ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 104-S45

TECHNICAL PAPER

Cyclic Load Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages of Modern Structures

by Alexandros G. Tsonos
The seismic performance of four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages is examined. All subassemblages were typical of new structures and incorporated full seismic details in current building codes, such as a weak girder-strong column design philosophy. The subassemblages were subjected to a large number of inelastic cycles. The tests indicated that current design procedures could sometimes result in excessive damage to the joint regions.
Keywords: beam-column frames; connections; cyclic loads; reinforced concrete; structural analysis.

INTRODUCTION The key to the design of ductile moment-resisting frames is that the beam-to-column connections and columns must remain essentially elastic throughout the load history to ensure the lateral stability of the structure. If the connections or columns exhibit stiffness and/or strength deterioration with cycling, collapse due to P- effects or to the formation of a story mechanism may be unavoidable.1,2 Four one-half scale beam-column subassemblages were designed and constructed in turn, according to Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 8,4 according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-02,6 and according to the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code7 and the new Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures.8 The subassemblages were subjected to cyclic lateral load histories so as to provide the equivalent of severe earthquake damage. The results indicate that current design procedures could sometimes result in severe damage to the joint, despite the use of a weak girder-strong column design philosophy. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Experimental data and experience from earthquakes indicate that loss of capacity might occur in joints that are part of older reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures.9-12 There is scarce experimental evidence and insufficient data, however, about the performance of joints designed according to current codes during strong earthquakes. This research provides structural engineers with useful information about the safety of new RC frame structures that incorporate seismic details from current building codes. In some cases, safety could be jeopardized during strong earthquakes by premature joint shear failures. The joints could at times remain the weak link even for structures designed in accordance with current model building codes. DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS MATERIAL PROPERTIES Four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages were designed and constructed for this experimental and analytical investigation. Reinforcement details of the subassemblages are shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). All the 468

subassemblages (A1, E1, E2, and G1) had the same general and cross-sectional dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1. Subassemblages E1, E2, and G1 had the same longitudinal column reinforcement, eight bars with a diameter of 14 mm, while the longitudinal column reinforcement of A1 consisted of eight bars with a diameter of 10 mm (0.4 in.). The longitudinal column reinforcement of A1 was lower than that of the other three subassemblages (E1, E2, and G1) due to the restrictions of ACI 352R-026 for the column bars passing through the joint. Subassemblages E1 and G1 had the same percentage of longitudinal beam reinforcement (E1 = G1 = 7.7 103) and Subassemblages A1 and E2 also had the same percentage of longitudinal beam reinforcement (A1 = 5.23 103 and E2 = 5.2 103), but different from the percentage of E1 and G1. The longitudinal beam reinforcement of A1 consisted of four bars with a diameter of 10 mm, while the beam reinforcement of E2 consisted of two bars with a diameter of 14 mm. Subassemblage A1 had smaller beam reinforcing bars than Subassemblage E2 due to the restrictions of ACI 352R-026 for the beam bars passing through the joint. The joint shear reinforcements of the subassemblages used in the experiments, are as follows: 6 multiple hoop at 5 cm for Subassemblage A1 (Fig. 1(a)), 6 multiple hoop at 5 cm for Subassemblage E1, (Fig. 1(b)), 6 multiple hoop at 4.8 cm for Subassemblage E2 (Fig. 1(a)) and 8 multiple hoop at 10 cm for Subassemblage G1 (Fig. 1(b)). All subassemblages incorporated seismic details. The purpose of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 was to represent details of new structures. As is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 1(a) and (b), all the subassemblages had high flexural strength ratios MR. The purpose of using an MR ratio (sum of the flexural capacity of columns to that of beam(s)) significantly greater than 1.00 in earthquake-resistant constructions is to push the formation of the plastic hinge in the beams, so that the safety (that is, collapse prevention) of the structure is not jeopardized.1,2,4-7,9,10,13 Thus, in all these subassemblages, the beam is expected to fail in a flexural mode during cyclic loading. The concrete 28-day compressive strength of both Subassemblages A1 and E2 was 35 MPa (5075 psi), while the concrete 28-day compressive strength of both Subassemblages E1 and G1 was 22 MPa (3190 psi). Reinforcement yield strengths are as follows: 6 = 540 MPa (78 ksi), 10 = 500 MPa (73 ksi), and 14 = 495 MPa (72 ksi) (note: 6 [No. 2]), 10 [No. 3], and 14 [No. 4]) are bars with a diameter of 6, 10, and 14 mm).
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007. MS No. S-2006-230.R1 received June 21, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the MayJune 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

ACI member Alexandros G. Tsonos is a Professor of reinforced concrete structures, Department of Structural Engineering, the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. He received his PhD from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in 1990. His research interests include the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete structures, structural design, fiber-reinforced concrete, seismic repair and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures, and the seismic repair and restoration of monuments.

respect to static conditions leads to a moderate increase in the strength of concrete f c, dyn = [ 1.48 + 0.160 log + 0.0127 ( log ) ] f c, stat (1) Scott et al.15 tested column subassemblages with various amounts of hoop reinforcement under strain rates ranging from 0.33 105 sec1 (static loading), to 0.0167 sec1 (seismic loading). Their test results conformed with the results obtained from Eq. (1). Using the aforementioned expression, it is estimated that for a strain rate of = 0.0167 sec1, concrete strengths increase by approximately 20% (compared with the static one). An expression similar to Eq. (1) can be found in the CEB code.16 Thus, the strengths exhibited by Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 during the tests are somewhat lower than the strengths they would exhibit if subjected to load histories similar to actual seismic events. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Failure mode of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 The failure mode of Subassemblages A1 and E2, as expected, involved the formation of a plastic hinge in the beam at the column face. The formation of plastic hinges caused severe cracking of the concrete near the fixed beam end of each subassemblage (Fig. 3). The behavior of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was as expected and as documented in the seismic design philosophy of the modern codes as will be explain in the following.4-7
2

Approximately 10 electrical-resistance strain gauges were bonded on the reinforcing bars of each subassemblage of the program. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND LOADING SEQUENCE The general arrangement of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2(a). All subassemblages were subjected to 11 cycles applied by slowly displacing the beams free end according to the load history shown in Fig. 2(b) without reaching the actuator stroke limit. The amplitudes of the peaks in the displacement history were 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, and 65 mm. One loading cycle was performed at each displacement amplitude. An axial load equal to 200 kN was applied to the columns of the subassemblages and kept constant throughout the test. The experimental loading sequence used is a typical one, commonly used in previous studies.1,11,13 It was not the objective of this study to investigate the effect of other, nonstandard loading histories on the response of the subassemblages. As previously mentioned, all the subassemblages were loaded slowly. The strain rate of the load applied corresponded to static conditions. In the case of seismic loading, the strain rate is higher than the rate corresponding to static conditions. Soroushian and Sim14 showed that an increase in with

Fig. 1Dimensions and cross-sectional details of: (a) Subassemblages A1 and E2; and (b) Subassemblages E1 and G1. (Note: dimensions are in cm. 1 cm = 0.0394 in.) ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007 469

Fig. 2(a) General arrangement of experimental setup and photograph of test setup (dimensions are in m; 1 m = 3.28 ft); and (b) lateral displacement history. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

Fig. 4Applied shear versus strain in beam-column joint hoop reinforcement of: (a) Subassemblages A1 and E2; and (b) Subassemblages E1 and G1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.) the joint hoop reinforcement for both subassemblages was below the yield strain of 2.500, which was in agreement with the observed failure modes of Subassemblages A1 and E2.17 One difference between the failure modes of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was that hairline cracks appeared in the joint region of E2, and partial loss of the concrete cover in the rear face of the joint of E2 took place during the three last cycles of loading (ninth, tenth, and eleventh) when drift Angle R ratios exceeded 4.5 while the joint region of Subassemblage A1 remained intact at the conclusion of the test (refer to Fig. 3). The connections of both Subassemblages E1 and G1, contrary to expectations, exhibited shear failure during the ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 3Views of collapsed Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1. Significant inelastic deformations occurred in the beams longitudinal reinforcement in both Subassemblages A1 and E2 (strains of over 40.000 were obtained in the beams longitudinal bars), while joint shear reinforcement remained elastic. Figure 4(a) shows strain gauge data of joint hoop reinforcement for both Subassemblages A1 and E2. As is clearly shown in Fig. 4(a), the maximum strain recorded in 470

Fig. 5Maximum strain during each cycle of loading in beam longitudinal reinforcement of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1.

Fig. 6Gradual cracking configuration of Subassemblage E1 during test. early stages of cyclic loading. Damage occurred both in the joint area and in the columns critical regions. Figure 4(b) shows strain gauge data for the joint hoop reinforcement for Subassemblages E1 and G1. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the maximum strain recorded in the joint hoop reinforcement of both Subassemblages E1 and G1 was significantly higher than the yield strain 2.500 . Joint shear damage has been shown to occur after yielding of the joint hoop reinforcement, which is in agreement with the damage observed in the joints of these subassemblages.18 The maximum strain recorded in the longitudinal bars of the beams of both Subassemblages E1 and G1 was below 2.500 (refer to Fig. 5). In Fig. 6, the progression of cracking of Subassemblage E1 during the test is demonstrated. Load-drift angle curves Plots of applied shear force versus drift angles for all the Subassemblages (A1, E1, E2, and G1) are shown in Fig. 7. The beam calculated flexural capacities of the subassemblages are shown as dashed lines in Fig. 7. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 7Hysteresis loops of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.) A major concern in the seismic design of RC structures is the ability of members to develop their flexural strength before failing in shear. This is especially true for members framing at a beam column joint (beams and columns), where it is important to develop their flexural strengths before joint shear failure. Moreover, by designing the flexural strengths of columns in RC frame structures to meet the strong-column weak-beam rule, all members against premature shear failure, and by detailing plastic hinge (critical) regions for ductility, RC frame structures have been shown to exhibit a controlled and very ductile inelastic response.2,4,9 471

As can be seen in Fig. 7, the beam of Subassemblage A1 developed maximum shear forces higher than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the sixth cycle of loading. This is an indication of the flexural response of this beam because it developed its flexural strength until a drift Angle R ratio of 4.0 was reached and exceeded. Also, a flexural failure was observed for this beam, caused by crushing of the concrete cover of the longitudinal reinforcement, and subsequent inelastic buckling of the longitudinal bars. The beam of Subassemblage E2 also developed maximum shear forces higher than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the eleventh upper half cycle of loading and until the seventh lower half cycle of loading. In particular, during the final cycles of loading beyond drift Angle R ratios of 4.5 when large displacements were imposed, crushing of the concrete cover of the reinforcement took place and the beams hoops could not provide adequate support to the longitudinal reinforcement. As a result, buckling of the beam longitudinal reinforcement in Subassemblages A1 and E2 occurred after the sixth and seventh cycles of loading, respectively. The beam of Subassemblage E1 developed maximum shear forces very close to those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength only during the second and third cycle of loading. For the remaining cycles (four through 11), the premature joint shear failure did not allow the beam in this subassemblage to develop its flexural capacity (Fig. 6 and 7). The premature joint shear failure of Subassemblage G1 also did not allow the beam in this subassemblage to develop its flexural capacity. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the beam of Subassemblage G1 developed maximum shear forces significantly lower than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength. One of the basic provisions of all modern structural codes is to provide the structures with sufficient strength and sufficient ductility to undergo post-elastic deformations without losing a large percentage of their strength.2,4,7,9 As can be seen in Fig. 7, this criterion is fulfilled for Subassemblies A1 and E2. By contrast, it is not fulfilled for Subassemblies E1 and G1 because they exhibited significant loss of strength during cyclic loading. The beam-column Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 are similar to real modern frame structures. If the sequence in the breakdown of the chain of resistance of these real frame structures follows the desirable hierarchy during a catastrophic earthquake, the formation of plastic hinges in the beams of these structures would be expected, because the use of a weak girder-strong column design philosophy is adopted by the modern codes.2,4,5,7,9 The aforementioned desirable failure mode (with formation of a plastic hinge in the beam) was developed by Subassemblages A1 and E2. Thus, the magnitude of loads resisted by Subassemblages A1 and E2 are consistent with the expected values from actual events. Story drifts allowed by modern codes are on the order of 2% of the story height.4,7,8 While it was reassuring that story drifts of as much as 4% of the story height were achieved in most reported tests referring to the seismic response of beamcolumn specimens, it should be remembered that drifts in excess of 2% are not likely to be readily accommodated in high rise frames. This is due to significant and detrimental influence of P- phenomena on both lateral load resistance and dynamic response.19 Subassemblages A1 and E2, which developed plastic hinges in their beams (Fig. 3 and 7), showed stable hysteretic behavior up to drift Angle R ratios of 4.0. They showed a 472

Table 1Comparison of joint of Subassemblage A1 design parameters with ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026
Subassemblage A1
*

ldh, cm

Ash, cm

hbeam/ column bar sh, cm diameter

MR

5.0 0.67 < 17 (15.65)* 0.95 (0.66)* (5.0)* (1.0)* (17)

30 1.72 (23.80) (1.20)*

Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ACI 318-05.5

Note: is shear strength factor reflecting confinement of joint by lateral members, ldh is development length of hooked beam bars, Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse steel in joint, and sh is spacing of transverse reinforcement in joint. Numbers outside parentheses are provided values. 1 cm = 0.394 in.

Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ACI 352R-02.6

Table 2Comparison of joints of Subassemblages E1 and E2 design parameters with Eurocode 84 and Eurocode 23
Ash, Subassemblage Vjh, kN cm2 E1 E2

Asv , cm2

dbl , mm

MR

lb,net, cm

sw , cm

14 2.60 126 < 6.85 3.08 45 (43) 5 (5)* (168)* (2.85)* (1.06)* (9.15)* (1.20)* 75.6 < 6.85 3.08 14 3.30 45 (32) 5 (5)* (222)* (2.85)* (1.06)* (11.20)* (1.20)*

8.4 Numbers inside parentheses are required values of Eurocode 2.3 Note: Vjh is horizontal joint shear force, Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse steel of joint, Asv is vertical joint shear reinforcement, dbl is diameter of hooked beam bars (in both E1 and E2 setup recommended by EC8 and shown in Fig. 5 was applied), lb,net is development length of hooked beam bars, and sw is spacing of transverse reinforcement of joint. Numbers outside parentheses are provided values. 1 m = 0.394in.; 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

*Numbers inside parentheses are required values of Eurocode

considerable loss of strength, stiffness, and unstable hysteretic behavior, but beyond drift Angle R ratios of 4.5 (Fig. 7). Subassemblages E1 and G1, which exhibited premature joint shear failure (refer to Fig. 3 and 7) showed a considerable loss of strength, stiffness, and unstable degrading hysteresis beyond drift Angle R ratios of 2.5 and 2.0%, respectively (Fig. 7). CODE REQUIREMENTS Despite the fact that all the subassemblages were designed according to their corresponding modern codes, two developed failure modes dominated by joint shear failure (Fig. 3). For this reason, it is discussed how requirements of these codes used for the design of the joints of Subassemblages A1,5,6 E1, E23,4 (for DCM structures), and G17,8 were satisfied. Table 1 clearly indicates that the joint of A1 satisfied the design requirements of ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 for exterior beam-column joints for seismic loading. Table 2 indicates that the joints of both E1 and E2 satisfied the design provisions for exterior beam-column joints of Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 for DCM structures. In both subassemblages, two 8 mm diameter short bars were placed and were tightly connected on the top bends of the beam reinforcing bars and two on the bottom, running in the transverse direction of the joint, as shown in Fig. 5. This is the setup recommended by Eurocode 8 when the requirement of limitation of beam bar diameter (dbl) to ensure appropriate anchorage through the joint is not satisfied (refer to Table 2). It was considered worthwhile, however, to determine the beam bar pull-out. Strain gauge measurements were used to determine beam bar pull-out. If the maximum strains in a beams longitudinal bar during each two consecutive cycles of loading remained the same or decreased, as long as buckling ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 8(a) Exterior beam-column joint; (b) internal forces around exterior beam-column joint as result of seismic actions;10,12 (c) two mechanisms of shear transfer (diagonal concrete strut and truss mechanism);10,12,19 and (d) forces acting in joint core concrete through Section I-I from two mechanisms.27,28 Table 3Comparison of joint of Subassemblage G1 design parameters with ERC-19957 and CDCS-19958
Subassemblage G1 Ash, cm2 2.01 (2.01)
*

lb,net, cm 45 (43)
*

MR 2.60 (1.40)

*Numbers inside parentheses are required values of CDCS-1995.8 Numbers inside parentheses are required values of ERC-1995.7 Note: Ash is total cross-sectional area of transverse steel of joint and lb,net is development length of hooked beam bars. Numbers outside parentheses are provided values. 1 cm = 0.394 in.

of this bar had not taken place, it was concluded that a pullout of this bar had occurred.13,18 As shown in Fig. 5, the beams longitudinal reinforcement in Subassemblages E1 and E2 maintained adequate anchorage throughout the tests due to the short bars placed and tightly connected under the bends of a group of reinforcing bars (refer to Fig. 5). Table 3 also clearly indicates that the joint of G1 satisfied the design provisions for exterior beam-column joints of both the new Greek codes.7,8 The codes prescribe minimum MR values. So, as can be seen from Tables 1 through 3, the minimum value for the MR ratio according to ACI 318-05 and ACI 352R-02, as well as according to Eurocode 8 (DCM), is 1.20.4-6 The minimum value for the MR ratio according to the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code is 1.40.7 Thus, a good target MR for most structures is between 1.20 and 1.40. Neither the New Greek Code for the Design of RC Structures8 nor the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code7 require limitations for the joint shear stress. Of course both of these codes need to add requirements to limit joint shear stress. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS A new formulation published in recent studies20-26 predicts the beam-column joint ultimate shear strength and was used in the present study to predict the failure modes of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1. A summary of this formulation is presented. Figure 8(a) shows an RC exterior beam-column joint for a moment resisting frame and Fig. 8(b) shows the internal forces around this joint.10,12 The shear forces acting in the joint core are resisted partly by a diagonal compression strut that acts between diagonally opposite corners of the joint core (refer to Fig. 8(c)) and partly by a truss mechanism formed by horizontal and vertical reinforcement and concrete compression struts.10,12,19 The horizontal and vertical reinforcement is normally provided by horizontal hoops in the joint core around the longitudinal column bars and by longitudinal column bars between the corner bars in the side faces of the column.10,12,27 Both mechanisms depend on the core concrete strength. Thus, the ultimate concrete strength of the joint core under compression/tension controls the ultimate strength of the connection. After failure of the concrete, strength in the joint is limited by gradual crushing along the cross-diagonal cracks and especially along the potential failure planes (Fig. 8(a)). For instance, consider Section I-I in the middle of the joint height (Fig. 8(a)). In this section, the flexural moment is almost zero. The forces acting in the concrete are shown in Fig. 8(d).27,28 Each force acting in the joint core is analyzed into two components along the x and y axes (Fig. 8(d)). The values of Ti are the tension forces acting on the longitudinal column bars between the corner bars in the side faces of the column. Their resultant is Ti. An equal and opposing 473

compression force (Ti) must act in the joint core to balance the vertical tensile forces generated in the reinforcement. This compression force was generated by the resultant of the vertical components of the truss mechanisms diagonal compression forces D1, D2 Dv.27 Thus, D1y + D2y + + Dvy = Ti = T1 + T2 + T3 + T4.27 The column axial load is resisted by the compression strut mechanism.12 The summation of vertical forces equals the vertical joint shear force Vjv D cy + ( T 1 + ... + T 4 ) = D cy + D sy = V jv
compression strut truss model

fc = K fc

(9a)

Also, f c is the concrete compressive strength and K is a parameter of the model15 expressed as s f yh K = 1 + ---------------fc (9b)

(2a)

where s is the volume ratio of transverse reinforcement and fyh is its yield strength. Substituting Eq. (5) through (7) into Eq. (8) and using = f c gives the following expression 4 ---------- 1 + 1 + ----- 2 2 fc Assume herein that x = ---------2 fc and 4 = ---------- 1 + ----2 2 fc Then Eq. (10) is transformed into ( x + ) + 10 10x = 1
5 5

The summation of horizontal forces equals the horizontal joint shear force Vjh D cx + ( D 1x + D 2x + D vx ) = D cx + D sx = V jh (2b)

5 4 + --------- 1 + ----- 1 = 1 2 fc

(10)

The vertical normal compressive stress and the shear stress uniformly distributed over Section I-I are given by Eq. (3) and (4) D cy + D sy V jv = ---------------------- = ------------------hc bc hc bc V jh = ------------------hc bc (3)

(11)

(4)

(12)

where h c and b c are the length and the width of the joint core, respectively. It is now necessary to establish a relationship between the average normal compressive stress and the average shear stress . From Eq. (3) and (4) V jv = ------ V jh It has been shown that V jv hb ------ = ---- = V jh hc (6) (5)

(13)

The solution of the system of Eq. (11) to (13) gives the beam-column joint ultimate strength ult = ult f c (MPa). This system is solved each time for a given value of the joint aspect ratio using standard mathematical analysis. The joint ultimate strength ult depends on the increased joint concrete compressive strength due to confining fc and on the joint aspect ratio . Thus, typical values of ult for comparison with the values of ACI 318-05,5 ACI 352R-02,6 and Eurocode 84 are not possible to derive. A particular value, however, for each joint would be calculated as in the following example. Example for Subassemblage A1 The value = 1.5 and the solution of the system of Eq. (11) to (13) gives x = 0.1485 and y = 0.248; f c(A1) = 35 MPa, K(A1) = 1.558 according to the Scott et al.15 model and fc(A1) = K(A1) f c(A1) = 54.53 MPa. Equation (11) gives 2 ( 0.1458 ) 54.53 ult ( A1 ) = ----------------------------------------- = 1.46 1.5 and finally ult(A1) = 1.46 54.53 MPa = 10.78 MPa (refer to Table 4). COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The proposed shear strength formulation can be used to predict the failure mode of the subassemblages and thus the ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

where is the joint aspect ratio.4,10,12 The principle (I = maximum, II = minimum) stresses are calculated 4 - I, II = -- -- 1 + ------2 2 2
2

(7)

Equation (8)29 was adopted for the representation of the concrete biaxial strength curve30 by a fifth-degree parabola II 10 ----I + -----fc fc
5

= 1

(8)

where fc is the increased joint concrete compressive strength due to confinement by joint hoop reinforcement, which is given by the model of Scott et al.15 according to the equation 474

Table 4Joint ultimate strength and ratios pred /exp and cal /ult for Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1
According to Park and Paulay10 A1 E1 E2 G1 6.05 8.94 5.96 8.34 1.19 1.31 1.24 1.28 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 According to proposed shear strength formulation 10.78 6.92 10.78 6.60 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.19 0.47 1.08 0.46 1.04

Subassemblage ult , MPa pred /exp cal /ult ult, MPa pred /exp cal /ult

Note: 1 MPa = 144.93 psi.

actual values of connection shear stress. Therefore, when the calculated joint shear stress cal is greater or equal to the joint ultimate strength (cal = cal f c ult = ult f c ), then the predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near ult(ult = ult f c ). This is because the connection fails earlier than the adjacent beam(s). When the calculated joint shear stress cal is lower than the connection ultimate strength (cal = cal f c < ult = ult f c ), then the predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near cal because the connection permits its adjacent beam(s) to yield. ult = ult f c is calculated from the solution of the system of Eq. (11) to (13). The value of cal is calculated from the horizontal joint shear force assuming that the top reinforcement of the beam yields (Fig. 8(a)). In this case, the horizontal joint shear force is expressed as V jhcal = 1.25A s1 f y V col (14)

where As1 is the top longitudinal beam reinforcement (Fig. 8(a)), fy is the yield stress of this reinforcement, and Vcol is the column shear force (Fig. 8(a)). For Type 2 joints, the design forces in the beam according to ACI 352R-026 should be determined using a stress value of fy for beam longitudinal reinforcement, where = 1.25. The improved retention of strength in the beam-column subassemblages, as the values of the ratio cal/ult = cal/ult decrease was also demonstrated. For cal/ult = cal/ult 0.50, the beam-column joints of the subassemblages performed excellently during the tests and remained intact at the conclusion of the tests.20-26 The validity of the formulation was checked using test data from more than 120 exterior and interior beam-column subassemblages that were tested in the Structural Engineering Laboratory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,20-26 as well as data from similar experiments carried out in the U.S., Japan, and New Zealand.1,12,13,31-36 A part of this verification is presented in Table 5 where the comparison is shown between experimental and predicted results by the preceding methodology for 39 exterior and interior beam-column joint subassemblages from the literature. A very good correlation is observed (Table 5). In Table 5, the limiting values of joint shear stress according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-026 (1.0 f c MPa for exterior beam-column joints and 1.25 f c MPa for interior beam-column joints) are included for each reference subassemblage. In Table 5, the limiting values of joint shear stress according to Eurocode 84 (15R MPa for exterior beam-column joints and 20R MPa for interior beam-column joints) are also included. The shear capacities of the connections of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 were also computed using the aforementioned methodology. One of the motivations behind this ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

study was the verification of the shear strength formulation presented herein for beam-column joints designed according to modern codes. The horizontal joint shear stresses are mainly produced by the longitudinal beam reinforcement as clearly described by Eq. (14). The longitudinal beam reinforcement of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was purposely chosen to produce low joint shear stresses during the tests, that is, a ratio cal/ult = cal/ult less than 0.5. Table 6 shows that cal/ult is equal to 0.47 in Subassemblage A1 (that is, lower than 0.5) and cal/ult is equal to 0.46 in Subassemblage E2 (that is, lower than 0.5). Thus, the formation of a plastic hinge in the beams near the columns is expected without any serious damage in the joint regions and, as a result, there will be satisfactory performance for both Subassemblages A1 and E2. As predicted, both subassemblages failed in flexure, exhibiting remarkable seismic performance (Fig. 3 and 7). Values pred of A1 and E2, which are shown in Table 6, are equal to their cal values (because cal < ult) and are significantly different from their ult values, which are shown in Table 4. The percentage of longitudinal beam reinforcement of Subassemblages E1 and G1 was purposely chosen to be higher than that of Subassemblages A1 and E2 to produce higher joint shear stresses than those corresponding to their ultimate capacities. The joint region of E1, however, satisfied all the design requirements of Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 and the joint regions of G1 satisfied all the design requirements of the two Greek codes.7,8 Table 6 also shows that for both Subassemblages E1 and G1, the calculated joint shear stress cal = cal f c when the beams reach their ultimate strength is higher than the joint ultimate capacity ult = ult f c . Therefore, the joints of both these subassemblages will fail earlier than their beams according to the aforementioned methodology, because the joints of both E1 and G1 reach their ultimate shear strength during the tests before the beams reach their ultimate strength. Thus, according to the aforementioned methodology, a joint shear failure is expected for both Subassemblages E1 and G1 without any serious damage in their beams and, as a result, the performance of both subassemblages will not be satisfactory. As expected, both Subassemblages E1 and G1 demonstrated premature joint shear failure starting from the early stages of seismic loading and damage concentrated mostly in this region (Fig. 3). As also predicted, both Subassemblages E1 and G1 exhibited poor seismic performance, which was characterized by significant loss of strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity during the tests. Furthermore, the volume ratios of joint transverse reinforcement for Subassemblages E1 and G1 were 0.025 and 0.017, respectively. Thus, the joint of Subassemblage E1 was more confined than the joint of Subassemblage G1, which explains why the hysteretic response of the former was better than that of the latter (Fig. 7). The concrete compressive strength significantly increases the joint ultimate strength ult. Thus, if the Subassemblages E1 and G1 had higher values with concrete compressive strengths, they would have behaved as well as Subassemblages A1 and E2. This would have happened for values with concrete compressive strength of approximately 50 MPa, which would have resulted in values of ratio cal/ult lower than 0.5. The value of concrete 28-day compressive strengths of 22 MPa for both Subassemblages E1 and G1, however, is acceptable for Eurocode 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and for both Greek codes.7,8 475

Table 5Experimental verifications

Joint Concrete Type of Longitudinal Joint aspect compressive subassem- ratio strength f , ACI, EC8, beam bar fy , hoop fy , Subc * = hb/hc MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa cal exp Reference assemblage blage No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 34 No. 8 No. 9 No. 10 No. 11 No. 12 No. 13 No. 14 No. 15 No. 16 A1 A2 A3 33 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 UNIT1 12 UNIT2 UNIT3 UNIT4 SHC1 36 SHC2 SOC3 SP1 SP2 SP3 35 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7 SP8 Total
*

ult

Observed Predicted shear strength pred, shear strength = pred / exp exp, MPa MPa 4.46 4.50 4.50 4.43 4.50 4.47 4.47 4.47 4.51 4.49 4.49 4.47 4.47 4.50 3.95 4.51 7.21 7.21 7.21 7.62 5.39 5.39 5.39 5.71 8.96 10.23 7.06 7.29 7.81 7.90 7.70 4.99 5.02 5.17 5.13 4.97 5.16 5.16 6.44 5.03 4.90 4.43 4.50 4.20 4.41 4.76 4.74 4.40 4.62 4.55 4.40 4.47 4.44 4.12 4.76 8.70 7.99 8.70 8.88 5.22 4.66 5.78 6.06 8.44 8.43 5.85 5.91 7.11 7.41 7.26 4.32 4.30 4.56 5.19 4.24 5.16 4.93 5.92 Average COV 0.89 0.92 1.01 0.99 1.07 1.01 0.94 0.94 1.03 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.01 0.96 0.95 0.83 0.90 0.83 0.86 1.03 1.16 0.93 0.94 1.06 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.10 1.07 1.06 1.15 1.17 1.13 0.90 1.17 1.00 1.05 1.09 1.02 0.10

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I I I I E E E E I I E E I I I E

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.126 1.126 1.126 1.126 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33

31.10 41.70 41.70 44.70 36.70 40.40 32.20 41.20 40.60 44.40 41.90 35.10 46.40 41.00 30.70 37.40 40,20 40.20 40.20 40.20 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 41.30 46.90 38.20 38.90 56.50 59.50 47.10 30.70 31.10 27.00 31.00 32.00 36.20 30.70 26.30

5.58 7.80 6.46 9.45 6.46 9.45 6.69 9.90 6.06 8.63 6.35 9.30 5.67 7.95 6.42 9.40 6.37 9.30 6.65 9.83 6.47 9.48 5.92 8.34 6.81 10.16 6.40 9.36 5.54 7.74 6.11 8.76 7.93 12.33 7.93 12.33 7.93 12.33 7.93 12.33 5.48 7.65 5.48 7.65 5.48 7.65 5.48 7.65 8.03 12.54 8.56 13.65 6.18 8.70 6.23 8.55 9.39 15.9 9.64 16.5 8.58 13.71 5.54 7.74 5.58 7.80 5.20 7.11 5.57 7.79 5.66 7.92 6.02 8.55 5.54 7.74 5.13 7.00

391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 1070 409 1070 1070 1070 409 1070 1070 315 307 473 473 413 413 413 347 349 350 349 347 352 352 352

250 250 250 281 281 281 250 250 250 281 281 281 250 281 281 250 291 291 291 291 291 291 291 291 320 320 321 321 551 551 551 0 0 427 379 0 357 365 365

0.78 0.88 0.92 0.68 0.74 1.06 0.68 0.67 1.06 0.66 0.67 1.08 0.74 0.69 0.99 0.70 0.69 1.03 0.77 0.82 0.93 0.68 0.72 1.06 0.69 0.67 1.05 0.67 0.69 1.08 0.69 0.70 1.05 0.75 0.74 0.96 0.64 0.64 1.12 0.70 0.69 1.03 0.71 0.74 1.02 0.72 0.76 1.01 4.62 1.34 1.11 1.76 1.23 1.11 4.62 1.34 1.11 4.48 1.33 1.14 2.68 0.93 0.96 1.02 0,83 0.96 2.68 1.03 0.96 2.60 1.05 0.99 1.20 1.13 1.26 1.31 1.08 1.33 1.17 0.90 1.09 2.32 0.90 1.11 1.00 0.91 1.31 0.97 0.91 1.36 1.06 1.00 1.22 0.90 0.78 1.03 0.90 0.77 1.04 0.94 0.83 1.00 0.86 0.87 1.09 0.88 0.75 1.05 0.78 0.78 1.20 0.87 0.83 1.08 1.19 1.02 1.11

E E

E E E E E

39

I equals interior beam-column subassemblage; E equals exterior beam-column subassemblage. Beam bars of UNIT3 were anchored in beam stub at far face of column. joints. Subassemblages with one transverse beam for cal < ult, pred = cal, pred = cal and for cal ult, pred = ult, pred = ult. Notes: ACI is the limiting values of joint stress according to ACI 318-055 and ACI 352R-02;6 EC8 is the limiting values of joint shear stress according to Eurocode 8.4 Neither relevant Greek codes7,8 provide information regarding limiting values for joint shear stress. All subassemblages have flexural strength ratios MR higher than 1.0. Overstrength factor a = 1.25 for
Unreinforced

beam steel is included in computations of joint shear stress cal = cal f c MPa. 1 MPa = 144.93 psi; 1.0 f c MPa = 12.05 f c psi.

476

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

A question arises regarding how concrete slabs, which are typical in buildings, affect the performance of the joints of subassemblages such as A1, E1, E2, and G1. Ehsani and Wight31 found that the flexural strength ratio MR at the connections is reduced significantly due to the contribution of the slab longitudinal reinforcement. They recommended that, to ensure flexural hinging in the beam, flexural strength ratios should be no less than 1.20.31 The flexural strength ratios of all the Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 tested in this study were significantly higher than 1.20 (refer to Fig. 1(a) and (b)); thus, the presence of a concrete slab would not have had any influence on the response of these subassemblages. It would be of interest to learn whether simpler procedures for arriving to the beam-column joint ultimate strength such as that proposed by Park and Paulay,10 would lead to similar findings as those derived from the solution of the system of Eq. (11) to (13). To this end, Table 4 presents the joint ultimate strength and ratios, pred/exp and cal/ult for Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 according to the aforementioned procedures. The ultimate joint shear strengths of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 derived from the solution of the system of Eq. (11) to (13) depend on the increased joint concrete compressive strength due to confining fc, as well as on the joint aspect ratio . These values differ significantly from those of Park and Paulay,10 which mainly depend on the percentage of top longitudinal beam reinforcement. Thus, Table 4 shows that the values of ultimate joint shear strengths of Subassemblages A1 and E2 derived from the solution of the system of Eq. (11) to (13) are higher than those of Subassemblages E1 and G1 derived by the same methodology. This clearly explains why the Park and Paulay10 values of ultimate joint shear strength in Table 4 are larger than the values from Eq. (11) to (13) for E1 and G1 and less than the values from Eq. (11) to (13) for A1 and E2. Finally, as can be seen from Table 4, the proposed shear strength formulation predicted the failure mode for Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1 with significant accuracy, while the Park and Paulay10 procedure predicted only the failure mode of Subassemblages A1 and E2. CONCLUSIONS Based on the test results described in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn. 1. The behavior of Subassemblages A1 and E2 was as expected and as documented in the seismic design philosophy of ACI 318-05,5 ACI 352R-02,6 and Eurocode 8.4 The beamcolumn joints of both Subassemblages A1 and E2 performed satisfactorily during the cyclic loading sequence to failure, allowing the formation of plastic hinges in their adjacent beams. Both subassemblages showed high strength without any appreciable deterioration after reaching their maximum capacity; 2. Despite the fact that Subassemblages E1 and G1 represented beam-column subassemblages of contemporary structures, they performed poorly under reversed cyclic lateral deformations. The joints of both Subassemblages E1 and G1, contrary to expectations based on Eurocode 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and the two Greek codes7,8 exhibited shear failure during the early stages of cyclic loading. This happened because, for both Subassemblages E1 and G1, the calculated joint shear stress cal was higher than the joint ultimate strength ult (Table 6). Damage occurred both in the joint area and in the columns critical regions. This effect cannot be underestimated as it may lead to premature lateral instability in ductile momentresisting frames of modern structures; and ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 6Experimental and predicted values of strength of Subassemblages A1, E1, E2, and G1
Joint aspect ratio Subassem- = blage hb/hc A1 E1 E2 G1 Predicted Observed = shear shear strength strength pred/ cal/ exp ult pred, MPa exp, MPa exp ult 5.05 6.92 5.00 6.60 4.31 5.80 4.10 5.56 1.17 0.47 1.19 1.08 1.20 0.46 1.19 1.04

cal

1.50 1.558 0.685 0.584 1.46 1.50 1.593 1.26 0.98 1.17 1.50 1.558 0.675 0.554 1.46 1.50 1.50 1.20 0.96 1.15

Notes: For cal < ult, pred = cal, pred = cal and for cal ult, pred = ult, pred = ult. 1 MPa = 144.93 psi; 1.0 f c MPa = 12.05 f c psi. Overstrength factor a = 1.25 for beam steel is included incomputations of joint shear stress cal = cal

f c MPa.

3. It was demonstrated that the design assumptions of Eurocode 2,3 Eurocode 8,4 and those in the Greek codes7,8 did not avoid premature joint shear failures because the resulting design can not ensure that the joint shear stress will be significantly lower than the joint ultimate strength ult and did not ensure the development of the optimal failure mechanism with plastic hinges occurring in the beams while columns remained elastic, according to the requisite strong column-weak beam. Thus, provisions in Eurocode 23 and Eurocode 84 and those in the two Greek codes7,8 related to the design of beam-column joints need improvement.
a b c f c hb h c hc MR N Vjh Vjv cal exp ult

NOTATION
bar diameter overstrength factor width of joint core compressive strength of concrete total depth of beam length of joint core total depth or width of square column sum of flexural capacity of columns to that of beam applied column axial load during test horizontal joint shear force vertical joint shear force hb/hc design values of parameter [cal = (cal / f c )] actual values of parameter [exp = (exp/ f c )] values of parameter at ultimate capacity of connection [ult = (ult/ f c )] = joint shear stress = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

REFERENCES
1. Leon, R. T., Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior BeamColumn Joints, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 3-11. 2. Penelis, G. G., and Kappos, A. J., Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures, E&FN Spon, London, 1997, 572 pp. 3. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC2, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete StructuresPart 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1992-1-1), CEN, Berlin, Germany, 1991, 61 pp. 4. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC8, Eurocode 8: Earthquake Resistant Design of StructuresPart 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1998-1-1/2/3), CEN, Berlin, Germany, 1995, 192 pp. 5. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp. 6. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 37 pp. 7. New Greek Earthquake Resistant Code (ERC-1995), Athens, Greece, 1995, 145 pp. (in Greek) 8. New Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures (CDCS-1995), Athens, Greece, 1995, 167 pp. (in Greek) 9. Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 11-25.

477

10. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley Publications, New York, 1975, 769 pp. 11. Park, R., A Summary of Results of Simulated Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Beams and Columns with Substandard Reinforcing Details, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 6, No. 2, 2000, pp. 147-174. 12. Paulay, T., and Park, R., Joints of Reinforced Concrete Frames Designed for Earthquake Resistance, Research Report 84-9, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1984, 71 pp. 13. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 492-499. 14. Soroushian, P., and Sim., J., Axial Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns under Dynamic Loads, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1986, pp. 1018-1025. 15. Scott, B. D.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1982, pp. 13-27. 16. CEB-FIP, Model Code 1990, Bulletin d Information, CEB, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1993, 490 pp. 17. Mitchel, D., Controversial Issues in the Seismic Design of Connections in Reinforced Concrete Frames, Recent Developments in Lateral Force Transfer in Buildings, SP-157, N. Priestley, M. P. Collins, and F. Seible, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, pp. 75-96. 18. Ehsani, M. R.; Moussa, A. E.; and Vallenilla, C. R., Comparison of Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Ordinary- and High-Strength Concrete Frames, ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1987, pp. 161-169. 19. Paulay, T., Seismic Behavior of Beam-Column Joints in Reinforced Concrete Space Frames, State-of-the Art Report, Proceeding of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. VIII, Tokyo, Japan, 1988, pp. 557-568. 20. Tsonos, A. G., Towards a New Approach in the Design of R/C Beam-Column Joints, Technika Chronika, Scientific Journal of the Technical Chamber of Greece, V. 16, No. 1-2, 1996, pp. 69-82. 21. Tsonos, A. G., Shear Strength of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections for Seismic Resistant Structures, Journal of European Association for Earthquake Engineering, No. 2, 1997, pp. 54-64. 22. Tsonos, A. G., Lateral Load Response of Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Joints, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 46-56. 23. Tsonos, A. G., Seismic Retrofit of R/C Beam-to-Column Joints using Local Three-Sided Jackets, Journal of European Earthquake

Engineering, No. 1, 2001, pp. 48-64. 24. Tsonos, A. G., Seismic Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Joints by the Removal and Replacement Technique, Journal of European Earthquake Engineering, No. 3, 2001, pp. 29-43. 25. Tsonos, A. G., Seismic Repair of Exterior R/C Beam-to-Column Joints using Two-Sided and Three-Sided Jackets, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, V. 13, No. 1, 2002, pp. 17-34. 26. Tsonos, A. G., Effectiveness of CFRP-Jackets and RC-Jackets in PostEarthquake and Pre-Earthquake Retrofitting of Beam-Column Subassemblages, Final Report, Grant No. 100/11-10-2000, Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (E.P.P.O.), Sept. 2003, 167 pp. (in Greek). 27. Paulay, T., Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 635-643. 28. Park, R., The Paulay Years, Recent Developments in Lateral Force Transfer in Buildings, SP-157, N. Priestley, M. P. Collins, and F. Seible, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, pp. 1-30. 29. Tegos, I. A., Contribution to the Study and Improvement of Earthquake-Resistant Mechanical Properties of Low Slenderness Structural Elements, PhD thesis, Appendix 13, V. 8, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1984, pp. 185. (in Greek) 30. Kupfer, H.; Hilsdorf, H. K.; and Rusch, H., Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 8, Aug. 1969, pp. 656-667. 31. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., Effect of Transverse Beams and Slab on Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1985, pp. 188-195. 32. 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. 343-349. 33. Fujii, S., and Morita, S., Comparison Between Interior and Exterior RC Beam-Column Joint Behavior, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 145-166. 34. Kaku, T., and Asakusa, H., Ductility Estimation of Exterior BeamColumn Subassemblages in Reinforced Concrete Frames, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 167-185. 35. Uzumeri, S. M., Strength and Ductility of Cast-in-Place Beam-Column Joints, Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1977, pp. 293-350. 36. Attaalla, S. A., and Agbabian, M. S., Performance of Interior BeamColumn Joints Cast from High Strength Concrete Under Seismic Loads, Journal of Advances in Structural Engineering, V. 7, No. 2, 2004, pp. 147-157.

478

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007