See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291523243

EVALUATION of A MACRO MODEL PROPOSED FOR A NON-SYMMETRICAL

PRECAST BEAM TO COLUMN CONNECTION

Conference Paper · October 2014

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4868.2009

CITATIONS READS

0 539

3 authors:

Ahmet Bal Ercan Yuksel

Istanbul Technical University Istanbul Technical University
17 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   318 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Huseyin Faruk Karadogan

T.C. Istanbul Kultur University
45 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biyoplastik: Mimarlıkta Deneysel Bir Biyomorfoloji View project

bioplastic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmet Bal on 23 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EVALUATION of A MACRO MODEL PROPOSED FOR
A NON-SYMMETRICAL PRECAST BEAM TO COLUMN
CONNECTION

Ahmet Bal 1 Ercan Yüksel 2 Faruk Karadoğan 3

1
Graduate School of Science, Eng. and Tech., ITU, Istanbul, Turkey, Ph.D. Candidate, ahmbal@itu.edu.tr
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, ITU, Istanbul, Turkey, Assoc. Prof. Dr., yukselerc@itu.edu.tr
3
Emer. Prof., Faculty of Civil Engineering , ITU, Istanbul, Turkey, Prof. Dr., karadogan@itu.edu.tr

Abstract
Inelastic analysis of structures for seismic loads requires realistic hysteretic models. The pivot hysteretic model
could be used to represent the cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete sections and connections. The model has
already been incorporated in some commercial programs.

The experimental results of the beam to column connections so called industrial type connections which was
tested at Structural and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory of ITU in the framework of FP7 SAFECAST Project
are being utilized in this paper. In the connection, the precast columns are continuous having a small gap nearby
the slab position and the precast beams to be placed in longitudinal and transversal directions are welded to the
steel plates placed on top of the corbels and supplementary reinforcements which will be active for negative
moment are inserted to the joint before the setting of concrete.

The analytical model which consists of linear frame elements and nonlinear link element, has been generated in
SAP2000 for the connection. The model has been analyzed for cyclic displacement patterns. The global lateral
load vs. displacement and the cumulative hysteretic energy vs. drift relations are amongst the compared results
between the analytical and experimental works. The results obtained from the analytical model are in close
agreement with those obtained from the experiments.

Key Words: Precast construction, Beam-column connection, Hysteretic Behavior, Pivot Hysteretic Model.

1 Introduction
One of the major challenges in the precast concrete structures constructed in earthquake prone areas is the proper
design of the connections, primarily beam-to-column connections. Various types of beam-to-column connections
such as monolithic, emulative, bolted, dry pinned etc. are being used in the practice.

The moment resisting beam-to-column connections have been used in Turkey for low-rise industrial and
residential type buildings. In the framework of FP7 SAFECAST Project, large number of ½ scaled sub-
assemblages have been tested at Structural and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory of ITU to assess the behavior
of two distinct types of beam-to-column connections subjected to seismic loading. The tested sub-assemblages
consist of reinforced concrete corbels on the lower story column in the transversal and longitudinal directions
and they are called as industrial type connection, [1], [2].

The beam-to-column connections are modelled by using the software package of SAP2000 [3] in which the pivot
hysteretic model is existing. A set of numerical analyses are performed to discuss the effect of selected force vs.
displacement envelopes.

1
2 Brief Information about Experimental Study

2.1 Description of the Specimens

The connection consists of column, longitudinal and transversal beams. All these members are prefabricated and
connected in the construction site. The column has small gap nearby the slab position. The beams are welded to
the steel plates placed on top of the corbels and supplementary reinforcements which will be active for negative
moment, are inserted to the joint. The gap in the column, void portion of the beam and topping are filled by
concrete in the construction site, Karadogan et al., [1], [2], see Fig. 1.

Figure 1. The industrial type connection

Geometry of the specimens and some reinforcing details are presented in Fig. 2. Two identical specimen named
R-ITC-1 and R-ITC-2 have been used in the context of this paper.

Figure 2. Dimensions of the industrial type connection (all dimensions are in cm)

2.2 Testing Setup and Loading Functions

A servo-controlled hydraulic actuator was attached to the beam that is the vertical element in Fig. 3, at 170 cm
high from the column axis. The supports at both ends of the column are hinged type. The column was subjected
to a permanent axial force which corresponds to 5% of its axial load capacity. Several displacement transducers
are used to measure the absolute and relative deformations. The displacement pattern applied by the actuator is
also shown in Fig. 3.

75

50
displacement (mm)

25

-25

-50

-75

Figure 3. Views of the testing set-up and the applied displacement pattern

2
2.3 Test Results
The force vs. displacement curves obtained for the specimens of R-ITC-1 and R-ITC-2 are illustrated in Fig. 4.
Some extent of plasticity was recorded at the beam bottom end. Nonlinear behavior was observed when the story
drift angle reaches to 2.0% for both specimens. Strength and stiffness decrements as well as heavy pinching were
observed above 3% story drift.

Figure 4. Force vs. displacement cycles of the connections

The envelopes of force vs. displacement relations generated for R-ITC-1 and R-ITC-2 are presented in Fig. 5a.
As it is expected initial stiffness of the specimens is comparable, however there are some differences in the
ultimate strengths and descending branches in both directions. Drift ratio vs. cumulative hysteretic energy
relations obtained are presented in Fig. 5b.

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Cyclic test results

3 Pivot Hysteresis Model

The use of pivot point in defining degraded unloading stiffness was first proposed by Kunath et al. in 1990.
Dowell et al. proposed so-called “Pivot Hysteresis Model” in 1998 [4] for the nonlinear dynamic analysis of
reinforced concrete circular bridge columns. The model was shown to capture accurately the hysteretic behavior
of the columns following a simple set of hysteretic rules. Afterwards, the model has been used to derive the
main properties of the load-deformation relations observed in the laboratory tests of members even for the cases
of non-symmetric cross sections, variable axial force conditions and strength degradation, etc., [5], [6].

Four quadrants are defined by the horizontal axis and the elastic loading lines. Primary pivot points P1 through P4
on the elastic loading lines control the amount of softening in each quadrant; points P1 and P4 on positive elastic
stiffness line and points P2 and P3 on the negative elastic stiffness line. , 2,  1, 2,  are constants to be picked
up from the experimental outputs. The resistance of primary pivot points P3 and P4 is α2Fy2 and the resistance of
primary pivot points P1 and P2 is α1Fy1. Pinching pivot points PP2 and PP4 fix the degree of pinching following
load reversal in each quadrant. The resistance of pinching pivot point PP 4 is β1Fy1 and the resistance of pinching
pivot point PP2 is β2Fy2. The pivot model used in SAP2000 is seen in Fig. 6.

3
 Figure 6. The pivot hysteretic model

4 Calibration of the Numerical Model

The modeling and analyses of the connection have been performed by using SAP2000 package. The
mathematical model generated is presented in Fig. 7. The column and beam members are idealized by frame
elements in their center of gravity axis. It is assumed that they behave in the linear elastic range.

Figure 7. The numerical model for the connection

The nonlinear behavior of the joint is concentrated to two-joint type uniaxial link element so-called “Multi-
Linear Plastic Nonlinear Element” between joints of #7 and #10. The Pivot hysteretic model is found the most
appropriate comparing with kinematic and Takeda hysteresis types because of the following advantages: i.
Simplicity in the application, ii. Applicability to unsymmetrical sections, iii. The possibility to model softened
initial stiffness following a nonlinear excursion, [7], [8].

The location of nonlinear link element is above 40 cm from the column axis and it has the height of 5 cm.

The displacement pattern used in the experimental works is applied to the numerical model through joint #8 as
support settlement. So, displacement restriction is applied to joint #8 in X direction as well as the support
definitions at joint #1 and #5.

Nonlinear direct integration history analysis defined in SAP2000 is applied to execute cyclic displacement
history.

5 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results

A set of numerical analyses have been achieved to discuss the effect of the selected force vs. displacement
envelope on the general hysteretic behavior. The parameters assigned for the pivot hysteretic model are
,  , and ɳ=0. Four alternative envelop curves are used in the numerical analyses, see

4
Table 1. Model 2 represents the ideal bi-linear envelope for both directions. Linear descending branches exist in
Model 3 and Model 4. A piecewise linear type envelope is used in Model 1.

Table 1. The moment-rotation envelop curves

Model Moment-rotation envelop Model Moment-rotation envelop

1 3

2 4

The numerically obtained force vs. displacement curves for four alternative cases are illustrated in Fig. 8.
Although severe strength decrement are observed for Models 3 and 4, well-ordered decrement in strength is
experienced in Model 1. Some extent of pinching are observed in Models 1, 3 and 4.

Figure 8. The force vs. displacement relations obtained for four alternative parameter sets

The numerical results are presented together with the experimental result in Fig. 9. The numerical result obtained
for the case of Model1 is more close to the experimental one. The asymmetric behavior of the connection in
opposite directions is represented successfully by pivot hysteretic model.

5
 Figure 9. Comparisions of numerical and experimental force vs. displacemnt diagrams

The cumulative energy diagram which is calculated as the enclosed area of the force vs. displacement curve is
produced for the numerical and experimental cases, Fig. 10. The numerical result corresponds to Model1.
Although the trends are appropriate with each other, it is seen clear that the numerical result is smaller than the
experimental ones throughout the drift range.

Figure 10. Comparison of numerical and experimental cumulative energy diagrams

Some effort should be paid to enlarge the hysteretic cycles of the numerical analysis to fit the experimental
results.

6 CONCLUSIONS
A macro model to represent the hysteretic behavior of a non-symmetric precast beam to column connection has
been evaluated in this study. The model is shown to capture accurately the hysteretic behavior of the connection
following a simple set of hysteretic rules even for the cases of non-symmetric cross sections, strength
degradation and heavy pinching. The following conclusions are drawn out end of this study.

 The pivot hysteresis model is successfully used as a macro model to represent the nonlinear behavior of
the non-symmetrical precast beam to column connection.
 Description of the envelop curve is crucial on the accuracy of load vs. displacement hysteresis. Bi-linear
type envelope curves w/o descending branches do not yield effective results.

6
  Although the form of force vs. displacement curve attained from the numerical analysis by using
Model1 is reliable, some effort should be paid to adjust the shape of the hysteretic cycles.

References
[1]. Karadogan, F., Yuksel, E., Bal, I.E., 2012. “The Seismic Behavior of an Asymmetric Exterior Precast
Beam-Column Connection”, 15WCEE, Lisboa, Portugal.
[2]. Karadogan, F., Yuksel, E., Bal, I.E., 2012. “Prefabrikasyon dergisi”, (in Turkish).
[3]. SAP2000, Integrated Structural Analysis and Design Software.
[4]. Dowell, R. K., Seible, F., Wilson, E. L., “Pivot Hysteresis Model for Reinforced Concrete Members,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 5, Sept.- Oct. 1998, pp. 607-617.
[5]. Takeda, T., Sozen, M. A., Neilsen, N. N., “Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated Earthquakes”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 96, No. 12, 1970, pp. 2557-2573.
[6]. Sharma A., Elegihausen R., Reddy G.R., 2013. “Pivot Hysteresis Model Parameters for Reinforced
Concrete Columns, Joints and Structures”, ACI Structural Journal, 110-S19, pp. 217-227.
[7]. Apolstolska, R., Necevska G., Bojadziev J., Fischinger M., Isakovic T., Kramar M., “Analytical
Investigations of Beam-Column Connections in Precast Building under Seismic Loads”, 15 WCEE, no:
2117, Lisboa, 2012.
[8]. Fischinger M., Zoubek B., Kramar M., Isakovic T., “Cycling Response of Dowel Connections in Precast
Structures”, 15 WCEE, no: 2127, Lisboa, 2012.

View publication stats