Structures and Buildings Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.15.00124
Effective beam width of reinforced- Paper 1500124
concrete wide beam–column connections Received 13/11/2015 Accepted 23/12/2016
Keywords: buildings, structures & design/concrete structures/
Kuang, Behnam and Huang seismic engineering

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Effective beam width of reinforced-concrete

wide beam–column connections
&
1 J. S. Kuang PhD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE &
3 Qunxian Huang PhD
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Associate Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Huaqiao University,
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Xiamen, P. R. China
(corresponding author: cejkuang@ust.hk)
&
2 Hamdolah Behnam BSc, MSc
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong

1 2 3

The reinforced-concrete wide-beam floor system is recognised as one of the most efficient beam-and-slab floor
systems in buildings. However, potential advantages of the system as a lateral load-resisting structure are often
ignored due to a lack of understanding of the seismic behaviour of wide beam–column connections. Design codes
prescribe beam width limitations to minimise the shear lag effect on the formation of full-width plastic hinges and
achieving the expected capacity. However, owing to insufficient experimental and analytical studies, empirical design
formulas for the beam width limitation, with remarkably different results, have been implemented in different design
codes. In this paper, parametric studies of the influence of key parameters on the behaviour of wide beam–column
connections are conducted based on available test results. An effective beam-width model is analytically developed
using the equivalent-frame representation, where the effects of torsion of transverse beams and flexure around the
joint core are considered. The validity of the model is verified using flexural strengths of test specimens, covering a
wide range of design parameters. Combining the proposed effective beam-width model and the rational analytical
approach, a simple and efficient, yet accurate, design formula is presented for determining the beam width limitation
of wide beam–column connections.

Notation Ii second moment of area of the inside portion

An percentage of beam top longitudinal reinforcement Io second moment of area of the outside portion
anchorage in joint core Ke rotational stiffness of effective width of beam
As total cross-sectional area of beam bars Ki rotational stiffness of inside portion
bc column width Ko rotational stiffness of overall outside portion
be effective wide beam width Ko1 rotational stiffness of outside portion of wide beam
bj effective joint width Kts torsional stiffness of transverse beam
bo width of outside portion of wide beam Ktotal total rotational stiffness of wide beam
bt width of transverse beam L wide beam length
bw wide beam width Mexp experimental flexural strength of wide beam
C torsional constant of transverse beam Mn nominal flexural strength of wide beam, determined
db beam bar diameter by ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014)
dc column bar diameter Mr ratio of column to beam moment strengths
E modulus of elasticity Tc torsional cracking strength of transverse beam
fc cylinder compressive strength of concrete Td applied torque on transverse beam
fy yield stress of steel Tx twisting moment on transverse beam
G shear modulus of transverse beam tx distributed torsional moment moment on transverse
H column height beam
hb wide beam depth ub maximum bond stress of wide beam reinforcement
hc column depth within column width
ht depth of transverse beam Vj maximum horizontal shear force at joint
Ie second moment of area of the effective width Vn nominal shear capacity of joint

1
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
β, γ, η, λ geometric parameters, given by Equations 25, 21, 15
and 22, respectively
θx torsional rotation of transverse beam
ϕx sectional curvature of transverse beam
1. Introduction
Reinforced-concrete (RC) slab–band floor systems or wide-
beam systems offer many advantages over conventional
framing systems because of the benefits in architectural plan-
ning, low storey height, less congestion of steel reinforcement
in beam–column joint regions and fast construction (LaFave
and Wight, 1999, 2001). This type of structural system consists
of floor slabs with wide and shallow beams framing into
columns and wide beam–column connections. Compared with
conventional beam–column joints, the stress distribution and
load transfer mechanisms in wide beam–column connections
is much more complex (Benavent-Climent, 2007). In the past
two decades, comprehensive investigations on the behaviour
and failure mechanisms of conventional beam–column joints
have been conducted, including experimental studies (Kim and
Lafave, 2007; Kuang and Wong, 2006, 2013; Lee et al., 2009),
the development of design methods (Kitayama et al., 1991;
Mitra and Lowes, 2004) and analytical modelling (Hwang and
Lee, 1999; Wang et al., 2012; Wong and Kuang, 2014).
However, few studies concerning the behaviour of wide
beam–column connections, in particular the prediction of the
effective wide-beam width, have been carried out.
The current codes of practice for structural concrete design,
including ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014), NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006)
and Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI, 2004), impose special
restrictions on the use of wide beam–column connections in
earthquake-resistant design. These restrictions consist of geo-
metrical constraints, special reinforcement details and specific
anchorage requirements. The restrictions are set mainly for
minimising the shear lag in the formation of full-width plastic
hinges in wide beams, identifying the actual capacity of the
beam and the flexural strength ratio, and ensuring the hierar-
chy of yielding between beams and columns. It is recognised
that the wide beam width limitation is the most important con-
straint on minimising the shear lag effect. However, because of
the absence of sufficient experimental and analytical studies,
different opinions on this issue and the related empirical for-
mulas have been presented in the design codes of practice
around the world.
An approximate method of dealing with the shear lag problem
is used based on the effective width concept, where the actual
width bw of the wide beam is replaced by a reduced width be.
Consequently, the actual beam stress is replaced by a constant
stress that is equal to the actual maximum stress and distribu-
ted over the effective beam area be
hb. The effective width
can then be estimated using the equivalent-frame model
with either energy variation methods or stiffness methods.
2
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang
The equivalent frame model has been widely recognised and
implemented in different codes of practice as a simplified prac-
tical approach for design and evaluation of the structural
strength and stiffness of slab–column connections (Hwang and
Moehle, 2000; Luo and Durrani, 1995; MacGregor et al.,
1997; Vanderbilt, 1979), non-planar beam–wall connections
(Behnam et al., 2016; Kwan and Chan, 2000; Lin and Shi,
2010; Marques and Horowitz, 2013) and wide beam–column
connections (Benavent-Climent, 2007; Benavent-Climent et al.,
2009, 2010).
The aim of this study is to develop an analytical-based beam-
width model and to propose a beam width limitation of RC
wide beam–column connections for practical design. The
study includes two parts: (a) parametric analyses of the influ-
ence of key parameters on the seismic behaviour of wide
beam–column connections on the basis of 26 available test
results of interior wide beam–column joints, and (b) the devel-
opment of an equivalent-frame model for predicting the
effective beam width of wide beams. The proposed effective
beam-width model considers the effect of torsion and flexure
around the joint and simulates different practical cases. The
validity of the proposed model is verified by the accurate flex-
ural strength predictions of test specimens in the database,
covering a wide range of design parameters. Combining the
developed effective beam-width model and the rational analyti-
cal approach, a simple and efficient, yet accurate, design
formula is presented for determining the beam width
limitation.
2. Limitation of wide beam width
Most of the design codes of practice for structural use of
concrete in the world, including NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006), ACI
318-14 (ACI, 2014) and Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI,
2004), prescribe the beam width of wide beam–column systems
in order to minimise the shear lag effect on the formation of
full-width plastic hinges and to achieve the expected capacity
of wide beams. In the New Zealand standard (NZS, 2006), the
wide beam width is limited to
1: bw  minðbc þ 05hc ; 2bc Þ
where bc and hc are the column width and depth, respectively.
With this limitation, compressive concrete struts are expected
to form at the column side and the effectiveness of these com-
pressive struts is a function of the column depth, as shown
in Figure 1(a). Based on the results of the limited number
of experimental studies, ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014) suggests
slight relaxation in the wide beam width as compared with
NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006), as shown in Figure 1(b), which is
given by
2: bw  minðbc þ 15hc ; 3bc Þ
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

Bending moment Bending moment

Top in tension

Wide beam
bw bw
Column

Diagonal compression
fields transfer wide
beam forces to column

bc bc
Compressive
concrete
hc strut hc

min [bc /2, hc /4]

min [bc , 3hc /4]

Bending moment Bending moment

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Wide beam width limitation (a) NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006) (b) ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014)

whereas in Eurocode 8 (BSI, 2004), the wide beam width is
3: bw  min ðbc þ hb ; 2bc Þ
where hb is the beam depth.
It can be seen that the restriction of the wide beam width
varies with different design codes of practice. Moreover, the
design parameters of wide beam–column connections are inter-
related; hence loosening a restriction on one parameter may
require a further restriction of another parameter. Therefore,
it is important to develop a simplified and efficient analytical
model to quantify the influence of each individual key variable
on the overall limitation.
3. Parametric studies
A database of 26 tested interior wide beam–column
connections from the literature is presented in Table 1. Typical
geometries of the test specimens are shown in Figure 2(a).
Based on the experimental results, four types of failure mode
had been reported: (a) beam flexural failure (BF); (b) trans-
verse beam torsional failure (TF); (c) column flexural
failure (CF); and (d) joint shear failure (JF). Typical crack
patterns related to these failure modes are illustrated in
Figure 2(b).
According to these experimental studies, the flexural strength
of wide beam–column connections is mainly influenced by the
following five parameters: (a) geometries and reinforcement
details of the connection; (b) transverse beam strength and
stiffness; (c) ratio of column-to-beam moment strengths;
(d) bond and anchorage conditions; and (e) joint nominal
shear strength.
3.1 Geometries and reinforcement of the connection
Hatamoto et al. (1991) conducted a series of tests on six
interior connections with the beam width to column width
ratios bw/bc of 0·89, 1·77, 2·67 and 3·57, while the other
factors, such as the beam depth, hb, and column section,
bc
hc, were kept constant. Envelopes of the hysteresis
response of test specimens are shown in Figure 3(a). It is seen
that the initial beam yielding occurred at almost the same
deformation angle, regardless of the beam width ratio.
However, the deformation angle at which all beam bars
yielded was increased with the increase in the beam width
ratio. In particular for WB-4, in which the ratio of bw/bc
reached 3·57, none of the beam bars reached the yielding

3
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

Table 1. A database of tested specimens of wide beam–column connections

Failure
Reference Specimen bc: mm hc: mm bw: mm hb: mm L: mm An: % Mexp: kNm Mr mode

Hatamoto et al. (1991) WF-2 400 400 730 250 4000 50 238 233 BF
WF-3 400 400 730 250 4000 33 237 2·33 BF
WF-4 200 800 730 250 4000 17 257 2·5 BF
WB-2 200 200 350 125 1200 50 33 2·62 BF
WB-2C 200 200 350 125 1200 50 35 2·62 BF
WB-3 200 200 530 125 1200 33 43 1·74 TF
WB-3C 200 200 530 125 1200 33 50 1·74 BF
WB-4 200 200 710 125 1200 25 52 1·31 TF
Popov et al. (1992) UCB-1 430 430 750 225 3600 52 207 2·5 BF
Quintero and Wight (2001) IWB1 350 350 875 300 4450 48 293 1·3 BF
IWB2 350 350 650 300 4450 48 295 1·4 BF
IWB3 325 500 825 300 4450 52 321 1·6 BF
Siah et al. (2003) WBB-I1 250 250 1200 200 4800 20 176 0·86 TF
WBB-I2 250 250 1200 200 4800 20 171 0·86 CF
Nishimora et al. (2007) RC-2 240 240 500 160 1600 50 100 2·04 BF
RC-4 240 240 500 160 1600 50 75 2·04 BF
Benavent-Climent et al. IWB 230 230 700 165 2950 60 102 0·88 CF
(2009, 2010) IL 270 270 480 180 3300 45 117 1·13 TF
IU 210 210 360 180 3300 40 59 0·72 TF
Kulkarni and Li (2009)/Li IWB1 300 900 800 300 4000 38 626 4·3 BF
and Kulkarni, 2010) IWB3 300 900 800 300 4000 38 589 4·3 BF
Fadwa et al. (2014) IWBCC 400 450 900 300 3600 43 476 1·38 BF
Elsouri and Harajli (2015) IJ-F1 250 700 800 250 3350 25 298 1·82 JF
IJ-F2 700 250 800 250 3350 87 266 0·69 JF
UIJ-F1 250 700 800 250 3350 25 500 2·34 BF
UIJ-F2 700 250 800 250 3350 87 451 1·02 JF

bc hc
Column
Inside portion Column flexural crack
Joint shear crack
bw Transverse beam
bt = hc, ht = hb Beam
Outside portion flexural crack

ht hb
Beam
bt bo flexural crack
L
bc
bo Transverse beam
torsional crack Column
flexural crack

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Wide beam–column connection: (a) typical geometry of interior wide beam–column connection; (b) typical crack patterns

strain, even at a deformation angle of 4%. It is also seen from
Figure 3(a) that when a ratio of the beam width to column
width exceeds 2·67, the effective width becomes virtually con-
stant. This is because the outside portions of the wide beam
parallel to the direction of the drift had negligible deformation,
thus contributing no stiffness and strength to the beam.
Figure 3(b) shows the force–deformation response of specimen
WB-2. It is seen that the response is equal to the total response
of the inside and outside portions. It is also shown that
although the outside portion is effective immediately upon
loading, it yielded at a higher deformation compared with
the inside portion. This implies that the outside portion

4
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

100 Initial beam crack connections with transverse beams and slabs and then pro-
WB-4, bw /bc = 3·57 posed a beam width limitation as
Yielding (int)
80 Yielding (all) WB-3, bw /bc = 2·67
5: bw  bc þ 12hc
Force: kN

60
WB-2, bw /bc = 1·77

40 WB-1, bw /bc = 0·89

The effect of column depth on the seismic response of interior
20 wide beam–column connections was studied. The test results
of interior wide beam–column connections with rectangular
0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0
columns (specimens WF-4, IWB3, IWB1, IWB3 and UIJ-F1
Storey drift: %
in Table 1) indicated that these specimens performed well, with
(a) robust hysteresis behaviour and adequate energy dissipation.
From the structural point of view, increasing the column depth
100 in the beam–column connections will result in contributing to
Initial beam crack the development of bigger compressive struts on the side face
Yielding (int) of the column, excessive anchorage length for the beam longi-
80
Yielding (all)
tudinal bars, larger column-to-beam strength ratio and stron-
WB-2
ger transverse beams.
Force: kN

60

40 lnside portion of WB-2 Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI, 2004) imposes the limit on
the wide beam width to the column width and beam depth.
20 Outside portion of WB-2 The reason is to enhance the bonding of column reinforcement
by increasing the beam depth. However, the influence of beam
0 depth on the overall behaviour of wide beam–column connec-
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0
tions has not been investigated experimentally. The results of
Storey drift: %
an experimental study on conventional beam–column connec-
(b)
tions (Wong and Kuang, 2008) showed that changing the
Figure 3. Envelopes of hysteresis response of test specimens: beam depth has a certain effect on the shear resistance of the
(a) WB series of specimens with different ratios of bw/bc; joint, in which the shear strength of the joint decreases signifi-
(b) specimen WB-2 cantly as the beam depth increases.

In addition to the geometrical parameters, reinforcement

contribution depends largely on the magnitude of the imposed
lateral drift. Based on these observations, Hatamoto et al.
(1991) suggested that, for the design of RC moment-resisting
frames, the beam to column width ratio should be limited to
less than two.
Gentry and Wight (1994) tested four exterior specimens with
(bw/bc) ratios of 2·14 and 2·43, including transverse beams.
The wrapping torsional crack during the test initiated at the
top of the connection and then moved outward from the side
face of the column at an approximate 45° angle. Based on the
test results, a beam width limitation is proposed as
4: bw  bc þ 2hc
LaFave and Wight (2001) tested three exterior RC wide beam–
column connections with transverse beams and slabs. Based on
the results of these tests, an upper limit of 3bc for the beam
width limitation was recommended. Quintero-Febres and
Wight (2001) tested three interior wide beam–column
detailing in a wide beam also plays a key role in effectively
transferring the shear forces and bending moments from the
wide beam to the column. The results of an experimental
study (Hatamoto et al., 1991) showed that, when all the
parameters were kept constant and only the percentage of wide
beam reinforcement anchored in the joint core decreased
(specimens WF-2 and WF-3 in Table 1), a severe pinching
phenomenon in the hysteresis response was observed.
Therefore, it was suggested that the amount of beam longitudi-
nal reinforcement placed in the outside portion of the beam
needs to be limited.
Paulay et al. (1978) recommended that at least three-quarters
of the beam longitudinal bars should pass through the joint
core. The revised ACI–ASCE 352-02 (ACI, 2002) provisions
recommend that at least one-third of flexural reinforcement in
a wide beam needs to be anchored in or through the joint core
to ensure adequate anchorage. From the specimens given in
Table 1, the percentages of beam top longitudinal reinforce-
ment anchorage in the joint core (An) are extracted and
plotted against the normalised moment capacity ratio of the
wide beams Mexp/Mn in Figure 4.

5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
1·50
ACI 352-02 BF TF
recommendation
JF CF
1·25
Mexp/Mn
1·00
Paulay et al. (1978)
0·75 recommendation
0·50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of anchorage in column core
Figure 4. Normalised moment capacity plotted against
percentage of top beam bars anchored in joint core
It is shown that, with 17% (WF-4, hc/bc = 4) and 25% (UIJ-F1,
hc/bc = 2·8) of the beam reinforcement anchored in the column
core, the specimens performed well; whereas with 40% (IU,
hc/bc = 1) and 45% (IL, hc/bc = 1) of the beam reinforcement
anchored in the column core, torsional failure of the transverse
beam occurred and the wide beam flexural strength was
decreased. This indicates that the percentage of the reinforce-
ment anchored outside the joint core may be increased when
the column depth is increased.
Hence, when a column aspect ratio hc/bc is equal to 1 (i.e. a
square column section), the percentage of the wide beam
reinforcement passing through the joint core should be higher
than 50%, whereas for a highly rectangular column (hc/bc > 3),
a lower percentage of 30% is enough. The percentage of the
beam top longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint
core is given by
6: An  maxð60  10hc =bc ; 30Þ%
3.2 Transverse beam dimensions and strength
Torsion in transverse beams is generated by a wide beam’s
longitudinal bars located at a distance from side faces of the
column. The results of tests on interior wide beam–column
connections without reinforcement in the transverse beams
showed that the transverse beams underwent severe torsion
cracking, and the ductility and ultimate energy dissipation
capacity were found to be much lower than those achieved
by well-behaving conventional beam–column connections
(Benavent-Climent, 2007; Siah et al., 2003). The poor perform-
ance and collapse of wide beam frame buildings due to the tor-
sional failure of transverse beams has also been reported
(Elsouri and Harajli, 2015; Fardis, 2009; Stehle et al., 2001).
Despite this fact, there are no code requirements for assessing
the torsion in interior wide beam–column connections. To
provide a method of determining the amount of reinforcement
6
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang
anchored in transverse beams, Gentry and Wight (1994)
assumed that the maximum applied torque in a transverse
beam should be smaller than twice the torsional cracking
strength of the beam, which is estimated by
pffiffiffiffiffi
7: Tc ¼ 0167 fc x2 y
where x and y are the effective rectangular dimensions of trans-
verse beams with x < y.
Figure 5 shows the torsional strength ratio Td/Tc of a trans-
verse beam plotted against the moment capacity ratio of a
wide beam Mexp/Mn, where the applied torsional moment of
the transfer beams Td can be calculated from tensile forces
of the wide beam longitudinal reinforcement placed outside a
distance of 0.25hc from each column face.
3.3 Ratio of column-to-beam moment strengths
To reduce the likelihood of yielding of columns under seismic
actions and to ensure that the strong column–weak beam
mechanism can be achieved, code provisions require that the
ratio of the sum of nominal flexural strengths of columns
∑Mnc (take into account the column axial load) to the sum of
nominal flexural strengths of beams ∑Mnb framing into the
joint, which is evaluated at joint interfaces, must be larger than
1. The ratios are 1·2, 1·3 and 2·06 for different seismic require-
ments in ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014), Eurocode 8 (BSI, 2004) and
NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006), respectively. Kuntz and Browning
(2003) reported that a strong column–weak beam mechanism
can only be achieved when this ratio is 4·0. Generally, the ratio
of column-to-beam flexural strengths is a crucial parameter
to govern the strength and failure mode of conventional
beam–column joints.
For those specimens presented in Table 1, the ratio of column-
to-beam flexural strengths (Mr) is extracted and plotted
against the ratio of Mexp/Mn, as shown in Figure 6. It is shown
1·50
Limit according to BF
Gentry and Wight (1994)
1·25 TF
Mexp/Mn
1·00
0·75
0·50
0 1·0 2·0 3·0 4·0 5·0 6·0 7·0 8·0 9·0 10·0
Td / Tc
Figure 5. Normalised moment capacity Mexp/Mn plotted against
applied torsional moment to torsional capacity ratio
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

1·50 factors, such as the effect of axial load, material strength and
ACI 318 Eurocode NZS 3101
limit limit BF TF ratio of compression to tension reinforcement. The relation-
8
limit CF JF ships between the hb/dc and hc/db ratios and failure modes for
1·25
various types of reinforcement used in specimens are shown in
Mexp/Mn

Figure 7 and Figure 8.

1·00
It is shown in Figure 7 that the ratios of hb/dc are between
0·75 9 and 19·2, which are lower than the ACI’s recommendation.
However, the experimental evidence has shown that the satis-
factory behaviour was achieved in cases of hb/dc less than 20.
0·50
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0 Therefore, it was recommended that the ratio of wide beam
Mr depth to column bar diameter may be as low as 16 when the
moment strength ratio exceeds 1·5 (LaFave and Wight, 2001).
Figure 6. Normalised moment capacity Mexp/Mn plotted against
column-to-beam strength ratio Mr To investigate the severity of the bond stresses in bars, the
bond demand is quantified by a non-dimensional parameter
known as the bond index (Otani et al., 1985). The bond index
that for a column-to-beam flexural strength ratio less than 1·2, (BI) is the maximum bond stress demand within the joint, nor-
torsional failure of the transverse beam (TF), joint shear malised by the square root of the concrete’s compressive
failure (JF) and column flexural failure (CF) were the domi-
nant modes of failure. It is also seen that the limit for the
moment strength ratio is a necessary condition for ensuring
1·50
the formation of a strong column–weak beam mechanism, but ACI 318
BF TF
it is not an adequate condition to ensure flexural yielding of limit
the wide beam. Even when Mr is larger than 1·2, torsional 1·25 CF JF
failure of the transverse beam may occur. LaFave and Wight
Mexp/Mn

(2001) recommended that for designing a wide-beam frame 1·00

system the value of Mr should be larger than 1·5.
0·75
In addition, a large value of Mr in wide beam–column connec-
tions will reduce the possibility of column bars slipping
0·50
through relatively shallow wide beams in the connection region 0 5·0 10·0 15·0 20·0 25·0
(LaFave and Wight, 2001). On the other hand, the effects of
hb/ dc (column bar)
slab effects, strain hardening of the beam reinforcement, earth-
quake-induced axial loads and biaxial bending of columns
Figure 7. Normalised moment capacity Mexp/Mn plotted
may also be considered. against ratio of beam depth to column bar diameter

3.4 Bond and anchorage conditions

The bond performance of longitudinal bars passing through a
joint along beams and columns plays a crucial role in the 1·50
ACI 318
BF TF
seismic behaviour of joints. The slippage of longitudinal bars limit
has a minor effect on the load-carrying capacity, but it results 1·25 CF JF
in a severe loss of the reloading stiffness and the energy dissi-
Mexp/Mn

pation capacity of a connecting region. In seismic conditions 1·00

involving reversed cyclic loading, the anchorage requirement is
very important for deciding the sizes of the members. The
0·75
design codes of practice have relevant suggestions regarding
the development length for exterior and interior connections.
According to ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014) the ratio of beam depth 0·50
0 10.0 20·0 30.0 40.0 50.0
to column longitudinal bars diameter (hb/dc), and the ratio of
hc / db (beam bar)
column depth to beam bar diameter should be larger than 20
and 24, respectively. While ACI prescribes the limits as con-
Figure 8. Normalised moment capacity Mexp/Mn plotted
stant values, Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI, 2004) and NZS against ratio of column depth to beam bar diameter
3101 (NZS, 2006) consider the contributions from various

7
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

strength, assuming that the beam bar yields in tension and the column-to-beam moment strength ratios are kept at more
compression on opposite sides of the joint than 1·5.

ub db fy 3.5 Joint shear

8: BI ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi
fc 2hc fc The level of shear stress is an important factor influencing
both the strength and stiffness of the joint. The codes restrict
the nominal shear stress depending on the compressive
where ub is the maximum bond stress of the beam reinforce-
strength of the concrete and axial load of the column. One
ment over the column width. The values of BI for beam and
way to effectively limit joint shear stresses and consequently
column bars can be calculated in the same manner. Kitayama
joint diagonal cracking is to use a wide beam construction
et al. (1991) recommended that the value of BI should be less
(LaFave and Wight, 2001). With respect to conventional
than 1·4, while Bonacci and Pantazoupoulou (1993) suggested
beam–column joints, there are three mechanisms which
a value of lower than 1·7. Larger values of BI correspond to
decrease the level of shear stresses in the joint area.
the increased risk of anchorage failure and significant slip in
the bars. Figure 9 shows the normalised moment capacity
First, the beam wraps around the column at the joint and this
Mexp/Mn against the ratio of BI for column and beam bars.
region participates in resisting joint shear, as noted in
Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI, 2004) and NZS 3101 (NZS,
It is seen from Figure 9(a) that the values of BI for column
2006), which considered a larger effective area for shear resist-
bars are higher than 1·7, ranging from 2·15 to 4·39. Because
ance, as shown in Figure 10. The confinement provided by the
the beams were shallow in the wide beam specimens, the bond
wide beam can effectively reduce the average joint shear stress,
behaviour of these bars was inferior, as it was based on hb/dc
resulting in less joint diagonal cracking. Second, the longitudi-
values in Figure 7. To minimise the amount of connection
nal reinforcement in a wide beam outside the column core on
flexibility, it is suggested to limit the bond index to less than
each side transfers forces through the torsion in the transverse
1·7 for beam bars and less than 2·1 for column bars, while
beams. Hence, part of the torsional moment in transverse
beams can be balanced by the tensile force in longitudinal bars
of transverse beams, as shown in Figure 10. This load transfer
1·50 Bonacci and
mechanism reduces the applied shear stress in the joint area.
Kitayama et al. Pantazoupoulou BF TF Finally, regarding the configuration of a wide beam and
(1991) (1993)
limit CF JF column, these types of joints normally have a low ratio of
1·25 limit
beam-to-column depths. Previous tests on conventional unrein-
forced exterior joints (Wong and Kuang, 2008) indicated that
Mexp/Mn

1·00 the joint strength was inversely proportional to the joint aspect
ratio, indicating that the shear strength of joints increases as
0·75 the joint aspect ratio decreases. This is also based on the fact
that the steeper diagonal strut results in less effective shear
resistance to equilibrate the horizontal joint shear forces (Park
0·50
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 and Mosalam, 2012).
BI (column bar)
(a) According to the ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014) provisions, to
1·50 prevent joint shear failure before beam hinging, the shear
Kitayama et al. Bonacci and BF TF strength, Vj, shouldp beffiffiffiffiffi smaller than the joint nominal shear
(1991) Pantazoupoulou (1993)
limit limit strength, Vn ¼ γbc hc fc , where γ is 1·67 for joints confined on
1·25 CF JF
all four sides, 1·25 for joints confined on three faces or two
Mexp/Mn

opposite faces and 1·0 for others.

1·00
Figure 11(a) shows that the actual joint shear force exceeds the
0·75 ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014) limit when the effective joint width bj
is taken as the column width bc, where the margin of joint
0·50
shear strength is larger than 1; but these joints did not encoun-
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 ter shear failure or shear strength degradation within the joint
BI (beam bar) core. This implies that the limit specified in ACI 318-14
(b) (ACI, 2014) is conservative when applied to the interior wide
beam–column connections. In fact, in the design process of a
Figure 9. Normalised moment capacity Mexp/Mn plotted
against bond index (BI): (a) for column bars; (b) for beam bars wide beam–column frame building according to the ACI code,
the governing design parameter for wide beam longitudinal

8
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

Transverse
(spandrel)
Area resisting joint beam
shear stresses according
to NZS and Eurocode 8
Area resisting joint
shear stresses according
to ACI 318-14
Cu (back)

Tu (back) Bars anchored in

transverse beam
Tensile force in transverse Bars anchored in
beam longitudinal bars column core Tu
due to torsion

Compression stress
Compression force on
block from wide beam
concrete due to torsion
Torsional shear flow
from the transverse
beam into the joint

Figure 10. Horizontal joint shear and torsional force transfer in an exterior wide beam–column connection

1·50 reinforcement is the joint shear capacity. Figure 11(b) shows

ACI 318 limit BF TF the case when the effective joint width bj is taken as
bj = bc
(bc + 0·5hc). It can be seen from Figure 11 that the effective
1·25 JF
joint width bj = (bc + 0.5hc), thus the effective joint area is
Mexp/Mn

(bc + 0·5hc)hc, gives a reasonable value for calculating the shear

1·00
resistance of a wide beam–column joint.

0·75 From the experimental database and the parametric studies, in

the seismic design of wide beam–column connections, special
0·50 considerations should be taken into account, which include
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 preventing the torsional failure of transverse beams, preventing
Vj / Vn ACI joint shear failure, prohibiting excessive bond deterioration
(a) and reducing the shear lag effect. If the torsional failure of
transverse beams, shear failure of joints and occurrence of
1·50
ACI 318 limit BF TF
excessive bond deterioration are prevented by doing reinforce-
bj = bc + 0·5hc ment details in the wide beam, the effect of shear lag will be
JF
1·25 related largely to the connection geometry, in particular the
Mexp/Mn

ratio of beam-to-column width), which can be minimised by

1·00 considering the beam width limitation.

0·75
4. Effective beam-width model
0·50 To analytically develop an effective beam-width model, it is
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 assumed that the contra-flexure point of columns is at the
Vj / Vn ACI mid-height of the storey, while that of wide beams is at its
(b) mid-span. A typical interior wide beam–column connection is
shown in Figure 12(a), where L is the beam length. The wide
Figure 11. Normalised moment capacity Mexp/Mn plotted against beam moment is transferred to the column through two paths.
normalised joint shear stress based on ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014): The first path relies on the column width bc, which transfers
(a) joint effective area equal to bchc; (b) joint effective area equal
to (bc + 0·5hc)hc loads through the formation of a strut-and-tie mechanism. The
second path is the outside portion bo, where the wide beam

9
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

hc
Similar modelling techniques have been adopted through using
First load path bc the equivalent frame representation for modelling slab–column
(inside portion) Column
connections (Hwang and Moehle, 2000; Luo and Durrani,
height, H
1995; MacGregor et al., 1997; Vanderbilt, 1979), non-planar
bw Second load path beam–wall connections (Behnam et al., 2016; Kwan and
L (outside portion) Chan, 2000; Lin and Shi, 2010; Marques and Horowitz,
2013) and wide beam–column connections (Benavent-Climent,
2007).
hb
4.1 Basic formulation
bt bo
Transverse beam When the tip of the column connected to the wide beam is
bc subjected to horizontal lateral loading, the wide beam–column
bt = hc, ht = hb bo
joint rotates, thus causing bending of the inside portion and
twisting of the transverse beam that causes bending of the
outside portions. The total rotational stiffness of the wide
(a) beam–column connection can be evaluated by

Late
ral l 9: Ktotal ¼ Ki þ 2Ko
oad

where Ki is the inside portion rotational stiffness and Ko is

Outs Joint region the rotational stiffness of the overall outside portion,
ide beam bchc
Ko which includes the transverse beam. The inside portion
1
Insid rotational stiffness Ki can be determined according to struc-
e be Outs
am K ide tural mechanics of a given beam that is hinged at both ends
Outs i beam
ide beam and is subjected to a concentrated moment at mid-span.
Insid Ko
Ko e be 1
1 Outs am K Hence
ide beam i
Spandrel beam Kts Ko
1
12EIi L2
10: Ki ¼
Column ðL  hc Þ3
element

where E is the elastic modulus of the concrete, L is the beam

(b)
Figure 12. Load transfer mechanism and analytical modelling of
a wide beam–column connection: (a) two load transfer paths;
(b) modelling a wide beam-column connection
length, hc is the column depth, and Ii ¼ bc h3b =12 is the second
moment of area of the inside beam with a width of bc.
Since the outside beam rotational stiffness Ko1 and transverse
beam torsional stiffness Kts act as a series of springs, the
rotational stiffness of overall outside portion Ko can be
expressed as

1 1 1
11: ¼ þ
moment is transferred from the outside portions to the column Ko Ko1 Kts
through torsion in the transverse beam.
where the outside beam rotational stiffness is given by
An analytical model for determining the effective width of
wide beams is derived based on Figure 12(b), where the wide 12EIo L2
beam is subdivided into three fictitious parallel elements. The 12: Ko1 ¼
ðL  hc Þ3
‘inside portion’ (i.e. the first load path) is connected directly to
the joint, whereas the ‘outside portions’ (i.e. the second load
path) are connected to the joint through torsional springs that where Io ¼ bo h3b =12 is the second moment of area of the
characterise the torsional behaviour of the transverse beam. outside beam with a width of bo.
The column is considered as a single element directly con-
nected to the joint. Each element has the same dimension as 4.2 Torsional stiffness of transverse beam
the representing element. It is assumed that the column and The torsional stiffness of transverse beam Kts can be estimated
joint remain elastic, which follows the seismic design principle using the equivalent frame model (Vanderbilt, 1979). The joint
of strong column–weak beam. region of a wide beam–column connection is presented in

10
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

Wide beam bw Tx applied to the transverse beam is then obtained by the inte-
gral of tx, as shown in Figure 13(c).

bc
The corresponding sectional curvature ϕx and torsional
rotation θx of the transverse beam can then be calculated by
hc
ðx
Tx
ϕx ¼ and θx ¼ ϕx dx
CG 0

Transverse beam Column

where C is the torsional constant and G is the shear modulus.
Distributions of the sectional curvature and corresponding
torsional rotation along the transverse beam are shown in
T=1 Figures 13(d) and 13(e), respectively.

When the average torsional rotation of the transverse beam is

(a) tx,max = 2 taken as one-third of the maximum one and the shear
4 bw
tx = 2
x modulus G is half of the Young’s modulus E, the torsional
bw
stiffness of transverse beams is given by

(b) 9CE
x 13: Kts ¼
Tmax = 1 bw ð1  bc =bw Þ3
2 2 2
tx = 2
x
bw
where C is the torsional constant. For bt > ht = hb

(c)
2 2 x (1 – bc /bw)2 14: C ¼ hc h3b ðη  063hb =hc Þ=3
φx = 2
x φmax =
CGbw 2CG

in which

(d)
x bw bc 3 15: η ¼ bt =hc
12CG ( b )
2 θmax = 1–
θx = x3 w
3CGbw2

Details of the derivation of the torsional stiffness of transverse

(e)
Figure 13. Joint region of a wide beam–column connection:
(a) joint region and a unit twisting moment applied over wide
beam width, bw; (b) distributed torsional moment of transverse
beam; (c) corresponding twisting moment; (d) sectional curvature;
(e) torsional rotation along transverse beam
beam, Kts, Equation 13, and of the torsional constant C,
Equation 14, are presented in the Appendix.
By substituting Equations 12 and 13 into Equation 11, the
overall outside portion torsional stiffness, Ko, can be calcu-
lated. The total stiffness of the wide beam can then be found
from Equation 9

12EIi L2 36EIo L2 hc h3b ðη  063hb =hc Þ

16: Ktotal ¼ 3
þ2
ðL  hc Þ 4bw ð1  bc =hc Þ3 Io L2 þ 3ðη  063hb =hc ÞðL  hc Þ3 hc h3b

Figure 13(a), which includes two transverse beams, one on
each side of the column. Consider a unit twisting moment
(T = 1) applied over the width of wide beam bw, as exhibited in
Figure 13(a). The corresponding distributed torsional moment
tx along the transverse beam is shown in Figure 13(b), where
the linear distribution of the distributed torsional moment is
assumed with a maximum value of 2/bw. The twisting moment
It is assumed that the total rotational stiffness at the beam–
column joint of the equivalent frame is equal to the rotational
stiffness of the effective beam with width of be. The rotational
stiffness of the given effective beam can be calculated by
17: Ke ¼ 12EIe L2 =ðL  hc Þ3

11
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

where Ie ¼ be h3b =12 is the second moment of area of the effec- ratios from the design codes ACI 318 (ACI, 2014), Eurocode 8
tive width of be. By equating Equations 16 and 17, the effective (BSI, 2004) and NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006) are 5·42, 29·93 and
width of wide beam is determined by 24·50, respectively, with coefficients of variation of 102·48%,

6bo hc ðη  063hb =hc Þ

18: be ¼ bc þ
3hc ðη  063hb =hc Þ þ bo ðL=bw Þ2 ½ðbw  bc Þ=ðL  hc Þ3

It is shown from Equation 18 that the effective width of the
wide beam is a function of several design variables, including
the beam and column cross-sectional dimensions, transverse
beam dimension and beam length.
5. Verification of the proposed effective
beam-width model
The proposed effective width model of a wide beam for design
is verified based on test results in the database. The beam
effective widths are estimated by Equation 18 and by
Equations 1, 2 and 3 from NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006), ACI 318
(ACI, 2014) and Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI, 2004),
respectively. A comparison of predictions by the proposed
model with those by the design codes of practice is presented
in Table 2.
The 20 tests analysed by the proposed model have a mean
ratio of experimental to predicted flexural strengths of 4·83
with a coefficient of variation of 97·7%, whereas the mean
204·07% and 228·39%. It is seen that both Eurocode 8 (BS EN
1998-1; BSI, 2004) and NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006) show a rela-
tively large deviation in the strength prediction, thus indicating
that the beam width limitations in these codes are too conser-
vative. Therefore, the overall correlation of the proposed model
is considered to be satisfactory in predicting the effective wide
beam width in view of the wide range of variables involved
and the variety of test sources.
6. Wide beam width limitation
6.1 Formulation
The procedure presented in the previous section for estimate of
the beam effective width is suitable for the cases in which all
the design parameters, including beam width, column dimen-
sion and beam length are known variables, such as in existing
buildings. However, in the design stage it is desirable to find
the beam width based on other design variables. Comparing
the proposed effective width calculated by Equation 18 to the
real beam width bw = (bc + 2bo), it is shown that the effective

Table 2. Effective wide beam width predicted by proposed model and design codes
Effective wide beam width, be: mm (Mexp − Mpredict)/Mpredict: %

Proposed ACI 318 Eurocode 8 NZS 3101 Proposed ACI 318 Eurocode 8 NZS 3101
Specimen model (ACI, 2014) (BSI, 2004) (NZS, 2006) model (ACI, 2014) (BSI, 2004) (NZS, 2006)

WF-2 727 730 650 600 −1·80 −2·22 8·98 15·98

WF-3 727 730 650 600 −2·27 −2·69 8·56 15·59
WF-4 700 600 400 400 9·52 22·44 48·30 48·30
WB-2 348 350 325 300 2·52 1·96 8·96 15·96
WB-2C 349 350 325 300 8·16 7·90 14·48 21·06
WB-3 491 500 325 300 −3·19 −5·09 31·69 36·95
WB-3C 501 500 325 300 8·15 8·33 40·41 45·00
WB-4 558 500 325 300 −10·11 1·33 35·87 40·80
UCB-1 747 750 655 645 0·37 −0·03 12·64 13·97
IWB1 858 875 650 525 11·73 9·98 33·13 45·99
IWB2 648 650 650 525 13·57 13·31 13·31 29·98
IWB3 812 825 625 575 −0·22 −1·83 22·86 29·03
RC-2 492 500 400 360 8·54 7·06 25·64 33·08
RC-4 492 500 400 360 21·95 20·68 36·55 42·89
IL 479 480 450 405 −22·78 −23·04 −15·35 −3·81
IWB1 782 800 600 600 4·85 2·66 26·99 26·99
IWB3 782 800 600 600 0·79 −1·49 23·88 23·88
UIJ-F1 762 750 500 500 10·09 11·51 41·00 41·00
UIJ-F2 800 800 800 800 6·60 6·60 6·60 6·60
IWBCC 887 900 700 625 16·48 15·25 34·09 41·15
Mean ratio 4·83 5·42 29·93 24·50
Coefficient of variation (COV): % 97·70 102·48 204·07 228·39

12
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

beam width is always smaller than the real beam width. For 6.2 Comparison of predictions by proposed model and
design purposes, it is very important that the effective width design codes
and design beam width should become very close, such that To compare the proposed beam width limitation and those
the difference between the two values is negligible (i.e. bw ≈ be). calculated by the codes of practice, an interior wide
To this end and to simplify the mathematical derivation, it is beam–column connection is studied, in which bc = 450 mm,
presumed that hc = 450 mm, hb = 300 mm and L = 4500, 6750 and 9000 mm.
It is seen from Figure 14 that the wide beam width limitation
19: be  bc ¼ 099ðbw  bc Þ is affected by the column cross-sectional dimensions, beam
depth, beam length and transverse beam width. Various com-
binations of beam and column dimensions will lead to differ-
ent effective beam widths.
Substituting Equation 18 into Equation 19 gives
From Figure 14(a) it is seen that the proposed beam width
4 3
20: ðbw  bc Þ =b2w ¼ 006ðL  hc Þ ðη  063hb =hc Þhc =L 2 limitation increases with the increase in the beam length, but
for the codes’ other models it remains constant. In general,
values of the proposed beam width limitation are smaller than
those predicted by ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014), but larger than
Let
those predicted by Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI, 2004) and
NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006). It is also seen that the beam width
21: γ ¼ 025hc ½ðλ  1Þ3 ðη  063hb =hc Þ=λ2 05 limitation given by Eurocode 8 (BSI, 2004) always remains
constant with changes of the column depth, while it becomes
constant when values of hc/450 are 1·5 and 2·0 for ACI 318
(ACI, 2014) and NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006), respectively.
22: λ ¼ L=hc Figure 14(b) shows that the beam width limitation predicted
by Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI, 2004) increases with the
increase in the beam depth and remains constant by ACI 318
(ACI, 2014) and NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006), while the proposed
Equation 20 can be expressed by
beam width limitations show a slight reduction with the
increase in the beam depth.
23: b2w þ bw ð2bc  γÞ þ b2c ¼ 0
It is also noticed that the proposed model does not have an
upper limit. However, from ACI-318 (ACI, 2014), the ratio of
Solving Equation 23 for the beam width gives column depth to beam width increases to the upper bound of
3bc and becomes the control criterion for the beam width
limitation, as indicated by Equation 2. In other words, the
24: bw ¼ bc þ βhc
ACI 318-14 (ACI, 2014) limit does not consider the effect of
the rectangular column when hc/bc > 1·4 on the beam width
where limitation. However, the proposed model considers the effect
of different column dimensions. In addition, the current codes
β ¼0125½ðλ  1Þ3 ðη  063hb =hc Þ=λ2 05 of practice do not explicitly consider the influence of impor-
8 " #05 9 tant design variables, such as the beam length and transverse
25: < 16λðbc =hc Þ = beam dimensions on the wide beam width limitation.
1þ 1þ
: ðλ  1Þ15 ðη  063hb =hc Þ05 ;
The beam width limitations of specimens in the database are
calculated using the proposed model Equation 24. All pre-
dicted values are expressed in a normalised form as a ratio of
Equation 24 is a common form for the wide beam width the prediction by the proposed model to the calculated value
limitation used by researchers and given in the codes of prac- of beam width limitation by design codes (Equations 1–3),
tice. Equation 25 can be the theoretical explanation to show which are presented in bar chart forms in Figure 15. It is seen
why different values of β are considered as 0·5, 1·2, 1·5 and 2 that the 18 tests analysed by the proposed model have mean
in Equations 1, 2, 4 and 5. It is also seen from Equation 24 ratios of the predicted beam width limitations to those calcu-
that the wide beam width limitation is a function of the lated by design codes of 0·775, 1·298 and 1·17 with coefficients
column width and depth and value of β, which depends on of variation of 1%, 0·9% and 1·2% for ACI 318 (ACI, 2014),
the beam length, transverse beam width and column aspect NZS 3101 (NZS, 2006) and Eurocode 8 (BS EN 1998-1; BSI,
ratio. 2004), respectively.

13
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

4·0
Equation 24, L = 9000 mm
3·5
Equation 24, L = 6750 mm

3·0 Equation 24, L = 4500 mm

bw /450

2·5 ACI 318-14

2·0 NZS 3101

Eurocode 8
1·5

1·0
1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0
hc/450
(a)

4·0
Equation 24, L = 9000 mm
3·5
Equation 24, L = 6750 mm

3·0 Equation 24, L = 4500 mm

bw /450

2·5 ACI 318-14

NZS 3101
2·0

Eurocode 8
1·5

1·0
1·0 1·1 1·2 1·3 1·4
hb/300
(b)

Figure 14. Comparison of width limitation by proposed model and codes of practice: (a) effect of column depth; (b) effect of beam
depth

7. Concluding remarks
7.1 Summary
In this paper, parametric studies are first conducted in detail to
investigate the effects of the key influence factors on the
seismic behaviour of RC wide beam–column connections
based on 26 available test results of interior wide beam–
column joints. It is found that the structural response of RC
beam–column connections are influenced largely by: (a) geo-
metry and reinforcement details of the connection; (b) percen-
tage of the wide beam reinforcement anchored into the joint
core; (c) dimensions and strength of transverse beams; (d) the
ratio of column to beam moments; (e) bond and anchorage
conditions; and ( f ) the joint shear strength.
An analytical-based, effective beam width limitation of wide
beam–column connections is derived for designing the wide
beam width. The proposed effective beam-width model con-
siders the effect of torsion applied by transverse beams and
flexure around the joint. The validity of the proposed model is
verified by the accurate flexural strength predictions of the test
specimens in the database, covering a wide range of design

14
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

2·0
bmodel /bACI bmodel /bNZS bmodel /bEC8
1·5
Model/code

1·0

0·5

0
2

1
B1
B2

B3

-I
-2

IL
IU

B
B1

IW 2
C
F-

F-

B-

B-

B-

B-

BB

IW

J-F

J-F
BC
RC
IW
IW

IW

IW
W

W
UC

UI

UI
Specimens

Figure 15. Ratios of proposed beam width limitation to those calculated by design codes

parameters involved and variety of test sources. After combin-
ing the proposed effective beam-width model and the rational
analytical approach, a simple and efficient, yet accurate, design
formula is presented for determining the beam width limit-
ation. The proposed formula gives a very good description of
the effect of design parameters, such as the force transfer from
transverse beams, column and beam dimensions, and so on,
and provides a very useful tool for designing the effective wide
beam width in the seismic design of wide beam–column frame
buildings.
7.2 Design recommendations
On the basis of this study, the following design recommen-
dations on the wide beam width limit of wide beam–column
connections can be drawn.
(a) For designing a wide beam–column connection, the
beam width should be limited to bw ≤ bc + βhc, where β is
calculated using Equation 25.
(b) The effective joint width should be taken as
bj = min(bw; bc + 0·5hc) for calculating the shear
resistance of a wide beam–column joint.
(c) For wide beam–column connections with a square
column section (hc/bc = 1), percentage of the beam
reinforcement that passes through the joint core should
not be less than 50%, whereas for a rectangular column
section with hc/bc > 3, a lower percentage of 30% may be
enough, as indicated in Equation 6.
(d) To avoid brittle torsional failure of transverse beams, the
limit (Gentry and Wight, 1994) that the maximum
applied torsional moment in a transverse beam should be
smaller than twice the torsional cracking strength of the
beam may be adopted. The applied torsional moment
can be calculated from tensile forces of the wide beam
longitudinal reinforcement placed outside a distance of
0·25hc from the column face (i.e. outside the effective
joint width bj ). Torsional cracking capacity of the
transverse beam may be determined using Equation 7.
(e) Longitudinal reinforcement in transverse beams should
be provided to enhance the joint confinement and reduce
cracks around the joint.
( f ) The ratio of column to beam flexural strengths Mr is a
crucial factor for the response of the connections. A value
of Mr greater than 1·5 for design is recommended.
Increasing the column depth to enhance this ratio is
desirable from a structural point of view.
(g) To minimise the connection flexibility, it is suggested to
limit the bond index BI to less than 1·7 with hc/db > 20
for beam bars and less than 2·1 with hb/dc > 16 for
column bars, respectively, while the ratio of column to
beam flexural strengths is kept higher than 1·5.
Appendix
A1.1 Derivation of torsional stiffness of transverse
beam, Kts
A wide beam–column connection is shown in Figure 13(a),
which includes two transverse beams, one on each side of the
column. The widths of wide beam and column are bw and bc,
respectively, and the length of transverse beam is (bw–bc)/2,
which is a part of the outside portion of the wide beam.
Consider a unit twisting moment, T = 1, applied to transverse
beams over the width of a wide beam bw, as exhibited in
Figure 13(a). Linear distribution of the distributed torsional
moment tx along transverse beams is assumed with the
maximum value at the column centreline, as shown in
Figure 13(b); thus the total corresponding distributed torsional
moment should be equal to (bw/2)tmax, where tmax is the
maximum distributed torsional moment. Therefore
bw
T¼ tmax ¼ 1
2
hence
2
tmax ¼
bw

15
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang

It is seen from Figure 13(b) that the distributed torsional In Equation 31, θave is derived only for one of the two trans-
moment tx along the transverse beam is given by verse beams; thus T = 0·5 should be used in Equation 32.
Therefore, Equation 32 becomes
4
26: tx ¼ x
b2w 05 18CG
33: Kts ¼ ¼
bw ð1  bc =bw Þ3 =36CG bw ð1  bc =bw Þ3

The corresponding twisting moment Tx of the transverse beam

is then calculated by the integral of the distributed torsional By taking the shear modulus as half of the Young’s modulus,
moment tx that is, G = E/2, the torsional stiffness of the transverse beam
ðx ðx given by Equation 33 is rewritten as Equation 13
4 2
27: Tx ¼ tx dx ¼ xdx ¼ 2 x2
0 0 b2w bw
9CE
13: Kts ¼
bw ð1  bc =bw Þ3

The distribution of Tx is shown in Figure 13(c). The sectional

curvature of the transverse beam caused by the twisting
moment Tx is given by

Tx 2x2
28: ϕx ¼ ¼ A1.2 Derivation of torsional constant of transverse
CG CGb2w
beam, C
From the theory of elasticity, the torsional constant for a rec-
where C is the torsional constant and G is the shear modulus. tangular cross-section of a beam can be expressed by
The distribution of sectional curvature along the transverse
beam is shown in Figure 13(d). The torsional rotations of the 34: C ¼ αsx s3y
corresponding transverse beam sections are then calculated by
ðx ðx where sx and sy are the larger and smaller dimensions of the
2 2
29: θx ¼ ϕx dx ¼ x2 dx ¼ x3 section, respectively; α is a numerical coefficient, which is a
0 0 CGb2w 3CGb2w
function of the ratio of cross-sectional dimensions (sy/sx). The
coefficient α of the transverse beam can analytically be
approximated by
The distribution of torsional rotations along the transverse
beam is shown in Figure 13(e). Substituting x = (bw–bc)/2 into
35: α ¼ 1=3  021sy =sx
Equation 29 gives the maximum torsional rotation of the
transverse beam

bw Substituting Equation 35 into Equation 34 gives

30: θmax ¼ ð1  bc =bw Þ3
12CG
36: C ¼ sx s3y ðη  063sy =sx Þ=3

It is seen from Figure 13(e) that, as the distribution is para-

bolic, the average value of torsional rotation of the transverse For a wide beam–column connection, the width of transverse
beam can be taken as one-third of the maximum value θmax, beam is usually larger than its depth, that is, bt > ht, and trans-
that is verse beams have the same depth as the wide beam, that is,
ht = hb. In design practice, the transverse beam width is com-
bw
31: θave ¼ ð1  bc =bw Þ3 monly equal to or larger than the column depth, namely,
36CG bt ≥ hc. By taking sx = bt = ηhc and sy = ht = hb, the torsional
constant of the transverse beam expressed by Equation 36 can
be written as Equation 14,
The torsional stiffness of the transverse beam is given by
14: C ¼ hc h3b ðη  063hb =hc Þ=3
T
32: Kts ¼
θave
where η = bt/hc.

16
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
Acknowledgement
The support of the Hong Kong Research Council under grant
numbers 613712 and 16209115 is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2002) ACI-ASCE 352:
Recommendations for design of beam–column joints in monolithic
reinforced concrete structures (ACI352R-02). American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI (2014) ACI 318: ACI 318-14: Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Behnam H, Kuang JS and Huang Q (2016) Equivalent frame analysis
for effective wall width of nonplanar beam–wall connections.
The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tal.1303.
Benavent-Climent A (2007) Seismic behavior of RC wide beam–column
connections under dynamic loading. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 11(4): 493–511.
Benavent-Climent A, Cahís X and Zahran R (2009) Exterior wide
beam–column connections in existing RC frames subjected
to lateral earthquake loads. Engineering Structures 31(7):
1414–1424.
Benavent-Climent A, Cahís X and Vico J (2010) Interior wide
beam–column connections in existing RC frames subjected to
lateral earthquake loading. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
8(2): 401–420.
Bonacci J and Pantazoupoulou S (1993) Parametric investigation of
joint mechanics. ACI Structural Journal 90(1): 61–71.
BSI (2004) BS EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings. BSI, London, UK.
Elsouri A and Harajli M (2015) Interior RC wide beam–narrow column
joints: potential for improving seismic resistance. Engineering
Structures 99: 42–55.
Fadwa I, Ali TA, Nazih E and Sara M (2014) Reinforced concrete wide
and conventional beam–column connections subjected to lateral
load. Engineering Structures 76: 34–48.
Fardis MN (2009) Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of
Concrete Buildings: Based on EN-Eurocode 8. Springer,
London, UK.
Gentry TR and Wight JK (1994) Wide beam–column connections
under earthquake-type loading. Earthquake Spectra 10(4):
675–703.
Hatamoto H, Bessho S and Matsuzaki Y (1991) Reinforced concrete
wide-beam-to-column subassemblages subjected to lateral
load. In Design of Beam–Column Joints for Seismic Resistance
(Jirsa JO (ed.)). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, USA, ACI Publications SP-123, pp. 291–316.
Hwang SJ and Lee HJ (1999) Analytical model for predicting
shear strengths of exterior reinforced concrete beam–column
joints for seismic resistance. ACI Structural Journal 96(5):
846–858.
Hwang SJ and Moehle JP (2000) Models for laterally loaded
slab–column frames. ACI Structural Journal 97(2): 345–352.
Kim J and LaFave JM (2007) Key influence parameters for the joint
shear behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC) beam–column
connections. Engineering Structures 29(10): 2523–2539.
Kitayama K, Otani S and Aoyama H (1991) Development of design
criteria for RC interior beam–column joints. In Design of
Beam–Column Joints for Seismic Resistance (Jirsa JO (ed.)).
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, ACI
Publications SP-123, pp. 97–124.
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang
Kuang JS and Wong HF (2006) Effects of beam bar and anchorage on
beam–column joint behaviour. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings 159(2): 115–124,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.2006.159.2.115.
Kuang JS and Wong HF (2013) Horizontal hoops in non-seismically
designed beam–column joints. HKIE Transactions 20(3):
164–171.
Kulkarni SA and Li B (2009) Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete
interior wide beam–column joints. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 13(1): 80–99.
Kuntz GL and Browning J (2003) Reduction of column yielding during
earthquakes for reinforced concrete frames. ACI Structural Journal
100(5): 573–580.
Kwan AKH and Chan WT (2000) Non-planar beam–wall joints in
tall building structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Structures and Buildings 140(1): 73–83.
LaFave JM and Wight JK (1999) Reinforced concrete exterior
wide beam–column–slab connections subjected to
lateral earthquake loading. ACI Structural Journal 96(4):
577–585.
LaFave JM and Wight JK (2001) Reinforced concrete wide-beam
construction vs. conventional construction: resistance
to lateral earthquake loads. Earthquake Spectra 17(3):
479–505.
Lee J, Kim J and Oh G (2009) Strength deterioration of reinforced
concrete beam–column joints subjected to cyclic loading.
Engineering Structures 31(9): 2070–2085.
Li B and Kulkarni SA (2010) Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete
exterior wide beam–column joints. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 136(1): 26–36.
Lin H and Shi Z (2010) Numerical analysis for the out-of-plane response
of a reinforced concrete wall beam joint. International Journal for
Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics
11(1): 37–47.
Luo Y and Durrani A (1995) Equivalent beam model for flat-slab
buildings: part I: interior connections. ACI Structural Journal
92(1): 115–124.
MacGregor JG, Wight JK, Teng S and Irawan P (1997) Reinforced
Concrete: Mechanics and Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, vol. 3.
Marques SP and Horowitz B (2013) Flexibility modeling of reinforced
concrete concentric frame joints. IBRACON Structural and
Materials Journal 6(3): 360–374.
Mitra N and Lowes LN (2004) Evaluation and advancement of a
reinforced concrete beam–column joint model. Proceedings of
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
Canada, pp. 1–6.
Nishimura K, Takiguchi K, Hotta H, Tsuneki Y, Koitabashi Y and
Nakanishi N (2007) Development of reinforced concrete flat
beam and column joint system. Third International Conference
on Urban Earthquake Engineering, March 6–7. Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
NZS (Standards New Zealand) (2006) NZS 3101: The design of concrete
structures. Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Otani S, Kitayama K, Aoyama H, Daigaku T and Kyōshitsu KG (1985)
Beam Bar Bond Stress and Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Interior Beam–Column Connections. Department of Architecture,
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Park S and Mosalam KM (2012) Analytical model for predicting shear
strength of unreinforced exterior beam–column joints. ACI
Structural Journal 109(2): 149–160.
Paulay T, Park R and Preistley M (1978) Reinforced concrete
beam–column joints under seismic actions. ACI Journal
Proceedings 75(11): 585–593.
17
 Structures and Buildings
Popov EP, Cohen JM, Koso-Thomas K and Kasai K (1992) Behavior of
interior narrow and wide beams. ACI Structural Journal 89(6):
607–616.
Quintero-Febres CG and Wight JK (2001) Experimental study of
reinforced concrete interior wide beam–column connections
subjected to lateral loading. ACI Structural Journal 98(4): 572–582.
Siah W, Stehle J, Mendis P and Goldsworthy H (2003) Interior wide beam
connections subjected to lateral earthquake loading. Engineering
Structures. 25(3): 281–291.
Stehle JS, Goldsworthy H and Mendis P (2001) Reinforced concrete
interior wide-band beam-column connections subjected to lateral
earthquake loading. ACI Structural Journal 98(3): 270–279.
18
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [14/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effective beam width of reinforced-
concrete wide beam–column connections
Kuang, Behnam and Huang
Vanderbilt MD (1979) Equivalent frame analysis for lateral loads.
Journal of the Structural Division 105(10): 1981–1998.
Wang G, Dai J and Teng J (2012) Shear strength model for RC
beam–column joints under seismic loading. Engineering
Structures 40: 350–360.
Wong HF and Kuang JS (2008) Effects of beam–column depth ratio on
joint seismic behaviour. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Structures and Buildings 161(2): 91–101,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.2008.161.2.91.
Wong HF and Kuang JS (2014) Predicting shear strength of RC interior
beam–column joints by modified rotating-angle softened-truss
model. Computers and Structures 133: 12–17.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.