Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3 A. Mukherjeea *, G. L. Raib
a
4 Director, Thapar University
6 Tel: +91 175 2393001, 2363007 Fax: +91 175 2364498, 2393005
b
7 Research scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
11
12 ABSTRACT
13The present paper discusses the performance of reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column joints
14under cyclic excitation. Two types of beam-column joints, with ductile and brittle reinforcement
15detailing, have been cast. The joints are subjected to cyclic displacements of monotonically
16increasing amplitude until failure. Post failure, the joints have been rehabilitated using reinforced
17polymer composites (FRPC). The rehabbed joints have been subjected to the same load regime.
18The performance of rehabbed joints has been compared with that of the fresh joints. The
20strength and deformability of joints. In this part of the paper the performance of the fresh joints
22
2 INTRODUCTION
4worldwide, there are large numbers of them that deteriorate, or become unsafe due to changes in
5loading, changes in use, or changes in configuration. Occurrence of natural calamities may also
6render a large number of structures unusable. Failure of structures at the beam-column joints in
7the recent earthquakes has exposed the lacuna in the building codes in recommending adequate
8reinforcements and their proper detailing at the joints. The lack of confinement of concrete due
9to sparse spacing of links has caused crushing of concrete (Fig. 1a). The lack of adequate links
10has also led to shear failure at the joints (Fig. 1b). The inadequate bond length of reinforcements
11and improper lapping has been the cause of local weakness and failure (Fig. 1c).
12The pitfalls of improper reinforcement detailing have been highlighted by many researchers. In
13the following discussion only key observations relevant to the present objectives have been
14included. The provision of adequate spirals or hoop reinforcements at critical sections was
15suggested for resisting the bursting pressure due to compression in concrete as well as the
16tension from the beam reinforcements [1-3] Importance of bond between the longitudinal bars
17and concrete for dissipation of energy has been highlighted.[4-5] The combined effect of joint
18shear and the compressive load on the column has been studied and it was observed that higher
19column compression delays shear cracking [6-7] Based on the experiments of a wide range of
20scales of joints it is observed that the small scale samples had faster deterioration of stiffness due
22Although the importance of joint reinforcements to improve the joint ductility has been
23emphasized in research and design codes there are a large number of structures where the ductile
24detailing has not been followed. Therefore, it is important to develop strategies of retrofitting and
1 2
2
1rehabilitation of such joints. Retrofitting deficient joints that have not been damaged has been
2investigated [9-11]. Recently, rehabilitation technique for complete recovery of joints that have
3damaged to the extent that they have exhausted their moment resistance has been reported [12].
4The work was restricted to small scale joints. The objective of this paper is to develop a
6of RC beam-column joints, both ductile and brittle, has been reported. Fresh specimens have
7been subjected to cyclic deformation of monotonically increasing amplitude until the load
8resistance of the joint is completely exhausted. The joints have then been rehabbed with the
9proposed technique. The rehabbed specimens have been subjected to the same load regime. The
10part I of the paper reports the performance of the fresh joints. The performance of the proposed
12
13 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
14The present experiment has four stages- specimen preparation, infliction of damage,
15rehabilitation and final tests. In the first part of the paper the first two phases have been
16described.
17 Material System
18The material system consists of concrete, steel reinforcements and CFRP sheets and strips. The
19concrete mix was designed for target strength of 30MPa on 150-mm cubes. The cubes have been
20cast from each batch of concrete and a record of their strength after 28 days of curing has been
21kept. The average strength of the cubes was 32MPa the standard deviation was ± 1.2 and stress-
23
1 3
2
1The reinforcement steel for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement was tested for tensile
2capacity. The longitudinal steel had average yield strength of 650MPa and the steel for stirrups
3had yielded at an average stress of 500MPa. Table 1 presents the details of the reinforcements.
5Test Specimens
6The configuration and dimensions of the joints are shown in Fig. 3. All the specimens had
7identical dimensions. They had the same longitudinal reinforcements in the beams and columns.
8However, the spacing and the position of stirrups differed in the two sets. One set had closely
9spaced stirrups (75mm) to provide adequate confinement and shear capacity. The stirrups were
10provided in the core joint region as per the contemporary ductile detailing practice (D-type). In
11the other set of specimens the spacing of stirrups is relatively sparse (150mm) as per the past
12practice that would lead to brittle failure (B-type). In this case, there is no stirrup in the core joint
13region. There is a large stock of facilities built according to the old codes and the objective of
14this test is to examine the proposed rehabilitation technique for those structures. While the first
15group of specimens should not fail in shear the second group is deficient in shear capacity.
16
17The reinforcement cages were prepared taking care of the precise position of the longitudinal
18bars and stirrups. They were placed in steel molds and a cover of 20mm was provided. The
19position of the reinforcement cage was maintained by means of spacers. The standard M30 grade
20concrete mix was used. The specimens are demolded after 24 hours and kept in the curing tank
22
23 Damage Infliction
1 4
2
1The experimental setup is shown in figure 4a. The specimen was fixed at the ends of columns
2and the columns were subjected to a constant axial load by means of hydraulic jacks. The
3magnitude of load was monitored through a load cell (Fig. 4a). To observe the effect of column
4axial load on the behavior of the joint the samples had different column axial forces. The
5columns of the ductile specimens were loaded with 10% of their axial capacity. It has been
6reported earlier that the behavior of shear deficient specimens alters appreciably with the
7variation of axial force in the column. Therefore, the brittle specimens were tested with 10%,
9To inflict damage the joints were subjected through a predetermined displacement regime. The
10displacement is applied by attaching a dynamic load actuator of 500kN capacity. The initial
11displacement amplitude was 2mm and it was incremented with a step of 2mm in each epoch until
1240mm displacement was reached(Fig. 5). Three identical displacement cycles consisted of one
13epoch of displacement. The accuracy of the displacement measurement was ±0.01mm. The
15Several displacements and strains have been recorded during the experiment (Fig. 4b). The
16displacements have been recorded by means of linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT)
17of travel ±150mm. LVDT1 measures the tip dispalcement of the loaded beam. LVDT2 and
18LVDT4 measure the horizontal deformation of the centres of the columns. From these readings
19we can estimate the rotation of the column at the joint. LVDT3 measures the horizontal
20displacement of the center of the joint. If all the loads are applied vertically and the ends are
21restrained properly there should not be any displacement of the center in the horizontal direction.
22There was no appreciable displacement recorded by LVDT3. LVDT5 was placed perpendicular
23to the plane of the joint. This was done to ensure absence of any out-of-plane displacement of the
24specimen at the time of loading. The strains have been measured at the critical locations on steel
1 5
2
1bars and CFRP strips. The responses have been recorded online using a data acquisition system.
2However, the strain gages were affected at the onset of damage in the specimen. Therefore, only
3limited results could be recorded by the strain gages. The cracks on the surface of the specimens
4were marked at the completion of each load cycle and they were traced on a grid paper. Widths
6It may be noted that the specimens had two arms. The arms were loaded sequentially; i.e. after
7one arm is subjected to the entire load regime the other arm was loaded. The test on the second
1 6
2
1 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
2The parameters that have been monitored in the present investigation are the load-deflection
3hysteresis of the tip of the beam, the history of cracks, and the failure modes.
6The hysteresis of Arm1 of the ductile and the brittle joints for 10% column compression is
7presented in Fig. 6. It is clear from the hysteretic loops that although the peak load in both the
8specimens was comparable, D specimens show gradual decrease in stiffness, while B specimens
9show sudden decrease in stiffness after reaching the peak value. To compare the performance of
10the two specimen types the envelopes of the two load-displacement graphs are plotted in Fig. 7.
11The ductile and the brittle specimens behave quite similarly until the yield. Postyield, while the
12brittle specimen degrades rapidly the ductile specimen retains a large proportion of its strength
14
15To understand the improved postyield behavior the history of appearance of cracks in the two
16specimens is studied (Fig. 8). The position of reinforcements is marked in dotted lines. The first
17link in the beam in the D specimens was at 50mm from the column longitudinal reinforcement
18and at 75mm spacing thereafter. In B specimens the first link was at the face of the column and
19the spacing was 150mm. Another notable difference is that in the D joint there is one column
20link at the center of the joint while it is absent in the B joint. These details are according to the
21ductile [13] and non-ductile [14] joints of Indian Standards. In Fig. 8 the locations of the links
22serve as reference lines for mapping the cracks. The differently colored solid lines indicate the
23paths of the cracks and the associated number indicates the level of tip displacement at which the
24crack appeared. It may be noted that the first crack appeared at the face of the column at 2mm tip
1 7
2
1displacement in both samples. This is the tension crack in concrete. Therefore, at this
2displacement level the concrete under tension transferred the entire force on to the tensile
3reinforcement. Thereafter, the main difference in the two specimens was the number and
4inclination of the cracks. The cracks were mainly confined in the compartments formed by the
5successive links. In the D samples the shear cracks formed at 45º. However, they got deflected
6along the reinforcement after reaching the links. There was little bridging of the cracks by the
7links. The links, in all probability, wouldn’t have yielded at that time. As a result, the length and
8density of cracks were much higher in D specimens. The crack deflection mechanism renders
9toughness to the joint. Understandably, the dissipation of energy in the D specimens would be
10higher. In the B specimens the angle of cracks was approximately 45°. Due to the absence of
11shear links in the path of the crack it split the space between the two links diagonally. This
13
14The initial cracking was restricted in the arm of the beam outside the joint area. At 12mm tip
15deflection the cracks started developing inside the joint area. Therefore, only the post yield
16behavior was influenced by the joint cracks. There was a major difference between the D and B
17specimens in the cracking inside the joint area. In D specimens the cracks developed diagonally
18indicating shear deformation in the joint. In B specimens, on the other hand, vertical tension
19cracks started developing both at the center of the joint and at the distant face of the column.
20This indicates the reduction in bond between the reinforcement and concrete. The presence of the
21central link in the D column made a major difference at this phase. The central link ensured a
22negligible strain along itself and therefore, it impeded tension cracks. The tension cracks on the
23junction between Arm2 and column also affected the performance of arm 2 adversely. The loss
24of bond in the B specimens resulted in rapid stiffness degradation. This is borne out by the
1 8
2
1remarkably narrower waistline of the hysteresis plot of the B specimen (Fig. 6b). The pinching of
4The difference in the crack patterns in the D and the B specimens is illustrated in Fig. 9. While
5the B specimens had suffered large scale spalling of concrete in the joint region the D specimens
6did not undergo large spalling and therefore, retained their strengths even after a large
7deformation.
8Ability of the structure to survive an earthquake depends to a large extent on its capability to
9dissipate the input energy. An estimate of the hysteretic damping can be found by the area
10enclosed in the load-displacement hysteresis loops (Fig. 10). It may be noted that a wider loop
11(i.e. a large difference in ordinates in the ascending and the descending paths) would signify
12higher hysteretic damping. Cumulative energy dissipated was calculated by summing up the
13energy dissipated in consecutive loops through out the test. The energy dissipation curves for D
14and B specimens are shown in figure 10. The stepped nature of the curves is due to the repetition
15of the same displacement level three times in each load epoch. It indicates that the incremental
16damage, and therefore energy dissipation of energy, takes place in the first cycle of the epoch.
17There is no significant energy dissipation in the following cycles of the same epoch. The D joint
18exhibits much higher dissipation of energy than the B joint. A quantitative analysis of their
20
22To understand the effect of column compression on joint behavior the brittle specimens are
23tested at 10, 25 and 37% of axial compression capacity of the columns. The Load deflection
24envelopes have been presented in Fig. 11. The peak load increases with increase in the axial load
1 9
2
1as shown in figure 11. However, the stiffness degradation after the peak load was much more
2sudden in the columns with higher axial compression. As a result, contrary to expectation, the
3energy dissipation did not go up with the increase in the column compression.
4To understand the anomaly of the joints with heavily loaded columns we shall compare the crack
5histories in Figs.8b and 12. The joint tension crack appeared later in B25 than in B10. The joint
6remained unaffected in case of B37. As a result, the loss of bond of the beam tensile bars
7developed later in B25 and the bond was not lost at all in B37. Hence, the prepeak stiffness and
8the peak load are higher in the heavily compressed columns. However, the bond slip also leads to
9postpeak dissipation of energy through friction. Therefore, the postpeak slope of the envelope is
10more gradual in B10 than B25 and B37. As we increase the axial load on columns we would
12Fig. 13 shows the joints B25 and B37 at severely damaged state. Both specimens had major
13damage due to shear outside the joint core area. The shear capacity of the beam was reached in
14this case due to higher peak loads. The diagonal shear cracks coalesced forming triangular
15wedges that spalled and exposed the reinforcements almost entirely. The shear failure was
16sudden and the samples lost strength rapidly once the triangular wedges started spalling. In one
17case a large portion of the column cover concrete had spalled (B37). The spall was due to the
18higher bursting pressure as a result of higher compressive stress in column, as well as the tension
19in the beam longitudinal reinforcements. Fig. 14 illustrates the energy curves for the specimens
20with varying axial compression. The dissipated energy reduces with the increase in the column
21compression. The spall in specimen B37 has reduced the energy dissipation severely. This
22highlights the importance of confining concrete both in beams and columns in the vicinity of the
23joint.
24
1 10
2
1Comparison of Arm 1 and Arm 2
2The joints were cast with two arms. The arms were tested sequentially. The objective of the test
3was to estimate the performance of a heavily damaged joint. Fig. 15 shows the load-deflection
4hysteresis of all the joints. It can be seen that the peak load level in case of Arm-2 has reduced
5for all the joints. The pinching of the hysteresis curves is also more evident in Arm2. This
6indicates that the bond slip is more in that arm. The difference in behavior of the two arms is
7much more in the D specimen than the B specimens. The Damaged ductile specimens behave
9Table 3 presents the loads and displacements at the yield point and peak load point for all the
10specimens. Arm2 of all the specimens had lower peak yield load and peak load. As a result, the
11energy dissipation in Arm2 was much lower than in Arm1. There is a more prominent reduction
13 CONCLUSION
15 • The beam-column joints with closely spaced shear links (ductile) have superior postyield
16 behavior than the joints sparse links (brittle) due to better confinement of concrete and
17 crack deflection mechanism. The longer and denser shear cracks in the ductile joints lead
19 • The links in the core area of ductile joints prevents bond slip and therefore, increases the
20 hysteretic damping. The pattern of cracking in the core area of the joints is different for
22 • The peak load goes up with the increase in the column compression due to the
23 prevention of bond slip by the higher compressive force. However, the failure is much
1 11
2
1 more sudden in joints with high column compression. The energy dissipation of joints
3 • The loss of capacity in strength and energy dissipation in the damaged ductile specimens
4 is much higher than that in the damaged brittle specimens. This is due to more
5 pronounced bond slip in the damaged ductile specimens than the fresh ones.
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
8 The present work is financially supported by the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences. Dr.
9 G. Rami Reddy has helped with the instrumentation for the experiments. The experiments are
10 carried out at the Structural Integrity Testing and Analysis Centre of Indian Institute of
11 Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India. The authors would also like to thank M/s Fyfe India
13
14 REFERENCE
15
161. Hanson NW, Connor HW. Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints.
18 560.
192. Hanson NW. Seismic Resistance of Concrete Frames with Grade 60 Reinforcement. J
21 1700.
223. Lee DL., Wight JK. Hanson RD. RC Beam-Column Joints under Large Load Reversals, J
1 12
2
14. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Analytical Studies of Hysteretic Behavior of R/C
35. Durrani AJ, Wight JK. Behavior of Interior Beam-to-column connections under Earthquake-
56. Meinheit DF, Jirsa JO. Shear Strength of R/C Beam-Column Connections. J Structural
77. Clyde C, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD. Performance-Based Evaluation of Exterior Reinforced
8 Concrete Building Joints for Seismic Excitation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
108. Abrams DP. Scale Relations for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column joints. ACI Structural J
11 1988;84:502-512.
129. Park R, Ruitong D. A Comparison of the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam- Column
13 Joints Designed for Ductility and Limited Ductility. Bulletin of the New Zealand National
1510. Lowes LN, Moehle JP. Evaluation and Retrofit of Beam-column T-Joints in older Reinforced
1711. Dhakal RP, Pan TC, Irawan P, Tsai KC, Lin KC; Chen CH.. Experimental Study on
19 27(1):75 – 87.
2012. Mukherjee A, Joshi M. FRPC Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Cyclic
2213. IS: 13920. Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures. New
1 13
2
114. IS: 456. Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
2 Standards; 2000.
1 14
2
1
3List of Tables:
8List of Figures:
9
10Fig. 1— Failure of RC Joints in Kutch Earthquake
10
11 Table 2— Test Matrix
12
13 Specimen Axial force to column
14 (% of column capacity)
15
16 D-10 10 %
17 D-10-2 10 %
18 B-10 10 %
19
B-25 25 %
20
21 B-37 37 %
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1 16
2
1
2 Table 3— Percentage increase and comparison in arms
5
6
1 17
2
1
(a) Confinement failure (b) Shear failure (c) Combined lap and shear failure
24
20
16
2
Stress N/mm
12
0
0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012
Strain
6
10
11
12
1 18
2
1
2
800
800
650 150
650
..
150
..
200
50 .. 200
..
Stirrup 8 Dia 75
mm c/c 12 Dia bar
12 Dia bar
Stirrup 8 dia 150 mm c/c
Stirrup 8 Dia 150 mm c/c
16 Dia bar
200 16 Dia bar 200
7
Load cell (Column axial load)
8
Actuator
1 19
2
60
40
Displacement (mm)
20
-20
-40
-60
4 40
40
30
30
5 20
20
10
load (kN)
10
0
6
load (kN)
-10 -10
-20 -20
7 -30 -30
-40 -40
8 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Displacement (mm)
20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
11
1 20
2
40
30
D-10
20
10 B-10
Load KN
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
8
mm
14 mm
2 4
12 6
14 2 mm m
mm mm m
12
mm
11
12
1 21
2
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1 22
2
1
3 25 D-10-Arm-1
4 20
Energy (kN-M)
5
15
6
10
B-10-arm-1
7
5
8
0
9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacment (mm)
10 Fig. 10— Energy curves (D-10 and B-10)
11
12
13
14
B-25
15 40
30 B-37
16 20
10 B-10
Load (KN)
17
0
18 -10
-20
19 -30
-40
21
23
24
1 23
2
1 16
mm 8 6
10
mm m
mm 14
14
m mm
4 2 12 12
mm mm mm 2 4 mm
mmm mm m mmm
m 134 m m
1 24
2
1
3
10 B-25
4 B-10
8
5 Energy (kN-M)
6
6
B-37
4
7
2
8
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
9 Displacement (mm)
10
11
12 Fig. 14— Energy curves (B-10, B-25 and B-37 specimens)
13
1 25
2
1
40
Arm-1
40
30
2 Arm-2
30
20
20
3 load (kN) 10
10
0
Load (KN)
4 -10
0
5
-10
-20
-20
6
-30
-30
-40
8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
40 30
9 30 20
10
20
10
10
11
Load (KN)
load (kN)
0
0
12 -10 -10
13 -20
(b) B-10 -20
-30
14 -40
-30
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
16 40 30
30 20
17 20 10
Load (KN)
18 10 0
Load (KN)
19 0
-10
-10
20 -20 (c)B-25
-20
-30
21 -30
-40
22 -40
24 40 40
30
30
25 20 20
26 (d) B-37 10
Load (KN)
10
Load (KN)
0 0
-10 -10
27 -20 -20
-30 -30
28 -40 -40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
29 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
10 20 30
Displacement (mm)
30
31
32
33 Fig. 15: Load verses displacement curves for D and B specimens
34
35
36
37
38
39
1 26
2