Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Exterior RC wide beam-column connections: Effect of beam width ratio

on seismic behaviour
Hamdolah Behnam ⇑, J.S. Kuang, Roy Y.C. Huang
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Design recommendations stipulated in international standards for seismic design of reinforced concrete
Received 30 May 2016 (RC) wide beam-column connections are based on limited experimental studies. To supplement the exist-
Revised 12 December 2016 ing information, an experimental study was conducted that focused on the effect of beam width to col-
Accepted 22 May 2017
umn width ratio (or beam width ratio) on the seismic behaviour of exterior beam-column connections.
Available online 1 June 2017
Four specimens were designed, constructed and tested under reversed cyclic loading conditions. The pri-
mary test variables were the beam width ratio and the joint shear stress ratio (cd). The specimens were
Keywords:
designed in conformance with ACI 318-14 and ACI 352R-02. They had beam width ratios of 1, 1.5, 2 and
Wide beam
Beam-column connection
2.5 and cd, of 0.74, 1.12, 1.63, and 2.03. According to ACI 352R-02, the cd value should be lower than
Beam width ratio cn = 1.25 for joints confined on three faces. The results indicated that specimens with beam width ratios
Joint shear stress of 1 and 1.5 and cd of 0.74 and 1.12 were capable of supporting the complete formation of beam plastic
Spandrel beam hinges with no major cracks in the joint region. In contrast, specimens with beam width ratios of 2 and
2.5 and cd of 1.63 and 2.03 exhibited significant damage at the joint core. Torsional failure of the spandrel
beam was also observed in specimen with beam width ratio of 2.5.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction response of moment-resisting frame structures. Hence, properly

Cost minimisation in reinforced concrete (RC) construction pro-
jects can be achieved by providing a larger number of storeys
within a given height or by reducing the height of the building
within a given number of storeys. One way to reduce the height
of the floor is to use the shallow depth structural floor system.
The RC wide beam framing system, in which the beams are wider
than the framing columns, provides an intermediate storey height
between a typical beam-column frame and flat slab [1]. It offers
several advantages over conventional framing systems because of
the benefits in architectural planning, low storey height, reduced
congestion of the reinforcing steel in the joint region, and fast con-
struction [2]. Compared to flat slab frames, it provides longer spans
and more freedom on the column grid arrangements. In countries
of moderate to low seismicity, such as Hong Kong, it has been a
very common practice to use RC moment-resisting frames
(RCMRFs) with wide beam-column connections as the main struc-
tural system, as shown in Fig. 1.
It has been widely recognised that the seismic behaviour of
beam-column joints significantly influences the earthquake
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hbehnam@connect.ust.hk (H. Behnam).
designed and detailed beam-column joints are essential in main-
taining the integrity and stability of RCMRFs. Comprehensive
investigations have been conducted on conventional beam-
column joints, exploring the main design parameters that affect
the seismic performance and failure mechanisms, including
experimental, analytical and numerical studies [3–9]. In wide
beam-column connections, some of the longitudinal beam rein-
forcements are located outside the column core. Thus, the trans-
mitted beam forces may also induce torsion in the joint region,
which will produce additional joint shear stresses. Therefore, the
stress distribution and load transfer mechanisms in wide beam-
column connections are much more complex than in conventional
beam-column joints. However, only a few studies have been con-
ducted to investigate the behaviour of exterior [2,10–19], interior
[1,10,18–25] and roof [26–27]wide beam-column connections.
Popov et al. [1] tested an interior wide beam-column connec-
tion and the role of beam bars passing outside the column core
was evaluated. The specimen performed well, the full flexural
capacity of the wide beam was reached, and no major cracking of
the transverse beams was noted. Gentry and Wight [11] tested four
exterior wide beam-column connections with beam width ratios of
2.43, 2.14, 2.43, and 2.43 and the joint shear stress ratio (cd) of
1.53, 1.34, 1.26, and 1.65. The joint shear stress ratio (cd) was

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.044
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
28 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44
Fig. 1. RC moment-resisting frames with wide beam-column connections.
defined as the design joint shear demand divided by the design
joint shear capacity following the recommended procedure in
ACI 318-14 [28] and ACI 352R-02 [29]. No significant shear distress
was reported in these specimens. The stiffness and strength of the
transverse (spandrel) beam governed the behaviour of these sub-
assemblies. LaFave and Wight [12] tested three exterior wide
beam-column-slab connections with beam width ratios of 2.43,
2.43, and 3.08 and cd of 1.2, 1.33, and 1.5. The specimens were
designed in accordance with the requirements of ACI 318-95
[30]. The deep spandrel beams were constructed in these speci-
mens to resist torsion moments. The spandrel beam depth to the
wide beam depth ratio, hs/hb, ranged from 1.33 to 2 and they con-
sisted both longitudinal and transverse reinforcements. Test
results showed that joint diagonal connection shear cracks were
formed at about 2% drift, but, these shear cracks remained tightly
packed up to the end of the test. The presence of the strong span-
drel beam prevented the torsional failure and the wide beams
reached to their expected beam capacity. Based on the observed
behaviour, LaFave and Wight [12] concluded that if the ACI 318-
95 requirements are satisfied, the wide beam connections perform
adequately under earthquake type loading. They also suggested
that due to the anticipated contribution of the spandrel beams
and slab in resisting the joint shear, a joint shear ‘‘overstress” of
up to 20% can be acceptable in design. It should be mentioned that
the wide beam-column connections tested by Gentry and Wight
[11] and LaFave and Wight [12] had maximum actual joint shear
stresses of approximately 10% above the currently accepted limit
qffiffiffiffi
0 to the conventional beam-column connections [15–19,23,25].
for exterior connections (1:25 f c ). Therefore, these sets of test
did not fully probe the extent to which the wide beam assists in
resisting connection shear.
Quintero-Febres and Wight [20] tested three interior wide
beam-column connections with transverse beams and slabs. These
test specimens had beam width ratios of 1.86, 2.5, and 2.54 and cd
of 1.43, 1.26, and 1.48, respectively. No sign of shear failure of the
joint was reported in these specimens. However, severe pinching of
the load-displacement loops were observed due to the bond dete-
rioration of the longitudinal bars. The results of the tests by LaFave
and Wight [2,12] Quintero-Febres and Wight [20] showed that the
slab reinforcement significantly participated in the overall
response of wide beam-column connections. The effect of slab par-
ticipation was greatly influenced by the level of structural drift and
at larger drifts, the entire width of the slab was engaged as addi-
tional tension reinforcement to the beams subjected to negative
moments. LaFave and Wight [2] indicated that the wide beam con-
nections had greater slab participation than the conventional beam
connection, and specimen with deep, rectangular column had
greater slab participation than specimen with square columns.
Moreover, other researchers [21–22] evaluated interior wide
beam-column connections and they proposed a new detailing
strategy involving the debonding of the reinforcing bars to help
reduce the torsional cracking. Benavent-Climent et al., reported
the results of an experimental work on the seismic behaviour of
wide beam-column connections designed according to past con-
struction in Spain. These wide beam-column joints were designed
to use as gravity load resisting systems. The wide beams did not
reach the expected capacities corresponding to the formation of a
full-width plastic hinge. The beam bars exhibited significant slip-
page and the transverse beams underwent severe torsion cracking
and even failure [13–14,24]. Previous studies on wide beam-
column connections showed that some of the beam reinforcement
passing outside the column but very close to column face is able to
transfer load to the joint through the formation of concrete struts
[11–14,20–22]. More recent studies have focused on evaluating
of the behaviour of wide beam-narrow column joints, the rein-
forcement detailing, seismic behaviour improvement, effect of con-
crete compressive strength on the wide beam-column joint, and
comparing the behaviour of the wide beam-column connections
Mirzabagheri and Tasnimi [26] and Mirzabagheri et al. [27]
studied the behaviour of roof beam-column joints under lateral
quasi-static cyclic loading. Four half-scale specimens including
two interior and two exterior connections were tested. Specimens
were designed in accordance with ACI 318-11 and ACI 352R-02
provisions. It was suggested that the joint shear requirements
could be relaxed for roof wide beam-column connection. The effect
of the headed reinforcing bars on the behaviour of both conven-
tional and wide beam-column connections was investigated by
Kang et al. [31–32]. In their studies, they collected an extensive
database of reinforced concrete beam-column joints with headed
bars subjected to reversed cyclic loading and proposed design
guidelines. Beam-column joints experienced joint shear failure,
 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44 29

were considered by Kim and LaFave [3,33]. They developed an
unbiased joint shear strength model using Bayesian parameter
estimation. In their simplified model, they only considered the
parameters that are currently included in defining joint shear
strength in ACI 352R-02 [29]. They concluded that the joint shear
strength factor (cn) should be adjusted to properly estimate the
failure of the connection. In another research, Canbolat and Wight
[34] suggested that for designing wide beam-column connections,
the effective joint width can be modified to bj = bc + 0.25(bw  bc).
The objective of this paper is to determine the effect of confine-
ment provided by the wide beam on the joint nominal shear capac-
ity. The specimens tested had different beam width ratios and the
joint shear stress ratios. From the test results of four exterior wide
beam-column joints, the overall seismic performance of the con-
nections is determined, and important aspects of the responses
are evaluated quantitatively.
2. Current provisions in codes of practice
The current codes of practice for structural concrete design,
including ACI 318-14 [28], NZS3101 [35] and EN 1998-1 [36], are
based on the results of a small number of experimental studies.
These codes impose special restrictions on the use of wide beam-
column connections in high seismic hazard regions, such as geo-
metrical constraints, special reinforcement details, and specific
anchorage requirements. The restrictions are set mainly for min-
imising the shear lag in the formation of the full-width plastic
hinge in wide beams, thus preventing the beam from premature
failure before flexural yielding. Table 1 shows the approaches stip-
ulated in different codes of practice for designing wide beam-
column connections, where the main design approaches are the
same as those of conventional beam-column connections, but the
additional design requirements should be followed.
It can be seen that the additional requirements for designing
wide beam-column connections vary with different design codes
of practice. ACI 318-14 [28] provides the largest beam width but
the smallest effective joint width
2.1. Connection design parameters based on ACI 318-14 and
ACI 352R-02
For an exterior conventional and wide beam-column connec-
tion, ACI 318-14 and ACI 352R-02 address five major design
parameters, as follows:
1. Based on Section 18.7.3 of ACI 318-14, to produce flexural hing-
ing in the beams rather than the columns, the flexural strengths
of the beams and columns framing into a joint should satisfy
P
Mn;c
Mr ¼ P 6 1:2
M n;b
where RMnb and RMnc are the sum of nominal flexural strengths
of the beams and columns, respectively, evaluated at the face of
the joint. The column flexural strength is calculated for the fac-
tored axial force, consistent with the direction of the lateral
forces considered, resulting in the lowest flexural strength. ACI
318-14 Section 18.6.2 recommends the maximum beam width
(bw) to be the lesser of bc + 1.5hc and 3bc. The ACI 352R-02 sug-
gests, at least, 1/3 of the wide-beam top longitudinal reinforce-
ment should be anchored inside the column core. ACI 318-14
indicates that the beam nominal flexural strength (Mnb) should
be determined by considering the slab reinforcement within
an effective flange width, in addition to beam longitudinal ten-
sion reinforcement. The effective flange width is defined in sec-
tion 8.12 of ACI 318-14.
2. To prevent joint shear failure before beam hinging, the nominal
shear strength of the joint Vn, computed on a horizontal plane
within the joint, should satisfy
qffiffiffiffi
0
V j;e 6 /V n where V n ¼ cn f c bj hc and V j;e
¼ 1:25f y As  V col ð2Þ
where / is the strength reduction factor; cn is the joint shear
strength factor, and its value depends on the classification of
the joints. In ACI 352R-02, for joints with continuous columns,
cn is set to 1.25 for joints confined on three faces or two opposite
faces, and is 1 for other configurations; fc0 is the concrete com-
pressive strength; bj is the joint effective width and, based on
ACI, is equal to the column width (bj = bc); As is the beam top
reinforcement; fy is the beam bar yield strength and Vcol is the
column shear in equilibrium.
3. To control joint deterioration during earthquake loading and
displacement demand, Section 18.7.5.4 of ACI 318-14 requires
a specified amount of transverse reinforcement to be provided
within the joint. For a column with rectangular hoops and
crossties, the total cross-sectional area in each direction of the
transverse reinforcement within the joint should be at least
equal to
00  
s t b c 0 Ag
Ash ¼ 0:3 fc 1 ð3Þ
f yt Ac
but not less than 0.09stbc00 fc0 /fyt, where st is the center-to-center
spacing of, transverse reinforcement in joint region, bc00 is the
cross-sectional dimension of member core measured to the out-
side edges of the transverse reinforcement composing area, fyt is
the specified yield strength of the transverse reinforcement, Ag is
the gross area of column section; and Ac is the area of column
core resisting shear transfer measured from outside edge to out-
side edge of stirrup.
4. The minimum development length of longitudinal beam bars
with standard hooks anchored in the joint is determined by ref-
erence to Section 18.8.5.1 of ACI 318-14,
f y db
ð1Þ ldh;318 ¼ qffiffiffiffi ð4Þ
0
5:4 f c
where db is the beam bar diameter.
Critical sections for the development of longitudinal beam bars
were taken at beam-column faces, and, hooked beam bars are

Table 1
Provisions for the design of wide beams in seismic regions in different codes of practice.

Design Design approach Additional requirements

code
Limitation of beam width Limitation of joint width Design of spandrel beam for
bw bj torsion
ACI 318-14 Follow the design of conventional beam-column min {bc + 1.5hc; 3bc} bc Yes
NZS 3101 connection min {bc + 0.5hc; 2bc} min {bc + 0.5hc; 2bc} No
EN 1998-1 min {bc + hb; 2bc} min {bc + 0.5hc; 2bc} No

bc and hc are the column width and height respectively.

30 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44
also required to extend to the far side of the beam-column joint.
Anchorage of the hooked bars outside the column core in wide
beam-column connections is improved by providing tightly
spaced transverse torsion reinforcement in the transverse beams
and by placing the hook inside the core of the transverse beam
(Section 4.5.2.4(b) ACI 352R-02).
Moreover, Section 4.5.5 of ACI 352R-02 recommends that the
beam depth to the column reinforcement ratio must be greater
than the maximum of 20 and 20fy/420. Experimental evidence
for wide-beam connections suggests that satisfactory behaviour
is achieved in the cases that the ratio of beam depth to column
bar diameter was lower than that required by ACI 352R-02.
LaFave [37] recommended that the ratio of wide beam depth
to column bar diameter may be as low as 16 as long as the
moment strength ratio (Mr) exceeds 1.5.
5. According to Section 3.3.3 of ACI 352R-02, for Type 2 exterior
wide-beam connections, the spandrel beam should be designed
to resist the full equilibrium torsion from the beam and slab
bars anchored in the spandrel beam within the slab effective
width following the requirements of Section 8.12 of ACI 318-
14. The wide beam and slab bars on each side of the column
are assumed to yield. To design for torsion Eq. (5) must be
satisfied
2Ao At f yt
T u 6 /T n where T n ¼ cot h
s 300  360 mm with a height of 3100 mm in all specimens. The
where Tu is the factored torsional moment at section; / is the
strength reduction factor; Tn is the nominal torsional moment
strength; Ao is the area enclosed by the shear flow path which
can be taken as Ao = 0.85Aoh, in which Aoh is defined as the area
enclosed by the centerline of the outermost closed transverse
torsional reinforcement; The angle of the concrete compression
diagonals h is taken as 45°. The spacing of the torsion reinforce-
ment in the spandrel beam should not exceed the lesser of ph/8
and 300 mm, where ph is the perimeter of the centerline of the
beam outermost closed transverse torsional reinforcement. The
ACI 352R-02 provisions recommend that hooked beam bars ter-
minating outside the column core should be anchored in a con-
fined spandrel beam core with a tight hoop spacing.
In the current ACI 352R-02 and ACI 318-14 design approach,
the strength reduction factor (/) is defined as 0.85 and 0.75 for
joint shear strength and torsion, respectively. In these codes,
the term ‘‘design strength” of a member refers to the nominal
strength multiplied by a strength reduction factor / that is
always less than unity (/ < 1.0). The strength reduction factor is
used for several purposes, including: (1) to allow for the probabil-
ity of understrength members due to variations in material
strengths, dimensions and inaccuracies in the design equations;
and (2) to reflect the degree of ductility, required reliability,
and the importance of the member in the structure [28]. In the
experimental studies, the actual member dimensions and mate-
rial strengths are known. Therefore, the strength used as a basis
for comparison is that corresponding to a strength reduction
factor of unity (/ = 1.0, design strength = nominal strength =
expected strength). Therefore, in this paper, the strength reduc-
tion factors were taken as / = 1.0.
3. Experimental programme
Four large-scale exterior RC wide beam-column connections,
as shown in Fig. 2, were designed, constructed, and tested under
reverse quasi-static cyclic loading. The primary test variables
were the beam width ratio and the ratios of joint shear demand
to joint shear capacity (joint shear stress ratio, cd). The specimens
were designed and detailed in conformance with ACI require-
ments for RC structures in high seismic zones. In particular, ACI
318-14 and ACI 352R-02 were followed, except for the joint shear
stress ratio (cd) that was specifically the subject of this investiga-
tion. The ACI 352R-02 recommendations classify Type 1 and Type
2 connections as essentially non-seismic and seismic, respec-
tively. The scope of this paper covered the Type 2 connections
for special moment frames. The specimens were labelled as
S1-BC1, S2-BC1.5, S3-BC2, and S4-BC2.5, where the first two char-
acters represent the specimen number, and the subsequent
numerals denote the beam width ratio. Specimen S1-BC1 was a
conventional beam-column connection (beam width = column
width) and was used as the control specimen. Similar spandrel
(transverse) beams were constructed in the wide beam speci-
mens. As a result, the wide beam connections had one wide beam
framing into a column in the principal direction and a spandrel
beam in the transverse direction.
3.1. Specimen geometry and reinforcement
The experimental program was designed using a concrete com-
pressive strength, fc0 , of 30 MPa and a reinforcement yield strength,
fy, of 520 MPa. Three-dimensional view of the specimens, cross sec-
tions and reinforcement details of the four specimens is shown in
Fig. 2. The columns had the same cross-sectional dimension of
ð5Þ
maximum width of the wide beam in specimen S4-BC2.5
(bw = 750 mm) remained within that established by ACI 352R-02
and ACI 318-14 (bc + 1.5hc = 840 mm). The beams had depths of
300 mm with lengths of 1500 mm in all specimens. The provided
beam depth to column bar diameter was 18.75 which was 76% of
that required by ACI 352R-02 (20fy/420 = 24.7), and it was 17% lar-
ger than that suggested by LaFave [37]. The anchored bar ratio in
column core was 100% in the first specimen and was reduced to
67, 50 and 40% in specimens S2-BC1.5, S3-BC2, and S4-BC2.5,
respectively. These anchored bar ratios in the column core were
larger than 33%, as recommended in ACI 352R-02.
The column stirrups were continued through the joint. The min-
imum transverse reinforcement, Ash, required by Eq. (3) was 159
mm2. The actual Ash in specimen S1-BC1 was 234 mm2 and in
the other specimens was 312 mm2. The beam longitudinal bars
were anchored using a 90° standard bent hook plus a vertical
extension into the joint and embedded as close as possible to the
back of the column. The provided embedment lengths within the
joint were 19.37db which was 110% of that required by ACI 318-
14 (17.6 db). The spandrel beams had equal depths to that of the
wide beam (hs = hb = 300 mm) and equal widths as the column
depth (bs = hc = 360 mm), consisting of 4D16 top and bottom bars
with D10 closed hoops at 70 mm. The beam longitudinal bars out-
side the column core were anchored inside the confined core of the
spandrel beam as suggested in ACI 352R-02.Concrete cover for lon-
gitudinal reinforcement of the column, beam and spandrel beam
was 30 mm, 45 mm, and 25 mm, respectively.
3.2. Material properties
Two specimens were cast at the same time using a single batch
of concrete, and the third and fourth specimens were then cast
using another batch of concrete with the same mixture propor-
tions. Ready mixed concrete from a local supplier with a maximum
aggregate size of 12 mm was provided. For every test specimen, six
150 mm cubes, and three simple plain concrete beams with the
size of 100  100  500 mm were cast and exposed to a similar
environment as the corresponding specimen. The compressive
strength of concrete cubes (fcu) on the test day was measured using
the average strength of three 150 mm cubes and it was 45.18 MPa
 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44 31

Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcement details of the specimens (unit: mm).

for specimen S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5 and 43.32 MPa for specimens
S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5. The concrete cylindrical strength, fc0 , was
taken as 80% of the cube strength (fcu) as suggested in [38]. The
concrete tensile strength (ft) at the test day was measured using
the four point bending flexural test and it was 3.05 MPa for speci-
men S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5 and 2.80 MPa for specimens S3-BC2 and
S4-BC2.5. Two sizes of standard reinforcement were used for longi-
tudinal (D16) and transverse reinforcement (D10) in all specimens.
Table 2 summarises the measured average mechanical properties
of the reinforcing bars.
3.3. Expected capacities
The main design parameters, the nominal flexural and expected
lateral load capacities (Vb,e) based on measured material properties
are summarized in Table 3. The specimen capacities calculated using
actual material strength, are referred to as the expected strength.
The lateral load capacity, Vb,e, was computed using the force and
moment equilibrium of the entire sub-assemblage. The nominal
flexural strengths (Mn,c and Mn,b) and nominal torsional moment
strength (Tn) were calculated in accordance with ACI 318-14.
32 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44

Table 2
Properties of steel reinforcement in specimens.

Reinforcement S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5 S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5

Bar diameter (mm) 10 16 10 16
Yield strength fy (Mpa) 485 522 511 558
Ultimate strength fu (Mpa) 622 599 620 642
Yield strain (%) 0.2425 0.261 0.255 0.279
Ultimate strain (%) 12 9 12 9

Table 3
Main design parameters and expected capacities.

Specimen bw mm 0
f c MPa f y MPa Mn,c kN m Mn,b kN m Mra Vb,eb kN Tu kN m Tu/Tnc Vj,e kN cdd cACI
S1-BC1 300 36.1 522 142 92.6 3.07 70 0 0 483 0.74 1
S2-BC1.5 450 36.1 522 177 138.8 2.55 105 29 0.43 725 1.12 1.25
S3-BC2 600 34.7 558 189 195.0 1.94 148 61 0.87 1034 1.63 1.25
S4-BC2.5 750 34.7 558 189 243.8 1.55 185 91 1.29 1292 2.03 1.25
a
Eq. (1).
b
V b;e ¼ Mn;b ðkN  mÞ=Lb ðmÞ ¼ M n;b =1:32
c
Tn was calculatedqffiffiffiffiffi using Eq. (5), where Ao = 0.85Aoh, h = 45°, and s = 70 mm.
d
cd ¼ V j;e =bc hc f 0c .

The factored torsional moment on the side face of the column
was estimated by multiplying the over-strength factor 1.25 by the
ratio of the area of the reinforcement located outside the column
core by the beam nominal flexural strength. For example, speci-
men S4-BC2.5 had totally ten longitudinal bars in tension in
which three of them were anchored outside and on one side of
the column core (the ratio of the area of the reinforcement
located outside the column core was 0.3). Thus, Tu was estimated
as 1.25  0.3  243.8 = 91 kN.m. According to the Table 3, the
ratios of Tu/Tn in specimens S2-BC1.5, S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5 were
0.43, 0.87, and 1.29, respectively. ACI 352R-02 requires this ratio
to be lower than one. In addition, according to ACI 318-14 crite-
ria, the concrete cracking torque (Tcr) for spandrel beam with a
cross sectional dimension of 360 mm  300 mm was 17.2 kN m
in test specimens. Thus, the ratio of Tu/Tcr in specimens S2-
BC1.5, S3-BC2, and S4-BC2.5 was 1.68, 3.55, and 5.29,
respectively.
Table 3 also shows the joint shear stress ratio was 0.74, 1.12,
1.63, and 2.03 in specimens S1-BC1, S2-BC1.5, S3-BC2, and S4-
BC2.5, respectively. The cd value needs to be smaller than the nom-
inal joint shear stress level, cn,ACI, specified by ACI 318-14 and
ACI352R-02. The cd value was 26% and 10% smaller than the cn,
ACI in specimen S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5, and it was 30% and 60% lar-
ger than the cn,ACI in specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5. Based on
these design parameters beam flexural failure was expected in
specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5, shear failure of the joint was
expected in specimens S3-BC2 and shear failure of the joint core
with the torsional failure of the spandrel beam was anticipated
in specimen S4-BC2.5.
4. Test setup, loading sequence, instrumentation, and
measurements
Fig. 3 illustrates the schematic test setup, reaction wall, speci-
men dimensions, and loading system. For the convenience of
applying loading, each beam-column assembly was rotated 90°
from the true orientation, so that the column was in the horizontal
position and the beam in the vertical position. Proper boundary
conditions were provided in the setup to simulate the actual work-
ing situation of the beam-column joint as if it were a part of the
frame structure. The beam tip was linked to an actuator with a swi-
vel connector to apply the lateral load. The beam tip and the left
and right sides of the column were all pin-connected in the loading
plane, to simulate the inflection points. The column pin-to-pin
length (Lc) was 2700 mm, while the beam length between the load-
ing point and the column face (Lb) was 1320 mm. The same setup
was used in all cases to ensure compatibility of the results.
Initially, an axial load of approximately 12.8% of the axial capac-
ity of the column (500 kN for specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5 and
480 kN for specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5) was applied by a
1000 kN hydraulic jack. This axial load was considered to provide
a practical range in laboratory testing, as well as in real frame
buildings. Then, the lateral cyclic displacement (D) was applied
to the top of the beam in two opposite directions. In this study a
multi-cycle loading protocol based on acceptance criteria specified
in ACI Committee 374.1-05 [39] has been adopted for all
specimens.
The lateral load history consisted of several sets of three cycles
of different horizontal displacements amplitudes (Fig. 4). The
amplitude of the cycles was made constant within each set but
increased in consecutive sets of cycles following drift ratios of
0.1, 0.133, 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, up to 6%, the max-
imum available stroke of the actuator. This loading sequence is
intended to ensure that displacements are increased gradually in
such steps that are neither too large nor too small. Each cycle for
a new drift level was performed three times to evaluate the loss
of strength and stiffness of the specimens during the repeated
cycles. The drift ratio is expressed as the percentage of the ratio
of lateral displacement at the beam tip (where the actuator load
was applied) to the beam length (Lb = 1320 mm) plus half of the
column depth (hc/2 = 180 mm).
Linear variable displacement transformers (LVDTs) were used
to measure the displacement at various locations on the specimen
(Fig. 5). Two LVDTs on each side of the beam were attached to mea-
sure total beam rotation, and six others were connected to the
beam and column to measure the relative rotation. Four vertical
LVDTs were used under the spandrel beam to measure the twist
of the spandrel beam. Two diagonal cable-extension gauges con-
nected to the joint region at the exterior face of the spandrel beam
were used to measure the joint shear displacement.
Electrical resistance strain gauges were attached to the reinforc-
ing bars. The locations of strain gauges on the longitudinal and
transverse steel bars in the beam and the column is shown in
Fig. 2 as red colour spots.
 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44 33

Lateral load
Section A-A 460 kN Actuator

Location of LVDTs

Beam
1500 1320 Hinge
Beam Hydraulic jack for
300
column axial load 1200 1200
1400 1400 Load Cell
A

Reaction
Col 360 RC Column block
A
Hinge end

Fig. 3. Schematic view of the test set-up (back side) (unit: mm).

90 6 beam plastic hinge. In contrast, specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5

75 5 with beam width ratios of 2 and 2.5 and cd of 1.63 and 2.03 exhib-
60 4 ited significant damage in the joint region. Torsional failure of the
45 3 spandrel beam was also observed in specimen with beam width
Displacement (mm)

30 2 ratio of 2.5. The measured responses are summarized and dis-

15 1
Dri %

cussed in the following subsections.

0 0
-15 -1
-30 -2 5.1. Overall load-displacement response
-45 -3
-60 -4 Fig. 6 shows the lateral load versus drift ratio for specimens in
-75 -5 the form of hysteresis curves, demonstrating that the expected
-90 -6
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 capacities of the beam hinges in both loading directions were
attained, where the beam capacity was calculated according to
Step Number
ACI 318-14, as shown in Table 3.
Fig. 4. Cyclic displacement schedule in tests. Specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5 maintained their strength up
to 5% drift without any major pinching effect. After 2% drift, when
the beam flexural deformation dominated the response of the
specimens, the hysteresis loops became wider, showing excellent
energy dissipation capacity. However, specimens S3-BC2 and S4-
BC2.5 showed strength degradation after 3% drift which was attrib-
uted to the joint diagonal shear cracks. The strength loss that
started after 3% drift was more rapid in Specimen S4-BC2.5 due
to the combination of the diagonal shear and torsional cracks in
the joint and spandrel beam.
Table 4 summarises the beam shear forces at various drifts as a
percentage of the maximum beam shear force reached in each
specimen. The table also indicates that the specimens reached their
maximum shear forces (i.e. 100%). Specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5
underwent larger strength drops than specimens S1-BC1 and S2-
BC1.5, approximately 12% and 15% (an average for both directions)
in the 5% drift cycle.
Strength degradation of the specimens was further examined by
comparing the beam shear forces of consecutive same-drift cycles
(reduction in shear force during the third (repeat) cycle compared
to the first cycle). In specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5, the strength
degradation remained low (roughly 5%) until the 4% drift cycles,
Fig. 5. LVDTs arrangement for Specimen S4-BC2.5 (back side of the specimen). but it increased up to 10%, during the 5% drift cycle. Specimens S3-
BC2 and S4-BC2.5 showed greater strength degradation throughout
the same drift cycles. In specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5, the
5. Experimental results and observations strength degradation remained low (roughly 5%) until the 2% drift
cycles, but it increased up to 15% during the 4% drift cycle.
The experimental results showed that the specimens S1-BC1 Table 5 provides the relevant information for the test results of
and S2-BC1.5, with beam width ratios of 1 and 1.5 and cd of 0.74 all specimens. The displacement ductility ratio is defined as the
and 1.12, were capable of supporting the complete formation of a ratio of the ultimate displacement (Du) to the yield displacement
34 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44

200 200
S1-BC1 S2-BC1.5
150 150

100 100

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

50 50

0 0

-50 -50
Beam capacity limit
-100 -100
Beam capacity limit
-150 -150
-200 -200
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Dri % Dri %
(a) Specimen S1-BC1 (b) Specimen S2-BC1.5

200 200
S3-BC2 160 S4-BC2.5
150
120
100
80
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

50 40
0 0

-50 -40
-80
-100
-120
-150 -160
Beam capacity limit
Beam capacity limit
-200 -200
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Dri % Dri %
(c) Specimen S3-BC2 (d) Specimen S4-BC2.5
Fig. 6. Hysterical behaviour of specimens.

Table 4
Storey shear forces divided by maximum storey shear forces (%).

Drift (%) Specimen

S1-BC1 S2-BC1.5 S3-BC2 S4-BC2.5
+1/1 93/90 87/87 75/74 65/67
+1.5/1.5 97/98 100/100 94/92 81/79
+2/2 97/94 97/99 98/98 93/90
+3/3 100/99 98/99 100/100 100/100
+4/4 98/100 98/100 98/93 97/97
+5/5 98/96 95/99 94/83 86/85

(Dy). Estimation of the displacement capacity in the wide beam-
column connection often causes difficulty because the force-
displacement response may not have a well-defined yield point
due to the shear lag in which yielding of the beam reinforcement
may commence at different load levels. Thus, arbitrary procedure
is generally required for determination of the yield displacement
[13–14,16,19–20,24]. In this paper, an idealised bilinear force-
displacement response (see Fig. 7) was adopted to estimate the
yield displacement.
The yield displacement estimated by this method was in good
agreement with the measured strain data of the beam bars. The
yield drift predicted by this method for negative loading direction
was 1.03%, 1.00%, 1.20%, and 1.67%, in specimens S1-BC1, S2-BC1.5,
S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5, respectively. These yield drifts were corre-
sponded to a 15.45 mm, 15 mm, 18 mm, and 25.05 mm lateral dis-
placement. The measured strains of the gauges on the beam
longitudinal bars showed that the onset of beam bar yielding for
reinforcement anchored inside the column core occurred at 1.0%
(15 mm), 1.2% (18 mm), 1.3% (19.5 mm) and 1.5% (22.5 mm) drift
cycles in specimens S1-BC1, S2-BC1.5, S3-BC2, and S4-BC2.5,
respectively. The ratio of the yield displacement predicted in
Table 5 to the onset of beam bar yielding from the strain gauge
data was 1.03, 0.84, 0.92, and 1.11 in specimens S1-BC1, S2-
BC1.5, S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5, respectively.
 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44 35

Table 5
The ratio of maximum strength to expected strength and related drifts.

Specimen State at yield Initial stiffness State at maximum Displacement ductility Over-strength
strength
*
Vy (kN) Drift (%) Kini (kN/mm) Vu (kN) Drift (%) ly a = Vu/Vb,e
S1-BC1  68 1.03 4.40 73.6 4 4.8 1.05
+ 64 0.89 4.79 73.7 3 5.6 1.05
S2-BC1.5 – 90 1.00 6.00 106.5 4 5.0 1.01
+ 90 0.96 6.25 106.1 1.5 5.2 1.01
S3-BC2 – 130 1.20 7.22 156 3 4.2 1.05
+ 129 1.27 6.77 150 3 3.9 1.01
S4-BC2.5 – 160 1.67 6.39 185.8 3 3.0 1.00
+ 160 1.67 6.39 189 3 3.0 1.02
*
Direction of loading based on Fig. 3.
y
Displacement ductility is calculated up to 5% drift.

Fig. 7. Estimate of yield displacement in joints.
The lowest displacement ductility ratio for the specimens was
4.8, 5.0, 3.9 and 3 in specimens S1-BC1, S2-BC1.5, S3-BC2, and
S4-BC2.5, respectively. The formation of a full-width plastic hinge
type damage on the beam end was mostly responsible for higher
ductility ratios obtained in specimen S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5. The
reduction in ductility ratio in specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2 was
occurred mainly due to the failure of the joint and torsional crack-
ing of the spandrel beam. These observations for the wide beam
ductility ratio were consistent with the previous experimental
reported results [11–14]. The specimens 1 and 4 tested by Gentry
and Wight [11] had a torsional failure of spandrel beam, and they
attained a ductility ratio of 2 and 2.6. There exterior wide beam
specimens tested by LaFave and Wight [12] were designed accord-
ing to ACI 318-95 and they had a beam flexural failure. These spec-
imens achieved the ductility ratio of more than 2.4, 2.8, and 3.4,
and it was very likely that they achieved the higher values of duc-
tility if the tests were continued. These specimens did not test until
failure, due to stroke limitations of the actuator. Two exterior spec-
imens tested by Benavent-Climent et al. [14] had a severe torsional
cracking in their spandrel beams and the reported ductility ratio
was 1.5 and 2. Two wide beam-column specimens tested by Fadwa
et al. [19] were partly designed according to ACI 318-11 and
ACI352R-02 design provisions. These specimens had a beam flexu-
ral failure, and they achieved the ductility ratio of more than 5.34
and 5.06 in an interior and exterior wide beam connection.
Table 6 shows the ratio of the average bending moment capac-
ity from the experiment to the capacities calculated based on Bena-
vent’s approach [13] (Mave ave
exp/Mn,Ben) and ACI 318-14 approach (Mexp/
Mn,ACI). Benavent assumed that that the bending moment is trans-
ferred from the wide beam to the column over two paths. In the first
path, the moment (Mn,ip) is transferred from the beam to the column
with longitudinal reinforcement of the beam anchored in the column
core and some bars passing outside the column within a distance x
on each side (bc + 2x). Along the second path, the moment (Mn,op)
is transferred through torsion in the transverse beams. He proposed
taking x = 0.25hc when transverse beam include longitudinal bars.
Eq. (6) represents the nominal bending capacity of the wide beam
based on Benavent’s approach. In this equation Tn is the nominal tor-
sional moment strength of the spandrel beam.
Mn;Ben ¼ M n;ip þ 2 minðMn;op ; T n Þ ð6Þ
In the test specimens, both longitudinal and transverse rein-
forcement were provided in the spandrel beams. Therefore, inside
beam portion’s width was assumed to equal to column’s width
plus 0.5hc, as suggested by Benavent [13].
According to Benavent’s approach, the applied factored torsion
(Tu,Ben) should be calculated for reinforcement located at the dis-
tance located outside of 0.25hc from the column face. Table 6
shows that the ratio of Tu,Ben/Tn was 0, 0.41, and 0.86, in specimens
S2-BC1.5, S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5, respectively. Benavent’s approach
predicts no torsional failure in these specimens as the ratio of Tu,-
Ben/Tn is less than unity. Table 6 also shows that the capacities esti-
mated by ACI 318-14 approach show a better correlation with the
test results than Benavent’s approach in terms of both expected
flexural strength of the wide beams and also applied torsional
moment on the spandrel beam. This behaviour could be attributed
to the formation of the full-width plastic hinge in the wide beam
specimens as also noticed by [19].
Fig. 8 shows the stiffness degradation for all specimens, where
the secant stiffness of a specimen for a particular loading cycle is
defined as the shear forces divided by the displacement at the pos-
itive and negative peak drifts of the cycles. It can be seen that as
the connections were loaded into the inelastic range, their stiffness
progressively decreased. Secant stiffness degradation was faster
before ±2% drift in all specimens, possibly because most of the con-
crete crack initiation occurred during this stage of the tests which
is typical for reinforced concrete.
5.2. Crack pattern and mode of failure
Development of cracking was meticulously observed during the
tests. The Major types of cracks developed in all the specimens
were distinguished as A, B, C, and D-types, shown in Fig. 9,
described as follows:
1. Crack type A: Flexural cracked visible on the top and bottom of
the beam and developed along the beam length.
2. Crack type B: Narrow flexural cracks developed at the column
face.
36 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44

Table 6
Bending moments from the experiment and comparison with Benavent’s approach [13] and ACI 318-14.

Specimen Benavent’s approach From the experiment Comparison

Mn,ip kN m Mn,op kN m Tn kN m Tu,Ben Mn,Ben kN m M+exp kN m M
exp kN m Mave
exp kN m Mave
exp/Mn,ACI Mave
exp/Mn,Ben

S2-BC1.5 138.8 – – 0 138.8 140.0 140.6 140.3 1.01 1.01

S3-BC2 139.9 23.5 70.5 29 186.9 198.0 205.9 201.9 1.03 1.08
S4-BC2.5 139.9 48.0 70.5 61 235.9 249.5 245.0 247.2 1.01 1.05

1 Table 7 provides information on the formation of all types of

cracks, and their state, for all the specimens, corresponding to
0.8 the relevant drift ratio. In all specimens, the initial flexural cracks
Secant stiffness /Maximum stifness

formed across the full width of the beam at a drift ratio of 0.2%
0.6
and up to around 1% drift, the crack widths remained relatively
0.4 narrow, with the specimens only having minor damage. After the
1% drift level, the damage progressed at a higher rate. Fig. 10 shows
0.2 the joint region of all the specimens at 5% drift. In specimens S1-
BC1 and S2-BC1.5 only hairline shear (diagonal) cracks were
0 observed on the side face of the joint during testing and new cracks
developed mostly in the beam plastic hinge zone where concrete
-0.2 crushing was evident.
S1-BC1 Fig. 11 shows the outside portion of the beam at 5% drift. As
-0.4
shown in Fig. 11(a), no torsional cracking was observed in the
-0.6 S2-BC1.5 spandrel beams of specimen S2-BC1.5. Specimen S3-BC2 had sev-
eral torsional cracks in the spandrel beams starting at 0.75% drift,
S3-BC2
-0.8 but these cracks remained tightly packed up to the end of the test.
S4-BC2.5 In specimen S3-BC2, the joint shear failure after beam yielding (BJ)
-1 was evident due to the wide-opened diagonal shear cracks, and the
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 visible expansion from the crushing of the concrete in the joint
Dri % region. At a drift ratio of 3%, the data from the strain gauges on
the joint horizontal hoop indicated that the hoop yielded. Due to
Fig. 8. Variation of secant stiffness.
the higher torsional moment applied to the spandrel beam of spec-
imen S4-BC2.5, the highest number of torsional cracks were devel-
oped in this specimen. These cracks opened up on both sides of the
spandrel beam and the concrete was crushed and separated from
the spandrel beam as shown in Fig. 11(c). The data from the strain
Crack type-C gauges attached to the spandrel beam bars and also the joint hoops
indicated yielding of these reinforcements after the beam reached
Crack type-B its maximum strength.

Crack type-A 5.3. Joint transverse reinforcement strain

Previous research studies have mentioned the imperative role

of the joint transverse reinforcement on the seismic performance
of the beam-column joint [3–9]. According to the design philoso-
phy of ACI 318-14 and ACI 352R-02, the function of joint transverse
reinforcement is to provide confinement of the joint core, so the
joint can fully develop the concrete strut mechanism. Kim and
LaFave [3,33] pointed out that proper confinement within a joint
is maintained, when the joint transverse reinforcement located in
the loading direction remains in the elastic range during testing.
In each specimen, five layers of horizontal joint reinforcements
Crack type-D located above, in the middle and below the beam longitudinal bars
were instrumented with strain gauges near the center, along the
legs parallel to the loading direction, to monitor strain at the exte-
rior sides of the joint. Fig. 12 shows the envelope curves of the joint
hoop strain against drift for all specimens. In all specimens, the
Fig. 9. Typical crack patterns formed in wide beam specimens. joint hoop strain started to rise after several small drift cycles
and increased even while the beam shear decreased. Specimens
S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5 exhibited larger joint hoop strain than spec-
3. Crack type C: Crossing cracks developed on the outer part of the imens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5, which was consistent with the
wide beams adjacent to the column sides extending in the observed crack patterns and the fact that larger joint shear forces
spandrel beam direction (torsional crack). were applied in these specimens compared to specimens S2-
4. Crack type D: diagonal shear cracks developed on joint regions BC1.5 and S1-BC1. In specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5, all the joint
located at the side face of the spandrel beam (shear crack). hoops remained elastic over the entire displacement history. The
 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44 37

Table 7
Crack formation at various stages of drift ratio.

Specimen Drift ratio corresponding to crack type (%) Failure mode*

Type-A Type-B Type-C Type-D
Initial Widened Initial Widened Initial Widened Initial Widened
S1-BC1 0.2 1.5 1.5 – – – 0.75 – B
S2-BC1.5 0.2 1.5 0.75 – 0.4 – 0.75 – B
S3-BC2 0.2 1.5 0.5 – 0.2 – 0.75 2 BJ
S4-BC2.5 0.2 1.5 0.5 – 0.2 2 0.75 2 BJS
*
Failure Mode B: beam flexural failure, BJ: joint shear failure after beam yielding, BJS: spandrel beam and joint shear failure after beam yielding.

(a)SpecimenS1-BC1 (b) Specimen S2-BC1.5

(c) Specimen S3-BC2 (d) Specimen S4-BC2.5

Fig. 10. Crack patterns of test specimens at 5% of drift ratio.

strain in the No.4 hoop in specimens S3-BC2 approached the yield
point around 3% drift. Yielding of the joint hoop also occurred in
specimen S4-BC2.5, starting from 3% drift in the No.4 hoop. Joint
shear damage occurred after yielding of the joint hoop reinforce-
ment, which is in agreement with the damage observed in the
joints of these specimens. As shown in Table 7, diagonal shear
cracks at the side face of the spandrel beam (Type-D crack shown
in Fig. 9) started to widen after 2% drift in specimen S3-BC2 and S3-
BC2.5.
Fig. 12 clearly shows that transverse reinforcement in the joint
is needed to resist the shear forces and to provide confinement for
the concrete in the joint. Elsouri and Harajli [17] tested four exte-
rior wide beam-narrow column joints including two as-built joints
and two additional earthquake-resistant joints. In the as-built
joints, the premature joint shear failure occurred at considerably
low drift ratios between 1.0% and 1.5% due to the absence of trans-
verse reinforcement within the joint core. The earthquake resistant
joints were designed similar to the as-built joints, except that their
reinforcing detailing were by adding transverse reinforcement
within the joint core and increasing the development lengths of
the beam reinforcement, partly in accordance with the recommen-
dations of ACI 318-08 and ACI-ASCE 352-02. The earthquake-
resistant joints performed better than as-built joint by preventing
joint shear failure, developing higher lateral load, deformation, and
38 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44
(a) S2-BC1.5
Fig. 11. Crack patterns of test specimens at 5% drift ratio.
energy absorption and dissipation capacities, and displaying stable
overall hysteretic response. Elsouri and Harajli concluded that the
ACI 352R-02 requirements for minimum area of transverse rein-
forcement within the joint core is sufficient and adequate [17,25].
It should be pointed out that larger amounts of joint transverse
reinforcement (Ash) than ACI 318-14 requirements were provided
in the joint region of test specimens. The provided-to-
recommended value of the cross-sectional area of joint transverse
reinforcement was 1.47 in specimens S1-BC1 and 1.96 in other
specimens. Therefore, larger strain in the joint transverse rein-
forcements could be expected if the lower amount of joint trans-
verse reinforcement was provided in the joint region.
5.4. Bond response of bars
The bond behaviour of the column and beam bars is one of the
key parameters influencing the joint performance. The bond index
(BI) was calculated for longitudinal bars, in which the severity of
the bond stresses in a bar becomes clear. Eq. (7) shows bond index
formula.
ub f y db
BI ¼ qffiffiffiffi ¼ qffiffiffiffi
0 0
f c 2hc f c
where ub is the maximum bond stress of wide beam reinforcement
over the column depth.
The beam bar bond index in specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5
was 1.96, and in specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5 was 2.18. The
bond index of the column bars was calculated in the same manner
and it was 2.31 in specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5 and 2.36 in
specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5. The value of BI is recommended
to be less than 1.4 as larger values of BI increases the risk of
anchorage failure and significant slip in the bars. In the test speci-
mens, the values of BI for both the beam and column bars were
more than 1.4.
Fig. 13 shows the drift ratio versus the measured strain for the
top column corner bar on the front side (black colour curves) and
the bottom column corner bar at the back of the specimens
(dashed-line red colour curves). For negative loading, these bars
would be in tension, and in compression for positive loading. The
measured strains of the gauges in Fig. 13(a) and (b) show that
the top column bar was in tension in negative side and in compres-
(b) S3-BC2 (c) S4-BC2.5
sion in positive side, which indicate no slippage occurred in the
column bars of specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5. However, as
shown in Fig. 13(c) and (d) for the top column bars the tensile
strain increased in the compression side of the column and bar dis-
played a saddle-shaped hysteresis. This behaviour clearly indicates
an initiation of bond deterioration and relative slippage of top col-
umn bars. The steel bar in the lower column suffered a lesser strain
level compared to the top column when the specimens were sub-
jected to cyclic loading. The formation of the plastic hinge in the
beam adjacent to the column also increase the bond deterioration
of the top column bars close to the beam [11]. Fig. 13 clearly shows
that no slippage occurred in the bottom column bars of the speci-
mens. The strain gauge attached to the lower column bar in spec-
imen S2-BC1.5 was broken during the test. Fig. 13 also shows that
all the column bars behaved elastically until the end of the test,
which is in line with the test observation. During the test, several
hairlines flexural cracks appeared in the column of all the speci-
mens, which remained tightly closed until the end of the test.
Analyses of the strain gauge data from the specimens tested by
Hatamoto el al., [10], Gentry and Wight [11], Benavent-Climent
et al., [14], Quintero-Febres and Wight [20] and Li and Kulkarni
[15,23] showed significant slip in the column bars due the low
ð7Þ
ratio of beam depth to column bar diameter (hb/dc). The minimum
ratio of hb/dc in those studies was 12.6, 12, 9, 16 and 12,
respectively.
Fig. 14 illustrates the strain distributions along the beam bars at
peak drift values. All longitudinal beam bars experienced continu-
ous strain increasing as the lateral drift increased. Therefore, it was
clear that beam participation regarding the beam moment strength
and joint shear demand got larger as each specimen was subjected
to larger drifts. The onset of beam bar yielding for reinforcement
anchored inside the column core occurred at 1%, 1.2%, 1.3% and
1.5% drift cycles in specimens S1-BC1, S2-BC1.5, S3-BC2, and S4-
BC2.5 respectively.
All beam flexural reinforcement in the specimen S1-BC1 yielded
at the drift of 1%. For specimen S2-BC1.5 and S3-BC2, the beam bar
yielded at drift from 1% to 1.5%. In specimen S4-BC2.5, the beam
bars inside the column core underwent a faster strain increase
(yielded between 1.5% to 2% drift ratio) than those located outside
the column core (yielded between 2% to 3% drift ratio). In other
words, in specimen S4-BC2.5, the stress in the beam bars decreased
with distance from the column face (shear lag effect). The more
 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44
M extended progressively to the outer reinforcement. The test by
6 6
S1-BC1 S2-BC1.5
5 5
4 4
Gauge number
3 3
1 rapidly extended around the spandrel beam and the intersection
1.0 1.5
2 1.5 2 2
2
3 transverse reinforcement showed that the existence of such rein-
3
1 1 4 forcement in the spandrel beam is necessary to resist the torsion
4
5 5
0 0
0 2000 4000 0 2000 4000
Microstrain Microstrain
6 6
S3-BC2
S4-BC2.5
5 5
4 4
3 3
1 1
1.5 1.5
2 2
2 2
3 3
1 4 1 4
5 5
0 0
0 2000 4000 0 2000 4000
Microstrain Microstrain
Fig. 12. Envelopes of joint hoop strain against drift.
extensive torsional cracking in the spandrel beam of specimen S4-
BC2.5 made this region more flexible and caused the lag in the
spreading of the plastic hinge.
Hatamoto et al. [10] conducted a series of tests on six interior
connections with beam width ratio of 0.89, 1.77, 2.67 and 3.57.
They observed that the stress in the beam bars decreased with dis-
tance from the column face. This stress distribution was observed
in all specimen with different beam width ratio. In the test by
LaFave and Wight [12], the beam flexural reinforcement inside
the column core yielded by drifts of 1.5% and all the beam and slab
bars yielded by a 2% drift ratio. Quintero-Febres and Wight [20]
observed that delay in wide beam bar yielding is dependent on
the bond conditions of the bars and on the confinement of the out-
side region of the joint. The tested specimens by Benavent-Climent
39
et al. [14,24] contained a shallow and weak spandrel beams. They
observed that the yielding of the wide beam longitudinal bars
always started from those located inside the column core, and it
Fadwa et al. [19] showed that the bars passing inside the column
core had stronger bonding than the ones passing outside the joint.
5.5. Behaviour of spandrel beam
In specimens, S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5, some of the spandrel beam
longitudinal and shear reinforcement was instrumented with
strain gauges. Fig. 15 shows the strain measured in the longitudi-
nal bars at the top, exterior corner of the spandrel beam. Fig. 16
shows that the strain in that bar in specimen S3-BC2 remained
below the yield strain, however, the same bar in specimen S4-
BC2.5 (Fig. 15(b)) reached the yield condition and experienced very
large strain. A similar observation can be seen in Fig. 16 for the
spandrel beam stirrup at the face of the column. This observation
was consistent with the crack pattern observed during the test.
Specimen S3-BC2 had several cracks in its spandrel beam, but
these crack remained tightly closed up to the end of the test. In
specimen S4-BC2.5, at a drift ratio of 3%, inclined torsional cracks
region of the column sides.
The strain distributions in the spandrel beam longitudinal and
and shear forces. The presence of such reinforcement at the span-
drel beam reduced the cracks sizes marginally at the ultimate load
stage.
The maximum applied torsion to the spandrel beam during the
test (Tu,exp) was determined by measuring the strain in the beam
longitudinal reinforcement that were located outside the column
core, and it was 51 kN m and 74 kN m in specimens S3-BC2 and
S4-BC2.5, respectively. The ratio of Tu,exp to the spandrel beam
torsional cracking capacity (Tcr) was 2.96 and 4.3 in specimens
S3-BC2, and S4-BC2.5, respectively. In both specimens the applied
torsion exceeded the cracking torque, thus several torsional cracks
were developed in the spandrel beams. However, the ratio of Tu,exp
to the spandrel beam torsional capacity (Tn) was 0.73 and 1.05 in
specimens S3-BC2, and S4-BC2.5, respectively. No sign of the tor-
sional failure of spandrel beam was observed or measured in spec-
imen S3-BC2. In specimen S4, the actual torsion acting on the
spandrel beam exceeded the torsional capacity of the spandrel
beam. This specimen exhibited a severe torsion cracking and con-
crete crushing in the spandrel beam.
The results of this study indicate that designing spandrel beam
for full equilibrium torsion from all the beam bars located in span-
drel beam is necessary to achieve an adequate seismic perfor-
mance. LaFave emphasized that in calculation of torsion the slab
reinforcement within an effective with also should be considered
[12,37]. The ACI 352R-02 provisions recommend that the wide
beam bars terminating outside the column core need to be
anchored in a confined core of the spandrel beam. Such reinforce-
ment detailing in the spandrel beam were followed in this study
but it has not been followed in all the previous published studies.
In the specimen tested by LaFave and Wight [12] the beam bars
were located on top of the spandrel beam reinforcement and only
the beam bar tails were anchored inside the spandrel beam core,
however, in those tests the performance was still quite adequate.
5.6. Energy dissipation capacity
The capacity of a specimen to dissipate energy without signifi-
cant reduction in strength or stiffness is an indication of its useful-
ness as an earthquake-resistant component. To illustrate the
40 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44

8 8

6
S1-BC1 6
S2-BC1.5
4 4

Drift Ratio %
Drift Ratio %

2 2

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 Top column bar -6

Top column bar
Bottom column bar
-8 -8
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Micro Strain Micro Strain

(a) Specimen S1-BC1 (b) Specimen S2-BC1.5

8 8
S3-BC2 bar slippage S4-BC2.5
6 6 bar slippage

4 4
Drift Ratio %

Drift Ratio %
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 Top column bar -6 Top column bar
Bottom column bar Bottom column bar
-8 -8
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Micro Strain Micro Strain

(c) Specimen S3-BC2 (d) Specimen S4-BC2.5
Fig. 13. Longitudinal bar strain at corner column face.

capability of wide beam-column connections to survive an earth-
quake, the equivalent viscous damping values, neq, were computed.
This quantitative index describes the hysteretic damping (or
energy dissipation per cycle) on an equivalent linear elastic sys-
tem. The average neq of three cycles, at each drift level, for the test
specimens are compared in Fig. 17(a). The specimens S1-BC1 and
S2-BC1.5 exhibited similar patterns of equivalent viscous damping
throughout the tests. In particular, the neq values increased rapidly
after the 2% drift cycle in these specimens, because all the reinforc-
ing bars yielded. The equivalent viscous damping ratio in 4% drift
was 24% for specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5, and 18% and 16%
for specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5, respectively. The lower neq val-
ues (increased pinching of the hysteresis loops as can be seen in
Fig. 6) were attributed to differences in performance of the connec-
tions including the failure modes and the behaviour of the column
bars passing through the joints [11–14]. Elsouri and Harajili [17]
compared the behaviour of as-built joint with the same modified
earthquake resistant joint and they concluded that the occurrence
of the joint shear failure, spandrel beam torsional failure, and the
slippage of the column bars within a joint region can significantly
reduce the energy dissipation capacity of the wide beam-column
connections.
The energy dissipation capacities of the specimens were nor-
malized to enable comparison of their performance with the rec-
ommendation of ‘‘Acceptance criteria for moment frames based
on structural testing (ACI 374.1-05) and commentary”[39]. Accord-
ing to this document, the minimum permissible amount of dissi-
pated energy per cycle must be 1/8 of the idealised elastoplastic
energy of that drift level. The elastoplastic energy was calculated
from curves that were drawn using the positive and negative initial
stiffness values at 0.5% storey drift, obtained from the lateral load
versus drift responses of each specimen and the positive and neg-
ative maximum load and drift values in each cycle. Fig. 17(b)
shows the normalized energy dissipation capacities. It was
observed that all specimens had energy dissipation above the rec-
ommended limit. Fig. 17(b) shows that before 1% drift, when only
limited cracking had occurred, the values for this ratio are close to
the unity because the specimens exhibited almost ideal elastoplas-
tic behaviour. Specimen S1-BC1 had the highest energy dissipation
capacity up to 3% drift. After that drift level, Specimen S2-BC1.5
had a slightly higher energy dissipation capacity.
6. Joint shear capacity
The effect of beam width on joint shear capacity was evaluated
by estimating the effective joint widths of the specimens. For spec-
imens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5, that failed due to joint shear, their
joint shear strength can be considered equal to the maximum joint
shear force (Vj,test) applied during the test, and thus the effective
joint width (bj,exp) for the specimen may be estimated by Eq. (8).
V j;test
bj;test ¼ qffiffiffiffi ð8Þ
cn f 0c hc
 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44 41

5000 5000
S1-BC1 S2-BC1.5
4000 4000

Microstrain
Microstrain

3000 3000
yield yield

2000 2000
0.5 0.5
1000 1 1000 1
bw=bc 1.5 bw 1.5
0 0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance from the center of the beam: mm Distance from the center of the beam: mm
(a) Specimen S1-BC1 (b) Specimen S2-BC1.5

5000 5000
S3-BC2 S4-BC2.5
4000 4000
Microstrain

3000 yield Microstrain 3000 yield

0.5
2000 2000 1
0.5 1.5
1000 1000 2
1
bw 1.5 bw 3
0 0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

Distance from the center of the beam: mm Distance from the center of the beam: mm
(c) Specimen S3-BC2 (d) Specimen S4-BC2.5
Fig. 14. Strain distribution at beam-column interface for beam bar reinforcement.

8 8
S3-BC2 6
S4-BC2.5
6

4 4
Dri Rao %

Dri Rao %

2 2

0 0

-2
-2

-4 -4

-6
-6

-8
-8
-500 500 1500 2500 3500
-500 500 1500 2500 3500
Micro Strain Micro Strain
(a) Specimen S3-BC2 (b) Specimen S4-BC2.5
Fig. 15. Longitudinal bar in top corner of the spandrel beam.

where, Vj,test is the maximum shear force acting on the horizontal where a is the over-strength factor calculated from the results of
cross section of the joint and it was estimated as follows: the test shown in Table 5.
X In Eq. (8), cn is the joint nominal shear strength factor. According
V j;test ¼ af y As  V col;test ð9Þ to ACI 318-14 and ACI 352R-02, in an exterior wide beam-column
connection in which the joint is confined in three faces, cn sets to
42 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44

8 8
S3-BC2 S4-BC2.5
6 6

4 4
Dri Rao %

Dri Rao %
2 2

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6

-8 -8
-500 500 1500 2500 3500 -500 500 1500 2500 3500
Micro Strain Micro Strain
(a) Specimen S3-BC2 (b) Specimen S4-BC2.5
Fig. 16. Stirrup strain at spandrel beam.

30 1.00
S1-BC1
Equivalent viscouse damping %

25 S2-BC1.5
0.80
S3-BC2
Normalized Energy

20 S4-BC2.5
0.60
15
0.40
10 S1-BC1
S2-BC1.5
0.20
5 S3-BC2 ACI T1.1-01 Limit
S4-BC2.5
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Dri Rao % Dri Rao %
(a) Equivalent viscous damping % (b) Normalised energy dissipation capacity
Fig. 17. Energy dissipation capacity of specimens.

1.25 (cn = 1.25). However, recent study by Kim and LaFave [33] represent the actual behaviour of the joint as these effective widths
showed that the cn = 1.0 is a more consistent and rational value to are non-conservative.
use in design in order to prevent joint shear failure. Table 8 shows that the actual effective joint width is larger than
Table 8 summarises the maximum joint shear forces (Vj,test) and the column width. The bj,test to bj,ACI ratios are higher than 1 in both
the estimated effective joint widths (bj,test) of specimens S3-BC2 specimens which indicates that ACI 318-14 underestimates the
and S4-BC2.5. In this table, bj,test1 and bj,test2 were calculated using joint shear strength of connections, particularly in cases with
Eq. (8) and assuming cn = 1.25 and cn = 1.0, respectively. The table cn = 1.0. Therefore it may be concluded that the wide beam
also contains ratios of the estimated effective joint width (bj,test) to improved the joint shear capacity of the specimens by enlarging
the effective joint widths computed following ACI 318-14 (bj,ACI) the joint effective width. From this table, when cn = 1.25, the joint
and Canbolat and Wight (bj,Canbolat). effective width recommended by Canbolat and Wight [34] cannot
From this table, it can be observed that when cn = 1.25, the represent the actual behaviour of the joint as these effective widths
effective joint width proposed by the ACI results in a smaller effec- are larger than the actual joint effective widths. However, when
tive joint width, which is slightly conservative and the joint effec- cn = 1.0, the joint effective width recommended by Canbolat and
tive width recommended by Canbolat and Wight [34] cannot Wight [34] correlate well with the experimental results.

Table 8
Estimate of design and experimental shear stress.

Specimen bw mm bc mm Vj,test kN bj,test,1, mm Eq. (8) cn = 1.25 bj,test,2, mm Eq. (8), cn = 1.0 bj,test,1/bj,ACI* bj,test,1/bj,Canbolat* bj,test,2/bj,ACI bj,test,2/bj,Canbolat
S3-BC2 600 300 856 323 404 1.08 0.86 1.34 1.07
S4-BC2.5 750 300 1037 391 489 1.30 0.95 1.63 1.18
*
bj,ACI = bc = 300 mm, bj,Canbolat = bc + 0.25(bw  bc).
 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44
In summary, the current ACI 318-14 and ACI 352R-02 provi-
sions for designing type 2 exterior wide beam-column connections
by considering cn = 1.25 and bj = bc is conservative. This design pro-
cedure requires (1) ignoring the contribution of the wide beam to
the joint shear strength, and (2) increasing the column sizes to sat-
isfy the joint shear requirements. An alternative and less conserva-
tive design approach is to set the joint nominal shear stress level to
1 (cn = 1.0) and to use effective joint width larger than the column
width (bj > bc). The effective joint width of the two specimens
reported herein was well estimated using the effective joint width
defined by Canbolat and Wight [34] (bj = bc + 0.25(bw  bc)), as
listed in Table 8. More experimental studis are needed to find
the proper effective joint width in wide beam-column connections.
Meanwhile, when considering cn = 1.0, the effective joint width can
be set at least to 1.25bc (bj > 1.25bc) which gives the same results as
when considering cn = 1.25 and bj = bc.
It should be noted that the amounts of joint transverse rein-
forcement (Ash) that were provided in test specimens was larger
than the ACI 318-14 requirements. The ratio of the provided-to-
recommended value of the cross-sectional area of joint transverse
reinforcement was 1.96 in specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5. Kim
and LaFave [3,33] noted that once the provided amount of joint
transverse reinforcement is more than 60% of that recommended
by ACI 352R-02, an increase in the Ash ratio does not cause any sig-
nificant additional improvement in joint shear strength.
7. Conclusions
An experimental investigation was carried out to obtain new
data and to further study the cyclic behaviour of wide beam-
column connections. Four large-scale exterior reinforced concrete
beam-column connections were tested under reverse cyclic load-
ing. The main design parameters were the beam width ratio and
the joint shear stress ratio (cd). The main design parameters were
the beam width ratio and the joint shear stress ratio (cd). Based
on the evaluation of the cyclic loading responses, the following
conclusions can be drawn.
1. Specimen S1-BC1 was a conventional beam-column joint with
beam width ratio of 1. The joint shear stress ratio, cd, was
0.74 which was smaller than the nominal joint shear stress
level, cn, specified in ACI 352R-02. All the beam bars yielded
at the drift ratio of 1% where the beam reached to its expected
capacity. Specimen maintained its strength up to 7% drift and it
achieved ductility ratio of 4.8 and 5.6 in negative and positive
loading directions. Beam flexural cracking developed in this
specimen.
2. Specimen S2-BC1.5 had a beam width ratio of 1.5 and cd of 1.12.
All the beam bars yielded at a drift ratio of 1.2%. Specimen
reached to its expected capacity at a 1.2% drift and it main-
tained its strength up to 5% drift. This specimen achieved duc-
tility ratio of 5 and 5.2 in negative and positive loading
directions. The full-width plastic hinge was developed on the
beam.
3. Specimen S3-BC2 had a beam width ratio of 2 and cd of 1.63
which was 30% larger than the ACI 352R-02 allowable joint
shear stress level. The beam bars inside the column core yielded
at a drift ratio of 1.3% and all the beam bars yielded at a drift
ratio of 1.5%. The joint shear failure occurred at 3% drift ratio
after beam flexural cracking. The strength of the specimen
degraded after 3% drift ratio.
4. Specimen S4-BC2.5 had a beam width ratio of 2.5 and cd of 2.03
which was 62% larger than the ACI 352R-02 allowable joint
shear stress level. The beam bars inside the column core under-
went a faster strain increase than those located outside the col-
umn core due to the shear lag effect. The beam bars inside the
43
column core yielded at a drift ratio of 1.5% and all the beam bars
yielded at a drift ratio of 2.5%. The joint shear failure and span-
drel beam torsional failure occurred at 3% drift ratio. The com-
plex failure mode of the spandrel beam and joint led to high
strength and ductility reduction.
5. The average energy dissipation capacity in three cycles at each
drift level was expressed regarding an equivalent viscous
damping ratio neq. The specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5 exhib-
ited similar patterns of energy dissipation throughout the tests.
The equivalent viscous damping ratio in 4% drift was 24% for
specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5, and 18% and 16% for speci-
mens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5, respectively. The lower equivalent
viscous damping ratio in specimens S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5 indi-
cated pinching in the hysteresis curves of the lateral load-
versus-drift response and it occurred mainly due to the joint
shear failure, column bar slippage through the beam depth
and also torsional cracks on the spandrel beams of these
specimens.
6. The strain distribution from the joint transverse shear rein-
forcement showed that joint shear reinforcement is needed to
resist the shear force from the beam bars. The amounts of joint
transverse reinforcement (Ash) was provided in test specimens
was larger than the ACI 318-14 requirements. The provided-
to-recommended value of the cross-sectional area of joint
transverse reinforcement was 1.47 in specimens S1-BC1 and
1.96 in other specimens. In specimens S1-BC1 and S2-BC1.5,
all the joint hoops remained elastic over the entire displace-
ment history. The strain in some of the joint hoop in specimens
S3-BC2 and S4-BC2.5 approached the yield point around 3%
drift. Specimen S4-BC2.5 exhibited larger increments in joint
transverse reinforcement strain than specimen S3-BC2. This
agreed with the fact that larger joint shear forces were applied
in the joint of specimen S4-BC2.5 than specimens S3-BC2.
7. The strain distributions in the spandrel beam longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement showed that the existence of such
reinforcement in the spandrel beam is necessary to resist the
torsion and shear forces and to reduce the cracks sizes. The
results of this study indicate that designing spandrel beam for
full equilibrium torsion from all the beam bars located in span-
drel beam is necessary to achieve an adequate seismic
performance.
8. Experimental verification showed that specimens S1-BC1 and
S2-BC1.5, designed with the current design procedure recom-
mended in ACI, performed quite well in carrying the horizontal
lateral loads. However, it was found that the current ACI proce-
dure for estimating nominal joint shear strength is conservative
for the case of the wide beam-column connections.
9. The joint shear demand and spandrel beam torsional demand
played an important role in the behaviour of wide beam-
column connections. The wide beam can improve the joint
shear capacity by enlarging the joint effective width.
Acknowledgments
The support of the Hong Kong Research Grant Council under
Grant Number 16209115 is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Popov EP, Cohen JM, Koso-Thomas K, Kasai K. Behavior of interior narrow and
wide beams. ACI Struct J 1992;89(6):607–16.
[2] LaFave JM, Wight JK. Reinforced concrete wide-beam construction vs.
conventional construction: resistance to lateral earthquake loads. Earthq
Spectra 2001;17(3):479–505.
44 H. Behnam et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 27–44
[3] Kim J, LaFave JM. Key influence parameters for the joint shear behaviour of
reinforced concrete (RC) beam–column connections. Eng Struct
2007;29:2523–39.
[4] Shin M, LaFave JM. Reinforced concrete edge beam-column-slab connections
subjected to earthquake loading. Mag Concr Res 2004;56:273–91.
[5] Lee J, Kim J, Oh G. Strength deterioration of reinforced concrete beam-column
joints subjected to cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):2070–85.
[6] Wong HF, Kuang JS. Effect of beam-column depth ratio on seismic behavior of
exterior beam-column joints. Struct Build ICE 2008;161(2):91–101.
[7] Hwang SJ, Lee HJ. Analytical model for predicting shear strength of exterior
reinforced concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance. ACI Struct J
1999;96(5):846–58.
[8] Wong HF, Kuang JS. Predicting shear strength of RC interior beam-column
joints by modified rotating-angle softened-truss model. Comput Struct
2014;133:12–7.
[9] Wang G, Dai J, Teng J. Shear strength model for RC beam-column joints under
seismic loading. Eng Struct 2012;40:350–60.
[10] Hatamoto H, Bessho S, Matsuzaki Y. Reinforced concrete wide-beam-to-
column subassemblages subjected to lateral load. In: Design of Beam-Column
Joints for Seismic Resistance. Detroit, Michigan USA: ACI Publications SP-123;
1991. p. 291–316.
[11] Gentry TR, Wight JK. Wide beam-column connections under earthquake-type
loading. Earthq Spectra 1994;10:675–703.
[12] LaFave JM, Wight JK. Reinforced concrete exterior wide beam-column-slab
connections subjected to lateral earthquake loading. ACI Struct J 1999;96
(4):577–85.
[13] Benavent A. Seismic behavior of RC wide beam-column connections under
dynamic loading. J Earthq Eng 2007:493–511.
[14] Benavent A, Cahis X, Zahran R. Exterior wide beam-column connections in
existing RC frames subjected to lateral earthquake loads. Eng Struct
2009:1414–24.
[15] Li B, Kulkarni SA. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete exterior wide beam-
column joints. J Struct Eng 2010;136(1):26–36.
[16] Goldsworthy HM, Abdouka K. Displacement-based assessment of non-ductile
exterior wide band beam-column connections. J Earthquake Eng 2012;16
(1):61–82.
[17] Elsouri A, Harajli M. Seismic response of exterior RC wide beam–narrow
column joints: earthquake-resistant versus as-built joints. Eng Struct
2013;57:394–405.
[18] Elsouri AM, Harajli MH. Behavior of reinforced concrete wide concealed-
beam/narrow-column joints under lateral earthquake loading. ACI Struct J
2013;110(2):205–15.
[19] Fadwa I, Ali TA, Nazih E, Sara M. Reinforced concrete wide and conventional
beam–column connections subjected to lateral load. Eng Struct
2014;76:34–48.
[20] Quintero-Febres CG, Wight JK. Experimental study of reinforced concrete
interior wide beam-column connections subjected to lateral loading. ACI
Struct J 2001;98.
[21] Stehle JS, Goldsworthy H, Mendis P. Reinforced concrete interior wide-band
beam-column connections subjected to lateral earthquake loading. ACI Struct J
2001;98.
[22] Siah W, Stehle J, Mendis P, Goldsworthy H. Interior wide beam connections
subjected to lateral earthquake loading. Eng Struct 2003;25:281–91.
[23] Kulkarni SA, Li B. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete interior wide-beam
column joints. J Earthquake Eng 2008;13:80–99.
[24] Benavent-Climent A, Cahis X, Vico J. Interior wide beam-column connections
in existing RC frames subjected to lateral earthquake loading. Bull Earthq Eng
2010;8:401–20.
[25] Elsouri AM, Harajli MH. Interior RC wide beam-narrow column joints:
potential for improving seismic resistance. Eng Struct 2015;99:42–55.
[26] Mirzabagheri S, Tasnimi AA. Reinforced concrete roof exterior wide and
conventional beam-column joints under lateral load. Struct Des Tall Spec
2016;25(9):397–411.
[27] Mirzabagheri S, Tasnimi AA, Mohammadi MS. Behavior of interior RC wide and
conventional beam-column roof joints under cyclic load. Eng Struct 2016;15
(111):333–44.
[28] ACI 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318–14) and
Commentary. American Concrete Institute Committee 318, Farmington Hills,
MI; 2014.
[29] ACI Committee 352. Recommendations for design of beam-column joints in
monolithic reinforced concrete structures (ACI 352R–02). Farmington Hills
(MI): American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[30] ACI 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI318-95) and
Commentary (ACI318R- 95). American Concrete Institute Committee 318,
Farmington Hills, MI.
[31] Kang TH-K, Shin M, Mitra N, Bonacci JF. Seismic design of reinforced concrete
beam-column joints with headed bars. ACI Struct J 2009;106(6):86–877.
[32] Kang TH-K, Shin M, Mitra N, Bonacci JF. Seismic design of reinforced concrete
beam-column joints with headed bars. ACI Struct J 2009;106(6):86–877.
[33] Kim J, LaFave JM. Probabilistic joint shear strength models for design of RC
beam-column connections. ACI Struct J 2008;105(6):770–80.
[34] Canbolat BB, Wight JK. Experimental investigation on seismic behavior of
eccentric reinforced concrete beam-column-slab connections. ACI Struct J
2008;105:154.
[35] NZS 3101. The design of concrete structures. Wellington, New
Zealand: Standards Association of New Zealand; 2006.
[36] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. European
Committee for Standardization. 2004.
[37] LaFave JM. Behaviour and design of reinforced concrete beam-column
connections with wide beams. Proc., Structures 2001, A Structural
Engineering Odyssey, ASCE, 2001;1–2.
[38] Comité Euro-International du Béton. CEB-FIB-Model Code 1990: Design
code. London: Thomas Telford; 1993.
[39] ACI Committee 374.1-05. Acceptance criteria for moment frames based on
structural testing and commentary (ACI 374.1-05). Farmington Hills,
Michigan, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2005.