Professional Documents
Culture Documents
,
Type A joint (9)
In contrast, for Type B joints, the compressive resultant of
the diagonal strut at the center and at the two corners near A
and D need to be identical. The volumetric strain of the joint
changes from expansion to contraction when the height of
the neutral axis is (1/2)D and the height of the concrete stress
block of concrete is (1/4) D
1
. The tensile force T for a Type B
joint is thus obtained
1 3
1
4
c
T bD f Type B joint (10)
Therefore, M
jb
, the moment at balanced failure of a Type B
joint, is derived by substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (6)
2 1
1 3
1
1
4 2
jb c
M bD f
_
,
Type B joint (11)
Based on this development, it follows that if the amount
of longitudinal reinforcement passing through the joint is
larger than the value associated with Eq. (8) or Eq. (10), then
concrete crushing is expected to precede tensile yielding;
thus, maximum achievable moment is given by Eq. (9)
and Eq. (11) for Type A and Type B joints, respectively.
Equation (8) and Eq. (10) can be used to establish the
balanced reinforcement, that is, the upper bound amount
of reinforcement that precludes balanced failure of a beam-
column joint.
Equations (9) and (11) show that the factors affecting
moment at balanced failure of a beam-column joint, M
jb
, for
a Type A joint include the dimension factor bD
2
, concrete
Fig. 14Moment at balanced failure of beam-column joint
for Type A and Type B joints.
74 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012
compressive strength f
c
, the factors defning the shape of
the concrete stress block,
1
3
(1 (
1
/2)), and, for a Type A
joint, the distance ratio for longitudinal reinforcement, g.
The moment at balanced failure, M
jb
, for a Type B joint is
clearly not infuenced by the distance ratio for longitudinal
reinforcement, g.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions of this paper are summarized as follows:
1. The two-dimensional kinematics of the failure of an RC
beam-column joint is appropriately modeled as the domain
surrounded by four rigid plates, because the beam-column
joint is confned by the ends of the beams and columns
framing into the joint.
2. If the four rigid plates for an interior beam-column joint
rotate symmetrically due to lateral loading, the direction and
the distribution of principal stress and strain is reasonably
estimated. This explains the observed location and the
direction of concrete cracks in a rational way.
3. If the rotation of the four rigid plates increases, the
concrete cracks cause redistribution of stress, resulting in
losing the tensile resistance to the transverse direction of crack.
This explains how the diagonal compression strut develops
and grows in a RC beam-column joint in a rational way.
4. Based on the foregoing mechanism, the ultimate moment
capacity of a beam-column joint is defned as the moment at
which the concrete crushes in the extreme compressive fber.
5. Considering equilibrium and the yield condition of steel
and concrete, algebraic expressions for ultimate moment
capacity of beam-column joint are developed.
6. Balanced failure of a beam-column joint is defned
as a simultaneous crushing of concrete and yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement. The amount of reinforcement at
balanced failure is defned as an upper bound value.
7. The algebraic expressions for the moment at balanced
failure of a beam-column joint developed and the factors
affecting the upper bound reinforcement are identifed. It is
shown that the longitudinal reinforcement ratio should be less
than the upper bound to preclude joint failure due to concrete
crushing before yielding of longitudinal reinforcement.
This paper demonstrates a new set of general and rational
concepts of moment capacity of beam-column joints and
balanced failure of beam-column joint by an example
of a special case of a symmetric interior beam-column
joint subjected to couples of forces without joint shear
reinforcement or mid-layer longitudinal reinforcement
in the column. In addition, the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement in the beam and column is identical. This
simplifcation allows a focus on the introduction of a
novel concept of moment capacity of beam-column joints,
balanced failure of beam-column joint, and upper bound
amount of longitudinal reinforcement with an emphasis on
the derivative of appropriate mathematical expressions. To
facilitate this concept for developing new design provisions
for beam-column joints, however, the extensions of these
mathematical expressions are necessary for more realistic
general cases. Such extensions may include beam-column
joints: 1) subjected to a combination of axial force, shear,
and moment; 2) designed according to the weak beam-strong
column concept; and 3) with joint shear reinforcement.
These extensions will be addressed in future publications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author acknowledges E. E. Matsumoto, Professor of Structural
Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
California State University, Sacramento, CA, for his valuable advice and
suggestions in the development of ideas as well as a linguistic check of the
manuscript for publication.
REFERENCES
1. Shiohara, H.; and Kusuhara, F., An Overlooked Failure Mechanism
of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Paper No. 822, Proceedings
of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, July 25-29, 2010.
2. Paulay, T.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints Under Seismic Actions, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 75, No. 11, Nov. 1978, pp. 585-593.
3. Ichinose, T., Required Joint Shear Reinforcement for RC Interior
Beam-Column Joint of Good Bond Condition, Structural Journal of AIJ,
No. 383, Jan. 1988, pp. 88-96. (in Japanese)
4. Fujii, S., and Morita, S., Shear Resisting Mechanism of RC Exterior
Beam-Column Joint, Structural Journal of AIJ, No. 398, Apr. 1989,
pp. 61-71. (in Japanese)
5. Cheung, P. C.; Paulay, T.; and Park, R., Some Possible Revisions
to the Seismic Provisions of the New Zealand Concrete Design Code for
Moment Resisting Frames, Proceedings of the Pacifc Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Nov. 1991, pp. 20-23, 79-90.
6. Hwang, S., and Lee, H., Analytical Model for Predicting Shear
Strengths of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1999,
pp. 846-857.
7. To, N. H. T.; Ingham, J. M.; and Sritharan, S., Monotonic Non-linear
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Knee Joints using Strut-and-Tie Computer
Models, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
V. 34, No. 3, Sept. 2001, pp. 169-185.
8. Shiohara, H., New Model for Shear Failure of RC Interior Beam-
Column Connections, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127,
No. 2, Feb. 2001, pp. 152-160.
9. Kusuhara F., and Shiohara, H., Damage and Restoring Force
Characteristics of RC Beam-Column Joint Subjected to Multi-Axial and
Combined Loading, Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Japan
Concrete Institute, V. 29, No. 4, July 2007, pp. 235-239. (in Japanese)
10. Tajiri, S.; Shiohara, H.; and Kusuhara, F., A New Macro Element
of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint for Elasto-Plastic Plane
Frame Analysis, Proceedings of 8th National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco, Apr. 2006, Paper No. 674. (CD-ROM)
11. Shiohara, H., Quadruple Flexural Resistance in R/C Beam-Column
Joints, Proceedings of the 13WCEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Aug. 1-6,
2004.
12. Shiohara, H., and Shin, Y.-W., Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Knee Joint Based on Quadruple Flexural Resistance, Proceedings of 8th
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, Apr.
2006, Paper No. 1173. (CD-ROM)