Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmad

Seismic behavior of hybrid fiber reinforced cementitious composite

beam–column joints
R. Siva Chidambaram ⁎, Pankaj Agarwal
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the experimental results of six exterior beam–column joints with different concrete compos-
Received 24 February 2015 ites under cyclic loading. Engineered cementitious composite with polypropylene fiber and hybrid cementitious
Received in revised form 28 July 2015 composites (HCC) using three different types of fiber namely hooked end steel fiber; brass coated steel fiber and
Accepted 30 July 2015
polypropylene fiber are explored in this study. The hysteresis behavior, ductility response, energy dissipation
Available online 4 August 2015
with damping characteristics, crack patterns and damage index of all tested specimens are analyzed and com-
Keywords:
pared with the cyclic response of conventional specimens. The test results indicate that HCC increases load car-
Hybrid cementitious composites rying capacity and enhances energy dissipation with increased stiffness retention over conventional specimens.
Engineered cementitious composites At higher rotation, joint specimens with HCC manifest better damage tolerance capacity over conventional
Steel fiber reinforced concrete specimens. This investigation implies that the use of HCC in the joint region may be an alternative solution to
Ductility significantly increase the shear capacity, damage tolerance capacity and member ductility.
Damage index © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Damping coefficient

1. Introduction
In reinforced concrete framed structure the forces from column and
adjacent beam are transferred through the beam–column joints. These
joints are subjected to compressive, tensile and shear forces and the ac-
cumulation of these combined forces makes the joints the most vulner-
able part of moment resisting frame (MRF) buildings under earthquake
loading. The joint resisting capacity against these forces depends upon
the diagonal strut and truss mechanisms composed by the combined ac-
tion of longitudinal and shear reinforcement [1,2]. Generally these joints
are expected to carry significant load without loss during inelastic de-
formation under earthquake loading. But under the cyclic nature of
earthquake loading, the joints fail in shear with spalling of concrete
and loss of bond between the embedded reinforcement and concrete
matrix. In fact the brittle nature of concrete seems to be ineffective in
restricting the shear crack formation, and responsible for the early slip-
page of embedded beam bar from the joint during flexural yielding of
reinforcement.
The addition of closely spaced transverse reinforcement in the joint
region is the conventional way to enhance the seismic performance of
the joints. The conventional confinement leads to steel congestion
with problems in concrete compaction. The brittle nature of concrete
improves by the confinement of transverse reinforcement results in
achieving partial ductile behavior. The addition of discontinuous steel
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: krsinelastic@gmail.com (R. Siva Chidambaram),
panagfeq@gmail.com (P. Agarwal).
fiber in concrete enhances the tensile strain capacity by the bridging ac-
tion of steel fiber as compared to conventional concrete [3–5]. But, as
the deformation increases, the cracked fiber reinforced concrete (FRC)
is unable to hold the stress across the cracks. Therefore, the entire per-
formance of FRC element depends on the dispersion of fiber in the com-
ponent. In reality, inefficiently located fibers become ineffective in the
component for resisting tensile stresses resulting from applied loads
[6]. Also the percentage of steel fiber more than 2% in concrete may
lead to fiber segregation and excessive air entrainment. Thus the effi-
ciency of steel fiber in resisting the tensile and flexural stress gets affect-
ed. From a conceptual point of view, reinforcement with fibers alone is
not a highly efficient method of obtaining composite strength [6].
In the past few decades, High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cementi-
tious Composites (HPFRCC) such as Slurry Infiltrated Fiber Reinforced
Concrete (SIFCON), Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) with
higher tensile strength and strain hardening behavior have been investi-
gated for performance oriented structural application. In HPFRCC the ab-
sence of coarse aggregate and the high volume of fiber with proper
dispersion provide strain hardening property and increase the ductility
of structural component. Also the problems associated with the brittle na-
ture of conventional concrete such as spalling of concrete, crushing and
bond splitting can be overcome. The tensile strain property of HPFRCC
not only enhances the matrix of post cracking behavior but also increases
the interfacial bond between concrete and steel reinforcement.
In SIFCON, higher volume of steel fibers are pre-packed layer by
layer in mold and then slurry is poured on the packed fiber surface
with a little pressure. In ECC, minimum of 2% Poly-Vinyl Alcohol (PVA)
and Poly-Ethylene (PE) fibers are used with cementitious materials to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.164
0264-1275/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
772 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781
Table 1
Concrete mix proportions for SIFCON and ECC.
Specimen details Cement Sand Coarse aggregate
Conventional concrete 1 1.45 2.25
SFRC 1 1.35 2.15
HPFRCC mortar ratio 1 0.6 – 0.1
make composites. Many studies have already been carried out on the
mechanical properties such as compressive, tensile and shear behavior
of SIFCON and ECC and the result has shown enhanced shear and ductil-
ity response over conventional FRC. The construction difficulty associat-
ed with SIFCON limits its effective application in practice. The strain-
hardening behavior of ECC with more than 1% strain capacity in tension
and multiple cracking properties [7] enhances the ductile behavior and
damage tolerance capacity of reinforced concrete members without any
construction difficulty. The tensile property of ECC has remarkable effect
on crack resisting and ductility of structural components [8–10]. The ap-
plication of HPFRCC on structural components eliminates the required
special transverse reinforcement with higher energy dissipation and
slower stiffness degradation capability [11–15]. By considering the eco-
nomic aspect and the availability of Poly-Vinyl Alcohol (PVA) fiber and
Poly-Ethylene (PE) fiber, this study mainly focuses on the possibility
of wider application and use of composite concrete, with different
types of fibers. In this study, exterior beam–column joints with different
types of HPFRCC i.e. ECC, hybrid cementitious composites (HCC) are ex-
amined under cyclic loading. The load–deflection envelope behavior,
hysteresis pattern, stiffness degradation, damage tolerance and energy
dissipation are obtained and compared with conventional specimens.
2. Review of literature
Victor et al. [8–10] conducted many experimental and theoretical
studies on ECC and its application in structural components and ob-
served that the ECC strain hardening behavior increased the ductile be-
havior of this composite over conventional fiber reinforced concrete
[10]. Gregor et al. [11,12] examined the effect of ECC on column mem-
bers under cyclic loading and observed relatively stable inelastic defor-
mation and large deflection response. Gregor et al. [12] evaluated
intrinsic response of moment resisting frame using advanced composite
materials and introduced intended deformation mechanism theoreti-
cally. Hiroshi et al. [7] investigated seismic response of ECC using rein-
forced concrete beam and observed better crack resisting mechanism
and ductile behavior. Shannag et al. [14] retrofitted interior beam–
column joints with HPFRCC jackets (Vf = 2%) and observed high load
carrying capacity, displacement ductility with slower stiffness degrada-
tion. Shannag et al. [15] experimentally studied the cyclic response of
interior beam–column joints with HPFRCC using hooked end steel
fiber and brass coated steel fiber. A better ductile and damage tolerance
behavior over conventional specimens was observed. Afsin et al. [16] in-
vestigated the effect of HPFRCC using polyethylene and twisted steel
Fig. 1. Materials used in the study.
Silica fume Steel wool Water binder ratio Super plasticizer Fibers
– – 0.45 0.5 –
– – 0.45 0.5 Refer to table no. 2
0.1 0.45 0.75
fiber in precast coupling beams under cyclic loading observing higher
shear strength and stiffness retention without additional transverse re-
inforcement. Patodi et al. [17] studied mechanical properties of steel
fiber reinforced ECC with Recron 3s fiber reinforced ECC and confirmed
that the Recron 3s fiber reinforced ECC enhanced behavior under ten-
sion and impact over steel fiber reinforced ECC. The post-yield behavior
of ECC using Recron fiber in moment resisting frame was studied and
enhanced ductile performance over steel fiber reinforced ECC was
observed [18]. Malej et al. [18,19] suggested hybrid fiber engineered ce-
mentitious composites in place of mono fiber for structural application.
Fang et al. [20] studied the behavior of exterior beam–column joints
without stirrups using ECC in the joint zone under reverse cyclic loading
and observed higher shear strength and damping property.
2.1. Research significance
Many experimental studies have been conducted to explore the
effect of fiber reinforced concrete on the cyclic performance of beam–
column joints. Under large deformation the inelastic performance of
fiber reinforced cementitious composites (FRCC) is better than FRC be-
cause of strain hardening property. In particular few experimental stud-
ies have been carried out to examine the influence of ECC on shear
behavior of beam–column joints under cyclic loading. Moreover those
composites are produced using PVA and PE fibers varying from 2 to 3%
in volume. More than 3% volume fiber restricts proper mixing and also
affects the initial setting time. Very limited studies have been conducted
on the shear behavior of joints using cementitious composites with
polypropylene fiber. In polypropylene fiber reinforced composites the
preferred volume of fibers varies from 2 to 3%. Also the influence of
hybrid fiber reinforced cementitious composites on the shear behavior
of beam–column joints is not yet investigated with different fibers. A
detailed assessment of seismic performance of beam–column joints
with different hybrid cementitious composites (HCC) is experimentally
investigated in this study. The volume of fibers used in this study is
derived from the maximum recommended volume level in literature.
3. Experimental program
This experimental study investigates the influence of different
HPFRCC in beam–column joints to enhance its shear capacity and duc-
tile behavior. A quantitative assessment is carried out using different
HPFRCC on the inelastic behavior of exterior beam–column joints.
 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781 773

Table 2 Fig. 3. The same reinforcing details as provided in conventional − 1

Compressive and split tensile strength of different composites. specimen are used in preparation of specimens with different HPFRCC.
Specimen Description Volume of fiber Cylinder Split tensile Fig. 4 shows the beam–column joint test setup and cyclic loading
ID
PP* HSF* BSF*
compressive strength history.
strength

% MPa MPa

SC 1 Conventional – – – 27 3.8 4. Results and discussion

SC 2 SFRC – 2 – 35
SC 3 ECC⁎ 3 – – 26
SC 4 HECC⁎ 1.5 2 – 39
SC 5 BECC⁎ 1.5 – 2 33
Note: PP — polypropylene; HSF — hooked end steel fiber; BSF — brass coated steel fiber;
HECC — HSF reinforced engineered cementitious composites; BECC — BSF reinforced
engineered cementitious composites.
⁎ Detailed description is given in footnote.
3.1. Materials and testing program
Table 1 provides the mix ratio of different concrete composites used
in preparation of HPFRCC. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) as cementi-
tious material, coarse aggregate with maximum size of 20 mm and lo-
cally available river sand as fine aggregate are used in conventional
concrete preparation. The water–cement ratio is kept at 0.45 in accor-
dance with 0.5% super-plasticizer to provide better workability. Fig. 1
shows the materials used in HPFRCC preparation.
The hooked end steel fiber of size 35 mm long and 0.60 mm in diam-
eter (aspect ratio = 60) with nominal tensile strength of 1100 MPa is
used to prepare SFRC. In ECC preparation, Recron 3s poly propylene
fiber is used. Three types of HPFRCC (ECC, HECC and BECC) as described
in Table 2 are used in this study. A number of cylindrical specimens of
standard size 100 mm × 200 mm are prepared and tested in 3000 kN
compression testing machine (CTM) to determine the compressive
and split tensile strength. Fig. 2 shows the split tensile test setup.
3.2. Beam–column joint specimen and test setup
Six exterior beam–column joint specimens are tested under cyclic
loading in quasi-static test facility to evaluate the hysteresis behavior
of different HPFRCC under cyclic loading. The complete details of
beam–column joint specimens with different types of concrete compos-
ites are given in Table 3. The reinforcing details of two conventional
specimens with different transverse reinforcement ratio are shown in
4.8
4.5 4.1. Split tensile and compressive behavior under compression
6.5
4.5
Cylindrical specimens are tested under compression to estimate the
compressive strength of different composites. The calculated test results
are summarized in Table 2. The test results indicate that the composite
action of hooked end steel fiber with poly-propylene composites shows
higher compressive strength over other specimens. The SFRC specimen
compressive strength also proves that the presence of hooked end steel
fiber increases the strength by effectively bridging the cracks restricting
the concrete rupture over conventional concrete. To determine the ten-
sile strength of different HPFRCC, the cylindrical specimens are tested
under vertical load by keeping the cylindrical specimen horizontal.
The corresponding lateral deflection is measured using LVDT to find
out the lateral strain behavior. Split tensile strength with lateral strain
of different concrete composite specimens is shown in Fig. 5.
It is observed that the tensile strength is approximately 15% of the
respective compressive strength of specimens. The stress–strain behav-
ior of specimens as shown in Fig. 5, indicates that in specimen SC1, split-
ting failure takes place immediately after achieving its ultimate
strength. The presence of steel fiber in specimen SC 2 permits the spec-
imen to elongate in lateral direction with gradual decrease in strength.
The observed lateral strain at failure level shows an average of 300%
higher strain level than that of specimen SC1. Other than conventional
specimens, a crack appears vertically in the mid portion instead of
sudden splitting failure. Later the contact portions of the specimen
(at top and bottom) get flattened with nearly equal size of the contact
plate used to test the specimen. Thus the contact area is increased dur-
ing post peak loading which creates additional frictional force allowing
the specimen to deflect in lateral direction.
The tensile strength is not significantly higher in the ECC specimen
SC3 as compared to SFRC specimen SC2 but it shows 400% higher tensile
strain behavior over conventional and 200% higher strain over SFRC
specimen SC2. This proves the effective bridging action of fibers across
the cracks and supports in increasing the split tensile strength and
strain. Fig. 5 shows that the hybrid fiber composites (SC4 and SC5) en-
hance the split tensile strength, especially the composite with hooked
end steel fiber (SC4), and strain behavior with enhanced stiffness prop-
erty over ECC specimen SC3. The effective anchorage behavior of
hooked end steel fiber increases the composites tensile strength and
strain with enhanced tensile (area under the curve) energy capacity
over other composites. But the brass coated steel fiber reinforced hybrid
cementitious composites are not able to sustain the strength in higher
strain; this is because of poor anchorage behavior of fiber across the
cracks. It can be concluded that the split tensile strain of HPFRCC
shows the enhanced tensile property over conventional and SFRC.

Table 3
Detail of exterior beam–column joint specimen with HPFRCC.

ID Transverse Concrete in Beam Column

reinforcement joint reinforcement reinforcement

SJ1 Ø6 mm@100 mm C/C Conventional 1 All specimens All specimens

SJ2 Ø6 mm@100 mm C/C & Conventional 2 are reinforced are reinforced
50 mm C/C in the hinge with 3 nos. of with 4 nos. of
region 10 mm Ø 12 mm Ø
SJ3 Ø6 mm@100 mm C/C SFRC at top and
SJ4 ECC bottom
SJ5 HECC
SJ6 BECC
Fig. 2. Split tensile test setup.
774 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781
Fig. 3. Typical reinforcement details of joint specimen.
Fig. 4. Beam–column joint test setup and loading history.
4.2. Cyclic behavior of HPFRCC in external beam–column joint specimens
Comparative cyclic performance of all the tested beam–column joint
specimens is evaluated on the basis of hysteresis behavior, load–defor-
mation envelope curve, energy dissipation, strength and stiffness degra-
dation, moment–rotation relationship and the damage characteristics
with damage index. The details of the performance evaluation parame-
ters and the interpretation of the test results are described as follows.
Fig. 5. Split tensile stress–strain diagram.
4.2.1. Hysteresis behavior
The hysteresis behavior of all tested beam–column joint specimens
is shown in Fig. 6. The test results of all joint specimens are presented
in Table 4. The hysteresis behavior of conventional specimen (SJ1)
shows brittle failure since there is a sudden drop in load carrying
capacity after attaining the peak load with higher rate of degradation
as compared to the confined conventional specimen (SJ2). A large
hoop area of specimen SJ2 as compared to specimen SJ1 confirms the
importance of confinement detailing in the joint region. The occurrence
of shear cracks at the initial stage of loading in conventional specimen
SJ1 facilitates early slippage of longitudinal beam reinforcement and
spalling of concrete in the joint region which leads to shear failure.
The ductile detailing in the joint region of specimen SJ2 exhibits in-
creased yield loading capacity and post peak load carrying capacity as
compared to specimen SJ1. The provision of confinement in the joint
zone prevents the early slippage of the embedded beam reinforcement
anchorage and reduction in the rate of post peak load degradation.
The SFRC in beam–column joint specimen SJ3 improves the load car-
rying capacity with higher loop area over conventional specimens SJ1
and SJ2. SFRC at the joint region of beam–column joint specimen with
conventional detailing acts as a potential barrier for crack growth and
its propagation. Moreover, the bridging effect of steel fiber improves
the interfacial bond strength of embedded beam reinforcement and
concrete as well as post peak load carrying capacity of specimen SJ3.
The area under every cycle of hysteresis loop (Fig. 6c) shows the im-
proved ductile behavior of specimen SJ3 over conventional specimens
SJ1 and SJ2.
 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781 775

Fig. 6. Hysteresis curves of tested specimens.

The ECC at the joint region significantly improves the load–deforma-
tion capacity as compared to conventional specimens SJ1, SJ2 and SFRC
specimen SJ3. The lower rate of load carrying capacity with increased
post peak deformation in specimen SJ4 with ECC is comparatively better
than other specimens. Fig. 6d shows a reduction of 25% ultimate load at
deformation of 50 mm in ECC specimen, whereas at the same deforma-
tion 50% and 75% reduction of ultimate load is observed in conventional
specimens (SJ1 and SJ2) respectively. As compared to SFRC joint speci-
men SJ3, 25% higher load is observed at the deformation of 70 mm
whereas at the same deformation the conventional specimens (SJ1 &
SJ2) completely fail. At 90 mm deflection, ECC joint specimen complete-
ly fails and its load resisting capacity reduces to 10 kN. The tensile strain
of ECC and its crack resisting behavior prevent the early slippage of
embedded beam anchorage reinforcement and improve the post peak
load carrying capacity of specimens as compared to conventional and
SFRC specimens.
The hysteresis behavior of HECC joint specimen SJ5 shows compara-
tively improved performance over ECC specimen, as shown in Fig. 6e.
The specimen SJ5 reaches its peak load at 20 mm deflection but is able
to resist the considerable load up to 100 mm deflection. The observed
load at 100 mm deflection is 48% of peak load and the loop area empha-
sizes the effectiveness of HECC in preventing early slippage of embed-
ded reinforcement from the joint and better post-yield behavior. It is
noteworthy to mention that, in specimen SJ5 one of the tension
side flexural reinforcements fails at 80 mm deflection with a load of
17.5 kN and at 100 mm deflection, the measured load at tension side
776 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781

Table 4
Test results of all test specimens.

S. ID Maximum Ultimate Displacement⁎ Ductility⁎

Δu/Δy
Positive Negative Positive Negative Δy Δu

P Δm P Δm P Δu P Δu mm mm
[kN] [mm] [kN] [mm] [kN] [mm] [kN] [mm]

SJ1 18.6 20 20.1 15 5.3 50 6.0 50 14.0 58.6 4.2

SJ2 20.6 15 19.4 15 7.6 55 9.1 55 14.3 69.0 4.8
SJ3 21.2 15 20.8 15 9.2 70 7.7 70 12.3 74.5 6.1
SJ4 19.6 25 23.0 20 4.1 100 8.9 100 17.0 92.0 5.5
SJ5 22.0 20 25.0 20 13.0 100 12.0 100 10.5 100.0 9.5
SJ6 22.0 20 22.0 20 13.0 100 12.0 100 15.0 100.0 6.6
⁎ Ductility calculations are given in Fig. 5a.

is 13 kN. It proves the effectiveness of steel fiber reinforced hybrid com- improve the post-yield behavior of the specimens but there is no signif-
posites on the ductility in specimen SJ4. The sudden drop in load after icant improvement in the elastic range.
reinforcement failure in specimen SJ4 shows the ineffectiveness of com-
posite strength which is improved by the hybrid composite in specimen 4.2.3. Stiffness and strength degradation
SJ5. The anchorage strength of brass coated steel fiber in BECC is consid- The post elastic strength degradation over yield load [FDeg%] and post
erably lesser than the hooked end fiber in HECC, thus it cannot effective- elastic stiffness degradation over yield stiffness [K Deg%] are calculated
ly resist the occurrence of initial diagonal cracks as in the case of using the following Eqs. (1) and (2) to estimate the inelastic behavior
specimen with HECC i.e. SJ5. At 80 mm deflection one side longitudinal of all test specimens
bar failure takes place, Fig. 6e. This composite is able to hold the load up 

to 100 mm deflection. The BECC joint specimen SJ6 does not able to fur- F‐F y
F Deg %¼ 1‐ 100 ð1Þ
ther improve the hysteresis behavior from the specimen SJ5 but it main- Fy
tains better post peak load–deformation behavior than SFRC and ECC


specimens respectively. K‐K y
K Deg %¼ 1‐ 100 ð2Þ
Ky

4.2.2. Load–deformation envelope curves
The load and deformation characteristics of each specimen with and
without HPFRCC are estimated from envelops of the hysteresis curves as
shown in Fig. 7. The elastic and post-yield parameters from the idealized
envelope curve as shown in Fig. 7a are given in Table 4. It is observed
from the test results that there is significant improvement in the post-
yield behavior of specimens with HPFRCC joint as compared to conven-
tional specimens with and without confinement. The ductility of the
specimen SJ5 (HECC) is increased more than 2 times as compared to
conventional specimens as shown in Fig. 7b. The ultimate deformation
of specimens with ECC is about 2 times more as compared to conven-
tional specimens with much higher residual strength. The specimen
with SFRC joint shows also significant improvement in the load–defor-
mation characteristics as compared to conventional specimens. Howev-
er, the post-yield performance of SFRC is slightly lower than the
specimen SJ4 with ECC. Basically, the HPFRCC specimens are able to
where F — maximum strength of each cycle, kN; Fy — yield strength, kN;
K — stiffness of each cycle, kN/mm; Ky — yield stiffness, kN/mm.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the strength and stiffness degradation over post
elastic drift for each test specimen. The inelastic performances of joint
specimens are measured using the rate of change in strength and stiff-
ness degradation over the post elastic range. The lower rate of change
in degradation shows ductile behavior and higher rate of degradation
demonstrates brittle response of structural component. The specimen
SJ3 has considerably lower rate of degradation than conventional
specimens SJ1 and SJ2. Fig. 6 also shows that the loss of 90% stiffness
and strength takes place at 10% drift i.e. 30% higher than conventional
specimens SJ1 and SJ2. This shows that the SFRC at the joint is effective
to further improve the post-yield behavior of specimen without ductile
detailing. As evident from Fig. 9, the use of ECC at joint is also more
effective to reduce the rate of degradation over the same range of
deformation as compared to other specimens. In particular, Fig. 9 also

Fig. 7. Load–displacement envelopes over ductility.

 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781
Fig. 8. Stiffness and strength degradation over drift for SJ1, SJ2 and SJ3.
clearly demonstrates that the hybrid cementitious composites with
hooked end steel fiber (HECC) has considerably higher stiffness and
higher post-yield strength as compared to other composite specimens
SJ4 and SJ6. The brass coated steel fiber cementitious composite
(BECC) specimen SJ6 also exhibits better rate of degradation over spec-
imen SJ4, but not as exhibited by the specimen SJ5 because of scarcity in
fiber anchorage capacity. However, the entire HPFRCC specimens dem-
onstrate more gradual and stable post-yield response as compared to
conventional specimens. The ECC joint specimen loses 90% of stiffness
at 15% drift and it is 1.8 times higher than the measured drift of conven-
tional specimens. The crack resistance behavior as well as tensile strain
capacity of HPFRCC specimens is helpful in improving the post-yield
stiffness behavior of specimen as well as in restricting the sudden loss
of post-yield strength.
4.2.4. Energy dissipation and damping
The energy dissipation capacity of a component is also a significant
parameter for the measurement of its post-yield response. Ductile
response is governed by the higher energy dissipation in subsequent
cycles as deformation increases after yielding and vice-versa manifests
brittle behavior of the component. Two types of energy dissipation pa-
rameters are calculated in this study i.e.(a) Relative Energy Dissipation
[RED] parameter that relates to dissipation of energy in each subsequent
individual cycle (b) Cumulative Energy Dissipation [CED] parameter
that relates to cumulative energy after each subsequent cycle. The ener-
gy dissipation in each cycle is calculated on the basis of area enclosed by
the hysteresis loop. The individual and cumulative energy dissipation
parameters for all the beam–column joint specimens are plotted in
Fig. 10a and b.
Fig. 9. Stiffness and strength degradation over drift for SJ4, SJ5 and SJ6.
777
It is clearly evident from Fig. 10a that the conventional joint speci-
mens (SJ1 and SJ2) with and without confining reinforcement have
low ductile performance as compared to specimens with HPFRCC. The
energy dissipation in specimens with SFRC and HPFRCC i.e. (SJ3 to SJ6)
is more stable and consistent without sudden change or drop. Fig. 10b
also clearly exhibits effectiveness of HECC over other HPFRCC joint spec-
imens. The relative energy dissipation capacity after yield in ECC and
BECC joint specimen i.e. SJ4 and SJ6 is comparatively lesser than HECC
joint specimen SJ5. As the displacement increases after yielding ECC
joint specimens are able to sustain higher energy dissipation than the
SFRC specimen. It is evident from Fig. 10b that ECC joint specimens
have 5 times higher cumulative energy dissipation capacity than
conventional specimens.
The equivalent damping coefficient based on the RED parameters
from the hysteresis behavior of beam–column joints specimens is also
calculated using the following Eq. (3) and the comparison is presented
in Fig. 11.
 
1 area of loop
ξeq ¼ ð3Þ
2π area of triangle
It is evident that the average equivalent damping coefficient with
conventional confinement of joint specimen is in the range of 10 to
12% and it increases up to 15–16% for HPFRCC joint specimen. The
increase in damping coefficient reflects the effectiveness of HPFRCC on
ductility and load–deformation capability of the specimens.
4.2.5. Moment–plastic rotation behavior
Fig. 12 shows the moment–rotation (M–Ѳ) relationships of all
beam–column joint specimens and the values are compared with the
specified values in ASCE/SEI 41-06 [21]. The maximum value of plastic
rotation at yield moment is 0.02 rad and there is no significant loss of
moment capacity in the post-peak range of 0.02 to 0.06 rad. The exper-
imentally obtained plastic rotation capacity of HPFRCC beam–column
joint specimens is much higher than the specified values in ASCE/SEI
41-06 [21]. As per the ASCE 41-06 [21], the limit of linear elastic behav-
ior conventional joints is 0.015 and the range of post-peak behavior is
about 0.015 to 0.02 rad, as shown in Fig. 12. The ECC joint specimen
has significantly improved the M–Ѳ relationship against the conven-
tional and SFRC joint specimens. The HPFRCC significantly increases
the moment carrying capacity as well as post peak behavior of speci-
mens. The moment carrying capacity of ECC joint (SJ4) is considerably
equal to HECC and BECC up to 0.05 rad, later the rate of moment degra-
dation is considerably higher than the hybrid composite specimens SJ5
and SJ6 respectively. The unique toughness property of steel fiber and
its anchorage across the cracks are provided by the hooked end supports
the specimen (SJ5) to enhance rotation capacity without significant loss
in moment. The performance of BECC joint specimen SJ6 is also able to
withstand up to 0.15 rad of rotation. It is clearly understood from
Fig. 12 that steel fiber has played efficient role in maintaining the
post-peak behavior even in higher transverse reinforcement spacing.
The increase of rotational capacity with low rate of moment degradation
represents the ductile behavior of joint which is difficult to achieve by
providing the closely spaced stirrups or with SFRC in joint.
4.2.6. Crack and failure analysis
Crack pattern of all the tested beam–column joint specimens at fail-
ure level under cyclic testing are shown in Fig. 13. It is observed that all
the specimens with or without HPFRCC have different deformation
characteristics, crack pattern and failure mechanism. Initially flexural
cracks are noticed in beam portion of all the joint specimens, as the
deformation increases diagonal shear cracks develop at the joint. In con-
ventional specimen SJ1, complete brittle nature of shear crack formation
initiates through the joint that accelerates the slippage of embedded
longitudinal beam bar from the joint and spalling of joint cover con-
crete. In confined specimen SJ2, there is a slight delay in shear failure
778 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781
Fig. 10. Energy dissipation plot over displacement of all tested specimens.
with less intense cracking as compared to joint specimen SJ1. The failure
mechanism of SFRC joint specimen SJ3 is different from the convention-
al specimens due to the presence of steel fiber. The fiber bridging
characteristics along with hooked end anchorage restricts the occur-
rence of initial shear cracks and reduces the intensity of wider shear
cracks with volume enlargement at the joint as compared to conven-
tional specimens, shown in Fig. 13c.
The failure pattern of ECC joint specimen shows considerably differ-
ent cracking behavior over earlier specimens. The initial inclined crack
occurs at the deformation of about 20 mm with the widening of shear
cracks at joint that continues up to the deformation of 50 mm. During
higher lateral drift, a number of micro cracks are also observed as
shown in Fig. 13d. The major failure takes place in HECC joint specimen
SJ5 at the beam–column joint connection. This is due to toughness of
hooked end steel fiber composite that restricts the growth of crack
width at the joint. The crack formation through energy dissipation of
beam–column joint is shown in Fig. 13e. The toughness of joint may
be due to higher tensile strain of composite and significant bridging
ability of hooked end steel fiber. In BECC joint specimen SJ6, the
presence of brass coated steel fiber works effectively in post peak
performance and plastic rotation property and even cracks resistance
property. However, due to deficient fiber anchorage strength it couldn't
bridge the cracks effectively like hooked end steel fiber as in
specimen SJ5. The specimen allows the widening of shear cracks at the
Fig. 11. Equivalent damping coefficients over ductility.
deformation of 35 mm and as the deflection further increases, these
cracks also widen and finally the joints fail in shear as shown in Fig. 13f.
4.2.7. Damage index
Park and Ang damage index [22] is used for the comparison of rela-
tive performance of beam–column joint specimens with and without
HPFRCC joint as shown in Fig. 14. The corresponding damage index is
expressed as
Z
δM β
D¼ þ dE ð4Þ
δu F y δu
where “δM” is the maximum displacement demand under cyclic load-
ing; “δu” is the ultimate displacement capacity. The integral part is the
amount of energy dissipation under cyclic loading and “Fy” is the yield
strength of the structure and “β” is the strength degradation parameter,
and its value for well reinforced concrete structure is “0.1” [23].
The damage index [DI] values vary from 0 to 1, whereas “0” indicates
no damage and “1” indicates complete damage. In this study, it is
assumed that the DI in the range of 0 b DI b 0.20 represents elastic
behavior or no damage, 0.20 b DI b 0.40 represents slight damage,
0.40 b DI b 0.60 represents moderate damage and 0.60 b DI b 0.80
represents severe damage while DI N 0.8 represents complete damage.
The conventional specimen undergoes moderate damage, severe dam-
age and complete collapse state at the ductility level of 4, 6 and beyond
6 while SFRC joint specimen SJ3 undergoes one stage lower damage at
the same level of ductility. The damage index plot of ECC joint specimen
SJ4 validates the damage tolerance under cyclic loading over other
Fig. 12. Moment–rotation behavior of test specimens.
 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781
Fig. 13. Crack pattern and failure mode.
specimens. The measured ductility at collapse stage increases about 1.5
times than other specimens. The HECC joint specimen SJ5 reaches mod-
erate damage at a ductility level of 11, which is about 2 times higher
than the conventional specimen at complete collapse stage. It is inferred
that hybrid composite specimens undergo 50% reduction in damage as
Fig. 14. Damage index over ductility of all test specimens.
779
compared to conventional and other fiber reinforced concrete joint
specimens.
5. Conclusions
This experimental study is focused on the cyclic behavior of external
beam–column joints with different High Performance Fiber Reinforced
Cementitious Composites (HPFRCC) in joint region. The objective of
the study is to examine the effectiveness of different HPFRCC causing
improvement of shear resistance behavior of the joint as well as its
pre and post-peak behavior. The complete hysteresis behavior of
HPFRCC joint specimens is compared with the conventionally confined
joint specimens. The plots of load–deformation characteristics, strength
and stiffness degradation, energy dissipation and equivalent damping,
moment–rotation analysis, crack pattern etc. are prepared to evaluate
the comparative behavior of the joints. Following are the main conclu-
sions of the study.
1. There is significant enhancement in strength of HPFRCC specimen
tested under split tension compared to conventional concrete. The
HPFRCC specimens have higher tensile strain over conventional con-
crete. The composite action of hybrid cementitious composites
(hooked end steel fiber reinforced) shows twofold increase in
strength and incomparable strain over conventional and other com-
posites. Even with the same mix ratio the hooked end steel fiber en-
abled composites have 50% higher compressive strength over
conventional and other composites.
780 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781
2. Hysteresis behavior of the HPFRCC joint specimens shows that there
is a significant improvement in the pre and post-peak behavior of
external beam–column joint specimen under cyclic loading. This
improvement is not only in the form of increase in resisting the
peak load but also to stabilize the post-peak behavior with gradual
loss of strength and stiffness. The hysteresis performance of hybrid
composite H-ECC joint specimen is particularly remarkable as com-
pared to other types of HPFRCC specimens as well as conventionally
confined joint specimens. Hybrid cementitious composites may
be an effective alternative possibility to enhance the performance
of shear deficient seismic joint of the building under earthquake
loading.
3. The load–deformation envelop curve of HPFRCC joint specimens re-
veals major impact on the post-yield behavior than pre-yield load–
deformation characteristics. The ductility and post-yield deformation
capacity of H-ECC joint specimens are approximately 2 times higher
as compared to confined joint specimens. The other types of HPFRCC
joint specimens also help to improve the post-yield behavior of the
joint with varying effectiveness.
4. The strength and stiffness degradation plot of conventionally con-
fined joint specimen as well SFRC joint specimen shows that the
peak load is about 1.4 times greater the yield load of respective spec-
imens over the post elastic drift of 0.02 rad. After attaining the peak
load, reduction of 40% load capacity is observed as the post elastic
drift increases from 0.02 to 0.05 rad. in conventional specimens.
However, the same loss in load carrying capacity of SFRC joint spec-
imen is also observed over the post elastic drift of 0.02 to 0.05. There
is a sharp reduction in load capacity of the joint specimens beyond
the post elastic drift of 0.05 rad. There is 60% reduction in yield load
as the post elastic drift increases from 0.05 to 0.08 rad. There is a
very sharp reduction in the stiffness and the specimens lose 80% of
stiffness over the post elastic drift of 0.08 rad. However, this reduc-
tion is slightly gradual in case of SFRC joint specimen.
5. The strength and stiffness degradation plot of HPFRCC joint specimen
shows that the joints reach at peak load (=1.2 times the yield load)
over the post elastic drift of about 0.02 rad and further 20% reduction
in peak load capacity is observed over the post elastic drift of 0.02 to
0.05 rad. The specimens further lose in load capacity (=0.4 times of
yield load) over the post elastic drift of 0.05 to 0.15 rad. Similarly, the
loss of stiffness i.e. 0 to 80% occurs over the post elastic range from
0.02 to 0.05 rad and after that there is a gradual loss of strength
from 80 to 90% over the post-yield 0.05 to 0.15 rad. The plot clearly
mentions the effectiveness of ECC joint specimen over the conven-
tionally confined specimens as well as SFRC joint specimen.
6. The hysteresis damping of HPFRCC joint specimens varies from 8 to
15% as the yielding increases. The hysteresis damping of joint speci-
men SJ5 increases to 15% at the ductility level of about 6 and gradual
loss in hysteresis damping coefficient is noticed as the ductility in-
creases from 6 to 18. However, in other HPFRCC specimen the pat-
tern of variation of hysteresis damping is nearly the same but over
a low range of ductility level. The conventional and confined speci-
mens have a variation in hysteresis damping from 8 to 12% over
the maximum ductility level of 8.
7. The post elastic rotation modeling parameters “b or a” for HPFRCC
joint specimens are much higher than the conventional and confined
beam–column joints as well as values prescribed in ASCE/SEI 41-06.
The value of non-linear modeling parameter “b or a” as per ASCE/SEI
41-06 for the exterior beam–column joint for non-confirming
‘NC’ (unconfined) conforming ‘C’ (confined) lies between 0.015
and 0.02 while the same value for HPFRCC joint specimens varies
between .02 and 0.06 rad. The value of residual strength parameter
‘c’ as per ASCE/SEI 41-06 is about 0.2 for the deformation of
0.015–0.02 for the unconfined and confined specimens. The
value of parameter ‘c’ for HPFRCC specimen is about 0.5 to 0.8 over
the post-elastic range of 0.09 to 0.15 depending on the type of
HPFRCC.
8. The crack pattern and failure mechanism of HPFRCC joint specimens
manifest a uniform dissipation of energy with wide spread cracks at
the joint. It forms a horizontal crack at the junction of beam–column
joint along with minor cross diagonal shear cracking which inten-
sifies as the deformation increases.
9. The damage index for HPFRCC joint specimens is also much lower
than the conventionally confined joint specimens at the same ductil-
ity level. As the ductility level increases beyond 6, the conventional
confined specimens completely collapse. But the same damage
state in ECC joint specimen reaches the ductility level of 12 and in hy-
brid composites at ductility level 12–16. It may be inferred that the
HPFRCC joint specimen becomes 2–3 times more ductile as com-
pared to conventional confined specimens. In particular the hybrid
composites have higher damage tolerance capacity over distinct
fiber reinforced composites.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Reliance and
Bakert for providing Recron 3s brass coated steel fiber for the research
work and FOSROC chemicals for providing superplasticizer.
References
[1] T. Paulay, M.J.N. Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, Wiley, Newyork, 1992.
[2] K. Gregoria, M. Harris, Seismic design of RC external beam column joints, Bull.
Earthq. Eng. 10 (2012) 645–677.
[3] N. Ganesan, P.V. Indira, A. Ruby, Steel fibre reinforced high performance concrete
beam–column joints subjected to cyclic loading, ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 44 (2007)
445–456.
[4] K. Holschemacher, a T. Mueller, Y. Ribakov, Effect of steel fibres on mechanical prop-
erties of high-strength concrete, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 2604–2615.
[5] Adel Kaikea, Djamel Achoura, Francois Duplan, Lidia Rizzutic, Effect of mineral ad-
mixtures and steel fiber volume contents on the behavior of high performance
fiber reinforced concrete, Mater. Des. 63 (2014) 493–499.
[6] Mohammad Jamal Al-shannag, Durability of steel fiber reinforced concrete in sulfate
environment, Final Research Report No. 38/426, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia,
2007.
[7] F. Hiroshi, S. Yukihiro, C.L.I. Victor, M. Yasuhiro, M. Hirozo, Ductile engineered
cementitious composite elements for seismic structural application, 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2000, Paper No 1672 2000, pp. 1–8.
[8] V.C. Li, From micromechanics to structural engineering the design of cementitious
composites for civil engineering applications, JSCE J. Struct. Mech. Earthq. Eng. 10
(2) (1993) 37–48.
[9] Victor C. Li, K. Tetsushi, Engineered cementitious composites for structural applica-
tions, ASCE J. Mater. Civil Eng. 10 (2) (1998) 66–69.
[10] V.C. Li, D.K. Mishra, A.E. Naaman, J.K. Wight, J.M. LaFave, H.C. Wu, Y. Inada, On the
shear behavior of engineered cementitious composites, J. Adv. Cem. Based Mater.
1 (3) (1994) 142–149.
[11] F. Gregor, F. Hiroshi, C.L. Victor, Effect of matrix ductility on the performance of
reinforced ECC column under reverse cyclic loading condition, Proceedings of JCI
Int. Workshop on Ductile Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites—Application
and Evaluation, October 2002, pp. 269–278.
[12] F. Gregor, C.L. Victor, Intrinsic response conventional of moment-resisting frames
utilizing advanced composite materials and structural elements, ACI Struct. J. 100
(2) (2003) 166–176.
[13] W. Shuxin, C.L. Victor, Engineered cementitious composites with high volume fly
ash, ACI Mater. J. 104 (3) (2007) 233–241.
[14] M.J. Shannag, S. Barakat, M. Abdul Kareem, Cyclic behavior of HPFRC repaired
interior beam column joints, Mater. Struct. 35 (2002) 348–356.
[15] M. Jamal Shannag, Nabeela Abu-Dyya, Ghazi Abu-Farsakh, Lateral load response of
high performance fiber reinforced concrete beam–column joints, Constr. Build.
Mater. 19 (2005) 500–508.
[16] C.B. Afsin, J.P. Gustavo, K.W. James, Behavior of precast high-performance fiber
reinforced cement composite coupling beams under large displacement
reversals, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, 2004.
[17] S.C. Patodi, J.D. Rathod, Response of engineered cementitious composites with steel
reinforcement and concrete in moment resisting frames, New Build. Mater. Constr.
World 13 (12) (2008) 232–242.
[18] M. Maalej, S.T. Quek, S.F.U. Ahmed, J. Zhang, V.W.J. Lin, K.S. Leong, Review of poten-
tial structural applications of hybrid fiber engineered cementitious composites,
Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 216–227.
[19] M. Maalej, Z. Jing, Behavior of hybrid-fiber engineered cementitious composites
subjected to dynamic tensile loading and projectile impact, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 17
(2) (2005) 143–152.
 R. Siva Chidambaram, P. Agarwal / Materials and Design 86 (2015) 771–781 781

[20] Y. Fang, P. Jinlong, X. Zhun, C.K.Y. Leung, A comparison of engineered cementitious
composites versus normal concrete in beam column joints under reverse cyclic
loading, Mater. Struct. 46 (2013) 145–159.
[21] American Society of Civil Engineers, Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings,
ASCE/SEI 41–06, Reston, USA2007.
[22] Y.J. Park, A.H.S. Ang, Y.K. Wen, Damage limiting aseismic design of buildings, Earth-
quake Spectra 3 (1987) 1–26.
[23] Isabelle Villemure, Damage Indices for Reinforced Concrete Frames Evaluation and
Correlation(Master of Applied Science Thesis) The University of British Columbia,
1993.