Professional Documents
Culture Documents
lb ksi
psi .in
kip
1000 .psi
1 .. 4 1 .. 5
This example assumes that the piers and superstructure of a two-column pin-supported reinforced-concrete bridge bent have been designed and detailed, such that all geometry and reinforcement details are known.
Wsupe uper rstruct ucture
Hco Hcol
Lco col l
Lbea beam m
Weight
-1-
Moment-Curvature Characteristics of Column under dead-load axial load (from section analysis using OpenSees): First-yield: Nominal strength: (extreme compressive strain c=0.003) y col n col
5 1 6.0124 .10 . in
0.00019755 .
1 in
Ultimate strength: 1 u col 0.00085891 . (extreme compressive strain in c=0.014) T 1 ynu col 0. y col n col u col Mynu col in
2 .104
1.5 .104
Moment (kip*ft)
1 .104
5000
0 0
1 .10
2 .10
3 .10
6 .10
7 .10
8 .10
9 .10
-2-
Calculate joint-boundary forces based on equilibrium at maximum moment strength of framing column
In the portal frame, the compression column on the right will reach its nominal strength first:
Hcol ML VL
PL Mp1 P1 V1 Hbeam
======>
H col
M L VL PL C1 V1 jd H beam T1
To calculate joint shear, all you really need is the tension component of the moment couple at the joint interface (hence only the column plastic moment): Mp 1 = 18010 kip .ft
Mp 1 jd col T 1
Vj T1
Tension Force:
-3-
Compression Column
Joint shear force demand: vertical Joint cross-sectional area: Joint shear stress demand:
Categorize joint
V joint A joint v jI
V joint A joint
v jI = 0.128 f c v jI = 9.5
f c .psi
Weak joint -- Joints designed prior to the 1970s. Typically, these joints have minimal amounts, if any, of transverse reinforcement in the joint. Moderate joint Joints designed between 1970 and 1990. These joints have a nominal amount of transverse reinforcement, enough to sustain concrete cracking without significant strength loss. Intermediate joint Joints that have a nominal amount of transverse reinforcement, enough to sustain concrete cracking, but not enough to sustain yielding of the framing members. Bar yielding may be precluded by the lack of standard hooks, or by insufficient anchorage length for column bars passing through the joint. Strong joint -- Joints designed after 1990, containing significant amounts of horizontal and vertical reinforcement in the joint to enable proper confinement of the joint core and provide the necessary mechanisms for force transfer.
Nom Nomi in a l Shear Strength Strength vn Weak
Joint
vn =5 fc
C a lc u la te fa c to re d n o m in a l jo in t s h e a r s tr e n g th , v n ( = 0 .8 5 )
Joint shear strength: Weak & Moderate joint: vn weak vn mod vn int 5 . f c .psi
strength-reduction factor:
p c 0.25. f c
p t 12. f c. psi
-4-
pt v jv
v jv
pc fv Pc A jh A jh
v jv
Tc A jv
A jv l ac .B cap
Pb B cap .D s
Where: Ajh = The effective horizontal joint area Ajv = The effective vertical joint area Bcap = Bent cap width Dc = Cross-sectional dimension of column in the direction of bending Ds = Depth of superstructre at the bent cap lac = Length of column reinforcement embedded into the bent cap Pc = The column axial force including the effects of overturning Pb = The beam axial force at the center of the joint including prestressing Tc = The column tensile force defined as Mocol/h, where h is the distance from c.g. of tensile force to c.g. of compressive force on the section, or alternatively Tc may be obtained from moment-curvature analysis of the cross section.
Converting the principal-stress limits to joint shear-stress limits (since the SDC do not use the strength reduction factor, to maintain consistency, v n = SDC-limit value / ). max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal tensile stress limits max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal compressive stress limits Applying to the frame: B cap l ac Pc Pb A jh Dc B beam 0.90 .H beam Weight 2 0 .kip D s .B cap Assume no beam axial force in the bent A jv Pt max l ac .B cap 12 . f c .psi Pc max fv 0.25 .f c Pc A jh fh Pb B cap .D s Dc H col Ds H beam v jT 1. 2 1. 2 fh
2
2 .f h .f v 2 .f h .f v
fv
fh 2 .p c
fv
2 .p t
.1 .1
v jC
fh
fv
fh
fv
Assume column longitudinal reinforcement is embedded across the entire beam depth (minus cover) Overturning effects cannot be estimated at this time.
SDC limits:
-5-
max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal tensile stress limits max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal compressive stress limits
v jmaxT
1. 2 1. 2
fh
2 .f h .f v 2 .f h .f v
fv
fh
fv
2 .Pt max
.1 .1
v jmaxC
fh
fv
2 .Pc max
fh
fv
f c .psi
f c .psi f c .psi
0.5 ( v n ) # v j # v n
Beam-column joint can be modeled as elastic member. Yielding of beam column joints will occur without measurable strength loss.
0.5 . .vn weak = 2.125 0.5 . .vn mod = 2.125 0.5 . .vn int = 3.188
0.5 . .vn strongI = 5.615 Weak joint: Moderate joint: Intermediate joint: Strong joint:
strength and stiffness degradation can be expected strength and stiffness degradation can be expected strength and stiffness degradation can be expected Beam-column joint can be modeled as elastic member. Yielding of beam-column joint may occur without measurable strength loss.
C o n s tr u c t jo in t m o d e l ( s e e J o in t M o d e l f lo w c h a r t)
-6-
ALTERNATIVELY, the joint-boundary forces, and joint shear stress, can be obtained from a nonlinear pushover analysis of the frame to the prescribed limit state. Here, the limit state is defined by crushing of the concrete in the critical column section. A nonlinear pushover analysis was performed on a model of the bridge frame where nonlinear inelastic elements were used to represent the columns and an elastic element was used to represent the beam. The left and right columns of the bridge bent are referred to Tension Column and Compression Column, respectively, due to the effects of overturning. Both columns, however, are likely to be in compression, as the gravity axial loads exceed the overturning axial loads. The joint-boundary forces were obtained from this analysis at the column limit state:
V beam
V beam
V col R
M col R
Pco Pc o lL Pco Pc o l R
Tens Te nsi i on Co C o lu m n
Pcol L Vcol L Mbeam L Mcol L 514 .kip 446.3 .kip
4 2.6278 .10 .kip .ft 4 1.6066 .10 .kip .ft
Com Co m p r e s s i o n Col Co l u m n
Pbeam Vbeam 46.6 .kip 985.7 .kip Pcol R Vcol R Mbeam R Mcol R 2485.7 .kip 539.5 .kip
4 1.1991 .10 .kip .ft 4 1.9421 .10 .kip .ft
The column end moments can be compared to the ultimate moment of the column under dead-load axial force. The overturning tension and compression forces place the column-end moments above the DL ultimate moment for the case of the compression column and below the DL ultimate moment for the case of the tension column. Column Moment-Curvature 4 2 .10
1 .10
5000
0 0
1 .10
2 .10
3 .10
6 .10
7 .10
8 .10
9 .10
-7-
In converting the column moment into a couple we realize that the only item of interest is actually T 1 , the tension component of the couple
VR MR
Vj
PR
====>
jd col T1
T1
T1
Joint shear stress: V joint v jII A joint v jII = 8.5 v jI = 9.5 f c .psi f c .psi
V joint = 3531 kip from a section analysis we had: the section-analysis case is more conservative.
v jII = 1.99 .vn weak v jII = 1.99 .vn mod v jII = 1.33 .vn int
-8-
In this case, we can incorporate the actual value for the column and beam axial forces in determining the strength of the strong joint, based on the principal-stress ratios: Converting the principal-stress limits to joint shear-stress limits: max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal tensile stress limits max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal compressive stress limits Applying to the frame: B cap l ac Pc P b
A jh Dc B beam 0.90 .H beam Pcol L Pbeam D s .B cap Dc H col Ds H beam v jT 1. 2 1. 2 fh
2
2 .f h .f v 2 .f h .f v
fv
fh 2 .p c
fv
2 .p t
.1 .1
v jC
fh
fv
fh
fv
Assume column longitudinal reinforcement is embedded across the entire beam depth (minus cover) Overturning effects cannot be estimated at this time.
Assume no beam axial force in the bent A jv Pt max l ac .B cap 12 . f c .psi Pc max fv 0.25 .f c Pc A jh fh Pb B cap .D s
SDC limits:
max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal tensile stress limits
v jmaxT
1. 2 1. 2
fh
2 .f h .f v 2 .f h .f v
fv
fh
fv
2 .Pt max
.1 .1
max. allowable vertical shear stress v jmaxC based on principal compressive stress limits
fh
fv
2 .Pc max
fh
fv
f c .psi
v jmaxC = 21.461
f c .psi f c .psi
Therefore:
-9-
V 1 = 539.5 kip
In converting the column moment into a couple we realize that the only item of interest is actually T 1 , the tension component of the couple
H co col l
M L V L
PL C1 V1 jd H b ea eam T1
Vj T1
jd col T1
Joint shear stress: V joint v jIII A joint v jIII = 10.2 v jI = 9.5 f c .psi <<<<<
A joint = 39 ft
f c .psi
The simple analysis yielded a lower joint shear stress than the nonlinear pushover analysis, as expected. The error, however, is within reasonable bounds (5%). It is, however, recommended that the nonlinear pushover analysis be used in determining joint-boundary forces. v jIII = 2.41 .vn weak Comparing the joint shear-stress demand to the factored strengths: v jIII = 2.41 .vn mod v jIII = 1.61 .vn int
- 10 -
In this case, we can incorporate the actual value for the column and beam axial forces in determining the strength of the strong joint, based on the principal-stress ratios: Converting the principal-stress limits to joint shear-stress limits: max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal tensile stress limits max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal compressive stress limits Applying to the frame: B cap l ac Pc P b
A jh Dc B beam 0.90 .H beam Pcol R Pbeam D s .B cap Dc H col Ds H beam v jT 1. 2 1. 2 fh
2
2 .f h .f v 2 .f h .f v
fv
fh 2 .p c
fv
2 .p t
.1 .1
v jC
fh
fv
fh
fv
Assume column longitudinal reinforcement is embedded across the entire beam depth (minus cover) Overturning effects cannot be estimated at this time.
Assume no beam axial force in the bent A jv Pt max l ac .B cap 12 . f c .psi Pc max fv 0.25 .f c Pc A jh fh Pb B cap .D s
SDC limits:
max. allowable vertical shear stress based on principal tensile stress limits
v jmaxT
1. 2 1. 2
fh
2 .f h .f v 2 .f h .f v
fv
fh
fv
2 .Pt max
.1 .1
max. allowable vertical shear stress v jmaxC based on principal compressive stress limits
fh
fv
2 .Pc max
fh
fv
f c .psi
v jmaxC = 20.262
f c .psi f c .psi
2 .f h .f v 2 .f h .f v
fv fv
fh
fv
2 .Pt max fh fv
.
2
2 .Pc max
- 11 -
The results from the nonlinear analysis can be used, yielding the same conclusions as the section analysis:
v j < 0.5 ( v n )
0.5 ( v n ) # v j # v n
Beam -colum n joint can be m odeled as elastic m em ber. Yielding of beam colum n joints will occur without m easurable strength loss.
0.5 . .vn weak = 2.125 0.5 . .vn mod = 2.125 0.5 . .vn int = 3.188
strength and stiffness degradation can be expected strength and stiffness degradation can be expected Yielding of beam-column joint will occur without strength loss.
R ig id 100Kj
S D C f c (B j H j T j ) 7.5 f c (B j H j T j )
K j/1 0
In te rm e d ia te
5 f c
(B j H j T j )
co l E s( B jH jT j) W e ak
M o d e ra te
3.5 f c (B j H j T j )
- 12 -
Joint geometry:
Bj
H col
Hj Kj
H beam G c . B j .H j .T j
Tj
B beam
7
Elastic stiffness of joint spring: Weak Joint Model: Cracking strength: Initial stiffness: Rotation at cracking: Post-cracking stiffness: Yield strength: Rotation at yield: Ultimate strength: Rotation at ultimate: Post-yield stiffness:
K j = 8.573 .10
Mcr w K1 w cr w K2 w My w y w Mu w u w K3 w j w
rad
rad
K2 w
vectorize:
0 .rad cr w y w u w
Moderate Joint Model: (this joint model has the same pre-yield characteristics as the weak model. There is, however, a nominal amount of reinforcement in the joint to prevent immediate strength loss) In this example, the joint is actually able to sustain the strength. Cracking strength: Initial stiffness: Rotation at cracking: Post-cracking stiffness: Yield strength: Rotation at yield: Ultimate strength: Rotation at ultimate: Post-yield stiffness: u m 0.01 K3 m Mu m u m My m y m K3 m = 2.185 .10
11
Mcr m K1 m cr m K2 m My m y m Mu m
rad
rad
Kj
- 13 -
vectorize:
j m
0 .rad cr m y m u m
Mj m
0.
T Mcr m My m Mu m
Intermediate Joint Model: Cracking strength: Initial stiffness: Rotation at cracking: Mcr i K1 i cr i K2 i My i y i 5 . f c .psi . B j .H j .T j Kj Mcr i K1 i K1 i 10 7.5 . f c .psi . B j .H j .T j cr i My i Mcr i Mcr i = 18048 kip .ft K1 i = 8.573 .10
7
rad
rad
K2 i
The ultimate strength of the intermediate joint needs to be determined by the designer. The case considered in this example is an intermediate joint with suffient confinement to sustain deformations beyond yield without strength loss: Ultimate strength: Rotation at ultimate: Post-yield stiffness: Mu i u i K3 i 0 .rad cr i y i u i SDC = 10.7 Mcr s K1 s cr s K2 s My s y s 7.5 . f c .psi . B j .H j .T j Kj Mcr s K1 s K1 s 10 SDC . f c .psi . B j .H j .T j cr s My s Mcr s Mcr s = 27072 kip .ft K1 s = 8.573 .10
7
Kj
vectorize:
j i
Rotation at cracking:
rad
rad
K2 s
- 14 -
s The ultimate strength of the strong joint needs to be determined by the designer. The case considered in this example is an intermediate joint with suffient confinement to sustain deformations well beyond yield with significant strength gain: Ultimate strength: Rotation at ultimate: Post-yield stiffness: Mu s u s K3 s 0 .rad cr s y s u s 1.25 .My s 0.1 Mu s u s T My s y s Mj s 0. kip .ft rad K3 s = 1.141 .10 Mcr s My s Mu s Mcr e = 27072 kip .ft K1 e = 8.573 .10
7 3
Kj
vectorize:
j s
Elastic Joint Model: Cracking strength: Initial stiffness: Rotation at cracking: Post-cracking stiffness: Yield strength:
Rotation at yield:
Ultimate strength: Post-yield stiffness: Rotation at ultimate: Mcr e K1 e cr e K2 e My e y e Mu e K3 e u e 0 .rad cr e y e u e 7.5 . f c .psi . B j .H j .T j Kj Mcr e K1 e K1 e 15 . f c .psi . B j .H j .T j cr e My e Mcr e
cr e = 3.158 .10 K2 e = 1 K j
rad
rad
1.25 .My e K1 e Mu e K3 e T
K2 e
j e
Mj e
0.
T Mcr e My e Mu e
Cracking strength:
Initial stiffness:
Rotation at cracking: Post-cracking stiffness: Yield strength: Rotation at yield:
Mcr r K1 r cr r K2 r My r y r
rad
rad
K2 r
- 15 -
r Ultimate strength: Post-yield stiffness: Rotation at ultimate: Mu r K3 r u r j r 1.25 .My r K1 r Mu r K3 r T Mj r 0. kip .ft rad T Mcr r My r Mu r Mu r = 67680 kip .ft K3 r = 100 K j
0 .rad cr r y r u r
Moderate Joint Model: T j m = ( 0 0.00015 0.00037 0.01 ) rad T Mj m = ( 0 12634 18048 18048 ) kip .ft Strong Joint Model: T 4 j s = 0 3.158 .10 1.645 .10
T j w = ( 0 0.00015 0.00037 0.01 ) rad T Mj w = ( 0 12634 18048 0 ) kip .ft Intermediate Joint Model: T j i = ( 0 0.00021 0.00126 0.1 ) rad T Mj i = ( 0 18048 27072 27099 ) kip .ft Elastic Joint Model: T j e = ( 0 0.00032 0.00063 0.00079 ) rad T Mj e = ( 0 27072 54144 67680 ) kip .ft
7 .104
0.1 rad
T
Mj s = ( 0 27072 38467 48083 ) kip .ft Rigid Joint Model: T j r = 0 3.158 .10
6
6.316 .10
7.895 .10
rad
6 .10
5 .104
Moment (kip*ft)
4 .104
3 .10
2 .10
1 .104
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.01
0.012
0.014
- 16 -
Curvature (1/in)
sn] s y]
[( M u , u ),
su]
[( M y , y ),
C urvature,
The first part of this task was performed in the design process: 0 ynu col = 6.012 .10 1.975 .10 8.589 .10
5
0 1
4 4
in
Mynu col =
kip .ft
The steel strains at the moment-curvature points need to be extracted from the moment-curvature analysis. They can, however, be determined from the data: steel strain at section yield strength s y H core c n s n c u s u fy Es 0.9 .H col 0.003 n col .H core 0.004 c n s n = 0.011 c u = 0.034 s u = 0.026
(u, 3fy) (1u, 1fy) (p2, fp2) (2u, 2fy)
assume the column core diameter is 90% of the column diameter: The nominal strength of the column is defined by the concrete strain: Assuming a linear curvature distribution, steel strain at nominal section flexural strength: The ultimate strength of the column is defined by the concrete strain: Assuming a linear curvature distribution, steel strain at ultimate section flexural strength:
u 1.4 . col .f y . fc c u
u col .H core
fu fp
Stress
fy
2 = 1 +
y p
3 1 ( 1 ) 1 1 2
u
Strain
- 17 -
The following values are recommended for nominal material properties, based on an approximation
of the SBD steel model:
1 3 1 2 y 2 1.32 1.4 0.5 0.75 f y E s
1 3 1 1
. 2 1 1 = ratio of secondary steel plastic stress (an intermediate point between ultimate and p ) T Fs 0 .psi f y f p f p2 f u T f p2 2 .f y = ratio of steel plastic stress (initiation of strain hardening) to yield stress f p (1 = fp /fy) = ratio of steel ultimate stress to yield stress ( 2 = fu /fy) = ratio of steel plastic strain to ultimate strain ( 1 = p /u ) = ratio of secondary steel plastic strain (an intermediate point between ultimate and p ) to ultimate strain ( 2 = p 2/u ) = steel yield strain fu p p2 1 .f y 3 .f y 1 . u 2 . u
p = 0.05
2 = 1.36
0 y p p2 u
100
Stress (ksi)
50
0.02
0.04 Strain
0.06
0.08
0.1
eak Str trong ong Inter Intermediate diate Weak bar stress stress model: bond mo model : bond mo mode del: l: bond model:
fc fc
ue=12 up=6
fc fc
u ew u pw
u es u ps
30 . f c .psi 30 . f c .psi
- 18 -
y, y
1. d b . 4 Hc
fy y. ue 1. d b . y 4 Hc 1. d b . 4 Hc y y 1. u . 1 1. u . 1 1 fy 1 . up 1 u. 1 u. 1 2 . 2 1 1 f . y up
1. u , p y 2. u , p 1 y u, u y
1. d b . 4 Hc
1. u . 1
1 . 3
f . y up
- 19 -
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Rotation,
su
(2u, p1) (1u, p)
(u, u)
Interpolate moment-curvature steel strains (sy, sn, su) in steel-strain vs. rotation relationship to obtain (sy, sn, su)
(y, y)
Strain,
Weak bond model: Hinge rotation at My: Hinge rotation at Mn: Hinge rotation at Mu: Intermediate bond model: Hinge rotation at My: Hinge rotation at Mn: Hinge rotation at Mu: Strong bond model: Hinge rotation at My: Hinge rotation at Mn: Hinge rotation at Mu: Critical Moments: Mh yi ni ui ys ns linterp s , i , s y linterp s , i , s n linterp s , i , s u linterp s , s , s y linterp s , s , s n h s h i yw nw uw linterp s , w , s y linterp s , w , s n linterp s , w , s u h w
su
0 yw nw uw
0 yi ni ui
0 ys ns us
- 20 -
Moment, M
(Mu, su )
Plot Moment-Rotation relationship for hinge spring element (sy ,My) (sn ,Mn) (su ,Mu)
Rotation,
Weak bond model: 0 h w = 0.00097 0.00346 0.00787
2 .10 4
Critical Moments: 0
rad
h i =
rad
h s =
rad
Mh =
kip .ft
1.5 .10
1 .10
5000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
- 21 -
Proceed to calculating structural displacement capacities and demands using the recommended joint and hinge models.
Select joint and hinge cathegory and model.
Incorporate rotational springs at the joint nodes and column ends.
jo in t fle x ib ility b e a m e le m e n t
column element
h in g e fle x ib ility
b o u n d a ry c o n d itio n s
Static-Capacity calculations: Perform nonlinear static pushover analysis to determine drift capacity. Dynamic-Demand calculations: 1. perform nonlinear dynamic analyses with design-level ground motions to determine drift demands. or 2. Calculate effective elastic stiffness of bridge bent which accounts for hinge and joint flexibilities. Use elastic design spectra to determine drift demands.
- 22 -
column element
SUMMARY
Geometry: Column length: Column diameter: Column long. steel ratio: Column long. steel diameter: Superstructure Weight: L col = 36 ft H col = 6.5 ft col = 1.75 % d b = 1.693 in
Weight = 3000 kip
Beam length: Beam depth: Beam width: L beam
= 36 ft H beam
= 8 ft
B beam
= 6.5 ft
Joint Analysis III determine joint-boundary forces from Pushover analysis (compression column).
This is the most accurate analysis
Joint shear stress demand: Factored nominal joint shear strength: Weak joint: Moderate joint: .vn weak = 4.25 .vn mod = 4.25 f c .psi f c .psi Intermediate joint: Strong joint: .vn int = 6.375 f c .psi f c .psi v jIII = 0.138 f c v jIII = 10.2 f c .psi
v j < 0 .5 ( v n )
0 .5 ( v n ) # v j # v n
vj $ vn S tr e n g th a n d s t if f n e s s
d e g r a d a t io n c a n
b e e x p e c te d
B e a m - c o lu m n jo in t c a n b e a s s u m e d r ig id
B e a m - c o lu m n jo in t c a n b e m o d e le d a s e la s t ic m e m b e r . Y ie ld in g o f b e a m c o lu m n jo in t s w ill o c c u r w it h o u t m e a s u r a b l e
s tr e n g th lo s s .
v jIII = 4.823 0.5 . .vn weak v jIII = 4.823 0.5 . .vn mod v jIII = 3.215 0.5 . .vn int v jIII = 1.923 0.5 . .vn strongIII Weak & moderate joint: Intermediate joint: Strong joint: v j > .v n v j > .v n 0.5 . .v n < v j < .v n v jIII = 0.962 .vn strongIII
v jIII = 2.411 .vn weak v jIII = 2.411 .vn mod v jIII = 1.608 .vn int
strength and stiffness degradation can be expected strength and stiffness degradation can be expected Yielding of beam-column joint will occur without strength loss.
- 23 -
Weak Joint Model: T j w = ( 0 0.00015 0.00037 0.01 ) rad T Mj w = ( 0 12634 18048 0 ) kip .ft Intermediate Joint Model: T j i = ( 0 0.00021 0.00126 0.1 ) rad T Mj i = ( 0 18048 27072 27099 ) kip .ft Elastic Joint Model: T j e = ( 0 0.00032 0.00063 0.00079 ) rad T Mj e = ( 0 27072 54144 67680 ) kip .ft
7 .104
Moderate Joint Model: T j m = ( 0 0.00015 0.00037 0.01 ) rad T Mj m = ( 0 12634 18048 18048 ) kip .ft Strong Joint Model: T 4 j s = 0 3.158 .10 1.645 .10
0.1 rad
T Mj s = ( 0 27072 38467 48083 ) kip .ft Rigid Joint Model: T j r = 0 3.158 .10
6
6.316 .10
7.895 .10
rad
6 .10
5 .104
Moment (kip*ft)
4 .104
3 .10
2 .10
1 .104
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.01
0.012
0.014
Weak Joint
Moderate Joint
Intermediate Joint
Strong Joint
Elastic Joint
Rigid Joint (not visible in this scale)
- 24 -
HINGE MODEL
Moment-Curvature Data (yield, nominal & ultimate points): T ynu col = 0 6.012 .10
5
1.975 .10
8.589 .10
1 in
ue=12 fc up=6 fc
Moment-Rotation Charactristics of Hinge Model: Weak bond model: 0 h w = 0.00097 0.00346 0.00787
2 .10 4
Critical Moments: 0
rad
h i =
rad
h s =
rad
Mh =
kip .ft
1.5 .10
1 .10
5000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
- 25 -
- 26 -