Shear Strength With Strength Hirachy Review Type Paper

Journal of Earthquake Engineering
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Shear Capacity N-M Interaction Envelope

for RC Beam-Column Joints with Transverse
Reinforcement: A Concept Derived from Strength
Hierarchy
Ali Sahin Tasligedik
To cite this article: Ali Sahin Tasligedik (2020): Shear Capacity N-M Interaction Envelope for RC
Beam-Column Joints with Transverse Reinforcement: A Concept Derived from Strength Hierarchy,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2020.1756988
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1756988
Published online: 22 Jun 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 92
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1756988
Shear Capacity N-M Interaction Envelope for RC Beam-Column

Joints with Transverse Reinforcement: A Concept Derived from
Strength Hierarchy
Ali Sahin Tasligedik
Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus, Guzelyurt, Turkey
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Strength hierarchy assessment method is a capacity analysis procedure Received 9 November 2018
that can be used to identify the sequence of failures likely to occur Accepted 14 April 2020
within reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings under lateral actions KEYWORDS
such as earthquakes or wind loads. Previous publication on this method Strength Hierarchy;
mainly focused on the application of this method to (a) the vulnerable Reinforced Concrete;
RC beam-column joints without any joint shear reinforcement where Beam-Column Joints; Joint
principal tensile stresses were considered critical, (b) modern RC beam- Shear Failure; Capacity
column joints with joint shear reinforcement where extreme principal Design
compression stresses were considered critical. In this paper, joint shear
capacity representation for modern RC beam-column joints (with trans-
verse reinforcements in the joint) is generalized to include both critical
components: principal tensile and principal compression stresses. Using
strength hierarchy assessment, the investigation showed that it is pos-
sible to express the joint shear capacity as an N-M interaction envelope
analogous to the N-M interaction of columns. The resulting joint shear
capacity N-M interaction concept is validated using a database of 22
external and 22 internal RC beam-column joint tests with joint shear
reinforcement at their joint core which resulted in joint shear failure in
their tests. Considering the importance of axial load levels on the
expected performance of RC beam-column joints, the proposed con-
cept can be used for the general assessment of the joint shear capacity
or for beam-column joint modeling purposes, which can be practically
used by the design engineers.
1. Introduction
Before the introduction of capacity design principles and modern seismic design codes in
1970 s, reinforced concrete (RC) buildings were typically built with beam-column joints
without any transverse reinforcement. However, severe stresses Fig. 1a) can be imposed at
these joints by the connected columns and beams under seismic actions, as explained in
literature (Paulay and Scarpas 1981). If the joint fails under these stresses, the continuity of the
seismic load path within the structure may be compromised, which is crucial for the transfer
of the earthquake forces to the ground. This resulted in design suggestions with considerable
amounts of transverse joint shear reinforcement (Fig. 1b) at RC beam-column joints
(NZS3101 2006; Paulay and Priestley 1992; Priestley 1997).
CONTACT Ali Sahin Tasligedik sahintas@metu.edu.tr Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical
University Northern Cyprus Campus, 99738 Kalkanli, Guzelyurt via Mersin 10, Turkey.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Figure 1. (a) Actions imposed on an unreinforced beam-column joint by the column and the beam; (b)
A generic RC beam-column joint reinforced for shear using transverse reinforcements in the joint panel
zone, as required by the modern seismic design principles.
The seismic behavior, repair and strengthening of unreinforced RC beam-column

joints of pre1970 s era are well-researched subjects in literature and covered extensively
in earlier publications (Akguzel and Pampanin, 2011; Chen 2006; Genesio 2012; Hertanto
2005; Tasligedik 2018; Tasligedik et al. 2018).
More recent research in literature focuses on modern RC beam-column joints with
transverse shear reinforcement in the joint panel zone. Such as Alaee and Li investigated
the performance of using high yield strength steel with high strength concrete at internal
RC beam-column joints (Alaee and Li 2015, 2018). Kim et al. studied the seismic
performance of external and internal RC beam-column joints with inadequate tie ancho-
rage conditions (Kim et al. 2015). Yang et al. compared the effects of different loading
methods on the experimentally recorded response of internal RC beam-column joints
(Yang et al. 2018). Ashtiani et al (Ashtiani, Dhakal, and Scott 2014) thoroughly studied the
seismic response of internal RC beam-column joints considering many variables such as
(a) Self-compacting concrete, (b) High Strength Concrete, (c) Conventional Concrete, (d)
Different axial load levels. As well as Ashtiani, FU et al. (FU et al. 2000) also investigated
the effect of column axial forces on the behavior of RC beam-column joints with similar
observations as in Ashtiani’s work, shown in Fig. 2. Interaction between the axial force
levels and the joint shear behavior is explained further in Section 2.1. The most detailed
investigations on external RC beam-column joints reinforced with various levels of
transverse reinforcement was carried out by Park and Paulay, Paulay and Scarpas for
investigating the validity of the time’s draft NZ code (Park and Paulay 1974; Paulay and
Scarpas 1981). For internal RC beam-column joints, Park and Ruitong studied the
effectiveness of various joint shear reinforcement levels and made more finely tuned
joint shear reinforcement suggestions (Park and Ruitong 1988).
In this paper, the emphasis is given to the “joint shear strength representation” of the
modern RC beam-column joints (i.e. with considerable joint shear reinforcement) in
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3
Figure 2. Equivalent RC beam-column joints with transverse shear reinforcement at joint panel zone
(Ashtiani, Dhakal, and Scott 2014): (a) Specimen BCJ6 with low axial force level; (b) Specimen BCJ5 with
high axial force level.
a generalized form. This representation is to be typically used with the previously published
“Strength hierarchy assessment method for RC frame structures (Tasligedik et al. 2018)” and
with potential practical implementation by the design engineers for modelling the behavior of
the beam-column joint panel zone in a modern RC frame building. Previously, principal
tensile stresses were considered critical for vulnerable RC beam-column joints (typical of
pre1970 s era). On the other hand, principal compression stresses were considered critical for
modern RC beam-column joints with adequate joint shear reinforcement. However, the axial
load levels tend to show variance depending on: (a) the considered story in a building, (b) the
geometry of the building elevation (height/span ratio), and (c) instantaneous vertical accel-
erations caused by earthquakes (especially near field earthquakes). Such axial load variance
can potentially affect which of these two critical stresses control and define the joint shear
capacity. As a result, it was found important to express the joint shear capacity in a more
generalized form considering both critical components for modern RC frame buildings (i.e.
principal tension, Pt, and principal compression, Pc). This is achieved as a joint shear capacity
N-M interaction envelope concept developed using the strength hierarchy assessment.
In the outcomes of this paper, a simple procedure is proposed for the N-M interaction
envelope representation for the joint shear capacity. The detailed application and the
validity of the proposed procedure are illustrated by two example case studies using a total
of five test specimens, which considers both external and internal RC beam-column joints.
The considered example test specimens are the specimens used by Park and Paulay in
their respective research work (Park and Ruitong 1988; Paulay and Scarpas 1981), which
were found to be the most detailed, accurate and suitable test results found in literature for
this purpose. Moreover, a simplified version of the N-M interaction envelope concept is
proposed and validated using a randomly selected database of 44 RC beam-column joint
tests with joint shear failures: 22 external beam-column joints and 22 internal beam-
column joints with joint shear reinforcement. Through these case studies, the importance
of axial force level on the response of a beam-column joint is illustrated and re-
emphasized since there is a lack of literature for the performance of RC beam-column
joints under extreme axial load levels, which may be crucial for modern RC beam-column
joints’ performance.
4 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
2. Understanding the Behavior of RC Beam-Column Joints

In order to suggest the procedure for the shear capacity representation of modern RC
beam-column joints, the behavior and characteristics of RC beam-column joints must be
understood well. In this part, an informative summary and review is reported in order to
aid the understanding of the subject covered herein.
Actions imposed on a beam-column joint and the resulting internal stresses are
previously shown in Fig. 1a. In this figure, Ni,j, Vci,cj, Mci,cj are column axial force, shear
force and bending moment, subscripts i and j stand for below and above the joint level,
respectively. Vb, Mb are the shear force and bending moment at the beam end. Cc, Cci, Ccj
describe the compression force of concrete in the beam, in the column below and in the
column above the joint level, respectively. Similarly, Ts, Tci, Tcj describe the steel tension
force developing in the beam, in the column below and in the column above the joint
level. Finally, Pt and Pc stand for principal tension and compression, respectively.
When an RC beam-column joint undergoes the described stresses, the joint reacts to the
imposed stresses in two ways or a combination of both depending on the level of the loading:
(a) Concrete strut mechanism (diagonal compression Pc); (b) Truss mechanism (diagonal
tension Pt) (Hong, Lee, and Kang 2011). In the initial stages of loading, before any cracking
occurs in the beam end or the beam-column joint, the joint stresses are mainly carried by the
concrete strut mechanism, Pc, as shown in Fig. 3a. At this stage, the transverse reinforcement
at the joint panel zone has no contribution to this resistance (Beckingsale 1980; Birss 1978;
Paulay and Scarpas 1981). On the other hand, after the formation of the cracks at the beam-
end and/or beam-column joint, the resistance contribution by the concrete strut mechanism,
Figure 3. RC beam-column joint panel zone resistance mechanisms: (a) Concrete strut mechanism with
very minor reaction from the joint shear reinforcement, most effective before any joint crack formation;
(b) Truss mechanism with major reaction from the joint shear reinforcement, most effective after the
joint crack formation.
or diagonal compression, significantly reduces while truss mechanism, or diagonal tension,

activates. As a result of the crack formation perpendicular to the principal tension direction,
Pt, the horizontal transverse and vertical longitudinal reinforcements in the joint panel zone
start carrying tension forces Tswx and Tswy respectively (Fig. 3b). According to the truss
mechanism, these forces and the remaining concrete strut forces satisfy the equilibrium
conditions at their nodal points as shown in Fig. 3b. More in-depth explanation about the
joint shear behaviour mechanism can be found in the publication by Paulay and Scarpas
(Paulay and Scarpas 1981).
As it can be seen in Fig. 3b, adding more transverse and longitudinal intermediate steel
reinforcement both in x and y directions directly increases the diagonal tension capacity of
the joint parallel to the principal tension direction, Pt. As a cracking pattern, such well-
reinforced joint panel zone develops many diagonal tension cracks with crack widths
controlled by the joint shear reinforcement as it can be seen in Fig. 2a. On the other hand,
RC beam-column joints with no or insufficient joint shear reinforcements usually produce
one main diagonal crack with significantly larger crack width, a sign for the lack of
redistribution potential. In this regard, the presence of axial forces in columns can interact
with the cracking mechanism and reduce the number of joint cracks expected in the joint.
As a result, this can affect the engagement level of the steel reinforcement provided in the
joint panel zone.
2.1. Importance of Column Axial Load or Vertical Acceleration in RC Beam-Column

Joint Capacity
The effect of column axial forces on the behavior of RC beam-column joints has not been
a completely understood topic in literature. As it is reported in detail by Park and
Mosalam (Park and Mosalam 2009), there is research in the literature suggesting that
column axial forces do not significantly affect the joint shear strength (Kurose et al. 1988;
Meinheit and Jirsa 1977; Pantazopoulou and Bonacci 1992; Vollum 1998). On the other
hand, other researchers suggest that the high axial loads in columns cause an increase at
joint shear strength (Beres, White, and Gergely 1992; Clyde, Pantelides, and Reaveley
2000; Pantelides et al. 2002). There are also researchers suggesting that the presence of
high axial forces in columns can accelerate the joint shear crack opening due to Poisson
effects and cause a reduction in joint shear strength (Vecchio and Collins 1986). As it can
be observed in the literature, there is not a unified understanding regarding the effects of
column axial forces on the joint shear capacity in RC beam-column joints. However,
recent research shows that the level of axial load present at the RC beam-column joints
can affect the governing joint shear resistance/failure mechanism. It has recently been
shown that even adequately reinforced RC beam-column joints may fail in shear due to
extreme principle compression stresses, Pc, (Beckingsale 1980; Pessiki et al. 1990; Priestley
1997). An approximate principle compression strength of Pc≈0.5 f’c is reported by Priestley
(1997) and Beckingsale (1980) for these cases. Such amplifications in column axial load
can easily occur if the maximum lateral deflection of a structure coincides with the
maximum vertical acceleration generated at the area during an earthquake (Di Sarno,
Elnashai, and Manfredi 2011; Tasligedik et al. 2018). Such instantaneous amplifications on
column axial loads may negatively affect the expected capacity of a modern RC beam-
column joint by shifting the expected resistance mechanism from a principal tension, Pt,
6 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
(truss) mechanism to a principal compression, Pc, (strut) mechanism at the lower levels in
a building. The required vertical acceleration magnitudes are not necessarily high to cause
such an unfavorable change (Tasligedik et al. 2018). With increased axial load levels, the
number of joint shear cracks required for the activation of the joint shear reinforcement
reduces. This can easily be observed when two equivalent RC beam-column joints are
tested under low and high axial force levels (Ashtiani, Dhakal, and Scott 2014; FU et al.
2000), for which an example case is shown in Fig. 2: Fig. 2a is a test specimen tested under
lower axial load levels where the engagement of the joint shear reinforcement is evident
through the many regularly distributed diagonal cracks in the cover concrete; whilst Fig.
2b is a test specimen with the same properties tested under a higher axial load level where
the reduced contribution of joint shear reinforcement is evident through the reduced
crack amount in the joint (both photos are at 2.5% drift level). Such cracking patterns
under high axial force levels also show the increased contribution by the concrete strut
mechanism, Pc, to the overall response. Through strength hierarchy assessment method, it
is possible to consider such axial load amplifications when identifying the potential failure
mechanisms (Tasligedik et al. 2018), which is utilized to come up with an N-M interaction
envelope concept for RC beam-column joints.
3. Summary of Strength Hierarchy Assessment

Strength hierarchy assessment is a graphical capacity and demand comparison procedure.
This procedure is reported in more detail in an earlier publication (Tasligedik et al. 2018).
A flowchart summary of the strength hierarchy assessment is shown in Fig. 4. In this
procedure, the first step is the calculation of the demand variations caused by the lateral
actions using the portal frame method (Smith and Wilson 1915). This step is carried out
parametrically considering triangular equivalent static loads expressed in terms of F (Step
1 in Fig. 4). Then, the resulting axial forces and bending moment values below the joint
level can be listed for a range of F values. This can be directly plotted on N-M interaction
diagram of the column below the considered joint. All the demand and capacity compar-
isons are made considering the column moments below the joint level since the demands
are higher at these locations in a building structure. As for the capacity values, beam
capacity is represented approximately on the considered column section below the joint
based on equilibrium considerations as shown in Step 2 in Fig. 4 and the column capacity
is expressed as N-M interaction diagram (Step 3 in Fig. 4). In the Step 4 in Fig. 4, Joint
shear capacity representations are carried out, which have been developed considering
equilibrium principles and Mohr’s circle for the state of stress at RC beam-column joints.
More details regarding the development and the validation of this assessment method can
be found in the earlier publication (Tasligedik et al. 2018). When every demand variation
and capacity representation are carried out on the N-M diagram, the sequence of failures
expected from the RC beam-column joint can easily be identified as shown at Step 5 in
Fig. 4. In this paper, joint shear capacity representation for modern RC beam-column
joints is generalized in order to include principal tension representation, Pt, (governs at
lower axial forces), as well as the principal compression representation, Pc, (governs at
higher axial forces). When considered together, this forms an N-M interaction envelope
for the generalized joint shear capacity representation.
Figure 4. Summary flowchart of strength hierarchy assessment.
4. Principal Tension Capacity Representation for Modern RC Beam-Column

Joints
For the RC beam-column joint shear capacity representation, strength hierarchy assess-
ment requires a principal tension strength value, Pt, as the governing parameter for older
and vulnerable RC structures. Since these structures were built without any joint shear
reinforcement, their capacity is governed only by the diagonal tension capacity of the
concrete. On the other hand, in modern RC beam-column joints, the joints are well
reinforced for shear by using transverse reinforcements within the joint panel zone. It has
been previously identified that even modern structures can have joint shear failures under
extreme principal compression strength values, Pc, i.e. Pc≈0.5 f’c (Priestley 1997). For
assessment purposes, such principal compression strength values were suggested for the
strength hierarchy assessment of modern RC buildings in the previous work as the critical
components (Step 4 in Fig. 4).
However, considering the interdependence of axial load levels and the failure mechanism
of modern RC beam-column joints, it is important to consider not only the principle
compression capacity representation of the joint but also the principle tension capacity
representation. This is due to the fact that axial load variations caused by the lateral actions
as well as the axial load variations among the floor levels can affect the governing joint shear
mechanism. In higher buildings with shorter spans (7–10 stories), the column axial load and
bending moment variations caused by the lateral actions can get significant enough to cause
joint shear failures under extreme principal compression stresses at lower levels (Tasligedik
8 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
et al. 2018). On the other hand, at higher floor levels, such variations become less and principle
tension becomes the governing parameter for the joint shear capacity. Therefore, in strength
hierarchy assessment, it is crucial to define and express the joint shear capacity representation
in terms of both principal compression (Pc) and principal tension (Pt). In the remaining parts
of the paper, a simple yet accurate Pt representation procedure will be reported and illustrated.
4.1. Proposed Joint Shear Capacity Representation

The crack formation at RC beam-column joints approximately extends from one corner to the
other as observed in various tests (Akguzel 2011; Ashtiani, Dhakal, and Scott 2014; Park and
Ruitong 1988; Paulay and Scarpas 1981). Assuming this approximate cracking angle, θ, and
considering a generic RC beam-column joint shown in Fig. 5, total horizontal capacity con-
tribution, ΣFwx, of a given set of transverse reinforcement can be expressed as ΣFwx ¼ n

Σ fyw A0 cos α where n is the number of the set of transverse reinforcement in the joint (n = 4 in
the example in Fig. 5), fyw is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement, A0 is the cross-
sectional area of a single leg of the transverse reinforcement in the joint and α is the angular
orientation of any additional ties/transverse reinforcement with respect to the shear direction in

the column cross-section. It should be noted that Fwx ¼ Σ fyw A0 cos α is the lateral capacity
contribution given by only one set of transverse reinforcement in the joint, multiplication of
which by n results in ΣFwx formulation given above. Similarly, total vertical capacity contribu-
tion, ΣFwy, of the intermediate steel in the column can be expressed as ΣFwy ¼ m fy Al
where m is the number of intermediate longitudinal steel in the column, fy is the yield strength
of the longitudinal reinforcement in the column and Al is the area of a single longitudinal
intermediate steel in the column. It should be noted that Fwy ¼ fy Al is the vertical capacity
contribution given by a single intermediate steel in the column, multiplication of which
Figure 5. Contributing capacities by the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement based on an

approximate diagonal cracking angle.
by m results in the total vertical capacity contribution ΣFwy as given above. The formulations
and the used diagrams are illustrated in Fig. 5.
Using these capacity expressions given by the provided steel reinforcements (i.e. ΣFwx
and ΣFwy), an equivalent diagonal tension force, Fjts, corresponding to these capacities can
be expressed as given in Eq.1.
Fjts ¼ ΣFwx sin θ þ ΣFwy cos θ (1)
Using the calculated Fjts expression and the approximated diagonal cracking plane within
the column, the provided joint shear capacity by the column intermediate steel and the
transverse reinforcement in the joint can be expressed as an equivalent principal tensile
capacity by steel, Pts, as given in Eq. 2 where bc is the section width of the column, hc is the
section height of the column and hb is the section height of the beam (Note that bc
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h2c þ h2b is the area of the approximated diagonal cracking plane). These notations are
illustrated in Fig. 5.
Fjts
Pts ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (2)
bc h2c þ h2b
Using the calculated principle tensile capacity given by the provided steel reinforcements
within the joint, Pts, and the principle tensile capacity value of an RC beam-column joint
without any joint shear reinforcement, Pt, (Fig. 4), which can be typically assumed as
pffiffiffiffiffi
0:29 f 0 c for both external and internal RC beam-column joints (Priestley 1997;
Tasligedik et al. 2018), the total principle tensile capacity, Ptt, can be expressed as given
in Eq. 3 (Akguzel 2011).
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ni
Ptt ¼ Pt þ Pts ! νjt ¼ Ptt2 þ Ptt (3)
Ac
In Eq. 3, νjt is the average horizontal joint shear stress representation required by the
strength hierarchy assessment method considering principal tension, Ni is the column
axial load below the joint level and Ac is the gross area of the column section. Previously, it
has been stated that the beam-column joint capacity is significantly affected by the
imposed axial force levels. Under extreme principal compression values, Pc, even
a properly designed RC beam-column joint can fail in shear (Beckingsale 1980; Pessiki
et al. 1990). This upper limit of joint shear strength representation can be calculated as
given in Eq.4. In both Eq. 3 and Eq.4, Pt and Pc values must be input with a positive sign
(Pt, Pc > 0) while Ni is positive (Ni > 0) under compression and negative (Ni < 0) under
tension. Proof of Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 can be found in the Appendix. The summary of the
procedure mentioned herein is illustrated in Fig. 6 together with some common transverse
steel arrangements.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 Ni
Pc ffi 0:5 fc ! νjt ¼ Pc2 Pc (4)
Ac
10 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Figure 6. Summary of the joint shear capacity representation of modern RC beam-column joints for
strength hierarchy assessment.
5. External RC Beam-Column Joint Examples

5.1. Description of the Case Study Examples from the Literature
In order to confirm the validity of the design principles of RC beam-column joints suggested
by the past NZ3101 design code (1981), Paulay and Scarpas tested 3 units of RC beam-
column joints under constant axial load (Paulay and Scarpas 1981). Unit 1 was designed fully
compliant with the design code of that time, 107.8% of the joint shear provided by the joint
reinforcement. On the other hand, Unit 2 and Unit 3 had 48.8% and 54.6% of the joint shear
provided by the reinforcement, respectively. Among the tested three specimens by Paulay
and Scarpas (1981), Unit 1 and Unit 2 define the maximum and the minimum joint shear
reinforcement levels provided in this past study. Also, Unit 1 and Unit 2 had the same
concrete strength value while the concrete strength of Unit 3 was 20% higher. Therefore, Unit
1 and Unit 2 are selected as the case study examples in this paper.
In the test setup, RC beam-column joint sub-assemblies were held in place by two pins
at the two ends of the column, which corresponds to inflection points in a building. The
column was kept under constant axial load during the tests. The loads, F, were applied at
the end of the beam. The free body diagram, material properties and the section details of
the example test units are summarized in Fig. 7.
Unit 1 was tested at an axial load ratio of 0.053 (= NG/(fć Ac)), which corresponds to NG
= 250kN. The axial load was kept constant throughout the test. The first cracking, either in the
joint and/or the beam end, was observed at +95kN, −85kN range, which corresponds to 3/4th
the yield force (i.e. 75%). Throughout the test, a displacement ductility value of 8 was reached
with 10 reverse cyclic actions. The test results indicate a ductile beam plastic hinge mechanism
with minor joint cracks (Fig. 8b). The energy dissipation capability of the joint makes itself
evident via the fat hysteresis curve recorded in the test with very slight pinching (Fig. 8a).
Unit 2 was tested under an axial load ratio of 0.15, which corresponds to NG = 705kN. The
first cracking was observed at +135kN, −125kN range, which was reported as the end of the
elastic response of the specimen. The applied axial load level was kept constant until the 10th
cycle (displacement ductility μ = 8). In order to cause more severe stresses to the joint, the axial
load was halved from the 11th cycle onwards, which corresponds to NG = 352.5kN. This unit
Figure 7. The details and the material properties of the case study test specimens sampled from the
literature (Paulay and Scarpas 1981).
Figure 8. Test results for Unit 1 by Paulay and Scarpas (1981): (a) The hysteresis curve, where Pi
corresponds to theoretical value of the ideal flexural strength of the beam and μ corresponds to the
imposed displacement ductility values; (b) State of the specimen at the end of the test (Note: red
arrows are added for explanation).
had only 48.8% of the required shear reinforcement at the joint panel zone. As a result, the
reduced joint shear reinforcement manifested itself with more and wider joint shear crack
formation, or diagonal tension cracks (Fig. 9b). Overall, test results indicated a ductile beam
plastic hinge mechanism with many joint shear cracks. The critical aspect in the testing of Unit 2
was the 50% reduction of the axial load at the 11th cycle: with the reduction of the axial load,
12 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Figure 9. Test results for Unit 2 by Paulay and Scarpas (1981): (a) The hysteresis curve, where Pi
corresponds to theoretical value of the ideal flexural strength of the beam and μ corresponds to the
imposed displacement ductility values; (b) State of the specimen at the end of the test (Note: Red
Paulay and Scarpas observed one of the joint shear cracks becoming even more pronounced,
which is a sign of the provided joint shear reinforcements reaching their capacity under the
reduced axial load as well as potential bond slip of the reinforcements within the joint (Fig. 9b).
Accordingly, the hysteresis curve showed more pronounced pinching after the reduction of the
axial load at 11th cycle (Fig. 9a).
5.2. Assessment of Unit 1 and Unit 2

The strength hierarchy assessment of the test units can be carried out using the structural
description shown in Fig. 7 and the summarized strength hierarchy method in Fig. 4. For
the sake of brevity, preparation of N-M column interaction diagram and the calculation of
the positive (tension at bottom) and negative (tension on top) ultimate beam capacity is
left out of scope. In this section, focus is given to the description of the joint shear capacity
within the strength hierarchy assessment for the example test specimens.
Using the procedure shown in Figs. 5 and 6, the horizontal capacity contribution by the
transverse reinforcement, ΣFwx, and the vertical capacity contribution by the intermediate
longitudinal steel within the column, ΣFwy, can be calculated (Table 1). Then, these two
capacity values can be projected perpendicular to the approximated diagonal cracking
plane using Eq.1, Fjts. Dividing the calculated Fjts value by the area of the diagonal cracking
plane results in the capacity contribution of the provided steel within the beam-column
joint panel zone in the direction perpendicular to the approximated cracking plane.
Table 1. Calculation of the total principal tensile strength, Ptt, required for the joint shear strength
representation in strength hierarchy assessment (θ = 53.16°). The notations are explained previously in
Fig. 5
fyw A0 fy Al ΣFwx ΣFwy Pt Pts Ptt
Unit n m (MPa) (mm2) (MPa) (mm2) (N) (N) Fjts (N) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 4 4 326 113 296 314 884112 371776 930477 1.379 2.671 4.05
2 3 4 316 78.5 296 314 446508 371776 580257 1.376 1.666 3.04
pffiffiffiffiffi
Pt ¼ 0:29 f 0 c , as shown in Fig. 4
Finally, adding the calculated capacity value, Pts, to the principal tensile capacity of the
concrete in the joint, Pt, results in the total principal tensile strength value for the joint, Ptt
(Table 1). Approximate values for Pt are suggested by strength hierarchy method (Fig. 4).
Then, this value can be directly utilized in the strength hierarchy assessment procedure
by calculating the corresponding horizontal joint shear, νjt, as shown in Fig. 6. These
calculations are summarized in Table 2.
Using the calculated data, the strength hierarchy assessment is carried out for both of
the specimens as shown in Fig. 10. In strength hierarchy assessment, the demand just
below the joint level is considered. As a result, even though the axial load applied on the
top of the column was kept constant, the applied loads at the end of the beam cause
increased/decreased axial load levels below the joint level, as the free body diagram of the
test specimen suggests (Fig. 7). These variations in axial loads and moments below the
joint level are plotted as longer dashed lines in Fig. 10.
Strength hierarchy assessment of Unit 1 shows that the specimen performs as expected
from a beam-column joint designed considering capacity design principles where beam is
the first element to suffer inelastic damage (i.e. weak beam-strong column analogy or
beam-sway mechanism). According to the results of this assessment, beam is expected to
reach its ultimate capacity at about 125kN applied force level. The test results of this
specimen suggest that the ideal beam hinging is expected to occur at about +130.4kN and
−117kN applied force level, i.e. average 123.7kN (Fig. 8). These observations show the
accuracy of the correlation between the strength hierarchy assessment and the experi-
mental observations made by Paulay and Scarpas (1981). The resulting hierarchy of
strength is marked from 1 to 6 as shown in Fig. 10a.
After Unit 1, the strength hierarchy assessment of Unit 2 under 705kN axial load
(applied on top of the column) is carried out as shown in Fig. 10b. As it can be clearly
seen, the joint shear capacity defined by the principal compression (Pc) does not change
as it is not affected by the differing transverse reinforcement levels (Priestley 1997). On
the other hand, the reduced transverse reinforcement levels decrease the joint shear
capacity defined by the total principal tension (Ptt, red line). In Fig. 10b, it can be seen
that the beam is only slightly weaker than the joint, a very minor difference and un-
conservative. Therefore, the joint shear cracks at this stage might be considered
Table 2. Joint shear strength capacity representation as a column moment, Mci, below the joint level,
a function of Ni
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Unit νjt ¼ Ptt2 þ Ptt Ni =ðbc hc Þ (kPa) ϕ1 (1/m3) ϕ2 (m) Mci (kNm)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi νjt
1 40502 þ 19392 Ni 17.9601567 0.83829918 φ1 þ Fjt φ2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 30402 þ 14555:97 Ni 17.9601567 0.83829918 Fjt = 0 in the tests
14 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Applied Force F=M/1.2245 (kN) Applied Force F=M/1.2245 (kN) Applied Force F=M/1.2245 (kN)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
5500 F=125kN Unit1 5500 F=180kN Unit2 5500 Unit2
Beam
Beam
5000 NG=250kN 5000 F=156kN NG=352.5kN
NG=705kN 5000
4500 Col 4500 4500
4000 um 4000 Col 4000 Col
Beam
n
Axial Force, N (kN)
Axial Force, N (kN)
Axial Force, N (kN)

Joint um um
3500 3500 n 3500 n
Joint by Ptt
3000 3000 3000
by Pc
2500 2500 2500
2000 2000 F ~F 2000
1500 1500 Beam Joint
6 - 1500 FJoint<FBeam
4
1000 - 1000 =180kN 2 1000 =156kN -
500 2 5
500 500 1 2,3 5
6 1,3 5
0 1 0 + 0 4
-500 3,4 + -500 +
-500
-1000 MU,Beam/2 =152.5 -1000
MU,Beam/2 =219.5 -1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
a) Moment, M (kNm) b) Moment, M (kNm) c) Moment, M (kNm)
Variation of demand Beam capacity representation Column N-M diagram
Joint shear capacity representation by Ptt Joint shear capacity representation by Pc
Figure 10. Strength hierarchy assessment of the example test specimens, strength hierarchy marked as
1-2-3-4-5-6: (a) Unit 1; (b) Unit 2 before the axial load reduction, NG = 705kN; (c) Unit 2 after the axial
load is reduced 50%, NG = 352.5kN.
allowable to a degree. Following these observations, Paulay and Scarpas (1981) reduced
the axial load level by 50% after the 10th cycle in the test, which became 352.5kN in
11th cycle. The strength hierarchy assessment considering this axial load change is
shown in Fig. 10c. As it can be seen, such a reduction/variation in axial load level
changed the strength hierarchy and caused the joint to be weaker than the beam.
Evidently, this made itself visible through the pronounced joint shear crack observed
afterwards (Fig. 9b) as well as the pronounced pinching of the hysteresis loop at the
11th cycle (Fig. 9a). The lowered global capacity also manifested itself as a reduction in
the load-carrying capability at the 11th cycle as shown in Fig. 9a.
6. Internal RC Beam-Column Joint Examples

6.1. Description of the Case Study Examples from the Literature
The second case study example was carried out by Park and Ruitong in 1987–1988 (Park and
Ruitong 1988). In this study, the behavior of internal RC beam-column joints designed for
ductility and limited ductility was investigated under different column longitudinal steel, beam-
column joint transverse reinforcement and beam reinforcement levels. There were a total of four
units tested. Among those, Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4 are selected as case study examples in this
paper. Unit 2 is excluded since it only has its beam reinforcement different than Unit1.
Unit 1 followed NZS3101 regulations of that time. On the other hand, Unit 3 had
horizontal joint shear reinforcement providing 58% of that required and vertical shear
reinforcement by the column intermediate steel providing 68% of that required. Similarly,
Unit 4 had horizontal joint shear reinforcement providing 58% of that required, vertical
shear reinforcement by the column intermediate steel providing 82% of that required as
well as 72% greater beam reinforcement than that of Unit 3. The details of these test
specimens are shown in Fig. 11.
The specimens were tested by increasing lateral loads, F, applied at the top of the
column under zero column axial force. However, in order to simulate the floor slab loads,
two constant point loads were applied on the beams 0.848 m to the right and to the left of
Figure 11. The details and the material properties of the example test specimens sampled from the
literature (Park and Ruitong 1988).
the centerline of the column as shown in Fig. 11. The P values for the considered test
specimens are 55kN, 55kN and 67kN for Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4, respectively.
Considering the structural analysis data provided by Park and Ruitong (1988), the column
axial load NG below the joint level can be quantified as 1.584P for each specimen (as
shown in Fig. 11). Accordingly, the column axial force below the joint levels can be
calculated as 87.12kN, 87.12kN and 106.13kN for Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4. It should be
noted that the test setup does not cause a variation in the axial load as a function of the
applied load F in this example.
The testing of Unit 1 showed that the beam hinging and the resulting beam-sway
mechanism as well as the minor shear cracking at the beam-column joint verified the
capacity design principles employed. The maximum crack width at this joint example was
0.6 mm only (Fig. 12b). Therefore, the hysteresis curve had no pinching and showed
a high energy dissipation capacity due to the wide hysteresis curve (Fig. 12a).
The testing of Unit 3 showed that the slight reduction of the used joint shear reinforce-
ment diameters caused a more pinched hysteresis curve (Fig. 13a). As a result of this slight
reduction, the maximum width of the observed joint shear crack was 1.4 mm, much wider
than that of Unit 1 (Fig. 13b). On the other hand, the reduction in joint shear strength
seems to have redistributed some of the demand from the beams into the joint as the
flexural crack widths look narrower than that of Unit 1.
Unit 4 had a joint shear reinforcing level higher than that of Unit 3, but less than Unit 1. As
a result, the testing of Unit 4 demonstrated a greater stiffness reduction than Unit 1. The
maximum joint shear crack width was measured as 1.1 mm (Fig. 14b). Moreover, after the
displacement ductility of 5, a significant pinching and stiffness reduction was observed. This
was explained by the slip observed at the top beam bars at this drift level (Fig. 14a). The
researchers reported that the observed joint shear cracks at Unit 4 were less severe than those
observed in Unit 3. In summary, Unit 1 represented the ideal structural design, while Unit 3
had the least joint shear capacity among the specimens. Moreover, Unit 4 performed in
between the two, which developed beam bar slip during the test. More details can be found in
the related publications in the literature (Park and Ruitong 1988; Ruitong and Park 1987).
16 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Figure 12. Test results for Unit 1 by Park and Ruitong (1988): (a) The hysteresis curve, where V1 and V2
correspond to theoretical value of the ideal flexural strength of the beam and μ corresponds to the
correspond to theoretical value of the ideal flexural strength of the beam and μ corresponds to the
6.2. Assessment of Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4

Similar to the procedure carried out in Section 5.2, the required data for the strength hierarchy
assessment can be calculated as shown in Table 3. One important point in this example is that
each joint shear reinforcement set is made of a rectangular and a diamond-shaped confinement.
correspond to theoretical value of the ideal flexural strength of the beam and μ corresponds to the imposed
displacement ductility values; (b) State of the specimen at the end of the test (Ruitong and Park 1987).
Each of these reinforcements has different yield strength values, fyw, as well as different cross-
sectional areas, A0. This should be considered in the equations shown in Fig. 5 correctly while
calculating ΣFwx and ΣFwy. The resulting Ptt values can be used to express the joint shear strength
in terms of column moment, Mci, below the joint level, as required by the strength hierarch
assessment procedure (Table 4).
Using the prepared data, strength hierarchy comparisons for each of the test specimens can be
prepared as shown in Fig. 15. As it can be seen in all of the three test specimens, beams are the
weakest elements expected to form plastic hinge at 68kN, 67kN and 91kN applied load levels for
Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4, respectively. These estimations closely correlate to the experimental
observations shown in Figs. 12, 13 and 14 where averaged beam hinge formation corresponds to
63.4kN, 60.4 and 89.3kN for Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4. Since Unit 1 had its joints designed fully
compatible with the design code, the provided joint shear capacity in terms of the applied load is
observed as the highest among the three test specimens (F ≈ 288kN) in the strength hierarchy
assessment. On the other hand, Unit 3 has the lowest joint shear capacity estimated by the
assessment (F ≈ 198kN).
Similar observations were made by the authors regarding the shear deformations observed
at each test specimen (Park and Ruitong 1988): At high displacement ductility levels, joint
Table 3. Calculation of the total principal tensile strength, Ptt, required for the joint shear strength
representation in strength hierarchy assessment (θ = 48.38°, α = 34.39°). The notations are explained
previously in Fig. 5
fyw1 A01 fyw2 A02 Al ΣFwx ΣFwy Fjts Pt Pts Ptt
Unit n m (MPa) (mm2) (MPa) (mm2) (mm2) (N) (N) (N) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 5 2 283 113 360 50 201 468330 200196 483075 1.965 2.591 4.556
3 5 2 282 28 360 50 113 228345 119886 250330 1.745 1.343 3.088
4 5 2 320 78 282 28 201 317055 200196 369990 1.836 1.984 3.820
fyw1-A01 and fyw2-A02 correspond to the rectangular and the diamond-shaped confinement in the joint respectively (the
strength and the diameters of each are different in these specimens)
18 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Table 4. Joint shear strength capacity representation as a column moment, Mci, below the joint level,
a function of Ni
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Unit νjt ¼ Ptt2 þ Ptt Ni =ðbc hc Þ (kPa) ϕ1 (1/m3) ϕ2 (m) Mci (kNm)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi νjt
1 45562 þ 36792:38 Ni 17.0857301 0.7403255 φ1 þ Fjt φ2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 2
þ 24937:41 Ni 17.0857301 0.7403255 Fjt = 0 in the tests
p3088
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 38202 þ 30848:74 Ni 17.0857301 0.7403255
Figure 15. Strength hierarchy assessment of the example test specimens, strength hierarchy marked as 1-2-3:
(a) Unit 1, NG = 87.12kN; (b) Unit 3, NG = 87.12kN; (c) Unit 4, NG = 106.13kN.
shear deformations were observed as 14%, 38% and 19% for Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4,
respectively. It should be noted that the joint shear deformation values and the joint shear
capacity values reported above are inversely correlated to each other (i.e. stronger joint shows
lower joint shear deformation). This can also be observed in the maximum cracks widths
observed at the joint cores: as it can be seen in Figs. 12, 13 and 14, the maximum joint shear
cracks widths for Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4 are 0.6 mm, 1.4 mm and 1.1 mm, respectively
7. N-M Interaction Envelope for Joint Shear Strength: Simplified Approach

Considering the reported procedure and the examples, it can be seen that joint shear capacity
representation on N-M chart forms an envelope curve, analogous to a column N-M diagram,
shown in Fig. 16. In this envelope, four typical points can be identified: (a) Point 1 is analogous
to uniaxial compression and can be approximately calculated by N1 ¼ 0:5fc0 Ac ; (b) Point 2 is
analogous to the concrete cracking under uniaxial tension, direct tensile strength
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi
fct ffi 0:35 f 0 c or 0:36 f 0 c (NZS3101 2006; TS-500 2003), and can be approximately calculated
pffiffiffiffiffi
by N2 ¼ 0:35 f 0 c Ac , which forms the conservative lower bound for the capacity envelope as
it neglects the longitudinal steel; (c) Point 3 is the uniaxial tension capacity of the section
calculated by N3 ¼ fy Ast , forming the un-conservative lower bound for the capacity envelope;
(d) Point 4 is analogous to the balanced case where principal tension and principal compression
capacity provided at the joint are equal to each other. Using the principals developed for the
strength hierarchy assessment (Fig. 4), the coordinates of point 4 can be calculated as given in
Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 (correct units must be used as shown in Fig. 4).
Figure 16. RC beam-column joint shear capacity represented as N-M interaction envelope (shaded
areas).
Pc2 Ptt2
N4 ¼ Ac (5)
Pc þ Ptt
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ptt2 þ Ptt NA4c
M4 ¼ ðUnits : kPa; kN; mÞ (6)
φ1
In light of the explanation given previously, the approximated joint shear capacity
N-M envelopes are plotted for the used example test specimens in Fig. 17. As it can be
seen, the simplified envelopes show a conservative fit to the numerically calculated joint
shear capacity curves (given by Pc and Pt or Ptt).
8. Validation of the Simplified N-M Interaction Envelope Concept for Joint

Shear Strength
The conclusions drawn in Section 7 theoretically originates from the application of the strength
hierarchy assessment method (Tasligedik et al. 2018). It combines the capacity representation of
RC beam-column joints under low and high axial force levels. In this section, the approximate
N-M envelope concept is validated using a randomly selected database of 22 external (Kotsovou,
Cotsovos, and Lagaros 2017) and 22 internal RC beam-column joint tests (Lin 1999), which are
part of the beam-column joint database collated by the respective researchers. The used Dataset is
composed of external (Alameddine and Ehsani 1991; Chen and Chen 1999; Ehsani and Wight
1982; Kaku and Asakusa 1991; Karayannis, Chalioris, and Sideris 1998; Megget 1974; Park and
Milburn 1983) and internal (Birss 1978; Durrani and Wight 1982; Joh, et al., 1991, 1991b;
Hakuto, Park, and Tanaka 1995; Meinheit and Jirsa 1997; Milburn and Park 1982; Otani,
Kitayama, and Aoyama 1985; Otani, Kobayashi, and Aoyama 1984; Stevenson 1980; Teraoka
et al. 1994; Wong 1985; Xian, Park, and Tanaka 1992) RC beam-column joint tests with joint
20 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Applied Force F=M/1.2245 (kN) Applied Force F=M/1.2245 (kN)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Unit1 Unit2
Col Col
5000 u mn NG=250kN 5000 u mn NG=705kN
4000 Joint 4000
Axial Force, N (kN)

Axial Force, N (kN)
by Ptt
3000 0,2360 3000 0,2350
377, 1514 327, 1725
2000 2000
1000 1000
0,-348 Joint 0,-347
Joint shear capacity 0 by Pc 0
N-M envelope
(Shaded areas) -1000 0,-1116 -1000 0,-1116
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
a) Moment, M (kNm) b) Moment, M (kNm)
Applied Force F=M/1.237 (kN) Applied Force F=M/1.237 (kN) Applied Force F=M/1.237 (kN)
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Co Unit1 Co Unit3 Unit4

5000 lum lu NG=87.12kN 5000 Co NG=106.13kN
n NG=87.12kN 4000 m lu
n mn
4000 4000
Axial Force, N (kN)
Axial Force, N (kN)

Axial Force, N (kN)
3000
0,2842 0,2241 438, 1859
3000 599, 2278 3000 0,2483
512, 2010
2000
2000 2000
1000
1000 0,-261 1000
0,-294 0,-275
0 0
0
0,-721
-1000 0,-801 -1000 -1000 0,-1098
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
c) Moment, M (kNm) d) Moment, M (kNm) e) Moment, M (kNm)
Figure 17. Approximate N-M interaction envelopes plotted for the used example specimens (a–b)
External RC beam-column joint specimens by Paulay and Scarpas (1981); (c–e) Internal RC beam-
column joint specimens by Park and Ruitong (1988).
panel zone reinforced with transverse reinforcements. All of the considered tests showed joint
shear failure for the validation purposes. The datasets for these test specimens are shown in
Tables 5 and 6. In these tables, the geometric dimensions of the test specimens required for the
calculation of the ϕ1 parameter in strength hierarchy assessment (lb, lc, hb, d, bc, hc), material
properties of concrete and the joint shear reinforcement (f’c, fyw, Ash), the maximum axial load
and the maximum lateral load (Nmax, Fmax) are listed. The provided information is then used to
calculate Ptt, Pc and the coordinates of points 1, 2 and 4 defined in Fig. 16. It should be noted that
the data required for the calculation of point 3 were not available in the database and as a result,
the more conservative point 2 is used herein. The calculated N and M values are then normalized
using Equations 7 and 8. Similarly, Nmax and Mmax (= Fmax lb/2 for external beam-column joints
and = Fmax·lc/2 for internal beam-column joints) are normalized using the same equations. Then,
the normalized N-M interaction envelope curves for the joint shear capacity and the normalized
maximum demands are plotted for all of the test specimens in Figs. 18 and 19. In these figures,
the joint failures are designated as a red cross. The enclosed area by the N-M representation is the
safe area whilst the expected joint shear failures should occur outside or very close to the
approximately drawn N-M description. It should be noted that the used database does not
contain any information regarding the column intermediate steel and the type of the transverse
reinforcement in the joint core (e.g. diamond shape). As a result, the resulting capacity curves
obtained herein are conservative.
Table 5. Dataset of external RC beam-column joint tests with joint shear reinforcement from the literature (Kotsovou, Cotsovos, and Lagaros 2017)
lb lc hb d hc bc f’c fyw Joint Fmax N/(f’c Nmax Mmax ф1 (1/ θ Ptt
# Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) Ash (mm2) Failure (kN) Ac ) (kN) nmax (kNm) mmax m3) (deg) (Mpa)
1 Megget-Unit A 1590 3000 460 420 380 330 22.1 323 1592 Yes 160 0.072 359.5 0.13 127.2 0.121 39.641 50.42 3.376
2 Park and Milburn 4 2870 3350 457 427 406 305 38.9 321 785 Yes 100 0.1 581.7 0.121 143.5 0.073 41.745 48.358 2.819
3 Ehsani and Wight 1B 1674 2134 480 430 300 300 33.6 413 992 Yes 155 0.0589 333.1 0.11 129.7 0.143 57.149 57.983 3.727
4 Ehsani and Wight 2B 1674 2134 440 391 300 300 35 413 1005 Yes 138 0.0705 360.1 0.114 115.5 0.122 62.674 55.691 3.862
5 Ehsani and Wight 3B 1674 2134 480 430 300 300 40.9 413 1482 Yes 187 0.0603 409 0.111 156.5 0.142 57.149 57.983 4.911
6 Kaku and Asakuka 3 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 41.7 250 170 Yes 47.4 0 47.4 0.023 23.7 0.053 214.464 44.977 2.312
7 Kaku and Asakuka 4 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 44.7 281 42.4 Yes 52.2 0.17 420 0.194 26.1 0.055 214.464 44.977 2.062
8 Kaku and Asakuka 5 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 36.7 281 42.4 Yes 48.2 0.09 208.1 0.117 24.1 0.062 214.464 44.977 1.88
9 Kaku and Asakuka 6 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 40.4 281 42.4 Yes 45.7 0 45.7 0.023 22.9 0.053 214.464 44.977 1.966
11 Kaku and Asakuka 11 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 41.9 281 42.4 Yes 50.4 0.08 212.6 0.105 25.2 0.056 214.464 44.977 2
12 Kaku and Asakuka 12 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 35.1 281 42.4 Yes 45.3 0 45.3 0.027 22.7 0.061 214.464 44.977 1.841
13 Kaku and Asakuka 13 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 46.4 250 170 Yes 45.7 −0.04 −44.1 −0.02 22.9 0.046 214.464 44.977 2.414
14 Kaku and Asakuka 14 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 41 281 42.4 Yes 49.3 0.08 208.1 0.105 24.7 0.057 214.464 44.977 1.98
15 Kaku and Asakuka 15 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 39.7 281 42.4 Yes 50.3 0.08 204 0.106 25.2 0.06 214.464 44.977 1.95
17 Kaku and Asakuka 18 1000 1540 220 203 220 220 40.7 250 170 Yes 26 0 26 0.013 13 0.03 214.464 44.977 2.289
18 Ehsani and 1778 3581 508 432 356 356 55.8 413 1592 Yes 222 0.0717 729.1 0.103 197.4 0.078 39.408 55.004 4.605
Alameddine HL8
19 Ehsani and 1778 3581 508 432 356 356 55.8 413 2388 Yes 60 0.0717 567.1 0.08 53.3 0.021 39.408 55.004 5.825
Alameddine HH8
20 Karayannis et al. J2b 1100 1700 200 177 200 100 26.2 220 201 Yes 16 0.1 68.4 0.131 8.8 0.084 610.185 44.977 2.589
21 Karayannis et al. J0 1100 1700 200 177 200 100 20.8 220 0 Yes 14 0.1 55.6 0.134 7.7 0.093 610.185 44.977 1.323
22 Chen and Chen JC 2500 2840 500 466 500 500 20 280 2268 Yes 157.8 0 157.8 0.032 197.3 0.079 18.386 44.977 2.566
nmax = Nmax/(bc hc f’c) and mmax = Mmax/(bc hc2 f’c): the normalized maximum axial force and column bending moment demand at the connection to the joint
21
22
Table 6. Dataset of internal RC beam-column joint tests with joint shear reinforcement from the literature (Lin 1999)
A. S. TASLIGEDIK
lb lc hb d hc bc f’c fyw Ash Fmax Nmax Mmax ф1 θ Ptt

# Specimen (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) (mm2) Joint Failure (kN) N/(f’cAc) (kN) nmax (kNm) mmax (1/m3) (deg) (Mpa)
23 Birss B1 4877 3430 610 537 457 457 27.9 345 1519 Yes 230 0.053 308.8 0.053 394.5 0.148 8.033 53.17 2.736
24 Birss B2 4877 3430 610 537 457 457 31.5 397.8 398 Yes 232 0.439 2888.1 0.439 397.9 0.132 8.033 53.17 1.991
25 Durrani X1 2495.6 2247.9 419.1 365 362 362 34.3 351.7 864 Yes 164.6 0.055 247.2 0.055 185 0.114 17.202 49.16 2.845
26 Durrani X2 2495.6 2247.9 419.1 365 362 362 33.7 351.7 1297 Yes 169 0.056 247.3 0.056 189.9 0.119 17.202 49.16 3.405
27 Durrani X3 2495.6 2247.9 419.1 365 362 362 31 351.7 864 Yes 124.3 0.053 215.3 0.053 139.7 0.095 17.202 49.16 2.761
28 Hakuto O1 3200 3810 300 248 500 300 41 0 0 Yes 74.8 0 0 0 142.5 0.046 24.829 30.94 1.857
29 Joh JXO-B1 3000 1750 350 320 300 300 21.3 306.7 170 Yes 60.7 0.161 308.6 0.161 53.1 0.092 29.548 49.389 1.625
30 Joh JXO-B2 3000 1750 350 320 300 300 20.8 306.7 170 Yes 64.5 0.161 301.4 0.161 56.4 0.1 29.548 49.389 1.609
31 Milburn U1 5740 3350 457 401 406 305 41.3 320 3216 Yes 128.8 0.1 511.4 0.1 215.7 0.104 19.615 48.358 5.989
32 Meinheit and Jirsa II 4877 3658 457 394 457 330 41.8 409 516 Yes 174.4 0.254 1601.2 0.254 319 0.111 16.125 44.977 2.574
33 Meinheit and Jirsa VI 4877 3658 457 394 457 330 36.8 409 516 Yes 180.6 0.483 2680.6 0.483 330.3 0.13 16.125 44.977 2.459
34 Meinheit and Jirsa XII 4877 3658 457 394 457 330 35.7 422.8 2400 Yes 212.2 0.3 1615.2 0.3 388.1 0.158 16.125 44.977 5.096
35 Otani J1 2700 1470 300 270 300 300 25.7 367.5 170 Yes 120.9 0.077 178.1 0.077 88.9 0.128 34.448 44.977 1.817
36 Otani J2 2700 1470 300 270 300 300 24 367.5 340 Yes 122.4 0.082 177.1 0.082 90 0.139 34.448 44.977 2.115
37 Otani J3 2700 1470 300 270 300 300 24 367.5 792 Yes 134.7 0.082 177.1 0.082 99 0.153 34.448 44.977 3.037
38 Otani J4 2700 1470 300 270 300 300 25.7 367.5 170 Yes 130.4 0.305 705.5 0.305 95.8 0.138 34.448 44.977 1.817
39 Stevenson U1 5740 3350 457 401 406 305 34 305.4 1206 Yes 130.4 0.237 997.8 0.237 218.4 0.128 19.615 48.358 3.167
40 Teraoka et al. HNO1 2800 1800 400 325 400 400 88.2 680 1030 Yes 450 0.167 2356.7 0.167 405 0.072 15.715 44.977 4.911
41 Teraoka et al. HNO3 2800 1800 400 325 400 400 88.2 680 1030 Yes 592 0.167 2356.7 0.167 532.8 0.094 15.715 44.977 4.911
42 Teraoka et al. NO47 3000 2000 400 355 400 400 54 347 785 Yes 265 0.2 1728 0.2 265 0.077 14.365 44.977 2.982
43 Xian U1 3500 2470 500 444 450 300 30.9 348 1459 Yes 151 0 0 0 186.5 0.099 13.675 48.014 3.482
44 Wong U1 4238 2473 457 421 406 305 32.2 339 226.4 Yes 162 0 0 0 200.3 0.124 16.728 48.358 1.953
nmax = Nmax/(bc hc f’c) and mmax = Mmax/(bc hc2 f’c): the normalized maximum axial force and column bending moment demand at the connection to the joint
N
n¼ (7)
bc hc f 0 c
M
m¼ (8)
bc h2c f 0 c
8.1 Observations from the Application of the Simplified N-M Envelope for Joint
Shear Capacity for the Beam-Column Joints in the Database
All of the considered 44 specimens had joint shear failure (22 external and 22 internal
beam-column joints). It should be noted that the used database lacks information regard-
ing the intermediate steel existing in the column sections, which can contribute to the
joint shear capacity. As a result, the database analysis is carried out without considering
the intermediate steel, which is more conservative. Moreover, due to the lack of informa-
tion about the column longitudinal steel amounts, point 3 in Fig. 16 could not be
calculated. Instead, more conservative point 2 is plotted for this database assessment.
The produced plots in Fig. 18 show that 21 of the 22 external beam-column joint
failures fall outside of the given envelope while the remaining one is in the vicinity of the
envelope. This can be considered as a conservative result for external beam-column joints.
The plots in Fig. 19 show that 21 of the 22 observed internal beam-column joint shear
failures could be very closely predicted by the simplified N-M interaction envelope
concept for joint shear capacity. The observed joint failures are either very close to the
envelope or well outside of it, confirming the concept. Collated plots for external and
internal beam-column joints are shown in Fig. 20. It should be emphasized that this
concept application is carried out with very limited information about the test setups, and
thus, there can be some minor variance with the axial load levels in reality.
According to the suggested capacity envelope concept, increasing axial force levels increase
the joint shear capacity up to a level, which is defined by the corner point at high axial force
levels as indicated by point 4 in Fig. 16. After this axial load, increasing axial force levels
decreases the joint shear capacity. It should be noted that this concept is in agreement with
the experimental observations made by researchers in literature as summarized in section 2.1
(Beres, White, and Gergely 1992; Clyde, Pantelides, and Reaveley 2000; Pantelides et al. 2002;
Park and Mosalam 2009; Vecchio and Collins 1986). However, currently, there is not much
information in the literature about the behavior of modern RC beam-column joints under very
high axial load levels (above n = 0.4).
9. Conclusions
In this paper, a generalized joint shear capacity assessment procedure is proposed for the
representation of modern RC beam-column joints as an N-M interaction chart. The representa-
tion considers both of the joint shear mechanisms that govern the behavior of RC beam-column
joints (in reality behavior is a combination of the two): (a) principal tension (truss) mechanism,
governs at low axial force levels and (b) the principal compression (compression strut) mechan-
ism, governs at high axial force levels. The details of the procedure are illustrated and validated
using five test specimens taken from the literature (Park and Ruitong 1988; Paulay and Scarpas
24
A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Figure 18. Comparison of the normalized joint N-M interaction envelopes for joint shear capacity and the normalized maximum demands for the external
beam-column joints.
Figure 19. Comparison of the normalized joint N-M interaction envelopes for joint shear capacity and the normalized maximum demands for the internal
beam-column joints.
25
26 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
0.5 Joint Failures 0.5

Mean
Normalized Axial Force
Normalized Axial Force

0.4 0.4
n=N/(bchc f'c)
n=N/(bchc f'c)
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
a) b)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Normalized Moment Normalized Moment
2 2
m =M/(bchc f'c) m =M/(bchc f'c)
Figure 20. Collated plot for the normalized N-M interaction concept for joint shear capacity and the
normalized maximum demands: (a) External beam-column joints; (b) Internal beam-column joints.
1981). It is shown that the procedure can describe the expected capacity of an RC beam-column
joint reinforced for shear (or diagonal tension) using transverse and longitudinal steel reinforce-
ments in the joint panel zone.
Based on the observations, a simplified and approximate joint shear capacity N-M interaction
envelope is reported. The validation for this simplification is carried out using a database of 44
RC beam-column joint tests (external and internal). In this case study, joint shear capacity
reported in the database is conservatively predicted for external beam-column joints whilst
closely predicted for the internal beam-column joints by the simplified N-M envelope concept.
The concept shows that beam-column joint shear capacity increases under increasing axial load
levels up to a point after which further increase in axial forces can cause reduction in beam-
column joint shear strength. This observation is in agreement with the seemingly conflicting
observations in literature and the concept has the potential to provide a more general capacity
description for the modern beam-column joints with transverse reinforcement in the joint core.
This simple concept can be utilized as a practical tool for(a) visualizing the capacity domain of
any designed RC beam-column joint in a building (i.e. analogous to column N-M diagrams), (b)
in strength hierarchy assessment of any RC beam-column joint (modern or vulnerable).
10. Recommendations
While carrying out the investigation in this paper, numerous RC beam-column joint tests were
inspected from the literature. Although there is a large body of knowledge and information on
RC beam-column joints, the axial load levels employed by most of these studies are limited only
to the lower bound of the suggested joint shear capacity envelope in Section 7. In other words, the
joint shear capacities in such studies are controlled by the provided principal tensile strength or
truss mechanism (Pt or Ptt). However, the axial load levels acting on the RC beam-column joints
at lower floors of a building can show a significant variation during an earthquake, which can
affect the expected failure mode by extreme axial forces or compression strut mechanism (Pc) (Di
Sarno, Elnashai, and Manfredi 2011; Tasligedik et al. 2018). As it can be seen in Fig. 20, there are
only few tests employing normalized axial load levels larger than 0.4, which lies in the portion of
the envelope where the capacity is controlled by the principal compressive strength in the joint.
On the other hand, every other test in the inspected literature employs much lower normalized
axial load levels (around 0.1 and 0.2). Therefore, there is a lack of information/research regarding
the behavior of RC beam-column joints under extreme axial load levels in the literature (i.e. axial
load levels about 50-70% of the uniaxial compression capacity). This subject requires further
research in the future, which will further refine the understanding of the behavior of RC beam-
column joints under extreme axial load levels (upper bound of the N-M interaction for the joint
shear strength).
11. Notation
A0, Al The cross sectional area of a single leg of the transverse reinforcement and longitudinal
column intermediate reinforcement
Ast Total column longitudinal steel area passing through the joint
α The angular orientation of additional ties/transverse reinforcement with respect to shear
direction
bc, hc Cross sectional width and height of the column
bw, hb Cross sectional width and height of the beam
C, T Concrete compression and steel tension forces
d, jd Effective depth of the beam reinforcement and the lever arm of the beam reinforcement
fc’ Compressive strength of concrete
fy, fyw Yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement and yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement
Fi Floor equivalent static force at ith floor
Fjt Part of the floor equivalent static force acting on a single beam column joint (in strength
hierarchy assessment)
Fjts Equivalent diagonal tension force capacity description given by transverse and inter-
mediate longitudinal reinforcements within the joint
lb Effective span length of a beam (general description)
lc Column height between the inflection points above and below the considered joint
Mci Joint shear capacity represented as column moment below the joint at ith storey
(Considered storey)
µ Displacement ductility
NG Gravity load on the column before any seismic action
N, V, M Axial force, shear force and bending moment
Pt,, Pts, Ptt Principal tension capacity of an unreinforced beam-column joint, principal tension
capacity given by the available joint shear reinforcement and the total principal tension
capacity (Ptt=Pt+Pts)
Pc Principal compression capacity
ϕ1, ϕ2 Geometric coefficients for the moment representation of beam column joint shear strength
ΣFwx, ΣFwy Total horizontal and total vertical capacity contribution by transverse and intermediate
column reinforcements within the beam-column joint
Tswx, Tswy Tension in transverse and column intermediate reinforcements within the joint
θ Approximate diagonal cracking angle at the beam-column joint
νjt Average joint shear stress (=Vjt/(bc∙hc))
Acknowledgments
The author would like to express his deepest gratitude and love for his father Ibrahim Tasligedik who
passed away on 25th of March 2020. He has not only been a role model, but the most perfect father one
could wish for and has been his main teacher/mentor in this life. He will be deeply remembered.
The author would also like to express his gratitude to Greg Preston (UC Quake Centre, Christchurch,
New Zealand), the University of Canterbury Engineering Library (Christchurch, New Zealand) and Middle
East Technical University Library (Ankara, Turkey) for helping with the access to some of the old reports
28 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
and photos needed in this article. The author would also like to thank the late professors Thomas Paulay
and Robert Park for their timeless contributions and insight into the understanding of reinforced concrete
structures, which still carries a significant insight aiding our research efforts in modern times.
ORCID
Ali Sahin Tasligedik http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6037-9775
References
Akguzel, U. 2011. Seismic performance of FRP retrofitted exterior RC beam-column joints under
varying axial load and bidirectional loading. 394. Christchurch, New Zealand: Civil and Natural
Resources Engineering Department, University of Canterbury.
Akguzel, U., and S. Pampanin. 2011. Assessment and design procedure for the seismic retrofit of
reinforced concrete beam-column joints using FRP composite materials. ASCE Journal of
Composites for Construction 16 (1): 21–34. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000242.
Alaee, P., and B. Li. 2015. Seismic behaviour of HSC beam-column joints with high-yield strength
steel reinforcement. 10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sydney, Australia.
Alaee, P., and B. Li. 2018. Analytical investigations of reinforced concrete beam-column joints
constructed using high-strength materials. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. doi: 10.1080/
13632469.2018.1453403.
Alameddine, F., and M. R. Ehsani. 1991. High-strength rc connections subjected to inelastic cyclic loading.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 117 (3): 829–50. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)
117:3(829).
Ashtiani, M. S., R. P. Dhakal, and A. N. Scott. 2014. Seismic performance of high-strength
self-compacting concrete in reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Journal of Structural
Engineering 140: 5. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000973.
Beckingsale, C. W. 1980. Post-elastic behaviour of reinforced concrete beam-column joints.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Beres, A., R. N. White, and P. Gergely. 1992. Seismic performance of interior and exterior beam-to-
column joints related to lightly RC frame buildings: Detailed experimental results. Ithaca,
New York: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University.
Birss, G. R. 1978. The elastic behaviour of earthquake resistant reinforced concrete interior beam-
column joints. Research report 78-13. Christchurch, New Zealand: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Chen, C. C., and G. K. Chen. 1999. Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete eccentric beam-column
corner joints connecting spread-ended beams. ACI Structural Journal 96 (3): 443–49.
Chen, T.-H. 2006. Retrofit strategy of non-seismically designed frame systems based on a metallic
haunch system, 216. Christchurch, New Zealand: Civil and Natural Resources Engineering
Department. University of Canterbury.
Clyde, C., C. P. Pantelides, and L. D. Reaveley. 2000. Performance-based evaluation of exterior RC
building joints for seismic excitation.
Di Sarno, L., A. S. Elnashai, and G. Manfredi. 2011. Assessment of RC columns subjected to
horizontal and vertical ground motions recorded during the 2009 l’aquila (italy) earthquake.
Engineering Structures 33 (5): 1514–35. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01.023.
Durrani, A. J., and J. K. Wight. 1982. Experimental and analytical study of internal beam to column
connections subjected to reversed cyclic loading, 275. Ann Arbor: Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Michigan.
Ehsani, M. R., and J. K. Wight. 1982. Behavior of external reinforced concrete beam to column connections
subjected to earthquake type loading. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Department of Civil
Engineering.
FU, J., T. Chen, Z. Wang, and S. Bai. 2000. Effect of axial load ratio on seismic behaviour of interior
beam-column joints, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Genesio, G. 2012. Seismic assessment of RC exterior beam-column joints and retrofit with haunches
using post-installed anchors (PhD thesis). Stuttgart, Germany: University of Stuttgart.
Goto, J. O., and T. Shibata. 1991a. Behaviour of reinforced concrete beam-column joints with
eccentricity. ACI Special Publication 123 (12): 317–57.
Goto, J. O., and T. Shibata. 1991b. Influence of transverse joint and beam reinforcement and
relocation of plastic hinge region on beam-column joint stiffness determination. ACI Special
Publication 123 (12): 187–223.
Hakuto, S., R. Park, and H. Tanaka. 1995. Retrofitting of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames.
Hertanto, E. 2005. Seismic assessment of pre-1970s reinforced concrete structure, Civil and Natural
Resources Engineering Department. 228. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury.
Hong, S. G., S. G. Lee, and T. H.-K. Kang. 2011. Deformation-based strut-and-tie model for interior
joints of frames subject to load reversals. ACI Structural Journal 108 (4): 423–33.
Kaku, T., and H. Asakusa. 1991. Ductility estimation of exterior beam column sub-assemblages in
reinforced concrete frames. In Design of beam-column joints for seismic resistance, ed. J. Jirsa,
167–85. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
Kam, W. Y. 2010. Selective weakening and post-tensioning for the seismic retrofit of non-ductile RC
frames, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering. 700. Christchurch: University of
Canterbury.
Karayannis, C. G., C. E. Chalioris, and K. K. Sideris. 1998. Effectiveness of RC beam-column
connection repair using epoxy resin injections. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2 (2):
217–40. doi: 10.1080/13632469809350320.
Kim, C. G., H. G. Park, T. S. Eom, and T. W. Kim. 2015. Effect of shear reinforcement on seismic
performance of RC beam-column joints, 10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sydney,
Australia.
Kotsovou, G. M., D. M. Cotsovos, and N. D. Lagaros. 2017. Assessment of RC exterior
beam-column joints based on artificial neural networks and other methods. Engineering
Structures 144: 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.04.048.
Kurose, Y., G. Guimaraes, Z. Liu, M. Kreger, and J. O. Jirsa. 1988. Study of reinforced concrete beam-
column joints under uniaxial and biaxial loading. Austin: University of Texas.
Lin, C. M. 1999. Seismic behaviour and design of reinforced concrete interior beam column joints.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Civil Engineering Department. University of Canterbury.
Megget, L. M. 1974. Cyclic behaviour of exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Bulletin
of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 7 (1): 27–47.
Meinheit, D. F., and J. O. Jirsa. 1977. The shear strength of reinforced concrete beam-column joints.
Austin: University of Texas.
Meinheit, D. F., and J. O. Jirsa. 1997. The shear strength of r.c. Beam column joints. Austin:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas.
Milburn, J. R., and R. Park. 1982. Behaviour of r.C. Beam column joints designed to nzs 3101, 107.
NZS3101. 2006. The design of concrete structures, Concrete Structures Standard. Wellington, New
Zealand: New Zealand Standard.
Otani, S., K. Kitayama, and H. Aoyama. 1985. Beam bar bond stress and behaviour of reinforced
concrete interior beam-column connections, 2nd US-NZ-Japan Seminar on Design of R.C.
Beam-Column Joints, Tokyo, Japan.
Otani, S., Y. Kobayashi, and H. Aoyama. 1984. Reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints
under simulated earthquake loading, 1st US-NZ-Japan Seminar on Design of R.C. Beam-Column
Joints, Monterey, California.
Pantazopoulou, S., and J. Bonacci. 1992. Consideration of questions about beam-column joints. ACI
Structural Journal 89 (1): 27–36.
Pantelides, C. P., J. Hansen, J. Nadauld, and L. D. Reaveley. 2002. Assessment of RC building
exterior joints with substandard details.
30 A. S. TASLIGEDIK
Park, R., and J. R. Milburn. 1983. Comparison of recent new zealand and united states seismic
design provisions for reinforced concrete beam-column joints and test results from four units
designed according to the new zealand code. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering 16 (1): 3–24.
Park, R., and T. Paulay. 1974. Behaviour of reinforced concrete external beam-column joints under
cyclic loading. 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy.
Park, R., and D. Ruitong. 1988. A comparison of the behaviour of reinforced concrete beam-column
joints designed for ductility and limited ductility. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering 21 (4): 255–78. doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.21.4.255-278.
Park, S., and K. M. Mosalam. 2009. Shear strength models of exterior beam-column joints without
transverse reinforcement. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California.
Paulay, T., and M. J. N. Priestley. 1992. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings, New York, US: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..
Paulay, T., and A. Scarpas. 1981. The behaviour of exterior beam-column joints. Bulletin of the New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 14 (3): 131–44.
Pessiki, S. P., C. H. Conley, P. Gergely, and R. N. White. 1990. Seismic behavior of lightly reinforced
concrete column and beam-column joint details. Buffalo: State University of New York.
Priestley, M. J. N. 1997. Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1 (1): 157–92. doi: 10.1080/13632469708962365.
Ruitong, D., and R. Park. 1987. A comparison of the behaviour of reinforced concrete beam-column
joints designed for ductility and limited ductility. 65. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of
Canterbury Department of Civil Engineering.
Smith, A., and W. M. Wilson. 1915. Wind stresses in frames of office buildings. Journal of Western
Society of Engineers XX (4): 341–65.
TS-500. 2003. Requirements for design and construction of reinforced concrete structures. Ankara,
Turkey: Turkish Standard.
Stevenson, E. C. 1980. Fibre reinforced concrete in seismic design. Christchurch, New Zealand:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Tasligedik, A. S. 2018. Capacity estimation of FRP strengthened RC beam-column joints using
hierarchy of strength assessment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16 (3): 1323–40. doi:
10.1007/s10518-017-0251-2.
Tasligedik, A. S., U. Akguzel, W. Y. Kam, and S. Pampanin. 2018. Strength hierarchy at reinforced
concrete beam-column joints and global capacity. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 22 (3):
454–87. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1233916.
Teraoka, M., Y. Kanoh, K. Taraka, and K. Hayoshi. 1994. Shear strength and deformation behaviour of r.
C. Interior beam-column joint using high strength concrete, 2nd US-NZ-Japan-China Multilateral
Meeting on Structural Performance of High Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Vecchio, F. J., and M. P. Collins. 1986. The modified compression-field theory of reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Structural Journal 83 (2): 219–31.
Vollum, R. L. 1998. Design and analysis of exterior beam column connections. London: Imperial
College of Science Technology and Medicine University.
Wong, P. K. C. 1985. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frames incorporating beams with
distributed reinforcement. Christchurch, New Zealand: Department of Civil Engineering.
Universit of Canterbury.
Xian, Z. X., R. Park, and H. Tanaka. 1992. Behaviour of reinforced concrete interior beam-column
joints designed using high strength concrete and steel, 121. Christchurch, New Zealand:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Yang, H., W. Zhao, Z. Zhu, and J. Fu. 2018. Seismic behavior comparison of reinforced concrete
interior beam-column joints based on different loading methods. Engineering Structures 166:
31–45. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.022.
Appendix
Proof of Eq. 3 and Eq. 4
Assuming that the total axial force exerted by the beam is zero, the following expressions can be
written using the Mohr’s circle shown in Fig. 21:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
σv σ2 σ v 2 σ2
R ¼ Pt and R ¼ υ2jt þ v ! Pt ¼ υ2jt þ v ! υjt ¼ Pt2 Pt σ v ði:e: Eq: 3Þ
2 4 2 4
In practice, engineers may forget about the used sign convention for stresses in Mohr’s circle (+ for
tension, – for compression). Since in Mohr’s σv must be input with a negative sign when in compres-
sion, the resulting equation can be modified accordingly such that the engineers can directly input Ni
values + for compression and + for Pt. Therefore, the Eq. 3 can be rewritten as shown below and as
given in the text:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ni Ni
υjt ¼ Pt2 þ Pt σ v and σ v ¼ ) υjt ¼ Pt2 þ Pt ; Ni > 0 and Pt > 0 ð3Þ
Ac Ac
Similarly, if the proof is carried out using Pc instead of Pt, Eq. 4 can be proven as summarized
below:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
σ σ2
R ¼ σ2v Pc and R ¼ υ2jt þ 4v → σ2v Pc ¼ υ2jt þ 4v →υjt ¼ Pc2 Pc σ v (i.e. Eq. 4)
Since Pc and σv are both negative under compression in Mohr’s circle, their multiplication would
not change the expression given above. In other words, practicing engineers can input Ni and Pc as
positive for compression. Resulting expression is as given below and as given within the text. It
should be noted that these expressions were previously developed and used by various researchers
in literature (Akguzel 2011; Chen 2006; Kam 2010).
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
υjt ¼ Pc2 Pc σ v and σ v ¼ ANci ) υjt ¼ Pc2 Pc ANci , Ni > 0 and Pc > 0 (4)
Figure 21. State of stress at a beam-column joint core and the corresponding Mohr’s circle.

Shear Strength With Strength Hirachy Review Type Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shear Strength With Strength Hirachy Review Type Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Shear Capacity N-M Interaction Envelope

Ali Sahin Tasligedik

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1756988

Published online: 22 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Shear Capacity N-M Interaction Envelope for RC Beam-Column

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The seismic behavior, repair and strengthening of unreinforced RC beam-column

2. Understanding the Behavior of RC Beam-Column Joints

or diagonal compression, signiﬁcantly reduces while truss mechanism, or diagonal tension,

2.1. Importance of Column Axial Load or Vertical Acceleration in RC Beam-Column

3. Summary of Strength Hierarchy Assessment

Figure 4. Summary ﬂowchart of strength hierarchy assessment.

4. Principal Tension Capacity Representation for Modern RC Beam-Column

4.1. Proposed Joint Shear Capacity Representation

Figure 5. Contributing capacities by the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement based on an

Fjts ¼ ΣFwx sin θ þ ΣFwy cos θ (1)

5. External RC Beam-Column Joint Examples

5.2. Assessment of Unit 1 and Unit 2

Axial Force, N (kN)

Axial Force, N (kN)

6. Internal RC Beam-Column Joint Examples

6.2. Assessment of Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4

7. N-M Interaction Envelope for Joint Shear Strength: Simpliﬁed Approach

8. Validation of the Simpliﬁed N-M Interaction Envelope Concept for Joint

Applied Force F=M/1.2245 (kN) Applied Force F=M/1.2245 (kN)

Axial Force, N (kN)

Co Unit1 Co Unit3 Unit4

Axial Force, N (kN)

lb lc hb d hc bc f’c fyw Ash Fmax Nmax Mmax ф1 θ Ptt

0.5 Joint Failures 0.5

Normalized Axial Force

Normalized Axial Force

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

You might also like