2078
2079
concealed column, with width equal to the wall web thickness, where a beam
frames into a web of a special structural wall (Fig. 1). Structural engineers assume
that this addition improves the overall joint performance in terms of lateral
strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, inelastic deformation, shear strength, and
development of beam reinforcing bars into the shear walls. However, the effect of
these concealed columns has not been studied extensively and therefore needs
further study.
Core Wall
Shear Wall
Beam
Fig. 1A floor plan showing beams framing into shear walls.
As mentioned previously, there are very few experimental studies
conducted on nonplanar beamtowall (or beamwall like column) joints. Li et al.,
(2002) performed quasistatic tests on four fullscale nonseismically and limited
seismically detailed joints. Their test results showed that due to presence of
limited joint transverse reinforcement, displacement ductility increased by nearly
50%.
Li et al., (2009) carried out experimental tests on six fullscale interior
beamtowalllike columns and beamtowall joints. The results indicated that the
axial load did not greatly influence the energy dissipation capacity, stiffness, and
nominal shear in the joint but caused significant bond deterioration through the
joint and, consequently, reduced lateral load capacity. Their test results also
showed that these joints can withstand 2.0% drift ratio without significant strength
and stiffness degradation.
Although there have been some studies conducted on performance
evaluation of nonductile beamcolumn joints, the results may not reliably be
considered and applied for such joints since the joint stiffness and strength
deterioration is greatly influenced in relatively thin walls by bond slip (Kurose et
al., 1988).
SPECIMEN DESIGN AND DESCRIPTION
Three halfscale interior nonplanar RC walltobeam subassemblies,
hereafter referred to as WB1, WB2, and WB3, were designed, constructed and
tested under quasistatic cyclic loading by Abdullah (2013). The objective was to
observe and document cracking and damage in the joint and its vicinity. Thus, the
beams were designed to be flexurally stronger than the walls to ensure that the
majority of the cracking and damage would occur in the joint region and the wall
near the joint. However, the beams represent gravity framing beams in structural
wall building systems, without any special detailing or confinement. The walls
were designed and detailed, in the inplane direction, to satisfy the ACI 31811
seismic provisions for special structural walls, except that the wall web horizontal
bars are not bent within the boundary elements. The concealed columns provided
ASCE
2080
in the walls were treated as gravity columns. All the specimens were designed to
the same level of axial compressive load, 0.2Agfc.
All the specimens generally have the same geometry but different wall
sectional reinforcement. The ratio of wall length to beam width is 3 for all
specimens. Each specimen is a part of a structural shearwall system, where
structural walls (shear walls) are used as lateral load resistant system to resist
earthquake induced lateral loads in the inplane direction of the wall, with story
height of 6 (1829 mm) and beam span length of 10 (3048 mm) (Fig. 2) to
represent halfscale wallbeam subassemblages of a building having 12 (3658
mm) story height and 20 (6096 mm) beam span length.
WB1 represents a baseline or reference specimen, as it is a bare wallbeam
connection, meaning that the joint is not strengthened with a concealed column.
Furthermore, the joint has no special lateral reinforcement. The web vertical bars
are located outside the beam cage. Two horizontal web bars pass through the joint
core on each face of the wall.
Fig. 2Typical test specimen subassembly : WB1, WB2, and WB3. (Note: 1in. =
24.5 mm; #3 bar = 10 mm dia. bar; #5 bar = 16 mm dia. bar)
WB2 is similar to WB1, except that a concealed column is made out of the
web vertical bars and passes through the joint core (Fig. 3). In WB2 wall, the wall
web vertical bars are used to create a concealed column passing through the joint
core. Thus, there is apparently no vertical reinforcement in the wall web besides
the concealed column bars. The concealed column longitudinal bars pass through
the cage of the beam.
WB3 has, in addition to the reinforcement provided in WB1, a concealed
column in the wall passing through the joint core. Wall reinforcement in WB3 is
identical to WB1 with two differences. First, a concealed column is incorporated
into the wall. Second, the two web vertical bars on each side are displaced slightly
towards the boundary elements, as seen in Fig. 3. The concealed column
longitudinal bars pass through the beam reinforcing cage.
WB1 does not have any particular lateral shear reinforcement in the joint
in the form of hoops or ties. However, WB2 and WB3 have the same amount of
joint shear reinforcement, which is provided by the concealed column lateral
reinforcement passing through the joint.
ASCE
2081
All the specimens have the same boundary elements (BEs) in terms of both
geometry and reinforcement. Moreover, all the specimens have the same beam
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. Reinforcement details of the specimens
are shown in Fig. 2 and 3 and a summary is provided in Table 1.
4  #5 Each End
4"
Seismic Hook
4"
4"
2  #3 Each Face
4  #3
24" 8 83"
4  #5 Each End
4  #5 Each End
Seismic Hook
Seismic Hook
4  #4
24" 4 81"
2  #3 Each Face
#3 @4.5" Each Face
4"
3
4" Cover (typ.)
4"
6"
4"
6"
3
4" Cover (typ.)
6"
WB1
WB2
WB3
Fig. 3Wall sectional reinforcement (Section BB). (Note: 1in. = 25.4 mm; #3 bar =
10 mm dia. bar; #4 bar = 13 mm dia. bar; #5 bar = 16 mm dia. bar).
Table 1Test specimen reinforcement details
Unit
Beam
top
Wall Web
bottom
WB1
0.0073 0.0081
0.0081
Concealed Col.
Long. Reinf. Trans. Reinf.

4#3
#3 @ 5 o.c.
WB3
0.0073 0.0081
4#4
#3 @ 5 o.c.
Note: 1in. = 25.4 mm; #3 bar = 10 mm dia. bar; #4 bar = 13 mm dia. bar.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
A concrete compressive strength, fc, of 4,000 psi (27.58 MPa) was
specified. All three specimens were cast using readymixed normal weight
concrete of the same batch.
All the steel bars used for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were
ASTM A615 Grade 60 deformed bars. These deformed bars are permitted by ACI
31811 to be used for special structural walls because: 1. The actual yield
strengths do not exceed specified yield strength,fy , by more than 18 ksi; and 2.
The ratios of the actual tensile strengths to the actual yield strengths are not less
than 1.25 for any. Concrete and reinforcing steel properties are given in Table2.
Table 2Material properties
Concrete
Steel
TestDay Age
fc
Ec
Bar As
fy
fu
Unit
[ksi] [ksi] No. [in2] [ksi] [ksi]
WB1 5.493 4225 3 0.11 74.3 101
WB2 5.576 4256 4 0.2 76 110
WB3 5.576 4256 5 0.31 77 113
Note: 1 ksi = 6.9 MPa; 1 in2 = 645.2 mm2.
ASCE
2082
ASCE
2083
strain of the concrete cover and unconfined concrete in the web of the walls
reaches this limit, the concrete is considered ineffective.
In regards to modeling the behavior of the longitudinal steel reinforcement,
a constitutive model is used which incorporates strainhardening (Selby and
Vecchio, 1997). In this formulation, a perfect bond between steel and concrete is
assumed. This elasticplastic relation can be formulated as follows:
fs = Es s when 0 s y
fs = fy when y s sh
fs = fy +( s  sh ) Esh when
sh
Where
fs = Stress in steel reinforcement.
Es = Modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement (typical value is 29000 ksi).
s = Strain in steel reinforcement corresponding to fs .
y = Yield strain, which is equal to yield stress divided by young modulus.
fy = Yield stress of steel reinforcement.
sh = Strain at the initiation of strain hardening (assumed to be 0.005).
Esh = Strainhardening young modulus (assumed to be 1200 ksi).
f = Maximum strain in the steel reinforcement.
Because of the fact that the beams are all gravity framing beams with light
lateral reinforcement, the entire beam section is assumed to be unconfined.
However, the walls are modeled in such a way that the concrete in the wall web
and cover is considered unconfined whereas the concrete in the boundary element
cores is considered to be confined to different degrees based on the provided
volumetric reinforcement ratio, as shown in Fig. 5.
ASCE
2084
Aj [in2]
Htheo
[k] ACI 31811 NZS 3101
84
WB1
19.5
66
84
WB2
20.3
66
WB3
23.2
84
66
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 k = 4.448 kN; #3 bar = 10 mm dia. bar; #4 bar = 12 mm dia.
bar; #5 bar = 16 mm dia. bar.
Unit
ASCE
2085
higher nominal joint shear can be expected when the beamcolumn joint is
subjected to axial loads higher than 0.1 fc Ag, and they suggested an equation to
predict the increase:
N* is the column axial and Njh is the joint shear strength without axial load
on the joint. Specimens in this study were not subjected to axial loads significantly
higher than 0.1fcAg, as shown in Table 3.
Li et al. (2002) performed quasistatic cyclic loading tests on oblong
beamwide column joints with beam to column width ratio of 3. They found that
joint transverse reinforcement did not have impact on maximum nominal joint
shear stress but caused significant increase in ductility.
NZS3101. This document specifies maximum joint shear strength for
interior beamcolumn joints with nonseismic detailing to be between (0.11f'c to
0.17f'c ). Li et al., (2009) and Li et al., (2002) found their test results of specimens
with column to beam width ratio of 3.56 and 3.0, respectively, to be correlated
well with these limits.
Hakuto et al. (2000). They developed a relation (Vjh = 0.17 fc (MPa)) to
predict nominal joint shear strength for interior beamcolumn joints without joint
transverse reinforcement based on analyzing a limited test data.
Wang et al. (2012). Recently, Wang et al. (2012) proposed a model to
predict the nominal joint shear strength of both exterior and interior beamcolumn
joints. Their model incorporates the contribution of the joint reinforcement (both
horizontal joint shear reinforcement and intermediate vertical column
reinforcement) through increasing the nominal tensile strength of concrete. They
calibrated their model by comparing with a broad available experimental database
of 106 tests on both exterior and interior beamcolumn joints.
It should be noted that the joints tested in this investigation did not have
intermediate vertical reinforcement passing through the joint core. However,
specimens WB2 and WB3 had horizontal joint shear reinforcement from the
concealed column transverse reinforcement.
The last two models (Hakuto et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2012) were
developed for two dimensional beamcolumn subassemblages where there are no
transverse beams framing into the joint; that is, the joint is not confined laterally.
Thus, results from these two models are multiplied by an amplification factor 1.33,
as specified by ACI 318 and ACIASCE 352 for joints confined on all four sides
by beams. The joint shear stress coefficients, , are calculated as the predicted
joint shear stress (v) divided by square root of concrete compressive strength (fc)
and are presented in Table 4.
Table 4Joint shear stress coefficients,
Unit ACI 31811 NZS310106 Hakuto et al. Wang et al.
WB1
WB2
WB3
20
20
20
7.34 to 11.32
7.34 to 11.32
7.34 to 11.32
16
16
16
9.3
14.35
14.23
2086
column, ACI 31811 specifies the connection effective joint shear width as the
smaller of beam width plus joint depth or beam width plus twice the smaller
perpendicular distance from beam side to column, as illustrated in Fig. 6a. The
specimens tested in this research are wallbeam subassemblages in which the wall
length is three times the beams width. Therefore, one might be able to infer that
the latter case may fit this situation.
For the case where a narrower beam frames into a wider column, Paulay
and Priestley (1992) suggested that the effective joint width be taken as the
column width or beam width plus half of the column depth, whichever is smaller
(i.e. the sum of the narrower member width and the distance between lines of an
angle of 26.5 (slope of 1 in 2)), as schematically explained in Fig. 6b. This
method of defining the joint width was incorporated into NZS 310106.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6 Effective joint area: (a) ACI 31811, (b) Paulay and Priestley, 1992.
DISCUSSION
As seen in Table 3, there is a slight increase in wall nominal moment
strength and specimen lateral strength (approximately 4%) of WB2 in comparison
to WB1 as a result of slight increase in concrete compressive strength. On the
other hand, a noticeable improvement in wall nominal moment strength and
specimen lateral strength (approximately 19%) can be observed in WB3, which is
attributed to the addition of the concealed column in WB3.
In regards with nominal joint shear strength, the NZS 3101 gives the most
conservative predicted shear strength among all four models described here. ACI
31811 model tends to be more tolerant to evaluate nominal joint shear strength,
which is approximately twice of that obtained by NZS 3101, as seen in Table 4.
Joint shear stress coefficients, , for Hakuto et al., (2000) and Wang et al., (2012)
are relatively close for both WB2 and WB3. However, Wang et al., (2012)
predicted less joint shear strength for WB1 than the other two. This is because
WB2 and WB3 both have some horizontal joint shear reinforcement contributed
by the concealed columns.
The method of defining the effective joint shear area described by ACI
31811 gives higher results when used for connections under investigation
(Table3). However, these provisions are particularly stipulated for beamcolumn
joints in special moment frames and might not reasonably be applicable for wallbeam joints. Paulay and Priestley (1992) assumption to define the effective joint
shear area is apparently more reasonable. Hakuto et al. (2000), Li et al. (2002),
ASCE
2087
and Li et al. (2009) used the method illustrated in Fig. 6b to calculate the effective
joint shear area. Some of their test specimens had ratio of column to beam width
of 3 or more. Furthermore, experimental observations by Abdullah (2013) suggest
that the method presented by Paulay and Priestley (1992) is a more realistic
assumption for specimens under investigation, as can be observed in Fig. 7. Thus,
this method is adopted to calculate the effective joint shear area, as shown in
Table 4. A more thorough discussion and comparison of theoretical and
experimental results of specimens described here can be found in Abdullah (2013).
10
2088
Kurose, Y., Guimaraes, G. N., Liu, Z., Kreger, M. E., and Jirsa, J. O, Study of
Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Joints under Uniaxial and Biaxial
Loading PMFSEL Report No. 882. Austin, TX: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1988, pp.
Li, B., Wu, Y. N., and Pan, T.C., Seismic Behavior of Nonseismically Detailed
Interior BeamWide Column JointsPart I: Experimental Results and
Observed Behavior. ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 6, 2002, pp. 791802.
Li, B., Pan, TC., and Tran, C., Seismic Behavior of Nonseismically Detailed
Interior BeamWide Column and BeamWall Connections. ACI
Structural Journal, V.106, No. 5, 2009, pp. 591599.
Lin C.M., Restrepo J.I., and Park R., "An Alternative Design Method for Interior
BeamColumn Joints of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames,"
NZNSEE Conference, Wairakes, Taupo, March 1997.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R., "Theoretical StressStrain Model of
Confined Concrete." Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 114, No. 8,
1988b, pp. 18041826.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R., "Theoretical StressStrain Model of
Confined Concrete." Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 114, No. 8,
1988b, pp. 18041826.
NZS 3101, New Zealand StandardConcrete structures standard: Part 1 The
Design of Concrete Structures. Wellington, NZ: Standards New Zealand,
2006, 646 pp.
Park, S., and Mosalam, K. M. 2009. Shear Strength Models of Exterior BeamColumn Joints without Transverse Reinforcement PEER Report 2009/106.
Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, First Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1992,
744 pp.
Popovics, S., "A Numerical Approach to the Complete StressStrain Curves of
Concrete." Cement and Concrete Research, V. 3, No. 5, 1933, pp. 583599.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., Strength and Ductility of Confined Concrete.
Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 118, 1992, pp. 15901607.
Scott, B.D., Park, R., and Priestley, M.J.N., "StressStrain Behavior of Concrete
Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates." Journal
of American Concrete Institute, V. 79, 1982, pp. 1327.
Selby, R.G. and Vecchio, F.J., A Constitutive Model for Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Solids. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 24, No. 3,
1997, pp. 460470.
Thorenfeldt, E., Tomaszewicz, A., and Jensen, J.J., "Mechanical Properties of
HighStrength Concrete and Application in Design." Proceedings of the
Symposium on Utilization of HighStrength Concrete. Stavanger, Norway,
1987, pp. 149159.
Wang, G., Dai, J., and Teng J.G., Shear Strength Model for RC BeamColumn
Joints under Seismic Loading. Engineering Structures, V. 40, 2012, pp.
350360.
ASCE
11