ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 106-S24

Shear Strength of RC Jacketed Interior Beam-Column

Joints without Horizontal Shear Reinforcement
by Yung-Chih Wang and Kai Hsu

The interior joint shear strength of nonductile frames strengthened RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
with reinforced concrete (RC) jackets, but with no new joint shear RC jacketing without dowel anchors between the new and
hoops and no dowel anchors installed into the new and old old concrete interface, which is different from the conventional
concrete interface, was investigated experimentally. Seven one- construction method, was adopted to retrofit beam-column
way interior beam-column joint subassemblages were tested under joints with no horizontal joint shear reinforcement.
quasistatic cyclic loading to observe the joint shear strength and
Experimental tests were performed to observe the seismic
overall frame performance. The test measurements are also used to
verify two of the analytical models used for predicting the horizontal
behavior of the jacketed frames. Relative slip that occurred
shear strength of jacketed joints without horizontal joint shear between the new and old concrete in the joint area was
reinforcement. The results show that the RC jacketed scheme is measured to evaluate its influence on the overall seismic
able to efficiently rehabilitate nonductile frames with very poor performance of the jacketed frames. The other purpose of the
joint details. An empirical equation for calculating the joint shear study was to compare the shear strengths of the as-built and
strength of RC jacketed frames is proposed in this study. strengthened joints measured and computed using two
predicted models.7,8
Keywords: interior beam-column joints; jacketing; joint shear strength;
seismic behavior; shear degradation. ASSESSMENT OF JOINT SHEAR STRENGTH
A primary interest of the authors is beam-column joints
INTRODUCTION without horizontal shear reinforcement, which belong to the
More than 90% of the reinforced concrete (RC) buildings class of substandard reinforcing details. This means that the
in Taiwan, especially low-rise RC dwellings, are constructed joint’s shear strength cannot be predicted by the equations
by the cast-in-place concrete method. Unlike precast concrete, specified in ACI 318-05.1 In this study, the softened strut-
cast-in-place concrete buildings are more subject to the and-tie model7 and shear degradation model8 are then
incorporation of substandard reinforcing details1,2 such as adopted as alternative options for computing the behavior of
substandard seismic hooks in the transverse reinforcement of substandard joints.
columns or beams, or no transverse reinforcement (beam
bars or horizontal hoops and ties) passing through the Softened strut-and-tie model
beam-column joint core. During the 1999 Taiwan Chi-Chi The softened strut-and-tie model7 was based on the
earthquake, it was found that in addition to base column shear concept that, after the beam and column bars passing through
failure, there were many joint shear damages in RC buildings.2 the joint have deteriorated, the concrete of the diagonal strut
The reason for this type of failure was mainly due to low mechanism may become a major contributor to the joint
concrete strength and no transverse joint reinforcement. shear strength, as presented in Fig. 1.
Several retrofitting techniques, including the use of concrete A jacketed joint as shown in Fig. 1 is assumed as a newly
jackets, bolted steel plates, and fiber-reinforced polymer constructed joint to calculate the joint shear strength when
(FRP) sheets, have been suggested in the literature3-6 for the softened strut-and-tie model is used. To evaluate the
structural upgrading. Among these retrofitting techniques, diagonal concrete strength, the so-called diagonal strut force
the application of RC jacketing to columns has been the most Cdn needs to be evaluated (refer to Fig. 1 and Eq. (1)). That
widely adopted in Taiwan after the 1999 earthquake. This is is, the coefficient K for the beneficial effect of horizontal and
because concrete jacketing is more consistent with as-built vertical reinforcement passing through the jacketed joint
RC structures than the other retrofit materials, so that core and the joint concrete softened coefficient ζ are needed.
deficiencies in columns and beam-column joints can be
more easily strengthened by the RC jacketing. As well, the Cdn = Kζ fcj′ Astr (1)
retrofitting scheme is simple and, thus, more economical,
than other retrofitting schemes. where K is the index calculated from the horizontal and
In this study, as-built and RC jacketed interior beam- vertical reinforcement passing through the jacketed joint
column joint subassemblages that have no horizontal joint core, and ζ is the concrete softened coefficient
hoops are tested to verify the seismic performance of the
poor beam-column joints strengthened with RC jackets. The
effect of the floor slab was not considered in the research. ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 2, March-April 2009.
Special attention will be given to the design of RC jacketing MS No. S-2007-297 received August 14, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
or the assessment of shear strength of the as-built and making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the January-February
concrete jacketed beam-column joints. 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2009.

222 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

ACI member Yung-Chih Wang is an Associate Professor at the Department of Civil
Engineering, National Central University (NCU), Taiwan. He received his BS and MS
from NCU, and his PhD from the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand. His research interests include seismic behavior of reinforced concrete structures
and retrofit of concrete structures.

ACI member Kai Hsu is a PhD Student in the Department of Civil Engineering at
NCU. His research interests include the analytical study on the behavior of reinforced
concrete structures.

ζ ≈ 3.4/ f cj′ ≤ 0.52 ( fcj′ in MPa) (2)

ζ ≈ 40/ f cj′ ≤ 0.52 ( fcj′ in psi)

where fcj′ is the weighted average concrete strength for a

jacketed joint (Eq. (7)), and Astr is the effective area of
diagonal strut in a joint core.

Astr = as × bs (3)
Fig. 1—Diagonal strut mechanism for interior joint with
where as is the depth of the diagonal strut (refer to Fig. 1). reinforced concrete jacketing.

2 2
as = ac + ab (4) A j f cj′ = A 1 f c1′ + A 2 f c2′ (7)

where bs is the width of diagonal strut, and ac is the width of where fcj′ is the effective concrete strength at the jacketed
the compression zone in a column adjacent to a joint.9 joint core, Aj is the effective area of shear in the jacketed
joint, A1 is the gross existing area, A2 is the area of column
jacket included in the joint shear area, fc1′ is the strength of
a c = ⎛ 0.25 + 0.85 -------------⎞ h c
N
⎝
(5) concrete at the joint in the existing column, and fc2′ is the
A g f cj′ ⎠
jacketed concrete strength at the joint.
The horizontal shear strength Vjh obtained from Cdn in Eq. (1)
where ab is the width of the compression zone in a beam now becomes
adjacent to a joint.
Vjh = Cdncosθ (8)
ab = hb /5 for satisfying Eq. (6c) (6a)
θ = tan–1(lv /lh) (9)
ab = hb /3 for not satisfying Eq. (6c) (6b)
the parameters θ, lv, and lh are depicted in Fig. 1.
∑ ∑
1 A numerical example that illustrates a calculation
M nc ≥ ( 6/5 ) M nb (6c)
procedure using the aforementioned equations is presented
in the Appendix.*
where N is the axial force on the column; Ag is the gross
section area of the column; hc is the overall depth of the Joint shear degradation model
column; hb is the overall depth of the beam; ΣMnc is the sum The shear strength of the interior beam-column joint,
of nominal flexural strengths of jacketed columns, evaluated especially a joint with substandard reinforcing details or
at the faces of the joint; and ΣMnb is the sum of nominal flexural without horizontal shear reinforcement, such as is described
strengths of beams, evaluated at the faces of the joint. in the study, can be evaluated using the aforementioned
Equation (6a), proposed by the original model,7 evaluates softened strut-and-tie model, but this method may be too
the approximate effective depth of the beam compression zone complex for routine design use. To overcome this problem,
when the plastic hinging occurs at the beams adjacent to the the authors used the joint shear degradation model8,10 to
joint face. For the case different from the aforementioned, predict the horizontal joint shear strength of RC jacketed
however, Eq. (6b) proposed by the authors can be used. In beam-column joints.
the study, the shear strength of a jacketed interior joint The original shear degradation model proposed by Park10
without transverse reinforcement in joint core is evaluated, included column shear and joint shear degradation. The
as shown in Fig. 1. The parameters possibly affecting the complete joint shear degradation model as shown in Fig. 2
nominal diagonal compressive strength Cdn are the coefficient was demonstrated. This can be used for the seismic assessment
for the beneficial effect of the tie forces, K, and the effective of RC moment-resisting frames. The imposed ductility
area of the diagonal strut, Astr .
To calculate the jacketed joint strength, where there are two
*The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
different concrete strengths contained in the joint core, it is the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
necessary to evaluate an effective concrete strength3 as follows equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 223

Table 1—Details of tested beam-column
Test series Ko Ho
Unit Ko-JI1 as-built Ko-JI2* retrofit Ko-JIR1 retrofit Ko-JIR2 retrofit Ho-JI1 as-built Ho-JIR1 retrofit Ho-JIR2 retrofit
fcj′ , MPa† 32 32 28 28 27 25 38
Applied axial load fcj′ Ag 0.14 None None 0.14 None None None
Concrete casting One pour One pour (monolithic) Two pours Two pours One pour Two pours Two pours
Height Lv, mm 2460 2460 2460 2460 2430 2430 2430
hc, mm 300 500 500 500 400 600 600
bc , mm 300 500 500 500 400 600 600
Column
Reinforcing bar
6-D25 6-D25 6-D25 6-D25 8-D25 8-D25 8-D25
as-built
Reinforcing bar
— 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 — 4-D25 4-D25
retrofit
Jacket thickness, mm — 100 100 100 — 100 100
Length Lh, mm 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500
hb, mm 500 500 500 500 400 400 400
Beam
bb, mm 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Reinforcing bar Up: 4-D25 Low: 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D19 4-D19 4-D19 4-D19 4-D19 4-D19
*Jacketed unit cast in one pour is to simulate perfect bond condition of new-to-old concrete interface.
†Averaged concrete strength adopted from root square of Eq. (7).
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN; and 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

cracking incurred in the joint core. It repeals that the presence

of column axial load will increase the joint shear strength.
For this, in the study, a part of testing beam-column joint
subassemblages with a column axial load of 0.14fc′ Ag will
examine the effect of column axial load on the joint shear
strength. Although the joint shear degradation model as
shown in Fig. 2 is more complete for describing the behavior
of beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement in the
joint core, the maximum joint shear strength such as
presented in Eq. (10) is of particular concern to the research.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Description of test units
A total of seven one-way interior beam-column joint units
were constructed and tested. Figure 3 and Table 1 show the
Fig. 2—Horizontal joint shear degradation model for interior dimensions of the units and the details of the reinforcement.
beam-column joints. The as-built jacketed units (Ko-JI1 and Ho-JI1) are typical of
the construction used in old RC low-rise buildings in
shown in Fig. 2 is defined in terms of the curvature ductility Taiwan. The main deficiency is that there was no horizontal
factor φu/φy in the beam plastic hinges at the faces of the joint shear reinforcement in the joint, as shown in Fig. 3(a)
column. Hakuto et al.8 performed a series of testing on beam- and (b). This might lead to the occurrence of premature shear
column joints without transverse reinforcement in the joint core failure in the joint.
to verify the maximum joint shear strength and the trend for the Two series of beam-column joint subassemblages (Ko series
shear strength degradation under cyclic loading. That is, Fig. 2 and Ho series) are discussed in this paper. All units,
is confirmed by the Hakuto’s experimental results. including the retrofitted units, were cast in the horizontal
The aforementioned results, however, did not include the plane. RC jacketing 100 mm (3.94 in.) in thickness was taken
effect of column axial load on the joint shear strength. To into account.
study the axial load effect, Park’s10 equation was then For all jacketed units, the Ko units were designed to
adopted to the evaluation of the shear strength of RC jacketed illustrate the joint shear failure mode, whereas the Ho units
interior beam-column joints, as depicted in Eq. (10). were designed to illustrate flexural hinging mode at the beam
ends. The purpose of the Ko units was to examine the effect
N of new-to-old concrete interfacial slippage on the jacketed
v jh = k f cj′ 1 + ------------------- (10) joint shear strength.
A j k f cj′ All the jacketed units except Ko-JI2 were cast in two pours
to simulate a normal construction procedure of the retrofit
where k = 1.0 for interior beam-column joints (MPa) [k = work. The dowels were not anchored into the new-to-old
12.0 for interior beam-column joints (psi)]; and Aj is the concrete interface in the retrofit scheme. Ko-JI2, however,
effective area of the joint core. was cast in one pour to simulate the jacketed concrete with
The equation was derived assuming the joint shear enough dowel anchors as an ideal interfacial bond condition
strength is reached at the stage of initial diagonal tension and to serve as a standard with which Ko-JIR1 was

224 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

 Fig. 3—Details of tested beam-column joint testing units: (a) prototype and jacketed Ko
series units; and (b) prototype and jacketed Ho series units. (Notes: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 in.2 =
645.2 mm2; and 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.)

compared. The purpose of the aforementioned was to retrofitted with the proposed concrete jacketing. The shear
observe the bond slippage effect on joint shear strength. failure of the prototype Unit Ho-JI1 would occur, whereas
Units Ko-JI1 and Ko-JIR2 were subjected to an axial Units Ho-JIR1 and Ho-JIR2 rehabilitated with RC jacketing
column loading of 0.14fc′ Ag. This was to simulate the real could expect the failure with a mode of strong column and
condition for the low-rise buildings with a small gravity load weak beam. Dowels were not used to anchor the new-to-old
onto the columns. The comparison between the columns concrete interface similar to Units Ko-JIR1 and Ko-JIR2.
with and without the axial loading discusses the influence of Note that the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement of
the axial column loading on the behavior of the jacketed jacketing around columns for both Ko series and Ho series
beam-column joints. units were designed according to ACI 318-05.1 Transverse
The Ho series units were used to verify the seismic reinforcement in the jacketed joints was not arranged as
performance of nonductile concrete beam-column joints mentioned previously. Thus, the shear strengths of all jacketed

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 225

 Fig. 4—Loading system and joint strain measurement: (a) loading system and instrumen-
tation; and (b) diagonal movement for measurement of joint shear strain.

joints without transverse reinforcement were examined by Figure 5 shows the sequence of the applied horizontal
the softened strut-and-tie model and joint shear degradation loading. Two cycles of horizontal loading to ±0.5Hn and
model described previously. ±0.75Hn were initially applied, defined as the load control
cycles. The variable Hn was the lateral load at the top of the
Test setup column associated with reaching the theoretical flexural
The beam-column joint test specimens were subjected to strength in the critical sections of the beams or columns,
seismic loading using the loading system shown in Fig. 4(a). whichever was least. This was calculated using the
The ends of the members of the subassemblage coincided conventional compressive stress block for concrete with an
with the midspan and midheight points of the investigated extreme fiber concrete compressive strain of 0.003 and the
building frame. Cyclic horizontal loading was applied to the measured material strengths. For prediction of the strengths
top end of the columns using a double acting hydraulic jack. of the tested specimens, no strength reduction factor was
In the test, a constant column axial load of 0.14fc′ Ag was applied. The yielding displacement Δy for all test units was
applied to test Units Ko-JI1 and Ko-JIR2, which were also calculated by extrapolating the measured horizontal
subjected to step-by-step horizontal cyclic loading. The displacement at 0.75Hn linearly to Hn. After the load reached
other test units sustained only horizontal cyclic loading Hn, displacement was used to control the loading. The test
without column axial loading. specimens were subjected to two cycles of displacement to a

226 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

 Table 2—Material properties for beam-column joint
test units
Reinforcing bar
Materials area, mm2 (in.2) fc′ , MPa (ksi) fy, MPa (ksi) fu, MPa (ksi)
Concrete, as-built, in first pour
Ko-JI1 — 32 (4.6) — —
Ko-JI2 — 32 (4.6) — —
Ho-JI1 — 26 (3.8) — —
Concrete, jacketing, in second pour
Ko-JIR1/JIR2 — 25 (3.6) — —
Ho-JIR1 — 24 (3.5) — —
Ho-JIR2 — 49 (7.1) — —
Reinforcing bars, Ko units
D10 71 (0.11) — 554 (80) 703 (102)
Fig. 5—Loading sequence. D25 507 (0.78) — 533 (77) 709 (103)
Reinforcing bars, Ho units
D10 71 (0.11) — 471 (68) 651 (94)
μΔ of ±1, ±2, ±3... to failure, where μΔ is the displacement
D13 127 (0.20) — 410 (59) 578 (84)
ductility factor defined as Δ/Δy, and where Δ is the horizontal
D19 286 (0.44) — 514 (75) 652 (95)
displacement at the top of the test specimens.
D25 507 (0.78) — 541 (78) 715 (104)
Figure 4(a) also illustrates the instrumentation for the
measuring horizontal load H and horizontal displacement Δ
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
at the top of the column, the load reactions at the beam ends
General observations
(N1 and N2) to obtain the joint shear force Vjh (refer to Eq. (11)),
and the joint shear strain γj attained by reducing two The column shear versus lateral displacement and the
failure mode at the end of the testing are represented from
measured diagonal deformations, as presented in Eq. (12).
Fig. 6 to 12. Table 3 summarizes the results of measured
column shear and horizontal joint shear. To waive the effect
( L b1 × N 1 + L b2 × N 2 ) of different concrete strengths due to different concrete
V jh = ---------------------------------------------------
-–H (11) pours among testing specimens, the measured column shear
jd
and horizontal joint shear stresses were then normalized by
the square root of effective concrete strength, f cj′ , as seen
where Lb1 and Lb2 are the lengths of the beams (refer to in Table 3. The results for the different test series are
Fig. 4(a)) and jd is the bending lever arm of the beam sections. described in two parts.

δj – δj ′ ⎛ 1 -⎞ Ko series units
γ j = ---------------
- tan α + ------------ (12)
2l j ⎝ tan α j ⎠ The Ko series units were designed to illustrate joint shear
failure (refer to Fig. 6 to 9). In the as-built Unit Ko-JI1, with
a constant column axial load of 0.14fc′ Ag , the column shear
where δj and δj′ are the changes in the lengths of the diagonal started degrading when the maximum column shear reached
AB and A′B′, respectively; lj is the initial length of the diagonal 134 kN (30.1 kips), and the drift ratio was 2%. With this drift
in the joint core; and αj is the angle of the initial diagonal to ratio, shear pinching developed due to the occurrence of joint
the horizontal axis. shear failure.
Meanwhile, of special concern is the observation of bond In the retrofitted Unit Ko-JI2, without column axial
slippage in the area of the new-to-old concrete interfacial loading, a maximum column shear of 321 kN (72.2 kips),
joint area of the jacketed units, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The equivalent to the column shear stress 0.23 f cj′ MPa
difference between two measured shear strains in jacketed (2.8 f cj′ psi), was attained and maintained until reaching a
and as-built concrete joint core is then discussed to observe 3% drift ratio to the negative cycle after which shear
the possibility of the jacket bond slippage. pinching began. Note that Unit Ko-JI2 was similar to the
jacketed Unit Ko-JIR1, but was cast monolithically to repre-
Material properties sent a retrofitted frame with perfect bonding at the interface
Table 2 contains a summary of the mechanical properties between the new and old concrete. This means that there was
no effect of interfacial bond slippage on the joint shear
of the concrete and reinforcing steel used to construct the
strength and deformation. For the retrofitted Unit Ko-JIR1,
prototype and retrofitted Ko series and Ho series units. To the maximum column shear stress was 0.23 f cj′ MPa
measure the concrete strengths, three cylinders 150 mm (2.8 f cj′ psi), attained at approximately a 3% drift ratio.
(5.91 in.) in diameter and 300 mm (11.81 in.) in height were From the comparison of maximum column shear stress
cast for each pour. The cast concrete cylinders were tested on (normalized by f cj′ ) and corresponding drift ratio between
the same date as the unit was loaded. The mean value of the Ko-JI2 and Ko-JIR1, they behaved in a similar manner. It
three cylinders was taken, as shown in Table 2. The tensile was believed that the different interfacial bond conditions for
strengths of three 1000 mm (39.4 in.) long samples for each Ko-JI2 and Ko-JIR1 did not affect the column and horizontal
diameter of deformed reinforcement were also measured and joint shear strengths. The only different result for both
the average value of the three reinforcing bar samples adopted. testing units found is the crack patterns, shown in Fig. 7(b)

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 227

Table 3—Results of measured column and horizontal joint shear
Ko-JI1 as-built Ko-JI2 retrofit Ko-JIR1 retrofit Ko-JIR2 retrofit Ho-JI1 as-built Ho-JIR1 retrofit Ho-JIR2 retrofit
Failure mode Joint shear Joint shear Joint shear Joint shear Joint shear Beam flexure Beam flexure
Applied column axial load fcj′ Ag 0.14 None None 0.14 None None None
fcj′ , MPa 32 32 28 28 26 25 38
Measured column shear Vcol , kN 134 321 290 289 148 200 200
Measured column shear stress vcol , MPa 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.93 0.56 0.56
Measured vcol /√fcj′ , MPa 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.11 0.09
Measured vcol /√fcj′ , psi 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 1.3 1.1
Measured joint shear Vjh , kN 759 1383 1277 1425 893 1145 1166
Measured joint shear stress vjh , MPa 8.43 5.53 5.11 5.70 5.58 3.18 3.24
Measured vjh /√fcj′ , MPa 1.49 0.98 0.97 1.08 1.09 0.64 0.53
Measured vjh /√fcj′ , psi 17.9 11.8 11.7 13.0 13.1 7.7 6.4
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN; and 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

Fig. 6—Hysteresis loops and failure mode for test unit Fig. 7—Hysteresis loops and failure mode for test unit
Ko-JI1: (a) hysteresis loops; and (b) cracking observed at Ko-JI2: (a) hysteresis loops; and (b) cracking observed at
end of testing. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.) end of testing. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)

and 8(b). That is, Ko-JI2 is damaged uniformly through the Ho series units
joint core, whereas the cracking of Ko-JIR1 is likely to occur The Ho series units were designed to confirm the seismic
at the new concrete in the joint core. performance of nonductile beam-column joints rehabilitated
In the retrofitted Unit Ko-JIR2 with an axial load of with RC jacketing. The jacketing scheme was similar to that
0.14fc′ Ag (refer to Fig. 9) the same maximum column shear of the Ko series in that dowel anchors were not used at the
as Ko-JIR1 was obtained, but earlier shear degradation was new-and-old concrete interface. It can be seen in Fig. 10 to
generated at a drift ratio of approximately 2%. The differ- 12 that the as-built Unit Ho-JI1 was loaded to joint shear
ence in shear degradation between Ko-JIR1 (started at 3% failure whereas the jacketed Units Ho-JIR1 and Ho-JIR2
drift ratio) and Ko-JIR2 (started at 2% drift ratio) could be were damaged by the occurrence of flexural hinging at the
due to the effects of axial compressive loading on the new- ends of beams. In other words, the RC jacketing scheme
and-old concrete interfacial bond. This caused slippage to proposed in this study can improve nonductile frames with
occur at an earlier drift ratio. Unlike Ko-JIR1, a cracking joint shear failure, ensuring that code requirements1 for
pattern formed in Ko-JIR2 consisting of diagonal tensile strong column and weak beam modes are met.
cracks at the joint core. Spalling off of newly cast concrete at The difference between the concrete jacket strengths of
the joint core was also found, similar to Ko-JIR1. Ho-JIR1 and Ho-JIR2, with normal and higher concrete

228 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

Fig. 8—Hysteresis loops and failure mode for test unit Fig. 10—Hysteresis loops and failure mode for test unit
Ko-JIR1: (a) hysteresis loops; and (b) cracking observed at Ho-JI1: (a) hysteresis loops; and (b) cracking observed at
end of testing. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.) end of testing. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)

Fig. 9—Hysteresis loops and failure mode for test unit Fig. 11—Hysteresis loops and failure mode for test unit
Ko-JIR2: (a) hysteresis loops; and (b) cracking observed at Ho-JIR1: (a) hysteresis loops; and (b) cracking observed at
end of testing. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.) end of testing. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 229

 Fig. 13—Hysteresis joint shear strength measured in new
and old concrete for jacketed units.
Fig. 12—Hysteresis loops and failure mode for test unit
Ho-JIR2: (a) hysteresis loops; and (b) cracking observed at
end of testing. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
the joint shear degradation started at the same time when the
maximum joint shear strength reached 2% of the drift ratio.
strength, respectively, is shown in Table 2. As can be seen in That is, the important factor influencing the joint shear
Fig. 11 and 12, both retrofitted units exhibited similar degradation was not the bond slippage. The slippage actually
seismic behavior in terms of beam end flexural hinging. did occur in the nonanchored RC jacketed frame but did not
harm the seismic performance of the frame. The applied axial
Effect of interfacial concrete slippage at joint load made a difference for Ko-JIR1 and Ko-JIR2. The effect
Interfacial slippage could occur at the new-and-old interface of an axial load of 0.14fc′ Ag on Ko-JIR2 was the main reason
if dowels are not used to anchor the RC jacketing, which for causing its earlier degradation of the joint shear strength.
could affect the joint shear strength of the jacketed frame and The failure mode of beam end hinging formed in the jacketed
the overall seismic performance. The diagonal joint shear units, Ho-JIR1 and Ho-JIR2, as depicted in Fig. 13(d) and (e),
strains measured in the new and old joint core were was the main reason for causing the smaller shear stresses
compared and the results discussed (refer to Fig. 4(b)). imposed to the joint core. The joint shear strains measured in
Figure 13 shows the difference in the joint shear strains both the joint area of the jacketed concrete and as-built
measured for the new concrete jacket and the as-built concrete concrete showed smaller values and reacted consistently.
core. The Ko series units and Ho series units should be
compared separately because of their different failure modes. In Horizontal joint shear strengths
the Ko series units, Ko-JI2, Ko-JIR1, and Ko-JIR2 failed due The maximum column and joint shear imposed were
to joint shear, as mentioned in the general observations. The deduced from the raw data presented in Table 3. To counter
maximum joint shear strength obtained and shear strength the variation in concrete strengths, the imposed column and
degradation initiated in association with the drift ratio were joint shear stresses were normalized by f cj′ to represent
also marked. In Fig. 13, Ko-JI2, which is cast monolithically, their shear strengths.
can be regarded as a standard for no interfacial bond slippage The measured column shear stress, as seen in Table 3, ranged
when compared with the rest of the jacketed units. from 0.09 f cj′ to 0.27 f cj′ MPa (1.1 f cj′ to 3.3 f cj′ psi),
The maximum joint shear strength of Ko-JI2 was obtained whereas the measured horizontal joint shear stress ranged
at a drift ratio of 2%. Its strength degradation started at a drift from 0.53 f cj′ to 1.49 f cj′ MPa (6.4 f cj′ to 17.9 f cj′ psi).
ratio of 3%, due to the nature of concrete cracking at the joint The measured joint shear strength was approximately six
core. For Ko-JIR1, there was a clearer discrepancy between times the column shear strength.
the two joint shear strains when the maximum joint shear Table 4 shows the accuracy analysis of the joint shear
strength reached a drift ratio of approximately 2%. The shear strengths evaluated by the softened strut-and-tie model
degradation did not start at 2%, however, but at 3%. It acted (SSTM) and the shear degradation model (SDM). The
as a similar behavior in the joint shear strength and its average and covariance in the ratios of predicted-to-measured
degradation as Ko-JI2. That is, the influence of interfacial bond values for each predicted model are presented to discuss the
slippage on the nonanchored jacketed joints was not obvious. prediction accuracy. It can be seen that the ratios for both
The bond slippage did not seem as obvious for Ko-JIR2 as models are similar, nearly unity, whereas the covariance
for Ko-JIR1, but was similar to that of Ko-JI2. Nevertheless, values for both models are different. That of SSTM with

230 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

Table 4—Statistics indicating accuracy of predicted horizontal joint shear stresses
Test unit Ko-JI1 Ko-JI2 Ko-JIR1 Ko-JIR2 Ho-JI1 Average COV, %
Applied column axial load fcj′ Ag 0.14 None None 0.14 None — —
Measured vjh/√fcj′ , MPa 1.49 0.98 0.97 1.08 1.09 — —
Measured vjh/√fcj′ , psi 17.9 11.8 11.7 13.0 13.1 — —
Predicted by SSTM* vjh/√fcj′ , MPa 1.97 0.95 0.89 1.06 0.86 — —
Predicted by SSTM* vjh/√fcj′ , psi 23.7 11.4 10.7 12.8 10.4 — —
Predicted/measured 1.32 0.97 0.92 0.98 0.79 1.00 19.8
Predicted by SDM† vjh/√fcj′ , MPa 1.34 1.00 1.00 1.32 1.00 — —
Predicted by SDM† vjh/√fcj′ , psi 16.1 12.0 12.0 15.9 12.0 — —
Predicted/measured 0.90 1.02 1.03 1.22 0.92 1.02 12.6
*
SSTM: softened strut-and-tie model predicted by Eq. (8).
†
SDM: joint shear degradation model predicted by Eq. (10).

19.8% is larger than SDM with 12.6%. That is, the SDM
predictions of the as-built and jacketed joint shear strengths
are more stable than those attained using SSTM. In addition,
the joint shear strength predicted by the SDM in Eq. (10) is
more convenient for engineers to use as it is easier to calculate.
Thus, the SDM is more practical for joint shear strength
evaluation.
To use the SDM for designing RC jacketed interior beam-
column joints without joint transverse reinforcement in as-
built and jacketed joint cores, the effect of the column axial
load presented in Eq. (10) is discussed. The measured joint
shear enhancement due to the effect of column axial load by
comparing Ko-JIR1 and Ko-JIR2, as shown in Table 4, is an
11% increase (from 0.97 f cj′ to 1.08 f cj′ ), which is lower
than the predicted one of 32% increase (from 1.00 f cj′ to
1.32 f cj′ ). The limited test results suggest that it is noncon-
servative to include the full predicted axial column load
effect for the jacketed interior joint. Thus, it is recommended
for reasons of safety that the effect of column axial load not
be considered in the evaluation of the jacketed joint shear Fig. 14—Details of reinforced concrete jacketing scheme:
strength. That is, Eq. (13) is adopted at present. (a) front view of jacketed frame in joint area; (b) sectional
view of jacketed beam-column joint; and (c) section view of
vjh = k f cj′ (13) jacketed column.

concrete placement. To install reinforcing bar cages for

where k = 1.0 for RC jacketed interior beam-column joints jacketing, it is necessary to chip off the existing column
(MPa) [k = 12.0 for RC jacketed interior beam-column concrete cover and perforate the slab, as shown in Fig. 14. It
joints (psi)]. is suggested that new longitudinal reinforcing bars be
The Appendix* also presents an example for determining collected at the jacketed column corners (refer to Fig. 14(b)
the jacket thickness of an RC jacketed interior joint by using and (c)). The longitudinal bars in the column can now be tied
Eq. (13). and welded easily in the joint zone. The steel angles stiffen
the jacketed column bars passing through the joint area
Practical application for RC jacketing without where the parts will be subjected to strong diagonal strut
dowel anchors forces. Meanwhile, the steel angles should be extended to
In the study, RC jacketing without the installation of and welded with the first jacketed column hoops adjacent to
dowel anchors into the new-and-old concrete interface was joint faces. Thus, a steel cage is formed to provide a stronger
applied to strengthen beam-column joints with no other confinement located around the joint region, similar to the
horizontal joint shear reinforcement. Not only the structural previous research.3 The arrangement of transverse hoops and
safety but also the benefits of cost and construction are taken ties in the jacketed column is represented in Fig. 14(c) as an
into account. Based on experience gained from constructing example of reinforcing details in the RC jacketing scheme.
the testing frames, some recommendations for applications
of RC jacketing can be made. FURTHER RESEARCH
Although a required jacket thickness according to the The shear strength of interior beam-column joints with RC
aforementioned model calculation result may be less than jacketing was verified experimentally in this study. Further
100 mm (5.91 in.), a minimum jacket thickness of 100 mm research to investigate the shear strength of exterior beam-
(5.91 in.) is recommended for practical application. This is column joints with RC jacketing is recommended. The effect
due to the nature of reinforcing bar cage work and in-place of the column axial load is also included in the further study.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 231

Meanwhile, it is proposed that an actual size two-bay and 4. According to these limited experimental results, the
two-story moment-resisting frame (such as is typical of joint shear strength of the RC jacketed frame, where the as-
Taiwan low-rise RC building construction) be tested to built and jacketed joints have no transverse hoops in joint
better verify the design method proposed according to the cores and no dowel anchorage at the new-and-old concrete
present results of the study. interface, can be conservatively evaluated by Eq. (13),
without considering the effect of column axial loading. The
CONCLUSIONS experimental results also showed that it was not conservative
Interior beam-column joint subassemblages with no if jacketed joint shear strength subjected to column axial
load was predicted by Eq. (10). However, there needs to be
horizontal joint shear reinforcement were strengthened with
more experimental verification on the jacketed beam-
RC jackets encasing as-built columns. The traditional
column joints with the effect of column axial load if the joint
construction method, which includes the installation of
shear strength is to be predicted more precisely by considering
dowel anchors between the new-and-old concrete interface,
the column axial load.
was not adopted in the proposed retrofitting scheme to
simplify construction. The effects of new-and-old concrete
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
interfacial slippage and column axial loading on the joint The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to the
shear strengths of these retrofitted frames were investigated National Science Council of Taiwan for financing this research work for 2 years,
experimentally. Based on the test results, the following under Projects NSC93-2211-E-008-019 and NSC94-2625-Z-008-015.
conclusions can be drawn:
1. The joint shear strengths of the RC jacketed frames with REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
joint shear failure modes (Ko series test units) are less likely Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
to be affected by joint shear slippage than by the axial load Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
applied to the top of the columns. The test results showed 2. Taiwan National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering,
that the triggering of joint shear degradation depended on the “Reconnaissance Report on Taiwan Chi-Chi Earthquake of 21 September
1999—Buildings and Bridges,” NCREE Reports 99-054 and 99-055,
axial loading of the tested frames but did not seem to correlate Taipei, Taiwan, 1999. (in Chinese)
with the concrete interfacial slippage in the joint area; 3. Alcocer, S. M., and Jirsa, J. O., “Strength of Reinforced Concrete
2. The RC jacketed frames of Ho series units were Frame Connections Rehabilitated by Jacketing,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 90, No. 3, May-June 1993, pp. 251-261.
designed to a ductile behavior with the failure mode of strong 4. Rodriguez, M., and Park, R., “Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced
column and weak beam, where the main flexural cracks were Concrete Columns Strengthened by Jacketing,” ACI Structural Journal,
formed at beams adjacent to the jacketed column faces. The V. 91, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1994, pp. 150-159.
transverse reinforcement in the jacketed column was designed 5. Ghobarah, A.; Aziz, T. S.; and Biddah, A., “Rehabilitation of Reinforced
Concrete Frame Connections Using Corrugated Steel Jacketing,” ACI
according to the seismic-resistant provision of ACI 318-051 Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 3, May-June 1997, pp. 283-294.
except in the joint core where there was no horizontal shear 6. Wang, Y. C., and Restrepo, J. I., “Investigation of Concentrically
reinforcement. Equation (13) was used for examining the Loaded Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined with Glass Fiber-Reinforced
joint shear strengths of the jacketed interior joints or deter- Polymer Jackets,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 3, May-June 2001,
pp. 377-385.
mining the jacket thickness. Some practical suggestions for 7. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., “Strength Prediction for Discontinuity
the reinforcing bar cage in the joint region and the layout of Regions by Softened Strut-and-Tie Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
transverse reinforcement in jacketed column were made; ASCE, V. 128, No. 12, Dec. 2002, pp. 1519-1526.
8. Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., “Seismic Load Tests on Interior
3. The test results from the joint shear failure mode of RC
and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details,”
jacketed frames were used to verify two prediction models: ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 11-25.
the SSTM and SDM. It was concluded that both models 9. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
could predict the jacketed joint shear strength with a feasible Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, 1992, 744 pp.
accuracy. For engineering application, however, the SDM is 10. Park, R., “A Static Force-Based Procedure for the Seismic Assessment
of Existing Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames,” Bulletin of
more useful than the SSTM because the SDM’s calculation the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 30,
procedure is easier to perform; and No. 3. 1997, pp. 213-226.

232 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

 1 APPENDIX 1 – AN EXAMPLE FOR CALCULATING SHEAR STRENGTH AND

2 JACKET THICKNESS OF RC JACKETED JOINT BY MEANS OF SOFTENED

3 STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL (SSTM) AND SHEAR DEGRADATION MODEL (SDM)

5 A. Softened Strut-and-Tie Model (SSTM)

6 An example of test specimen Ko-JIR2 was taken to perform the calculation. Fig. A1 shows

7 the related parameters for the model calculation. 100mm jacket thickness was adopted in this

8 case. The nominal flexural strengths of the jacketed columns and beams adjacent to joint

9 faces are Mnc = 493 kN-m and Mnb = 443 kN-m, respectively. Mnc was obtained from the

10 flexural analysis on the section 500mmx500mm with as-built and jacketed column

11 longitudinal bars. Mnb was calculated assuming the tensile beam bars stressed to 1.25 fy.

12 1. Calculate the effective concrete strength of the jacketed joint, f cj′

13 According to Eq.(7),

14 A1 = 300 2 mm2, f c′1 = 32 MPa, A2 = 500 2 mm2, f c′2 = 25 MPa

15 Then,

16 500 2 f cj′ = 300 2 32 + (500 2 − 300 2 ) 25

17 f cj′ = 27.5 MPa; take 28MPa

18

19 2. Geometry and properties of strut and tie

20 θ = tan −1 (lv / lh ) = tan −1 (400 / 400) = 45° from Eq.(9)

21 ac = (0.25 + 0.85 × 0.14) × 500 = 185 mm from Eq.(5)

hb
22 ab = = 500 / 3 = 167 mm (Eq. (6c) is not satisfied) from Eq.(6b)
3

as = ac + ab = 249 mm
2 2
23 from Eq.(4)

20
 1 Astr = as × bs = 249 × 500 = 124,500 mm2 from Eq.(3)

2 ζ = 3.4 = 3 .4 = 0.64 > 0.52 ; take ζ = 0.52 from Eq.(2)

f cj′ 28

4 3. Force distribution (see Fig. A2)

5 The stiffness ratios between the horizontal and vertical tie are computed as follows:

6 γ h = (2 tan θ − 1) / 3 = (2 tan 45° − 1) / 3 = 0.333

7 γ v = (2 cot θ − 1) / 3 = (2 cot 45° − 1) / 3 = 0.333

9 4. Balanced amount of tie forces, F h and F v (see Fig. A2)

10 In this case, no transverse reinforcement passing horizontally through the joint core.

11 Fyh = 0

12 6-D25 of prototype column bars passing vertically through the joint core.

13 Fyv = 6 × 507 × 533 × 10 −3 = 1621 kN

14 Balanced horizontal and vertical tie indices:

15 [ ] [ ]
k h = 1 / 1 − 0.2(γ h + γ h ) = 1 / 1 − 0.2(0.333 + 0.3332 ) = 1.097
2

16 [ ] [ ]
k ν = 1 / 1 − 0.2(γ ν + γ ν ) = 1 / 1 − 0.2(0.333 + 0.3332 ) = 1.097
2

17 Balanced tie forced in horizontal and vertical direction:

18 F h = γ hV jh = γ h k hζf cj′ Astr cos θ

19 = 0.333 × 1.097 × 0.52 × 28 × 124500 × cos 45° × 10 −3 = 468 kN

20 F ν = γ vV jv = γ ν k ν ζf cj′ Astr sin θ

21 = 0.333 × 1.097 × 0.52 × 28 × 124500 × sin 45° × 10 −3 = 468 kN

22

23 5. Overall tie index, K

21
1 k h = 1 + (k h − 1) Fyh / F h = 1 + (1.097 − 1) × 0 / 468 = 1.000 ≤ k h ; Ok!

2 kν = 1 + (k ν − 1) Fyν / F ν = 1 + (1.097 − 1) × 1621 / 468 = 1.336 > k ν ; take k v = 1.097

3 K = k h + k v − 1 = 1.000 + 1.097 − 1 = 1.097

5 6. Nominal diagonal compressive strength, Cdn

6 Cdn = Kζf cj′ Astr = 1.097 × 0.52 × 28 × 124500 × 10 −3 = 1989 kN from Eq.(1)

8 7. Horizontal joint shear, V jh

9 V jh = Cdn cos θ = 1989 × cos 45° = 1406 kN from Eq.(8)

1406 × 103
V jh
10 ν jh = = = 5.62 MPa
Aj 500 × 500

ν jh
11 = 1.06
f cj′

12

13 B. Shear Degradation Model (SDM)

14 To design jacket thickness of as-built Ko-JI1, the demand for imposing horizontal joint

15 shear V ju is estimated by assuming the failure mode of strong column and weak beam. That is

16 Eq. (6c) should be satisfied. Therefore,

2 M nb 2 M nb 2 × 443 2 × 443
17 V ju = − = − = 1855 kN
jd b Lv 0.4 2.46

18 where,

19 M nb = beam flexural strength was calculated when the tensile beam bars were stressed to

20 1.25 f y = 443 kN

21 jd b = lever arm of the beam section = 0.4m

22
1 Lv = column height = 2.46m

2 Take V jh = V ju = 1.0 f cj′ × A jreq from Eq.(13)

1855 × 10 3
= 350562 mm , assuming f cj′ = 28 MPa
2
3 A jreq =
1.0 × 28

4 Then use 600 × 600 mm jacket, A j = 360000 mm > A jreq , OK!

5 The jacket thickness should be (600 − 300) / 2 = 150 mm.

23
 lh=400
N

300
6-D25

4-D25
lv=400

500
hb

4-D25

beam
4-D25
N
N = 0.14f'cjAg
100 300 100
prototype f'c = 32 MPa
hc = bs = 500 jacketing f'c = 25 MPa
effective f'cj = 28 MPa
D10, fy = 554 MPa
D25, fy = 533 MPa
6-D25(prototype)
Note:
1 in = 25.4 mm
100mm thick 1 kip = 4.45 kN
RC jacketing 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
500

300

Unit: mm

4-D25(jacketing)
jacketed column

Fig. A1 Sectional details of testing unit Ko-JIR2

41
 V jv

Fv = γ vV jv
V jh
− D = γ d Cd

Fh = γ hV jh

Fh F
Cd = − D + + v
cos θ sin θ
Fig. A2 Strut-and-tie idealization7

42