1

Numerical Modelling of a Reinforced

Concrete SMRF Beam-Column Joint in
Seismostruct.

MSc Research by Usama Ali MSc Research

Supervisor: Dr. Naveed AhmadUsama Ali
Supervised by
Dr. Naveed Ahmad

Civil Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar

 Serial Number Courses Grade
Students Profile
1 Advance Mechanics of Materials B
Introduction
2 Advance Reinforced Concrete Design B
Problem Statement
3 Advance Structural Analysis B+
Aims and Objectives
4 Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structures B
Literature Review

Methodology 5 Introduction to Bridge Engineering A-

Validation of Calb. Model 6 Design of Pre-stressed Concrete A-

Performance Evaluation 7 Research Methodology B

Conclusion 8 Computer Application in Civil Engineering A

References 9 Dynamics of Structures A-

CGPA: 3.35
Students Profile

Introduction Why Beam Column Joints are Special

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• In RC structures, portions of columns that are common to beams at their
Literature Review intersection are called beam-column joints.
• Beam-Column joint acts as a transmitter/transporter in structures. It
Methodology
transfers moments from beam to column. During moment transfer,
Validation of Calb. Model
Beam-Column joint acts as a rigid connection
• If, during moments transfer, the joint is subjected to shear stress more
Performance Evaluation
than it can carry, then the joint may fail and ultimately behave as a pin
Conclusion joint causing the structure to fail.
References
Students Profile

Introduction Types of Beam Column Joints

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Joints Under Seismic Loading

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation
• S.R Uma (2012) and
Conclusion
• Murti (2010).
References
Students Profile

Introduction Introduction to Seismostruct.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• Material and geometric Non linearity
Literature Review • Eight different types of analysis
• Real-time plotting of displacement curves and deformed shape of the
Methodology
structure, together with the ability of pausing and re-starting the
Validation of Calb. Model
analysis.
Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction New Zealand Earthquake 2011

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References

Securities House (1973) Harcourt Building (1950s) PGC (1963)

Kam (2012)
Students Profile

Introduction • Explicit Beam-Column Joint damageability models are

Problem Statement not available in Seismostruct.
Aims and Objectives
• Numerical models of SMRF beam-column joint are
Literature Review
considered elastic, therefore numerical models for
Methodology Design Based Earthquakes(DBE) are usually carried out.
Validation of Calb. Model
• Numerical Models for Maximum Considered
Performance Evaluation
Earthquake(MCE) are not usually verified in which the
Conclusion joints shows a non linear and inelastic deformation of BC-
References joint which significantly changes the lateral response of
RC framed structures.
Students Profile

Introduction • Development of non-linear models for code complaint

Problem Statement and non complaint joints.
Aims and Objectives
• Calibration of shear hinge constitutive law in Beam
Literature Review
Column joints.
Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model • Comparison of local mechanism of numerical model
with experimental frame.
Performance Evaluation

Conclusion • Application of numerical model in Reinforced Concrete

References Structures for Maximum Considered Earthquake(MCE).
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Behavior

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• (Melo et al 2014) performed unidirectional cyclic tests on six full
Literature Review scale beam column joints without proper detailing. Shear failure was
Methodology
observed in all specimens due to improper concrete confinement and
lack of shear reinforcement. The shear failure was intensified by the
Validation of Calb. Model
bar slippage inside the joint.
• (Maria Teresa De Risi et al 2016) focused on exterior beam column
Performance Evaluation
joint without transverse reinforcement for numerical modelling and
Conclusion concluded that the seismic capacity of an RC structure can be limited
References
to great extent (up to 50 percent) by the shear or bond failure of
beam column joint. It also concluded that the beam column joint
behavior needs to be considered.
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Behavior.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

(Mitra et al 2003) evaluated, calibrated and verified concrete beam
Literature Review column joint based on the assumption that
• Confined concrete strut was responsible for the joint shear transfer.
Methodology
• Failure of joint was followed by yielding of longitudinal beam.
Validation of Calb. Model
• reinforcement strength loss caused the loss in strength of a beam
Performance Evaluation
column joint.
• compression-strut model may be used to simulate the load-
Conclusion deformation response of the joint core.
• An accurate simulation of joint stiffness requires consideration of
References
both nonlinear joint core response as well as bond-slip response of
frame member longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint.
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Behavior.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• (B. Bayhan et al 2015] performed tests and simulations on a weak
Literature Review beam column concrete joint and concluded that a simple nonlinear
Methodology
joint model produces excellent correlation, incorporating the effects
of joint non linearity in analytical models for buildings with weak
Validation of Calb. Model
beam-column joints.
Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Shear Strength Models

Problem Statement
• Gao-Lin Wang et al (2012) presented separate equations or exterior
Aims and Objectives and interior joints. His results showed that the shear strength of a
Literature Review
beam column joint depend upon four key parameters, namely the
concrete strength, axial force on the columns, transverse steel and
Methodology joint aspect ratio.
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Shear Strength Models

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives • (Park 2000) and (Priestley 1997) suggested equations for shear strength of
beam column joints based of basic equations proposed (by ACI 318-95 i.e.
Literature Review and NZS 3101:1995 i.e. ). Joint cracking in weak beam column joints (non-
Methodology
compliant) is suggested to initiate at principle tensile stress.

Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation • Equation for Joint Shear Strength as per ACI 352
Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Shear Strength Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• (Kim and LaFave 2012) developed a shear capacity of RC beam-column

Literature Review
joint subjected to cyclic loading.

Methodology • Using an extensive experimental database, envelope of shear stress vs

Validation of Calb. Model shear strain was developed by joining 4 key points i.e. cracking (of joint),
Performance Evaluation yielding, ultimate and fracture points
Conclusion Unit:Mpa……….Eq(1)

References
unit:Rad……Eq(2)
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Shear Strength Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• Equation (1) and (2) in previous slide is for peak Shear Stress and
Literature Review
Shear Strain of a BC Joint only.
Methodology • Equation (1) and (2) are multiplied with coefficients to obtain
Validation of Calb. Model
Shear stress and strain values at cracking, yielding and post peak
levels for a beam column joint Shear stress vs Strain
4
Performance Evaluation 3.5

• Constitutive law for a beam 3

Conclusion
column joint.

Joint shear Stress

2.5

References 1.5

0.5

0
0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Shear Deformation(srain)
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Shear Strength Models.

Problem Statement
• Ali Sahin Tasligedik (2016) proposed a separate formula, according to
Aims and Objectives
which the capacity and demand can be approximately calculated prior
Literature Review
using a finite elements.
Methodology
Equation of shear capacity of joint represented as column moment is
Validation of Calb. Model
given by
Performance Evaluation
(unit KN/m)
Conclusion
)
References
Where �₁ and �₂ are geometric coefficients.
Students Profile

Introduction Beam Column Joint Modelling.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives Beam Column joint modelling can be of two types

Literature Review
1. Multi-spring Models
• To represent multiples non linear response like bar slip, shear cracking,
Methodology
joint deformation, bar pullout.
Validation of Calb. Model • Explicit and accurate representation.
• Complex computation phase.
Performance Evaluation

Conclusion 2. Rotational Spring Models.

• Mechanism is lumped by introducing a rotational spring.
References • Behavior of Zero length rotational spring defined by constitutive law.
• Rotational spring represents relative rotation between beam and column.
Students Profile

Introduction Multi-spring Joint Numerical Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion Lowes and Attontash(2003) Youssef and Ghobarah(2001)

References
Students Profile

Introduction Multi-spring Joint Numerical Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion
Sharma et al (2011)
References
Students Profile

Introduction Rotational Spring Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Alath and Kunnath (1995) Pampanin (2002)

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Biddah and Ghobarah (1999)
Students Profile

Introduction Experimental Work on which Model is Based.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Numerical Modeling has been performed on two frames: code
Literature Review Complaint frame namely Model-1 and Non-Compliant namely
Methodology
Model-3
• Model-1 is a RC SMRF (as Per ACI-352-02) 2 Story 2 Bay frame with
Validation of Calb. Model
fc’=3000psi and Fy=60000psi
Performance Evaluation
• Mode-3 is a RC 2 Story 2 Bay frame with fc’=2000psi and
Fy=60000psi and lacks transverse reinforcement in joint panel.
Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Experimental Work on which Model is Based.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Experimental Work on which Model is Based.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Numerical Modelling.

Problem Statement
Shear Hinge
Aims and Objectives Rotational
Numerical Hinge Model
Joint Element Model
Literature Review models
Bar Slip
Multi-Spring
Methodology Modelling of Model
Beam-column
Joint
Validation of Calb. Model
Joint Shear Empirical Kim Model
Numerical Strength Model (2012)
Performance Evaluation Modelling Model
Strut and Tie
Conclusion Modelling of Model
Fiber Element
Structural
Modelling
Element Beam
References and Column) Average Plane
Stress Model
Lumped
Plasticity
Modelling
Students Profile

Introduction Proposed Numerical Model (Beam and Column).

Problem Statement
• The 2-Story 2-bay frame is idealized as an equivalent frame
Aims and Objectives • The materials used are concrete and Steel with particular properties given to each
material.
Literature Review • The beam and column elements of the equivalent frame model are modeled as
inelastic force based frame elements (Considers material inelasticity and geometric
Methodology
non-linearity)
Validation of Calb. Model • For accurate behavior the beam and column elements are divided into section fibers
and integration sections. (Papadrakakis 2008;Calabrese et al. 2010)
Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Proposed Numerical Model.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Proposed Numerical Model (Joint Modeling)

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• The joint panel consists of a stiff elastic beam type flexural element.
Literature Review • The joint panel is provided with zero length rotational spring
Methodology element and beam column intersection as well as at beam
interface.
Validation of Calb. Model
• Each rotational spring follows a
Performance Evaluation constitutive law.

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Proposed Numerical Model (Joint Modeling)

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• The shear strength and strain of joint has been calculated based on
Literature Review Kim and LaFave (2012) models which has also been used to
Methodology develop constitutive law.
Validation of Calb. Model Unit:Mpa……….Eq(1)

unit:Rad……Eq(2)
Performance Evaluation
4
Shear stress vs Strain
Conclusion 3.5
3

Joint shear Stress

2.5
References 2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Shear Deformation(srain)
Students Profile

Introduction Proposed Numerical Model (Joint Modelling)

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives The moment capacity for the rotational spring added at beam column joint
interface is calculated through the model suggested by Alath and Kunnath (1995)
Literature Review
where it was used for scissors type model. In this model the joint shear is related
Methodology
with the moment capacity of the rotational spring added at the interface. The
Validation of Calb. Model
equation for the moment capacity proposed by Alath and Kunnath is
Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Proposed Numerical Model (Joint Modelling)

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives • Due to cyclic loading on a frame structure inelastic strains may develop in
reinforcement giving rise to considerable extension of reinforcement.
Literature Review
• Extension + Pullout = Bar slippage
Methodology • Bi-linear symmetric model proposed by (T.Takeda et al 1970) has been used as an
Validation of Calb. Model analytical model for bar slip

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Results.
Problem Statement
Model Fy Fc’ Joint transverse
Aims and Objectives Reinforcement
Model-1 60,000psi 3000psi Present
Literature Review
Model-3 60,000pse 2000psi Absent
Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model • Calibration of numerical model with experimental.
1. Comparison of peak roof displacement and base shear.
Performance Evaluation
2. Comparison of time-displacement profile.
Conclusion
3. Comparison of local damage mechanism.
References
Students Profile

Introduction
Model-1 Numerical Calibration with Experimental
Results.
Problem Statement
Model-1 Code Complaint Results Comparison
Displacement (mm) % Drif Base Shear (KN)
Aims and Objectives Run Experimental Numerical % error Experimantal Numerical Experimental Numerical %age error
Run1 133.56 138.818 3.7 1.88 1.808 188.9 180.5 4.44
Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References • The Time vs. Roof Displacement Profile of Experimental Model-1

frame under Northridge ground motion is compared with
Numerical response.
Students Profile

Introduction
Model-3 Numerical Calibration With Experimental
Results.
Problem Statement
Model-1 Code Complaint Results Comparison
Aims and Objectives Displacement (mm) % Drif Base Shear (KN)
Run Experimental Numerical % error Experimantal Numerical Experimental Numerical %age error
Run2 123.69 110.53 10.63 1.75 1.56 117.91 121.36 2.91
Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Calibration of Local Damage Mechanism for Model-1.

Problem Statement
Local mechanism for Beams and Columns ( Reinforced Concrete members) and Joints
Aims and Objectives
can be evaluated in Seismostruct by associating damages with strains produced in different
Literature Review members.
Methodology
Strain limits for concrete
Validation of Calb. Model Limit states of Concrete Strain Type Value
Concrete cracking Tensile 0.0001
Performance Evaluation Concrete spalling Compressive 0.002
Concrete Core crushing Compressive 0.006
Conclusion
Strain limits for Steel
References Limit states of Steel Strain Yield strength (psi) Strain Value
Rebar Yielding Tensile 60,000 0.00206
Rebar Fracture Tensile 60,000 0.06
Students Profile 4
Shear stress vs Strain
Introduction Calibration of Local Damage Mechanism for Model-1. 3.5
3

Joint shear Stress

2.5
Problem Statement
2
Joint damageability has been defined on basis of Kim’s (2012) Model used to define
1.5
Aims and Objectives
constitutive law for Rotational spring1 added in joint panel.
0.5
Literature Review 0
The shear strain limits calculated based
0 on 0Equation
0 2 are
0.01 shown
0.01 in 0.01
the table
0.01 0.01
Shear Deformation(srain)
Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model Model-1 RC-SMRF Joint Shear Strain Limits for External Joints
Limit State Shear Strain
Performance Evaluation
Undamaged ( No cracking ) ϒ˂0.000084
Conclusion Joint Shear Cracking 0.000084˂ϒ˂0.001
Extensive damage ( Yielding) 0.001˂ϒ˂0.004
References Critical Damage 0.004˂ϒ˂0.008
Incipient Collapse ϒ˃0.0085
Introduction Local Damage Mechanism for Model-1.
Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Local Damage Mechanism for Model-3

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

• Limits states for concrete and steel in Model-3 are same as that of Model-1
Literature Review • Due to absence of transverse reinforcement, lack of confinement and low
strength of concrete, the limits for joint strains tend to be different that previously
Methodology defined for
Model-1
Validation of Calb. Model
• For weak beam column joints the JI parameter can be calculated from Kim and
LaFave (2012)
Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References • The JI value for Model-3 is plugged in as 0.0139 in Equation-2 to obtain

Joint strain limits.
Unit:Mpa……….Eq(1)
Students Profile

Introduction Local Damage Mechanism for Model-3

Problem Statement
Model-3 Joint Shear Strain Limits
Aims and Objectives for External Joints Kim (2012)
Limit State Shear Strain
Literature Review Undamaged ( uncracked ) ϒ˂0.000115
Joint Shear Cracking 0.0000115˂ϒ˂0.002
Methodology Extensive damage ( Yielding) 0.002˂ϒ˂0.005
Critical Damage 0.005˂ϒ˂0.011
Validation of Calb. Model Incipient Collapse ϒ˃0.011

Performance Evaluation Shear Strain Limit States for Weak Beam Column Tee Joints
(Pampanin et al 2003)
Conclusion Damage State Strain limit
Undamaged (Uncracked ) ϒ˂0.0002
References Limited Damage 0.0002˂ϒ˂0.005
Extensive Damage 0.005˂ϒ˂0.01
Critical Damage 0.01˂ϒ˂0.015
Incipient Collapse ϒ˃0.015
Students Profile
v
Introduction Local Damage Mechanism for Model-3
Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Local Damage Mechanism for Model-3

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Local Damage Mechanism for Model-3

Problem Statement

Joint under 40 Model-3 Joint Shear Strains

Aims and Objectives 0
percent run
Literature Review exceeded strain Extensive damage
0
value of 0.002 and
Methodology faced severe
0
Validation of Calb. Model damage.
0
Performance Evaluation
0
Conclusion

References 0

0
Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 4

Model-3 5% Column1
Students Profile

Introduction Drif Profile and Inter-story Drif for Model-1.

Problem Statement
• In addition to these comparisons Model-1 is also tested for 11 additional
Aims and Objectives
earthquake records obtained from PEER-NGA STRONG GROUND
Literature Review
MOTION DATABASE.
Methodology
• The downloaded accelerogram required spectral matching with a target
Validation of Calb. Model
spectrum.
Performance Evaluation • Soil type-B and zone 4 parameters are used for constructing a target spectrum.
Conclusion
• Spectral matching was performed using Seismomatch software and the time-
References acceleration record obtained was applied to the model in Seismostruct
software.
Students Profile

Introduction Drif Profile and Inter-story Drif for Model-1.

Problem Statement
List of Ground Motion Location data obtained from
PEER NGA Strong Ground Motion Database
Aims and Objectives No. Year Event Station Name Magnitude PGA(g)
1 1978 Tabas, Iran Boshrooyeh 7.35 0.542
2 1999 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 7.14 0.549
Literature Review 3 1989 Loma Prieta, USA Hollister 6.93 0.492
4 1995 Kobe, Japan Abeno 6.9 0.356

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion 5 Spitak, Armenia Gukasian 6.77 0.469

References
 0.6 San Fernendo
0.4 Superstition Hills USA
0.2
0.6
0 0.4
-0.2 0.2
0
-0.4 -0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.6 -0.4
-0.6

Tabas, Iran LA'aquilla

0.6 0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
-0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 -0.4
-0.6
0.6 Loma Prieta
0.4
Imperial Valley 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0
-0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6

Victoria, Mexico Kobe

1
0.6
0.5 0.4
0 0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0
-0.5 -0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.5 -0.4
Morgan Hill -0.6
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.8
0.6 -0.5
0.6 Dusze Turkey
0.4 Spitak, Armenia 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
 Drif Ratio for Model-1 DBE
2

Students Profile Vi ctori a , Mexi co

Tabas Ira n
L'Aqui l l a
Introduction Duzce, Turkey
Imperi a l Va l l ey
Kobe, Ja pa n

Story
1 Loma Pri eta
Problem Statement Morgan Hi l l , USA
Sa n Fernendo
Spi ta k

Aims and Objectives SuperStition Hi l , USA

Avera ge Dri f Ratio

Literature Review 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
% drif

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model
Drif Profile for Model-1
2
Superstition Hi l l s
Performance Evaluation Spi tak
San Fernendo
Morga n Hi l l

Conclusion Loma Pri eta

Kobe, Japan
Floor

1
Imperi al Val l ey
Duzce, Turkey
References L'Aqui l l a
Ta ba s , Ira n
Vi ctori a, Mexi co
Average Dri f Profie
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Drif
 Drif Ratio for Model-3
2

Students Profile Vi ctori a, Mexi co

Ta ba s Iran
L'Aqui l l a
Introduction Duzce, Turkey
Imperi al Val l ey
Kobe, Japan

Story
1
Problem Statement Loma Pri eta
Morga n Hi l l , USA
San Fernendo
Spi tak
Aims and Objectives SuperStition Hi l , USA
Average Dri f Ratio

Literature Review 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
% drif
Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model Drif Profile for Model-3
2
Superstition Hi l l s
Performance Evaluation Spi ta k
Sa n Fernendo
Morgan Hi l l
Loma Pri eta
Conclusion Kobe, Ja pa n
Floor

1
Imperi a l Va l l ey
Duzce, Turkey

References L'Aqui l l a
Tabas , Iran
Vi ctori a , Mexi co
Avera ge Dri f Profie
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Drif
Students Profile

Introduction Local Mechanism DBE vs. MCE, Model-1

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Damage DBE vs. MCE.

Problem Statement

Results shows that Model-1 Joint Shear Strains

Aims and Objectives 0
one joint has Extensive damage
Literature Review crossed strain value
0
of 0.001 lying in
Methodology range of extensive
0
Validation of Calb. Model damage.
0
Performance Evaluation
0
Conclusion

References 0

0
Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 4

DBE Model Column1

 Mode-1 Drift Ratio for MCE
2

Students Profile 2.5 Drif Ration DBE vs. MCE

2
Introduction

Story
1.5
Dri f Ration DBE, Model -1
1
Problem Statement Dri f Ratio MCE Model -1 1

0.5
Aims and Objectives
0
story 1 Story 2
Literature Review 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 % Drif DBE % Drif MCE
Drift Ratio
Methodology Drif Profile DBE vs. MCE
Validation of Calb. Model Model-1 Drift Profile for MCE 160
2 140

120
Performance Evaluation
100

80
Conclusion Model -1 DBE
Story

1 Model -1 MCE
60

References 40

20

0
0 Story 1 Story 2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Roof Displacement Drif DBE Column1
Students Profile

Introduction Local Mechanism DBE vs. MCE, Model-1

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Joint Damage DBE vs. MCE.

Problem Statement

Joints strain having Model-3 Joint Shear Strains

Aims and Objectives 0
crossed or lying in
Literature Review proximity of 0.002
shear strain shows 0
Methodology that extensive
Validation of Calb. Model damage and 0
yielding has
occurred at MCE
Performance Evaluation
level. 0

Conclusion
0
References

0
Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 4

DBE Model Column1

 6
Drif Ration DBE vs. MCE
Mode-3 Drift Ratio DBE vs. MCE
5
Students Profile 2

4
Introduction 3

2
Problem Statement MCE

Story
1
DBE
1

Aims and Objectives 0

story 1 Story 2

Literature Review 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
% Drif DBE % Drif MCE
Drift Ratio
Methodology
Drift Profile DBE vs. MCE
400
Validation of Calb. Model Model-3 Drift Profile DBE vs. MCE
2
350

300
Performance Evaluation
250

Conclusion MCE
200
Story

1 DBE
150
References 100

50

0
0 Story 1 Story 2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Roof Displacement Drif DBE Drif MCE
 • The proposed numerical modelling technique adequately predicted the behavior of
Students Profile code compliant and code deficient model.
Introduction
• Although there were little disparities between the predicted and experimental time
displacement response in some regions, however peak roof displacement and peak
Problem Statement base shear were close agreement
• The local predicted mechanism was in very good agreement with experimental
Aims and Objectives predicted mechanism.
• Incorporating the behavior of a beam column joint effected the local damage
Literature Review mechanism as well as global mechanism such as Inter-story drif and roof
displacement demand of a building.
Methodology
• Weak beam column joint resulted in an increased inter-story drif as well is drif
Validation of Calb. Model ratio thus causing more damages. Hence adequate design of joints is necessary.
• In weak beam column joints due to insufficient confinement bar slippage at joint
Performance Evaluation face at beam occurred which increased the story drif and damageability.
• The collapse of Model-3 against MCE shows that structures not designed as per
Conclusion design code have no margin against failure.
• Near collapse state of Model-1 against MCE shows that structure designed as per
References design code have little margin against failure. Therefore revisions of parameters for
earthquake design may be considered.
• Confinement of RC beam-column joints is necessary for frame structures.
Students Profile
• ACI-ASCE Committee 352. (1988). “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in
Introduction Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures.” ACI Structural Journal, 85(6), 675–696.
• ACI Committee 318. (2008). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete ( ACI 318-08 ).
Problem Statement American Concrete Institute.
• Alsiwat, B. J. M., and Saatcioglu, M. (1993). “Reinforcement anchorage s l i p under m o n o t o n i c
Aims and Objectives loading.” 118(9), 2421–2438.
• Altoontash, A. (2004). “Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of reinforced
Literature Review concrete beam-column joints.” (August), 232.
• Bayhan, B., Moehle, J. P., Yavari, S., Elwood, K. J., Lin, S. H., Wu, C. L., and Hwang, S. J. (2015).
Methodology “Seismic response of a concrete frame with weak beam-column joints.” Earthquake Spectra, 31(1),
293–315.
Validation of Calb. Model • “BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS T . Paulay * a n d A . Scarpas **.” (1981). 131–144.
• Benavent-Climent, A., Cahís, X., and Vico, J. M. (2010). “Interior wide beam-column connections in
Performance Evaluation existing RC frames subjected to lateral earthquake loading.” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
8(2), 401–420.
Conclusion • Biddah, A., and Ghobarah, A. (1999). “Modelling of shear deformation and bond slip in reinforced
concrete joints.” (April).
References • Broglio, S. (2009). “Critical Investigation About Bond-Slip in Beam-Column Joint Macro-Model.”
• Brown, P. C., and Lowes, L. N. (2007). “Fragility functions for modern reinforced-concrete beam-
column joints.” Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 263–289.
Students Profile
• Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., and Pampanin, S. (2002). “Experimental Test on a Three Storey RC
Introduction Frame Designed for Gravity Only.” Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 727(June 2017), Paper Reference 727.
Problem Statement • Celik, O. C., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2008). “Modeling beam-column joints in fragility assessment of
gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(3), 357–
Aims and Objectives 381.
• Choi, H., and Kim, J. (2011). “Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of RC beam–column sub-
Literature Review assemblage.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 63(4), 297–310.
• Elmorsi, M., Kianoush, M. R., and Tso, W. K. (2000). “Modeling bond – slip deformations in
Methodology reinforced concrete beam – column joints.” 505, 490–505.
• Favvata, M. J., Izzuddin, B. A., and Karayannis, C. G. (2008). “Modelling exterior beam – column
Validation of Calb. Model joints for seismic analysis of RC frame structures ¶.” (July), 1527–1548.
• Feng, F., Jiang, K., Hwang, H.-J., and Yi, W.-J. (2018). “Earthquake response of low-rise RC moment
Performance Evaluation frame structures according to energy dissipation ratio of beam-column joints.” Journal of
Structural Integrity and Maintenance, Taylor & Francis, 3(1), 33–43.
Conclusion • For, O., By, T., Sivaselvan, M. V, Member, S., and Reinhorn, A. M. (2000). “Odels for.” (June), 633–
640.
References • Hwang, H. J., Eom, T. S., and Park, H. G. (2015). “Design considerations for interior RC beam-
column joint with additional bars.” Engineering Structures, 98(September 2015), 1–13.
• Kaliluthin, A. K., Kothandaraman, S., and Ahamed, T. S. S. (2014). “A Review on Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint.” 3(4), 11299–11312.
Students Profile
• Kam, W. Y., and Pampanin, S. (2012). “Fi na.” (November 2017).
Introduction • Kam, W. Y., Pampanin, S., and Elwood, K. (2011). “Seismic performance of reinforced concrete
buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttelton) earthquake.” Bulletin of the New Zealand
Problem Statement Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(4), 239–278.
• Kim, J., and LaFave, J. M. (2007). “Key influence parameters for the joint shear behaviour of
Aims and Objectives reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column connections.” Engineering Structures, 29(10), 2523–2539.
• Kim, J., and LaFave, J. M. (2008). “Probabilistic joint shear strength models for design of RC beam-
Literature Review column connections.” ACI Structural Journal, 105(6), 770–780.
• Kim, J., and LaFave, J. M. (2012). “A simplified approach to joint shear behavior prediction of RC
Methodology beam-column connections.” Earthquake Spectra, 28(3), 1071–1096.
• Kim, J., LaFave, J. M., and Song, J. (2009). “Joint shear behaviour of reinforced concrete beam–
Validation of Calb. Model column connections.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 61(2), 119–132.
• Lehman, D., Stanton, J., Anderson, M., Alire, D., and Walker, S. (2004). “Seismic performance of
Performance Evaluation older beam-column joints.” Proc. 13th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, (1464), 1464.
• Lima, C., Martinelli, E., and Faella, C. (2012). “Capacity models for shear strength of exterior joints
Conclusion in RC frames : state-of-the-art and synoptic examination.” 967–983.
• Lima, C., Martinelli, E., Macorini, L., and Izzuddin, B. A. (2017). “Modelling beam-to-column joints
References in seismic analysis of RC frames.” Earthquake and Structures, 12(1), 119–133.
• Lin, S. L., Giovinazzi, S., and Pampanin, S. (2012). “Loss Estimation in Christchurch CBD following
Recent Earthquakes: Validation and Refinement of Current Procedures.” 2012 NZSEE Conference,
(082), 12.
Students Profile • Lowes, L. N., Altoontash, A., and Mitra, N. (2005). “Closure to ‘Modeling Reinforced-Concrete
Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading’ by Laura N. Lowes and Arash Altoontash.”
Introduction Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(6), 993–994.
• Lowes, L. N., Mitra, N., and Altoontash, A. (2004). “A Beam-Column Joint Model for Simulating the
Problem Statement Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames A Beam-Column Joint Model for Simulating
the Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames, PEER Report 2003/10.” (August).
Aims and Objectives • Maria J. Favvata1,∗,†,‡, Bassam A. Izzuddin2, § and Chris G. Karayannis. (2008). “Modelling
exterior beam–column joints for seismic analysis ofRC frame structures.” (July), 1527–1548.
Literature Review • Masi, A., Santarsiero, G., Lignola, G. P., and Verderame, G. M. (2013). “Study of the seismic
behavior of external RC beam-column joints through experimental tests and numerical
Methodology simulations.” Engineering Structures, Elsevier Ltd, 52, 207–219.
• Melo, Jose, Varum, Humberto, Rossetto, T. (2014). “Cyclic behaviour of interior beam–column
Validation of Calb. Model joints reinforced with plain bars José.”
• Mitra, N., and Lowes, L. N. (2007). “Evaluation, Calibration, and Verification of a Reinforced
Performance Evaluation Concrete Beam–Column Joint Model.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(1), 105–120.
• Monti, G., and Spacone, E. (2000). “Reinforced Concrete Fiber Beam Element with Bond-Slip.”
Conclusion Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(10), 1187.
• Pampanin, S., Calvi, G., and Moratti, M. (2002). “Seismic behavior of RC beam-column joints
References designed for gravity only.” 726(June 2017), 1–10.
• Pampanin, S., and Carr, A. (2003). “Modelling of shear hinge mechanism in poorly detailed RC
beam-column joints MODELLING OF SHEAR HINGE MECHANISM IN POORLY DETAILED RC BEAM-
COLUMN JOINTS.” (May 2014).
 • Pampanin, S., Magenes, G., and Carr, A. (2003). “Modeling of shear hinge mechanism in poorly
detailed R.C beam-column joints.” University of Canterbury, (January), 5–8.
Students Profile
• Park, R. (1996). “Explicit Incorporation of Element and Structure Overstrength in the Design
Introduction Process (Paper No. 2130).” Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
• Park, S. (2013). “Simulation of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Nonductile Beam-Column Joints.”
Problem Statement 29(1), 233–257.
• Park, S., and Mosalam, K. M. (2013). “Simulation of reinforced concrete frames with nonductile
Aims and Objectives beam-column joints.” Earthquake Spectra, 29(1), 233–257.
• Paulay.T. (1996). “Seismic Design of Concrete Structures.” Eleventh World Conferences on
Literature Review Earthquake Engineering.
• Paulay, T., and Scarpas, A. (1981). “Behaviour of Exterior Beam-Column Joints.” Bulletin of the New
Methodology Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 13(3), 131–144.
• Priestley, M. J. N. (2007). DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
Validation of Calb. Model BUILDINGS.
• Prof, U., and Prasad, M. (n.d.). “Seismic Behavior of Beam Column Joints in Reinforced Concrete
Performance Evaluation Moment Resisting Frames SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BEAM COLUMN JOINTS IN.”
• Ricci, P., De Risi, M. T., Verderame, G. M., and Manfredi, G. (2016a). “Experimental tests of
Conclusion unreinforced exterior beam-column joints with plain bars.” Engineering Structures, Elsevier Ltd,
118, 178–194.
References • Ricci, P., Risi, M. T. De, Verderame, G. M., and Manfredi, G. (2016b). “Experimental tests of
unreinforced exterior beam – column joints with plain bars.” ENGINEERING STRUCTURES, Elsevier
Ltd, 118, 178–194.
• Risi, M. T. De, Ricci, P., and Verderame, G. M. (2016). “Modelling exterior unreinforced beam-
column joints in seismic analysis of non-ductile RC frames.”
 • Saatcioglu, B. M., and Razvi, S. R. (1992). “Strength and ductility o f confined concrete.”
118(26631), 1590–1607.
Students Profile
• Sagbas, G., Vecchio, F. J., and Christopoulos, C. (2011). “Computational modeling of the seismic
Introduction performance of beam-column subassemblies.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(4), 640–663.
• Sharma, A., Reddy, G. R., Eligehausen, R., and Vaze, K. K. (2012). “Modelling Beam-column joints in
Problem Statement performance analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures.” (November 2016).
• T.Takeda. (1971). “Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated Earthquakes.”
Aims and Objectives • Tasligedik, A. S., Akguzel, U., Kam, W. Y., and Pampanin, S. (2016). “Strength Hierarchy at
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints and Global Capacity.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
Literature Review Taylor & Francis, 00(00), 1–34.
• Taylor, P., Sagbas, G., Vecchio, F. J., and Christopoulos, C. (n.d.). “Computational Modeling of the
Methodology Seismic Performance of Beam-Column Subassemblies Computational Modeling of the Seismic
Performance of Beam-Column Subassemblies.” (December 2014), 37–41.
Validation of Calb. Model • Vecchio, C. Del. (2017). “THE SIMPLE LATERAL MECHANISM ANALYSIS ( SLAMA ) FOR THE SEISMIC
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF A CASE STUDY BUILDING DAMAGED IN THE Research Report
Performance Evaluation 2016-02 ( SLAMA ) FOR THE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE IN THE 2011 CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE
Eng . Roberto Gentile.” (June).
Conclusion • Del Vecchio, C., Di Ludovico, M., Pampanin, S., and Prota, A. (2017). “Validation of Refined
Numerical Modeling for Existing Rc Buildings: Comparison Between Predicted and Observed
References Earthquake Damage.” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Methods
in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN 2015), (June), 2792–2804.
• Wang, G. L., Dai, J. G., and Teng, J. G. (2012). “Shear strength model for RC beam-column joints
under seismic loading.” Engineering Structures, Elsevier Ltd, 40, 350–360.
 • Youssef, M., and Ghobarah, A. (2001). “Modelling of RC beam-column joints and structural walls.”
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 5(1), 93–111.
Students Profile

Introduction

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review

Methodology
Validation of Calb. Model

Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
( supplementary Slides)
Students Profile

Introduction Multi-spring Joint Numerical Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives Lowes and Attontash(2003) proposed Beam column joint model Multi-spring model.

Literature Review • 13 spring elements that consisted of 8 zero length springs that represented the bar slip
behavior, 4 transverse shear springs that represented the shear transfer mechanism and one
Methodology
joint panel shear element that represented the shear deformation of joint core.
Validation of Calb. Model
• Constitutive law for each spring
Performance Evaluation
• Hysteresis model included.
Conclusion
• bond strength behavior
References
Students Profile

Introduction Multi-spring Joint Numerical Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

The model presented by Youssef and Ghobarah(2001)
Literature Review
explicitly defines the
Methodology • Concrete crushing
Validation of Calb. Model
• bar slip behavior of steel ( Springs at joint face)
• Joint Shear Deformation. ( Diagonal Springs)
Performance Evaluation

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Multi-spring Joint Numerical Models.

Problem Statement
Sharma et al (2011) Introduced Multiple spring
Aims and Objectives
elements in this model.
Literature Review
• Each spring represented different mechanism
Methodology triggered in the joint panel.
Validation of Calb. Model
• The nonlinear behavior of joint was
Performance Evaluation represented through two shear hinge spring

Conclusion elements and a single rotational spring element.

References • The spring parameters were defined through

joint principal shear stress vs shear strain
relationship
Students Profile

Introduction Rotational Spring Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

A single rotational spring was introduced at the beam column
Literature Review
interface by Alath and Kunnath (1995)
Methodology • This rotational spring exhibited the degrading and deteriorating
Validation of Calb. Model behavior.
• The hysteretic behavior used to define the model was calibrated
Performance Evaluation using the experimental cyclic response of the structure
• envelope was defined using empirical method
Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Rotational Spring Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Literature Review Pampanin (2002,2003) presented beam column model by

Methodology
providing a rotational spring at beam column interface.
The beam and column elements were connected by introducing
Validation of Calb. Model
rigid elements at the panel representing beam column joint core.
Performance Evaluation
The spring rotation was based upon the experimental tests.

Conclusion

References
Students Profile

Introduction Rotational Spring Models.

Problem Statement

Aims and Objectives

Biddah and Ghobarah (1999)
Literature Review
Three rotational spring elements were
Methodology introduced in this model, two of them
Validation of Calb. Model represented the bar slip behavior
between longitudinal reinforcement
Performance Evaluation coming from the beam and anchored
in the joint and a rotational spring that
Conclusion
represented the shear distortion of
References beam column joint.