174

R E I N F O R C E D CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN

J O I N T S FOR S E I S M I C L O A D I N G

P a r t II - E x p e r i m e n t a l Results

R. C. Fenwick and H. M . I r v i n e *

ABSTRACT

The results of tests on four beam-column joint specimens are reported.

It is shown that a joint which contained bond plates to prevent a bond
failure of the flexural reinforcement in the joint, and was proportioned
to limit yielding of the steel in this zone, had a markedly superior
performance to specimens designed to comply with the ACI-318-71 code,
or the proposals of May 1976 for the revision of the N. Z. Ministry of
Works and Development code of practice for the design of public buildings
(PW 8 1 / 1 0 / 1 ) .

1. BEAM-COLUMN JOINT TEST PROCEDURE flexural strength than the beams.

The theory relating to the earthquake
resistant design of beam column joints was
reviewed and extended in an earlier p a p e r ^
and need not be repeated here.
The four tests reported herein were
designed to compare the performance of
joints proportioned in accordance with
existing practice with a special unit in
which yield in the joint zone was controlled
and bond slip was prevented by the use of
bond plates welded to the flexural steel.
In designing the tests a careful watch
had to be kept on the costs involved. For
this reason the units' dimensions were kept
small. This economic constraint, together
with the size of the existing testing frame,
resulted in a unit with a rather long column
which gave a relatively flexible structure
requiring a high section to displacement
ductility ratio.
The column axial load was taken as
zero to simplify the tests and to create a
severe loading condition for the joint.
With no axial load, small joint dimensions
(thereby accentuating the bond problem)
and the high ratio of section to displacement
ductility, the test conditions were severe
compared with previous tests reported in the
literature (see References 3-8 in Reference
2 and References 13-37 , 39-44 in Reference 3 ) .
The test set-up is illustrated in Figure
1. The units were tested in a horizontal
position in a frame that was bolted down on
to the test floor. The joint zone reinforce-
ment for the four units is shown in Figure 2.
Unit 1 was designed to comply with the
ACI 318-71 code. Unit 2 was the first of
two units in which bond plates were detailed
to prevent slip. Unit 3 was designed by Mr.
I. C. Armstrong (District Structural Engineer,
M.W.D., Auckland) to comply with the draft
revision PW 81/10/1 - May 1976. Finally,
Unit 4 was an improved version of Unit 2.
The main features of these are listed in
Table 1. In all cases the columns had an
appreciably greater theoretical ultimate
* Senior Lecturers in Civil Engineering,
University of Auckland.
The concrete for the tests was supplied
by a local ready mix company. The specified
cylinder strength was 35 MPa with a 75 mm
slump and a maximum aggregate size of 10 mm.
The concrete strengths listed in Table 1
are the averages of three 300 mm x 150 mm
cylinder crushing tests for each mix.
1.1 Bond Plate Design Details (Units 2 and 4)
The units with bond plates were designed
to transmit all the joint shear by diagonal
strut action (see Figures 3 and 2 (b) and
(d)). No bond transfer was assumed for the
main flexural steel in the joint zone and,
consequently, the complete change in force
in the bar, from yield in compression on
one side to yield in tension on the other,
was taken out on the bond plate which
supported the diagonal compression force
on the concrete.
The plates were proportioned so that
the bearing stress on the concrete was
approximately at the cylinder crushing
strength. There was no evidence of local
crushing adjacent to the plate so that it
is likely that the procedure is conservative,
possibly overly so bearing in mind the con-
finement of the diagonal strut.
To reduce the possibility of a local
brittle failure in the bar due to high welding
shrinkage stresses, the bond plates were
cut in two and each half was then butt
welded to the bar. The junctions between
the two halves of the plate were then
lightly welded together.
If the bar between the bond plates
yields (in this region of the bar only
yield in tension is p o s s i b l e ) , then, on
load reversal, the bar would slip back
through the concrete to allow the second
bond plate to bear against the concrete.
Clearly, to prevent this slippage and the
consequent degradation of stiffness, it
is necessary to prevent, or at any rate
limit, the inelastic extension of the
flexural reinforcement in the joint zone.
In Unit 2 an attempt was made to limit
the yield extension between the bond plates

B U L L E T I N OF THE NEW Z E A L A N D N A T I O N A L SOCIETY FOR E A R T H Q U A K E E N G I N E E R I N G , V O L . 10, NO. 4, DECEMBER 1977


by the addition of extra flexural reinforce-
ment in the beam. This took the form of four
12 mm bars which were placed on the inside
of the main flexural reinforcement cage.
These bars extended between the bond plates,
but away from this location they were bent
into the centre of the beam (see Figure
2(b)). The test results showed that this
was only partially successful. At the higher
ductility levels these bars appear to have
become debonded allowing extensive yielding
of the main steel in the joint and, therefore,
slip of the bars through the joint.
Yielding of the main beam steel in the
joint of Unit 4 was prevented by the addition
of two 10 mm bars fillet welded onto each
24 mm bar between the bond plates (see
Figure 2(d)). This arrangement worked
extremely well and no slippage was apparent.
With diagonal strut action as the
principal method of load transfer in the
joints of Units 2 and 4, joint shear rein-
forcement was not required. However, some
joint steel is needed to control the diagonal
splitting which occurs in the joint, as
indicated in the previous p a p e r . The
areas of joint reinforcement actually used
to control this cracking (1584mm and 999mm
2
for units 2 and 4 respectively) were markedly
less than those required for joint shear
resistance in units 1 and 3 (see Table 1 ) .
In the case of Unit 4 only half the steel
specified by equation (7) and Reference (1)
was used (i.e. y hi see equation (8)).
s
It was felt that once diagonal cracks form
the tension stiffness across the diagonal
decreases and the forces required to be
transmitted across the crack are substantially
reduced. The experimental results bear out
this conclusion.
1.2 Load Sequence and Experimental Measure-
Men ts
The loading sequence was the same for
all units, being similar to that used in
recent MWD tests(4). In the first two
complete cycles of the test on Unit 1, the
load was increased in each direction to
three-quarters of the level calculated to
give first yield of the reinforcement. The
resulting load-deflection relationship was
plotted and a straight line was fitted to
the points and extended to the calculated
first yield level. The displacement corres-
ponding to this was then used as a reference
value of "ductility one". From this stage
on displacements were imposed on the beams
as indicated in Figure 4 ( a ) . All subsequent
units were subjected to the same displacements
as Unit 1.
Readings of the beam deflections were
taken at the two points shown in Figure 4 ( b ) .
In addition, the deflected shapes of the
complete units were picked out using a
theodolite to measure the movement of
targets attached to the unit. These measure-
ments were taken at only a few representative
load increments.
Electrical resistance strain gauges
were attached to the main flexural steel
in Unit 1. In all, eighteen gauges were
used, their positions being as shown in
Figure 7.
Demec gauge readings were taken on all
175
units. However, extensive yielding of the
reinforcement in the joint zones of Units
1, 2 and 3 rapidly caused the strains to
exceed the gauge capacities. By comparison,
the cracks in the joint zone of -Unit 4 were
well controlled and this allowed readings
to be taken to the end of the ductility
six displacements.
In Units 3 and 4 measurements were
taken of the expansion of the central 1.6 m
of the beam under cyclic loading. At low
ductility levels these values were found,
using demec gauge readings, but at higher
levels the expansion was measured directly
with a tape.
2. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The main experimental results are
recorded in Figures 5-14.
2.1 Units 1 and 3
Unit 1 was designed to comply with
the current ACI code (318-71), and Unit 3
was proportioned to meet the draft provisions
of PW 81/10/1 of May 1976, with the exception
that as the gap between the flexural steel
in the column was small no intermediate
column bars were used. The effect this may
have had on the joint is unknown. (See
Table 1 in Reference 1.) The flexural
tension steel percentage in the beam in
Unit 3 was considerably less than in the
other units (1.3% as against 1 . 8 % ) , as it
was limited by the calculated shear
strength of the joint zone corresponding
to the maximum quantity of stirrup reinforce-
ment that could be fitted into this region.
The behaviour of both joints was
similar in that both suffered severe load
and stiffness degradation. The considerable
increase in the ratio of shear reinforcement
to flexural steel increased the toughness
of Unit 3, but the gain appears to be
small (Figures 5, 6, 9, and 10) .
Both joints cracked diagonally at a
load of 18 kN in the jacks. These cracks
opened up when the units were taken into
the inelastic region. The inelastic
extension of the steel was concentrated in
the joint and in the beam close to the
joint.
For load cycles involving ductilities
greater than two slippage of the beam rein-
forcement through the joint zone was
apparent. Inspection of the joint of Unit
1 showed clear evidence of bar slip, with
the deformations on the steel moving relative
to the indentations in the concrete by as
much as 3 - 5 mm. Such slippage gives
rise to beam displacements as is apparent
from the flat portions of the load deflection
curves at higher ductilities (see Figure 5 ) .
In the joint of Unit 3 the concrete contained
around and between the six bars in each
face of the beam was extensively broken up.
It was apparent in this case that the bond
was destroyed not so much at the steel-
concrete interface as by disruption of the
concrete surrounding the bars in the joint
region. For this type of bond failure the
reduction in bar diameter from 20 mm in
Unit 1 to 12 mm in Unit 3 did not appear
to help because it was the concrete inter-
face right round the group that failed.
 1, w

In t h e l o a d c y c l e s i n v o l v i n g d u c t i l i t i e s these additional bars became debonded

of four and more t h e s t i f f n e s s e s of t h e u n i t s making them ineffective in limiting
were severely reduced due to the slip of the yield of the reinforcement between
bars. The shear resistance was the result the bond plates.
of diagonal strut action. Extensive yield
o f t h e b e a m r e i n f o r c e m e n t (see F i g u r e 7 ) , In s p i t e o f t h e s e w e a k n e s s e s , U n i t 2
coupled with the high cyclic bond stresses, performed marginally better than Units 1
d e s t r o y e d t h e bond forces in t h e j o i n t s . a n d 3, e v e n t h o u g h i t h a d a m u c h s m a l l e r
With each load cycle t h e f l e x u r a l tension a r e a o f j o i n t r e i n f o r c e m e n t (see T a b l e s 1
steel w a s anchored further back into the a n d c o m p a r e F i g u r e s 6, 9, 10 a n d 11) .
compression zone of the b e a m on t h e far side
of the joint. The extensive b a r slip at In U n i t 4 t h e a r e a o f b e a m r e i n f o r c e m e n t
low l o a d s , w h i c h w a s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of in t h e j o i n t z o n e w a s i n c r e a s e d b y w e l d i n g
these two joints, gave poor energy absorption t w o 10 m m b a r s t o e a c h o f t h e 24 m m b a r s
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (see F i g u r e s 5, 6, a n d 1 0 ) . in e a c h f a c e . This gave a local increase
in b e a m s t e e l a r e a t h r o u g h t h e j o i n t o f 3 5 % .
Some of the strain gauge readings w h i c h As t h e p e a k m o m e n t c a p a c i t y w a s 3 3 % a b o v e
are t a b u l a t e d in t h e r e p o r t n o t e d b e l o w * a r e the calculated first inelastic e x t e n s i o n
s h o w n in F i g u r e s 7 a n d 8. The readings o f t h e s t e e l , y i e l d in t h i s z o n e s h o u l d
indicated that the beam r e i n f o r c e m e n t in Unit have been avoided. By tack welding the
1 y i e l d e d , b u t t h e c o l u m n s t e e l r e m a i n e d in 10 mm. b a r s t o t h e m a i n s t e e l , a n d b u t t
the e l a s t i c r a n g e . I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e welding them to the bond p l a t e s , the
that the bond did not fail on the column possibility of anchorage failure was
bars even though these stresses were very prevented.
h i g h and o f a c y c l i c n a t u r e . Figure 8 shows
t h a t t h e f l e x u r a l t e n s i o n f o r c e s in t h e c o l u m n The p e r f o r m a n c e of Unit 4 stands o u t
steel w e r e e f f e c t i v e l y a n c h o r e d b y bond on f r o m t h e o t h e r s (see F i g u r e s 1 4 , 1 2 , 9 a n d
the far side o f t h e joint. This confirms the 10). T h e c r a c k s in t h e j o i n t w e r e f i n e a n d
d i a g o n a l s t r u t m e c h a n i s m (see F i g u r e 3 (c) well controlled up to the second cycle o f
of Reference ( 1 ) ) . The e x p e r i m e n t a l m e a s u r e - ductility six. At the first cycle of
ments show that sustained cyclic bond stresses d u c t i l i t y e i g h t t h e c o n c r e t e in t h e joint
o f a t l e a s t 6.0 M P a , a n d p r o b a b l y 9 M P a , w e r e z o n e s t a r t e d t o s p a l l , a n d it w a s n o t
sustained. It is b e l i e v e d t h a t this m a g n i t u d e until the second cycle of ductility eight
of bond resistance could b e m a i n t a i n e d only that the unit started to degrade. However,
because: right through the whole loading sequence
the p e r f o r m a n c e of the joint w a s very m u c h
(i) the column bars had stirrups anchored better than the others. It s h o u l d b e n o t e d
round them; thereby increasing bond that this marked improvement in performance
resistance ^ , and o c c u r r e d in spite of the fact that t h e
a m o u n t o f s h e a r r e i n f o r c e m e n t in t h e j o i n t
(ii) the bars did not yield. w a s v e r y s u b s t a n t i a l l y less t h a n in a l l
t h e o t h e r t e s t s (see T a b l e 1 ) .
Extreme spalling of the cover concrete
in t h e j o i n t s o f U n i t s 1 a n d 3 o c c u r r e d It is b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e d e g r a d a t i o n
during the first cycle of ductility six. of t h e j o i n t arose from yield in t h e
flexural steel of the column. The column
2.2 Units 2 and 4 - Bond Plate Units w a s d e s i g n e d w i t h an u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h 4 0 %
greater than that of the beam, b u t to first
Both these units contained bond plates, yield of steel the corresponding value w a s
and t h e y w e r e d e s i g n e d to r e s i s t s h e a r b y only 2 4 % . This difference w a s insufficient
diagonal strut action. Extra flexural steel to prevent yielding of the column bars when
w a s a d d e d to the joints to limit the y i e l d displacement ductilities of six were
extension of the bars between the bond plates imposed. M e a s u r e m e n t s m a d e o n t h e u n i t (at
on each side o f t h e joint. The main difference ductilities of eight) indicated that the
i n t h e s e u n i t s l a y in t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e column had expanded by 3 mm over the central
extra steel w a s added. 600 m m o f t h e joint zone. T h i s is a c l e a r
i n d i c a t i o n of yield of the column s t e e l .
In U n i t 2 t w o e x t r a 12 m m b a r s w e r e
p l a c e d b e l o w t h e b o n d p l a t e s in e a c h face 2.3 Beam Expansion a n d Sliding Shear in B e a m s
of t h e beam, as shown in F i g u r e 2 ( b ) . T h i s
g a v e r i s e to a t h e o r e t i c a l i n c r e a s e in Under cyclic loading involving inelastic
moment capacity of the joint of 16% at first e x t e n s i o n s t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t e x t e n d s in
yield of the steel. In f a c t , t h e a c t u a l tension, t h e r e b y opening up t h e c r a c k s in
i n c r e a s e in b e n d i n g m o m e n t a f t e r first y i e l d the c o n c r e t e , b u t under load r e v e r s a l
of t h e s t e e l w a s 2 1 % a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , these c r a c k s tend n o t to close c o m p l e t e l y
inelastic extension of the steel would have in p l a s t i c h i n g e z o n e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , in
o c c u r r e d in t h e f i r s t c y c l e o f d u c t i l i t y joint zones which act by the formation of
four. It is b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n diagonal struts, inelastic tensile strains
of joint p e r f o r m a n c e after t h e c o m p l e t i o n may b e expected to exist simultaneously
of t h e c y c l e s o f d u c t i l i t y four w a s d u e t o : in b o t h t h e t o p a n d b o t t o m s t e e l t h r o u g h
t h e j o i n t (see F i g u r e 3 (c) o f R e f e r e n c e (1) ) .
(i) the inelastic extension of the bars T h i s b e h a v i o u r w a s c o n f i r m e d i n U n i t 1 (see
mentioned above, and Figure 7 ) . The inelastic tensile extension
o f t h e r e i n f o r c i n g s t e e l , w h i c h is n o t
(ii) t h e i n a d e q u a t e a n c h o r a g e o f t h e 12 m m removed by subsequent compression, results
b a r s in t h e b e a m s . Under cyclic loading in a g r o w t h i n t h e l e n g t h o f t h e b e a m s .
O f c o u r s e , in a c t u a l s t r u c t u r e s t h e g r o w t h
* Fenwick, R . C . , and Irvine, K.M., "Beam-Column in l e n g t h w i l l b e r e s t r a i n e d by s l a b s ,
Joints for Seismic Loading", UASE Report N o . s h e a r w a l l s o r f i x i n g s (the s l a b
142, March 1977. effect).

The increase in length of the beams
was recorded for Units 3 and 4 and the
results are shown in Figure 13. It will
be noticed that these increments are far
from negligible, particularly in Unit 4,
where extensive plastic hinging occurred
over an appreciable length of the beams.
The total extension at the last cycle on
Unit 4 was 30 mm, which is approximately
1%.of the total beam length! The reason
for the extension being greater in Unit 4
than in Unit 3 is because bar slip occurred
in Unit 3, thereby allowing the large
ductilities to be achieved without such
high plastic strains as were necessary in
Unit 4 (where the joint behaved itself).
The continuous opening of the flexural
cracks in the plastic hinge zones of the
beams gave rise to the problem of sliding
shear. Units 1 and 3, which failed in the
joint zone and did not develop major plastic
hinges in the beams, showed no distress in
shear. The beams of Units 2 and 4, in which
the shear reinforcement was proportioned to
carry 70 kN (cf> = 1) , did show distress in
shear. In Unit 2 this arose in the form of
wide steep cracks (steeper than 4 5 ° ) .
Additional external stirrups were fitted
to the beams to prevent a premature shear
failure.
Unit 4, in which very wide flexural
cracks developed in the plastic hinging zone
of the beams, showed distress in sliding
shear. To prevent this external stirrups
were clamped around the critical cracks.
Without these it is almost certain a sliding
shear failure would have occurred. The
shear reinforcement in Unit 4 consisted of
6.5 mm diameter two-leg stirrups spaced at
60 mm centres. The shear stress, based on
the peak load (occurring at the first cycle
of ductility s i x ) , was I . 1 9 MPa, or 0.19
/f£ MPa. This is well below the limit at
which sliding shear is normally expected.
Sliding shear in beams is the subject
of a current thesis project under the
supervision of the senior author. Results
from this study will be available at a later
date.
2.4 Crack Widths in the Joint Zone
The opening of cracks in the joint zone
was indirectly measured from displacement
readings made across this region by mechanical
strain gauges. A few of the results are
shown plotted in Figure 14. It can be seen
that the crack widths in the joint zones of
Units 1, 2 and 3 increased rapidly once
they were taken into the inelastic region.
By contrast, the crack widths in the joint
of Unit 4 remained small and well controlled
until the second cycle of ductility six.
3. CONCLUSIONS
The test results from Unit 4 clearly
indicate that beam-column joints may be
designed to resist joint shear by diagonal
strut action. Such joints require that:
(i) Extra beam flexural steel be placed
through the joint to control the amount
of yielding in the joint zone and to
keep the plastic behaviour mainly in the
beams. This additional reinforcement
must be adequately anchored in the beams
177
to prevent debonding.
(ii) Bond plates be attached to the flexural
steel in the column and beams to transmit
the bar forces into the diagonal struts
which form in the joint (alternatively,
the flexural steel could be cranked
through the joint but this appears to
be a difficult detail to effect in
practice and is, therefore, mentioned
here only in p a s s i n g ) .
(iii) Stirrups and longitudinal bars be
placed in the joint zone to control
the width of the main diagonal cracks.
The area of steel required to achieve
this appears to be of the order of a
quarter to one-third of that currently
being used.
Beam-column joints designed as described
above appear to have a higher sustained
strength and a better ductile performance
than the more conventional details, in spite
of the fact that they have a very much lower
shear steel area in the joint. It appears
that higher shear stresses may be applied
to the joint and, consequently, beam sizes
may be reduced. At present, beam depths
are large and steel percentages are kept
low in order to find room for the joint
steel and to reduce flexural forces. This
leads to substantially increased costs due
to material content, the labour involved in
fixing steel in the highly congested joint
zones, the difficulty of placing concrete
in these zones and the increased height of
construction required to accommodate the
larger beam sizes.
With the bond plate joint detail the
size of the joint zones may be reduced so
that they no longer dictate the beam sizes.
The next limit on beam size arises from
considerations of sliding shear in beam
plastic hinge zones. However, the authors
believe that this potential failure mode
may be prevented, as described below, thus
allowing small beams containing up to 2.5%
of flexural tension steel to be used with
confidence, as compared with current practice
that requires approximately 1.3%.
Mr. B. W. Buchanan, M.W.D., Wellington,
has suggested that sliding shear failures
could possibly be prevented by providing
an element with a high dowel shear capacity
in the centre of the beam.
A scaffolding tube filled with concrete
and placed in a debonded state in the middle
of the beam in the plastic hinge zones might
satisfy this requirement. Alternatively,
the authors believe it may be possible to
control sliding shear by the use of some
unstressed prestressing strands which are
added to the normal flexural mild steel in
the beam. This, it is thought, may change
the character of the plastic hinge and
increase the sliding shear capacity of the
hinging region.
With the bond plate detail difficulties
would arise with site placing of reinforcement,
and it would be important to avoid this
problem by having the steel cages prefabricated
in a workshop. From discussions with contractors
it appears that just this approach has been
used to considerable advantage on several
recent structures with conventional joints.
178

To reiterate, the mode of resistance o f

a b o n d p l a t e d j o i n t is c l e a r and a r a t i o n a l
design may b e m a d e . The same does not appear
to b e t r u e o f d e s i g n s m a d e t o A C I - 3 1 8 - 7 1 , o r
t h e MWD's PW 8 1 / 1 0 / 1 . The ACI code does
not r e q u i r e a n y v e r t i c a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t in
the joint z o n e , a n d t h e d r a f t M W D c o d e
PW 8 1 / 1 0 / 1 r e q u i r e s o n l y n o m i n a l v e r t i c a l
s t e e l in that it is n o t e d that c o l u m n s t e e l
should be distributed round the perimeter
o f t h e c o l u m n (see T a b l e 1 i n R e f e r e n c e 1 ) .

C o n s e q u e n t l y it i s d i f f i c u l t t o
determine joint stirrup requirements by a
l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s o f j o i n t f o r c e s in c o l u m n s
with low axial loads. The expected mode
of a c t i o n is n o t c l e a r , a n d t h e p o o r p e r f o r m -
ance of Units 1 and 3 under these conditions
is not s u r p r i s i n g . F i n a l l y , it should b e
noted that the c o n d i t i o n s for these tests
w e r e s e v e r e in t h a t t h e r e w a s n o a x i a l l o a d
(a c o n d i t i o n w h i c h l e a d s t o a h i g h v e r t i c a l
s t i r r u p requirement), and t h e r a t i o o f s e c t i o n
to d i s p l a c e m e n t d u c t i l i t y w a s h i g h .

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

T h e a u t h o r s a r e g r a t e f u l t o M r . I. C .
Armstrong, M . W . D . Auckland, and M r . B. W.
B u c h a n a n , M . W . D . W e l l i n g t o n , for their h e l p
with this project. In a d d i t i o n , M r . W .
S t r i n g e r a n d Mr. K. C u r r y o f the M . W . D .
Auckland provided valuable assistance.
Downer and C o . Ltd. provided material
assistance.

5. REFERENCES

(1) F e n w i c k , R. C . a n d I r v i n e , H . M . ,
"Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints
for S e i s m i c L o a d i n g , Part I - T h e o r y " ,
B u l l e t i n o f t h e N . Z. N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y
for E a r t h q u a k e E n g i n e e r i n g , S e p t . 1 9 7 7 .
V o l . 1 0 , N o . 3.
(2) ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Recommendations
for D e s i g n of B e a m - C o l u m n J o i n t s in
Monolithic R e i n f o r c e d C o n c r e t e S t r u c t u r e s " ,
P r o c . A C I , V o l . 7 3 , N o . 7, J u l y , 1 9 7 6 .
(3) P a r k , R. a n d P a u l a y , T . , " R e i n f o r c e d
C o n c r e t e S t r u c t u r e s " , J. W i l e y a n d
Sons , 1976 .
(4) Priestley, M.J.N., "Testing of Two
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Assemblies Under Simulated Seismic
Loading", Report N o . 5-75/1, MWD Central
L a b o r a t o r i e s , W e l l i n g t o n , 1 9 7 5 . (See,
also, Bulletin of the N . Z . National
Society for Earthquake Engineering,
V o l . 8, N o . 1, M a r c h , 1 9 7 5 , p p . 3 8 - 7 0 . )
(5) A C I C o m m i t t e e 408 - "Bond Stress - T h e
State of the A r t " , A C I Proceedings,
Vol. 63, No. 11, 1966.

Paper received 26 S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 7 7 .
 179

TABLE 1

BASIC DATA FOR BEAM-COLUMN JOINT UNITS

ITEM UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4

(ACI-318-71) 1ST WITH BOND PLATES PW 81/10/1 - MAY 76 2ND WITH BOND
PLATES.

Cylinder
42.9 MPa 35.6 MPa 39.3 MPa 40.4 MPa
strength f^

Beam flexural
3 - D20 mm 3 - D20 mm 6 - D12 mm 2 - D24 mm
steel (T & B)
280 MPa 317 MPa 318 MPa 291 MPa
f
y
2 2
A . = A * 942 mm 2
942 mm 2

905 mm
st sb 678 mm
width 200 200 200 200
effective depth 260 260 254 252
Beam steel % p 1.81 1.81 1.34 1.80

Joint shear steel 5 - R12 - 11 - R6.5 - 2 leg 5 - R12 - 2 leg 12 - R6.5 -

2 leg 2 leg
horizontal (EA^) 5 - R10 - +4 - D12 bars 5 - R10 - 2 leg
2 leg 5 - R6.5 - 2 leg
1916 mm 2
1182 mm 2
2248 mm 2
597 mm 2

Joint vertical
2 - D16 mm 2 - D16 mm ' Nil 2 - D16 mm
steel
2
in jt. zone (ZA ) v 402 mm 2

402 mm 402 m m 2

Column - steel 4 - D20 nun 4 - D20 mm 16 - D12 mm each 4 - D16 mm

(yield f as for side
beams) y
4 - D16 mm 4 - D12 mm 2 - D16 mm
2 - D16 mm 2 - D16 mm central 2 - D16 mm
central central
A (total) in 2
g

2463 mm 2463 mm 2
1810 mm 2
2614 mm 2

columns
width 250 250 250 250
effective depth 260 260 254 252

Steel ratios
2.03 1.25 3.32 0.66
Z
V st A

(EA h + ZA )/A
v s t 2.46 1.68 3.32 1.10

* L - A C I - 7 1 cj) = 1.0
u 50.1 kN 55.5 kN 40.8 kN 52.4 kN

* L-^ load at 1st

yield of 46.3 kN 52.4 kN 37.0 kN 44.9 kN
flexural steel
* L« measured load
at ± 2D 49.4 kN 58.6 kN 43.9 kN 52.6 kN

Col. flexural ult.

beam 1.31 1.31 1.33 1.44
(calculated)

* Notes
L u - calculated ultimate flexural load on each beam (ACI-318-71 <f> = 1.0)
L x - calculated load on each beam at 1st yield of beam steel
L 2 - measured load on each beam at ductility two 1st cycle clockwise direction
A - flexural steel bottom of beam, A . - flexural steel top of beam
sb st
180

U25 U25 475.

SUPPORT BEARINGS
RACKING ON PACKNG
30 TON JACK

30 TON LOAD 200

CELL

BEAM ri BEAM
L J L J

vol I J^fj^ CELL

30 TON LOAD

It - ^
1
' Mr
30 TON JACK
r i
I. J H—PACKING

COLUMN

PACKING
30 TON LOAD
CELL - ROLLER BEARING

F I G U R E 1: P L A N V I E W OF TEST A R R A N G E M E N T FOR BEAM-COLUMN

J U N C T I O N SPECIMENS.
 181

1 4?5 J1X
-6-SETS R6 5 -200I
DOUBLE T I E S - 1 0 0
3Qj JO
f ^ O

6-D20-
1&I
R6-5 TIES
-BEAM
6-R6-5 TIES-150 - ^3-020. T& B
- 55- -S5E T S TRIPLE
" ^ j T I E S IN JOINT R = plain round.
D = deformed. A-A ¥
- 6 - SETS R 6 - 5 016 = deformed 16mm
DOUBLE T I E S - 1 0 0 nominal bar.
Oi
CO
CD R12 TIE 2-016 ,R6-5 TIES
N R10 TIE R6 5 TIE 2-016
-2-016
4-020 4-020 4-020 4-020
- 4 - 0 2 0 E. F.

-9-R6 5 TIES-150

4 -COLUMN
^Fillet weld R12" "-Fillet weld
& R10 ties. R6-5 tie
300
STRUCTURE IS
ETRICAL ABOUT £ ' s C-C
FIGURE 2 ( a ) : R E I N F O R C E M E N T DETAILS FOR T H E FOUR S P E C I M E N S (?) U N I T 1

x = 20mm OUTSIDE BARS

x = 45 mm INSIDE BARS
Bond plate — 1 425 J75 H

-for details s COLUMN O R —

/-6-SETS R6-5 BEAM FACE Lxx, .^, 2 0
enlargement. / DOUBLE TIES -100
c

1 - D16 E.F.

i 2T 2J
52
2-012E.F.
W] WW BEAM
6 - R 6 - 5 TIES-150
3 - 0 2 0 T. & B.
60 x 60 x 2 0 * .
D20 OR 016
BAR
5 - SETS TRIPLE
TIES IN JOINT BOND PLATE DETAIL

- - 6 - SETS R6-5
DOUBLE T I E S - 1 0 0
2 - D16
^ ^ _^ ^ 0 016 016- -R6-5 TIES
o
CO 2-016-v
iD"\ r- 6 - 0o-
20 R6-5 TIE — n | R6 5 TIES 012 012
2-020* - ^ , 012 -i
2 -D16 E.F. •—012 o
4
9 -R6 5 -
TIES-150 o
o
CO' f]-016-
020 •^
5$
i ^ If

COLUMN J 020 i_4

o4
R6-5 TIES
Fillet weld
R6-5 ties
B-B
Fillet weld
R6-5 t i e w
2
X ^ -
NQTE STRUCTURE IS
:

r^ 5

METRICAL ABOUT £ ' s

SYMME . 300

c-c
F I G U R E 2 ( b ) : R E I N F O R C E M E N T D E T A I L S FOR T H E F O U R S P E C I M E N S (b) U n i t 2
 182

Fillet weld all

14.25 415, R6-5 TIE ties.
R12 TIE - Note R10 ties
-10-SETS R 6 - 5 to have fillet
TRIPLE T I E S - 6 0 -3-D12 T . * B . WO T I E - Weld on both
"7 sides of lap.
16-D12

1*8
ffl
"XTEAM
7-SETS R6-5 - -3-D12 T. & B.
TRIPLE TIES -100
^ - 5 - S E T S TRIPLE B-B
TIES IN JOINT

— 6 - SETS R6 5
TRIPLE T I E S - 60 200
-4-D12E.F. 300

- 4 - 0 1 2 E.F r~ ""1 2 5 ^ 0 3Q, , ^25

16- SETS R6 5 12-012- o-

TRIPLE T I E S - 90
16-012- 1
4
* ••
n • 4 4
COLUMN s
i A-A
CM 1
R6-5 TIES
C-C

NOTE STRUCTURE IS
:

SYMMETRICAL ABOUT £'s

FIGURE 2 ( c ) : R E I N F O R C E M E N T DETAILS FOR THE FOUR S P E C I M E N S (c) U n i t 3
30 n 20 * 6 1
1 425 Fillet weld to
bond plate and
bar.
90 m 90 m 24 It -n
BEAM FACE

BEAM 2-024 T. & B.

13-R6-5 BONO PLATE NOTES
T I E S - 80 ^ - S E T S TRIPLE
TIES IN JOINT 11)024 BEAM BARS - Bond
plates as shown in detail.
14-R6 5 (2)D24 COLUMN BARS. -
TIES - 80 30 * 20 * 6 ft. each side of BONO PLATE DETAIL
bond plate. FOR BEAM STEEL
200 (3)016 COLUMN B A R S -
2-016 --
45 70 « 70 x 20 bond plate
- ^ ^5 with no fillet plates.
r-4-024
U - 016- R6-5 TIES 4-016 R6-5 TIES
U -D24- 4-024
" 1
5-R6-5 i
TIES-125 |.
COLUMN- o
CM!
2-024*
1-016E.-F.
5L™^™SJ 'mm—^immSr^ .

Fillet weld-
of R6-5 tie I
R 6 5 TIE
J
L

fcJB 45. j_ il
N 0 T E STRUCTURE IS
;
U 30J ^
SYMMETRICAL ABOUT ^'s C-C
FIGURE 2 ( d ) : R E I N F O R C E M E N T D E T A I L S FOR THE FOUR S P E C I M E N S (d) U n i t 4
 CYCLE

ia} LOAD SEQUENCE FOR ALL UNITS

1-250J

DIAL o |JACKS
GAUGES^

,J-250.j

3 200

lb) SKETCH SHOWING DIAL GAUGE POSITIONS ON BEAMS

FIGURE 4

F I G U R E 5: L O A D D E F L E C T I O N C U R V E S FOR U N I T 1 F I G U R E 6: L O A D D E F L E C T I O N C U R V E S FOR U N I T 3
184

_ YIELD STRAIN ( 1 4 0 0 * 10" I _

-—-D4i

-D4i

7 04i

YIELD STRAIN i 1 4 Q 0 j L l Q f L _

F I G U R E 8: S T R A I N R E A D I N G S ON C O L U M N
F I G U R E 7: S T R A I N R E A D I N G S ON BEAM B A R S BARS U N I T 1 UP TO D U C T I L I T Y 4
U N I T 1 UP T O D U C T I L I T Y 2 (SEE F I G U R E 7 FOR S T R A I N G A U G E L O C A T I O N S )

Load

A r e a "a", actual curves

ri, Displacement
^ ACI Ultimate
(0=1) — 7
^oad /
±

Displacemeni
0-8
UNIT 4

eJasto-plastic
0-6

0-4
DUCTILITY
UNIT 1

0-2

UNIT 4
2i 4i 6i 8i
DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY - 1st CYCLE

0-6 H
F I G U R E 9: L O A D S U S T A I N E D A T D I F F E R E N T
D U C T I L I T I E S (i= first cycle, ii=second cycle)
0-4
Unit 4

: 0-2 ^ Unit 3
-_\Unit 2
~Unit 1

2ii
4ii 6ii 8ii
DISPLACEMENT D U C T I L I T Y - 2 n d CYCLE

F I G U R E 10: E N E R G Y D I S S I P A T I O N
VERSUS D U C T I L I T Y
 JOINT ZONE
SPALLS 4

.•i -i +ii - h . .+i -i +it - i i • i+» -i +ii - i i . ,+i -i +ii - i i . i+i -i +ii - i i , DUCTILITY

J
/^D 2D 4D 6D 8D

F I G U R E 13: E X P A N S I O N OF BEAM IN U N I T S 3 A N D 4 F I G U R E 14: C R A C K W I D T H IN J O I N T M E A S U R E D BY

UNDER CYCLIC LOADING DEMEC G A U G E ON B E A M
M E A S U R E D O V E R C E N T R A L 1.600m OF BEAM