ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 96-S50

Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Eccentric Beam-

Column Corner Joints Connecting Spread-Ended Beams
by Cheng-Cheng Chen and Gwang-Kai Chen

Experimental results from six full-scale beam-column subassemblies

showed that eccentric corner joints connecting spread-ended beams,
which have enlarged beam width and modified reinforcement
details in the region near the joint, can result in superior seismic
performance compared with those eccentric corner joints
connecting ordinary beams. Accordingly, guidelines including the
determination of effective joint width for eccentric corner joints
connecting spread-ended beams and the determination of geom-
etry and reinforcement details for spread-ended beams are
provided. Also presented in this paper is the effect of eccentricity
on the hoop strain distribution of corner joints.

Keywords: beams (supports); cyclic loads; earthquake-resistant structures; (a)

joints (junctions).

INTRODUCTION
Usually required by architects, it is not uncommon for exte-
rior frames of reinforced concrete buildings to have the exte-
rior side of beams flush with the exterior side of the columns
[Fig. 1(a)]. This normally results in an eccentricity between
the vertical center line of the beam and the center line of the
column face that the beam framed [Fig. 1(b)]. Beam-column
joints connecting beams and columns with an eccentricity
are categorized as a type of eccentric joint.
Since the mid-1960s, a great deal of research has been
carried out to study the behavior of beam-column joints
under seismic type loading. Although only a few of the studies
included eccentric joints, these experimental studies1-3
evidently showed that eccentric joints have reduced perfor-
mance compared with concentric joints. Effective joint (b)
width is usually employed to account for the reduced perfor-
mance of eccentric joints in design. Formulas for calculation Fig. 1—Eccentric beam-column joint: (a) plane view; and
of effective joint width are provided by ACI-ASCE (b) joint eccentricity.
Committee 352,4 ACI 318R-95,5 and Raffaelle and Wight.2
According to the proposed formulas, the effective width of
an eccentric joint can be significantly smaller than that of a this study is effective, and a design guideline for such joints
concentric joint, which significantly reduces the design shear is proposed accordingly.
strength of the joint and possibly causes design difficulties.
Therefore, it is of interest to search for a method to increase RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
the shear strength of eccentric joints with minimal modifica- A rather simple method that can improve the performance
tions on geometry and reinforcement details. In this study, and design shear strength of eccentric corner beam-column
several modifications to the ordinary eccentric corner joints joints, and the corresponding design guidelines are provided
were made to improve their performance and design shear in this paper. The experimental results presented are valu-
strength. The modifications include: 1) enlarging beam able for further development of force transformation mecha-
width in the region near the joint; 2) placing a certain nisms and design guidelines of eccentric corner beam-
percentage of beam main reinforcement in the enlarged column joints.
portion of the beam; and 3) providing auxiliary transverse
reinforcement to the enlarged portion of the beam. Since
beams with the prescribed modifications have larger beam ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999.
Received November 21, 1997, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
width at their ends, this type of beam is then referred to as a Copyright © 1999, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of
spread-ended beam. Experimental results from six full-scale copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-April 2000 ACI Structural
beam-column subassemblies reveal that the method used in Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 1999.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1999 443

Cheng-Cheng Chen is an associate professor in the Department of Construction
Engineering at the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei,
Republic of China. He received his BS and MS from the National Cheng Kung University
and PhD from Lehigh University. His research interests include earthquake-resistant
design of building structures.
Gwang-Kai Chen is a specialist at the Public Construction Commission, Executive
Yuan, Republic of China. He received his MS and PhD in construction engineering
from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
Fig. 2—Geometry and dimensions of specimens.
Fig. 3—Typical reinforcement details: (a) column; and (b)
beam.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Specimen description
Six full-scale beam-column subassemblies containing
corner joints were designed, constructed, and tested. It is
typical in building construction to have a floor slab over the
beams that partly improves the behavior of eccentric joints,
particularly for negative bending. However, the effect of the
floor slab was neglected for simplicity. The geometry and
dimensions of the specimens are shown in Fig. 2. Assuming
that the inflection points were at the midspan of the beam and
midheight of the column, the subassemblies, along with
boundary and loading conditions, simulated part of a frame
that was subjected to an earthquake-induced moment. The
specimens, JC, JE, JS1, JS2, JS3, and JS4, were designed in
three types of configuration. JC contained a concentric joint,
JE contained an ordinary eccentric joint with an eccentricity
of 10 cm, and each of the JS series (JS1 to JS4) contained an
eccentric joint with a spread-ended beam. The width of the
spread-ended beam near the joint was enlarged from 30 to 50
cm within a 40-cm-long beam segment that resulted in a hori-
zontal beam width enlargement slope (i.e., bx : Lx ) of 1:2.
The longitudinal and transverse reinforcements for the
columns of all specimens were the same [Fig. 3(a)], and the
same transverse reinforcement as that of the columns was
used for the beam-column joint of every specimen. The
amount of top and bottom beam main reinforcement As for
444
Fig. 4—Reinforcement details for JS Series specimens.
all specimens [Fig. 3(b)] was equal to 20.6 cm2. But the
details of the main reinforcement of the JS series were modi-
fied, as shown in Fig. 4. JS1 contained one No. 4 inclined
main reinforcing bar at the top and bottom of the beam cross
section, and the area of the inclined reinforcement, desig-
nated as Asi , was 6.25 percent of As . Similarly, JS2, JS3, and
JS4 contained an amount of Asi equal to 12.5, 18.75, and 25
percent of As , respectively. Auxiliary transverse reinforce-
ment was supplemented for JS specimens (Fig. 4) to offer
confinement to beam concrete in the enlarged portion and
lateral support to the inclined main reinforcement. Moment-
strength ratio, the ratio of column moment strength to beam
moment strength, was 2.1 for JC and JE with a specified
concrete compressive strength fc′ of 210 kg/cm2. A slightly
lower moment-strength ratio of 2.0 was obtained for the JS
series due to the larger beam width at the column face.
Nevertheless, the moment-strength ratio for all specimens
was greater than 1.4, which was a minimum value proposed
by ACI-ASCE Committee 352.4
According to Section R21.5.3 of ACI 318R-95, the effective
joint width bj [Fig. 5(a)] should satisfy Eq. (1a) and (1b)
bj ≤ b + 2x (1a)
bj ≤ b + h (1b)
An effective joint area of 2500 cm2 and a joint shear stress
level of 3.0 fc′ kgf/cm2 then resulted for JC (Note: 1 fc′
kgf/cm2 = 3.75 fc′ psi = 0.311 fc′ MPa). The effective
joint area and joint shear stress level for JE were 1500 cm2
and 5.0 fc′ kgf/cm2, respectively. The maximum joint
shear stress level permitted by ACI Code for corner joints
is 3.2 fc′ kgf/cm2. The joint shear stress levels for JC and
JE were 94 and 156 percent, respectively, of that permitted
by ACI Code. The effective joint width of the JS series was
one of the subjects to be investigated. However, the
maximum effective joint width that the JS series could reach
was 50 cm, which was also the targeted value set in this
experimental program. Since the effective joint width of JC
at 50 cm was considered acceptable behavior, it became the
reference of acceptable behavior for the JS series with an
effective joint width of 50 cm. The behavior of JE, which
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1999
 Fig. 6—Test setup.

(a)

Fig. 7—Applied displacement history.

(b) Table 1—Compressive strength of concrete

Specimen JC JE J1 J2 J3 J4
Fig. 5—Effective joint area from ACI 318R-95. Concrete strength,
204 203 203 216 207 205
kgf/cm2*
was considered to be representative of the behavior of ordinary * 2
1 kgf/cm = 14.3 psi = 0.098 MPa.
eccentric joints, was the base-line with which the JS series
behavior was compared. Table 2—Yield strength of reinforcement
Yield strength of the reinforcement and compressive
strength of the concrete at the time of testing are listed in Reinforcement No. 8 No. 7 No. 4* No. 4†
Table 1 and 2, respectively. Yield strength, kgf/cm 2‡ 4660 4474 4622 4075
*Grade 60, for inclined main reinforcement.
†Grade 40, for auxiliary transverse reinforcement.
Test setup and procedure ‡1 kgf/cm2 = 14.3 psi = 0.098 MPa.
The test setup is shown schematically in Fig. 6. The specimen
was mounted horizontally to a base beam that was tied down
to the strong floor. The ends of the column were connected 19 cycles was applied to each specimen, and the maximum
to the base beam, simulating a roller at the right and a hinge cycle displacement reached was 216 mm, which is equivalent
at the left. The free end of the beam was connected to a to a drift angle of 8.64 percent.
servo-controlled actuator, while the other end of the actuator
was connected to the reaction wall. The actuator had a DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
capacity of 100 tonf, a total stroke of 100 cm, and was The corner joint is usually contained in corner columns, thus
equipped with a built-in load cell and LVDT for the the axial load in corner columns fluctuates under earthquake
measurement of force and displacement at the load point. excitation. Nevertheless, the axial load in the column was
All specimens were loaded under displacement control with ignored during the test for simplicity. Although the axial
the same displacement history, as illustrated in Fig. 7. Applied load in the corner column due to gravity load is low, the
displacement reached yield displacement Δy at the fifth cycle, ignorance of column axial load may lead to somewhat
and after that a displacement increment of 0.25Δy was added to conservative test results. However, all specimens were tested
each cycle. Yield displacement Δy was determined based on the under the same loading condition, and direct comparisons
load response of JC. The measured displacement of JC was 48 between tested specimens can be made.
mm when the maximum beam moment reached the theoreti-
cally-determined moment capacity based on actual material Crack pattern
properties. Yield displacement Δy was set equal to 48 mm, Since there was no axial force applied to the column, all
which was equivalent to a drift angle of 1.92 percent. A total of specimens developed joint cracks in the elastic range. All

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1999 445

Fig. 8—Crack patterns of: (a) JC; (b) JS4; and (c) JF.

Fig. 10—Averaged load-drift angle envelopes.

Load-deformation behavior and energy dissipation

Figure 9 shows the load-drift angle hysteresis loops at the
load point of JC, JE, JS1, and JS4. The load-drift angle
behavior of JS2 and JS3 lie in between JS1 and JS4. The
peak loads in both direction of each hysteresis loop were
averaged and plotted against the corresponding peak drift
angle, and an averaged load-drift angle envelope can then be
obtained for each specimen, as shown in Fig. 10. Table 3 lists
a summary of the test results. The maximum load reached
during the test (ultimate load Pu) for the JS series was larger
than that of JC and JE (Column 2 of Table 3). The average
Fig. 9—Load-drift angle hysteresis loops of: (a) JC; (b) JE; Pu of the JS series was 17.2 tonf, which was 7 percent higher
(c) JS1; and (d) JS4. than JC and 12 percent higher than JE. The higher strength
of the JS series was partly attributed to their larger beam
Table 3—Strength and ductility of test specimens width, which resulted in a slightly higher flexural strength of
the beam at the critical section. A more realistic comparison
Maximum beam moment can be made by comparing the strength ratio, which is the
Ultimate load Experiment, Calculated, Experiment/
ratio of the maximum beam moment reached to the theoreti-
Specimen Pu, tonf * tonf-M tonf-M calculated Δu/Δy
cally determined beam moment capacity, as shown in the
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
fifth column of Table 3. The strength ratio of all specimens
JC 16.1 36.2 32.5 1.11 3.00 was greater than one. However, the strength ratio of JS series
JE 15.4 34.7 32.5 1.07 3.00 was higher than JE by 6 to 9 percent, and higher than JC by
JS1 17.0 38.3 33.8 1.13 3.25 2 to 5 percent. The sixth column of Table 3 shows the
JS2 17.2 38.7 34.1 1.13 3.5 maximum cycle displacement for which the peak load
JS3 17.3 38.9 33.9 1.15 3.75 dropped to approximately 85 percent of Pu, and the displace-
JS4 17.4 39.2 33.9 1.16 4.00 ment value was regarded as the ductility of the specimen.
*
1 tonf = 2.2 kip = 9.8 kN. The ductility of JC and JE was about the same. The ductility
of the JS series exceeded JC and JE by 8 to 33 percent, and
specimens showed severe damage on the joints during the the ductility became higher as Asi increased.
final stage of the test, and different crack patterns were The energy dissipated at each load cycle was obtained by
developed for each type of specimen. Figure 8 shows the computing the area enclosed by the corresponding load-
crack patterns of JC, JE, and JS4 in the area around the joint. displacement loop. Fig. 11 shows the relationship between
Crack patterns on both sides of JC were similar, and only the cumulative energy dissipation and applied maximum cycle
crack pattern on one side is presented [Fig. 8(a)]. For JE, displacement. The energy dissipated by the JS series was
beam cracks on the exterior side were fewer than the interior larger than that for JC and JE. At the end of the 3Δy (5.8-
side, and in contrast, there were more joint cracks on the percent) cycle, the energy dissipated by JS1 and JS4 were 11
exterior side than the interior side [Fig. 8(c)]. Uneven stress and 22 percent higher than that of JC, respectively, and 35
distribution on both the joint and beam was evident, and a and 48 percent higher than that of JE, respectively. The spec-
lower energy dissipation than that of JC was expected. The imens in the JS series, having a larger Asi/As ratio, dissipated
crack pattern for the joints in the JS series was similar to each more energy. However, the energy dissipated by JS4 was
other; therefore, only the JS4 crack pattern is presented similar to that by JS3, which somewhat suggested that the
[Fig. 8(b)]. The crack pattern on both sides of the JS4 joint benefit of the larger Asi/As was diminishing as Asi/As reached
was similar, which indicated that the stress distribution in 25 percent.
that joint was more uniform than in JE. Nevertheless, more
cracks developed on both sides of the beam for the JS series Beam moment versus joint shear deformation
than for JE, which revealed that more energy dissipation The joint shear deformation was measured on the exterior
developed in beams of the JS series. side of the joints. Fig. 12 shows the beam moment-joint

446 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1999

Fig. 11—Accumulated energy dissipation of test specimens.

Fig. 13—Joint displacement component.

Fig. 12—Joint moment-shear deformation hysteresis loops.

shear deformation hysteresis loops of JC, JE, JS1, and JS4.

Since there was a shear-deformation lag between joint center
and joint surface for JC, the measured shear deformation of
JC was considered underestimated. However, the measured
data from JC still retained their value in comparison. The
overall displacement contributed by the joint was obtained
by multiplying the joint rotation by the length between load
point and the column face, as shown in Fig. 13. The
displacements contributed by the joint in the JC and JS
series were approximately the same and much smaller than
that of JE. The displacement contributed by the joint in JE
became less significant after the 13th cycle. The retardation
of joint deformation in JE was probably due to severe bond
deterioration of the beam main reinforcement near the exterior
side of the joint.

Strains in joint hoop reinforcement

The strains in the legs of joint hoops that were parallel to
the beam axis were measured using resistance-type strain
gages. Figure 14 shows the load-hoop strain curves of JC, JE,
JS1, and JS4. As expected, Specimen JC showed similar Fig. 14—Strains in joint hoops.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1999 447


Fig. 15—Beam main reinforcement strain hysteresis of JS4.
strain behavior for both legs of the hoop. The strains and
permanent strain accumulation in the exterior leg of the hoops
were much larger than those in the interior leg of the hoops
for JE due to the effect of joint eccentricity. The joint hoop
strain distribution in the JS series was more uniform than that
of JE and was similar to that of JC. The joint hoop permanent
strain accumulation in the exterior leg of JS4 was smaller
than that of JS1 and much smaller than that of JE. Evidently,
the arrangement of the spread-ended beam greatly improved
joint hoop strain response.
Strains in inclined beam main reinforcement
Beam main reinforcement in the spread-ended portion of
the beam was inclined horizontally with a slope of 1:2, which
was a relatively large slope for common reinforcement
placement. Therefore, the strain or stress condition in the
inclined reinforcement was of interest, and the load-strain
curves of two main reinforcing bars of JS4 are shown in
Fig. 15. Stress in the inclined reinforcement developed faster
than that in the straight reinforcement and reached yield
stress earlier than the straight reinforcement. The inclined
reinforcement was stretched well into the plastic range, and
the flexural strength of the beam was fully developed for the
JS series.
RECOMMENDED DESIGN GUIDELINES
The eccentric corner joints connecting spread-ended beams
showed satisfactory performance in developing strength,
stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity of beam-
448
column subassemblies. Although only four specimens were
tested, by limiting the area of application, a somewhat conser-
vative design guideline could be established. This design guide-
line was constructed based on design criteria specified in
Section 21.5 of ACI 318-955 and was only good for those joints
categorized as others in Section 21.5.3.1 (i.e., corner joints).
Since ACI 318-95 ignores the effect of column axial load, the
design guidelines presented herein do not take column axial
load into account either.
Effective joint width and geometry
of spread-ended beam
Since experimental results showed that seismic perfor-
mance of the JS series was as good as or even better than that
of JC, an effective joint width bj of 50 cm for the JS series is
considered appropriate. Referring to Eq. (1a) with x equal to
zero, it suggests that bx can be regarded as an extra contribution
from spread-ended beam to effective joint width. Therefore,
for those joints with x equal to zero, Eq. (2) can be used to
replace Eq. (1a)
bj ≤ b + bx (2)
However, for those joints where x does not equal zero, Eq.
(1a) is revised as
b j ≤ the larger of ( b + b x + x ) and ( b + 2x ) (3)
Equation (1a) considers the portion of the joint area that forms
a concentric joint as the effective joint area for ordinary eccen-
tric joints, as shown in Fig. 5(b). Therefore, one x on each side
of the beam is counted as part of the effective joint width. In
Eq. (3), the contribution of bx is considered overridden by x
when bx is smaller than x, and the spread-ended beam is
considered effective only when bx is larger than x.
The geometry of the spread-ended beam can be of many
variations. However, the horizontal slope of the beam width
enlargement (bx : Lx) was kept 1:2 for all of the JS series. A
larger horizontal slope of beam width enlargement is likely
to lead to more severe stress concentration and poorer joint
behavior. Therefore, a beam width horizontal-enlargement
slope no greater than 1:2 is suggested. The beam width
enlargement bx used in this study was 20 cm, which was 2/3
of the original beam width b. The performance of joints with
bx/b greater than 2/3 is not clear. Thus, bx should not exceed
(2/3)b. The suggested effective joint width bj and geometry
limitations of spread-ended beams are illustrated in Fig. 16.
Arrangement of beam main reinforcement
Experimental results from this research indicate that
specimens with an Asi/As ratio between 6.25 and 25 percent
can obtain satisfactory overall behavior. Hence, an Asi/As
ratio between 6.25 and 25 percent is considered appropriate.
However, an Asi/As ratio between 10 and 25 percent is recom-
mended under the consideration of easier application. Since
the position of the beam critical section may shift depending
on the Asi/As ratio and the length of the inclined main reinforce-
ment, caution should be taken in determining the amount and
cut-of-point of the inclined main reinforcement.
Auxiliary beam transverse reinforcement
A horizontal force Fe is required to balance the out-of-
plane force at the position where the inclined reinforcement
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1999

Fig. 16—Determination of effective joint width bj : ≤ larger
of (b + bx + x) and (b + 2x); ≤ (b + h) [under conditions of
bx/Lx ≤ 1/2 and bx ≤ (2/3)b].
changes direction (Fig. 17). Assuming the inclined rein-
forcement has yielded in compression, Fe can be obtained
according to Eq. (4)
Fe = Asi fysinβ (4)
where
β = change of angle of inclined reinforcement (Fig. 17)
Fy = specified yield strength of inclined reinforcement
Assume that the column reinforcement sustains one half of
Fe , and the first auxiliary beam transverse reinforcement
from the column face withstands the remaining one half of
Fe, then the required area for the first auxiliary transverse
reinforcement Ast can be calculated according to Eq. (5).
A si f y sin β (5)
A st = ---------------------
- was observed, the uneven hoop strain distribution was
2f yt
where
fyt = specified yield strength of auxiliary beam transverse
reinforcement.
Specimen JS4 developed the highest Fe in the JS series,
while the auxiliary transverse reinforcement for the JS series
was the same. Since there was no disadvantageous behavior
observed during the test for JS4, the arrangement of auxiliary
transverse reinforcement for JS4 is considered adequate.
Strains shown in Fig. 15(b) indicate that the inclined main
reinforcement in JS4 reached yield strain in compression.
The calculated Fe , based on actual yield stress, is 10.5 tonf,
and the force assumed transferred to auxiliary transverse
reinforcement is equal to 5.25 tonf. Conversely, the calcu-
lated yield force of the transverse reinforcement, based on
actual yield stress, was 5.18 tonf, which is slightly lower than
5.25 tonf. Analysis of the experimental data reveals that the
analysis procedure and assumptions made are acceptable.
The first auxiliary transverse reinforcement should be
placed as closely as possible to the position where the
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1999
Fig. 17—Horizontal force component in inclined reinforcement.
inclined reinforcement changes direction. To provide lateral
support to the inclined main reinforcement and confinement
to the concrete in the enlarged portion, the bar size and
spacing of the rest of the auxiliary transverse reinforcement
should fulfill the requirements specified in Section 21.3.3.2
of ACI 318-95.5 In addition, the auxiliary transverse reinforce-
ment should have seismic hooks at both ends, as shown in Fig.
4. It is also advisable to have an additional bar in the corners
of the auxiliary transverse reinforcement to help develop the
strength of the auxiliary transverse reinforcement.
CONCLUSIONS
Seismic performance of eccentric beam-column joints
connecting spread-ended beams, which had an enlarged
beam width in the region near the joint as well as modified
reinforcement details, was investigated experimentally.
Design guidelines for such joints were proposed accord-
ingly. Based on the test results reported herein, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. The seismic performance of ordinary eccentric corner
joints was inferior to that of concentric corner joints. Eccen-
tric joints possessed lower stiffness and dissipated less
energy. The eccentricity caused more severe crack damage
on the exterior (flush) side of the joint than on the interior
side and greater hoop strains in the exterior leg than in the
interior leg. The maximum strain in the exterior leg of the
hoop exceeded the yield strain, and severe bond deteriora-
tion was observed for the beam main reinforcement.
2. Seismic performance of eccentric corner joints
connecting spread-ended beams was superior to that of ordi-
nary eccentric corner joints. A more favorable crack pattern
greatly mitigated, and a higher strength and energy dissipa-
tion capacity resulted for eccentric corner joints connecting
spread-ended beams. However, spread-ended beams require
more elaborate formwork for the beam and slab.
3. Referring to the behavior of a companion concentric
corner joint and the formula for determination of effective joint
width provided by ACI 318-95, a formula for calculation of
effective joint width of eccentric corner joints connecting
spread-ended beams was proposed. In addition, regulations for
geometry and reinforcement details of eccentric corner joints
connecting spread-ended beams were also provided.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported in this paper was sponsored by the National Science
Council of the Republic of China at Taiwan under Project NSC83-0414-P011-
001B. The support of the National Science Council is greatly appreciated.
Statements made in the paper reflect the views and findings of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Council.
NOTATION
As = area of beam main reinforcement
Asi = area of inclined beam main reinforcement
449
Ast = required area of first auxiliary transverse reinforcement for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Insti-
b = beam width without enlargement tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991, pp. 317-357.
bj = effective joint width 2. Raffaelle, G. S., and Wight, J. K., “Reinforced Concrete Eccentric
bx = enlarged part of beam width at column face Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading,” ACI
fy = specified yield strength of beam main reinforcement Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 45-55.
fyt = specified yield strength of first auxiliary transverse reinforcement 3. Chen, G. K., and Chen, C. C., “Cyclic Behavior of Eccentric Corner Rein-
h = column depth forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Lx = length of beam segment with enlarged beam width Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, V. 8, No. 4, 1996, pp. 579-588. (in Chinese)
x = distance from outer face of beam to outer face of column 4. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of Beam-
β = change of angle of inclined beam main reinforcement Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 266-283.
REFERENCES 5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
1. Joh, O.; Goto, Y.; and Shibata, T., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95),” American Concrete
Beam-Column Joints with Eccentricity,” Design of Beam-Column Joints Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.

450 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 1999