ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 98-S55
Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Interior Wide
Beam-Column Connections Subjected to Lateral Loading
by Carlos G. Quintero-Febres and James K. Wight
An experimental investigation to evaluate the response of interior
wide beam-column connections to earthquake-type lateral loading
is described in this paper. Three interior wide beam-column-slab
subassemblages were tested under quasistatic cyclic loading.
Design variables that control the response of reinforced concrete
(RC) joints to lateral loading were evaluated, with special atten-
tion given to the beam width to column width ratio. It was found
that interior wide beam connections, when properly designed, pos-
sess adequate strength and deformation capacity. The connections
reached their expected capacities and maintained them throughout
a severe deformation history. The hysteretic response was prima-
rily controlled by the bond behavior of the longitudinal reinforce-
ment, and in particular, the reinforcement passing outside the
column core. The response of the test specimens is also examined
in terms of joint shear behavior, beam plastic hinge spreading, and
slab participation.
Keywords: bond behavior; earthquake-resistant structures; hysteretic
response; interior connections; seismic design; wide-beam construction.
INTRODUCTION
One of the components of a building that is very well-
suited for cost minimization is the floor structural system.
Floor systems are repeated several times over the height of a
building, and therefore require large amounts of materials
and a great deal of workmanship. Among the least expensive
floor systems for reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are the
so-called banded-floor systems. These floor systems, also
called wide-beam systems, consist of slabs carried by
shallow, wide beams that frame into columns. They are
very efficient in reducing the formwork, in providing sim-
plicity, repetition, and faster construction, and hence, in
achieving maximum overall economy. Additionally,
banded-floor systems reduce the overall height of a building,
which in turn represents a decrease in the costs for columns,
walls, ducts, cladding, elevators, and other materials in
vertical elements. Wide beams are preferred by architects
and interior designers because they are less obstructing than
normal depth beams, and thus allow more flexibility in the
definition of the spaces. Because of its several advantages,
banded-floor construction (wide-beam construction) is often
used in nonseismic regions as a primary gravity load-carrying
system. Furthermore, wide-beam construction has been
increasingly used in seismic zones, not only as a gravity load
carrying system, but also as part of the lateral load-resisting
system, despite the fact that little information on the cyclic
behavior of wide beam-column connections exists. Most de-
sign codes restrict the use of wide beam systems in seismic re-
gions because of the lack of sufficient information on how the
system would behave under severe earthquake loading. In
particular, the ability of wide-beam connections to transfer
earthquake loads, and the lower lateral stiffness of the
system due to shallower beams, are topics of concern among
572
TECHNICAL PAPER
code writers, structural designers, and researchers. This paper
reports on an experimental study intended to shed light on
these issues.
The experimental study summarized herein1 was carried
out in the University of Michigan Structural Engineering
Laboratory and focused on the hysteretic behavior of interior
wide beam-column connections designed according to U.S.
design practice.2,3 The response of exterior wide-beam con-
nections under earthquake-type loading has previously been
studied at the University of Michigan.4,5 Those studies
showed that exterior connections, if properly designed and
detailed, can behave well under seismic loading. Other
investigations6,7 showed that conservatively designed interi-
or wide-beam connections may also behave satisfactorily
when subjected to load reversals. These results suggest that
wide-beam systems have some potential as lateral load-re-
sisting systems.
This paper evaluates the lateral load response of interior
wide-beam connections designed according to ACI-ASCE
Committee 352 recommendations.2 These design guidelines
are mostly restricted to the design of typical RC connections,
that is, connections in which the column width is equal to or
greater than the beam width. In those cases, all of the beam
longitudinal reinforcement is normally located within the
column core. The ACI 318-95 Building Code3 allows the use
of beams wider than the supporting columns (Section
21.3.1.4), but that limit was derived from practice (R21.3.1),
not from research. The presence of wide (wider than the
columns) and shallow beams framing into the connection
introduces some characteristics that might lead to a behavior
different from the behavior of normal-width beams.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper provides information on the response of interior
wide-beam connections subjected to lateral earthquake-type
loading. The significant design variables that govern the
response are identified and evaluated. The applicability of
ACI-ASCE Committee 352 recommendations for the design
of interior wide-beam connections is evaluated. This research
contributes to a better understanding of the behavior of interior
wide-beam connections under earthquake loading. This
knowledge will allow designers in seismic regions to
safely take advantage of the many features that wide-
beam systems possess and achieve more economical
building designs.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-August 2001.
MS No. 00-188 received August 24, 2000, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2001, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includ-
ing the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 2002 ACI Structural
Journal if received by January 1, 2002.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001
Carlos G. Quintero-Febres is a faculty member of civil engineering at the University
of the Andes, Mérida, Venezuela. He received his civil engineering degree from the
University of the Andes, his MSc from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, and his
PhD from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. His research interests include
earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete structures and structural reliability.
James K. Wight, FACI, is a professor of civil engineering at the University of Michi-
gan. He is a member of ACI Committees 318, Standard Building Code; and 445,
Shear and Torsion, and a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Con-
nections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research interests include earth-
quake-resistant design of reinforced concrete structures.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The experimental program comprised the design and testing
of three interior wide beam-column-slab subassemblages,
hereafter referred to simply as IWB1, IWB2, and IWB3. The
specimens were built in an engineering laboratory and tested
under simulated in-plane lateral earthquake loading. No
axial compression was applied to the columns to evaluate a
worst-case scenario for the connection core. No attempt was
made to simulate the effects of gravity loads, which are
assumed not to significantly modify the location of inflection
points or the magnitude of the seismic moments.
All test specimens represented a typical interior connec-
tion in a three-dimensional building frame, consisting of a
single column, two beams in the longitudinal direction (wide
beams), two beam stubs in the transverse direction, and a
portion of the slab supported by that ensemble (Fig. 1). All
specimens were pin-supported at midheight of the columns
above and below the connections and at midspan of the
beams—the assumed points of inflection for the frame bending
moment diagram due to lateral loads. The specimen story
height was 8.5 ft (2.6 m) and the span length was 16 ft (4.9 m),
both measured from the center of the pins in the test fixture.
This represents approximately a 3/4-scale model of a connection
in the middle to upper stories of an average building with floor
height of 12 ft (3.7 m) and spans of 22 ft (6.7 m). The depth
of the wide beam for the three specimens was 12 in. (305 mm),
which approximately represents 3/4 of what would be a
typical wide and shallow beam depth for the given span
length. The transverse beam had the same depth as the wide
beam because one of the ideas behind wide-beam construction is
having a uniform depth floor system. A detailed description of
the experimental work may be found elsewhere.1
Design of test specimens
The specimens were designed using nominal material
properties ( fc ′ = 4000 psi and f y = 60 ksi) following the
requirements of the ACI 318-953 and the ACI-ASCE
Committee 352 recommendations2 (hereafter referred to as
ACI Code and Committee 352, respectively), except for those
issues that were being investigated. The provisions of the
1999 edition of the ACI Code that are applicable to this re-
search project are essentially the same as those in the 1995
edition of the Code.
Moment strength ratios Mr were calculated using actual
material properties and assuming that slab reinforcement
within an effective width equal to 1/4 of the span length
would be participating as tension reinforcement. This effec-
tive width is defined in Section 8.10 of the ACI Code3 as an
upper limit for the width of the slab effective as a T-beam
flange. A similar assumption was made when estimating the
expected lateral load capacity of the specimens He and the
shear force applied to the connection Vu. The joint effective
width was set equal to the column width, as currently specified
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001
Fig. 1—Dimensions of test specimens.
by Committee 352. Because the value of He as previously
defined depends upon the amount of slab reinforcement that
is assumed to be effective as tension reinforcement, the
maximum lateral resistance that could be expected from
the specimen would be obtained when all of the specimen
slab bars are effective in tension. This maximum expected
lateral load capacity of the specimens is referred to as He max.
Dimensions of test specimens
The dimensions of the specimens are shown in Fig. 1. The
column cross section for specimens IWB1 and IWB2 was 14 in.
square (356 x 356 mm). IWB3 had a 13 x 20 in. (330 x 508 mm)
rectangular column cross section. Transverse beam widths
were approximately 80% of the column depth for all
specimens. Based on these dimensions and the Committee
352 Recommendations, the specimens can be classified as
Type 2 (seismic region) interior joints for shear calculation
purposes.2
The specimens had wide-beam width to column width
ratios bw /bc equal to 2.50, 1.86, and 2.53 for IWB1, IWB2,
and IWB3, respectively. The limits for the width ratios based
on the ACI Code requirement (Section 21.3.1.4) are 2.29 for
IWB1 and IWB2, and 2.39 for IWB3. Only the wide beam
width of IWB2 complies with the maximum allowable width
in the ACI Code, and all exceed those permitted by the
Committee 352 Recommendations.
Reinforcement details
Details of the reinforcement for the test specimens are
given in Fig. 2 through 5, and summarized in Table 1.
Specimens IWB1 and IWB2 had the same beam longitudinal
reinforcement, only the spacing of the beam bars was different.
Three No. 5 bars on top and two No. 5 bars on bottom were
placed inside the column core, which meant that 48 and 38%
of the top and bottom beam longitudinal reinforcement,
respectively, was anchored in the column core. The percentage
of wide beam longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the
column core for IWB3 was 52 and 40% for top and bottom
reinforcement, respectively.
Specimens IWB1 and IWB2 had light transverse beam
longitudinal reinforcement. This light reinforcement was
based on the assumption that the transverse beams would not
be part of a lateral load-resisting system. The transverse
beam longitudinal reinforcement for IWB3 was heavier than
for IWB1 and IWB2. For this specimen, two No. 3 bars were
placed at the sides of the transverse beam to provide support
573
Fig. 2—Reinforcement details for IWB1. (Note: dimensions
are in inches [1 in. = 25.4 mm].)
Fig. 3—Column side hoops for IWB1.
for six No. 2 hoops that were placed at midheight in the joint
region (outside the column), in an attempt to determine the
effective joint area resisting shear.
Three No. 3 hoop sets were used as horizontal joint shear
reinforcement for the first two specimens (Fig. 2 and 4).
Each set consisted of a square hoop plus two smaller rect-
angular hoops (four legs in each direction). For IWB3,
two No. 3 hoops and one cross-tie were used (Fig. 5). This
resulted in three stirrup legs in the longitudinal direction
and four legs in the transverse direction. The transverse
reinforcement for the columns outside the joint was provided
by sets of hoops similar to those used in the joint and spaced
following ACI Code requirements.
574
Fig. 4—Reinforcement details for IWB2. (Note: dimensions
are in inches [1 in. = 25.4 mm].)
The shear reinforcement for all the wide beams was provided
by sets of overlapped No. 2 hoops spaced at d/2 (5 in. [12.7
cm]). This spacing, which was kept constant along the beam,
represents a relaxation of the ACI Code required d/4 spacing
over the region close to the column. This relaxation was
based on expected low shear stresses in the wide beam
due to the larger area resisting shear. Additional hoops were
provided at the sides of the column for Specimens IWB1 and
IWB3 (Fig. 2, 3, and 5) to improve the confinement of the
concrete in the connection region outside the column core.
This reinforcement was expected to improve the transfer of
forces from the outside beam bars to the joint core and
enhance the bond behavior of those bars. No hoops were
provided at the sides of the column for IWB2. The transverse
beam shear reinforcement also consisted of No. 2 hoops. No
transverse beam hoops were placed in the wide beam region.
The slab reinforcement for the three specimens consisted
of No. 3 bars placed orthogonally along the two main directions.
The spacing of the slab bars in the long direction (parallel to the
main beam) is less than it would be for the envisioned floor
system, that is, one-way joists spanning in the transverse
direction. This was done intentionally with the purpose of
evaluating the behavior of this type of connection for a
situation in which a larger slab participation was present.
Design parameters and expected capacities
The primary design parameters and the expected specimen
capacities, computed using measured material properties, are
summarized in Table 2 and 3, respectively. The column-to-
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001
Table 1—Reinforcement details for interior wide-
beam specimens
Specimen IWB1 IWB2 IWB3
Size (bc x hc), in. 14 x 14 14 x 14 13 x 20
Column Reinforcement 12 No. 6 12 No. 6 16 No. 5
Percentage ρ,* % 2.7 2.7 1.9
Size (bw x hb), in. 35 x 12 26 x 12 33 x 12
5 No. 5 + 5 No. 5 + 2 No. 6 +
Top reinforcement 2 No. 4 2 No. 4 8 No. 4
Wide
beam Percentage ρ,† % 0.53 0.71 0.72
4 No. 5 + 4 No. 5 +
Bottom reinforcement 10 No. 4
2 No. 4 2 No. 4
Percentage ρ,† % 0.45 0.61 0.58
Size (bs x hb), in. 12 x 12 12 x 12 16 x 12
Top reinforcement 2 No. 4 2 No. 4 3 No. 5
Trans-
verse Percentage ρ, % † 0.33 0.33 0.56
beam
Bottom reinforcement 2 No. 4 2 No. 4 2 No. 4
Percentage ρ,† % 0.33 0.33 0.24
Size (bs x t), in. 55 x 4 64 x 4 57 x 4
‡ No. 3 at No. 3 at No. 3 at
Slab Reinforcement 8 in. 8 in. 8 in.
Percentage ρ,§ % 0.30 0.35 0.29
Shear reinforcement in
Joint 1.07 1.07 0.86
percentage ρt#
*
ρ = As / bc hc.
†ρ = As / bwd, where d is effective member depth.
‡Slab reinforcement parallel to main beam.
§
ρ = As / bshs.
#ρ = A /b (d − d′ ), where A is total area of transverse reinforcement in joint; b is
t sj c sj c
column width; and (d − d′ ) is center-to-center distance between top and bottom beam
reinforcement.
Note: As is total area of flexural reinforcement; bi and hi are cross section dimensions;
dimensions in in. (1 in. = 25.4 mm); and reinforcement is in U.S. bar sizes, that is,
No. p = p/8 in. diameter.

Table 2—Main design parameters for interior wide

beam specimens based on actual material
properties
h/db#
Specimen bw / bc* Mr†‡ γ †§
Beam Column
IWB1 2.50 1.3 16.5 22.4 to 28.0 16.0
IWB2 1.86 1.4 18.9 22.4 to 28.0 16.0
IWB3 2.54 1.6 17.0 27.0 to 40.0 19.2
*ACI Committee 352 recommended limit: ≤ 1.
†Calculated assuming slab effective width equal to 1/4 span length.
‡ACI Committee 352 recommended limit: M ≥ 1.4.
r
§ACI Committee 352 recommended limit: γ ≤ 20 (psi units); γ ≤ 1.66 (SI units).
#ACI Committee 352 recommended limit: h/d ≥ 20.
b

Fig. 5—Reinforcement details for IWB3. (Note: dimensions

beam moment strength ratios Mr and the shear strength
factors γ were close to the values recommended by Com-
mittee 352 and the ACI Code.3
The column depth to beam bar diameter ratio (h/db) was
22.4 for the No. 5 bars and 28 for the No. 4 bars (IWB1
and IWB2). For IWB3, these ratios were more favorable
than for IWB1 and IWB2 (27 and 40 for the No. 6 and 4 bars,
respectively). In all cases, the ratios were larger than the ACI
Code limiting value of 20. The beam depth to bar diameter
ratio for the column bars of IWB1 and IWB2 was 16, which
is less than the Committee 352 recommended value of 20.
This relaxation was based on the results of previous tests
in inches [1 in. = 25.4 mm].)
on wide beam specimens carried out at Michigan. 4 For
IWB3, the h/d b for column bars was increased up to 19 by
using smaller diameter reinforcing bars.
Instrumentation
Load cells, displacement transducers, and strain gages
were used to monitor the applied loads and displacements,
and the resulting strains and deformations. Readings from
these instruments were continuously collected by a data
acquisition system. A displacement transducer and load

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001 575


Fig. 6—Specimen IWB1 in testing rig and IWB2 on casting
platform.
Fig. 7—Experimental setup
Table 3—Expected and maximum expected
capacities for interior wide-beam specimens
based on actual material properties
Maximum expected
Specimen Expected capacity* He, kips capacity† Hemax, kips
IWB1 26.4
IWB2 25.1
IWB3 30.1
*Calculated assuming slab effective width equal to 1/4 span length
†Calculated assuming slab effective width equal to specimen width.
Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN.
cell on the 50 kip (222 kN) hydraulic actuator at the top
of the column recorded the imposed displacement and
corresponding force. Another displacement transducer was
used at the base of the column to monitor any slippage of the
base support.
Strain gages recorded the strains in the reinforcing bars at
locations in and around the joint. All three specimens had
between 50 and 60 strain gages. In addition to the electronic
data recording, cracks were marked on the specimens after
reaching displacement peaks, using a different color for each
direction of loading, and numbered according to the loading
cycle. Photographs were also taken each time new cracks
were marked.
Materials
All longitudinal reinforcement and column transverse
reinforcement were Grade 60 (nominal fy = 414 MPa) deformed
576
Table 4—Average steel reinforcement yield
strengths
Specimen Bar size no. fy, ksi
2* 95
3 73
IWB1 and
IWB2 4 68
5 66
6 58
2 70
3 73
IWB3 4 65
5 64
6 67
*Delivered as Grade 60 steel—turned out to be of higher strength.
Note: Reinforcement in U.S. bar sizes, that is, No. p = p/8 in. diameter; and 1 ksi =
6.89 MPa.
Table 5—Average ultimate* concrete compressive
strengths
Bottom column,
Specimen psi Beam/slab, psi Top column, psi
IWB1 6600 5200 6000
IWB2 6400 4000 7300
IWB3 3700 3700 4800
*Concrete strength day after specimen test.
Note: Minimum age of cylinder for all specimens was 60 days; and 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.
steel. Beam transverse reinforcement was Grade 60, smooth
round bars. The concrete had a design compressive strength
of 4000 psi (27.5 MPa) and a maximum coarse aggregate
size of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm). Actual reinforcement yield strengths
and concrete compressive strengths are presented in Table 4
and 5, respectively.
Fabrication of test units
Both the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were
prepared in the laboratory following ACI Code require-
ments. Strain gages were attached to the bars at the required
29.9 positions before the reinforcement was placed in the forms.
30.1 The column cage was made first, outside the forms, and then
32.8 lifted into place. Once the column cage was in place, the
beam and slab reinforcement was placed. All the specimens
were cast upright, with construction joints at the bottom and
top of the beam, as is common in U.S. concrete construction.
Once the concrete had obtained sufficient strength, the spec-
imens were lifted and placed in the testing rig. Figure 6
shows Specimen IWB1 in the testing rig and Specimen IWB2
in the casting platform.
Test setup
A schematic drawing of the test setup is shown in Fig. 7. In
this setup, the beams and columns are pinned at their midspans
to simulate points of inflection. The pins at the ends of the
beams are supported by vertical steel links that also serve as
load cells to measure the shear in the beams. These vertical
links allowed free horizontal movement of the beam, but not
vertical displacement. The column was pin supported at its
base and deflected laterally at its top hinge by a hydraulic ac-
tuator with a maximum stroke of ±5 in. (±127 mm). The load-
ing sequence used for the tests is shown in Fig. 8. It consisted
of repeated cyclic loading to increasing levels of average story
drift, up to a maximum of 5% drift. This drift value, which was
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001
Fig. 8—Loading sequence.
Fig. 9—Load-versus-displacement response for IWB1.
(Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
at the displacement limit of the actuator, is much higher than
would be expected for normal earthquake response.
ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
Overall response to lateral loading
The behavior of the three specimens was very similar in
spite of the differences in the design parameters. The load
versus displacement histories (Fig. 9 to 11) show that the
specimens had adequate load carrying capacity, with no
strength degradation up to drift levels of 4% or more, and
little, if any, strength degradation during the last cycle (5%
drift). This behavior is considered to be an indication of
satisfactory performance.8,9 As shown in Fig. 9 to 11, the
maximum capacities attained by the specimens were larger
than the calculated capacities assuming that the full slab
width was effective in tension. Because the capacities shown
in those figures were computed using actual material
strengths, the observed overstrengths can be attributed to
strain hardening effects and the confining effects of transverse
beams and slabs. It is important to notice that the levels of drift
at which the expected capacities were attained were relatively
high (approximately 2% drift) due to the flexibility of the test
specimens. This flexibility was partially due to the lower
stiffness of the shallow wide-beam as compared to a normal
depth beam, but was exacerbated by the early deterioration of
bond in both column and wide-beam longitudinal bars.
The stiffness decay for the three specimens showed a similar
trend. The available stiffness at 1% drift, after the specimens
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001
Fig. 10—Load-versus-displacement response for IWB2.
(Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
Fig. 11—Load-versus-displacement response for IWB3.
(Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
had undergone interstory drifts of 4%, was on the order of 30%
of the initial 1% drift stiffness. The degradation of the reloading
stiffness experienced by the wide-beam specimens, however,
was found to be similar to that measured for RC beam-column
connections with normal width beams.1 The low stiffness of
these specimens in the load-reversal region of the hysteresis
loops is typical of RC interior beam-column assemblages10
unless the beam longitudinal reinforcement possesses
extremely good bond conditions that are not guaranteed by
current design specifications. 2,3
The energy dissipation capacity of the three specimens,
evaluated by calculating the area enclosed by the load-ver-
sus-displacement hysteretic loops during each loading cycle,
was quite similar during the elastic range of the response
(roughly up to 1.5% drift); thereafter IWB3 dissipated
more energy than the other two specimens. Specimens
IWB1 and IWB2 dissipated approximately the same amount
of energy throughout the whole loading history. Specimen
IWB3 dissipated approximately 30% more energy than the
other two specimens.
The observed behavior of Specimens IWB1 and IWB2
leads to the conclusion that the beam width to column width
ratio is not the most critical design parameter. Both specimens
had approximately the same overall response, in spite of a
significant difference in the width ratio. The lower width
ratio of IWB2 (1.86 as compared with 2.50 of IWB1) did not
result in a noticeable improvement of the specimen response.
577
Table 6—Bond conditions for interior wide beam
specimens
Specimen IWB1 IWB2 IWB3
Size (bc x hc), in. 14 x 14 14 x 14 13 x 20
Reinforcement 12 No. 6 12 No. 6 16 No. 5
Column
h/db* 16.0 16.0 19.2
† 25.2 28.7 27.5
Bond index (BI)
Size (bw x hb), in. 35 x 12 26 x 12 33 x 12
5 No. 5 + 5 No. 5 + 2 No. 6 +
Top reinforcement‡ 2 No. 4 2 No. 4 8 No. 4
ρanc.§ 48 48 52
22.4 to 22.4 to 26.7 to
h/db* 28.0 28.0 40.0
20.5 to 23.3 to 20.7 to
Wide Bond index (BI)† 16.9 19.2 13.4
beam
4 No. 5 + 4 No. 5 +
Bottom reinforcement 10 No. 4
2 No. 4 2 No. 4 Fig. 12—Strain history for column bar in Specimen IWB3.
ρanc.§ 38 38 40
22.4 to 22.4 to Bond behavior
h/db* 40.0
28.0 28.0 The response of the three specimens to the displacement
20.5 to 23.3 to history imposed in this investigation was highly influenced
Bond index (BI)† 16.9 19.2
13.4
by the bond behavior of both column and beam longitudinal
*ACI Committee 352 recommended limit: h/db ≥ 20. bars. All specimens experienced bond deterioration from the
†Japanese recommended limit: BI ≤ 17 (psi units); 4.5 (kg/cm2 units); or 1.4 (MPa early stages of the tests in spite of the fact that Committee
units). BI in psi units.
‡Refer to Fig. 4, 6, and 7. 352 design requirements were satisfied in most cases. All
§Percentage of wide-beam reinforcement anchored in column core. longitudinal bars met the design requirement of Committee
Note: Dimensions in inches (1 in. = 25.4 mm); reinforcement is in U.S. bar sizes, that
is, No. p = p/8 in. diameter; and bi and hi are cross section dimensions.
352, that is, h/db ≥ 20, with the exception of the column bars
of IWB1 and IWB2. Table 6 summarizes the bond conditions
These experimental results showed that wide-beam interior of the longitudinal reinforcement for the three specimens
connections designed to meet Committee 352 recommen- tested in this investigation. That table includes not only the
dations possess enough strength and stiffness to withstand ACI Committee 352 requirement, but also the bond index,
large interstory drifts without collapse or significant strength which is an indicator of the severity of the bond stresses in a
deterioration. The specimens did experience significant reinforcing bar. The bond index is based on the assumption
bond deterioration from the early stages of the tests, and this of simultaneous yielding at both faces of the joint and the
bond deterioration led to the pinching of the hysteretic loops, Japanese proposed limit is related to a certain amount of
which is an indication of the softening of the connections energy dissipation at 2% drift. The bond index is computed as19
during the tests. The increased flexibility of interior wide-
beam connections due to the deterioration of bond could create ub fy ( d b ⁄ hc )
problems, such as nonstructural damage or eventual collapse BI = --------- = ----------------------
- (1)
f c′ 2 f c′
if large P-∆ effects occur during an earthquake. It is worth
noting, however, that interior connections in real structures
are much more restrained than they are in a laboratory fixture, where ub is the maximum bond stress of beam reinforcement
where the beams are free to elongate as the test progresses. over the column width, db is the beam bar diameter, hc is the
This beam growth has been studied by several authors.11-13 column depth, fy is the yield strength of beam bars, and fc′ is
In a real structure, lateral forces may be redistributed to more the concrete compressive strength, all in consistent units.
stiffer elements such as walls or exterior connections when Bond indexes for column bars are computed similarly.
sways reverse.10 The deterioration of bond in such cases would
not necessarily lead to the same type of overall structural Bond response of column bars
behavior as was observed in these isolated subassembly The column bars for Specimens IWB1 and IWB2 behaved
experiments. Furthermore, the lack of axial load in the elastically up to 3% subassembly drift, then all of the bars on
experimental setup used in this investigation simulated a the column faces yielded at the top of the joint during the
worst case scenario. In general, column axial load enhances excursion to 4% drift. The column bars of IWB3 did not
the performance of beam-column joints by improving the yield during the test. Signs of bond deterioration were detected
bond conditions of the longitudinal beam bars, by increasing in column bars for all three specimens starting during the
the shear strength of the joint, and within a certain range, by second loading cycle (cycle to 0.5% drift). Tensile strains
increasing the column flexural capacity, which would improve were recorded in all column bars simultaneously at both the
the overall response of the specimens.2,14-18 Thus, the presence top and bottom of the joint from 1% drift on, indicating that
of an axial load should cause a reduction in the pinching of the transition from tension to compression could not take
the hysteretic loops. The experimental results obtained from place over the beam depth. This behavior is shown in Fig. 12
this investigation can be considered as a lower bound on the for a column bar in Specimen IWB3. This trend of behavior
expected behavior of interior wide-beam connections. was the same for the three specimens, despite the fact that

578 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001


Fig. 13—Strain behavior of No. 4 top bars to yielding in
Specimen IWB3.
IWB3 had a more favorable h/db than the other two speci-
mens (19.2 versus 16). The bond index, however, which
takes into account material strengths, was in the same range
for all three specimens (Table 6).
Bond response of wide beam longitudinal bars
In general, wide beam reinforcement had more favorable
bond conditions than the column bars, as measured by the
h/db and the bond index, and overall, the bond response of
the wide beam bars was better than that of the column bars.
All the longitudinal reinforcement of the wide beams yielded
at the column face in both top and bottom layers, for all
specimens. The yielding history, however, was different in
each case.
The load versus strain plots for the strain gages attached to
the wide-beam bars indicated that cyclic tension and
compression were experienced by those bars during the
first three to four loading cycles, up to 1% drift (Fig. 13).
Compressive strains were very small during those cycles.
Thereafter, the beginning of slippage was obvious, as indicated
by the increasing magnitude of tensile strains on the com-
pression side of the beam. This tendency increased as the
cycling progressed. Even though bond deteriorated as the
test progressed, all the wide-beam longitudinal bars went
into the strain hardening range and maintained their anchorage
throughout the test.
The data recorded during the tests consistently showed
that bond deteriorated faster for bars passing outside the
column core than for bars passing through it. Also, the bond
response of bars in the bottom layer was better than the response
of the bars in the top layer. The hoops placed at the sides of the
column to provide some degree of confinement did not prevent
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001
Fig. 14—Strain history for outermost bars in Specimens
IWB1 and IWB3.
bond deterioration, but did improve the bond conditions
along the bars.
Figure 13 shows the drift versus strain relationship up to
yielding for four top No. 4 bars in IWB3, as measured by
strain gages WB2, WB4, WB7, and WB12, that were attached
to bars passing outside and inside the column core. It can be
seen in Fig. 13 that the bar passing inside the column core
had a good bond behavior, cycling in tension and compression
during this part of the test. The other three bars experienced
small compressions during the first cycles of loading and
then the strains slowly went into tension, indicating some
bond deterioration. This process was less pronounced than
for the top bars of IWB1, which had approximately the same
beam width. Among the bars passing outside the column
core, the bar located between the bars placed at the corners
of the hoops, outside the column core, experienced the larg-
est tensile strains when the concrete surrounding the bar was
in compression. This was probably due to the less effective
confinement provided along the top leg of the side hoops.
The bar farthest from the column core yielded after the other
two beam bars passing outside the column core. These results
show that bars having the same h/db ratio and the same bond
index may have a different bond response depending upon
their location with respect to the column core and any
transverse reinforcement. Thus, different limits for the
bond parameters should be specified for bars passing
through or outside the column core.
Figure 14 shows the strain history for the outermost bar of
IWB1 and the outermost bar of IWB3. These two No. 4 bars
were located on top of the wide beam approximately at the
same distance (8 to 9 in.) from the column side face. The
h/db ratios for these bars were 28 and 40 for IWB1 and
IWB3, respectively. The difference in behavior is noticeable.
The bar in IWB3 yielded much earlier in the test sequence than
the one in IWB1, and experienced much higher strains
throughout the test. The degradation of bond before yielding
was also less severe for the bar in IWB3. The beneficial
effect the deeper column had on the bond response is
clearly shown in that figure for the wide-beam bars passing
outside the column core of IWB3.
Joint shear behavior
The joint shear reinforcement of the test specimens satisfied
the requirements of Committee 352. The design philosophy
579

Fig. 15—Slab participation at 2% drift for IWB3: (a) positive
loading; and (b) negative loading. ε (at yield) taken as yield
strain recorded in same bar on other side of transverse beam.
(Note: NY = no yielding recorded; U.S. reinforcing bars
sizes.)
embodied in the Committee 352 recommendations implies
that joint shear is resisted mainly by the concrete strut
mechanism because to activate the alternate truss mechanism,
extremely good bond conditions are necessary within the
joint. Such bond conditions are not assured using the bond
parameter limits proposed by Committee 352.
The observation of the test results indicates that the joint
shear strength of the test specimens was enough to withstand
the imposed deformation history. No signs of shear distress
were noticeable from the load versus displacement histories
during the tests.
The level of shear stress, calculated following Committee
352 recommendations, assuming that the joint effective area
is equal to the column section and assuming a slab effective
width in tension equal to one fourth the span length, was at
16.5 f c ′ , 18.9 f c ′ , and 17.0 f c ′ (psi units) for IWB1,
IWB2, and IWB3, respectively. These levels of shear stress
increase up to 19, 22, and 19, if full slab participation is
assumed.
These results suggest that the ACI Committee 352 limit of
20 f c ′ for the maximum allowed shear stress is a reasonable
value, at least from the shear strength point of view. The
shear deformations associated with these shear stress levels,
however, are probably too high and will increase the pinching
of the hysteretic loops, thus reducing the energy dissipation
capacity of the connection.
Strain gage data from IWB3 showed that at least within
3 in. from the column faces on both sides, the shear strain
level recorded was in the same range (approximately 1000
µε) as that recorded inside the joint core, thus indicating that
the outside region of the joint did participate in carrying the
joint shear and therefore that the area resisting the joint shear
forces is larger than the column section. This observation has
580
been reported by other researchers20-22 and suggests that the
joint shear requirements could be relaxed for beam-column
connections in wide-beam frames. This relaxation, however,
would not be advisable until more conclusive data becomes
available.
These specimens were tested under no axial load and no
shear distress occurred. The effect of column axial load on
the shear strength of beam-column joints has not been
clearly stated. Most researchers agree, however, that for
low to moderate levels of axial load this effect is beneficial,
either by confining the joint core2,15,16 or by equilibrating
part of an inclined compressive strut inside the joint
core.17,18 Under extremely high column axial loads where
P-∆ effects can become significant, the effect of column
axial load on the shear strength of beam-column joints
could be detrimental.
Plastic hinge spreading
One of the concerns regarding wide-beam construction is
the ability of the wide beam to develop a full plastic hinge
within levels of drift allowed by design codes. This plastic
hinge development is important to guarantee that the assumed
design strength is achieved before a collapse mechanism is
developed in the event of a severe earthquake.
The observation of the yielding pattern for the three
specimens indicates that there can be a significant delay
in the development of a full-width plastic hinge in a wide
beam. This delay is more dependent on the bond conditions
for the bars and on the confinement of the region outside of
the joint, than it is on the beam width. For IWB1, which had
a beam to column width ratio of 2.50, a full-width plastic
hinge, based on strain gage data, developed between 2 and
4% drift. For IWB2, with a width ratio of 1.86, a full-width
plastic hinge developed between 2 and 2.5% drift. The develop-
ment of a full plastic hinge for IWB3, which had a width ratio
of 2.54, also occurred between 2 and 2.5% drift. These results
clearly show that the beam to column width ratio is not the fac-
tor controlling the spreading of the plastic hinge. IWB3,
which had the largest width ratio, showed only a small delay
in the lateral spread of yielding. A similar behavior was
exhibited by IWB2, with the smallest width ratio. IWB1,
with a width ratio similar to that of IWB3, exhibited the larg-
est delay in the lateral spread of yielding. The bond condi-
tions for the wide-beam longitudinal bars of this specimen
were less favorable than for IWB3. Additionally, the side
hoops of IWB1 did not enclose as much concrete in the out-
side portion of the joint as did those of IWB3. It is worth
mentioning that all three specimens reached their expected
capacities by 2% drift, regardless the aforementioned delay
in the spreading of plasticity. Measures should be taken,
however, to improve the bond conditions of the beam re-
inforcement to minimize this delay in wide beam specimens.
Previous studies6,7 on interior wide beam connections have
shown that specimens with more favorable bond conditions
did not exhibit this delay in spreading of the beam plastic
hinge.
All three specimens had a wide-beam stirrup spacing
larger than the value recommended by code provisions
for potential beam plastic hinge regions. Strain gage data
recorded in the wide-beam shear reinforcement located close
to the column confirmed that shear stresses in the wide beam
were low and did not justify the use of a closer spacing, as
recommended by Committee 352 and the ACI Code for
normal beams. Also, IWB3 did not comply with the ACI
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001
Code provision to prevent buckling of longitudinal bars
in the plastic hinge region, which requires that at least every
other bar must be supported with a tie leg. The good performance
of the plastic hinge region for all the test specimens justified a
reduction in the amount of transverse reinforcement.
Slab participation
Results from this study show that the slabs played an im-
portant role in the behavior of the test specimens. Full par-
ticipation of slab reinforcement was recorded for IWB3
during the cycle to positive 4% drift. For negative loading
to 4% drift, gages on the slab bars at the other column face
were strained above 2000 µε, but did not indicate yielding.
Full width cracks were observed during the test on both
sides of the transverse beam. These cracks were closer to
the edges of the transverse beam than at the column face
line, where the strain gages were located. The width of
those cracks suggests that the slab bars should have yielded
for negative loading too, but at locations closer to the trans-
verse beam. Figure 15 shows the strain level in the slab bars
at the 2% drift cycle during which IWB3 reached its ex-
pected capacity He. The calculation of He assumed an ef-
fective slab width that included only the first slab bar on
each side of the beam. Even though no yielding had been
recorded in the slab bars at that drift level, the slab bars
were participating to a significant extent, especially for
positive loading. Using a slab effective width equal to the
ACI Code effective width in compression provided a good
approximation for the calculation of He of IWB3. Slab par-
ticipation in IWB1 and IWB2 was also important. Both
IWB1 and IWB2 reached their expected capacities He at
approximately 2% drift. At that drift level no slab bar yield-
ing was measured for negative loading, but the strain level
in the slab bars was high. These results again showed that
the ACI Code effective width in compression provided a
good approximation for the calculation of the expected ca-
pacity of IWB1 and IWB2. It is worth mentioning that the
test specimens reached their capacities at that drift level in
part because of the deterioration of bond that made the
specimens more flexible. If bond deterioration is controlled
or reduced, then a higher slab participation can be expected
before 2% drift. This could jeopardize the strong column,
weak beam assumption if the moment ratio Mr does not ac-
count for participation of slab reinforcement. Using an ef-
fective slab width equal to the ACI Code effective width in
compression, however, should provide a reasonable check
when using the limit recommended by Committee 352 for
the moment strength ratio, that is, Mr = 1.4.
CONCLUSIONS
The interior wide-beam specimens tested in this investigation
were subjected to a cyclic displacement history up to ± 5%
story drift. No axial load was applied to the specimens during
the tests. The response of these specimens to this simulated
earthquake-type loading can be summarized as follows:
1. The three specimens showed adequate strength and
deformation capacity. They reached their expected capacities
before or at 2% drift and maintained those capacities
throughout the test without failure or significant strength
decay. The ultimate deformation capacity of the specimens
was not tested because the maximum stroke length of the
actuator was reached;
2. All the specimens exhibited an overall similar response
characterized by pinching of the load versus displacement
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001
hysteretic loops. This pinching, typical of interior RC
connection specimens, was exacerbated by the early
bond deterioration of column and wide-beam longitudinal
reinforcement;
3. The interior wide-beam specimens, designed according
to the ACI-ASCE Committee 352 recommendations, had an
acceptable performance even when the beam width to column
width ratio was 2.54. If the design parameters are kept close
to the limits recommended by Committee 352, however,
pinching of the hysteretic loops is unavoidable. A method to
delay the onset of pinching, or even to eliminate it, would be
to use larger column sections that would improve the beam
bars bond conditions, increase the moment strength ratio,
and reduce the shear stress level;
4. The bond response of beam bars passing outside the
column core was different than that of the bars passing inside
the column core. Therefore, different bond parameters
should be specified for those bars;
5. The joint shear strength of interior wide-beam specimens
designed according to Committee 352 seems to be adequate
based on the experimental results reported herein. If the shear
factor is kept close to 20, however, large shear deformations
that would increase the pinching in the subassembly load
versus deformation response are to be expected;
6. Plastic hinge spreading is more dependent on the bond
conditions of the bars passing outside the column core, and
on the confinement of the outside region, than on the beam-
to-column width ratio;
7. The results of these tests confirmed that the shear rein-
forcement requirements for the beam plastic hinge region
could be relaxed for wide-beam connections; and
8. Slab participation played an important role in the response
of the specimens to lateral loading. A good estimate of the
specimen capacity at 2% drift was obtained by including all
slab reinforcement, within a width equal to the ACI Code
effective width in compression, as tension reinforcement for
the beam section.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented in this paper was carried out at the University of
Michigan. Partial financial support for the study was provided by the U.S.
National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. NSF-BCS-9122704 and NSF-G-
CMS-9526326). The first author would like to thank the Universidad de los
Andes, Mérida, Venezuela, for its support. The research formed part of the
PhD requirements for the first author. The conclusions and recommenda-
tions contained in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the view of the sponsors.
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 in. = 25.4 mm
1 kip = 4.448 kN
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
1 lb-ft = 1.356 N-m
NOTATION
bw /bc = beam-to-column width ratio
h/db = member depth-to-bar diameter ratio
He = expected capacity of specimen
He max = maximum expected capacity of specimen
Mr = moment strength ratio according to ACI Building Code
Vu = design shear force applied to joint
γ = shear strength factor according to ACI Building Code
REFERENCES
1. Quintero-Febres, C., and Wight, J. K., “Investigation on the Seismic
Behavior of RC Interior Wide Beam-Column Connections,” Report No.
UMCEE 97-15, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., Sept. 1997.
581
 2. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of Beam-
Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-
91),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, 27 pp.
3. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
4. Gentry, T. R., and Wight, J. K., “Wide Beam-Column Connections
under Earthquake-Type Loading,” EERI Earthquake SPECTRA, V. 10, No. 4,
Nov. 1994, pp. 675-703.
5. LaFave, J., and Wight, J.,“Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Exterior
Wide Beam-Column-Slab Connections Subjected to Lateral Earthquake
Loading,” Report UMCEE 97-01, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., Jan. 1997.
6. Hatamoto, H.; Bessho, S.; and Shibata, T., “Reinforced Concrete Wide-
Beam to Column Subassemblages Subjected to Lateral Loads,” Design of
Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 291-316.
7. Popov, E. P.; Cohen, J. M.; Koso-Thomas, K; and Kasai, K., “Behav-
ior of Interior Narrow and Wide Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 607-616.
8. Park, R., “Ductility Evaluation from Laboratory and Analytical Testing—
State of the Art Report,” Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, V. VIII, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Aug. 1988, pp. 605-616.
9. Paulay, T., “Seismic Behaviour of Beam-Column Joints in Reinforced
Concrete Space Frames—State of the Art Report,” Proceedings of Ninth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. VIII, Tokyo-Kyoto,
Japan, Aug. 1988, pp. 557-568.
10. Abrams, D., “Laboratory Definitions of Behavior for Structural
Components and Building Systems,” Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Structures: Inelastic Response and Design, SP-127, S. Ghosh, ed., Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 91-152.
11. Leon, R., and Deierlein, G., “Considerations for the Use of Quasi-
Static Testing,” EERI Earthquake Spectra, V. 12, No. 1, 1996, pp. 87-109.
12. Qi, X. “The Behavior of a R/C Slab-Beam-Column Subassemblage
under Lateral Load Reversals,” Report No. UCB/SESM CE 299, Department
of Civil Engineering, Universty of California, Berkeley, Calif., Nov. 1986.
582
13. Zerbe, H., and Durrani, A., “Seismic Response of Connections in
Two-Bay R/C Frame Subassemblies,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, V. 115, No. 11, Nov. 1989, pp. 2829-2844.
14. Ichinose, T., “Interaction Between Bond at Beam Bars and Shear
Reinforcement in RC Interior Joints,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 379-399.
15. Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., “Development of Design
Criteria for RC Interior Beam-Column Joints,” Design of Beam-Column
Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 97-123.
16. Otani, S., “The Architectural Institute of Japan Proposal of Ultimate
Strength Design Requirements for RC Buildings with Emphasis on Beam-
Column Joints,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance,
SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 1991, pp. 125-144.
17. Paulay, T., “A Critique of the Special Provisions for Seismic Design
of the Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83),”
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 274-283.
18. Paulay, T., “Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joints,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989,
pp. 635-643.
19. Kitayama, K.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., “Development of Design
Criteria for RC Interior Beam-Column Joints,” Design of Beam-Column
Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123, J. O. Jirsa, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1991, pp. 97-123.
20. Durrani, A., and Zerbe, H., “Seismic Resistance of R/C Exterior
Connections with Floor Slab,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
V. 113, No. 8, Aug. 1987, pp. 1850-1864.
21. Ehsani, M. R., and Wight, J. K., “Effect of Transverse Beams, and
Slab on Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections,”
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1985, pp. 188-195.
22. Bonacci, J., and Pantazopoulou, S., “Parametric Investigation of
Joint Mechanics,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1993,
pp. 61-71.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2001