You are on page 1of 42

Beam-Column Connections

Jack Moehle
University of California, Berkeley
with contributions from

Dawn Lehman and Laura Lowes


University of Washington, Seattle

Outline
design of new joints existing joint details failure of existing joints in earthquakes general response characteristics importance of including joint deformations stiffness strength deformation capacity axial failure

Special Moment-Resisting Frames - Design intent Vcol


For seismic design, beam yielding defines demands

w
Mpr Mpr Mpr

lc
Vp Vp

Beam lnb

Vp

Vcol

Mpr Beam Section

Vcol

Joint demands

Ts1 = 1.25Asfy Vb1 C1 = Ts2

C2 = Ts2 Vb2

Ts2 = 1.25Asfy Vcol

(b) internal stress resultants acting on joint


Vcol

(a) moments, shears, axial loads acting on joint

Ts1

C2

Vu =Vj = Ts1 + C1 - Vcol

(c) joint shear

Joint geometry
(ACI Committee 352)

a) Interior A.1

b) Exterior A.2

c) Corner A.3

d) Roof Interior B.1


ACI 352

e) Roof Exterior B.2

f) Roof Corner B.3

Joint shear strength


- code-conforming joints ' c

Vu ! JVn ! JK J = 0.85
Classification /type cont. column Roof
ACI 352

f bjh

Values of K (ACI 352)


interior 20 15 exterior 15 12 corner 12 8

Joint Details - Interior

hcol u 20db
ACI 352

Joint Details - Corner


u ldh

ACI 352

Code-conforming joints

Older-type beam-column connections

Survey of existing buildings

Mosier

Joint failures

Studies of older-type joints

Lehman

Damage progression
interior connections

80 60 40
Yield of Beam Longitudinal Reinforcement Measurable residual cracks

Spalling of Concrete Cover

Longitudinal Column Bar Exposed

Column Shear (K)

20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

20% Reduction in Envelope

Drift %

Lehman

Effect of load history


interior connections
Impulsive loading history Envelope for standard cyclic history

Column Shear (k)

Column Bar

-6

-4

-2

Story Drift

Lehman

Damage at 5% drift
Standard Loading Impulsive Loading

Lehman

Contributions to drift
interior connections
120

100

Column Beam Flexur Bar Slip

Percent Contribution

80

60

40

Joint Shear

20

Specimen CD15-14
0 1
Lehman

Joints shall be modeled as either stiff or rigid components. (FEMA 356)


13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34

10

Cycle Number

Evaluation of FEMA-356 Model


interior connections
18 16

Joint Shear Factor

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02


FEMA PEER-14 CD15-14 CD30-14 PADH-14 PEER-22 CD30-22 PADH-22

0.025

0.03

Lehman

Joint Shear Strain

Joint panel deformations

Joint Deformation

Joint shear stiffness


interior connections
Gc 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
20 f c' , psi

Joint shear stress (MPa)

Gc /5

Gc /8
20 f c' , psi

10 f c' , psi

Joint shear strain

Lehman

Joint strength
effect of beam yielding
Joint Stress (psi)
1600 1200 800 400
0

Yield

Yield
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Drift (%)
Joint strength closely linked to beam flexural strength Plastic deformation capacity higher for lower joint shear
Lehman

Joint strength
interior connections - lower/upper bounds
0.4

Joint failure without yielding near 25.5fc

0.3 Joint Shear Failure Beam Hinging/ Beam Bar Slip 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

vj/fc

0.2

Failure forced into beams between 8.5fc and 11fc

0.1

0
Lehman

Joint strength
interior connections
3500

Joint Stress (psi)

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0

Joint Failures

10 f c' , psi
Beam Failures
4000 8000 12000 16000

Concrete Strength (psi)


Lehman

Joint deformability
Joint Stress (psi)
1600 1200 800 400
0

plastic drift capacity vmax envelope 0.2vmax

Drift (%)

Plastic drift capacity


interior connections

v jo int f c'

, psi 30
25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

plastic drift angle


Note: the plastic drift angle includes inelastic deformations of the beams

Damage progression
exterior connections

Pantelides, 2002

Joint behavior
exterior connections

v jo int f
' c

15

, psi
10 5 0

2 Clyde 6 Clyde 4 Clyde 5 Clyde 5 Pantelides 6 Pantelides 6 Hakuto Priestley longitudinal Priestley transverse

Drift, %

bidirectional loading

Plastic drift capacity


v jo int f
' c

, psi 30
25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Interior Exterior

0.05

0.06

plastic drift angle


Note: the plastic drift angle includes inelastic deformations of the beams

Exterior joint
hook detail

hook bent into joint

hook bent out of joint

Interior joints with discontinuous bars

40

Column shear, kips

30

20

10

0 0
Beres, 1992

Drift ratio, %

Unreinforced Joint Strength


FEMA 356 specifies the following:

Vj ! K
joint geometry

f c' bh

No new data. Probably still valid.

K
4 6 8 10 12

Assuming bars are anchored in joint, strength limited by strength of framing members, with upperbound of K } 15. For 15 K 4, joint failure may occur after inelastic response. For K 4, joint unlikely to fail. Assuming bars are anchored in joint, strength limited by strength of framing members, with upper bound of K } 25. For 25 K 8, joint failure may occur after inelastic response. For K 8, joint unlikely to fail.

Joint failure?

Wy

Xcr Xcr

X cr ! 6 f

' c

1

Wy 6 f
' c

, psi

Joint failure?
Lateral Deflection, mm

Lateral Load

Priestley, 1994

Drift at tensile failure Drift at lateral failure Drift at axial failure

Joint test summary


axial failures identified
Tests with axial load failure
0.1
0.03 - 0.07 0.10 - 0.18 0.20 - 0.22 0.36

0.08

Drift ratio

0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

v j ! Kf c'
Range of K values

Interior Exterior, hooks bent in Exterior, hooks bent out Corner

Axial load ratio

Suggested envelope relation


interior connections with continuous beam bars
0.015 stiffness based on effective stiffness to yield strength = beam strength but not to exceed 25 f c' , psi

v jo int f
' c

, psi

25 20 15 8 10 5 0 0.04

0.02

Note: the plastic drift angle includes inelastic deformations of the beams

Suggested envelope relation


exterior connections with hooked beam bars
stiffness based on effective stiffness to yield strength = beam strength but not to exceed 12 f c' , psi connections with demand less than 4 f c' have beam-yield mechanisms and do not follow this model 0.02 0.01 axial-load stability unknown, especially under high axial loads

v jo int f c'

, psi

25 20 15 10 5 0 0.010

Note: the plastic drift angle includes inelastic deformations of the beams

Joint panel deformations

Joint Deformation

Methods of Repair (MOR)


Method of Repair 0. Cosmetic Repair Activities
Replace and repair finishes

Damage States 0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12

1. Epoxy Injection Inject cracks with epoxy and


replace finishes

2. Patching 3. Replace concrete 4. Replace joint


Pagni

Patch spalled concrete, epoxy inject cracks and replace finishes Remove and replace damaged concrete, replace finishes Replace damaged reinforcing steel, remove and replace concrete, and replace finishes

Interior joint fragility relations


1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.0 1.0 Probability of Requiring a MOR

Cosmetic repair Epoxy MOR 0 injection MOR 1 Patching MOR 2 Replace concrete MOR 3 Replace joint MOR 4

2.0

3.0 4.0 Drift (%)

5.0

6.0

Beam-Column Connections

Jack Moehle
University of California, Berkeley
with contributions from

Dawn Lehman and Laura Lowes


University of Washington, Seattle

References
Clyde, C., C. Pantelides, and L. Reaveley (2000), Performance-based evaluation of exterior reinforced concrete building joints for seismic excitation, Report No. PEER-2000/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 61 pp. Pantelides, C., J. Hansen, J. Nadauld, L Reaveley (2002, Assessment of reinforced concrete building exterior joints with substandard details, Report No. PEER-2002/18, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 103 pp. Park, R. (2002), "A Summary of Results of Simulated Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Joints, Beams and Columns with Substandard Reinforcing Details, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 147-174. Priestley, M., and G. Hart (1994), Seismic Behavior of As-Built and As-Designed Corner Joints, SEQAD Report to Hart Consultant Group, Report #94-09, 93 pp. plus appendices. Walker, S., C. Yeargin, D. Lehman, and J. Stanton (2002), Influence of Joint Shear Stress Demand and Displacement History on the Seismic Performance of Beam-Column Joints, Proceedings, The Third USJapan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Seattle, USA, 16-18 August 2001, Report No. PEER-2002/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, pp. 349-362. Hakuto, S., R. Park, and H. Tanaka, Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 11-25. Beres, A., R.White, and P. Gergely, Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures with Nonductile Details: Part I Summary of Experimental Findings of Full Scale Beam-Column Joint Tests, Report NCEER-92-0024, NCEER, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1992. Pessiki, S., C. Conley, P. Gergely, and R. White, Seismic Behavior of Lightly-Reinforced Concrete Column and Beam Column Joint Details, Report NCEER-90-0014, NCEER, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1990. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, 2002.

References (continued)
D. Lehman, University of Washington, personal communication, based on the following resources: Fragility functions: Pagni, C.A. and L.N. Lowes (2006). Empirical Models for Predicting Earthquake Damage and Repair Requirements for Older Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Earthquake Spectra. In press. Joint element: Lowes, L.N. and A. Altoontash. Modeling the Response of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. 129(12) (2003):1686-1697. Mitra, N. and L.N. Lowes. Evaluation, Calibration and Verification of a Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Joint Model. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. Submitted July 2005. Anderson, M.R. (2003). Analytical Modeling of Existing Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints MSCE thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 308 p. Analyses using joint model: Theiss, A.G. Modeling the Response of Older Reinforced Concrete Building Joints. M.S. Thesis. Seattle: University of Washington (2005): 209 p. Experimental Research Walker, S.*, Yeargin, C.*, Lehman, D.E., and Stanton, J. Seismic Performance of Non-Ductile Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, accepted for publication. Walker, S.G. (2001). Seismic Performance of Existing Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. MSCE Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 308 p. Alire, D.A. (2002). "Seismic Evaluation of Existing Unconfined Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints", MSCE thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 250 p. Infrastructure Review Mosier, G. (2000). Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. MSCE thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 218 p.

You might also like