Advanced Materials Research Vols 255-260 (2011) pp 2500-2504 Online: 2011-05-31

© (2011) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.255-260.2500

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete

Beam-Column Joints

Bin Weia, Zhongguo Guanb and Jianzhong Lic

State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai
200092, China
a
wb030641@163.com, bguanzhongguo@mail.tongji.edu.cn, clijianzh@tongji.edu.cn

Keywords: performance-based seismic design, reinforced concrete structure, beam-column joints,

Mohr circle, softened stress-strain relationship of concrete

Abstract. A performance-based seismic design approach for reinforced concrete beam-column joints
has been proposed in this paper. Instead of adopting empirical analysis such as in ACI 318M-08
building code, the proposed approach is based on rational analysis of the stress-strain state of the joint.
Two limit states are considered in the design: serviceability limit state and life safety limit state.
Performances of the joint at these two levels are determined respectively, with due considerations of
capacity design philosophy and post-earthquake repair requirements. Then stress/strain analyses of
the joint panel using the Mohr circle in conjunction with the softened stress-strain relationship of
concrete are adopted simultaneously to design the joint to achieve the predetermined performance
level. Effectiveness of proposed method are validated by using the model to interpret the behaviors of
joints observed in previous experiments.

Introduction
Past earthquake hazards have clearly demonstrated the importance of proper seismic design of
beam-column joints, since that integrity of joints is crucial to the vertical load capacity of the
structure. Many researcher are stimulated to investigate the seismic performance of reinforced
concrete beam-column joints through experiments, however, due to the complicated interaction of
several phenomena (shear, bond, fatigue and confinement) within the joint [1], no consensus has been
made on the shear transfer mechanism and seismic design approach.
To date, analytical methods proposed for the seismic design of joints are very few [2-5], and
empirical formulas are typically adopted in engineering practices (e.g. the ACI 318M-08 building
code [6]). The strut-and-tie model has been used for a long time in the design of discontinuity regions
such as the deep beams. Paulay et al firstly used the strut-and-tie concept to interpret the shear
mechanism of joints [7]. Sritharan proposed an external-strut-and-tie model to minimize the required
joint reinforcements in seismic design of bridges [8]. Although shown useful, the strut-and-tie model
considers equilibrium conditions only, and hence solutions with the model are not unique. By
introducing compatibility constraints and constitutive laws of cracked reinforced concrete, Hwang et
al updated the traditional strut-and-tie model to a new version, termed as softened strut-and-tie model,
to calculate the shear strength of beam-column joints [2]. Tsonos suggested an joint strength
prediction method, based on stress analysis of the joint and biaxial failure criteria of the confined
concrete [4].
While most researches on the seismic design of joint focus on the determination of shear strength,
limitations of considering strength only had been realized in recent years. Experiments have shown
that joints without transverse hoops could have considerable peak strength, but the post-peak strength
and stiffness deterioration are severe [9]. Performance of the joint is not clearly defined and specially
assured in designs that just allowable shear strength is provided. In fact, implied in the concept of
strut-and-tie model is damage, however, damaged to which degree is unknown.
Apart from the shear strength, the shear distortion of the joint panel could be a more direct
indicator of the joint seismic performance [10]. Fewer studies explicitly gave the complete limit state

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.ttp.net. (ID: 128.6.218.72, Rutgers University Libraries, New Brunswick, USA-01/06/15,07:02:39)
 Advanced Materials Research Vols. 255-260 2501

model of the joint [2, 3], even barely has the joint performance been directly considered in the design
approach. Based on rational analysis of the joint panel by considering the equilibrium, compatibility
and constitutive laws of cracked concrete, an easy-to-use performance-based seismic design approach
was proposed in this paper, by which the preferred joint performance conforming to the ductile
seismic design philosophy can be explicitly provided.

Joint Performance Objectives

In current seismic design approaches, two structural performance levels of the system are typically
acquired: under frequently occurred earthquakes, the structure should respond elastically; while under
rare events, the structure can undergo inelastic responses with brittle failure modes strictly avoided. In
compliance with these requirements, two performance objectives of the beam-column joints are then
recommended: under frequently occurred earthquakes, the joint should not crack; while under rare
events, joint cracking is accepted, but the joint should not exert shear failure. If the joint survives the
earthquake without cracking, then no after-shake repair work of the joint is needed. The integrity of
the joint is highly recommended under the rare earthquake, because the vertical load carrying capacity
may be severely ruined if the joint exert large shear distortions[10], and the preferred ductile
mechanism, i.e. formation of plastic hinges at the end of building beams (or bridge columns) will be
adversely affected by the joint failure.

Experimental Behaviors
As aforementioned, due to the complexity of the joint shear transfer mechanism, researchers have not
made consensuses with problems such as the role of joint stirrup, and whether or not column axial
force is beneficial [1]. Typically, in experiments where the specimen exhibits member yielding failure
mode, one can observe that member longitudinal reinforcements undergo large inelastic strains with
significant bond-slip phenomenon occurring at the joint interface, while the joint stirrup remains
elastic and hence preserves the joint from deterioration. Joint shear strength observed in the test is
thus equal to the shear force generated by the member longitudinal reinforcement forces with strain
hardening effects. Contrarily, when the specimen exhibits joint shear failure mode, the member
longitudinal reinforcements may or may not yield, with the joint stirrup undergoing large inelastic
strains. While the measured joint maximum shear resistance may also be high, the joint shear
distortion is large and unconstrained, so stable ductile response cannot be obtained. In addition, due to
space limitations , retrofit of the damaged joint is extremely difficult. Thus, it is rational that the
plastic hinge be restrained at the member end adjacent to the joint as the widely accepted seismic
design concept requires, with joint stirrups carefully proportioned to satisfy this objective.

Stress and Strain State of the Joint Panel

For an typical reinforced concrete beam-column joint in a interior building frame, section internal
forces around the joint panel and resultant reinforcement and concrete forces can be expressed as in
Fig. 1, where the subscription b and c stand for beam and column respectively. For simplicity, axial
force of the beam is neglected, and section forces are taken to be symmetrical respect to joint
centerlines.
Through bond action, forces of longitudinal reinforcements transfer to the concrete, thus loading
the joint as a shear panel. Under this load, joint will deform, and the joint stirrups will provide
constraint to the joint by compatibility conditions, which can be shown as

σ h hb D j − Ajhσ jh = 0 . (1)

σ v hc D j − Ajvσ jv − Asc ∆σ sc = N c . (2)

2502 Advances in Civil Engineering, CEBM 2011

where σh and σv are compressive stresses acting on the joint panel, hb and hc are section depths of beam
and column respectively, Dj is the width of joint, Ajh and Ajv are areas of horizontal/vertical joint
stirrups, and σjh and σjv are their average stresses, Asc is the longitudinal rebar area of the column, ∆σsc
is the stress increment of the column longitudinal rebar due to joint deformations. Equilibrium
conditions are shown in Fig. 1, and all the forces are compression-positive.

Figure 1 External forces around the joint panel Figure 2 Joint average stress and strain state

It should be noted that, in building frames, the weak-beam-strong-column design is commonly

required, thus the longitudinal rebars of the column would be below yield state when plastic hinges
formed at the beam ends. This implies that the longitudinal rebars retain abundant capacities, and
additional compressive forces can be added to the joint concrete if largely deformed, as shown in Eq.
2. This is a passive constraint phenomenon to stabilize the joint response with common detailings.
Joint concrete stresses can be obtained by rewriting Eqs. 1 and 2, which yields that

σ h = ( Ajhσ jh ) / (hb D j ) = ρ jhσ jh . (3)

σ v = ( N c + Ajvσ jv + Asc ∆σ sc ) / (hc D j ) = ν c + ρ jvσ jv + ρ sc ∆σ sc . (4)

where ρjh, ρjv and ρsc represent volumetric ratio of horizontal joint stirrup, vertical joint stirrup and
area ratio of column longitudinal reinforcement, respectively; νc is the axial compression ratio of the
column. Joint stirrup stresses σjh and σjv can be simply expressed by the perfect elasto-plastic model as

σ jh ( v ) = Eε jh ( v ) ε jh ( v ) ≤ ε y . (5)

σ jh ( v ) = f y ε jh ( v ) > ε y . (6)

where E, εy and fy are elastic modulus, yield strain and yield stress respectively.
The average stress and strain state of the joint panel can be conveniently portrayed by the Mohr
circle, as shown in Fig. 2.

Softened constitutive model of cracked concrete

Before cracking, concrete can be viewed as an isotropic material. When the concrete is subjected to
biaxial loads and cracks, it will exhibit orthotropic properties that are different in compressive and
tensile directions. As suggested by the modified compression theory [11], the empirical relations of
average principal tensile stress σ1 and principal compressive stress σ2 to average tensile strain ε1 is

σ 1 = f cr / (1 + 200ε1 ) . (7)
 Advanced Materials Research Vols. 255-260 2503

σ 2 = f c' / (0.8 − 0.34ε1 / ε c' ) . (8)

where fcr is the cracking strength of concrete and is approximated to 0.33 f c' (MPa), f’c is the uniaxial
compressive strength of concrete and ε’c is the corresponding compressive strain.

Performance-based Seismic Design of Joints

Provided with adequate information, the state of a reinforced concrete joint panel can be readily
determined by solving the equilibrium, compatibility conditions and constitutive relations as
mentioned above altogether. Or, from the viewpoint of design, given performance objectives, the
joint can be dimensioned and proportioned based on the same procedures.
At the performance level that joint should not crack under frequent occurring earthquakes, a simple
Mohr circle representing the joint stress state can be obtained as shown in Fig. 3. As the joint
deformation at this state is small, stresses of joint stirrups as shown in Eqs. 3 and 4 are neglected. It
can be easily seen that, in order to prevent the joint from cracking, the joint shear stress should be
limited by (ν c f c' + f cr ) f cr at the frequent earthquake induced load. Correspondingly, the joint should
be sized to meet this criterion.
At the performance level that joint integrity should be preserved under rare earthquakes, Mohr
circle representation of joint states are shown in Fig. 4. As stated above, if the joint stirrups remain
elastic, then joint deterioration would not occur and the joint integrity can be maintained. Thus in this
performance level, the main objective is to calculate the required joint stirrups.

Figure 3 No cracking performance Figure 4 Performance of preserving integrity

In a building frame, beam yielding serves as the fuse of the load transfer chain, and the joint shear
force can be readily determined from the overstrength of beam hinges, as shown in Fig. 1. A dotted
line standing for this joint shear stress is shown on the stress diagram in Fig. 4. Horizontal joint
stirrups are required to remain elastic, so their average strain εjh should be limited by yield strain εy.
Due to the axial dead load and high column longitudinal reinforcement ratio, joint vertical strain εjv
would (otherwise be designed to) be smaller than εjh, and thus εjv=εjh is adopted for conservatism.
Cracked concrete can be viewed as an orthotropic material with biaxial loadings, in which the
principal compressive strain ε2 is much smaller than the principal tensile strain ε1. It is suggested that
ε2 is taken as 0.5ε’c, where ε’c is the peak compressive strain [2]. Hence, through the first invariant of
strain tensor, one can obtain that

ε1 = εjv + εjh - ε2 = 2εy - ε2. (9)

Having obtained the principal tensile strain ε1, the joint panel principal tensile stress σ1 and
principal compressive stress σ2 can be calculated by Eqs. 7 and 8, respectively. Correspondingly, two
points A and B can be drawn in Fig. 4, and the Mohr circle are then be determined. Intersection point
of the Mohr circle and the dotted line, designated as point C, is the outcome of the design. Quantity of
joint horizontal stirrup can be directly calculated by Eq. 3. Derived joint stirrup quantity is the lower
bound to satisfy the predetermined performance objective. If the stirrup is increased, the Mohr circle
will move right and get smaller, implying that joint performance is enhanced.
2504 Advances in Civil Engineering, CEBM 2011

Illustration of the Proposed Approach

Consider an interior beam-column joint with configurations just conforming to the ACI 318M-08
code. Based on experiment results, ACI 318M-08 stated that the joint should be limited to a shear load
of 1.25 f c' (MPa) and joint stirrup ratio ρjh should be no less than the larger of 0.3(Ag/Ach-1)(f’c/fyh)
and 0.09f’c/fyh (the latter criterion controls for most cases with normal column cover depth), such that
joint integrity is maintained in the ductile response mode.
Suppose that the joint panel concrete has the property of f’c=32MPa and ε’c=0.002, and all the
reinforcements have the yield strength of fy=400MPa. Thus, limiting shear stress of the joint by ACI
code turns to 7.07 MPa, and minimum joint stirrup ratio is 0.0072. For comparison, the joint is
redesigned with the analytical procedure proposed in this paper to calculate the required joint stirrup.
Based on Eq. 9, the principal tensile strain ε1=-2×400/200000-0.5×0.002=-0.005. Substituting ε1 into
Eqs. 7 and 8, one gets the average principal strengths that σ1=-0.93MPa and σ2=19.39MPa. Through
the Mohr circle in Fig. 4 and Eq. 3, one can easily obtain that σh=1.93MPa and ρjh=0.0048.
It can be seen that, if the joint stresses are restrained by the ACI 318M-08 limit, then joint stirrups
needed to preserve the joint integrity would be about 67% of that required by the ACI code. This is not
surprising because the ACI provisions are empirical and have to include experimental uncertainties.
Researchers have reported that the ACI requested joint stirrup maybe too much, and beam-column
subassemblies with volumetric joint stirrup ratio around 0.4% would perform the beam yielding
failure mode in experiments[12]. This is rather close to the value obtained in the illustration example.
In addition, procedures proposed in this paper are also suitable for conditions such as retrofit of old
joints but with joint shear stress exceeding the ACI limit, for which the empirical formulas no longer
apply.
Conclusions
Based on rational analysis of the stress-strain state of the joint in conjunction with the softened
constitutive laws of cracked concrete, a performance-based seismic design approach for reinforced
concrete beam-column joints has been proposed in this paper. Two performance levels are defined
and then achieved by design procedures respectively. Effectiveness of proposed method are validated
by using the model to interpret the behaviors of joints observed in previous experiments.
References
[1] S.J. Pantazopoulou and J. Bonacci: ACI Struct. J. Vol. 89 (1992), p. 27.
[2] S.J. Hwang and H.J. Lee: ACI Struct. J. Vol. 97 (2000), p. 35.
[3] S.A. Attaalla: ACI Struct. J. Vol. 101 (2004), p. 65.
[4] A.G. Tsonos: ACI Struct. J. Vol. 104 (2007), p. 468.
[5] D. Timosidis and S.J. Pantazopoulou: Bull Earthquake Eng Vol. 7 (2009), p. 411.
[6] ACI Committee 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-08) and
Commentary (American Concrete Institute, USA 2008).
[7] T. Paulay, R. Park and M.J.N. Priestley: ACI J., Proceedings Vol. 75 (1978), p. 585.
[8] S. Sritharan: J. Struct. Eng. Vol. 131 (2005), p. 1321.
[9] Y.C. Wang and K. Hsu: ACI Struct. J. Vol. 106 (2009), p. 222.
[10] H. Zhou: J. Struct. Eng. Vol. 135 (2009), p. 762.
[11] F.J. Vecchio and M.P. Collins: ACI Struct. J. Vol. 83 (1986), p. 219.
[12] K. Kitayama, S. Otani and H. Aoyama, in: ACI SP-123 Design of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance, edtied by J.O. Jirsa/American Concrete Institute, Michigan (1991).
Advances in Civil Engineering, CEBM 2011
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.255-260

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints

10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.255-260.2500

DOI References
[5] D. Timosidis and S.J. Pantazopoulou: Bull Earthquake Eng Vol. 7 (2009), p.411.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9102-5
[8] S. Sritharan: J. Struct. Eng. Vol. 131 (2005), p.1321.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:9(1321)
[10] H. Zhou: J. Struct. Eng. Vol. 135 (2009), p.762.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:7(762)