Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Predicting shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete beam-column

joints by modified compression field theory
Luyang Zhang, Jitao Yao *, Yukun Hu, Jun Gao, Zhengjie Cheng
School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A theoretical model based on modified compression field theory (MCFT) to predict the shear strength of steel
Steel fiber fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) beam-column joints is proposed in this paper. The model considers the
Beam-column joint contribution of steel fibers to the shear bearing capacity while equating the effect of randomly distributed steel
Shear strength
fibers at cracks to the effective tensile stress of steel fibers. Moreover, it regards cracked SFRC as a new material
Modified compression field theory
with their own stress–strain relationship and establishes the equilibrium equation, coordination equation, and
constitutive equation according to the average stress and average strain. The proposed model is validated by
comparing it with the experimental data of 68 existing shear failure tests performed on SFRC and reinforced
concrete beam-column joints and comparing with the predicted shear strength results of Gao’s model, Tang’s
model, and ACI Code 318-14′ s model. In general, the proposed model given in the paper is accurate for pre­
dicting the shear strength of SFRC beam-column joints.

1. Introduction
Under large seismic forces, the beam-column joints are generally
subjected to a large shear action that leads to brittle shear failure in the
joints core zone and affects the safety of reinforced concrete frame
structures [1]. Although the use of closely spaced transverse reinforce­
ment can avoid the above problems, it will result in reinforcement
congestion and construction difficulties [2]. These problems have
prompted extensive research into new approaches for improving struc­
tural performance under seismic loads, with the adoption of steel fibers
concrete being one of the most significant breakthroughs in this area [3].
The addition of steel fibers can improve the tensile strength of concrete,
limit the development of cracks and enhance the dowel action between
the reinforcement and concrete [4,5]. Furthermore, the steel fibers can
carry tension after the concrete has reached tensile strength and cracked
[6]. Thus, the contribution of steel fibers to the shear resistance of the
members cannot be ignored.
In recent years, several researchers have conducted relevant studies
into SFRC beam-column joints. The use of steel fibers has been effective
in improving the initial stiffness, deformation capability, load-carrying
capacity, and energy absorption capacity of the joints[3,7,8]. In addi­
tion, steel fibers are used as a reinforcement material that can take up a
portion of the shear force, whereby the number of transverse
reinforcements in the joint core zone can be reduced[9]. Although some
progress has been made in steel fiber concrete beam-column joints, the
theoretical model for calculating shear strength needs further
improvement.
The application of plasticity theory and MCFT in the shear analysis of
concrete members has been widely recognized internationally, and the
MCFT was widely adopted by design codes[10,11]. The MCFT was
originally proposed by Vecchio et al. [12], which can describe the
force–deformation response of reinforced concrete members under in-
plane shear and normal stresses. This model takes into account the
variation of the inclination of pression strut, the effect of strain-
softening of the concrete materials, and the local stress state at the
cracks. It can accurately calculate the stresses and deformations of
reinforced concrete membrane elements under the action of in-plane
shear and axial stresses. The stress and strain at the peak of the tensile
stress–strain curve of steel fiber concrete after cracking is significantly
higher than that of ordinary concrete, and the falling section of the curve
tends to rise and flatten out[13]. Therefore, the application of MCFT to
the theoretical analysis of the shear properties of steel fiber concrete
members is worthy of further discussion.
In this paper, combined with the force characteristics of SFRC, the
shear action of randomly distributed steel fibers in the concrete matrix is
equated to the effective tensile stress of steel fibers. The computational

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yaojitao1224@163.com (J. Yao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.072
Received 29 December 2021; Received in revised form 17 May 2022; Accepted 20 May 2022
Available online 1 June 2022
2352-0124/© 2022 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. Mechanical analysis of the beam-column joint.
model of shear strength of SFRC beam-column joints is established. A
database of 36 interior beam-column joints and 32 exterior beam-
column joints are used to verify the reliability of the proposed model.
The predictions of the proposed model are compared to the design and
nominal shear strengths obtained from Gao’s, Tang’s, and the ACI Code
318–14′ s models.
2. Shear mechanism of beam-column joints
Under large seismic forces, the beam-column joints are subjected to a
complex combination of compressive, tensile, and shear forces, as shown
in Fig. 1(a)[1]. In Fig. 1(a), Vb and Vc are the vertical shear force in the
beams and horizontal shear force in the columns, respectively. Cbc and
Tbc are the concrete pressure and tension in the pressurized zone at the
end of the beams, respectively. Ccc and Tcc are the concrete pressure and
tension in the pressurised zone at the end of the columns, respectively.
Cbs and Tbs are the reinforcement pressure in the compression zone and
the reinforcement tension in the tension zone at the end of the beams,
respectively. Ccs and Tcs are the reinforcement pressure in the
compression zone and the reinforcement tension in the tension zone at
the end of the columns, respectively. The concrete pressure and rein­
forcement pressure are transferred to the joint core zone to form a di­
agonal compression strut, as shown in Fig. 1(b).
At the initial loading stage, the joint shear forces are mainly resisted
by the diagonal concrete strut. After the first diagonal crack eventually
Fig. 2. Mohr circles of average stress and average strain for cracked concrete.
1433
Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441
forms in the joint core zone, the effect of concrete softening and crack
splitting is intensified with increasing horizontal loads. The shear forces
of the beam-column joint are shifted to resisted by the truss mechanism
due to the effect of the diagonal concrete strut gradually reduced. Also,
the diagonal tension is mainly resisted by transverse reinforcement,
vertical reinforcement, and steel fibers. Note that the degradation of the
diagonal concrete strut in the joint core zone is slower due to the
bridging and restricting effect of steel fibers and the greater adhesive
force between the reinforcement and SFRC[14]. In the later loading
stages, the diagonal pressure is transformed to be resisted by the fric­
tional resistance of the concrete between the cracks and the bond be­
tween the embedded reinforcement and SFRC. Eventually, as the
diagonal cracks expand and steel fibers are pulled out, shear failure
occurs at the joint as the transverse reinforcement yields and the con­
crete spalls[15]. Therefore, the shear mechanism of SFRC beam-column
joints can be explained by the combined action of diagonal strut and
truss mechanisms shown in Fig. 1(c).
3. Calculation model of shear performance of beam-column
joints based on MCFT
3.1. Equilibrium equations
Fig. 2 shows the stress and strain for cracked concrete elements.
From Mohr’s circle of average stress, the principal compressive stress of
L. Zhang et al. Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

Fig. 4. The internal force of the fiber free-body.

From Fig. 3, the balance of forces in the direction of column rein­

forcement (i.e., y-axis direction), given by.

ρsy fsy + fc1 + σsf cos2 θ − νtanθ − σn = 0 (5)

Thus, ν can also be expressed as in Eq. (6).

ν = ρsy fsy cotθ + fc1 cotθ + σ sf cos2 θcotθ − σn cotθ (6)

where ρsy is the reinforcement rate of longitudinal reinforcement in y-

direction; fsy is the stresses of longitudinal reinforcement in y-direction;
σ n is the axial compressive stress at column ends, which can be calcu­
lated as:σn = nfc ; n is the column end shaft pressure ratio, which can be
( )
calculated as:n = N/ fc bc hc ; N is the axial load on the column; bc is the
width of the column; hc is the height of the column; fc is the compressive
strength of concrete.
When shear failure occurs in the joint core zone, the steel fibers are
usually pulled out rather than pulled apart, and its shear capacity is
mainly determined by the bonding strength between the steel fibers and
concrete matrix. In order to calculate the shear capacity of steel fibers,
the force during fiber pull-out needs to be analyzed. As shown in Fig. 4, a
single fiber at the interface is analyzed. According to its internal force
equilibrium, it is obtained that.

πdf2
σf = τf πdf Lf (7)
4
Fig. 3. Distribution of stresses in the joint core zone.
where σ f is the fibre tensile stress; τf is the effective shear stress between
the fibres and concrete matrix; Lf is the real length of fibers; df is the
the cracked concrete can be expressed as Equation (1).
diameter of fibers.
fc2 = (tanθ + cotθ)v − fc1 (1) τf can be determined by Eq. (8) [16].
( )0.574
where fc1 and fc2 are the principal tensile stress and compressive stress of sf
τf = τmax (8)
concrete, respectively; ν is the shear stress of concrete; θ is the inclina­ smax
tion of the diagonal compressive.
Fig. 3 shows the stress analysis of sections - in the joint core zone where τmax is the bonding strength between the steel fibers and concrete
along the column reinforcements direction. During the damage of the matrix; smax is the maximum slip displacement of partial fibres
specimen, most of the steel fibers are always not pulled off. The steel debonding; sf is the slip displacement of the fibres from concrete matrix
fibers bridged on both sides of the crack by bearing a larger tensile during fibres pull-out.
strength. This weakened the bond-slip of the reinforcement and sf = w = ε 1 sθ (9)
improved the pinning effect of the reinforcement. Therefore, on basis of
traditional MCFT consider the beneficial effect of steel fiber tensile stress where w is the crack widths of concrete; ε1 is the principal tensile strain
per unit area of the crack surface on the shear bearing capacity of the of concrete.
joint. The force balance of the direction of the transverse reinforcement,
given by. sθ = sinθ
1
(10)
smx
+ cosθ
smy
2 2 2
ρsx fsx + fc1 sin θ − fc2 cos θ + σsf sin θ = 0 (2)
where sθ is the average spacing of crack in the joint core zone; smx and smy
where ρsx and fsx are the reinforcement rates and stresses of transverse are the indicators of the crack control characteristics of the x-rein­
reinforcement in x-direction; σ sf is the tensile stress of per unit area of forcement and y-reinforcement, respectively, and the values were taken
the steel fibres at cracks. with reference to the literature[12].
From Eqs.(1) and (2), the following equation is deduced: Ifw > smax , the fiber is complete debonded from matrix, smax would be
ρsx fsx + fc1 + σsf sin2 θ − νcotθ = 0 (3) calculated by Eq.(11).
∫ le
Hence, ν can be determined by Eq.(4). smax =
1 ( )
Pmax − τmax πdf x dx =
2τmax l2e
(11)
Af Ef 0 d f Ef
ν = ρsx fsx tanθ + fc1 tanθ + σsf sin2 θtanθ (4)
where Af is the cross-sectional area of fibres; Ef is the elastic modulus of

1434
L. Zhang et al. Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

Fig. 5. Fiber embedded in concrete element.

Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of the fibers embedded length.

[17,18].
√̅̅̅̅
τmax = kb fc (12)

where kb is the fiber bond factor, which is related to the fiber shape and
adopts 0.8, 0.6 and 0.4 for end-hooked, crimped and straight steel fibers,
respectively.
Due to the three-dimensional random distribution of fibers in the
matrix, it is not difficult to find that the fibers are oriented differently
from the normal direction of the cracked surface. As shown in Fig. 6, the
x-axis direction is used as the normal direction of the crack surface. The
angle of each fiber to the x-axis direction isθf , which is between 0 and 90
degrees.
The effect of random fiber orientation on tensile strength is investi­
gated by the fiber orientation coefficientηθ . Fibers with an inclining
range of more than 75 degrees cannot provide bridging properties for
cracks, so the effective angle range of fiber is from 0 to 75 degrees[19].
Considering the effective angle range of fibers, the fiber orientation
coefficient is expressed as follow.
Fig. 6. The orientation of fiber.
∫ ◦
75 ∫ ◦
75
( ) sinθf cosθf
ηθ = cosθf p θf dθf = dθf (13)
fibres; Pmax is the pull-out force of single fibre; x is the distance from the 0 0 cosθf min − cosθf max
cracking surface to the end of the fibre burial depth, as shown in Fig. 5.
( )
The interfacial bond strength between the matrix and the fibre τmax is where P θf is a probability density function of the fiber inclination; A is
defined as a function of the concrete compressive strength and given by the area of the hemisphere composed of the possible positions of the

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of the fiber equivalent length.

1435
L. Zhang et al. Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

Fig. 9. Local stresses at a crack with calculated average stresses of fibre concrete.

fibers; dA is the side table area corresponding todθf ; θfmin and θfmax are characteristics of the fibers, the fiber tensile stress per unit area of the
the minimum and maximum effective inclination of the fibers, the fracture surface can be expressed as.
minimum effective inclination of the fibers is 0 degrees and the ( )0.426 ( )0.574
V 3ffc,tu ηθ Lf 8Ef w
maximum effective inclination of the fibers is 75 degrees[19]. σ sf = ηθ Nf σ f = ηθ ηN f (19)
The direction of the tensile stresses carried by the fibers at concrete Af 4df ηθ Lf
crack is the same as that of the bridging effect of the fibers at the cracked With the increase of fiber content in SFRC, the number of fibers per
interface. As shown in Fig. 7, based on the fiber orientation coef­ unit area of the concrete cracking surface will increase and the fiber
ficientsηθ , the randomly oriented fibers in the concrete matrix can be spacing will decrease. When the distance between the steel fibers is
simplified to be directional. Therefore, the real length of the fibers can close, the interaction between fibers must be considered. Because the
be simplified to the equivalent length of fibers, which would be interaction between fibers is more difficult to calculate through theory,
computed by Eq. (14). the effect of fiber spacing on σ sf is not explored in Eq. (19). The study by
lf = ηθ Lf (14) Huo et al. [19] indicated that fiber interactions can be ignored when the
fiber volume fraction is less than 4.58%. Therefore, the limitation and
When the concrete matrix cracks, the fibers have different lengths on applicable condition of this proposed model is the fiber volume fraction
each side of the crack interface. The shorter fiber embedded segments should be less than 4.58%.
are easier to pull out of the concrete matrix than longer embedded
segments. 3.2. Deformation equations
Therefore, the shorter fiber embedded segment of the equivalent
length can be regarded as the fiber embedding lengthle , as shown in From the mean principal strain Mohr’s circle of the concrete unit at
Fig. 8. The fibers embedment length is uniformly distributed from the beam-column joints after cracking, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
le− min = 0 to le− max = lf /2 and follows a statistically uniform distribution.
Thence, the fiber embedment length le would be calculated by Eq. (15). εx = ε1 cos2 θ + ε2 sin2 θ (20)

le =
0 + lf /2
= 0.25lf (15) εy = ε1 sin2 θ + ε2 cos2 θ (21)
2
Due to fibers with an inclining range of more than 75 degrees do not γ xy = 2(ε1 − ε2 )sinθcosθ (22)
provide bridging properties to cracks, it is thus clear to know that the
effective angle of fibers ranges from 0 to 75 degrees. Therefore, based on where εx and εy are the strain in x and y directions; γxy is the shear Strain.
Romualdi’s research[20], the unit area distribution coefficient of fibers
can be expressed as follow. 3.3. Principal equations

∫ 75◦ ∫ 75◦
Lf cosθf 1 cosθf 2 dθf 1 dθf 2 The compressive stress–strain relationship following concrete
ηN = 0 0
(16) cracking can be expressed as[12]:
π2 Lf /4
[ ( )2 ]
2ε2 ε2
where θf1 and θf2 are the angle between the steel fibers and the x-y and fc2 = fc2,max − (23)
x-z planes, respectively.
ε0 ε0
The effective number of fibers passing through the cracked surface
would be calculated by Eq. (17). where fc2,max is the maximum average principal compressive stress in
concrete, which can be calculated as: fc2,max =
Vf
(17) fc /(0.8 − 0.34ε1 /ε0 )⩽1[15]; ε0 is the peak compressive strain in con­
′
Nf = ηN
Af
crete; ε1 is the main pull strain; ε2 is the main pressure strain; fc is the
′

The single fiber tensile stress at the crack face can be expressed as. compressive strength of concrete cylinders.
( )0.426 ( )0.574 The tensile stress–strain relationship following concrete cracking can
3ffc,tu ηθ Lf 8Ef w be expressed as[12]:
σf = (18)
4df ηθ Lf
Based on the single fiber tensile stress, considering the number of
fibers passing through the unit fracture surface and the orientation

1436
L. Zhang et al. Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

can be obtained as follows:

ρsx fsx sinθ + fc1 sinθ = ρsx fsxcr sinθ + σsf sinθ − vci cosθ (26)

ρsy fsy cosθ + fc1 cosθ = ρsy fsycr cosθ + σsf cosθ − vci sinθ (27)

where fsxcr and fsycr are the reinforcement stresses in the x and y di­
rections at the crack; vci is the shear stress on the crack face of the RC,
√̅̅̅̅ ( )
which can be calculated as: vci = 0.18 f c / 0.3 + d24w [12]; dg is the
′

g +16

maximum size of aggregate.

When the reinforcement yields, the control conditions for fc1 are
obtained from Eqs. (26) and (27):
fc1 ⩽ρsx (fsxcr − fsx ) − vci cotθ + σsf (28)
( )
fc1 ⩽ρsy fsycr − fsy − vci tanθ + σsf (29)

From Eqs. (4), the shear bearing capacity of fiber concrete beam-
column joint can be expressed as.
′
h0 − as ( )
Vj = νbj hj = Asv fy tanθ + ft + σ sf sin2 θ tanθbj hj (30)
s

where bj and hj are the width and height of joint core; h0 is the effective
height of cross-section; as is the distance from the point of merging of the
′

tensile reinforcement to the tensile edge; Asv is the area of hoop rein­
forcement; fy is the yield strength of hoop reinforcement; s is the spacing
of hoop reinforcement.
This proposed model is an iterative process, as shown in Fig. 10.

4. Existing models

In order to verify the reliability of the joint shear strength model, a

comparison with the formulae for the proposed model by Gao et al.[22],
Tang et al.[23] and ACI Code 318–14[24] is performed.

4.1. Gao et al.

By considering steel fibers as dispersed reinforcement, Gao et al.

established a methodology for determining the shear strength in the core
zone of steel fibers concrete beam-column joints.
[ ( ) ]
Lf Asv ( ′)
Vj = γ 0.1(1 + 0.38n) 1 + 1.08Vf fc bj hj + 0.96fy h0 − as (31)
df s
Fig. 10. Flow chart for analysis procedure of the proposed model.
where γ is the joint type impact factor, for interior jointsγ = 1.0, for
⎧ Ec ε1 ε1 ⩽εcr exterior jointsγ = 0.9;
⎪
⎨ √̅̅̅̅
fc1 = 0.33 f c
′
(24)
⎪
⎩ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ε1 > εcr
1 + 500ε1 4.2. Tang et al.

where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, which can be calculated Based on the test results, Tang et al. simplified the shear strength at
as: Ec = 4127fcu0.5
[21]; εcr is the concrete cracking strain, which can be the beam-column joint to the sum of concrete, steel fibers, and hoop
√̅̅̅̅ steel, which is expressed as.
calculated as: εcr = 0.33 f c /Ec [15].
′

Lf Asv ( ′)
The stress–strain relationship for reinforcing steel can be expressed Vj = 0.1(1 + n)fc bj hj + 2 Vf bj hj + fy h0 − as (32)
df s
as:
fs = Es εs ⩽fy (25)
4.3. ACI Code 318–14
where fs and εs are the steel stress and strain; fy is the yield strength of
reinforcing steel; Es is the modulus of elasticity of reinforcement. The maximum horizontal shear force of beam-column joints in ACI
Code 318–14 is expressed as follow.
√̅̅̅̅
3.4. Balance of stresses between cracks in fibres concrete (33)
′
Vj = 0.083γ f c bj hc

Fig. 9 shows the stress distribution at and between the cracks. The where γ is equal to 20 for interior beam-column joints, and γ is equal to
static equivalent equation of equilibrium between plane ① and plane ② 15 for exterior beam-column joints.

1437
 L. Zhang et al.
Table 1
The data set of 36 interior beam-column joints.
Author references Specimen ID bc (mm) hc (mm) bb (mm) hb (mm) fc (MPa)
′
ft (MPa) Lf Vf (%) n ρsv (%) fy (MPa) Vjh,test (kN) Vjh,model (kN) Vjh,test Vjh,test Vjh,test Vjh,test
df Vjh,model Vjh,Gao Vjh,Tang Vjh,ACI
[23]
SF-6 250 350 200 350 15.7 1.10 54 1.50 0.25 – – 340.9 330.6 1.03 1.16 1.11 0.66
SF-7 250 350 200 350 15.7 1.10 54 1.50 0.25 0.48 497 398.6 382.3 1.04 0.96 0.84 0.77
SF-8 250 350 200 350 32.6 1.43 65 1.50 0.12 0.48 497 456.6 439.6 1.04 0.64 0.70 0.61
SF-9 250 350 200 350 15.7 1.10 54 1.50 0.25 – – 339.5 306.1 1.11 1.15 1.11 0.66
[25] J3-3 250 300 200 400 27.1 1.27 63 1.00 0.28 0.75 261 467.7 429.3 1.09 0.77 0.74 0.80
J3-4 250 300 200 400 24.3 1.27 63 1.20 0.20 1.18 293 456 436.2 1.05 0.76 0.63 0.82
[26] SF-1 250 350 200 300 53.5 1.89 52 1.5 0.15 – – 1002.1 953.2 1.05 1.23 1.70 1.05
SF-2 250 350 200 300 53.5 1.89 52 1.5 0.15 0.51 318 1087.5 986.4 1.10 1.19 1.59 1.14
SF-3 250 350 200 300 53.5 1.89 52 1.5 0.15 1.68 318 1155.4 1106.5 1.04 1.03 1.27 1.21
[27] JZ-P7 350 350 250 400 53.5 1.96 – – 0.15 1.68 467 819.8 985.3 0.83 1.19 1.59 1.14
JZ-G1 350 350 250 400 53.5 1.96 60 1.20 0.15 2.09 467 950.1 1102.3 0.86 1.03 1.27 1.21
JZ-G2 350 350 250 400 27.8 1.96 60 1.20 0.25 2.69 467 952 921.6 1.03 0.85 0.77 1.16
JZ-G3 350 350 250 400 27.8 1.96 60 1.20 0.15 3.93 467 1039.4 912.2 1.14 0.69 0.41 0.89
JZ-G4 350 350 250 400 28.7 1.96 60 1.20 0.15 3.93 467 965 923.1 1.05 0.67 0.33 1.02
JZ-PX1 350 350 250 400 28.7 1.96 – – 0.15 2.69 467 1243.6 1198.3 1.04 0.63 0.33 1.02
1438

JZ-PX2 350 350 250 400 28.7 1.96 – – 0.15 2.69 467 976.2 1195.2 0.82 0.59 0.48 1.11
JZ-GX2 350 350 250 400 27.8 1.96 60 1.20 0.15 2.69 467 1088.2 1230.6 0.88 0.68 0.63 1.35
JZ-Q1 350 350 250 400 27.8 1.96 0 0 0.15 3.93 550 913.3 985.3 0.93 0.69 0.49 1.06
[28] J-1 200 200 150 250 60.6 2.22 65 1.3 0.11 – – 374.82 359.6 1.04 1.03 1.06 0.94
J-2 200 200 150 250 56.2 2.22 65 1.3 0.2 – – 410.21 402.1 1.02 1.04 1.11 0.91
J-3 200 200 150 250 57.1 2.22 65 1.3 0.11 0.12 353.6 380.91 349.2 1.09 1.08 1.08 0.99
J-4 200 200 150 250 53.2 2.22 65 1.3 0.2 0.12 353.6 379.21 398.6 0.95 0.71 0.90 0.83
LJ-1 300 300 250 350 58.1 2.22 65 1.3 0.1 – – 882.6 845.3 1.04 0.81 0.98 0.94
LJ-2 300 300 250 350 62.1 2.22 65 1.3 0.1 – – 1018.07 968.9 1.05 0.74 0.91 0.87
LJ-3 300 300 250 350 59.6 2.22 65 1.3 0.1 0.16 360.8 1128.09 1253.6 0.90 0.76 0.91 0.90
LJ-4 300 300 250 350 48.2 2.22 65 1.3 0.1 0.98 360.8 893.1 958.6 0.93 0.80 1.01 0.85
LJ-5 300 300 250 350 58.1 2.22 65 1.3 0.1 2.47 360.8 1024.04 1159.5 0.88 0.86 1.10 0.94
LJ-6 300 300 250 350 58.6 2.22 65 1.3 0.1 – – 1112.93 1216.5 0.91 0.95 1.18 1.07
LJ-7 300 300 250 350 66.9 2.22 65 1.3 0.1 – – 1266.22 1316.3 0.96 0.72 0.81 0.94
LJ-8 300 300 250 350 58.6 2.22 65 1.3 0.1 – – 967.21 942.6 1.03 0.63 0.59 0.98
[29] A-1 200 200 150 250 53.6 2.04 65 0 0.3 0.75 307 309.1 287.6 1.07 0.99 1.26 1.06
A-2 200 200 150 250 49.6 2.04 65 0 0.3 3.82 307 562.6 546.3 1.03 0.99 1.28 1.13
B-1 200 200 150 250 55.3 2.04 65 0.5 0.3 3.82 307 712.3 856.2 0.83 0.86 1.09 0.92
B-2 200 200 150 250 54.6 2.04 65 1 0.3 3.82 307 823.9 803.6 1.03 0.88 0.69 0.73
B-3 200 200 150 250 60.4 2.04 65 1 0.3 – – 356.1 419.8 0.85 0.81 0.71 1.38
B-4 200 200 150 250 55.3 2.04 65 1.5 0.3 – – 359.1 326.3 1.10 0.88 0.83 1.65

Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

 L. Zhang et al.
Table 2
The data set of 32exterior beam-column joints.
Author references Specimen ID bc (mm) hc (mm) bb (mm) hb (mm) fc (MPa)
′
ft (MPa) Lf Vf (%) n ρsv (%) fy (MPa) Vjh,test (kN) Vjh,model (kN) Vjh,test Vjh,test Vjh,test Vjh,test
df Vjh,model Vjh,Gao Vjh,Tang Vjh,ACI
[25]
J1-0.8 250 300 200 400 18.2 1.43 75 0.80 0.22 – – 335.1 316.9 1.06 1.09 0.98 0.93
J1-1.0 250 300 200 400 15.2 1.27 75 1.00 0.40 – – 343.8 320.9 1.07 1.15 0.96 1.05
J1-1.2 250 300 200 400 18.9 1.43 75 1.20 0.27 – – 365.4 329.5 1.11 0.94 0.88 1.00
J1-1.5 250 300 200 400 16.4 1.27 75 1.50 0.22 – – 375.6 358.2 1.05 1.01 0.91 1.10
J1-2.0 250 300 200 400 20.2 1.43 75 2.00 0.20 – – 395.8 368.6 1.07 0.74 0.75 1.05
J3-1 250 300 200 400 17.1 1.27 75 0.80 0.31 0.57 256 405.2 413.6 0.98 1.14 0.89 1.17
J3-2 250 300 200 400 13.9 1.10 63 1.00 0.31 0.60 261 371.8 350.3 1.06 1.16 0.87 1.19
[30] S3 350 350 350 450 45.0 1.89 60 1.00 0.10 – – 617.1 632.3 0.98 0.57 0.81 0.60
S4 350 350 350 450 43.0 1.89 100 1.60 0.10 – – 720.0 706.5 1.02 0.42 0.69 0.72
[31] JD1 200 300 250 380 38.0 1.80 61 2.00 0.02 0.21 400 299.5 279.8 1.07 0.41 0.60 0.58
JC1 200 300 250 380 20.0 1.27 61 2.00 0.04 0.62 400 299.5 282.6 1.06 0.61 0.61 0.80
JB1 200 300 250 380 20.0 1.27 61 2.00 0.04 1.24 400 235.5 259.5 0.91 0.38 0.37 0.63
[27] JB-P3 350 350 250 400 30.0 1.96 – – 0.15 3.14 467 895.5 953.4 0.94 0.51 0.42 1.25
1439

JB-G2 350 350 250 400 30.9 1.96 60 1.20 0.15 3.14 467 910.5 946.5 0.96 0.44 0.39 1.25
JB-Q1 350 350 250 400 30.0 1.96 – – 0.15 3.14 467 833.2 929.6 0.90 0.47 0.39 1.16
[32] A-1 150 250 200 200 23.6 2.04 – – 0.3 1.00 297 154.0 169.8 0.91 1.12 0.82 0.58
A-2 150 250 200 200 28.9 2.04 40 0.5 0.3 1.00 297 242.5 221.6 1.09 1.37 1.06 0.83
A-3 150 250 200 200 29.2 2.04 40 1 0.3 1.00 297 175.4 165.3 1.06 0.87 0.72 0.60
B-1 150 250 200 200 29.7 2.04 40 1 0.2 – – 118.9 139.2 0.85 0.82 0.69 0.40
B-2 150 250 200 200 27.2 2.04 40 1 0.4 – – 129.8 113.6 1.14 0.92 0.71 0.46
[33] A-2 150 250 200 200 23.6 2.04 40 0 0.3 1.0 297 154.0 139.5 1.10 1.12 0.82 0.58
B-1 150 250 200 200 20.7 2.04 40 0.5 0.3 1.0 297 142.5 126.2 1.13 1.00 0.77 0.58
B-3 150 250 200 200 28.4 2.04 40 1.5 0.3 – – 203.3 223.6 0.91 1.24 1.06 0.70
C-2 150 250 200 200 25.7 2.04 40 1 0.4 – – 129.8 136.2 0.95 0.97 0.74 0.47
D-2 150 250 200 200 29.0 2.04 40 1 0.3 1.0 297 275.4 243.6 1.13 1.38 1.13 0.94
[34] A-1 200 250 180 300 16.7 1.43 80 0.5 0.2 – – 186.4 223.1 0.84 1.41 1.04 0.77
A-2 200 250 180 300 18.0 1.43 80 1 0.2 – – 189.5 221.9 0.85 1.02 0.81 0.76
A-3 200 250 180 300 15.1 1.27 80 1.5 0.2 – – 198.8 216.2 0.92 1.04 0.77 0.86
E-1 200 250 180 300 16.7 1.43 80 0.5 0.2 0.51 258 186.4 165.2 1.13 1.00 0.77 0.77
E-2 200 250 180 300 13.3 1.27 80 0.75 0.2 0.51 258 183.5 234.2 0.78 1.05 0.77 0.85
E-3 200 250 180 300 18.0 1.43 80 1 0.2 0.51 258 202.2 176.2 1.15 0.85 0.68 0.81
E-4 200 250 180 300 13.6 1.27 80 1.25 0.2 0.51 258 189.4 172.6 1.10 0.90 0.67 0.87

Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

L. Zhang et al. Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

2.0 2.0
No. AVG COV
No. AVG COV
Interior joints 42 0.83 0.22
Interior joints 42 1.01 0.12
Exterior joints 42 0.83 0.41
Exterior joints 42 1.01 0.11
1.6 Toal 84 1.01 0.11
1.6 Toal 84 0.83 0.33

1.2 1.2

Vjh,test/Vjh
Vjh,test/Vjh

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Vjh,test(kN) Vjh,test(kN)

(a) Proposed model (b) Gao’s model

2.0 2.0
No. AVG COV
Interior joints 42 0.85 0.37
Exterior joints 42 0.72 0.30
1.6 Toal 84 0.79 0.35 1.6

1.2 1.2

Vjh,test/Vjh
Vjh,test/Vjh

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4 No. AVG COV

Interior joints 42 1.01 0.25
Exterior joints 42 0.80 0.37
Toal 84 0.90 0.33

0.0 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Vjh,test(kN) Vjh,test(kN)

(c) Tang’s model (d) ACI Code 318-14’s model

Fig. 11. Calculated shear strength of all specimens by means of (a) Proposed model, (b) Gao’s model, (c) Tang’s model, (d) ACI Code 318-14′ s model.

5. Model reliability
In order to verify the reliability of the proposed model in this paper, a
database of 36 interior beam-column joints and 32 exterior beam-
column joints were collected and listed in Table 1 and Table 2, respec­
tively. In addition, based on the collected test data, the shear strength of
beam-column joints was predicted using the model proposed in this
paper, and the predicted shear strength was compared with the tested
shear strength. Meanwhile, based on three shear strength models pro­
posed by Gao, Tang, and ACI Code 318–14 to evaluate the reliability of
the proposed model in this paper.
The results of Vjh,test / Vjh for all specimens are plotted in Fig. 11 for
the proposed model and the other three models. It can be seen from
Fig. 11 that the AVG of Vjh,test / Vjh for the proposed model, Gao’s model,
Tang’s model, and ACI Code 318-14′ s model are 1.00, 0.89, 0.85, and
0.91, respectively. The COV of Vjh,test / Vjh for the proposed model, Gao’s
model, Tang’s model, and ACI Code 318-14′ s model are 0.10, 0.27, 0.34,
and 0.26, respectively. From this comparison, it is apparent that the
predicted shear strengths of the proposed model are in close agreement
with the test values and are most consistent. Furthermore, it is also
observed that Gao’s model, Tang’s model, and ACI Code 318-14′ s model
overestimate the shear capacity of steel fiber concrete beam-column
joints, especially the Tang’s model with the highest dispersion.
6. Conclusions
This study proposes a theoretical model based on modified
compression field theory for predicting the shear strength of SFRC beam-
column joints, as well as a detailed calculation procedure. In the
proposed methodology, the effect of randomly distributed steel fibers at
cracks is equated to the effective tensile stress of steel fibers based on the
stress characteristics of SFRC beam-column joints. From the comparison
of the test data and estimated values using the proposed model, as well
as the Gao’s, Tang’s, and the ACI Code 318–14′ s models, the following
conclusions can be drawn.
1. The shear mechanism of SFRC beam-column joints can be explained
by the combined action of diagonal strut and truss mechanisms.
2. By comprehensively considering the number of fibers passing
through the unit fracture surface and the orientation characteristics
of the fibers, the effective tensile stress of steel fiber is established.
3. The predicted shear strengths of the proposed model are in close
agreement with the test values and are most consistent. The proposed
model is an effective and accurate method for predicting the shear
strength of SFRC beam-column joints.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The experiments were received financial support from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Program No. 51278401).

1440
L. Zhang et al. Structures 41 (2022) 1432–1441

References [18] Foster S.J. Design of FRC beams for shear using the VEM and the draft model code
approach. In: FIB bulletin 57: shear and punching shear in RC and FRC elements.
Lausanne (Switzerland); 2010. p. 195-210.
[1] Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, et al. Seismic Retrofit of Real Beam-
[19] Huo LY, Bi JH, Wang ZY, et al. Constitutive model of steel fiber reinforced concrete
Column Joints Using Fiber-Reinforced Cement Composites. J Struct Eng 2018;144
by coupling the fiber inclining and spacing effect. Constr Build Mater 2021;280(4):
(5).
122423.
[2] Ganesan N, Indira PV, Sabeena MV. Behaviour of hybrid fibre reinforced concrete
[20] Romualdi JP, Mandel JA. Tensile strength of concrete affected by uniformly
beam-column joints under reverse cyclic loads. Mater Design 2014;54(Feb.):
distributed and closely spaced short lengths of wire reinforcement. ACI J Proc
686–693.
1964;61(6):657–71.
[3] Shannag MJ, Abu-Dyya N, Abu-Farsakh G. Lateral load response of high
[21] Zhou Y, Zheng SS, Chen LZ, et al. Experimental investigation into the seismic
performance fiber reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Constr Build Mater
behavior of squat reinforced concrete walls subjected to acid rain erosion. J Build
2005;19(7):500–8.
Eng 2021;44:102899.
[4] Xu BW, Shi HS. Correlations among mechanical properties of steel fiber reinforced
[22] Gao DY, Shi K, Zhao SB. Calculation method for bearing capacity of steel fiber
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(12):3468–74.
reinforced high-strength concrete beam-column joints. J Build Struct 2014;35(2):
[5] Lantsoght E. How do steel fibers improve the shear capacity of reinforced concrete
71–9.
beams without stirrups? Compos Part B: Eng 2019;175(101):107079.
[23] Tang JR, Hu CB, Yang KJ, et al. Seismic behavior and shear strength of frames joint
[6] Bi JH, Wang ZY, Zhao Y, et al. A mechanical model for shear design of steel fiber
using steel-fiber reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1992;118(2):341–58.
reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcements. Struct 2021;31(8):
[24] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-
216–29.
14) and commentary (ACI 318R-14). Farmington Hills; American Concrete
[7] Rather AI, Dar AR, Ghowsi AF. Improved performance of steel fibre reinforced
Institute; 2014.
beam-column joint- an experimental study. Mater today: proc 2020;32(4):982–8.
[25] Zhang WG, Cheng TS. A study on earthquake resistance behavior of steel fiber
[8] Oinam RM, Ashwin KPC, Sahoo DR. Cyclic Performance of Steel Fiber-Reinforced
reinforced concrete frame joints. J Build Struct 1989;10(1):35–45.
Concrete Exterior Beam-Column Joints. Earthq Struct 2019;16(5):533–46.
[26] Jiang YS, Wei LW, Xu JF. Experimental research on behavior of frame joints using
[9] Abbas AA, Mohsin S, Cotsovos DM. Seismic response of steel fibre reinforced
steel fiber high strength reinforced concrete. J Southeast Univers 1991;21(2):72–9.
concrete beam-column joints. Eng Struct 2014;59(24):261–83.
[27] Zhang JX. Experimental research on seismic behavior and design method of beam-
[10] CSA 1994 Design of concrete structures, Rexdale: Standard CAN/CSA A23. 3-94,
column joint with high strength steel bar and high toughness concrete. Hebei:
Canadian Standards Association; 1994.
Hebei University of Technology; 2016. p. 131–4.
[11] AASHTO LRFD, Bridge design specifications and commentary. Washington, D. C.:
[28] Wang DH, Zheng WZ, Ju YZ, et al. Experimental study on seismic behavior of
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials; 2004.
interior steel fiber reinforced RPC beam-column joints. J Build Struct 2019;40(3):
[12] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
161–71.
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Struct J 1986;83(2):219–31.
[29] Gao S. Experimental investigation on seismic behavior of high-strength concrete
[13] Guo ZH, Shi XD. Reinforced concrete theory and analyse. Beijing: Tsinghua
interior joints partially reinforced by steel fiber. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou
University Press; 2003.
University; 2012. p. 29–30.
[14] Gao DY, Shi K, Zhao SB. Calculation method for shear capacity of steel fiber
[30] Filiatrault A, Ladicani K, Massicotte B. Seismic performance of code-designed fiber
reinforced concrete beam-column joints on softened strut-and-tie model. China
reinforced concrete joints. ACI Struct J 1994;91(5):564–71.
Civil Eng J 2014;47(9):101–9.
[31] Gefken PR, Ramey MR. Increased joint hoop spacing in type 2 seismic joints using
[15] Gao DY, Shi K. Calculation method for shear behavior of steel fiber reinforced
fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Struct J 1989;86(2):168–72.
concrete beam-column joints based on modified compression field theory. China
[32] Wang L. Seismic performance of steel fiber high-strength concrete frame exterior
Civil Eng J 2016;49(2):41–8.
joints. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University; 2010. p. 43–4.
[16] Hsueh CH. Interfacial debonding and fiber pull-out stresses of fiber-reinforced
[33] Wang L. Study on performance of steel fiber high strength conerete frame exterior
composites Part VI. Interpretation of fiber pull-out curves. Mater Sci Eng 1991;A
joint’s shear and beam’s Seismic. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University; 2009.
149 (1):11–8.
p. 42–4.
[17] Maya LF, Ruiz MF, Muttoni A, et al. Punching shear strength of steel fibre
[34] Wang ZZ, Wang CC, Huang LB. Aseismic behavior of exterior joint in steel fiber
reinforced concrete slabs. Eng Struct 2012;40(Jul.):83–94.
reinforced concrete frames. J Xi’an Instit Metallur Construct Eng 1989;21(3):
25–36.

1441