New Reinforcement Detailing for Concrete Jacketing

of Nonductile Exterior Beam–Column Joints

K. R. Bindhu 1; N. Mohana 2; and S. Sivakumar 3

Abstract: The observation of failure patterns of different reinforced concrete structures due to earthquakes in several countries has caused
critical concern about the performance of beam–column joints. Retrofitting of reinforced concrete (RC) structures can lead to increased
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stiffness, strength, and failure deformation. This paper introduces a new type of reinforcement detail for the RC jacketing of nonductile
exterior beam–column joints. Experimental investigations were carried out on five types of joint specimens keeping a scale ratio of
three and were subjected to reverse cyclic loading. The improvement in performance was observed for the retrofitted non ductile exterior
beam–column joints using the new RC jacketing than the conventional RC jacketing. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000700.
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Beam–column joint; Jacketing; Reinforcement details; Retrofitting; Strong column-weak beam.

Introduction in general, and components, in particular, to achieve more and

consistent strength ductility and energy dissipation. Numerous re-
Reinforced concrete (RC) structures designed only for gravity searches carried out on different retrofit techniques including the
loads proved their performance under conventional gravity loads. use of concrete jackets, bolted steel plates, and FRP sheets, were
However, their performance is questionable under seismic-type considered in the structural upgrading, especially for columns and
loading; the facts are witnessed by the structural failures observed beam–column joints in the moment-resisting frames. The purpose
during earthquakes worldwide. Observation of the damage caused of the rehabilitation is to prevent columns or joints from a brittle
by strong earthquakes has highlighted the typical collapse mecha- shear failure, and shift the failure towards a beam flexural hinging
nism of structural elements. Hence, both for existing structures mechanism, which is a more ductile behavior. Among these retrofit
and newly designed structures, a structural mechanism has to be techniques, RC jacketing is widely used because concrete jacketing
evolved in a way so that the seismic energy introduced into the is more consistent with as-built RC structures than the other retrofit
structure must be dissipated within the structure. Energy dissipation materials, such as steel or FRP jacketing, and the deficient beam–
takes place mainly through inelastic behavior of the structural column joints can be easily repaired as well. In the present study,
system since the structure must be damaged to dissipate energy. an attempt has been made to improve the performance of the con-
If seismic energy is dissipated at locations that make the structure crete jacketing scheme by modifying the detailing pattern of jacket
unable to satisfy the equilibrium of forces, collapse is inevitable. reinforcement.
Generally for avoiding any collapse in column or in joint, a com-
monly termed “strong column–weak beam” concept is followed
over “strong beam–weak column” concept. Postearthquake exami- Related Research
nation shows that one of the weakest links in the lateral load-
resisting system is the beam–column joints, especially exterior ones Corazao and Durrani (1989) studied exterior and interior beam–
because of a sudden geometric discontinuity and also they are not column subassemblages strengthened by jacketing the joint region.
confined by beams from all the sides. The beam–column joints with The study revealed that the strength, stiffness and energy dissipa-
inadequate or no transverse shear reinforcement have proved tion capacity of all three single-joint specimens increased after
deficient and are likely to experience brittle shear failure during jacketing. Alcocer and Jirsa (1993) conducted an experiment on
earthquake motions. a three-dimensional beam–column-slab subassemblages subjected
Strengthening of RC beam–column joints has received much to bidirectional loading. The authors recommended that the ACI
attention during the past two decades. Seismic retrofitting of 352 R-761 (ACI-ASCE Committee 352 1976) provisions on joint
reinforced concrete structures is aimed at strengthening structures, strength and bond could be used to proportion the jacket and that
distributed bars through the slab perforations shall be preferred to
1 bundle bars. Filiatrault and Lebrun (1996) studied the performance
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of Engineer-
ing, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695016, India (corresponding author). of two exterior beam–column joints, one with nonseismic detailing
E-mail: [email protected] and one with closely spaced transverse reinforcement in the beam,
2
M.Tech. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, column, and joint; each was repaired by epoxy pressure injection.
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695016, India. The study concluded that the repair procedure was particularly
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of Engineer-
effective in improving the performance of the nonseismically de-
ing, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695016, India.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 17, 2014; approved on
tailed specimen. Hakuto et al. (2000) performed experimental in-
October 3, 2014; published online on November 13, 2014. Discussion per- vestigation on three one-way interior joints having no joint
iod open until April 13, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for reinforcement strengthened with RC jackets. The damaged speci-
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of mens were strengthened by jacketing the beams, columns, and
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/04014192(9)/$25.00. joint. The joint core was strengthened using plain circular hoops

© ASCE 04014192-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

 consisting of two U-shaped ties placed through holes drilled in enlargement. The authors reported that the joint enlargement can
the beams and welded in place. The major conclusions regarding increase the strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity
the retrofits were that the addition of joint core hoops is very labor- of subassemblages. Nasersaeed (2011) studied the seismic behav-
intensive, but the hoops may not be required for one-way interior iour of RC beam–column joints retrofitted with RC jackets wherein
joints if the existing column is enlarged by jacketing. Tsonos epoxy resin was used for achieving adequate adhesion between
(2001) studied the effectiveness of RC jackets in cases where connector bar and old concrete. The author proposed a proper
one or more sides of the columns and beam column joints to be technique for executing design model based on the behaviour of
strengthened are inaccessible due to adjacent structures. Four test specimens as predicted by design methods. Xilin et al. (2012)
one-way exterior joints with insufficient or no joint ties were re- studied the behaviour of beam–column joints involving the use of
paired with three-sided high-strength concrete jackets and another additional diagonal bars within the joint particularly suitable for
with no joint ties was repaired with a two-sided jacket. Additional low to medium seismic effects in earthquake zones. The results of
joint ties were placed around the beam and short bars were placed the experiment show that providing additional bars is a promising
in a transverse direction inside the hooks of the beam bars in the approach in reinforced concrete structures in moderate seismic
joint region to improve the anchorage of these bars. El-Amoury and regions.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ghobarah (2002) studied exterior beam–column joints strength- Numerous laboratory studies were conducted on retrofitting and
ened using GFRP fabrics. This strengthening scheme resulted strengthening of beam–column joints using RC jacketing and is
in an effective increase in ductility, load carrying capacity, and en- reported in the literature. There is still an apparent need for the de-
ergy dissipation, and reduced the stiffness degradation of joint. tailed analysis and adoption of more executive and practical meth-
Pampanin et al. (2003) investigated the inherent seismic vulnerabil- ods to provide further enhancement of performance of concrete
ity of reinforced concrete beam column connections designed for jacketing. The present study deals with the improvement in perfor-
gravity load only. The experimental results underlined the signifi- mance of exterior beam–column joint subassemblages jacketed
cant vulnerability of the joint panel zone region and the critical role with new type of transverse reinforcement arrangement subjected
of the slippage phenomena due to the use of smooth bars and of to seismic type loading.
inadequate anchorage. Karayannis et al. (2005) studied the behav-
ior of the external RC beam–column joints with continuous rectan-
gular spiral reinforcement as shear reinforcement in the joint body. Scope of the Present Study
The authors concluded that the provision of rectangular spiral
The study investigates the improvement in seismic capacity of
reinforcement in the joint body significantly improved the seismic
exterior beam–column joints with newly proposed reinforcement
capacity of the external beam column connections. Murat et al.
detailing for concrete jacketing. The newly proposed reinforce-
(2005) prepared a state of art report on repair and strengthening
ment for jacketing consists of additional collar stirrups around
techniques. The authors discussed the techniques like (1) epoxy
the beam–column joint. They are designated as Nonconventionally
repair; (2) removal and replacement; (3) concrete jacketing; (4) con-
Strengthened Specimens (NCSTR). The specimens were subjected
crete masonry unit jacketing; (5) steel jacketing and addition of
to quasi-static reverse cyclic loading. The performances of the
external steel elements; and (6) strengthening with fiber-reinforced
concrete jacketed specimens are compared with the performance
polymeric (FRP) composite applications. Each method of repair
of a nonductile control specimen, in terms of ultimate load carry-
or strengthening is reviewed by the authors with emphasis on its
ing capacity, hysteretic response, ductility, and energy dissipation
application details, required labor, performance, and relative ad-
capacity.
vantages and disadvantages. Shannag and Alhassan (2005) tested
1/3rd-scale interior beam column joints by simulating seismic load
tests. The authors found the enhancement in performance of Experimental Program of Exterior Beam Column
strengthened interior beam column joints with high performance Joint
fiber-reinforced concrete jackets. Thermou and Elnashai (2006) re-
viewed the numerous retrofitting schemes adopted in practice for
the seismic upgrading of old and substandard reinforced concrete Description of the Specimen
buildings. The authors explored the effectiveness of the retrofitting A typical exterior beam–column joint with detailing as per
schemes and their interaction at local and global level to aid in the IS 456:2000 (IS 2000) was scaled down to laboratory conditions.
selection of schemes. Bindhu et al. (2008) carried out an experi- The specimens were subjected to reverse cyclic loading and
mental study on exterior beam–column joints with two nonconven- their performance was examined for lateral load capacity. The
tional reinforcement arrangements. All the specimens were tested specimens were classified into five types. Type 1, the Control
under reverse cyclic loading, with appropriate axial load. Authors Specimens (CS), were cast with transverse reinforcement detailing
reported that the nonconventionally detailed specimens exhibited as per IS 456:2000 and SP 16: 1980 (IS 1980) representing
an improvement in ductility and joint shear capacity than their nonductile joint. Three control specimens were cast. Out of the
conventionally detailed counter parts. The authors also presented three control specimens, two were used for retrofitting after
closed form expressions to compute the yield and ultimate load 28 days of curing and designated as Type 2, Conventionally Retro-
of the system. Bindhu et al. (2009) studied the effect of nonconven- fitted Specimen (CR) and Type 3, having newly proposed
tional reinforcement detailing patterns on the behaviour of rein- reinforcement detailing for jacketing (NCR) respectively. In addi-
forced cement concrete exterior beam column joints under tion to these three specimens, two further specimens were prepared
reverse lateral cyclic loading. The reinforcement was provided by casting the concrete jacket monolithically around the joint for
diagonally, on the faces of the joint, as a replacement of stirrups, evaluating the performance of strengthened specimens and are des-
which reduces the reinforcement congestion at the joint. Based ignated as Type 4, Conventionally Strengthened Specimen (CSTR)
on the failure pattern, trigonometric and polynomial expressions and Type 5, Nonconventionally Strengthened Specimen (NCSTR)
for computing the yield and ultimate load of the system were with newly proposed detailing for jacketing. The dimensions
proposed. Amorn and Preeda (2010) investigated the increase in and reinforcement details of the test specimens are shown in
shear strength of deficient beam–column joint by planar joint Figs. 1–6.

© ASCE 04014192-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Dimension and reinforcement details of conventionally retro-

fitted specimens(CR)

Fig. 1. Reinforcement details of the proposed RC jacket

Fig. 4. Dimension and reinforcement details of (newly proposed) non-

conventionally retrofitted specimens (NCR)

Fig. 2. Dimension and reinforcement details of control specimens (CS)

The column was rectangular in shape with dimensions 100 ×

140 mm and the beam with dimensions 100 × 140 mm with an ef-
fective cover of 15 mm in all specimens. A 30 mm concrete jacket
over a length of 450 mm on the column and 250 mm on the beam is
provided. The concrete jacket was provided as per the guidelines
given in Arya and Agarwal (2009). Ties with 135° hooks [as per
Fig. 5. Dimension and reinforcement details of conventionally
guidelines IS 13920:1993 (IS 1993)] were provided in the concrete
strengthened specimens (CSTR)
jacketing region as shown in Figs. 3–6.

Preparation of Specimen (IS 1970) was used as fine aggregate. Crushed granite stone of
The specifications of the materials used to cast the specimens are as maximum size not exceeding 8 mm was used as coarse aggregate.
follows: The cement used was Portland Pozzolona cement (fly ash The mix design was carried out as per IS 10262:2009 (IS 2009).
based) conforming to IS 1489:1991 (Part 1) (IS 1991). Manufac- The mix proportion was 1:1.569:2.769 by weight and the water-
tured sand (M-sand) conforming to zone II as per IS 383:1970 cement ratio was kept as 0.40. The 28-day average compressive

© ASCE 04014192-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

 strength from 150 mm cube test was 34.15 N=mm2 . High yield
strength bars were used as longitudinal reinforcement and ties.
The yield stress of reinforcement was 432 N=mm2 . All the spec-
imens were cast in horizontal position inside a steel mold as shown
in Fig. 7. For jacketing the retrofitted specimens, the surface of
two control specimens were cleaned for removal of dirt, had their
sharp edges chipped off, and their surfaces roughened for facilitat-
ing bonding between old and new concrete as shown in Fig. 8.
A reinforcement cage was placed around the joint region. The
entire assembly was positioned inside steel mold for concreting.
Retrofitted and monolithically jacketed (Figs. 8 and 9) specimens
were cast simultaneously with the same mix for better comparison
of performance. Specimens were demolded after 24 h and then
cured in curing tank for 28 days.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Dimension and reinforcement details of nonconventionally Test Setup and Instrumentation
strengthened (newly proposed) specimens (NCSTR)
The test setup in the Laboratory is shown in Fig. 10. The column
was mounted vertically with the hinged supports at both upper
and lower ends, which were tightly fastened to the testing frame
by two MS clamps using bolts. Cyclic loading was applied by
two 196.20 kN (20 t) hydraulic jacks, one kept fixed to top of
the loading frame and the other to the bottom of the loading frame.
Reverse cyclic load was applied at 75 mm from the free end of the
beam portion of the assemblage. A schematic diagram of the test
setup is shown in Fig. 11. The test was load-controlled and the
specimen was subjected to an increasing cyclic load up to failure.
The load increment chosen was 1.962 kN (0.2 t). The specimen
was first loaded up to 1.962 kN and unloaded and then reloaded
on the reverse direction up to 1.962 kN. The subsequent cycles
were also loaded in a similar way. Fig. 12 shows the loading se-
quence of the test assemblages. To record loads precisely, load
cell with least count 0.981 kN (0.1 t) was used. The specimens
were instrumented with Linear Variable Differential Transducer
(LVDT, SYSCON Instruments, Bangalore) having least count
0.1 mm to measure the deflection at the loading point. MS plates
were provided at the point of loading to avoid local crushing of
concrete. A computer-based data acquisition system was used for
Fig. 7. Casting of control specimens (CS) (image by authors)
capturing data.

Fig. 8. Casting of retrofitted specimens (images by authors)

© ASCE 04014192-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Casting of monolithically strengthened specimens (images by authors)

Fig. 11. Schematic diagram of test setup

Fig. 10. Test setup in the laboratory (image by authors)

Results and Discussion

The test results are presented in the form of load-deformation

hysteretic curves, load-deformation envelope curves, energy dissi-
pation charts, and ductility charts. The observations during the test
are briefly described.

Fig. 12. Sequence of cyclic loading

Cracking Patterns and Failure modes
Figs. 13–17 show the crack patterns and failure modes of the tested
specimens. The failure of nonductile control specimens were char- and negative cycles. The specimens failed due to the advancement
acterized by the formation of cracks near the joint. The first crack of crack width at the interface between beam and column and
occurred at beam–column joint at third loading cycle when the load X-shaped cracks in the joint region. The concrete wedge mecha-
reached 5.886 kN in both positive and negative cycle of loading. nism was also observed, i.e., concrete at the rear side of column
The initial diagonal hairline crack on the joint occurred at the fourth became detached in a wedge shape. The X-shaped cracks are due
cycle of loading when the load reached 7.848 kN in both positive to the absence of stirrups in the joint region, and the detachment of

© ASCE 04014192-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Failure pattern of conventionally strengthened specimen

(CSTR) (image by authors)

Fig. 13. Failure pattern of control specimen (CR) (image by authors)

Fig. 17. Failure pattern of nonconventionally strengthened specimen

(NCSTR) (image by authors)

concrete wedge was due to inadequate development length of beam

Fig. 14. Failure pattern of conventionally retrofitted specimen (CR) bars at joint. The retrofitted and monolithically jacketed specimens
(image by authors) performed better in terms of ultimate load carrying capacity, energy
dissipation, and ductility. In retrofitted specimens, the cracking oc-
curred in the beam at the interface of jacket, which shows the shift-
ing of plastic hinge formation beyond the joint region. The cracking
patterns in the strengthened specimens were similar and also have
better performance than that of the control specimen. The first crack
itself occurred in the beam only at 6th cycle, which was at 4th cycle
in joint region for the control specimen. The cracking started at
jacket face on the beam and cracks widened further as the load in-
creased. At the ultimate load, the failure occurred in the beam and
also minor cracks developed in the jacket. Thus, it is evident that
the concrete jacketing around joint region is capable of transferring
the failure to the beam, thus exhibits an appreciable seismic behav-
ior through plastic hinge formation in the beam.

Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity

Based on the experimental results, the ultimate load carrying capac-
ity of retrofitted specimens is found higher than that of control
specimens, as shown in Table 1. The control specimens sustained
Fig. 15. Failure pattern of nonconventionally retrofitted specimen
an ultimate load of about 9.81 kN. The retrofitted specimens with
(NCR) (image by authors)
the conventional ties in the concrete jacket (CR) and with diagonal

© ASCE 04014192-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

 Table 1. Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Test Specimens
Experimental yield load (kN) Experimental ultimate load (kN)
Designation Downward Upward Average Downward Upward Average %
of specimen direction direction (Pye ) direction direction (Pue ) increase
CS 7.85 7.85 7.85 9.81 9.81 9.81 —
CR 10.99 10.99 10.99 13.73 13.73 13.73 40
NCR 12.56 12.56 12.56 15.69 15.69 15.69 60
CSTR 12.56 12.56 12.56 15.69 15.69 15.69 60
NCSTR 14.13 15.70 14.91 17.66 19.62 18.64 90
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 20. Hysteresis curves for nonconventionally (newly proposed) ret-

rofitted specimen (NCR)

Fig. 18. Hysteresis curves for control specimens (CS)

Fig. 21. Hysteresis curves for conventionally strengthened specimen

(CSTR)

Fig. 19. Hysteresis curves for retrofitted specimen (CR)

collars (NCR) were capable of attaining higher values of ultimate

load carrying capacity, i.e., loads 1.40 and 1.60 times those of the
control specimens. The specimens strengthened with monolithic
concrete jacket (designated as CSTR and NCSTR) reached the
ultimate load carrying capacity of 1.60 and 1.90 times that of the
control specimens respectively.

Energy Dissipation
As a measure of the dissipated energy of the specimens, the area
under the load displacement curves for all cycles were computed
and called as energy that could be dissipated by the specimens be-
fore the specimen lost its stability. In the evaluation of earthquake
Fig. 22. Hysteresis curves for nonconventionally (newly proposed)
resistance, energy dissipation capacity of a structure is traditionally
strengthened specimen (NCSTR)
associated with the shape of the load displacement hysteretic loops.

© ASCE 04014192-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

 Table 2. Energy Dissipation Capacity for Tested Specimens
Energy dissipation capacity
in kNmm
Designation Downward Upward Increase in energy
of specimen direction direction Average dissipation capacity
CS 113.60 103.72 108.66 —
CR 223.37 217.13 220.25 2.02
NCR 433.50 211.44 322.47 2.97
CSTR 230.93 240.41 235.67 2.17
NCSTR 234.95 339.3 287.12 2.64

Fig. 24. Displacement ductility of test specimens

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ratio between ðdm =dy Þ. The load displacement envelope (Fig. 23)
is used to define the displacement ductility for each specimen
and is tabulated in Table 3. The displacement ductility values for
control specimens are lower and resulted in poor seismic perfor-
mance. This is due to the nonoptimal reinforcement details and
absence of shear reinforcement in the joint region. The upgraded
specimens show better seismic performance in terms of displace-
ment ductility, which is due to the increased concrete section and
additional reinforcement around joint region. Retrofitted speci-
mens CR and NCR show a ductile performance with displacement
ductility values 84.32 and 86.57% higher than that of the con-
trol specimens. The strengthened specimens CSTR and NCSTR
attained higher displacement ductility values of 44.03 and 36.58%
respectively than the control specimens. Fig. 24 shows the average
displacement ductility factor for the tested specimens.
Fig. 23. Load displacement envelopes of all specimens

Conclusion
Figs. 18–22 represent the hysteresis loop for all the specimens. Based on the experimental results in the present study, the follow-
Table 2 shows the average energy dissipation capacity in upward ing conclusions can be drawn:
and downward loading for the tested specimens. It is evident that 1. In the nonductile beam–column joints, the diagonal cracks
the energy dissipation of both retrofitted and strengthened speci- were developed in the joint region leading to global failure of
mens using new reinforcement detailing exhibited energy dissipa- the structure.
tion values of 2.97 and 2.64 times that of the control specimens. 2. The specimen with conventional retrofitting (CR) shows 40,
103, and 84% increases in ultimate load, energy dissipation,
Displacement Ductility and displacement ductility, respectively, compared with the
control specimen (CS).
The displacement ductility is the ratio between the maximum and 3. The specimen with nonconventional retrofitting (NCR) ren-
yield displacement for each specimen, determined from the load dered 60, 197, and 87% increases in ultimate load, energy dis-
displacement envelope curves (Calvi et al. 2002; Shannag and sipation, and displacement ductility, respectively, compared
Alhassan 2005). The yield displacement, dy , is defined from the with the control specimen (CS).
line extended from first crack load point on the load displacement 4. The specimen with conventional strengthening (CSTR) at-
curve; this line is extended to intersect the 80% load capacity hori- tained 60, 117, and 44% increases in ultimate load, energy
zontal line. The corresponding displacement is assumed as being dissipation, and displacement ductility, respectively, compared
the yield displacement. The other point of intersection of the curve with the control specimen.
on the 80% of the ultimate load capacity line is the ultimate dis- 5. The specimen with nonconventional strengthening (NCSTR)
placement, dm . The displacement ductility is calculated from the attained 90, 164, and 36% increases in ultimate load, energy

Table 3. Displacement Ductility of Test Specimens

Experimental yield displacement (mm) Experimental ultimate displacement (mm)
Designation Downward Upward Average Downward Upward Average Ductility factor
of specimen direction direction (dy ) direction direction (dm ) (dm =dy ) % increase
CS 13.70 13.60 13.65 18.20 18.40 18.30 1.34 —
CR 9.00 8.72 8.86 21.90 21.80 21.85 2.47 84.32
NCR 10.10 10.78 10.44 33.50 18.70 26.10 2.50 86.57
CSTR 10.94 10.76 10.85 20.60 21.20 20.90 1.93 44.03
NCSTR 9.52 15.40 12.46 19.30 26.20 22.75 1.83 36.58

© ASCE 04014192-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

 dissipation, and displacement ductility, respectively, compared Bureau of Indian Standards (IS). (1993). “Indian standard code of practice
with the control specimen (CS). for ductile detailing of concrete structures subjected to seismic forces.”
6. The concrete jacket provided in the specimens is capable of IS: 13920, New Delhi, India.
altering the failure mode, i.e., plastic hinge formation at a dis- Bureau of Indian Standards (IS). (2000). “Indian standard code of practice
for plain and reinforced concrete.” IS: 456, New Delhi, India.
tance of twice the depth of the beam (280 mm) along the beam
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS). (2009). “Indian standard code of practice
from the column face in lieu of shear failure in the joint region. for mix proportioning—Guidelines.” IS: 10262, New Delhi, India.
Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., and Pampanin, S. (2002). “Relevance of
beam-column joint damage and collapse in RC frame assessment.”
Acknowledgments J. Earthquake Eng., 6(1), 75–109.
Corazao, M., and Durrani, A. J., (1989). “Repair and strengthening of beam
The experimental work was a part of the project funded by to-column connections subjected to earthquake loading.” Technical
KSCSTE (Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Rep. NCEER-89-0013, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Environment), Kerala, India and the authors gratefully acknowl- Research, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
edge the support extended by the agency. El-Amoury, T., and Ghobarah, A., (2002). “Seismic rehabilitation of beam–
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

column joint using GFRP sheets.” Eng. Struct., 24(11), 1397–1407.

Filiatrault, A., and Lebrun, I. (1996). “Seismic rehabilitation of reinforced
concrete joints by epoxy pressure injection technique.” Seismic Rehabil.
References Concr. Struct., 160, 73–92.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. (2000). “Seismic load tests on interior
ACI-ASCE Committee 352. (1976). “Recommendation for design of beam and exterior beam column joints with substandard reinforcing details.”
column joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures.” ACI J., ACI Struct. J., 97(1), 11–25.
73(7), 375–393. Karayannis, C., Sirkelis, G., and Mavroeidis, P. (2005). “Improvement
Alcocer, S. M., and Jirsa, J. O. (1993). “Strength of reinforced concrete of seismic capacity of external beam column joints using continuous
frame connections rehabilitated by jacketing.” ACI Struct. J., 90(3), spiral shear reinforcement.” Earthquake Resistant Eng. Struct., 81(5),
249–261. 147–156.
Amorn, P., and Preeda, C. (2010). “Shear strength of beam-column joint Murat, E., Kahn, L. F., and Zureick, A.-H. (2005). “Repair and strengthen-
with enlarged joint area.” J. Eng. Struct., 32(9), 2529–2545. ing of reinforced concrete beam-column joints: State of the art.” ACI
Arya, A. S., and Agarwal, A. (2009). “Indian standard seismic evalua- Struct. J., 102(2), 187–197.
tion and strengthening of existing reinforced concrete buildings— Nasersaeed, H. (2011). “Evaluation of behavior and seismic retrofitting of
Guidelines.” GOI– UNDP Disaster Risk Management Programme, RC structures by concrete jacket.” Asian J. Appl. Sci., 4(3), 211–228.
National Disaster Management Division, New Delhi, India, 17–41. Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2003). “Perfor-
Bindhu, K. R., Jaya, K. P., and Manicka Selvam, V. K. (2008). “Seismic mance-based seismic response of frame structures including residual
resistance of exterior beam-column joints with non-conventional con- deformations. Part II: Multi-degree of freedom systems.” J. Earthquake
finement reinforcement detailing.” Struct. Eng. Mech., 30(6), 733–761. Eng., 7(1), 119–147.
Bindhu, K. R., Jaya, K. P., and Manicka Selvam, V. K. (2009). “Behaviour Shannag, M. J., and Alhassan, M. A. (2005). “Seismic upgrade of interior
and strength of exterior joint sub assemblages subjected to reversal beam-column subassemblages with high-performance fiber-reinforced
loadings.” Indian Concr. J., 83(11), 1–12. concrete jackets.” ACI Struct. J., 102(1), 131–138.
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS). (1970). “Indian standard code for speci- Thermou, G. E., and Elnashai, A. S. (2006). “Seismic retrofit schemes
fication for coarse aggregate and fine aggregates from natural sources for RC structures and local-global consequences.” Prog. Struct. Eng.
for concrete.” IS: 383, New Delhi, India. Mater., 8(1), 1–15.
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS). (1980). “Design aids for reinforced Tsonos, A. G. (2001). “Seismic retrofit of R/C beam-to-column joints using
concrete to IS: 456, (1978).” SP 16, New Delhi, India. local three-sided jackets.” Eur. Earthquake Eng., 15(1), 48–64.
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS). (1991). “Indian standard code for Xilin, L., Urukap, T. H., Li, S., and Lin, F. (2012). “Seismic behavior
portland-Pozzolona cement specification, Part-1 fly ash based.” of interior RC beam column joints with additional bars under cyclic
IS: 1489 (part-1), New Delhi, India. loadings.” Earthquakes Struct., 3(1), 37–57.

© ASCE 04014192-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.