Ciclic Load Behavior of RCBC of Moder Structures

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 439
Cyclic load behaviour of reinforced

concrete beam-column subassemblages
of modern structures
A. G. Tsonos
Department of Civil Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract
The seismic performance of four one-half scale exterior beam-column
subassemblages is examined. All specimens were typical of new structures and
incorporated full seismic details in current building codes, such as a weak
girder-strong column design philosophy. The subassemblages were subjected to
a large number of inelastic cycles. The tests indicated that current design
procedures could sometimes result in excessive damage to the joint regions. This
cannot be underestimated as it may lead the ductile moment-resisting frames of
modern structures to premature lateral instability.
Keywords: beam-column frames, beams, columns, connections, cyclic loads,
earthquake resistant structures, hinges (structural), reinforced concrete, shear
properties, structural analysis.
1 Introduction
The key to the design of ductile moment-resisting frames is that the beam-to-
column connections and columns must remain essentially elastic throughout the
load history to insure the lateral stability of the structure. If the connections or
columns exhibit stiffness and/or strength deterioration with cycling, collapse due
to Ρ-∆ effects or to the formation of a storey mechanism may be unavoidable
[1,2].
Four one-half scale beam-column subassemblages were designed and
constructed in turn, according to Eurocode 2 [3] and Eurocode 8 [4], according
to ACI 318 (1999) [5] and ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (1985) [6], and according
to the new Greek Earthquake Resistant Code (E.R.C.-1995) [7] and the new
Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures (C.D.C.S.-1995)
[8].
WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
440 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V
The subassemblages were subjected to cyclic lateral load histories so as to

provide the equivalent of severe earthquake damage. The results indicate that
current design procedures could sometimes result in severe damage to the joint,
despite the use of a weak girder-strong column design philosophy.
The measured response histories of these subassemblages and their failure
mode were evaluated with the use of a new formulation, which gives the beam-
column joint ultimate strength.
Figure 1(a): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of specimens A1 and E2

(dimensions in cm).
Figure 1(b): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of specimens E1 and G1

(dimensions in cm).
2 Description of test specimens: material properties – loading

sequence
Four one-half scale exterior beam-column subassemblages were designed and
constructed for this experimental and analytical investigation. The different
reinforcement details of the specimens are shown in figures 1(a), (b). All
specimens incorporated full seismic details. The purpose of specimens A1, E1, E2
and G1 was to represent details of new structures. More specifically, all the
structural members (columns, beam and beam-column joint) of specimen A1
were designed according to the requirements of ACI 318-99 [5] and ACI-ASCE
Committee 352 [6]. All the structural members (columns, beam and beam-
column joint) of specimens E1 and E2 were designed according to the
requirements of Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8(DC"M") [4], and all the structural
members of subassemblage G1 were designed according to the requirements of
the new Greek Earthquake-Resistant Code (E.R.C.-1995) [7] and the new Greek
Code for the design of Reinforced Concrete Structures (C.D.C.S.-1995) [8]. As
is clearly demonstrated in figures 1(a), (b), all the subassemblages have high
flexural strength ratios (MR).
The concrete 28-day compressive strength of both specimens A1 and E2 was
35MPa, while the concrete 28-day compressive strength of both specimens E1
and G1 was 22MPa. All specimens’ steel yield stress, can be summarized as
follows: ∅6 = 540MPa, ∅10 = 510MPa, ∅14 = 495MPa (NOTE: ∅6, ∅10,
∅14 = bar with diameter 6mm, 10mm, 14mm).
Approximately 10 electrical-resistance strain gages were bonded in the
reinforcing bars of each specimen of the program.
All specimens were subjected to a large number of cycles applied by slowly
displacing the beam’s free end, without reaching the actuator stroke limit. The
amplitudes of the peaks in the displacement history were 15mm, 20mm, 25mm,
30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, 50mm, 55mm, 60mm and 65mm. One loading
cycle was performed at each displacement amplitude. An axial load equal to
200KN was applied to the columns of the subassemblages and kept constant
throughout the test.
3 Experimental results
The failure mode of specimens A1 and E2, as expected, involved the formation of
a plastic hinge in the beam near the column juncture. The formation of plastic
hinges caused severe cracking of the concrete near the fixed beam end of each
subassemblage (fig. 2). The behaviour of specimens A1 and E2 was as expected
and as documented in the seismic design philosophy of the modern Codes.
Significant inelastic deformations occurred in the beams’ longitudinal
reinforcement in both specimens A1 and E2 (strains of over 40.000 µε were
obtained in the beams’ longitudinal bars), while the shear mechanisms of their
joints remained elastic. One difference between the failure modes of
subassemblages A1 and E2 was that hairline cracks appeared in the joint region of
E2 and partial loss of the concrete cover in the rear face of the joint of E2 took
place during the three last cycles of loading, but beyond drift angle R ratios of
4.5 (9th, 10th and 11th), while the joint region of subassemblage A1 was intact at
the conclusion of the test (see fig. 2).
The connections of both subassemblages E1 and G1 contrary to our
expectations, exhibited shear failure during the early stages of seismic loading.
Damage occurred both in their joint area and in their columns’ critical regions.
The maximum strain recorded in the longitudinal bars of the beams of both
subassemblages E1 and G1 was below 2.500 µε.
Figure 2: Views of the collapsed subassemblages A1, E1, E2 and G1.
The performance of the four test subassemblages is presented below and

discussed in terms of applied shear versus-drift angle relations. Drift angle R
plotted in the following figures, is defined as the beam tip displacement ∆
divided by the beam half span L, and is expressed as a percentage (see inset in
fig. 3). Plots of applied shear-versus drift angle for all the subassemblages A1,
E1, E2 and G1 are shown in fig. 3. The beams flexural capacities of the
subassemblages are also shown in fig. 3.
A major concern in the seismic design of RC structures is the ability of
members to develop their flexural strength prior to failing in shear, and
especially for members framing at a beam column joint (beams and columns), it
is important to develop their flexural strength prior to joint shear failure.
As can be seen in fig. 3 the beam of subassemblage A1 developed maximum
shears higher than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the
sixth cycle of loading; this is an indication of the flexural response of this beam.
The beam of subassemblage E2 also developed maximum shears higher than
those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the 11th upper half
cycle of loading and until the 7th lower half cycle of loading. This is also an
indication of the flexural response of this beam. In particular, during the final
cycles of loading beyond drift angle R ratios of 4.5 when large displacements
were imposed, the damaged concrete cover could not provide adequate support
for the beam’s longitudinal reinforcement. As a result, buckling of the beam
reinforcement in specimens A1 and E2 occurred after the 6th and 7th cycles of
loading respectively.
The beam of subassemblage E1 developed maximum shears very close to
those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength only during the 2nd and 3rd
cycle of loading. For the remaining cycles (4 - 11) the premature joint shear
failure did not allow the beam in this specimen to develop its flexural capacity
(fig. 3).
The premature joint shear failure of specimen G1 also did not allow the beam
in this specimen to develop its flexural capacity. As can be seen in fig. 3 the
beam of G1 developed maximum shears significantly lower than those
corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength.
Subassemblages A1 and E2, which developed plastic hinges in their beams
(fig. 2), showed stable hysteretic behavior up to drift angle R ratios of 4.0. They
showed a considerable loss of strength, stiffness and unstable hysteretic
behaviour but beyond drift angle R ratios of 4.5 (fig. 3).
Subassemblages E1 and G1, which exhibited premature joint shear failure (see
fig. 2) showed stable hysteretic behaviour up to drift angle R ratios of 2.5 percent
and 2.0 percent respectively. They showed a considerable loss of strength,
stiffness and unstable degrading hysteresis beyond drift angle R ratios of 3.0
percent and 2.0 percent respectively (fig. 3).
Carydis, Mouzakis, Lu and Hao [9, 10] tested three one-half scale two-storey
frames which were designed to conform to EC8 design requirements. They
observed that, although their test frames were designed to satisfy the relevant
EC8 requirements for “strong column/weak beam” systems, however this did not
seem to work exactly as expected and some column hinges eventually occurred
during the tests. The damage in the columns of the test frames was significantly
higher than the damage in the beams. They also observed significant damages in
the joints of these test frames although they were designed in accordance with
EC8.
Figure 3: Hysteresis loops of specimens A1, E1, E2 and G1.
Figure 3: Continued.
4 Theoretical considerations
A formulation was developed at the Aristotle University in Thessaloniki (Tsonos
[11]), which gives the beam-column joint ultimate shear strength. This shear
strength formulation can be used to predict the failure mode of the
subassemblages and thus the actual values of connection shear stress. Therefore,
when the computed joint shear stress is greater or equal to the joint ultimate
capacity γcal ≥ γult, the predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be
near γult, because the connection fails earlier than the beam(s). When the
calculated joint shear stress is lower than the connection ultimate strength γcal <
γult, then the predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near γcal,
because the connection permits its adjacent beam(s) to yield.
The improved retention of strength in the beam-column subassemblages, as
the values of the ratio γcal/γult decrease was also demonstrated. It is worth noting that
for γcal/γult ≤ 0.50 the beam-column joints of the subassemblages performed
excellently during the tests and remained intact at the conclusion of the tests
(Tsonos [11]). The shear capacities of the connections of subassemblages A1, E1,
E2 and G1 were computed using the above methodology.
Table 1 shows that γcal/γult (A1) = 0.47 < 0.50 and γcal/γult (E2) = 0.46 < 0.50.
Thus, the formation of a plastic hinge in the beams near the columns is expected
without any serious damage in the joint regions and, as a result, there will be
satisfactory performance for both the subassemblages A1 and E2. As predicted,
both subassemblages A1 and E2 failed in flexure, exhibiting remarkable seismic
performance (fig. 3). Table 1 also shows that γcal/γult (E1) = 1.08 > 1.0 and γcal/γult
(G1) = 1.04 > 1.0. Thus, in this case, a premature joint shear failure is expected
without any serious damage in the beams and, as a result, the performance of
both the subassemblages will not rate satisfactorily. As predicted, both
subassemblages E1 and G1 demonstrated premature joint shear failure from the
early stages of seismic loading and damage concentration only in this region (fig.
2). Both specimens E1 and G1, as predicted, exhibited poor seismic performance.
Table 1: Experimental and predicted values of the strength of A1, E1, E2
and G1.
joint predicted observed
Specimen aspect γcal γexp γult shear shear τ pred γ cal
ratio strength strength µ= γ ult
τexp
α=hb/hc τpred(Mpa) τexp(Mpa)
A1 1.50 0.685 0.584 1.46 5.05 4.31 1.17 0.47
E1 1.50 1.26 0.98 1.17 6.92 5.80 1.19 1.08
E2 1.50 0.675 0.554 1.46 5.00 4.10 1.20 0.46
G1 1.50 1.20 0.96 1.15 6.60 5.56 1.19 1.04
i. For γcal < γult, γpred = γcal.
ii. For γcal < γult, γpred = γult.
(An overstrength factor a = 1.25 for the beam steel is included in the
computations of joint shear stress τcal = γcal f c′ MPa).
It was demonstrated that a critical parameter, which could determine the

formation of plastic hinges in the beams of the tested units, is the level of the
joint shear stress. Thus, high joint shear stress γcal > γult resulted in premature
joint shear failure and significantly reduce the energy absorption capacity of the
subassemblages, even in the presence of high flexural strength ratios, MR = 2.60.
By contrast low joint shear stress γcal < 0.5γult secure the formation of a plastic
hinge in the beam of the subassemblages and result in a satisfactory performance
for the subassemblages even in the presence of flexural strength ratio close to the
specified limit by the ACI-ASCE recommendations 352 (MR = 1.40).
5 Conclusions
1. The behaviour of subassemblages A1 and E2 was as expected and as
documented in the seismic design philosophy of the modern Codes. The beam-
column joints of both units A1 and E2 performed satisfactorily during the cyclic
loading sequence to failure, allowing the formation of plastic hinges in their
adjacent beams. Both specimens showed high strength without any appreciable
deterioration after reaching their maximum capacity.
2. Despite the fact that specimens E1 and G1 represented beam-column
subassemblages of modern structures, they performed poorly under reversed
cyclic lateral deformations. The joints of both subassemblages E1 and G1,
contrary to expectations, exhibited shear failure during the early stages of
seismic loading. Damage occurred both in their joint area and in their columns’
critical regions. This effect cannot be underestimated as it may lead the ductile
moment-resisting frames of modern structures to premature lateral instability.
3. It was demonstrated that the design assumptions of Eurocode 2 [3] and
Eurocode 8 [4] and those of the two new Greek Codes [7,8] did not help avoid a
premature joint shear failure and did not secure the development of the optimal
failure mechanism with plastic hinges in the beams near their adjacent column
according to the requisite “strong column/weak beam”. Thus, it seems that the
recommendations of EC 2 [3] and EC 8 [4] and those of the two new Greek
Codes [7,8] related to the design of beam-column joints need improvement.
4. The results of this study were shown that the specified limit of flexural
strength ratio by ACI-ASCE recommendations 352 (MR =1.40) is adequate for
the formation of plastic hinges in the beams on the condition that low shear
stress (γcal < 0.5γult) are resisted by the connections of the subassemblages.
References
[1] Leon, R. T., Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior Beam-
Column Joints, ACI Structural Journal, 87(1), pp. 3-11, Jan.-Feb. 1990.
[2] Penelis, G. G. and Kappos, A. J., Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Structures, E. & FN Spon (Chapman & Hall), London, 1997.
[3] CEN Techn. Comm. 250/SC2, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures-Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1992-1-1)
CEN, Berlin, 1991.
[4] CEN Techn. Comm. 250/SC8, Eurocode 8: Earthquake Resistant Design

of Structures-Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1998-1-
1/2/3) CEN, Berlin, 1995.
[5] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-99) and commentary (318R-99), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 391pp, 1999.
[6] ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Recommendations for design of Beam-
Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-
85), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 19pp, 1985.
[7] New Greek Earthquake Resistant Code (C.D.C.S.-1995), Athens, 145pp,
1995 (in Greek).
[8] New Greek Code for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
(E.R.C.-1995), Athens, 167pp, 1995 (in Greek).
[9] Carydis, P. G. and Mouzakis, H., Shaking table testing of two-storied RC
frames designed for different ductility classes and using different types of
reinforcement, Proc. of the Second Hellenic Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, II, Thessaloniki, pp. 313-322, November
2001 (in Greek).
[10] Lu, Y., Hao, H., Carydis, P. G., and Mouzakis, H., Seismic performance
of RC frames designed for three different ductility levels, Engineering
Structures, 23, pp. 537-547, 2001.
[11] Tsonos, A. G., Lateral Load Response of Strengthened Reinforced
Concrete Beam-to-Column Joints, ACI Structural Journal Proceedings,
96(1), pp. 46-56, 1999.

Ciclic Load Behavior of RCBC of Moder Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ciclic Load Behavior of RCBC of Moder Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 439

Cyclic load behaviour of reinforced

The subassemblages were subjected to cyclic lateral load histories so as to

Figure 1(a): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of specimens A1 and E2

Figure 1(b): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of specimens E1 and G1

2 Description of test specimens: material properties – loading

Figure 2: Views of the collapsed subassemblages A1, E1, E2 and G1.

The performance of the four test subassemblages is presented below and

Figure 3: Hysteresis loops of specimens A1, E1, E2 and G1.

It was demonstrated that a critical parameter, which could determine the

[4] CEN Techn. Comm. 250/SC8, Eurocode 8: Earthquake Resistant Design

You might also like