0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

1 visualizzazioni23 paginejhyu juikj

Oct 15, 2019

1-s2.0-S0141029615000401-main

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

jhyu juikj

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

1 visualizzazioni23 pagine1-s2.0-S0141029615000401-main

jhyu juikj

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 23

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Morteza Omidi ⇑, Farhad Behnamfar

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Beam to column connections in reinforced concrete (RC) frames are among the elements having essential

Received 20 February 2014 effects in determining the performance and behavior of structure under different loads. Role of these con-

Revised 6 January 2015 nections against the lateral loads especially strong earthquakes is such important that experience of past

Accepted 18 January 2015

earthquakes conﬁrm their effect in deﬁning value and extent of structural damages. Therefore, to appro-

priately address the seismic performance of new or existing RC frames, engineers need models able to

predict the connection behavior with an acceptable accuracy and enough simplicity. In this research, a

Keywords:

numerical model for simulating the elastic and inelastic behavior of RC beam-column connections is pre-

RC beam-column connections

Finite Element Model (FEM)

sented. This model consists of a rigid offset element and beam and column elements with concentrated

Numerical model plasticity. The rigid offset element is calibrated to give a good estimation of the initial stiffness based on

Simulation the shear demand ratio of the connection. Each of the beam and column elements with concentrated

Elastic and inelastic behavior plasticity includes two rotational springs in series. One spring represents the nonlinear behavior of beam

and column and the other contains the nonlinear behavior of the connection. Each one of the rotational

springs possesses its own moment-rotation response curve. Comparison of the simulated response with

that of the existing experimental results conﬁrms that the suggested model follows the seismic response

of beam-column connections with a very good accuracy.

Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

frame members were modeled by two inelastic rotational springs

Past earthquake observations and subsequent laboratory works located at the two end points of an elastic element.

suggest that connections have a key role in reinforced concrete Otani [2] used a bilinear idealization of an envelope curve to

(RC) structures in determining the ductile/nonductile and strength compute the characteristic points of the curve. It was assumed that

degradation behavior of moment frames. Failure of connections bond stresses are constant along the development length of the

can result in a global structural collapse. Practical connection mod- reinforcing bars and that the reinforcing embedment length is long

els are still a prevailing need for engineers to anticipate the enough to develop sufﬁcient steel forces. The ﬁxed end rotation

response of connections and to determine their effects on the gen- was found to be proportional to the square of the moment acting

eral structural behavior. In the last four decades and more, numer- at the beam-column interface. Takeda et al. rule [3] was used as

ous studies have been undertaken on RC connections and several the associated hysteretic rule. The pinching effect due to bond

numerical models have been proposed for simulation of behavior stress-slip and shear sliding were included by the ones suggested

and failure mechanisms of connections of RC moment frames. In by Banon et al. [4]. Several other models have been proposed in

a general view, the mentioned studies can be divided in two cate- the literature; however, they do not generally consider the joint

gories, rotational hinge models, and multi-spring models. The rota- shear behavior, but only the beam and column moment-rotation

tional hinge models generally consist of a bilinear or trilinear capacities (Fillipou et al. [5], Fillipou and Issa [6]).

pushover curve, or a set of formulas for hysteretic behavior of con- Alath and Kunnath [7] presented a zero-length rotational spring

nection under cyclic loads. Such models have been proposed based for simulating the shear deformations of connection. They deter-

on analytical formulations and experimental observations. The ﬁrst mined and calibrated the envelope of shear stress–shear strain

attempt within this category was reported by Giberson [1], where relation of the above spring based on experimental results. Pamp-

anin et al. [8] determined variation of the principal tensile stresses

⇑ Corresponding author.

in the center of connection against joint’s shear distortion and sug-

gested a moment-rotation relation for the connection springs. A

E-mail addresses: omidi_morteza@yahoo.com (M. Omidi), farhad@cc.iut.ac.ir

(F. Behnamfar). similar model for prediction of shear behavior of exterior joints

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.025

0141-0296/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

52 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

under monotonic loading was proposed by Sharma et al. [9]. In the incorporated it into a macro-model-based ﬁnite element analysis

models proposed by Pampanin et al. [8] and Sharma et al. [9], bond in which beams were modeled with ﬁber elements. The joint model

slip is only indirectly considered and no explicit consideration of consisted of a series of springs to characterize bond-slip behavior

bond slip is provided. under large tension.

The basic idea in the multi-spring models is simulating behavior With reviewing the literature as above, it is observed that var-

of the beam-column joints with isolation of the shares of different ious models have been proposed in the past to predict the inelastic

factors including bonding behavior of the longitudinal bars and response of RC beam-column connections. A number of the sug-

concrete rupture at the beam-column interface. Such models are gested models are relatively simplistic and engineers have to take

based on fundamentals of mechanics and are experimentally cali- important simpliﬁed assumptions or possess necessary experi-

brated. In this respect, Biddah and Ghobarah [10] presented a mental data for calibration of the models, e.g., Giberson [1], Alath

model consisting of discrete rotational springs for modeling of and Kunnath [7] and Pampanin et al. [8]. In other models, the con-

shear deformations and bond slip of connections. The shear nection response has been simulated using continuum-type ele-

stress–shear strain relation was assumed to be ideally consisting ments, e.g., Biddah and Ghobarah [10,25], Elmorsi et al. [12],

of a tri-linear curve based on the softening truss theory [11] and Ghobarah and Youssef [13], Altoontash [15], Shin and LaFave

the deformations due to bond slip were simulated using a bilinear [17], Anderson et al. [21] and Fleury et al. [26]. In the latter model,

model referring to previous analytical and experimental data. while there is a lesser need to simpliﬁcations and experimental

Elmorsi et al. [12] proposed a model in which beams and columns data, most of the models are neither efﬁcient enough nor sufﬁ-

were introduced using elastic elements and were connected to ciently robust to predict seismic response of larger systems, like

panel zones utilizing nonlinear transitional elements. A more com- multistory buildings. Also, most of the latter models are not easily

plex model introduced by Ghobarah and Youssef [13], beneﬁtted incorporated in the conventional design softwares. Moreover, a

from four hinged rigid elements surrounding the joint. They were large part of the suggested models are suitable only for exterior

connected diagonally by two shear springs to account for shear joints or are not appropriate for analysis of joints with no or low

deformations of joint. Lowes and Altoontash [14] and then Altoon- transverse reinforcement.

tash [15] presented reﬁned and simpliﬁed models in the same line Regarding the mentioned limitations of the existing models of

using the modiﬁed compression ﬁeld theory (MCFT) introduced in RC connections, in this research having illuminated by the model

1986 by Vecchio and Collins [16] to deﬁne the envelope of the of Birely et al. [27,28], a practical model is presented for elastic

shear stress–shear strain relation of the panel zone. Joints with and inelastic behavior of interior RC connections. Consistency with

no transverse reinforcement, typical in gravity load designed the common commercial design softwares, high speed in modeling,

(GLD) RC frames, were excluded from this study. Shin and LaFave computational efﬁciency, and having an acceptable accuracy for

[17] used a method similar to Lowes and Altoontashto to deter- both modern and older types of RC joints, are the major advantages

mine the share of the shear deformation of connections in the of the proposed model with respect to the previous works. In the

general behavior of frames. More than 50 experimental shear next sections, the database used, characteristics of the suggested

stress–shear strain curves were used by them for calibration pur- model, and comparison of the responses predicted to those

poses. Jeremic and Bao [18] simpliﬁed the model of Lowes and observed in other works are described.

Altoontash for simulating the response of the beam-column con-

nection. They used both ordinary linear and zero-length elements,

and incorporated rotation at the end interfaces of members due to 2. The reference database

bending distortion. Tajiri et al. [19] introduced a new macro ele-

ment for modeling of RC connections for analysis of elasto-plastic 2.1. Description

frames. Their macro element consisted of rigid segments repre-

senting concrete sections that remained plane after deformation To calibrate the proposed model, a database consisting of 23

and of axial springs representative of concrete, bars, slip and shear experimental subassemblages and 167 ﬁnite elements (FE) analyt-

deformations. Bao et al. [20] proposed a model simulating seismic ical samples, is populated. The basic experimental (BE) samples

response of interior joints and progressive collapse of RC struc- have been selected such that they cover a wide range of numerical

tures, based on the model by Lowes and Altoontash [14]. They uti- values of prime factors affecting the joint response, including

lized a simpliﬁed bilinear relation for the spring simulating the demand-capacity ratios of joint shear and column axial force, com-

reinforcement slip and a symmetric multi-linear moment-rotation pressive strength of concrete, column-to-beam depth ratio, col-

relation, owing its characteristics to the MCFT, for shear springs of umn-to-beam ﬂexural strength ratio, detail of transverse

joint. reinforcement of joint, and longitudinal rebars arrangement of col-

Anderson et al. [21] proposed a cyclic shear stress–strain model umn and beam. Both modern and older details are considered. The

for joints without transverse reinforcement calibrated using mea- BE samples include: the A-M-Z4 sample of Cheok et al. [29], 20

sured data from tests on joints without transverse reinforcement samples consisting of B01–B10, C01, C03, D01–D08 out of B, C,

subjected to a range of displacement histories and joint shear stress and D series of samples tested by Shiohara and Kusahara [30,31],

demands. Kim and LaFave [22] constructed an extensive database of and AL1 and AL2 samples of Li et al. [32].

RC beam-column joint test results including 341 experimental sub- The above subassemblages exclude: slabs or transverse beams,

assemblies having at least a minimum amount of joint transverse eccentric beams, smooth reinforcing bars, column splice failure

reinforcement. In their work, inﬂuence of different parameters on modes, and rebar anchoring failure. For simulation of seismic

joint shear stress and/or strain behavior at identiﬁed key points loads, all experimental samples have been tested under reversed

was assessed and the strength values were compared with ACI rec- cyclic lateral loading. The analytical part of the database has been

ommendations. Wang et al. [23] proposed a theoretical model for produced in this research, using the nonlinear ﬁnite element mod-

the shear strength of RC beam–column joints under seismic loading. eling of extra subassemblages. The analytical samples, being 167 in

The reinforced concrete in the joint panel was idealized as a homog- number, are offshoots of B01, D07, and A-M-Z4 BE samples by

enous material and contribution of the shear reinforcement (includ- varying the joint’s prime affecting factors as described above.

ing both the horizontal and vertical shear reinforcements) was taken Characteristics of the 23 experimental samples selected from

into account using the nominal tensile strength concept of concrete. literature and 167 analytical samples produced in this research

Yu and Tan [24] proposed a component-based joint model and are given in Appendix A.

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 53

2.2. The design parameters The above instructions, give the shear strength of the connec-

tion ðV n Þ as a function of compressive strength of concrete, effec-

The main parameters used to identify the samples of the data- tive horizontal cross section of joint, connection type, and the

base are: (1) shear demand-capacity ratio (SDR or v j;max =v n , volumetric ratio of the conﬁning transverse reinforcement in the

described in Section 2.3) varied between 0.5 and 2.27, (2) column connection. The maximum shear force in the joint ðV j Þ can be cal-

axial force ratio, P=Ag f c , being 0.0–0.5, where P is the applied col- culated using equilibrium of forces acting on the connection

umn axial load, Ag is the gross area of the column, and f c is the con- (Fig. 1) just before failure, as Eq. (1):

crete compressive strength, (3) detail of the connection’s

V j ¼ T pr;A þ T pr;B V Col ð1Þ

transverse reinforcement, being from completely consistent to

inconsistent (cases I–IV, Section 2.4), (4) column-to-beam ﬂexural where V j is the joint shear force, T pr;A and T pr;B are, respectively, the

P P

strength ratio, M nc = Mnb , that is varied between 0.72 and 2.24, ﬂexural tension force in the beam on A and B sides of the joint, and

where Mn is the nominal bending strength of column (index c) and V Col is the column shear force. The maximum joint shear force

beam (index b) and the sum of bending capacities is taken at the ðV j;max Þ can be calculated using equilibrium of forces acting on the

connection’s center, (5) column-to-beam depth ratio: 0.5–2.0, (6) connection (Eq. (1) and Fig. 1) just before failure.

Beam’s tensile reinforcement ratio: 0.89–3.98%, (6) longitudinal

reinforcing bar distance ratio, which is the distance between cen- 2.4. Detail of the transverse reinforcement

troids of tensile and compressive reinforcements divided by the

height of the cross section: 0.50–0.80. In this study, four different cases including case I (consistent)

Also, the concrete compressive strength of the specimens lies in and cases II–IV (inconsistent) are taken for the transverse rein-

29–32.4 (MPa). Distribution of the above design values between forcement in the connection, as of Table 1.

the database samples is given in Table A5 of Appendix A. In Table 1, s is spacing of the transverse reinforcement in the

plastic hinge zone well as the connection, and hc is the column’s

2.3. The shear force demand ratio (SDR) of the connection depth. According to ASCE41-06 and FEMA356, the spacing of con-

sistent transverse reinforcement of a connection shall be no more

SDR is the ratio of the maximum joint shear force to nominal than hc =3, otherwise the reinforcement is inconsistent.

joint shear strength ðV j;max =V n Þ and calculated using the require-

ments of FEMA356 and ASCE/SEI 41-06 [33,34]. 2.5. Behavioral mechanisms of the connections

Table 1

Different cases for the joint’s transverse reinforcement. According to the observations reported in the literature, the

Cases I II III IV

mechanisms of behavior of the interior RC connections can be cat-

egorized as follows:

Spacing of ties ðsÞ s 6 h3c hc

< s 6 h2c hc

< s 6 hc s > hc

3 2

Rein. condition Ca N.C.b N.C.b N.C.b

(1) Mechanism A: yielding of longitudinal bars of beam at the

a

Conforming. connection resulting in the formation of beam plastic hinge

b

Non-conforming. at the same location.

(2) Mechanism B: yielding of longitudinal bars of column at the

connection resulting in the formation of column plastic

hinge at the same location.

(3) Mechanism C: yielding of transverse reinforcement of the

connection, forming of diagonal tensile cracks, and shear

failure of the joint.

(4) Mechanism D: yielding of transverse reinforcement of beam

and column at the connection, and shear failure of them.

(5) Mechanism E: bond failure of beam bars passing through the

joint.

Fig. 1. Joint shear free body diagram.

consequences on the results of this study as described in Section

Fig. 2. The stress–strain diagrams for: (a) concrete, (b) longitudinal bars, (c) transverse bars; of the connection A-M-Z4 [29].

54 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

tion of the above mechanisms is responsible for failure of the con-

nection. It should be noted that the FE samples of the database 3.2.1. Concrete

were ﬁrst developed for the BE samples to evaluate the accuracy The FE model needs the following concrete properties:

of the FE analysis, through comparison of the key factors

qﬃﬃﬃﬃ

between analysis and test. The factors compared included: load– 0

The elasticity modulus ðEc Þ, being equal to 4700 f c (MPa), in

displacement curve of the connections, failure moment, pattern 0

of cracking, and failure mode. The comparison showed that an which f c is the concrete compressive strength.

acceptable conformance existed between the two groups of results The ultimate axial tensile strength, or the rupture modulus, f r ,

qﬃﬃﬃﬃ

such that the FE results can be used as a basis for connection model 0

where f r ¼ 0:6 f c (MPa).

development along with the BE samples. To see how the FE analy- 0

Ultimate axial compression strength ðf c Þ.

sis results of this work follow those of the BE’s, the A-M-Z4 sample

The Poisson’s ratio, m, assumed to be equal to 0.2.

is selected for comparison, as presented in the next section.

The axial stress–strain relation in compression. In this research

the Hognestad equation is used for the same propose, which is

written as follows [36]:

3. Nonlinear FE analysis of A-M-Z4 [29]

8 2

Geometrical characteristics and section details of the A-M-Z4 >

< f 00c 2eec eec ec 6 e0

0 0

connection are shown in Fig. A1. The specimen was pinned at col- fc ¼ h i ð2Þ

>

: f 00 1 0:15ð ec e0 Þ

umn base and roller supported at the beam ends and the column c ecu e0 e0 6 ec 6 ecu

top as shown in Fig. A2.

00

where f c is the maximum compressive stress in concrete calculated

from Eq. (3):

3.1. The FE modeling

00 0

f c ¼ ks f c ð3Þ

The FE model of the connection is developed using ANSYS [35]. 0

Plain concrete is modeled with Solid65. This is an 8-noded element ks is a constant being equal to 1, 0.97, 0.95, 0.93, and 0.92 for f c ’s of

having three translational degrees of freedom (Dof’s) at each node 15, 20, 25, 30, and P35 MPa, respectively. In Eq. (2), the strain e0 is

with the ability to simulate cracking and crushing in concrete. The determined using Eq. (4):

Link8 element is used for modeling of reinforcement. This is a two-

node truss-type element having three translational Dof’s at each

node. Steel plate modeling is carried out utilizing Solid45 element 300

being an 8-noded element with three transitional DOF’s at each

250

node. Ideally, the bond strength between the concrete and steel

reinforcement should be considered. However, in this study, per-

Load (kN)

200

fect bond between the materials was assumed. To provide the per-

fect bond, the link element for the steel reinforcing was connected 150 A

to the corresponding nodes of adjacent concrete solid elements, so

B

that the two materials shared the same nodes. While it is possible 100

that in maximum tension areas a complete bond does not exist C

between concrete and reinforcement bars, use of the above method 50

D

in an FEM modeling proves to be satisfying in this research and will

be shown to result in a model well simulating the studied experi- 0

mental samples in initial stiffness and ductility. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Similar to the actual test, an axial force equal to 10% of the gross Displacement (mm)

compression capacity of column (0.1Ag f c Þ is applied to the upper

Fig. 4. The load–displacement curve of A-M-Z4. The points A, B, C, and D correspond

node of column as a constant load. Despite the cyclic test, the lat- to initiation of cracks in concrete, yielding in tensile reinforcements of beam,

eral load is applied to the analytical model monotonically to trace yielding in compressive reinforcements of beam, and the peak loads of the

the envelope behavior. connection, respectively.

1 ANSYS EXPERIMENTAL

ELEMENTS AUG 2 2010

09:08:30

300

250

Lateral load (kN)

200

150

100

Y

Z X

50

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3. The FE model and load–displacement curve of the A-M-Z4 sample [29].

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 55

00

f ments are taken to be 500 and 510 MPa, respectively. The Poisson’s

e0 ¼ 1:8 c ð4Þ

Ec ratio of steel is assumed to be 0.3.

The concrete compressive strength in test was reported to be 3.3. Comparison of the FE and experimental results

30.7 MPa. Using this value, the concrete stress–strain curve is illus-

trated as Fig. 2a. The corresponding values of the elasticity and rup- According to the available test results, in this section the load–

ture modulus are 26.04 GPa and 3.88 MPa, respectively. displacement curves, failure moment and cracking patterns are

compared as follows.

Based on the reference experimental studies, the stress–strain The analytical and experimental load–displacement curves in

relation of the longitudinal and transverse rebars are introduced the ﬁrst quadrant are shown in Fig. 3. The analysis seems to have

as multi-linear curves shown in Fig. 2b and c. According to the test, been successful in following the envelope of the experimental

the yield strength of the longitudinal and transverse reinforce- results. The peak loads obtained for the samples are 279 and

700

700

600

600

500 500

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

400 400 A

A

300 300 B

B

200 200

C C

100 100

D D

0 0

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010

Strain Strain

(a) (b)

35 600

30 500

25

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

400

20 A

300 A

15 B

200 B

10

C C

5 100

D D

0 0

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003

Strain Strain

(c) (d)

600

500

Stress (MPa)

400

A

300

B

200

C

100

D

0

0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003

Strain

(e)

Fig. 5. The stress–strain curves of the critical elements for: (a) the tensile longitudinal rebars of beam, (b) the compressive longitudinal rebars of beam, (c) concrete in

compression, (d) transverse rebars of the connection, and, (e) transverse rebars of beam. The points A, B, C, and D correspond to initiation of cracks in concrete, yielding in

tensile reinforcements of beam, yielding in compressive reinforcements of beam, and the peak loads of the connection, respectively.

56 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

the analysis and the test, respectively. The offset length coefﬁcient proposed by Birely et al. [27,28].

Proposed optimal 0.4 0.6 0.4

3.3.2. The failure pattern of the connection

In this section the failure pattern of the AM-Z-4 sample is inves-

tigated using an FEM model and the analysis results are compared tensile and compressive steel elements of the longitudinal rebars,

with those of the experiments. critical compressive concrete element, and critical elements of

Fig. 4 illustrates the analytical load–displacement curve of the the transverse reinforcements of the panel zone and beam, are

A-M-Z4 assemblage. Also, the stress–strain curve of the critical shown in Fig. 5. The critical elements of the beam are located at

Fig. 6. Strain distribution just before failure: (a) in the connection A-M-Z4, (b) in the concrete elements of beam at the column face.

Fig. 7. Stress distribution before collapse in: (a) concrete elements of A-M-Z4, (b) longitudinal reinforcement, (c) cracking of connection just before failure, (d) the test

assemblage view at the failure [29].

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 57

Table 3

Error associated with the rigid offset model of Birely et al. [27,28].

Avg. Std. dev. Avg. Std. dev. Avg. Std. dev.

FEMA356a 0.53 0.07 0.50 0.08 0.54 0.07

ASCE/SEI 41-06b 0.04 0.14 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.13

Proposed optimalb 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.14

Fully rigid joint ðb ¼ 1Þb 0.24 0.12 0.17 0.14 0.25 0.12

Centerline ðb ¼ 0Þb 0.19 0.17 0.28 0.21 0.16 0.16

a

Beam and column effective stiffnesses per FEMA356.

b

Beam and column effective stiffnesses per ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06.

are well in the nonlinear region while the transverse reinforce-

ments of beam and connection still behave elastically.

For concrete (Fig. 5c), the stress remains almost constant

between a strain value of 0.005–0.015, whereas the input Hognes-

tad stress–strain curve suggests that the ultimate strain should be

taken as 0.0038. This happens because the FE technique used is

based on the smeared crack and not the discrete crack approach.

As shown in Fig. 6, checking of the tensile and compressive stress

contours of the concrete elements just before failure shows that

only a negligible part of the concrete volume, corresponding to

the concrete cover of the compressive rebars of beam at the con-

nection, posses strains excessive to 0.0038. Therefore, this should

have only a marginal effect on the credibility of results.

In Fig. 7, distribution of stress in concrete and reinforcement

elements are shown at the verge of failure. It is observed that

the longitudinal rebars of beam have yielded at the connection

and the concrete elements of tensile and compressive zones adja-

Fig. 8. Nonlinear model of RC joints suggested by Birely et al. [27,28]. cent to the connection have attained their maximum capacity

values. The above facts show that a plastic hinge forms in the

beam at the connection. The elements of the ties of the connec-

tion have also yielded while the longitudinal rebars of column

the side of the connection. The mentioned diagrams actually dis- remain in the elastic region, except in the connection. Based on

play the stress–strain variation of these elements during the anal- the experimental results, formation of the plastic hinge in beam

ysis process up to application of the peak lateral load. was responsible for failure. Moreover, shear cracks appeared in

The common benchmark points of the curves are labeled with A, the connection. It is interesting to note that similarly, in the

B, C, and D. These points correspond to initiation of cracks in con- nonlinear FEM analysis ﬁrst bending cracks appear in the

crete, yielding in tensile reinforcements of beam, yielding in com- tensile region of beam and then shear cracks develop in the con-

pressive reinforcements of beam, and the peak loads of the nection. With increase of load, cracks extend to the mid span of

connection, respectively. Fig. 5 clearly shows that at connection beam.

Fig. 9. Dual-hinge components: (a) beam spring, and (b) joint spring [27,28].

58 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

Fig. 7c shows the crack pattern of the connection in the last step the recommendations of FEMA356 and ASCE41-06 using the 26-

before failure. specimen dataset. The error was computed as the difference

Fig. 7d certiﬁes the FE analysis results as it shows formation of a between the experimental and simulated values, normalized by

plastic hinge in the beams at the connection and almost no damage the experimental values.

in the columns out of the connection zone. For developing the nonlinear model, Birely et al. utilized a beam

element with concentrated plasticity. In their model the connec-

tion zone was assumed to be completely rigid ðb ¼ 1Þ and the plas-

4. A review on the Birely’s discrete connection model

tic hinge of beam at the connection composed of two nonlinear

hinges in series. One of the hinges accounted for bending response

Since the model proposed in this research is an extension and

of beam and the second one represented the nonlinear behavior of

modiﬁcation of that suggested by Birely et al. [27,28] for discrete

joint. The moment-rotation characteristics of the beam bending

modeling of RC connections, a view on basic components of Birely’s

hinge was determined by moment–curvature analysis of beam.

model is in perspective.

That of the joint hinge was proposed to follow a bilinear path with

Birely et al. proposed a linear and a nonlinear model for simu-

the stiffness of each part being a function of the joint’s geometry

lating lateral behavior of interior RC connections using a database

and the shear strength of concrete. Fig. 8 illustrates the nonlinear

of 45 specimens. In the linear model, a modiﬁed offset length was

connection model of Birely et al., and Fig. 9 shows the moment–

proposed for better estimation of the initial stiffness of connection

rotation curves of each nonlinear spring.

and displacements corresponding to yielding of beam. The offset

For calculating the upper limits of rotations of beam and joint

length, or the length of a short rigid beam inserted between the

hinges, Birely et al. divided the dataset connections to three cate-

span beam and the connection’s central node, was determined as

gories of ductile joints meaning connections with displacement

a coefﬁcient ðbÞ of connection’s dimension. It was observed that

ductilities ðlD Þ not less than 4, intermediate or limited ductility

in some cases the models with no rigid offset ðb ¼ 0Þ, were stiffer

joints with 1 6 lD < 4, and brittle joints with lD < 1, and pre-

than the experimental assemblage. To decrease the associated

inaccuracy, the latter specimens were removed from the database sented the evaluation results accordingly. It was shown that the

when calibrating the linear model, resulting in a reduced database proposed nonlinear model resulted in the least average errors for

of 26 samples. The coefﬁcient b was presented as of Table 2 for the load and displacement corresponding to the point with the

three categories of connections, including all joints in the dataset, maximum strength; being 1% and 4%, respectively. For ductile

ACI compliant joints, and ACI non-compliant joints in the dataset. and intermediate joints, while the average errors in estimation of

Table 3 shows the average and standard deviation of error in the maximum strengths were acceptably small (8% and 12%,

estimation of the initial stiffness using coefﬁcient b proposed by respectively), those for the associated maximum displacement

Birely et al. [27,28] and those of the models developed based on were relatively large (61% and 20%, respectively).

Fig. 10. The end rigid zones for modeling of beam-column connection. (a) Fully ﬂexible connection; (b) fully rigid connection; (c) connection with a rigid offset length equal

to a factor b of beam and column depths.

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 59

In this research, motivated by the Birely et al.’s model, a more under service loads on member’s stiffness. The connection zone is

practical model is presented for simulation of elastic and inelastic usually assumed to be rigid and this is simulated with deﬁning

lateral behavior of the interior RC joints. Use of a larger database rigid offsets at the beam and column end parts at the connection.

with a wider range of design parameters, using a more efﬁcient cal- In this research, the rigid offset length recommended based on

ibration procedure, accounting for nonlinear behavior of column, the results of the reference database, is calibrated and evaluated.

ability to simulate elastic as well as post-yield behavior of connec- First, the recommendations of ASCE/SEI 41-06 and FEMA356 are

tion in a uniﬁed analytical model, considerable increase of ability assessed. Regarding Fig. 10b, FEMA356 recommends to assume the

and accuracy of model in simulation of elastic and inelastic behav- total connection as a rigid zone and deﬁnes an effective bending

ior of interior RC connections, are among the advantages of the stiffness for the frame element as a function of the axial force to

proposed model with regard to that of Birely et al. be equal to ð0:5 0:7ÞEIg (E = modulus of elasticity of con-

crete,Ig = the gross moment of inertia of member) [33]. In contrast,

5. The proposed model ASCE/SEI 41-06 introduces a smaller stiffness, equal to

ð0:3 0:7ÞEIg depending on the axial load. This reference deter-

The model suggested in this research, consists of a rigid offset mines the rigid offset length based on the ratio of bending capacity

length for the linear model and of the concentrated plasticity beam of column to beam to be: (a) equal to full depth of the column

P P

and column elements for the nonlinear model. The linear model is when M = M < 0:8, (b) equal to full depth of the beam

P nc P nb

meant to estimate the initial stiffness of the connection and the when M nc = Mnb > 1:2, and (c) average of beam and column

P P

nonlinear model is to simulate the connection’s stiffness due to depths when 0:8 < M nc = Mnb < 1:2.

yielding of beam and column’s reinforcement and strength reduc- In this model, according to Fig. 10c, the offset length was deter-

tion of connection after it was damaged due to shear failure. mined as a factor b times the joint’s dimension considering the

Evaluation of past experimental data shows that various design effective stiffness coefﬁcients of ASCE41-06 for beams and col-

parameters affect the seismic behavior of RC joints. In this research umns. The b factor varies with the SDR of connection. For this pur-

the shear demand ratio of connection ðSDR ¼ v j;max =v n Þ, where v j is pose, ﬁrst for each of the samples of the database (including 23

the maximum joint shear force and v n is the nominal joint shear experimental and 167 analytical samples introduced in Section

strength, is considered to be a prime factor and will be utilized 2.1.), the initial stiffnesses of the linear model,ðksim Þi , and the

to categorize the calibration coefﬁcients of the proposed linear experimental or FE samples ðkExp=FEM Þi are calculated as the secant

and nonlinear models of connection. On this basis, the connections stiffnesses for a point on the associated load–displacement curves

existing in the database are divided into three groups of those with corresponding to a displacement of 0.75Dy , where Dy is the yield

SDR 6 1.2, connections with SDR P 1.5, and the connections in displacement. Then Eq. (5) is used to calculate the error, or better:

between. The parameters required for each part of the numerical relative difference, of the initial stiffness estimated by the pro-

model will be calibrated on the same basis. Characteristics of both posed model, ei , as:

linear and nonlinear models are described comprehensively in the ðkExp=FEM Þi ðksim Þi

following sections. ei ¼ ð5Þ

ðkExp=FEM Þi

professional softwares, is an effective tool for simulation of the

connection’s ﬂexibility in the linear elastic analyses of the RC

frames. In linear modeling of a frame, the shear, bending, and tor-

sional stiffnesses of the frame elements are determined using

member dimensions and material characteristics. For RC elements

it is customary to use the effective stiffnesses calculated by reduc-

ing the member’s gross stiffness to simulate the effect of cracking

Table 4

The offset rigid length factor ðbÞ calibrated using the reference database.

b v j;max =v n

6 1:2 > 1:2& < 1:5 P 1:5

Proposed optimal 0.38 0.43 0.50

Fig. 11. Details of the numerical model.

Table 5

Evaluation of the initial stiffness error of the offset rigid length models based on the reference database.

Model v j;max =v n

6 1:2 > 1:2& < 1:5 P 1:5

Avg. Std. dev. Avg. Std. dev. Avg. Std. dev.

FEMA 356a 0.22 0.070 0.20 0.080 0.19 0.090

ASCE/SEI 41-06b 0.028 0.16 0.01 0.15 0.033 0.14

Proposed optimalb 0.014 0.054 0.015 0.071 0.019 0.116

Fully rigid joint ðb ¼ 1Þb 0.14 0.088 0.10 0.096 0.080 0.087

Centerline ðb ¼ 0Þb 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.21

a,b

The effective stiffnesses of beam and column are calculated based on FEMA356 and ASCE/SEI 41-06, respectively.

60 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

The coefﬁcient b of the rigid offset length is calculated as the value 5.2. The nonlinear model

minimizing sum of the squares of the errors in initial stiffness. The

calculated values of b for each range of SDR values are shown in Although the suggested rigid offset model can acceptably pre-

Table 4. dict the initial stiffness of the connection, this model is not able

Assessment of the experimental and FE analysis results showed to follow the stiffness reduction due to beam and column yielding

that in the studied connections the transverse reinforcement con- and strength reduction due to damage of the connection in shear.

dition (consistent or non-consistent according to Table 1) does not In this section, to simplify the nonlinear modeling of the response

have a considerable effect on elastic behavior and initial stiffness of of RC connections using commercial software packages, a model is

the connections. Therefore, it is not considered in the developed presented in which the moment-rotation response of the concen-

linear model. Also, the same results show that the initial stiffness trated plastic hinges of the beam and column elements are modi-

of connection increases with the increase of SDR, a fact in very ﬁed such that it simulates the ﬂexibility and strength reduction

good agreement with Table 4. due to the damage of connection.

In Table 5, the average and standard deviation of error of the The suggested model is presented in Fig. 11, including beams

initial stiffness estimated by the reference database based on the and columns with concentrated plastic hinges. The effective stiff-

suggested b factors and the calculated errors on the basis of mod- nesses of the beams and columns out of the plastic hinges are cal-

eling recommendations of FEMA356 and ASCE/SEI 41-06 are pre- culated based on ASCE/SEI 41-06. The rigid offset length is

sented. In addition, the error is mentioned for two cases, determined as a function of the shear demand ratio of the connec-

including the fully ﬂexible (Fig. 10)a and the fully rigid (Fig. 10b) tion using the values suggested in Table 4. In this model each of the

connections applying the effective stiffness recommendations of beam and column elements include two rotational springs placed

ASCE/SEI 41-06. in series at the plastic hinge location. One spring represents the

The numerical values of Table 5 show that applying the model- nonlinear behavior of the beam or column and the other one sim-

ing recommendations of FEMA356 results in a considerable ulates that of the connection. Each spring possesses its own

increase of the initial stiffness of connections with any shear moment-rotation, to be discussed in the following.

demand. On the other hand, the modeling requirements of ASCE/

SEI 41-06 make an underestimation of the same quantity when 5.2.1. The moment-rotation response of the nonlinear springs of the

the shear demand ratio is less than 1.5 and overestimates it for lar- beam and column

ger ratios, but is considerably more accurate than FEMA356 in both The nonlinear moment-rotation curves of beam and column are

cases. Also, it is observed that for a rigid connection, the recom- respectively determined with analysis of moment–curvature of

mendations of ASCE/SEI 41-06 do better than FEMA356 in estimat-

ing the initial stiffness.

Table 5 represents the fact that the rigid offset length suggested

in this study, somewhat enhance the accuracy of the initial stiff-

ness compared to the suggested model of ASCE/SEI 41-06. For

the connections with shear demand ratios equal to or less than

1.2 and equal to and larger than 1.5, the average error decreases

respectively from 2.8% and 3.3% of ASCE/SEI 41-06 to 1.4% and

1.9% of the suggested model.

According to Table 3, in the linear model of Birely et al., the

average and standard deviation for the ACI-consistent samples

are 0.01 and 0.17, and for the ACI-non consistent samples are

0.02 and 0.14, respectively. With the much more extensive data-

base used in this research (23 experimental and 167 FE numerical

samples compared with 26 experimental samples of Birely et al.),

the error of the proposed linear model ranges between 0.054 to Fig. 13. Components of shear deformation of connection. (a) The beam-column

0.116 in comparison to 0.14 to 0.17 of the Birely et al.’s model. panel zone and directions of tension and compression struts in which under lateral

forces, (b) the panel zone before deformation, (c) the panel zone after deformation

Therefore the proposed model can estimate the initial stiffness of

and its average shear strain.

the connection with higher accuracy.

Fig. 12. The moment-rotation response of the beam and column’s nonlinear Fig. 14. The moment-rotation response of the panel zone’s nonlinear spring.

springs.

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 61

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

beam and column sections. First the beam and column’s moment– 2

a2 þ b

curvature responses are calculated and then with the use of ﬂexi- c¼ ðDd1 þ Dd2 Þ ð6Þ

2ab

ble length of beam, (LBeam;flexible ¼ ðLb bhc Þ=2Þ, and column,

where c is the average joint’s shear strain. Other parameters are

(LColumn;flexible ¼ ðLc bhb Þ=2Þ, the above responses are transformed

shown in Fig. 13.

to moment-rotation curves. In the post-yield range, the moment–

Then using the equilibrium and deformation consistency equa-

curvature response is converted to the moment-rotation curve by

tions, the nonlinear moment-rotation response of the joint’s repre-

multiplying curvature by the length of the plastic hinge. Length

sentative spring is determined as follows [27,38]:

of the plastic hinge is taken to be equal to half of the beam depth

according to Corley [37]. The general model for the moment- Mj ¼ X v :V j ð7Þ

rotation behavior of the members is introduced as a tri-linear rela- hj ¼ X c :c ð8Þ

tion as of Fig. 12 including the cracking, yielding, and failure points.

where V j and c are the shear strength and the shear strain of the

panel zone, respectively, and the X c and X v factors are determined

5.2.2. The moment-rotation response of the nonlinear spring of the

as follows using the geometry of the frame:

panel zone

For determining the nonlinear moment-rotation response of the hc jd hc

panel zone, ﬁrst the shear force-shear strain curves of the connec- Xv ¼ 1 jd 2 1 ð9Þ

Lb Lc Lb

tions of the dataset are calculated using the FE analysis. Such hb

curves are depicted utilizing the force–displacement relation of Xc ¼ 1 ð10Þ

Lc ð1 hc =Lb Þ

the assemblage. For the latter purpose, equilibrium of forces acting

on the free body diagram of connection (Fig. 1) is considered and in which hb and hc are beam and column’s depths, respectively, and

having the shear force of column at each load step, the connection’s jd is the moment arm of the beam at critical section. These param-

shear force, Vj, is calculated using Eq. (1). The shear strain of con- eters are shown in Fig. 11.

nection due to diagonal tensile and compressive deformations of After computing the moment-rotation response of the nonlin-

the panel zone (Fig. 13) is calculated using Eq. (6): ear springs of the panel zones available in the reference database,

Vj/Vn≤1.2 1.2<Vj/Vn<1.5

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

I I

P/Agf'c

P/Agf'c

0.3 0.3

II II

0.2 0.2

III III

0.1 IV 0.1 IV

0.0 0.0

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

Average value of maximum joint shear Average value of maximum joint

strain (rad) shear strain (rad)

(a) (b)

Vj/Vn≥1.5

0.6

0.5

0.4

P/Agf'c

0.3 I

II

0.2

III

0.1 IV

0.0

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030

Average value of maximum joint shear

strain (rad)

(c)

Fig. 15. Variation of the average values of maximum shear strain capacity of connection under different axial load ratios and conditions of ties for connections with:

(a) v j =v n 6 1:2, (b) 1:2 < v j =v n < 1:5, (c) v j =v n P 1:5. Cases I–IV are deﬁned in Table 1.

62 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

Suggested values for the maximum joint shear strain ðcmax Þ.

300

P

Ag f c

Trans. reinf. v j;max =v n

6 1:2 > 1:2& < 1:5 P 1:5 250

a

6 0:1 I: C 0.025 0.022 0.014

P 0:4 s 6 h3c 0.020 0.017 0.011 200

6 0:1 II: N:C:b 0.022 0.017 0.013

P 0:4 hc

< s 6 h2c 0.016 0.014 0.010 150

3

6 0:1 III: N:C:b 0.020 0.015 0.010

P 0:4 hc

< s 6 hc 0.013 0.009 0.007 100

2

6 0:1 IV: N.C.b 0.016 0.008 0.007

P 0:4 s > hc 0.010 0.006 0.004 50

a

A-M-Z-4

Conforming.

b

Non-conforming. 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement (mm)

Table 7 Fig. 16. The experimental and simulated responses for the A-M-Z-4 sample.

Suggested values for the factor relating the moment of the panel zone to the beam

moments at cracking, yielding, and failure pointsðab;i Þ. where ab;i and ac;i are the calibrated modiﬁcation factors for the

ab;i v j;max =v n moment of the panel zone’s nonlinear spring at the beam and

column.

6 1:2 > 1:2& < 1:5 P 1:5

Rotation of this spring at the failure point is determined based

ab;cracking 1.237 0.981 0.686 on Eq. (12) as a function of shear strain associated with the maxi-

ab;yield 1.045 0.998 0.723

mum shear strength of the panel zone ðcmax Þ and system geometry.

ab;ultimate 0.922 0.885 0.619

Then the rotation corresponding to the cracking and yield points

are introduced as factors ki of the rotation at the failure point

(Eq. (13)), as follows:

Table 8 hu ¼ X c :cmax ð12Þ

Suggested values for the factor relating the moment of the panel zone to the column

moments at cracking, yielding, and failure pointsðac;i Þ. hj;i ¼ ki :hu ði ¼ cracking and yield pointsÞ ð13Þ

ac;i v j;max =v n The panel zone spring acts only up to the peak load. To make a bet-

6 1:2 > 1:2& < 1:5 P 1:5 ter estimation of displacement ductility of the connection, the max-

imum rotations are limited to certain values for each of the

ac;cracking 0.983 0.749 0.726

ac;yield 0.928 0.789 0.785 nonlinear springs of the beam, column, and panel zone. These limit

ac;ultimate 0.839 0.685 0.668 rotations are calibrated as factors k of the rotation corresponding to

the failure point, as in Eq. (14):

hfail ¼ k:hultimate ð14Þ

Table 9 5.2.3. The proposed values for maximum shear strain of the panel zone

Suggested values for the factors relating ultimate to cracking and yield rotations (ki Þ.

ðcmax Þ

ki v j;max =v n Investigation and evaluation of the shear force-shear strain

6 1:2 > 1:2 & < 1:5 P 1:5 curves of the connections of the dataset shows that:

kcracking 0.0314 0.0433 0.0471

kyield 0.3622 0.3841 0.5957

(1) For any conditions of transverse rebars of connection (con-

sistent or non-consistent), increase of the axial load ratio

or the shear demand ratio results in reduction of the maxi-

this response is idealized again as a tri-linear curve as in Fig. 14.

mum shear strain capacity (Fig. 15).

The moment-rotation response of this spring is calibrated such

(2) A non-consistent transverse reinforcement (s > hc =3Þ has a

that in which the moment of the panel zone at the beam and col-

detrimental effect on the maximum shear strain capacity

umn elements are calculated at cracking, yielding, and failure

and considerably decreases its value (Fig. 15). With the

points as factors ai of the corresponding beam and column

change of the ties condition from I to IV, the failure of con-

moments at the same points, i.e.:

nections having an SDR > 1 changes from a ductile (often

M jb;i ¼ ab;i :M b;i and M jc;i ¼ ac;i :M c;i yield of beam in bending) to a brittle mechanism due to

ði ¼ cracking; yield and ultimate pointsÞ ð11Þ shear failure of the joint or sometimes the beam (Table A5).

Table 10 maximum shear strain capacity under different axial load ratios

Suggested values for the factor relating ultimate and failure rotations ðkÞ. and various conditions of transverse reinforcement for certain val-

k v j;max =v n ues of the shear demand ratio.

The above behavior mechanisms and the results presented in

6 1:2 1:2 > & < 1:5 P 1:5

Fig. 15 are considered in determining the maximum shear strain

kbeam 3.50 2.54 2.21 capacity of connection. In addition, design parameters affecting

kcolumn 3.23 2.75 2.08

behavior of the connections such as the axial load ratio ðP=Ag f c Þ,

kjoint 2.81 2.72 2.57

the shear demand ratio (v j;max =v n Þ, and condition of the transverse

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 63

100

70 90

60 80

Lateral load (kN)

70

50

60

40

50

30 40

30

20

20

10

B01 10 B02

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

140 70

120 60

Lateral load (kN)

100 50

80 40

60 30

40 20

20 10

B03 B04

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

100 100

90 90

80 80

Lateral load (kN)

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 B05 10 B06

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 17. The experimental and simulated responses for the B series samples.

rebars, are accounted for. Table 6 displays the values suggested for ing to Tables 7–9. The values have been optimized for estimation of

the maximum shear strain capacity of connection ðcmax Þ corre- stiffness of the plastic hinge (a combination of nonlinear springs of

sponding to the point of initiation of shear strength degradation. the beam, column, and joint in series) at cracking, yielding, and

These values are in fact means of the maximum shear strains for failure in shear. This is implemented to ensure that the model

the connections existing in the studied dataset. For intermediate can accurately predict the pre-yield (cracking) and post-yield

values, a linear interpolation can be used. behavior (yielding of beam and column and strength degradation

due to damage of connection) of the response.

6. Calibration of the numerical model As seen in Tables 7 and 8, increase of shear demand ratio of the

connection reduces the associated moment of the connection at

The coefﬁcients ab;i ; ac;i , and ki , mentioned in Section 5.2.2, are different stages compared with the values corresponding to smal-

calculated using the dataset for different values of v j;max =v n accord- ler shear demands, as expected. In the same line, according to

64 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

70 70

60 60

50 50

Lateral load (kN)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

B07 B08

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

140 140

120 120

Lateral load (kN)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

B09 B10

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 17 (continued)

100 100

90 90

80 80

Lateral load (kN)

70 70

Lateral load (kN)

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

C01 C03

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Fig. 18. The experimental and simulated responses for the C series samples.

Table 9, lambda values increases for larger shear demands meaning connections. Based on the experimental and FE analysis results,

that the rotation ductility of the connection considerably decreases with increase of the SDR the failure mechanism of connection

for large shear demands as is again expected. changes from a ductile condition due to the yield of beam and

The k factor is also presented in Table 10 for each of the non- sometimes column in bending to a brittle condition because of

linear springs of beam, column, and panel zone according to SDR the shear failure of connection or occasionally beam, resulting

of connection. The purpose of this factor is better representation in an overall reduction of ductility (Table A5). As observed in

of the displacement ductility of connection with minimizing the Table 10, increase of SDR results in decrease of the k factor for

average error in estimation of the displacement corresponding all of the nonlinear hinges, in agreement with the above

to the starting point of strength degradation of the dataset reasoning.

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 65

Simulated Experimental

60 Simulated Experimental

60

50

50

Lateral load (kN)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

D01 D02

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement (mm) Dispalcement (mm)

60 60

50 50

Lateral load (kN)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

D03 D04

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

80

90

70

80

60 70

Lateral load (kN)

50 60

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10 10

D05 D06

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 19. The experimental and simulated responses for the D series samples.

7. Implementation of the proposed numerical model and (2) Assigning the boundary conditions.

comparison with the test results (3) Introducing the effective stiffness coefﬁcients of member

sections regarding the axial load ratio according to, e.g.,

7.1. Implementation ASCE41-06.

(4) Assigning the rigid offset length to the end portions

The different steps of introducing the proposed model to a sam- of the beam and column members, based on

ple analysis software can be summarized as follows: Table 4.

(5) Introducing the nonlinear hinges of beam, column and

(1) Introduction of the dimensions of connection, beam and joint, around the connection, consisting at each connection

column sections, and the material properties of concrete and side of a rotational spring for the connecting member in

steel. series with another spring for the joint (Fig. 11). The

66 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

120

90

80 100

70

Lateral load (kN)

80

60

50 60

40

30 40

20

20

10

D07 D08

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 19 (continued)

80 100

70 90

80

60

Lateral load (kN)

70

Lateral load (kN)

50

60

40 50

30 40

30

20

20

10 10

AL1 AL2

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 20. The experimental and simulated responses for the AL1 and AL2 samples.

Table 11

The difference percentage of the numerical model relative to the experimental results in estimating the displacement and force for the point of maximum strength.

6 1:2 > 1:2 & < 1:5 P 1:5

Peak disp. Avg. 1.65 2.76 4.73

Std. dev. 8.65 3.16 8.90

Peak load Avg. 0.82 0.84 1.63

Std. dev. 3.65 2.88 3.54

moment-rotation properties of these springs are deﬁned as (1) In A-M-Z-4 connection it is observed that the beam springs

of Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. rotations have reached their ﬁnal values ðhfail Þ, while springs

of column and joint have remained in the elastic region.

7.2. Comparison with the test results Therefore, the numerical model recognizes the beam plastic

hinges as being responsible for failure of joint.

To evaluate the proposed numerical connection model, the (2) In all of the B-series connections, both beam and joint

dataset introduced in Section 2 consisting of 23 experimental sam- springs rotations entered the nonlinear region. A similar

ples is utilized. For this purpose, the pushover analysis of the condition exists for column springs too, except B04 and

experimental samples is carried out using the proposed connection B06. With the latter exception, in all of the B-series connec-

model in SAP2000 [39]. Figs. 16–20 show results of the pushover tions the joint spring rotations have reached their ultimate

analysis along with the cyclic behavior of the dataset samples in value (hfail Þ. In B04 and B06 samples the beam springs have

the ﬁrst quadrant. reached to their ﬁnal rotation capacities.

For each group of the experimental samples, results of the anal- (3) In C series connections all of the springs (beam, column, and

ysis with the proposed numerical model can be summarized as joint) enter the nonlinear region. In C01 and C03 the joint and

follows: column spring rotations have reached to their ﬁnal capacities.

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 67

Table A1

The experimental samples B01, D07 [30], and A-M-Z4 [29] and the corresponding ﬁnite element models.

The basis sample B01 SH- SH-B2 SH- SH- D07 SH- SH- SH- A-M- CH1 CH2 CH3

B1 B3 B4 D1 D2 D3 Z-4

Concrete compressive 29 32.4 30.7

strength (MPa)

Beam depth width (mm) 240 240 240 170 203 406

Longitudinal bars Top 4D13 4U14 4U16 4U18 4U20 7D13 4U10 6U10 4U12 9#3 9U12 9U14 9U16

Bottom 4D13 4U14 4U16 4U18 4U20 7D13 4 6 6 5#3 7 7 7

+2#4

Tensile reinforcement ratio (%) 0.98 1.19 1.55 1.96 2.42 2.54 0.89 1.34 1.94 0.94 1.35 1.85 2.41

Depth width (mm) 240 240 240 340 254 457

Longitudinal bars 4D13 4U14 4U16 4U18 4U20 4D13 4U10 4U10 4U12 8#3 8U12 8U14 8U16

2D13 2U10 2U10 2U12 4#4 4U12 4U14 4U16

4U5 4U5 4U5 4U5

Longitudinal bar distance ratio 0.8 0.86 0.70

0.65 0.70

0.30

Tensile reinforcement ratio (%) 0.98 1.19 1.55 1.96 2.42 1.04 0.58 0.58 0.83 1.17 1.24 1.66 2.15

Joint Joint hoops D6-2sets D6-2sets U5-12sets

Column-to-beam depth ratio 1.00 2.00 1.12

v j;max =v n 1.00 1.12 1.31 1.46 1.62 1.22 0.57 0.75 1.02 0.95 1.25 1.49 1.64

Table A2

Characteristics of the sample series B [30].

The basis sample B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10

Concrete compressive strength (MPa) 29

Beam depth width (mm) 240 240

Longitudinal bars 5D13 5D16 4D13 5D13 5D13 4D13 4D13 5D16 5D16

SD345 SD390 SD345 SD390

Longitudinal bar distance ratio 0.8 0.65 0.5 0.65 0.5

Tensile reinforcement ratio (%) 1.22 1.92 0.98 1.22 1.22 1.07 1.18 2.09 2.30

Column depth width (mm) 240 240

Longitudinal bars 5D13 5D16 6D13 5D13 5D13 4D13 4D13 5D16 5D16

2D13 5D13

SD345 SD390 SD345 SD390

Longitudinal bar distance ratio 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.65 0.5 0.65 0.5

0.5 0.5

Tensile reinforcement ratio (%) 1.22 1.92 1.47 1.80 2.67 1.07 1.18 2.09 2.30

Joint Joint hoops D6(SD295) 2Sets

Column-to-beam ﬂexural strength ratio 1 1.48 1.35 1.78 1

Table A3

Characteristics of the sample series C and D [30].

The basis sample C01 C03 D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D08

Concrete compressive strength (MPa) 31 32.4

Beam Depth width (mm) 240 240 240 120 240 170

Longitudinal bars 3D13 5D13 7D13 7D16

+2D13

SD345

Longitudinal bar distance ratio 0.8 0.72

0.5

Tensile reinforcement ratio (%) 1.31 2.62 1.81 2.54 3.98

Column Depth width (mm) 240 240 240 340

Longitudinal bars 5D13 2D13 3D13 5D13 2D13 3D13 4D13 3D16

SD345

Longitudinal bar distance ratio 0.8 0.86

Tensile reinforcement ratio (%) 1.22 0.33 0.50 0.84 0.33 0.50 0.67 0.79

Joint Joint hoops D6(SD295) 2Sets

Column-to-beam ﬂexural strength ratio 1.03 1.10 0.99 1.42 2.23 0.72 1.03 1.33 0.98

(4) In the D series connections, all of the column springs umn spring rotations have reached their ultimate

enter the nonlinear region and except of D07, the joint capacities.

spring remain in the elastic region. In D01, D04, D05, (5) In AL1 and AL2 that are connections having weak seismic

and D08, the beam springs remained elastic while in details (including no ties in the connection), the joint springs

others they behaved nonlinearly. In D03 and D07 the enter the nonlinear region. In AL1 in which the column-

beam spring rotations and in the other samples the col- to-beam ﬂexural strength ratio is less than one, the column

68 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

Table A4

Characteristics of concrete and bars in the AL1 and AL2 samples [32].

Sample Concrete compressive strength Yield stress of the longitudinal bars of beam and column Yield stress of the transverse bars of beam and column

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

AL1 30.3 473 252

AL2 32.1

Table A5

Characteristics and design parameters of the database samples.

Joint specimens Joint description P=Ag f c v j;max =v n Transverse reinforcement Failure mechanism

Test or FEM Model

A-M-Z-4 Reference (Table A1) 0.1 0.95 I A,C A,C

A-M-Z-4-aI Similar to A-M-Z-4 0 0.93

A-M-Z-4-bI 0.2 0.96

A-M-Z-4-cI 0.3 0.97

A-M-Z-4-dI 0.4 0.98

CH1 Reference (Table A1) 0.1 1.25 I A,C A,C

CH1-aI Similar to CH1 0 1.24

CH1-bI 0.4 1.26

CH2 Reference (Table A1) 0.1 1.49 I A,C A,C

CH2-aI Similar to CH2 0 1.46

CH2-bI 0.4 1.52

CH3 Reference (Table A1) 0.1 1.62 I A,C A,C

CH3-aI Similar to CH3 0 1.56

CH3-bI 0.4 1.64

A-M-Z-4-aII Similar to A-M-Z-4 0 0.93 II A,C A,C

A-M-Z-4-II 0.1 0.94

A-M-Z-4-dII 0.4 0.95

CH1- aII Similar to CH1 0 1.18 II A,C A,C

CH1-II 0.1 1.19

CH1-bII 0.4 1.26

CH2- aII Similar to CH2 0 1.32 II A,C A,C

CH2-II 0.1 1.39

CH2-bII 0.4 1.49

CH3- aII Similar to CH3 0 1.48 II A,C A,C

CH3-II 0.1 1.59

CH3-bII 0.4 1.60

A-M-Z-4-aIII Similar to A-M-Z-4 0 0.82 III A,C A,C

A-M-Z-4-III 0.1 0.93

A-M-Z-4-dIII 0.4 0.96

CH1- aIII Similar to CH1 0 1.09 III A,C A,C

CH1-III 0.1 1.22

CH1-bIII 0.4 1.25

CH2- aIII Similar to CH2 0 1.2 III A,C A,C

CH2-III 0.1 1.31

CH2-bIII 0.4 1.33 A,C,D A,C

CH3- aIII Similar to CH3 0 1.17 III A,C A,C

CH3-III 0.1 1.33 A,C,D A,C

CH3-bIII 0.4 1.42

A-M-Z-4-a IV Similar to A-M-Z-4 0 0.72 IV A A

A-M-Z-4-IV 0.1 0.80

A-M-Z-4-dIV 0.4 0.82

CH1-aIV Similar to CH1 0 0.88 IV A A

CH1-IV 0.1 0.91

CH1-bIV 0.4 0.93 A,D A,C

CH2-aIV Similar to CH2 0 0.90 IV A A

CH2-IV 0.1 1.01 A,D A,C

CH2-bIV 0.4 1.05

CH3-aIV Similar to CH3 0 0.99 IV D C

CH3-IV 0.1 1.01

CH3-bIV 0.4 1.17

B01 Reference (Table A1) 0 1.00 I A,B,C A,B,C

B01-aI Similar to B01 0.1 1.13 A,C A,C

B01-bI 0.2 1.17

B01-cI 0.3 1.23

B01-dI 0.4 1.25

B01-eI 0.5 1.27

SH-B1 Reference (Table A1) 0 1.12 I A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B1-aI Similar to SH-B1 0.1 1.29

SH-B1-bI 0.4 1.37 A,C A,C

SH-B1-cI 0.5 1.39 A,B,C A,B,C

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 69

Table A5 (continued)

Joint specimens Joint description P=Ag f c v j;max =v n Transverse reinforcement Failure mechanism

Test or FEM Model

SH-B2 Reference (Table A1) 0 1.31 I A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B2-aI Similar to SH-B2 0.1 1.49

SH-B2-bI 0.4 1.56 A,C A,C

SH-B2-cI 0.5 1.58 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B3 Reference (Table A1) 0 1.46 I A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B3-aI Similar to SH-B3 0.1 1.69

SH-B3-bI 0.4 1.76 A,C A,C

SH-B3-cI 0.5 1.77 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B4 Reference (Table A1) 0 1.62 I A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B4-aI Similar to SH-B4 0.1 1.86

SH-B4-bI 0.4 1.88 A,C A,C

SH-B4-cI 0.5 1.96 A,B,C A,B,C

B01-II Similar to B01 0 1.00 II A,B,C A,B,C

B01-aII 0.1 1.09 A,C A,C

B01-dII 0.4 1.17

B01-eII 0.5 1.19 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B1-II Similar to SH-B1 0 1.17 II A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B1-aII 0.1 1.21 A,C A,C

SH-B1-bII 0.4 1.35

SH-B1-cII 0.5 1.37 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B2-II Similar to SH-B2 0 1.39 II A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B2-aII 0.1 1.46

SH-B2-bII 0.4 1.55

SH-B2-cII 0.5 1.58

SH-B3-II Similar to SH-B3 0 1.49 II A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B3-aII 0.1 1.66

SH-B3-bII 0.4 1.75 A,C A,C

SH-B3-cII 0.5 1.79 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B4-II Similar to SH-B4 0 1.63 II A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B4-aII 0.1 1.84

SH-B4-bII 0.4 1.85 A,C A,C

SH-B4-cII 0.5 1.89 A,B,C A,B,C

B01-III Similar to B01 0 1.08 III A,B,C A,B,C

B01-aIII 0.1 1.15 A, C A, C

B01-dIII 0.4 1.18

B01-eIII 0.5 1.23 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B1-III Similar to SH-B1 0 1.16 III A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B1-aIII 0.1 1.20 A,C A,C

SH-B1-bIII 0.4 1.26

SH-B1-cIII 0.5 1.32 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B2-III Similar to SH-B2 0 1.38 III A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B2-aIII 0.1 1.44

SH-B2-bIII 0.4 1.57 A,C A,C

SH-B2-cIII 0.5 1.63 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B3-III Similar to SH-B3 0 1.55 III A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B3-aIII 0.1 1.59

SH-B3-bIII 0.4 1.72 A,C A,C

SH-B3-cIII 0.5 1.77 A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B4-III Similar to SH-B4 0 1.75 III A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B4-aIII 0.1 1.78

SH-B4-bIII 0.4 1.81 A,C A,C

SH-B4-cIII 0.5 1.84 A,B,C,D A,B,C

B01-IV Similar to B01 0 1.01 IV A,B,C A,B,C

B01-aIV 0.1 1.06 A A

B01-dIV 0.4 1.11

B01-eIV 0.5 1.15

SH-B1-IV Similar to SH-B1 0 1.09 IV A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B1-aIV 0.1 1.16 A A

SH-B1-bIV 0.4 1.21 A,D A

SH-B1-cIV 0.5 1.29 A,D A,C

SH-B2-IV Similar to SH-B2 0 1.22 IV A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B2-aIV 0.1 1.25 A,D A

SH-B2-bIV 0.4 1.28 A

SH-B2-cIV 0.5 1.36 A,C

SH-B3-IV Similar to SH-B3 0 1.29 IV A,B,C A,B,C

SH-B3-aIV 0.1 1.31 D A,C

SH-B3-bIV 0.4 1.33 C

SH-B3-cIV 0.5 1.37

SH-B4-IV Similar to SH-B4 0 1.21 IV A,B A,B

SH-B4-aIV 0.1 1.25 D A,C

SH-B4-bIV 0.4 1.35 C

SH-B4-cIV 0.5 1.39

D07 Reference (Table A1) 0 1.22 I A,B,C A,B,C

70 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

Table A5 (continued)

Joint specimens Joint description P=Ag f c v j;max =v n Transverse reinforcement Failure mechanism

Test or FEM Model

D07-aI Similar to D07 0.1 1.27 A,C A,C

D07-bI 0.2 1.28

D07-cI 0.3 1.30

D07-dI 0.4 1.33

SH-D1 Reference (Table A1) 0 0.56 I A A

SH-D1-aI Similar to SH-D1 0.1 0.57

SH-D1-bI 0.4 0.60

SH-D2 Reference (Table A1) 0 0.75 I A A

SH-D2-aI Similar to SH-D2 0.1 0.76

SH-D2-bI 0.4 0.79

SH-D3 Reference (Table A1) 0 1.02 I A A

SH-D3-aI Similar to SH-D3 0.1 1.03

SH-D3-bI 0.4 1.07

D07-III Similar to D07 0 1.24 III A,B,C A,B,C

D07-aIII 0.1 1.27 A,C A,C

D07-dIII 0.4 1.29

SH-D1-III Similar to SH-D1 0 0.50 III A A

SH-D1-aIII 0.1 0.52

SH-D1-bIII 0.4 0.54

SH-D2-III Similar to SH-D2 0 0.72 III A,B,C A,B,C

SH-D2-aIII 0.1 0.74 A A

SH-D2-bIII 0.4 0.76

SH-D3-III Similar to SH-D3 0 1.00 III A,B,C A,B,C

SH-D3-aIII 0.1 1.04 A A

SH-D3-bIII 0.4 1.08

D07-IV Similar to D07 0 1.02 IV A A

D07-aIV 0.1 1.09 A,D A

D07-dIV 0.4 1.17 A,C,D A,C

SH-D1-IV Similar to SH-D1 0 0.52 IV A A

SH-D1-aIV 0.1 0.54

SH-D1-bIV 0.4 0.56

SH-D2-IV Similar to SH-D2 0 0.69 IV A A

SH-D2-aIV 0.1 0.72

SH-D2-bIV 0.4 0.74

SH-D3-IV Similar to SH-D3 0 0.95 IV A A

SH-D3-aIV 0.1 0.97

SH-D3-bIV 0.4 0.99 A,D A,C

B02 Reference (Table A2) 0 1.21 I A,B,C A,B,C

B03 0 2.19 I A,B,C A,B,C

B04 0 0.97 I A,B,C A,C

B05 0 1.21 I A,B,C A,B,C

B06 0 1.21 I A,C A,C

B07 0 0.99 I A,B,C A,B,C

B08 0 1 I A,B,C A,B,C

B09 0 2.23 I A,B,C A,B,C

B10 0 2.27 I A,B,C A,B,C

C01 Reference (Table A3) 0 1.16 I A,B,C A,B,C

C03 0 1.56 I A,B,C A,B,C

D01 0 0.89 I A,B A,B

D02 0 0.89 I A,B A,B

D03 0 0.89 I A,B A,B

D04 0 1.25 I A,B B

D05 0 1.25 I A,B B

D06 0 1.25 I A,B A,B

D08 0 2.23 I B B

AL1 Reference (Table A4) 0 1.55 IV B,C B,C

AL2 0 1.28 IV A,C A,C

springs behave nonlinearly while the beam springs in predicting the connection response under lateral load both in

remained elastic. In AL2 connection having a column-to- elastic and plastic regions with an acceptable accuracy. This con-

beam ﬂexural strength ratio larger than unity, the column clusion is true both for modern and traditional (seismically weak,

springs remain elastic despite the beam springs. In both AL1 and AL2) details of the interior RC connections.

samples the joint spring rotations have reached their

ultimate values. 7.3. Evaluating the presented numerical model

(6) In all of the cases, the simulated curves drop down abruptly

after reaching to the ultimate rotation capacities of nonlin- The push-over curves of the numerical model are compared to

ear springs of beam, column, or joint, per case. the envelope of the experimental hysteretic curves. The existing

differences in estimation of the displacement and force corre-

Comparing the simulated and experimental results (Figs. )16– sponding to the point of maximum strength are calculated, and

20 and reviewing the failure mechanisms reported in Table A5, it their averages (Avg.) and standard deviations (Std. dev.) are men-

can be said that the numerical model has been quite successful tioned in Table 11.

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 71

The differences reported in Table 11 being small show that the acceptable accuracy in simulating the elastic and inelastic behavior

model suggested in this research is able to simulate the response of of the connection.

connections with good accuracy. The range of the mean of differ- Although the model is illuminated from that of Birely et al.

ence in estimating the displacement at point of maximum error [27,28], there are important differences completely distinguishing

is from 1.65% for the connections with a shear demand ratio not the two. In addition to difference in the constitutional relations and

larger than 1.2 to 4.73% for the same ratio being not smaller than method of calibrating the model, some other basic dissimilarities

1.5. For estimation of the maximum strength, the average differ- exist between the models, including:

ence varies from 0.82% for connections with a shear demand ratio

equal to or smaller than 1.2 to 1.63% for the shear demand ratio not 1. The model of Birely does not possess the ability to simulate

smaller than 1.5. stiffness reduction of the connection due to yielding in column,

According to Birely et al., the average error of their nonlinear i.e., the nonlinear bending behavior of column is not included.

model in estimating the maximum lateral load capacity of connec- This is while the same factor has an important role in changing

tions with different ductility levels is 1–12% with a standard devi- behavior of the connection when the column is weaker than the

ation of 8–10%, and in estimating the associated displacement is beam in bending. In the proposed numerical model the nonlin-

4–61% with a standard deviation of 53–90%. ear bending behavior of column is included with the concen-

Comparing the above values with those presented in Table 11 trated plasticity.

shows that the nonlinear model presented in this research pos- 2. Response of the nonlinear spring of the panel zone in the model

sesses much smaller errors in estimation of the response values of Birely is bilinear in which stiffness of each branch is a func-

at the same point and can better predict the nonlinear behavior tion of the connection geometry and the elastic modulus of con-

of the said connections. crete. In the proposed model, a tri-linear response curve is used

for the same spring adding the initial cracking of the panel zone.

This in turn has resulted in including effects of parameters such

as the axial load ratio of column, the shear demand ratio and

8. Comparison of the presented numerical model with other the transverse bars of connection.

existing models 3. The Birely model consists of two distinct linear and nonlinear

models each one utilizing a different offset length, such that

As mentioned, so far many experimental studies have been the linear model is only able to simulate the elastic behavior

implemented on the connections and several numerical models and the nonlinear model simulating only the post-yielding

have been proposed to simulate the behavior and failure mecha- behavior. In the presented model, the linear/nonlinear path

nisms of them. Most of the suggested models are too complicated can follow the elastic and post-yielding behaviours in the

to be widespreadly used for common applications. In comparison, framework of a unique numerical model.

the prime characteristics of the numerical model presented in this 4. Regarding accuracy, the proposed model is more accurate in

research are: (1) consistency and ability to be used in common estimating either the initial stiffness (elastic region) and the

commercial structural software packages; (2) high speed of devel- force and displacement at the point of maximum strength

oping the connection model; (3) computational efﬁciency; (4) (inelastic region) of connection.

9. Conclusions

lating the elastic and inelastic behavior of RC connections able to

be simply implemented in commercial software packages was pro-

posed. A test database consisting of 23 experimental subassem-

blages along with an analytical database of 167 ﬁnite elements

models, developed in this study, was utilized. The essential param-

eters affecting the joint response, including demand-capacity

ratios of joint shear and column axial forces, compressive strength

of concrete, column-to-beam depth ratio, column-to-beam ﬂexural

strength ratio, detail of transverse reinforcement of joint, and lon-

gitudinal rebars arrangement of column and beam, were taken into

account.

The mechanisms of behavior included were those of the interior

Fig. A1. The A-M-Z4 subassemblage (Dimensions in mm) [29]. RC connections consisting of yielding of longitudinal bars of beam

(or column) at the connection (beam or column plastic hinge),

Fig. A2. The connection A-M-Z4 [29], (a) beam section, (b) column section.

72 M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73

Fig. A3. The boundary conditions and details of the experimental samples of series B, C, and D of Shiohara and Kusahara [30,31].

with the connections used in this study. The shear demand ratio of

connection was utilized to categorize the calibration coefﬁcients of

the proposed linear and nonlinear models of connection.

In the linear part, to appropriately estimate the initial stiffness

of connection, rigid offset lengths were provided in the beam and

column at the connection point. The force–displacement curves

calculated by the proposed rigid offset lengths were compared

with those by the recommended offset lengths of FEMA356 and

ASCE/SEI 41-06, and the experimental results. Errors of the connec-

tion’s initial stiffness in average were 20.3% for FEMA356, 5.4% for

ASCE/SEI 41-06, and 1.6% for the proposed model, showing the very

good accuracy of this model in estimating the initial stiffness.

In the nonlinear model, use was made of the beam and column

elements with concentrated plasticity. Each of these elements

included two rotational springs placed in series. A spring is repre-

Fig. A4. Details of the experimental samples AL1 and AL2 of Li et al. [32]. sentative of the nonlinear behavior of beam and column and the

other of the nonlinear behavior of the connection. The moment-

rotation response of the nonlinear spring was considered to be

yielding of transverse reinforcement of the connection resulting in tri-linear considering the initial cracking of the panel zone. This

forming of diagonal tensile cracks and shear failure of the joint, in turn resulted in including effects of parameters such as the axial

and, yielding of transverse reinforcement of beam or column at load ratio of column, the shear demand ratio and the transverse

the connection resulting in beam or column shear failure. The bond bars of connection. Certain limits were considered for rotations

mechanism is ignored in this study. It was shown that the latter of the beam, column, and panel zone nonlinear springs to include

assumption had no important consequences on the results analysis limitation of the ductility capacity of the connection. Contrary to

M. Omidi, F. Behnamfar / Engineering Structures 88 (2015) 51–73 73

Fig. A5. Dimensions and details of beam and column in the AL1 and AL2 samples [32].

some other existing models, in the proposed model, the linear/non- [16] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modiﬁed compression ﬁeld theory for reinforced

concrete elements subjected to shear. J Am Concrete Inst 1986;83:219–31.

linear path can follow the elastic and post-yielding behaviours in

[17] Shin M, LaFave JM. Modeling of cyclic joint shear deformation contribution in

the framework of a unique numerical model. RC beam-column connection to overall frame behavior. Struct Eng Mech

The results of evaluating the numerical model illustrated that 2004;18(5):645–69.

the average of errors in estimating the displacement and force at [18] Jeremic B, Bao Y. Modeling of reinforced concrete beam-column joint. ECI 248

term project report, Civil and Enviromental Engineering Department,

the maximum capacity were 3.1% and 1.1% respectively, represent- University of California, Davis; 2005.

ing the very good ability of the model in simulating the post- [19] Tajiri S, Shiohara H, Kusuhara F. A new macroelement of reinforced concrete

yielding behavior of the connections. beam-column joint for elasto-plastic plane frame analysis. In: Eighth national

conference of earthquake engineering, San Francisco, California; 2006. No. 674.

[20] Bao Y, Kunnath SK, Tawi SE, Lew HS. Macromodel-based simulation of

progressive collapse: RC frame structures. J Struct Eng 2008;134(7):1079–91.

Appendix A [21] Anderson M, Lehman D, Stanton J. A cyclic shear stress–strain model for joints

without transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct 2007;30(4):941–54.

A.1. The database of this study [22] Kim J, LaFave JM. Key inﬂuence parameters for the joint shear behavior of

reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column connections. Eng Struct

2007;29:2523–39.

Characteristics of the samples selected or produced for calibra- [23] Wang GL, Dai JG, Teng JG. Shear strength model for RC beam–column joints

tion in this study are given in Tables A1–A5 and Figs. A1–A5. under seismic loading. Eng Struct 2012;40:350–60.

[24] Yu J, Tan KH. Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive

collapse resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-assemblages.

References Eng Struct 2013;55:90–106.

[25] Ghobarah A, Biddah A. Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frames

including joint shear deformation. Eng Struct 1999;21(11):971–87.

[1] Giberson MF. Two nonlinear beams with deﬁnitions of ductility. J Struct Div, [26] Fleury F, Reynouard JM, Merebet O. Multi component model of reinforced

ASCE 1969;95:137–57. concrete joints for cyclic loading. J Eng Mech 2000;126(8):804–11.

[2] Otani S. Inelastic analysis of RC frame structures. ASCE J Struct Div [27] Birely A, Lowes L, Lehman DE. A model for the practical nonlinear analysis of

1974;100(7):1433–49. reinforced-concrete frames including joint ﬂexibility. Eng Struct

[3] Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen N. Reinforced concrete response to simulated 2012;34:455–65.

earthquakes. ASCE J Struct Eng Div 1970;96(12):2257–73. [28] Birely A, Lowes L, Lehman DE. Practical linear and nonlinear models of

[4] Banon H, Biggs JM, Irvine HM. Seismic damage in reinforced concrete frames. reinforced concrete beam-column joints in existing structures. In: 9th US

ASCE J Struct Div 1981;107(9):1713–29. national and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, Toronto

[5] Fillipou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic (Ontario, Canada); 2010. No. 694.

behaviour of reinforced concrete joints. Berkeley (CA): EERC, Univ. of [29] Cheok G, Lew HS. Performance of 1/3 scale model precast concrete beam-

California; 1983. Report no UCB/EERC 83/19. column connections subjected to cyclic inelastic loads. Report no. 2. NISTIR

[6] Fillipou FC, Issa A. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete frames under 4433, NIST, Gaitherburg, MD; June, 1991.

cyclic load reversals. Berkeley (CA): EERC, Univ. of California; 1988. Report no. [30] Shiohara H, Kusuhara, F. An overlooked failure mechanism of reinforced

UCB/EERC-88/12. concrete beam-column joints. In: 7th CUEE and 5th ICEE joint conference,

[7] Alath S, Kunnath SK. Modeling inelastic shear deformation in RC beam-column Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo (Japan); 2010.

joints. In: Tenth conference on engineering mechanics. University of Colorado, [31] Shiohara H. Reinforced concrete beam-column joint: failure mechanism

Boulder; 1995. p. 822–5. overlooked. J Struct Construct, AIJ 2008;73(631):1641–8. in Japanese.

[8] Pampanin S, Magenes G, Carr A. Modeling of shear hinge mechanism in poorly [32] Li B, Tran CT, Pan TS. Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic

detailed RC beam column joints. In: Concrete structures in seismic regions: ﬁb behavior of lightly reinforced concrete beam-column joints. J Struct Eng

2003 symposium, May 6–8, Athens, Greece. Athens: Technical Chamber of 2009;135(9):1007–18.

Greece; 2003. Paper no. 171. [33] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of

[9] Sharma A, Eligehausen R, Reddy GR. A new model to simulate joint shear buildings. Prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal

behavior of poorly detailed beam–column connections in RC structures under Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (FEMA Publication No.

seismic loads, Part I: Exterior joints. Eng Struct 2011;33(3):1034–51. 356); 2000.

[10] Biddah A, Ghobarah A. Modeling of shear deformation and bond slip in [34] ASCE/SEI 41. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of

reinforced concrete joints. J Struct Eng Mech 1999;7:413–32. Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia; 2007.

[11] Hsu TTC. Uniﬁed theory of reinforced concrete. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press Inc.; [35] ANSYS Inc, Release 10.0 Documentation for ANSYS, United States; 2005.

1993. [36] Desayi P, Kirshan S. Equation for the stress–strain curve of concrete. J Am

[12] Elmorsi M, Kianoush MR, Tso WK. Modeling bond-slip deformations in Concrete Inst 1964;61:345–50.

reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Can J Civil Eng 2000;27(3):490–505. [37] Corley GW. Rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Div,

[13] Youseef M, Ghobarah A. Modeling of RC beam-column joints and structural ASCE 1966;92(ST5):121–46.

walls. J Earthquake Eng 2001;5:93–111. [38] Omidi M. Study of non-linear static behavior and equivalent non-linear model

[14] Lowes LN, Altoontash A. Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-column joints of reinforced concrete beam-column joints. MSc thesis. Department of Civil

subjected to cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2003;129(12):1686–97. Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Iran; 2011.

[15] Altoontash A. Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of [39] Computer and Structures Inc, SAP2000 Analysis References, Berkeley,

reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Stanford, CA, University, PhD Thesis; California; 2008.

2004.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.