Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PB85-'1496J1
SCALE RELATIONSHIPS OF
CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS
College of Engineering
and Applied Science
by
Paul R. Philleo
and
Daniel P. Abrams
A report to the
University of Colorado
Boulder
February 1984
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bill Epp, Scott McNary, and Peter Waugh, for their support.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • .. . . . . iv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2.5 Materials . 17
2.6 Fabrication • 19
2.8 Instrumentation 24
3.1 Introduction 32
CHAPTER
4.1 Introduction 50
5.1 Summary • . 76
5.2 Conclusions 77
REFERENCES 80
APPENDIX 85
vii
TABLES
Table
Figu~e
2.13 Instrumentation . • . . 27
. ,';'
\1.1 I
ix
FIGURE
INTRODUCTION
test variables were the configuration and the size of the test
Steel and concrete properties and reinforcing ratios for all three
be made.
J
2
new subject. The early Greeks and Romans used models to design
this approach with the inelastic response spectrum approach and the
(24), and using modal analysis for bilinear systems (25). New
Other models have been tested in New Zealand (27) and California
and loading patterns have not been kept consistent. The question of
work was not concerned with dynamic response, but rather direct
building tests was not within the scope of the research. Various
Beijing (44).
of the column (Fig. 2.1) which represented the story shear. A pin
(1) Stewart, J. and Abrams, D.P., "Comparison of Large and Small-Scale Reinforced Concrete
Behavior", Masters Thesis, University of Colorado, July, 1982.
(2) Kreger, M.E. and Abrams, D.P., "Measured Hysteresis Relationships for Small-Scale
Beam-Column Joints", Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 453,
University of Illinois, Urbana, August, 1978.
'-.I
8
...!z
~
!...
a..
~
CJl
~
Q)
S
OM
U
Q)
p..
(J)
..,
CJl
Q)
H
4-<
0
~
0
..,
OM
(\l
>-l
;::I
bO
OM
4-<
~
0
U
,.....;
bO
.
OM
"'"
a..
9
behavior was expected to occur at the ends of the beams while the
#6, cross sections were at least 343 x 343 mm (13.5 x 13.5 inches),
and the maximum aggregate size was 20 rom (3/4 inch). To define the
Beams were reinforced with three #6 bars on the top and bottom faces
(area of steel on one face was equal to .84% of the effective depth
times the width). Columns were reinforced with eight #5 bars (area
of steel was equal to 1.02% of the gross cross sectional area). The
each face (Fig. 2.3). This area of steel was slightly less (.62%)
I
b
- - -I -f-
I
I
1
a a
a b
a b c Bs Cs
Pbeam reol •
large-Scale 343 mm 457 AIm 38 11m 3 #6 bars .84 % 4 115 bars 1.02 %
large-Scale. lIJ4 343 mm 457 11m 38 mm 5 114 bars .62 % 4 115 bars 1. 02 %
joint specimen, however the same reinforcement was used for each
Although the effect of column axial load was not part of this
columns and beams '(Fig. 2.4), and were spaced according to ACI
requirements (16).
"T" sections which were bolted to embedded plates (Fig. 2.5 and
the beam or column, and were held in place during casting by bolts.
These bolts were removed when the forms were stripped. This detail
a
-
- b
~s
I
INTERIOR JOINT
T
II
1I
-~
- ~
a bT r
I--
{
-.;;;.....
I'-':-- -
I--
v t>r
I
V-I
EXTERIOR JOINT
s~ I
I
Io-.~
a b s
Large-Scale 102 mm 76 mm #3 closed hoops
Medium-Scole 34 mm 2S mm #9g wire closed hoops
Small-Scale 11 mm 8 mm #16g ,ire spirals
r JA
A
&II
...
&II
...
n
72 MM 0.0.
~ ~1MM ~
!r b
I> b
,s
y. ~ ...
D
32 MM
l)
17 I)
..
f}
I
e. p..
I> ...
v .q ~
IJ I
~
p b. r> ~
C 5x9
SECTION A-A
SECTION 8-9
~B >-'
.l'-
Fig. 2.5 End Connections for Large-Scale Specimens
Fig . 2 . h DL'ldi Is nf End COnnL'l'lLons
)5
16
the pin connection at the column base and beam ends (Fig. 2.6).
concrete area). The columns were reinforced with six #3 bars (area
reinforced to make sure they remained much stiffer than the beams.
Shear reinforcement was provided by #9 gage wire which was cut from
a spool and bent to form closed hoops (Fig. 2.4). Stirrup and tie
spacing was scaled down from the large-scale design and therefore
means of holes through the specimen which were lined with steel
Portland Cement was used and the maximum aggregate size was 20 mm
laboratory. Again Type 1 Portland Cement was used, but the maximum
tested one day after each specimen was tested. The measured
testing machine, and split cylinder tests were done in the 1300 kN
testing machine.
2.7b. These tests were done in a 500 kN (100 kip) capacity load
CONCRETE
30
2D
- LARGE-scALE
. . . . . MEDIUM-SCALE
- - - - SMALL-scALE
STRAIN
a
~~------~--------~------~------~
300
LARGE-scALE
MEDIUM-SCALE
- - - - SMALL-scALE
STRAIN
b
Fig. 2.7 Measured Properties for (a) Concrete and
(b) Steel
19
Strain was related to elongation of the bar measured over a 25 mm (1
inch) length.
2.6 Fabrication
The medium-scale specimens were cast flat in wood forms with one
side exposed (Fig. 2.8). The concrete was compacted with a high
under moistened burlap for seven days, at which time the forms were
removed. Thereafter the specimens were air cured until the testing
large and medium-scale tests, load was applied with a 156 kN (35
to
SW Iva ASSEMBLY
II
I, ROLLER BEARING
jI II CONNECTIONS
I, CONCRETE II
II
II REACTION BLOCK, I
" ). ~
II II
II II ~
II I
II
" I II
I . . /I. I 1.
I ,I ' REINWORCEO. . II , I' J I I : '., 11 ' , : I '~ . 1I ' " 1', ' "\
, , . 't:J I I '_' , J. I .:\
~ I I J>
I I~' ... , I ..
.'J ' ~ ." 1
.I, ,'.- ...cm
I I awcRE~ FLD(}R I I ~ -' I '<') . ' . <, '
4' II ", 'I . , . I :' . 'I· I I, '~. : zZ
I I - ~ , P . . , ...... ~."'.. .(,\"t I ..
l>-
38MM~ROD II
, 'J-! L
II
j I ,I
I I;
I I • I •
457 457
19 mm Steel
Mount inc; P 10 t e
19 mm .p Bolt
©f
o
(Typical)
._+--- --+-
~+___-++ 4 - 4 - - - -
L_ --I ! r-----I~ 4--1---
__ ---1
I
13 mm 41 0/2")
Threaded Bolt
W/Coupler Collar
With Fitted I ' I
8011 Beoring
at 4 Locations
L+.-J
I I
451mm
( 1.5')
strength.
ram so that transverse forces would not exist across the ram and
which were connected at the top and bottom to fixtures with roller
turnbuckles which were attached to the beam ends and secured to the
2.8 Instrumentation
specimens were measured. The applied load was measured with the 156
A rigid aluminum bar, 1830 mm (72 inches) for the large-scale, and
686 mm (27 inches) for the medium-scale was secured to the joint
(Fig. 2.13).
(6 inches) for the large scale, and 76 mm (3 inches) for the medium
LVDT was mounted on the top and bottom faces of each beam and
that free rotation of the LVDT and the core was possible (Fig.
Voltage outputs from the load cell, LVDT's, and strain gages
six cycles led up to the yield load, and the remaining cycles
2080 mm
.' :'
[IJ
'~ , "
:~'
" '/I' !? " .' "
" ,'i:, ".
, ~, I,
5action A-A
-
'o:t
0)
I
r -
FREE ROTATION CONNECTION
Ii
E
0
t! J
I It)
r h
r 152 mm
l
--
\
L W
I
• I
~ M~ 25 LVDT
......
I
J ,..., -. -. ,..., -. -.
Ie '{g ~
#10 111 #i2 m #(4
#1 #2 #3 '#4 tIS #6 #7
r'\ -. -. 1'1'\ ,..... ,..... ~
'I-' '-v 'V 'v 'V ';7 'I-' )
CIJ
<lJ
'M
H
0
+-J
(I) CIJ
:z 'M
-
III
:::t
U
III
n.
(I)
::c
+-J
j::l
<lJ
S
III <lJ
...I 0
< CO
U
(I)
I
'"p.."
CIJ
-
:::t 'M
::J ~
(I)
:z 0
-
III
:::t
U
III
n.
(I)
III
:Ii:
C
:z
<
\0
.-<
N
III
III
...I
<
U
"
a:
<
...I
CO
(I) 'M
I r,..;
...I
...I
<
:::t
(I)
could be obtained later when the data were reduced. Crack patterns
3.1 Introduction.
3.5. The data from just one specimen is presented because the
31-
33
,r-----~------~--------~~~~----------~----------~
-211
-ell
.
oJI
.. . . ..
.,;
OJ .. . ..
I
~
I
'"
I
'" oJ
<411
211
i
~ •
61
i -21
-<411
-ell
-ell
.. .,
oJI
.
oJI
OJ .. OJ . OJ
.;
.. OJ ..
oS
OJ ..
ofI I 'i
'"
I
"' N 01
~ JDINT SPECllEM
. .. ..;
~+-----~------~------~-----+------~----~~----~----~ ... • .. •i
gj
I
• - •
extERIIJI JOINT SPEClIEN I
t
-211
~
..rt 't. ..1 It
.:I
. 1..
i' '"
iii
..
iii
-• - . OJ
ell
n
ell
.
01
S'TRAIN CAGE.- 1
-211
.1 N
~
or
~ ~
..
•
~
...
II
~
.'" ....
----~-----4
-2Q
-60
o
'", d
---,-------,------,----,----,---,- ---.,----1
EXTERIOR JOINT SPECIMEN
1
/
1
1
z
"
j
a
I
N
ci '"
c
80
60
STRA IN GAGE no. 4
40
z: 20
'"
sia
...J
o
a
'"
...J
~ -20
-EO
-80
'",. '",. a N
", ci
d
Fig. 3.3 Load-Strain Response for Exterior Joint
37
STlIAIN CAGE.... S
J~----+-----+-----~----~~~~----~------------t
~~~------~~-------N~-----~'-----~.:-----~"------:N;-----~~:-----~~
111 1 '" Ii '" '" '"
STlIAIN CACE.- a
21
-ea
... (It N
" • ~ N (It ...
Ii III Ii III
1 IIII IIII 1 '"
stm.. STlIAIN -1111
f
HO ,.----...--------,r------,-----,------,---,------r--~
511
EXTERIOR JOINT SPECIMEN
J
STRIIIN G"CiE no. 7
4U
\ ~\"
'\~'
'.,
..
-4D
-- ".
o
j
'" ci
8D.O
~
STRA IN OAGE no. 8
40. 0
20. a ~
i
~o
..J
::l
ll.ll ~-----I----i---+--~~~---t------j
~
..J
0.
I
~
a.
<:
-20. 0
-40. U \
I I
-60. a ~
-80. 0
~
L-.. -.--L..-----l.---.......J----J......---~---_:O:----\Il:::-----:.O
~ ~ ~ 9 ~ m ¢ ~
ci
u----~--------~--~----~--~----~---+----~--_t
IDI'TiRIDR JOINT SPEl:IMEN
211
~
~ II
fil
i -21
r
-411
I
.....a
..
111
..
N .. .. .. • .. . .. N
.I ..
...
I I
01I 01
I f
"'
01
'" '"
IITEEI.. II'TIIAIH -1.
i
/~
1ft
42
Cycle
5 .8 .8
6 1.0 .9
7 1.6 1.6
8 1.8 .2 2.0 .2
kips). At this point the first flexural cracks opened, which caused
cycle the loading stiffness decreased from the previous cycle. This
3.4 and 3.5. Unloading stiffness remained high, but by the sixth
opened wide enough so a crack on the top of the beam could not close
before a crack on the bottom of the beam began to open. This left
very little of the beam actually in contact with the column and
the beam were then able to close. This was supported by the
in the post yield range of loading. When the load reached 58 kN (13
again started out very high, but the stiffness reduction near the
load axis became more pronounced. In the last two cycles, cracking
was so extensive that by the time the top cracks were able to close,
low stiffness along segment FG in the final cycle could have been
anchored securely with a 90 degree bend, this effect of bar slip was
versus beam rotation curves were similar, which indicated that most
45
region.
more than the maximum load of the preceeding cycle, there was a
square of the length scale factor (9) multiplied by the ratio of the
aO.----r--~~--._--~----·~--_r----r_--_r--_.----~--_,--_,
zo
o ~--~---4----+----+--~~~-H~~~--1----+----+----+---4
-20
-i' uit. __ _ __ __
-lID
- - - - - - - P ult.
21
-4
-811 -P ult. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...• aI
n
; •; n
•, n
• II
• II
•III n
•
1 "' III oj
'"
~ ~ ~ ~
I I
(6.75 kips) was observed for the small-scale specimens. This was
specimens.
greatly reduced. This tendency was also observed during the third
4.1 Introduction
presented in Figs. 4.5 and 4.6. Data is presented for just one
1~r-------~--------~--------T-----------------~------~
INmlIDR JOINT 5P£ClNEN
98
.t--------.--------~----~~~~----~------~------~
-
-laft----------.~------~~---------.~--------n.---------.~------~ft
~ f 1 ~ ~ ~ ~
811
0411
i
§ II
...fit
~ .....
-811
-1211
-1l1li
III III III III III III III III III III III
lIS ~ ~ II II
~ II...
I
,,,, DISPlACEMENT AT LOAD L£VEt... tIC.
-128
-1S~
.ot .ot
.
i - ;.
__.-+I____.,_____ ",__~----~__~----~--__~__~____~__~----,
•
I
•Pi . -•
'"
•/II •01
lST----+----~--~----~--~----~----~--~----~--~----~--_T
-1.+-__~----~--~----~--~----~--
n
•
1
n
r
__~--~----~--~----~--~
1
n
• . -• -.
01
•N N •01
'"
VEST IEAII RUTATlIII -1l1li. RltDl/lllS
1~~----------~----~----~------------------~-----r
INTERlDR JOINT SPECIMEN
121
STRAIN CAGE.... I
a~ ____+-____+-____ ~ _____
-121
-IML---__~-------..-.----~~~----~-------~~-----:...------~~:-----~~
; ; 1 1 = · · · ·
181
£11
411
~
~ /I
III
~ -411
'"
-121
-1M
V1
~
I
N
~
I 1
.. a
1
~
1
•01 ..
01
a
oS, ... H
.I
120 ~
STR~ IN CACE no. 4
~
"r
.0
~
5 0
Gl
~<
--0
~r
-'t
-WII
. --
~
~
I
N
"
0
d
I
"! ~ ~
160 r-----
I
iI
1
i It<TERIOR JOINT SPIiCIHEN
120 f- ~
i
~.#
I
I
I STRA I N CACE no.
~
5
80 f-
I
},f'
I
f'
I ~. ~
"" 40 I .-0".9~
~,/
..-::
1
--
I
a f-- -----t--
I
I
-40 ~
-30
i
1-
j
-120
--160
~
I
I
L __
I '"
I
"!I
I 0
d
"! ~
J
~
~~
or
-40 ~
I
-~ I
-120 r
I
-160
~
L_...l-.___"--__--'___-'-___-'-___~--_::__--__::
m N 0 ~ m ~
I' 1 " d
81
-121
.
; ;
N ..
; •III ..
III
N
III '"
III
l~~----~--~~--~----~----~----~----~----~----~----t
INTERIDR JOINT SPECIMEH
1211
STRIIIM GAC!! _ II
41
~
~ I
fa
i -41
--
-I.
-11. .
.:I
N
.:I
.'t a
~
..
1
•~ ..
II
..
II
.
~ ..
II
I~--------------------~~~~--~~--~----t
-12111
h
Fig. 4.4 Load-Strain Response for Interior Joint
58
40
:<
~
",
a
a
UJ
--'
Q.
!l;
-40
-80
-120
-160
OJ Q
d
"
i
IS~ ____________________ ~ __________ ~ ____ ~ ____- ,
I~-------------------J~~----~--------~
-1211
-lSl-------+-------+-------+-----~:_----~~----~N=_----~~=_----~.~
11: • • • •
Fig. 4.4 Load-Strain Response for Interior Joint
59
1111
III
414
~
~ I
f3
i -41
-1211
1111~----~----~-----+-----;------~----+-----~-----r
-1211
-IIII·~·~-----"+-------N~-----~~------.~----~~~----~N~-----:"~----~.
1... 111 .. . . . ..
S'!1!EL STRAlH el.
1
Fig. 4.4 Load-Strain Response for Interior Joint
Fig . 4 . 5 Photographs of Damage of Inlerior Joinl
Fig. 4 . 5 Photographs of Damage of fnteri()r Joint
6/
62
C1 C
Cycle Al E F
4 .5 .3 .4 .3
5 1.4 .5 1.4 .6 .6
6 1.4 .2 .5 .2 .7 .3 .7
7 2.0 .2 .5 .2 .7 .3 1.0
which the stiffness assumed its high elastic value back through zero
load.
both faces of the beams, but more importantly, it was due to some
Since the curve between points C and D had some slope, it indicated
the specimens were resisting load. This suggested that the bond had
increase.
and G, the stiffness was observed to decrease more and more. This
the joint. By the final cycle the bond had been completely
With no bond resistance, the tensile force in the beam bars was
loading. The specimens could resist load only after the column had
rotated far enough to close some of the flexural cracks and subject
bar within the joint region was constantly in tension. This was
3.2 for exterior joints were also observed during the tests of
resisted twice the load, at both cracking and yield, as did the
had two beams extending from them. The second difference was the
exterior joints showed much less stiffness loss in the load reversal
While the area of steel in the beams was kept essentially the same,
smaller diameter bars were used. This section discusses the effect
Figs. 4.7 and 4.1. For smaller bars (Fig. 4.7), the pinching of
each hysteresis loop in the vicinity of the origin was not nearly as
I SPECIMEN LIJ4
1211
sa
4&
i
~ II
...fit
~ -4&
-sa
-1211
-16111
IS 111 151 111 151 111 151 111 IS 111 IS 111 IS
N ..:I ....I
as as .... ..: N N cri
'i I 7 '#
JDINT RDTATIDN *1811. RADIANS
-
"
II"
,
,.
- -.-
i LI
6
(I (.
,
, -- .. -
b/
tl ~,
)
.,
}
-
/.- "
I tl
15
/
r
f
I
)
I
'"'
r
'\,
82
Cycle A E F
1
3 .2 .2 .5 .2 .5 .2 .2 .2
4 .4 .2 .6 .2 .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 .5
5 .7 .6 1.2 .4 1.2 .4 .7 .6 .2 .5
6 .9 .4 1.6 .5 1.6 .5 .9 .4 .4 .5
first three. The reason for this was the shorter development length
the steel to accept higher tensile forces before the bond was
as the first three. During the final cycle, the loading stiffness
steel, since by this point the steel had been loaded past its yield
was reproduced in Fig. 4.10 along with a similar curve from tests of
160
SO
z
"
~ .w
9
ffi
..::;
<
lil
N
::; -40
<
~z
-90
-120
-leo
0
~ "''l' 0
'l'
"'
i
0
i
~, 0
c:i
~ 0 Ul 0
'"
Ul
'"
.
0
•
48
~
!iii •
i -411
...
-121
-1•
.. .,
•'1
'"
I
•
'"
I - -
n
I
• I
n
0;
•
'"
n
'" :! .:
'"
• WI
oJ •01
JOINT ROTATION *1_ RADING
b
large-scale specimens.
the load reversal range of the response (+-lOkN). After just one
load cycle into the nonlinear range, the small-scale specimens lost
amplitude cycle was sufficient to pull the bar from each side of the
based on pullout tests (45). This was considerably greater than the
on the ACI document 318-77 (16). This was equal to the width of the
cycles to completely destroy its bond, its response was very similar
large-scale specimens.
specimens are shown in Fig. 4.11. The vertical axis of the response
lSI
911
~
4
~
iii
.
~
<
II
~
-4
i -811
-1211
-1811
os
,
Pi '"N,
.,
N
It1
i
os
i
It1
.;,
..
.;
It1
.;
.. '" ..
N
It1
N
..
Pi
•
§
.
~ •
Fa
i .....
--
-1Z11
-lilt
..'l' .,
01
os
,
01
II>
,
.., II
; .. ....
os os
"
It
~
..
01
.,
01
II
,,;
factor was 3.
essentially the same. Since standard deformed bars were used in the
which was slightly higher than the maximum load for the large-scale
5.1 Summary
specimen.
76
77
5.2. Conclusions
the length scale factor. All depth, width, and cover dimensions can
strength of reinforcement.
~S
joints did not show such good correlations between scales. Demand
for more bond resistance was inherent for the interior joints
specimens suffered complete bond loss after only one large amplitude
less bond loss with no loss in strength than those reinforced with
#6 bars.
techniques.
19. Takeda, T., M.A. Sozen and N.N. Nielsen, "Reinforced Concrete
Response to Simulated Earthquakes", Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. 8T12, December, 1970, pp.
2257-2573.
40. Zia, P., R.N. White and D.A. VanHorn, "Principles of Model
Analysis", Models for Concrete Structures, Special Publication
of American Concrete Institute No. 24, 1970.
41. Staffier, S.R., and M.A. Sozen, "Effect of Strain Rate on Yield
Stress of Model Reinforcement", Civil Engineering Studies,
Structural Research Series No. 415, University of Illinois,
Urbana, February, 1975.
45. Kreger, M.F. and Sozen, M.A., "A Study of the Causes of Column
Failures in the Imperial County Services Building During the 15
October 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake". Civil Engineering
Studies, Structural Research Series No. 509. University of
Illinois, Urbana, August, 1983.
Load-Rotation Curves
05
86
lSI
N
I
j ~
I .-t
"
~
>-"
;::
1 lSI
Q)
S
.,-.1
C,)
Q)
j
0..
en
Ll'l H
Z 0
~ c:: lH
I lSI
=
c::
C:::
Q)
CJJ
;::
rS; 0
0..
IS:
-...
CSl
~
CJJ
Q)
IS: %
0 ;::
....
c::
0
.,-.1
.- .I-J
<ll
C
C::: .I-J
IJ1
.....
% ~
0
lSI
II I
0 ~
I
I -::/ <t1
0
j-
I
lSI
I
>-"
.-t
.
-:r:
::::: !
w
:E:
..... co
.
w
c...
Ll'l 1-
I
~
I
.,-.1
~
1 ~
N
I
~
lSI lSI IS: lSI lSI ISl lSI lSI
IJ:) l.O ::r N N l.O !XI
I
I I I
~
- .-<
'""'l
H
j- ~
"""~
(j)
S
.,-i
<:.)
(j)
0-
C/)
~
L.n 0
j
I
1
II
V1
lSI
:z
c::
c:::.
c:::
c:::
ll-<
(j)
CIl
~
0
0-
I ~ CIl
I lSI
""'
e;; :z
-
ISl
~
Q)
~
0 0
.-
0::
.,-i
+J
.- Cll
1
0 +J
c::: 0
I V1 .-
:z
~
I
II
lSI "d
I
0 co
-::J 0
j- ~
"""
C"~
.
! :z
i I <:t:
.
j-
L...J
I :t::
.......
bO
.,-i
L...J I't-o
Co. ~
I
L.n
I
I I lSI
N
I
lSI lSI <s:. lSI lSI lSI lSI lSI lSI
::! !::! al :r :rI al
I
N
~
I I
SPECIMEN L1J2
12111
88
.g
i
~ ,,~ 7'. / ; ; - :
fit
i -.g
-88
-12111
-1·+1----+----+----r---~----r_--~--~~--~--~~--~--~----4
III In III I/) iii III III VI iii III III III III
rr ~ ~ ....
I
...
I 'I III III .... .... N N PI