ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 106-S24
Shear Strength of RC Jacketed Interior Beam-Column
Joints without Horizontal Shear Reinforcement
by Yung-Chih Wang and Kai Hsu
The interior joint shear strength of nonductile frames strengthened
with reinforced concrete (RC) jackets, but with no new joint shear
hoops and no dowel anchors installed into the new and old
concrete interface, was investigated experimentally. Seven one-
way interior beam-column joint subassemblages were tested under
quasistatic cyclic loading to observe the joint shear strength and
overall frame performance. The test measurements are also used to
verify two of the analytical models used for predicting the horizontal
shear strength of jacketed joints without horizontal joint shear
reinforcement. The results show that the RC jacketed scheme is
able to efficiently rehabilitate nonductile frames with very poor
joint details. An empirical equation for calculating the joint shear
strength of RC jacketed frames is proposed in this study.
Keywords: interior beam-column joints; jacketing; joint shear strength;
seismic behavior; shear degradation.
INTRODUCTION
More than 90% of the reinforced concrete (RC) buildings
in Taiwan, especially low-rise RC dwellings, are constructed
by the cast-in-place concrete method. Unlike precast concrete,
cast-in-place concrete buildings are more subject to the
incorporation of substandard reinforcing details1,2 such as
substandard seismic hooks in the transverse reinforcement of
columns or beams, or no transverse reinforcement (beam
bars or horizontal hoops and ties) passing through the
beam-column joint core. During the 1999 Taiwan Chi-Chi
earthquake, it was found that in addition to base column shear
failure, there were many joint shear damages in RC buildings.2
The reason for this type of failure was mainly due to low
concrete strength and no transverse joint reinforcement.
Several retrofitting techniques, including the use of concrete
jackets, bolted steel plates, and fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) sheets, have been suggested in the literature3-6 for
structural upgrading. Among these retrofitting techniques,
the application of RC jacketing to columns has been the most
widely adopted in Taiwan after the 1999 earthquake. This is
because concrete jacketing is more consistent with as-built
RC structures than the other retrofit materials, so that
deficiencies in columns and beam-column joints can be
more easily strengthened by the RC jacketing. As well, the
retrofitting scheme is simple and, thus, more economical,
than other retrofitting schemes.
In this study, as-built and RC jacketed interior beam-
column joint subassemblages that have no horizontal joint
hoops are tested to verify the seismic performance of the
poor beam-column joints strengthened with RC jackets. The
effect of the floor slab was not considered in the research.
Special attention will be given to the design of RC jacketing
or the assessment of shear strength of the as-built and
concrete jacketed beam-column joints.
222
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
RC jacketing without dowel anchors between the new and
old concrete interface, which is different from the conventional
construction method, was adopted to retrofit beam-column
joints with no horizontal joint shear reinforcement.
Experimental tests were performed to observe the seismic
behavior of the jacketed frames. Relative slip that occurred
between the new and old concrete in the joint area was
measured to evaluate its influence on the overall seismic
performance of the jacketed frames. The other purpose of the
study was to compare the shear strengths of the as-built and
strengthened joints measured and computed using two
predicted models.7,8
ASSESSMENT OF JOINT SHEAR STRENGTH
A primary interest of the authors is beam-column joints
without horizontal shear reinforcement, which belong to the
class of substandard reinforcing details. This means that the
joint’s shear strength cannot be predicted by the equations
specified in ACI 318-05.1 In this study, the softened strut-
and-tie model7 and shear degradation model8 are then
adopted as alternative options for computing the behavior of
substandard joints.
Softened strut-and-tie model
The softened strut-and-tie model7 was based on the
concept that, after the beam and column bars passing through
the joint have deteriorated, the concrete of the diagonal strut
mechanism may become a major contributor to the joint
shear strength, as presented in Fig. 1.
A jacketed joint as shown in Fig. 1 is assumed as a newly
constructed joint to calculate the joint shear strength when
the softened strut-and-tie model is used. To evaluate the
diagonal concrete strength, the so-called diagonal strut force
Cdn needs to be evaluated (refer to Fig. 1 and Eq. (1)). That
is, the coefficient K for the beneficial effect of horizontal and
vertical reinforcement passing through the jacketed joint
core and the joint concrete softened coefficient ζ are needed.
Cdn = Kζ fcj′ Astr (1)
where K is the index calculated from the horizontal and
vertical reinforcement passing through the jacketed joint
core, and ζ is the concrete softened coefficient
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 2, March-April 2009.
MS No. S-2007-297 received August 14, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the January-February
2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2009.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009
ACI member Yung-Chih Wang is an Associate Professor at the Department of Civil
Engineering, National Central University (NCU), Taiwan. He received his BS and MS
from NCU, and his PhD from the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand. His research interests include seismic behavior of reinforced concrete structures
and retrofit of concrete structures.
ACI member Kai Hsu is a PhD Student in the Department of Civil Engineering at
NCU. His research interests include the analytical study on the behavior of reinforced
concrete structures.
ζ ≈ 3.4/ f cj′ ≤ 0.52 ( fcj′ in MPa)
ζ ≈ 40/ f cj′ ≤ 0.52 ( fcj′ in psi)
where fcj′ is the weighted average concrete strength for a
jacketed joint (Eq. (7)), and Astr is the effective area of
diagonal strut in a joint core.
Astr = as × bs
where as is the depth of the diagonal strut (refer to Fig. 1).
2 2
as = ac + ab
where bs is the width of diagonal strut, and ac is the width of
the compression zone in a column adjacent to a joint.9
a c = ⎛ 0.25 + 0.85 -------------⎞ h c
N
⎝
A g f cj′ ⎠
where ab is the width of the compression zone in a beam
adjacent to a joint.
ab = hb /5 for satisfying Eq. (6c)
ab = hb /3 for not satisfying Eq. (6c)
∑ ∑
1 A numerical example that illustrates a calculation
M nc ≥ ( 6/5 ) M nb
where N is the axial force on the column; Ag is the gross
section area of the column; hc is the overall depth of the
column; hb is the overall depth of the beam; ΣMnc is the sum
of nominal flexural strengths of jacketed columns, evaluated
at the faces of the joint; and ΣMnb is the sum of nominal flexural
strengths of beams, evaluated at the faces of the joint.
Equation (6a), proposed by the original model,7 evaluates
the approximate effective depth of the beam compression zone
when the plastic hinging occurs at the beams adjacent to the
joint face. For the case different from the aforementioned,
however, Eq. (6b) proposed by the authors can be used. In
the study, the shear strength of a jacketed interior joint
without transverse reinforcement in joint core is evaluated,
as shown in Fig. 1. The parameters possibly affecting the
nominal diagonal compressive strength Cdn are the coefficient
for the beneficial effect of the tie forces, K, and the effective
area of the diagonal strut, Astr .
To calculate the jacketed joint strength, where there are two
different concrete strengths contained in the joint core, it is
necessary to evaluate an effective concrete strength3 as follows
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009
(2)
(3)
Fig. 1—Diagonal strut mechanism for interior joint with
reinforced concrete jacketing.
(4) A j f cj′ = A 1 f c1′ + A 2 f c2′ (7)
where fcj′ is the effective concrete strength at the jacketed
joint core, Aj is the effective area of shear in the jacketed
joint, A1 is the gross existing area, A2 is the area of column
jacket included in the joint shear area, fc1′ is the strength of
(5) concrete at the joint in the existing column, and fc2′ is the
jacketed concrete strength at the joint.
The horizontal shear strength Vjh obtained from Cdn in Eq. (1)
now becomes
Vjh = Cdncosθ (8)
(6a)
θ = tan–1(lv /lh) (9)
(6b)
the parameters θ, lv, and lh are depicted in Fig. 1.
(6c)
procedure using the aforementioned equations is presented
in the Appendix.*
Joint shear degradation model
The shear strength of the interior beam-column joint,
especially a joint with substandard reinforcing details or
without horizontal shear reinforcement, such as is described
in the study, can be evaluated using the aforementioned
softened strut-and-tie model, but this method may be too
complex for routine design use. To overcome this problem,
the authors used the joint shear degradation model8,10 to
predict the horizontal joint shear strength of RC jacketed
beam-column joints.
The original shear degradation model proposed by Park10
included column shear and joint shear degradation. The
complete joint shear degradation model as shown in Fig. 2
was demonstrated. This can be used for the seismic assessment
of RC moment-resisting frames. The imposed ductility
*The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
223
Table 1—Details of tested beam-column
Test series Ko Ho
Unit Ko-JI1 as-built Ko-JI2* retrofit Ko-JIR1 retrofit Ko-JIR2 retrofit Ho-JI1 as-built Ho-JIR1 retrofit Ho-JIR2 retrofit
fcj′ , MPa† 32 32 28 28 27 25 38
Applied axial load fcj′ Ag 0.14 None None 0.14 None None None
Concrete casting One pour One pour (monolithic) Two pours Two pours One pour Two pours Two pours
Height Lv, mm 2460 2460 2460 2460 2430 2430 2430
hc, mm 300 500 500 500 400 600 600
bc , mm 300 500 500 500 400 600 600
Column
Reinforcing bar
6-D25 6-D25 6-D25 6-D25 8-D25 8-D25 8-D25
as-built
Reinforcing bar
— 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 — 4-D25 4-D25
retrofit
Jacket thickness, mm — 100 100 100 — 100 100
Length Lh, mm 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500
hb, mm 500 500 500 500 400 400 400
Beam
bb, mm 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Reinforcing bar Up: 4-D25 Low: 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D25 4-D19 4-D19 4-D19 4-D19 4-D19 4-D19
*Jacketed unit cast in one pour is to simulate perfect bond condition of new-to-old concrete interface.
†Averaged concrete strength adopted from root square of Eq. (7).
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN; and 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

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

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

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

224 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

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

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

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 225

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

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

226 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

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

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

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 227

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

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

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

228 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009

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

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

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 229


Fig. 12—Hysteresis loops and failure mode for test unit
Ho-JIR2: (a) hysteresis loops; and (b) cracking observed at
end of testing. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
strength, respectively, is shown in Table 2. As can be seen in
Fig. 11 and 12, both retrofitted units exhibited similar
seismic behavior in terms of beam end flexural hinging.
Effect of interfacial concrete slippage at joint
Interfacial slippage could occur at the new-and-old interface
if dowels are not used to anchor the RC jacketing, which
could affect the joint shear strength of the jacketed frame and
the overall seismic performance. The diagonal joint shear
strains measured in the new and old joint core were
compared and the results discussed (refer to Fig. 4(b)).
Figure 13 shows the difference in the joint shear strains
measured for the new concrete jacket and the as-built concrete
core. The Ko series units and Ho series units should be
compared separately because of their different failure modes. In
the Ko series units, Ko-JI2, Ko-JIR1, and Ko-JIR2 failed due
to joint shear, as mentioned in the general observations. The
maximum joint shear strength obtained and shear strength
degradation initiated in association with the drift ratio were
also marked. In Fig. 13, Ko-JI2, which is cast monolithically,
can be regarded as a standard for no interfacial bond slippage
when compared with the rest of the jacketed units.
The maximum joint shear strength of Ko-JI2 was obtained
at a drift ratio of 2%. Its strength degradation started at a drift
ratio of 3%, due to the nature of concrete cracking at the joint
core. For Ko-JIR1, there was a clearer discrepancy between
the two joint shear strains when the maximum joint shear
strength reached a drift ratio of approximately 2%. The shear
degradation did not start at 2%, however, but at 3%. It acted
as a similar behavior in the joint shear strength and its
degradation as Ko-JI2. That is, the influence of interfacial bond
slippage on the nonanchored jacketed joints was not obvious.
The bond slippage did not seem as obvious for Ko-JIR2 as
for Ko-JIR1, but was similar to that of Ko-JI2. Nevertheless,
230
Fig. 13—Hysteresis joint shear strength measured in new
and old concrete for jacketed units.
the joint shear degradation started at the same time when the
maximum joint shear strength reached 2% of the drift ratio.
That is, the important factor influencing the joint shear
degradation was not the bond slippage. The slippage actually
did occur in the nonanchored RC jacketed frame but did not
harm the seismic performance of the frame. The applied axial
load made a difference for Ko-JIR1 and Ko-JIR2. The effect
of an axial load of 0.14fc′ Ag on Ko-JIR2 was the main reason
for causing its earlier degradation of the joint shear strength.
The failure mode of beam end hinging formed in the jacketed
units, Ho-JIR1 and Ho-JIR2, as depicted in Fig. 13(d) and (e),
was the main reason for causing the smaller shear stresses
imposed to the joint core. The joint shear strains measured in
both the joint area of the jacketed concrete and as-built
concrete showed smaller values and reacted consistently.
Horizontal joint shear strengths
The maximum column and joint shear imposed were
deduced from the raw data presented in Table 3. To counter
the variation in concrete strengths, the imposed column and
joint shear stresses were normalized by f cj′ to represent
their shear strengths.
The measured column shear stress, as seen in Table 3, ranged
from 0.09 f cj′ to 0.27 f cj′ MPa (1.1 f cj′ to 3.3 f cj′ psi),
whereas the measured horizontal joint shear stress ranged
from 0.53 f cj′ to 1.49 f cj′ MPa (6.4 f cj′ to 17.9 f cj′ psi).
The measured joint shear strength was approximately six
times the column shear strength.
Table 4 shows the accuracy analysis of the joint shear
strengths evaluated by the softened strut-and-tie model
(SSTM) and the shear degradation model (SDM). The
average and covariance in the ratios of predicted-to-measured
values for each predicted model are presented to discuss the
prediction accuracy. It can be seen that the ratios for both
models are similar, nearly unity, whereas the covariance
values for both models are different. That of SSTM with
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009
Table 4—Statistics indicating accuracy of predicted horizontal joint shear stresses
Test unit Ko-JI1 Ko-JI2 Ko-JIR1 Ko-JIR2 Ho-JI1 Average COV, %
Applied column axial load fcj′ Ag 0.14 None None 0.14 None — —
Measured vjh/√fcj′ , MPa 1.49 0.98 0.97 1.08 1.09 — —
Measured vjh/√fcj′ , psi 17.9 11.8 11.7 13.0 13.1 — —
Predicted by SSTM* vjh/√fcj′ , MPa 1.97 0.95 0.89 1.06 0.86 — —
Predicted by SSTM* vjh/√fcj′ , psi 23.7 11.4 10.7 12.8 10.4 — —
Predicted/measured 1.32 0.97 0.92 0.98 0.79 1.00 19.8
Predicted by SDM† vjh/√fcj′ , MPa 1.34 1.00 1.00 1.32 1.00 — —
Predicted by SDM† vjh/√fcj′ , psi 16.1 12.0 12.0 15.9 12.0 — —
Predicted/measured 0.90 1.02 1.03 1.22 0.92 1.02 12.6
*
SSTM: softened strut-and-tie model predicted by Eq. (8).
†
SDM: joint shear degradation model predicted by Eq. (10).

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

concrete placement. To install reinforcing bar cages for

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

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009 231

Meanwhile, it is proposed that an actual size two-bay and
two-story moment-resisting frame (such as is typical of
Taiwan low-rise RC building construction) be tested to
better verify the design method proposed according to the
present results of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
Interior beam-column joint subassemblages with no
horizontal joint shear reinforcement were strengthened with
RC jackets encasing as-built columns. The traditional
construction method, which includes the installation of
dowel anchors between the new-and-old concrete interface,
was not adopted in the proposed retrofitting scheme to
simplify construction. The effects of new-and-old concrete
interfacial slippage and column axial loading on the joint
shear strengths of these retrofitted frames were investigated
experimentally. Based on the test results, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. The joint shear strengths of the RC jacketed frames with
joint shear failure modes (Ko series test units) are less likely
to be affected by joint shear slippage than by the axial load
applied to the top of the columns. The test results showed
that the triggering of joint shear degradation depended on the
axial loading of the tested frames but did not seem to correlate
with the concrete interfacial slippage in the joint area;
2. The RC jacketed frames of Ho series units were
designed to a ductile behavior with the failure mode of strong
column and weak beam, where the main flexural cracks were
formed at beams adjacent to the jacketed column faces. The
transverse reinforcement in the jacketed column was designed
according to the seismic-resistant provision of ACI 318-051
except in the joint core where there was no horizontal shear
reinforcement. Equation (13) was used for examining the
joint shear strengths of the jacketed interior joints or deter-
mining the jacket thickness. Some practical suggestions for
the reinforcing bar cage in the joint region and the layout of
transverse reinforcement in jacketed column were made;
3. The test results from the joint shear failure mode of RC
jacketed frames were used to verify two prediction models:
the SSTM and SDM. It was concluded that both models
could predict the jacketed joint shear strength with a feasible
accuracy. For engineering application, however, the SDM is
more useful than the SSTM because the SDM’s calculation
procedure is easier to perform; and
232
4. According to these limited experimental results, the
joint shear strength of the RC jacketed frame, where the as-
built and jacketed joints have no transverse hoops in joint
cores and no dowel anchorage at the new-and-old concrete
interface, can be conservatively evaluated by Eq. (13),
without considering the effect of column axial loading. The
experimental results also showed that it was not conservative
if jacketed joint shear strength subjected to column axial
load was predicted by Eq. (10). However, there needs to be
more experimental verification on the jacketed beam-
column joints with the effect of column axial load if the joint
shear strength is to be predicted more precisely by considering
the column axial load.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to the
National Science Council of Taiwan for financing this research work for 2 years,
under Projects NSC93-2211-E-008-019 and NSC94-2625-Z-008-015.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
2. Taiwan National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering,
“Reconnaissance Report on Taiwan Chi-Chi Earthquake of 21 September
1999—Buildings and Bridges,” NCREE Reports 99-054 and 99-055,
Taipei, Taiwan, 1999. (in Chinese)
3. Alcocer, S. M., and Jirsa, J. O., “Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Frame Connections Rehabilitated by Jacketing,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 90, No. 3, May-June 1993, pp. 251-261.
4. Rodriguez, M., and Park, R., “Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced
Concrete Columns Strengthened by Jacketing,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 91, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1994, pp. 150-159.
5. Ghobarah, A.; Aziz, T. S.; and Biddah, A., “Rehabilitation of Reinforced
Concrete Frame Connections Using Corrugated Steel Jacketing,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 3, May-June 1997, pp. 283-294.
6. Wang, Y. C., and Restrepo, J. I., “Investigation of Concentrically
Loaded Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined with Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Jackets,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 3, May-June 2001,
pp. 377-385.
7. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., “Strength Prediction for Discontinuity
Regions by Softened Strut-and-Tie Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 128, No. 12, Dec. 2002, pp. 1519-1526.
8. Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., “Seismic Load Tests on Interior
and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 11-25.
9. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, 1992, 744 pp.
10. Park, R., “A Static Force-Based Procedure for the Seismic Assessment
of Existing Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames,” Bulletin of
the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 30,
No. 3. 1997, pp. 213-226.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2009
 1 APPENDIX 1 – AN EXAMPLE FOR CALCULATING SHEAR STRENGTH AND

2 JACKET THICKNESS OF RC JACKETED JOINT BY MEANS OF SOFTENED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 According to Eq.(7),

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

15 Then,

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

17 f cj′ = 27.5 MPa; take 28MPa

18

19 2. Geometry and properties of strut and tie

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

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

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

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

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

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

f cj′ 28

4 3. Force distribution (see Fig. A2)

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

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

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

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

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

11 Fyh = 0

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

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

14 Balanced horizontal and vertical tie indices:

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

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

17 Balanced tie forced in horizontal and vertical direction:

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

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

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

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

22

23 5. Overall tie index, K

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

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

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

5 6. Nominal diagonal compressive strength, Cdn

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

8 7. Horizontal joint shear, V jh

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

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

ν jh
11 = 1.06
f cj′

12

13 B. Shear Degradation Model (SDM)

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

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

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

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

18 where,

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

20 1.25 f y = 443 kN

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

22
1 Lv = column height = 2.46m

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

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

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

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

23
 lh=400
N

300
6-D25

4-D25
lv=400

500
hb

4-D25

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

300

Unit: mm

4-D25(jacketing)
jacketed column

Fig. A1 Sectional details of testing unit Ko-JIR2

41
 V jv

Fv = γ vV jv
V jh
− D = γ d Cd

Fh = γ hV jh

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

42