R.Siva Chidambaram et al.

/ International Journal of Advances in Engineering, Science and Technology (IJAEST)

Performance Evaluation of Externally

Anchored Exterior Beam - Column Joint.
R.Siva Chidambaram
Dept of Civil Engineering
Institute of Road and Transport Technology
Erode-638316,India.
sivastructural@in.com

Dr.G.S.Thirugnanam.
Dept of Civil Engineering
Institute of Road and Transport Technology
Erode-638316,India.
gsthirugnanam@gmail.com

Abstract :
In various countries seismic codes, provisions for anchorage of beam bars in beam - column joint having
construction problems due to the long development lengths, particularly when large-diameter reinforcing
bars are used. To address the problems that arise from the use of conventional anchorages it is proposed
to provide a small projection beyond the exterior face of the column to accumulate the compression bars
of the beams has to go inside the column with a minimum development length. An experimental
investigation was conducted to explore the behavior of projected exterior beam-column joints compare
with the specimen detailed as per IS 13920.1993 under seismic conditions.The experiment consisted of two
types one fifth scale exterior beam column joints specimens. The control specimen (CS) constructued as
per codal(IS 1893:2002& IS13920:1993) provisions and externally anchoraged specimen (EAS) cast with
small projection beyond the column face. The experimental result demonstrated the flexural failuer in
both specimen. Based on the experimental results, it was found that the ultimate load carrying capacity
and energy absorption characteristics were greately improved by providing an external anchorage
beyond the column face and also it reduces the congestion in the joint region ductile detailing.

Keywords. Exterior beam-column joint;anchorage detailing;ductility factor

I. INTRODUCTION
In seismic design, reinforced concrete structures must perform satisfactorily under severe load conditions. To
withstand large lateral loads without severe damage, structures need ductile strength and energy absorption
capacity. It is commonly accepted that it is uneconomical to design reinforced concrete structures for the
greatest possible earthquake ground motion without damage. Therefore, the need for strength and ductility has
to be weighed against economic constraints. Moment resisting reinforced concrete frames have gained wide
acceptance as an economical structural system that allows energy dissipation without considerable structural
damage. In moment – resisting frames, all the lateral force produced by earthquake forces is taken by the frame
without help of any shear wall or bearing system. Current design philosophy requires that beam column joints
have sufficient capacity to sustain the maximum flexural resistance of all the attached members. The failure of
reinforced concrete frames during many earthquakes has demonstrated heavy distress due to shear in the joints
that culminated in the collapse of the structure [16]. Shear failure of exterior beam-column joints is identified as
the principal cause of collapse of many moment-resisting frame buildings during recent earthquakes [4,5]. The
mechanism of force transfer within beam column joint of a rigid frame during seismic events is known to be
complex [3,12], fig 1 shows the forces acting on joint core under lateral load, involving bending in beams and
columns, shear and bond stress transfer in the joint core .Once these inelastic demands become the norm, it was
found that default proportioning and detailing was not always sufficient. To avoid these kinds of problems,
various countries like India[6], USA[1], provides special detailing on and near hinged zones. The American
Concrete Institute (ACI) recommends a column width of at least 20 times the diameter of largest longitudinal
bar used in adjoining beam region. In exterior beam column joint regions where beams terminate at columns,
longitudinal bars of the beam need to be anchored into the column to ensure proper bonding of the bar in the
joint region. Indian Standard code [6] recommends continuing the transverse loops around the column bars
through the joint region. The length of anchorage is about Ld +10db inside the joint. The primary aim of joint
design must be to suppress a shear failure. This often necessitates a considerable amount of joint shear
reinforcement, which may result in construction difficulties [12]. For high seismic zones, load reversals in the

ISSN : 2249-913X Vol. 2 No. 3 Aug-Oct 2012 202

R.Siva Chidambaram et al. / International Journal of Advances in Engineering, Science and Technology (IJAEST)

joint can lead to significant bond deterioration along straight bar anchorages; therefore, ACI [1] requires that
standard hooks be used to anchor longitudinal reinforcement terminated within an exterior joint. The use of
standard hooks results in steel congestion, making the fabrication and construction difficult so Wallace, et.al[22]
have studied the use of headed reinforcement in the joint region to rectify the construction difficulty. Ignoring
the beam bar anchorage in the design of beam–column joints may lead to potential damage of RC framed
buildings in an unexpected low to moderate earthquake [8]. It is therefore important to evaluate the performance
of beam-column joints and to devise superior detailing techniques for improved seismic behavior of lateral load
resisting moment frames [10]. In some cases the column has been erected up to its full height up to the bottom
of the beam and then only the beam reinforcement has been laid in position.

Figure1: Force acting on the joints [15]

This type of construction setup results in a poor anchorage at the beam column junction detailing, since the
beam bars are terminated at the junction and not through the columns. Various researchers have identified some
practical difficulties in the joint detailing provided by various codes. In the future, the anchorage of re-bars is
expected to be more difficult as the strength of materials becomes higher[18]. S. Pampanin et.al[19] have
studied the significant vulnerability of the joint panel zone region and the critical role of the slippage
phenomena due to the use of smooth bars and of inadequate anchorage Several experimental investigations has
been made by several researchers [2,5 14,19] in exterior beam column joint to investigate its behaviour under
cyclic loading by changing the reinforcement detailing and by using headed [22] reinforcement in the joint
region. In this study, in order to avoid practical construction difficulty it is proposed to provide a small
projection beyond the exterior face of the column to accumulate the compression bars of the beams has to go
inside the column with a minimum development length. To verify the proposed methodology of construction, an
experimental study consisting of two types of joint specimens, one is conventional (CS) and other one is
externally anchored specimen (EAS) has been cast and the effect of external anchorage was evaluated.

II. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

The experimental study of two exterior beam-column joint namely CS and EAS shown in figure 2a and
2b .The specimens were designed for seismic load according to Indian standard [6][14].The dimension of
column and beam sections are 120mm X 230mm and 170mm X 120mm, respectively. All specimens were one
fifth scale of a multistory reinforced concrete building designed under the seismic Zone – III has been analyzed
using STADD.pro.[16].The scaling was conducted such that the specimen had geometrical and structural indices
closes to the average of the actual connection. The structure is five storey two bay frames including 1.5 m
foundation depth. The maximum moment is occurred at the ground floor roof level we therefore considered that
particular joint for the experimental study.

A. Reinforcement details

The reinforcement details of the beam column joint specimens are shown in Fig.2a & 2b. The main
reinforcement provided in the beam are 10 mm diameter bars, 3 no’s at top and 3 no’s at bottom. The stirrups
are of 6 mm diameter spaced at 30 mm c/c for a distance of 2d, i.e. 300 mm from the face of the column and at
60 mm c/c for remaining length of the beam. The longitudinal reinforcement provided in the column was 8 no’s
of 8 mm diameter bars equally distributed along four sides of column. The column confinements are of 6 mm
diameter bars spaced at 30 mm c/c for a distance of 150 mm from the face of the column and at 60 mm c/c for
the remaining length of the column. The anchorage length for EAS has been increased from Ld +10db to Ld +13db
.

ISSN : 2249-913X Vol. 2 No. 3 Aug-Oct 2012 203

R.Siva Chidambaram et al. / International Journal of Advances in Engineering, Science and Technology (IJAEST)

(a). Conventional Specimen (b). Externally anchorage specimen

Figure 2: Reinforcement detailing of the CS and EAS as per IS 13920: 1993

B. Test setup, load history and instrumentation.

Each beam column joint specimen was tested under cyclic loading in the predetermined load sequence.
The column was centered accurately using plumb bob to avoid eccentricity. An axial load of 0.1fck strength of
the column was applied on the column by means of a 50 tones hydraulic jack. Screw jacks of 20 tones capacity
were used to apply the forward and reverse loading over the beam portion. Linear Variable Differential
Transformer (LVDT) and dial gauges were used to measure the downward and upward displacements in the
beam and fixed at a distance of 450mm clear of the column. The exterior beam-column joint specimen was
subjected to quasi-static cyclic loading simulating earthquake loads. The test set up and history of load sequence
for the test was presented in figure 3and 4.

Figure 3. Test Setup for Cyclic Loading for CS Figure 4. Load Sequence Diagram

C. Load and Deflection measurements

At a distance of 450mm from the column face, the load was applied at the beam through hand operated
screw jack. To avoid local stress failure, bearing plate of 6mm thickness was provided at the point of loading.
By changing the screw jack on either side of the beam end apply positive (downward) and negative (upward)
loads. The proving ring was placed between loading point and screw jack and used to measure the applied beam
forces. LVDTs and dial gauges were used to measure the vertical deflection of the free end of the beam under
the loading point.

III. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS

A Development of Cracks.
The first crack was witnessed at the load level of 9.0kN for CS and 16.8kN for EAS. As the load level
was increased, further cracks were developed in other portions of the beam in both the specimens, while CS was

ISSN : 2249-913X Vol. 2 No. 3 Aug-Oct 2012 204

R.Siva Chidambaram et al. / International Journal of Advances in Engineering, Science and Technology (IJAEST)

reaching the ultimate load the concrete has spalled in interior side of the bottom column, but there is no such
failure in EAS. The crack patterns in the joint of each specimen are shown in fig 4a and 4b. The joint failure
modes shows the specimens failed in flexure.

(a). Crack occurred in CS (b) Crack occurred in EAS

Figure 4: Failure pattern of the test specimens.

TABLE 1: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF CS TABLE 2: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF EAS

Max Deflection Max Max Deflection

Max Max Deflection Max Deflection in
mm Load in .in mm
Load mm mm
in kN kN
Forward cycle Reverse cycle Forward cycle Reverse cycle

20 3.15 2.14 20 1.371 2.566

23 3.48 2.77 30 2.214 9.436
29 7.237 6.029 35 15.045
36 8.222
29 7.405 6.147

B. Load - Deflection behaviour.

The ultimate load carrying capacity of the Conventional RC beam-column joint and externally
anchorage specimen are listed in table 1 and 2. An increase in the length of anchorage bars leads to an
increase in the maximum load carrying capacity and displacement. The ultimate load carrying capacity for
specimen CS is 30kN and for specimen EAS is 36kN.The deflection of specimen CS is more than 12mm in
the ultimate load but for specimen EAS the deflection in ultimate load is less than 9mm. The hysteresis curve
for the Specimens CS and EAS has shown in figure 5a and 5b.It shows the better performance of specimen
EAS than the specimen CS.

40

30

20

10
Load in kN

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
-10

-20

-30

-40
Deflection in mm

(a). Hysteresis curve of CS (b). Hysteresis curve of EAS

Figure 5: Load deformation curve of test specimens.

C. Relative and Cumulative Energy absorption capacity

When the beam-column joint is subjected to reverse cyclic loading, such as those experienced during heavy
wind or earthquake, some energy is absorbed in each cycle. It is equal to the work in straining or deforming the
structure to the limit of deflection. The relative energy absorption capacities during various load cycles were

ISSN : 2249-913X Vol. 2 No. 3 Aug-Oct 2012 205

R.Siva Chidambaram et al. / International Journal of Advances in Engineering, Science and Technology (IJAEST)

calculated as the area under the hysteric loops from the versus load-deflection diagram and the cumulative
energy absorption capacity of the beam column joint was obtained by adding the energy absorption capacity of
the joint during each cycle considered and the values are presented in tables 3 and 4 figure 6 shows the
comparison of cumulative energy absorption capacities of CS and EAS for forward and reverse cycles.

TABLE 3: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF CS

Max Load Relative Energy Absorption Cumulative Energy

in kN in kN mm Absorption in kN mm

Forward Reverse Forward Reverse

20 10.495 11.215 10.495 11.215
23 6.261 14.88 16.756 26.095
29 83.718 35.604 100.474 61.699
29 38.24 32.19 138.714 93.889

TABLE 4: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF EAS

Forward Cycle Reverse Cycle

Max Max Relative
Load Relative Energy Cum Energy Load in Cum Energy
Energy
in kN Absorption Absorption in kN kN Absorption in kN
Absorption in
in kN mm mm mm
kN mm
20 7.4561 7.4561 20 20.805 20.805
30 35.895 43.351 30 158.902 179.71
36 249.45 292.8 35 282.276 461.98
36 421.79 714.6

800 500
Cum Energy absorption factor kN.mm
Cum Energy absortion factor kN.mm

450
700
400
600
350

500 300
CS CS
400 250
EAS EAS
200
300
150
200
100

100 50

0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

No of Cycles No of Cycles

(a) Forward Cycle (b) Reverse Cycle

Figure 6: Comparision of forward cycle cumulative energy absorption capacities.

D. Ductility behaviour
It is essential that an earthquake resistant structure should be capable of deforming in a ductile manner
when subjected to lateral loads in several cycles in the elastic range. Ductility of a structure is its ability to
undergo deformation beyond the initial yield deformation, while still sustaining load. In this investigation
ductility factor is defined as the ratio of maximum deflection obtained in each cycle to the yield deflection. The
yield deflection was determined from the assumed bi-linear load deflection curve. The ductility factor µ, a
measure of ductility of a structure, is defined as the ratio of ∆u and ∆y, where ∆u and ∆y are the respective
lateral deflections at the end of the post elastic range and when the yield is first reached. Thus we have
µ = ∆u / ∆y (1)
The ductility values are tabulated in table 5 and 6, figure 7 shows the variation of ductility values with load
cycles.

ISSN : 2249-913X Vol. 2 No. 3 Aug-Oct 2012 206

R.Siva Chidambaram et al. / International Journal of Advances in Engineering, Science and Technology (IJAEST)

TABLE 5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SPECIMEN CS TABLE 6. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SPECIMEN EAS

Max Max Max

Load in Ductility factor Ductility Ductility
Load in Load in
factor factor
kN kN kN
Forward Reverse Forward Reverse
20 1.681 1.621
20 1.0968 20 2.0528
23 1.857 2.098
30 1.7712 30 7.5488
29 3.862 4.567
36 4.8592 35 12.036
29 3.738 4.657 36 6.5776

(a) Conventional Specimen (b) Externally anchorage specimen

Figure 7:Variation of Ductility factor for CS

IV. CONCLUSION
1. The first crack load of the externally anchorage Specimen is 45% more than the conventional joint
specimen.
2. Spindle – shaped hysteresis loops and better load carrying capacities were observed in EAS.
3. EAS cumulative energy absorption capacity is about 4 times that of conventional beam column
joint...
4. The beam main bar of EAS possessed better anchorage with reduced bond detoriation than CS.
5. The ductility of the externally anchorage beam column joint specimen is about 2 times that of
conventional beam column joint.

In general it is concluded that the externally anchorage beam column joint is having superior
properties than that of the conventional beam column joint and hence this type of construction may be
recommended for the structures located in seismic prone areas to rectify the construction difficulty in Indian
standard code detailing.

REFERENCES
[1] ACI committee 352 R 02 “Recommendations for design of beam column joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures”.ACI
report 352R 02
[2] A.G.Tsonos, et.al., “Seismic resistance of Type 2 Exterior Beam column joints reinforced with inclined bars” ACI structural Journal,
Title No.89-S1,1992.
[3] Bonacci J, Pantazoupoulou S, “Parametric investigation of joint mechanics”. ACI Struct J,Vol.90,Issue.,pp.61–71,1993.
[4] Cheng-Cheng Chen et al, “Behavior and strength of steel reinforced concrete beam -column joints with single-side force inputs”
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 65 ,pp.1569-1581,2009.
[5] Murthy C.V.R, et.al., “Effectiveness of Reinforcement Details in Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Earthquake
Resistance”, ACI Structural Journal,Vol.100,Issue.2, , pp 149-156, April2003.
[6] IS 13920:1993 ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces — code of practice
[7] IS 1983(Part 1):2002 criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures.
[8] J.S.Kuang et.al., “Effects of beam bar anchorage on beam column joint behavior” Structures and Buildings,Vol.159, pp 115-124,2006.
[9] M. K. Thompson,et.al., “Anchorage Behavior of Headed Reinforcement: Literature Review” Technical report may 2002.
[10] Murthy C.V.R, et.al., “Anchorage Details and Joint Design in Seismic RC Frames”, the Indian Concrete Journal, April , pp 274 –
280,2001.
[11] Paulay T, Park R, Priesley MJN, “Reinforced concrete beam–column joints under seismic actions”, ACI Structural Journal
Vol.75,pp.585–593,1978.
[12] Paulay, T., Park, R. and Birss, G.R., “Elastic Beam-Column Joints for Ductile Frames”, Proceedings 7th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul,.Vol.6, pp.331-338,1980.

ISSN : 2249-913X Vol. 2 No. 3 Aug-Oct 2012 207

R.Siva Chidambaram et al. / International Journal of Advances in Engineering, Science and Technology (IJAEST)

[13] Park, R and Paulay.T., "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Under Cyclic Loading", Proceedings Fifth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Paper 88,1973.
[14] Sathiskumar.S.R, et.al., “Hysteretic behaviour of lightly Reinforced Concrete exterior Beam-column joint sub-assemblages”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol.29,Issue.1, pp31-36,2002.
[15] Saleh H et.al., “Seismic Response of FRP-Upgraded Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints” Journal of composites for construction, pp
195-208,April 2010.
[16] S. R. Uma and Sudhir K. Jain, “Seismic design of beam-column joints in RC moment resisting frames – Review of codes” Structural
Engineering and Mechanics, Vol.23,Issue. 5 ,pp.579-597,2006.
[17] S. Pampanin et.al, “Seismic behaviour of R.C. beam-column joints designed for gravity loads” proceedings 12th European Conference
on Earthquake Engineering Paper Reference 726,2002.
[18] Sung-Chul CHUN, et.al, “Evaluation of mechanical anchorage of reinforcement by exterior beam-column joint experiments”
proceeding 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engg, Vancouver, B.C., Canada,August, ,Paper No. 0326,pp. 1-6,2004.
[19] S.S. Mahini et.al, “A new method for improving ductility in existing rc ordinary moment resisting frames using frps” Asian journal of
civil engineering (building and housing) ,Vol. 8,Issue. 6, pp.581-595,2007.
[20] STAAD Pro 2007software from Bentley
[21] Thirugnanam.G.S., “ Ductile behavior of SIFCON Structural member” Journals of Structural engineering, Volume
Vol.28,Issue.1.pp.27-32,2001.
[22] Wallace, et.al.,“Use of Headed Reinforcement in Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Earthquake Loads” ACI Structural Journal,
Vol.95,pp590-602,1998.

ISSN : 2249-913X Vol. 2 No. 3 Aug-Oct 2012 208