Application of Strut-and-Tie

Concepts to Concrete Bridge

Joints in Seismic Regions
Over the past decade, comprehensive experimental and analytical
studies on cap beam-to-column concrete bridge joints have been
conducted, with an emphasis on joint force transfer mechanisms
based on strut-and-tie concepts. Using the findings from these
studies, which focused on improving both detailing and seismic
performance, a treatment for designing and assessing bridge joints
subjected to in-plane seismic actions using force transfer models is
given in this paper. Following an introduction to joint force
conditions and potential failure modes, the force transfer method
Sri Sritharan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
(FTM) suitable for design and assessment of bridge joints, including
Department of Civil and guidelines suitable for designers, is introduced. Strut-and-tie concepts
Construction Engineering applicable to the modeling of reinforced and prestressed concrete
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa bridge joints subjected to seismic actions are then discussed,
followed by a presentation of key joint mechanisms developed from
these concepts. Joint force transfer models based on the proposed
mechanisms and design examples are also included to assist
structural engineers with the application of FTM.

eginning with the pioneering understand structural behavior and ap

B work of Ritter’ and Mörsch

2
about a century ago, numerous
researchers have examined the appli
cation of strut-and-tie model concepts
3 Typical
to structural design problems.
Jason M. Ingham, Ph.D. applications have been directed at the
Senior Lecturer detailing of deep beams, beam sup
Department of Civil and ports, frame corners or knee joints,
Environmental Engineering corbels, and membranes with open
University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand
ings, when subjected to static loading.
More recently, strut-and-tie model
concepts have been applied in order to
propriately detail cap beam-to-column
bridge joints, bridge footings and
other bridge structural systems sub
jected to seismic loading. These stud
ies examined both reinforced and pre
stressed concrete elements, and
generally emphasized the benefits of
prestressing in seismic design.
This paper presents a methodology
suitable for design and assessment of
bridge joints subjected to in-plane seis
mic actions, which hereafter is referred

66 PCI JOURNAL
 Table 1. Summary of large-scale in-plane seismic tests on bridge cap beam-to-column joints considered in the
investigation of FTM.
-
- Description of joint tests Test scale Number of joints tested —

As-built, retrofitted, repaired and redesianed bridge knee joint systems

33 percent 4 knee joints lngham et al.
7
with columns having interlocking spirals. - - - -

As-built, retrofitted, repaired and redesigned bridge knee joint systems

. 33 percent 4 knee joints lngham et al.
8
- having circular columns. —

— -- -

As-built tee joint system having a circular column. 75 percent I tee joint MacRae et al.’
Redesigned tee joint systems having circular columns
50 percent 3 tee joints
—

Sritharan et al.’
with varying amounts of cap beam prestressing.
Two multiple column bridge bents consisting of circular columns. 50 percent 2 knee joints and 2 teejoints Sritharan et al.°
Knee joint system with interlocking column spirals designed
33 percent 1 knee joint lngham et al’-
with headed reinforcement.
A three-column bent with cast-in-place steel shell circular columns. I 100 percent 2 knee joints and I tee joint Silva et al.’
3

Fig. 1. Bridge knee

joint and tee forces,
and moment and
shear force
diagrams at column
overstrength
condition 17

to as the force transfer method (FTM).
The FTM evolved from experimental
and analytical studies of knee (exte
rior) and tee (interior) joints in con
crete multiple column bridge bents.
The bridge joint studies were moti
vated by the (a) use of inadequate joint
details in practice and subsequent
damage in earthquakes, and (b) unnec
essarily congested details of bridge
joints resulting from the building joint
design method.
One major objective of the studies
was to find sufficient and less conser
vative joint reinforcement details.
6
-
4 cordingly, circular columns were used
Encompassing details from as-built,
retrofitted, and repaired joints, as well
as joints designed to specific joint
force transfer models, the investiga
tion included seismic testing of 20
bridge joints at 33 to 100 percent scale
(see Table 1 )7t3
Circular columns are generally pre
ferred for bridge structures in seismic
regions because they are efficient,
easy to construct, and cost effective
for confinement requirements. Ac
in most of the test joints; five of them
were designed with rectangular shaped
columns with interlocking spirals.
All of the bridge test joints were
subjected to cyclic loading with full re
versals to satisfactorily simulate seis
mic effects. An extensive instrumenta
tion scheme was adopted in each test.
The experimental studies were com
plemented with parallel analytical
studies which focused on understand-

July-August 2003 67

V
Average
value
value
Fig. 2. Comparison of maximum and average vertical joint shear forces.
ing the observed joint behavior using
experimental data and linear and non
linear finite element analyses, as well
as establishing or refining joint force
transfer models. Results from various
detailed experimental and analytical
studies were used to develop the FTM
presented here.
Seismic design procedures for
bridge joints based on force transfer
models have been recommended for
6 These docu
use in design practice)
’
4 model framework, such as the method
ments provide a prescriptive set of de
sign steps which are based on one of
several force transfer models pre
7 However,
sented by Priestley et al.’
the selected force transfer model for
use in design practice has been shown
to be inadequate through experimental
and analytical studies.
9
”
1118
Failure to provide a complete treat
ment of the joint force transfer is the
cause for error in development of the
design steps reported in References 14
to 16. Understanding of the FTM, as
detailed below, will enable both ap
68
(a) Tee joint
(b) Moment along
cap beam
(c) Variation of vertical
shear force
17
propriate improvements to be made to
the existing, inadequate design mod
els, and the introduction of new mod
els suitable for different joint condi
tions. After selecting a force transfer
model for design in accordance with
FTM, a satisfactory set of design steps
may be established as demonstrated in
Reference 19.
In the remainder of this paper, some
familiarity with the basic strut-and-tie
outlined by Schlaich et al., ° is as
2 due to beam shear at the
sumed. As a preamble to discussing
FTM, the current bridge seismic de
sign philosophy, resulting joint force
condition and joint failure modes are
first discussed. An outline of the force
transfer method, with guidelines for
joint design and assessment, is then
presented. Application of strut-and-tie
concepts in representing joint force
transfer and key joint mechanisms,
and joint force transfer models are fi
nally presented, along with examples
in Appendix A.
SEISMIC DESIGN
PHILOSOPHY
Seismic design of concrete bridge
structures is currently based on the ca
7 in which
pacity design philosophy,’
the locations of plastic hinges are pre
selected, most conveniently at the col
umn ends, and inelastic actions devel
oping outside these hinges are
prevented by using strength hierarchy
in the design. Joints and other struc
tural members are, therefore, designed
for actions corresponding to develop
ment of the overstrength moment ca
pacities of the column plastic hinges.
Joint Forces
Typical forces acting in the bridge
joint regions, consisting of the joint
panel and end zones of the cap beam
and column, are shown in Figs. la to
ic. With plastic hinges developing at
the column top adjacent to the joint in
terface, an average shear force acting
upon the joint panel in the horizontal
direction can be approximated assum
ing that the column overstrength mo
ment uniformly diminishes over the
full depth of the cap beam as illus
trated in Figs. id and le:
17
M-zMM°
jh
(1)
— —
d—O.5a,, hb
where
0
jvJ C overstrength moment capac
=
ity of the column at the joint
interface and is obtained
from a column section anal
ysis with due consideration
to the column axial force re
sulting from gravity and
seismic actions
AM = resultant moment resistance
joint interfaces [= O.5hC(V
1
+ Vb) (see Fig. lc)j
d = effective beam depth (see
Fig. id)
ab = depth of the equivalent rect
angular compression block
in the beam
hb = beam depth
h = column section depth (or di
ameter for circular columns)
in the plane of loading
The corresponding average joint
shear force in the vertical direction
PCI JOURNAL
can be approximated by:

WI h (= D)
Viv=tl/h (2)

The average joint shear forces in

Eqs. (1) and (2) are regarded as suit
able for joint design, rather than using
the maximum shear forces derived
from forces acting upon the joints (see
Figs. la to ic).’
2 The maximum joint
’
7
shear force, which is more useful for area = b*h
0
describing localized damage such as
the initiation of joint cracking, is com Plan view
pared in Fig. 2 with the corresponding
average joint force in the vertical di
rection for a bridge tee joint.
(b) Horizontal shear stress

Joint Stresses
Using the average joint shear force,
joint shear stress developed in the hor
Elevation view
izontal and vertical directions during
in-plane loading can be obtained from:
(a) Vertical direction axial stress
VJh
VJ = .
1
v, = VP (3)
= Fig. 3. Effective areas for calculating stresses in joints with circular columns.

where is the joint effective width and

is taken as the lesser of -J5.D or b (see
Fig. 3) with D and b being, respec
tively, the column diameter and the
beam width.
17 For joints with rectangu
lar columns, JiD is replaced with (hC
+ bC), where bC is the column width.
Using the column and beam axial
forces, the joint normal stresses in the
vertical and horizontal directions may
be estimated. A 45-degree dispersion
of forces is assumed for calculating the
vertical stressf (see Fig. 3a), while the
beam gross area is used in estimating
the joint horizontal stressfh. With these
estimates, the joint principal compres
sion and tensile stresses are:
± Lfj2+
(4)
Since the principal stresses have
better correlation to joint damage than
do other parameters such as the joint
shear force, Pr and p, are used as initial
design parameters in FTM.
JOINT FAILURE MODES
‘When subjected to in-plane seismic
loading, the failure of bridge joints
may occur in four different modes.
6 field is subjected to large inelastic
Each of these failure modes was ob
served in large-scale testing of joints
and is shown in Fig. 4. In each case,
despite joint failure, the test unit was
able to sustain the simulated gravity
load effects. Descriptions of the joint
failure modes are given below.
Compression Failure
In general, compression failure oc
curs in bridge joints in a brittle manner
as a result of crushing of concrete
struts in the joint. This failure mode is
typical in prestressed joints (see Fig.
4a), and in reinforced concrete joints
detailed with sufficient shear rein
forcement such that they remain elas
tic during seismic response. Compres
sion failure of joints will substantially
reduce the lateral force resistance of
the structure, most likely leading to
total structural collapse with sufficient
duration of earthquake shaking.
Tension Failure
Tension failure is typically devel
oped in reinforced concrete joints
when shear reinforcement responsible
for mobilizing the joint compression
strains. Since these inelastic strains are
irreversible, a growth of the joint
panel occurs under seismic loading.
Consequently, the effective concrete
strength of the joint core is signifi
cantly reduced, which often results in
crushing of the joint strut at large dis
placement ductilities (Fig. 4b). Al
though significant lateral strength loss
is associated with such a joint failure,
which may lead to structural collapse,
strength degradation will occur in a
gradual manner.
In joints with wide cap beams, as
currently adopted in practice,’
6 tension
failure can be triggered by crushing
and spalling of the thick lightly con
fined cover concrete, which partici
pates in joint force transfer at initial
22 Tension failure is also ex
’
6
stages.
pected in older bridge joints detailed
with little or no shear reinforcement,
as column longitudinal reinforcement
provides some tensile resistance to the
joint at small shear strains.’
7
Anchorage Failure
For satisfactory seismic perfor
mance of a bridge structure, it is es
sential that the column and cap beam

July-August 2003 69

(c) Anchorage failure
Fig. 4. Four different joint failure modes.
longitudinal reinforcement be suffi
ciently anchored into the joint. Inade
quate anchorage will result in bond
slip of the reinforcement, introducing
an additional member end rotation at
the joint interface and thus reducing
the lateral strength of the structure.
The bond slip rotation resulting from
anchorage failure can contribute in ex
cess of 40 percent to the total lateral
23
displacement.
Given that the bond slip mechanism
does not provide adequate force resis
tance, nor a profound energy dissipa
tion system, the structure will exhibit
poor force-displacement hysteresis re
sponse, characterized by gradual
strength deterioration and escalation
of the ioop pinching effect as displace-
70
(b) Tension failure
(d) Lap splice failure
ment ductility and/or number of load
reversals is increased. However, there
may be no apparent damage on the
joint faces as shown in Fig. 4c.
The column longitudinal reinforce
ment is typically anchored into the
joint with straight bar ends in order to
7 These re
improve constructibility.
”
16
inforcing bars are susceptible to bond
slip as they may be subjected to
stresses up to 1.5 times the yield
stress. Hence, sufficient anchorage
length must be provided for the col
umn longitudinal reinforcement based
on the maximum expected bar stress.
Bond slip of the cap beam longitu
dinal reinforcement bars is most likely
to occur in bridge knee joints when
they are terminated within the joint
56 although it is
with straight bar ends,
recognized that termination using a
90-degree hook at the bar end, as
shown in Figs. la and ib, is typically
used in current practice.
In seismic design, beam reinforcing
bars are not spliced within tee joints as
this detail causes additional reinforce
ment congestion. Consequently, bond
slip of these bars is not expected in
bridge tee joints unless significant in
elastic stresses are developed in the
beam longitudinal reinforcement at the
column faces.
Lap Splice Failure
Lap splice failure is most likely to
occur in bridge knee joints subjected
PCI JOURNAL
to closing moments. As shown in Fig.
5a, the column tension force may be
transferred to the top beam reinforce
ment by bond if adequate confinement
is provided for the lap splice. If the
confining pressure is not sufficient to
prevent splitting of concrete between
the reinforcement and straightening
the hook of the beam bars, a failure
may ensue as illustrated in Fig. 5b
(also, see an example in Fig. 4d).
Note that a lap splice failure can
also occur in well-confined joints if
the lap length between the reinforce
ment is not sufficient to transfer the
column tension force to the beam rein
forcement.
FORCE TRANSFER METHOD
Joint design has traditionally been
performed based solely on the maxi
mum shear force estimated within the
joint panel, despite potential for the
joint to experience different failure
modes. The joint shear is but one force
of the complete force transfer action
that develops in the joint region,
which includes both the joint panel
and the member regions directly adja
cent to the joint.
Therefore, it is conceivable that
when the joint force transfer region is
assumed to be limited to the joint
panel and that shear, which is not di
rectly correlated to damage, is treated
as an independent force for design
purposes to establish the joint rein
forcement, unnecessarily conservative
joint details are likely to result. This
notion is consistent with observations
that bridge joint design based on the
building code approach, using the
joint shear force as the design parame
ter, leads to congested, impracticable
reinforcing details.
°
1
6
’
5 for forces corresponding to the over-
In FTM, the necessary joint rein
forcement is viewed as that required to
support sufficient anchorage of the
column longitudinal reinforcing bars
into the joint, eliminating the joint an
chorage failure mode and permitting
the plastic hinge capacity of the col
umn to be fully developed. Conse
quently, the necessary reinforcement
in the joint region is quantified by em
ploying key mechanisms that satisfac
torily anchor the column reinforce
ment into the joint and by estimating
July-August 2003
T e
(a) Force transfer by bond
Fig. 5. Lap splice force transfer from column bars to top beam reinforcing bar and a
failure mode due to inadequate confinement (after Priestley et al.
various tension demands consistent
with the selected mechanisms.
Because the joint mechanisms ac
count for all actions in the cap beam-
to-column joint disturbed region (D
region), which includes the joint panel
and the beam and column member
ends, this design concept permits less
conservative joint reinforcement de
tails that significantly improve con
structibility.
As shown subsequently, in addition
to transverse reinforcement within the
joint panel, the FTM may rely upon
transverse reinforcement placed in the
cap beam region adjacent to the joint
panel, and top and/or bottom beam
longitudinal reinforcement across the
joint to support force transfer. In con
trast, the conventional building joint
design concept assumes that only the
shear reinforcement provided within
the joint panel is responsible for trans
fer of forces across the joint.
In accordance with capacity design
principles, the force transfer method
of joint design or joint assessment is
performed at the ultimate limit state
strength capacity of column plastic
hinges. The average joint principal
stresses estimated at the ultimate limit
state will be used as the initial design
parameters in FTM.
At the serviceable limit state, the
joint principal_tensile stress is kept
below 0.25fjMPa) [or 3.0/f’ (psi)]
with no special detailing requirement,
where f is the specified unconfined
compressive strength of the joint con
crete. For a typical bridge column hav
ing longitudinal reinforcement content
;—7 NJ1\ Mb
L
T,, Me
(b) Failure mode
).
17
in the range of 1.0 to 4.0 percent and a
regular proportion for the column diam
eter and beam depth dimensions preva
lent in practice, the serviceability de
sign criterion will be readily
accomplished.
At higher load levels, the force
transfer across the joint initiates crack
ing in the joint region, which activates
distinctive joint mechanisms and mo
bilizes reinforcement in the joint re
gion. Therefore, using the estimated
average joint principal tensile stress to
gauge the extent of joint cracking, a
force transfer model consisting of ap
propriate joint mechanisms is selected
and the required reinforcement in the
joint region is then quantified consis
tent with this design model.
Reinforcement quantities in the joint
region will depend on the efficiency of
the adopted force transfer model.
However, when compared with the
more traditional approach based di
rectly on joint shear forces, the PPM
is expected to provide joint reinforce
ment with reduced congestion regard
less of the choice of the design model.
This expectation for FTM is a direct
consequence of considering all actions
in the joint region for quantifying the
reinforcement.
It is the authors’ opinion that the
most efficient force transfer models
for seismic joint design are those pro
ducing satisfactory joint performance
while requiring the least amount of re
inforcement within the joint panel.
Bearing this in mind, the remainder of
this article addresses a formulation of
the most efficient force transfer mod
els for different joint conditions.
71

F reinforcement to the nominal require
Fig. 6. Ensuring
straight anchorage
of column bars
into the joint.
Guidelines for Joint Design
The following guidelines are sug
gested for designing joints in new
bridges using FTM:
1. At the overstrength capacity of
the plastic hinge, the column tension
force may be represented by: 4,17
T=0.5A
L
5 ° (5)
where and f° are, respectively, the
total area and overstrength stress in the
column longitudinal reinforcement.
The column overstrength stress may be
taken as 1.3 times the measured value
of f or 600 MPa (87 ksi) for Grade 60
reinforcing bar. Alternatively, an accu
rate estimate of T may be obtained
from a section analysis of the column.
2. Since the joint design procedure,
which is aimed at protecting joints
from any significant inelastic actions,
is based on the overstrength moment
capacity of the column plastic hinge
and on conservative material proper
ties, a strength reduction factor of r =
1.0 may be satisfactory.
3. Using the principal tensile stress
obtained at the ultimate limit state [from
Eq. (4)], the joint design is approached
in the following manner:
(a) If Pt 0.25If’(MPa) [or
3.0.f’(psi)], only limited insignifi
cant joint cracking is expected. Appli
cation of FTM is not required and the
following nominal reinforcement is
provided within the joint panel for sat
isfactory force transfer:’
”°
7 supports the total column tension
Total area of vertical joint stirrup re
inforcement:
72
— by the joint force transfer model.
Mbr
‘br
F
— A higher_limit of p, = 0.29/f’ (MPa)
= 0.08A (6)
Volumetric ratio of horizontal joint
hoop or spiral reinforcement:
0. 29
(SI units) (7a)
fyh
ps=
5
(psi units) (7b)
The requirement in Eq. (6) is in
tended to assist bond transfer of top
beam reinforcement and formation of
joint diagonal struts, while Eq. (7) is
based on providing hoop reinforce
ment sufficient to support a tension
force equivalent to 50 percent of the
principal tension strength of
0.29Jf’ (MPa) [or 3.5’f’ (psi)].’
7 strength condition, the beam neutral
The nominal joint reinforcement in
Eqs. (6) and (7) may be viewed as
equivalent to supporting a column ten
sion force of (0.12 + /3)T, where the
first part of the expression is obtained
by combining Eqs. (5) and (6).
The second part of the expression is
based on column tension force that
can be supported by p as in Eq. (7)
with:
/3 = 0.22/f’ (MPa) lIAf°
[or /3 = 2.65x10jf’ (psi)]1IAf°]
where ‘a is the anchorage length as de
fined in Eq. (12).
(b) If Pt > O. Jf’(MPa) [or
42
5.0/f’ (psi)] joint design should be
based on a force transfer model that
force, T. The joint region is detailed
identifying tension demands imposed
(c) For joint principal tensile
stresses between the above limits, sat
isfactory joint force transfer may be
achieved by providing supplementary
ments in Eqs. (6) and (7). The supple
mentary reinforcement should be de
termined using a force transfer model
to anchor the unsupported component
of the column tension force equal to
(0.88 /3)T, i.e., [1
—
— (0.12 + /3)TJ.
The advantage of this approach is that
a suitable force transfer model may be
found using a single joint mechanism.
[or ‘5Jf’ (psi)] was recommended in
the past as a threshold value for detail-
ing joints with nominal reinforce
10 The more conservative ap
’
5
ment.
7
”
proach suggested herein is due to the
approximation made in Eq. (1) for cal
culating the joint shear force, which in
fluences the value of p.
4. For joints with Pr> 0.25 Jf’ (MPa)
Jf’ (psi)1 nominal reinforce
[or 3.0
7
ment will be adequate if it is shown
that the column bars can be satisfacto
rily anchored into the joint main strut
without the need for any special rein
6 This will often be satisfied
forcement.
in joints designed with a fully pre
stressed cap beam. The potential for
satisfying this condition may be estab
lished using simple beam theory as il
lustrated for a tee joint in Fig. 6. It will
be necessary to show that for the over-
axis depth at the tension face of the
column is equal to or greater than (g +
‘a,eff)’ where g is the distance between
the end of the column bars and the
beam top surface, and 1 aeff is the effec
tive anchorage length as defined in Eq.
(13). The joint mechanism supporting
force transfer in these joints is depicted
in Fig. l3b and its description is given
under “Clamping Mechanism.”
5. The average joint principal com
pression stress should always be main
tained below 0.3f in order to prevent
compression failure as shown in Fig.
4a. For largerp values, a study should
be conducted to verify that the average
stress demand does not exceed the ca
pacity for all critical joint struts.
6. Column bars should be anchored
into the cap beam with straight bar
PCI JOURNAL
 ends. The force transfer method ac
commodates the use of headed longi
tudinal reinforcement in columns, pro
ducing acceptable joint details (see
“Distributed Strut Mechanism”).
However, employing column bars
with hooks or tails should be avoided
as this detail causes reinforcement
congestion in the joint.
7. A minimum anchorage length for
the beam and column longitudinal rein
forcement into the joint should be pro
vided assuming a uniform bond stress of
1. l7Jf’ (MPa) [or l4JL’ (psi) I along
the embedded portion of the bar.’
7 5.0,Jf’(psi)], the adequacy of the
8. Column bars should be extended
as close as practicable to the height of
the top beam reinforcement to maxi
mize embedment conditions for the
extreme column tension bars into the
joint diagonal strut.
9. The last two guidelines described
above should be used to dimension the
minimum cap beam depth.
Guidelines for joint Assessment
When compared to the design of
joints in modern bridges, less conser
vative guidelines can be adopted in
seismic assessment of joints for
retrofit purposes. This is consistent
with recommendations by Priestley et
7 for joint assessment, who advo
al.’
cate allowing limited joint damage to
occur as long as the damage does not
lead to total collapse of the structure
or punching of columns through the
deck. In light of this philosophy, the
following guidelines are recom
mended:
1. Considering the column and cap
beam retrofit measures, a plastic col
lapse mechanism for the bridge bent
should first be established. Using Eq.
(1), estimate the joint shear demand
based on the expected overstrength
column moment at the joint interface.
2. An estimate of the column tension
force, T, required to be anchored into
the joint should be based on the ex
pected column overstrength moment.
Eq. (5) may be used for this purpose
when the column plastic moment ca
pacity is expected to be fully developed
adjacent to the joint. Assessment of the
joint should then follow assuming a
strength reduction factor of = 1.0.
July-August 2003
3. As part of the joint retrofit, joint
dimensions may be increased. This
should be considered when estimating
joint shear demand and principal
stresses.
4. As with the design of new joints,
the principal tensile stress is used as
an initial assessment parameter as fol
lows:
(a) If Pt O.29Jf’(MPa) [or
3.5g’ (psi)], the presence of nominal
reinforcement as given by Eqs. (6) and
(7) is adequate.
(b) If p > o.42L’(MPa) [or
joint reinforcement must be estab
lished based on an efficient joint force
transfer model supporting the column
tension force T.
(c) For joint principal tensile
stresses between the above limits, ade
quacy of the existing joint reinforce
ment may be demonstrated by using a
force transfer model. Accordingly, the
reinforcement in excess of the nominal
requirements should be sufficient to
anchor the column tension force of
(0.88— f3)T into the joint.
5. As discussed in the previous sub
section, if it is shown that the column
bars can be anchored into the joint
main strut without the need for any
special reinforcement, then nominal
joint reinforcement may be considered
adequate even if p, > 0.29 fff?jQIPa)
[or 3.5
jf’ (psi)].
1 same as that obtained for monotonic
6. The joint principal compression
stress should always be maintained
below 0.3f unless it can be shown
that the demand on joint struts is not
excessive. This requirement is critical
when cap beam prestressing is used to
improve joint and/or cap beam perfor
mance.
7. Premature termination of column
bars is commonplace, particularly in
older bridge joints in Califomia.
523 In
creasing the column reinforcement
embedment length will often be re
quired as part of the retrofit procedure,
for example, by haunching the joint,
which should be reflected in the force
transfer model.
8. If necessary, permit limited in
elastic action to take place in the cap
beam adjacent to the joint at larger
displacement ductilities (f1 3 4). —
Also, permitting tensile strains of up
to 0.01 in the joint shear reinforcement
may be acceptable when determining
the capacity of joint ties.
9. As discussed below, a realistic
representation of concrete tension car
rying capacity can be included in the
force transfer model.
Influence of Repeated loading
In FTM, design is performed for the
maximum possible forces that the joint
can be subjected to during a repeated
or seismic loading. This is implied in
Eqs. (1), (4) and (5), in which joint
shear force, principal stresses and T
are obtained using estimated strain
hardening and yield overstrength of
the column longitudinal reinforce
ment.
The influence of seismic or cyclic
type loading is not directly taken into
account in FTM. Strength deteriora
tion of concrete struts resulting from
such repeated loading is conveniently
incorporated by defining appropriate
permissible stress limitations. These
limitations were established empiri
cally and are presented in the follow
ing section.
Since no significant hardening is ex
pected for the joint reinforcement and
cyclic inelastic excursions will be in
the tension range, the stress-strain re
sponse envelope of steel under re
peated loading is assumed to be the
loading. Therefore, for an estimated
strain in the joint reinforcement, the
corresponding stress can be readily
obtained.
Columns with High Longitudinal
Steel Ratio
The force transfer method of design
and assessment is applicable to all
bridge joints, regardless of the longitu
dinal reinforcement ratio of the adja
cent column. As will be discussed
later, the required reinforcement for
joint force transfer is determined as a
function of the total area of column
longitudinal reinforcement. Therefore,
high longitudinal column steel ratios
will result in larger reinforcement
quantities in the joint region.
The higher column steel ratios also
mean larger demand on the struts sup-
73

(a) Arch action and curved cracks
Fig. 7. Different compression force paths in knee joints subjected to opening moments.
porting the joint mechanisms. Since
the effective strength of struts is not
increased proportionally, a high col
umn longitudinal steel ratio will result
in high demand to capacity ratios for
the struts in the joint region.
If the demand is kept below capac
ity in all critical struts, forces across
the joint will be transferred satisfacto
rily. For column steel ratios in the 1 to
4 percent range typically adopted in
practice, satisfactory force paths for
the joint forces can be established
using FTM.
STRUT-AND-TIE CONCEPTS
The fundamentals and application
of strut-and-tie concepts to structural
members subjected to static loading
can be found in the literature [e.g., see
References 20, 24 and 25]. Due to dif
ferences in the design philosophy and
the repetitive nature of seismic loads,
some changes to the application pro
cedure are necessary for successful
modeling of bridge joint regions using
struts and ties.
These changes, as applicable to
bridge joints subjected to seismic ac
tions, are presented below. Since the
application of strut-and-tie concepts is
here focused on bridge joints only, the
procedure is simplified wherever pos
sible.
Compression Force Flow
Determining a suitable path for
compression force flow across the
74
(b) Parallel strut mechanism and straight cracks
joint is the most critical step in FTM
as this procedure essentially deter
mines the node locations and orienta
tion of struts. Elastic analysis of the
system using a finite element method
ology, observed crack patterns and
past experience are generally consid
ered as appropriate means for identify
ing the force paths in structural mem
bers subjected to static loading.
Further, for simplicity, identical
models for the ultimate limit state and
for the cracked state of serviceability
condition have been recommended in
the literature (see, for example, Refer
ence 20). However, a similar approach
is not applicable to seismic design of
bridge joints.
Joints in a bridge bent are typically
subjected to axial, shear and flexural
actions whose relative magnitudes and
thus dominant action can be different
at the service and ultimate limit states.
As demonstrated by Bhide and
26 on shear panels with and
Collins
without an axial force, the force path
and orientation of cracks in the joint
region can be considerably different at
the two limit states. Also, elastic anal
ysis ignores the force redistribution
that occurs progressively with the de
velopment of tensile cracks.’
5 the crack, the orientation of struts
Therefore, the joint reinforcement
derived using a force path established
from an elastic analysis will be often
unnecessarily conservative; failure of
such joints is also possible since the
joint behavior at the ultimate limit
state was not modeled. Although it is
not required in FTM, it is acknowl
edged that force paths of the critical
joint struts can be satisfactorily estab
lished using results from an elastic
analysis conducted at the onset of
yielding of the column main reinforce
ment and good engineering judgment.
In this case, concrete cracking and
strain penetration along the column
bars into the joint must be accurately
modeled.
The force paths identified for bridge
joints in this paper as part of FTM are
based on observed crack patterns, ex
perimental data, linear and nonlinear
finite element analyses, and the au
thors’ experience. Some issues rele
vant to establishing force paths in
bridge joints are discussed below.
Reinforcement layout and geometric
constraints may significantly influence
the compression force path in cracked
joints. This is illustrated in Fig. 7
where two knee joints subjected to
opening moments are compared. In
the first joint, with no stub, arch action
is expected to develop within the joint
and consequently curved cracks
should result on the joint faces.
In the second joint, with a stub and
continuous cap beam longitudinal re
inforcement detail as shown in Fig.
7b, broadening of the joint diagonal
strut is possible by anchoring a joint
strut against the left bottom corner of
the beam reinforcement. Since this ac
tion reduces stresses in the critical
struts of the joint, this mechanism, in
volving parallel struts, is likely to de
velop in the joint shown in Fig. 7b in
stead of an arch mechanism. A
consequence of the parallel strut
mechanism would be the formation of
straight cracks on the joint faces.
This argument, which is consistent
with the cracked pattern observed on
the joint faces during testing (see Fig.
8), is in accordance with a suggestion
made by Collins and Mitchell
25 that
when cracking occurs and concrete
tension carrying capacity is lost across
should be towards stiffer reinforce
ment so that the magnitudes of forces
and deformations developed in the D
region are minimized.
When joints are subjected to in-
plane loading, struts are developed in
three dimensions. The components of
the struts perpendicular to the loading
PCI JOURNAL
 (a) Curved cracks
Fig. 8. Observed joint cracks in bridge knee joints indicating different force paths under opening moments.
plane can influence the crack pattern
on the joint faces.
6 Therefore, it is
noted that the observed or expected
crack pattern alone is not always suffi
cient to establish the compression
force path in bridge joints.
Furthermore, when establishing
suitable force paths for bridge joints,
a basic rule of strut-and-tie concepts
should not be forgotten. That is, the
force transfer model resulting from
the compression force path should not
require excessive deformation in any
reinforcement ties supporting the joint
mechanism(s) in order to fully de
velop the plastic state of the structure.
If this condition were not met, prema
ture tension failure of joints and poor
ductile performance for the bridge
bent would be inevitable under seis
mic actions.
Struts, Ties and Nodes
Compression forces in concrete
structural members are transferred
through three types of stress fields
known as the “prism,” “fan” and “bot
tle” as shown in Fig. 9•20 The prism is
expected in B-regions (beam regions),
while fan and bottle-shaped stress fields
typically develop in D-regions (dis
turbed regions), with the struts in cap
beam-to-column joints generally being
bottle-shaped. When the joint compres
sion force is transferred between two
nodes through a bottle-shaped stress
field, in-plane and out-of-plane tensile
July-August 2003
(b) Straight cracks
tttittt
(a) Prism (b) Fan
Fig. 9. Different stress fields identified in concrete struts (after Schlaich et al.
stresses are developed perpendicular to
the force transfer direction, which re
duce the strut capacity.
For simplicity, the struts in the joint
region can be represented with single
straight lines or with zones bounded
by straight lines in 2D, ignoring the
in-plane and out-of-plane tensile
stresses (see Figs. iDa and lOb). Fur
thermore, a uniform axial stress across
the in-plane depth and in the out-of-
plane direction at any section along
the strut is assumed.
These assumptions, which simplify
the estimation of the demand on the
struts, are deemed satisfactory as long
as the allowable compression stresses
in the struts are defined appropriately,
taking the transverse tension field into
/ mmm
ftftftfttft
(c) Bottle
).
20
account. This is dealt with in a subse
quent section.
The tensile resistance of the rein
forcement or concrete is represented
by single or multiple one-dimensional
ties. The tensile resistance of concrete
can be adversely affected by microc
racks induced by previous loads, ther
mal stresses and shrinkage.
27 Conse
quently, concrete tension capacity is
generally ignored in structural design.
Nonetheless, it has been found that
the tensile resistance of cracked con
crete has a significant influence on
joint force transfer, and that modeling
its role is essential for accurately char
acterizing the seismic behavior of
bridge ’18
6
joints.
2 6
Several other researchers have also
75

(a) Simple truss model
(c) nodal forces
Fig. 10. Dimensioning struts and nodes, and identifying strut critical sections in a
bridge tee joint.
promoted the influence of concrete ties
in structural °293 When the
’
20
response.
contribution of the concrete ties is ap
propriately accounted for in the force
transfer model, a reduced amount of
joint reinforcement will be required.
Clearly, a designer can still choose
to conservatively neglect the contribu
tion of concrete ties. Incorporating
concrete ties in the assessment of
joints is especially encouraged as this
can avoid unnecessary and expensive
retrofit of bridge joints. A procedure
for estimating the joint concrete ten
sion contribution is presented under
“Contribution of Ties.”
Nodes represent the intersection
points of three or more struts and/or
ties, where change in direction of
forces takes place. It should be appre
ciated that such changes in a rein
forced concrete structure typically
occur over a zone, except where a
strut or tie delineates a concentrated
stress field. According to Schlaich et
° a node with gradual changes over
2
al.,
a zone is identified as a smeared node,
with its dimensions being determined
by the effective widths of struts and
ties forming the node. A node having
a concentrated stress field is generally
referred to as a singular node.
76
Critical section
(b) Detailed truss model
(d) Dimensioning two joint struts
Depending on the type of forces in
tersecting at nodes, they are identified
as CCC, CCT, CTT and TTT nodes,
where C and T stand for compression
and tension, respectively. In bridge
joint regions, CCC, CCT and CTT
nodes are commonplace, but TTT
nodes are not expected.
Dimensioning Struts and Nodes
and Identifying Critical Sections
Consistent with the discussion pre
sented above, the concepts of simple
and detailed strut-and-tie joint models,
different node types, the dimensioning
of struts and nodes, and identifying
the critical sections in joint struts are
illustrated in Fig. 10.
Suppose that the anchorage of col
umn tension force Tc 1 in a tee joint is
modeled with a simple mechanism as
shown in Fig. iDa. The stress field
within the joint can be identified as
shown in Fig. lOb, with strut dimen
sions dictated by the effective anchor
age length of column reinforcement
[as defined in Eq. (13)] and by the
depth of equivalent beam flexural
compression stress blocks.
Adjacent to the tension face of the
column, the equivalent stress block
should be determined at the beam in
terface between the beam B- and D-re
gion, located at a distance of hb from
the column face. Assuming that each
stress field is bounded by straight
lines, the node and strut dimensions
can then be readily established.
The Zones ABC and DEFG in Fig.
lOb, respectively, represent CCC and
CCT nodes (identified in Figs. lOa and
lOc), while the joint strut is formed by
stress field BDGC. The nodal zones
can be isolated as shown in Fig. lOc
and their stress state can be examined
if necessary. Also given consideration
in Fig. lOb is a multiple tie representa
tion for column tension force Tc 1 and
the need for sufficient anchorage of
each tie into the CCT nodal zone.
As a result of the tension force in
creasing from Section EF to Section
DG in the CCT node (Fig. lOb), the
resultant compression force in the di
rection of the joint strut gradually in
creases within the nodal zone and at
tains the maximum value at the
strut-to-node interface.
Once the strut boundaries are estab
lished, the critical section(s) of the
joint strut should be identified so that
stability of the strut may be examined.
For the example in Fig. lOb, the strut
depth increases from DG to BC with
no change in the magnitude of the
compression force, and thus Plane DH
perpendicular to the direction of the
strut is a critical section.
Further, due to the absence of sig
nificant confining stress along the
sides (i.e., BD and CG in Fig. lob),
the main strut in the joint typically has
a bottle-shaped stress field, with neck
ing at both ends and the most adverse
effects of the in-plane and out-of-
plane tension field being present at the
center of the joint. Therefore, examin
ing the stress state across the plane at
the joint center is always essential.
This is consistent with experimental
observations that crushing of struts
typically develops at the joint center.
If two struts are identified within the
joint, the area bounded by the struts is
assumed to be participating in force
transfer in proportion to the magni
tudes of the struts as illustrated in Fig.
lOd. Furthermore, the effective width
of each strut at the joint center is taken
as 2w
1 and 2w , respectively.
2
PCI JOURNAL
 The procedure described above for
dimensioning struts and nodes and Critical section
identifying critical sections in tee
joints can also be applied to bridge
knee joints subjected to opening mo
ments. For knee joints under closing
moments, critical sections can be iden
tified as shown in Fig. 11 using a simi
lar concept.
A critical section in a reinforced
concrete knee joint, incorporating a
stub and continuous top and bottom
(a) Reinforced concrete joint (b) Prestressed joint
beam reinforcement (Fig. 1 la), is cho
sen such that the highest strut stress is
Fig. 11. Critical sections of joint main diagonal struts in bridge knee joints subjected
at the section with the minimum depth,
to closing moments.
as for the tee joint in Fig. lOb. In addi
tion, the stress state at the joint center
should also be checked. For a knee
Table 2. Permissible stresses suggested for critical bridge joint struts under
joint with a prestressed cap beam such
seismic conditions.
as in Fig. 1 ib, only one critical section
Permissible stress Strut description
at the center of the joint is selected.
Struts with only minor cracking,
From the above, it can be observed 0 68f’
such as that expected in prestressed joints.
that although the strut depth is small
Struts in reinforced concrete joints with reinforcement
close to the CCC node, with the joint 0 51f’
.

not subjected to significant strain hardening (e 0.01).

strut force continuously increasing to
wards this node (Fig. 1 ib), the strut
capacity is significantly higher in this
region due to the confinement pro
vided by the CCC node.
For reinforced and prestressed con
crete bridge joints, where the column
tension force is modeled with a single
tie such as in Fig. 1 Oa, there is a ten
dency to select the critical section at
the center of the joint. This is satisfac
tory based on the discussion presented
above. However, in critical cases (e.g.,
assessment of joints with little or no
reinforcement), the designer is encour
aged to perform checks at three sec
tions along the strut: at the center,
midway between the joint center and
CCC node, and midway between the
joint center and CCT node.
In all joints of bridge bents sub
jected to in-plane loading, the width of
the joint strut in the out-of-plane di
rection is taken as b as in Eq. (3).
Allowable Stresses in
Concrete Struts
In order to preclude compression
failure of joints resulting from crush
ing of struts, it should be ensured that
strut capacities are sufficiently larger
than the demands in the joint region.
Observed failure of joint struts and
comparison of joint strut stress magni
Struts in unreinforced joints or in joints with potential for initiation of
0.34f tension failure following development of high inelastic strains in the
joint reinforcement (r
tudes with those in the beam and col
umn ends adjacent to the joint re
vealed that the struts bounded or an
chored in the joint panel are most
critical. Therefore, limiting examina
tion of the stress state to these struts is
sufficient.
The strength of a concrete strut de
pends on its multi-axial stress state,
confinement, damage caused by
cracking, uniformity of cracking, dis
turbances from reinforcement and the
influence of aggregate interlocking.
As noted previously, in-plane loading
induces joint dilation in the out-of-
plane direction, which, in turn, can re
duce the strut capacity significantly
below the unconfined concrete
30
2025
strength.
3
’ strut capacities using the permissible
Several different recommendations,
based either on beam/shear panel tests
or on engineering judgment, are found
in the literature for estimating strut ca
pacities. They range from simple for
mulas, in which the strut capacity is
represented by the effective uncon
fined compressive strength, to detailed
equations which account for the state
of strain in the strut. Among these rec
0.02).
ommendations, which are intended for
monotonic loading, appreciable dis
crepancies exist between the permissi
ble stresses suggested by different re
searchers for struts subjected to
similar conditions.
6
From the seismic tests of bridge
joints listed in Table 1 and subsequent
analytical investigations, the stress
limits shown in Table 2 are recom
mended for seismic design and assess
ment of bridge joints. These limits re
semble those recommended by
Schlaich et al.
° for struts in structural
2
members subjected to static loads.
In a recent study aimed at perform
ing push-over analyses of bridge bents
based on strut and tie models, defining
stress values in Table 2 was found to
be satisfactory.
32
Recall that in “Design and Assess
ment Guidelines,” the average joint
principal compression stress was lim
ited to O.3f. This limitation, which
was originally derived empirically
based on the performance of building
17 is to keep the demand upon the
joints,
joint struts within admissible limits.

July-August 2003 77

(a) Idealized joint panel stresses
Fig. 12. Estimating the tensile resistance of cracked concrete.
When compared to the procedure
described above which requires an es
timation of stresses in the joint struts,
limiting the joint principal stress to an
allowable value is relatively simple
[see Eq. (4)] and is regarded as a
more conservative approach. How
ever, it should be kept in mind that
the 0.3f stress limit, which is useful
when designing or assessing pre
stressed joints, only addresses joint
compression failure.
Crushing of a concrete strut can
take place at a joint principal compres
sion stress considerably less than
0.3f when tension failure develops in
a cap beam-to-column joint. As indi
cated in Table 2, the capacity of a strut
in a joint experiencing tension failure
may be as low as 0.34f, correspond
ing to a joint principal compression
stress in the range of 0.1fto 0.15f.
Contribution of Ties
Ties in joint force transfer models
represent the tensile resistance of rein
forcement and/or concrete. It is
straightforward to take the reinforce
ment contribution, T, into account as
described in Eq. (8):
T = AseffL
where As,eff is the effective steel area
in the direction of the tie, and f is the
stress in the reinforcement.
For design purposes, f may be ap
proximated to the yield strength f for
78
Af Joint
reinforcement
Beam.
rebar r fined in Eq. (3)
— 7/
(b) Joint segment in equilibrium
j —
(c) Mohr’s circle for average strains
6 where
reinforcement that participates in the
joint force transfer; this implies that
developing a steel stress exceeding f
is possible in localized regions. For
assessment purposes, a less conserva
tive approach can be considered by
approximating f to 1.05f for Grade
60 (414 MPa) reinforcement, which is
obtained by allowing average steel
strains of up to about 0.01.
As noted previously, the cracked
concrete in the joint region can also
have a notable contribution to tensile
resistance. This tension capacity may
be estimated using a blanketed ap
618 Drawing an analogy to
proach.
Vecchio and Collins’ method for esti
mating the tensile resistance of con
crete that contributes to shear resis
30 the tensile resistance provided
tance,
by joint concrete can be found assum
ing a uniform joint stress and strain
field as illustrated in Fig. 12.
Considering the forces in a joint
segment as shown in Fig. 12b, the
total tensile resistance of the joint
panel in the vertical direction is:
Tr = +
Af + J(cos2 O)bl (9)
=
(8) where
AVL = total force resisted by the
reinforcement as defined
in Eq. (8)
Tcr = vertical component of the
tension force carried by the
cracked concrete
= average tensile stress in
concrete in the direction of
Pt
b = effective joint width as de
= length of the joint panel
It is important to note that the devel
opment of Tcr requires the presence of
at least minimal reinforcement within
the joint panel to distribute cracking.’
8
For estimating f. the following em
pirical relationship as suggested by
25 may be used:
Collins and Mitchell
aaj
(10)
- 1+J500s
fcr = cracking strength of concrete
and is approximated to
0.33/f’ (MPa) [or4.0Jf’ (psi)]
1 = a factor accounting for bond
a
characteristics and is taken as
1.0 for deformed bars
2 = a factor which depends on the
a
load history
= average joint principal tensile
strain
For short-term monotonic loading
2 = 1.0 and for sustained and/or re
a
peated loads a 2 = 0.7 have been sug
gested. A less conservative estimate
1 as given by Eq. (11) is appropri
forf
ate for assessment purposes:
(11)
- 1÷J200e
Eq. (11) shows the original relation
ship established betweenJ and r using
° and Eq. (10) was
experimental data
3
later recommended as appropriate for
design calculations. Furthermore, the
value of 1 in Eq. (9) can be increased
by 25 and 50 percent for assessment of
knee and tee joints, respectively, recog
nizing that the beam regions adjacent
to the joint also participate in force
transfer across the joint.
It should be noted that f. defined
above is slightly higher than the joint
cracking strength defined previously
under “Design Guidelines.”_However,
0.33/f’ (MPa) [or 4.0jf’ (psi)] is re
tained in Eqs. (10) and (11) in order to
remain consistent with the empirical
equations suggested in References 25
and 30.
PCI JOURNAL
Nodal Failure
Failure of a node in the joint region
can lead to undesirable behavior of the
structure. This may develop due to ei
ther concrete crushing, or anchorage
failure of a reinforcement tie within
the nodal zone. From various tests on
bridge joint ’2
”
7
systems,
3 3 it is found
4
that failure of a CCC node seldom oc
curs.
This is because struts acting upon
the node simultaneously provide reli
able confinement, enabling it to sus
tain significantly high stresses. Reduc
tion in the confinement effect is
possible when a compression force
ceases to exist due to premature fail
ure of the column or cap beam, which
should be dealt with prior to investi
gating the joint.
The most common nodal failure ex
pected in bridge joints may occur
when longitudinal column bars are an
chored with straight bar ends (e.g.,
CCT node in Fig. lOa). Such a nodal
failure can be avoided in design and
predicted in assessment by appropriate
treatment of the column bar embed
ment length into the joint.
As specified under “Design Guide
lines,” the required embedment length
for column bars can be obtained as
suming_a uniform bond stress of
l.17.Jf’ (MPa) [or 14..,Jf’ (psi)], which
would result in a minimum anchorage
lengths of:
la = O.3Odb,fY/J7 (mm,MPa)
(12a)
la = O.O25db,fY/Jj (in.,psi)
(12b)
where dbl and f are, respectively, the
diameter and yield strength of the col
umn bar.
In reality, column bar anchorage
takes place over a much shorter length
near the bar end due to strain penetra
tion along the reinforcement into the
joint.
It was found from experimental data
that an average bond__stress of
2.5Jf’ (MPa) [or 3OJf’ (psi)] is typi
cally developed in well-designed
7 Using this bond stress, the
”
6
’
5
joints.
effective anchorage length for the col
umn reinforcement is thus defined as:
July-August 2003
(a) Reinforced concrete joint (b) Fully prestressed joint
Fig. 13. Clamping mechanism,
KEY MECHANISMS
a,eff
1 = O.14db/fY/[j (mm,MPa)
Since the strut-and-tie representation
(1 3a) of structural members is based on equi
a,eff
1 = O.O12db,fY/l[,F (in.,psi) librium conditions alone, numerous al
ternative strut-and-tie models are pos
(1 3b)
sible for a given reinforced concrete
member. In order to assist designers
To avoid anchorage failure, the col
with developing efficient force transfer
umn reinforcement should be effec
models for bridge joints, several key
tively clamped at a minimum distance
joint mechanisms are presented in this
&i,eff from the bar end. This con
of °‘
5
section in accordance with the general
dition will assist with locating critical
strut-and-tie concepts and related dis
nodes within the joint (e.g., the CCT
cussion presented above,
node in Fig. lOa).
Additionally, geometric considera
In addition to providing a minimum
tions, which are typically required for
required anchorage length, it must also
quantifying reinforcement, are pro
be ensured that the column bars are
vided for these mechanisms. Develop
extended into the joint as close to the
ing force transfer models using key
top beam bars as possible.
23 If this
7
”
6
’
5
joint mechanisms is discussed in the
condition is not satisfied, adequate
subsequent section.
clamping of the column bars into the
joint strut will not occur and nodal
failure can develop despite satisfying Clamping Mechanism
the minimum anchorage length re The clamping mechanism anchors
quirement of Eq. (12). the column tension force directly at a
For assessing bridge joints with col CCT node using a joint diagonal strut
umn longitudinal bars inadequately and an external strut supported in the
embedded into the joint, as was typi beam adjacent to the column tension
cal until recently,
7 the maximum
”
8 side, as illustrated for tee joints in Fig.
force that can be developed in the col 13. These two struts for a reinforced
umn bars may be estimated assuming and fully prestressed concrete joint are
a uniform bond stress of identified in both Fig. 13a and Fig.
O.76jf’(MPa) [or 9.2./f’(psi)] 1 and C
13b as C .
2
along the entire embedded portion of The location of the CCT node
the reinforcement. This lower bond should be determined using the effec
stress value was inferred from ACT tive anchorage length for the column
318 and has been found to give a bars and location of the resultant col
good estimate of the maximum ten umn tie. If the column bars of an ex
sion force that can be developed in isting joint have insufficient anchor
the column reinforcement.
23 age length, this deficiency should be
If column bar anchorage is ad reflected in the model by appropri
dressed as detailed above, it is sug ately defining 1 aeff and determining
gested that no further check on nodal the node location and magnitude of
failure is required. the column tension force anchored at
79

‘ 1Th
J’
z ‘
Concrete / f1
tension tie/
rz
j
1 rzzz]
‘ijL
Stirrup
Fig. 14. Splice (a) Conventional mechanism
transfer mechanism.
(a) Example I
Fig. 1 5. Direct transfer mechanism.
that node as previously discussed.
With sufficient development length
for the column longitudinal reinforce
ment into the joint, the clamping
mechanism can be used to transmit up
to 50 percent of T in reinforced con
crete joints and 100 percent of T in
fully prestressed joints, as indicated in
Fig. 13.6,10
In reinforced concrete joints, a 45-
degree incline is suggested for the ex
, which may support a
ternal strut, C
2 splice transfer mechanisms are illus
maximum column tension force of
18 The orientation of the beam
0. 15T.
direct strut in prestressed joints will
depend on the amount of beam pre
stressing, and should be determined
from equilibrium conditions.
Splice Transfer Mechanism
Forming a CTT node between the
beam and column longitudinal rein-
80
Topbeam /
,‘ V i
bar
‘
“ Concrete
- Bottom / /
/ beam bar - /
Stirrup
(b) Single strut mechanism
Cap
beam
(b) Example 2
forcement is generally not possible as
the column bars are usually terminated
below the beam bars. Utilizing joint
vertical stirrups and/or concrete ties,
the splice mechanism effectively
transfers the anchorage location of the
column tension force to the top beam
bars. This enables anchorage of the
column tension force at a CTT node
using the beam top reinforcement and
a diagonal joint strut. Three possible
trated in Fig. 14 \using struts and ties
in two dimensions, (2-D).
Comparable mechanisms in three
dimensions (3-D) are also possible,
and can be adequately represented
using 2-D models. More details of this
mechanism and 3-D representation of
the models may be found in Reference
18. The splice transfer mechanism
may be relied upon for supporting up
to 50 percent of T, with its participa
Spiral
Top beam
bar
Bottom
4beam bar stirrup
(c) Out-of-plane mechanism
tion in joint force transfer diminishing
as the magnitude of cap beam pre
stressing increases.
To quantify the appropriate rein
forcement for this mechanism, a sim
pler model representing all possible
mechanisms may be considered. Ex
ample 1 of Appendix A presents the
simplified model and quantifies the
corresponding tension demands.
Direct Transfer Mechanism
In contrast to the splice transfer
mechanism, the column longitudinal
reinforcement is anchored directly in a
CTT node involving the beam longitu
dinal reinforcement. To develop a sta
ble CTT node, the column bars should
be extended above the beam top longi
tudinal reinforcement and provided
with a mechanical anchorage such that
the tensile strength of the bars can be
developed over a very short distance.
Two possible details are shown in Fig.
15.
In the first example, headed longitu
dinal column bars are mechanically in
terlocked with the beam longitudinal
reinforcement. In the next example,
threaded column bars are mechani
cally anchored to the top of the cap
beam using steel plates.
The second detail will also be ap
propriate for seismic design of integral
bridge systems with ductile concrete
columns and steel box-shaped cap
beams, as used in a recent research
36 Since this mechanism is an
project.
alternative to the splice transfer mech
anism, the direct transfer mechanism
is recommended for anchoring up to
50 percent of T. This implies that the
mechanical anchorage detail is re
PCI JOURNAL
 quired only for the column reinforcing
bars anchored into the CTT node, but p
reversal of the loading direction must ‘t’\ crr
not be forgotten when identifying ‘ .‘ %

these bars. \‘
\ ,
Due to direct anchorage of the col
umn tension force, the joint reinforce
ment required for this mechanism will
be less than that required for an equiv
alent splice transfer mechanism, and
will be determined based upon the
confinement requirements to prevent
47
failure ofjoint struts.
(a) Under closing moments (b) Under opening moments
Haunched-Joint Mechanism
Haunching of joints, which is an ef Fig. 16. Haunched-joint mechanism.
fective means of retrofitting existing
joints with poor column reinforcement
anchorage and/or insufficient joint
shear reinforcement, increases the
joint size.
7 The joint mechanisms re
sponsible for force transfer in the ex
panded joint can mobilize relatively
more reinforcement. Also, when
retrofitting joints using an external re
inforced concrete jacket, additional
shear reinforcement can be added
without causing steel congestion in the
joint region.
The haunched-joint mechanism,
(a) Under closing moments (b) Under opening moments
which anchors the column tension
force at a CTT node under closing mo
ments or CCT node under opening Fig. 17. Distributed strut mechanism.
moments, is illustrated for a bridge
knee joint in Fig. 16. A special feature
of the haunched-joint mechanism is the amount of joint reinforcement. For stub in Fig. 17. A main advantage of
that it benefits from broadening of the typical bridge joints designed in the this mechanism is broadening or fan
joint main strut. This reduces the de post-1971 era with premature termina ning of the joint strut, thereby increas
mand in the strut, increases the strut tion of column bars into the joint, the ing the joint strut capacity.’
2
capacity, and alleviates possible com haunched joint mechanism may be re This mechanism is feasible because
pression failure, particularly under lied upon for supporting 0.5TC pro the bar strength can be developed ad
closing moments. vided the joint dimensions are en jacent to the reinforcement head,
When subjected to opening mo larged by 30 percent or greater. A which typically has a cross-sectional
ments, the expanded joint dimensions larger contribution from this mecha area ten times that of the bar, enabling
improve anchorage of the column bars nism, providing anchorage for up to development of struts directly against
into the joint by effectively lowering 1.0T, is possible if supported by an the reinforcement heads. An example
the position of the CCT node at which appropriate model based on the joint of strut formation against distributed
the column tension force is supported condition. beam headed reinforcement is shown
(see Fig. 16b). A mechanism similar in Fig. 18, which was observed in a
to that shown in Fig. 1 6b can also be test on a bridge knee joint.’
2
applied to a haunched bridge tee joint. Distributed Strut Mechanism
Use of headed bars will result in al
The contribution of this mechanism Using multiple layers of headed re most zero effective anchorage length
for anchoring the column tension force inforcement in the cap beam and for the column main reinforcement in
will depend on several factors, includ strategically positioning the headed this mechanism, as well as in the di
ing the embedment length of the col ends of the reinforcement in the joint rect transfer mechanism (see Fig. 15),
umn bars into the joint, anchorage de region, the distributed strut mecha enabling possible reduction of the cap
tail of the cap beam top reinforcement, nism can be developed as illustrated beam depth. To achieve this anchor
dimensions of the expanded joint, and for a bridge knee joint with a short age condition, the column bars should

July-August 2003 81
 :. •Y 7’
(a) Beam bars terminated in the stub are visible
Fig. 18. Formation of strut against the ends of headed reinforcing bars.
c’NN
—. I I
.. /
I chored in the top corner of the stub as
LzJ
(a) Mechanism I
Fig. 19. Short-stub mechanisms for knee joints subjected to closing moments.
be extended above the beam top bars
asshowninFig. 17.
Further, when employing the dis
tributed strut mechanism, it should be
remembered that the beam longitudi
nal reinforcement quantity, the joint
strut depth and demand on the struts
depend on the number of beam rein
forcement layers. To employ this
mechanism effectively in joint design,
the top and bottom beam longitudinal
beam bars should be placed in three or
more layers as illustrated in Fig. 17.
Short-Stub Mechanism
The short-stub mechanism can as
sist with anchoring of the column ten
sion force into a knee joint subjected
to closing moments. As shown in Fig.
1 9a, an external strut similar to that
described under the clamping mecha
82
(b) Close-up view
(b) Mechanism 2
nism is relied upon for joint force
transfer, which is supported by U-
shaped reinforcing bars in the short
stub.
A detailing requirement of this
mechanism is that the U-bars be part
of the beam main reinforcement, en
suring continuity between the top and
bottom longitudinal bars. To improve
constructibility of this detail, it is rec
ommended that short U-bars be em
ployed in the joint region and that
continuity of the beam reinforcement
be established using either mechanical
connectors or competent splices out
side of the joint. The vertical tails of
the U-bars should be positioned from
the outer face of the column at a dis
tance of about O.3D and O.3h for cir
cular and rectangular columns, respec
22
’
11
tively.
With column bars extended as close
to the beam top reinforcement as pos
sible, the column tension force can
also be supported by the joint diagonal
strut and another external strut an
shown in Fig. 19b. Since the horizon
tal component of this external strut is
typically large, which will be deter
mined by the yield strength of the
beam top longitudinal reinforcement,
this mechanism can anchor an addi
tional column tension force at this
CCT node without significantly in
creasing demand on the joint shear re
inforcement.
Based on test data, it is estimated
that the total column tension force can
be supported using the short-stub
6 The joint force transfer
mechanism.
mechanism described in Fig. 19a will
support a smaller proportion of T than
the mechanism depicted in Fig. l9b.
The exact contribution of each
mechanism can be determined from
equilibrium conditions assuming the
maximum out-of-balance force, T,
that can be supported at Node C. The
value of T should be determined
based on the reinforcement provided
to support the joint force transfer
under opening moments as illustrated
in the second example in Appendix A.
Therefore, it is suggested that when
the short-stub mechanism is employed
for closing knee joints, the required
quantity of joint reinforcement will
generally be governed by the mecha
nism responsible for force transfer
under opening moments.
PCI JOURNAL
 Long-Stub Mechanism
The long-stub mechanism, which is
conceptually similar to the short-stub
mechanism, can be applied to the de
sign of knee joints subjected to closing
moments. As shown in Fig. 20, an
chorage of the external strut in the
stub is achieved using transverse ties
and a strut anchored against the grav
ity load transferred through the long
5 With comparison to the clamp
stub.
ing mechanism, a column tension
force of up to 0.15T may be anchored
into the joint using the long-stub
mechanism when adequate gravity
loads and transfer ties are present in
the stub.
FORCE TRANSFER MODELS
Joint force transfer models suitable
for design or assessment can be for
mulated using a single mechanism or a
combination of two or more of the key
mechanisms described above. Limit
ing the number of mechanisms to two
is recommended to maintain simplic
ity. Some examples of design models
are presented below to demonstrate
the application of the force transfer
method.
Modified External Strut Force
Transfer Model
The external strut force transfer
model, which was originally proposed
by 17
”° and later modified by
4
Priestley
18 relies upon supporting T
’
6
Sritharan,
equally by the clamping and splice
transfer mechanisms. Since this model
makes the maximum use of the beam
stirrups in the joint force transfer, the
model is regarded as very efficient for
seismic detailing of bridge joints. Fig.
21 illustrates the application of the
modified external strut force transfer
model to a bridge tee joint.
The appropriate reinforcement re
quired to develop the two mechanisms
can be determined independently in
terms of T. With an estimate for T,
the total reinforcement required for
satisfactory joint force transfer can be
then qualified (see Example 1 in Ap
pendix A and a prescriptive set of de
sign steps in Reference 18).
If a fully prestressed cap beam is
used, the splice transfer mechanism is
July-August 2003
not required and the tee joint can be
detailed using the clamping mecha
nism shown in Fig. 13b. The possibil
ity of designing the joint utilizing only
the clamping mechanism may be ex
amined by estimating the main joint
strut depth at the colunm tension face
and comparing with the effective an
chorage length of the column longitu
dinal bars as illustrated in Fig. 6. In
joints with zero prestressing, the
splice transfer mechanism may be re
placed with other mechanisms such as
the direct transfer mechanism.
If the cap beam is partially pre
stressed, the combination of clamping
and splice mechanisms can still be
employed, with the former supporting
more than 0.5T based on the level of
prestressing. This will result in less
joint reinforcement than would be re
quired in an equivalent joint with zero
prestressing. The amount of column
tension force that can be supported by
the clamping mechanism may be ob
tained based on the percentage of
beam negative moment at the column
face that is being resisted by the beam
prestressing.
Consequently, when the negative
moment resisted by the beam pre
stressing is zero or 100 percent, the
column tension force supported by the
clamping mechanism is taken as 0.5T
or 1 .0T, respectively, with the amount
of column tension force supported by
any other level of beam prestressing
being linearly interpolated between
0.5T and 1.0T.
Gravity load
Fig. 20. Long-stub
mechanism for
knee joints
subjected to
closing moments.
The modified external strut force
transfer model can also be applied to
bridge knee joints subjected to open
ing moments. However, an alternative
mechanism (e.g., the short-stub mech
anism) is required for force transfer
when the joint is subjected to closing
moments. The required joint rein
forcement should be established fol
lowing consideration of the reinforce
ment details necessary to support the
force transfer across the joint for the
two types of moment.
As described above for tee joints,
partially prestressed knee joints can
also be detailed using a combination
of clamping and splice mechanisms.
The column tension force supported
by the two mechanisms, in this situa
tion, should be proportioned based on
the beam positive moment resisted by
prestressing at the column tension
face.
Haunched-Joint Force
Transfer Model
This force transfer model combines
the haunched-joint mechanism with
the splice transfer mechanism, unless
the cap beam is fully prestressed. The
percentage of the column tension
force supported by the haunched-joint
mechanism should be established
based on the embedment length of the
column bars into the joint and the
amount of horizontal and/or vertical
shear reinforcement present in the
joint. As noted previously, a larger
83

Requirement for
additional top beam
reinforcement
Fig. 21. The
modified
external strut
force transfer
model.
percentage of T may be supported
through the haunched-joint mecha
nism if proven using an appropriate
strut-and-tie model.
Distr,buted Strut Force
Transfer Model
Relying solely on the distributed
strut mechanism, the distributed strut
force transfer model can be used for
supporting the column tension force 7..
The necessary joint reinforcement can
be quantified using strut-and-tie mod
els delineating the respective mecha
nisms shown in Fig. 17. Although
headed short bars may be used for re
sisting the tension force within the
joint in the vertical direction, use of
spiral or hoop reinforcement is recom
mended as joint ties in the horizontal
direction, which will also effectively
enhance the strength of the joint stnits.
The distributed strut force transfer
model can also be developed by com
bining the distributed strut and direct
transfer mechanisms. The amount of
reinforcement required within the
joint of this model will typically be
less than that required for the model
based solely on the distributed strut
mechanism.
Short-Stub Joint Force
Transfer Model
The design of a force transfer model
suitable for a knee joint with a short
stub subjected to closing moments can
be formulated by combining the two
short-stub mechanisms depicted in
84
Fig. 19. If necessary, the design model
can be supplemented with the splice
mechanism, as in the modified exter
nal strut model.
The reinforcement required for
transferring the joint forces under
opening moments may be derived
from the modified external strut model
illustrated in Fig. 21 for a bridge tee
joint.
DESIGN PROCEDURE
Following selection of a force trans
fer model, the design procedure suit
able for a given joint type may be de
veloped using the guidelines and
strut-and-tie concepts previously dis
cussed. Full development of these de
sign procedures is constrained within
the scope of this paper, but is pre
sented elsewhere for the modified ex
ternal strut force transfer model.’
9 plane loading is presented in this
However, quantification of tension de
mands in the joint region following
selection of a force transfer model is
illustrated in Appendix A using exam
ple problems.
OUT-OF-PLANE AND
81-DIRECTIONAL LOADING
This paper has focused on applica
tion of the force transfer method to
bridge joints subjected to in-plane
loading. The force transfer method can
equally be applied to bridge joints
subjected to out-of-plane (i.e., the di
rection parallel to the bridge longitudi
nal axis) and bi-directional loading.
Experimental validation of the exter
nal strut force transfer model to bridge
joints subjected to out-of-plane load
ing may be found in Reference 28.
For bi-directional loading, joint de
tails may be established by employing
FTM in the transverse and longitudi
nal directions independently. When
similar joint mechanisms are used in
the transverse and longitudinal direc
tions, there will be regions that require
reinforcement for each of the two
loading cases.
It has been suggested that the rein
forcetnent placed in overlapping areas
may be counted as effective for the two
7 This suggestion appears to
directions.’
be reasonable since, for example, the
plastic moment capacity of a circular
column remains the same for any load
ing direction. Such simplification of
the joint details must be exercised with
sound engineering judgment.
The behavior of bridge joints under
bi-directional loading has been experi
38 However, the
mentally studied.
’
3337
number of tests is limited for the pur
pose of systematically extending the
force transfer method to bridge joint
design under bi-directional seismic ac
tion. More effort is required to com
plete this task, including an experi
mental investigation of bridge joints
designed based on carefully selected
joint mechanisms.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A rational force transfer method for
seismic design and assessment of con
crete bridge joints subjected to in-
paper. This method determines the
suitable amount of joint reinforcement
using simple analytical models based
on strut-and-tie concepts, with consid
eration to the repetitive nature of seis
mic loading. In order to assist with the
practical application of this approach,
several guidelines, efficient joint
mechanisms and design/assessment
models are also presented.
Unlike the conventional joint design
approach, in which the joint shear is
assumed to be an independent force,
the force transfer method treats joint
shear as part of the complete force
transfer across the joint. As a result,
the force transfer method will provide
PCI JOURNAL
 reduced and less conservative rein
forcement, thus improving the con
structibility of bridge joints.
Expected Joint Performance
Based on the observed performance
of several joints designed using differ
ent force transfer models, the follow
ing seismic performance is postulated
for bridge joints designed with FTM:
In small to moderate earthquakes,
which are expected frequently within
the projected lifetime of the structure,
joints will respond elastically with
joint reinforcement stresses signifi
cantly below the yield strength. Inspec
tion or repair of joints will not be nec
essary following such an event. Minor
joint cracking is, however, expected.
In moderate to large earthquakes,
the joint reinforcement may be sub
jected to inelastic strains moderately
exceeding the yield strain. No struc
tural repair of the joint will be neces
sary, although durability concerns may
warrant measures such as injection of
grouting. Joint deformation should not
significantly increase the lateral dis
placement of the bridge bent. It is ex
pected that the average joint shear
strain will not exceed 0.0025.
• In the maximum credible earth
quake, inelastic strains of up to 0.02
can be developed in the joint rein
forcement, with average joint shear
strains of up to 0.005. These limita
tions will satisfactorily control the
contribution of joint deformations to
the overall lateral displacement of the
bent, ensuring inelastic actions within
the preselected plastic hinge zones in
the columns. The joint damage result
ing from such an event will be re
pairable.
• When a joint is designed using a
conservative force transfer model, the
joint reinforcement will not be opti
mized. In such cases, the average joint
shear strains of up to 0.01 may be de
veloped, with satisfactory overall joint
behavior.
The joints in Table I were subjected
to quasi-static loading, and thus confir
mation of the expected joint perfor
mance needs to be validated using dy
namic load tests on laboratory bridge
joints or by instrumenting bridge joints
in field structures. Nonetheless, the au
thors believe that the above informa
tion is valuable to the earthquake engi
neering community in their current
efforts to establish performance-based
seismic design procedures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are indebted to Emeri
tus Professor M. J. Nigel Priestley,
University of California at San Diego
(UCSD), for his initiative towards de
veloping the force transfer method
concept for detailing of bridge joints,
serving as the doctoral adviser for
both authors in this area of research,
and inspiring them to write this techni
cal article.
The large-scale experiments on
bridge joints listed in Table I of this
paper were conducted at the Charles
Lee Powell Structural Laboratory at
UCSD with financial support from the
California Department of Transporta
tion, Alaska Department of Trans
portation and Headed Reinforcement
Corporation of California.
The authors are grateful to all the
sponsors of this research program for
their support.
The opinions or recommendations
expressed in this paper are those of the
authors alone and do not necessarily re
flect the views of the financial sponsors.
The authors want to express their
gratitude to all the PCi JOURNAL re
viewers for providing constructive
comments on the original manuscript.

REFERENCES
I. Ritter, W., “Die Bauweise Hennebique,” Schweizerische 8. Ingham, J. M., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Cyclic Re
Bauzeitung Bd, XXXIII, No. 7, January 1899. sponse of Bridge Knee Joints with Circular Columns,” Journal
2. Mörsch, E., Der Eisenbeton, seine Theorie und Anwenung, of Earthquake Engineering, V. 2, No. 3, 1998, pp. 357-390.
Verlag Konrad Witter, Stuttgart, Germany, 1912. 9. MacRae, G. A., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Santa
3. ACT Committee 445 Shear and Torsion, “Strut-and-Tie Bibli
-
Monica Viaduct Retrofit Large-Scale Column-Cap Beam
-

ography,” ACI Bibliography No. 16, American Concrete Insti
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, September 1997, 50 pp.
4. Priestley, M. J. N., “Assessment and Design of Joints for Sin
gle-Level Bridges with Circular Columns,” Structural Systems
Research, Report No. SSRP 93/02, University of California at
San Diego, CA, February 1993, 62 pp.
5. Ingham, J. M., “Seismic Performance of Bridge Knee Joints,”
Doctoral Dissertation, Division of Structural Engineering, Uni
versity of California at San Diego, CA, 1995, 511 pp.
6. Sritharan S., “Analysis of Concrete Bridge Joints Subjected to
Seismic Actions,” Doctoral Dissertation, Division of Structural
Engineering, University of California at San Diego, CA, 1998,
407 pp.
7. Ingham, J. M., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Seismic Re
sponse of Bridge Knee Joints Having Columns with Interlock
ing Spirals,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering, V. 30, No. 2, 1997, pp. 114-132.
Joint Transverse Test, Preliminary Report,” Structural System
Research Project TR-94/02, University of California, San
Diego, CA, August 1994, 117 pp.
10. Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Enhancing
Seismic Performance of Cap Beam-to-Column Bridge Joints
Using Prestressing,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 44, No. 4, July-Au
gust 1999, pp. 74-91.
11. Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Seismic De
sign and Experimental Verification of Concrete Multiple Col
umn Bridge Bents,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 3,
May-June 2001, pp. 335-346.
12. Ingham, J. M., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Seismic
Performance of a Bridge Knee Joint Reinforced with Headed
Reinforcement,” Structural Systems Research Project, Report
No. SSRP 96/06, University of California at San Diego, CA,
September 1996, 104 pp.
13. Silva, P. F., Sritharan, S., Seible, F., and Priestley M. J. N.,

July-August 2003 85
 “Seismic Design and Proof Test of a Bridge Bent Having
Three Steel Jacketed Columns,” Structural Systems Research
Report No. SSRP 98/13, University of California at San Diego,
CA, 1999.
14. ATC, “Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California
Bridges: Provisional Recommendations,” ATC-32, Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1996.
15. ATC/MCEER Joint Venture, “Recommended LRFD Guide
lines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, Part I: Spec
ifications and Part II: Commentary (Preliminary Reports),”
ATC-49/MCEER-02-SPO1, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, CA, 2001.
16. Caltrans, “Seismic Design Criteria,” Version 12, California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, July 2001.
17. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, M., Seismic Design
and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
1996, 686 pp.
18. Sritharan, S., “Strut-and-Tie Analysis of Bridge Joints Sub
jected to Tn-plane Seismic Actions,” Submitted for publication
in the ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.
19. Sritharan, S., “An Improved Seismic Design Procedure for
Concrete Bridge Joints,” Submitted for publication in the
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.
20. Schlaich, J., Schaefer, K., and Jennewein, M., “Toward a Con
sistent Design of Structural Concrete,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 32,
No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 75-149.
21. Sntharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Seismic Re
sponse of ColumnlCap Beam Tee Connections with Cap Beam
Prestressing,” Structural Systems Research, Report No. SSRP
96/09, University of California at San Diego, CA, December
1996, 296 pp.
22. Sritharan, S., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Seismic De
sign and Performance of Concrete Multi-Column Bents for
Bridges,” Structural Systems Research, Report No. SSRP
97/03, University of California at San Diego, CA, June 1997,
331 pp.
23. Sritharan, S., Ingham, J. M., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F.,
“Bond Slip of Bridge Column Reinforcement Anchored in Cap
Beams,” Bond and Development of Reinforcement A Tribute
— shop on Bridges and Highways, Portland, OR, April 2002, pp.
to Dr. Peter Gergely, ACT SP-1 80, American Concrete Insti
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, pp. 319-345.
24. MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and
Design, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1988, 799 pp.
25. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Struc
tures, Response Publications, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1997,
766 pp.
26. Bhide, S., and Collins, M. P., “Tension Influence on Shear Ca
pacity of Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 5,
September-October 1989, pp. 570-581.
86
27. Bergmeister, K., Breen, J. E., Jirsa, J. 0., and Kreger, M. E.,
“Detailing in Structural Concrete,” Center for Transportation
Research, Report No. 1 127-3F, The University of Texas at
Austin, TX, May 1993.
28. Holombo, I., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F., “Continuity of
Precast Spliced-Girder Bridges Under Longitudinal Seismic
Loads,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 45, No. 4, March-April 2000, pp.
40-63.
29. Reineck, K., “Ultimate Shear Force of Structural Concrete
Members Without Transverse Reinforcement Derived From a
Mechanical Model,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 5,
September-October 1991, pp. 5 92-602.
30. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to
Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 83, No. 2, March-April
1986, pp. 219-23 1.
31. Hsu, T. T. C., Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1993, 313 pp.
32. To, N. H. T., Ingham, J. M., and Sritharan, S., “Montonic Non
linear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Knee Joints Using
Strut-Tie Computer Models,” Bulletin of the New Zealand So
ciety for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand,
V. 34, No. 3, September 2001, pp. 169-190.
33. Thewalt, C. R., and Stojadinovic, B., “Behavior of Bridge Out
rigger Knee Joint Systems,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 11, No. 3,
August 1995, pp. 477-509.
34. Lowes, L. N., and Moehie, J. P., “Evaluation and Retrofit of
Beam-Column T-Joints in Older Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Structures,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-August
1999, pp. 5 19-532.
35. ACT Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Struc
tural Concrete (ACT 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-
99),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1999.
36. Sritharan, S., Abendroth, R. E., Greimann, L. F., Wassef, W.
G., and Vander Werff, J., “Seismic Performance of a Concrete
Column/Steel Cap/Steel Girder Integral Bridge System,” Pro
ceedings of the Third National Seismic Conference & Work
411-422.
37. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Anderson, D. L., “Proof
Test of a Retrofit Concept for the San Francisco Double-Deck
Viaducts,” Structural Systems Research, Report No. SSRP
92/03, University of California at San Diego, CA, July 1992,
198 pp.
38. Mazzoni, S., and Moehie, J. P., “Seismic Response of Beam
Column Joints in Double-Deck Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Frames,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 3, May-June
2001, pp. 259-369.
PCI JOURNAL
 APPENDIX A — DESIGN EXAMPLES
Two design examples illustrating the application of the
force transfer method are given in this Appendix. In these
examples, the tension demands in the joint region are deter
mined following selection of a suitable force transfer model.
From these tension demands, the necessary reinforcement
can be readily obtained.
Unless otherwise noted, the reinforcement distribution
should be such that the orientation and magnitude of the re
sultant forces within the distributed reinforcement should co
incide, respectively, with the direction and demand on the
ties established for supporting the selected joint mechanisms.
For simplicity, the following assumptions are made in
each of the examples. The column that frames into the joint
is 1.2 m (47.24 in.) in diameter and consists of 20 No. 14
(dbl = 43 mm or 1.69 in.) longitudinal bars, corresponding to
about 2.5 percent longitudinal reinforcement. With adequate
confinement, as suggested in current design practice,
7 the
’
14
moment capacity of the column is expected to fully develop
in the plastic hinge region adjacent to the joint.
An unconfined concrete strength of 30 MPa (4.35 ksi) and
a reinforcement yield strength of 455 MPa (66 ksi) are as
sumed. The column is subjected to an axial force of 1700 kN
(382 kips) due to gravity loads, which represents a column
axial load ratio of 5 percent (i.e., PCJAgfC’ = 0.05, where P’
Ag, andf are, respectively, the column axial load, gross sec
tion area, and concrete strength).
While this axial load may be assumed to be unaltered in
columns of tee joints, the axial loads in columns framing
into knee joints will be modified due to seismic actions. For
the design examples, the combined axial load ratio due to
gravity and seismic actions is taken as 10 and 0 percent,
when the joint is subjected to closing and opening moments,
respectively.
The joint principal tensile stress is assumed to exceed
O.42Jf’ (MPa) [or 5.04f’ (psi)] in both examples, requir
ing joint design based on a force transfer model that sup
ports the total column tension force, T. This assumption is
appropriate for the selected joint dimensions and column
longitudinal reinforcement ratio.
For example, with an axial load ratio of 5 percent, the col
umn framing into the tee joint is expected to develop an over-
strength moment of 9090 kN-m (80460 kip-in.). Ignoring the
axial load in the cap beam, Eq. (4) estimates p 16f and p
0.73,Jf’ (MPa) [or 8.8qf’ (psi)1 for the tee joint.
From Eqs. (12) and (13), it is determined that the mini
mum required la = 1072 mm (42.2 in.) and t aeff = 500 miii
(19.7 in.).
The value of TC and locations of ties and struts in the col
umn are established from analyses of the column section
with the appropriate axial loads. Inclinations of various
struts are determined using the dimensions specified in fig
ures representing the various key mechanisms.
Assuming single layers of top and bottom beam reinforce
ment with a bar diameter of 43 mm (1.69 in.) and a cover
concrete of 50 mm (1.97 in.) to all longitudinal bars, the cap
beam is dimensioned with a depth of 1250 mm (49.2 in.)
July-August 2003
and a width of 1500 mm (59.1 in). Consequently, the col
umn bars are anchored into the joint with 1 a = 1100 mm
(43.3 in.) and there is a gap of about 57 mm (2.24 in.) be
tween top of the column bars and the underside of the beam
longitudinal bars.
Example 1. Bridge Tee Joint
The modified external strut force transfer model (Fig. 21),
utilizing the clamping mechanism and the splice transfer
mechanism is selected for the joint design. Each mechanism
is assumed to support a column tension force of O.5TC as
previously discussed. Estimation of tension demands in the
joint region are determined in terms of T, which is esti
mated to be 11035 kN (2481 kips) from an analysis of the
column section.
The tension demands resulting from the clamping mecha
nism are shown in Fig. Al. Accordingly, the formation of an
external joint strut with an incline of 45 degrees imposes
tension demands in the beam region adjacent to the column
tension face. Using the maximum value of 0. 1 STC for Tes, Tbb
is estimated to be 0.15T. In addition, a tension demand of T
develops within the joint in the horizontal direction, where:
T = (0.5 0.l5)Ttan48 0.15T (Al)
— —
=0.25TC
Quantification of joint spiral (or circular hoop) reinforce
ment needed to support the tension demand estimated in Eq.
(Al) is not straightforward. This is because the resultant
force contribution by spirals varies up the joint height due to
the location of T and inclination of joint cracks. With ap
propriate assumptions, Priestley
4 quantified the volumetric
reinforcement ratio of spirals appropriate to support horizon
tal tension demands develop in bridge joints. Accordingly,
the spiral reinforcement necessary to support 0.25T may be
obtained from Eq. (A2).
1200
Fig. Al. Tension demands due to the clamping mechanism.
(Dimensions are in mm.)
87
 Fig. A2. Tension
demands due to the
splice mechanism.
(Dimensions are (a) Transfer of colunm tension force
in mm.)
— 2.4(0.257) — 0.67
Ps
ç 2
Jyha
—
ç
Jyha
wherefYh is the yield strength of joint spiral and la is the em
bedment length of column bars into the joint. It is suggested
that the spiral reinforcement ratio be maintained over the
embedment length of the column bars starting above the
bottom beam bars. Also, the minimum spiral reinforcement
requirement of Eq. (7) must be satisfied.
Given the complexity, the splice mechanism shown in
Fig. 14 is represented using simplified models in Fig. A2.
Fig. A2a illustrates in a simplified manner the estimation of
tension demands resulting from transfer of the column ten
sion force to Node D, positioned above the column bars at
the location of the beam top longitudinal bars. In this figure,
it is assumed that two vertical tie forces of 0.25T in magni
tude, positioned on each side of the joint and representing
vertical stirrups and concrete tensile resistance within the
joint and in the beam directly adjacent to the joint, will col
lectively introduce a tension force of 0.5T with a centroid
acting at Node D. This force will be anchored primarily with
diagonal struts and beam top reinforcement as shown in Fig.
A2b.
The demands induced by the splice mechanism may be
estimated as follows:
• Assuming 50 percent contribution from the two ties lo
cated at the joint-to-beam interfaces in Fig. A2a, a tension
demand of 0.25T may be estimated within the joint panel in
the vertical direction. The tension carrying capacity of the
cracked joint concrete may be assumed to support 25 per
cent of 0.25T as discussed elsewhere.’
9 The estimates presented above are for one direction of
• In addition to the demand of 0. 15T previously calcu
lated for the clamping mechanism, the bottom beam bars
will be subjected to a demand of:
0.75 x 0.25Ttan38
Tb,, = 0.l5T
Hence, the total value of Tb,, is 0.30T.
• Top beam bars will be subjected to a tension demand of
88
(b) Anchorage of column tension force
0.36T. Derivation of this tension force assumes that 50 per
cent of T, estimated from the clamping mechanism partici
(A2)
pates in supporting the column force here. Consequently:
Tbt = (0.5T 0.5T,tan40)tan3 1
— + 0.5T, (A4)
T, 0.25T, thus, Tbt = 0.36T
The reason for using only 0.5T, in the above calculation is
that the horizontal joint shear reinforcement is partly relied
upon for transfer of the column tension force to Node D as
detailed in Fig. 14.
The splice transfer mechanism imposes an additional ten
sion demand in the vertical direction in the beam region ad
jacent to the column compression face. Although this de
mand could be quantified using the strut and tie forces in
Fig. A2b, an approximation for this demand may be taken as
9 Hence, the value of Tç’, is approximated to 0.25T.
0.25T.’
With this estimate for T,, the beam regions adjacent to the
joint should be designed with adequate reinforcement to
support a force of T, plus the calculated beam shear.
Some of the assumptions made above are based on exper
imental observations and the authors’ experience with the
subject matter, which was primarily aimed at minimizing
shear reinforcement within the joint panel and improving
constructibility. Strictly following the mechanisms for deter
mining tension demands will also lead to satisfactory joint
performance, but will result in somewhat larger reinforce
ment quantities. In this case, the determination of T based
on Eq. (5) may be more appropriate as this gives a value of
about 25 percent less than that reported above based on the
section analysis.
loading, and the final estimates of the tension demands in
the joint region should consider the loading in two direc
tions. As a result, the following tension demands should be
used to quantify the reinforcement in the joint region:
(A3) • 0. l9T to quantify the vertical joint shear reinforcement;
• 0.25T to quantify the spirals within the joint panel;
• 0.25T to quantify the stirrups in the beam region adja
cent to the joint over a distance of hb;
PCI JOURNAL
 • O.3OT to quantify additional bottom beam reinforce
ment across the joint; and
• 0.36T to quantify additional top beam reinforcement
across the joint.

Example 2. Bridge Knee Joint

The design of the knee joint should consider forces ex
pected when the joint is subjected to both opening and clos
ing moments. The modified external strut force transfer
model may be employed for transfer of joint forces under
opening moments and the corresponding tension demands
may be obtained in a manner similar to that illustrated above
for the tee joint in the first example. For joint opening mo
ments, the value of T is found to be 12014 kN (2701 kips).
For joint closing moments, the short-stub mechanism is
relied upon to support the entire column tension force as
shown in Fig. A3, which combines Mechanisms 1 and 2 de
picted previously in Fig. 19. With a column axial load ratio
of 10 percent estimated due to gravity and seismic actions
combined, the column tension force T is estimated to be Fig. A3. Tension demands due to the short-stub mechanism.
10555 kN (2373 kips). (Dimensions are in mm.)
Assuming that the joint spiral reinforcement provided for
force transfer under opening moments can support an out-of-
balance force T = 0.25T at Node C, the tension demands in Tb = cos26.7
3
C 0.45T (A9)
the joint region can be quantified. The vertical components
of Struts C
2 and C 3 are equal, and represent the tension force Tb = C
s
3 in26.7 — 0.25T (AlO)
in the vertical tails of the top and bottom longitudinal rein
forcement, Tb (see Fig. A3). Hence: The incline of the struts in the short stub, especially C
,
3
will be significantly influenced by the number of layers of
Tb = sin5O
2
C = C
s
3 in26.7 (A5) beam longitudinal reinforcement. In this example, one layer
of reinforcement was assumed. When reinforcement is
From equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction placed in multiple layers, the top beam tension chord should
at Node C: be located where the resultant tension force is expected,
which will reduce the inclination of C 3 and increase the
C
c
1 os4l.5 = T (A6) value of Tb.
Extending the beam top and bottom longitudinal reinforc
From equilibrium of forces in the horizontal direction at ing bars through the joint and making them continuous in
Node C: the stub will be sufficient to support the tension demands es
timated in Eqs. (A8), (A9) and (AlO). This can be ensured
T = 0.25T = C
s
1 in4l.5 — cosSO
2
C — cos26.7
3
C (A7) following the design of the beam longitudinal reinforcement.
Although the vertical portion of the beam reinforcement in
From Eqs. (AS to A7), magnitudes of Struts C , C
1 2 and C
3 the stub will adequately support the tension force T,,, nomi
are found to be 1.34T, 0.29T and 0.50T, respectively. nal beam transverse reinforcement is recommended in the
Using these estimates, tension demands Tb,,, Tb(, and Tb can stub to adequately confine concrete in this region.
be determined as follows: More examples illustrating the application of FTM spe
cific to different joint conditions may be found in Refer
Tbb = cos5O
2
C 0.20T (A8) ences7,8, 12, 17 and 19.

July-August 2003 89
 APPENDIX B — NOTATION
,
1
a = depth of equivalent stress block in beam on left Pt = average joint principal tensile stress
side ofjoint b1 cap beam axial force on left side ofjoint
abr depth of equivalent stress block in beam on right ‘br cap beam axial force on right side of joint
side of joint = column axial load
a = depth of equivalent stress block in column = magnitude of strut
Ag = gross section area T tension force
= area of joint vertical stirrup Tb = tension force in beam reinforcement
5 = total area of column longitudinal reinforcement
A Tb,, additional tension demand in bottom beam longi
Ateff= steel area in direction of tie tudinal reinforcement
A,, = area of vertical joint reinforcement tension in beam reinforcement on left side of joint
b = column width Tbr tension in beam reinforcement on right side of
= joint effective width joint
cap beam width = additional tension demand in top beam longitudi
C compression force nal reinforcement
Cb = resultant beam compression force due to flexure TC = total column tension force estimated at over-
Chi = resultant beam compression force due to flexure strength moment capacity
on left side of joint TCT = vertical component of tension force carried by
Cbr = resultant beam compression force due to flexure cracked concrete
on right side of joint 5
T = additional demand in external stirrups adjacent to
C, = resultant column compression force due to flexure column compression face
d = effective beam depth Tes additional demand in external stirrups adjacent to
= diameter of longitudinal reinforcing bar column tension face
1 = effective beam depth on left side of joint
d Tr = total tensile resistance in vertical direction
dr = effective beam depth on right side of joint = tie force contributed by reinforcement
D = column diameter 5
T = out-of-balance tension force at joint node
f, = unconfined concrete compressive strength Vj = average joint shear stress
fcr = cracking strength of concrete vj = average joint shear stress
fh = average joint normal stress in horizontal direction Vj = average joint shear stress in horizontal direction
f,. = stress in steel reinforcement vi,, = average joint shear stress in vertical direction
f = average tensile stress in concrete between cracks Vbl = cap beam shear adjacent to left side of joint
in principal tension direction Vbr = cap beam shear adjacent to right side ofjoint
average joint normal stress in vertical direction VC = column shear force
f = yield strength of steel reinforcement Vh = average joint shear force in horizontal direction
f = yield strength of column longitudinal bars V
,
1 , = average joint shear force in vertical direction
fyh = yield strength of hoop reinforcement V° = column shear at overstrength condition
= overstrength stress in column longitudinal rein w = one half of effective width of strut
forcement 1
w = effective column depth for computingf
F = prestressing force 1
a = factor representing bond characteristics
g = distance from top of column bars to beam top sur 2
a = factor representing type of load history
face /3 = constant that defines a portion of TC
hb = cap beam depth = moment resistance due to beam shear
= column depth = strain in steel reinforcement
= length of joint panel in loading direction = average principal tensile strain
= anchorage length = average principal compression strain
‘a,eff = effective anchorage length = average strain in x direction
Mb = cap beam moment = average strain in y direction
Mbl = cap beam moment on left side of joint I’ = average joint shear strain
Mbr = cap beam moment on right side of joint = displacement ductility
M° = column overstrength moment o = angle of principal strain
PC = average joint principal compression stress = volumetric ratio of horizontal hoop reinforcement

90 PCI JOURNAL