Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.

org

Finite Element Analysis of Retrofitting Techniques for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint

Khair Al-Deen Bsisu 1, Belal O. Hiari2

1
The University of Jordan, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Civil Engineering Department, Amman, Jordan
2
The University of Jordan, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Amman, Jordan

Abstract: This study presents an analytical investigation of three retrofitting techniques, using finite element
analysis aimed at improving the behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column joints to enhance the performance
and load carrying capacity of structures. The three suggested retrofitting techniques presented are; reinforced
concrete jacketing, steel plate jacketing and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets wrapping in two
orthogonal directions to strengthen the joint and reduce deformations. Nonlinear static finite element analysis was
carried out to evaluate the performance of the original and strengthened joint models. The performance has been
investigated in terms of load carrying capacity, deflection, failure pattern and displacement ductility. The study
shows that using steel plates jacketing with adequate thickness is more effective in reducing the deflection than the
use of concrete jacketing and CFRP sheets. On the other hand, CFRP wrapping has shown an increase in the load
carrying capacity and a weak beam-strong column failure pattern.
[Khair Al-Deen Bsisu, Belal O. Hiari. Finite Element Analysis of Retrofitting Techniques for Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joint. J Am Sci 2015;11(8):48-56]. (ISSN: 1545-1003).
http://www.jofamericanscience.org. 8

Keywords: Beam-Column Joint, Retrofitting, Finite Element Analysis, Reinforced Concrete

1. Introduction details as per code ACI 318M-11[1] as shown in Figure

Beam-column joint deformations and strength 1.
affect the overall performance and load carrying
capacity of reinforced concrete structures making them
susceptible to progressive collapse due to failure of one
or more beam-column joints under gravity and
earthquake loadings. Therefore retrofitting of beam-
column joints is needed to maintain structural safety
and reliability. The prediction of shear strength and
flexibility for inadequately reinforced beam-column
joints before and after retrofitting will be done using
three dimensional finite element analysis to evaluate
the improvement of load carrying capacity of R.C.
buildings in order to compare the different methods. In
this study three methods of joint strengthening will be
discussed. These methods are: carbon fiber reinforced
polymers (CFRP) confinement, section enlargement by
concrete jacketing, and steel jacketing. The ease of
application and efficiency of each method will be
discussed and compared.
The joint will be under bending stress, shear Figure 1. Reinforcement details for specimen.
stress, and axial stress. The developed stresses inside
the joint will be examined before the retrofitting and The columns had a cross section of 200 mm x 200
after each technique by conducting static analysis. mm with an overall length of 1600 mm. The beams had
Load carrying capacity, load-deflection behavior, a cross section of 200 mm x 200 mm with a
ductility and failure pattern will be studied to cantilevered portion of length 600 mm. The column
investigate the response of the joint to the retrofitting portion was reinforced with 4 numbers of 12 mm
technique and if it satisfies the required capacity. diameters and the beam portion was reinforced with 2
numbers of 16 mm diameters in the tension zone and 2
2. Joint Description and Geometry numbers of 16 mm diameters in the compression zone.
All specimens of analytical study that have been The main reinforcement had yield strength of 415 MPa.
adopted for verification consist of a cantilever portion The lateral ties in the columns were 6 mm diameter at
and column portion. The specimens had reinforcement 180 mm center to center (c/c) spacing and the beams

48
 Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.org

had vertical stirrups of 6 mm diameter at 120 mm c/c. The reinforcement had been modeled using
The lateral ties and the vertical stirrups had yield element type Link180 for the main reinforcement and
strength of 250 MPa. The concrete strength of the the ties. It was assumed to be bilinear isotropic
specimen adopted was 20 MPa. material. The modulus of elasticity of the steel (Es) was
taken as 2 ∗ 10 MPa and the Poisson's ratio (νs) was
3. Finite Element Model 0.3. The bilinear isotropic behavior of Link180 element
Young modulus of elasticity of the concrete (Ec) satisfied by Von Mises failure criterion and requires the
and the Poisson's ratio (νc) were chosen as linear yield stress (fy) and the hardening modulus (tangent
isotropic properties for the concrete. The modulus of modulus) of steel. The yield stress for the main
elasticity of concrete based on the ACI 318M-11 reinforcement was taken as 420 MPa, while for the
equation = 4700 ′ . Poisson ratio for concrete shear reinforcement was 250 MPa and the tangent
was assumed to be 0.2 based on the compressive modulus was taken as zero for the both.
strength of concrete used in the beam and the column. 3.1 Control Specimen
The uniaxial crushing stress fc' was considered to be 20 Solid 65 was used as element type for the three-
MPa and the uniaxial tensile cracking stress of concrete dimensional modeling of solids as concrete
used in this study was considered to be 2.5 MPa. representation. The defined Solid 65 element type is
For the non-linear isotropic behavior of concrete capable of cracking in tension and crushing in
that the analysis needs, the stress-strain curve of compression and was defined by eight nodes having
concrete was built based on the equation: three degrees of freedom at each node: translation in
Ɛ Ɛ the nodal x, y and z directions. The brick element had
σcu = σ'cu * 2 ∗ Ɛ − Ɛ ) dimensions of (20 x 20 x 20) mm at each side. The
Where: σcu= fc' when Ɛ ≤Ɛc ≤Ɛo most important part of Solid 65 element is the
Ɛ is the strain and Ɛo is the maximum strain. treatment of nonlinear material properties. Figure 3.
σcu is the stress and σ′ cu is the maximum stress. shows a typical view of eight nodes solid 65 element.
The ratio between the stress and the strain must be
equal to Young's modulus at the first point of stress
strain curve, and then the ratio is decreased to the last
data when the compressive strength increases.
Figure 2. shows the stress, strain and the Young's
modulus that describe the multi-linear isotropic
behavior of the concrete.

25
20
Stress (Mpa)

15
Figure 3. Typical view of eight nodes solid 65 element.
10

5 3.1.1 Modeling & Meshing

The reinforced concrete joint was modeled with
0 dimensions (200 x 200 x 1600) mm and (200 x 200 x
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 600) mm which represent the column and the beam
respectively. The meshing divided it into a number of
Strain
small brick elements with (20 x 20 x 20) mm
dimensions as shown in Figure 4.
Two methods are usually followed to model the
Figure 2. Stress-strain curve of concrete. concrete reinforcing.. The first one is the smeared
concrete element method. The second one is
Eight-node 3D Solid 65 element type could be reinforcing discrete elements with geometrical
used as reinforced or unreinforced concrete element to properties similar to the original reinforcement which
verify the load carrying capacity led to an unexpected was used in this study. The reinforcement does not
failure and crack. However, Solid 65 supports only need any meshing because individual elements are
three rebar. As a result, another element type should be formed in the modeling through the nodes created by
used in order to model the reinforcement in tension, concrete volumes. Figure 5. shows the reinforcement
compression and the shear reinforcement. detailing for the control specimen.

49
 Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.org

did not happen due to concrete crushing at the edges of

the beam.

Figure 6. Restrains for control specimen.

Figure 4. Mesh of the concrete volumes for the control

specimen.

Figure 7. Static loading at the free end of the cantilever

beam.

The same load was applied for all retrofitted

specimen with small displacement static analysis
option and time step size of 0.1 kN. The tolerance for
the nonlinear solution was set to be 0.01 to make the
Figure 5. Reinforcement representation for the control analysis more convergence based on force analysis.
specimen. 3.2 Concrete Jacketing
The first retrofitting technique that used in this
The model was built to be hinged at the column study was concrete jacketing at the member level with
ends. Degrees of freedom to be constrained at the x, y different thicknesses at the joint region. The jacketing
and z directions with zero displacement value was was done with 200 mm and 400 mm thickness at each
applied at the nodes located at the top and bottom of face of the beam and the column at distance d using a
the column as shown in Figure 6. concrete with compressive strength of 20 MPa and a
3.1.2 Loading steel mesh of 10 mm diameter with ultimate tensile
The applied load was performed as a static load at strength of 250 MPa. The element types that used for
the free end of the cantilever beam as a small forces modeling the concrete and the steel mesh were the
divided by the number of nodes at that location as same as the elements types used in modeling the
shown in Figure 7. The forces at the two corners were concrete specimen. Solid 65 with brick dimensions (10
reduced to the half value to make sure that the failure x 10 x 10) mm and Link 180 element types were used
to model the concrete and the steel mesh respectively.

50
 Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.org

Figure 8. shows the concrete meshing and the steel

mesh for the specimen jacketed by concrete with 200
mm thickness.

(a) (b)
Figure 8.
(a) Meshing specimen retrofitted by 200 mm thickness
concrete jacketing. Figure 10. Steel plate representation for the jacketed
(b)Reinforcement representation for steel mesh at the specimen using SHELL 41.
joint region.
3.4 CFRP Wrapping
3.3 Steel Plate Jacketing The last retrofitting technique used in this study
Steel plate was used as a member-level was Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
retrofitting technique in order to enhance the strength wrapping sheets shown in Figure 11.
and the behavior of beam-column joints. The jacketing
was done with 20 mm and 40 mm plate thickness at
each face of the beam and the column at the joint
region. The element type that used to model steel plate
was SHELL 41 element type. The element is defined
by four nodes and four thicknesses. Figure 9. shows the
geometry, node locations and the coordinate system for
SHELL 41 element type.

Figure 9. Typical view of SHELL 41 element type. Figure 11. Representation of CFRP wrapped specimen
using SHELL 41.
The steel plate was assumed to be linear isotropic
The material was modeled using SHELL 41
material with Es of 2 ∗ 10 MPa and 0.3 Poisson's ratio.
element type and assumed to be orthotropic material
Figure 10. shows the steel plate representation with the
with thickness of 10 mm. The modulus of elasticity of
main reinforcement for the jacketed specimen.
CFRP was 2.3 ∗ 10 MPa, Poisson's ratio of 0.3 and
the ultimate stress (ft) was considered to be 3400 MPa
(Manufacturing properties).

51
 Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.org

4. Discussion of Results between the column and the beam at the joint region.
4.1 Introduction Cracks also have appeared at the cantilever beam and
This section discusses the results of the original along the column which indicates that the failure due to
joint case and the retrofitted cases. A comparison the applied load was along the whole specimen with
between the carrying load capacity, ductility and the very large cracks intensity at the joint region due to
deflection results for the original and retrofitted lack shear reinforcement.
specimens is held to identify the improvements and the
effects that each retrofitting technique has
accomplished.
4.2 Finite Element Analysis
The behavior of the retrofitted beam-column
joints was investigated using finite element analysis
method using ANSYS software. An increasing static
load was applied at the free end of the cantilever beam
to develop bending moment at the beam-column joint.
The results from the analysis were compared between
the retrofitting techniques and the control specimen to
verify the effectiveness of retrofitting under loadings.
The strengthen techniques is considered as member-
level evaluation for the structure, and it was carried out
on each original and retrofitted specimens in order to
show the effect of the retrofitting technique on the Figure 12. Cracks in the control specimen.
strength and capacity of the joints and redistribution of
the stresses along the joints. 4.2.2 Concrete Jacketing of 200 mm
4.2.1 Control Specimen After performing the previous analysis on the
Non-linear analysis was done for the control beam-column joint retrofitted with 200 mm concrete
specimen using the software ANSYS. An increasing jacketing. The use of this technique shows more
static load was applied at the free end of the cantilever advantages rather than the results obtained from the
beam at a load interval of 1 kN up to control load of 20 control specimen in some terms as shown in the
kN to develop a bending moment at the joint. The following figures. Where, the load carrying capacity
maximum deflection was found to be 47.5 mm for the increased about 7.69%. However, it can be still noticed
load of 20 kN. Ductility is measured in terms of that reducing the maximum displacement of the
displacement ductility; which is the ratio of the specimen was not significantly large. Where, the
maximum deformation that the specimen can undergo maximum deflection was found to be 34.82 mm for the
without significant loss of initial yielding resistance to load of 20 kN. However, after comparing the use of
the initial yield deformation. The displacement results concrete jacketing technique with the control specimen,
of analysis performed using finite element code the displacement ductility of this specimen has been
ANSYS, version 14, have been used to calculate the decreased by 21.2% and the deflection has been
displacement ductility. Where the displacement of the decreased by 26.7%. It was observed that the
control specimen at the initial yielding was found to be displacement of the jacketed specimen at the initial
7.81 mm and the maximum deformation at the ultimate yielding was found to be 8.92 mm, the maximum
stage was 47.5 mm. The displacement ductility was deformation at the ultimate stage was 42.69 mm and
found to be 6.08. The crack/crushing pattern in the the displacement ductility was found to be 2.66.
specimen can be obtained using the crack/crushing plot The cracking pattern for the retrofitted specimen
option in finite element code ANSYS 14. In the non- is shown in Figure 13. It shows that the ability of the
linear region of the response, cracks occur as more joint to distribute the load between the beam and the
loads are applied at the free end of the cantilever beam. column has become more efficient. As a result, greater
The cracking pattern for the control specimen is shown deformation occurs at the joint region. Tensile cracks
in Figure 12. Once the steel reinforcement starts to were developed at the jacketing region between the
yield, the displacements and the rotations of the column and the beam. Cracks also have appeared with
specimen begin to increase at a higher rate as more less intensity at the cantilever beam and along the
load increments are applied, and the ability of the joint column which indicates that the joint starts to take the
to distribute the load between the beam and the column load more effectively than the original case were the
has diminished greatly, as a result, greater deformation joint was not retrofitted and the failure due to the
occurs at the joint region at the beam and columns applied load was at the jacketing zone.
corners. Tensile cracks were developed at the interface

52
 Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.org

than the use of concrete jacketing. However, the

displacement at the initial yielding was found to be
6.89 mm were the maximum deformation at the
ultimate stage was 31.1 mm and the displacement
ductility was found to be 4.51.The reduction in
deflection that observed was 44.47% which is better
than the use of concrete jacketing with the same
thickness but not in the case of larger concrete
jacketing thickness. In the non-linear region of the
response, cracks start to appear as more loads are
applied at the free end of the cantilever beam. The
cracking pattern for the retrofitted specimen is shown
in Figure 15.
Figure 13. Cracks in the beam-column joint retrofitted
with 200 mm concrete jacketing.

4.2.3 Concrete Jacketing of 400 mm

After increasing the jacketing thickness to reach a
thickness of 400 mm. The same analysis was
performed to see the effect of jacketing thickness in the
performance of the specimen under increasing static
load. The results shows that the increasing of jacketing
thickness with same properties of the concrete and steel
reinforcement could enhance the load carrying capacity
when compared with the control specimen. Where, the
load carrying capacity increased about 12.2%. The
displacement at the initial yielding was found to be
8.92 mm were the maximum deformation at the
Figure 14. Cracks in the beam-column joint retrofitted
ultimate stage was 23.7 mm and the displacement
with 400 mm concrete jacketing.
ductility was found to be 2.66. Decreasing in the
ductility of this specimen of 56.25% has been
observed. However, the reduction in deflection was
found to be 59.03% which indicates that the reducing
the maximum displacement of the specimen was not
significant large.
The cracking pattern of the retrofitted specimen
shown in Figure 14. demonstrates the ability of the
joint to distribute the load between the beam and the
column has become much better when compared with
the control specimen and the specimen retrofitted with
200 mm concrete jacketing. Where, at the crushing
load, all the cracks were developed at the jacketing
region between the column and the beam. Cracks also
have appeared with less intensity at the cantilever beam
and along the column when compared with the Figure 15. Cracks in the beam-column joint retrofitted
specimen retrofitted with 200 mm concrete jacketing, with 20 mm thickness steel plates.
which indicates that the joint starts to take the load
more effectively and the failure due to the applied load Once the steel plate starts to yield, the
was at the jacketing zone. displacements and the rotations of the specimen begin
4.2.4 Steel Plate Jacketing of 20 mm to increase at a higher rate as more load increments are
When performing the same analysis for the beam- applied. It was observed that the cracks have started to
column joint jacketed with 20 mm thickness steel plate, move away from the joint region and formed with large
a proper increase in the load carrying capacity of about intensity at the cantilever beam and along the column
13.04% more than the result obtained in the case of which indicates that the failure due to the applied load
control specimen. This indicates that the use of steel was not concentrated at the joint region as the case of
jacketing as a retrofitting technique is better option

53
 Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.org

concrete jacketing technique. So, it can be considered with the control specimen. However, the maximum
as a good joint strengthen technique. displacement at the load of 20 kN was found to be
4.2.5 Steel Plate Jacketing of 40 mm 16.83 mm which is larger than the case of use steel
After performing the previous analysis on the plate with 40 mm thickness. It is observed that the
beam-column joint and using a steel plate with 40 mm ductility of this specimen have a decrease of 41.6%.
thickness. The analysis shows more significant The displacement of the specimen at the initial yielding
improvements when increasing the steel plate was found to be 6.48mm were the maximum
thickness. The maximum deflection was found to be deformation at the ultimate stage was 23 mm and the
10.3 mm for the load of 20 kN. The non-linear analysis displacement ductility was found to be 3.55.
shows an increase in the load carrying capacity of The cracking pattern for the retrofitted specimen
about 28.7% when compared with the control is shown in Figure 17.
specimen. And a reduction in the deflection of about
78.3% was observed. These results show the effect of
thickness when using steel plate jacketing technique.
Where, it shows much better improvements in the
behavior of the joint. The cracking pattern for the
retrofitted specimen is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 17. Cracks in the beam-column joint wrapped

by CFRP.

It shows that the use of this technique makes the

joint to behave like the previous case where the
retrofitting technique was steel plate wrapping with 40
Figure 16. Cracks in the beam-column joint retrofitted mm thickness. The main target of the joint to distribute
with 40 mm thickness steel plate. the load between the beam and the column has reached.
The cracks are completely formed away from the joint
It shows that the main target of the joint to region and formed with large intensity at the cantilever
distribute the load between the beam and the column beam which is the most preferred type of failure. This
has reached. It was observed that the cracks are indicates that the failure due to the applied load was not
completely formed away from the joint region and concentrated at the joint region.
formed with large intensity at the cantilever beam and
along the column which indicates that the failure due to 5. Conclusions
the applied load was not concentrated at the joint The following conclusions were made based on
region as the case of concrete jacketing technique and the results of this study:
the joint has behaved in a better way when compared 1. The load carrying capacity of the beam-
with the specimen retrofitted with 20 mm steel plate column joint specimen retrofitted by 200 mm and 400
thickness which again shows the effect of thickness. mm concrete jacketing was found to be 7.69% and
So, it can be considered as a good joint strengthen 12.2% respectively more than the control specimen.
technique. 2. The load carrying capacity of the specimen
4.2.6 CFRP Wrapping retrofitted by 20 mm and 40 mm steel plate jacketing
The final retrofitting technique that used to reach was found to be 13.04% and 28.7% respectively more
at a good beam-column joint behavior was CFRP than the control.
wrapping. The results show that the use of this 3. The load carrying capacity of the beam-
technique could increase the load carrying capacity column joint specimen retrofitted by CFRP wrapping
when compared with the control specimen or any sheets was found to be 33.3more than the control.
retrofitting techniques used. Where, the load carrying 4. The reduction in deflection for the specimen
capacity has increased about 33.3% when compared retrofitted by 200 mm and 400 mm concrete jacketing

54
 Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.org

was found to be 26.7% and 59.03% respectively when References:

compared with the control specimen. 1. American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee
5. The reduction in deflection for the specimen 318M-11, Building Code Requirements for
retrofitted by 20 mm and 40 mm steel plate jacketing Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-11), and
was found to be 44.47% and 78.3% respectively when Commentary (318R-011). Farmington Hills,
compared with the control specimen. Mich.: American Concrete institute.
6. The reduction in deflection for the specimen 2. American Society of Civil Engineering, ASCE
retrofitted CFRP wrapping sheets was found to be (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
64.56% when compared with the control specimen. Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). USA,
7. When comparing the effect of thickness Virginia, Reston.
between the concrete jacketing and steel plate jacketing 3. American Society of Civil Engineering, ASCE
techniques, the results shows that the use of steel plate (2007), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
technique with smaller thickness could enhance the Buildings (ASCE/ESI 41-06).USA, Virginia,
beam-column joint carrying load capacity more than Reston.
the use of concrete jacketing with doubled thickness. 4. Applied Technology Council, ATC-40 (1996),
8. The results show that the use of CFRP Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
wrapping sheets can be considered as the best Buildings, Volume (1), California: Seismic
retrofitting technique compared to the other two Commission State of California.
techniques when the increasing of the load carrying 5. ANSYS, "ANSYS Help", Release 14.0,
capacity is the target. While, the use of Steel plate Copyright 2013.
jacketing with proper thickness is the best option when 6. Alva G M S, El Debs A L D C and El Debs M K.
the decreasing of maximum deflection is the target. (2007). An Experimental Study on Cyclic
9. The results show that the displacement at the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Connections.
initial yielding for the specimen retrofitted by concrete Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 34,
jacketing was large than the control specimen, while, No. 4, pp. 565-575.
was smaller when using steel plate jacketing and CFRP 7. Tsonos A. G., Tegos, I. G and Penelis, G. Gr.
wrapping techniques. (1992). Seismic Resistance of Type 2 Exterior
10. The failure was along the beam and the Beam-Column Joints Reinforced with Inclined
column portion of the joint of the control specimen Bars. ACI Structural Journal, 89(1), pp.3-12.
which is to be avoided. In the case of concrete jacketed 8. Kusuhara, Azukawa, Shiohara and Otani. (2004).
specimens, the failure was at the jacketing zone. In the Tests of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-
case of steel plate jacketing, the failure was away from Column Joint Sub assemblage with Eccentric
the joint and the cracks have concentrated at the beam Beams. 13th Word Conference on Earthquake
and the upper part of the column, while, in the case of Engineering.
wrapped specimen using CFRP sheets, the failure was 9. T. El-Amoury and A.Ghobarah. (2005). Retrofit
noticed in the beam portion only and this is the most of RC Frames Using FRP Jacketing or Steel
preferred type of failure. Bracing. J. of Seismology and Earthquake
11. More retrofitting techniques can be compared Engineering, 7(2).
to the mentioned retrofitting techniques, such as adding 10. Appa G. Appa, V. Nayya and R. Eligehausen.
stainless steel instead of steel plates, diagonal cross (2008). Strengthening of Shear Deficient RC
bracing bars and using other types of (FRP) materials Beam-Column Joints In MRFS Under Seismic
such as Glass and Aluminum fiber reinforced polymer. Loading. VIII. International Conference on
12. Another type of analysis can be done for this Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete
type of structures with these retrofitting techniques Structures. FraMCOS-8.
which is the seismic behavior instead of the behavior 11. Robert Ravi and Prince Arulraj. (2010).
under static load. Experimental Investigation on Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joints
Corresponding Author: Retrofitted with GFRP AFRP Hybrid Wrapping.
Dr. Khair Al-Deen Bsisu International Journal of Civil and Structural
Department of Civil Engineering Engineering, Volume 1, No 2.
Faculty of Engineering and Technology 12. Robert Ravi and Prince Arulraj. (2010). Finite
The University of Jordan Element Modeling on behavior of Reinforced
Amman, 11942 Concrete Beam- Column Joints Retrofitted with
Jordan Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets.
Email: k.bsisu@ju.edu.jo International Journal of Civil and Structural
Engineering, Volume 1, No 3.

55
 Journal of American Science 2015;11(8) http://www.jofamericanscience.org

13. Bindhu and Jaya. (2010). Strength and Behavior Reinforced Beam-Column Joints with Reference
of Exterior Beam Column Joints with Diagonal to Anchorage Detailing. Journal of Civil
Cross Bracing Bars. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 2012, 2(4): 12-17.
Engineering (Building and Housing), Vol. 11, No. 16. Romanbabu, Choudhury and Laskar. (2013).
3. Experimental Study on Beam- Column Joint with
14. P. Asha and R. Sundararajan. (2011). Seismic Fibers under Cyclic Loading. IOSR Journal of
Behavior of Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Engineering. (IOSRJEN) ,Vol. 3, Issue 7.
Square Spiral Confinement. Asian Journal of 17. G. H. Xing, T. Wu, D.T. Niu and X. Liu. (2013).
Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), Vol. Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Interior
12, No. 3. Beam-Column Joints with Beams of Different
15. Siva Chidambaram and Thirugnanam. G. S. Depths. Earthquakes and Structures, Vol. 4, No.
(2012). Comparative Study on Behavior of 4. 1-000.

7/2/2015

56