ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 116-S02
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints
by Composites—Part I: Experimental Study
by Osman Kaya, Cem Yalçın, Azadeh Parvin, and Selçuk Altay
Many of the existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures in
Turkey built prior to 1999 have deficient design details due to
their non-seismic design or construction flaws. In particular, the
beam-column joints (BCJs) experience high shear forces during
such events, mainly due to inadequate design detailing of trans-
verse reinforcements as well as inadequate lap splicing. Severe
damage or total collapse of structures often occurred. To enhance
the performance of such deficient joint systems, several strength-
ening techniques such as reinforced concrete and steel jacketing,
as well as fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping, have been
proposed. In this study, new shear strengthening techniques were
developed using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) to retrofit
these insufficient BCJs. The effectiveness of various CFRP wrap-
ping methodologies was investigated experimentally. One control
specimen was constructed according to provisions specified by the
1975 Turkish Building Design Code, whereas four other specimens
were constructed with deficiencies observed in the practice. More-
over, three additional specimens were constructed to develop alter-
native shear strengthening techniques via CFRP wrapping. The
quasi-static tests were carried out by applying constant axial load
and reversed-cyclic lateral load at the top of the column. Compara-
tive analysis of control and CFRP-strengthened specimens’ results
showed that significant improvements in the lateral load and the
energy dissipation capacities were achieved by using the proposed
CFRP-strengthening techniques.
Keywords: beam-column joints; carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs);
lap splice; plain reinforcements; reinforced concrete; shear strengthening.
INTRODUCTION
Recent earthquakes worldwide in urban areas have
demonstrated the vulnerability of existing structures to seismic
loading. Generally, many of the heavily damaged or collapsed
structures were designed for gravity loads only, with no
regards to any significant lateral forces. Furthermore, concrete
strength and reinforcement ratios were often below the
minimum values specified by the respective design codes.
Thus, the lateral load resistance of these structures was
naturally very low even to resist moderate earthquakes.
After severe earthquakes, these structures revealed that one
of the common weakest links in lateral-load-resisting frames
was the beam-column joint (BCJ) region. Poorly detailed
joints have been identified as critical structural elements that
cause premature failure in reinforced concrete (RC) frames.
The lessons learned after each earthquake and a vast number
of parameters affecting joint behavior have motivated many
researchers to experimentally investigate the beam-column
connections under simulated earthquake loads.1 The most
important parameters were lap splicing of longitudinal rein-
forcements and lack of steel hoops in the joint core and in
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
the column region near the joint. Bedirhanoglu et al.2 investi-
gated the behavior of BCJ members with low-quality concrete
and plain reinforcements. They concluded that preventing the
slippage of anchorage reinforcement by welding increased the
load-carrying capacities by 35%.
Several seismic strengthening techniques have been
developed and improved in the past decade, including RC and
steel jacketing.3,4 Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) are
relatively new materials used in the strengthening by means
of externally bonded reinforcement in critical regions of RC
elements. These FRP materials, which are available today in
the form of strips or in-place resin-impregnated sheets, are
being used to strengthen a variety of RC elements, including
beams, slabs, columns, and shear walls, to enhance the
flexural, shear, and axial (through confinement) capacity of
such elements. FRP materials offer advantages over other
conventional materials such as steel and concrete for
retrofitting. Some of the advantages are ease of installation,
immunity to corrosion, high stiffness-to-weight and strength-
to-weight ratios, and the ability to control the material’s
behavior by selecting the proper orientation of the fibers.
Despite the fact that the upfront cost of CFRP is somewhat
higher than conventional construction materials, all of these
features make CFRP a highly engineered material suitable for
infrastructure applications and increasing the shear and
flexural capacities, and also ductility of structures including
the BCJ subassemblies.5-14
Beam-column joints involving slabs and transverse beams
(three-dimensional specimens) were also tested by the
authors and other graduate students within the same scope
of the TUBITAK-NSF joint collaborative research project.
Similar types of strengthening techniques were used as in
this study to compare the differences between two- and
three-dimensional joint behaviors. The results showed
improvement in strength and ductility of CFRP-strengthened
three-dimensional specimens as well.15,16
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The most crucial part of RC structures appears to be the
BCJ regions according to failure type of buildings under
seismic action. During the past three decades, a great deal
of research on BCJ subjected to seismic hazards has been
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1, January 2019.
MS No. S-2016-035.R1, doi: 10.14359/51706922, was received November 30,
2017, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, 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 ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
17
conducted to understand its behavior. Numerous retrofitting
strategies were proposed to upgrade the behavior of BCJ
under seismic action.
Limited experiments have been performed on CFRP-
retrofitted BCJs for the effects of deficiencies such as use of
plain reinforcements with inadequate lap splicing, low-quality
concrete, and inadequate transverse reinforcement within
the joint core and in the beam and column members.
The scope of this study is to find the effectiveness of CFRP
strengthening on shear capacity of two-dimensional defi-
cient beam-column joint specimens.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
A comprehensive survey was conducted on the existing
buildings designed between late 1950s and late 1990s, and
prior to the 1998 Turkish Earthquake Code, to determine the
deficiencies of Turkish design practices and construction.
More than 50 building design projects were examined. It was
revealed that the concrete strengths were less than 25 MPa
(3.6 ksi) for 90% of the buildings, with 50% of those being
below 16 MPa (2.3 ksi). Also, St I type steel, which had
220 MPa (31.9 ksi) yield strength, was used in 70% of those
buildings. At the end of the survey, common deficiencies such
as plain reinforcements, low-quality concrete, insufficient
transverse reinforcement, and lap-splicing lengths were iden-
tified. The survey also revealed that the beam sections were
greater than the connecting column sections. In general, moment
capacity of the beams was higher than that of the columns.
The present experimental study could be explained briefly
in two parts. In the first part, to represent the old design prac-
tice, a control specimen was detailed according to the provi-
sions of the Turkish Earthquake Code 1975 (TEC-75).17 Also,
four other identical specimens were produced with the afore-
mentioned deficiencies such as plain reinforcements with
inadequate lap splicing, low-quality concrete, and inadequate
transverse reinforcement within the joint core, which were
common in Turkish design practices and construction. These
specimens were tested without any strengthening process
involved to determine the effects of these deficiencies.
In the second part, one of the specimens with the poorest
behavior was selected as a critical one and three identical
specimens were produced to implement the retrofitting
strategies. The aim of the second part of the study was to
strengthen the joints by developing suitable CFRP wrapping
configurations to eliminate the effects of such deficiencies
and improve the behavior. To find the effective strength-
ening technique, the deficiencies in the existing reinforced
concrete frame subassemblies, or BCJs, must be first iden-
tified correctly and improvements should be implemented
thereafter to mitigate the negative effects of such deficien-
cies. In this study, the effect of inadequate lap splices at
the bottom of column longitudinal reinforcements and the
lack of shear reinforcement at the joint region were investi-
gated. Subsequently, CFRP-strengthening methodology was
proposed to eliminate the effects of these deficiencies.
Material properties
To mimic old design practices, in construction of deficient
joints, a low-quality concrete mixture was prepared inten-
18
Table 1—Characteristic properties of steel bars
Bar diameter, mm (No.) Yield strength fy, MPa (ksi)
16–plain (No. 5) 280 (40.611)
10–plain (No. 3) 280 (40.611)
Table 2—Characteristics properties of CFRP
Nominal thickness 0.176 mm/ply
Ultimate tensile strength (0 degrees) 3800 MPa (551.143 ksi)
Tensile modulus (0 degrees) 240 GPa
Ultimate rupture strain (0 degrees) 1.55%
Weight 330 g/m2
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 g/m2 = 0.000207 lb/ft2.
Fig. 1—Stress-strain relations for 16 and 10 reinforce-
ments. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
tionally. Nine samples of concrete cylinders with a diameter
of 150 mm (5.9 in.) and height of 300 mm (11.8 in.) were
taken from each specimen. Nominal compressive strengths
of cylinder tests were determined in accordance with ASTM
C39.18 Additionally, 16 mm (0.63 in. [No. 5]) and 10 mm
(0.39 in. [No. 3]) plain steel bars were used as longitudinal
and transverse reinforcement, respectively, for both beam
and column members. The tensile tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM A706/A706M.19 An average tensile
strength of 280 MPa (40.6 ksi) was obtained, which was very
close to what the steel mill’s strength values were. Stress-
versus-strain relationships and the characteristic properties
of steel bars are given in Fig. 1 and Table 1, respectively.
For the strengthened joint specimens, various numbers
of CFRP layers and wrapping configurations were applied
based on the damage and crack patterns observed in the
control specimens. Properties of CFRP material and stress-
versus-strain relationship were taken from the manufacturer
data sheet and are given in Table 2 and Fig. 2, respectively.
Description of test specimens
Specimens consisted of a beam and top/bottom columns.
The beam was 1650 mm (65.0 in.) in length with 300 x
500 mm (11.8 x 19.7 in.) cross-sectional dimensions and the
columns had 1920 mm (72.6 in.) in total height and 300 x
500 mm (11.8 x 19.7 in.) cross-sectional dimensions.
In the first part of the study, five control specimens were
constructed and tested without any CFRP application for
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
strengthening. The first one, TR-1-Control, was designed
and detailed according to TEC-75. The other control spec-
imens (TR-2-Control, TR-3-Control, TR-4-Control, and
TR-5-Control) included the deficiencies obtained from the
survey. All the reinforcements were selected as plain steel
bars to represent the old construction practice. The reinforce-
ment arrangement for TR-1-Control is shown in Fig. 3(a).
416 (0.63 in. [No. 5]) reinforcing steel were used as column
(reinforcement ratio: 1.0%) and 916 (0.63 in. [No. 5]) were
used as beam longitudinal reinforcements, where five of
them were used at top and the remaining four were used
Fig. 2—Stress-strain relations of CFRP sheets.
Fig. 3—Reinforcement details for: (a) TR 1 Control; and (b) TR 5 Control. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 4—Test parameters.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
at the bottom. According to the test results of these control
specimens, the specimen with the poorest behavior was
selected as the most critical one. As expected, TR-5-Control
specimen, which had all the deficiencies included, behaved
the worst during the experiment. The reinforcement details
of TR-5-Control specimen are shown in Fig. 3(b).
In the second part of the study, three more specimens
were produced identical to the specimen TR-5-Control.
These three new specimens were used to determine the
proper CFRP wrapping configuration for strengthening.
The first one was strengthened with CFRP while consid-
ering the crack patterns, damage, and failure mechanisms
that occurred in TR-5-Control specimen. For the next two
identical specimens, the strengthening technique was modi-
fied step-by-step by observing the test results, damage, and
failure mechanisms of the previous tests. Finally, an effec-
tive strengthening technique was obtained for deficient BCJ
specimens. The experimental program related to joint defi-
ciencies and retrofit techniques are illustrated in Fig. 4. The
test parameters investigated for each specimen and the prop-
erties of the test specimens were summarized in Table 3.
The survey results showed that St I type smooth bar with
a 220 MPa (31.9 ksi) yield strength, which was allowed by
TEC-75, was used in most of the structures. The survey study
also revealed that half of the buildings constructed before
1998 have less than 16 MPa (2.3 ksi) concrete strength in
practice, whereas minimum concrete strength in columns
and beams allowed is 16 MPa (2.3 ksi).
19
Table 3—Properties of test specimens
Column reinforcements Beam reinforcements
Specimen Beam, mm Column, mm fc′, MPa Longitudinal (ρl) Transverse Longitudinal Transverse
TR-1 300 x 500 300 x 300 15.3 416 (0.01) 10/100 916 (5 top + 4 bottom) 10/125
TR-2 300 x 500 300 x 300 12.8 416 (0.01) 10/200 916 (5 top + 4 bottom) 10/200
TR-3 250 x 500 250 x 250 13.5 416 (0.013) 8/200 716 (4 top + 3 bottom) 8/200
TR-4 300 x 500 300 x 300 14.8 416 (0.01) 10/200 916 (5 top + 4 bottom) 10/200
TR-5 300 x 500 300 x 300 14.2 416 (0.01) 10/200 916 (5 top + 4 bottom) 10/200
TR-5-FRP-1 300 x 500 300 x 300 14.6 416 (0.01) 10/200 916 (5 top + 4 bottom) 10/200
TR-5-FRP-2 300 x 500 300 x 300 16.0 416 (0.01) 10/200 916 (5 top + 4 bottom) 10/200
TR-5-FRP-3 300 x 500 300 x 300 16.0 416 (0.01) 10/200 916 (5 top + 4 bottom) 10/200

Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Table 4—Flexural strength and ratios

Column moment capacity, kN·m (kip-ft) Beam moment capacity, kN·m (kip-ft) Column to beam flexural ratio
Specimen Push and pull Push Pull Pull Push
TR-1 55.1 (40.64) 98.6 (72.72) 122.4 (90.28) 1.12 0.90
TR-2 50.3 (37.10) 98.1 (72.35) 121.9 (89.91) 1.03 0.83
TR-3 35.2 (31.64) 74.4 (54.51) 98.4 (72.06) 0.95 0.72
TR-4 54.2 (39.98) 98.5 (72.65) 122.3 (90.20) 1.10 0.89
TR-5 53.0 (39.09) 98.4 (72.58) 122.2 (90.13) 1.08 0.87
TR-5-FRP-1 53.8 (39.68) 98.5 (72.65) 122,3 (90.20) 1.09 0.88
TR-5-FRP-2 56.5 (41.67) 98.8 (72.87) 122.6 (90.42) 1.14 0.92
TR-5-FRP-3 56.5 (41.67) 98.8 (72.87) 122.6 (90.42) 1.14 0.92

Fig. 5—Loading pattern. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

The 1998 Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC-98) had a
requirement the flexural ratio of columns be at least 1.2 times
greater than that of beams at the joint region, as expressed
in Eq. (1)
Mct + Mcb ≥ 1.2(Mb) (1)
This clearly indicated that columns must be at least 20%
stronger than beams—that is, the weak beam-strong column
design philosophy. However, this crucial flexural ratio was
not specifically mentioned in TEC-75. Thus, the test speci-
mens were designed according to strong beam-weak column
design scheme and also reflected the Turkish construction
practices pre-1990. The beam and column members’ moment
capacities, and the column-to-beam flexural ratios for push
and pull directions of loading are presented in Table 4.
Test setup and instrumentation
The designed test setup and the reversed cyclic lateral
loading protocol were arranged according to ACI ITG1.1-01.20
The displacement-controlled loading was applied from the
top of the column laterally with a 250 kN (56.2 kip) capacity
dynamic actuator mounted on a steel reaction wall. Three
cycles of the same amplitude in every story drift were repeated
before displacement amplitude increased. The loading cycles
are shown in Fig. 5. Depending on the behavior of the spec-

20 ACI Structural Journal/January 2019

Fig. 6—Test setup. (Note: 1 kN = 0.224 kip.)
As seen from the free-body diagram, net applied lateral force
was determined from horizontal components of both axial
and lateral applied loads.
A total of 11 strain gauges were mounted on the reinforcing
steel bars to gather the strain values during the experiments.
In addition to the strain gauges, displacement at the tip of
the column and the shear deformation in the BCJ region, as
well as curvature readings on the beam and columns near the
maximum moment regions, were monitored and measured
by linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs).
All data taken from strain gauges, LVDTs, and load cells
were recorded by an electronic data acquisition system. To
calculate the net top displacement, support movements in
the horizontal and vertical directions were also monitored.
Strain gauge and LVDT locations are shown in Fig. 8.
Additionally, to check the strain levels of CFRP material
during the test, 10 appropriate strain gauges were mounted
on the fiber composites for CFRP-strengthened specimens.

STRENGTHENING METHODOLOGY
Fig. 7—Free body diagram of test specimens. Based on critical control test specimen’s (TR-5-Control)
results and crack patterns at the joint region, a CFRP strength-
ening methodology for BCJ specimens was proposed that is
imen, approximately 35 to 40 reversed cycles were applied
explained in the following and also illustrated in Table 5.
throughout the test. Crack patterns on concrete surface,
Step 1: To prevent the debonding of the CFRP sheets from
CFRP ruptures, and debonding, as well as failure modes were
the surface of the beam, four horizontal holes with 12 mm
recorded in each of three-cycle loading set.
(0.47 in.) diameter were drilled across the beam. The holes
Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show the experiment setup. The
were drilled to install CFRP anchorages in the beam.
specimens were tested in a setup where the beam was placed
Step 2: To increase the flexural capacity of the column,
parallel to the strong floor and attached by a rigid steel link
longitudinal CFRP sheet was applied to the column surface
element at its free end, simulating a roller support. The
to eliminate lap-splice effects. The length of the column
column was placed in a vertical position and supported by
flexural CFRP was 1900 mm (74.8 in.).
a universal pin at the bottom end. Constant axial load was
Step 3: The L-shaped CFRP sheets were mounted on the
applied vertically from top of the column by a load-control
face of the joining surface of column and beam at upper and
loading system with a 900 kN (202.3 kip) capacity static
bottom portions. These L-shapes were extended to 300 mm
actuator. The amount of the constant axial force applied
(11.8 in.) along the beam.
was 40% of the axial load capacity of column. A steel
Step 4: This orientation scheme is associated with cracks
frame was constructed surrounding the test setup to prevent
observed in control specimens that were caused due to the
any possible out-of-plane deformations, where the rollers
lack of the transverse reinforcement in the joint region and
mounted on both sides of the frame touched the specimen
was designed to provide shear reinforcement for the joint
and forced it to move in the direction of loading. A simpli-
region. The shear crack observed in the control specimens
fied free-body diagram of the specimen is shown in Fig. 7.
were started from one corner of the joint panel and propagated

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 21

Table 5—General strengthening application steps
Step No. CFRP application Description of strengthening procedure

Four horizontal holes of 12 mm in diameter were drilled across the beam to

Step 1
insert the anchorages.

Longitudinal CFRP sheet was applied outside the column surface for elimi-
Step 2
nating lap splice defect and increasing moment capacities of column members.

Top and bottom L-shaped CFRP sheets were applied to inside of the column
Step 3 face extending toward the beam surface for eliminating lap splice defect and
increasing the resistance of joint region.

One layer of diagonal CFRP fibers were placed on joint region to prevent
Step 4 diagonal crack propagation along the joint surface. Same application was done
for opposite direction, resulting X-shaped CFRP orientation.

Three layers of 150 mm wide CFRP patches were used for eliminating the
Step 5
rupture of CFRP materials in the joint region.

Top and bottom portion of the column was wrapped for eliminating early
Step 6 debonding of already-applied L-shaped and longitudinal CFRP on column
surface.

Beam member is wrapped to prevent buckling of beam longitudinal

Step 7
reinforcement.

To prevent the debonding, CFRP sheets were anchored to the already-applied

Step 8
beam wrapping by fan-shaped CFRP anchors.

Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

toward the opposite corner diagonally. Thus, the slope of the
shear crack depended on the dimensions of joint panel (Fig. 9).
Because CFRP material is mainly used to carry the tensile
forces, its fibers should be placed perpendicular to the cracks
to obtain an optimum solution. If the CFRP fibers are placed
vertically or horizontally, some shear forces on the CFRP may
cause early failure due to the shearing action. Therefore, CFRP
fibers are applied to the joints in both directions as X-shaped.
Step 5: In addition to one layer diagonal fiber at each
corner of the joint panel, three layers of CFRP with a depth
of 150 mm (5.9 in.) were installed on the diagonal fibers.
Increasing the number of CFRP layers at the corner of the
joint region would prevent the initiation of the cracks at that
location.
Step 6: To increase the confinement effects, the anchorage
wrap was applied on diagonal and L-shaped sheets at the top

22 ACI Structural Journal/January 2019

Table 6—Strengthening methods used in different strategies
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8
Strengthening method Holes Longitudinal L-shape Diagonal Patches Column wrap Beam wrap Anchorage
Method 1 1 layer
— — — 1 layer — — —
(TR-5-FRP-1) 500 mm
Method 2 3 layers
— 1 layer 1 layer 1 layer — 2 layers —
(TR-5-FRP-2) 300 mm
Method 3 3 layers
4 holes 1 layer 1 layer 1 layer 3 layers 2 layers 150 mm
(TR-5-FRP-3) 300 mm

Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

Fig. 8—Location of strain gauges and dial gauges.

also provided some shear reinforcement to the beam in addi-
tion to its main purpose.
Step 8: As a final stage, to prevent the debonding from the
beam surface, CFRP sheets were anchored to the concrete
by using the holes drilled in the first step. CFRP sheets of
150 mm (5.9 in.) length were used as anchor material.
Three different strengthening methods were applied on
three identical specimens. At first, only diagonal CFRP and
beam wrapping were applied to the first specimen and tested.
Considering the damage pattern, additional steps were
applied for other specimens. The strengthening methods are
described in Table 6.

Fig. 9—Slope of diagonal fibers.
and bottom column region. The CFRP sheet with 300 mm
(11.8 in.) width was wrapped around the columns.
Step 7: To prevent debonding, the CFRP sheet was
wrapped around the beam as an anchorage. This application
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Specimen TR-1-Control was designed and detailed
according to provisions of TEC-75. The maximum lateral
load was measured as 50 kN (11.2 kip) at 1.40% drift cycles
in the pull and push directions of loading. Although the
amount of longitudinal reinforcements was different at top
(516 [No. 5]) and bottom (416 [No. 5]) of the beam, there
was no significant difference between the lateral load capac-
ities in pull and push directions of loading. The reason for
this was that the failure was governed by the crushing of
the concrete at the joint core due to shear failure prior to the
yielding of beam’s longitudinal reinforcement.
Specimen TR-2-Control had deficiencies including insuf-
ficient transverse reinforcement in the column and the beam,
as well as lack of transverse reinforcement at the joint
region. The first crack within the joint region was noticed at

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 23

Fig. 10—Shear failure mechanisms of control specimens.
the first cycle of 0.50% drift level. At a drift level of 1.40%,
a maximum load of approximately 40 kN (9.0 kip) was
measured in pull and push directions of loading. The width
of crack formed at the intersection of beam-column connec-
tion was measured as 2.5 mm (0.10 in.) at 1.75% drift level
when the applied load was recorded as 34 kN (7.6 kip). As in
the case of specimen TR-1-Control, joint shear failure was
also the governing mode of failure for TR-2-Control. Addi-
tionally, buckling of the longitudinal reinforcements of the
column was observed and the concrete cover was crushed
due to lack of transverse reinforcements at the joint region.
Specimen TR-3-Control had a smaller cross section of
beam than that of the column and was tested under 330 kN
(74.2 kip) axial load, equivalent to 40% of the column axial
load capacity. The first joint shear crack was formed at
1.00% drift level. After this drift level, the lateral load started
to decrease. Before the yielding of the beam’s longitudinal
reinforcements, shear failure mechanism was formed at the
BCJ region.
Specimen TR-4-Control had deficiencies of lacking trans-
verse reinforcement at the joint region and short anchorages
of bottom longitudinal reinforcements extending from the
beam. The maximum load of 42 kN (9.4 kip) and 46 kN
(10.3  kip) for push and pull directions, respectively, were
recorded at 1.00% drift level. At the conclusion of the test,
24
the column reinforcements buckled. Having no shear rein-
forcements in the joint region, a distinct pinching effect
was observed in the load-deformation hysteretic behavior.
Degradation in the load-carrying capacities began after
1.00% drift level due to shear deformation.
Specimen TR-5-Control had deficiencies in transverse
reinforcement, short anchorages of the beam bottom longitu-
dinal reinforcements, and lap splices at the top column. The
first joint crack was initiated from the top corner of the BCJ
region at a drift level of 0.35%. Maximum load levels of
32 kN (7.2 kip) and 47.0 kN (10.6 kip) were reached for both
push and pull load directions, respectively, at the drift level
of 0.75%. Pinching effect was also observed in this spec-
imen due to the diagonal shear cracking of the joint region.
Final crack patterns and failure mechanisms of all control
specimens are given in Fig. 10.
TR-5-FRP-1 was the counterpart specimen for TR-5-­
Control. Based on the crack patterns observed in the
control specimen, Specimen TR-5-FRP-1 was strengthened
with CFRP as described in Method 1. When the drift was
increased to 1.40%, on the back face of the column, near
the top and the bottom faces of the beam, buckling of CFRP
sheets (buckling length of approximately 20 mm [0.79 in.])
was observed. Additionally, the CFRP sheets were ruptured
at the corner of beam-column joint at a drift level of 2.75%.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Fig. 11—Failure mechanism of CFRP-strengthened specimens.
After removing the CFRP sheets, the column’s longitudinal
reinforcement at the west side of the specimen was also
buckled. The buckling locations of the steel bars and CFRP
sheets were identical.
The geometry and internal reinforcement details of spec-
imen TR-5-FRP-2 were also identical to specimen TR-5-­
Control. Based on the damages and crack patterns developed
in the first retrofitted specimen (TR-5-FRP-1), TR-5-FRP-2
was strengthened with the CFRP configuration described in
Method 2. At the interface of beam-column joint, diagonal
CFRP sheets started to rupture at the drift level of 1.40%;
however, cracks could not propagate due to four layers of
CFRP sheets at those locations. At the drift level of 2.75%,
when the applied lateral load was the maximum for push
(71 kN [10.3 kip]) and pull (94 kN [13.6 kip]), CFRP sheets
were debonded at the back side of the column due to the
buckling of the CFRP sheets. Furthermore, the cracks on the
beam widened and the concrete crushed. During the 3.50%
drift level, hinging mechanism occurred on the beam.
The TR-5-FRP-3 retrofitting scheme was designed to
address all the aforementioned deficiencies in its coun-
terpart specimen, TR-5 Control. Based on the observed
damage and crack patterns in the second retrofitted spec-
imen (TR-5-FRP-2), TR-5-FRP-3 was strengthened with the
CFRP configuration described in Method 3. At the interface
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
of beam-column joints, diagonal CFRP sheets started to
rupture at the drift level of 2.20%; however, cracks could
not be propagated due to four layers of CFRP sheets at those
locations. Also, spalling of concrete cover was observed
at the bottom of the beam at this drift level. At 2.75% drift
level, the tip of the diagonal fibers started to debond. The
debonding could not be extended due to the anchorages. At
the drift level of 3.50%, the beam’s bottom reinforcements
buckled. A beam hinging mechanism was formed. At the
end of the test, to see the damages at the joint region, CFRP
sheets were removed from the concrete. Figure 11 shows the
failure mechanism of CFRP-strengthened specimens.
The load-displacement curves of all tested BCJs are given
in Fig. 12. The hysteresis loops of all control specimens
show substantial pinching, typical of joint shear failure char-
acterized by diagonal cracking in the joint core. However,
CFRP-retrofitted specimens performed very well as
compared to their counterpart control specimens. The results
are discussed in in more details in the following sections.
ANALYSIS OF TEST SPECIMENS
Stiffness
The secant stiffness of peak points of the measured lateral
load versus top displacement response was also used for
investigating the behavior of the specimens in terms of stiff-
25
Fig. 12—Load-deflection curves. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.224 kip.)
ness degradation under cyclic lateral loads. The secant stiff-
ness K is defined as the slope of the line that passes from
the origin to a displacement reversal point of interest on the
lateral load versus story drift loops (Fig. 13). Because there
was no confinement in the joint region of the control
specimens, the brittle failure occurred and the rate of
stiffness degradation was faster in the control specimen as
compared to the strengthened ones. Some degradation in the
stiffness values could be observed in the repeated cycles of
the same drift level. After the application of CFRP retrofit,
the joint behavior became more ductile, and stiffness degra-
dation values for each cycle decreased.
Figure 14(a) illustrates stiffness degradation of the control
specimens. As mentioned before, all CFRP-strengthened
specimens showed similar behavior in push direction of
loading (positive drift levels) whereas TR-5-FRP-1 had less Fig. 13—Stiffness and energy calculations.
lateral load capacity than the other two strengthened spec-
imens in the pull direction of loading due to the rupture of

26 ACI Structural Journal/January 2019

Fig. 14—Stiffness degradations. (Note: 1 kN/mm = 5.71
kip/in.)
diagonal CFRP sheets. Therefore, the rate of stiffness degra-
dation was higher in TR-5-FRP-1 specimen in the pull direc-
tion of loading (Fig. 14(b)).
Energy dissipation
To characterize the response of the beam-column joint
specimens, one way to define the cumulative dissipated
energy is the cumulative area under hysteresis loops of the
lateral load versus top displacement response. Figure 13
also illustrates the calculation of dissipated energy for one
hysteresis loop.
Accordingly, the cumulative dissipated energy versus
story drift relationships for control and strengthened
specimens are presented in Fig. 15. As observed from
Fig. 15(a), the cumulative dissipated energy was highest in
the TR-1-Control specimen, which was designed according
to the provisions of TEC-75. Also, it was obvious from the
figure that the TR-3-Control specimen showed poor energy
dissipation capacity due to its smaller cross section.
In TR-5-FRP specimens, by using effective wrapping
methodologies, high energy dissipation capacities were
achieved (Fig. 15(b)). The behavior of TR-5-FRP-1 spec-
imen demonstrates an adequate wrapping application.
Cumulative dissipated energy values were similar in all
control specimens, except TR-3, which had smaller beam’s
and column’s cross section dimensions. After 1.40% drift
level, the dissipated energy values of the strengthened spec-
imens started to increase at higher drift levels.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Fig. 15—Energy dissipations. (Note: 1 kN·mm = 0.00885
kip-in.)
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, the effects of common deficiencies
such as low-quality concrete, smooth bar reinforcements,
insufficient transverse reinforcements, and inadequate
lap-splice length on the behavior of the exterior beam-
column joint specimens are investigated. All specimens
were produced with low-quality concrete and plain steel bars
to represent the pre-1998 designed structures in Turkey. An
experimental program was carried out on eight large-scale
specimens subjected to reversed cyclic lateral loads. Multiple
CFRP retrofit configurations were developed to increase the
shear capacity of the deficient beam-column joints.
TR-1-Control specimen was designed according to
TEC-75, which had transverse reinforcement in beam-
column joint region, closely-spaced stirrups in both beam
and column elements, no lap splicing within potential plastic
hinging region, and hooked reinforcement in the BCJ region
extended into the columns. Other specimens were produced
with deficiencies in Turkish practice, obtained from survey
study. The TR-2-Control specimen had lack of stirrups in
the joint region and inadequate stirrups spacing in beam and
column members. The TR-3-Control specimen was similar
to TR-2-Control, but had smaller cross-sectional dimensions
of beam and column members. The TR-4-Control spec-
imen was similar to TR-2-Control, but hooked reinforce-
ments were not extended to the columns. The TR-5-Con-
trol specimen was similar to TR-4-Control with spliced
reinforcements.
27
 Three different strengthening configurations were used
for newly produced specimens that were identical to the
TR-5-Control specimen because it showed the worst
behavior in terms of lateral load and energy dissipation
capacities among other control specimens. The TR-5-FRP-1
specimen had only one layer of diagonal CFRP in the joint
and one layer wrapping in the beam. TR-5-FRP-2 had one
layer of CFRP on the outside column surface, one layer
L-shaped in the inside surface joining the beam and column,
one layer of diagonal CFRP at the joint, two layers of CFRP
wrapping around the column, and three layers of wrapping
around the beam. TR-5-FRP-3 had four holes in the beam
near the column for anchorage to prevent debonding of the
beam’s CFRP wrapping, one layer of CFRP on the outside
column surface, one layer of CFRP L-shaped at the inside
surface joining the column and the beam, one layer of
diagonal CFRP at the joint, three layers of patches to prevent
the CFRP rupture in the corners, two layers of wrapping
around the column, and three layers of wrap for the beam
and four CFRP anchorages.
The following conclusions can be drawn based on the
results obtained from this experimental study:
1. In all control specimens including TR-1 Control, which
was designed and detailed according to TEC-75, shear
failure was observed in the joint region prior to the beam or
column being able to reach their ultimate flexural strength.
This shows that TEC-75 code provisions could not prevent
the shear failure.
2. The lateral load capacities of TR-2-Control, TR-4-­
Control, and TR-5-Control specimens reduced by almost
20% as compared to that of TR-1-Control specimen due to
the presence of various deficiencies such as lack of trans-
verse reinforcements in the joint panel, and in the beam and
column elements, reduced the lateral load capacities of the
test specimens. Also, compared to TR-1-Control specimen,
the hysteretic energy dissipation capacity (defined in this
case as the cumulative area under the load-displacement
response) was reduced by almost 20%.
3. Comparing the behavior of TR-2-Control, TR-4-­
Control and TR-5-Control specimens with all equal member
cross-sectional sizes, there were no significant changes
observed in the lateral load capacity due to the length of the
hook and splicing of column reinforcements. The reason for
this is that joint shear failure due to the lack of transverse
reinforcement in joint panel occurred before the effects of
these deficiencies took place.
4. The orientation of the joint shear cracks observed in the
control specimens depended on the width-to-height ratio of
the joint panel cross section. Cracks were propagated diago-
nally from one corner to the other corner of the joint. From
this observation, in the CFRP strengthening methodology,
fibers were oriented diagonally to prevent the formation of
shear cracks in the joint core. Thus, diagonal CFRP wrap-
ping of the beam-column joint was more effective because
the orientation of the diagonal strips was closer to being
parallel to the principal stresses in the joint core and perpen-
dicular to the formation of possible shear cracks both diag-
onal directions at the joint core.
28
5. Step-by-step improvements were done on strengthened
specimens. The first specimen was retrofitted with minimum
wrapping. Buckling of the column reinforcements near the
joint region and rupturing of the CFRP sheets at the corner
of the joint region were spotted and thus, a second wrap-
ping technique was developed. Finally, rupture of the CFRP
at the joint and debonding of wrapped CFRP on the beam
were noticed in the second specimen, and accordingly,
final improvements were applied to the third specimen.
This CFRP retrofit configuration significantly improved the
behavior of deficient joints. In all three CFRP strengthened
specimens, the beam members reached their flexural capaci-
ties. Strengthened specimens exhibited significant increases
in strength and energy dissipation capacities as compared to
the TR-5-Control specimen. Elasto-plastic-shaped hysteresis
loops were observed with large energy dissipation capacity.
Three of the specimens were strengthened with CFRP mate-
rials, considering the effects of deficiencies in the control
specimens. The lateral load capacities of strengthened spec-
imens increased by 50% to 100% when compared to the
control one.
6. Although the rate of the degradation of the stiffness
was similar for all control specimens, the initial stiffness
values of deficient specimens were less than TR-1-Control.
However, the rate of the degradation was decreased by using
the proposed CFRP strengthening.
7. Cumulative dissipated energy values were similar in
all control specimens except TR-3-Control, which had a
smaller cross-sectional dimension of beam and columns.
After 1.40% drift level, the dissipated energy of strengthened
specimens started to increase significantly when compared
to that of control specimens.
8. Specimen TR-5-FRP-3 had superior performance as
compared to the other two strengthened specimens. This was
due to the anchorages applied to the beam that prevented
the debonding of the CFRP sheets. Subsequently, the plastic
hinge formed in the beam away from the joint core.
AUTHOR BIOS
Osman Kaya is an Assistant Professor at Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University,
Muğla, Turkey. He received his BS from Pamukkale University, Denizli,
Turkey, and his MS and PhD from Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
His research interests include strengthening and retrofitting of reinforced
concrete structures.
Cem Yalçın is an Associate Professor at Boğaziçi University. He received
his BS from Boğaziçi University; his MS from Technical University of Nova
Scotia, Halifax, NS, Canada; and his PhD from the University of Ottawa,
Ottawa, ON, Canada. His research interests include strengthening and
retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures and topics related to energy-­
based design of structures under seismic loading.
Azadeh Parvin is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering at the University of Toledo, Toledo, OH. Her research
interests include analysis, design, and behavior of reinforced concrete
structures; repair and rehabilitation of structures by use of fiber compos-
ites; analysis of impact loads with bridge components due to a truck colli-
sion; earthquake engineering of bridges and buildings; and laboratory
testing and finite element modeling of structural components.
Selçuk Altay is a Civil Engineer. He received his BS from Yıldız Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey; and his MS and PhD from Boğaziçi University.
His research interests include finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
structures.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) through Grant OISE-0352947;
the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)
through Grant ICTAG-I597-NSF (103I026); and Boğaziçi University
Scientific Research Project under Grant No. 05A401 for financing this
research work; and the BASF-YKS, the Chemical Company, for providing
support in material supply.
NOTATION
Ag = gross cross-sectional area
b = width of joint panel
F = applied lateral load
fc′ = characteristic compressive strength of concrete
fy = characteristic yield strength of reinforcement
H = height of column
h = height of joint panel
K = secant stiffness
L = length of beam
Mb = moment capacity of beam
Mcb = moment capacity of bottom column
Mct = moment capacity of top column
N = axial force
P = vertical reaction at beam support
V = shear force acting on joint
α = angle of diagonal cracks occurred at joint region
Δ = top displacement
γ = slope of diagonal CFRP sheets
ρl = column longitudinal reinforcement ratio
REFERENCES
1. Beres, A.; White, R. N.; and Gergely, P., “Seismic Performance of
Interior and Exterior Beam-to-Column Joints Related to Lightly Reinforced
Concrete Frame Buildings: Detailed Experimental Results,” Report No.
92-7, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Nov. 1992, 210 pp.
2. Bedirhanoglu, I.; Ilki, A.; Pujol, S.; and Kumbasar, N., “Seismic
Behavior of Joints Built with Plain Bars and Low-Strength Concrete,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010, pp. 300-310.
3. Alcocer, S., and Jirsa, J. O., “Strength of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Connections Rehabilitated by Jacketing,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,
No. 3, May-June 1993, pp. 249-261.
4. Ghobarah, A.; Aziz, T. S.; and Biddah, A., “Rehabilitation of Rein-
forced Concrete Frame Connections Using Corrugated Steel Jacketing,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 3, May-June 1997, pp. 282-294.
5. Geng, Z.; Chajes, M. J.; Chou, T.; and Pan, D. Y., “The Retrofit-
ting of Reinforced Concrete Column-to-Beam Connections,” Composites
Science and Technology, V. 58, No. 8, 1998, pp. 1297-1305. doi: 10.1016/
S0266-3538(98)00014-1
6. Gergely, J.; Pantelides, C. P.; and Reaveley, L. D., “Shear Strength-
ening of RCT-Joints Using CFRP Composites,” Journal of Compos-
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
ites for Construction, ASCE, V. 4, No. 2, 2000, pp. 56-64. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2000)4:2(56)
7. Granata, P. J., and Parvin, A., “An Experimental Study on Kevlar
Strengthening of Beam-Column Connections,” Composite Structures,
V. 53, No. 2, 2001, pp. 163-171. doi: 10.1016/S0263-8223(00)00187-2
8. Ghobarah, A., and Said, A., “Shear Strengthening of Beam-Column
Joints,” Engineering Structures, V. 24, No. 7, 2002, pp. 881-888. doi:
10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00026-3
9. Antonopoulos, C. P., and Triantafillou, T. C., “Experimental Investiga-
tion of FRP-Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints,” Journal of Compos-
ites for Construction, ASCE, V. 7, No. 1, 2003, pp. 39-49. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:1(39)
10. Prota, A., Nanni, A., Manfredi G., and Cosenaza, E., “Seismic
Upgrade of Beam-Column Joints with FRP Reinforcement,” Industria Ital-
iana del Cemento, Nov. 2000.
11. Parvin, A., and Wu, S., “Evaluation of Wrap Thickness in
CFRP-Strengthened Concrete T-Joints,” Proceedings of the Second Inter-
national Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, CICE 2004,
Adelaide, Australia, Dec. 2004, pp. 643-647.
12. Parvin, A.; Altay, S.; Yalcin, C.; and Kaya, O., “CFRP Rehabilitation
of Concrete Frame Joints with Inadequate Shear and Anchorage Details,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 14, No. 1, 2010, pp.
72-82. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000055
13. Ilki, A.; Bedirhanoglu, I.; and Kumbasar, N., “Behavior of FRP-­
Retrofitted Joints Built with Plain Bars and Low-Strength Concrete,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 15, No. 3, 2011, pp.
312-326. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000156
14. Del Vecchio, C.; Di Ludovico, M.; Balsamo, A.; Prota, A.; Manfredi,
G.; and Dolce, M., “Experimental Investigation of Exterior RC Beam-
Column Joints Retrofitted with FRP Systems,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 4, 2014, p. 04014002 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000459
15. Gökgöz, E., “Experimental Research on Seismic Retrofitting of R/C
Exterior Beam-Column-Slab Joints Upgraded with Carbon Fiber Rein-
forced Polymer (CFRP) Sheets,” MSc thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul,
Turkey, 2008, 140 pp.
16. Topçu, İ., “Experimental Research on Seismic Retrofitting of R/C
Corner Beam-Column-Slab Joints Upgraded with Carbon Fiber Rein-
forced Polymer (CFRP) Sheets,” MSc thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul,
Turkey, 2008, 127 pp.
17. “Specification for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas (TEC-75),”
Ministry of Development and Housing, Earthquake Research Institutions,
Ankara, Turkey, July 1975, 63 pp.
18. ASTM C39-96, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 1996, 5 pp.
19. ASTM A706/A706M-06a, “Standard Specification for Low-Alloy
Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, 6 pp.
20. ACI Innovation Task Group 1, “Acceptance Criteria for Moment
Frames Based on Structural Testing (ACI ITG 1.1-01),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 10 pp.
29
JOIN AN
ACIChapter!
The American Concrete Institute has Chapters and Student Chapters located
throughout the world. Participation in a local chapter can be extremely
rewarding in terms of gaining greater technical knowledge and networking
with leaders in the concrete community.
Because chapters are distinct and independent legal entities, membership includes both ACI
members and non-ACI members and is made up of a diverse blend of architects, engineers,
consultants, contractors, educators, material suppliers, equipment suppliers, owners, and
students—basically anyone interested in concrete. Many active ACI members initially became
involved in ACI through their local chapter. In addition to technical programs and publications,
many chapters sponsor ACI Certification programs, ACI educational seminars, project award
recognition programs, and social events with the goal of advancing concrete knowledge.

Check out the Chapters Special Section from the October 2015 Concrete International:
www.concrete.org/publications/concreteinternational/cibackissues.aspx?m=456

Student Chapters
Join or form an ACI Student Chapter to maximize your influence, knowledge
sharing, and camaraderie! ACI has over 109 student chapters located
throughout the world, each providing opportunities for students to:
• Connect with their peers and participate in concrete-related activities such as: student
competitions, ACI Conventions, ACI Certification Programs, ACI Educational Seminars, local
chapter meetings, social events, and community service projects;
• Network with members of local chapters, many of whom have been in the industry for
decades and can help to develop professional relationships and offer career advice;
• Win recognition for their universities through the University Award; and
• Learn about the many scholarships and fellowships offered by the ACI Foundation and by
ACI’s local chapters.

ACI Student Chapters worldwide

   
www.concrete.org/chapters