ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 112-S68

Bond-Slip Relationship of Beam Flexural Bars in Interior

Beam-Column Joints
by Hyeon-Jong Hwang, Tae-Sung Eom, and Hong-Gun Park
Under cyclic loading, the structural performance of reinforced
concrete (RC) beam-column connections is significantly affected
by the bond slip of beam flexural bars. In the present study, a bond-
slip model was developed to evaluate the bond slip of beam flexural
bars within beam-column joints using simplified bond strength and
bar strain. To address the cyclic loading effect, the bond strength
was determined from the existing test results of beam-column
connections that showed complete bond failure. For verification,
the predictions of the proposed model were compared with the
existing test results of concrete block specimens and beam-column
joint specimens. The results showed that the proposed model
predicted the bond strength degradation and bond-slip relation-
ships with reasonable precision. For performance-based design,
a bond requirement was proposed as the function of the ductility
demand of beam-column joints.

Keywords: beam-column interior joint; bond slip; cyclic loading; simpli-

fied bond strength model.

INTRODUCTION
In reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames subjected
to earthquake load, the structural performance of beam-
column connections is significantly affected by the bond
slip of beam flexural bars in the beam-column joints.1-8 In
the interior beam-column joints subjected to large inelastic
deformation, the bond slip of the beam flexural bars contrib-
utes to the total deformation of the beam-column joints by as
much as 35%.9
Figure 1 shows the load-transfer mechanism in an interior
beam-column joint. Under reversed cyclic loading, residual
tensile deformations develop in the beam flexural bars after
flexural yielding. Due to the residual tensile deformation,
both the tensile stress and compressive stress of the beam
reinforcing bars can develop even before complete closing
of the flexural cracks at the joint interface. In this case, to
transfer the reinforcing bar forces to the joint without contact
of the concrete, the sum of the compressive force and tensile
force (T1 + C2 or T2 + C1 in Fig. 1) of the beam reinforcing
bars should be resisted by the bar bond within the joint.
Thus, the bond stress demand in the beam-column joint
subjected to cyclic loading can be increased to two times the
bond stress under monotonic loading: T1 + C2 or T2 + C1, as
shown in Fig. 1. On the other hand, the development length
of the beam flexural bar is limited by the column depth hc.
Thus, in the beam-column joints with small column depth-
to-bar diameter ratio hc/db (db is the diameter of a beam flex-
ural bar), significant bond slip occurs under cyclic loading.3
To mitigate the bond slip of beam flexural bars, the
current earthquake design codes (ACI 318-11,10 ACI 352R-
02,11 NZS 3101:2006,12 and Eurocode 813) specify the
Fig. 1—Load transfer of interior beam-column joint.
minimum requirements of hc/db (refer to Appendix A*). In
ACI 352R‑02,11 the minimum hc/db is defined as the func-
tion of the yield strength ratio of reinforcing bars: hc/db ≥
20(fy/420) ≥ 20. NZS 3101:200612 and Eurocode 813 use
additional design parameters, including concrete tensile
strength, column axial load, and structural performance
demand. The design requirements were developed on the
basis of existing test results of beam-column connections.
However, the current design codes show significant differ-
ences in the requirement of the hc/db.
Regarding the existing tests for the bond slip of reinforcing
bars, Eligehausen et al.14 studied the bond performance of
reinforcing bars (in the elastic state) embedded in concrete
blocks under monotonic and cyclic loadings, and proposed
a bond stress-slip relationship. Ciampi et al.15 and Elmorsi
et al.16 developed a bond model for finite element analysis
of reinforced concrete by modifying the Eligehausen model.
Viwathanatepa et al.17 developed a bond stress-slip relation-
ship for reinforcing bars after yielding, under cyclic loading.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 6, November-December 2015.
MS No. S-2014-158.R1, doi: 10.14359/51687708, received October 30, 2014, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org/publications in PDF format,
appended to the online version of the published paper. It is also available in hard copy
from ACI headquarters for a fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the
time of the request.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015 827

Fig. 2—Bond resistance mechanism of reinforcing bar.14
Alsiwat and Saatcioglu18 and Marti et al.19 proposed a strain-
based bond model, separating the post-yield behavior from
the pre-yield behavior. Hong et al.8 and Lowes and Altoon-
tash20 applied the strain-based bond model to interior beam-
column joints to predict the strain distribution and bond slip
of the beam flexural bars.
While the aforementioned bond models successfully
described and predicted the bond-slip behavior, the following
studies are required to more accurately describe the bar bond
slip of actual beam-column connections.
1. In the existing tests for bar bond slip, concrete blocks
were used to evaluate the bond slip of a reinforcing bar.
However, the loading and boundary conditions of the
concrete block specimens differ from the actual condi-
tions of the beam-column joints. In the concrete block
tests, the reinforcing bar is anchored to the concrete inside
the concrete block, and the stress of the reinforcing bar is
determined only by the concrete bond stress. Thus, after the
peak bond stress (that is, after bond failure), the stress and
strain of the reinforcing bar decreases with the bond stress.
On the other hand, in actual interior beam-column connec-
tions, even after bond failure occurs in the joint, the beam
flexural bars can be anchored to the beam on the opposite
side. Thus, even after the post-peak bond stress decreases,
the yield stress of the beam reinforcing bars is maintained,
and the strain can significantly increase. Thus, the degrada-
tion of the bond stress is expected to be more significant in
the actual beam-column connections than in the test results
of concrete block tests.
2. In the concrete block tests, the bond stress-slip relation-
ship of a reinforcing bar is only affected by the bond damage
between the reinforcing bar and concrete. On the other hand,
in beam-column joints subjected to shear, the bond stress-
slip relationship is affected by joint diagonal cracking as
well as bond damage. The hoops in the beam-column joint
may affect the bond strength, restraining the concrete diag-
onal cracking.
3. The current design codes prescribe the bond require-
ment of beam flexural bars, regardless of the ductility demand
of beam-column connections. However, for the perfor-
mance-based design, the bond requirement needs to be defined
as the function of the ductility demand of the moment frame.
828
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed bond-slip model was developed based on
existing models. However, to address the effects of the actual
loading and boundary conditions, the bond strength and
stress distribution were redefined by analyzing the existing
test results of the actual beam-column connections. Further,
unlike the prescriptive provisions of the current design
codes, the bond requirement was defined as the function
of the ductility demand of beam-column joints, so that the
proposed method can be used for performance-based design.
BAR BOND-SLIP RELATIONSHIP
Figure 2 shows the variation of the bond resistance
according to bond slip in the pullout mechanism of a rein-
forcing bar embedded in concrete.14 It is assumed that the
beam-column joint is well-confined by joint hoops and,
thus, splitting failure along the bar development length
does not occur. Initially, the bond resistance is provided by
the bearing of the ribs in a reinforcing bar. When concrete
crushing occurs due to the rib bearing, the bond stress
reaches its peak value. After peak strength, the bearing resis-
tance significantly decreases, and residual bond strength is
provided by the surface friction along the rib tips. Figure 2(c)
shows the bond stress-slip relationship of a reinforcing bar
under load reversals (that is, cyclic loading). After concrete
bearing failure occurs (refer to Fig. 2(b)), even under load
reversals, the bond strength cannot be recovered due to the
existing concrete crushing damage, and only the residual
bond strength is developed by the friction mechanism. After
complete concrete bearing failure, the residual bond strength
is maintained uniformly, regardless of the slip deformation.
The concrete bearing failure is closely related to rein-
forcing bar yielding. Before reinforcing bar yielding occurs,
because of the large elastic stiffness of the reinforcing bar,
the relative deformation between the reinforcing bar and
concrete is small and, thus, the bond stress can be distributed
along the reinforcing bar length. However, after reinforcing
bar yielding, large inelastic deformation occurs at the loca-
tion of the bar yielding, and the bond stress is concentrated
at that location. Thus, concrete cracking and bearing failure
occur at the location of the reinforcing bar yielding.
For this reason, the bond strength can be defined sepa-
rately before and after the reinforcing bar yielding that causes
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
Fig. 3—Stress and strain distributions of beam reinforcing bars in beam-column joint under cyclic loading.
concrete bearing failure. In the present study, following the d ε 4τ ec
studies of Lowes et al.20 and Hong et al.,8 the bond stresses = for − ε y ≤ ε ≤ 0 (2b)
dx Es db
before and after reinforcing bar yielding were simplified as
the uniform effective stresses of bearing bond strength τe and
friction bond strength τu, respectively (refer to Fig. 2(d)). dε 4τ u
= for ε > ε y (2c)
The values of the bearing bond strength and the friction bond dx Esh db
strength are defined in the “BOND STRENGTH” section.
Using the force-equilibrium in a development length dx,
where εy is yield strain of the reinforcing bar.
the bar stress increment-bond stress relationship can be
Figure 3 shows variations of bond stress distributions, bar
defined as follows.
strain distributions, and bar stress distributions according to
the bond slip of a beam flexural bar in an interior beam-
 d2  d σ 4τ e column joint subjected to cyclic loading. As previously
d σ  π b  = τ e (πdb dx) or =
 4 dx db (1a) mentioned, the bond stress distribution was simplified with
the effective bond strengths before and after reinforcing bar
before reinforcing bar yielding
yielding: bearing bond strength (= τet or τec) and friction bond
strength τu. Figure 3(a) presents the bond behavior before
bond failure. In this case, the bond strength Bj of the joint
 d2  d σ 4τ u is large enough to resist the tensile force of the beam rein-
d σ  π b  = τ u (πdb dx) or =
 4 dx db forcing bar, Bj ≥ Ts. Thus, the partial or full bar compressive
(1b)
after reinforcing bar yielding force at the opposite side, as well as the bar tensile force,
can be resisted by the bond strength of the joint. As shown
where db is bar diameter; τe is bearing bond strength; and τu in Fig. 3(a), after yielding of the reinforcing bar occurs at
is friction bond strength. τe = τet when the reinforcing bar is the joint interface, the bond stresses at the joint interfaces
subjected to tension, and τe = τec when the reinforcing bar is are decreased to the frictional bond stress τu. On the other
subjected to compression. hand, in the elastic region of the reinforcing bar inside the
Using a bilinear bar stress-strain relationship with elastic joint, the bearing bond strengths τet and τec are maintained.
stiffness Es and hardening stiffness Esh (that is, hardening In Fig. 3(a), assuming symmetric cyclic loading, the region
due to repeated cyclic loading effect), the bar stress incre- of the friction bond stress was symmetrically defined in
ment before and after yielding can be defined as dσ = Esdε the joint.
and Eshdε, respectively. Therefore, from Eq. (1a) and (1b), Figure 3(b) shows that, as the inelastic deformation of the
the bar strain rate is defined as beam reinforcing bar increases, yielding of the reinforcing
bar penetrates into the joint, and the bond resistance is
degraded (Bj < Ts). Thus, only part of the bar tensile force
d ε 4τ et
= for 0 ≤ ε ≤ ε y (2a) is resisted by the degraded bond strength and the remaining
dx Es db tensile force is anchored to the compression zone of the
beam at the opposite side. However, the elastic region of the
reinforcing bar remains at the center of the joint. In Fig. 3(c),

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015 829

as the bond resistance is further degraded, the bond stress
is decreased to the uniform friction bond strength τu over
the entire joint length. In this case, the majority of the bar
tension force is anchored to the compression zone of the
beam at the opposite side, rather than to the joint.
In the case of “Before bond failure” shown in Fig. 3(a),
in the center region where bar strain εt is less than the yield
strain εy, bearing bond strengths τet and τec develop. The bond
lengths corresponding to τet and τec are defined as let and lec,
respectively. Here, the compressive bearing bond strength
τec is greater than the tensile bearing bond strength τet (refer
to the “BOND STRENGTH” section). Therefore, the tensile
bearing bond length let is greater than the compressive bond
length lec, even when the full compression force of the rein-
forcing bar is anchored to the joint. In the regions close to
the joint interface, friction bond strength τu develops, and the
length is defined as lu. Under cyclic loading, once bearing
bond failure occurs, the damage cannot be recovered even
under the reversed loading. Thus, considering symmetric
cyclic loading, the friction bond lengths were symmetrically
arranged at the two joint interfaces.
In the case of the “partial bond failure” shown in Fig. 3(b),
the friction bond length lu is determined as the length of the
region where bar tensile strain εt exceeds the yield strain εy.
Considering the effect of symmetric cyclic loading, an iden-
tical length lu is assigned to the two end regions of the joint
interfaces. Thus, the length of the bearing bond strength at
the center of the joint is determined as let = hc – 2lu.
In the ultimate case of “complete bond failure” shown in
Fig. 3(c), as the yield penetration reaches the center of the
joint, the friction bond length lu is assigned to the total joint
length considering symmetric cyclic loading.
From Fig. 3, assuming a tensile strain of reinforcing bar at
the joint interface, which is the maximum bar strain within
the joint, the bearing bond lengths (let and lec) and the friction
bond length (lu) can be calculated using the bond strengths
τet, τec, τu, and Eq. (2). The bar strain and stress distributions
can be determined using the bond lengths. The elongation
eb of the beam reinforcing bar, which develops at the joint
interface due to bar-slip, is then calculated by integrating the
bar strain over the length of the joint.
h
eb = ∫0 c εdx (ε ≥ 0) (3)
By integrating the bond stresses, the overall bond strength
of the joint and the forces of the beam reinforcing bars can
be calculated. Detailed sample calculations are presented in
Appendix C.
The proposed bond-slip model was developed based on
the existing methods proposed by Hong et al.8 and Lowes
and Altoontash.20 However, in the proposed method, the
effect of cyclic loading was more precisely addressed; the
friction bond strength τu was determined from the test results
of the actual beam-column joint specimens, rather than from
the concrete block tests (refer to the “BOND STRENGTH”
section). Further, as shown in Fig. 3, the symmetric bond
damage at the joint interfaces were considered to address the
effect of reversed cyclic loading.
830
BOND STRENGTH
According to previous studies,14,17 before reinforcing bar
yielding, the bond properties under cyclic loading do not
significantly differ from those under monotonic loading.
Thus, the bearing bond strengths τet and τec were determined,
following the study by Lowes and Altoontash,20 which was
based on the test results of Eligehausen et al.14
τet = 1.8√fc′ for tension bars (in MPa) (4)
τec = 2.2√fc′ for compression bars (in MPa) (5)
This is similar to the result of the study by Viwathanatepa
et al.17 On the other hand, MC201021 specifies a range of
bearing bond strength τe according to bond condition.
1.25 f c′ ≤ τ e ≤ 2.5 f c′ (in MPa) (6)
To define the friction bond strength τu, which indicates the
residual bond strength after reinforcing bar yielding, Lowes
and Altoontash20 proposed a range of τu in Eq. (7a), on the
basis of the concrete block tests performed by Eligehausen
et al.14 and Shima et al.22 From similar bond test results,
Viwathanatepa et al.17 proposed Eq. (7b). Marti et al.19
proposed Eq. (7c) for monotonic loading. MC201021 spec-
ifies a range of τu in Eq. (7d) according to reinforcing bar
strain and bond condition.
0.05 f c′ ≤ τ u ≤ 0.4 f c′ (in MPa) (7a)
τ u = 0.06 f c′ (in MPa) (7b)
τ u ≤ 0.3 3 f c′ 2 (in MPa) (7c)
0.075 f c′ ≤ τ u ≤ 1.0 f c′ (in MPa) (7d)
As presented in Eq. (7), the existing friction bond strength
models show large differences. Further, as mentioned, the
loading and boundary conditions of the concrete block tests
differ from those of the actual beam-column joints. Thus, in
the present study, the friction bond strength was evaluated
by analyzing the existing test results of beam-column joints.
In the existing beam-column connection specimens that
showed significant bond slip, the lateral load-displacement
relationships commonly showed severe pinching after large
inelastic deformation; at the origin of the load-displacement
relationship, the unloading/reloading stiffness decreased to
zero, maintaining a small uniform lateral load P0 (refer to
Fig. 4(a)). In such specimens, after large inelastic deforma-
tion under cyclic loading, complete bearing bond failure
occurs, and the bond stress is decreased to a uniform friction
bond strength (refer to Fig. 3(c)). Further, at the origin of the
load-displacement relationship, due to the residual plastic
strains of the beam flexural bars, the internal load transfer
between the column and the beams is developed mainly by
the bond of the beam flexural bars, without contact with
the concrete at the interfaces between the joint and the two
beams (see the stress-strain relationship of beam reinforcing
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
Fig. 4—Evaluation of residual bond stress τu from existing test results of beam-column connections.
bars in Fig. 4(b)). The lateral load-carrying capacity P0 at
the origin is therefore determined from the friction bond
strength τu. Conversely, in the present study, the friction
bond strength τu of the specimens was evaluated from the
test results of P0.
As shown in Fig. 3(c), after complete bearing bond failure,
the bond stress distribution can be simplified as the uniform
friction bond strength τu. Thus, as shown in Fig. 4(b), the
overall bond strength of the joint is defined as Bj = τu(∑πdbihc).
In the existing test results, the overall bond strength can be esti-
mated from the sum of the compression and tension forces of
the beam reinforcing bars at the left and right joint inter-
faces, which are developed by the flexural moments Ml and
Mr of the two beams. Thus, after complete bond failure, the
beam flexural moments at the origin can be expressed with
the friction bond strength of the joint (refer to Appendix D
for experimental evidence).
 nb
M l + M r = (Tb1 + Tb 2 ) hs  (Cb1 + Tb 2 ) hs = τ u  ∑ πdbi hc  hs (8)
 i =1
where nb is the number of the bottom flexural bars in a beam
cross section; dbi is bar diameter; and hs is distance between
the top and bottom flexural bars. In beams, the number of
top bars is generally greater than that of bottom bars. In this
case, due to the force-equilibrium in the cross section, the
bottom bars experience greater inelastic deformation than
the top bars. Thus, the bottom bars are subjected to severe
bond degradation and large bond slip. For this reason, Eq. (8)
was defined by the bond strength of the bottom bars.
In the test specimens, the lateral load P0 at the origin can
be expressed with the beam flexural moments Ml and Mr by
using the lateral force-equilibrium for the support reactions
(refer to Fig. 4(c)).
( M l + M r )(hc /L1 + 2)
P0 =
2H
where L1 is shear span of the beams, and H is net column
height. It is assumed that the beam-column connection has a
symmetric configuration.
Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (9), the friction bond strength
τu can be evaluated as follows.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
2 P0 H
τu = (10)
nb

hs  ∑ πdbi hc  (hc /L1 + 2)
 i =1 
Figures 5(a) to 5(c) show the lateral loads P0 (at the origin)
of the three representative existing test specimens; the values
of P0 were used to evaluate the friction bond strength. The
P0 values used for the calculation of τu were the average
of the positive and negative loadings at the last load cycle
(that is, the second load cycle or third load cycle; refer to
Fig. 5(a) to 5(c)). Figures 5(d) to 5(l) summarize the friction
bond strengths τu that were calculated from 67 existing test
results.6,B1-B24 All the existing specimens showed significant
pinching in the load-displacement relationships (Fig. 5(a) to
5(c)), and did not satisfy the requirement of ACI 374.1-0523:
the secant stiffness connecting the –0.35% and +0.35% drift
ratios was less than 0.05 times the initial stiffness. In the test
specimens, the ranges of design parameters were fc′ = 20.8
 to 84.4 MPa (3.0 to 12.2 ksi), fy = 300 to 858 MPa (43.5 to
 124.3 ksi), db = 9.5 to 31.8 mm (0.37 to 1.25 in.), and hc =
240 to 550 mm (9.45 to 21.65 in.). The design parameters of
the specimens are presented in Appendix B.
According to Eligehausen et al.,14 the bar bond stress-slip
relationships are affected by bar diameter, concrete strength,
clear spacing between the bars, restraining bars, trans-
verse pressure, loading rate, and position of the bars during
concrete casting. In actual beam-column joints, the clear bar
spacing corresponds to the spacing of the beam longitudinal
bars, the restraining bars correspond to the column longitu-
dinal bars and joint hoop bars, and the transverse pressure
corresponds to the axial force of the column and the strength
of the joint hoops.
Considering the bond parameters, as shown in Fig. 5(d) to
5(l), variations of the friction bond strength were expressed
according to the design parameters that are directly or indi-
rectly related to the bond parameters: concrete compressive
(9) strength (√fc′), column flexural strength-to-beam flexural
strength ratio (∑Mcol/∑Mbeam), joint shear strength ratio
(Vn /Vu), average axial compressive stress of the column (σc),
bar spacing ratio of the beam flexural bars (s/db), tensile
strength of the joint hoops parallel to the beam flexural bars
(Ahpfyh), tensile strength of the joint hoops orthogonal to the
beam flexural bars (Ahtfyh), and the sum of the two tensile
strengths of the joint hoops (Ahpfyh +Ahtfyh).
831
Fig. 5—Variation of friction bond strength according to design parameters. (Note: 1 kN = 0.255 kip; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
As shown in Fig. 5(d), the friction bond strengths
correlated with the concrete compressive strength √fc′, but
showed large deviations. All the test results belong to the
range of Eq. 7(a) proposed by Lowes and Altoontash.20 As
shown in Fig. 5(e) to 5(h), the test results of τu/√fc′ did not
show good correlations with the design parameters of the
column flexural strength-to-beam flexural strength ratio, joint
shear strength ratio, compressive stress of column, and bar
spacing ratio. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 5(i) to 5(k),
the friction bond strengths increased in proportion to the ratio
of the hoop tensile strength to the joint shear force. Particu-
larly, as shown in Fig. 5(k), the friction bond strengths showed
good correlation with the ratio of the sum of the hoop tensile
strength to the joint shear force ((Ahpfyh +Ahtfyh)/Vu). This result
indicates that the joint shear force decreases the friction bond
strength, developing diagonal cracking. On the other hand, the
joint hoop strength increases the friction bond strength by
restraining diagonal cracking and providing lateral pressure.
As shown in Fig. 5(l), the average friction bond strength τu,avg.
  nt nb
 
( = 4 P0 H  hs  ∑ πdbi hc + ∑ πdbi hc  ( hc L1 + 2) ), using the

 i =1 i =1  
mean bond strengths of the top and bottom bars in Eq. (10),
were compared. The results showed that the relationship
between τu,avg. and (Ahpfyh +Ahtfyh)/Vu did not significantly
differ from the result for τu based on the bond strength of the
bottom bars.
832
On the basis of the results, the friction bond strength τu
was defined as the function of the ratio of the hoop tensile
strength to the joint shear force (refer to Fig. 5(k)).
(τ u f c′) = 0.16 + 0.11 ( Ah f yh ) Vu (in MPa) (11a)
(τ u f c′) = 1.93 + 1.32 ( Ah f yh ) Vu (in psi) (11b)
where 0 ≤ (Ahfyh)/Vu ≤ 1.5; Ah (= Ahp +Aht) = sum of the area
of the hoop bars parallel and orthogonal to the beam flexural
bars; fyh is yield strength of the hoop bars; Vu is horizontal
shear force applied to the joint (in the case of the test spec-
imens, Vu =∑Asfy – Pu, where ∑As is the sum of the top and
bottom flexural bars of a beam; fy is the yield strength of
the beam flexural bar; and Pu is maximum shear force of
the column). In Eq. (11), the range of (Ahfyh)/Vu is limited
to 0 ≤ (Ahfyh)/Vu ≤ 1.5, considering the range of the design
parameters of the test specimens. The variable τu in Eq. (11)
indicates the friction bond strength for the beam-column
connections subjected to two or three repeated cyclic load-
ings at each displacement level.
VERIFICATION OF PROPOSED BOND MODEL
For verification, the proposed bond model was applied
to the concrete block specimens tested by Viwathanatepa
et al.17 Although the loading and boundary conditions and
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
Fig. 6—Comparison between cyclic test and bond stress model. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.255 kip; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
details of the concrete block specimens differ from the actual
conditions and details of beam-column joints, bond strength
degradation due to cyclic loading was evaluated using the
conditions of the concrete block specimens. Figure 6 shows
the loading and boundary conditions of the test specimens.
In this test, to evaluate the bond behavior between the rein-
forcing bar and concrete under cyclic loading, two identical
loads Fb in the same direction were applied to the reinforcing
bar ends. Thus, the load Fb was equivalent to half of the
overall bond strength Bj: Fb = 0.5Bj. The bar elongation eb
was measured at the bar ends. The design parameters were
bar diameter db (= 19.1 to 31.8 mm [0.75 to 1.25 in]) and
development length hc (= 381 to 635 mm [15.0 to 25.0 in]).
Figures 6(a) to 6(e) show the load-elongation (Fb-eb) rela-
tionships of the No.4, No.8, No.11, No.14, and No.17 spec-
imens, respectively. The Fb-eb relationship was measured at
one end of the concrete block, and the positive and negative
loads indicate the tension and compression forces Fb applied
to the reinforcing bar ends, respectively.
Using the proposed bond model, the Fb-eb relationships
of the specimens were predicted, and the results were
compared with the test results shown in Fig. 6(a) to 6(e).
The thick dotted lines indicate the predictions. The proposed
bond strengths τet, τec, and τu in Eq. (4), (5), and (11) were
used for the predictions. In Eq. (11), τu was calculated as
0.325√fc′. Also, an existing bond model proposed by Lowes
and Altoontash20 was compared in the figures. In the existing
model,20 τu = 0.23√fc′ was used for the friction bond strength
(that is, residual bond strength). The positive and negative
elongations eb were calculated by integrating the tensile
and compressive strains of the reinforcing bar, respec-
tively (refer to Eq. (3)). The elastic modulus and hardening
modulus of the steel bars were Es = 200 GPa (28,986 ksi)
and Esh = 0.02Es, respectively. Detailed calculations for the
predictions are given in Appendix C.
In the bond tests, three cyclic loadings were applied at
each displacement. In Fig. 6, the proposed model underes-
timated the bond strengths for the first cyclic loading, but
agreed well with the envelope curves and bond strengths
for the second and third cyclic loadings. Under repeated
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
Fig. 7—Bar strain distribution in No. 14.16 (Note: 1 mm =
0.0394 in.)
cyclic loading, bar bond strength is degraded as the load
cycle increases. Thus, for safe design, the proposed fric-
tion bond strength τu in Eq.  (11) was determined from the
test results corresponding to the second or third load cycle
at each displacement level. To predict the envelope curve
and bond strength for the first load cycle, the friction bond
strength needs to be increased. Figure 6 shows that when the
friction bond strength is defined as two times the proposed
bond strength (that is, 2τu), the predictions agree with the
envelope curve and the bond strength for the first load cycle
(refer to “prediction of proposed model for the 1st load
cycle” in Fig. 6).
On the other hand, the bond model proposed by Lowes
and Altoontash20 using τu = 0.23√fc′ overestimated the post-
peak bond strengths. Particularly, for Specimens No. 4 and
No. 8 with insufficient development lengths as shown in
Fig. 6(a) and (b), the predictions overestimated both the peak
strength and the post-peak strength. The primary reason for
the overestimation is that the Lowes model did not address
the symmetric bond damage at the left and right ends of the
concrete block subjected to cyclic loading (refer to the bond
stress and bond length distributions shown in Fig. 3).
Figure 7 compares the bar strain distributions for Spec-
imen No. 14. The solid line, dotted line, and dot-and-dash
line indicate the test result, proposed model, and Lowes’s
model,20 respectively. Figure 7(a) and 7(b) show the bar
strain distributions corresponding to initial yielding and a
833
Fig. 8—Bar strain distributions of existing beam-column joint specimens after reinforcing bar yielding. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.;
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
Fig. 9—Elongation of beam reinforcing bars in existing beam-column joint specimens. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
large inelastic strain (=0.0105), respectively. In both cases,
the majority of the bond damage occurred at the right end,
subjected to tension yielding in the loading step. Neverthe-
less, the compressive strain at the left end cannot be negli-
gible, and increased as the cyclic damage increased. The
proposed model predicted both the tensile and compressive
strains at the right and left ends. On the other hand, in the
Lowes’s model,20 the compressive strain was zero because
the cyclic damage was not considered.
Figure 8 shows the strain distributions of the beam bottom
bars in the beam-column joints tested by Hwang et al.,B1 Lee
et al.,6 Dai and Park,24 Asou et al.,B22 and Kawai et al.B16 The
proposed model was used to predict the strain distributions
of the specimens. The predictions were compared with the
test results and Lowes’s model.20 The vertical and horizontal
axes indicate the bar strain and the distance from the joint
interface, respectively.
Generally, the bar tensile strains predicted by the proposed
model agreed with those of the test specimens. However, at
the left end of the joints, the proposed bond model showed
compressive strains, while the test results showed tensile
strains (although the tensile strains were not significant).
This is because, due to the tensile residual deformations of
834
the beam reinforcing bars, compressive stresses developed
even under tensile strain.25 In the proposed model, the effect
of such tensile residual deformation was not considered.
The bar tensile strains predicted by the Lowes’s model were
greater than those predicted by the proposed model, partic-
ularly at the right end, which is subjected to tensile strain.
This is because in the Lowes’s model, the bar strains inside
the joint increased due to underestimation of the friction
bond strength.
Figure 9 shows the elongation eb of a beam flexural
bar that was measured at the joint interface of specimens
tested by Kawai et al.B16 and Xian et al.B13 In this figure, the
vertical and horizontal axes indicate the elongation eb and
tensile strain εt of the reinforcing bar at the joint interface,
respectively. The elongations were predicted by integrating
the bar strain (Eq. (3)). In Fig. 9, the predictions of both
the proposed model and the Lowes’s model agreed with the
test results.
BOND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT
To secure the seismic resistance of beam-column joints,
excessive bar bond slip should be restrained. If complete
bond failure occurs in a beam-column joint, significant
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
pinching occurs in the load-displacement relationship, which
degrades the energy dissipation capacity (refer to Fig. 5(a)
and (b)). Furthermore, as presented in Appendix A, the bond
requirements in the current design codes significantly differ.
Thus, in the present study, the requirements of bond resis-
tance were studied to prevent bond failure.
The following three performance criteria can be used to
derive each bar bond requirement:
1. The bar bond in the joint resists both the incoming and
outgoing bar forces (Bj = Ts + Cs).
2. The bar bond in the joint resists only the tensile bar
force (Bj = Ts).
3) The complete bond failure is permitted (Bj < Ts).
When the first design criterion is used, a very large
column (or joint) depth may be required. Thus, in the
present study, Bj ≥ Ts was used for the bar bond requirement;
in other words, the tensile yield force of the beam flexural
bars should be resisted by the bond strength of the beam-
column joint (refer to Fig. 3(a)). Otherwise, (Bj < Ts); during
unloading/reloading, rigid body slip of beam flexural bars
occurs through the beam-column joint, which significantly
decreases the energy dissipation capacity of the beam-
column connection. Furthermore, the tensile force of the
beam reinforcing bars should be anchored to the other beam
at the opposite side. In this case, the compression zone depth
is increased to satisfy the force-equilibrium for the increased
compression force, which decreases the flexural moment
capacity of the beam by decreasing the effective depth of the
flexural moment. Fig. 10—Comparison of design requirements of hc/db for
To satisfy the criterion of Bj = Ts, as shown in Fig. 3(b), interior beam-column joint. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
the yield strength of the reinforcing bar should be resisted
In Eq. (13), the requirement of hc/db is expressed as the func-
by the bearing bond strength (that is, bond strength before
tion of reinforcing bar yield strength fy, concrete strength fc′,
bar yielding), while the strain-hardening strength increase
curvature ductility demand of the beam μϕ = ϕt/ϕy, tension
caused by repeated cyclic loading after bar yielding should
zone depth ratio of the beam section (d – c)/hb, and the fric-
be resisted by the friction bond strength. Thus, the bearing
tion bond strength τu = [0.16 + 0.11(Ahfyh)/Vu]√fc′ (0.16√fc′ ≤
bond length and friction bond length can be defined as let =
τu ≤ 0.33√fc′).
εy(Esdb)/(4τet) and lu = (εt – εy)(Eshdb)/(4τu), respectively. The
In Eq. (13), as the ductility demand of a beam increases,
sum of the bearing bond length let and friction bond length lu
the bond requirement increases. Thus, the proposed equation
should be less than the joint length hc.
can be used for the performance-based design of beam-column
connections subjected to cyclic loading. Basically, when the
Es d b E d
hc ≥ let + 2lu = ε y + 2(ε t − ε y ) sh b (12) areas of the top and bottom flexural bars differ in a beam cross
4τ et 4τ u section, Eq. (13) should be satisfied for both top and bottom
bars. However, generally under cyclic loading, large inelastic
where εt is the maximum tensile strain of the beam flex- deformation occurs in the bottom bars with less area. Thus,
ural bar at the joint interface. Substituting τet in Eq. (4) Eq. (13) is not necessarily required for the top bars.
and τu in Eq.  (11), Esh = 0.02Es (average value of 0.005Es In Fig. 10, the requirements of hc/db specified in Eq. (13),
to 0.04Es),19,26 yield curvature of the beam cross section ACI 318-11,10 ACI 352R-02,11 NZS 3101:2006,12 and Euro-
ϕy = 1.7εy/hb,27 and curvature of the beam cross section code 813 were compared according to concrete strength fc′,
ϕt = εt/(d – c) (hb is beam depth, d is effective beam depth, reinforcing bar yield strength fy, and curvature ductility μϕ.
and c is neutral axis depth) into Eq. (12), the requirement Reinforcing bar yield strength fy = 400 MPa (58.0 ksi) was
of the column depth-to-bar diameter ratio (hc/db) is defined used for Fig. 10(a), and an arbitrary concrete compressive
as follows strength fc′ = 40 MPa (5.8 ksi) was used in Fig. 10(b). In
Fig. 10(c), fy = 400 MPa (58.0 ksi) and fc′ = 40 MPa (5.8 ksi)
 1  were used. The requirements of the current design codes are
hc 0.01
≥ fy  + (ε t /ε y − 1)  presented in Appendix A. For Eq. (13), (d – c)/hb = 0.7 and
db  7.2 f c′ τ u  τu = 0.243√fc′ (which is the mean value of the range of τu =
(13) 0.16√fc′ to 0.33√fc′) were used.
 0.14 1.7µ φ (d − c) / hb − 1 
 fy  + 
 f c′ 100τ u 

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015 835

 As shown in Fig. 10(a), ACI 318-1110 and ACI 352R-0211
have the least hc/db requirements, and the other requirements
decrease as the concrete strength increases. As shown in
Fig. 10(b), the requirements of hc/db increase with the rein-
forcing bar yield strength, except for ACI 318-11.10 Figure
10(c) shows that the requirement of Eq. (13) increases with
the curvature ductility demand of beams. The requirements
of Eq. (13) are close to those of NZS 3101:200612 and
Eurocode 813 when the ductility demands are μϕ = 6 and 9,
respectively.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, a simplified bar bond strength model
and bond-slip relationship for interior beam-column joints
subjected to cyclic loading were studied. The results of this
study are summarized as follows:
1. To address the bond slip of the beam flexural bars in
beam-column joints, bond stress distribution and bar strain
distribution were proposed, considering the yield penetra-
tion of the reinforcing bars. Considering the symmetric
cyclic loading effect, bond failure zones were used at both
ends of the joint. The bond strength in the bond failure zone
was defined as the friction bond strength (that is, residual
bond strength), while in the zone inside the joint, the bond
strength was defined as the bearing bond strength.
2. To evaluate the friction bond strength after complete
bond failure, existing test results of beam-column joints
showing complete bond failure were analyzed. The proposed
friction bond strength was defined as the function of joint
hoop bar strength, joint shear demand force, and concrete
compressive strength. The joint hoop strength increases
the friction bond strength by providing lateral pressure and
restraining diagonal cracking.
3. To verify the proposed model, the bond-slip relation-
ship and bar strain distribution predicted by the proposed
model were compared with existing test results of concrete
blocks and beam-column joints. The predictions agreed with
the bond slip, bond stress degradation, strain distribution,
and bar elongation of the test specimens.
4. On the basis of the proposed bond stress model, the
requirement of the joint depth-to-diameter of the beam flex-
ural bar ratio hc/db was proposed to prevent bond failure in
beam-column joints. Particularly, the proposed model was
defined as the function of the flexural ductility demand of
beams as well as the concrete strength and reinforcing bar
yield strength so that the proposed model can be used for the
performance-based design of beam-column joints subjected
to cyclic loading. The proposed requirements are close
to those in NZS 3101:200612 and Eurocode 8,13 when the
ductility demands are μϕ = 6 and 9, respectively.
AUTHOR BIOS
Hyeon-Jong Hwang is an Assistant Professor in the College of Civil Engi-
neering at Hunan University, China. He received his BE, MS, and PhD
in architectural engineering from Seoul National University, Seoul, South
Korea.
Tae-Sung Eom is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architec-
tural Engineering at Dankook University, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. He
received his BE, MS, and PhD in architectural engineering from Seoul
836
National University. His research interests include inelastic analysis and
the seismic design of reinforced concrete structures.
ACI member Hong-Gun Park is a Professor in the Department of Architec-
ture & Architectural Engineering at Seoul National University. He received
his BE and MS in architectural engineering from Seoul National University
and PhD in civil engineering from the University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX. His research interests include inelastic analysis and the seismic design
of reinforced concrete structures.
NOTATION
Ahp = area of joint hoop bars parallel to beam flexural bars, mm2 (in.2)
Aht = area of joint hoop bars orthogonal to beam flexural bars, mm2
(in.2)
As = area of reinforcing bar, mm2 (in.2)
Bj = bond strength of beam reinforcing bar in joint, kN (kip)
Cb = compression force of beam reinforcing bars developed by joint
bond strength, kN (kip)
c = neutral axis depth in beam section, mm (in.)
d = effective beam depth, mm (in.)
db = reinforcing bar diameter, mm (in.)
Es = elastic stiffness modulus of reinforcing bar, MPa (ksi)
Esh = hardening stiffness modulus of reinforcing bar, MPa (ksi)
eb = reinforcing bar elongation, mm (in.)
fc′ = concrete compressive strength, MPa (psi)
fy = yield strength of reinforcing bar, MPa (psi)
fyh = yield strength of hoop bar, MPa (psi)
H = net column height, mm (in.)
hb = beam depth, mm (in.)
hc = column depth, mm (in.)
hs = distance between top and bottom flexural bars in beam section,
mm (in.)
L1 = shear span of beams (mm, in.)
le = bearing bond length of a tension bar, mm (in.)
lec = bearing bond length of a compression bar, mm (in.)
let = bearing bond length of a tension bar, mm (in.)
lu = friction bond length, mm (in.)
Mcol = flexural moment of column, kN·m (kip·in.)
Ml, Mr = beam flexural moments, kN·m (kip·in.)
nb = number of bottom flexural bars in beam cross section
nt = number of top flexural bars in beam cross section
P0 = load-carrying capacity at origin of lateral load-displacement
relationship of beam-column joint, kN (kip)
Pu = maximum column shear force, kN (kip)
Tb = tension force of beam reinforcing bars developed by joint bond
strength, kN (kip)
Ts = tensile force of beam reinforcing bar, kN (kip)
Vn = shear capacity of beam-column joint, kN (kip)
Vu = shear demand of beam-column joint, kN (kip)
s = spacing of beam flexural bars, mm (in.)
εt = reinforcing bar strain, mm/mm (in./in.)
εy = yield strain of reinforcing bar, mm/mm (in./in.)
ϕt = curvature of beam cross section, 1/mm (1/in.)
ϕy = yield curvature, 1/mm (1/in.)
μϕ = curvature ductility
σc = average axial compressive stress of column, MPa (ksi)
τec = bearing bond strength for compression bar, MPa (ksi)
τet = bearing bond strength for tension bar, MPa (ksi)
τu = friction bond strength, MPa (ksi)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was financially supported by the Basic Science
Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea
(NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology
(2012R1A1A1003282). It was also supported by the Integrated Research
Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National
University Research Program funded by the Ministry of Education &
Human Resources Development. The authors are grateful to the authorities
for their support.
REFERENCES
1. Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., “Earthquake Resistant
Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column Joints,”
Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, V. 1, 1987,
pp. 315-326.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
 2. Leon, R. T., “Interior Joints with Variable Anchorage Lengths,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 115, No. 9, 1989, pp. 2261-
2275. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:9(2261)
3. Hakuto, S.; Park, R.; and Tanaka, H., “Effect of Deterioration of Bond
of Beam Bars Passing through Interior Beam-Column Joints of Flexural
Strength and Ductility,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.
1999, pp. 858-864.
4. Meinheit, D. F., and Jirsa, J. O., “The Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Report No. 77-1, Department of Civil
Engineering, Structures Research Laboratory, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX, Jan. 1977, 230 pp.
5. Bonacci, J., and Pantazopoulou, S., “Parametric Investigation of Joint
Mechanics,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1993, pp. 61-71.
6. Lee, J. Y.; Kim, J. Y.; and Oh, G. J., “Strength Deterioration of Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading,”
Engineering Structures, V. 31, No. 9, 2009, pp. 2070-2085. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2009.03.009
7. Lee, H. J., and Lin, Y. R., “Preliminary Design Recommendations
for RC Beam-Column Joints with High-Strength Reinforcement,” 13th
SEEBUS, Seoul, South Korea, 2011, pp. 1-10.
8. Hong, S. G.; Lee, S. G.; and Kang, T. H. K., “Deformation-Based Strut-
and-Tie Model for Interior Joints of Frames Subject to Load Reversal,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 4, July-Aug. 2011, pp. 423-433.
9. Soleimani, D.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., “Hysteretic Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages,” ACI Journal
Proceedings, V. 76, No. 11, Nov. 1979, pp. 1179-1196.
10. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
11. Join ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of
Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures
(ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002,
38 pp.
12. NZS 3101:2006, “The Design of Concrete Structures,” Standards
New Zealand, New Zealand, 2006, 698 pp.
13. British Standards, “Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake
Resistance (BS EN 1998-1:2004),” British Standards Institution, UK, 2004,
229 pp.
14. Eligenhausen, R.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., “Local Bond
Stress-Slip Relationships of Deformed Bars under Generalized Exci-
tations,” Earthquake Engineering Research Council Report No. 83/23,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1983, 162 pp.
15. Ciampi, V.; Eligehausen, R.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., “Analyt-
ical Model for Concrete Anchorages of Reinforcing Bars under Generalized
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
Excitations,” Earthquake Engineering Research Council Report No. 82/23,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1982, 103 pp.
16. Elmorsi, M.; Kianoush, M. R.; and Tso, W. K., “Modeling Bond-
Slip Deformations in Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,” Cana-
dian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 27, No. 3, 2000, pp. 490-505. doi:
10.1139/l99-085
17. Viwathanatepa, S.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., “Effects of
Generalized Loadings on Bond of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Confined
Concrete Blocks,” Earthquake Engineering Research Council Report
No. 79/22, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1979, 304 pp.
18. Alsiwat, J. M., and Saatcioglu, M., “Reinforcement Anchorage
Slip under Monotonic Loading,” Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 9, 1992, pp. 2421-2438. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:9(2421)
19. Marti, P.; Alvarez, M.; Kaufmann, W.; and Sigrist, V., “Tension
Chord Model for Structural Concrete,” Structural Engineering Interna-
tional, V. 8, No. 4, 1998, pp. 287-298. doi: 10.2749/101686698780488875
20. Lowes, L. N., and Altoontash, A., “Modeling Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 129, No. 12, 2003, pp. 1686-1697. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:12(1686)
21. fib, “FIB Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010,” fib Journal
Structural Concrete, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 2010, 402 pp.
22. Shima, H.; Chou, L. L.; and Okamura, H., “Bond Characteristics in
Post-Yield Range of Deformed Bars,” Japan Society of Civil Engineers,
V. 10, No. 378, 1987, pp. 213-220.
23. ACI Committee 374, “Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames
Based on Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 9 pp.
24. Dai, R., and Park, R., “A Comparison of the Behaviour of Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Designed for Ductility and Limited
Ductility,” Research Report No. 87-4, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1987, 65 pp.
25. Eom, T.-S., and Park, H., “Evaluation of Energy Dissipation of
Slender Reinforced Concrete Members and Its Applications,” Engi-
neering Structures, V. 32, No. 9, 2010, pp. 2884-2893. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2010.05.007
26. Monti, G., and Nuti, C., “Nonlinear Cyclic Behavior of Rein-
forcing Bars Including Buckling,” Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 12, 1992, pp. 3268-3284. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:12(3268)
27. Priestley, M. J. N., “Performance Based Seismic Design,” Proceed-
ings of the 12th WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000, pp. 1-22.
837
 NOTES:

838 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015

 APPENDIX A: BOND REQUIREMENTS OF CURRENT DESIGN CODES

For interior beam-column joints, ACI 318-11,10 ACI 352R-02,11 NZS 3101:2006,12 and

Eurocode 813 specify the following requirements for column depth-to-bar diameter hc /db.

hc
 20 in ACI 318-11 (A1)
db

hc f
 20 y  20 in ACI 352R-02 (A2)
db 420

hc 1.25 f y
 in NZS 3101:2006 (A3)
db 3.3 f  d  f c

hc  f 1  0.75k D    max
 Rd y in Eurocode 8 (A4)
db 7.5 f ctm 1  0.8vd

In NZS 3101:2006,12 αf = coefficient related to the direction of the beam re-bars; (= 0.85 ~

1.0); αd = coefficient related to the ductility of the plastic hinge of beams (= 1.0 ~ 1.2); γ =

coefficient related to inter-storey drift (= 1.53-0.29δc ≤ 1.0); and δc = inter-storey drift ratio

expressed as a percentage. In Eurocode 8,13 γRd = uncertainty coefficient for the design value of
(2/3)
resistance (= 1.0 ~ 1.2); fctm = tensile strength of concrete (= 0.3fc′ ); kD = coefficient

addressing the ductility (= 0.67 ~ 1.0); ρ′ = compression bar ratio in the beams; ρmax = maximum

tension bar ratio allowed in the beams; and vd = axial load ratio of the column. For comparison,

αf = 1.0, αd = 1.0, γ = 1.0, γRd = 1.2, kD = 1.0, ρ′/ρmax = 1.0, and vd = 0 were used in the cases

shown in Fig. 10.

APPENDIX B: TEST PARAMETERS OF EXISTING BEAM-COLUMN JOINT

Table B1 lists the principal test parameters of the 67 existing beam-column joints6,B1-B24 that
 were used to evaluate friction bond strength τu (Eq. (10)).

Table B1– Test parameters of existing test specimens [1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 ksi = 6.90 MPa]

Concre
Later Bond
Top re-bar Bottom re-bar Joint te Axial
Geometric propertiesa al stren
of beamb of beamb hoopc strengt load
load gth
Specimens h

Nc / τu
fc' P0
L H hb bb hc bc As fy db n As fy db n hs Ah fyh (fc' (MPa
(MPa) (kN)
bchc) )

250 156 40 30 35 35 51 15. 15. 198 51

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 8 0
119 119
BJ1 250 156 40 30 35 35 51 15. 6 510 15. 6 270 142 51 40.0 0.00 37.4 1.77
4 4
BJ2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 510 9 5 270 0 0 40.0 0.00 25.3 1.43
Lee et al.6) 995 995
BJ3 250 156 40 30 35 35 51 15. 4 510 15. 4 270 142 51 40.0 0.00 26.1 1.85
796 796
B1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 510 9 3 270 0 0 40.0 0.00 18.2 1.72
597 597
250 156 40 30 35 35 51 15. 15. 142 51

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0

Hwang et 576 210 50 35 46 50 204 45 25. 102 25. 309 49

S1 4 452 2 394 38.3 0.00 28.8 1.91
al.B1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 4 6 6

S1 476 210 50 35 55 50 311 46 25. 6 152 520 22. 4 387 309 49 32.0 0.00 38.8 1.23
Hwang et
S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 5 4 710 2 3 396 6 6 32.0 0.00 36.2 1.48
B2)
al.
S3 476 210 50 35 55 50 193 71 22. 5 116 710 22. 3 396 309 49 32.0 0.00 33.3 1.70
 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 1 2 6 6

476 210 50 35 45 50 193 71 22. 116 22. 309 49

0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 1 2 6 6

Teraoka et NO4 300 200 40 30 40 40 170 38 19. 170 19. 157 34

6 382 6 310 54.0 0.20 38.6 1.51
al.B3) 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 7

Susanto 400 262 40 20 30 40 51 15. 15. 191 44

S1 995 5 597 510 3 326 33.0 0.00 10.4 1.23
and HuaB4) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 7 0

249 224 41 27 36 36 154 33 22. 19. 174 35

113
6 8 9 9 2 2 8 1 2 1 5 2
Durrani X1 4 6 345 4 350 34.3 0.06 25.9 1.65
249 224 41 27 36 36 154 33 22. 19. 261 35
and X2 4 113 345 4 350 33.7 0.06 27.7 1.76
6 8 9 9 2 2 8 1 2 1 8 2
WightB5) X3 3 6 345 3 350 31.0 0.05 26.3 2.23
249 224 41 27 36 36 116 33 22. 19. 174 35
855
6 8 9 9 2 2 3 1 2 1 5 2

NO4 300 200 40 30 40 40 85 19. 19. 142 34

568 568
Hayashi et 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 2 858 1 2 310 0 7 49.1 0.20 14.5 1.70
170 170
al.B6) NO4 300 200 40 30 40 40 38 19. 6 383 19. 6 280 142 34 49.1 0.20 28.5 1.24
4 4
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 7

Sugano et 278 140 40 30 44 44 309 38 22. 309 22. 204 92

J4-0 8 386 8 260 30.4 0.33 90.4 1.67
al.B7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 6 2 8 3

BN1 280 150 47 30 45 45 232 50 22. 6 232 502 22. 6 365 203 81 79.0 0.07 94.1 1.72

Oda et BN2 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 2 2 8 2 502 2 8 350 2 7 79.0 0.07 131.0 1.88

al.B8) BN3 280 150 47 30 45 45 309 50 22. 5 309 535 22. 5 377 203 81 79.0 0.07 110.3 2.04

BN4 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 2 2 5 6 535 2 5 377 2 7 79.0 0.07 117.6 2.17

 BN5 280 150 47 30 45 45 255 53 25. 4 255 535 25. 4 395 203 81 51.3 0.09 84.1 1.85

0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 4 2 7

280 150 47 30 45 45 255 53 25. 255 25. 203 81

0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 4 2 7

280 150 47 30 45 45 204 53 25. 204 25. 203 81

0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 4 2 7

300 175 35 15 30 30 37 12. 12. 30

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 7 7

B1 300 175 35 30 30 30 398 37 12. 3 398 371 12. 3 290 340 30 21.3 0.16 5.0 0.72

B2 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 1 7 3 398 371 7 3 290 340 7 20.8 0.16 5.0 0.72

Joh et al.B9)
LH 300 175 35 20 30 30 387 40 12. 3 387 404 12. 3 290 340 37 26.9 0.15 6.8 1.01

MH 0 0 0 0 0 0 387 4 7 3 387 404 7 3 290 678 7 28.1 0.14 8.2 1.21

300 175 35 20 30 30 40 12. 12. 37

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 7 7

270 147 30 20 30 30 106 40 13. 13. 36

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 362 8
J1 8 531 401 4 225 25.7 0.08 11.8 1.40
Otani et 270 147 30 20 30 30 106 40 13. 13. 724 36
J2 8 531 401 4 225 24.0 0.08 13.3 1.58
B10)
al. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 168 8
J3 8 531 401 4 225 24.0 0.08 15.2 1.80
270 147 30 20 30 30 106 40 13. 13. 8 36

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 8

423 257 45 22 40 30 159 30 15. 159 15. 33

Wong et U1 8 300 8 220 896 32.2 0.00 16.9 1.10
8 5 7 9 6 5 2 0 9 2 9 9
al.B11) U2 8 300 8 220 896 28.1 0.00 16.4 1.00
260 257 45 22 40 30 159 30 15. 159 15. 33
 2 5 7 9 6 5 2 0 9 2 9 9

Peer1 365 213 50 40 45 40 157 42 22. 15.

787
4 8 4 8 6 7 6 1 3 2 4 504 9 4 384 0 0 31.8 0.11 17.8 0.96
B12)
Walker 133
Peer2 365 213 50 40 45 40 200 52 20. 6 528 20. 4 360 0 0 38.4 0.09 20.9 0.91
5
2 8 4 8 6 7 6 2 8 6 6

350 247 50 25 45 30 45 12. 12. 216 34

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 9 8

350 247 50 25 45 30 791 44 15. 15. 173 35

U1 7 791 453 7 383 30.9 0.00 30.3 1.43
0 0 0 0 0 0 804 5 9 9 9 0
U2 4 402 445 2 416 40.8 0.00 17.7 1.34
Xian et 350 247 50 25 45 30 628 49 20. 15. 173 34
U4 2 402 445 2 398 47.2 0.00 17.6 1.86
B13)
al. 0 0 0 0 0 0 942 2 0 9 5 8
U5 3 942 492 3 400 60.7 0.00 39.3 2.49
350 247 50 25 45 30 123 49 20. 20. 300 33
U6 2 942 492 3 420 59.3 0.00 32.7 2.05
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 0

350 247 50 25 45 30 46 28. 20. 300 33

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0

Shiohara et 270 147 30 20 30 30 47 15. 15. 39

S3 995 5 995 470 5 202 512 28.0 0.04 10.1 0.87
al.B14) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0

B04 140 140 24 24 24 24 516 37 12. 4 516 378 12. 4 192 256 39 29.0 0.00 5.2 0.81

B06 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 8 7 5 645 378 7 5 192 256 9 29.0 0.00 6.0 0.74

ShioharaB15 D03 140 140 24 24 24 24 645 37 12. 5 645 378 12. 5 122 256 39 32.4 0.00 6.4 0.80
)
D07 0 0 0 0 0 0 903 8 7 7 903 378 7 7 122 256 9 32.4 0.00 8.5 0.76

D11 140 140 17 24 34 24 903 37 12. 7 387 378 12. 3 182 256 39 32.9 0.00 4.8 1.04

E03 0 0 0 0 0 0 995 8 7 5 995 425 7 5 192 256 9 61.4 0.00 12.6 1.26
 140 140 17 24 34 24 37 12. 12. 39

0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 7 9

140 140 24 24 24 24 37 12. 12. 39

0 014 0 0 0 0 8 7 7 9

140 00 24 24 24 24 42 15. 15. 39

0 0 0 0 0 5 9 9 9

Kawai et 380 160 45 32 47 47 270 52 22. 270 22. 108 92

I6C 7 522 7 339 66.1 0.20 84.6 1.51
B16)
al. 0 0 0 5 5 5 9 2 2 9 2 0 8

a)
L= beam length (mm); H= column height (mm); hb= beam depth (mm); bb= beam width

(mm); hc= column depth (mm); and bc= column width (mm)

b)
As= area of re-bar (mm2); fy= yield strength of re-bar based on material test result (MPa); and

db= re-bar diameter (mm)

c)
Ah= sum of hoop bar areas (mm2); and fyt= yield strength of hoop bar based on material test

result (MPa).

Table B1– Test parameters of existing test specimens [1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 ksi = 6.90 MPa]

Concre
Later Bond
Top re-bar Bottom re-bar Joint te Axial
Geometric propertiesa al stren
of beamb of beamb hoopc strengt load
Specimens load gth
h

fc' Nc / P0 τu
L H hb bb hc bc As fy db n As fy db n hs Ah fyh
(MPa) (fc' (kN) (MPa
 bchc) )

225 125 35 26 40 30 113 37 19. 113 19. 91

0 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 1 6 1 768 1
J11C 4 378 4 290 57.6 0.24 58.1 2.16
Kaku et 225 125 35 26 40 30 204 37 25. 204 25. 768 91
J31A 4 370 4 290 55.2 0.25 64.4 1.77
al.B17) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 102 1
J32B 4 370 4 290 55.2 0.25 76.9 2.12
225 125 35 26 40 30 204 37 25. 204 25. 4 91

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1

270 147 30 20 30 30 78 12. 12. 32

0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 7 7 0

A1 270 147 30 20 30 30 2 78 12. 8 516 780 12. 4 213 576 32 30.6 0.06 10.3 1.30

Kitayama A2 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 7 8 516 780 7 4 213 576 0 30.6 0.06 9.0 1.14

et al.B18) A3 270 147 30 20 30 30 2 78 12. 6 516 780 12. 4 218 576 32 30.6 0.06 9.7 1.19

A4 0 0 0 0 0 0 774 0 7 6 516 780 7 4 218 576 0 30.6 0.06 10.3 1.26

270 147 30 20 30 30 774 78 12. 12. 32

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0

200 140 25 18 25 25 38 12. 12. 42

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 7 0
No1 516 4 516 382 4 170 640 28.6 0.16 7.1 1.27
Yoshino et 200 140 25 18 25 25 37 15. 15. 42
No3 603 3 603 379 3 170 640 28.6 0.16 7.4 1.40
al.B19) 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 0
No4 402 2 402 379 2 170 640 28.6 0.16 5.2 1.48
200 140 25 18 25 25 37 15. 15. 42

0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 0

Kawasazak MKJ 270 147 30 20 30 30 77 19. 19. 67

568 2 568 771 2 220 768 84.4 0.13 13.8 2.29
B20)
i et al. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5
 Tateishi 375 180 40 30 35 35 100 33 15. 100 15. 127 36

and AIJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 9 5 5 336 9 5 314 8 3 23.5 0.04 19.2 1.12

IshibashiB21 HBS 375 180 40 30 35 35 103 38 12. 8 103 388 12. 8 270 127 37 23.5 0.05 25.9 1.38
)
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 7 2 7 8 6

Asou et 270 145 40 30 44 44 193 52 22. 193 22. 204 94

No1 5 520 5 298 67.1 0.18 98.6 2.62
al.B22) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 5 2 8 9

203 246 30 20 25 25 41 12. 41

2 4 5 3 4 4 4 7 4
BCJ2 516 4 284 414 9.5 4 203 512 30.2 0.00 4.4 1.29
203 246 30 20 30 25 41 12. 41
LeonB23) BCJ3 516 4 284 414 9.5 4 203 512 30.2 0.00 5.0 1.19
2 4 5 3 5 4 4 7 4
BCJ4 516 4 284 414 9.5 4 203 512 30.2 0.00 7.5 1.49
203 246 30 20 35 25 41 12. 41

2 4 5 3 6 4 4 7 4

344 382 45 33 38 38 153 41 25. 19. 203 41

8 3 7 0 1 1 0 4 4 1 2 4
BCJ5
344 382 45 33 38 38 153 41 25. 852 19. 203 41
BCJ8 3 414 3 304 31.1 0.30 10.1 1.41
8 3 7 0 1 1 0 4 4 852 1 2 4
BCJ9 3 414 3 304 31.1 0.00 10.7 1.49
344 382 45 33 38 38 153 41 25. 852 19. 203 41
LeonB24) BCJ1 3 414 3 304 31.1 0.00 10.7 1.49
8 3 7 0 1 1 0 4 4 102 1 2 4
1 2 414 2 304 31.1 0.30 9.3 1.52
344 382 45 33 38 38 153 41 31. 0 25. 203 41
BCJ1 3 414 3 304 31.1 0.30 10.1 1.41
8 3 7 0 1 1 0 4 8 852 4 2 4
2
344 382 45 33 38 38 153 41 25. 19. 203 41

8 3 7 0 1 1 0 4 4 1 2 4
References for Table B1

B1. Hwang, H. J., Eom, T. S., and Park, H. G., “Design Considerations for Beam-Column Joint

with Strengthening Bars”, Engineering Structures, Reviewing.

B2. Hwang, H. J., Park, H. G., Choi, W. S., Chung, L., and Kim, J. K., “Cyclic Loading Test for

Beam-Column Connections with 600 MPa (87 ksi) Beam Flexural Reinforcing Bars”, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 4, 2014, pp. 913-924.

B3. Teraoka, M., Kanoh, Y., Taraka, K., and Hayoshi, K., “Shear Strength and Deformation

Behaviour of R.C. Interior Beam-Column Joint Using High Strength Concrete”, Proc. 2nd US-

NZ-Japan-China Multilateral Meeting on structural Performance of High Strength Concrete in

Seismic Resions, Honolulu, 1994.

B4. Susanto, T. and Hua, Z., “Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to

Cyclic Loading”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, 2003, pp. 139-148.

B5. Durrani, A. J. and Wight, J. K., “Experimental and Analytical Study of Internal Beam to

Column Connections Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading”, Report UmEE82R3, Department

of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1982.

B6. Hayashi, K., Teraoka, M., Mollick, A. A., and Kana, Y., “Bond Characteristic of Interior RC

Beam-Column Connections Using High Strength materials (in Japanese)”, Proceeding of the

Japan Concrete Institute, V. 15, No. 2, 1993, pp. 583-588.

B7. Sugano, S., Nagashima, T., Kimura, H., and Ichikawa, A., “Behavior of Beam-Column

Joints Using High-Strength Materials”, ACI SP 123-13, 1991, pp. 359-377.

B8. Oda, M., Kosugi, K., Yamanoka, H., and Tano, K., “Bond Characteristic of Flexural Beam

Reinforcement in Beam Column Connection for High Sgrength Reinforced Concrete Structure

(in Japanese)”, Proceeding of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 19, No. 2, 1997, pp. 993-998.

B9. Joh, O., Goto, Y., and Shibata, T., “Influence of Transverse Joint and Beam Reinforcement

and Relocation of Plastic Hinge Region on Beam-Column Joint Stiffness Deterioration”, ACI

Special Publication, SP 123-8, 1991, pp. 187-223.

B10. Otani, S., Kobayashi, Y., and Aoyama, H., “Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column

Joints Under Simulated Earthquake Loading”, Proc. 1st US-NZ-Japan Seminar on Design of

R.C. Beam-Column Joints, Monterey, 1984.

B11. Wong, P. K. C., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R., “Seismic Resistance of Frames with

Vertically Distributed Flexural Reinforcement in Beams”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 4,

1990, pp. 488-498.

B12. Walker, S. G., “Seismic Performance of Existing Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column

Joints”, MS Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of

Washington, Seattle, 2001, pp. 308.

B13. Xian, Z. X., Park, R., and Tanaka, H., “Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-

Column Joints Designed Using High Strength Concrete and Steel”, Research Report, No.92-3,

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, 1992.

B14. Shiohara, H. Zaid, S., and Otani, S., “Test of An Innovative Reinforcing Detail for R/C

Interior Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Seismic Action”, Proceedings of the Third

International Conference on Concrete under Severe Conditions, University of British Columbia,

Vancouver, Canada, 2001, pp. 739-746.

B15. Shiohara, H., “Comprehensive Series of Tests on Seismic Performance of Reinforced

Concrete Interior Beam-Column Joints: Part 1”, Seismic performance of concrete joints and

connections, ACI Fall Convention, 2010.

B16. Kawai, T., Kimura, H., Iwata, M., and Watai, T., “Experimental Study of Resistance

Mechanism of RC Beam-Column Connections Using High Strength Materials (in Japanese)”,

Proceeding of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 19, 1997, pp. 1011-1016.

B17. Kaku, A., Maso, K., Kutoka, T., and Muguruma, T., “Experimental Study about

deformation characteristic of beam column connection in RC structure (in Japanese)”,

Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 15, No. 2, 1993, pp. 559-564.

B18. Kitayama, K., Kojima, C., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

Interior Beam-Column Connection Subjected to High Shear (in Japanese)”, Proceedings of the

Japan Concrete Institute, V. 11, No. 2, 1989, pp. 531-536.

B19. Yoshino, M., Takeda, S., and Kamimura, T., “Behavior of Interior RC Beam-Column

Connections after Yielding of Flexural Beam Reinforcement (in Japanese)”, Proceedings of the

Japan Concrete Institute, V. 19, No. 2, 1997, pp. 987-992.

B20. Kawasazaki, T., Kitayama, K., and Noguchi, H., “Bond characteristic of Reinforced

Concrete beam-Column Connections using Ultra High Strength Materials (in Japanese)”,

Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 14, No. 2, 1992, pp. 397-400.

B21. Tateishi, M. and Ishibashi, K., “Experimental Study about Failure Type in Beam Column

Connection after Reaching Yielding of Beam Reinforcement (in Japanese)”, Proceedings of the

Japan Concrete Institute, V. 20, No. 3, 1998, pp. 517-522.

B22. Asou, N., Nagashima, T., and Sugano, S., “Force Characteristic of Beam Column

Connection using High Strength Concrete (Fc600) and Reinforcement (SD490) (in Japanese)”,

Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 15, No. 2, 1993, pp. 553-558.

B23. Leon, R., “Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior Beam-Column Joints”, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, 1990, pp. 3-11.

B24. Leon, R., “The Effect of Floor Member Size on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

Beam-Column Joints”, 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, 1984,

pp. 445-452.

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

In the section “VERIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED BOND MODEL”, the bond slip-

stress relationship of specimen No.14 shown in Fig. 6(d) was determined as follows. The bond

length of the concrete block hc = 635 mm [25.0 in], re-bar diameter db = 25.4 mm [1.0 in],

concrete strength fc′ = 32.7 MPa [4.7 ksi], area of the transverse bars in the joint Ah = 1548 mm2

[2.4 in2], yield strength of hoop bars fyh = 493 MPa [71.4 ksi], area of the beam re-bar As = 510

mm2 [0.8 in2], yield strength of the beam re-bar fy = 469 MPa [68.0 ksi], bond strengths τec (=

2.2√fc′) = 12.6 MPa [1.8 ksi], τet (= 1.8√fc′) = 10.3 MPa [1.5 ksi], τu (= [0.16+0.11(Ahfyh) /Vu]√ fc′)

= 1.86 MPa [0.3 ksi] (Vu = Asfy for the concrete block specimen), yield strain of the beam re-bar

εy = 0.0023, elastic modulus Es = 200000 MPa [28986 ksi], and hardening modulus Esh (= 0.02Es)

= 4000 MPa [580 ksi]. The elongation eb of the re-bar at the joint interface is calculated by

integrating the bar strain ε over the joint depth hc shown in Fig. C1. For example, for a given bar

strain εt = 0.01 and the given bond strengths, the bar strain distribution inside the joint is

determined as follows (see Fig. C1).

 Esh d b
lu    t   y   105.4 mm [4.1 in] (C1)
4 u

Es d b
let   y   hc  2lu   282.3 mm [11.1 in] (C2)
4 et

lec  hc  2lu  let  141.9 mm [5.6 in] (C3)

4 et
 oo   y  let  0.0 (C4)
Es d b

4 ec
 co   lec  0.0014 (C5)
Es d b

4 u
 c   co  lu  0.0016 (C6)
Es d b

Integrating the tensile strains, the bar elongation eb at the joint interface is calculated as

follows.

eb 
 y let

 t   y  lu
 0.97 mm [0.04 in] (C7)
2 2

The bond strength Bj of the joint is calculated by integrating the bond stresses along the joint

depth hc.

B j   let et  2lu u  lec ec  db   405.4 kN [91.1 kips] (C8)

  ec  12 . 6M Pa
 et  10 . 3M Pa
Bond stress 
 u  1 . 86MPa
(MPa)

 co   0 . 0014  t  0 . 010
4 u
 c   0 . 0016  00  0 . 0 E sh d b
1
Strain   y  0 . 0023
(mm/mm)
l u  105 . 4m m l u  105 . 4m m
l ec  141 . 9m m l et  282 . 3m m

h c  635m m

Fig C1– Strain distribution of beam re-bar in specimen No.14 [1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 ksi = 6.90

MPa]

APPENDIX D: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR BAR-SLIP

Eq. (8) was developed assuming that the lateral load P0 at the origin is determined by the

uniform friction bond strength τu within the beam-column joint. Figs. D1 and D2 show

experimental evidence supporting the assumption. Fig. D1 shows the test results reported by

Hwang et al.B2 In the figure, at the origin of the load-displacement relationship, the strains of the

bottom bars in the joint are maintained as a uniform value. Further, the strains remained in

tension in both the positive and negative loadings. Fig. D2 shows the test results reported by

Xian et al.B13 In the figure, at the origin, slip deformation increased without increase of the

lateral load. These results indicate that the uniform lateral load P0 at the origin is determined by

the uniform friction bond strength of the beam flexural bars in the joint. For this reason, in the

proposed model, the bond stress distribution after complete bearing bond failure was simplified

as the uniform friction bond strength τu.

 600 0.004 0.004

Strain (mm/mm)
(a) Hwang  ‐ (b)  (c) Top bars 
300 S1 (2 layers)
Load (kN)

0.002 Gauge 0.002 Gauge

0 Bottom bars
2P 0 0 0 (1 layer)
‐300

‐600 ‐0.002 ‐0.002

‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6
Story drift ratio (%) Story drift ratio (%) Story drift ratio (%)

Fig D1–Beam re-bar strain-displacement relationshipB2 [1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 kips = 4.45 kN]

200  200 
(a) Xian ‐ U2 (b) Slip 
Load (kN)

100  100  deformation 

0 
(U2)
0 
2P 0 ‐100 
‐100 

‐200  ‐200 
‐6  ‐4  ‐2  0  2  4  6  ‐6  ‐4  ‐2  0  2  4  6 
Story drift ratio (%) Slip deformation (mm)
200  200 
(c) Xian ‐ U4 (d) Slip 
Load (kN)

100  100  deformation 

(U4)
0  0 

‐100  2P 0 ‐100 

‐200  ‐200 
‐6  ‐4  ‐2  0  2  4  6  ‐6  ‐4  ‐2  0  2  4  6 
Story drift ratio (%) Slip deformation (mm)
200 200 
(e) Xian ‐ U6 (f) Slip 
100 100  deformation 
Load (kN)

(U6)
0 0 
2P 0
-100 ‐100 

-200 ‐200 
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 ‐6  ‐4  ‐2  0  2  4  6 
Story drift ratio (%) Slip deformation (mm)

Fig D2–Load-slip deformation relationshipB13 [1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 kips = 4.45 kN]