Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 42

B

Beam-Column
C l
Connections
C
ti

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


g intent - Design
Vcol

Mpr

For seismic design,


beam yielding
defines demands

Mpr

lc

w
Mpr

Beam
Vp

Vp

lnb

Vcol

Vp

Mpr

Beam Section

Vcol

Joint demands

Ts1 =
1.25Asfy

C2 = Ts2
Vb2

Vb1
C1 = Ts2
Vcol

Ts2 =
1.25Asfy

(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)

ACI 352

a) Interior
A1
A.1

b) Exterior
A2
A.2

d) Roof
I t i B.1
Interior
B1

e) Roof
E t i B.2
Exterior
B2

c) Corner
A3
A.3

f) Roof
C
Corner
B3
B.3

Joint shear strength

- code-conforming joints -

Vu = Vn =
= 0.85
0 85

'
c

f bjh

Values of (ACI 352)

ACI 352

Classification
/type
yp

interior

exterior

corner

cont. column

20

15

12

Roof

15

12

Joint Details - Interior

hcoll 20db
ACI 352

Joint Details - Corner


ldh

ACI 352

Code-conforming
Code
conforming joints

Older-type
Older
type beam-column
beam column connections

Survey of existing buildings

Mosier

Joint failures

Studies of older
older-type
type joints

Lehman

Damage progression
interior connections

80
Yield of Beam
Longitudinal
R i f
Reinforcement
t

60

Spalling of
Concrete Cover

Measurable
residual cracks

Longitudinal
Column Bar
Exposed

Column Sh
hear (K)

40
20
0

20% Reduction
in Envelope

-20
-40
-60
-80
80
-6

-4

-2

Drift %

Lehman

Effect of load history


interior connections

Colum
mn Shear (k
k)

I
Impulsive
l i loading
l di history
hi t

-6

Lehman

Envelope for standard


y
historyy
cyclic

Column Bar

-4

-2

Story Drift

Damage at 5% drift
Standard Loading

Lehman

Impulsive Loading

Contributions to drift
interior connections
120

Column

Percent C
Contributio
on

100

Beam

80

Bar Slip
60

Joint Shear

40

Joints
J
i
shall
h ll be
b modeled
d l d
as either stiff or rigid
components. (FEMA 356)

20

Specimen CD15-14
0
1
Lehman

10

13

16

19

Cycle Number

22

25

28

31

34

Evaluation of FEMA-356 Model


interior connections
18

Joint Shear Fa
actor

16
14
12
10
FEMA
PEER-14
CD15-14
CD30-14
PADH-14
PEER-22
CD30-22
PADH-22

8
6
4
2
0
0

Lehman

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Joint Shear Strain

0.025

0.03

Joint panel deformations

Joint Deformation

Joint shear stiffness

Join
nt shear stress ((MPa)

interior connections

Lehman

Gc

Gc /5

Gc /8

12

20 f c' , psi

10
8
6

10 f c' , psi

20 f c' , psi

4
2
0
0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Joint shear strain

0.025

0.030

Joint strength

Joiint Stresss (psi)

effect of beam yielding


1600

Yield

1200
800
400

Yield

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


Joint failure without
yielding
i ldi near
25.5fc

04
0.4

0.3

Failure forced into


beams between
8 5fc and 11f
8.5f
11fc

Joint
0.2
Shear
vj/ffc
Failure
0.1
Beam Hinging/
g g
Beam Bar Slip
0
0

10

20

30

Lehman

40

50

60

Joint strength
interior connections

Joint S
Stress (p
psi)

3500
3000

Joint Failures

2500
2000
1500
1000

10 f c' , psi

500

Beam Failures

0
0

4000

8000

12000

Concrete Strength (psi)


Lehman

16000

Jointt Stress (psi)

Joint deformability
1600

plastic drift capacity

1200

vmax

800

0.2vmax

envelope

400
0

Drift (%)
( )

Plastic drift capacity


interior connections

v jo int
f c'

, psi 30
25
20
15
10
5
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
2 Clyde
6 Clyde
4 Clyde
5 Clyde
5 Pantelides
6 Pantelides
6 Hakuto
Priestley longitudinal
Priestley transverse

, psi
10
5
0

Drift, %

bidirectional
loading

Plastic drift capacity


v jo int
f

'
c

, psi 30

Interior
Exterior

25
20
15
10
5
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

Exterior joint
hook detail

hook bent into joint

hook bent out of joint

Interior joints with


discontinuous bars

Column
C
l
shear,
p
kips

40
30
20
10
0
0

Beres, 1992

Drift ratio, %

Unreinforced Joint Strength


FEMA 356 specifies the following:

Vj =
joint
geometry

f c' bh

No new data. Probably still valid.

4
6
8
10
12

Assuming bars are anchored in


j i t strength
joint,
t
th lilimited
it d b
by strength
t
th off
framing members, with upperbound of 15. For 15 4,
jjoint failure may
y occur after
inelastic response. For 4, joint
unlikely to fail.
A
Assuming
i b
bars are anchored
h d iin
joint, strength limited by strength of
framing members, with upper
bound of 25. For 25 8,,
joint failure may occur after
inelastic response. For 8, joint
unlikely to fail.

Joint failure?
y

cr
cr

cr = 6 f

'
c

y
6 f

'
c

, psi

Joint failure?

Lateral Load

L t l Deflection,
Lateral
D fl ti
mm

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

0.06

0.20 - 0.22
0.36

0.03 - 0.07

Drift ratio

0.08
0
08

0.10 - 0.18

0.1

v j = f c'
Range of values

Interior

0.04

Exterior, hooks bent in


Exterior, hooks bent out

0.02

Corner

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Axial load ratio

0.25

0.3

Suggested envelope relation

interior connections with continuous beam bars


0.015

v jo int
f

'
c

25

, psi

stiffness based on effective


stiffness to yield
strength = beam strength
b t nott to
but
t exceed
d 25 f c' , psi

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

v jo int
f c'

, psi

stiffness
tiff
based
b
d on effective
ff ti
stiffness to yield

25

strength = beam strength


but not to exceed 12 f c' , psi

20
15

0.010

connections with demand less


than 4 f c' have beam-yield
mechanisms and do not follow
this model

10
5
0

0.02

0.01

axial-load stability unknown,


p
y under high
g axial loads
especially

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

0-2

1. Epoxy Injection Inject cracks with epoxy and

3-5

2. Patching

Patch spalled concrete, epoxy


inject cracks and replace
finishes

6-8

3. Replace
concrete

Remove and replace damaged


concrete, replace finishes

9-11

4. Replace joint

Replace
R
l
damaged
d
d reinforcing
i f i
steel, remove and replace
concrete, and replace finishes

12

replace finishes

Pagni

Damage
States

P
Probabi
ility of R
Requirinng a MO
OR

Interior joint fragility relations


1
0.9
0.8
07
0.7
0.6
05
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0.0 1.0

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

B
Beam-Column
C l
Connections
C
ti

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,
Center University of California
California, Berkeley
Berkeley, 61 pp
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
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
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
Pagni, C.A.
C A and L
L.N.
N Lowes (2006).
(2006) Empirical
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
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,
Walker, S.G. (2001). Seismic
Seismic Performance of Existing Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Beam Column Joints
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.