Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

Retrofitting RC Beam-Column Joint in Australia

using Single Diagonal Haunch
Alireza Zabihi1,5, Hing-Ho Tsang2,5, Emad F. Gad3,5 and John L. Wilson4,5

1. PhD Candidate, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne

University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Email: [email protected]

2. Corresponding Author. Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil and Construction

Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Email: [email protected]

3. Professor and Chair, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering,

Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Email: [email protected]

4. Professor and Executive Dean, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology,

Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Email: [email protected]

5. Bushfire & Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Abstract
Exterior beam-column joint is potentially the weakest link in a limited-ductile RC frame
structure in Australia. The use of diagonal haunch element has been considered as a
desirable seismic retrofit option for preventing brittle failure of the joint. Previous
research globally has focused on implementing double haunches, whilst the
performance of using single haunch element as a less-invasive and more architecturally
favourable retrofit option has not been investigated. In this study, the feasibility of using
a single haunch system for retrofitting RC beam-column joint in Australia is explored.
This paper presents the key formulations of the technique and illustrates its
effectiveness by showing analytically the changes in the shear demand at the joint.

Keywords: limited-ductile, RC frame, exterior beam-column joint, seismic retrofitting,

single haunch.

1. INTRODUCTION

A large number of habitable non-seismically designed RC frame buildings exist all over
the world including Australia. Undesirable brittle failure is expected to occur in this
kind of buildings in an event of major earthquake. Previous analytical and experimental
studies proved that limited-ductile beam-column joint is the most vulnerable structural
element subjected to lateral loads (Aycardi et al., 1994; Beres et al., 1996; Calvi et al.,
2002). This deficiency generally arises from poor detailing in the joint area and
consequently lack of capacity design principles in the overall response of the structures
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

Figure 1: Schematic diagrams of various retrofit techniques for external RC

beam-column joint: (a) Steel jacketing; (b) Fibre-reinforced polymer; (c)
Externally clamped double haunch retrofitting system; (d) Fully fastened double
haunch retrofitting system; (e) Fully fastened single haunch retrofitting system.

(Pampanin et al., 2006). To improve the global seismic behaviour of the structure,
enhancement of the weakest links is essential which can be achieved by seismic
retrofitting. In recent years, various retrofit techniques such as strengthening of joint
(e.g. steel jacketing (Figure 1(a)), fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) (Figure 1(b))) and
relocating the plastic hinge away from the joint (e.g. externally clamped double haunch
retrofitting system (ECDHRS) (Figure 1(c)), fully fastened double haunch retrofitting
system (FFDHRS) (Figure 1(d))) have been investigated and utilised as practical
solutions (Beres et al., 1992; Ghobarah and Said, 2002; Chen, 2006; Genesio, 2012).

Strengthening by steel jacketing or FRP and the ECDHRS could be conveniently

installed in laboratory tests, but these are challenging to be implemented in practice
because of limited accessibility to the joint zone due to the presence of wall and floor
slab. Although this limitation has been eliminated by using post-installed mechanical
anchors in the FFDHRS (Sharma et al., 2014), the use of upper diagonal haunch
(located on the floor) still remains as an aesthetic and functional restriction. Hence, the
fully fastened single haunch retrofitting system (FFSHRS) (Figure 1(e)) is proposed
herein this paper as a preferred alternative.

2. CASE STUDY BUILDING

A full-scale three-storey RC moment resisting frame considered in this study has been
designed based on the requirements in the 1980’s (as shown in Figure 2(a)). The frame
is 9 m tall, 10 m wide, and is located on a deep or very soft soil site (i.e. Class D or E
as defined in AS1170.4-2007) in Melbourne. The seismic weight was calculated by
assuming 10 kPa gravity loads for all three levels including dead loads and 30% of
imposed loads. A two-dimensional single frame model, with half of the bay on each
side (4 m in total), is considered.

Seismic Base Shear

The design equivalent static shear force, VBase, at the base of this frame model is
calculated from the following equation in accordance with AS1170.4-2007:

Sp
VBase = [k p ZCh (T1 ) ] wt
μ 1

where kp = probability factor (= 1.0); Z = earthquake hazard factor (= 0.08); C h(T1) =

spectral shape factor for the fundamental natural period of the structure (i.e. 3.68 for T 1
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

= 0.49s); μ = structural ductility factor (= 2.0); Sp = structural performance factor (=

0.77); and wt = total design seismic weight of the building (= 1200 kN).

Figure 2: Geometry of case study model: (a) Full-scale RC moment resisting

frame; (b) Exterior Beam-Column Joint; (c) Column section; (d) Beam section.

The base shear forces based on the design ultimate limit state (ULS) (with the
consideration of over-strength and ductility), 500-year and 2500-year return period
elastic response (ER) are approximately equal to 135 kN, 350 kN, and 630 kN
respectively. Hence, the shear force at the base of the first storey exterior column would
be 27 kN (design ULS), 70 kN (500-year ER) and 126 kN (2500-year ER) respectively.
The natural periods of the structure will be slightly decreased due to the stiffening
effects by the haunches. It may lead to an increase in the base shear force, but it is not
realised in this study as the initial fundamental natural period is within the peak
acceleration plateau of the design response spectrum in AS1170.4-2007.

Exterior Beam-Column Joint Subassembly

To investigate the effectiveness of the proposed retrofitting system, the bottom left
beam-column joint subassembly, annotated as A1 in Figure 2, has been selected to be
assessed analytically (shown in Figure 2(b)). This subassembly is truncated between
contra-flexure points at mid-height of the columns and mid-span of the beam. Cross
sections of column and beam are shown in Figure 2(c) and Figure 2(d), respectively.
The key parameters for analytical modelling are tabulated in Table 1 (material
properties) and Table 2 (geometry of the joint subassembly).

Table 1: Material Properties

Concrete f´c = 25 MPa Ec = 26700 MPa α2 = 0.85 γ = 0.85 εcu = 0.003
Reinforcement fy = 500 MPa Es = 200 GPa

Noted that f´c = the characteristic compressive strength of concrete at 28 days; Ec = the
modulus of elasticity of concrete at 28 days; α2 = the ratio of equivalent concrete
compressive stress developed under flexure to the characteristic compressive strength
(f´c ); γ = the ratio, under design bending or design combined bending and compression,
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

of the depth of the assumed rectangular compressive stress block to kud; whereas d =
effective depth of a cross-section, and ku = neutral axis parameter being the ratio, at
ultimate strength under any combination of bending and compression, of the depth to
the neutral axis from the extreme compressive fibre to d; εcu = the ultimate concrete
strain; fy = yield strength of steel reinforcing bar; and Es = the modulus of elasticity of
steel.

Table 2: Geometry of the exterior beam-column joint (A1) subassembly

Beam Column Joint
hb = 400 mm hc = 350 mm wj = 300 mm
wb = 300 mm wc = 300 mm hj = 350 mm
Le =Lb/2 = 2000 mm He = 3000 mm Shear Rein. N/A
Long. Rein. 2 N20 + 1 N16 Long. Rein. 3 N20
Shear Rein. N10 / 200 mm Shear Rein. N10 / 150 mm
Cover = 30 mm Cover = 30 mm

where hb = beam section depth; wb = beam section width; Le = beam half length; Lb =
beam span length between column centrelines; hc = column section depth; wc = column
section width; He = effective height of column between two vertical consecutive
inflection points; hj = joint horizontal section depth; and wj = joint horizontal section
width.

The lateral load – drift capacity relationship of the first storey exterior column has been
calculated based on the analytical model proposed recently by Wibowo et al. (2014)
and Wilson et al. (2015). The peak shear strength, under an axial load ratio of 0.1, is
110 kN, which is higher than the 500-year ER (70 kN) levels. This indicates that the
column will respond within the pre-peak range with drift demand less than 1.0%, for
the range of seismic actions being considered in this study, whilst the ultimate drift
capacity of the column is over 5.0%. It will be shown in Section 6 that tensile crack
will likely form at the joint (when the tensile stress is being exceeded, which is assumed
as un-repairable damage and is defined as joint failure in this study, although it does
not necessarily lead to collapse) or plastic hinge will form at the beam before the
column reaches its peak shear capacity.

3. SHEAR DEMAND AT EXTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN JOINT

Based on the applied shear and axial forces, Vc and Nc (as shown in Figure 3), the shear
force diagrams of the beam-column joint subassembly for the non-retrofitted system
(NRS) and the single haunch retrofitted system (SHRS) are plotted in Figure 4. For
each case, the horizontal shear force at the mid-depth of the joint panel zone, Vjh, can
be expressed as a function of the applied shear force:

He Ln
Vjh−NRS = [ ( ) − 1] Vc
jb Le 2 2

He Ln 2b + hb − jb 3
Vjh−SHRS = [ ( −( ) βSHRS ) − 1] Vc
jb Le 2 2 tan α

where jb = internal lever arm of the beam section between tension and compression
side; Ln = net beam span length between column faces; b = vertical length of the haunch;
α = angle between the haunch and the beam; βSHRS = shear transferring factor at the
beam for SHRS (refer next section), and all other parameters have been specified
previously.
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

Figure 3: External actions on exterior beam-column joint: (a) Non-Retrofitted

System (NRS); and (b) Single Haunch Retrofitting System (SHRS).

Figure 4: Shear force diagrams: (a) Non-Retrofitted System (NRS); and (b) Single
Haunch Retrofitting System (SHRS).

4. SHEAR TRANSFERRING FACTOR

The value of the shear transferring factor, β, can be derived based on the deformation
compatibility theory at the haunch-beam and haunch-column connection points (Yu et
al., 2000; Pampanin et al., 2006). Zabihi et al. (2016) derived the formulation of β-
factor for SHRS by considering both beam and column deformations:

N1 + N2
βSHRS = tan α
D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 4

where N1, N2, D1, D2, D3 and D4 can be defined as follows:

N1 = 4ab + 3hb a + 6Lb + 6hb L

N2 = λ1 λ2 (4ab + 3hc b + 6Ha + 6hc H)
D1 = 4ab tan α + 3hb a tan α + 3hb b + 3hb 2
D2 = 12Ec Ib⁄(K h . a cos 2 α)
D3 = λ1 (4ab tan α + 6hc b tan α + 3hc 2 tan2 α + 12Ic tan2 α⁄Ac )
D4 = 12Ib ⁄Ab
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

λ1 = Ib b⁄(Ic a)
λ2 = Le b⁄(He a)

in which, a = horizontal length of the haunch; I b = second moment of area of the beam
cross section; Ic = second moment of area of the column cross section; K h = haunch
axial stiffness; Ab = area of the beam cross section; Ac = area of the column cross
section, and all other parameters have been explained earlier.

5. PRINCIPAL TENSILE STRESS IN EXTERIOR BEAM-COLUMN JOINT

The shear capacity of RC beam-column joint is mainly governed by its principal tensile
stress, pt (Priestley, 1997; Pampanin and Christopoulos, 2003), which is a function of
the joint shear stress, vjh, and the compressive stress due to column axial load, fa.
According to Mohr’s circle theory, the principal tensile stress, pt, at mid-depth of the
joint core can be calculated by:

2
pt = −(fa ⁄2) + √(fa ⁄2)2 + vjh 5

where fa = Nc/(wchc) and vjh = Vjh/(wjhj).

For RC beam-column joint with no transverse reinforcement, the diagonal tension is

mainly resisted by concrete. Initial cracking at the joint is estimated to occur when pt =
0.29√f´c. However, the longitudinal flexural reinforcement in the beam extends into the
joint (refer Figure 2(b)), which leads to confinement of the concrete diagonal strut in
the joint core and hence, joint shear strength can be enhanced (Sharma et al., 2011).
The permissible tensile strength is assumed to be 0.42√f´c (Priestley, 1997), beyond
which shear hinge is assumed to have formed at the joint.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Amongst the possible un-repairable damage types or failure modes which may occur at
RC beam-column joint during an earthquake, joint shear failure and beam flexural
yielding were found to be the first two limits at this subassembly (A1). Therefore, the
joint shear and beam flexural yielding capacity-demand ratios are plotted in Figure 5
against the base shear force, VBase, and its corresponding column shear force, Vc,
whereas the column axial force, Nc, is assumed to be constant. Failure is assumed to
occur when the capacity-demand ratio is smaller than 1.0, and hence, the “failure”
threshold is defined at the point when the ratio equals 1.0. It is noted that three
inclinations (i.e. α = 45°, 23°, and 20°) of the haunch were considered, whilst the
lengths of haunches were made the same (i.e. same amount of materials) for a fair
comparison.

Figure 5(a) shows that the non-retrofitted joint (NRS) fails at a base shear level of
188 kN due to the formation of undesirable shear hinge at the joint zone. By applying
a single diagonal haunch (SHRS) with 500 mm length and at an angle of 45 degrees to
the beam, formation of the shear hinge is shifted from 188 kN base shear level to
248 kN (Figure 5(b)). Although the retrofitted joint can resist against a stronger
earthquake with 32% higher base shear force, the joint will still fail at the joint zone
first which is considered undesirable from the perspective of capacity design principle.
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

Figure 5: Joint shear and beam flexural yielding capacity-demand ratio at the
exterior joint (A1) against the values of base shear force and column shear force:
(a) NRS, (b) SHRS (α=45°); (c) SHRS (α=23°); and (d) SHRS (α=20°). Notes:
Design ULS and 500-year indicate the shear demands at design ultimate limit state
(ULS) and 500-year return period elastic response levels.

When the single diagonal haunch with the same length is oriented at a smaller angle,
23 degrees, joint shear hinging and beam plastic hinging occur simultaneously at a
higher base shear level of 319 kN (Figure 5(c)). This level can be defined as the
balanced scenario, whilst further angle reduction results in favourable yielding
mechanism, i.e. beam flexure yielding, as well as a slightly higher capacity
enhancement (Figure 5(d)). In other words, in order to achieve both benefits of single
haunch retrofitting (i.e. enhancing the seismic resistance and changing the failure
mechanism) at this particular beam-column joint subassembly, the angle between
haunch and beam has to be smaller than 23 degrees. The key results are summarised in
Table 3.

Table 3: “Failure” threshold at the exterior beam-column joint (A1)

NRS SHRS SHRS SHRS
(α=45°) (α=23°) (α=20°)
Joint Shear VBase 188 kN 248 kN 319 kN 350 kN
Beam Flexural Yielding VBase 239 kN 296 kN 319 kN 322 kN
Location of First Failure Joint Joint Joint/Beam Beam
Capacity Enhancement - 32%↑ 70%↑ 71%↑
Desirable Failure Mechanism No No No Yes

7. CONCLUSION / SUMMARY

Single diagonal haunch as a less-invasive and more architecturally favourable seismic

retrofit technique has been analytically assessed based on Australian conditions. The
shear demand at the joint with and without the single haunch element (Section 3), the
shear transferring factor (β) as the pivotal parameter in the design of the haunch
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

retrofitting system (Section 4), and the shear capacity at the joint (Section 5) have been
presented. The angle between the haunch and the beam has been varied in order to
achieve an optimal design. It was found that an angle of less than 23 degrees is required
in order to enhance the earthquake resistance and to change the failure mechanism at
the beam-column joint subassembly (Section 6). Further comparison with the use of
double haunch elements can be found in Zabihi et al. (2016).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the financial supports from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards
CRC. Valuable discussions with Scott Menegon (PhD candidate at Swinburne
University of Technology) and Nelson Lam (A/Professor at the University of
Melbourne) are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Aycardi, L. E., Mander, J. B., & Reinhorn, A. M. (1994). Seismic resistance of

reinforced concrete frame structures designed only for gravity loads: experimental
performance of subassemblages. Structural Journal, 91(5), 552-563.

Beres, A., El-Borgi, S., White, R. N., & Gergely, P. (1992). Experimental results of
repaired and retrofitted beam-column joint tests in lightly reinforced concrete frame
buildings. In Technical Report NCEER (Vol. 92).

Beres, A., Pessiki, S. P., White, R. N., & Gergely, P. (1996). Implications of
experiments on the seismic behavior of gravity load designed RC beam-to-column
connections. Earthquake Spectra, 12(2), 185-198.

Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., & Pampanin, S. (2002). Relevance of beam-column joint
damage and collapse in RC frame assessment. Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
6(spec01), 75-100.

Chen, T. H. (2006). Retrofit strategy of non-seismically designed frame systems based

on a metallic haunch system. University of Canterbury.

Genesio, G. (2012). Seismic assessment of RC exterior beam-column joints and retrofit

with haunches using post-installed anchors.

Ghobarah, A., & Said, A. (2002). Shear strengthening of beam-column joints.

Engineering structures, 24(7), 881-888.

Pampanin, S., & Christopoulos, C. (2003). Non-invasive retrofit of existing RC frames

designed for gravity loads only. fib2003 Symposium on Concrete Structures in Seismic
Regions (pp. 1–12). Athens.

Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C., & Chen, T.H. (2006). Development and validation of
a metallic haunch seismic retrofit solution for existing under-designed RC frame
buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(14), 1739–1766.

Priestley, M. J. N. (1997). Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced

concrete buildings. Journal of earthquake engineering, 1(01), 157-192.
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Nov 25-27, Melbourne, Vic

Sharma, A., Eligehausen, R., & Reddy, G. R. (2011). A new model to simulate joint
shear behavior of poorly detailed beam–column connections in RC structures under
seismic loads, Part I: Exterior joints. Engineering Structures, 33(3), 1034-1051.

Sharma, A., Reddy, G. R., Eligehausen, R., Genesio, G., & Pampanin, S. (2014).
Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames with haunch retrofit solution. ACI
Structural Journal, 111(3), 673.

Standards Australia (2007). AS 1170.4-2007 Structural design actions, Part 4:

Earthquake actions in Australia, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW.

Standards Australia (2009). AS 3600-2009 Concrete Structures, Standards Australia,

Sydney, NSW.

Wibowo, A., Wilson, J. L., Lam, N. T. K., & Gad, E. F. (2014). Drift performance of
lightly reinforced concrete columns. Engineering Structures, 59, 522-535.

Wilson, J. L., Wibowo, A., Lam, N. T. K., & Gad, E. F. (2015). Drift behaviour of
lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls for seismic design applications.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 16(1), 62-74.

Yu, Q. S. K., Uang, C. M., & Gross, J. (2000). Seismic rehabilitation design of steel
moment connection with welded haunch. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(1), 69-
78.

Zabihi, A., Tsang, H.-H., Gad, E. F., & Wilson, J. L. (2016). Analytical development
of seismic retrofit technique for RC beam-column joint using single diagonal haunch.
In: Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures
and Materials, Perth, Australia, December 2016.