Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

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].

of Reinforced Concrete Structures (C.D.C.S.-1995) [8]. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2

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.

which gives the beam- column joint ultimate strength. Figure 1(a): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of
which gives the beam- column joint ultimate strength. Figure 1(a): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of

Figure 1(a): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of specimens A 1 and E 2 (dimensions in cm).

details of specimens A 1 and E 2 (dimensions in cm). WIT Transactions on The Built

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 441

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 441 Figure 1(b): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of specimens E 1
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 441 Figure 1(b): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of specimens E 1

Figure 1(b): Dimensions and cross-sectional details of specimens E 1 and G 1 (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

of the specimens are shown in figures 1(a), (b). All WIT Transactions on The Built Environment,

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

442 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

specimens incorporated full seismic details. The purpose of specimens A 1 , E 1 , E 2 and G 1 was to represent details of new structures. More specifically, all the structural members (columns, beam and beam-column joint) of specimen A 1 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 E 1 and E 2 were designed according to the requirements of Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8(DC"M") [4], and all the structural members of subassemblage G 1 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 (M R ). The concrete 28-day compressive strength of both specimens A 1 and E 2 was 35MPa, while the concrete 28-day compressive strength of both specimens E 1 and G 1 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 A 1 and E 2 , 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 A 1 and E 2 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 A 1 and E 2 (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 A 1 and E 2 was that hairline cracks appeared in the joint region of

E 2 and partial loss of the concrete cover in the rear face of the joint of E 2 took

place during the three last cycles of loading, but beyond drift angle R ratios of 4.5 (9 th , 10 th and 11 th ), while the joint region of subassemblage A 1 was intact at the conclusion of the test (see fig. 2). The connections of both subassemblages E 1 and G 1 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.

their joint area and in their columns’ critical regions. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 443

The maximum strain recorded in the longitudinal bars of the beams of both subassemblages E 1 and G 1 was below 2.500 µε.

subassemblages E 1 and G 1 was below 2.500 µ ε . Figure 2: Views of

Figure 2:

Views of the collapsed subassemblages A 1 , E 1 , E 2 and G 1 .

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

half span L, and is expressed as a percentage (see inset in WIT Transactions on The

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

444 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

fig. 3). Plots of applied shear-versus drift angle for all the subassemblages A 1 , E 1 , E 2 and G 1 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 A 1 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 E 2 also developed maximum shears higher than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength until the 11 th upper half cycle of loading and until the 7 th 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 A 1 and E 2 occurred after the 6 th and 7 th cycles of loading respectively. The beam of subassemblage E 1 developed maximum shears very close to those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength only during the 2 nd and 3 rd 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 G 1 also did not allow the beam in this specimen to develop its flexural capacity. As can be seen in fig. 3 the beam of G 1 developed maximum shears significantly lower than those corresponding to its ultimate flexural strength. Subassemblages A 1 and E 2 , 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 E 1 and G 1 , 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.

frames although they were designed in accordance with EC8. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 445

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 445 Figure 3: Hysteresis loops of specimens A 1 , E
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 445 Figure 3: Hysteresis loops of specimens A 1 , E
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 445 Figure 3: Hysteresis loops of specimens A 1 , E

Figure 3:

Hysteresis loops of specimens A 1 , E 1 , E 2 and G 1 .

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

446 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

446 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V Figure 3: Continued. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol
446 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V Figure 3: Continued. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol
446 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V Figure 3: Continued. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol

Figure 3:

Continued.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 447

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 γ cal γ ult , the predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near γ ult , because the connection fails earlier than the beam(s). When the calculated joint shear stress is lower than the connection ultimate strength γ cal < γ ult , then the predicted actual value of connection shear stress will be near γ cal , 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 γ cal /γ ult decrease was also demonstrated. It is worth noting that for γ cal /γ ult 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 A 1 , E 1 , E 2 and G 1 were computed using the above methodology. Table 1 shows that γ cal /γ ult (A 1 ) = 0.47 < 0.50 and γ cal /γ ult (E 2 ) = 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 A 1 and E 2 . As predicted, both subassemblages A 1 and E 2 failed in flexure, exhibiting remarkable seismic performance (fig. 3). Table 1 also shows that γ cal /γ ult (E 1 ) = 1.08 > 1.0 and γ cal /γ ult (G 1 ) = 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 E 1 and G 1 demonstrated premature joint shear failure from the early stages of seismic loading and damage concentration only in this region (fig. 2). Both specimens E 1 and G 1 , as predicted, exhibited poor seismic performance.

Table 1:

Experimental and predicted values of the strength of A 1 , E 1 , E 2 and G 1 .

 

joint aspect ratio α=h b /h c

     

predicted

observed

   

Specimen

γ

cal

γ

exp

γ

ult

 

shear

 

shear

 

τ

pred

γ cal

     

strength

strength

µ=

τ

γ ult

τ

pred (Mpa)

τ

exp (Mpa)

 

exp

A

1

1.50

0.685

0.584

1.46

 

5.05

 

4.31

1.17

0.47

E

1

1.50

1.26

0.98

1.17

 

6.92

 

5.80

1.19

1.08

E

2

1.50

0.675

0.554

1.46

 

5.00

 

4.10

1.20

0.46

G

1

1.50

1.20

0.96

1.15

 

6.60

 

5.56

1.19

1.04

i. For γ cal < γ ult , γ pred = γ cal .

ii. For γ cal < γ ult , γ pred = γ ult .

(An

computations of joint shear stress τ cal = γ cal

overstrength

factor

a

=

1.25

for

the beam steel f ′ MPa). c
the
beam steel
f ′ MPa).
c
factor a = 1.25 for the beam steel f ′ MPa). c WIT Transactions on The

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

is

included

in

the

448 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

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 γ cal > γ ult 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, M R = 2.60. By contrast low joint shear stress γ cal < 0.5γ ult 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 (M R = 1.40).

5

Conclusions

1. The behaviour of subassemblages A 1 and E 2 was as expected and as

documented in the seismic design philosophy of the modern Codes. The beam- column joints of both units A 1 and E 2 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 E 1 and G 1 represented beam-column

subassemblages of modern structures, they performed poorly under reversed cyclic lateral deformations. The joints of both subassemblages E 1 and G 1 , 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 (M R =1.40) is adequate for the formation of plastic hinges in the beams on the condition that low shear stress (γ cal < 0.5γ ult ) are resisted by the connections of the subassemblages.

References

[1]

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. 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.

[3]

Leon, R. T., Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior Beam-

T., Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Interior Beam- WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 449

[4]

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

[5]

of Structures-Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1998-1- 1/2/3) CEN, Berlin, 1995. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

[6]

(ACI 318-99) and commentary (318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 391pp, 1999. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Recommendations for design of Beam-

[7]

Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R- 85), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 19pp, 1985. 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.

Structural J ournal Proceedings , 96(1) , pp. 46-56, 1999. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment,

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)