Bond Performance of Interior Beam-

Column Joints with High-Strength

Reinforcement
Four beam-column joint tests were undertaken to assess the accuracy of New Zealand
design rules relating to bond strength in beam-column joints when applied to large
diameter, high-strength reinforcement. The ratio of longitudinal beam reinforcement
diameter to column depth intentionally did not meet the requirements of the New Zealand
design standard for any of the units. The units were subjected to cyclic displacements up
to interstory drift angles of 5%. Bond failure occurred in two of the four test units, at drift
levels exceeding those allowed by international codes. It is believed that the unexpectedly
good bond performance of the remaining two units was due to the large excess of vertical
joint shear and column moment capacity.

Keywords: beam-column joints; bond; high-strength reinforcement; load; reinforced

concrete; slippage.

INTRODUCTION

There have traditionally been two grades of steel reinforcement available in New
Zealand. Over time, the yield strength of these materials has increased. Most recently, the
yield strength of the higher-strength reinforcement was increased from 430 to 500 MPa
(62.4 to 72.5 ksi), known as Grade 500E. This resulted in changes to the way reinforced
concrete structures must be designed. The research presented here investigated the impact
of the new Grade 500E reinforcement on the occurrence of bond failure in beam-column
joints.

For reinforced concrete structures to function correctly, it is vital that forces can be
transferred between the concrete and reinforcement. One mechanism by which this
occurs is the bond that forms at the interface between the reinforcement and the concrete.
This bond mechanism is particularly important in interior beam-column joints, where
reinforcement must transition from being at yield in tension on one side of the joint to
being close to yield in compression on the other side, and where there are few alternate
options for anchoring reinforcement. If the maximum bond stress is exceeded and the
bond between the beam longitudinal reinforcement and the concrete in the joint is broken,
the reinforcement can slip freely through the concrete, reducing the stiffness of the beam-
column joint significantly. This is unlikely to cause a catastrophic failure, but will
increase the deflection of the building if it is subjected to further loading. In addition,
bond failure alters the mechanism by which an interior beam-column joint resists shear.
The failure of the bond mechanism is dependent on concrete strength and confinement,
reinforcement strength and diameter, and the length over which the force transfer can
occur (column depth in beam-column joints).
Previous research at the University of Auckland1,2 indicated that the New Zealand
concrete design standard, NZS 3101:1995,3 did not provide sufficient protection against
bond failure when high-strength reinforcement is used in beam-column joints. In order to
rectify this situation, a database of interior beam-column joint test results was assembled
and analyzed to determine appropriate design criteria.4 Based on this research, an
amendment to the New Zealand design rules for structural concrete was released in late
2003. Beam-column joint tests, however, that used beam longitudinal reinforcement with
a yield strength of 500 MPa (72.5 ksi) or greater and a bar diameter larger than 20 mm
were not available for inclusion in this database. The experimental program described
herein provided information on this combination of reinforcement strength and diameter,
and gave an opportunity to assess the amended design rules.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Although there is a history of interior beam-column joint testing dating back over 30
years, few test specimens have had high-strength beam longitudinal reinforcement of
large diameters. The use of large diameter bars and high-strength reinforcement reduces
reinforcement congestion compared with using a larger number of small diameter low-
strength bars, making this an attractive option for designers due to the high level of
reinforcement congestion that is typical of beam-column joints. It is, therefore, essential
that design guidelines give realistic guidance on the bond strength that can be expected to
develop in an interior beam-column joint containing high-strength beam longitudinal
reinforcement.

NEW ZEALAND APPROACH TO PREVENTING BOND FAILURE IN INTERIOR

BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

To prevent bond failure in interior beam-column joints, design codes include provisions
restricting the ratio of bar diameter to column depth (d^sub b^/h^sub c^). In New
Zealand, there have been two alternative equations for determining this limit because of
the introduction of NZS 3101:1995.3 These are

... (1)

... (2)

where

d^sub b^ = bar diameter;

h^sub c^ = column depth;

f'^sub c^ = concrete strength; and

f^sub y^ = nominal yield stress of the reinforcement.

The α factors account for whether the joint is part of a oneor two-way ductile frame
(α^sub f^), the overstrength factor of the reinforcing steel (α^sub o^), the depth of fresh
concrete cast beneath a given bar (α^sub t^), axial load (α^sub p^), and the ratio of the
areas of top and bottom reinforcement in the beam (α^sub s^). The development of Eq.
(1) is described by Paulay and Priestley.5 Equation (2) is a simplified, more conservative
version of Eq. (1) for use in situations where maximization of the d^sub b^/h^sub c^ ratio
is not essential.