TITLE NO.

75-60

Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints

Under Seismic Actions

By T. PAULAY, R. PARK, and M. J. N. PRIESTLEY

The behavior of interior beam-column joints un- hers it connects, to eliminate the need for repair
der seismic actions is examined in detail. The ex- in a relatively inaccessible region and to prevent
istence of two shear resisting mechanisms, one the need for energy dissipation by mechanisms
involving joint shear reinforcement and the other
a linear concrete strut, is postulated and the effects
which undergo strength and stiffness degradation
of reversed cyclic loading on these mechanisms, in when subjected to cyclic loading in the inelastic
both the elastic and inelastic range of response, range.
are discussed. Simple analytical models of behavior 2. The capacity of a column should not be jeop-
are presented. The detrimental effects of yield ardized by possible strength degradation within
penetration into a joint upon longitudinal bar an-
the joint.
chorage are discussed, and methods to overcome
these effects are proposed. 3. During moderate seismic disturbances a joint
should preferably respond within the elastic
Keywords: anchorage (structural); axial loads; beam-column range.
frame; beams (supports); columns (supports); connections;
cracking (fracturing); cyclic loads; deformation; earthquake
resistant structures; earthquakes; hinges (structural}; joints
{junctions}; prestressed concrete; reinforced concrete; shear
properties; shear strength; structural analysis.
T. Paulay, FACI, is a professor of civil
• IT IS NOW GENERALLY ACCEPTED that beam-col- engineering at the University of Canter-
bury, Christchurch, New Zealand, and is the
umn joints can be critical regions in reinforced author of numerous papers on the shear
concrete frames designed for inelastic response to strength of beams and shearwalls and the
design of earthquake resistant reinforced
severe seismic attack. With the present state of concrete buildings. He is the coauthor of
the art of seismic design, a very high standard in Reinforced Concrete Structures. Dr. Paulay
is a member of ACI-ASCE Committee 445,
the design and detailing of earthquake resistant re- Shear and Torsion, and ACI Committee 442, Response of
inforced concrete beams and columns for strength Buildings to Lateral Forces.

and ductility has been attained. However, the

R. Park, FACI, is a professor of civil engi-
results of tests1 •3 •4 conducted on joints between neering at the University of Canterbury,
such members have generally been less satisfac- Christchurch, New Zealand. He is the co-
author of Reinforced Concrete Structures.
tory. His publications have covered slabs, the
inelastic response of reinforced concrete
ACI-ASCE Committee 352 recently prepared beams, columns, and frames, and the use
recommendations 2 for the design of beam-column of prestressed concrete in seismic areas.
Dr. Park is a member of ACI-ASCE Com-
joints for seismic and nonseismic conditions. As- mittees 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete
pects of this report relating to seismic design will Structures, and 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns. He is
also a corresponding member of ACI-ASCE Committee
be critically examined in this paper in the light of 428, Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structures.
recent test results, and some recommendations for
joint design for shear and bond will be discussed. M. J. N. Priestley was in charge of the
structural research laboratories of the New
Zealand Ministry of Works and Development
DESIGN CRITERIA before joining the University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, as a reader.
Acceptable criteria for the required perform- Dr. Priestley's research efforts related to
prestressed concrete, thermal effects in con-
ance of joints in ductile earthquake resistant crete bridge and water-retaining structures,
structures may be formulated as follows: and earthquake resistance in bridges, ma-
sonry structures, and building frames have been widely
1. The strength of a joint should not be less published.
than the maximum strength of the weakest mem-

ACI JOURNAL/ NOVEMBER 1978 585

 (a) considering the actual section properties
of the joint as built
(b) including the effect of slab reinforcement
immediately adjacent to the beam when calculat-
ing the negative moment capacity
(c) making a rational allowance for the prob-
able yield strength and strain-hardening of the
flexural reinforcement.
The latter may represent a significant and un-
desirable increase in the force input into the joint
core when large rotations occur in the adjacent
plastic hinges in the beams, and can be approxi-
mated by introducing a stress multiplier a, a typi-
Fig. 1-The crack pattern of an interior beam-column cal value of which is 1.25 when Grade 40 steel
joint assembly after simulated seismic cyclic loading with (f1, = 275 MPa) is used.~
large imposed ductility (Reference I) The relative magnitudes of the column moments
and shear forces, shown in Fig. 2b, which act to-
4. The joint reinforcement necessary to insure gether with the beam actions are less certain.
satisfactory performance should not cause undue During the inelastic dynamic response of a frame
construction difficulties. there are infinite possibilities for the fractions of
total beam plastic hinge moment (M 1 +
M 2 in Fig.
BEHAVIOR OF CONVENTIONALLY REINFORCED 2a) to be distributed to the column above and
INTERIOR JOINTS below the floor in question. Moreover, the shear
forces in a column will also depend on the moment
Shear forces on the joint core
generated at the other end of the column, which is
When a ductile frame responds to a severe earth- subject to similar uncertainties. A good estimate
quake, plastic hinges can be expected to form in for the mean column shear force can be made,
the beams immediately adjacent to the column however, as follows:
faces. This can result in severe demands on joint
performance, as is indicated by the intensity of V _ M1 + M2 + 0.5(Vb + Vb')hc (l)
cracking of the isolated beam-column test as- cui - 0.5 + l/)
(lc

sembly of a multistory frame shown in Fig. 1. The where l,. and l/ are the column heights center to
seismic actions on the joint core for this loading center between beams above and below the joint.
situation are shown for a typical interior beam- The other notation is as shown in Fig. 2a and 2b.
column joint in Fig. 2a. The locations and magni- With this information the probable maximum
tudes of the resulting internal beam forces, shown horizontal shear force in the joint core can be
in Fig. 2b, can be determined with a relatively expressed from Fig. 2b as follows:
high degree of accuracy. To realistically determine
the most severe probable actions present in the
V;" = (Asl + A.,2) af 1, - Veal (2)
joint during a severe earthquake, the internal Similarly the vertical joint shear force V;,. could
beam forces that could be developed during the also be evaluated from first principles, using the
maximum feasible inelastic frame displacements internal column forces and the relevant beam
must be evaluated. This is achieved by shear force V b·

Vcot

Tm ! ~~cc ~t·
taJS~ismic actions in ~quilibrium lbJint~rnal concr~t~ and st~~l (c)Th~ sh~ar r~sisting m~chanism ldiTh~ truss m~chamsm of
at a joint. forc~s at a joint of th~ concr~t~ in th~ joint cor~ th~ joint cor~

Fig. 2-Forces associated with joint shear resistance

586 ACJ JOURNAL/ NOVEMBER 1978

Mechanisms of joint core shear resistance core with only horizontal shear reinforcement
(a) Concrete strut-For the case of monotonic
cannot satisfy the basic requirements of equi-
librium. To sustain a diagonal compression field
loading up to the development of flexural over-
(Fig. 2d) within a joint it is necessary to maintain
capacities, when fs = af!l at both beam plastic
hinges adjacent to an interior joint core, the in- horizontal and vertical compression forces at the
ternal forces around the joint core, shown in Fig. boundaries of the core. 3 These can be applied to
2b, can be readily identified. In a frame designed the core concrete by (a) distributed horizontal
for seismic loading the critical column sections and vertical reinforcement that is effectively an-
above and below the joint core will usually remain chored at or beyond the boundaries of the joint
core and (b) by external compression forces such
elastic. Consider the critical condition where the
as gravity compression on columns and prestress-
column axial load is zero. Fig. 2c shows that for
ing tendons in the middepth regions of beams. 4 A
the somewhat idealized example joint, the internal
common and practical solution is to use horizontal
concrete compression forces, together with the
stirrup ties and distributed vertical column bars
column and beam shears and bond forces trans-
mitted within the compression zone flT,. could placed so that they pass through the joint core
form a system in equilibrium. The principal com- (Fig. 2a). The performance of joints where no
ponent of this mechanism is a diagonal concrete intermediate vertical bars were provided in the
strut, transmitting the compression force D,. at an columns, tested in early stages of the research
angle (3, as shown in Fig. 2c. It is evident that this program, was found to be distinctly inferior. It is
concrete strut mechanism is capable of transmit- convenient to denote the horizontal shear resist-
ting a significant fraction of both the horizontal ance of this truss mechanism by
and vertical shear forces across the joint core. In V_,, = Viii - V,.71 = flT, = D., cos f3 (4)
comparison, the contribution to the shear resist-
ance of mechanisms associated with aggregate in- where flT., = C., +T' - flTc (see Fig. 2b) is the
terlock forces along diagonal cracks and dowel bond force transmitted from the beam reinforce-
action across the reinforcement passing through ment to the core concrete outside the concrete
the joint will be small, since shear displacements compression zone. Simultaneously the truss mech-
necessary to mobilize these mechanisms are sub- anism will sustain a vertical shear force V.,,, shown
stantial and cannot develop. In terms of the forces in Fig. 2d, which can be calculated by similar
at the lower right hand corner of the joint shown reasoning.
in Fig. 2b and 2c, the horizontal component of the From considerations of equilibrium and the
diagonal compression force D,. is defined as postulation of a potential corner-to-corner diagonal
failure plane across the joint core, as indicated in
Vc/1 = C,. + flT,.- V'col = De COS /3 (3) testsH and shown in Fig. 2a, it is evident that
where flT,. is the bond force transmitted from the horizontal shear reinforcement needs to be pro-
beam steel to the concrete within the idealized vided so that
strut.
A v,,, )
(b) Truss mechanism - If all the remaining Jh > nf,, (5
longitudinal steel forces are also to be in equi-
where n is the number of sets of multilegged hori-
librium then significant bond forces must be in-
zontal stirrup ties, with a cross sectional area of
duced within the joint core. These bond forces
Aih and yield strength f}/.· that are uniformly dis-
will introduce shear stresses into the core con-
crete which in turn will result in diagonal tension tributed in the joint core between the top and bot-
tom beam reinforcement (see Fig. 2a).
stresses in the joint core. In the majority of cases
the diagonal tension capacity of the joint core con- For zero axial load in the columns, the vertical
crete will be reached and diagonal tension cracks joint steel reinforcement should be capable of
will form. However, as Fig. 2d shows, with an sustaining a tensile force of
effectively anchored horizontal and vertical sys-
(6)
tem of reinforcement a truss mechanism can be
developed in which the core concrete supplies the
Interplay between concrete and steel shear resist-
necessary diagonal compression field with a ca-
ing mechanisms
pacity of D., which is balanced by the boundary
forces and horizontal and vertical tension in the In satisfying the basic equilibrium requirement
reinforcement which passes through the joint core. of Viii = V,.h + V,,, the designer needs to know
It is to be noted that horizontal shear reinforce- the magnitude of the horizontal shear which can
ment, usually recommended or implied in pub- be resisted by concrete strut mechanism Vch (Fig.
lished studies,2 is insufficient on its own. A joint 2c) and by the truss mechanism V, 1, (Fig. 2d).

ACI JOURNAL I NOVEMBER 1978 587

 Ia) (b) (C)

Fig. 4-Probable steel and bond stress distributions in

a joint core: (a) at first yielding, (b) after reversed in-
elastic loading, (c) after several cycles of reversed in-
elastic loading

(a} At first y1ddmg (b) Aft~r r~ve-rse-d cycltc loadtng

Fig. 3 -The relationship between the internal beam

ternal column forces, the principal diagonal com-
forces and the horizontal joint shear resisted by the con- pression force D, (see Fig. 3a). The remainder of
crete and steel mechanisms respectively the total horizontal steel force /1T 8 (see Fig. 3a)
will be part of the truss mechanism, shown in Fig.
ACI-ASCE Committee 352 has recommended 2 2d, which, when combined with corresponding
the use of equations, derived for flexural mem- vertical bond forces from the column reinforce-
bers, for the safe shear stress which can be sus- ment, will give rise to D •.
tained by the concrete in the joint core. The Fig. 3a, which is a vectorial representation of
concrete shear resisting mechanisms in a joint core, Eq. (3), (4), and (6) and the corresponding col-
however, are significantly different from those umn equations combines the previously discussed
encountered in flexural members with or without mechanisms and shows realistic relative propor-
axial load. 3 For this reason the model given in tions of all forces discussed above. Measurements
Fig. 2, rather than that of a beam, will be used during tests have indicated 1 •5 that even with
to discuss the interplay between the two shear negligible axial load on the column the concrete
resisting mechanisms. shear resisting mechanism (from the diagonal
strut) may account at this stage for over one-half
Monotonic loading of the total joint shear.
Initially it will be assumed that the example
joint, shown in Fig. 2a, is subjected to monotonic Inelastic reversals of loading
loading in the direction shown so that the over- For the case of equal top and bottom beam
strength (beam tension steel stress equal to af11 ) steel, after one major excursion in each direction
of both beams . is developed. If, for the sake of into the inelastic range of behavior, the moment of
simplicity, equal top and bottom beam longi- resistance in the plastic hinges in the beams ad-
tudinal reinforcement is assumed (i.e., A.,2 = As1), jacent to the joint will be transferred mainly to
it is found from Fig. 2b that T' = T = Cc C.,. + the beam reinforcement. Residual plastic strains
To illustrate the relative magnitudes and the sim- in beam reinforcement will result in full depth
ple equilibrium requirements of the forces at say cracks developing at the plastic beam hinge and
the level of the bottom reinforcement, Fig. 3a will render the concrete ineffective in compression
shows the forces plotted as vector quantities for so that T = C, and Cc = 0 in Fig. 3b. The idealized
the yield condition shown in Fig. 2b. and somewhat optimistic bond conditions (u 2 ) at
It is now recognized that bond transfer is a this stage of the response are shown in Fig. 4b.
very significant aspect of joint performance. 3 The total horizontal steel force introduced to
Therefore some rational assumption needs to be the joint core by bond is now larger than in the
made with respect to bond stress distributions case of first loading. Moreover, since C,. = 0, a·
along bars passing through the joint. For the large part of the bond force i1T,. in the area of
monotonic load stipulated above, a uniform steel transverse vertical compression is absorbed to
stress variation and corresponding constant bond balance the column shear V,, 1, as can be seen in
force distribution u 1 may be assumed, as shown in Fig. 3b. Consequently only a relatively small hori-
Fig. 4a. The cover concrete outside the tensile zontal bond force can react with the concrete
column bars is assumed as being ineffective for compression forces from the column (C/' and
beam steel bond transfer. A part, 11Tc, of the total C/") to form a much reduced diagonal strut force
steel force, T +
c., (see Fig. 3a) will be trans- De. This necessitates a greatly increased contri-
mitted to the diagonal strut of the concrete shear bution from truss action (V,n) as indicated by a
resisting mechanism. This combines with the con- comparison of Fig. 3a and 3b. However, there is
crete compression force C, and the column shear no significant change in the nature of vertical
Vco 1, to develop together with similar vertical in- shear transfer. As long as there is no yielding in

588 ACI JOURNAL I NOVEMBER 1978

the column bars a significant portion of the in-
ternal compression force in the columns is trans-
ferred by the concrete to the joint core. This
vertical compression (De' sin (3) sustains a signifi-
cant part of the diagonal compression field of the
truss mechanisms and replaces the role of addi-
tional vertical shear reinforcement that might
otherwise be needed (Fig. 3b) .
After several cycles of inelastic reversed load,
yield penetration inevitably occurs along the beam
bars into the joint core. Some bond transfer is
destroyed and the effective anchorage length of
the beam bars is dramatically reduced. Fig. 4c
illustrates a likely situation when the beam bars
are still transferring maximum stresses equally
in tension and compression. The reduced embed-
ment length requires extremely high bond stresses,
concentrated near the center of the joint, to de-
velop. The major part of the steel force transfer
probably shifts to the center of the joint, away
from the transverse compression exerted by the
column. Consequently after yield penetration the Fig. s.....:..A typical interior beam-column joint after several
concrete strut contribution deteriorates further cycles of reversed loading corresponding with displace-
and the major part of the horizontal joint shear ment ductilities increased from one to six (Reference I)
Vi, must be resisted by the truss mechanism, V*,,,
as shown by the dashed vectors in Fig. 3b. ties in the joint core, transverse to the plane of
It is thus evident that reversed cyclic yielding the frame, to control the possible lateral expansion
and consequent yield penetration will necessitate of the core concrete.
more horizontal shear reinforcement. As long as
yielding does not occur in the columns no signifi- Bond and anchorage
cant change in vertical joint steel demand is ex- Using the simple principles of the diagonal
pected. concrete strut and the truss mechanisms (Fig. 2)
sufficient horizontal stirrup ties and intermediate
Strength of the compression field vertical column bars can be provided to enable
A comparison of the loading in the previous ex-
ample at two stages (Fig. 3) shows that the total
diagonal compression force, D = D,. + D,, remains
constant and proportional to the total joint shear
to be resisted. To fulfill the design criteria, set
out earlier, it is necessary to limit the diagonal
compression to insure that a premature and possi-
bly brittle compression failure of the concrete does
not occur. Concrete struts that are formed between
diagonal cracks in the core are subjected to com-·
(a)
plex loading and distortions which will not per-
mit the normal crushing strength of the concrete
to be attained. a One of the major sources of the 0.030
weakness of the compression field is the formation 0.025
of two sets of diagonal cracks, such as shown in 0.020

Fig. 5. If yielding of the joint shear reinforcement

occurs these cracks will become large and on
closure uneven bearing between faces of the
cracks will result, leading to local crushing. It is (b)
customary 2 to protect the compression field by
limiting the value of the nominal joint shear stress. Fig. 6-0bserved distribution of beam steel stresses
and strains through a joint with increased ductility: (a)
Confinement is an effective means to strengthen stresses (Reference 5), (b) yield penetration from strain
the diagonal compression field. 3 This necessitates records (Reference I)

ACI JOURNAL/ NOVEMBER 1978 589

the shear to be transferred across the joint core. beam bar, passing through a joint, should not
To provide adequate anchorage for the beam rein- exceed 1/25th of the column depth in the relevant
forcement, particularly in interior joints, is a more direction. For higher strength steel a more severe
difficult task. limitation is placed. Experimental evidence ob-
Unfortunately the environment for bond in a tained so faru.G indicates that a reasonably large
joint core may be adversely affected by: (a) the number of load cycles to adequate displacement
condition of the concrete as a result of extensive ductility factors in both directions of loading can
diagonal tension cracking in two directions, (b) be sustained without significant slippage if this
transverse tensile strains in the concrete adjacent suggested New Zealand criterion is met.
to bars imposed by the bars at right angles, and
(c) yield penetration of bars into the joint from BEHAVIOR OF INTERIOR JOINTS WHICH
adjacent plastic hinges. Of these the latter is likely REMAIN IN THE ELASTIC RANGE
to be the most serious as discussed above. Fig. 6a
Two critical aspects of joint behavior under
presents typical stress distributions along well
seismic conditions have been found to result in
anchored beam bars after several cycles of in-
construction difficulties. The first is that unless the
elastic reversed loading," while Fig. 6b shows the
flexural tension reinforcement ratio in beams is
inevitable breakdown of bond due to yield pene-
kept small (for example less than 1.5 percent of
tration observed in another experiment. 1 In both
Grade 40 steel) the amount of horizontal joint
figures the distributions are shown for various
stirrup reinforcement required results in serious
displacement ductility factors fl, which were grad-
congestion of steel. The second is that the limita-
ually increased during the tests. It will be noted
tion of bar diameter in beams, to reduce slipping of
from Fig. 6b that the residual strains remain ten-
bars through the joint core, may result in the use
sile in the compression zone of a plastic hinge and
of an excessive number of bars. Some designers
in the adjacent joint core. Some specimens re-
have found it necessary to increase member sizes
cently tested at the University of Canterbury,
to facilitate steel and concrete placement within
which were adequately reinforced for shear, have
joints. For this reason it is suggested that when-
demonstrated uncontrolled slip of beam reinforce-
ever practical the prime cause of these difficul-
ment after reversed loading cycles in the inelastic
ties, namely the formation of beam plastic hinges
rangeu (see Fig. 5).
immediately adjacent to column faces, should be
ACI-ASCE Committee 352~ made provisions for eliminated. This may be achieved by detailing the
the development of reinforcement in joint cores beam reinforcement so that the plastic hinges form
by invoking Section 12.5 of "Building Code Re- in the beams away from the column faces. The
quirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318- paten tial plastic: hinge regions should be as near
71) " 6 and by giving additional guidance for ex- as practicable tc the column face but far enough
terior joint anchorage details. However, it should away to insure that yield penetration will not
be strongly emphasized that generally ACI 318-71 extend to the column face. In such a design the
development requirements cannot be satisfied for steel stresses at the column face should approach,
beam bars passing continuously through interior but not exceed, the level of nominal yield when
joints that are subjected to severe earthquake the steel stress reaches over strength ( a.fy) at the
loading. For lack of data Committee 352 did not plastic hinge positions.
make recommendations 2 for development in in-
Fig. 7a shows the disposition of internal forces
terior joints except that it pointed out that smaller
in such a joint core, in similar fashion to that of
bars tend to reduce deterioration under reversed
loading. However, the design examples given~ do the conventional joint examined previously (Fig.
not reflect any attempt in this direction. In the 2). When Fig. 7 and 2 are compared a number of
light of the reasoning of Committee 352 it is im- distinct advantages become apparent:
plied that #11 (35 mm) Grade 60 (f.y = 414 MPa) 1. Because the steel stresses at the boundaries
bars passing through a 24 in. thick (610 mm) col- of the joint do not exceed yield, concrete strains
umn (i.e., 17 bar diameters) could develop 228 are also limited and the concrete compressive
percent of the nominal yield strength of the bar. stresses are relatively low.
This represents approximately nine times the ul-
timate bond stress implied by Section 12.5 (b) of 2. The concrete compressive forces should not
ACI 318-71. Available experimental evidence indi- diminish with cyclic reversed loading as all ten-
cates that this would be unattainable. As an in- sion cracks at the faces of the joint core should
terim measure in New Zealand, it is required that close upon load reversal.
when plastic hinges could form adjacent to col- 3. The bond conditions, shown in Fig. 7b, will be
umns the diameter of a Grade 40 (f1, = 275 MPa) much more favorable than those in the previous

590 ACI JOURNAl/ NOVEMBER 1978

case (Fig. 4) due to lack of yield penetration,
llol
and reduced steel stresses.
4. The concrete compression forces and the ap-
propriate proportion of the bond forces from the
reinforcement passing through the joint can com-
bine, even after repeated reversed loading, to
form an effective diagonal compression strut D.
similar to that shown in Fig. 3a. Therefore the
share of the total horizontal joint shear Vih re-
la}lnternal concrete and steel
sisted by the concrete mechanism Vch can be main- forces at an elastic joint
.__he---!
tained. I zd!"'lf;
DlllllllllD"'"'
fs ~ fy
5. As a corollary to this, a smaller shear force
V sh can be allocated to the truss mechanism in
~
U<U1
·-.... -.~ __..._
i!l!il!ii!l!ili!!i!il!il!il
design, thus resulting in a considerable reduction L~~ (c J The relationship between the
internal beam forces and the
in the joint shear reinforcement and an easing of (b)Steel and band stress
distributions at an elastic
camoonents of joint shear in
an elastic joint with axial compression
the steel congestion in the joint core. The relative joint

proportions of the internal forces and the cor- Fig. 7-Forces in an elastic joint
responding shear resistance for the previously
discussed interior joint will be similar but more
Thus the share of the horizontal steel force ~T. *,
favorable to those shown in Fig. 3a. Case studies
that will combine with the total column compres-
indicate that for the worst case, when there is no
sion stresses, must become larger. Fig. 7c shows
axial compression load on the column, joint core
qualitatively the distribution of the horizontal
shear reinforcement normally need be provided
joint shear components V* ch and V* sh with axial
for no more than one-half of the total joint shear,
compression P,, while exactly the same beam mo-
i.e., normally V.," < 0.5V.i"· ments are maintained as in the previous example
6. As a result of the third item above, the en- cases shown in Fig. 3.
vironment for bond in the joint core region in
The above arguments apply equally to the case
general is much better. Therefore the use of larger
when plastic hinges in the beams form at the
size beam bars should be possible and hence the
column faces. Axial load on the column, however,
number of beam bars could be reduced.
is not likely to significantly reduce yield pene-
(7) Because of the reduction in joint core shear tration. For this reason the benefit of axial com-
steel, shallower members can be used, with a cor- pression in "inelastic joints" is likely to be less
responding increase in the flexural reinforcing than in "elastic joints."
content and reduced weight.
Fig. 7c which shows all the relevant vector
quantities may serve as a model to design joints.
EFFECT OF AXIAL LOAD ON INTERIOR JOINTS Only first principles are involved.
Column load
It is to be expected that axial compression will Beam prestress
increase the shear strength of a beam-column When partial or full prestressing is used in
joint. Therefore, for a given joint and beam mo- beams of earthquake affected framed structures
ment capacity an increase in axial compression in the prestressing force contributes towards the
the column will result in less joint shear reinforce- closure of cracks when the external load is re-
ment being required. The simple mechanisms ex- versed, unless the prestressing force is lost as a
amined previously can be extended to explain consequence of yielding and plastic hinge forma-
how axial compressive column load can contribute tion. Tendons placed in the middepth region of
to shear resistance. beams, being away from the extreme fibers of the
Fig. 7a and 7c show (with dashed lines) that as member, will maintain horizontal compression on
a result of compression load on the column the the joint core; this compression can effectively
neutral axis depth in the column at the boundary replace horizontal stirrup reinforcement by sus-
section will increase to c*. Consequently, a larger taining a diagonal compression strut (Fig. 2c) of
proportion of the development of beam bars will certain intensity. Tests have verified this bene-
be in the zone of transverse compression. Equi- ficial effect of prestressing.4 Fig. 8 shows the com-
librium considerations will require that the main parison of the extent of damage after severe cyclic
diagonal compression force Dr* becomes steeper loading for two test specimens4 with beams of
and that it engages an appropriate horizontal force similar size and flexural strength. The beams of
(Cc +~To* - Vcol) to maintain its inclination (J*. one specimen contained nonprestressed deformed

ACI JOURNAL I NOVEMBER 1978 591

 ... . .. ..,

."
~
"%
~;
- I""'"'
-
l
! ~

~"',.,..,
J.l,t '
•

~
~

(a) (b)

Fig. 8-Beam-column joints with (a) conventionally reinforced beams, (b) prestressed beams with one of the three
tendons placed at middepth of the beam (Reference 4)

bars only. The beams of the other specimen were column joints. Because of space limitations only a
fully prestressed by three tendons, including one few important aspects of behavior and design are
placed at the middepth of the beam, giving a total stated here.
compression prestress of 0.22f/. Although both Generally conditions at exterior joints are less
specimens contained the same quantity of joint critical because the joint absorbs actions from one
core stirrup ties, it is evident that the damage in beam only and because beam bars can be anchored
the joint core of the prestressed specimen was more favorably by bending them toward the core,
significantly less than that of the reinforced speci- at or beyond the remote face of the column. After
men. bond penetration into the joint core, standard or
extended 90 deg hooks may still be capable of pro-
EXTERIOR JOINTS viding full anchorage. At first loading beyond
With few exceptions the principles of behavior yield a diagonal strut, similar to that shown in
previously discussed apply also to exterior beam- Fig. 2c, can find full support at the bend of cor-
rectly detailed beam bars. However, high radial
stresses, exerted by bends where large diameter
bars bear against core concrete that has been dam-
aged by intersecting diagonal cracks, have been
observed to lead to excessive hoop deformations
and consequent slip. 7
One critical aspect of exterior joint behavior
is that of bond transfer from column bars that
pass through the core near the face of the column
opposite to that where the beam enters the joint.
The cover concrete over these column bars tends
to spall relatively easily, particularly when heavy
horizontal joint stirruping is used. 3 Bond condi-
tions for these column bars may become too severe
for them to participate in the column moment
transfer across the joint. Moreover, the spalling
of the cover concrete may extend beyond the joint
area and significantly reduce the flexural strength
of the columns. 8
These problems, which are particularly acute
when relatively small columns are used, may be
overcome if the beam bars are anchored in a beam
stub, such as shown in Fig. 9. This way the radial
bearing stresses induced by beam bars at bends
can be introduced to a mass of concrete that is not
Fig. 9-Beam stubs at exterior joints provide improved subjected to joint shear. Moreover, the bond condi-
anchorage for beam bars tions of the column bars adjacent to this stub are

592 ACI JOURNAL I NOVEMBER 1978

greatly improved. In a series of tests the superior Both horizontal and vertical shear reinforcement
performance of specimens with beam stubs was is required and can be provided by horizontal
demonstrated. 3 stirrup ties and intermediate column bars.
4. When plastic hinging cannot occur in the
TWO-WAY FRAMES beams adjacent to the column faces, so that the
When beams frame into a column from two joint core remains elastic during cyclic loading,
directions at right angles the effect of plastic the shear carried by the concrete is fully main-
hinges forming in the beams in the two directions tained since no degradation in the shear force
simultaneously should be considered3 if the yield- carried by this mechanism occurs in the elastic
ing of the beam reinforcement can occur at the range.
column faces. Such yielding will cause biaxial 5. The diameter of beam bars passing through
shear forces to act on the joint core and therefore joint cores should not be excessive if slip of bars
the resultant joint core shear force to be resisted through the joint core due to bond failure is to
will be greater than that induced by loading in be avoided. In design slip can be avoided by limit-
one principal direction of the building only. The ing the beam bar diameter to a certain proportion
beneficial effects with respect to confinement and of the column depth or limiting the average bond
shear resistance resulting from the presence of stress on the beam bars.
beams on all four sides of the joint core may not ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
compensate for this additional shear force after
The financial assistance of the New Zealand Univer-
plastic hinging has occurred in the beams in both sity Grants Committee and the University of Canter-
directions and full depth cracks have developed bury, Christchurch, with which a continuing experi-
in the beams at the column faces. When yielding mental research program for beam-column joints has
of beam steel does not occur at the column faces been sustained for 8 years, is gratefully acknowledged.
the joint may be designed independently for each
of the two directions of loading. REFERENCES
1. Beckingsale, C. W., "Post-Elastic Behavior of Re-
CONCLUSIONS inforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," PhD Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canter-
The behavior of beam-column joints in ductile bury, Christchurch, 1978.
reinforced concrete frames subjected to large in- 2. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Recommendations for
elastic deformations during earthquakes has been Design of Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced
discussed against the background of recent ex- Concrete Structures," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 73,
No. 7, July 1976, pp. 375-393.
perimental work. In particular those features have
3. Park, Robert, and Paulay, Thomas, Reinforced
been emphasized where, in the authors' opinions,
Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
the recommendations of ACI-ASCE Committee 1975, 769 pp.
352:~ appear to be inadequate or unsafe. With re- 4. Thompson, K. J., and Park, R., "Ductility of Con-
spect to these issues the following conclusions are crete Frames Under Seismic Loading," Research Report
reached: No. 75-14, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, 1975, 442 pp.
1. The total shear force applied to a joint core
5. Blakeley, R. W. G.; Megget, L. M.; and Priestley,
should be apportioned between that carried by M. J. N., "Seismic Performance of Two Full Size Rein-
the concrete diagonal strut which exists between forced Concrete Beam-Column Joint Units," Bulletin,
the compressed corners of the joint core and that New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineer-
carried by a truss mechanism consisting of hori- ing (Wellington), V. 8, No. 1, Mar. 1975, pp. 38-69.
zontal and vertical stirrup ties and longitudinal 6. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements
bars. for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71) ," American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 1971, 78 pp. (plus 1976 cumula-
2. The shear resistance of the concrete in the tive supplement).
joint core is primarily due to the contribution 7. Megget, L. M., and Park, R., "Reinforced Concrete
from the diagonal strut. When plastic hinges form Exterior Beam-Column Joints Under Seismic Load-
in the beams adjacent to the column faces, the ing," New Zealand Engineering (Wellington), V. 26,
No. 11, Nov. 1971, pp. 341-353.
shear transfer by the diagonal strut is diminished
8. Uzumeri, S. M., and Seckin, M., "Behavior of Re-
by full depth cracking at the face of the column inforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to
and by yield penetration caused by cyclic loading Slow Load Reversals," Publication No. 74-05, Depart-
and it should be ignored in design unless sig- ment of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Mar.
nificant axial compression forces are transmitted 1974, 85 pp.
across the joint by gravity load or by prestressing.
3. The shear resistance provided by reinforce-
Received Oct. 26, 1977, and reviewed under Institute publication
ment is due to the contribution from truss action. policies.

ACI JOURNAL/ NOVEMBER 1978 593