Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
7, September, 511521
doi: 10.1680/macr.2007.00126
Imperial College
In practice external beamcolumn joints are seldom designed for monotonic loading. The current authors believe
that this is an oversight which should be addressed. This paper presents a simple strut and tie model for the
analysis and design of external reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. The strut and tie model is developed from
first principles using the concrete design strengths given in Eurocode 2. The main difficulty in developing strut and
tie models for beamcolumn joints is in determining the node dimensions. The novel feature of the authors analysis
is that the joint strength is related to the flexural capacity of the beam at the face of the column which is defined in
terms of the maximum moment which can be transferred through the joint into the upper and lower columns. The
model is shown to give better predictions of joint shear strength than existing simple design models. A case study is
presented which shows that it is often sufficient to provide only minimum shear reinforcement in beam column
joints.
column joints should be checked for shear. Links Vcol is the design shear force in the column above the
should normally be provided within beamcolumn joint
joints in reinforced concrete structures to restrain the
column bars against buckling. Links may also be occa-
sionally required to increase the joint shear strength. Strut and tie model for external beam
Even if the joint shear strength is not critical, nominal
column joints
links are advisable to increase the ductility of the joint
and to provide crack control. EC23 includes general recommendations on concrete
In practice external beamcolumn joints are seldom strength in strut and tie models which are applicable to
designed unless subject to seismic loading. This is no the design of beamcolumn joints. Fig. 1 shows an
doubt the result of the lack of design guidance in Codes idealised strut and tie model for a beamcolumn joint
of Practice such as British Standard (BS) 81102 and without stirrups in which the stresses in the concrete
Eurocode (EC)2.3 American Concrete Institute (ACI) are assumed to be equal on all faces of the nodes (i.e.
standard ACI 318-054 specifies a minimum area of hydrostatic). The STM is applicable to beamcolumn
stirrups to be provided in external beamcolumn joints joints with aspect ratios hb /hc between 1 and 2. This
but gives no limits on the joint shear stress. More restriction is of no consequence in practice since joints
detailed design guidelines are given by ACI/American with hb /hc , 1 are likely to fail in flexure and joints
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Committee 352.5 with hb /hc . 2 can be designed using the variable truss
The current paper presents a rational strut and tie method given in EC2 since the contribution of the
model for the design of external beamcolumn joints direct strut disappears as hb /hc is increased above 2 to
which is consistent with the recommendations of EC2.3 2.5. The tensile force in the beam reinforcement is
The model is a considerable improvement on Vollum assumed to be transferred into the back of the column
and Newmans6 earlier stut and tie model (STM) for through a rigid plate whereas, in reality, the beam
external beam column joints which dimensioned the reinforcement is usually anchored with an L or U bar.
struts using non-rational calibration factors derived The consequences of this assumption, which simplifies
from back analysis of test data. The method is validated the analysis of the top node, are examined later but are
with test data and is shown to give consistent and safe not believed to be significant providing the beam re-
designs. It is shown that the proposed STM gives sig- inforcement is bent down into the column with an
nificantly better estimates of joint shear strength than adequate radius to avoid bearing failure and it is fully
the design methods given by ACI/ASCE Committee anchored past the beginning of the bend. The joint
3525 and in EC23 for shear in beams. shear strength can be expressed in terms of the node
dimensions in Fig. 1 as follows
Vj be k9 f cd (x y) (2)
General principles
where
The member forces are usually determined from an k9fcd is the concrete design strength given in EC23
elastic analysis of the frame using factored loads. In a which is given by
braced frame, moment redistribution may be used to k9 f cd k(1 f ck =250) f ck =c (3)
reduce the design hogging bending moments in the
beams providing the span bending moments are also c is the material factor of safety for concrete which is
appropriately adjusted. The area of reinforcement re- taken as 1.5 in EC23
quired in the top of the beam should be based on the EC2 gives k 0.6 for concrete struts in cracked
bending moment at the face of the column. It is not compression zones, k 0.85 for compressiontension
good practice, or necessary, to design the beam tension nodes with anchored ties in one direction and k 0.75
steel for the moments at the centre of the column. for compression-tension nodes with anchored ties in
more than one direction. In this paper, k is taken as 0.6
Design shear force within a joint throughout for reasons discussed below and k9 is re-
The shear force within a joint may be calculated placed by 0.6(1fck /250).
from the resultant forces acting on it at the joint bound- The effective joint width, be , is assumed to equal the
aries. For an edge column, this is the design force in average width of the beam and column as commonly
the beam flexural reinforcement minus the column assumed5,7 but < 0.85/0.6bb to limit compressive stresses
shear above the joint. in the beam to 0.85(1fck /250)fck /c as required in EC2.3
Vj Tb Vcol (1) The main difficulty in determining the joint shear
strength is in determining the node dimensions and
where appropriate design concrete strengths at the node bound-
Vj is the shear force in the joint aries. The coefficient k in equation (3) is taken as 0.6 in
Tb is the design force in the beam tension reinforcement the analysis of the STM to limit the stress in the direct
at the face of the column strut to 0.6(1fck /250)fcd in accordance with EC2.3 The
512 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7
Vollum and Parker
N
M
Vcol
Critical section for the design
of the beam reinforcement is
at the face of the column
x
Tb
db 05x db
xc 05hc
hc
Fig. 1. Strut and tie model for external beamcolumn joint without joint stirrups
novel feature of the present authors analysis is that the transferred into the lower node at the face of the col-
joint shear strength is related to the maximum moment umn as shown in Fig. 2. The eccentricity of Vb with
that can develop in the beam at the face of the column, respect to the column centreline gives rise to an out-of-
which is defined in terms of the maximum moment balance moment which is equilibrated by equal and
which can be transferred through the joint into the upper opposite shear forces in the upper and lower columns
and lower columns. In the model presented, the width of equal to 0.5Vb hc /Lc (where Lc is the column length
the node (xc in Fig. 1) is taken as half the column width between the points of contra-flexure). The column
to maximise the moment transferred into the columns shear forces of magnitude 0.5Vb hc /Lc are balanced by
through the concrete at the joint boundaries. It is also horizontal forces, resulting from flexure in the beam, at
assumed that any transfer of vertical force between the the top and bottom of the joint. It follows that the out-
column bars and the direct strut occurs behind the nodes of-balance moment 0.5Vb hc /Lc only introduces vertical
within the column. This assumption is shown to be forces within the joint, which are assumed to act at the
broadly in line with the available test data in the discus- centroid of the column bars as shown in Fig. 2. The
sion of column bar forces later in this paper. It is geometry of the strut and tie model is independent of
assumed for simplicity in the development of the model the axial load in the column since axial equilibrium is
below that the moments in the upper and lower columns maintained by adjusting the forces in the column bars.
are equal at the joint boundaries. It follows that in the This assumption is consistent with the experimental
absence of joint shear reinforcement, the maximum mo- data, which show no consistent relationship between
ment that can be transferred through the joint into the joint shear strength and column axial load.7 The depth
columns above and below the beam is given by of the node, which determines the joint shear strength,
is determined by considering the geometry and equili-
M col 0:125be h2c f cd (4)
brium of the joint.
The shear force in the beam Vb is assumed to be The STM is modified by the presence of joint shear
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7 513
External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2
M
Vcol 05Vbhc/Lc
05Vbhc/Lc
05yhc/(Lc 05hc)
db 05x
Vb
05yhc/(Lc 05hc)
05Vbhc/Lc
Csi 05Vb(2dc 05hc)/(2dc hc)
05hc
Vcol 05Vbhc/Lc
hc
w
reinforcement as shown in Fig. 3. Theoretically, stirrups
increase joint shear strength in the STM if positioned
within the central zone shown in Fig. 3 between the y
w 2T =(be f cd ) < 0:5hcol (10) Step 1 gives a reasonably accurate estimate of the joint
moment capacity unless the joint is heavily reinforced
z Tsyd =(be f cd ) (11)
in shear.
where Lc is the distance between the points of contra- Design procedure for beamcolumn joints
flexure in the upper and lower columns, Lb is the Design joint shear reinforcement is required if
distance to the point of contraflexure in the beam from
the column face and Mb is the moment in the beam at M design 0:5M b design (1 (1 0:5hc =Lb )d b =Lc )
the column face. In accordance with clause 6.2.3 (8) of
EC23 (which is concerned with the shear strength of 0:125be h2c f cd be > 0
beams with concentrated loads close to supports), the (18)
maximum permissible joint shear force is limited to
Vjdmax < 0:45 f cd bc d c =m (12) where Mdesign is the required increment in column
moment capacity and Mbdesign is the design moment in
where bc is the full width of the column through the the beam at the column face. The required increment in
joint and d c is the effective depth of the column within column bar force T is found by equating Mdesign to
the joint. M which is defined in terms of T in equation (5).
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7 515
External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2
The design joint stirrup force can be calculated with Details of the additional five specimens (C4PLN0,
equation (6), which relates the stirrup force to T and C7LN0, C7LN1, C7LN3 and C7LN5) are given by
cot. Substituting into equation (6) for cot from equa- Hamil.8 The geometry of Hamils8 C4 and C7 series
tion (7) and rearranging gives of specimens, which was identical with that of
q Scotts11 C4 and C7 series, is also given in Table 1 of
Tsyd 0 5(b (b2 4c))
: (19) Vollum and Newman.7 The notation N0, N1 and so on
defines the number of joint stirrups provided over the
where full depth of the beam. The joint aspect ratio hb /hc
was 1.4 in the C4 series and 2 in the C7 series. The
b h f cd be (20)
partial material factors of safety for steel and concrete
c 2M design (2d c hc w) f cd be =(2d c hc ) (21) were taken as 1 throughout. Experimental joint shear
strengths were calculated for the test specimens from
where w and h* can be calculated directly with equa- reinforcement bar forces derived with a parabolic
tions (10) and (16) respectively. stress block.
It is assumed in equation (18) that the distances to Theoretical failure loads were calculated for all the
the points of contra-flexure in the upper and lower specimens in the data base using the authors STM, the
columns from the centreline of the beam are equal and recommendations of ACI/ASCE Committee 352,5 the
that the axial force in the beam is zero. If this is not empirical design method of Vollum and Newman,7 the
the case, the maximum column moment at the top or minimum energy model of Parker and Bullman12 and
bottom of the beam should not exceed Mcol + M the design methods for shear given in EC23 for beams
where Mcol and M are given by equations (4) and (5) with and without stirrups. Theoretical joint shear
respectively. This can be achieved by replacing Lc by strengths were calculated for specimens without joint
2Lc * where Lc * is the minimum distance to the point of shear reinforcement using equation 6.2(a) in EC23 with
contraflexure in upper or lower column from the col- a material factor of safety of 1 for concrete. The joint
umn centreline. shear strength was increased by a factor 2d/av (where
If the design joint shear force exceeds Vjdmax (see d dc and av 0.8db ) in accordance with clause 6.2.2
equation (12)), it can be reduced by moment redistribu- (6) in EC2. Joint shear strengths were calculated for
tion. Alternatively, the column size or the concrete specimens with joint shear reinforcement using the
strength can be increased. variable strut inclination method (VSI) in EC2 (equa-
tions (6.8) and (6.9)) with the largest permissible value
Vertical equilibrium of cot. The stirrup spacing was defined as s 0.9db /n
The design tensile force in the internal column bars where n is the number of stirrups in the column within
immediately above the joint (see Fig. 2) is given by the depth of the beam. The effective width of the joint
was taken as the column width in all the analyses with
Tsi 0:5(N 0:5be hc f cd )
(22) EC2.
0:25Vb hc =(2d c hc ) T A statistical analysis of all the results is presented
in Table 1, which compares the predictions of the
where T is found by rearranging equation (5), N is the current authors STM with the predictions of ACI/
compressive force (positive) in the upper column and ASCE Committee 352,5 EC23 and the earlier models
Vb is the shear force in the beam. of Parker and Bullman12 and Vollum and Newman.7
All the models, tend on average to overestimate the
strength of Parker and Bullmans12 specimens 4b to 4f,
Comparison with test data and other which failed at comparatively low joint shear for-
ces,6,7,14 probably influenced by the high bearing stres-
design methods
ses inside the bends. Separate statistical analyses are
The current authors STM was validated with a data given in Table 1 for joints with joint stirrups and in
base of 38 beamcolumn joint specimens,3 that are Table 1 for joints without shear reinforcement exclud-
believed to have failed in joint shear, tested by Ortiz,9 ing the specimens of Parker and Bullman,12 which
Taylor,10 Scott,11 Hamil,8 Parker and Bullman12 and failed at comparatively low joint shear strengths. Table
Kordina13 in which the beam reinforcement was an- 1 shows that the accuracy of the STM proposed in the
chored with L bars. All the specimens were similar in present paper is better than the authors previous sim-
geometry to Fig. 1. Specimens with U bars were ple models7,10 and considerably superior to the recom-
omitted from the data base since previous research7 mendations of EC23 for shear in beams and the
indicated that their joint shear strength was around recommendations of ACI/ASCE Committee 352.5 The
20% less than that of similar specimens with L bars. most significant feature of the STM proposed in this
Twenty six of the specimens were reinforced with joint paper is that it was derived from first principals using
stirrups. Details of all the specimens except five tested the recommendations for strut and tie models given in
by Hamil8 are given in Table 1 of Vollum et al.7 EC2.3
516 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7
Vollum and Parker
*Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Discussion 140
120
Treatment of nodes
100
The most questionable assumption in the STM is the
Ppred/Ptest
080
treatment of the top node where the tensile force in the
060
beam reinforcement is treated as if it were transferred
Reys de Ortiz9 Taylor10
into the rear face of the column through a rigid plate. 040
Parker and Bullman12 Scott11 and Hamil8
Despite this Table 1 shows that the STM gives reason- 020
able predictions of joint shear strength. Hamils8 speci- 000
mens C4PLN0 and C4ALN0 are particularly interesting 040 050 060 070 080
Influence of bend radius: (dc R)/hc
in this regard. Both specimens were notionally identical
except the beam reinforcement was anchored with a Fig. 4. Influence of radius of bend on accuracy of predicted
plate bearing onto the back face of the column in speci- failure loads given by STM
men C4PLN0 as assumed in the STM. Specimen
C4PLN0 in which the reinforcement was anchored with
a plate failed at a load 20% greater than specimen Analysis of the test data showed that the width of the
C4ALN0. The ratio of the measured and predicted fail- indirect strut (i.e. for joints with stirrups) can be under-
ure loads was 0.75 for C4PLN0 and 0.89 for C4ALN0. estimated at the column reinforcement if the limiting
It appears that adopting a relatively low concrete design concrete strength is assumed to be 0.6(1fck /250)fcd on
strength of 0.6(1fck /250)fcd compensates for the poor the vertical node boundaries. In these cases, the geome-
anchorage of the beam reinforcement at the top node. try of the STM is improved within the joint by increasing
The influence of the radius of the bend on the joint the limiting stress on the vertical node boundaries to
shear strength was assessed by plotting the ratio of the 0.85(1fck /250)fcd in which case the stress distribution
straight length of reinforcement between the column within the nodes is no longer hydrostatic. In practice, this
face and the start of the bend to the column depth. The refinement is unnecessary if the joint shear strength is
results are shown in Fig. 4, which does not show any limited by equation (12) since increasing the permissible
evidence that the joint shear is influenced by the ratio stress on the vertical node boundaries from 0.6(1fck /
of the radius of the bend to the column depth provided 250)fcd to 0.85(1fck /250)fcd has almost no effect on the
bearing failure does not occur as may have been the predicted failure load. Therefore, it is proposed that k is
case in the specimens of Parker and Bullman.12 taken as 0.6 throughout in equation (3).
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7 517
External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2
Ppred/Ptest
080
direct strut from the column bars within the joint depth.
060
120
06
100
04
080
Ppred/Ptest
Reys de Ortiz9
02 060
Scott11 and Hamil8
00 040
Reys de Ortiz9
000 005 010 015 020 Taylor10
020
N/bchcfc Scott11 and Hamil8 hb/hc 14
000
Fig 5. Comparison between measured column bar forces and 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
forces calculated assuming plane sections remain plane Concrete strength: MPa
12 140
10 120
Tsipred/Tsimeas
100
08
Ppred/Ptest
080
06
060
04 Reys de Ortiz9 040 Reys de Ortiz9 Taylor10
02 Scott11 and Hamil8 020 12
Parker and Bullman Scott11 and Hamil8
00 000
000 005 010 015 020 025 030 100 120 140 160 180 200
N/bchcfc Joint aspect ratio hb/hc
Fig 6. Comparison between measured column bar forces and Fig. 9. Influence of joint aspect ratio on accuracy of
forces calculated with STM predicted failure loads given by STM
518 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7
Vollum and Parker
030 120
025 100
(Vj Tsy)/(behcfck)
080
Ppred/Ptest
020
Test
060
STM
015
040 Reys de Ortiz9 Taylor10
010 Parker and Bullman12 Scott11 and Hamil8 hb/hc 14
020
Scott11 and Hamil8 hb/hc 2
005 000
000 005 010 015 020 025 030
000 Stirrup index SI
000 002 004 006 008 010 012 014 016
Stirrup index SI Fig. 11. Comparison of measured and design failure loads
given by STM
Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and predicted contributions
of direct strut for STM for specimens tested by Scott 11 and
Hamil 8
Influence of transverse beams
Hamil,8 which were typical. It is concluded that the None of the specimens analysed in this paper had
STM provides a good description of the mechanics of transverse beams. Many tests have been carried out on
the joint in addition to giving reasonable estimates of cyclically loaded joints which indicate that joint shear
joint strength. strength is increased by the presence of transverse edge
beams framing into each side of the joint. This effect is
included in the design recommendations of ACI/ASCE
Committee 3525 which increases the strength by 4/3 if
Safety of STM for design of beam transverse beams are present. Research15 shows that the
column joints potential increase in joint strength owing to transverse
beams depends on the beam cross-sectional area, area
The analysis of the test data was repeated, for the of longitudinal reinforcement and loading. The increase
specimens that failed in joint shear, with the STM, the in joint shear strength arises through the combined
method of Parker and Bullman12 and EC23 methods effects of torsion and confinement of the concrete with-
with material factors of safety of 1.5 for concrete and in the joint zone. The current authors believe that the
1.15 for reinforcement. A statistical analysis of the effect of torsion is likely to be most significant in
results is given in Table 2 for all the specimens and for monotonically loaded joints where limited lateral ex-
specimens with joint shear reinforcement. The ratio pansion arises within the joint at failure. Vollum and
Pdesign /Ptest is plotted against the stirrup index SI in Fig. Newman16 carried out some tests on beamcolumn
11 for all the specimens including those of Parker and connections in which one of the beams was eccentric to
Bullman,12 which failed in flexure within the column the column. These tests showed that a lower bound to
or beam. It can be seen that the authors STM safely the maximum torque that can be transferred into the
predicts the failure load of all the specimens with an joint is given by
adequate factor of safety. The factor of safety is less
2 f cd AAk
for specimens that fail in flexure since their strength is Tmax (23)
less dependent on the concrete strength. U (cot tan )
where A is the cross-sectional area of the transverse
beam, U is its perimeter and Ak is the area enclosed
Table 2. Statistical analysis of design strengths within the centreline of an equivalent thin walled tube
with wall thickness t A/U and cot 1. The reduc-
For all specimens
tion in torsional strength owing to shear can be esti-
Vjpred /Vjtest STM Parker and Bullman 12 EC2 3 mated using the linear interaction equation in EC2.
Torsion is transferred into the side face of the joint due
Mean 0.71 0.60 0.43 to horizontal and vertical couples. It seems reasonable
SD 0.12 0.12 0.16 to assume that the maximum moment that can be
COV 0.17 0.20 0.37
transferred into the joint is increased by the couple
For all specimens with stirrups corresponding to the vertical forces. It is follows that
the maximum possible factor C by which the moment
Vjdesign /Vjtest STM Parker and Bullman 12 EC2 3 capacity of the joint can be increased by beams framing
into each side of the joint is given by
Mean 0.71 0.58 0.43
SD 0.09 0.09 0.17 C 1 (1 V =Vmax )Tmax =M b (24)
COV 0.13 0.16 0.39
where Mb is given by equation (17), V is the shear force
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7 519
External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2
050 SI req hb 685 mm moment redistribution, unless beam depths are particu-
SI req hb 582 mm
SI req hb 484 mm
larly shallow due to the provision of compression re-
040
inforcement. It is also shown that premature flexural
SI Tsyd/(behcfcd)
Min SI hb 685 mm
030 Min SI hb 582 mm failure can occur in the column above the joint in
Min SI hb 484 mm lightly loaded columns unless the flexural reinforce-
020 ment is designed as described in the paper.
010
References
000
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 1. Park R. and Paulay T. Reinforced Concrete Structures. Wiley,
hcol: mm New York, 1975.
2. British Standards Institution. BS 8110. Part 1:1997: Struc-
Fig. 13. Required joint shear stirrups with no moment
tural use of concrete: Code of practice for design and construc-
redistribution tion. BSI, London, 2005.
3. British Standards Institution. BS EN 1992-1-1:2004. Euro-
code 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules
020
SI req hb 685 mm and rules for buildings. BSI, London, 2004.
4. American Concrete Institute. ACI 318-5. Building Code
SI req hb 582 mm
016 Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. ACI,
SI req hb 484 mm
SI Tsyd/(behcfcd)