Sādhanā Vol. 39, Part 5, October 2014, pp. 1185–1200.


c Indian Academy of Sciences

Exterior beam-column joint study with non-conventional

reinforcement detailing using mechanical anchorage under
reversal loading

S RAJAGOPAL∗ and S PRABAVATHY

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi
626 005, India
e-mail: [email protected]

MS received 23 April 2013; revised 20 November 2013; accepted 20 November 2013

Abstract. Reinforced concrete structures beam-column joints are the most critical
regions in seismic prone areas. Proper reinforcement anchorage is essential to enhance
the performance of the joints. An attempt has been made to appraise the performance
of the anchorages and joints. The anchorages are detailed as per ACI-352 (mechan-
ical anchorages), ACI-318 (conventional bent hooks) and IS-456 (conventional full
anchorage). The joints are detailed without confinement in group-I and with additional
X-cross bar in group-II. To assess the seismic performance, the specimens are assem-
bled into two groups of three specimens each and were tested under reversal loading,
The specimen with T-type mechanical anchorage (Headed bar) and T-type mechanical
anchorage combination with X-cross bar exhibited significant improvement in seismic
performance: load-displacement capacity, displacement ductility, stiffness degrada-
tion, controlled crack capacity in the joint shear panel and also reduced congestion of
reinforcement in joint core.

Keywords. Reinforced concrete; beam-column joint; seismic susceptibility;

mechanical anchorage; ductility; reversal loading.

1. Introduction

Beam-column joints in seismically susceptible zones are critical regions in the reinforced con-
crete framed structure. Proper anchorage and joint details of reinforcement are essential. The
innovative joint designs that are able to reduce congestion of reinforcement in the joint are
desirable. ACI-352 (2002) recommends additional research on use of T-headed bar (mechan-
ical anchorage) in design of beam-column joints in concrete structures. The investigation of
the exterior beam-column joint reinforcement bar with 90◦ standard bent hooks anchorage and
mechanical anchor for joint core under reversal loadings has been a research area for many years.
Some of the analytical studies and experimental studies carried out so far are indicated below.

∗
For correspondence

1185
1186 S Rajagopal and S Prabavathy

Park & Paulay (1975) recommend the detailing of joints for the earthquake resistance struc-
tures using bent-up bars, stub-beam with bent-up bars and mechanical anchorage for serving as
anchorage as well as effective ties for confinement in the joint core of the exterior beam-column
joints. Paulay (1989) suggests that, as in the case of linear element, joint shear reinforcement
is necessary to sustain a diagonal compression field rather than to provide confinement to com-
pressed concrete in joint core. Tsonos et al (1993) suggested that the use of crossed inclined
bars in the joint region was one of the most effective ways to improve the seismic resistance of
exterior beam-column joints. Wallance et al (1998) suggestion of use of headed reinforcement
had eased specimen fabrication, concrete placement and the behaviour was as good as than sim-
ilarly constructed specimens with standard 90◦ hooks for beam-column corner joint. Chutarat &
Aboutaha (2003) reported that the use of straight-headed bars in the exterior beam-column joint
for cyclic response were very effective in relocating potential plastic regions. Murty et al (2003)
reported that the ACI standard hooks for anchorage of the longitudinal beam bar with hairclip-
type transverse joint reinforcement were more effective and this combination of anchorage with
joint reinforcement is easy to construct and can be used in moderate ductility demand situa-
tions. Uma & Sudhir (2006) in their review of codes of practices considered ACI318, NZS 3101:
Part-1 and Eurocode-8 EN1998-1 regarding the design and detailing aspects of interior and exte-
rior beam-column joint. Lee & Yu (2009) proposed extension of ACI design methods to cover
the use of mechanical anchorage for eccentric beam-column joints. They reported that cyclic
behaviour of exterior beam-column joints can be significantly improved by attaching double
mechanical device on each beam bar within the joint. Bindhu et al (2008) in their experimen-
tal investigations validated with analytical studies carried out by finite element model indicate
that additional inclined reinforcement bar improves the seismic performance of the exterior rein-
forced concrete beam-column joints. The use of headed bars has become increasingly popular
for relatively large reinforced concrete (RC) structures that are exposed to extreme loads such
as strong earthquakes or blasts, often providing an adequate solution to steel congestion (Chun
et al 2007; Kang et al 2009, 2010). Sagbas et al (2011) in their FEA Computational analysis
compared with experimental test results seismically and non-seismically designed joint detailed
for the effect of shear deformations. Misir & Kahraman (2013) proposed a seismic strengthen-
ing technique for non-seismically detailed beam-column joints of existing reinforced concrete
buildings using pre-fabricated SIFCON composite blocks.
The anchorage requirements for the beam longitudinal reinforcement bar and joint core details
are the main issues found from the literature reviewed for the problem of reinforcement conges-
tion in the beam-column joint core region of seismic prone areas. An attempt has been made
to evaluate the performance of the exterior beam-column joint by replacing the 90◦ standard
bent bar anchorages by T-type mechanical anchorage with additional X-bar in the beam-column
joint core for the low seismic prone area. It is found that these combinations effectively reduc-
ing the reinforcement congestion in joint core as well improve the seismic performance without
compromising the ductility and stiffness of the beam-column joints under reversal loading.

2. Testing program

The specimens are divided into two groups, each group comprising three specimens, with dif-
ferent anchorages. The anchorage details of specimens are designated as A, B and C and joint
details designated as 1 and 2. The specimen with T-type headed bar followed as per ACI-352
(2002) is designated as detail-A, the specimen with conventional 90◦ bent hook followed as per
ACI-318 (2011) is designated as detail-B and the specimen with full anchorage followed as per
 Exterior beam-column joint study 1187

IS-456 (2000) is designated as detail-C. The joint core of the specimen without confinement
reinforcement is designated as joint detail-1 and the joint core of the specimen with additional
X-cross reinforced bar is designated as joint detail-2.

3. Experimental test set-up

The half-scale exterior beam-column joint specimen testing was carried out at MEPCO Engi-
neering College, Sivakasi, INDIA. The joint assemblage was subjected to reversal loading
using two numbers of 25 ton (250 kN) capacity hydraulic jacks. The specimen was oriented as
described below.
The column part was kept horizontal and the beam part was kept vertical direction as shown
in figure 1. Both ends of the RCC columns were restrained both in vertical and also in the
horizontal directions by using strong built-up steel boxes which in turn are connected to the
reaction floor using holding down anchor bolts. To facilitate the application of reversal load (Left
Hand Side-LHS and Right Hand Side-RHS) on either side of the RCC beam, the hydraulic jacks
were connected to the strong steel frame with mechanical fasteners. The RCC beam was loaded
as shown in the figure 1. The Linear Variable Differential Transducer (LVDT) was connected on
either side of the specimen to monitor the displacements. The testing was load controlled with
load increment of 1-ton (10 kN). The specimens were tested till it reached its maximum failure
capacity.

4. Details of test specimens

All the specimens were identical in size and the beam sizes were 200 mm × 300 mm and cross
section of the column were 300 mm × 200 mm as shown in figure 2. The length of the beam was
1200 mm from the column face and the height of the column was 1500 mm. The various types

Figure 1. Experimental set-up.

1188 S Rajagopal and S Prabavathy

Figure 2. Beam and column size.

of anchorages used has been shown in figures 3–5 and the joint details used has been shown
in figure 6. In group-I, the anchorages A, B and C were combined with joint detail-1 and these
specimens were named as A1, B1and C1. Similarly in group-II, the anchorages A, B and C were
combined with joint detail-2 and these specimens were named as A2, B2 and C2.

Figure 3. Specimen type-A.

Exterior beam-column joint study 1189

Figure 4. Specimen type-B.

Figure 5. Specimen type-C.

Figure 6. Joint reinforcement and headed bar.

1190 S Rajagopal and S Prabavathy

Figure 7. Typical reinforced concrete frame right and left side sway joint forces.

5. Materials used

Concrete was made with 43 Grade cement with river sand and 20 mm downgraded coarse
aggregate.
The quantities of material per cubic meter of concrete were following:
• Cement = 435.45 kg
• Fine aggregate = 626.673 kg
• Coarse aggregate = 1188.22 kg
• Water = 191.6 kg/m3
• Water/cement ratio = 0.45.

The 28th day average cube compressive strength was 28.30 MPa.
The reinforcement bars used were 6, 8, 12 and 16 mm diameter of grade Fe-415 and welded
joint T-type mechanical anchorage (Headed bar) used were E410 as shown in figure 6.
 Exterior beam-column joint study 1191

Table 1. Provided and required development lengths for beam bars used for joint subassemblies.

Required Provided Beam bars Specimen

Codes development development anchorage types with
details Equations length(mm) length (mm) type groups

ACI −352 Ldt = 3

4 ∗ (Ldh ) 200.63 250.00 T-Type mechanical A1-I & A2-II
anchorage
α∗fy db
ACI −318 Ldh = √ 267.50 272.00 90-degree standard B1-I & B2-II
6.2 fc
bent anchorages
φσs
I S−456 Ld = 4τbd 644.73 710.00 90-degree standard bent C1-I & C2-II
full anchorage

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

10
Specimen-A1
5
Load in Ton

-5

-10
Displacement in mm

Figure 8. Load vs displacment (A1).

-200 -100 0 100 200

10
Specimen-B1 5
Load in Ton

-5

-10
Displacement in mm

Figure 9. Load vs displacment (B1).

-200 -100 0 100 200

8
Specimen-C1 6
4
Load in Ton

2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Displacement in mm

Figure 10. Load vs displacment (C1).

1192 S Rajagopal and S Prabavathy

-400 -200 0 200 400

10
Specimen-A2
5

Load in Ton
0

-5

-10
Displacement in mm

Figure 11. Load vs displacment (A2).

6. Critical joint mechanism details

A particularly moderate and severe ground shake situation can arise in certain exterior beam-
column joints of plane multistory frames when these are subjected to seismic loading. The exter-
nal action and the corresponding internal forces generated around such a joint are indicated in
figure 7. The following notations refer to the stress resultants. T-Tension force in the reinforce-
ment, Cc -compression force in the concrete, Cs -compression force in reinforcement and V-shear
force, subscript ‘b’ for beam and ‘c’ for column. From the position of the stress resultants it is
apparent that diagonal tension and compression stress (f c and f t ) are induced in the shear panel
zone of the joint.

7. Beam-column joint core reinforcement

7.1 Joint core reinforcement anchorage

ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002) classified beam-column joints as Type-1 and Type-2. For
joints of Type-1, no inelastic deformations are anticipated whereas joints of Type-2 are designed
to sustain strength under deformation reversals into the inelastic range. It should be note that this
paper deals only with Type-2 joints, i.e. seismic beam-column joints. The ACI report specifies
that for beams with Type-2 connections, the critical section for development length of rein-
forcement either hooked or headed should be taken at the outside edge of the column core. The
development length (Ldh ) measured from the critical section should be computed as shown in
table 1. The development length Ldt of a headed bar should be taken as 3/4 of the value computed
for hooked bars. In headed bar, the bar head should be located in the confined core within 2 in.
(50 mm) from the back of the confined core. The minimum development length Ldt should not

-400 -200 0 200 400

10
Specimen-B2
5
Load in Ton

-5

-10
Displacement in mm

Figure 12. Load vs displacment (B2).

 Exterior beam-column joint study 1193

-400 -200 0 200 400

10
Specimen-C2
5

Load in Ton
0

-5

-10
Displacement in mm

Figure 13. Load vs displacment (C2).

be less than 8 db or 6 in. (150 mm), for Type-1 and Type-2 connections. As per IS-456 (2000),
the development length (Ld ) of the hooked reinforcement bar should be computed as shown in
the table 1.

7.2 Transverse reinforcement within the joint core

The ACI-352 (2002) committee report recommends adequate lateral confinement of the concrete
in the joint core for the shear demand in the form of spirals or rectangular hoops for both Type-1
and Type-2 joints. For Type-2 joints, the total cross sectional area of transverse reinforcement
within the joint in each direction should be at least equal to Ash and not less than Ash as given in
the equation-1 (301.6 mm2 provided > 228.82 mm2 ≥71.57 mm2 ).
 
Sh bc fc Ag Sh bc fc
Ash = 0.3 − 1 ≥ 0.09 . (1)
fyh Ac fyh

The center to center spacing between layers of transverse reinforcement Sh should not exceed
the least of 1/4 of the minimum column dimension, six times the diameter of the longitudinal
column bars to be restrained, and 6 in (150 mm.).
As per IS-13920 (1993) the area of cross section, Ash of the bar forming rectangular hoop,
to be used as special confining reinforcement which shall not be less than (241.30 mm2 <
301.6 mm2 provided).
 
fck Ag
Ash = 0.18 ∗ S ∗ h − 1.0 . (2)
fy Ak

-400 -200 0 200 400

10
Group-I
5
Load in Ton

-5

-10
Displacement in mm

Figure 14. Peak load vs displacment.

1194 S Rajagopal and S Prabavathy

-400 -200 0 200 400

10

Group-II 5

Load in Ton
0

-5

-10
Displacementin mm

Figure 15. Peak load vs displacment.

7.3 Joint shear strength

For connections with beams framing in from perpendicular direction, the horizontal shear in the
joint should be checked in beam direction. The design shear force V u should be computed on a
horizontal plane at the mid height of the joint by considering the shear force on the boundaries of
the free body of the joint as well as the normal tension and compression forces in the members
into the joint, as shown in the figure 7.
The ACI-352 (2002) requirements for the nominal shear strength of the joint should be
satisfied as per the below equations.

φVn = φ ∗ 0.083γ fc bj hc ≥ Vu . (3)

The horizontal joint shear force demand V u is calculated based on the amount of beam, slab and
other reinforcement within the beam area as

Vu = Tb − Vcol = α ∗ fy As − Vcol . (4)

Shear in column calculated based on Mpr for beams

Mpr
Vcol = . (5)
hst

80
67.0 65.3
Displacment in mm

70
60.7
60 52.7
50.6
50
40.9
40
30
20
10
0
A1-I B1-I C1-I A2-II B2-II C2-II
Specimens

Figure 16. Displacment chart of the test specimens.

 Exterior beam-column joint study 1195

-400 -200 0 200 400

10
8
Group-I & II 6
4

Load in Ton
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Displacement in mm

Figure 17. Peak load vs displacment (Group-I & II).

8. Test results and discussion

8.1 Lateral load versus lateral displacement

The hysteresis loops behaviour of specimens A1, B1 and C1 in Group-I, A2, B2 and C2 in
Group-II subjected to lateral load are indicated in figures 8–10 and figures 11–13 respectively.
The corresponding peak load versus displacement behaviour is indicated in figures 14–15. It is
observed that in Group-I, the average ultimate load carrying capacity of the specimens A1, B1
and C1 are 73.00 kN, 68.00 kN and 71.75 kN with the corresponding lateral displacement of
52.72 m, 40.90 mm and 50.62 mm (as shown in figure 16) respectively. Among these A1 exhibits
the maximum load carrying capacity which is higher than B1 by 6.85% and 1.71% slightly
higher than C1.
It is observed that in Group-II, the average ultimate load carrying capacity of the specimens
A2, B2 and C2 are 79.50 kN, 78.50 kN and 79.25 kN with the corresponding lateral displacement
of 60.66 mm, 67.00 mm and 65.29 mm(as shown in figure 16) respectively. Among these A2
exhibits the maximum load carrying capacity than B2 by 1.26% and C2 by 0.31%.
It is seen from figures 17–18 that specimens in Group-II show superior load carrying capacity
(A1 by 8.18%, B1 by 13.38% and C1 by 9.46%) when comparing to specimens in Group-I.
From the above test results it can be inferred that the proposed additional X-cross bar increases
the ultimate strength of exterior beam-column joint significantly.

8.2 Behaviour in ductility

It is essential that the beam-column joints in an earthquake resistant structure will behave in a
ductile manner while subjected to several cycles of lateral loads in the inelastic range. Ductility
is the property which allows the structure to undergo large deformation beyond the initial yield

85

80 79.5 78.5 79.3

Load in kN

75 73.0
71.8
70 68.0
65

60
A1-I B1-I C1-I A2-II B2-II C2-II
Specimens

Figure 18. Loading capacity chart of the test specimens.

1196 S Rajagopal and S Prabavathy

16 14.3
14 12.2 12.8
11.7

Ductility Factor
12
9.7
10
8.2
8
6
4
2
0
A1-I B1-I C1-I A2-II B2-II C2-II
Specimens

Figure 19. Ductility factor chart of the test specimens.

deformation without losing its strength abruptly. Ductility (μ) can be defined as the ratio of
ultimate deflections (δu ) to initial yielding deflection (δy ). μ = (δu /δ y ).
From figure 19, it is observed that Group-II specimens namely A2 (ACI-352 mechanical
anchorage), B2 (ACI-318 90◦ bent hook anchorage) and C2 (IS-456 full anchorage) exhibit
higher ductility than Group-I specimens namely A1, B1 and C1 by 18.31%, 32.84% and 23.67%
respectively, wherein proposed additional X-cross bar joint core details are used in Group-II.
Among these six specimens, A2 exhibits better performance. This combination of anchorage and
joint details can be used in ductility demanding situations.

8.3 Behaviour in stiffness

In the case of reinforced concrete beam-column joints, stiffness of the joint gets degraded when
the joint are subjected to reversal loading. During the reversal loading, concrete and reinforce-
ment steel bars are subjected to several loading, unloading and reloading cycles. The joints
initially develop micro cracks inside and it leads to lowering of energy limit of the materials
thereby resulting in the increase of deformation inside the joints. This may consequently cause
the reduction in the joint stiffness. Therefore it becomes essential to assess the degradation of
stiffness in the beam-column joints subjected to reversal loading.
The stiffness behaviour of specimens referring to figure 20, the stiffness (K) is calculated K =
(P/ δ). Where ‘P’ is the peak average force and ‘δ’ is the peak average displacement value, which
are peak values of each hysteresis loops. Among specimens in Group-I and Group-II specimens
A1 and A2 have higher stiffness values than specimens B1, C1, B2 and C2.

10
9
8
7
Stiffness in kN/mm

Group-I & II
6 A1
5 B1
4 C1
A2
3
B2
2
C2
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement in mm

Figure 20. Stiffness vs displacment.

 Exterior beam-column joint study 1197

Table 2. Observed yield load, ultimate load, ductility and stiffness of test specimens.

Ultimate
Ultimate displace-
load ment Average Average
Speci- Yielding in kN in mm displace- displace- Average
mens displace- (Pu ) Average (δu ) ment for ment stiffness
name ment ultimate ultimate ductility kN/mm
and in mm Left Right load in Left Right load in factor k = Pu /δy
groups (δy ) Side Side kN (Pu ) Side Side mm (δu ) μ = δu /δy in
A1-I 4.50 72.00 74.00 73.00 42.13 63.30 52.715 11.714 16.222
B1-I 5.00 70.00 66.00 68.00 35.96 45.85 40.905 8.181 13.600
C1-I 5.20 71.00 72.50 71.75 45.63 55.60 50.615 9.734 13.798
A2-II 4.23 79.00 80.00 79.50 56.00 65.32 60.660 14.340 18.794
B2-II 5.50 77.00 80.00 78.50 65.00 69.00 67.000 12.182 14.273
C2-II 5.12 77.50 81.00 79.25 54.63 75.96 65.295 12.753 15.479

Table 2 shows only the average initial stiffness (stiffness K = Pu / δ y .wherein ‘Pu ’ is the
ultimate load and ‘δy ’ is the yielding displacement of the specimens). It has been observed from
the experimental test results that among specimens in Group-I, specimen A1 is has the higher
stiffness than specimens B1 and C1. In Group-II, specimen A2 is has the higher stiffness than
specimens B2 and C2. The stiffness of specimens A2 is higher than A1 by 13.83%. Among these
two groups, the specimens in Group-II are having higher stiffness.

8.4 Behaviour crack study and discussion

On examination of crack pattern of figures 21 and 22, flexural cracks on the beam-column
junction and shear cracks have developed on the column in all the specimens. Further to these
cracks, the specimens B1 C1, B2 and C2 have 90◦ bent tensile anchorage bars, which induce
a compressive stress in the joint diagonally, forming a compression strut due to contact pres-
sure under the bend. Tension tie developed in the joint perpendicular to the direction of the strut

Figure 21. Crack pattern of group-I (A1, B1, C1).

1198 S Rajagopal and S Prabavathy

Figure 22. Crack pattern of group-II (A2, B2, C2).

induces a tensile stress. Diagonal cracks developed perpendicular to the direction of the diagonal
tension tie in the joint shear panel area. Besides the wide open cracks in the junction, the con-
crete had also crushed and spalled out from the specimens B1, B2, C1 and C2 due to compressive
force, the specimens A1 and A2 with mechanical anchorage shows the lesser crack pattern than
other specimens using conventional joints details in Group-I and II without losing the strength,
however specimen A2 with mechanical anchorage plus X-Cross bar, shows lesser cracks and
much better control of crack capacity than other specimens. It can therefore be concluded that
these types of anchorage with joint core details are much more effective in controlling beam-
column joint than conventional details. It is apparent that the use of mechanical anchored bars is
a viable alternative to use of standard 90◦ hooks in exterior beam-column joints in seismic prone
area. In addition easy to repair using FRP composite wraps techniques to restore the flexural
strength, ductility of earthquake damaged concrete beam-column joints.

9. Conclusions

The following suggestions for the detailing of exterior beam-column joint of reinforced concrete
structures in seismic prone areas are made from the knowledge gathered through the results of
the experimental tests.
The specimens A1, A2 with T-type mechanical anchorage (ACI-352) are having a better per-
formance than the specimens B1 and B2 with conventional 90◦ hooks bent anchorage as per
ACI-318 and the specimens C1 and C2 with full anchorage as per IS-456 without compromis-
ing with the load carrying capacity, ductility and stiffness demand. This arrangement of the
reinforcement details in the exterior beam-column joint leads to reduction in the congestion of
reinforcement. Mechanical anchorage (headed bar) is a viable alternative to the use of standard
90◦ bent hooks in exterior beam-column joints in seismic prone area.
The specimen A2 is having better crack control capacity than other specimens. It can be con-
cluded that the mechanical anchorage (headed bar) in combination with X-Cross bar is effective
 Exterior beam-column joint study 1199

in controlling the beam-column joint yielding and ultimate failure than conventional joint core
details. This combination of anchorage and joint detailing may be used in locations demanding
low and moderate ductility situation.

Symbols

Ac Area of column core measured from outside edge to outside edge of spiral or hoop
reinforcement.
Ag Gross area of column cross section.
Ash Area of the bar cross section (IS-Code).
Ash Total cross-sectional area of all legs of hoop reinforcement, including crossties, crossing
a section having core dimension bc .
Ak Area of confined concrete core in the rectangular hoop measured to its outside dimen-
sions.
As Area of tension reinforcement.
bc Core dimension of tied column, outside to outside edge of transverse reinforcement bars,
perpendicular to the transverse reinforcement area Ash being designed
bj Effective width of the joint transverse to the direction of shear.
db Nominal diameter of bar.
f c ’ Compressive strength of concrete.
f ck Characteristic compressive strength of concrete.
f y Yield stress of reinforcement.
f yh Yield stress of spiral, hoop, and crosstie reinforcement.
h Longer dimension of the rectangular confining hoop measured to its outer.
hc Depth of the column.
hst Height of the column.
Ld Development length.
Ldh Development length for a hooked bar, measured from the critical section to the outside
edge of the hook extension.
Ldt Development length for a headed bar, measured from the critical section to the outside
end of the head.
Sh Center-to-center spacing of hoops or hoops plus crossties.
S Pitch of spiral or spacing of hoop, (the spacing of hoops used as special confining rein-
forcement shall not exceed 1/4 of minimum member dimension but need not be less then
75 mm nor more than 100 mm).
T b Tension force in the reinforcement.
V n Nominal shear strength of the joint.
V col Shear in the column calculated based on M pr for beam.
σs Stress in bar (0.87*f y ) at the section considered at design load.
τbd Design bond stress of concrete (can be increased by 60% for deformed bars).
α Stress multiplier for longitudinal reinforcement at joint-member interface for Type-2,α ≥
1.25.
γ Shear strength factor reflecting confinement of joint by lateral member.
Ø Nominal diameter of the bar.
1200 S Rajagopal and S Prabavathy

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Department of Civil Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineer-
ing College, Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu, India for extending the facilities.

References

ACI-352 2002 Recommendations for design of beam-column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete
structures (reported by Joint ACI-ASCE committee 352). USA: American concrete Institute
ACI-318 2011 Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary (reported by ACI
committee 318). Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA: American Concrete Institute
Bindhu K R, Jeya K P and Manicka Selvam V K 2008 Seismic resistance of exterior beam-column joints
with non-conventional confinement reinforcement detailing. Struct. Eng. Mech. 30(6): 733–761
Chutarat N and Aboutaha R S 2003 Cyclic response of exterior reinforcement concrete beam-column joints
reinforced with headed bars-experimental investigation. ACI Struct. J. 100(2): 259–264
Chun S-C, Lee S-H, Kang T H-K, Oh B and Wallace J W 2007 Mechanical anchorage in exterior beam-
column joints subjected to cyclic loading. ACI Struct. J. 104(1): 102–113
IS-456 2000 Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete code of practice (Bureau of Indian Standards).
New Delhi, India
IS-13920 1993 Indian standard ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic
forces code of practice (Bureau of Indian Standards), New Delhi, India
Kang T H-K, Shin M, Mitra N and Bonacci J F 2009 Seismic design of reinforced concrete beam-column
joints with headed bars. ACI Struct. J. 106(6): 868–877
Kang T H-K, Ha S-S and Choi D U 2010 Bar pullout tests and seismic tests of small-headed bars in
beam-column joints. ACI Struct. J. 107(1): 32–42
Lee H J and Yu Si Ying 2009 Cyclic response of exterior beam-column joints with different anchorage
methods. ACI Struct. J. 106(3): 329–339
Misir I S and Kahraman S 2013 Strengthening of non-seismically detailed reinforced concrete beam–
column joints using SIFCON blocks. Sadhana - Acad. Proc. Eng. Sci. 38(1): 69–88
Murty C V R, Rai D C, Bajpai K K and Jain Sudhir K 2003 Effectiveness of reinforcement details in exterior
reinforcement concrete beam-column joints for earthquake resistance. ACI Struct. J. 100(2): 149–156
Paulay T 1989 Equilibrium criteria for reinforcement concrete beam-column joints. ACI Struct. J. 86(6):
635–643
Park R and Paulay T 1975 Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Sagbas G, Vecchio F J and Christopoulos C 2011 Computational modeling of the seismic performance of
beam-column sub assemblies. J. Earthq. Eng. 15(4): 640–663
Tsonos A G, Tegos I A and Penelis G 1993 Seismic Resistance of Type 2 Exterior beam-column joints
reinforcement with inclined bars. ACI Struct. J. 89(1): 3–12
Uma S R and Sudhir K Jain 2006 Seismic design of beam-column joints on RC moment resisting frames-
review of codes. Struct. Eng. Mech. 23(5): 579–597
Wallance J W, McConnell S W, Guta P and Cote P A 1998 Used of headed reinforcement in beam-column
joints subjected to earthquake loads. ACI Struct. J. 95(5): 590–606