Current code requirements for the design of beam-coumn joints shear reinforcement for earthquake resistance result in steel congestion, and consequently poor quality of the joint, construction difficulties and high cost. Based on previous research, steel studs with plain (non-deformed) stems and a head at each end can replace conventional closed hoops and cross ties for shear reinforcing the beam-column joints. Use of the headed studs in the joint results in reduction of the steel congestion, and hence, easier assemblage of the reinforcing cage and improved joint performance. The present research investigates experimentally the use of steel double-headed studs with deformed stems and Glass Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) double-headed bars in lieu of the steel double-headed studs with plain stems. The experimental program consists of constructing and testing nine full-scale beam-column joint specimens under quasi-static cyclic loading. The specimens represent exterior beam-column joints subassembly isolated at the points of contra-flexure in a multi-storey multi-bay moment resisting concrete frame. The test parameters include the material and type of double-headed studs and their amount in the in-plane and out-of- plane directions and the concrete strength. Envelopes of the load-displacement hysteresis loops, moment-lateral drift angle, load-ductility, storey shear-drift angle, and the joint shear strength-deformation are plotted and analyzed. The stiffness degradation, the strains in the joint reinforcement, the contribution of specimen elements (joint, beam, and column) to the drift angle, and the energy dissipation capacity of the specimens are presented and discussed. Performance of the tested specimens is checked against the requirements and acceptance criteria of the ACI 374.1-05, ACI 252R-02 and CSA A23.3-04. The use of steel deformed studs or GFRP headed bars proved to be an acceptable replacement of closed hoops and cross-ties as shear reinforcement of beam-column joints. All of the tested specimens exhibited acceptable behavior satisfying the code requirements. Some specimens demonstrated better behavior in comparison with the specimen designed and reinforced according to the code provisions.