Retro tting seismically designed exterior beam-

column joints under lateral monotonic loading: A

numerical analysis based on experimental testing
Ali Mohammed Owaid
Razi University
Amir Houshang Akhaveissy

Razi University
Bahaa Hussain Al-Abbas
Karbala University

Research Article

Keywords: Exterior beam column joints, Peak monotonic load, Reinforced concrete, retro tting numerical
model, Energy dissipation

Posted Date: September 11th, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4914887/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Additional Declarations: No competing interests reported.

 Retrofitting seismically designed exterior beam-column joints under lateral monotonic loading: A
numerical analysis based on experimental testing

Ali Mohammed Owaid1, Amir Houshang Akhaveissy1*, Bahaa Hussain Al-Abbas2

1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty Engineering, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
2. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty Engineering, Karbala University, Karbala, Iraq.

Corresponding author: Amir Houshang Akhaveissy, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty Engineering, Razi
University, P.O. Box: 67189–58894, Kermanshah, Iran. E-mail: ahakhaveissy@razi.ac.ir

Abstract

This research paper presents an experimental and numerical study on the behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) in
exterior beam-column joints designed for seismic conditions. Three laboratory specimens were prepared and tested to
evaluate their load-bearing capacity and study the joint behavior under a constant axial load and a gradually increasing
peak monotonic load until failure. The experimental results demonstrated convergence among the specimens in terms
of the load-displacement curve, displacement ductility, and energy dissipation. This was further confirmed through
the use of a Finite Element (FE) analysis model. The numerical analysis exhibited significant convergence between
experimental and numerical results. Additionally, the numerical model was retrofitted using Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (CFRP) in two methods: model 1 (CFRP sheets only) and model 2 (CFRP sheets with strips). The retrofitting
with CFRP proved suitable for enhancing structure performance, showing an improvement in failure mode and a
significant increase in peak monotonic load and energy dissipation by (31 and 26) % for model 1, and by (47 and 36)
% for model 2. This provides valuable insights into the behavior of RC exterior beam-column joints, highlighting the
importance of retrofitting with CFRP composites.

Keywords: Exterior beam column joints, Peak monotonic load, Reinforced concrete, retrofitting numerical model,
Energy dissipation.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The concrete connections between the column and the beam are critical and sensitive points in reinforced
concrete structures [1]. The main task of these connections is to transfer all bending and torsional moments, as well
as axial and lateral forces between the connected members [2]. Before the 1970s, due to a lack of understanding of
the proper behavior of concrete connections between the column and the beam, there were no specific regulations for
their design [3]. During that period, it was believed that after evaluating the stresses in the members adjacent to the
connection, there was no need to control the stress in the core of the connection, which is usually larger than the cross-
sectional area of the beam and column. Through the analysis of structures damaged by numerous earthquakes
worldwide, the main cause of structural damage was identified as the failure of the structural unit in the connection
and weakness in this area [4]. The structural joint between the beam and column, also known as the beam-column
connection, is subjected to seismic forces during earthquakes. These forces are caused by the weight of the structure
and the horizontal movement of the earthquake. If this critical joint fails, it poses a risk of compromising the structural
integrity of the entire building and ultimately leading to its collapse. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure the strength and
stability of this joint to prevent potential damage [5-7]. Rehabilitating and retrofitting reinforced concrete buildings
damaged by seismic activity has become a fundamental issue in the field of structural engineering [8]. In the last two
decades, there has been a significant amount of research focused on rehabilitating vulnerable beam-column joint
connections. As a result, several methods have been proposed to enhance their performance [9-10]. In the realm of
reinforced concrete and masonry structure enhancement, promising new techniques are emerging. These techniques
place a focus on employing advanced materials and alternative methods, such as the application of external cladding
and coatings utilizing high-performance composite materials. One such material that has garnered significant attention
is carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) [11-14]. In the last two decades, CFRP has been widely used and studied
due to its numerous advantages, such as its ease of implementation and quick application. Furthermore, this material
has shown strong resistance to corrosion, a favorable strength-to-weight ratio, high stiffness, and low density [15-17].
Consequently, CFRP has emerged as a highly popular and credible material in the modern era for strengthening and
enhancing the performance of diverse structural components, such as beams [18-19], columns [20-21], beam-column
connections [22-23], and numerous other elements [24].

1.2. Literature review

Several studies have shown that the use of materials in the form of paper, strips, layers, and laminates has proven
to be effective as a rapid assembly, easy-to-apply, safe, and reliable technique for enhancing and repairing structures.
Researchers have investigated the effectiveness of these applications in improving the overall performance of
structures made of reinforced concrete [25-27]. Akguzel and Pampanin [28] proposed a design methodology for
retrofitting RC beam-column joints against seismic activity using FRP composites. In other study, T. Tafsirojjaman
et al [29] studied the performance of square hollow section (SHS) beam-column connections strengthened with
externally bonded CFRP and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) under sustained monotonic and cyclic loading.
The results showed promising improvements in joint behavior, energy dissipation, and ductility for both types of
loading. In other study, Sarmad A. Ali and John P. Forth [30] explored the experimental and analytical behavior of
exterior beam-column connections, where they were reinforced using different CFRP jackets on the beam only, under
the effect of combined monotonic loading. The results showed a significant increase in the failure load due to the
maximum stresses generated in these reinforced connections, leading to a sudden brittle failure. The finite element
(FE) method is widely used due to its benefits, such as time and cost efficiency, as well as its ability to analyze
structures at a full scale. This method is commonly employed to model entire (RC) buildings in FE software, making
the analysis particularly powerful, especially in the context of progressive collapse. FE models, implemented through
commercial software, enable a more accurate and reliable simulation of the response of RC structures under different
progressive collapse scenarios. Furthermore, these models are instrumental in exploring a variety of design variables,
enhancing the overall versatility of the analysis [31]. Ciro Del V. et al [32] investigated the capability of nonlinear
Finite Element (FE) analysis to estimate the seismic responses of reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column connections
that were strengthened using externally bonded CFRP under either monotonic or cyclic loading. The CFRP was
applied to the top and bottom sides of the beam. The numerical results were accurate compared to the experimental
findings in terms of the load-displacement curve and failure mechanisms. Recently, A. Dalalbashi et al [33] conducted
a numerical investigation on the effectiveness of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) sheets in improving the
seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column joints under the effect of combined axial and cyclic
loads by strengthening a set of connections using three different external strengthening configurations (L-shape, grid
reinforcement, and flange reinforcement). The numerical analysis of the strengthened models showed clear
convergence with the experimental samples in terms of the beam-end load versus beam-end displacement, energy
dissipation, and plastic hinge formation. The results confirmed that the strengthened connections showed improved
load-carrying capacity for all strengthening methods. In other study, Ahmad G. Saad et al [12] presented a two-
dimensional nonlinear model to investigate the lateral separation behavior of non-seismic RC beam-column joints
strengthened extensively using CFRP. It also proposed new design equations to calculate the separation force for
CFRP-strengthened beam-column joints. The results showed that the developed design equations were capable of
estimating the separation forces for CFRP-strengthened beam-column joints through comparison with experimental
work and model results. Kianosh Farhang et al [22] conducted a numerical investigation using the Abaqus program
and an experimental investigation on the shear strengthening of three-dimensional exterior beam-column joints that
lack reinforcement in the joint core, under the influence of combined gravity and reversed lateral loads. The results
showed that the strengthened specimens exhibited increased lateral load capacity, energy dissipation, and prevented
column shear failure compared to the unstrengthen specimens. Morankar et al [34] presented an analysis and
strengthening of beam-column joints using carbon materials in the ANSYS program. The results of the study showed
significant improvements in the beam-column joints after the strengthening process. The use of carbon composite
wraps reduces the deformation and increases the maximum principal stress in the different reinforcement patterns,
confirming the effectiveness of the CFRP strengthening process. In other study, Jinyan Wang [35] performed a
numerical analysis to investigate the post-fire seismic characteristics of reinforced concrete frame joints reinforced
with CFRP under low-cycle reciprocating loads. The study revealed that the bearing capacity of the CFRP-reinforced
joints remained almost unchanged after the fire, compared to unreinforced joints, during the elastic phase.

1.3. Research gap

Despite numerous studies addressing the reinforcement of beam-column joints using CFRP, further research is
needed to compare laboratory specimens with numerical models. The gap lies in analyzing the performance of exterior
beam-column joints under different variables, such as support methods, dimensions of the column and beam sections,
lateral loading, and proposed numerical repair methods using CFRP materials.

1.4. Objectives

This study aims to analyze the parameters of the exterior beam-column joint region in three specimens designed
with similar geometry to withstand seismic activity. The study will compare the behavior of laboratory specimens
with numerical models to validate their accuracy. The study will propose the use of CFRP materials as a method to
strengthen the damaged area in the beam-column joint. These materials are known for their high strength-to-weight
ratio and corrosion resistance, making them a popular choice for improving the load capacity and structural strength
of concrete structures. The study aims to enhance joint performance while reducing economic costs and minimizing
risk in the joint region by shifting it to the beam region. Fig. 1 represents a flowchart of the research process.

Fig. 1 - Flowchart of the research process

2. Experimental set up

2-1. Design, dimensions, and reinforcement details for beam-column joint specimens

The experiment includes three specimens that replicate the exterior beam-column joint in the testing program.
Specimens representing an exterior beam-column joint were designed to simulate a multi-story structural building
regardless of the number of floors and the dimensions and details of the building. The dimensions of the specimens
were selected according to the requirements and capacities of the testing equipment available at the University of
Karbala, College of Engineering, Iraq. Three samples of exterior RC beam-column joints were cast, as shown in Fig.
2. The cross-section of the beams had dimensions of (200 x 190) mm and a length of (570) mm, extending to the
column face. The cross-section of the columns had dimensions of (250 x 190) mm and a total height of (860) mm.
The main reinforcement for beams and columns was (10) mm in diameter, and the transverse reinforcement for
columns and beams was (6) mm in diameter with a spacing of (40) mm C/C. The reinforcement detailing for all
samples followed the guidelines of ACI (352R-02 and 318-19) [36, 37]. Fig. 3 displays the schematic diagrams of the
three specimens, including reinforcement details and dimensions. The reinforcement steel bars with diameters of (6
and 10) mm were tested in the laboratory of the University of Babylon. Table 1 shows the physical properties of the
reinforcement steel bars according to (ASTM A615/A615M-15) [38].

Fig. 2 - Beam-column joints specimens

Fig. 3 – A schematic diagram of concrete dimensions and reinforcement details for specimens

Table 1 - Physical properties of steel bars

Cross Maximum Elastic
Diameter of Yield strength Tensile strength
sectional tensile strain modulus
bars (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
area, (mm2) (%) (GPa)
6 28.26 285 415 8 198
10 78.50 310 420 8 200
2-2. Materials

The specimens were cast using laboratory-manufactured normal concrete with a compressive strength of (25) MPa.
The concrete mix design in this paper conducted in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) (211.1-
91) [39]. Table 2 presents mix proportions concrete for (1) m3. Three standard cylinders with an average compressive
strength of (25.6) MPa and three standard cylinders with an average tensile strength of (2.0) MPa for the concrete mix
were tested in the laboratory of the University of Babylon. Table 3 presents the cylindrical compressive and tensile
strengths of the concrete specimens. The ordinary Portland cement (OPC) type (I) was used in the study supplied from
Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, in accordance with (ASTM C150-07) [40]. The ratio of cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate
is (1:1.89:2.77) with the water/cement ratio (0.48). The fine aggregate in the concrete mix consisted of natural sand
obtained from Karbala, Iraq, with a fineness modulus of (2.8), while the coarse aggregate crushed type from Baghdad,
Iraq, with a size of (9.5) mm and a specific gravity of (2.58) were used, in accordance with (ASTM C33-16) [41].
Drinking water suitable for concrete mixing operations was used. To enhance workability with a minimal water
content, a superplasticizer admixture commonly known as (Master Glenium-54) at a rate of (1%) by weight of the
cement was used, in accordance with (ASTM C494-05) [42]. A Slump quantity of (75-100) mm was determined for
normal concrete according to (ASTM C143-05) [43]. Table 4 provide the properties of the materials used in the
experimental program.

Table 2 - Mix proportions concrete for (1) m3

Ingredient Quantity (kg/m3)

Cement 350
strength (25) MPa

Water 168
Compressive
Designed

Water/Cement 0.48
Fine aggregates 700
Coarse aggregate 1025
Super plasticizer 3.5

Table 3 - Cylindrical compressive and tensile strengths of concrete specimens

Density Avg. Compressive Avg. Tensile Avg.
Specimen
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) Strength (MPa) (MPa) Strength (MPa) (MPa)
S.1 2375 25.6 2.1
S.2 2405 2388 25.3 25.6 1.9 2.0
S.3 2385 26.1 2.0
 Table 4 - Physical properties of fine aggregates and coarse aggregates

Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate

Characteristics
Test value Test value
Maximum nominal size (mm) 4.75 9.5
Unit weight (kg/m3) 1665 1530
Fineness modulus 2.80 6.25
Specific gravity 2.70 2.58
Total water absorption (%) 2.38 1.88
Type - crushed

2-3. Boundary conditions of loading

In a moment frame structure under lateral load, the moments at mid-span of members are nearly zero. Therefore,
if external connections are considered to represent a moment frame structure, the confinement conditions would be
similar to those illustrated in Fig. (4-A). The bottom of the column has been designated with a hinge support, while
the bottom of the beam is provided with a roller support. A typical quasi-static cyclic pattern and modeling setup were
prepared for the tests in accordance with the "Commentary on Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on
Structural Testing" (ACI T1.1-01) [44] and previous studies [45-49]. Fig. (4-B) illustrates a schematic diagram for the
laboratory testing of the specimen, specifying the assigned boundary conditions for this study.

Fig. 4 - A schematic diagrams: (A) boundary conditions in laboratory testing, (B) Test Set-up with
Prototype Structure and Loading Protocol Sample
2-4.Test procedure and instrumentation

The cyclic load has been extensively studied in previous research, but as a new experiment, the monotonic load
was chosen to investigate the effect of seismic design improvement processes on concrete structures under such
loading conditions. Cyclic loading is more representative of earthquakes, but monotonic static loading was chosen
due to the available capabilities in the testing laboratory at the University of Karbala. A constant axial load of
(0.08*Ac*fc՝) =100 kN, where Ac represents the surface area of the column section, using a fixed load cell attached
to a hydraulic jack, along with a lateral monotonic load in one direction positioned (70) mm away from the column
face at the top, using a load cell attached to a horizontal jack, until complete failure occurred. The specimen was
secured to the universal load structure through two support points. The first point involves a hinged support at the
bottom of the column achieved by placing a base constrained from movement on excellently welded smooth reinforced
steel bonded to the device structure. When applying axial load to the top portion of the column sample, the column
compresses, thus preventing specimen movement. The second point supports the specimen from the beam side using
a steel structure with a roller support positioned (70) mm away from the beam face to support the model during
examination. The linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) was installed at one point: near the lateral monotonic
load, positioned (70) mm away from the column face to measure displacement changes. Fig. 5 illustrates a picture of
the setup and examination of the specimen in the laboratory.
After securing the model, axial and then lateral monotonic loads were applied sequentially and the displacement
of the models at failure was measured. Load-Displacement curves were plotted for each specimen.

Fig. 5 - Picture of the test set-up and specimen in the laboratory

3. Results and Discussions

3-1. Peak Monotonic Load and failure mode

The table 5 shows the values of the first crack load (Pf), displacement at first crack load (ᵟf), peak monotonic load
(Pp), and displacement at peak monotonic load (ᵟp) for beam-column joint specimens subjected to monotonic lateral
loading. Upon comparing the results of the laboratory samples, it can be observed that the first crack load values for
the three specimens are relatively similar, with a difference percentage of (10%) between the highest and lowest
values. This can be attributed to their similar geometric properties and loading conditions. The differences in peak
monotonic load among the experimental specimens with symmetric dimensions and steel reinforcement do not exceed
(5.4%). Although this percentage may seem small, it does not significantly affect the behavior and performance of the
beam-column joint.
However, there may be slight variations in the behavior of the concrete specimens due to differences in material
distribution and compaction processes, which can affect the appearance and quantity of initial cracks for each
model. The effect of displacement is also not significant. The failure of the specimens also exhibited brittleness, with
flexural cracks initially appearing near the core area at the face of column on the external surface of the beams and
then developing to the top surface. These cracks continued to appear with the increase in lateral loads. The flexural
cracks extended to the top of the beams at the maximum load for each specimen. As the test proceeded, the flexural
cracks widened, leading to spalling of the concrete at the top of the beams, which resulted in a decrease in load-bearing
capacity, as shown in Figure 6.
Table 5 –Load and displacement at peak and First crack for the specimens
Specimen
Pf (kN) ᵟf (mm) Pp (kN) ᵟp (mm)
designation
BCJ-1 18 2.5 54.3 39.6
BCJ-2 20 1.7 57.4 37.9
BCJ-3 20 2.6 56.2 38.0

Fig. 6 – Crack patterns for experimental specimens

3-2. Load-Displacement curve

The load-displacement curves of the beam-column joint specimens subjected to lateral monotonic loading are
illustrated in Figure 7. The peak monotonic load and displacement values were recorded at a distance of 70 mm from
the column face, using a load cell and load indicator for precise measurements. The curves for the specimens can be
observed to be linear at the beginning of the loading, indicating that these reinforced concrete beam-column joints
were still in the elastic stage. Due to the yielding of the reinforcement bars, the surface concrete of the specimens soon
cracked, and flexural failure occurred at the end of the loading.

Fig. 7 – Load-displacement curves for experimental specimens

As shown in Figure 7, for specimen BCJ-2 absorbs the force in concrete from the loading moment to point (a).
Stress in the concrete reaches the bending limit of the concrete at point (a), initiating cracking in the tension zone.
From point (a) to point (b), the reinforcement can withstand the tensile force. The resistance value of the beam-column
joint specimen approaches the ultimate load at point (b). Beyond point (b), bending increases significantly due to the
yielding of the reinforcement, ultimately leading to failure at point (c).

3-3. Energy Dissipation and Stiffness

The energy dissipation (Ediss) demonstrates the capacity and effectiveness of the specimens in absorbing and
dissipating energy during lateral loading. A higher bending value indicates a greater ability of the exterior beam-
column joint to resist seismic forces and reduce the risk of structural damage or failure. From the laboratory results,
load-displacement curves were plotted for the specimens. Based on the load-displacement curves, the energy
dissipation value was calculated, defined as the cumulative area under the load-displacement curve until final failure
during plastic deformation in the beam-column joint specimens [49]. The Ediss is hence defined as the integral of the
force displacement plot. Using the trapezoidal rule, this can be calculated from Equation (1):
 δi +1 = δmax
δmax Pi+1+Pi
Ediss=∫0 P(δ). dδ ≈∑ (( 2
) x (δi + 1 − δi )) --- (1)
0

Where δi and Pi are the measured lateral displacement and applied force, respectively, at each level of
displacement, i .The stiffness (K) reflects the structure's response to lateral loads. A higher stiffness value means
greater resistance to deformation and better structural stability. Through stiffness analysis, we can assess the ability
of the exterior beam-column joint to resist lateral deformations and maintain the integrity of the structure. The stiffness
of the joint, defined as the ratio of the (Pp) to (ᵟp), The calculation was also performed [50,51]. The Stiffness (K) value
is determined using Equation (2).

Pp
K= ᵟp
-------------------- (2)

The Ediss by the structural members during seismic events is primarily achieved through inelastic deformation. Frame
structures dissipate energy through the deformation of the beams, columns, and the joint region. Table 6 represents
the cumulative energy dissipation and stiffness for specimens. The Ediss values for the three experimental specimens
ranged from (1752 to 1802) kN-mm, with a difference percentage of (2.8%). The stiffness values ranged from (1.37
to 1.51) kN/mm, with a difference percentage of (9.3%).

Table 6 - Experimental Results of cumulative energy dissipation and stiffness for specimens

Specimen
designation
Pp
(kN)
ᵟ p
Ediss
(kN-mm)
K
(kN/mm)
(mm)
BCJ-1 54.3 39.6 1752 1.37
BCJ-2 57.4 37.9 1802 1.51
BCJ-3 56.2 38.0 1778 1.47

3-4. Displacement Ductility

The extent of ductility is measured through a quantitative expression known as the ductility factor or ductility ratio.
There are two distinct ductility factors: displacement ductility factor and curvature ductility factor. For the purposes
of this study, the displacement ductility factor was utilized [51]. Table 7 provides information about (Pp), yield load
(Py), yielding displacement (ᵟy), effective ultimate displacement (ᵟu) and ductility factor (μ) for specimens. This is
achieved due to the non-linear characteristics exhibited by the materials (steel reinforcement and concrete), leading to
yielding at various locations and load levels. A technique for determining the yield point, relying on the idealized
bilinear load–displacement response illustrated in Fig. 8 [52]. The yielding displacement is determined as the point at
which the specimen fails or when the bearing capacity reduces to 85% of the peak load [53]. The ductility factor (μ)
is precisely defined as the ratio of the effective ultimate displacement to the yielding displacement, the ductility factor
value is established by employing Equation (3).

μ=ᵟu/ᵟy -------------------- (3)

 Fig. 8 – Description of load-displacement curves points

Table 7 represents the ductility factor (μ) for all specimens. The ductility factor values ranged from (3.3 to 3.9), with
a difference percentage of (15.4%).

Table 7 - Results of ductility factor for specimens

Specimen Pp Py ᵟy Pu * ᵟ u
μ
designation (kN) (kN) (kN)
(mm) (mm)
BCJ-1 54.3 46.2 14.2 46.2 47.2 3.3
BCJ-2 57.4 47.0 12.5 48.8 44.2 3.5
BCJ-3 56.2 47.0 11.8 47.8 45.8 3.9
Where: Pu (Ultimate load) = 85% * Pp

3-5. Numerical analysis of beam-column joints (Finite Element)

Numerical analysis was conducted using the Abaqus software to study the behavior of beam-column joints under
monotonic loading. This process involved modeling the geometry of the specimens along with their materials such as
concrete and steel, as well as loading and constraints. Additionally, it considered the interaction, impact, and
connection between the materials. In Abaqus, the static general method was employed to simulate the finite element
models. ABAQUS/CAE 2017 VERSION was used for modeling and analysis of beam-column joint.
3-5-1 Materials Modelling

3-5-1-1. Concrete
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model was chosen due to its capability and potential for modeling
reinforced concrete and other quasi-brittle materials in various types of structures [54]. The (CDP) model can define
the nonlinear behavior of the beam-column joint. Additionally, it considers isotropic damage elasticity concepts with
isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity [55]. Reinforced concrete (RC) is composed of two main components -
concrete and steel. Concrete exhibits significantly higher strength in compression compared to tension, with its tensile
strength being approximately one-tenth of its compressive strength. The stress-strain relationship of concrete is
markedly different between tension and compression. In tension, the relationship is nearly linear, whereas in
compression, the stress-strain curve is nonlinear from the very start [56]. Several researchers have investigated and
developed models for the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of concrete. Prominent among them are the works of
Hognestad [57], Rusch [58], and Kaar.]59[

In this study, the Hognestad model is employed to analyze the uniaxial behavior of concrete under pressure -60[
.]62

It also takes into account the degradation of elastic stiffness resulting from plastic straining in both compression
and tension. The (CDP) model can exhibit the damage characteristics of a material. The primary failure mechanisms
assumed by this model are tensile cracking and compressive crushing. Various parameters required in the (CDP)
model were studied and selected based on available literature for both conventional and specific specimens. The
dilation angle for the model was set at (56°). This angle is obtained due to a change in volumetric strain resulting from
plastic shearing and depends on the internal friction angle. Table 8 represents the details of normal concrete properties
and (CDP) parameters used in the Abaqus program.

Table 8 – Normal concrete peoperties and CDP parameters

Youngʼs Modulus (E) 23.5 GPa
Normal Concrete Poissionʼs Ratio (υ) 0.2
Properties Compressive Strength (σ) 25 MPa
Specific Weight (SG) 2400 Kg/m3
Dilation Angle (ψ) 56°
Eccentricity (e) 0.1
CDP Parameters fb0/fc0 1.16
The second stress invariant/tensile meridian (K) 0.667
Viscosity Parameter (μ) 0.001

3-5-1-2. Steel reinforcement

In Abaqus, experimental steel reinforcement (longitudinal bars and stirrups) can be represented based on two
factors: the first being the bilinear stress-strain behavior and the second being the multilinear stress-strain behavior.
The common practice assumes the use of multilinear stress-strain behavior due to the availability of sufficient
information about stress and ultimate strain. Table 9 provides details about the experimental steel reinforcement in FE
 Fig. 9 – Detail of reinforcement: (A) Numerical, (B) Experimental

Table 9 – Steel reinforcement peoperties

Youngʼs Modulus (E) 200 GPa
Poissionʼs Ratio (υ) 0.3
Yield Strength 310 MPa
Ultimate Tensile Strength 420 MPa
Plastic strain 0.08
Specific Weight (SG) 7800 Kg/m3

3-5-2. Boundary Conditions and Loading

To achieve convergence between experimental and numerical simulations, samples were modeled in the Abaqus
software with conditions that matched and were equivalent to the laboratory samples. To simulate the boundary
conditions for the beam-column joint models, the bottom part of the column was constrained in both the X and Y
directions, and the bottom part of the beam was constrained in the Y and Z directions. An axial load was applied to
the column's surface (0.08*Ac*fc՝), while lateral deformation was continuously and gradually applied to the top of
the beam until the final failure of the sample, as illustrated in Fig. 10.
 Fig. 10 – boundary conditions and loading in abaqus for specimen

3-5-3. Finite element mesh

For the purpose of obtaining accurate and realistic results, the beam-column joint specimens were simulated using
3D elements. Concrete was simulated by 8 nodded linear elements (C3D8R). The longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement were modeled using 2 nodded liner truss elements (T3D2) in the resulting model. A mesh sensitivity
analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate mesh size, where there are no significant changes in results with
a smaller mesh. Mesh sizes of 50 mm, 45 mm, 40 mm, and 35 mm were examined for the concrete to find the suitable
size. The model with a 50 mm mesh size is considered appropriate because it reduces analysis time compared to other
sizes and provides results close to experimental findings. It should be noted that for the convergence of the analysis,
the L2 norm for both force and displacement control is assumed to be equal to 0.005. The concrete mesh element size
was set at (50) mm, while the longitudinal reinforcement mesh sizes were set at (80) mm, and the transverse
reinforcement mesh size was set at (20) mm, as illustrated in Fig. 11.
 Fig. 11 – Finite Element Model: (A) Mesh, (B) Concrete solid element (C3D8R), (C) Sreel rebar truss element
(T3D2)

3-5-4. Validation of Experimental and Numerical results

3-5-4-1. Energy Dissipation and Stiffness

Table 10 represent results of the (Pp), (ᵟp), (Ediss) and (K) for the numerical model. When comparing the results at
tables (6 and 10) between experimental samples and numerical analysis, it is observed that the peak load values for
the numerical analysis varied within the range of the peak monotonic load values for the experimental samples. They
decreased by (3.7%) from the highest value and increased by (1.8%) from the lowest value. As for the displacement
at the peak monotonic load for the experimental samples, it decreased compared to the displacement of the numerical
analysis by a percentage ranging between (3.4% - 7.6%). The Ediss percentage for the experimental samples decreased
by a range of (8.5-11.0) % compared to the numerical analysis. In terms of stiffness, the numerical analysis decreased
by a range of (1.5-10.6) % compared to the experimental specimens.

Table 10 - Numerical Results of cumulative energy dissipation and stiffness for specimens
Specimen
designation
Pp
(kN)
ᵟp
Ediss
(kN-mm)
K
(kN/mm)
(mm)
Numerical analysis 55.3 41.0 1969 1.35
3-5-4-2. Load-displacement curves

The load-displacement curves for both the numerical analysis and experimental specimens are shown in Fig. 12.
It can be seen that the initial stiffness of the numerical analysis is higher than that of the experimental specimens. This
difference can be attributed to the lack of modeling for difficult hardening in the CDP model and simplifications made
during the modeling process. This trend is also reported by several researchers [69, 70]. However, as the displacement
increases, the slope of the numerical analysis curve approaches that of the experimental specimen curve. Although
there are slight variations in point-related displacements at peak load between the numerical analysis and experimental
specimens, the numerical analysis accurately predicts the peak load. The highest peak load was observed in the
experimental specimen (BCJ-2) with a value of (57.4 kN), while the predicted value for the peak load in the numerical
analysis was (55.3 kN), showing a difference of (3.7%). The lowest peak load was observed in the experimental
specimen (BCJ-1) with a value of (54.3 kN), which is only (1.8%) different from the predicted value in the numerical
analysis. Overall, there is a satisfactory agreement between the numerical and experimental results, as shown by the
percentage differences.

Fig. 12 – Load-displacement curves for the experimental specimens and numerical analysis

3-5-4-3. Displacement Ductility

Table 11 presents the results for (Pp), (Py), (ᵟy), (ᵟu), and (μ) obtained from the numerical analysis. A comparison
of the results from tables 7 and 11 reveals that the ductility factor values for the experimental specimens (3.3 and 3.9)
are lower than the ductility factor value (5.3) obtained from the numerical analysis, with a decrease of 37.7% and
26.4%, respectively.
 Table 11 - Results of ductility factor for Numerical analysis
Specimen Pp Py ᵟ y Pu ᵟ u
μ
designation (kN) (kN) (kN)
(mm) (mm)
Numerical analysis 55.3 44.5 8.9 47.0 47.5 5.3

3-5-4-4. Cracking pattern

PEEQT refers to the tensile equivalent plastic strain [71]. Fig. 13 illustrates the PEEQT contour of the numerical
model, showcasing both the cracking pattern and the mode of failure. In the numerical analysis, cracks initiate in the
tensile zone at the bottom of the beam, then gradually expand to the upper compressive zone of the beam, reaching
the beam-column joint. Flexural cracks appear on the face of the column. The failure in the experimental specimen is
of a shear type, similar to the numerical model.

Fig. 13 – Expected damage in specimens from FE-modelling (PEEQT) and observed experimental damage

Fig. 14 illustrates the Von Mises stress contour, showing the state of reinforcement at the moment of failure for
the numerical models. It is evident that the tensile reinforcements play a critical role in bearing the load. In the sample
subjected to the force system, the reinforcement yields in the tension zone before the compression zone, indicating
that this area has a higher capacity for bearing force. Furthermore, the stirrups undergo significant deformations before
yielding, but they do not rupture.
 Fig. 14 – Von Mises stress contour at the failure moment in numerical analysis

3-6. Retrofitted joint

In this study, a suggestion for retrofitting the damaged of external beam-column joint due to external forces such
as earthquakes, explosions, and others is inspired by Akhaveissy study [72]. The retrofit involves using carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer (CFRP) instead of steel plates in two numerical models: the first model is retrofitted using CFRP
sheets only, and the second model using CFRP sheets with strips. The aims to recover, enhance, and mitigate cracks
in the critical beam-column joint. Fig. 15 represents the dimensions of the concrete and CFRP models. In
characterizing the actual behavior of CFRP material, two different models are commonly employed. The first model
considers the material as linear elastic and isotropic until failure, while the second model treats the material as linear
elastic and anisotropic [73]. Since the material is manufactured unidirectional by the company, it is evident that its
behavior is fundamentally anisotropic. In this model, the material is represented as unidirectional, where it is primarily
subjected to stress in the fiber direction. Therefore, the elastic modulus in the fiber direction is considered the most
crucial parameter, and for this reason, the model is considered entirely anisotropic. In this study, the elastic modulus
in the fiber direction of the unidirectional CFRP material was used based on the manufacturer's data sheet as shown
in table 12, specifying it as (112) GPa, with a Poisson's ratio of (0.3). By using rule of mixture, E11= 112 GPa,
E22=E33= 82 GPa, υ11= υ22= υ33= 0.3, G12=G13= 4.5 GPa, G23= 3 GPa. Fig. 16 represents retrofitting of CFRP
in Abaqus program.
Fig. 15 – A schematic diagram of dimensions for specimens with CFRP: (A) model 1, (B) model 2

Fig. 16 – Numerical models for retrofitting by CFRP: (A) model 1, (B) model 2
 Table 12 - Properties of CFRP fiber used for retroffiting

S. No. Properties value

1 Tensile Strength 4100 MPa
2 Tensile Elastic Modulus 2400 MPa
3 Elongation 1.60 %
4 Flexural Strength 1000 MPa
5 Shear Strength 80 MPa
6 Density 1.8 g/cm³
7 Fiber Thickness 1 mm

3-6-1. Model 1 (CFRP sheets only)

The numerical analysis of Model (1) illustrates the Von Mises stress contour at the failure moment and the PEEQT
contour, as depicted in Figure 17. For the joint in Model 1, the benefits of using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets
were evident. By redirecting the damaged area from the near-column face to the beam end region at different levels
along the strut, as illustrated in Fig. 17-A, the strength of the modified joint was increased. This improvement is
attributed to the contribution of carbon fiber sheets in reinforcing both the column and beam joints and absorbing
some of the forces before they penetrate into the concrete and reinforcement bars, enhancing tension reinforcement as
shown in Fig. 17-B. The installation of carbon fiber sheets with dimensions of (190*200) mm achieved a significant
improvement in the ultimate capacity of the joint, as depicted in Fig. 18.

Fig. 17 – Numerical retrofitting by CFRP for model 1: (A) Von Mises stress contour at the failure
moment, (B) PEEQT contour
 Fig. 18 – Comparison between the numerical load-displacement curves for model 1 and numerical
analysis

3-6-2. Model 2 (CFRP sheets with strips)

The numerical analysis of Model (2) illustrates the Von Mises stress contour at the failure moment and PEEQT
contour, as depicted in Fig. 19. For the joint in Model 2, the benefits of using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
sheets and strips were more evident than using sheets alone in Model 1. The modified joint strength was increased
significantly more than in Model 1 by redirecting the damaged area from the nearby column face to the beam region
at the end of the carbon sheet, depending on the length of the beam. This improvement can be attributed to the
contribution of the strips, in addition to the carbon sheets, in strengthening the joint for both the column and beam.
The strips also help absorb the force applied to the model before it penetrates into the concrete and reinforcing bars as
tension reinforcement. Furthermore, the use of strips in CFRP allows for a more flexible behavior and prevents the
carbon sheets from separating from the concrete surface. It is noteworthy that using strips also prevents the
development of local stresses in the concrete cover, making the confinement behavior for concrete more effective, as
illustrated in Fig. 19 (A and B). By installing carbon sheets with dimensions of (190*200) mm and strips with
dimensions of (200*20) mm for the beam and (250*20) mm for the column, a significant improvement in the ultimate
capacity of the joint was achieved over the numerical analysis of Model 1, as shown in Fig. 20.
Fig. 19 – Numerical retrofitting by CFRP for model 2: (A) Von Mises stress contour at the failure
moment, (B) PEEQT contour

Fig. 20 – Comparison between the numerical load-displacement curves for model 2 with numerical
analysis and model 1
3-6-3. Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2 with Numerical Analysis

Improving the energy dissipation capacity of both unstrengthened and CFRP-strengthened specimens during
seismic events is crucial. The results for peak monotonic load (P p), displacement at peak load (ᵟp), energy dissipation
(Ediss), and stiffness (K) for numerical models are presented in Table 13. Model 1 showed a significant increase of
30% in peak monotonic load, 25.6% in cumulative energy dissipation, and 29.6% in stiffness compared to the
numerical analysis. Model 2 exhibited even higher values, with increases of 47% and 12.3% in peak monotonic load,
36.4% and 8.6% in cumulative energy dissipation, and 45.2% and 12% in stiffness compared to the numerical analysis
and Model 1, respectively. These results demonstrate the enhanced energy dissipation capacity of both CFRP-
retrofitted specimens, indicating their ability to dissipate energy up to ultimate deformation, as previously verified by
researchers [74]. Furthermore, the CFRP retrofitting method significantly improved the stiffness of the retrofitted
samples compared to the unretrofitted ones. Prior to retrofitting, the failure mechanism was cracking in the column
face near the joint. However, at failure load, debonding occurred between the CFRP sheets and the concrete. The
CFRP sheets effectively stopped crack propagation in the column face, shifting the failure to the beam, as also
confirmed by previous researchers [75].

Table 13 - Numerical Results of cumulative energy dissipation and stiffness for models
Specimen
designation
Pp
(kN)
ᵟ p
Ediss
(kN-mm)
K
(kN/mm)
(mm)
BCJ-Numerical analysis 55.3 41.0 1969 1.35
BCJ-Retrofitted model 1 72.4 41.4 2474 1.75
BCJ-Retrofitted model 2 81.3 41.4 2686 1.96

4. Statistical Analysis

The exterior joint is the most commonly studied type of joint, while the corner joint is the least studied [76]. This
is due to the complexity of the structural geometry and less favorable confinement conditions, as exterior beam-column
joints are much more vulnerable to seismic loads compared to interior beam-column joints [77, 78]. To enhance the
exterior joint, the Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) strengthening system is the most common due to its
advantages.

The number of layers and type of FRP are the main parameters that lead to different failure modes and behaviors.
Increasing the number of FRP layers enhances seismic behavior [79, 80], but not proportionally to the number of
layers [81]. This is due to FRP failure at the joint interface or FRP debonding. It is important to note that increasing
the number of FRP layers in the beam region is more effective than in the column region. For different forms of FRP,
polymer sheets performed better compared to polymer strips. CFRP has been utilized in various studies, employing
different techniques, to enhance the performance of exterior beam-column joints in normal concrete, both in seismic
and non-seismic designs, as shown in table 14.
 In 2010, Asghar Vatani-Oskouei [82] conducted an experimental study, utilizing CFRP sheets and strips on seismic
samples. The results demonstrated a (14.94%) increase in strength for sheets alone and a (19.45%) increase for sheets
with strips, compared to the control sample. In 2011, Hamid Sinaei et al. [83] conducted a numerical study, utilizing
various techniques of CFRP sheets (top and bottom of the beam, L-shape, U-shape, and both sides) on non-seismic
joints. The results showed strength improvements ranging from (6.8 to 14.9) % compared to the control sample, with
the most effective technique being CFRP sheets on both sides. In 2014, Varinder Singh et al. [84] conducted an
experimental study, utilizing double-layer X-shaped sheets on a seismic joint. The results showed a (9.50%)
improvement in performance compared to the control sample. In 2019, Guo-Lin Wang et al. [85] studied the use of
double-layer and three-layer L-shaped sheets around non-seismic joints, resulting in a (19.4%) increase in load-bearing
capacity compared to the control sample. Most recently, in 2021, K. Sakthimurugan et al. [86] achieved a (44.7%)
improvement in the performance of non-seismic joints by utilizing CFRP sheets and X and L shapes around the joints.
In this study, two new numerical techniques of CFRP materials were employed to enhance the performance of seismic
joints: sheets and sheets with strips. The results showed a (30%) improvement for Model 1 and a (47%) improvement
for Model 2 compared to the reference sample. From these findings, we can conclude that the improvement
percentages varied among previous studies and this study due to differences in sample dimensions for the beam and
column, concrete compressive strength, and CFRP application techniques in terms of shape and number of layers.
However, all results demonstrated a positive impact on joint performance, whether in seismic or non-seismic designs.

Table 14 - CFRP configurations used in the literature to enhance the load-bearing capacity of beam
column joints

Dimensions (mm) Peak load (kN) Percentage

Type Confining
Reference
design CFRP shapes
fc՝, MPa before after difference
Beam Column %
retrofitting retrofitting
Sheets only 24.25 87.0 100.0 14.94
Asghar Vatani-
SD 400*350*1780 350*350*2860
Oskouei [82] Sheets and
19.60 92.84 115.26 19.45
strips
Sheets top and
27.1 8.8
bottom of beam
Hamid Sinaei et L shape 26.6 6.8
NSD 40 300*300*2000 300*300*2300 24.9
al. [83] U shape 26.8 7.63

Both sides 28.6 14.9

Sheets with X-
Varinder Singh
SD shapes 20 125*225*500 225*125*1000 22.68 24.83 9.50
et al. [84] (2 layers)
sheets with L
Guo-Lin Wang shape around
NSD 52.8 300*200*1505 300*200*2170 52.1 62.2 19.4
et al. [85] joint
(2 and 3 layers)
K.
Sheets with X
Sakthimurugan NSD 35 300*200*1550 200*200*1440 28.4 41.1 44.7
and L shapes
et al. [86]
5. Conclusions

The behavior of unreinforced exterior beam-column joint specimens under lateral monotonic loading was
investigated experimentally by preparing three test specimens, and then analyzed using the nonlinear finite element
program (ABAQUS). Retrofitting the exterior beam-column joint in seismically designed concrete structures using
CFRP is considered a relatively new solution and offers significant benefits compared to traditional strengthening
techniques. A numerical model with dimensions similar to the experimental specimens was developed and
strengthened with carbon fiber. It can be concluded that the CFRP retrofitting technique is highly effective in
improving the behavior of concrete connections under lateral monotonic loading. The key findings and observations
of the study are summarized as follows:

• The results of the three experimental samples are relatively consistent, with differences between the highest and
lowest values of peak monotonic load at (5.4%), cumulative energy dissipation at (2.8%), stiffness at (9.2%), and
ductility factor at (15.4%).

• CFRP retrofitting for model 1 improved the performance of the beam-column joint in terms of peak monotonic
load, energy dissipation, and stiffness by (30, 25.6 and 29.6) % respectively, compared to the numerical analysis
model.

• A significant improvement in peak monotonic load, energy dissipation, and stiffness for model 2 by (47, 36.4,
and 45.2) % respectively, compared to the numerical analysis model.

• The retrofitting of the joints using CFRP contributed to reducing deformation under lateral monotonic loads and
shifted the failure in the retrofitted numerical models from the column face to the beam body.

• The convergence of the numerical models with the experimental results indicates that the proposed model is
entirely accurate.

For future studies, it is recommended to apply the proposed numerical repair methods in this study experimentally
on exterior beam-column joint specimens to compare and explore the effectiveness of the reinforcement methods on
the seismic and non-seismic performance of the joint. It is also recommended to use two layers of unidirectional
carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites and evaluate the performance of the joint after reinforcement.
Symbols and abbreviations

RC Reinforced concrete
fc՝ Compressive strength of concrete
Ac Surface area of the column section
Pf First crack load

ᵟf Displacement at first crack

Pp Peak monotonic load

ᵟp Displacement at peak monotonic load

Ediss Energy dissipation

K Stiffness
μ Ductility factor
Py Yield load

ᵟy Yielding displacement

ᵟu Effective ultimate displacement

CDP Concrete damage plasticity

SD Seismic design reinforcement
NSD Non - Seismic design reinforcement

Funding

No funding was received for this project.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author's contribution statement

Ali Mohammed Owaid: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation,
Resources, Project administration, Writing –original draft, Writing –review & editing.

Amir Houshang Akhaveissy: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Data curation,

Validation; Visualization.

Bahaa Hussain Al-Abbas: Validation, Supervision.

References
[1] L. Chu, Y. Tian, D. Li, Y. He, and H. Feng. (2021). “Shear behavior of steel reinforced concrete column-steel
beam joints with or without reinforced concrete slab,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 35, p. 102063, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102063.
[2] B. S. Abdelwahed, M. R. Kaloop, and W. E. El-Demerdash. (2021). “Nonlinear numerical assessment of
exterior Beam-Column connections with Low-Strength concrete,” Buildings, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 562,
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110562.
[3] A. Mosallam, K. Allam, and M. Salama. (2019). “Analytical and numerical modeling of RC beam-column
joints retrofitted with FRP laminates and hybrid composite connectors,” Compos. Struct., vol. 214, pp. 486–
503, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.032.
[4] E. Tavasoli, O. Rezaifar, and A. Kheyroddin. (2022). “Seismic performance of RC joints retrofitted by external
diagonal bolts,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 46, p. 103691, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103691.
[5] M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad, and A. Mutafi. (2022). “Non-linear 3D finite element analysis of precast
reinforced concrete Beam-Column joint under monotonic static load,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 65, pp. 746–
757, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.284.
[6] M. Qasem, M. Hasan, and R. Muhamad. (2023). “Finite element simulation of precast moment resisting
reinforced concrete beam-column joint subjected to monotonic load,” Mater. Today Proc., doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.03.532.
[7] J. Xiao, T. Ding, and Q. Zhang. (2017). “Structural behavior of a new moment-resisting DfD concrete
connection,” Eng. Struct., vol. 132, pp. 1–13, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.019.
[8] F. Vecchi and B. Belletti. (2021). “Capacity assessment of existing RC columns,” Buildings, vol. 11, no. 4, p.
161, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11040161.
[9] T. Ding and J. Xiao. (2019). “Behavior of concrete beam-column frame joints with DfD connections: A
simulation study with interface modelling,” Eng. Struct., vol. 189, pp. 347–358, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.082.
[10] Majumder S, Saha S. (2021). “Quasi-static cyclic performance of RC exterior beam-column joint assemblages
strengthened with geosynthetic materials,” Struct., vol. 29, pp. 1210–1228,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.010.
[11] S. De Santis, G. de Felice, and F. Roscini. (2019). “Retrofitting of masonry vaults by basalt textile-reinforced
mortar overlays,” Int. J. Archit. Herit., vol. 13, pp. 1061–1077, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1597947.
[12] A. G. Saad, M. A. Sakr, and T. M. El-korany. (2023). “The shear strength of existing non-seismic RC beam-
column joints strengthened with CFRP Sheets: Numerical and analytical study,” Eng. Struct., vol. 291, p.
116497, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116497.
[13] C. G. Barmi, M. H. Saghafi, and A. Golafshar. (2024). “Providing a strategy to restore damaged RC beam-
column joints with the combination of CFRP and HPFRCC,” Eng. Struct., vol. 299, p. 117148, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117148.
[14] T. Tafsirojjaman, A. Miri, S. Noor-E-Khuda, A. Ahmed, A. B. M. S. Islam, and M. Khan. (2024). “Structural
performance of CFRP strengthened SHS beam-column connections subjected to monotonic loading: A
numerical simulation,” Struct., Elsevier, vol. 61, p. 106030, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106030.
[15] D. Tomlinson and A. Fam. (2015). “Performance of concrete beams reinforced with basalt FRP for flexure
and shear,” J. Compos. Constr., vol. 19, no. 2, p. 4014036, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000491.
[16] Chen P-Y, Feng R, Xu Y, Zhu J-H. (2023). “Recycling and Reutilization of Waste Carbon Fiber Reinforced
 Plastics: Current Status and Prospects,” Polymers, vol. 15, no. 17, p.3508,
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15173508.
[17] Park S-J, Park S-J. (2018). Novel carbon fibers and their composites. Carbon fibers, vol. 210, pp. 295-342,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0538-2_9.
[18] A. Jahami and C. A. Issa. (2024). “An Updated Review on the Effect of CFRP on Flexural Performance of
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater., vol. 18, no. 1, p. 14,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-023-00651-y.
[19] S. Alshamrani, H. A. Rasheed, F. H. Salahat, A. Borwankar, and N. Divilbiss. (2024). “Seismic flexural
behavior of CFRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams secured with fiber anchors,” Eng. Struct., vol. 305,
p. 117728, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.117728.
[20] X. Cao, W. Wang, X. Tan, and Y. Zhang. (2024). “Seismic behaviour of pre-damaged RC columns
strengthened with CFRP grid/sprayed ECC jackets subjected to horizontal reversed cyclic loading and
constant axial force,” Case Stud. Constr. Mater., vol. 20, p. e02948,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e02948.
[21] J. Zhou, Z. Hu, B. Wang, X. Li, and J. Han. (2024). “Experimental investigation of CFRP-confined partially
encased composite columns under axial compression,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 81, p. 108094,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.108094.
[22] K. Farhang, F. Farahbod, M. F. Nezamabadi, and B. Mansouri. (2023). “Shear strengthening of RC 3D exterior
beam-column joints with CFRP sheets an experimental and numerical study,” Asian J. Civ. Eng., vol. 24, no.
6, pp. 1599–1619, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00591-8.
[23] G. Fan, J. Yang, J. Liu, S. Yang, and M. Gao. (2024). “Research on Seismic Performance of Eccentric Beam–
Column Joint Retrofitted with CFRP–Steel Plate,” Int. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 597–617,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-023-00919-0.
[24] R. El Ghadioui, D. Hiesch, L. Bujotzek, T. Proske, and C.-A. Graubner. (2021). “Structural behaviour of CFRP
reinforced concrete members under monotonic and cyclic long-term loading,” Mater. Struct., vol. 54, no. 4, p.
137, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-021-01728-4.
[25] A. A. Mohammed, A. C. Manalo, W. Ferdous, Y. Zhuge, P. V Vijay, and J. Pettigrew. (2020). “Experimental
and numerical evaluations on the behaviour of structures repaired using prefabricated FRP composites jacket,”
Eng. Struct., vol. 210, p. 110358, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110358.
[26] A. Siddika, M. A. Al Mamun, W. Ferdous, and R. Alyousef. (2020). “Performances, challenges and
opportunities in strengthening reinforced concrete structures by using FRPs–A state-of-the-art review,” Eng.
Fail. Anal., vol. 111, p. 104480, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104480.
[27] A. A. Mohammed et al.. (2021). “Design considerations for prefabricated composite jackets for structural
repair: Parametric investigation and case study,” Compos. Struct., vol. 261, p. 113288, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113288.
[28] U. Akguzel and S. Pampanin. (2012). “Assessment and design procedure for the seismic retrofit of reinforced
concrete beam-column joints using FRP composite materials,” J. Compos. Constr., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 21–34,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000242.
[29] T. Tafsirojjaman, S. Fawzia, D. P. Thambiratnam, and X.-L. Zhao. (2021). “FRP strengthened SHS beam-
column connection under monotonic and large-deformation cyclic loading,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 161, p.
107518, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.107518.
[30] S. A. Ali and J. P. Forth. (2021). “An experimental and analytical investigation of reinforced concrete beam-
column joints strengthened with a range of CFRP schemes applied only to the beam,” Adv. Struct. Eng., vol.
24, no. 12, pp. 2748–2766, doi: 10.1177/13694332211007371.
[31] I. M. H. Alshaikh, M. L. Nehdi, and A. A. Abadel. (2024). “Numerical investigations on progressive collapse
 of rubberized concrete frames strengthened by CFRP sheets,” Struct., vol. 60, p. 105918, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.105918.
[32] C. Del Vecchio, M. Di Ludovico, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi. (2015). “Analytical model and design approach
for FRP strengthening of non-conforming RC corner beam–column joints,” Eng. Struct., vol. 87, pp. 8–20,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.013.
[33] A. Dalalbashi, A. Eslami, and H. R. Ronagh. (2013). “Numerical investigation on the hysteretic behavior of
RC joints retrofitted with different CFRP configurations,” J. Compos. Constr., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 371–382,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000361.
[34] A. Morankar and A. V Pisolkar. (2023). “STUDY OF STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF RETROFIT BEAM
COLUMN JUNCTION USING ANSYS.,” I-Manager’s J. Struct. Eng., vol. 11, no. 4, p.1.
[35] J. Wang, X. Yue, F. Li, Y. Sun, and Z. Li. (2023). “Post-Fire Seismic Property of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Joints with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Using Numerical Analysis,” Fire, vol. 6, no. 5, p. 205,
https://doi.org/10.3390/fire6050205.
[36] John F. Bonacci, Sergio M. Alcocer. (2002). “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in
Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures.” American Concrete Institute, ACI 352R-02, P.37.
[37] Farmington Hills, MI, USA. (2014). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.”
American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-14.
[38] ASTM A615/AM615-15. (2015). “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for
Concrete Reinforcement.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
[39] Dixon, Donald E., Jack R. Prestrera, George RU Burg, Subcommittee A. Chairman, Edward A. Abdun-Nur,
Stanley G. Barton, Leonard W. Bell et al. (2002). “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete.” American Concrete Institute (ACI 211.1-91). (1991) Reapproved (2002).
[40] ASTM C150/C150-07. (2007). “Standard Specification for Portland Cement.” American Society for Testing
and Materials, 4 (2).
[41] ASTM C33/C33M-16. (2016). “Standard specification for concrete aggregate.” American Society for Testing
and Materials.
[42] ASTM C 494/C494-05. (2005). “Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete.” American
Society for Testing and Materials.
[43] ASTM C143 /143-05. (2005). “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete.” American
Society for Testing and Materials.
[44] Norman L. Scott NMH, Michael E. Kreger, Leslie D. Martin. (2001). “Commentary on Acceptance Criteria
for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing.” American Concrete Institute, ACI T1.1-01.
[45] M. Azimi, A. Bin Adnan, A. R. Bin Mohd Sam, M. M. Tahir, I. Faridmehr, and R. Hodjati. (2014). “Seismic
performance of RC beam‐column connections with continuous rectangular spiral transverse reinforcements
for low ductility classes,” Sci. World J., vol. 2014, no. 1, p. 802605, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/802605.
[46] M. S. Alhaddad, N. A. Siddiqui, A. A. Abadel, S. H. Alsayed, and Y. A. Al-Salloum. (2012). “Numerical
investigations on the seismic behavior of FRP and TRM upgraded RC exterior beam-column joints,” J.
Compos. Constr., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 308–321, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000265.
[47] J. Melo, H. Varum, and T. Rossetto. (2022). “Experimental assessment of the monotonic and cyclic behaviour
of exterior RC beam-column joints built with plain bars and non-seismically designed,” Eng. Struct., vol. 270,
p. 114887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114887.
[48] Z. Wang, J. Huang, Z. Chang, and Y. Lu. (2022). “Experimental and Numerical Investigation on Seismic
Performance of RC Exterior Beam‐Column Joints with Slabs,” Shock Vib., vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 3679431,
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3679431.
[49] J. Melo, D. A. Pohoryles, T. Rossetto, and H. Varum. (2021). “Full-scale cyclic testing of realistic reinforced-
concrete beam-column joints,” MethodsX, vol. 8, p. 101409, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101409.
[50] A. B. Ugale and S. N. Khante. (2020). “Study of energy dissipation of reinforced concrete beam-column joint
confined using varying types of lateral reinforcements,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 27, pp. 1356–1361, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.690.
[51] K. Sakthimurugan and K. Baskar. (2021). “Experimental investigation on rcc external beam-column joints
retrofitted with basalt textile fabric under static loading,” Compos. Struct., vol. 268, p. 114001, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114001.
[52] B.-Y. Deng, X. Liu, K.-Q. Yu, L.-Z. Li, and Y. Chen. (2022). “Seismic retrofitting of RC joints using steel
cage and haunch with bolted steel plate,” Struct., vol. 43, pp. 285–298, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.06.056.
[53] Park R. (1989). “Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from laboratory testing.”
Bulletin of the New Zealand society for earthquake engineering, vol. 22, (3), pp. 155-166.
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.22.3.155-166.
[54] A. A. Maria, L. Marianovella, and P. Marisa. (2007). “Bond Performances of FRP Rebars-Reinforced
Concrete,” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 205–213, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:3(205).
[55] C. E. Chalioris, V. K. Kytinou, M. E. Voutetaki, and C. G. Karayannis. (2021). “Flexural Damage Diagnosis
in Reinforced Concrete Beams Using a Wireless Admittance Monitoring System—Tests and Finite Element
Analysis,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 679, doi: 10.3390/s21030679.
[56] N. Moon. (2009). “Prediction of blast loading and its impact on buildings.”.
[57] E. Hognestad, N. W. Hanson, and D. McHenry. (1955). “Concrete stress distribution in ultimate strength
design,” Journal Proceedings, pp. 455–480.
[58] H. Rüsch. (1960). “Researches toward a general flexural theory for structural concrete,” J. Am. Concr. Inst.,
vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1–28.
[59] P. H. Kaar, N. W. Hanson, and H. T. Capell. (1978). “Stress-strain curves and stress block coefficients for high
strength concrete,” ACI Spec. Publ.
[60] A. H. Akhaveissy and C. S. Desai. (2012). “Application of the DSC model for nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete frames,” Finite Elem. Anal. Des., vol. 50, pp. 98–107, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2011.09.001.
[61] Akhaveissy AH, Ali MA, Bahaa A. (2024). “A behavior study of lightweight reinforced concrete deep beams
by considering different spacing of stirrups under the effect of fire: Experimental and numerical,” Journal of
Reh. in Civil Eng., vol. 12, (3), Article Number 35, doi: 10.22075/JRCE.2023.31484.1889.
[62] H. Behnam, J. S. Kuang, and R. Y. C. Huang. (2017). “Exterior RC wide beam-column connections: Effect of
beam width ratio on seismic behaviour,” Eng. Struct., vol. 147, pp. 27–44, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.044.
[63] H. Behnam, J. S. Kuang, and B. Samali, (2018). “Parametric finite element analysis of RC wide beam-column
connections,” Comput. Struct., vol. 205, pp. 28–44, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2018.04.004.
[64] M. Zargarian and A. Rahai. (2021). “Theoretical and Experimental Studies of Two-Span Reinforced Concrete
Deep Beams and Comparisons with Strut-and-Tie Method,” Adv. Civ. Eng., vol. 2021, p. 8880067, doi:
10.1155/2021/8880067.
[65] R. Soltanabadi, K. Behfarnia, and A. Mamazizi. (2022). “Numerical investigation of RC deep beams
containing recycled aggregates,” Constr. and Build. Mat., vol. 324, p. 126713, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126713.
[66] B. Chen, J. Zhou, D. Zhang, J. Su, C. Nuti, and K. Sennah. (2022). “Experimental study on shear performances
 of ultra-high performance concrete deep beams,” Struct., vol. 39, pp. 310–322, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.03.019.
[67] Demir A, Caglar N. (2020). “Numerical determination of crack width for reinforced concrete deep beams.”
Computers and Concrete, an International Journal, vol. 25, (3), pp. 193-204.
[68] H. Dabiri, A. Kheyroddin, and A. Kaviani. (2019). “A Numerical Study on the Seismic Response of RC Wide
Column–Beam Joints,” Int. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 377–395, doi: 10.1007/s40999-018-0364-2.
[69] Najafgholipour M, Arabi A. (2021). “Finite-element study on the behavior of exterior reinforced concrete
beam-to-column connections with transverse reinforcement in the joint panel,” Practice Periodical on Str.
Des. and Cons., vol. 26, p. 04020050. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000537.
[70] Mosallam A., Allam K., Salama M. (2019). “Analytical and numerical modeling of RC beamcolumn joints
retrofitted with FRP laminates and hybrid composite connectors,” Compos. Struct., vol. 214, pp. 486–503,
Doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.032.
[71] F. Abed, C. Oucif, Y. Awera, H. H. Mhanna, and H. Alkhraisha. (2021). “FE modeling of concrete beams and
columns reinforced with FRP composites,” Def. Technol., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–14, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2020.02.015.
[72] Akhaveissy AH, Permanoon A, Mirzaei M. (2018). “Seismic Retrofit of Defective RC Beam-Column Joints.”
Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, vol. 62, (3), pp. 596-611. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.10661.
[73] S. G. Nagaraja, M. Pletz, and C. Schuecker. (2019). “Constitutive modeling of anisotropic plasticity with
application to fiber-reinforced composites,” Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 180–181, pp. 84–96, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2019.07.002.
[74] T. Tafsirojjaman, S. Fawzia, and D. P. Thambiratnam. (2021). “Structural behaviour of CFRP strengthened
beam-column connections under monotonic and cyclic loading,” Struct., vol. 33, pp. 2689–2699,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.028.
[75] Hejazi F, Karim H, Kazemi H, Shahbazpanahi S, Mosavi A. (2022). “Fracture mechanics modeling of
reinforced concrete joints strengthened by CFRP sheets,” Case St. in Con. Mat., vol. 17, p. e01273,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01273.
[76] Pohoryles DA, Melo J, Rossetto T, Varum H, Bisby L. (2019). “Seismic retrofit schemes with FRP for deficient
RC beam-column joints: State-of-the-art review,” Journal of Compos. for Constr., vol. 23, p. 03119001,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000095.
[77] Ghobarah A, Saatcioglu M, Nistor I. (2006). “The impact of the 26 December 2004 earthquake and tsunami
on structures and infrastructure,” Eng. Struct., vol. 28, pp. 312-326,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.09.028.
[78] Zhao B, Taucer F, Rossetto T. (2009). “Field investigation on the performance of building structures during the
12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China,” Eng. Struct., vol. 31, pp. 1707-1723,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.039.
[79] Hadi MN, Tran TM. (2016). “Seismic rehabilitation of reinforced concrete beam–column joints by bonding with
concrete covers and wrapping with FRP composites,” Mat. and struct., vol. 49, pp. 467-485,
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0511-4.
[80] Parvin A, Altay S, Yalcin C, Kaya O. (2010). “CFRP rehabilitation of concrete frame joints with inadequate
shear and anchorage details,” J. of Compos. for Constr., vol. 14, pp. 72-82,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000055.
[81] Antonopoulos CP, Triantafillou TC. (2003). “Experimental investigation of FRP-strengthened RC beam-column
joints,” J. of Compos. for Constr., vol. 7, pp. 39-49, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:1(39).
[82] Vatani-Oskouei A. (2010). “Repairing of seismically damaged RC exterior beam—column connection using
CFRP,” J. of Reinforced Plastics and Compos., vol. 29, no. 21, pp. 3257-3274, DOI:
 10.1177/0731684410371407.
[83] Sinaei H, Jumaat MZ, Shariati M. (2011). “Numerical investigation on exterior reinforced concrete Beam-
Column joint strengthened by composite fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP),” Int J Phys Sci., vol. 6, no. 28, pp.
6572-6579, DOI: 10.5897/IJPS11.1225.
[84] Singh V, Bansal PP, Kumar M, Kaushik S. (2014). “Experimental studies on strength and ductility of CFRP
jacketed reinforced concrete beam-column joints,” Constr. and Build. Mat., vol. 55, pp. 194-201,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.047.
[85] Wang G-L, Dai J-G, Bai Y-L. (2019). “Seismic retrofit of exterior RC beam-column joints with bonded CFRP
reinforcement: An experimental study,” Compos. Struct., vol. 224, p. 111018,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111018.
[86] Sakthimurugan K, Baskar K. (2021). “Experimental investigation on rcc external beam-column joints retrofitted
with basalt textile fabric under static loading,” Compos. Struct., vol. 268, p. 114001,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114001.