Original Research

Advances in Structural Engineering

2019, Vol. 22(1) 69–80
Mechanical performance of space Ó The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sandwich joints under bidirectional sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369433218778403

cyclic loading journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Li-Qun Hou1, Shi-Cai Chen1, Wei-Ming Yan1 and Kang-Suk Kim2

Abstract
In high-rise buildings with high-strength concrete column and normal-strength concrete floor, the beams and slabs are usually cast in a
continuous fashion through the beam–column joint to simplify construction, and this results in the lower strength concrete at the
beam–column joint core (sandwich joint). It will influence the capacity of the joint. In this article, three groups of three-dimensional
specimens consisting of sandwich joint specimens and corresponding traditional joint specimens were tested under bidirectional
reversed cyclic loads to investigate seismic performance, including the failure mode, ductility, energy dissipation, and deformation. The
test results show that the beam–column joint core can be cast with normal-strength concrete when the column concrete strength is
less than 1.5 times that of the beam. However, when the ratio exceeds 1.5, the failure mode of the joint may change from beams flex-
ural failure to joint shear failure and additional strengthening measures should be taken. Finally, the formula for calculating shear capac-
ity of the three-dimensional sandwich joints is presented, and the predictions are compared to the experimental results.

Keywords
failure, reversed cyclic loads, seismic performance, shear, space sandwich joints

Introduction
In reinforced concrete (RC) high-rise buildings, high-
strength concrete is usually used in the columns to
increase the bearing capacity and to resist the load
from the upper floors. However, the beam and slab
concrete subjected to only one floor load does not
need to be particularly strong. However, for reasons of
economy and ease of construction, the slab and beam
are cast usually in a continuous fashion through the
beam–column joint (referred to as the sandwich joint)
in China, resulting in a layer of lower strength concrete
in the joint core between the upper and lower columns
at the beam and floor levels (sandwich joint).
The lower strength concrete in joint core will influ-
ence the capacity of the sandwich joint. This problem
has been studied by many investigators (Bianchini
et al., 1960; Lee and Yoon, 2012; Ospina and
Alexander, 1998; Shin et al., 2016, 2017). Bianchini
et al. (1960) first implemented a study on different
types of sandwich joints, and Ospina and Alexander
(1998) reported results of tests on sandwich slab–
column joints considering the slab load and the con-
finement conditions of slab. The results show that the
intensity of slab load and the aspect ratio of the joint
affect the strength of an interior slab–column joint.
Abdel Wahab (2005) and Lee and Mendis (2004) have
performed the axial compressive load performance
tests on sandwich joints; they suggested that the influ-
ence of the lower strength concrete in the joint region
can be represented by an effective compressive strength
f_Ce . This calculation method has been adopted by the
ACI Committee 318-08 (2008) and CSA A23.3-04
(2004). Furthermore, Lee and Yoon (2012) investi-
gated the transmission of column loads through floor
slabs in the weaker slab–column joint and presented a
prediction model for the effective compressive strength
of the joint core. Shin et al. (2016, 2017) presented stra-
tegies for enhancing the transmission of high-strength
concrete column loads through normal-strength con-
crete slabs in the joint of slab–column connections and
demonstrated beneficial effects of using high-strength
dowel bars on the ability to transmit axial loads. These
tests were static axial compressive experiments and the
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Beijing University of Technology,
Beijing, China
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Corresponding author:
SC Chen, Department of Civil Engineering, Beijing University of
Technology, 100 Pingyuan, Beijing 100124, China.
Email: shicaichen@163.com
70
Figure 1. The details of specimens: (a) plan view and (b) section A-A.
column loads were applied monotonically; the results
cannot reflect the shear capacity and seismic perfor-
mance of the joint because the global seismic response
of the RC frames is strongly affected by the hysteretic
damage in the beam–column joint (Shafaei et al.,
2017). Therefore, some experimental and analytical
studies have been performed to investigate the seismic
performance of sandwich beam–column joints. Yu and
Li (2004) have completed low cyclic load tests on four
planar sandwich beam–column joint specimens, Zhao
et al. (2004) and Li and Liu (2010) carried out tests for
the research on the seismic properties of RC frame
sandwich type joint including the corner and the edge
joints. The experimental results show that the joint
with core concrete lower to column was inferior obvi-
ously in crack strength, maximum strength, stiffness,
deformation and the seismic capacity to common joint.
However, beam–column joints in space frames are usu-
ally subjected to two-way lateral cyclic force during
earthquakes, and Chen et al. (2015) presented an
experimental study of three-dimensional (3D) steel RC
beam–column joints and two-dimensional (2D) joints
under cyclic reversed loads; the results showed that 3D
joints illustrated plumper hysteretic loops and larger
interlayer deformation capacity than those of the pla-
nar hybrid joints. However, the seismic behavior and
shear resistance of the space beam–column sandwich
joints has not been defined in spite of their importance,
and there are no clear calculation methods in design
codes. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the per-
formance of the space beam–column sandwich joint
with slabs.
Advances in Structural Engineering 22(1)
In this article, three groups of specimen are tested
for the research on the seismic properties of RC 3D
beam–column sandwich joints considering three kinds
of concrete strength ratio. Based on the results of
experiments, seismic performance including the failure
mode, ductility, energy dissipation, and deformation
were analyzed. Finally, the formula based on the pla-
nar softened strut-and-tie model (Hwang and Lee,
2000) was modified and presented for calculating shear
capacity of the 3D sandwich joints, and the predictions
were compared to the experimental results.
Test program
Test specimens
In order to compare the influence of concrete strength,
three traditional interior beam–column joint specimens
with slabs in accordance with China’s design and stan-
dards (GB 50010-2010, 2010) and three corresponding
sandwich joint specimens with the same details but dif-
ferent concrete strength in the joint core are tested in
this article. The specimens were supposed as interior
joints of a space frame subjected to earthquake forces.
These specimens (J1/G1, J2/G2, J3/G3; J-indicating
traditional joint, G representing the sandwich joint)
were designed to develop weak-beam strong-column
behavior. Each group of specimens had a different
concrete strength ratio of the column to the beam
(1.39, 1.57, and 1.72, respectively). Figure 1 shows the
plan view and cross-sections and details of the speci-
mens, and Table 1 shows the concrete and steel details.
Hou et al. 71

Table 1. Concrete and steel details.

Property J1/G1 J2/G2 J3/G3 Standard deviation

Strength of the beam concrete fcu (MPa) 32.5 32.5 32.5 1.2
Strength of the concrete in the joint core fcu (MPa) 32.5/45.2 32.5/51.1 32.5/55.9 G1/G2/G3
1.4/2.1/1.7
Strength of the column concrete fcu (MPa) 45.2 51.1 55.9 1.4/2.1/1.7
Strength ratio 1.39 1.57 1.72 –
Yield strength V6 (MPa) 292 320 290 –
Yield strength V8 (MPa) 331 377 335 –
Yield strength V14 (MPa) 475 487 490 5.0/6.0/6.1

Figure 2. Specimen and test setup: (a) photograph of specimen, (b) loading pattern, and (c) test setup.

It can be seen that the beams (L1, L2, L3, and L4) are
perpendicular to each other and the reinforcement
details in the beams are the same. The thickness of
concrete cover of the beam and column was 25 mm.
The traditional joints J1, J2, and J3 were designed
according to the strong column/weak beam, strong
shear/weak bending formula for strong joints in accor-
dance with the design standards of China, while the
sandwich joints had the same design parameters as the
corresponding traditional joints, but with different
core concrete strength. The main purpose is to study
the failure mechanism and the change of load-carrying
capacity of the corresponding sandwich joints.
The Chinese Design Code for Concrete Structures
(GB 50010-2010, 2010) requires that the shear strength
of the RC frame joint should satisfy equation (1) if the
buildings are located on the site with a seismic design
intensity lower than 9°
h i
1:1hj ft bj hj + 0:05hi Nbj fyv Asvj (hb0 a0S )
bc + S
Vjd ł
g RE
where g RE is the seismic adjusting factor; hj is the con-
finement effect factor of the orthogonal beams; ft is
the design tensile strength of concrete; hj and bj are the
height and effective width of the joint core zone,
respectively; N is the design axial force of the upper
column; bc is the width of column; fyv is the design
strength of shear reinforcement; Asvj is the total area of
transverse reinforcements within the effective width of
the joint core zone in the loading direction; hb0 is the
effective depth of beam; S is the spacing of the trans-
verse reinforcements along the beam axis; a0S is the dis-
tance centroid of resultant forces of longitudinal
compressive steel reinforcements and the extreme com-
pression area of the beam.
Test setup and measurement
The bottom of the column was laterally supported on
pin-rollers in two directions and restricted against hor-
izontal displacement, and the top of the column was
also restricted against horizontal displacement, while
the axial column loading was applied with a hydraulic
jack at the top and held constant during the tests. In
order to consider the space effect, the specimens were
loaded at the beam ends through horizontal rigid
members equipped at both ends, and reversing vertical
ð1Þ loads were applied with a hydraulic jack at the mid-
span of the rigid members. Test setup is shown in
Figure 2. At first, axial load was applied at the top of
the column and held constant. Then, quasi-static load
was applied at all the beam ends. Jack stroke was con-
trolled by loading force until the specimen yielded
(referred to as the reinforcement yielding), and each
cycle was repeated one time. After that, the specimens
72
Figure 3. Test measuring instruments.
were loaded under quasi-static cyclic loads with displa-
cement control, and each cycle was repeated two times.
Finally, the specimens were considered to fail when the
peak load value was less than 85% of the maximum
value or the hysteresis loop exhibited an instable
output.
During the tests, a range of transducers were applied
to the experimental setup to monitor the beam–column
joint flexural deformations as shown in Figure 3. Shear
deformations in the core were measured through trans-
ducers placed in an X-shaped configuration. Strain
gauges (82 in all) were uniformly pasted on each stirrup
in joint core and also on the longitudinal bars in the
beams and columns in joint zone and plastic hinge zone
as shown in Figure 4. The recorded load and the corre-
sponding displacements, deformation, and strain data
were then used to analyze the behavior of the sandwich
beam–column joints under cyclic loading.
Test results and analysis
Crack patterns and failure model
After the tests, it was observed that the crack pattern
of specimens J1, G1, J2, and J3 was very similar,
Figure 4. Specimen strain measurement: (a) strain gauges in the joint, (b) one layer of stirrup, and (c) all stirrup in the joint core.
Advances in Structural Engineering 22(1)
crushing cracks of concrete were distributed mainly in
the plastic hinge region of beam ends, while for speci-
mens G2 and G3, crushing cracks of concrete were dis-
tributed mainly in the joint region. The main reason is
that the failure mechanism was different.
For specimens J1, G1, J2, and J3, flexural cracks ini-
tiated first in the beams and slabs, then followed by
shear cracks, and diagonal cracks in the joint panels
eventually appeared. The failure process of these speci-
mens could be divided into four stages: crack propaga-
tion, reinforcement yield, cumulative damage, and
failure. The beam longitudinal reinforcements yielded
under drift ratio 0.5%–0.8% (which was defined as the
vertical displacement at the beam loading point divided
by the distance between the column centerline and the
beam loading point), and at the same time a portion
about 50% of joint stirrups yielded. However, cracks
in the plastic zone at the bottom of beam developed
rapidly after that and extended to the joint core when
carrying capacity of the specimen decreased. Finally,
the beam–joint interface and the column corner at that
location were damaged, but beam flexural failure was
the dominant failure mode and the joint core was not
seriously damaged at the end of the tests as shown in
Figure 5(a) and 5(c), where the black area indicates
that the concrete crushed. The failure modes of beam–
column joints can be divided into three categories—J-
failure, BJ-failure, and B-failure (J-failure refers to
joint core failure, B-failure refers to beam failure in the
plastic hinge regions of the adjacent beams, and BJ-
failure is in between)—so that specimens J1, G1, J2,
and J3 are in the third category (beam failure in the
plastic hinge regions of the adjacent beams, while less
than 60% of stirrups yield in the joint core).
For specimens G2 and G3, flexural cracks initiated
first in the beams and slab, then the shear cracks
appeared in the joint core. Ultimately, diagonal cracks
eventually appeared in the beams. It can be noted that
the beam longitudinal reinforcements yielded under
Hou et al.
Figure 5. Crack pattern and failure mode (J2 and G2): (a) Crack pattern for B-failure, (b) Crack pattern for BJ-failure,
(c) Photograph for B-failure, and (d) Photograph for BJ-failure.
Figure 6. Hysteretic loops for all test specimens.
drift ratio about 0.9%, which is similar to that of the
other specimens. While more than 65% of the stirrups
in the joint core yielded at the same time, and then the
cracks in the plastic zone of the bottom beam devel-
oped rapidly and extended to the joint area. After that
cracks in the core quickly developed until the joint
concrete was crushed, and carrying capacity decreased
rapidly. At the end of the tests, the joint core, beam–
column interface, and the column corner were all dam-
aged, but joint shear failure was the dominant failure
mode as shown in Figure 5(b) and 5(d), which belongs
to BJ-failure (more than 60% of joint stirrups yield
after plastic hinges developed at the ends of adjacent
beams). Therefore, the concrete strength ratio of the
column to the beam should be an important parameter
73
when an application of the sandwich joints is
considered.
Hysteresis curves, skeleton curves, and ductility
The hysteretic loops for all test specimens are shown in
Figure 6. The hysteresis curve shape, size, and evolu-
tion for the sandwich joints were relatively similar to a
stable ductile behavior for drift values in the range
1.0%–5.0%. The stiffness showed no obvious changes
before cracking and the residual deformation was very
little. After the cracking point, curvature decreased
and the rigidity degeneration was obvious. With the
increasing of the beam end displacement, pinch effect
appeared and sandwich specimens G2 and G3
74
Figure 7. Skeleton curves.
appeared to be even more obvious than the corre-
sponding traditional specimens J2 and J3. This is
mainly due to shear failure in the joint core for speci-
mens G2 and G3. This also shows that the energy dis-
sipation of sandwich joints is less compared with
traditional joints. However, we can find that the hys-
teretic curves expressed by beam-tip load and beam-tip
displacement showed asymmetric hysteretic behavior
in both positive and negative loading directions
because of the effect of slabs. During the loading
sequence in positive direction (in the third quadrant),
concrete crushed and steel bars yielded in compression
at the bottom of the beam end, causing dramatic
strength degradation. However, during the loading
sequence in negative direction (in the first quadrant),
tensile yield of the bottom steel bars was reached but
the concrete was not crushed and the steel bars were
not yielded in compression at the top of the beam end
so that the load remains stable as shown in the first
quadrant.
All the skeleton curves are shown in Figure 7. Three
groups of specimens showed similar laws of develop-
ment. For joints in the first group, after the positive or
negative yield displacement, carrying capacity of the
two types of joints was similar. However, for the sec-
ond and third groups, where the ratio of column con-
crete strength to slab concrete strength exceeded 1.5,
carrying capacity of the sandwich joints was lower than
Table 2. Test results.
Specimen J1 G1
Yielding strength (kN) 45.8 44.1
Yield displacement (mm) 7.84 8 7.5
Ultimate load (kN) 68.3 67
Ultimate displacement (mm) 76.5 66.7
Peak load (kN) 80.3 78.8
Displacement ductility 9.8 8.3
Advances in Structural Engineering 22(1)
that of the traditional joints. The difference of carrying
capacity in the second group was relatively obvious.
This is also mainly due to joint shear failure occurring
in the sandwich specimens in both the groups.
The summary results of the tests are listed in Table
2. The displacement ductility coefficient is the ratio of
the ultimate displacement to the yield displacement.
The table shows that the displacement ductility coeffi-
cient of traditional joint J1 is slightly higher than that
of sandwich joint G1, ranging from 9.8 to 8.3.
However, the displacement ductility coefficients of tra-
ditional joint J2 and J3 are much higher than that of
sandwich joint G2 and G3, ranging from 8.8 and 7.1
to 5.6 and 5.1, respectively. Concrete strength effect on
the ductility can be described in separate groups.
Joints J1 and G1 belong to B-failure and the variation
in ductility due to different concrete strengths was not
significant. However, for sandwich joints G2 and G3
with different concrete strength ratios (1.57 and 1.72),
the failure modes change from B-failure to BJ-failure
so that changing the concrete strength ratio would
influence the failure model therefore affecting the duc-
tility eventually.
Deformation performance
The loading displacement of beam end can be used to
define the total specimen deformation according to the
loading pattern as shown in Figure 2, and the total dis-
placements of the specimens contain three compo-
nents: the beam deformation, the column deformation,
and the joint deformation. Because the beam and col-
umn deformation are measured directly by displace-
ment transducer as shown in Figure 4, the joint core
deformation can be calculated from the difference
between the total specimen deformation and the defor-
mation of beam and column. The proportions of each
component of the specimen deformation are shown in
Figure 8. It can be seen that at the initiation of load-
ing, the proportion of the shear deformation in the
joint core was small for all specimens and increased
gradually. At the same time, the corresponding pro-
portion of the beam deformation decreased.
J2 G2 J3 G3
64 57 73 65.4
10.3 10.3 13.4
77.2 75.5 90.9 84.1
66 57.65 73.2 69
90.8 88.8 106.9 98.9
8.8 5.6 7.1 5.1
Hou et al. 75

Figure 8. Deformation decomposition ratios. (a) J1, (b) G1, (c) J2, (d) G2, (e) J3, and (f) G3.

The proportions of the joint shear deformation and

beam deformation were basically similar during the
test, except that the proportion of the shear deforma-
tion of corresponding sandwich joints specimen G2
and specimen G3 varied significantly. The proportion
of the joint shear deformation of specimen G2 and G3
were higher obviously than that of the other speci-
mens, and the corresponding proportion of the beam
deformation for both the specimen were lower obvi-
ously. The main reason is that the failure mechanism
was different between the sandwich specimens (BJ-fail-
ure for G2 and G3) and the corresponding traditional
joints (B-failure for J2 and J3) in group 2 and group 3
as shown in Figure 5. Figure 9. Beam reinforcement strain in the joint.

Strain analysis
Beam longitudinal reinforcement in the joint. The strain dis-
tribution of reinforcement at the bottom of the beam
measured by the strain gauges when the drift reached
4% is shown in Figure 9. The figure shows that the
strain and stress of reinforcement at the bottom of the
beam for traditional joints (J1, J2, and J3) was larger
than that of the corresponding sandwich specimens
(G1, G2, and G3) in the plastic hinges zone, but the
opposite happened at the joints’ core area. The results
show that the strain distribution of sandwich joints is
more uniform than that of the traditional one. This
phenomenon can be explained by the mechanism of
deformation and failure. When the plastic hinge is
formed at the beam end for the traditional joints, the
deformation of the joint is mainly concentrated in the
plastic hinge region, and the strain of beam reinforce-
ment in the plastic hinge regions increased faster.
However, the strain behavior of longitudinal reinforce-
ment at the upper part of beams was similar for both
kinds of specimens and was all less than that of longi-
tudinal reinforcement at the bottom because of the
interaction of the slab.
Column longitudinal reinforcement in the joint. Figure 10
shows the strain distribution of the column reinforce-
ment when the specimens yielded. The tensile and
76
Figure 10. Column longitudinal reinforcement strain in the
joint.
compression strains in the sandwich joints were greater
than that in the corresponding traditional joints for all
three groups of specimens. At the same load level,
because of the lower strength concrete in the core area
of the sandwich joints, the strain of the column reinfor-
cement was larger than that in traditional specimens.
This indicated that the deformation of joint core of the
sandwich specimens was larger. Moreover, due to the
reduction of the concrete strength of the sandwich
joints’ core, it can be concluded that the vertical com-
pression carrying capacity would get lower compared
with traditional joints.
Stirrup strain in joint core. A further comparison of the
strain distribution of stirrup bars in the joint core is
presented in Figure 11. The typical strain gauge loca-
tions in joint core are shown in Figure 3. It can be seen
from Figure 11 that the most stirrup strains of sand-
wich joints (red spots) were greater than that of the
traditional joints for all three groups of specimens
when the beam yielded. It indicates that the shear car-
rying capacity of the joint core would be lower than
that of the traditional corresponding joint. This is due
to the concrete strength of the sandwich joint’s core
was lower than that of the corresponding traditional
joint and the stirrup needed to bear more load.
Shear carrying capacity
The joint core is subjected to the combined action of
pressure, bending, and shear from the column, beam,
and plate, which belongs to the area of stress disorder
and does not conform to the assumption of the plane
section. If it is not designed properly, it may become
the weak part of the structural elements and have a sig-
nificant effect on the overall response of the structure,
even reducing the strength and ductility performance.
At present semi-empirical formulas for predicting the
joint shear strength based on test results are given in
Advances in Structural Engineering 22(1)
Figure 11. Stirrup strain in the joint.
the concrete structure design code (GB 50010-2010,
2010) as shown by formula (1), but the specification is
too simple and no specific calculation method for the
sandwich joint is recommended in structural analysis.
Previous research focused on the plane joint, while the
tests results of the space beam–column joints with slabs
indicate that the analysis model needs further study (Li
et al., 2009; Park and Mosalam, 2013). Based on the
strut-and-tie model, a softened strut-and-tie model
which considers concrete softening was developed by
Hwang and Lee (2000). The applicability of this model
to shear calculation has been confirmed by many
researches (Moradi and Reza Esfahani, 2017; Shuraim
and El-Sayed, 2016). According to the characteristics
of the space sandwich joint with the slab, a space shear
model based on this model was developed in this arti-
cle for the space sandwich joint with the slab subjected
to bidirectional horizontal load. By comparing with
the test results, the shear strength of the spatial sand-
wich joints could be well predicted by the proposed
model.
Softened strut-and-tie model of plane joints
The simplified softened strut-and-tie model proposed
by Hwang and Lee (2000) is shown in Figure 12. This
model satisfies the static equilibrium, the softened biax-
ial constitutive laws of concrete, and the deformation
compatibility condition.
The simplified calculating method for softened
strut-and-tie model and the formula for shear strength
follow (Hwang and Lee, 2000)
V = fKzfc0 bs as cos u ð2Þ
where f is the strength reduction ratio; K is the strut-
and-tie index; fc0 is the compressive strength of a
standard concrete cylinder in units of MPa; z is the
softening coefficient of the concrete which is approxi-
pffiffiffiffiffi
mated as z = 3:35= f 0c ł 0:52; bs is the effective width
of the diagonal strut, which is taken as the depth of the
Hou et al. 77

Figure 12. Simplified softened strut-and-tie model.

Figure 13. 3D softened strut-and-tie model.

column’s section; as is the effective depth of the diago-

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi where g h is the component of diagonal compression
nal strut estimated by as = c2b + c2c ; cb is the depth of transferred by the horizontal tie in the absence of the
the compression area of the beam obtained by taking vertical tie; g v is the component of diagonal compres-
cb = hb =5; hb is the beam depth; cb is the depth of the sion carried by the vertical tie in the absence of the
compression area in the column obtained by taking horizontal tie; fyh and fyv are the yielding strengths of
cc = ½0:25 + 0:85N =(Ac fc0 )hc ; N is the axial force acting the horizontal and vertical rebar ties, respectively; F h

and Fv are the equilibrium forces of the horizontal and
on the column; Ac is the gross cross-sectional area of
 h and K
vertical ties, respectively; K  v are the equilibrium
the column; and hc is the section height of the column
in the direction of loading; u is the angle between the constants of the horizontal and vertical ties,
diagonal strut and horizontal axial assuming that respectively.
u = arctan (h00b =h00c ); h00b and h00c are the distance between
the extreme longitudinal reinforcement in the beam
and the column section, respectively. Softened strut-and-tie model of space joints
The strut-and-tie index K can be obtained as follows A space shear model was proposed for bidirectional
horizontal load based on the softened strut-and-tie
2 tan u  1 model according to the characteristics of space sand-
gh = ð3Þ
3 wich joint with slab. The diagonal strut is a triangular
2 cot u  1 prism wired by the beam and column bending-
gv = ð4Þ compression zone, as shown in Figure 13.
3
Because the slabs are involved, the concrete depth
h ’ 1 of compression zone between column and beam sec-
K   ð5Þ
1  0:2 g h + g2h tion increases. Therefore, it can be obtained as
follows
v ’ 1
K   ð6Þ Asb fyb + Asp fyp
1  0:2 g v + g 2v cb = ð11Þ
b1 fcu bb
F  h zf 0 as bj ) 3 cos u
 h = g h 3 (K ð7Þ
c
where Asb is the steel bar area in the tensile area of
F  v zf 0 as bj ) 3 cos u
v = g v 3 (K ð8Þ beam; fyb is the yielding strength of beam longitudinal
c
bar; Asp is the area of the floor slab reinforcement
 h  1)Ath fyh
(K within effective flange width range (six times the thick-
Kh = 1 + h
łK ð9Þ
h
F ness of concrete floor; Li and Liu, 2010); fyp is the
yielding strengths of the floor slab’s longitudinal bar;
 v  1)Atv fyv
(K
Kv = 1 + v
łK ð10Þ b1 is the stress coefficient; b1 = 0:8 for fcu ł 50 MPa,
v
F b1 = 0:8  0:02(fcu  50) for 50 MPa\fcu ł 80 MPa.
78
Table 3. Shear capacity of the sandwich joints.
Specimens Vmax (kN) VSST (kN)
G2 806.4 712.9
G3 902.6 791.2
Considering the redistribution of internal force of
column under bidirectional load, cc , the depth of com-
pression area of the column, is obtained by taking
8 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
< 2c0c bc
 q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
cc = p ffiffi
ffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
: 2 hc  hc 3 bc  2c0c bc =2 cc .hc
Strut area is estimated by taking
8 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>   ment with the experimental results, the test results of
>
< 2c0c bc c0c bc + c2b
Astr = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
pffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
: 2c0c bc =sin arctan 2(hc  hc 3bc  2c0c bc cc .hc
The compressive strength of concrete for sandwich
joints can be modified to effective compressive
strength (fce0 = min (0:75fcc0 +0:35fcs0 , fcc0 ), where 1:4\
fcc0 =fcs0 ł 2:5, and fcc0 and fcs0 are compressive strengths
of the column and slab concrete, respectively.
The direction of diagonal strut in joint core is 45°.
For convenience of engineering design, it needs to be
carried out according to the direction of two orthogo-
nal beams; therefore, this study considers space shear
carrying capacity of two-way couplings in direction of
orthogonal beam axis. Therefore, shear capacity of the
core concrete can be determined by equation (14)
fKzf 0ce Astr cos u
VSST = pffiffiffi
2 References
The prediction values were in agreement with
experimental results, as shown in Table 3. It shows
that the space shear model proposed for the bidirec-
tional horizontal load based on the softened strut-and-
tie is suitable for these sandwich joint specimens, and
the shear bearing capacity calculation with the effec-
tive compressive resistance instead of the joints’ con-
crete compressive strength is reasonable.
Conclusion
Three groups of space interior RC beam–column joints
including sandwich and traditional joints were tested
under lateral load reversals to simulate seismic loading.
Advances in Structural Engineering 22(1)
Based on the experimental results and analysis, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn.
Vmax =VSST For the joints with a ratio of column concrete com-
1.13 pressive strength to beam concrete compressive
1.14 strength less than 1.5, the failure mode of sandwich
joints was B-failure. Otherwise, the failure mode may
change from B-failure to BJ-failure.
When the ratio of concrete compressive strength is
less than 1.5, the concrete can cast continuously through
core area of the joints for the specimens with small shear
compression ratio. For joints with high shear compres-
sion ratio, the shear carrying capacity should be calcu-
c c ł hc lated according to the beam reinforcement. If it does not
meet the requirements, some strengthening measures
should be added to make up for adverse effects caused
ð12Þ by the reduction of concrete strength. When the ratio of
concrete compressive strength is greater than 1.5, addi-
tional strengthening measures should be taken.
Although the space shear model are in good agree-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 only two sandwich joints with BJ-failure constructed
the data for comparisons, and further numerical study
on collapse mechanism of the space sandwich joints is
ð13Þ being performed.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was financially supported by the China
Natural Science Foundation (51378039, 51421005) and
Beijing Science and Technology Foundation (KM20121
0005025).
ð14Þ
Abdel Wahab EAW (2005) Transmission of Column Loads
through Lower Strength Concrete Floors Experimental and
Analytical Study. Edmonton, AB, Canada: University of
Alberta.
ACI Committee 318-08 (2008) Building code requirements
for structural concrete (ACI 318–2008) and commentary.
Available at: http://en.fsajedi.ir/wp-content/uploads/2012/
06/ACI-318-2008.pdf
Bianchini AC, Woods RE and Kesler CE (1960) Effect of
floor concrete strength on column strength. ACI Journal
31(11): 1149–1169.
Chen ZP, Xu JJ, Chen YL, et al. (2015) Seismic behavior of
steel reinforced concrete (SRC) T-shaped column-beam
planar and 3D hybrid joints under cyclic loads. Earth-
quakes and Structures 8: 555–572.
Hou et al. 79

CSA A23.3-04 (2004) Design of concrete structures. Avail- Zhao M, Su XZ, Lu DY, et al. (2004) Seismic properties of
able at: http://sfotoohi.ir/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ RC frame sandwich type joint. In: Proceedings of the 13th
CSA-A23.3-04.pdf world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver,
GB 50011-2010 (2010) Code for design of concrete structures BC, Canada, 1–6 August.
(Ministry of housing and urban-rural development of the
People’s Republic of China). Beijing, China: China Archi-
tecture & Building Press (In Chinese). Appendix 1
Hwang SJ and Lee HJ (2000) Analytical model for predicting
Notation
shear strengths of interior reinforced concrete beam-
column joints for seismic resistance. ACI Structural Jour- as, bs depth and width of the diagonal strut,
nal 97: 35–44. respectively
Lee JH and Yoon YS (2012) Prediction of effective compres- Ac gross area of the column
sive strength of corner columns composing weaker slab- Asb reinforcement area in the tensile area of
column joint. Magazine of Concrete Research 64(12):
the beam
1113–1121.
Asp reinforcement area of the floor slab
Lee SC and Mendis P (2004) Behavior of high-strength con-
crete corner columns intersected by weaker slabs with dif-
located in the beam effective flange width
ferent thicknesses. ACI Structural Journal 101(1): 11–18. range
Li B, Cao TNT and Pan TC (2009) Experimental and numer- Asvj total sectional area of transverse
ical investigations on the seismic behavior of lightly rein- reinforcements within the effective width
forced concrete beam-column joints. Journal of Structural of the joint core zone in the loading
Engineering 135: 1007–1018. direction
Li YM and Liu JW (2010) Pseudo-static test for reinforced bc, hc width and depth of column, respectively
concrete sandwich beam-column joints. Journal of Build- bj, hj effective width and height of the joint core
ing Structures 31(12): 74–82. zone, respectively
Marco B, Santino G, Tommasini M, et al. (2016) Beam-col- cb, cc depth of the compression area of the beam
umn joints in continuous RC frames comparison between and column, respectively
cast-in-situ and precast solutions. Engineering Structures
Ee energy dissipation of an equivalent elastic
127: 129–144.
Moradi M and Reza Esfahani M (2017) Application of the
cycle
strut-and-tie method for steel fiber reinforced concrete Eh energy that is dissipated in each load cycle
deep beams. Construction and Building Materials 131: fc cylinder strength of concrete
423–437. fcc compressive strengths of high-strength
Ospina CE and Alexander SDB (1998) Transmission of inte- concrete in the joint core and columns
rior concrete column loads through floors. Journal of fcs compressive strengths of normal concrete
Structural Engineering 124(6): 602–610. in beams
Park SJ and Mosalam KM (2013) Experimental investigation fce effective compressive strength
of nonductile RC corner beam-column joints with floor ft design tensile strength of concrete
slabs. Journal of Structural Engineering 139: 1–14. fyv design strength of shear reinforcement
Shafaei J, Hosseini A and Marefat MS (2017) Experimental fyh, fyv yielding strengths of the joint hoop
evaluation of seismically and non-seismically detailed
reinforcement and intermediate column
external RC beam-column joints. Journal of Earthquake
bars, respectively
Engineering 21(5): 776–807.
Shin HO, Yoon YS and Mitchell D (2017) Axial load trans- fyb, fyp yielding strength of the beam
fer in non-slender ultra-high-strength concrete columns reinforcement and slab reinforcement,
through normal-strength concrete floor slabs. Engineering respectively
Structures 136: 466–480. hb depth of the beam
Shin HO, Yoon YS, Cook WD, et al. (2016) Enhancing the hbo effective depth of beam
performance of UHSC columns intersected by weaker K strut-and-tie index
slabs. Engineering Structures 127: 359–373. lc length of column
Shuraim AB and El-Sayed AK (2016) Experimental verifica- lp length of plastic hinge region of the beam
tion of strut and tie model for HSC deep beams without M/(V h) shear span ratio
shear reinforcement. Engineering Structures 117: 71–85. N design axial force
Yu Q and Li S (2004) The study of joints behavior for the
Nc axial force acting on the column
core area and columns with different concrete strength.
s spacing of the transverse reinforcements
Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science Edition)
32(12): 1583–1588.
along the beam axis
ts thickness of the floor slab
80
Vjbf horizontal joint shear strength when the
beam reinforcement yields
Vj1 horizontal shear strength of type 1 joint
Vjd horizontal joint shear strength predicted
by Chinese Design Code for Concrete
Structures
VSST horizontal joint shear strength of the
softened strut-and-tie model
VT measured shear strength
a concrete strength ratio
g RE seismic adjusting factor
g h, gv fractions of diagonal compression
transferred by the horizontal tie in the
absence of the horizontal ties and vertical
ties, respectively
Advances in Structural Engineering 22(1)
eb longitudinal strain of the beam
reinforcement in the plastic hinge region
of the joint
ebf tensile strain of the beam at yielding
er, ed average principal tensile and compressive
strains in the joint, respectively
ej average concrete strain in the center of the
joint
hj confinement effect factor of the
orthogonal beams
u angle between the diagonal strut and
horizontal axial
y softening coefficient of the concrete
jh equivalent hysteretic damping ratio