ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 89-54
Consideration of Questions about Beam-Column Joints
by Stavroula Pantazopoulou and John Bonacci
The mechanics of beam-column joints in laterally loaded frame
structures are investigated in this paper. The formulation presented
establishes compatibility of strains and stress equilibrium. Factors
known to affect the behavior of connections, including the effect of
lateral restraint (present in connections of indeterminate structures),
as well as the reduction of concrete strength associated with diagonal
tensile strains, are considered. The role of stirrups and axial load on
the behavior of the joint are illustrated clearly. In addition to provid-
ing an improved understanding of joint behavior, the derivation re-
flects the relationship between the design limit states and correspond-
ing deformations, giving an opportunity to link joint design to the
overall lateral drift of the structure.
Keywords: beams (supports); connections; cyclic loads; deformation; earth-
quake-resistant structures; joints Gunctions); reinforced concrete; stirrups.
A measure of uncertainty exists about connections in
reinforced concrete frame structures designed to with-
stand earthquake motions. There are several reasons
why this has been such a stubborn problem. Rein-
forced concrete connection behavior involves interac-
tion of several key phenomena (shear, bond, fatigue,
confinement), which, even independently, are not well
understood. Further, the kinds of tests made to pro-
vide experimental evidence have imposed a specialized
reference frame through which the problem is usually
viewed. 1•8 Another issue is that investigation of this
problem has been pursued on two different fronts.
Some are concerned with describing mechanical truths.
Others want merely to develop dependable design rec-
ommendations. It is likely that the level of uncertainty
may have been amplified by debate that mixes the lan-
guage and objectives of these two separate pursuits. It
is plausible that a structure can be designed adequately
without full knowledge of every aspect of its inner
workings, just as it is plausible that the mechanics of a
system can be described in a way that would leave no
impression on a designer.
Uncertainty or differences of opinion still pervade
almost every aspect of connection behavior and de-
sign.9-u To start off with, reconnaissance studies have
not always shown that joints make actual structures as
vulnerable as laboratory studies might suggest. There is
also much debate over what constitutes reasonable per-
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992
TECHNICAL PAPER
formance demand: should it be stated in terms of a
ductility ratio? a drift ratio? or should joint design be
made a slave to the forces associated with inexhaustible
beam hinging? There has been considerable discussion
about whether to design for horizontal shear, vertical
shear, or both. 9-u There are conflicting views about the
function of transverse reinforcement and whether or
not column axial force is beneficiaJ.9· 12- 15 There is little
known about how connections would fare in actual
(statically indeterminate) frames, for which it is proba-
ble that internal forces could be redistributed and hor-
izontal restraining forces would develop as a result of
inelastic member growth. Finally-but not to say that
it is the least troubling issue-there are several views
about how bond softening influences connection be-
havior.
This paper was inspired by the existence of this im-
pressive list of uncertainties. It does not pretend to set-
tle finally all or any of these issues, nor does it lead to
infallible design recommendations. The paper begins by
exploring the mechanics of connections for the sake of
improved understanding. It shows that a number of the
unresolved issues can be addressed satisfactorily by ap-
plying relatively familiar formal mechanical principles.
The mathematical constructs adopted to record me-
chanical arguments are then applied to investigate how
certain design variables influence the behavior of con-
nections.
The discussion of mechanics is built around two im-
portant assertions: 1) that many of the unsettled ques-
tions result from selection of mechanically inconven-
ient (though perhaps humanly convenient) coordinate
systems for viewing the problem, and 2) that consider-
ation of joint deformation characteristics is essential if
performance requirements are to be related to struc-
tural response or if the effects of indeterminacy are to
ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. I, January-February 1992.
Received Jan. 15 1991 and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1992, Ameri~an Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includin~
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propn-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-December 1992
ACI Structural Journal if received by July I, 1992. ·
27

Stavroula Pantazopoulou is assistant professor of civil engineering at the Uni-
versity of Toronto. She holds a degree in civil engineering from the National
Technical University of Athens, Greece, and MS and PhD degrees from the
University of California at Berkeley. She is secretary of ACI Committee 341,
Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges, and is a member of ACI Committee
368, Earthquake Resisting Concrete Structural Elements and Systems.
John Bonacci is assistant professor of civil engineering at the University of To-
ronto. He received his BS, MS, and PhD degrees in civil engineering at the
University of Illinois-Urbana. He is a member of joint ACI-ASCE Committee
352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures; and A CI
Committee 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement.
be accounted for. If the goal of this paper were to
achieve pinpoint accuracy, the influence of bond slip
would have to be considered in detail. But rigorous
treatment of bond was purposely omitted because it
adds a unique dimension that might obscure readily
understandable results.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Current design code requirements for beam-column
connections rely on empirical interpretation of special-
ized experiments. In this paper, a description of the ba-
sic mechanics of joint behavior is used to provide an
alternative approach for generalizing from available
experimental evidence. The derivation establishes equi-
librium of stress resultants, satisfies compatibility of
deformations within the joint, and incorporates avail-
able models of material nonlinear behavior. This com-
prehensive interpretation of joint mechanics constitutes
a significant step toward development of unified gen-
eral design standards for beam-column connections re-
sisting earthquake forces.
PRESCRIPTIONS FOR DESCRIBING JOINT
MECHANICS
Understanding the behavior of reinforced concrete
beam-column joints has become a topic of particular
challenge to researchers throughout the world for the
last 30 years. While much progress has been made in
....
.<
_l\
- at the boundaries of the joint (Fig. 1), quantifying this
column
joint
-~
~ ./ >
longitudinal bearn
~ .II
- ...
Fig. 1 - Actions at the boundaries of the joint
..,.
28
this time on the fronts of experimental research and
design, many new unanswered questions have also
emerged.
In addition to p1aterial nonlinearity, understanding
of joints is made difficult because of the fact that large
variations in both geometry and distribution of loads
occur over a relatively small volume. This feature com-
plicates the task of idealization for the purpose of
analysis.
Much of the current knowledge about joint behavior
is based on experiments which, for practical reasons,
are usually done on statically determinate assemblies
representing frame connections. 1-8 Ironically, though the
form of these specimens has been greatly simplified,
interpretation of test results is very demanding and is
subject to considerable numerical scatter. This is espe-
cially true of efforts to establish design limits for joint
shear strength, for which a lower-bound empirical ap-
proach has been taken. In this section, these issues of
experimental idealization and scatter are reviewed,
along with several others that impede consistent inter-
pretation of experimental evidence. The arguments set
forth here are meant to provide a list of specific fea-
tures to be incorporated into the interpretation of joint
mechanics that follows.
Choosing a coordinate system
Experimental behavior of joints is commonly char-
acterized by an average shear stress (horizontal and/ or
vertical) introduced to the joint by the adjacent beams
and columns (Fig. 1). The same approach is adopted by
joint ACI-ASCE Committee 3529 and is characteristic
of the North American design practice.
However, the value of shear stress is associated with
the specific coordinate system in which it is evaluated.
By appropriate choice of the coordinate system, shear
stress can be eliminated, and therefore it alone cannot
adequately describe the complete stress state of the ele-
ment under consideration. While it is admittedly most
practical to compute shear stresses along the main di-
rections of connection geometry from the forces acting
aspect of behavior without the associated angle from
the plane of principal stresses within the joint is incom-
plete. This is undoubtedly a factor that contributes to
scatter observed in summaries of experimentally meas-
ured joint shear strength.
At any point in a structure, it is possible to deter-
mine the principal directions for which no shear is re-
quired to describe the state of stress and for which all
stresses are normal, in either tension or compression.
Because these stresses can be compared directly with
conventionally obtained material strengths, it would
seem that the corresponding coordinate system is the
least arbitrary of the possible choices.
Several attempts have been made to approximate the
directions of principal stress in beam-column joints us-
ing "truss" models, wherein the reference frame is ide-
ally related to the path of loads within the structure. 12•15
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992
Typically, this path is established thro1,1gh engineering
judgment and experimental observation, leaving room
for uncertainty about whether the selected reference
frame is associated with zero shear.
Consideration of joint deformations
The idea of evaluating the behavior of joints by ex-
amining the principal stresses is not novel. However, its
realization has been impeded by the fact that even
computation of average principal stresses requires
knowledge of the pattern and magnitude of deforma-
tion, an aspect of the response usually omitted from
design methods because, when accounted for, it gener-
ally complicates the extent of computations required
for a solution. Nevertheless, there is a slowly converg-
ing consensus that the nature and size of joint defor-
mations associated with a given level of forces must be
better understood. Even if, by some means, the direc-
tion and magnitude of principal stresses could be deter-
mined, it would be difficult to know if these stresses
were too high or whether they are even likely to de-
velop considering the response of the overall structure.
For example, the compressive resistance of concrete
along the principal diagonal depends on the amount of
tension in the orthogonal direction. 16 Such effects can
only be addressed quantitatively if information about
the kinematics of joint response is available. As the
forces at the joint boundary increase, several possible
milestones of response can develop, such as yielding of
transverse reinforcement, crushing the concrete along
the diagonal, or yielding of the column reinforcement.
If the deformations throughout the progress of re-
sponse could be "monitored," it would be possible to
establish the sequence in which these phenomena would
occur. Furthermore, if the deformations of the joint
could be linked to the overall structural response, then,
in addition, the very likelihood of these occurrences
could be established.
With respect to the overall displacements of beam-
column connections, experiments show that joint de-
formation is a strong indicator of joint performance.
For example, it is generally understood that satisfac-
tory joint behavior is associated with minimal contri-
bution of joint distortion to the overall lateral drift of
the structure. 7 Ideally, the fraction of joint contribu-
tion would decrease with increasing amount of total
lateral drift as the adjacent beams develop plastic
hinges and undertake the bulk of inelastic action. By
contrast, for cases of inadequate joint design, the con-
tribution of joint distortion to the total drift has been
observed to increase with increasing magnitude of total
displacement. In these cases, the joint is often respon-
sible for much of the inelasticity detected in the overall
response.
Role of stirrups
Early tests conducted in the 1960s on isolated con-
nection specimens illustrated that joint reinforcement in
the form of horizontal stirrups, in combination with
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992
uniformly distributed longitudinal column reinforce-
ment (to form a closed cage), significantly enhanced the
shear resistance of joints. 1 Since then, much research
has been con~ucted with an aim toward establishing re-
lationships between the degree of deterioration of shear
resistance under cyclic loads and the amount of lateral
reinforcement provided in the joint. 2•6 Recent tests (as
part of a U.S.-Japan-New Zealand-China cooperative
research effort) of connection specimens simulating
Japanese, American, and New Zealand practice (of
which the first and last pose the lowest and highest re-
quirements of joint reinforcement, respectively), clearly
suggest that there is an upper limit in the amount of
joint reinforcement, beyond which the overall resis-
tance of beam-column assemblies is not improved. 7
This manifests the obvious fact that, although large
amounts of joint reinforcement can increase the avail-
able shear resistance of the joint itself, this additional
strength is not likely to be usable because the dema~d
on the joint is eventually limited by the flexural resis-
tance of adjacent members. All reported specimens
(which were designed to fail in beam yielding and had
favorable bond conditions) demonstrated similar over-
all resistance, with the only significant differences be-
ing apparent stiffness of the connections and the
amount of deformation. Increased amounts of lateral
reinforcement delayed the initiation and propagation of
cracking in the joint, and reduced the amount of joint
distortion that occurred under a given level of joint
shear stress. These observations suggest that an impor-
tant consequence of adding joint reinforcement is an
increase of joint stiffness.
Based on this experimental evidence, it is possible to
idealize joints as two-dimensional (2-D) panels rein-
forced in two orthogonal directions, and acted upon by
in-plane shear and normal stresses. The total shear
stiffness K of the panel comprises concrete Kc and steel
K contributions according to: K = Kc + Ks. However,
c~ntrary to familiar 2-D panels, 16 the concrete stiffness
contribution Kc is not independent of Ks. This is sup-
ported by experimental evidence obtained from tests of
beam-column joints in which the closed stirrups were
replaced by longitudinal beam reinforcement that was
uniformly distributed along the height and anchored
outside of the joint. 8 Although the joints in these spec-
imens were able to resist the shear demanded to de-
velop beam hinging, a rapid deterioration of joint shear
resistance was observed with cycling. Evidently, the
stiffening action of closed stirrups occurs not only in
the direction of the load (as is represented by the value
of Ks) but in the perpendicular direction as well, mak-
ing the confining role of stirrups a more transparent
phenomenon. Therefore, the experimental evidence
suggests that stirrups contribute to the shear resistance
of joints directly (by resisting part of the joint shear)
and indirectly (by confining the concrete core, thus en-
hancing its diagonal compressive strength). However,
these two functions are not independent or mutually
exclusive of each other - a point that currently fuels
debate between differing design philosophies. 13 ' 14
29

longitudinal beam
transverse beam
Fig. 2 - Internal axial forces at the connection
(a)
t {b)
tJl~1I1
~ t
ldw(l + €~)~
Fig. 3 -Kinematics of joints: (a) joint geometry; (b)
definition of average strains
Role of transverse beams and static redundancy
From tests of interior beam-column joints with
transverse beams, it has been established that even
joints without any stirrup reinforcement can perform
satisfactorily within realistic levels of lateral displace-
ment. 7 This suggests that transverse beams at interior
connections and closed-hoop reinforcement affect the
behavior of joints in a similar manner by restraining
volumetric expansion, which eventually leads to deteri-
oration of joint shear resistance. It has been suggested
that this is the result of insufficient modeling of
boundary conditions in the experiments, since the en-
hancement of joint performance was observed only
when transverse beams were free of load during the
testsY Indeed, experiments in which transverse beams
were loaded have been carried out and, in these cases,
transverse beams had negligible confining contribu-
tion. 3 Nevertheless, tests conducted on indeterminate
specimens have shown that the excessive deformation
that would occur within the beam plastic hinge regions
and the joint if the assembly were statically determi-
nate is partially restrained by the presence of adjacent
members. This restraint has been measured experimen-
tally as internal axial forces that developed in beams
experiencing inelastic deformation near the connec-
tion.17·18 The internal forces, N 3 and Nh (Fig. 2), repre-
sent the reactions of adjacent columns to the lateral
displacement required to accommodate beam expan-
sion. Because of the presence of these internal actions,
30
the confining effect of transverse beams on the joint is
likely to be significant in actual (indeterminate) struc-
tures, where each connection is restrained by the pres-
ence of adjacent fr~mes.
BASIC MECHANICS OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE JOINTS
Definition of the problem
The typical loading system considered in analysis and
design of interior beam-column joints is illustrated in
Fig. 1. In most contemporary design codes, the magni-
tudes of these forces are associated with a beam flex-
ural hinging mechanism, implying that beams and col-
umns are dimensioned first. Because a large portion of
the forces loading the joint are introduced by bond
stresses that develop between concrete and reinforce-
ment, codes require that the magnitude of bond stresses
be regulated by controlling the size of longitudinal bar
diameter with respect to the available development
length (column and/or beam depth). In the following
derivation, it will be assumed that the development
length requirements are satisfied a priori, and that bond
deterioration is not significant.
Furthermore, it is assumed that the joint is properly
detailed and that reinforcement is present in quantities
sufficient to provide adequate crack control. Stresses
and strains are averaged 19 over the dimensions of the
entire joint. The joint is idealized as a three-dimen-
sional solid, with dimensions dw, b, h [Fig. 3(a)]. Lat-
eral loads are considered parallel to one principal di-
rection, identified by axis t in the figure.
Kinematics
After deformation, the overall geometry of the joint
is described by the average angle of shear distortion 'Y
and by the average longitudinal and transverse strains,
denoted by £:1 and £: 1, respectively [Fig. 3(b)]. The aver-
age tensor in the (t,/,3) system is
f: = (
f:,
0.5"(
0.5"(
f:1
0)
0 (1)
0 0 f:J
where £: 3 represents the hoop strain in the direction per-
pendicular to the loading plane. Some useful relation-
ships between the entries of the tensor expressed in var-
ious coordinate systems are
(2a)
'V
,
-- 2(€1 - €,) -- 2("'1
" -
) tan a
E1 (2b)
tan a
€1 -f:, €2 - f:,
t a2 n a = - - = - - (2c)
€1- f:l f:2- f:,
where a is the direction of p~incipal strains in the joint
and £: 1 and £: 2 represent the values of principal strains.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992
 Eq. (1) describes the deformation component of the
joint kinematics. If the bond conditions are favorable,
these deformations constitute the major contribution of
the joint to the overall displacements of the structure.
If, on the other hand, bond deterioration in the joint is
significant, then, in addition to the deformation com-
ponents described by Eq. (1), a pure "rigid-body" ro-
tation term must be considered to establish the total
contribution of the joint to the overall structural dis-
placement.
Equilibrium requirements
Average stresses in the joint are depicted in Fig. 4.
Shear stresses are introduced by direct member action
and by bond that develops between the main reinforce-
ment and the joint core concrete. For simplicity, the
shear stress v is assumed to be uniformly distributed
over the boundaries of the joint [Fig. 4(a)].
Equilibrium of vertical forces [Fig. 4(a)] requires that
the average longitudinal compressive stress in the con-
crete a1 satisfy the following relationship
(3)
where }; is the average stress of the longitudinal rein-
forcement of the column at the midheight of the joint,
p 1 is the available reinforcement ratio, dw is the depth of
the column, and Nv is the compressive axial load of the
column.
Similarly, using equilibrium of forces in the trans-
verse direction [Fig. 4(b)], the average transverse com-
pressive stress in the concrete (here horizontal) a, is
evaluated
(4)
where Ps and Pb are the area ratios of horizontal stir-
rups in the joint and total longitudinal beam reinforce-
ment, respecitvely. Nh is the beam axial force, which
could develop, for instance, from partial restraint to
beam expansion provided by adjacent columns in inde-
terminate frames. The terms j;s and j;b represent the av-
erage stress in the stirrups and the beam reinforcement,
respectively. If the bond conditions along the longitu-
dinal beam reinforcement are favorable, then stresses
and strains in this reinforcement attenuate sharply from
the face of the support to the column centerline.
Therefore, although cracking may develop at the mid-
height of the joint as a result of shear, the concrete in
the vicinity of the longitudinal beam bars is practically
uncracked. Thus, the actual profile of lateral reinforce-
ment strains or stresses over the height of the joint has
the shape shown by the solid line in Fig. 5, although in
this study it is idealized by a single average value. On
the other hand, if the bond resistance has deteriorated,
then a significant amount of cracking is likely to occur
in the vicinity of the bars thro\lghout the depth of the
column, and in such a case the bar stress at the center
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992
J[J
___ 1----l.
l
1'
v
!t
a,
I!Utttttttttflttlt
(a)
az !
---
(b)
Fig. 4- Stress equilibrium: (a) equilibrium of vertical
forces; (b) equilibrium of horizontal forces
idealized strains
actual strains
t
longitudinal beam
reinforcement
Fig. 5- Actual and idealized strains
of the joint may be as high as the value at the face of
the support. To reflect this difference in the formula-
tion and to limit the number of variables of the prob-
lem, Eq. (4) is simplified as follows
(5)
where}; = J,; and p, = Ps + f3Pb· The factor (3 relates
the magnitude of stresses in the longitudinal beam re-
inforcement to the average stirrup stresses at the col-
umn centerline (Fig. 5). For perfect bond, (3 is zero. For
negligible bond resistance, (3 = 1. The actual condi-
tions of a joint are represented by a value of (3 between
these two limits. In the remainder of the study, (3 will
be considered an independent parameter, although it
has been assumed that bond conditions are generally
favorable.
An additional equation may be obtained by consid-
ering equilibrium of stresses in the out-of-plane [or 3,
as named in Eq. (6)] direction. If the joint reinforce-
ment is of the closed-hoop type, then the concrete of
the joint is subjected to passive confining stress a3 =
- psf3 • Here, f 3 represents the hoop stress in a direction
normal to the line of action of the applied shear force.
Based on the preceding definitions of average joint
stresses, the average stress tensor associated with the
joint concrete is
31
 0 = a, it is possible to compute the angle of principal
stresses 0 from the entries of the two tensors just indi-
cated. For this purpose, the strains in Eq. (2c) are writ-
ten in terms of corresponding
., stresses as follows
confined concrete
tan2 0 = tan2 a = e2 - e1
E2 - e, (9)
= (~ - };) (~ - };)_,
Ec(e) E, Ec(e) E,

The stress components};, j,, and u2 in Eq. (9) are

written in terms of the average joint shear stress v us-
unconfined concrete ing Eq. (3), (5), and (8); vis then replaced by (- u,!tan
0) = [p,j, + (Nhlbh)ltan OJ.
This procedure leads to a quadratic polynomial of
tan 0
Fig. 6 - Transition of stress-strain curve of concrete

n~Jn:,+ r)] tan 0

after yielding of hoops
I + ;;;. -
(1 =(v
u, v
(11
0)
0 (6)
[
1 +-
np1
4

(10)
0 0 (13

The maximum principal stress associated with the stress
tensor given by Eq. (6) cannot exceed the tensile capac-
ity of concrete. If, for the sake of simplicity, it is as-
sumed that this capacity is negligible, then, since nor-
mal stresses are either negative (compressive) or zero in
any plane, it is evident that
u, = 0 and u2 = u1 + u, (first stress invariant)
u1 - u, = v tan 0, and since u1
= 0, u, = -v tan 0 (7b)
and
v v
u, - ul = --,
tan 0
or u1 =
tan 0
where u, and u2 are the principal stresses of concrete,
and 0 is the angle of inclination (from the t-axis) of the
maximum principal stress u1• Upon substitution of Eq.
(7b) and (7c) in Eq. (7a), the nonzero principal stress of
concrete is expressed in terms of the average joint shear
stress v
u2 = - v(tan 0 + -tan1-)
0
Eq. (1) through (8) describe fully the state of strain
and stress in the joint in an average sense. However, the
directions of principal strain and stress (a and 0) that
enter the preceding equations are in general unknown.
Considering the behavior before yielding of hoops in
the joint (of primary interest from the design point of
view), it is reasonable to assume that, if the reinforce-
ment has not yielded, the direction pf principal strains
a is closely related to that of stresses 0. Assuming that
+[ eJe, ] tan2 0- 1 =0
(1 + npl)(np1 + r)
where n = n(e) = E/E, the ratio of material moduli
(a function of the state of strain under consideration).
The strain ratio r ( = ehle,) reflects the amount of lat-
eral restraint to joint growth, which is likely to be sig-
nificant for indeterminate structures. It is evident from
(7a) Eq. (10) that such restraint plays the same role algebra-
ically as horizontal joint reinforcement, which parallels
experimental observation of improved joint perform-
ance when transverse beams were present in test of in-
terior connections. The quantities ev = NJ Ec(e)bdw and
eh = Nh!Ec(e)hb have units of strain, and represent the
deformations occurring in the joint under purely axial
forces.
(7c)
Behavior before yielding of joint reinforcement
Reported experimental results indicate that joint per-
formance deteriorates significantly after the initiation
of yielding in the joint hoops. For example, it is ex-
pected that the confinement available for the joint con-
crete, which results from the restraint of volumetric ex-
pansion provided by the stirrups, will become ineffec-
tive when the stirrups yield. Fig. 6 illustrates the
transition that occurs from the stress-strain curve cor-
(8) responding to confined concrete action to that corre-
sponding to the state of confinement after yielding of
the hoops. Therefore, from a practical point of view, it
is important to establish the state of stress and strain in
the joint prior to hoop yielding.
If the lateral reinforcement is within the elastic range,
then the magnitude of joint shear stress is related to
hoop strain as follows
e, = j, = - 1- (v tan 0 - Nh) (lla)
E, p, E, bh

32 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992

and therefore

(11b)

In a similar manner, expressions for the remaining

elements of the strain tensor [Eq. (1)] may be obtained
From the equations, it is evident that after yielding of
hoops a dramatic increase occurs in the values of u1, u2 ,
(12a) and e1 for small increases in the value of joint shear,
since all quantities except v in the preceding expres-
e, - e, tan' 0 sions remain constant after hoop yield.
e, = I - tan' 0 Hoop yielding is likely to be succeeded by either a)
I [ p, - p, N,tan' N• 0] yielding of the longitudinal column reinforcement, or
=
E, (I - tan' 0)
vtan O---- + -
p1 p,
-
bhp, bd.p,
(12b) b) crushing of concrete in the direction of principal
compressive stress. Upper limits to the shear capacity
Et- e1 tan2 0 associated with these two mechanisms can be estab-
e2 = 1 - tan2 0 (12c)
lished. For the first case, the stress in the longitudinal
steel reaches the yield stress J;,. Thus
2(e 1 - e,)
'Y=--
, tan 0 N v'
a, = - p, /, - = -
___!_ therefore
p,j, + N.l bh
= E,(l -
2 [v
tan' 0) p, p, (p, tan
2
°- p,)
(N, N•) °]
+ bd.p, - bhp1 tan (12d)
bd.

(15)
Eq. (12b) indicates that the principal tensile strain in-
creases with increasing vertical axial load as well as For the second case, failure occurs when the principal
shear stress, while the effect of lateral restraint on the compressive stress u2 reaches the crushing strength of
joint is reverse. This effect is significant because the concrete, fr:=. This crushing strength, however, de-
magnitude of diagonal (principal) compression that can pends upon the amount of restraint to volumetric ex-
develop in the compressive strut of the concrete de- pansion, which here is represented by stress u3 • Fur-
creases with increasing magnitude of the tensile strain thermore, f~ also depends on the amount of tensile
in the normal direction. deformation in the perpendicular direction, 16 character-
Eq. (12d) provides a relationship between average ized by e1• It is assumed here that the relationship be-
joint shear stress and the amount of associated joint tween stress and strain along the principal compressive
distortion. It is evident from the precediQg that the col- direction can be described by
umn and beam axial loads have opposite effects on the
joint distortion at a given level of shear stress. a2 =/7"' [ 2E2 - -
Enua
E2 ) ' ] where
( -
fnurx
t/m"' --::, A/:]
EnutX XE
0
'

Behavior after yielding of joint reinforcement and A = _ __:K.:..___ (16)

As hoops yield, the pattern of deformations in the
joint is likely to change dramatically. In terms of
stresses, it is evident from Eq. (5) that
0.8 - 0.34e 1/e0
where K = 1 + p,!J;,If:! (note that/: and e0 carry neg-
ative signs for calculations). Upon substitution of Eq.
(16) in Eq. (14b), the following alternative expression
for the limiting joint shear stress is established

which can be solved for the angle of principal stresses

tan 0: (tan 0 = [p1 .f;, + Nh/bh]lv).
This result can be used to obtain expressions for the
average longitudinal (vertical) stress [from Eq. (3)], the
average nonzero principal stress [from Eq. (8)], and the
amount of hoop strain, e1 [from Eq. (2c)] in terms of
the joint shear v
Nh
u2 = -Pth - bh -
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992
NUMERICAL CASE STUDY OF JOINT BEHAVIOR
AFTER HOOP YIELD
In the preceding sections, the mechanics of interior
connections were studied in accordance with the pre-
scriptions set forth at the beginning of the paper. Phys-
ical suppositions have been recorded in the form of al-
gebraic expressions [Eq. (1) through (17), which con-
(14a) tain many of the design variables believed to influence
joint behavior. In this section, the equations for joint
shear strength after hoop yield [Eq. (15) and (17)] are
v2 applied to two example problems (Table 1) to illustrate
Pth + Nh/bh (1 4b) their sensitivity to several design parameters.
33
 30.r---~--~----~---T----~--~
10. Yield (Eqn. 15)
Crushing (Eqn. 17)
ACI (interior)
0.~--~--~~--~--~~--~--~
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Ratio of hoops, Ps
(a)
30.r---~--~----~--~--~~---,
10.
0.~--~~~~--~--~~--~--~
~oo ~m ~~ ~ro
Ratio of hoops, Ps
(b)
Fig. 7- Design shear strength: (a) Case A; (b) Case B
Example connections
Eq. (15) and (17) were applied to two sample interior
connections summarized in Table 1. For both exam-
ples, {3 was taken as 0.5, which implies (but not by def-
inition) that stress in the beam reinforcement at the
column center would be half as much as at the critical
section for bending when the joint reaches its limiting
resistance. In keeping with the main disclaimer of this
paper, this would require unusually good bond condi-
tions. Absolute dimensions of the joint need not be
specified, as they serve only to normalize steel quanti-
ties (as in Pt> Pb• and p,), axial loads (as in Nvlbdw and
Nh/bh), and internal forces.
Examples A and B differ only in the ratio of vertical
reinforcement and compressive strength of concrete.
For each example, the ratio of hoop reinforcement was
'varied from zero up to a value at which Eq. (15) and
(17) no longer apply (crushing occurs before hoops
yield).
Solution procedure
Unlike Eq. (15), which depends only on given con-
stants, Eq. (17) requires determination of the magni-
tude and direction of principal stresses and strain to
evaluate the term f~. Because the stress-strain rela-
tionship assumed for concrete [Eq. (16)] is nonlinear,
iteration was required to determine the appropriate
value of Ec. Though the secant-modulus iteration
scheme used was quite simple, it is worthwhile to note
that very similar results can be obtained without itera-
tion by choosing Ec to be the seca,:tt modulus at peak
stress, which is insensitive to the factor A in Eq. (16).
34
Table 1 - Summary of design parameters for
sample joints
N, N.
t: !,, J:bdw J:bh
"'
Case ,.p, P• p,
A 5 60 0.04 60 0.01 varies 0.1 0.05
B 7.5 60 0.025 60 0.01 varies 0.1 0.05
Units ksi ksi - ksi · - - - -
Note: 1 ksi = 6.9 MPa.
Discussion of numerical results
The expressions for limiting joint shear stress [Eq.
(15) and (17)] were applied to example joints A and B
with varied amounts of hoop reinforcement. The re-
sulting shear resistance normalized by .JJ[ for each
equation is shown in Fig. 7, along with the value of
20.JJ[ recommended by ACI-ASCE Committee 352 for
a similar connection type. 9 The equations suggest that
the strength of Joint A [Fig. 7(a)] is limited by crushing
along the principal diagonal after hoops yield, while ..for
Joint B [Fig. 7(b)] crushing is somewhat less likely than
yielding of vertical reinforcement. This shifting of fail-
ure modes was achieved by increasing J: and decreasing
p1 for Joint B. It can be observed that, as the likelihood
of crushing is diminished, a larger quantity of hoops
can be made to yield. Thus, as more hoops are added
to Joint B, it can be made to carry a larger force than
was possible for Joint A.
Fig. 7 suggests that the supply of joint shear resis-
tance increases steadily with increasing amounts of
hoop reinforcement. This may be difficult to observe
from a series of experiments on beam-column assem-
blies if the beams or columns yield, because the supply
is hidden by the limited demand.
The preceding discussion is not intended to be a
nomination of new design equations or an affirmation
of existing recommendations. Rather, the examples are
presented to show how the formulation developed in
this paper provides a device to investigate the sensitiv-
. ity of joint behavior to various design parameters in a
way that violates neither physical intuition nor past ob-
servation.
CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Through persistent debate and careful scrutiny of ex-
periments over the past several decades, recommenda-
tions for reliable design of beam-column joints have
evolved. This study was an effort to expand the under-
standing of the mechanics of joint response with the
objectives of improving confidence in design ap-
proaches, expanding the ability to assess joint perform-
ance and demand, and providing a vehicle to sort out
the influence of various design parameters. The ap-
proach taken was to compile a list of recognizable
shortfalls in existing interpretations of joint behavior
and then to use this list as specifications for develop-
ment of an improved interpretation. The result is prob-
ably not, nor was it intended to be, an answer to all or
any of the nagging questions about beam-.column
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992
joints. The result is a collection of algebraic expres-
sions the record physical arguments. It is apparent that
these expressions manage to link recognized design var-
iables to familiar indexes of joint behavior and design
in a manner that is physically sensible.
It is shown that the shear strength of a joint depends
on the usable compressive strength of concrete, which
decreases with increasing principal tensile strain e1• Eq.
(12b) indicates that e1 increases (and so it follows that
joint shear strength would decrease) with increasing
column axial force Nv. Axial compression in the beam
(Nh), on the other hand, would reduce e1• Similar ob-
servations about joint shear distortion are apparent
from the algebra of Eq. (12d). Nv and v tend to encour-
age shear distortion, while Nh tends to work against it.
Additional specific conclusions and limitations perti-
nent to the development and interpretation of the for-
mulation presented in this study are:
1. To describe joint forces in a concise manner, it is
essential to consider both the kinematics and equilib-
rium associated with joint response.
2. It was not necessary to declare whether joint
hoops serve to confine or to carry shear to include them
in the formulation. When hoops are closed around the
joint core, their role is sufficiently described from con-
sideration of equilibrium and deformations. If j9int re-
inforcement is not closed, compatibility with core con-
crete will depend on bond, which may explain why the
benefit from intermediate beam bars diminishes quickly
under cyclic loading.
3. By determining principal stresses and strain, the
strength of a connection can be evaluated from the
compressive stress-strain behavior of concrete. It is
possible to do this in a manner that accounts for the
effects of softening from transverse tensile strain and
for confinement. The brief case studies suggest that the
results of this formulation are not at variance with the
empirical basis of current design recommendations.
4. By establishing a relationship between loads ap-
plied to the joint and the resulting deformations, the
formulation makes it possible to consider the mode of
joint failure in addition to the associated strength. Be-
sides bond failure, joint capacity can be limited by
crushing along the principal diagonal (either before or
after hoop yield), or by the yield of vertical reinforce-
ment after hoop yield. The need to be able to discern
failure modes is underscored by the importance of hoop
yield as a milestone in response. As illustrated by com-
paring Eq. (llb) and (14c), the sensitivity of joint be-
havior to variations of the stress state changes mark-
edly after hoops yield.
5. With the formulation presented, it is possible that
joint shear deformations can be linked to the displace-
ments of a structure so that the demand level of joint
design in a particular system can be considered. Though
such an assessment of demand would be no more ac-
curate than the estimate of displacement response, the
ability to consider it adds a layer of perspective that
would be useful to developmeqt of joint design philos-
ophy.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1992
6. It is important to remember that the size and pat-
tern of forces that will act on a joint depend on the na-
ture of bond for beam and column longitudinal rein-
forcement along the joint boundaries. While some at-
tempt was made " here to account for the effectiveness of
bond, further development is required to account for
the total rotation attributable to connections, which is
a sum of joint deformation and a rigid-body rotation
that becomes prevalent when bond is poor or nonexist-
ent.
7. The ability to use the formulation presented here
to study response of joints under reversed cyclic load-
ing depends only on the development of a concrete
stress-strain relationship that can account for strain
softening and confinement under load reversals.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented in this paper was carried out at the University
of Toronto, Canada. Financial support for the study was provided by
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC Grants No. OGP0042033 and OGP0042154.
NOTATION
N. = horizontal axial load acting in the main beam of the connec-
tion (positive for compression) ·
N, = column axial load (positive for compression)
N, = horizontal axial load acting in the transverse beam of the con-
nection (positive for compression)
}; average stress in the longitudinal column reinforcement (ten-
sion positive)
}; average stress in the transverse reinforcement through the joint
(tension positive)
v average joint shear stress
a = angle of the first principal strain direction from the longitudi-
nal axis t
/1 ratio of average beam reinforcement stress to average stirrup
stress at the column centerline
'Y average shear distortion of the joint panel
E, = average strain along the direction I of the joint panel (tension
positive)
E, average strain along the direction t of the joint panel (tension
positive)
() angle of the first principal stress direction from the longitudi-
nal t-axis
A coefficient to account for the effects of softening and confine-
ment on concrete compressive strength
p, column longitudinal reinforcement percentage
p, percent of total horizontal reinforcement in the direction of
shear action through the joint (im;luding beam reinforcement)
p, percent of stirrup reinforcement in the direction of shear
through the joint
p6 percent of main beam reinforcement through the joint
q, average normal concrete stress in the /-direction (tension posi-
tive)
q, average normal concrete stress in the t-direction (tension pos-
itive)
REFERENCES
1. Hanson, N. W., and Conner, H. W., "Seismic Resistance of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," Journal of the Struc-
tural Division, ASCE, V. 93, ST5, Oct. 1967, pp. 533-560.
2. Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. 0., "Shear Strength of R.C.
Bea!ll-Column Connections," Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 107, STll, Nov. 1981, pp. 2227-2244.
35
 3. Uzumeri, S. M., and Seckin, M., "Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Slow Load Reversals,"
Publication No. 74-05, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Mar. 1984, 84 pp.
4. Durrani, A. J ., and Wight, J. K., "Behavior of Interior Beam-
to-Column Connections Under Earthquake Type Loading," ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 343-350.
5. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., "Effect of Transverse Beams
and Slab on Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections,"
ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No.2, Mar.-Apr. 1985, pp. 188-
195.
6. Joglekar, M.; Murry, P.; Jirsa, J. 0.; and Klinger, R., "Full
Scale Tests of Beam-Column Joints," Earthquake Effects on Rein-
forced Concrete Structures-U.S.-Japan Research, SP 84, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1984, pp. 271-304.
7. Kurose, Y ., "Recent Studies on Reinforced Concrete Beam
Column Joints in Japan," PMFSEL Report No. 87-8, Phil M. Fer-
guson Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Texas at Austin, Dec 1987, and references
thereof.
8. Wong, P. K. C.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., "Seismic
Resistance of Frames with Vertically Distributed Longitudinal Rein-
forcement in Beams," ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 4, July-
Aug. 1990, pp. 488-498.
9. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Recommendations for Design of
Beam Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp.
266-283.
10. "Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures,"
(NZS 3101:1982), Standards Association of New Zealand, Welling-
ton, 1982, Part 1, 127 pp. and Part 2, 156 pp.
36
11. CEB-FIP Model Code for Seismic Design of Concrete Struc-
tures," Comite Euro-lnternational du Beton, Bulletin d'Information
No. 160, Paris, 1983, 117 pp.
12. Paulay, T.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., "Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column ~oints Under Seismic Actions," ACI JouR-
NAL, Proceedings V. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1978, pp. 585-593.
13. Paulay, T., "Critique of the Special Provisions for Seismic
Design of the Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318-83)," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No.2, Mar.-Apr.
1986, pp. 274-283.
14. Paulay, T., "Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints," ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No.6, Nov.-
Dec. 1989, pp. 635-643.
15. Schlaich, J.; Schafer, K.; and Jennewein, M., "Towards a
Consistent Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures," PC/ Journal,
V. 32, No.3, May-June 1987, pp. 74-150.
16. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., "Modified Compression-
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,''
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No.2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-
231.
17. Pantazopoulou, S. J., and Qi, X., "Lateral Load Behavior of
an R.C. Frame with Floor Slabs," Proceedings, Fourth U.S. Na-
tional Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Palm Springs,
V. II, May 1990, pp. 137-146.
18. Zerbe, H. E., and Durrani, A. J., "Seismic Response of Con-
nections in Two-Bay R.C. Frame Subassemblies," Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 115, No. 11 Nov. 1989, pp. 2829-2844.
19. Collins, M.P., "Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members
in Shear," Journal of the Structural Division. ASCE, V. 104, No.
ST4, Apr. 1978, pp. 649-666.
ACt Structural Journal I January-February 1992