Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Department of Civil Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi 626005, Tamil Nadu, India
KEYWORDS Abstract In reinforced concrete structures, it is essential to enhance the performance of beam
Reinforced concrete struc- column joints in moderate and severe seismic susceptibility areas. An attempt has been made to
ture; study and evaluate the performance of exterior beamcolumn joint using proper reinforcement
Exterior beamcolumn joint; anchorage and joint core detail. The anchorages are detailed as per ACI-352 (Mechanical anchor-
Seismic; age), ACI-318 (90 Standard bent anchorages) and IS-456 (Full anchorage) along with connement
Mechanical anchorage; as per IS-13920. Signicant improvements were observed in seismic performance, ductility and
Hair clip bar; strength while using proposed hair-clip bar plus X-cross bar in combination with mechanical
Reversal loading
anchorage detail for higher seismic prone areas, apart from resolution to reducing congestion of
reinforcement in joint core. To assess the performances of anchorages and joint details, two groups
of three specimens each were tested under reversal loading. The test results are evaluated and
presented in this paper.
2013 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
Notations
Ac area of column core measured from outside edge Ldt development length for a headed bar, measured
to outside edge of spiral or hoop reinforcement from the critical section to the outside end of the
Ag gross area of column cross section head
Ash area of the bar cross section (IS-Code) Mu,lim limiting moment of resistance of the section with-
Ash total cross-sectional area of all legs of hoop rein- out compression reinforcement
forcement, including crossties, crossing a section Mpr beam support moment
having core dimension b00c Mu ultimate beam moments
Ak area of conned concrete core in the rectangular Sh center-to-center spacing of hoops or hoops plus
hoop measured to its outside dimensions crossties
As area of tension reinforcement S pitch of spiral or spacing of hoop, (the spacing of
b width of the compression face hoops used as special conning reinforcement shall
b00c core dimension of tied column, outside to outside not exceed of minimum member dimension but
edge of transverse reinforcement bars, perpendicu- need not be less than 75 mm nor more than
lar to the transverse reinforcement area Ash being 100 mm)
designed Tb tension force in the reinforcement
bj effective width of the joint transverse to the direc- Vn nominal shear strength of the joint
tion of shear Vcol shear in the column calculated based on Mpr for
d effective depth beam.
db nominal diameter of bar xu depth of the neutral axis (xu,max limiting value of
f c0 compressive strength of concrete xu is IS-456, 38.1)
fck characteristic compressive strength of concrete rS stress in bar (0.87 * fy) at the section considered at
fy yield stress of reinforcement design load
fyh yield stress of spiral, hoop, and crosstie reinforce- sbd design bond stress of concrete (can be increased by
ment 60% for deformed bars)
h longer dimension of the rectangular conning a stress multiplier for longitudinal reinforcement at
hoop measured to its outer joint-member interface for Type-2, a P 1.25
hc depth of the column c shear strength factor reecting connement of
hst height of the column joint by lateral member
Ld development length nominal diameter of the bar
Ldh development length for a hooked bar, measured
from the critical section to the outside edge of
the hook extension
eld rather than to provide connement to compressed con- of ACI design methods to cover the use of mechanical anchor-
crete in joint core. Tsonos et al. (1993) suggested that the use age for beamcolumn joints. They also reported that cyclic
of crossed inclined bars in the joint region was one of the most behavior of exterior beamcolumn joints can be signicantly
effective ways to improve the seismic resistance of exterior improved by attaching double mechanical device on each beam
beamcolumn joints. Wallance et al. (1998) suggested that the bar within the joint. Bindhu et al. (2008) in their experimental
use of headed reinforcement had eased specimen fabrication, investigations validated with analytical studies and concluded
concrete placement and improved the behavior equal to that that additional cross bracing reinforcement improves the seis-
of specimens with standard 90 hooks for beamcolumn corner mic performance of the exterior reinforced concrete beamcol-
joint. Murty et al. (2003) reported that the standard hooks for umn joints. Sagbas et al. (2011) in their FEA Computational
anchorage of the longitudinal beam bar with hair clip-type analysis compared the experimental test results of seismically
transverse joint reinforcement as per ACI were more effective and non-seismically designed joint detailing for the shear defor-
and such combination of anchorage with joint reinforcement mations. Asha and Sundararajan (2012) reported that the use
is easy to construct and can be used in locations demanding of square spiral connement in joint along with different rein-
moderate ductility. Chutarat and Aboutaha (2003) reported forcement detailing for anchorage of beam bars and additional
that the use of straight-headed bars in the exterior beamcol- inclined bars from column to beam connection can successfully
umn joints for cyclic response is very effective in relocating po- move the plastic hinge away from the column face.
tential plastic regions. Uma et al. (2006) in their review of codes It is noted that the anchorage requirements for the beam
of practices considered ACI318, NZS 3101: Part-1 and Euro- longitudinal reinforcement bar and the joint connement are
code-8 EN1998-1 regarding the design and detailing aspects the main issues related to problems of congestion of reinforce-
of interior and exterior beamcolumn joint. The use of headed ment in the beamcolumn connections. An attempt has been
bars has become increasingly popular for relatively large rein- made to evaluate the performance of the exterior beam
forced concrete (RC) structures that are exposed to extreme column joint by replacing the 90 standard bent bar anchor-
loads such as strong earthquakes or blasts, often providing ages by T-type mechanical anchorage and additional hair-clip
an adequate solution to steel congestion (Chun et al., 2007; bar (U-bar) with X-cross bar in the exterior beamcolumn
Kang et al., 2009, 2010). Lee and Yu (2009) proposed extension joint core for the moderate and severe seismic prone zones.
144 S. Rajagopal, S. Prabavathy
The seismic zones are followed as per IS-1893 (2002) and IS- Experimental research program
13920 (1993). It is found that these combinations were effective
in reducing the congestion of reinforcement in joint core and The testing of half-scale exterior beamcolumn joint specimen
eased pouring of concrete without compromising the ductility was carried out at MEPCO Engineering College, Sivakasi,
and stiffness of beamcolumn joints under reversal loading. India. The Joint assemblage was subjected to reversal loading
using Hydraulic jack of 25 Ton capacity. The specimen column
Research signicance is kept in horizontal direction and beam is kept vertical as
illustrated in Fig. 1. Both ends of the RCC columns are
The experimental study has been carried out for different types restrained in vertical (Fy) and in both horizontal (Fx, Fz)
of anchorages and joint details in the exterior beamcolumn directions by using strong built up steel boxes which in turn
joint. The T-type headed bar anchorage in combination with are connected to the reaction oor using holding down anchor
additional hair clip (U-bars) with X-cross bar as joint detail bolts. To facilitate the application of reversal load (Left Hand
is having a signicant improvement in the moment capacity. SideLHS and Right Hand SideRHS) on either side of the
These types of beamcolumn joint core details improve the RCC beam, hydraulic jacks are used which are connected to
ductility and stiffness behavior without compromising the the strong steel frame using mechanical fasteners and the
strength. In addition, it also reduces the congestion of RCC beam was loaded as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The Linear
reinforcement in the joint core with placement of concrete Variable Differential Transducer (LVDT) was connected on
and fabrication easier at site. either side of the specimen to monitor the displacements.
Fig. 3 shows loading cycle of the test assemblage. To record
Experimental details the loads accurately, the testing was load controlled with load
increments of 10 kN. The specimen was tested to reach its
Testing program maximum failure load.
The test involves six numbers of specimens simulating the exte- Details of test specimens
rior beamcolumn joint for the experimental program. The
specimens have been divided into two groups of three specimens All the six numbers of test specimens of beam and column
each, with different anchorages. These anchorage details are are of identical size. The beam sizes are 200 300 mm (width
designated as A, B and C and joint details are designated as 1 by depth) and the column cross-section is 300 200 mm as
and 2. Anchorage detail-A is T-type headed bar followed as shown in Fig. 4. The length of the beam is 1200 mm from
per ACI-352 (2002), anchorage detail-B is standard conven- the column face and the height of the column is 1500 mm.
tional 90 bent hook followed as per ACI-318M (2011) and The various types of anchorages used are shown in Figs. 5
anchorage detail-C is full anchorage followed as per IS-456 7 and the joint details used are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. In
(2000). Joint detail-1 has the proposed additional hair-clip (U- Group-I, the anchorages A, B and C are combined with joint
bar) with X-type cross bar reinforcement and joint detail-2 has detail-1 and these specimens are named as A1, B1 and C1. In
standard conventional shear ties arrangement in the joint core. Group-II, the anchorages A, B and C are combined with
Sh b00c f0c Ag Sh b00c f00c
Ash 0:3 1 P 0:09 1
fyh Ac fyh
The center to center spacing between layers of transverse
reinforcement Sh should not exceed the least of 1/4 of the min-
imum column dimension, six times the diameter of the longitu-
Figure 6 Specimen Type-B. dinal column bars to be restrained, and 6 in (150 mm.).
As per IS-13920 (1993), the area of cross section, Ash of the
db or 6 in. (150 mm) for Type-1 and Type-2 connections. As bar forming rectangular hoop shall be used as special conning
per IS-456 (2000), the development length (Ld) of the hooked reinforcement which shall not be less than (241.30 mm2 <
reinforcement bar should be computed as shown in Table 1. 301.6 mm2 provided).
fck Ag
Transverse reinforcement within the joint core Ash 0:18Sh 1:0 2
fy A k
Table 1 Provided and required development lengths for beam bars used for joint subassemblies.
Code details Equations Required development Provided development Beam bars anchorage type Specimen types
length (mm) length (mm) with groups
ACI-352 Ldt 34 Ldh 200.63 250.00 T-type mechanical anchorage A1-I & A2-II
afy db
ACI-318 Ldh p 0 267.50 272.00 90-degree standard bent anchorages B1-I & B2-II
6:2 fc
/rs
IS-456 Ld 4sbd
644.73 710.00 90-degree standard bent full anchorage C1-I & C2-II
on a horizontal plane at the mid height of the joint by consid- The moment of resistance of rectangular beam section is
ering the shear force on the boundaries of the free body of the calculated by the following expression as per IS-456 (2000)
joint as well as the normal tension and compression forces in annex-G.
the members into the joint, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11. xu;max h xu;max i 2
The ACI-352 (2002) requirements for the nominal shear Mu;lim 0:36 1 0:42 bd fck 6
d d
strength of the joint should be satised as per the below
equations.
p Lateral load versus lateral displacement
/Vn /0:083c f0c bj hc P Vu 3
The horizontal joint shear force demand Vu is calculated based The hysteresis loops obtained from the experimental test re-
on the amount of beam, slab and other reinforcements within sults of lateral load versus displacement are shown in Figs. 12
the beam area as 14 and the corresponding peak load versus displacement are
shown in Fig. 15. It is observed that in Group-I, the average
Vu Tb Vcol afy As Vcol 4 ultimate load carrying capacity of the specimens A1, B1 and
Shear in column calculated based on Mpr for beams C1 are 89.50, 90.00 and 89.00 kN with the corresponding lat-
eral displacement as 47.50, 47.50 and 44.30 mm respectively.
Mpr
Vcol 5 Among these, B1 exhibits the maximum load carrying capacity
hst which is marginally higher than A1 by 0.5% and C1 by 1.1%.
From Table 2 it is exhibited that the amount of horizontal The hysteresis loops (of Group-II) obtained from the exper-
joint shear of the Group-I specimens A1, B1 and C1 is higher imental test results of lateral load versus displacement are
than Group-II specimens A2, B2 and C2 by 25%. From the shown in Fig. 1618, and the corresponding peak load versus
above test results, it can be inferred that the proposed displacement are shown in Fig. 19. It is observed that in
additional hair clip bar with joint details signicantly increases Group-II, the average ultimate load carrying capacity of the
the horizontal shear capacity in addition to the increasing mo- specimens A2, B2 and C2 is 80.50, 79.00 and 79.50 kN with
ment carrying capacity of the beams. the corresponding lateral displacement as 45.37, 35.55 and
148 S. Rajagopal, S. Prabavathy
Table 3 Observed displacement, ultimate load, ductility and stiffness of test specimens.
Specimen Yielding Ultimate load in kN (Pu) Average Ultimate displacement in mm (du) Average Average Average
name and displacement ultimate displacement displacement stiness in
Left Right Left Right
groups in mm (dy) load for ultimate ductility factor kN/mm
Side Side Side Side
in kN load l = (du/dy) K = (Pu/dy)
(Pu) in mm (du)
A1-I 2.15 89.00 90.00 89.50 42.00 53.00 47.500 22.093 41.628
B1-I 2.40 89.00 91.00 90.00 45.00 50.00 47.500 19.792 37.500
C1-I 2.20 88.00 90.00 89.00 43.50 45.36 44.430 20.195 40.455
A2-II 2.30 80.00 81.00 80.50 42.15 48.60 45.375 19.728 35.000
B2-II 2.85 78.00 80.00 79.00 30.85 40.25 35.550 12.474 27.719
C2-II 3.00 78.50 80.50 79.50 45.63 50.60 48.115 16.038 26.500
inside the joints. This may consequently cause the reduction in Further to these cracks, the specimens B1, C1, B2 and C2 have
the stiffness. Therefore it becomes essential to assess the degra- 90 bent tensile anchorage bars, which induce a compressive
dation of stiffness in the beam column joints subjected to stress in the joint diagonally forming a compression strut
reversal loading. due to contact pressure under the bent. Tension tie developed
Referring to Fig. 21, the stiffness is plotted in the vertical in the joint perpendicular to the direction of the diagonal ten-
direction and average displacement plotted in the horizontal sion tie in the shear panel area will result in diagonal cracks on
direction. To obtain the stiffness (K = (P/d)), the average load the beamcolumn joint. Besides the formation of wide open
(P) which is the peak value of each hysteresis loop was divided cracks in the junction due to the exural failure, the concrete
by average displacement (d). From the stiffness versus had also crushed and spalled out from the specimens B1, B2,
displacement graph (Fig. 21) found between Groups-I and C1 and C2 due to failure of compressive strut action on the
Group-II, specimens A1 and A2 have higher values, than spec- either side of the beam in the location of the beamcolumn
imens B1, C1, B2 and C2. joint under reversal loading. The specimens A1 and A2 with
Table 3 shows only the average Initial stiffness (Initial stiff- mechanical anchorage show the lesser crack pattern than other
ness K = Pu/dy .wherein Pu is the Ultimate load and dy is the specimens using conventional joint details in Group-I and II
Yielding displacement). It has been observed from the experi- without losing the strength. However specimen A1 with T-type
mental results that in Group-I, specimen A1 is having higher mechanical anchorage (ACI-352, mechanical anchorage) in
stiffness than specimens B1 and C1 and in Group-II, specimen combination with hair clip (U-bar) plus X-cross bars shows
A2 is having higher stiffness than specimens B2 and C2. The lesser cracks and much better control of crack capacity with
specimen A1 which has the proposed additional hair clip improvement in seismic performance than other specimens.
(U-bar) with X-cross bar joint details exhibits better perfor- In addition to the above, it was easy to repair with FRP com-
mance among these six specimens against stiffness degradation posite wrap techniques to restore the exural strength, ductility
(stiffness of A1 is higher than A2 by 15.92%). Between the two of earthquake damaged concrete structure beamcolumn
groups, the Group-I is having the higher stiffness. joints since the plastic hinge forming at face of the column
and also there is no diagonal crack in the joint core shear panel
Crack study area.
It can therefore be concluded that these types of anchorage
On visual examination of crack pattern shown in Figs. 22 and with proposed joint core details are much more effective in con-
23, exural cracks have been developed on the beamcolumn trolling beamcolumn joint than conventional joint details. It is
junction and shear cracks on the column in all the specimens. apparent that the use of T-type mechanical anchored bars is a
Investigation on the seismic behavior of exterior beamcolumn joint using T-type mechanical anchorage 151
viable alternative to the use of standard 90 hook anchorages in of reinforcement, easier placement of concrete and aids in
exterior beamcolumn joints in moderate and severe seismic faster construction at site as compared to A2 specimen in
prone area, for reducing congestion of reinforcement, easier Group-II.
concrete placement and aids in faster construction at site. 2. It has been observed from the experimental test results that
the T-type mechanical anchorage systems as per ACI-352
(specimens A1 and A2) offer better performance with much
Conclusions better control of cracks than the specimens reinforced with
conventional 90 bent hook anchorage as per ACI-318
The following suggestions for the detailing of reinforced con- (Specimens B1 and B2) and full anchorage as per IS-
crete structure exterior beamcolumn joints are made from 456(specimens C1 and C2).
the knowledge gathered through the experimental test results. 3. The use of conventional 90 bent hook anchorage arrange-
ments in the beamcolumn connection region for severe
1. In Group-I, specimen A1 which has proposed additional earthquake leads to an increase in size of column to accom-
hair clip (U-bar) and X-cross bar with the combination of modate the required amount of beam reinforcement in the
T-type mechanical anchorage joint detail offers a better joint core, whereas the use of mechanical anchorage results
moment carrying capacity thereby improving the seismic in the reduction of reinforcement and rebar congestion in
performance without compromising the ductility and stiff- the joint core area. The T-type mechanical anchored bar
ness. Further, this arrangement of reinforcement detail in is a viable alternative to the use of conventional 90 bent
the exterior beamcolumn joint core reduces congestion hook anchorages.
152 S. Rajagopal, S. Prabavathy
References Lee, H.-J., Yu, Si-Ying, 2009. Cyclic response of exterior beam
column joints with different Anchorage methods. ACI Structural
American concrete Institute, ACI-352, 2002. Recommendations for Journal 106 (3), 329339.
design of beamcolumn connections in monolithic reinforced Murty, C.V.R., Raj, D.C., Bajpai, K.K., Jain, S.K., 2003. Effective-
concrete structures, (reported by joint ACI-ASCE committee ness of reinforcement details in exterior reinforcement concrete
352), Farmington Hiils, Michigan, U.S.A. beamcolumn joints for earthquake resistance. ACI Structural
American Concrete Institute, ACI-318M, 2011. Building code require- Journal 100 (2), 149156.
ments for structural Concrete and commentary, (reported by ACI Paulay, T., 1989. Equilibrium criteria for reinforcement concrete
committee 318), Farmington Hiils, Michigan, U.S.A. beamcolumn joints. ACI Structural Journal 86 (6), 635643.
Asha, P., Sundararajan, R., 2012. Seismic behavior of exterior beam Park, R., Paulay, T., 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John
column joints with square spiral connement. Asian Journal of Wiley & Sons, New York.
Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) 13 (4), 571583. Sagbas, G., Vecchio, F.J., Christopoulos, C., 2011. Computational
Bindhu, K.R., Jeya, K.P., Manickaselvam, V.K., 2008. Seismic modeling of the seismic performance of beamcolumn sub assem-
resistance of exterior beam column joints non-conventional rein- blies. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15 (4), 640663.
forcement detailing. Structural Engineering and Mechanics an Tsonos, A.G., Tegos, I.A., Penelis, G.Gr., 1993. Seismic resistance of
International Journal 30 (6), 733761. Type 2 exterior beamcolumn joints reinforcement with inclined
Chutarat, N., Aboutaha, R.S., 2003. Cyclic response of exterior bars. ACI Structural Journal 89 (1), 312.
reinforcement concrete beamcolumn joints reinforcement with Wallance, J.W., McConnell, S.W., Guta, P., Cote, P.A., 1998. Used of
headed bars-experimental investigation. ACI Structural Journal headed reinforcement in beamcolumn joints subjected to earth-
100 (2), 259264. quake loads. ACI Structural Journal 95 (5), 590606.
Chun, S.-C., Lee, S.-H., Kang, T.H.-K., Oh, B., Wallace, J.W., 2007. Uma, S.R., Jain, Sudhir K., 2006. Seismic design of beamcolumn
Mechanical anchorage in exterior beamcolumn joints subjected to joints on RC moment resisting frames-review of codes. Structural
cyclic loading. ACI Structural Journal 104 (1), 102113. Engineering and Mechanics an International Journal 23 (5), 579
IS-1893, 2002. Indian Standard Code on Criteria for Earthquake 597.
Resistant Design of Structures, Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Kang, T.H.-K., Shin, M., Mitra, N., Bonacci, J.F., 2009. Seismic
Standards, New Delhi, India. design of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints with headed
IS-13920, 1993. Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced bars. ACI Structural Journal 106 (6), 868877.
Concrete Structure Subjected to Seismic Forces, Code of Practice. Kang, T.H.-K., Ha, S.-S., Choi, D.-U., 2010. Bar pullout tests and
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. seismic tests of small-headed bars in beamcolumn joints. ACI
IS-456, 2000. Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Code of Structural Journal 107 (1), 3242.
Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.