across the whole of Australia [35,36]. The spectral shape factor,
Ch(T1), for the fundamental natural period of this structure
The design equivalent static shear force at the base, VBase, of this (T1 = 0.49 s) is 3.68 according to Table 6.4 in AS1170.4:2007 [33],
frame model is calculated from the following equation in accordance which is also consistent with the proposed value for typical soil sites
with AS1170.4-2007 [33]: based on recent research findings [37,38]. The structural ductility, μ,
and the structural performance factor, Sp, for ordinary moment-

Fig. 11. Assessment of strength hierarchy for exterior beam-column joint subassemblies with different beam/column span length ratios equipped with double haunch
retrofitting system (DHRS).

762
A. Zabihi et al.
Fig. 12. Assessment of strength hierarchy for exterior beam-column joint subassembly with different beam/column span length ratios equipped with single haunch
retrofitting system (SHRS).
resisting frames are respectively equal to 2.0 and 0.77 as given in
Table 6. 5(A) in AS1170.4:2007 [33]. The total design seismic weight of
the building, Wt, is taken as 1200 kN based on Clause 6.2 in
AS1170.4:2007 [33].
The base shear forces based on the design ultimate limit state (ULS)
(with the consideration of over-strength and ductility), 500-year and
2500-year return period elastic response (ER) are approximately equal
to 135 kN, 350 kN, and 635 kN, respectively. The natural periods of the
structure will be slightly decreased due to the stiffening effects from the
haunches. It may lead to an increase in the design base shear force, but
it is not realised in this study as the initial fundamental natural period is
within the peak acceleration plateau of the design response spectrum in
AS1170.4-2007 [33].
7.3. Exterior beam-column joint subassembly
To investigate the effectiveness of the proposed retrofitting system,
the bottom left beam-column joint subassembly, annotated as A1 in
Fig. 10a, has been selected to be assessed analytically (as shown in
Fig. 10b). This subassembly is truncated between contra-flexure points
at mid-height of the columns and mid-span of the beam. Cross sections
of column and beam are shown in Fig. 10c and d, respectively. The key
parameters for analytical modelling are tabulated in Table 5 (material
properties) and Table 6 (geometry of the joint subassembly).
When the beam/column span length ratio is equal to 1.33 (e.g.
763
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767
Lb = 4 m, and Hc = 3 m), the shear force at the base of the first storey
exterior column (A1 in Fig. 10) would be 27 kN (design ULS), 70 kN
(500-year ER) and 127 kN (2500-year ER), respectively. The lateral
load–drift capacity relationship of the first storey exterior column has
been calculated based on the analytical model developed by the authors
[39–41]. The peak shear strength, under an axial load ratio of 0.1, is
100 kN, which is higher than the 500-year ER (70 kN) levels. This in-
dicates that the column will respond within the pre-peak range with
drift demand less than 1.0% under the 500-year earthquake action,
whilst the ultimate drift capacity of the column is over 5.0%. On the
other side, the formation of shear hinge at the non-retrofitted joint zone
occurs when the shear force at the base of the column reaches 57 kN,
that is equivalent to base shear level of 286 kN (refer Fig. 13c). It is
because the limiting tensile stress at the joint zone is being exceeded at
this level (refer Eq. (16a) and Table 3), which is assumed as failure
especially at such a low axial load level.
7.4. Parametric study
A parametric study was conducted on factors that have major in-
fluences on variation in the strength hierarchy of the beam-column
joint subassembly. The critical factors chosen for the parametric study
are length of haunch and beam/column span length ratio.
The limiting base shear force, VBase, due to different failure me-
chanism and its corresponding column shear force, Vc, are plotted in
A. Zabihi et al.
Fig. 13. Summary of ultimate strength and failure mode of the exterior beam-column joint subassembly with different beam/column span length ratio before and
after retrofit.
Figs. 11 and 12 against the length of haunch after implementing DHRS
and SHRS, respectively. It is noted that five different haunch lengths
(i.e. 400 mm, 500 mm, 600 mm, 700 mm, and 800 mm) and beam/
column span length ratios (i.e. 1.00, 1.17, 1.33, 1.50, and 1.67) were
considered in the parametric study. Furthermore, the two designs
(DHRS and SHRS) considered in this study utilise the same amount
(length) of material in order to make a fair comparison.
Referring to Table 7 and Fig. 13, the non-retrofitted subassembly
fails due to formation of undesirable joint shear hinge at the base shear
level of 382 kN, 326 kN, 286 kN, 255 kN, and 231 kN when the beam/
column span length ratios are equal to 1.00, 1.17, 1.33, 1.50, and 1.67,
respectively.
By implementing double diagonal haunches with a total length
smaller than 730 mm, 600 mm, and 520 mm on the subassembly with
the beam/column span length ratio of 1.00 (Fig. 11a), 1.17 (Fig. 11b),
and 1.33 (Fig. 11c), respectively, formation of the shear hinge is shifted
to a higher base shear level. Although the retrofitted joint can resist
against a stronger earthquake with up to 31%, 20%, and 15% higher
base shear force, the joint will still fail at the joint zone first which is
considered undesirable from the perspective of capacity design prin-
ciple (Table 7). Favourable failure mechanism, i.e. beam flexure
yielding, and a higher capacity enhancement can be achieved when the
total length of double haunches is greater than 730 mm, 600 mm, and
520 mm, respectively, for beam/column span length ratio of 1.00, 1.17,
and 1.33. When the beam/column span length ratio is equal to 1.50
(Fig. 11d), and 1.67 (Fig. 11e), applying double diagonal haunches
(with 400 mm or longer) leads to occurrence of plastic hinging at the
beam element.
By applying single diagonal haunch to the subassembly with the
764
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767
beam/column span length ratio of 1.00 (Fig. 12a), the retrofitted joint
can resist against an earthquake which creates up to 60% higher base
shear force (Table 7), but unfavourable shear hinge still remains at the
joint panel zone. The balance points for the subassembly with the
beam/column span length ratio of 1.17 (Fig. 12b), 1.33 (Fig. 12c), and
1.50 (Fig. 12d) are around 755 mm, 575 mm, and 460 mm, respectively,
hence, implementation of single haunch with length greater than those,
leads to favourable yielding mechanism. Increment of beam/column
span length ratio to 1.67 (Fig. 12e) results in shifting the hinge away
from the vulnerable joint zone.
In Fig. 13, the ultimate strength and failure mode of NRS, DHRS,
and SHRS are summarized in one graph for different beam/column span
length ratios. For example, when the beam/column span length ratio is
equal to 1.50 (Fig. 13d), NRS fails at a base shear level of 255 kN due to
the formation of shear hinge at the joint zone. Applying DHRS will
change the strength hierarchy appropriately (i.e. beam flexural failure
occurs first) and enhance the seismic resistance up to the base shear
level of 301 kN at this particular beam-column joint subassembly. Ap-
plying SHRS with a length smaller than 460 mm leads to enhancement
of the seismic resistance only, whilst in order to achieve both benefits of
single haunch retrofitting longer haunch are required. The same results
for subassembly with beam/column span length ratio of 1.00, 1.17,
1.33, and 1.67 can be found in Fig. 13a, b, c, and e, respectively.
It is shown in Fig. 13 that in all cases considered herein, when the
percentage of reinforcement in the beam and the column (ρb and ρc)
equals to 0.68% and 1.77%, respectively, greater enhancement can be
achieved if the beam span length is shorter; and for a fixed beam/
column span length ratio, a longer haunch can be more effective. Im-
portantly, for all the cases considered herein, when the same amount of
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

Table 7 Hence, the subassembly equipped with the single haunch retrofitting
Capacity enhancement at the exterior beam-column joint (i.e. A1 in Fig. 10) system is expected to fail at the higher base shear level. These key re-
after implementation of double or single diagonal haunch (Failure Type: J/ sults are tabulated in Table 7.
S = Joint Shear, B/F = Beam Flexural).
Total Haunch Length (mm) – 400 500 600 700 800 8. Summary and conclusions
Lb/Hc = 1.00 NRS Base Shear (kN) 382 – – – – –
Failure Type J/S – – – – – It is evidenced from this study that the seismic behaviour of a poorly
DHRS Base Shear (kN) – 414 434 459 490 512 detailed exterior beam-column joint can be improved by the installation
Failure Type – J/S J/S J/S J/S B/F of a single diagonal haunch, which is a less-invasive and architecturally
Enhancement (%) – 9 14 20 28 34
more favourable seismic retrofitting technique. The key contribution of
SHRS Base Shear (kN) – 439 473 514 561 612
Failure Type – J/S J/S J/S J/S J/S this paper is the derivation of the key formulations for the im-
Enhancement (%) – 15 24 35 47 60 plementation of single diagonal haunch, whilst generalization of the
Lb/Hc = 1.17 NRS Base Shear (kN) 326 – – – – – formulations for all three systems: non-retrofitted subassembly (NRS),
Failure Type J/S – – – – – double haunch retrofitting system (DHRS), and single haunch retro-
DHRS Base Shear (kN) – 354 371 393 404 415 fitting system (SHRS), was also developed.
Failure Type – J/S J/S J/S & B/F B/F Essentially, the change in shear demand in the joint zone after ap-
B/F
plying a single diagonal haunch was investigated and compared with
Enhancement (%) – 9 14 20 24 27
SHRS Base Shear (kN) – 376 405 441 482 529 the non-retrofitted case and the double haunch retrofitting system
Failure Type – J/S J/S J/S J/S B/F (Section 2). The shear transferring factors (β and β') as the pivotal
Enhancement (%) – 15 24 35 48 62 parameters in the design of the single haunch retrofitting system were
Lb/Hc = 1.33 NRS Base Shear (kN) 286 – – – – – then derived (Section 3). Moreover, the equations for determining the
Failure Type J/S – – – – – shear demand in the exterior RC joint zone (Vjh), as well as the shear
DHRS Base Shear (kN) – 310 325 334 341 349 transferring factors, were generalized for the three systems (Sections 2
Failure Type – J/S J/S B/F B/F B/F
Enhancement (%) – 9 14 17 19 22
and 3). Capacity limit of exterior beam-column joint was studied
SHRS Base Shear (kN) – 329 355 384 404 426 afterwards (Section 4), as capacity-demand ratio is required for estab-
Failure Type – J/S J/S B/F B/F B/F lishing the strength hierarchy in order to determine the most probable
Enhancement (%) – 15 24 34 41 49 failure mode (in Section 5). The developed analytical procedure has
Lb/Hc = 1.50 NRS Base Shear (kN) 255 – – – – – then been validated with available experimental data for NRS and
Failure Type J/S – – – – – DHRS (Section 6).
DHRS Base Shear (kN) – 277 284 290 295 301
Finally, the efficiency of SHRS was compared with that of DHRS
Failure Type – J/S & B/F B/F B/F B/F
B/F
through a parametric study (Section 7) with the use of a strength
Enhancement (%) – 8 11 13 16 18 hierarchy diagram for estimating the most probable failure mode, and
SHRS Base Shear (kN) – 294 313 326 341 356 the associated limiting base shear force, of an RC beam-column joint
Failure Type – J/S B/F B/F B/F B/F subassembly. The effects of the length of haunch (Lh), and the beam/
Enhancement (%) – 15 23 28 33 40
column span length ratio (Lb/Hc), on the strength hierarchy were
Lb/Hc = 1.67 NRS Base Shear (kN) 231 – – – – – evaluated in this study. It was found that the use of diagonal haunch
Failure Type J/S – – – – –
could be more effective when the ratio of beam/column span length is
DHRS Base Shear (kN) – 248 252 256 260 265
Failure Type – B/F B/F B/F B/F B/F smaller, whilst a longer haunch could generally lead to better outcome.
Enhancement (%) – 7 9 11 13 15 Importantly, for the same amount of (haunch) material being utilised in
SHRS Base Shear (kN) – 265 274 284 295 306 DHRS and SHRS, greater enhancement can be obtained by im-
Failure Type – B/F B/F B/F B/F B/F plementing SHRS. The results presented in this paper can provide some
Enhancement (%) – 15 19 23 28 33
insights for the design and optimisation of both DHRS and SHRS.

haunch material is used for DHRS and SHRS, higher enhancement can Acknowledgements
be resulted with the use SHRS. This is because a single diagonal haunch
is longer which leads to a greater reduction in the maximum flexural The authors acknowledge the financial supports from the Bushfire
demand in the beam and in the lower column (refer Fig. 4) as well as a and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre of the Australian
lower shear demand in the joint panel zone (refer Fig. 3 and Eq. (5)). Government.

Appendix A. Illustrative Example

The allowable base shear force, VBase, corresponding to the peak shear strength limit of the joint zone, for NRS, DHRS, and SHRS when the beam/
column span length ratio is equal to 1.33 (e.g. Lb = 4 m, and Hc = 3 m), can be estimated as follows (geometry and material properties can be found
in Section 7):

A.1. NRS

Assuming an allowable base shear force, VBase, of 250 kN, the corresponding shear force at column A1 (in Fig. 10), Vc, can be approximated by
utilizing portal frame analysis method:
Vc = 50kN
From Eq. (5):
3000 3700
Vjh = ⎡ ⎛ −0⎞−1⎤ × 50 = 412.5kN
⎣ 300 × 2000 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦

765
A. Zabihi et al. Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767

From Eq. (17):

412.5 × 103
τ= = 3.93MPa
350 × 300
From Eq. (19):
400
Vjv = ⎛ ⎞ × 412.5 = 550kN
⎝ 300 ⎠
From Eq. (18):
160 × 103 + 550 × 103
σ= = 6.76Mpa
350 × 300
From Eq. (16a):

6.76 6.76 2
pt = −⎛ ⎞+ ⎛ ⎞ + 3.932 = 1.804MPa = 0.36 fc′
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
As the obtained principal tensile stress is less than the limiting value for peak shear strength of the joint when the beam bars are bent 90° into the
joint (0.42√fc′), a higher value of base shear force is allowed. By repeating the procedure, an allowable value of 286 kN can be obtained for the base
shear force, based on the principal tensile stress limit of 0.42√fc′, which is shown Fig. 13c.

A.2. DHRS

Assuming an allowable base shear force, VBase, of 344 kN, the corresponding shear force at column A1 (in Fig. 10), Vc, can be approximated by
utilizing portal frame analysis method:
Vc = 68.8kN
By implementing double diagonal haunches with a total length of 600 mm, the beam shear transferring factor (Eq. (14)) is equal to 1.31. Hence,
from Eq. (5):
3000 3700
Vjh = ⎡ ⎛ −212.1 × 1.31⎞−1⎤ × 68.8 = 472.2kN
⎣ 300 × 2000 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦
From Eq. (17):
472.2 × 103
τ= = 4.5MPa
350 × 300
From Eq. (19)
400
Vjv = ⎛ ⎞ × 472.2 = 629.53kN
⎝ 300 ⎠
From Eq. (18):
160 × 103 + 629.5 × 103
σ= = 7.52Mpa
350 × 300
From Eq. (16a):

7.52 7.52 2
pt = −⎛ ⎞+ ⎛ ⎞ + 4.52 = 2.10Mpa ≅ 0.42 fc′
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Therefore, the allowable value of base shear force is 344 kN, based on the principal tensile stress limit of 0.42√fc′, which is shown in Fig. 11c.
According to the strength hierarchy assessment, the first failure is expected to occur at a base shear level of 334 kN due to formation of plastic hinge
in the beam.

A.3. SHRS

Assuming an allowable base shear force, VBase, of 387 kN, the corresponding shear force at column A1 (in Fig. 10), Vc, can be approximated by
utilizing portal frame analysis method:
Vc = 77.4kN
By implementing a single diagonal haunch with 600 mm length, the beam shear transferring factor (Eq. (14)) is equal to 1.01. So, from Eq. (5):
3000 3700
Vjh = ⎡ ⎛ −424.26 × 1.01⎞−1⎤ × 77.4 = 472.06kN
⎣ 300 × 2000 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦
From Eq. (17):
472.06 × 103
τ= = 4.5MPa
350 × 300
From Eq. (19):

766
A. Zabihi et al.
400
Vjv = ⎛ ⎞ × 472.06 = 629.41kN
⎝ 300 ⎠
From Eq. (18):
160 × 103 + 629.41 × 103
σ= = 7.52Mpa
350 × 300
From Eq. (16a):
7.52 7.52 2
pt = −⎛ ⎞+ ⎛ ⎞ + 4.52 = 2.1Mpa ≅ 0.42 fc′
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Therefore, the allowable value of base shear force is 387 kN, based on the principal tensile stress of 0.42√fc′, which is shown in Fig. 12c.
According to the strength hierarchy assessment, the first failure is expected to occur at the base shear level of 383 kN due to formation of plastic
hinge in the beam.
References
[1] Youshimura K, Kuroki M. Damage to building structures caused by the 1999 Chi-chi
earthquake in Taiwan. Reports of Faculty of Engineering, Oita University
1999;40:32–9. Available from: < http://www.arch.oita-u.ac.jp/a-kou/STRENG-
LAB/paper/PDF/taiwan1.pdf>.
[2] Sezen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ, Mosalam KM. Performance of reinforced con-
crete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic
design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng Struct 2003;25:103–14. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00121-9.
[3] Doǧangün A. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003
Bingöl Earthquake in Turkey. Eng Struct 2004;26:841–56. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.engstruct.2004.02.005.
[4] Kam WY, Pampanin S, Elwood KJ. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete
buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttelton) earthquake. Bull-New Zeal
Soc Earthq Eng 2011;44:239–78.
[5] Aycardi LE, Mander JB, Reinhorn AM. Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete
frame structures designed only for gravity loads: experimental performance of
subassemblages. ACI Struct J 1994;91:552–63.
[6] Beres A, Pessiki SP, White RN, Gergely P. Implications of experiments on the seismic
behavior of gravity load designed RC beam-to-column connections. Earthq Spectra
1996;12(2):185–98. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585876.
[7] Calvi GM, Magenes G, Pampanin S. Relevance of beam-column joint damage and
collapse in RC frame assessment. J Earthquake Eng 2002;6(1):75–100. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13632460209350433.
[8] Ricci P, De Risi MT, Verderame GM, Manfredi G. Experimental tests of unreinforced
exterior beam-column joints with plain bars. Eng Struct 2016;118:178–94. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.033.
[9] De Risi MT, Ricci P, Verderame GM, Manfredi G. Experimental assessment of un-
reinforced exterior beam-column joints with deformed bars. Eng Struct
2016;112:215–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.016.
[10] Engindeniz M, Kahn LF, Zureick A-H. Repair and strengthening of reinforced con-
crete beam-column joints: state of the art. ACI Struct J 2005;102(2):1–14.
[11] Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Chen T-H. Development and validation of a metallic
haunch seismic retrofit solution for existing under-designed RC frame buildings.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2006;35:1739–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
600.
[12] Ghobarah A, Said A. Shear strengthening of beam-column joints. Eng Struct
2002;24:881–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00026-3.
[13] Ilki A, Bedirhanoglu I, Kumbasar N. Behavior of FRP-retrofitted joints built with
plain bars and low-strength concrete. J Compos Constr 2011;15(3):312–26. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000156.
[14] Beres A, El-Borgi S, White RN, Gergely P. Experimental results of repaired and
retrofitted beam-column joint tests in lightly reinforced concrete frame buildings.
Technical report NCEER 1992; 0025: SUNY/Buffalo.
[15] Kalogeropoulos GI, Tsonos A-DG, Konstandinidis D, Tsetines S. Pre-earthquake and
post-earthquake retrofitting of poorly detailed exterior RC beam-to-column joints.
Eng Struct 2016;109:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.009.
[16] Li B, Lam ES-S, Cheng YK, Wu B, Wang YY. Strengthening of non-seismically de-
signed beam-column joints by ferrocement jackets with chamfers. Earthquakes
Struct 2015;8(5):1017–38. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.5.1017.
[17] Sharma A, Reddy GR, Eligehausen R, Genesio G, Pampanin S. Seismic response of
reinforced concrete frames with haunch retrofit solution. ACI Struct J
2014;111:673–84. https://doi.org/10.14359/51686625.
[18] Yu Q Kent, Uang C, Gross J. Seismic rehabilitation design of steel moment con-
nection. J Struct Eng 2000;126:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445.
[19] Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete
buildings. J Earthquake Eng 1997;1(1):157–92. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S1363246997000088.
[20] Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H. Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beam-
column joints with substandard reinforcing details. ACI Struct J 2000;97:11–25.
[21] Sharma A, Eligehausen R, Reddy GR. A new model to simulate joint shear behavior
of poorly detailed beam-column connections in RC structures under seismic loads,
767
Engineering Structures 174 (2018) 753–767
Part I: Exterior joints. Eng Struct 2011;33:1034–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2010.12.026.
[22] Tsonos AG. Lateral load response of strengthened reinforced concrete beam-to-
column joints. ACI Struct J 1999;96:46–56.
[23] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. John Wiley & Sons; 1975.
[24] Paulay T, Park R. Joints in reinforced concrete frames designed for earthquake
resistance. Research report 84-9. Christchurch: Department of Civil Engineering.
University of Canterbury; 1984.
[25] Pampanin S, Magenes G, Carr A. Modelling of shear hinge mechanism in poorly
detailed RC beam-column joints. In: Proceedings of the FIB 2003 symposium,
Athens, Greece; May 2003.
[26] Genesio G. Seismic assessment of RC exterior beam-column joints and retrofit with
haunches using post-installed anchors. Ph.D. thesis. Stuttgart (Germany): University
of Stuttgart; 2012. http://doi.org/10.18419/opus-472.
[27] Pampanin S, Bolognini D, Pavese A, Magenes G, Calvi GM. Multi-level seismic re-
habilitation of existing frame systems and subassemblies using FRP composites. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil
Engineering, Adelaide, Australia; December 2004.
[28] Hertanto E. Seismic assessment of pre-1970s reinforced concrete structure. Ph.D.
thesis. Christchurch (New Zealand): University of Canterbury; 2005. Available
from: < https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/1120>.
[29] Chen T. Retrofit strategy of non-seismically designed frame systems based on a
metallic haunch system. Master of engineering thesis. Christchurch (New Zealand):
University of Canterbury; 2006. Available from: < https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/
handle/10092/1222>.
[30] Tasligedik AS, Akguzel U, Kam WY, Pampanin S. Strength hierarchy at reinforced
concrete beam- column joints and global capacity strength hierarchy at reinforced
concrete beam-column joints and global capacity. J Earthquake Eng 2016:1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1233916.
[31] Clyde C, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD. Performance-based evaluation of exterior
reinforced concrete building joints for seismic excitation. Report PEER 2000/05.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2000. Available from: < http://
peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2000/0005.pdf>.
[32] Sharma A. Seismic behavior and retrofitting of RC frame structures with emphasis
on beam-column joints – experiments and numerical modeling. Ph.D. thesis.
Stuttgart (Germany): University of Stuttgart; 2013. Available from: < https://elib.
uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/515>.
[33] Standards Australia. AS 1170.4-2007: structural design actions; Part 4: earthquake
actions in Australia. Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2007.
[34] Australian Building Codes Board. National Construction Code of Australia – Class 2
and 9 Buildings – Volume One. Canberra, ACT, Australia; 2016.
[35] Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Gad EF. Hazard identification and behaviour of reinforced
concrete framed buildings in regions of lower seismicity. In: Proceedings of the 10th
Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sydney, Australia; 6-8 November
2015.
[36] Lam NTK, Tsang HH, Lumantarna E, Wilson JL. Minimum loading requirements for
areas of low seismicity. Earthquakes Struct 2016;11(4):539–61. https://doi.org/10.
12989/eas.2016.11.4.539.
[37] Tsang HH, Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Su RKL. A design spectrum model for flexible soil
sites in regions of low-to-moderate seismicity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;92:36–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.09.035.
[38] Tsang HH, Wilson JL, Lam NTK. A refined design spectrum model for regions of
lower seismicity. Aust J Struct Eng 2017;18:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13287982.2017.1297529.
[39] Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Gad EF. Drift performance of lightly reinforced
concrete columns. Eng Struct 2014;59:522–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2013.11.016.
[40] Wilson JL, Wibowo A, Lam NTK, Gad EF. Drift behaviour of lightly reinforced
concrete columns and structural walls for seismic design applications. Aust J Struct
Eng 2015;16:62–74.
[41] Raza S, Tsang HH, Wilson JL. Unified models for post-peak failure drifts of normal-
and high-strength RC columns. Mag Concr Res 2018. https://doi.org/10.1680/
jmacr.17.00375.