See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261992949

Reinforced concrete edge beamcolumnslab

connections subjected to earthquake loading
Article in Magazine of Concrete Research January 2004
DOI: 10.1680/macr.2004.56.5.273

CITATIONS

READS

14

919

2 authors, including:
Myoungsu Shin
Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology
35 PUBLICATIONS 153 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Myoungsu Shin on 01 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6, June, 273291

Reinforced concrete edge beamcolumnslab

connections subjected to earthquake loading
M. Shin* and J. M. LaFave*
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Four two-thirds-scale reinforced concrete edge beamcolumnslab subassemblies (two concentric and two eccentric connections) were tested under quasi-static cyclic lateral loading. Each subassembly represented a cruciform connection in an exterior moment-resisting frame with a monolithic floor slab on one side only, loaded in the
longitudinal direction of the edge-beams. The tests explored the effect of eccentricity between beam and column
centrelines, and the effect of floor slabs, on the structural performance of edge beamcolumnslab connections
subjected to earthquake loading. Performance of the specimens was evaluated in terms of overall strength and
stiffness, energy dissipation, beam plastic hinge development, joint shear deformation, and joint shear strength. All
specimens underwent some beam hinging at the beam/column interfaces. However, both eccentric specimens, and
one concentric specimen with a heavily reinforced floor slab, eventually failed as a result of joint shear, whereas
the other concentric specimen exhibited more ductile loaddisplacement response. The eccentric specimens (with
different eccentricities and edge-beam widths) underwent similar behaviour before they started to break down, and
they also reached similar joint shear strengths. Slab participation was evaluated using slab bar strain gauge data
with respect to storey drift. Actual effective slab widths were much larger than the ones typically used in design,
especially for the specimens with a column wider than the edge-beams. Finally, floor slabs imposed significant joint
shear demand, but they also increased joint shear capacity by expanding effective joint width.
e

Notation
bb
bc
bj,318 , bj,352
bj,exp and b9j,exp

bj,RW

dt

beam width
column width
effective joint width computed per
ACI 318-02 and ACI 352R-02
effective joint width estimated using
experimental maximum joint shear
force
effective joint width computed per an
equation suggested by Raffaelle and
Wight
vertical distance between longitudinal
slab bars and centroid of a transverse
beam

f c9
fy
hb
hc
hph
jd1, jd2
lb
lc
Mn , Mn

Mr
V1 , V2

* University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, 3108 Newmark Civil Engineering
Laboratory, MC-250, 205 North Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801,
USA.

Vc
Vc,m(cal)
Vc,m(exp)

(MCR 1135) Paper received 29 April 2003; last revised 14 October

2003; accepted 13 November 2003

Vj

eccentricity between edge-beam and

column centrelines
concrete compressive strength
steel yield strength
beam depth
column depth
vertical distance between gauges on
top and bottom of an edge-beam
assumed moment arms at east and
west beam/column interfaces
beam pin-to-pin span length
column pin-to-pin storey height
beam positive and negative nominal
moment strengths
column-to-beam moment strength
ratio
measured reaction forces in east and
west beam-end supports
storey (column) shear force
predicted storey strength
measured storey strength (maximum
storey shear force)
horizontal joint shear force
273
0024-9831 # 2004 Thomas Telford Ltd

Shin and LaFave

Vj,m

experimental maximum joint shear

force
design ultimate joint shear force
average of relative displacements
measured by two gauges on bottom of
an edge-beam
average of relative displacements
measured by two gauges on top of an
edge-beam
joint shear deformation (at exterior
face of joint)
design joint shear stress level
maximum joint shear stress level
nominal joint shear stress level
beam rotation near beam/column
interface
equivalent viscous damping

Vj,u
bot
top

d
m
n
ph

eq

Introduction and background

The vulnerability of reinforced concrete (RC) beam
column connections in moment-resisting frames has
been identified from structural damage investigations
1,2
after many past earthquakes. Since the mid-1960s,
numerous experimental studies have been conducted to
investigate the behaviour of RC beamcolumn connections subjected to earthquake loading. However, few
tests on edge beamcolumnslab connections (cruciform connections in exterior frames with floor slabs on
one side only) have been reported in the literature to
date. This paper presents experimental and analytical
results for RC edge beamcolumnslab connections
loaded in the longitudinal direction of the edge-beams.

Centroidal axis
of column

Assumed
contra-flexure
positions

The research specifically explored the effect of eccentricity between beam and column centrelines, as well as
the effect of floor slabs, on the structural performance
of edge connections subjected to earthquake loading.
Key previous research on these two subjects is briefly
summarised below.
When a beamcolumn connection is subjected to
lateral loading, the beam top and bottom forces from
bending are transmitted to the column at the beam/
column interfaces, producing large joint shear forces.
In many edge connections the exterior faces of the
columns are flush with the exterior faces of the edgebeams (Fig. 1). The columns are often wider than the
edge-beams, resulting in an offset between the beam
and column centrelines. This kind of connection is
classified as an eccentric connection. Owing to the
eccentricity between beam and column centrelines, the
transmitted beam forces may also induce torsion in the
joint region, which will produce additional joint shear
stresses. A few RC eccentric beamcolumn connec38
tions have been tested without floor slabs, but more
research is needed to clarify the extent to which the
presence of eccentricity between beam and column
centrelines affects the behaviour of eccentric connections, particularly when floor slabs are present. In this
study, two eccentric edge connections were tested, as
well as two concentric edge connections, all with floor
slabs.
3
Lawrance et al. tested one cruciform eccentric
beamcolumn connection. Eccentricity between beam
and column centrelines did not affect the global
strength of the specimen, but strength degradation
occurred at lower displacement ductility than in companion concentric specimens. Although the column-

Direction
of motion

T
C
C
Torsional
effect

Forces transferred
from edge-beams

T
C
C
T

Fig. 1. Eccentric beamcolumn connections in an exterior frame

274

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

to-beam moment strength ratio was high (roughly 2),
some column longitudinal bars at the flush side experienced local yielding, due possibly to torsion from the
4
eccentricity. Joh et al. tested six cruciform beam
column connections, including two eccentric connections. The displacement ductility of specimens with
eccentricity was only from 2.5 to 5, whereas specimens
without eccentricity had displacement ductility ranging
from 4 to 8. In their specimen with a flush face of the
column and eccentric beams, joint shear deformations
on the flush side of the joint were four to five times
larger than those on the offset side of the joint.
5
Raffaelle and Wight tested four cruciform eccentric
beamcolumn connections. Inclined (torsional) cracks
were observed on the joint faces adjoining the beams.
Strains in joint hoop reinforcement on the flush side
were larger than those on the offset side, which was
attributed to additional shear stress from torsion. The
researchers suggested that joint shear strengths of eccentric beamcolumn connections were overestimated
by American Concrete Institute (ACI) design recom9
mendations in existence at the time, but that this could
be rectified by using a proposed equation for reduced
6
effective joint width. Teng and Zhou tested six cruciform beamcolumn connections, including two concentric, two medium eccentric, and two one-sided
eccentric connections. The researchers formulated joint
shear strength recommendations for eccentric connections by limiting the allowable shear deformation in an
eccentric joint to the magnitude of shear deformation
in a companion concentric joint at 2% storey drift.
7
Chen and Chen tested six corner beamcolumn
connections, including one concentric connection, one
conventional eccentric connection, and four eccentric
connections with spread-ended (tapered width) beams
covering the entire column width at the beam/column
interface. The researchers concluded that eccentric corner connections with spread-ended beams showed
superior seismic performance to conventional eccentric
corner connections, in terms of displacement ductility,
energy-dissipating capacity, and joint shear deforma8
tion. Finally, Vollum and Newman tested 10 corner
beamcolumn connections; each consisted of a column
and two perpendicular (one concentric and one eccentric) beams. Various load paths were tested to investigate the behaviour of the connections. Performance
improved significantly (in terms of both strength and
crack control) with reduction in connection eccentricity.
For approximately the past 15 years, various investigators have evaluated the effect of floor slabs on the
seismic response of RC moment frames. According to
10
Pantazopoulou and French, who discussed results of
the previous studies and consequent code amendments,
most of the research focused on investigating how
much a floor slab contributed to beam flexural strength
(reducing the column-to-beam moment strength ratio)
when the slab was in the tension zone of the beam
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

section. However, limited research was concerned with

the effect of floor slabs on joint shear behaviour,
although some researchers did indicate that floor slabs
could impose additional shear demands on joints. Floor
slabs may increase joint shear capacity by expanding
effective joint width and/or by providing some confinement to joints (along with transverse beams). For eccentric connections, floor slabs may also reduce joint
torsional demand by shifting the acting line of the
resultant force of the beam top and slab reinforcement.
In this paper, the slab effect on joint shear demand is
evaluated by inspecting slab strain gauge data at various storey drifts to compute joint shear forces. Then
the slab effect on joint shear capacity is also evaluated,
by estimating the effective joint widths of the test
specimens and comparing them with other specimens
without floor slabs reported in the literature.

Experimental programme
This study investigated the effect of eccentricity between beam and column centrelines, as well as the
effect of floor slabs, on the seismic performance of RC
edge beamcolumnslab connections. Four beam
columnslab subassemblies (two concentric and two
eccentric connections) were tested. Each subassembly
represented an edge connection subjected to lateral
earthquake loading, isolated at inflection points between floors and between column lines. Considering a
prototype structure with a storey height of 4.5 m and a
span length of 7.5 m, the specimens represent approximately two-thirds-scale models; the scale factor is large
enough to simulate the behaviour of the prototype RC
11
structure.
Design of test specimens
The specimens were designed and detailed in conformance with ACI requirements and recommendations
for RC structures in high seismic zones. In particular,
ACI 318-02 (Building Code Requirements for Structur12
al Concrete) and ACI 352R-02 (Recommendations
for Design of BeamColumn Connections in Mono13
lithic Reinforced Concrete Structures) were strictly
adhered to, except for a few design parameters that
were specifically the subject of this investigation.
Each specimen consisted of a column, two edgebeams framing into the column on opposite sides, and
a transverse beam and floor slab on one side only. Fig.
2 shows plan views around the joints (floor slabs are
not shown for clarity), and Fig. 3 illustrates reinforcing
details in the specimens. In specimens 1, 2 and 3 all
design details were identical except for the edge-beams,
so the parameters varied in the first three specimens
were the eccentricity (e) between the edge-beam and
column centrelines, and the edge-beam width. (In particular, the connection geometry of specimen 1 was quite
similar to that found in a nine-storey building that
275

Shin and LaFave

Transverse
beam
Column
centroid
Edge
beam

457

457
279
178

East

West

330

330

(a)

(b)

279

457

279

279

279

368
330
(c)

(d)

Fig. 2. Plan views around joints (units: mm): (a) specimen 1 (e 89 mm); (b) specimen 2 (e 140 mm); (c) specimen 3 (e
0 mm); (d) specimen 4 (e 0 mm)

(S4: #4@127)
102

#3@254
8-#6

#3@305

330

#3@305
2-#6

4-#5
406
#3@83

406
#3@83
2-#5

2-#5
457

330

279

#3@83
(a)

(b)

(c)

2-#6

4-#5
406

368
#3@83
#3@83

279
(d)

#3@305

#3@305

#3@254

4-#7 at cor.
4-#6 at mid.

406
#3@83

2-#5

2-#5

178

279
(e)

(f)

Fig. 3. Reinforcing details (units: mm): (a) column (specimens 1, 2 and 3); (b) edge-beam (specimens 1, 3 and 4); (c) transverse
beam (specimens 1, 2 and 3); (d ) column (specimen 4); (e) edge-beam (specimen 2); ( f ) transverse beam (specimen 4). See
Table 3 for bar size designations

276

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

exhibited noticeable joint damage associated with a
2
recent strong earthquake. ) Specimen 2 had the largest
eccentricity and the narrowest edge-beam width. In
specimen 4 there were many different design details in
comparison with the other specimens. The most important difference between the first three specimens and
specimen 4 was the reinforcement ratio of longitudinal
slab bars. In addition, each of the three beams framing
into the column in specimen 4 covered more than
three-quarters of the corresponding column face,
whereas only the transverse beam did so in the first
three specimens, with possible confinement implications.
The edge-beams of all specimens were reinforced
with the same number and size of reinforcing bars, to
achieve similar beam moment strengths. All floor slabs
were 1220 mm wide (including the edge-beam width)
and 102 mm thick, reinforced with a single layer of
reinforcing bars in each direction. All longitudinal
beam, column and slab reinforcement was continuous
through the connection, except for transverse beam and
slab bars, which were terminated with standard hooks
within the column and edge-beams respectively. A
minimum concrete clear cover of 25 mm was provided
in all members.
Table 1 summarises the main design parameters and
other important values that are generally considered to
govern the behaviour of RC beamcolumn connections.
When calculating the design column-to-beam moment
strength ratios (Mr ), beam moment strengths were computed considering a slab contribution within the effective slab width defined in ACI 318-02, for both slab in
compression and slab in tension. (The effective overhanging slab width for beams with a slab on one side
only is taken as the smallest of one-twelfth the span
length of the beam, six times the slab thickness, or
one-half the clear distance to the next beam.) The total
ACI effective slab width (including edge-beam width)
was then 69 cm in specimens 1, 3 and 4, and 59 cm in

specimen 2. The normalised design joint shear stress

levels (d ) listed first and second were computed following ACI 318-02 and ACI 352R-02 respectively.
When computing the d values, longitudinal slab bars
within the effective slab width (two bars for specimens
1, 2 and 3, and three bars for specimen 4) were
included, as well as all top and bottom beam bars, per
ACI 352R-02, but not per ACI 318-02. The d values
would be limited to 1.00 in the first three specimens
and to 1.25 in specimen 4 by both ACI 318-02 and
ACI 352R-02, based on the joint confinement level
from adjoining members. The Mr and d values were
computed using design material properties. All specimens were reinforced with three layers of horizontal
joint reinforcement; each layer consisted of a No. 3
hoop and two No. 3 cross-ties (nominal diameters of all
bars used are provided in Table 3). This is approximately the minimum amount of joint reinforcement
prescribed by ACI 318-02 and ACI 352R-02 for the
first three specimens, and about 1.5 times the minimum
amount for specimen 4.
Construction of test specimens
For each subassembly, all members except the upper
column were cast at one time; the upper column was
typically cast one week later. Concrete with a maximum aggregate size of 10 mm and a slump of 125 mm
was used to accommodate any steel congestion in the
joint region and the small minimum clear cover of
25 mm. The design compressive strength of concrete
was 28 MPa, and the design yield strength of reinfor12
cing steel (ASTM standard reinforcing bars ) was
420 MPa.
Table 2 summarises the actual compressive strength
of concrete on the day of subassembly testing. At least
six concrete cylinders were cast for each placement of
concrete, with three of them tested at 28 days for
reference and the others tested on the day of the subassembly test. Table 3 lists the actual yield strength

Table 1. Main design parameters and important values

Specimen

89
279
0.28
1.31
1.14/1.08
213@83 mm

140
178
0.28
1.41
1.80/1.58
213@83 mm

0
279
0.28
1.31
0.70/0.96
213@83 mm

0
279
1.0
1.35
1.02/1.34
213@83 mm

hb /db(col)

21.3

21.3

21.3

18.3

hc /db(bm)

20.8

20.8

20.8

23.2

Eccentricity, e (mm)
Edge-beam width, bb (mm)
Longitudinal slab steel ratio (%)
Moment strength ratio, Mr *
Joint shear stress level, d
Joint reinforcement, Ash (mm2 )
Member depth to bar
diameter

* Mr
Mn (columns)/
M
n (beams).
p

, d Vj,u (N)= f c9 (MPa)  bj (mm)  hc (mm), Vj,u design ultimate joint shear force.
In ACI 318-02, bj bb + 2x, x smaller distance between beam and column edges.
In ACI 352R-02, bj bb +
mhc /2, m 0.3 when e . bc /8, otherwise m 0.5.
Ash total area of horizontal joint reinforcement within a layer (in the longitudinal direction.)
db(col) and db(bm) maximum diameter of longitudinal bars used in column and edge-beam.

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

277

Shin and LaFave

coupons were tested for each bar size to get the average
properties listed in the table. The stressstrain relationship of column hoops did not have a well-defined yield
plateau, but rather exhibited gradually decreasing stiffness, so their yield properties were determined using
the 0.2% offset method.

Table 2. Compressive strength of concrete on the day of the

subassembly test (MPa)
Specimen
Except upper column
Upper column

29.9
35.8

36.2
40.7

47.4
45.4

31.2
31.5

Table 3. Properties of reinforcing bars

Specimens 1 and 2
Bar size

No. 3

No. 5

No. 6

Column hoop

fy (MPa)
y
sh

448
0.0022
0.008

506
0.0027
0.017

539
0.0026
0.016

466
0.0045
n.a

fu (MPa)

703

662

690

715

Specimens 3 and 4
Bar size
fy (MPa)
y
sh
fu (MPa)

No. 3

No. 4

No. 5

No. 6

No. 7

Col. hoop, S3/S4

424
0.0021
0.004
696

555
0.0030
0.017
676

512
0.0027
0.017
634

521
0.0025
0.016
655

506
0.0024
0.008
717

552/580
0.0044/0.0044
n.a./n.a.
696/731

Diameter (mm) of bars: No. 3 9.5, No. 4 12.7, No. 5 15.9, No. 6 19.1, No. 7 22.2.

( f y ), yield strain (y ), ultimate strength ( f u ), and strain

at the onset of strain-hardening (sh ) for flexural reinforcing bars and column hoops. Three reinforcing steel
Reaction frame

Test set-up and loading sequence

Figure 4 shows a picture of the test set-up with the
specimen supports and other key components labelled.

Actuator

()
(
)

Out-of-plane
translation
constraint

Drift
reference
frame
Pin

Pin

Beam-end
support
with load
cell (typ.)
Pin

Pin
Hinge

Fig. 4. Test set-up (specimen 4 in testing rig, looking south)

278

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

equipped with a load cell to monitor the reaction forces
generated in the support.
Figure 5 shows the pattern of cyclic lateral displacements applied by the actuator during each test. A total
of 22 displacement cycles were statically applied up to
6% storey drift. (The maximum drift of specimen 1
was limited to about 5.5% owing to misalignment of
the specimen.) Consecutive same-drift cycles were
tested to examine strength degradation, and 1% drift
cycles were inserted between other cycles to investigate
stiffness degradation.

Experimental results
Loaddisplacement response
Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show the hysteretic loops of
storey shear against storey drift (load against displacement) for specimens 2 and 3 respectively. They were
typical in that they exhibited pinching (the middle part
of each hysteretic loop was relatively narrow), as well
as stiffness and strength degradation during repeat
same-drift cycles. These were attributed to reinforcement bond slip through the joint region, concrete cracking, and/or reinforcement yielding. Fig. 6(c) compares
the envelope curves of load against displacement for all
four specimens, from connecting the peak drift point of
each cycle. (Maximum loads for the specimens
are summarised later in Table 6.) Among the first
three specimens (with the same slab reinforcement),
specimen 3 reached slightly larger maximum loads in
both loading directions; this was attributed primarily to
a difference in concrete compressive strength. Specimen 3 also exhibited higher stiffness than specimens 1
and 2 at the beginning of the test owing to high concrete strength. Consequently, the loaddisplacement response of specimen 3 got flat slightly earlier (between
2% and 2.5% drift cycles) than the others (between
2.5% and 3% drift cycles). Specimen 4 reached the
largest maximum load (2030% higher than the other
specimens), primarily because its floor slab was much
more heavily reinforced.
Yield points of the specimens are not easily deter-

Storey drift: %

The specimens were tested in their upright position.

The column was linked to a universal hinge connector
at the bottom and to a hydraulic actuator (with a swivel
connector) at the top. The end of each edge-beam was
linked to the strong floor by a pinned-end axial support.
Thus the two ends of the edge-beams and the top and
bottom of the column were all pin-connected in the
loading plane, to simulate inflection points of a frame
structure subjected to lateral earthquake loading. The
column pin-to-pin storey height (lc ) was 3.0 m, and the
beam pin-to-pin span length (lb ) was 5.0 m. The interior edge of the floor slab was left free (unsupported),
which neglected any possible effect of slab membrane
action that might have provided additional confinement
to the joint region. (Such compressive membrane forces
were observed and credited for some strength enhancement in slabcolumn connection tests where the slabs
extended to the centrelines between columns in the
transverse direction and rotation of the slab edges was
14
restrained. )
Uniaxial storey shear was statically applied at the top
of the column (parallel to the longitudinal direction of
the edge-beams) by a hydraulic actuator with a 450 kN
loading capacity and a 250 mm linear range. (Positive
(eastward) and negative (westward) loading directions
are indicated in Fig. 4.) No external column axial load
was applied, conservatively in accordance with results
of previous studies that found the presence of column
compression could either slightly improve joint shear
13
strength or have no apparent influence on joint shear
15,16
strength.
The transverse beam and floor slab were
not directly loaded. Because the specimens were not
symmetric about the loading direction, a slotted steel
bracket was installed near the top of the column in
order to guide specimen displacements along the longitudinal direction only. Twist of the column about its
longitudinal axis was not restrained by any of the
external column supports (the actuator, the slotted steel
bracket, or the universal hinge connector). Column torsion was not a topic investigated in this study, and it
should not considerably affect joint behaviour. (Furthermore, severe column damage from torsion has not been
reported even for eccentric connection tests where col4
umn twist was restrained. ) Any unbalanced torsional
moments in the specimens were resisted by combinations of horizontal forces in the transverse direction at
the beam-end supports and at the ends of the column.
Instrumentation used in each specimen was as follows. Roughly 60 electrical resistance strain gauges
were mounted on reinforcing bars at key locations in
and around the connection. Eight cable-extension
gauges were installed on the top and bottom of the
edge-beams to estimate beam rotations in the vicinity
of the beam/column interfaces. Five linear variable
differential transformers (LVDTs) were used on the
exterior face of the joint to examine overall joint shear
deformations. Finally, each beam-end support was

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Cycle number

Fig. 5. Pattern of cyclic lateral displacements

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

279

Shin and LaFave

100

25

25 25 25

75
2

25

25

25

Ext.
edge

Int.
edge

Storey shear: kN

50
25
Ext.
edge

Int.
edge

25
50
75

100
8

6

4

2

15

15
(a)

Storey drift: %
(a)

(b)

100
75

25

25

25 25 25

Storey shear: kN

50
25
0
25

Ext.
edge

50

Int. Ext.
edge edge

Int.
edge

75
100
8

6

4

2

Storey drift: %
(b)
100

(c)

Storey shear: kN

75

15

15

15

15

(d)

Fig. 7. Storey drift (%) at onset of beam bar yielding at

beam/column interfaces: (a) specimen 1; (b) specimen 2; (c)
specimen 3; (d ) specimen 4

50
25
0
25
50
75

100
8

6

4

2
0
2
Storey drift: %
S1

S2
(c)

S3

S4

Fig. 6. Load against displacement response: (a) specimen 2;

(b) specimen 3; (c) envelope curves (S1 specimen 1)

mined from the loaddisplacement curves because the

reinforcement layout of the edge-beam and slab was
not symmetric about the centreline of the beam, and
because of slab reinforcement shear lag effects.
Therefore yielding of individual bars in each edgebeam and slab was examined. Bottom beam bars typically underwent faster strain increases and consequently
yielded earlier than top beam bars. Fig. 7 summarises
the subassembly storey drift applied when each longitudinal beam bar yielded at beam/column interfaces;
strain gauge data were compared with yield strains of
the reinforcing bars. (Yielding of slab bars will be
discussed in detail later.) First yielding of bottom beam
280

bars occurred during 1.5% or 2% drift cycles in all

specimens. (Therefore all specimens were eventually
tested to a displacement ductility of almost 4.) In the
first three specimens all beam and slab bars yielded by
3% drift cycles, whereas some slab bars in Specimen 4
did not yield by the end of the test. In all specimens
beam bar yielding spread to half an effective beam
depth away from the interfaces by 3% drift cycles,
meaning that beam hinging developed adjacent to
beam/column interfaces.
Table 4 summarises storey shear forces at various
drifts as a percentage of the maximum storey shear
force reached in each specimen. (The table also indicates (by 100) that the specimens reached their maximum storey shear forces during 3% or 4% drift cycles.)
Specimens 1, 2 and 4 underwent larger strength drops
Table 4. Storey shear forces divided by maximum story shear
forces (%)
Storey drift (%)
+3/
3
+4/
4
+5/
5
+6/
6

S1

S2

S3

S4

100/100
100/100
96/95
85/85

99/99
100/100
92/95
83/88

99/100
100/99
97/95
94/90

96/97
100/100
94/96
83/86

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

Energy dissipation
The amount of energy dissipated during a loading
cycle was calculated as the area enclosed by the corresponding loaddisplacement hysteretic loop, presented
in Fig. 8. In each specimen the energy dissipated during
the 4% drift cycle was roughly twice that during the
3% drift cycle, even though storey shear barely increased between 3% and 4% drift. However, the rate of
increase in energy dissipated per cycle (with respect to
storey drift) quickly reduced during the 5% drift cycle,
although strengths of the specimens did not drop by
much.
The table within Fig. 8 contains equivalent viscous
damping (
eq ) values for various drift cycles of each
specimen, computed following standard procedures de18
scribed elsewhere. (For comparison,
eq values for an
elastic-perfectly plastic system with no pinching would
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

be 0%, 21% and 25% at displacement ductilities of 1, 2

and 3 respectively.) The specimens exhibited similar
patterns of equivalent viscous damping throughout the
tests. In particular,
eq values decreased after the 4%
drift cycle in the first three specimens. Although specimen 4 showed a slightly different pattern, the variation
between
eq values of all specimens for each cycle was
negligible. Thus it may be concluded that the energydissipating capacity of these edge connections was very
similar, whether they were eccentric or concentric, and
regardless of their failure modes (even though specimens 1, 2 and 4 had some joint shear breakdown, their
energy dissipation performance was similar to that of
specimen 3).
Plastic hinge development
The rotational behaviour of the edge-beams near
beam/column interfaces was investigated to examine
the development of beam plastic hinges. In each specimen, eight cable-extension gauges were used to estimate beam rotations in the vicinity of the beam/column
interfaces. The gauges were installed on top and bottom
of the edge-beams (two gauges at each location), approximately one effective beam depth (355 mm) away
from the column faces, to where a plastic hinge region
might extend (see Fig. 11). Each gauge monitored the
relative displacement between the column face and the
section where the gauge was mounted; the values measured by the two gauges at a location were averaged.
Beam rotations in the plastic hinge regions (ph ) were
computed by:
ph

bot
top
top
bot
or
hph
hph

(1)

Here hph is the vertical distance between gauges on the

top and bottom of the edge-beam, bot is an average of
the relative displacements measured by the two gauges
on the bottom of the edge-beam, and top is an average
of the relative displacements measured by the two
gauges on the top of the edge-beam. Beam rotations
were considered positive when the specimen was
loaded in the positive direction. The estimated beam
12
Energy dissipated per cycle: kN m

than specimen 3, approximately 15% (an average for

both directions) by the 6% drift cycle, whereas specimen 3 exhibited the most ductile loaddisplacement
behaviour. Considering that beam hinging typically
does not cause large strength drops, some other failure
mechanism probably developed, leading to the breakdown of specimens 1, 2 and 4. However, neither column hinging nor severe anchorage failure was observed
throughout the tests. (With the ratio of column depth to
beam bar diameter slighty greater than 20, the specimens did exhibit some beam bar slippage through the
joint, as has been reported previously for other similar
13
connections. ) Therefore it was concluded that specimens 1, 2 and 4 failed as a result of joint shear (similar
to previous studies, where it was also observed that
beamcolumn connections can fail from joint shear,
16,17
although they undergo some beam hinging
); this
conclusion is strengthened in later sections.
Strength degradation of the specimens was further
examined by comparing storey shear forces of consecutive same-drift cycles (reduction in storey shear force
during the second (repeat) cycle with respect to the
first cycle). In all specimens strength degradation remained low (roughly 5%) until the 2% or 3% drift
cycles, but it increased up to 13%, 19%, 12% and 18%
in specimens 14 respectively, during the 5% drift
cycle. Specimen 3 generally showed the smallest
strength degradation throughout.
Overall stiffness of a specimen for a particular loading cycle was defined as an average of the storey shear
divided by the storey displacement at the positive and
negative peak drifts of the cycle. In each specimen
stiffness degradation continued throughout the test, and
exceeded 80% of the first-cycle stiffness by the end of
the test (the first-cycle stiffness was 25.0 kN/cm,
27.3 kN/cm, 39.3 kN/cm and 29.6 kN/cm in specimens
14 respectively). Stiffness degradation was faster before about 1% drift in all specimens, possibly because
most of the concrete cracking and bond slip initiation
occurred during the early stages of the tests.

Equiv. viscous damping (%)

Drift (%)

10
8
6

S1

S2

S3

S4

12

12

11

10

10

11

11

10

10

11

4
2
0

3
4
Storey drift: %
S1

S2

S3

S4

Fig. 8. Energy dissipated per cycle

281

Shin and LaFave

rotation comprised both plastic hinge rotation and rigid
beam-end rotation. Plastic hinge rotation was due to
yielding of longitudinal beam bars near the interfaces
after concrete cracking. Rigid beam-end rotation was
attributed to bond slip of reinforcing bars and opening
of large flexural cracks at the interfaces.
Figure 9(a) compares the envelope curves of storey
shear against beam rotation in the two eccentric specimens, from connecting the peak drift point of each
cycle. In the figure, E and W stand for the east and
west beams respectively. In general, all edge-beams in
both specimens showed similar beam rotations throughout testing (up to rotational ductility of about 8). The
rate of increase in beam rotation (with respect to storey
drift) got higher during the 2.5% and 3% drift cycles,
because all longitudinal beam and slab bars yielded by
that cycle. Also, beam rotation increased whereas storey shear did not increase (or even decreased) during
higher drift cycles (in other words, beam moments at
the beam/column interfaces did not increase). These
observations imply that beam hinging had developed in
the plastic hinge regions.
Figure 9(b) compares the envelope curves of storey
shear against beam rotation in the two concentric specimens. Specimen 3 underwent beam hinging in the
plastic hinge regions and generally had larger beam
rotations (up to a rotational ductility of about 10) than
the eccentric specimens and specimen 4. In specimen 3
90

Storey shear: kN

60
30
S2
1

0
S1
S2

6

4
5
Storey drift: %

001
001
Beam rotation: rad
S1-W
S1-E
S2-W
(a)

003

5

4

3

2 1

S1

30
60
90
005

003

005

S2-E

120

Storey shear: kN

80
40
0
40

S3

S4

6 5 4

3

2

1

4
5
6
Storey drift: %

S4

S3

003

001
001
Beam rotation: rad
S3-W
S3-E
S4-W
(b)

003

005

S4-E

Fig. 9. Envelope curves of storey shear against beam rotation: (a) specimens 1 and 2; (b) specimens 3 and 4

282

Slab bar strains

The first three specimens had four longitudinal slab
bars (at the same floor slab locations), whereas specimen 4 was reinforced with seven longitudinal slab bars.
Each longitudinal slab bar was instrumented with a
strain gauge located crossing the west beam/column
interface. Fig. 10 illustrates the strain profiles of longitudinal slab bars in a section crossing the west beam/
column interface at peak drift points of various cycles.
(The top of the west beam/column interface was in
tension when the specimen was loaded in the positive
direction.) All longitudinal slab bars experienced continuous strain increases before yielding, as storey drift
got larger. Therefore it was clear that slab participation
(to beam moment strengths and joint shear demands)
got larger as each specimen was subjected to larger
storey drifts. The slab bar nearest to the edge-beams
generally underwent the fastest strain increase, except
in specimen 2.
Onset of slab bar yielding occurred during the 1.5%,
1% and 2% drift cycles in specimens 1, 2 and 3
respectively, and all longitudinal slab bars yielded by
3% drift in the first three specimens. Specimens 1 and
2 showed larger slab bar strains than specimen 3, possibly because the longitudinal slab bars were located
closer to the column in the first two specimens. However, in specimen 4 only the two slab bars nearest the
edge-beam underwent yielding by the end of the test.
(The slab bar nearest the edge-beam underwent yielding during the positive 4% drift cycle, and then the
strain quickly dropped, possibly as a result of partial
de-bonding of the strain gauge.) Lower slab bar strains
in specimen 4 were partly attributed to its column and
transverse beam, which were narrower than in the other
specimens, and also to torsional distress in the transverse beam at the column face. These issues will be
explored further in later sections.
Joint shear deformation

80
120
005

the increment in beam rotation from 2% to 3% drift

was roughly twice that from 1% to 2% drift. Also,
beam rotation increased whereas storey shear barely
increased from the 2.5% drift cycle onward. Specimen
4 generally exhibited the smallest beam rotations out of
all four specimens (up to a rotational ductility of about
6). In specimen 4 the rate of increase in beam rotation
(with respect to storey drift) rose somewhat during the
3% drift cycle; however, it dropped after the 4% drift
cycle as the specimen started to break down because of
joint shear.

Initial joint shear cracks were observed during the

0.75% drift cycle in all four specimens. The cracks
were diagonally inclined and intersected one another,
owing to the reversed loading. Some joint concrete
spalled off from the exterior joint face after extensive
cracking at higher storey drifts. Specimens 3 and 4
underwent the least and the most joint concrete crackMagazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

05
10
15
20
25
30
40
50

3000
Yield
2000
1000
0

20
40
60
80
100
Distance from exterior face of slab: cm
(a)

Yield
2000
1000

05
10
15
20
25
30
40
50

4000
3000
Yield
2000
1000

0 Column width
Beam width
1000
0
20
40
60
80
100
Distance from exterior face of slab: cm
(c)

Column width
Beam width

1000
0

120

5000

Microstrain (S3)

3000

Column width
Beam width

1000
0

20
40
60
80
100
Distance from exterior face of slab: cm
(b)

120

5000

05
10
15
20
25
30
40
49

4000
3000

Yield

2000
1000
0

1000
0

120

05
10
15
20
25
30
41
51

4000

Microstrain (S4)

Microstrain (S1)

4000

5000

Microstrain (S2)

5000

Column width
 Beam width
20
40
60
80
100
Distance from exterior face of slab: cm
(d)

120

Fig. 10. Slab bar strain profiles across west beam/column interface (storey drift (%) in legend): (a) specimen 1; (b) specimen 2;
(c) specimen 3; (d ) specimen 4

ing and spalling respectively. To monitor overall joint

shear deformation in an average sense, five LVDTs
were installed at the exterior face of the joint in each
specimen (see Fig. 11). Considering the two triangles
formed by the LVDTs, angular changes at the 908
angles were computed for each measuring step. Then
the average of the two angular changes was defined as

the joint shear deformation () at the exterior face of

the joint, as explained in Fig. 11.
Figure 12 shows the envelope curves of storey shear
against joint shear deformation, from connecting the
peak drift point of each cycle. The eccentric connections (specimens 1 and 2) exhibited similar joint shear
deformations at a relatively slow rate of increase during

Joint

36 cm

28 cm
LVDTs

 (1
2)/2
2 Cable extension
gauges at a location

Undeformed LVDTs
Deformed LVDTs

Fig. 11. Eight cable-extension gauges and five LVDTs

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

283

Shin and LaFave

120

Storey shear: kN

90

Drift (%)

60
30
0

Joint contribution to storey displ. (%)

S1

S2

S3

S4

26

24

10

24

29

26

12

27

33

35

10

34

36

41

39

38

51

49

42

53

58

30
60
90

120
006

004

002
0
002
Joint shear deformation: rad
S1

S2

S3

004

006

S4

Fig. 12. Envelope curves of storey shear against joint shear

deformation

the early stages of the tests. However, the rate of increase in joint shear deformation (with respect to storey
drift) became higher during the 2.5% and 3% drift
cycles. This fast increase occurred without considerable
rises (or even with drops) of storey shear in these specimens. This resulted from cracking, crushing and/or
spalling of some joint concrete because of joint shear.
Specimen 2 eventually underwent larger joint shear
deformations than specimen 1, during the negative 5%
and 6% drift cycles. The joint shear deformations exhibited by these two specimens (roughly 0.030.04
radians maximum) were similar to or larger than those
in other eccentric connections found in the literature
3,5,6
that failed by joint shear.
Specimen 3 exhibited very small joint shear deformations (less than 0.007 radians maximum). This may
be partly because the joint shear deformations were
measured at the exterior face of the joint (over 85 mm
away from the exterior face of the edge-beams), so they
did not necessarily represent joint shear deformations
in the joint core. However, it was unlikely that specimen 3 underwent joint shear deformations as large as
the other specimens anyway because it exhibited relatively moderate joint cracking damage and showed the
most ductile overall loaddisplacement behaviour. (For
comparison, all eight cruciform concentric connections
19
tested by Joh et al. underwent beam hinging without
joint shear failure, and they exhibited joint shear deformations of less than 0.004 radians by 5% drift.) Specimen 4 had the largest joint shear deformations among
all four specimens (especially in the positive direction),
and the rate of increase got higher from the 2.5% drift
cycle, without considerable rises (or even with drops)
in storey shear.
The rapid increases in joint shear deformation occurred after exceeding approximately 0.01 radians in
specimens 1, 2 and 4. (For these specimens, a joint
shear deformation of 0.01 radians by itself produces
roughly 0.8% drift, as will be described below in more
detail.) The above observations support the conclusion
that specimens 1, 2 and 4 started to break down as a
result of joint shear during the tests.
284

The portion of storey displacement due to joint shear

deformation was computed using the joint shear deformations measured at the exterior face of the joint,
assuming the column and the edge-beams remained
rigid (and assuming the measured joint shear deformations were representative of the values through the
joint). The table within Fig. 12 presents the percentage
contribution of joint shear deformation to the applied
storey displacement (at the top of the column); each
number is an average for both loading directions at the
indicated storey drift. By the end of the tests, the joint
shear deformation contribution to overall drift was
42%, 53% and 58% in specimens 1, 2 and 4 respectively. The joint shear deformation contribution was
also significant (greater than 25%) within the cracked
elastic range of behaviour (for instance, even at 1%
drift). Specimen 3 showed smaller joint shear deformation contributions to drift than the other specimens,
which agrees with the observation that it experienced
larger beam rotations than the other specimens.
Joint hoop strains
In each specimen, three layers of horizontal joint
reinforcement (each consisting of a hoop and two
cross-ties) were equally spaced at 83 mm between the
top and bottom longitudinal beam bars. Each joint hoop
was instrumented with two strain gauges, one near the
centre along each of the legs parallel to the loading
direction, to monitor strain at the exterior and interior
sides of the joint. Fig. 13 shows the envelope curves of
joint hoop strain against storey drift in all specimens,
from connecting the peak drift point of each cycle. In
the figure the three joint hoops are referred to as
bottom, middle and top according to vertical position, and an arrow indicates that a strain gauge was
broken after the specified cycle.
In general, joint hoop strains at the exterior side of
the joint were larger than those at the interior side for
both eccentric and concentric specimens, in part because the transverse beam and floor slab provided some
confinement to the interior side of the joint. There are
additional possible reasons for this phenomenon in the
eccentric specimens. From the standpoint of eccentric
joint capacity, the interior (offset) side could be less
effective than the exterior (flush) side in resisting joint
shear forces. From the standpoint of eccentric joint
demand, eccentricity between the beam and column
centrelines could induce torsion in the joint region,
resulting in an increase in net shear stress near the flush
side. However, a big difference was not found between
the joint hoop strains of specimens 1 and 3 (eccentric
and concentric specimens with identical edge-beam
width), suggesting that these latter two effects were not
very significant, probably because the floor slabs expanded effective joint width and reduced joint torsional
demand by shifting the acting line of the resultant force
from top beam and slab reinforcement. The eccentric
connections with floor slabs and transverse beams in
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

7000

7000

6000

6000

Microstrain at ext. side (S1)

Microstrain at int. side (S1)

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1000
6

4

2

0
2
Storey drift: %

2000
1000
0

6000

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2

0
2
Storey drift: %
Middle

Microstrain at ext. side (S3)

6000

2000
1000
0
2

0
2
Storey drift: %

Bottom

Middle

Microstrain at ext. side (S4)

6000

3000
2000
1000
0
0
2
Storey drift: %

Bottom

Middle

Top

0
4

2

0
2
Storey drift: %

Bottom

4000

Top

1000

Top

5000

Middle

2000

7000

2

0
2
Storey drift: %

3000

6000

4

2

4000

7000

1000
6

4

5000

1000
6

7000

3000

1000

Bottom

4000

Top

2000

Top

5000

3000

1000
6

Middle

4000

6000

4

0
2
Storey drift: %

5000

7000

1000
6

2

Bottom

6000

4

4

Top
7000

Bottom

Microstrain at int. side (S3)

3000

7000

1000
6

Microstrain at int. side (S4)

Middle

4000

1000
6

Microstrain at ext. side (S2)

Microstrain at int. side (S2)

Bottom

5000

Middle

Top

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1000
6

4

2

0
2
Storey drift: %

Bottom

Middle

Top

Fig. 13. Envelope curves of joint hoop strain against storey drift (int. interior, ext. exterior) (S1 = specimen 1)

this study showed more uniform strain distributions

across the joint than did other eccentric connections
(without slabs and transverse beams) reported in the
3,5,6
literature,
where joint hoop strains at the flush side
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

were much larger (two or three times) than those at the

offset side.
In all specimens, joint hoop strains started to rise
after several small drift cycles, and they increased even
285

Shin and LaFave

while storey shear decreased during 5% and 6% drift
cycles, although the rate of increase in strain got lower
at high storey drifts. Specimens 2 and 4 generally
exhibited larger joint hoop strains than specimens 1
and 3, which was consistent with the observation that
specimens 2 and 4 underwent larger joint shear deformations. Comparing the two eccentric specimens, specimen 2 exhibited larger increments in joint hoop strain
than specimen 1 at high storey drifts, which agreed
with the fact that specimen 2 underwent larger joint
shear deformations after starting to break down. Comparing specimens with the same edge-beam width,
specimen 4 underwent larger joint hoop strains than
specimens 1 and 3, because specimen 4 had the smallest effective joint area and was subjected to the largest
joint shear force due to the heavily reinforced slab.
Yielding of joint reinforcement was investigated
based on the yield strain of the joint hoops determined
by the 0.2% offset method. (The yield strain was about
0.0045 in all tests, with the stressstrain proportional
limit occurring at a strain of approximately 0.003.)
Only the middle joint hoop of specimen 4 yielded
(during the negative 5% drift cycle) at the interior side
of the joint; however, many joint hoops yielded or
approached yielding during 4% or 5% drift cycles at
the exterior sides of the joints. (For some joint hoops, it
was not possible to distinguish whether they yielded or
not, because their strain gauges broke during the tests.)
In particular, the middle joint hoops of specimens 2
and 4 saw very large strains of nearly 0.007.

divided by the product of actual yield strength and area

of the bars. To compute this, first the strain in each
longitudinal slab bar (plotted in Fig. 10) was divided by
the yield strain of the bar; one (1.0) was assigned if this
strain ratio was larger than unity. Then the number of
effective slab bars was computed by adding the strain
ratios of all longitudinal slab bars, and the corresponding effective slab width was estimated considering the
locations of the slab bars. Table 5 lists the number of
effective slab bars and the effective slab width at various storey drifts. When each specimen reached its
maximum storey shear force, the number of effective
slab bars (and corresponding effective slab width) computed in this way was 4.0 (122 cm), 4.0 (122 cm), 3.9
(119 cm) and 4.0 (77 cm) in specimens 14 respectively. These numbers of effective slab bars will be
used to estimate maximum joint shear demands of the
specimens in a later section. (The maximum effective
slab width of specimen 3 could have been larger if a
wider slab had been tested, as all longitudinal slab bars
yielded and the specimen did not experience joint shear
failure.)
The maximum effective slab width that can potentially contribute to beam flexural capacity may not be
fully activated when a connection fails in part due to
other modes before complete beam hinging; this may
have occurred in specimens 1, 2 and 4. The maximum
effective slab width in specimen 4 seems to have also
been limited by the torsional strength of the transverse
beam, which was subjected to large torsional moments
near the column face, where concrete cracking and spalling damage occurred as shown in Fig. 15. The torsional
moments were generated as a result of the vertical distance (dt ) between longitudinal slab bars and the centroid of the transverse beam. At positive 4% drift, for
instance, tensile forces in all longitudinal slab bars at the
west beam/column interface can be computed using
strain gauge data from Fig. 10. Considering only the
tensile slab bar forces, without taking into account any
concrete or slab bar forces at the east beam/column
interface, the possible torsional moment applied at the
column face adjacent to the transverse beam in specimen 4 is equal to the sum of the slab bar forces times dt,
or 46.8 kN m. (Some portion of the slab bar forces may

Analysis of test results

Effective slab width contribution (to beam flexural
strength and joint shear)
The concept of an effective slab width is generally
used to incorporate floor slab contributions (to beam
moment strength and joint shear demand) in RC design.
It is well known that the slab contribution depends
strongly on imposed lateral drift level. In this study the
number of effective slab bars at a particular storey drift
was defined, considering slab in tension, as the sum of
forces in all longitudinal slab bars (at the storey drift)

Table 5. Number of effective slab bars and corresponding effective slab width
Drift (%)

1
1.5
2
2.5
3
4
5
6

286

Number of effective slab bars

Effective slab width (cm)

S1

S2

S3

S4

S1

S2

S3

S4

2.3
3.0
3.5
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
n.a.

2.6
3.1
3.4
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0

1.5
2.2
2.7
3.4
3.7
3.9
4.0
3.5

0.8
1.4
2.0
2.6
3.2
4.0
4.2
4.1

79
97
109
119
122
122
122
n.a.

86
99
107
117
122
122
122
122

58
76
89
107
114
119
122
109

37
44
52
60
67
77
80
79

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

enter into the joint by means of diagonal compression in
the slab panel and/or weak axis bending of the trans10
verse beam, as well as torsion of the transverse beam. )
This torsional moment is equal to 80% of the torsional
strength of the transverse beam, computed based on the
thin-walled tube (space truss) analogy per ACI 318-02.
The transverse beam in specimen 4 was also under considerable horizontal shear from the four slab bars,
286 kN, which is 80% of the shear strength of the
transverse beam, also computed per ACI 318-02. Therefore it was judged that the transverse beam in specimen
4 suffered distress due to a combination of torsion and
shear, thereby limiting the amount of slab participation.
On the other hand, the transverse beams in the first three
specimens did not experience much distress; they only
reached less than 35% of their torsional strengths and
35% of their shear strengths.
The ACI effective slab width for design would be
69 cm for specimens 1, 3 and 4, and 59 cm for specimen 2, which encompasses two, two, two and three
longitudinal slab bars in specimens 14 respectively.
(According to ACI 318-02, a single effective slab width
for design is used regardless of positive or negative
bending, or of the magnitude of imposed lateral drift.)
The number of effective slab bars determined above
(when each specimen reached its maximum storey
shear force) was more than the number of slab bars
included within the ACI effective slab width, particularly in specimens 13. In other words, the effective
slab width estimated based on slab bar strains was 1.7
2.0 times larger than the ACI effective slab width in
the first three specimens, but similar to the ACI value
in specimen 4 (with a narrower column and a transverse beam that suffered some deterioration). The actual effective slab width when each specimen reached
its maximum storey shear force was roughly equal to
the column width plus two times the transverse beam
width for these test specimens.
Chapter 21 of ACI 318-02 comments that the ACI
effective slab width is reasonable for estimating beam
negative moment strengths of interior connections at
roughly 2% drift. In this study the effective slab width
estimated at 2% drift was 109 cm, 107 cm, 89 cm and
52 cm in specimens 14 respectively; these values are
also substantially larger than the ACI effective slab
widths in the first three specimens, and somewhat
smaller in specimen 4. (In fact, laboratory experiments

on edge connections with floor slabs on one side only,

loaded in the longitudinal direction of the edge-beams,
have not previously been reported in the literature and
would therefore not be the basis for current ACI procedures to estimate effective slab width.) This is of particular importance because a smaller effective slab width
is not conservative for estimating joint shear demand or
column-to-beam moment strength ratio.
Because all specimens underwent beam hinging near
beam/column interfaces, the predicted storey strength
(Vc,m(cal) ) of each specimen may be computed assuming
the edge-beams reached their nominal moment
strengths at the beam/column interfaces:
Vc,m(cal)

(M
lb
n Mn )

lc
(lb
hc )

(2)

Here M
n and M n are beam positive and negative
nominal moment strengths, computed using the ACI
318-02 nominal moment strength calculation method
(equivalent rectangular stress block concept) with actual material properties. These beam nominal moment
strengths depend on the amount of slab participation.
Table 6 compares the predicted storey strength
(Vc,m(cal) ), computed using the number of effective slab
bars (about four in each specimen) and corresponding
effective slab width when each specimen reached its
maximum storey shear force, with the measured storey
strength (Vc,m(exp) ), which is the maximum storey shear
force. The Vc,m(cal) values are 6%, 11%, 4% and 1%
higher than the Vc,m(exp) values in specimens 14 respectively. (Vc,m(exp) values for positive loading were
used for this comparison because the specimens underwent some damage after being loaded first in the positive direction.) In other words, the beamslab moment
strengths in specimens 13 are slightly overestimated
considering the effective slab bars computed based on
slab bar strains. This is because some concrete at the
bottom of these edge-beams near beam/column interfaces started to spall off at about 2.5% drift, which
reduced beam sectional moment arms, leading to smaller actual storey strengths than the computed values (in
specimen 4, concrete spalling did not occur at the
bottom of the edge-beams).

Slab effect on joint shear demand

Considering horizontal force equilibrium of an RC
joint free body diagram, and moment equilibrium of

Table 6. Measured and predicted storey strengths

Specimen
Vc,m(exp) (kN)

(+) loading
(
) loading

Vc,m(cal) (kN)

No. of included slab bars

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

2
3
4
5

88.1
81.1

83.4
80.5

92.7
90.9

109.1
109.6

83.8
88.9
93.7

82.6
88.2
92.9

87.1
92.6
96.5

90.9
101.4
109.7
117.9

287

Shin and LaFave

the edge-beams, the horizontal joint shear force (Vj ) at
mid-height of the joint during a test can be computed
as explained in Fig. 14. Here V1 and V2 are the edgebeam end shears, which are simply the axial forces
measured in the east and west beam-end supports respectively, and Vc is the applied storey shear force.
Also, jd1 and jd2 are the beam moment arms at the east
and west beam/column interfaces, which were assumed
to be 355 mm for sagging (positive) moments, and
330 mm (305 mm in specimen 2) for hogging (negative) moments. (These assumed moment arms were the
ones determined above when calculating the nominal
moment strengths of the edge-beams.) Using this method, the maximum joint shear force was computed to be
631 kN, 670 kN and 793 kN in specimens 2, 3 and
4 respectively. (This method could not be used in
specimen 1 because the load cells in the beam-end
supports did not operate.)
Vc

(lb  hc)/2
V1

East edge-beam

jd1

Vj  Cb1
Tb2  Vc
Cb1  V1(lb  hc)/2jd1
Tb2  V2(lb  hc)/2jd2

Cb1

Cb1

Tb1

Tb2

Joint
jd1 Vj

Vj

Tb1

jd2
Cb2

Vc

Here As is the area of each reinforcing bar, fy is the

actual yield strength of each reinforcing bar, and
Vc,m(exp) is the maximum storey shear force measured at
the column top. The summation term includes all (top
and bottom) longitudinal beam bars, as well as the four
effective slab bars for each specimen (as determined
above). Using this equation, the Vj,m value was 647 kN,
651 kN, 643 kN and 792 kN in specimens 14 respectively. Maximum joint shear forces estimated with the
two methods are in good agreement, with a discrepancy
of less than 5%. However, the latter method was considered to estimate maximum joint shear forces better,
because the former method was based on assumed
beam moment arms.
As mentioned earlier, ACI 318-02 does not consider
slab participation in joint shear demand design calculations, whereas ACI 352R-02 recommends including
slab reinforcement within the ACI effective slab width.
The experimental maximum joint shear forces (Vj,m )
exceeded the values computed per ACI 318-02 by
roughly 25% in the first three specimens and 55% in
specimen 4, and they also exceeded the values computed per ACI 352R-02 by roughly 10% in all four
specimens. Specimen 4 probably would not have undergone joint shear failure if it had been reinforced with a
lower slab steel ratio similar to that of the other specimens.

Fig. 14. Edge-beam and joint free body diagrams

Slab effect on joint shear capacity

The maximum joint shear force can also be determined using an alternative method. All beam longitudinal bars yielded at beam/column interfaces before each
specimen reached its maximum storey shear force, but
no longitudinal beam or slab bars underwent strainhardening during testing. Therefore the maximum joint
shear force (Vj,m ) can be estimated at the storey drift
when each specimen reached its maximum storey shear
force as:
Vj,m

As f y
Vc,m(exp)

(3)

The effect of floor slabs (and transverse beams) on

RC joint shear capacity was evaluated by estimating
effective joint widths of the eccentric specimens in this
study and comparing them with other eccentric specimens without slabs found in the literature. For a specimen that failed due to joint shear, its joint shear
strength can be considered equal to the maximum joint
shear force (Vj,m ) applied during the test, and thus an
effective joint width (bj,exp ) for the specimen may be
estimated by:
bj,exp (mm)

Vj,m (N)
p
f c9 (MPa)  hc (mm)

(4)

Here n is the nominal joint shear stress level specified

by ACI 318-02 and ACI 352R-02, to place eccentric
connections on an equal basis for comparison with
similar concentric connections. Table 7 summarises the
maximum joint shear forces (Vj,m ) and the estimated
effective joint widths (bj,exp ) of eccentric specimens
(from this testing programme and from the literature)
that were judged to fail because of joint shear (n is
1.00 for all specimens in the table).
To appreciate the effect of the floor slabs, the bj,exp
values were normalised using an equation suggested by
5
Raffaelle and Wight:
bj,RW
Fig. 15. Torsional damage of transverse beam in specimen 4

288

bc
1 3e=xc

(5)

Here e is the eccentricity between beam and column

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

Table 7. Estimation of effective joint width for eccentric connections
Specimen
Authors
4

Joh et al.
5
Raffaelle & Wight

Teng & Zhou

1
2
JX0-B5
1
2
3
4
S3
S6

Vj,m
(kN)

bb
(mm)

bc
(mm)

bj,exp
(mm)

bj,exp /bj,RW

bj,exp /bj,318

bj,exp /bj,352

b9j,exp /bj,318

bj,exp /
(bb +bc )/2

647
651
294
650
421
472
413
716
391

279
178
150
254
178
191
191
200
200

457
457
300
356
356
356
356
400
400

359
329
204
343
229
217
265
405
318

1.42
1.63
1.19
1.38
1.13
1.03
1.26
2.02
1.95

1.29
1.85
1.36
1.35
1.29
1.14
1.39
2.02
1.56

1.09
1.45
1.05
1.12
0.99
0.89
1.09
1.64
1.36

1.03
1.48
1.09
1.08
1.03
0.91
1.11
1.61
1.25

0.97
1.04
0.91
1.12
0.86
0.79
0.97
1.34
1.04

Note: n 1.00 for bj,exp (n 1.25 for b9j,exp ).

centrelines, and xc is equal to the smaller of bc or hc .

This equation was derived taking into account the additional stresses due to torsion in the joint, but without
considering the effect of floor slabs. The bj,exp to bj,RW
ratios are generally higher in the specimens with floor
slabs than in those without floor slabs. Therefore it
may be concluded that the floor slabs (and transverse
beams) improved the joint shear capacity of eccentric
connections. This was partially because joint shear
forces applied at the top of the joint were distributed
across the entire column width by means of the floor
slabs, so the effective joint width was enlarged when
compared with the case without slabs.
The table also contains ratios of the estimated effective joint width (bj,exp ) to the effective joint widths
computed following ACI 318-02 (bj,318 ) and ACI 352R02 (bj,352 ) (see Table 1 for details). It is clear that ACI
318-02 greatly underestimates the joint shear strength
of eccentric connections, particularly in cases with
floor slabs. For the one-sided (flush) eccentric connections, the bj,318 values are simply equal to the edgebeam widths. Therefore all the eccentric connections in
Table 7 could just be considered as concentric connec-

tions with imaginary (reduced) column widths equal to

the edge-beam widths, a case where n is 1.25. The
b9j,exp values used in Table 7 were computed by equation
(4) with n 1.25, and they were closer to the bj,318
values than the bj,exp values were. In summary, it appears to be more reasonable to apply n 1.25 when
using bj,318 values for the joint shear strength of onesided (flush) eccentric connections.
Finally, the joint shear strength of the two eccentric
specimens with floor slabs reported herein was well
estimated using the effective joint width currently defined for concentric connections in ACI 352R-02,
namely bj (bb + bc )/2, as listed in Table 7. However,
bj (bb + bc )/2 was not conservative for some previously tested eccentric connections without slabs, as
would probably also be the case for eccentric connections with slabs where the interior faces of columns are
flush with the interior faces of beams.
In Table 8, the maximum joint shear stress level (m )
actually reached in specimen 4 was computed using the
experimental maximum joint shear force (Vj,m ) and
compared with other concentric connections found in
the literature that failed because of joint shear. To

Table 8. Maximum joint shear stress level for concentric connections ( n 1.25)
Vj,m (kN)

m (1)

m (2)

(1)/n

(2)/n

793

1.38

1.38

1.10

1.10

BCJ2
BCJ3

341
412

1.01
1.02

1.12
1.13

0.81
0.82

0.90
0.90

X1
X2
X3

689
701
533

0.90
0.93
0.73

1.02
1.04
0.83

0.72
0.74
0.58

0.82
0.83
0.66

Interior

966

1.34

1.53

1.07

1.22

841
1248
945
1099
1179
1292
1110
1458
1169
1148

1.09
1.28
1.22
1.22
1.31
1.42
1.21
1.63
1.21
1.33

1.18
1.39
1.32
1.29
1.42
1.53
1.28
1.77
1.31
1.40

0.87
1.02
0.98
0.98
1.05
1.14
0.97
1.30
0.97
1.06

0.94
1.11
1.06
1.03
1.14
1.22
1.02
1.42
1.05
1.12

Specimen
Authors
Leon

21

Durrani & Wight

Park et al.

22

23

Meinheit & Jirsa

15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12
13
14

p
p
Note: (1) Vj,m = f c9  bj,318  hc and (2) Vj,m = f c9  bj,352  hc .

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

289

Shin and LaFave

identify the effect of the slab (and transverse beam),
only cruciform connections (without transverse beams
and slabs) whose beams covered more than three-quarters of their column faces (n 1.25) were selected.
(Other important variables, such as joint shear reinforcement and bond condition, were not necessarily the
same in all of these specimens.) In general, specimen 4
reached a slightly higher m than the other concentric
connections. This was probably limited because the
transverse beam suffered concrete cracking and spalling
near the column face, so it could neither resist joint
shear forces as an extended part of the joint, nor effectively confine the joint. It is also interesting to note that
the maximum joint shear stress level (m ) reached in
many of the other concentric connections was smaller
than the nominal joint shear stress level (n 1.25).

Conclusions
In this study, the seismic performance of RC edge
beamcolumnslab connections was experimentally
evaluated by testing four large-scale subassemblies
(two eccentric and two concentric connections) subjected to simulated lateral earthquake loading. The
main design variables in the specimens were the eccentricity between beam and column centrelines, the edgebeam width, and the reinforcement ratio of longitudinal
slab bars. A summary of the experimental results and
related conclusions is as follows:
(a) All four edge connections exhibited similar overall
loaddisplacement behaviour, stiffness degradation, and energy dissipation. First yield of beam
flexural reinforcement occurred during the 1.5% or
2% drift cycle in all specimens, and each subassembly reached its maximum storey shear force
during the 3% or 4% drift cycle. Strength degradation was greatest in the three specimens (both
eccentric connections and one concentric connection) that ultimately failed because of joint shear.
(b) Joint shear deformations were largest in the three
specimens that ultimately failed because of joint
shear (after some beam hinging); the magnitude of
joint shear deformation in these three specimens
was similar to that in other connections found in
the literature that had joint shear failures. In these
three specimens, the rate of increase in joint shear
deformation got higher at about 2.5% drift, and
joint shear deformations were eventually responsible for about half of the overall subassembly storey
displacements.
(c) In all cases, strains measured in joint hoop reinforcement near the exterior face of a joint were somewhat larger than those measured near the interior
face of the joint. The distribution in joint hoop
strain across the joint was not much different between the eccentric and concentric connections
290

tested, and it was much more uniform than in other

eccentric connections (without floor slabs and
transverse beams) reported in the literature, indicating that the floor slabs may have expanded the
effective joint width and reduced joint torsional
demand by shifting the acting line of the resultant
force coming from top beam and slab reinforcement.
(d) Slab participation contributions to beam moment
strength, joint shear demand and transverse beam
torsional demand played an important role in the
behaviour of the connections, particularly with increasing drift. Effective slab widths in tension observed in this study were greater than those
commonly recommended for use in design of edge
connections, and slab effects on joint shear demand
were particularly pronounced.
(e) The joint shear capacity of the two eccentric connections tested was greater than that of most similar eccentric connections without floor slabs or
transverse beams reported in the literature. Some
effective joint widths commonly recommended for
use in design seem to be ill suited for application
to eccentric connections, whereas others work
fairly well for eccentric connections with or without floor slabs. Finally, the joint shear capacity of
the concentric connection in this study that failed
in joint shear was slightly higher than that observed in other similar concentric connections
(without floor slabs and transverse beams) found in
the literature.

References
1. Youd T. L., Bardet J. and Bray J. D. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey,
Earthquake Reconnaissance Report. EERI, Oakland, California,
2000.
2. Hirosawa M., Akiyama T., Kondo T. and Zhou J. Damages
to beam-to-column joint panels of RC buildings caused by the
1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake and the analysis. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2000, 1321.
3. Lawrance G. M., Beattie G. J. and Jacks D. H. The Cyclic
Load Performance of an Eccentric BeamColumn Joint. Central
Laboratories, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 1991, Central Laboratories Report 91-25126.
4. Joh O., Goto Y. and Shibata T. Behavior of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints with eccentricity. In Design of
BeamColumn Joints for Seismic Resistance, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1991, SP-123, pp. 317357.
5. Raffaelle G. S. and Wight J. K. Reinforced concrete eccentric beamcolumn connections subjected to earthquake-type
loading. ACI Structural Journal, 1995, 92, No. 1, 4555.
6. Teng S. and Zhou H. Eccentric reinforced concrete beam
column joints subjected to cyclic loading. ACI Structural Journal, 2003, 100, No. 2, 139148.
7. Chen C. C. and Chen G. K. Cyclic behavior of reinforced
concrete eccentric beamcolumn corner joints connecting
spread-ended beams. ACI Structural Journal, 1999, 96, No. 3,
443449.
8. Vollum R. L. and Newman J. B. Towards the design of

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

RC edge beamcolumnslab connections subjected to earthquake loading

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

reinforced concrete eccentric beamcolumn joints. Magazine of

Concrete Research, 1999, 51, No. 6, 397407.
ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Recommendations for Design of
BeamColumn Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete
Structures. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan,
1985, ACI 352R-85.
Pantazopoulou S. J. and French C. W. Slab participation in
practical earthquake design of reinforced concrete frames. ACI
Structural Journal, 2001, 98, No. 4, 479489.
Abrams D. P. Scale relations for reinforced concrete beam
column joints. ACI Structural Journal, 1987, 54, No. 6, 502
512.
ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete; Commentary. American Concrete Institute,
Michigan, 2002, ACI 318-02, ACI 318R-02.
ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Recommendations for Design of
BeamColumn Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete
Structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, 2002, ACI 352R-02.
Long A. E., Cleland D. J. and Kirk D. W. Moment transfer
and the ultimate capacity of slab column structures. The Structural Engineer, 1978, 56A, No. 4, 95102.
Meinheit D. F. and Jirsa J. O. Shear strength of RC beam
column connections. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division,
1981, 107, No. ST11, 22272244.
Bonacci J. and Pantazopoulou S. Parametric investigation of
joint mechanics. ACI Structural Journal, 1993, 90, No. 1, 6171.
Hwang S. J. and Lee H. J. Analytical model for predicting
shear strengths of interior reinforced concrete beamcolumn

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2004, 55, No. 6

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

joints for seismic resistance. ACI Structural Journal, 2000, 97,

No. 1, 3544.
Chopra A. K. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, 2000.
Joh O., Goto Y. and Shibata T. Influence of transverse joint
and beam reinforcement and relocation of plastic hinge region
on beamcolumn joint stiffness deterioration. In Design of
BeamColumn Joints for Seismic Resistance. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1991, SP-123, pp. 187223.
French C. W. and Moehle J. P. Effect of floor slab on behavior of slabbeamcolumn connections. In Design of Beam
Column Joints for Seismic Resistance. American Concrete
Institute, Michigan, 1991, SP-123, pp. 225258.
Leon R. T. Shear strength and hysteretic behavior of interior
beamcolumn joints. ACI Structural Journal, 1990, 87, No. 1,
311.
Durrani A. J. and Wight J. K. Behavior of interior beam-tocolumn connections under earthquake-type loading. ACI Journal, 1985, 82, No. 3, 343349.
Park R., Gaerty L. and Stevenson E. C. Tests on an interior
reinforced concrete beamcolumn joint. Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 1981,
14, No. 2, 8192.

Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by

1 January 2005

291