Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 101-S08

General Analytical Model for Nominal Shear Stress of Type 2


Normal- and High-Strength Concrete Beam-Column Joints
by Sayed A. Attaalla

This paper presents an analytical expression developed to estimate


the seismic shear strength of joint cores in reinforced concrete
beam-column connections. The model assumes uniform stresses
and strains inside the joint and considers the compression-softening
phenomenon associated with cracked reinforced concrete in
compression. It addresses major factors deemed to be effective on
the joint behavior including the joint geometry and the existence of
transverse beams. The predictions of the model are verified using
experimental measurements of 130 tests conducted in different
countries and cover a wide range of parameters affecting the joint
behavior. The model is found to adequately predict the nominal
shear stress of the joint and give better correlation with test results Fig. 1—Joints with transverse beams.
than the current ACI 318 and New Zealand codes. The proposed
expression is suitable for routine design of joints cast from normal-
and high-strength concrete. The suggested model indicates that the joint shear strength and the concrete tensile strength, however.
joint shear strength depends primarily on the concrete compressive It seems to contradict the objective of the provision that was
strength fc′ and emphasizes the role of confining the joint core. stipulated to safeguard the diagonal concrete strut against
premature crushing due to excessive compression (Cheung,
Keywords: beam-column; joint; reinforced concrete; reinforcement; seismic; Paulay, and Park 1993; Hakuto, Park, and Tanaka 2000). The
shear stress. later version of the code (NZS3101:1998 [1998]), based on
more recent research findings (Kitayama et al. 1991; Fujii
INTRODUCTION and Morita 1991; Cheung, Paulay, and Park 1993) abandoned
The beam-column connection in a ductile reinforced concrete this approach and empirically restricted the seismic shear
moment-frame has been identified as a critical region since strength of the joint to 0.20 fc′ regardless of the joint geometry.
the late 1960s (Hanson and Connor 1967). The lessons A similar approach to the latest New Zealand Code is
learned after each earthquake and the vast number of parameters adopted in the Japanese practice (Otani 1991). On the other
affecting the joint behavior have stimulated many researchers to hand, the ACI 318-89 and later versions (ACI 318-02)
experimentally investigate the connection under simulated consider the diagonal concrete strut as the major system
earthquake forces (Paulay, Park, and Priestley 1978, Ehsani resisting the seismic shear regardless of the bond condition
and Wight 1985, Leon 1990, Fujii and Morita 1991, Ishibashi inside the joint and emphasize the role of confinement
1993, Attaalla and Agbabian 2004, and Hakuto, Park, and when calculating the joint reinforcement. As with the old
Tanaka 2000). Even though some research was performed to version of the New Zealand Code, the previous and the
study the connection analytically (Zhang and Jirsa 1982; current ACI codes compute the joint shear strength as a
Pantazopoulou and Bonacci 1992; Attaalla 1997; Attaalla and function of √fc′ .
Agbabian 2003; and Hwang and Lee 1999, 2000), no simple
Another major conflict exists between the current ACI 318
analytical design tool is suggested. Thus codes have been
and New Zealand codes related to whether the effect of
developed in different countries based entirely on the empirical
transverse beams should be considered (Fig. 1). The ACI
interpretation of different experiments. A major concern
Code recognizes the influence of transverse beams in enhancing
over the years is that the recommended design methods of
the joint shear resistance as observed from test results
beam-column joints in different countries vary significantly.
(Kitayama et al. 1991). These tests were conducted on joints
There is no consensus on the mechanism of joint resistance to
with transverse beams not loaded or only loaded with simulated
the induced seismic shear force that often results in different
gravity loads. The current New Zealand standards do not
amounts and arrangements of transverse reinforcement in
consider this effect, however. The New Zealand Code assumes
the joint. This can be easily observed by comparing different
codes (ACI 318-02 [ACI Committee 318 (2002)] and NZS that the confinement provided to the joint core by transverse
3101:1998 [1998]) even after the collaborated research project beams in a two-way frame will be lost due to the formation
carried out in the U.S., New Zealand, and Japan (Jirsa 1991). of plastic hinges at the interfaces between the joint and the
The New Zealand Code assumes strut and truss mechanisms transverse beams when an earthquake excites the building in
in interpreting the shear transfer inside the joint during an
earthquake event. The old version of the New Zealand Code ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 1, January-February 2004.
(NZS3101:82 1982) related the joint shear strength to k√fc′ MS No. 02-395 received October 22, 2002, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2004, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
where k is a coefficient that differs according to the joint the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
geometry. This approach assumes a relation between the December 2004 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2004.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004 65


history and, consequently, evaluate the joint shear strength
Sayed A. Attaalla is an assistant professor in the Structural Engineering Department,
University of Alexandria, Egypt, and is the CEO of ADR Engineering, Inc., at ultimate.
Northridge, Calif. He received his PhD from the University of Southern California in Referring to Fig. 2, consideration of force equilibrium in
1997. He is a registered professional engineer in California and a structural consultant in
Egypt. His research interests include the seismic behavior of steel and reinforced
the horizontal and vertical directions gives
concrete structures and the buckling of structures.
Nb
-------- = f ct + ρ t f st (1a)
bh b

N
-------c- = f ct + ρ t f st (1b)
bh c

where Nb and Nc are the axial forces in beam and column,


respectively, b is the joint thickness, and fct and fcl are the
concrete stresses in the transverse and longitudinal directions,
respectively. ρt and ρl are the reinforcement ratios in the
horizontal and vertical directions, fst and fsl are the stresses in
the joint transverse and longitudinal reinforcement,
respectively. The average principal tensile stress fc1 and the
average principal compressive stress fc2 of the joint concrete
can be readily obtained using the geometry of the Mohr’s
circle of the concrete struts. After some manipulation and
substitutions, the average joint shear stress ν can be
expressed as
Fig. 2—Free body diagram of part of joint.

an inclined direction (Cheung, Paulay, and Park 1993). In ν = ( f c1 – f c2 ) (2)


addition to the above differences, codes in general do not
provide specific guidelines for joints constructed with high-
( f c1 + ρ t f st – N b ⁄ bh b ) ( f c1 + ρ t fst – N c ⁄ b h c )
strength concrete due to limited research evidence (Ehsani × --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and Alameddine 1991). 2f c1 + ρ t fst + P l f sl – ( N b ⁄ bh b + Nc ⁄ bh c )
These, in addition to other differences in detailing the
joint, indicate that some major unresolved issues still pervade The average stress fc2 is computed according to the modified
the understanding of the joint shear mechanism that prevent compression field theory (Vecchio and Collins 1986) that
universal adoption of a rational and verifiable design considers the compression-softening phenomenon associated
procedure. Therefore, a rational analytical design model is with cracked reinforced concrete in compression. The average
needed to address all parameters affecting the seismic shear stress fc1 is computed according to the constitutive model
strength of the joint core. The preceding concerns motivated the suggested by Hsu (1993) for concrete in tension. Due to the
undertaking of the present study on the analytical estimation of nonlinearity of the shear stress-shear strain relationship, several
the joint shear strength under seismic forces. terms in Eq. (2) are unknown, which requires an iterative
procedure. Thus, loops of iterations are to be performed to
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE satisfy both the compatibility of average strains and the
A simple analytical design model is developed to estimate equilibrium of average stresses. The major output of the
the nominal shear stress of the joint core. It provides insight into iterations at each step of loading is fc1, fc2, fst, and fsl, as well
the relation between shear strength and concrete compressive as the joint strains. Finally, the average shear stress v in the
strength for joints constructed with normal- and high- joint panel is calculated by substituting the values obtained
strength concrete and addresses various factors influencing the previously into Eq. (2).
shear capacity of the joint. The suggested design tool is a If perfect bond between beam bars and joint concrete exists,
modification of a previously developed analytical nonlinear beam bars would develop their yield strength in tension and
model (Attaalla 1997) that required an iterative procedure not compression simultaneously at the two opposite faces of the
suitable for routine design use. The new model may be column with zero stress at the column centerline. Consequently,
considered as a simple and verifiable model that may be the total elongation of beam bars within the joint should be
proposed in development of unified design provisions for negligibly small. In the meantime, a tie leg adjacent to and
connections with different configurations cast from normal- or parallel with a beam bar subjected to equal stress over its entire
high-strength concrete and subjected to earthquake loading. length would become significantly longer. Therefore,
considerations of deformation compatibility of beam bars
Previous model within the joint and adjacent tie legs reveal that it is not practical
Attaalla (1997) developed an analytical model that satisfies to achieve the ideal state mentioned previously (Paulay 1989;
compatibility of average strains and establishes equilibrium Cheung, Paulay, and Park 1993; Pantazopoulou and Bonacci
of average stresses within the joint core. The model assumes 1992). Some bond deterioration of beam bars within the joint
the joint as a plane-stress problem and implements available should be expected and, hence, the stresses in beam bars at the
constitutive models of incorporated materials. It was aimed column centerline will not be zero during loading. Test results
at providing a tool to describe the shear stress-shear distortion augment the previous observation (Ehsani and Wight 1985,
relationship of the joint panel at every step during the loading Leon 1990, and Attaalla 1997). This means that beam bars

66 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004


within the joint will partially participate in resisting the
horizontal shear. A similar conclusion can be reached at
for column bars located at the two opposite faces of the joint.
Therefore, one-third of the longitudinal reinforcement in the
beam and column is assumed to participate in the shear
resisting reinforcement of the joint as indicated by the
model. More details about the derivation and validation
of the model can be found elsewhere (Attaalla 1997; Attaalla
and Agbabian 2003).

Simplified design model


Even though the previously mentioned iterative model is
suitable for detailed analysis of beam-column joints, a
simpler procedure suitable for routine design use is required. To
meet this end, the nonlinear shear equation, Eq. (2), was
revised to simplify the procedure of calculating the joint
shear strength. Careful investigation of Eq. (2) reveals that
the joint behavior may be described by three stages discussed Fig. 3—Diagonal strain in joint.
as follows. In the first stage before cracking of the joint, steel
stresses will be very small and the joint shear will be internally
ε 2 ⁄ ζε 0 – 1 2 ε2
resisted by compressive and tensile stresses of concrete in the f c2 = ζ f c ′ 1 –  -------------------------
- ->1
for ------- (3b)
 2⁄ζ–1  ζε 0
two orthogonal diagonal directions in addition to the influence of
the axial forces. This signifies the role of the diagonal concrete
strut and the tensile concrete strength. Therefore, the major where
parameter affecting the joint shear resistance in the first stage is
the square root of the concrete compressive strength. 5.8 1 0.9
The second stage commences when the diagonal tensile ζ = --------- --------------------------- ≤ --------------------------- (4)
f c ′ 1 + 400 ε 1 1 + 400 ε 1
stress exceeds the tensile concrete strength. During this
stage, cracks form diagonally inside the joint core. The shear
resistance of the joint at this stage depends not only on the Thus, fc2 can reach a maximum value of
concrete compressive strength in the diagonal direction but
also on the amount of reinforcement provided inside the max 0.9f c ′
joint. If the amount of the joint reinforcement is sufficient to f c2 = --------------------------- ≤ fc′ (5)
1 + 400 ε 1
keep steel stresses below yield, the joint hoops will continue
to provide the essential confinement to the joint concrete by
limiting the joint deformations. In addition, equilibrium of where ε1 and ε2 are the average principal tensile and
forces acting on the joint requires reinforcement to be provided compressive strains, respectively. Attaalla (1997) reported
in the horizontal and vertical directions in order for diagonal that the direction of the calculated average principal tensile
compression struts to be developed (Paulay 1989; Paulay strain in the joint and the direction of the measured average
and Priestley 1992). Therefore, the interaction between the diagonal strain are close to each other. In addition, Cheung,
diagonal concrete strut-and-truss mechanisms in resisting the Paulay, and Park (1993) and Attaalla and Agbabian (2003)
shear forces before yielding of the joint reinforcement is evident. reported that the measured diagonal elongation of the joint
was several times the contraction in the orthogonal diagonal
The third stage begins after yielding of the joint hoops in
direction as can be seen in Fig. 3. Therefore, the average
which the joint hoops become incapable of carrying more forces. principal tensile strain can be assumed equal to about six to
Consequently, the confinement available for the joint concrete ten times the average principal compressive strain at the
due to the joint ties is dramatically reduced. Thus, the peak of the softened stress-strain curve. It should be noted
magnitudes of the diagonal tensile strains are expected to be that the average principal tensile stress fc1, given in Eq. (2),
significant at this stage, which results in a substantial reduction is very small compared with fc2 and can be neglected.
in the concrete compressive strength in the normal direction. With these assumptions in mind, Eq. (2) is simplified and
Crushing of joint concrete is expected to occur at this stage. the nominal shear stress vn of the joint may be predicted at
Yielding of the joint hoops was witnessed in several tests ultimate using the following formula.
(Attaalla 1997; Ehsani and Wight 1985; Hanson and Connor
1967). Therefore, it can be assumed that the joint reinforcement vn = (6)
has yielded when the joint reaches the ultimate.
On the other hand, a more recent constitutive model for
cracked reinforced concrete can be implemented to calculate ( ρ t f yt – N b ⁄ b b h b ) ( ρ t f yt – N c ⁄ b c h c )
the average principal compressive stress in the joint concrete ± 0.450ζ h f c ′ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ρ t f yt + ρ t f yl – ( N b ⁄ b b h b + N c ⁄ b c h c )
fc2 (Zhang and Hsu 1998)

ε2   ε2  2 ε2 Paulay and Priestley (1992) pointed out to the favorable


f c2 = ζ f c ′ 2  -------
- – -------- -≤1
for ------- (3a) effect of confinement, which keeps the concrete strength at
 ζε 0  ζε 0 ζε 0 maximum value up to failure. The 0.45fc′ given in Eq. (6) is

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004 67


110 – f c ′ 3
ζ h = 0.40 1 +  -------------------
- ≤ 1 ( f c ′ in MPa ) (7a)
69 

16 – f c ′ 3
ζ h = 0.40 1 +  ----------------
- ≤ 1 ( f c ′ in ksi ) (7b)
 10 

Reinforcement ratios
The contribution of the transverse reinforcement in the
joint can be calculated as follows (Attaalla 1997)

1
Fig. 4—Schematic distributions of horizontal shear stresses ρ t f yt = ρ jt f yjt + --- ρ b f yb (8)
3
in exterior joints.
where ρjt is the reinforcement ratio of joint ties and ρb is the
reinforcement ratio of beam flexural bars passing through
the joint (top and bottom) in the direction being investigated.
Note that different yield strengths are assumed for the joint
hoops and the beam flexural reinforcement. Typically, the yield
strength is identical for all column bars and, therefore, the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the joint can be calculated
using the following relation

1
ρ l = ρ jl + --- ρc (9)
3

where ρjl is the reinforcement ratio of intermediate column


bars and ρc is the reinforcement ratio of column bars at the
two faces of the joint.

Effects of joint geometry


Exterior joints—As previously discussed, shear stress
distribution across the joint was assumed uniform in the
Fig. 5—Analytical versus experimental shear strength for derivation of the model (Fig. 4(a)). This assumption may
exterior joints. be considered reasonable for horizontal and vertical shear
stresses in interior joints with symmetrical geometry as well
obtained using Eq.(5) and assuming that the confinement as for vertical shear stress in exterior joints. The shear stress
provided to the joint concrete will sustain the peak compressive distribution on a horizontal plane of an exterior joint, however,
strength of the diagonal struts f c2 max
up to crushing of the is expected to significantly deviate from this assumption.
joint concrete. This assumption is found reasonable for joints Attaalla (1988) and Swelem et al. (1989) reported that the
cast from normal-strength concrete. Also, the softening distribution of horizontal shear stress inside the joint panel of
coefficient used in Eq.(5) is applicable only for normal- a rigid edge connection made of an isotropic material and
strength concrete according to Hsu and Zhang (1997). Ehsani having rectangular cross section is parabolic with zero value
and Alameddine (1991), however, reported that joints at the outer edge as shown in Fig. 4(b). Thus, the nominal
constructed with high-strength concrete experienced signifi- joint shear strength calculated according to Eq. (6) is expected
cant strength degradation in the postelastic range. The to be relatively high compared with experimental measure-
drastic strength degradation occurs for high-strength concrete ments. Fujii and Morita (1991) reported higher shear
can be also inferred from the inverse relation to √fc′ given strength for interior joints than for exterior joints when the
in the softening coefficient suggested by Zhang and Hsu total column depth is used in computing the shear strength for
(1998) for high-strength concrete and given before the inequality exterior joints.
sign in Eq. (4). Using the aforementioned softening coefficient Figure 5 shows the analytical shear strength calculated
and applying Eq. (3(b)) at ultimate for high-strength concrete, according to Eq. (6) versus the measured shear strength of
the computed joint shear strength were very low compared exterior joints. The figure also shows the result of a linear
with test results. Therefore, the softening coefficient used for regression analysis that indicates the analytical shear
normal-strength concrete is kept for simplification purposes strengths of exterior joints computed using Eq. (6) need
and an additional softening coefficient ζh is adopted in Eq. (6) to be reduced by about 21%. Therefore, a factor η is introduced
to account for the increased softening phenomenon and into Eq. (6) to account for the joint geometry and, hence,
the relatively small ductility associated with high-strength Eq. (6) becomes
concrete. The suggested softening coefficient depends only on
the concrete compressive strength, which makes it more (ρ f – N ⁄ b h ) (ρ f – N ⁄ b h )
t yt b b b l yl c b c
suitable for design use, and can be calculated from the following vnj = ± 0.450 ηζ h f c′ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (10)
ρ t f yt + ρ t f yt – ( N b ⁄ b b h b + N c ⁄ b c h c )
empirical formula.

68 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004


Fig. 6—Components of joint deformation.

where η is a geometry factor equal to 1.0 and 0.79 for interior v tb = 3.5 f c ′ b tb h tb ⁄ ( b c h c ) (psi) (11a)
and exterior joints, respectively. It is interesting to note that
shear strengths of interior and exterior joints computed
according to the current ACI Code differ by 25% compared v tb = 0.29 f c ′ b tb h tb ⁄ ( b c h c ) (MPa) (11b)
with the 21% difference suggested by the proposed model.
Transverse beams—As previously mentioned, test results
where btb and htb are the width and the height of the transverse
indicate that the presence of transverse beams enhance joint
beam, respectively. If more than one transverse beam exists,
shear resistance. The previous nonlinear model, which forms
the previous equation should be applied to each one and their
the basis of the suggested simplified design model, studied
contributions are added together. It should be noted that the
the joint as a two-dimensional case and did not consider the
dimensions of transverse beams relative to the joint play a
effects of transverse beams. The complex effects of transverse
major role in determining their effects. Thus, the requirements
beams may be simplified by investigating the joint shear
of the current ACI 318 Code with respect to the cross-
deformation under seismic loads. Attaalla and Agbabian (2003)
sectional dimensions of transverse beams relative to the joint
studied the shear deformation of the joint and analytically should be considered. The nominal shear stress of a beam-
quantified its components. These components are identified column joint with transverse beams can be calculated as follows
as joint expansions in horizontal and vertical directions and
a pure shear distortion as shown in Fig. 6. The second
component is similar to the shear distortion of an isotropic and v n = v nj + v tb (12)
a homogeneous panel (Fig. 6(c)).
The monolithic connection of a transverse beam to the where vnj is the shear strength of the joint alone obtained
joint face essentially restricts the growth of these deformation from Eq. (10) and vtb is the contribution of transverse beams
components as the seismic action builds up. Qualitatively, obtained from Eq. (11).
transverse beams connected to joint faces restrict the joint On the other hand, the effects of earthquake ground motions
from expanding freely in any direction provided that no exciting a building in various directions cannot be over-
cracks develop at their interfaces. Restricting the joint expansion looked. If the joint is located in a two-way frame and the
reduces the tensile strains inside the joint and enhances the beams are designed to develop plastic hinges at column faces,
confinement provided to the joint. This indirectly enhances the cracks will develop at beam-joint interfaces. In this case, the
joint shear strength by increasing the concrete compressive contribution of transverse beams to the joint shear resistance
strength in the diagonal direction fc2. Due to deformation will be dramatically reduced and may be ignored.
compatibility between a deformed joint and an unloaded
transverse beam with no interface cracks, the unloaded MODEL VERIFICATION
transverse beam should experience some strains and shear The ultimate shear strengths of 69 interior joints and 61
distortion in the region adjacent to the joint. Kitayama et al. exterior joints (total of 130 specimens) tested in different
(1991) reported that the reinforcement of the unloaded countries are computed using Eq. (12) and compared with
transverse beams experienced high strains in the region experimental results. Specimens with concrete compressive
close to the joint that augments the previous observation. strength range from about 18 MPa (2.6 ksi) to about 100 MPa
The higher the shear resistance of transverse beams, the lower (14 ksi) and the ratio of column axial load to column
the shear distortion of the joint will be. In other words, the cross-sectional area ranges from about –1.10 MPa (–0.16 ksi)
shear resistance of transverse beams will restrict the shear to approximately 18 MPa (2.60 ksi) are considered in this
distortion of the joint. It is, therefore, considered that the shear study. The specimens also covered a wide range of joint shear
resistance of transverse beams should be added to the joint reinforcement ratio, flexural reinforcement ratio in beam and
shear capacity to account for their effects. column, beam-to-column width, flexural strength ratio, bond
The current ACI Code restricts the maximum shear stress conditions for beam and column bars in the joint, existence of
in a reinforced concrete beam to a magnitude of 3.5√fc′ . transverse beams, and joint geometry. A few specimens had
Thus, the contribution of a transverse beam vtb to the joint no hoops or intermediate column reinforcement in the joints.
shear strength can be estimated from the following relation All selected specimens failed mostly in pure shear mechanism

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004 69


Table 1—Experimental verifications (interior joints)
Yield strength, MPa Reinforcement ratio Nc/bchc, vn/ vACI / vNZ/
vexp,
Reference Specimen bb /bc fc′, MPa Joint ties Beam Column ρjt ρb ρjl ρc MPa [...]* MPa vn, MPa vexp vexp vexp
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
I 0.846 26.2 407 434 455 0.011 0.0351 0.0192 0.0168 10.512 0.460 5.62 5.42 0.96 1.13 0.93
II 0.846 41.8 407 434 448 0.011 0.0351 0.0279 0.0244 10.600 0.440 6.60 6.56 0.99 1.22 1.27
III 0.846 26.6 407 434 400 0.011 0.0351 0.0310 0.0271 10.482 0.441 6.27 5.28 0.84 1.02 0.85
IV 0.889 35.8 407 434 441 0.011 0.0241 0.0179 0.0456 10.688 0.427 7.51 6.22 0.83 0.99 0.95
V 0.846 35.8 407 434 448 0.011 0.0351 0.0279 0.0244 1.413 0.478 7.10 6.96 0.98 1.05 1.01
VI 0.846 36.5 407 434 448 0.011 0.0351 0.0279 0.0244 17.755 0.414 6.63 6.06 0.91 1.14 1.10
Meinheit VII 0.889 37.2 407 434 441 0.011 0.0241 0.0179 0.0456 17.578 0.399 7.07 5.85 0.83 1.07 1.05
and Jirsa VIII † 0.846 33.1 407 434 448 0.011 0.0351 0.0279 0.0244 10.453 0.441 10.75 9.53 0.89 0.89 0.62
(1977)
IX† 0.846 31.0 407 434 448 0.011 0.0351 0.0279 0.0244 10.806 0.440 8.22 7.79 0.95 1.13 0.75
X† 0.846 29.6 407 434 448 0.011 0.0351 0.0279 0.0244 10.571 0.440 7.18 7.49 1.04 1.26 0.82
† 0.889 25.5 407 434 441 0.011 0.0241 0.0179 0.0456 10.747 0.427 7.36 6.40 0.87 1.14 0.69
XI
XII 0.846 35.1 407 434 448 0.055 0.0351 0.0279 0.0244 10.688 0.500 9.22 7.26 0.79 0.80 0.76
XIII 0.846 41.3 407 434 448 0.033 0.0351 0.0279 0.0244 10.394 0.492 7.45 7.32 0.98 1.07 1.11
XIV 0.889 33.1 407 434 441 0.033 0.0241 0.0179 0.0456 10.688 0.490 7.01 7.02 1.00 1.02 0.94
J1 0.687 31.6 317 379 379 0.04 0.0449 0.01267 0.0221 2.596 0.4791 9.749 6.783 0.70 0.72 0.65
Bessho‡ J2§ 0.687 31.6 317 379 379 0.04 0.0449 0.01267 0.0221 2.596 0.4791 9.749 7.791 0.80 0.72 0.65
† 0.687 33.4 317 379 379 0.04 0.0449 0.01267 0.0184 2.596 0.4757 10.416 9.024 0.87 0.92 0.64
J3
JO-1 1 20.0 455 434 434 0.012 0.04519 0.01494 0.0391 0.000 0.5 4.41 4.51 1.02 1.263 0.91
JO-2 1 20.0 455 434 434 0.012 0.04519 0.01494 0.0391 0.000 0.5 6.16 4.51 0.73 0.906 0.65
JE-1§ 1 20.0 455 434 434 0.012 0.04519 0.01494 0.0391 0.000 0.5 6.16 5.81 0.94 0.906 0.65
Ohwada‡
JE-2§ 1 20.0 455 434 434 0.012 0.04519 0.01494 0.0391 0.000 0.5 7.38 5.81 0.79 0.755 0.54
† 1 20.0 455 434 434 0.012 0.04519 0.01494 0.0391 0.000 0.5 8.87 7.11 0.80 0.838 0.45
JI-1
JI-2† 1 20.0 455 434 434 0.012 0.04519 0.01494 0.0391 0.000 0.5 8.87 7.11 0.80 0.838 0.45
SOC1 1 30.4 551 422 419 0.00701 0.0183 0.0 0.0251 –0.177 0.474 4.63 6.48 1.40 1.48 1.31
SOC2 1 41.1 551 422 419 0.01052 0.0183 0.0 0.0251 –1.114 0.4157 5.23 6.18 1.18 1.53 1.57
Attaalla
SOC3 1 47.1 551 431 427 0.00701 0.0183 0.0 0.0251 2.364 0.4995 7.20 7.49 1.04 1.19 1.31
(1997)
SHC1 1 56.5 551 431 427 0.00351 0.0183 0.0 0.0251 2.530 0.4948 6.88 7.42 1.08 1.36 1.64
SHC2 1 59.5 551 431 427 0.00701 0.0183 0.0 0.0251 2.620 0.4999 7.24 7.49 1.03 1.33 1.64
BCJ2 0.8 30.5 413 413 448 0.00352 0.0123 0.0098 0.0245 0.000 0.441 6.89 6.28 0.91 1.00 0.89
Leon
(1990) BCJ3 0.667 27.6 413 413 448 0.00352 0.0123 0.0079 0.0196 0.000 0.462 7.62 5.90 0.77 0.86 0.72
BCJ4 0.571 27.6 413 413 448 0.00352 0.0123 0.0065 0.0131 0.000 0.487 6.68 6.10 0.91 0.98 0.83
D51-1 0.6 24.3 395 395 395 0.0055 0.0203 0.0 0.0186 5.891 0.4822 7.68 5.26 0.68 0.80 0.63
D51-2 0.6 25.9 395 395 395 0.011 0.0303 0.0 0.0186 5.891 0.5 8.86 5.83 0.66 0.72 0.58
D51-3 0.9 30.7 402 402 402 0.011 0.0203 0.0 0.0186 5.891 0.4984 12.07 6.89 0.57 0.57 0.51
D51-4 0.9 31.4 402 402 402 0.011 0.0203 0.009 0.0186 5.891 0.4836 12.07 6.83 0.57 0.58 0.52
D41-1 1 40.7 377 377 377 0.014 0.0129 0.0 0.018 5.755 0.4986 10.73 7.41 0.69 0.74 0.76
D41-2 1 40.7 377 377 377 0.014 0.0129 0.0 0.018 0.0 0.4311 9.10 6.40 0.70 0.87 0.89
D29-SLS 0.6 18.7 382 382 382 0.0061 0.0158 0.00304 0.00912 0.0 0.4765 3.48 4.02 1.15 1.55 1.08
D29-LSL 0.6 20.9 382 382 382 0.0061 0.0158 0.00304 0.00912 0.0 0.4765 3.65 4.48 1.23 1.56 1.14
D29-KSK 0.6 19.2 382 382 382 0.0061 0.0158 0.00304 0.00912 0.0 0.4765 3.62 4.11 1.13 1.50 1.06
D29-SSS 0.6 18.5 382 382 382 0.0061 0.0158 0.00304 0.00912 0.0 0.4765 3.27 3.97 1.22 1.64 1.14
Ishibashi D29-LLL 0.6 19.4 382 382 382 0.0061 0.0195 0.00304 0.00912 0.0 0.4686 4.20 4.10 0.97 1.31 0.92
(1993) D29-LSS 0.6 18.7 382 382 382 0.0061 0.0158 0.00304 0.00912 0.0 0.4765 3.59 4.02 1.12 1.50 1.04
D29-PJN 0.6 24.7 382 382 382 0.00152 0.0292 0.00528 0.0211 4.119 0.4693 5.07 5.21 1.03 1.22 0.97
D29-BJN 0.6 23.1 382 382 382 0.00152 0.0292 0.00528 0.0211 4.119 0.4693 5.22 4.87 0.93 1.15 0.89
D29-PJO 0.6 24.7 382 382 382 0.00152 0.0292 0.00528 0.0211 0.0 0.4995 4.90 5.54 1.13 1.26 1.01
D29-BJO 0.6 23.1 382 382 382 0.00152 0.0292 0.00528 0.0211 0.0 0.4995 5.03 5.19 1.03 1.19 0.92
D29-20N 0.6 28.0 395 395 395 0.00554 0.0197 0.00528 0.0211 0.0 0.5 4.08 6.31 1.55 1.62 1.38
D29-30N 0.6 31.4 395 395 395 0.00554 0.0296 0.00528 0.0211 0.0 0.4969 5.86 7.02 1.20 1.19 1.07
D29-30S 0.6 34.0 395 395 395 0.0054 0.0296 0.00528 0.0211 0.0 0.4969 6.24 7.16 1.15 1.16 1.09
D29-30W 0.6 34.5 395 395 395 0.00554 0.0296 0.00528 0.0211 0.0 0.4969 6.42 7.18 1.12 1.14 1.07
D22-SJP 0.6 23.2 377 377 377 0.00148 0.0117 0.00304 0.0122 2.947 0.4413 2.56 4.60 1.80 2.34 1.81
D22-SJB 0.6 24.0 377 377 377 0.00148 0.0117 0.00304 0.0122 2.947 0.4413 2.82 4.77 1.69 2.17 1.71

70 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004


Table 1—Experimental verifications (interior joints) (cont.)
Yield strength, MPa Reinforcement ratio
fc′, Nc/bchc, vexp, vn, vACI / vNZ /
Reference Specimen bb /bc MPa Joint ties Beam Column ρjt ρb ρjl ρc MPa [...]* MPa MPa vn/vexp vexp vexp
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
D19-S1 0.65 44.2 524 524 524 0.00764 0.0325 0.01225 0.0245 0.0 0.4994 9.43 7.47 0.79 0.88 0.94
D19-S2 0.65 43.0 524 524 524 0.00764 0.0186 0.01225 0.0245 0.0 0.4907 6.08 7.33 1.21 1.34 1.41
Ishibashi
D19-S3 0.65 47.5 508 508 524 0.008 0.033 0.01225 0.0245 0.0 0.4993 9.64 7.49 0.78 0.89 0.98
(1993)
D19-S4 0.65 47.5 508 508 524 0.008 0.022 0.01225 0.0245 0.0 0.4938 6.58 7.41 1.13 1.30 1.44
D19-S5 0.65 47.5 506 506 524 0.00806 0.028 0.01225 0.0245 0.0 0.4977 8.18 7.47 0.91 1.05 1.16
Fenwick Unit 1 0.8 42.9 275 280 280 0.0266 0.0349 0.007 0.0372 0.0 0.4735 6.947 7.07 1.02 1.17 1.24
and Irvine
(1977) Unit 3 0.8 39.3 275 318 318 0.0313 0.0251 0.0158 0.0134 0.0 0.4811 5.827 7.12 1.22 1.34 1.35

Briss B1 0.78 27.9 346 288 427 0.00652 0.0252 0.0111 0.0194 1.40 0.4752 5.827 5.96 1.02 1.13 0.96
(1978) B2 0.78 31.5 398 288 427 0.00171 0.0252 0.0111 0.0194 13.86 0.3326 5.808 4.70 0.81 1.20 1.08
J1 0.67 25.6 367 374 374 0.00178 0.02822 0.0106 0.01568 2.05 0.4749 5.733 5.47 0.95 1.10 0.89
Otani,
Koba- J2 0.67 24.0 367 374 374 0.00356 0.02822 0.0106 0.01568 1.92 0.4856 5.956 5.24 0.88 1.02 0.81
yashi, and J3 0.67 24.0 367 374 374 0.00889 0.02822 0.0106 0.01568 1.92 0.4987 6.400 5.38 0.84 0.95 0.75
Aoyama
(1984) J4 0.67 25.7 367 374 374 0.00178 0.02822 0.0106 0.01568 5.91 0.4389 5.589 5.07 0.91 1.13 0.92
J5 0.67 28.7 367 374 374 0.00178 0.02822 0 0.01568 2.01 0.4998 5.456 6.45 1.18 1.22 1.05
Durani and X1 0.772 34.3 351 276 413 0.0076 0.0487 0.0117 0.0351 1.730 0.4866 6.41 7.03 1.10 1.14 1.07
Wight
(1985) X2 0.772 33.6 351 276 413 0.0115 0.0487 0.0117 0.0351 2.036 0.4937 6.51 7.10 1.09 1.11 1.03
Total 69 Average 0.98 1.13 0.98
Standard deviation 0.23 0.31 0.31
*Partof Eq. (10) between brackets.
†Two transverse beams exist.

Reported in Zhang and Jirsa (1982).
§
One transverse beam exists.
Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Fig. 7—Shear strength ratio versus concrete compressive Fig. 8—Shear strength ratio versus concrete compressive
strength (interior joints). strength (exterior joints).

of the joint or beam flexural failure associated with signifi- that the predictions of Eq. (12) match reasonably well the
cant deterioration inside the joint panel to ensure that the joint experimental shear strength for most joints with better
has closely attained its maximum shear strength. correlation for high-strength concrete joints.
Table 1 and 2 summarize the properties of each specimen To better understand the model performance with respect to
and give the analytical and the experimental shear stresses as different primary factors, specimens considered in this study
well as the ratio between them for interior and exterior are classified into seven different groups according to the
joint geometry, the concrete strength, and the existence of
connections, respectively. The tables also give the nominal
transverse beams. Each group was statistically investigated.
shear stresses of the joints calculated according to ACI 318-02 These groups are interior joints cast from normal-strength
and the NZS3101:1998 standards. It should be noted that the concrete, interior joints cast from high-strength concrete, all
experimental shear stresses are based on the gross area of interior joints, and the corresponding groups for exterior
column cross-section to facilitate the comparison between joints as well as specimens with transverse beams. Table 3
different methods. Figure 7 and 8 depict the ratio between compares the average ratio between the calculated shear
the nominal shear stresses obtained according to different strength using Eq. (12), ACI 318-02, and NZS3101:1998
methods and the experimental shear strength versus the concrete and the measured shear strength for each specimen group.
compressive strength for interior and exterior connections, The table indicates that the average shear strength ratios
respectively. In general, the tables and the figures indicate for interior and exterior joints cast from normal-strength

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004 71


Table 2—Experimental verifications (exterior joints)
Yield strength, MPa Reinforcement ratio
Speci- fc′, Nc/bchc, vexp, vn, vACI / vNZ /
Reference men bb/bc MPa Joint ties Beam Column ρjt ρb ρjl ρc MPa [...]* MPa MPa vn/vexp vexp vexp
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
Lee, Wight, 5 1 24.8 389 337 538 0.0105 0.0217 0 0.0254 0.000 0.492 3.63 0.00 1.19 1.37 1.36
and Hanson
(1977) 6 1 24.8 273 347 538 0.00311 0.0217 0 0.0254 0.000 0.4943 3.67 0.00 1.19 1.35 1.35
Paulay and Unit 1 0.778 22.6 326 296 296 0.0056 0.0189 0.007 0.0137 1.130 0.4747 3.610 0.00 1.11 1.31 1.25
Scarpas
(1981) Unit 2 0.778 22.5 326 298 296 0.00389 0.0266 0.007 0.0137 3.375 0.4681 4.740 0.00 0.81 1.00 0.95
U40L — 24.3 0 388 386 0 0.0259 0 0.0298 0.000 0.4989 2.844 0.00 1.51 1.73 1.71
Kanada, U41L — 26.7 294 388 386 0.00284 0.0259 0 0.0298 0.000 0.4995 3.767 0.00 1.26 1.37 1.42
Kondon, and
Morita U42L — 30.1 294 388 386 0.00711 0.0259 0 0.0298 0.000 0.4924 3.744 0.00 1.41 1.46 1.61
(1984) U20L — 26.7 0 388 388 0 0.01298 0 0.01472 0.000 0.499 2.089 0.00 2.27 2.46 2.56
U21L — 30.1 294 388 388 0.0028 0.01298 0 0.01472 0.000 0.4954 2.200 0.00 2.41 2.49 2.74
B1 0.727 30 291 1069 387 0.0027 0.034 0.0144 0.0256 2.100 0.4984 5.083 0.00 1.04 1.07 1.18
Fujii et al. B2 0.727 30 291 409 387 0.0027 0.034 0.0144 0.0256 2.100 0.4704 4.421 0.00 1.13 1.23 1.36
(1991) B3 0.727 30 291 1069 387 0.0027 0.034 0.0144 0.0256 7.200 0.497 5.640 0.00 0.94 0.97 1.06
B4 0.727 30 291 1069 387 0.00804 0.034 0.0144 0.0256 7.200 0.4993 5.930 0.00 0.90 0.92 1.01
3 0.727 41.7 250 391 360 0.00477 0.0353 0 0.0201 0.000 0.4556 4.380 0.00 1.22 1.47 1.90
4 0.727 44.7 281 391 360 0.00119 0.0353 0 0.0201 7.600 0.4702 4.876 0.00 1.14 1.37 1.83
5 0.727 36.7 281 391 360 0.00119 0.0353 0 0.0201 3.303 0.4987 4.545 0.00 1.27 1.33 1.61
6 0.727 40.4 281 391 360 0.00119 0.0353 0 0.0201 0.000 0.4696 4.297 0.00 1.28 1.47 1.88
Kaku and 9 0.727 40.6 250 391 395 0.00477 0.0353 0.00806 0.01434 0.000 0.4989 4.835 0.00 1.21 1.31 1.68
Asakusa
(1991) 11 0.727 41.9 281 391 395 0.00119 0.0353 0.00806 0.01434 3.352 0.4826 4.731 0.00 1.20 1.36 1.77
12 0.727 35.1 281 391 395 0.00119 0.0353 0.00806 0.01434 0.000 0.5 4.277 0.00 1.34 1.38 1.64
13 0.727 46.4 250 391 395 0.00477 0.0353 0.00806 0.01434 –1.856 0.4791 4.277 0.00 1.33 1.59 2.17
14 0.727 41 281 391 361 0.00119 0.0353 0.00364 0.01606 3.280 0.4951 4.628 0.00 1.26 1.38 1.77
15 0.727 39.7 281 391 384 0.00119 0.0353 0.00202 0.01641 3.176 0.4974 4.731 0.00 1.23 1.33 1.68
Megget
(1974) Unit A 0.77 22.1 317 375 365 0.0101 0.0745 0.00733 0.0207 1.547 0.5 4.59 0.00 0.85 0.91 1.06

NN-28 0.8 33.4 434 495 463 0.00464 0.0353 0.00645 0.0172 0.000 0.4933 4.568 0.00 1.22 1.26 1.46
Hwang and
HL-28 0.889 33.4 434 495 463 0.00344 0.0353 0.00637 0.0148 0.000 0.4931 4.954 0.00 1.13 1.16 1.35
Lin (1996)
HL-70 0.8 70.3 542 495 463 0.00769 0.0462 0.01075 0.02764 0.000 0.4963 8.731 0.00 0.68 0.96 1.61
NZS-70 0.667 70 476 484 457 0.00641 0.0462 0.00898 0.02044 0.000 0.4913 6.467 0.00 0.91 1.29 2.16
Hwang and LHL-70 0.8 62.4 476 496 500 0.00769 0.0355 0.0085 0.02186 0.000 0.4978 6.825 0.00 0.86 1.15 1.83
Chen (1997)
LHL-70-
D 0.8 64.2 500 496 500 0.00496 0.0355 0.0085 0.02186 0.000 0.4998 6.644 0.00 0.89 1.20 1.93

1B 0.865 33.6 437 276 413 0.0087 0.0597 0.0132 0.0397 1.979 0.4933 6.35 0.00 0.88 0.91 1.06
2B 0.865 34.9 437 276 413 0.0098 0.0597 0.0132 0.0529 2.474 0.4879 6.48 0.00 0.86 0.91 1.08
Ehsani and
Wight 3B 0.865 40.9 437 276 413 0.013 0.0597 0.0132 0.0397 2.474 0.4979 6.37 0.00 0.92 1.00 1.28
(1985)
4B 0.865 44.6 437 276 413 0.0148 0.0597 0.0132 0.0529 2.474 0.4964 6.76 0.00 0.87 0.98 1.32
5B 0.881 24.3 437 276 413 0.0078 0.0556 0.0131 0.0524 3.070 0.4774 5.82 0.00 0.71 0.84 0.84
1 0.881 64.77 455 455 455 0.007 0.0182 0.0066 0.0245 1.293 0.4945 4.189 0.00 1.400 1.91 3.09
Ehsani, 2 0.881 67.25 455 455 455 0.007 0.0221 0.0066 0.0245 2.686 0.4918 5.250 0.00 1.113 1.56 2.56
Moussa, and
3 0.864 64.77 455 455 455 0.0087 0.0249 0.0093 0.0278 4.503 0.4838 6.029 0.00 0.952 1.33 2.15
Vallenilla
(1987) 4 0.864 67.25 455 455 455 0.0087 0.0310 0.0127 0.0359 3.365 0.4835 6.973 0.00 0.824 1.17 1.93
5 0.864 44.58 455 455 455 0.0087 0.0399 0.0093 0.0298 2.474 0.4992 6.945 0.00 0.850 0.96 1.28
LL8 0.893 55.12 448 427 427 0.012 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 2.320 0.500 6.80 0.00 0.87 1.09 1.62
LL11 0.893 75.79 448 427 427 0.012 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 2.250 0.500 6.08 0.00 1.00 1.43 2.49
LL14 0.893 96.46 448 427 427 0.012 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 1.863 0.500 6.94 0.00 1.00 1.41 2.78
LH8 0.893 55.12 448 427 427 0.018 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 2.320 0.498 6.63 0.00 0.89 1.12 1.66
LH11 0.893 75.79 448 427 427 0.018 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 2.179 0.498 7.38 0.00 0.82 1.18 2.05
Ehsani and
Alameddine LH14 0.893 96.46 448 427 427 0.018 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 1.758 0.496 7.03 0.00 0.98 1.39 2.74
(1991)
HL8 0.893 55.12 448 427 427 0.012 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 4.007 0.497 7.80 0.00 0.75 0.95 1.41
HL11 0.893 75.79 448 427 427 0.012 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 4.640 0.495 7.65 0.00 0.79 1.13 1.98
HH8 0.893 55.12 448 427 427 0.018 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 4.007 0.500 7.79 0.00 0.76 0.95 1.42
HH11 0.893 75.79 448 427 427 0.018 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 4.781 0.500 8.07 0.00 0.75 1.07 1.88
HH14 0.893 96.46 448 427 427 0.018 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 3.761 0.500 8.16 0.00 0.85 1.20 2.36

72 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004


Table 2—Experimental verifications (exterior joints) (cont.)
Yield strength, MPa Reinforcement ratio
fc′, Nc/bchc, vexp, v n, vACI / vNZ /
Reference Specimen bb/bc MPa Joint ties Beam Column ρjt ρb ρjl ρc MPa [...]* MPa MPa vn/vexp vexp vexp
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
JO-0 1 20.19 0 434 434 0 0.03874 0 0.03874 0.000 0.500 3.53 0.00 1.02 1.27 1.14
Ohwada† JE-0‡ 1 20.19 0 434 434 0 0.03874 0 0.03874 0.000 0.500 3.53 0.00 1.46 1.27 1.14
JI-0§ 1 20.19 0 434 434 0 0.03874 0 0.03874 0.000 0.500 7.11 0.00 0.94 0.79 1.14
S2 1 25.98 494 493 475 0.00625 0.0113 0.0205 0.0092 3.117 0.437 3.63 0.00 1.11 1.40 1.43
S3 1 18.95 494 493 475 0.00625 0.0142 0.0205 0.0092 2.274 0.452 3.46 0.00 0.88 1.25 1.10
Tsonos,
Tegos. and S4 1 20.95 494 506 475 0.00625 0.0198 0.0205 0.0139 2.513 0.461 3.87 0.00 0.89 1.18 1.08
Penelis S5 1 24.94 494 489 475 0.00625 0.0228 0.0205 0.0228 2.993 0.455 4.54 0.00 0.89 1.10 1.10
(1992)
S6 1 32.93 494 489 489 0.00625 0.0228 0.0205 0.0181 3.952 0.452 4.69 0.00 1.09 1.22 1.40
S7 1 28.94 494 489 489 0.00625 0.0228 0 0.0362 3.473 0.494 5.04 0.00 1.01 1.06 1.15
Total 61 Average 1.07 1.26 1.64
Standard deviation 0.31 0.32 0.53
*Partof Eq. (10) between brackets.

Reported in Zhang and Jirsa (1982).

One transverse beam exists.
§
Two transverse beams exist.
Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Table 3—Statistical comparison between different methods


According to Eq. (12) According to ACI 318-99 According to NZS 3101:1995
Specimen group Average, vn/vexp Standard deviation Average, vACI/vexp Standard deviation Average, vNZS /vexp Standard deviation
Interior, normal strength 0.99 0.24 1.13 0.33 0.91 0.28
Interior, high strength 0.94 0.21 1.09 0.29 1.14 0.38
Exterior, normal strength 1.16 0.37 1.27 0.38 1.36 0.41
Exterior, high strength 0.98 0.20 1.25 0.23 1.95 0.46
Interior, all 0.98 0.23 1.13 0.31 0.98 0.31
Exterior, all 1.07 0.31 1.26 0.32 1.64 0.53
With transverse beams 0.93 0.18 0.95 0.19 0.71 0.23
All 1.02 0.27 1.19 0.32 1.29 0.54

concrete are 0.99 and 1.16 using Eq. (12), 1.13 and 1.27 when compared against the other two codes. In addition,
using the ACI Code, and 0.91 and 1.36 using the New physical interpretations of different terms included in the
Zealand Code, respectively. The corresponding values for suggested model are unambiguous and justifiable. Nevertheless,
interior and exterior joints cast from high-strength concrete it can be observed that the three methods give results close to
are 0.94 and 0.98 for Eq. (12), 1.09 and 1.29 for the ACI each other for joints cast from normal-strength concrete. The
Code, and 1.14 and 1.95 for the New Zealand Code. The average New Zealand approach, however, does not correlate well
shear strength ratios for all interior and all exterior joints are with test results when high-strength concrete is used and,
0.98 and 1.07, respectively, compared with 1.13 and 1.26 for therefore, cannot be extended to deal with such cases.
the ACI Code and 0.98 and 1.64 for the New Zealand Code. On the other hand, the second part of Eq. (10), given between
The model estimations of the contributions of transverse brackets, reflects the effects of the joint reinforcement and axial
beams to the joint shear strength can be seen in Table 3. The forces. As given in the original nonlinear model, this part of the
average value of the shear strength ratio according to the equation is considered as a measure of the principal compressive
suggested model is 0.93 compared with 0.95 and 0.71 according stress direction. In other words, it may be considered as a
to the ACI and New Zealand Codes, respectively. Even measure of the inclination of the diagonal cracks in the joint. It
though the model prediction for joints with transverse beams can be seen from Table 1 and 2 (Column (13)) that this
is slightly less than the ACI prediction (0.93 versus 0.95), the part of Eq. (10) ranges between about 0.40 and 0.50. This
proposed model gives a justifiable reason for the contribution of means that the direct effect of the joint shear reinforcement and
transverse beams while the ACI Code is entirely based on axial forces does not exceed about 20% of the ultimate joint
empirical evaluations. It is clear that the current New shear strength. However, the greatest influence of the shear
Zealand standards poorly estimate the joint shear strength reinforcement and axial forces comes from the confinement
compared with test results when unloaded transverse beams they provide for the joint concrete and, hence, the diagonal
exist. Table 3 also shows that the average shear strength ratio, concrete compressive strength is affected accordingly.
according to Eq. (12) and considering all specimens, is 1.02
compared with 1.19 and 1.29 for the ACI and New Zealand CONCLUSIONS
Codes, respectively. An analytical design tool was developed to estimate the
It is evident from Table 3 that the proposed model, Eq. (12), shear strength of normal- and high-strength reinforced
gives the best correlation with test results in terms of average concrete beam-column joints in frame structures subjected
strength ratio and standard deviation for almost all groups to earthquake loading. The suggested shear equation reflects

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004 73


most parameters that influence the joint behavior and considers Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
the compression-softening phenomenon associated with New Zealand, Feb., 105 pp.
Cheung, P. C.; Paulay, T.; and Park, R., 1993, “Behaviour of Beam-Column
cracked reinforced concrete in compression. Very good Joints in Seismically Loaded RC Frames,” The Structural Engineer, V. 71,
agreement between the model predictions and the experi- No. 8/20, Apr., pp. 129-138.
mental measurements is observed. The model gives better Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., 1985, “Behavior of Interior Beam-to-
correlation with test results (average shear strength ratio of Column Connections Under Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI JOURNAL,
1.02) than the current ACI 318 and New Zealand Codes Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June, pp. 343-349.
Ehsani, M. R., and Alameddine, F., 1991, “Design Recommendations for
(average shear strength ratios of 1.19 and 1.29, respectively). Type 2 High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Connections,” ACI Structural
The correlation of the model with test results is even better Journal, V. 88, No. 3, May-June, pp. 277-291.
for joints cast from high-strength concrete. The model assesses Ehsani, M. R.; Moussa, A. E.; and Vallenilla, C. R., 1987, “Comparison
the contributions of transverse beams to the joint shear capacity of Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Ordinary- and High-Strength Concrete
Frames,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 161-169.
with sufficient accuracy. The analytical shear equation indicates
Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., 1985, “Exterior Reinforced Concrete
that the shear strength of the joint at ultimate is a fraction of Beam-to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,”
the compressive concrete strength fc′ for joints cast from normal- ACI Structural Journal, V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug. pp. 492-499.
strength concrete and has a higher order relation with fc′ Fenwick, R. C., and Irvine, H. M., 1977, “Reinforced Concrete Beam-
when high-strength concrete is used. The model also reveals Column Joints for Seismic Loading,” School of Engineering Report No. 142,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland, New
that the direct combined effects of the axial column load, Zealand, Mar., 50 pp.
horizontal and vertical joint reinforcement, and yield Fujii, S., and Morita, S., 1991, “Comparison between Interior and Exterior
strength of the joint reinforcement do not exceed about 20% RC Beam-Column Joint Behavior,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for
of the shear-carrying capacity of the joint. Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 145-165.
Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., 2000, “Seismic Load Tests on Interior
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details,”
The author would like to thank Shyh-Jiann Hwang, National Taiwan ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 11-25.
University of Science and Technology, for his cooperation in providing Hanson, N. W., and Connor, H. W., 1967, “Seismic Resistance of
some of the experimental data used in this research. Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, V. 93, No. ST5, Oct., pp. 533-560.
NOTATION Hsu, T. C., and Zhang, L.-X., 1997, “Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane
bb = beam width Elements by Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss Model,” ACI Structural Journal,
bc = column width V. 94, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 483-492.
fc1 = average principal tensile concrete stress in diagonal direction Hsu, T. T. C., Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press, Inc.,
of joint Boca Raton, Fla., 1993, 336 pp.
fc2 = average principal compressive concrete stress in orthogonal Hwang, S.-J., and Lee, H.-J., 1999, “Analytical Model for Predicting
diagonal direction Shear Strengths of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for
fsl = average steel stress in joint longitudinal direction (positive Seismic Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.,
for tension) pp. 846-857.
fst = average steel stress in joint transverse direction (positive for tension) Hwang, S.-J., and Lee, H.-J., 2000, “Analytical Model for Predicting
fy = yield stress of steel Shear Strengths of Interior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for
hb = beam height Seismic Resistance,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.,
hc = column depth pp. 35-44.
Nb = axial force in beam (positive for tension) Hwang, S.-J., and Lin, M. S., 1996, “Evaluation of Seismic Behavior of
Nc = axial force in column (positive for tension) Corner Beam-Column Joints Using High-Performance Concrete (I),”
v = average shear stress of joint National Science Council Project Report No. NSC 85-2211-E-011-004,
vn = nominal shear stress of joint Taiwan, Oct., 271 pp. (in Chinese)
vtb = shear strength of transverse beams Hwang, S. J., and Chen, C. S., 1997, “Evaluation of Seismic Behavior of
ε0 = –0.002 Corner Beam-Column Joints Using High-Performance Concrete (II),”
ε1 = average principal tensile strain National Science Council Project Report, No. NSC 85-2211-E-011-004,
ε2 = average principal compressive strain Taiwan, Dec., 291 pp. (in Chinese)
η = geometry factor Ishibashi, K., 1993, “Bond Strength and Failure Mechanism within
ρl = joint reinforcement ratio in longitudinal direction of joint Beam-Column Joint,” Report on Earthquake Resistance of Reinforced
ρt = joint reinforcement ratio in transverse direction of joint Concrete Structures, Department of Architecture, University of Tokyo,
ζh = softening coefficient for high-strength concrete Japan, Nov. 25, pp. 287-296.
Jirsa, J. O., ed., 1991, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic
REFERENCES Resistance, SP-123, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
ACI Committee 318, 1989, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Mich., 1991, 518 pp.
Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89),” American Concrete Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 1991, “Recommendations for Design
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 354 pp. of Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
ACI Committee 318, 2002, “Building Code Requirements for Structural (ACI 352R-91),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 27 pp.
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete Kaku, T., and Asakusa, H., 1991, “Ductility Estimation of Exterior
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 443 pp. Beam-Column Subassemblages in Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Design
Attaalla, S. A., 1988, “Study of Stress Distributions and Stability of Web of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed.,
Plate in Steel Beam-Column Connections,” MSc thesis, Structural American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 167-185.
Engineering Department, University of Alexandria, Egypt, Aug., 240 pp. Kanada, K.; Kondon, G.; Fujii, S.; and Morita, S., 1984, “Relation
Attaalla, S. A., 1997, “Seismic Shear Capacity of Beam-Column Joints in between Beam Bar Anchorage and Shear Resistance at Exterior Beam-
Multi-Story Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings,” PhD dissertation, Civil Column Joints,” Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 6,
Engineering Department, University of Southern California, Aug., 300 pp. pp. 433-440.
Attaalla, S. A., and Agbabian, M. S., 2003, “Deformation Characteristics of Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., 1991, “Development of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Earthquake Loading,” Design Criteria for RC Interior Beam-Column Joints,” Design of Beam-
Journal of Advances in Structural Engineering, V. 6, No. 1, Feb. Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, J. O. Jirsa, ed., SP-123, American
Attaalla, S. A., and Agbabian, M. S., 2004, “Seismic Shear Performance of Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 97-123.
Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beam-Column Connections,” Journal of Lee, D. L. N.; Wight, J. K.; and Hanson, R. D., 1977, “RC Beam-Column
Advances in Structural Engineering, V. 7, No. 1. (in press) Joints Under Large Load Reversals,” Journal of Structural Division,
Briss, G. R., 1978, “The Elastic Behaviour of Earthquake-Resistant ASCE, V. 103, No. ST12, Dec., pp. 2337-2350.
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Research Report No. 78-13, Leon, R. T., 1990, “Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior

74 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004


Beam-Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., Paulay, T., 1989, “Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Beam-
pp. 3-11. Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 635-643.
Megget, L. M., 1974, “Cyclic Behaviour of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Paulay, T.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., 1978, “Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Beam-Column Joints Under Seismic Actions,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
Earthquake Engineering, V. 7, No. 1, Mar., pp. 22-47. V. 75, No. 11, Nov., pp. 585-593.
Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., 1977, “The Shear Strength of Reinforced
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” CESRL Report No. 77-1, University of
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 768 pp.
Texas at Austin, Jan., 271 pp.
NZS 3101:1982, 1982, “Part 1: Code of Practice for the Design of Paulay, T., and Scarpas, A., 1981, “Behavior of Exterior Beam-Column
Concrete Structures and Part 2: Commentary on the Design of Concrete Joints,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Structures,” Wellington, Standards Association of New Zealand, 520 pp. Engineering, V. 14, No. 3, Sept., pp. 131-144.
NZS 3101:1998, 1998, “Part 1: Code of Practice for the Design of Swelem, M.; Ghanem, H.; Elnagar, M.; Mahmoud, A.; and Attaalla, S.,
Concrete Structures and Part 2: Commentary on the Design of Concrete 1989, “Effects of Stiffener’s Length on the Stress Distributions in Rigid
Structures,” Wellington, Standards Association of New Zealand. Frame Corners,” Proceedings of the First International Conference in Civil
Otani, S., 1991, “The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) Proposal of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, May.
Ultimate Strength Design Requirements for RC Buildings with Emphasis Tsonos, A. G.; Tegos, I. A.; and Penelis, G. G., 1992, “Seismic Resistance of
on Beam-Column Joints,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Type 2 Exterior Beam-Column Joints Reinforced with Inclined Bars,” ACI
Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 3-12.
Hills, Mich., pp. 125-144.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, “The Modified Compression-
Otani, S.; Kobayashi, Y.; and Aoyama, H., 1984, “Reinforced Concrete
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
Beam-Column Joints under Simulated Earthquake Loading,” First U.S.-
Structural Journal, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-231.
N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Monterey, July-Aug.
Otani, S.; Kobayashi, Y.; and Aoyama, H., 1985, “Beam Bar Bond Stress Zhang, L. X., and Hsu, T. C., 1998, “Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa
and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Connections,” Concrete Membrane Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Second U.S.-N.Z.-Japan Seminar, Tokyo, May. V. 124, No. 1, Jan., pp. 24-34.
Pantazopoulou, S., and Bonacci, J., 1992, “Consideration of Questions Zhang, L., and Jirsa, J. O., 1982, “A Study of Shear Behavior of Reinforced
about Beam-Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.- Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” PMFSEL Report No. 82-1, Department of
Feb., pp. 27-36. Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Tex., Feb., 118 pp.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2004 75

S-ar putea să vă placă și