EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL.

23,859-876 (1994)

EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE SEISMIC SHEAR PERFORMANCE OF RC BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS SUBJECTED TO VARYING AXIAL COLUMN FORCE
M. S. AGBABIAN*, E. M. HIGAZY' A N D A. M. ABDEL-GHAFFARf Civil Engineering Department. University of Southern California. Los Angeles, C A 90089-2531, U.S.A.
AND A. S. ELNASHAI'.' Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College o Science, Technology and Medicine, Imperial College Road, London SW7 2BU, U.K. f

SUMMARY

The paper presents results from the first series of an ongoing experimental study aimed at quantifying the effect of axial column load on the shear capacity of beam-to-column connections. This is deemed important due to the recent evidence showing that vertical earthquake ground motion, when combined with high overturning moments, may cause reduced column compression or even tension. In which case, the concrete contribution to shear resistance in the panel zone is diminished, which may lead to failure prior to the attainment of the full resisting capacity of the beam section. The results first show that the failure mode of the models was, as intended, shear failure of the panel zone. It is further observed that the axial column load has a marked effect on the shear deformation capacity, yield point, cracking pattern, ultimate capacity and ductility of the panel zone. Differences in the range of 30 per cent in capacity and 50 per cent in deformability were recorded. The preliminary results are useful in providing design guidance for structures located in areas of potential high vertical ground motion component. Also, for high-rise structures, where there are large overturning moments, the results may be of use in ensuring a uniform safety factor (or overstrength)in various non-dissipative parts of the structure. INTRODUCTION Modem seismic design utilizes the concept of failure mode control to maximize the reliability and economy of structures. In structural design for gravity and wind loads, overstrength provides enhanced load-carrying capacity and hence an increase in the safety of the structure. For the case of earthquake-resistant design, however, non-uniform overstrength distributions may result in a brittle failure mode causing low energy absorption capacity and premature collapse. Moreover, in designing beam-column subassemblages the ease of construction, and hence economy, is of critical importance when estimating the section dimensions, design and detailing. It is the balance of the overstrength in the panel zone (PZ) region and minimum overstrength to satisfy economy that makes earthquake-resistant design of the beam-column joint a challenging problem. In reinforced concrete (RC) design, utilizing the concept of weak-beam-strong-column behaviour is important, with few exceptions. In all cases, however, it is assumed that the connection will maintain its integrity; hence it will continue to transmit loads between beams and columns resulting in the beam-hinging ductile failure mode. It is therefore important that the strength of the connection is estimated conservatively,

*Professor. 'Research Associate. 'Professor. #Reader. "Currently Visiting Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

CCC 0098-8847/94/080859-18 0 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 8 April 1993 Revised 21 August 1993

860

M. S. AGBABIAN ET AL.

taking into account all sources of overstrength in the beams and columns. There is, however, a countcrargument against using large overstrength values for the connection. Over reinforcement will result in congestion, thus resulting in construction difficulties. This, in turn, will reflect on the economy of the structure. The preceding discussion highlights the importance of estimating accurately the actual capacity of beam- column connections, such that a well-controlled overdesign factor is ensured. INFLUENCE O F VERTICAL GROUND EXCITATION ON CONNECTION PERFORMANCE An important parameter influencing the behaviour of beam-column connections, and reinforced concrete structures in general, is the interaction between the response under transverse and vertical ground motion, as discussed below. Traditionally, some of the principal codes fail to stipulate that the vertical component of ground motion be taken account of. It is also recommended that, if required, the vertical spectrum is taken as a proportion of the horizontal spectrum. This approach is potentially unconservative, due to the following two main points: (a) There is a wealth of earthquake records that exhibit a vertical component with a peak ground acceleration well in excess of the corresponding horizontal value, as shown in Table I. (b) The frequency content of the vertical motion is often observed to be significantly higher than that of the horizontal component, as shown in Figure 1. Field observations' as well as results of dynamic analysis of high-rise s t r ~ c t u r e s ~ ~ ~ that the indicate combined effect of high over-turning moment and excitation of the vertical vibration modes may result in a very significant reduction in the compressive forces obtained from static structural analysis. Some of the results of a non-linear dynamic analysis conducted by K o ~ k l e r iare shown in Figure 2. In the cited study, a ,~ 3-bay and %storey reinforced concrete frame was analysed under different earthquake excitations. The selected earthquake records had a ratio [between peak vertical and peak horizontal accelerations ( ~ J u , , ) ]of 1.7 or more. Time histories of column axial force presented in Koukleri's study showed very low column axial compression or even tensile loads for the cases where a combined vertical and horizontal excitation was considered, as shown in Figure 2. Under such conditions, the code-specified concrete contribution to the shear strength is eroded and the total shear force has to be carried by the horizontal reinforcement in the panel zone. If this frame is designed in accordance with existing code specifications, premature failure of the connection will ensue, causing sudden loss of transverse stiffness and strength and an increased lateral displacement. Hence, design of beam-column connections needs re-examination in the light of the recent evidence that peak acceleration of the vertical ground motion may have a significant effect on the safety margins of the connections when column loads, varying from high compression to mild tension, are considered. NOTE ON PREVIOUS RESEARCH O N BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS One of the early studies performed in the field of beam-column connection (Figure 3) testing was by Bertero and P o ~ o vwho tested half scale subassemblages. In their series of tests, inelastic action was to develop in ,~
Table I. Sample earthquakes with high vertical acceleration (Reference 12) Earthquake
1 2 3 4 5

Station name

L7,i1lh

El Centro sta 6 Westmorland F.S. Hollister Warehouse Hollister City Hall Salinas John & Work St

3.86 2.05 2.82

5.44
2.0

BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS
MPERlAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE. WSTON RD. 1 OCT 1979. 140 DEG 5
ACCXLDUm

86 1

-0.398 C

ELCUTY

PEAK V A L E S
-64.2

cL(/SEC

1 " " I " " I ' ~ ~

'

'

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

r. 00

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

225

225

WO

275

30.0

32S

3. 50

375

_c
I

--

0 . 0
2s

25

5.0

7.5

10.0

125

1. 50

V.5

20.0

25.0

275

30.0

325

3. 50

375

0.0

25

5.0

7.5

r. 00

125

S.0

17.5

20.0

25.0

275

J0.0

325

3. 50

3. 75

TME ( X C )

lMPERlAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE. M T O N RO. 1 OCT 1979. VERT 5

ACCELERATION

1665

VELOCITY

PEAK VALUES -62.7 CM/SEC

8
Y

20-

i32

m+"~ "~JO +nu:

-?
-20

, , , , , , , , I , , , , , , rrrl , , , , , , , , , , ,
I
I

, , , , , , ~,,
20.0

00 .

25

50

75

m.0

125

6.0

l5 7

225

I. , , ,, ,
2M

, , , I , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,m 216 30.0 323 35.0 3 5 7

I I ,

TIME (SEC)

Figure 1. Records of Imperial Valley Earthquake, 1979 (Reference 3)

862

M. S . AGBABIAN ET AL.

IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE - UBC FRAME Axial Force Column 3

10

500

....... W 3 7 U M M +VERTICAL EXCfTAlWN -HORlZoNlM EXCITATION

0

. fi

-1000

-1500

10

-1 500 0

I
1 2

10

Time (sec)
Figure 2. Time histories of column axial forces with tension stresses (Reference 3 )

BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS

863

Figure 3. Typical interior beam-column subassemblage

the beams, as the design was based on strong-column-weak-beam philosophy. They concluded that the early drop in resistance and the drastic pinching of the hysteretic loops are caused by bond failure of the beam main reinforcement along the width of the column. Scriber and Wight,' investigated the aspect of shear strength decay in the connections. The results of their test series explained the effect of the percentage of the transverse joint reinforcement on the overall energy dissipation capacity, damage control and longitudinal reinforcement buckling. They showed that intermediate reinforcement is most effective in improving hysteretic response for doubly reinforced members. The general shear behaviour of interior, exterior and corner beam-column connections in reinforced concrete frames subjected to alternately repeated loading was investigated by Minami and Nishimura.6 Their test results showed a tendency of the ultimate shear strength in the panel zone of interior connections to be slightly higher than those of exterior or corner connections. The influence of reinforcement amount and detailing on the seismic resistance of the connections was studied by Goto et al.' as well as Tsonos et a/.' The influence of transverse reinforcement in beam ends and joints on the connection seismic behaviour was studied by the former group of researchers,' whilst the latter' studied the seismic resistance of diagonally reinforced beam-column connections. The above was not intended to provide a comprehensive review of previous work on beam-colilmn connections. The cited examples only serve to demonstrate that the majority of the available test data were on specimens which did not fail in pure panel zone shear, as elaborated below. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES In most of the previous experimental studies4-' mixed mode failure was observed; hence an accurate assessment of the capacity of the panel zone was not possible. In the current test series, several measures were taken to ensure that the failure mode is purely by panel zone shear failure. This is considered important if realistic estimates of the force-resisting mechanisms and the capacity are to be obtained. The latter approach is an extension of the effort of relating the seismic characteristics of the connections to the panel zone (PZ) shear capacity rather than a mixed flexural-shear performance. The low values of column compressive load used throughout this series of testing simulates a consequence of the vertical ground excitation effect, as previously discussed. Hence, under this newly introduced condition, the adopted test philosophy offers an opportunity to reinvestigate the code procedure for the design of RC beam-column connections.

864

M. S. AGBABIAN ET AL.

TESTING PROGRAMME
Specimen details

All specimens tested within this programme are one-third-scale models of a multistorey frame joint prototype. The choice of the one-third scale was dictated by the testing machine capacity. A total of three models were tested as the first set in a series of an ongoing experimental programme. It was decided to have identical specimens and to impose strict quality control in order to isolate irrevocably the effect of axial column load. The present specimens were designated SAI, SA2, and SA3. Details of test models are given in Figure 4. The weak-beam-strong-column philosophy was not adopted herein, as it was intended to impose cracking and failure within the panel zone rather than in other elements of the subassemblage.
Material properties

The concrete mix was designed according to UBC 2605(d) 3B. Ordinary portland cement type I1 was used along with a maximum aggregate size of 0375 in (9.50 mm) and a water/cement ratio of 0.76 by weight. The mix had a 5 in (127 mm) slump and yielded a 4 ksi (28 MPa) average strength at 28 days. A 3.00 floz (0355 1) pozzolan 322N was admixed to every 100 lb (45.5 kg) cement. Grade 60 reinforcing steel of minimum yield stress of 60 ksi (410 MPa) and tensile strength of 75 ksi (520 MPa) was used in all the models. Number 3 (10 mm) deformed rebars were mainly used for longitudinal reinforcement of beams and columns. The choice of the deformed bars was to keep the bar bond characteristics as the simulated prototype. Beam stirrups and column hoops were of number 2 (6 mm) smooth bars.
Experimental set-up and instrumentation A general view of the testing facility is shown in Figure 5(a), whilst Figure 5(b) shows the details of the test-

rig. The specimens were tested in a horizontal plane with the boundary conditions designed to provide the necessary points of contraflexure at the ends of beams and column. The beams and column ends were bolted to steel angles and capped with plates 1/2 in (12.7 mm) thick. A set of links and base plates were used to provide the necessary boundary conditions. Displacements were imposed on a beam-end mounted on the shake table. The USC-Dual Seismic Shake Table System used herein is a two-station precision, servohydraulic testing system designed to operate under software control or direct operator input. The servohydraulic devices comprise two shake tables equipped with hydrostatic bearings, two series hydraulic actuators and their associated servovalves, two series hydraulic service manifolds and a series hydraulic power supply. The actuator is of 5.6 kips ( f25 kN) static capacity and a stroke f 2 in ( f 50.8 mm). The table active controller provides two optional schemes of displacement generation, namely, internal and external schemes. The built-in actuator transducer measured the imposed lateral displacement whilst the mounted load cell measured the driving force. Four other linear voltage differential transducers (LVDT) were mounted on the beams and columns at the position nearest possible to the panel zone. The latter were intended for monitoring the joint shear deformation. Strain gauges were placed on the main steel rebars and on selected beam and column stirrups. All rebar and stirrup surfaces were ground to the required smoothness at the appropriate gauge positions. Waterproofing with a silicon layer followed strain gauging. Figure 6 shows instrumentation of the test models.
Loading regime

In each test, a load-controlled column axial straining was imposed and co-existed with a displacementcontrolled cyclic transverse loading on the beams. Whilst the axial column load was kept constant, the transverse cyclic loading increased every three cycles. To achieve some consistency with previous tests, the ECCS (European Convention for Constructional Steelwork) recommended cyclic-loading regime was imposed. This loading procedure has been extensively used in Europe for testing of beam-columns9 and beam-column connections." The axial column load levels used were 0 ,5 and 10 per cent of the squash load. Cyclic displacement represented the recommended multiples of yield displacement. Plots of the cyclicdisplacement regime adopted herein are shown in Figure 7.

+/e +-I2

I
n
n-

N
\

m
I
(Y

t: mQJ
(u

0 Q 0 0

t "

*
0'8

M. S. ACBABIAN ET AL.
Control & Computer

&

To Hydraulic Distribution System

Horizontal Actuator

Figure 5(a). General view of the shake-table facility

TEST RESULTS
Specimen SAI Plot of the applied load versus displacement of the load point for SA1 is shown in Figure 8. The plot shows an almost linear behaviour during the first three to four cycles up to 0-30 in (7.6 mm) displacement. At a displacement of about 0.32 in (8.13 mm), vertical and horizontal cracks developed through the panel zone (PZ) as shown in Figure 9. These cracks developed at PZ-beam or PZ-column interface and commenced from a corner. Interfaced cracks widened and lengthened as the test progressed, whilst at 0.62 in (1 5.7 mm) displacement, diagonal cracks started developing. The peak load of 2260 lb (1005 kN) was achieved at about 0.9 in (22.9 mm) displacement when diagonal cracks were completely developed through PZ. Pinching was clearly observed after the main cracks have developed. In subsequent cycles, there was a gradual and continuing drop of load-carrying capacity. Cracking was only limited to the panel zone throughout all stages of loading. Stages of crack propagation and corresponding displacements are shown in Figure 9. With further widening of the existing cracks, dramatic loss of stiffness and crushing of the joint core, the subassemblage failed at a displacement amplitude of about 1.5 in (38.1 mm) and a corresponding stiffness less than one-fifth of the initial stiffness. It is worth noting that the specimen stiffness, in all tests, is defined by the slope of the tangents to each cycle of the load-displacement curve. Three further cycles at 1.6 (40.6), 1.7 (43.2)and 1.8 in (45.7 mm) were applied for the assessment of large displacement residual strength. PZ shear deformation plotted against the applied load is given in Figure 10. Finally, a plot showing the relationship between the percentage of yield strength versus the calculated ductility ratios, as discussed later, is shown in Figure 11.

Specimen SA2 Specimen SA2 experienced a non-symmetric behaviour during the early stages of testing as shown in the load-displacement plot of Figure 12. A linear response was observed up to a displacement of 0.26 in (6.6 mm) where a drift towards non-linearity ensued. A PZ crack that initiated and propagated through the column depth resulted in the observed asymmetry. Stages of crack initiation and propagation are depicted in Figure

I
N

t / T
"
I

0 8
0 0

8
0 0

Q
0 0

Q
0

o * -

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

>

a
3
I

+J
al
u)

iJ

10
P,

I-

I
217

4 .t

4
Y

I
r(

n
Y

bppmm5-l

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

M l

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

3
I
t

I 0 0

868

M. S. AGBABIAN ET A l .

Figure 6 . Instrumentation set-up, (SA1. SA2 and SA3)

( 1 in = 0.0254 m)

VJ

Ps
a

B
Y

ACQUIRED DATA POINTS

Figure 7. Displacement time historj

13 for SA2. The absence of column compressive load led to a rapid crack opening and propagation. PZ crack widening was then experienced rather than opening of new diagonal or side cracks. The same behaviour continued up to a displacement of about 0.65 in (16.5 mm) where another horizontal crack developed acrosz the PZ and through the column depth, as shown in Figure 13. Due to this new crack, symmetrical behaviour was partially reinstated. Beam cracks were observed firstly at a displacement of 0.30 in (7.6 mm). More cracks propagated through the beam depth and width between displacements of 0.5 (12.7) and 1.2 in (30.5 mm) where stability of crack pattern was reached. A t a displacement of 1.25 in (31.8 mm), the peak load of 2150 Ib (9.56 kN) was achieved; PZ diagonal cracks and column horizontal cracks were totally developed. Gradual loss of strength was experienced through subsequent cycles. Cracking spread into the different elements of the subassemblage rather than being confined to the PZ. Nontheless, the crack concentration was more through the panel zone, where crushing leading to failure occurred later. SA2 failed at a displacement of about 1.97 in (50 mm) and a corresponding stiffness of 16 per cent of the initial stiffness. Pinching is clearly manifested in the load-displacement curve of Figure 12. Joint shear deformation and ductility ratio plots are given in Figures 10 and 14, respectively.

869

-25002

-1

0 1 Lateral Displacement in

Figure 8. Load-displacement relationship of specimen SAl (1 in

D , : Ultimate Displacement

SAI 25% D ,

*+
a} Crack Initiation (0.32)
b) Crack Propagation (0.85)

*
SAI- 50% D,

= 0.0254 rn; 1 Ib = 4-448 N)

SA1-75% D,

SAI -100% D,

c} Crack Propagation (1.63

d} Final Crack Pattern (At Failure)

Figure 9. Successive crack patterns, specimen SAl

870

M. S. AGBABIAN ET A L .

8000I
cn 0
cnnn

-1

-g2000
0

P,=+5 %P,-- SAI P =+/-a % P - sA2 , ,

Pc=+10%P,--SA3
- -14 0.06 0.08 oa Joint Shear Deformation "radians"

0 02

0.1

0.12

Figure 10. PZ shear deformation vs. column shear, SA1, SA2 and SA3 (1 Ib = 4,448 N)

"w
I
20
1ooy-

\
I I

__

4 Ductility Ratio

Figure 1 1 . Ductility ratios vs. percentage of yield strength, specimen SAl

Specimen SA3 Plot of the applied load versus the displacement of the load point of SA3 is shown in Figure 15. The plots indicated that through the first four cycles and up to 0.42 in (10.7mm) displacement, the behaviour is very close to linearity. Departure from linearity started at 045 in (1 1.43mm) displacement. Due to the relatively high column compression in specimen SA3,crack initiation and propagation did not follow the same stages of its counterparts. As shown in Figure 16 cracking started through the beam and nearest to the point of displacement application. Then beam cracks at the beam-PZ interface followed at a displacement of 0.39 (9.9) 0.45 in (1 1.43mm). Horizontal PZ cracks through the column depth developed at 0.76 in ( I 9-3 mm) to displacement, though stayed closed and non-traceable up to 1.0 in (25.4mm) where they started widening and linking with beam and PZ corner cracks. By further application of displacement, existing cracks developed completely and brought about a stiffness drop to about 35 per cent of the initial value, where the stiffness measured in this study is, as previously defined, the tangent slope to each cycle of the load-displacement curve. Prior to failure, main diagonal cracks opened through the PZ and widened till failure. Crushing occurred at 1.95 in (50 mm) displacement. The specimen ultimate strength (peak load) was 2750 lb (12.23kN) and corresponded to about 1.0 in (25.4 mm) displacement. Figure 17 shows the displacement ductility ratios plotted against the percentage of yield strength. The three specimens presented herein, shared the same failure mode which is a pure shear failure inside the PZ with no plastic hinging in the beams and columns framing into the connection. This is attributed to the design adopted herein which maintained a flexural strength ratio of 0 8 7 as compared to 1.4recommended by the codes.

BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS

87 1

2500
I

. 1 . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... _.. . . ... . . . ........... .

i

-25002 -

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

D, :Ullimate D&placament

+*
SA2-25% D,

SA2-50% D,

a) Crack InMalion (O.2aap)

b) Crack Pmpagalion (0.85)

&
SA2- 75% D ,
c) Crack Propagalion (1.45)

d) Final Crack Pattern (At Failure)

Figure 13. Successive crack patterns, specimen SA2

872

M. S. AGBABIAN ET AL.

I
I
~

100;

I 1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Ductility Ratio
14. vs. Figure 14 Ductility ratios vs percentage of yield strength, specimen SA2

3
2000

0
a,
0 L
( I .-: L

=cn 1000

2 -1000
-2000

c3)

cn

OI
.

I t

-3000;

-1

0 Lateral Displacement "in"

1 I

Figure 15. Load-displacement relationship of specimen SA3 (1 in

= 0.0254m; 1 Ib =

4.448 N)

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

Strcngth analysis

As previously mentioned, the subassemblages were designed according to the ACT 3 18-89 code provisions with several measures to ensure a pure PZ failure. Hence, a more precise estimate of the PZ shear capacity is

BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS
D, : Ultima~e Disphcdmenf

873

SA3-25% D,

SA3-50% D ,

It
a) Crack
Iniliation (0.42)

b) Crack Propagation (0.84)

SA3-75%Du

SA3-10O%Du

U
c) Crack Propagalion (1.5) c) Final Crack Pattern (At Failure)

Figure 16. Successive crack patterns, specimen SA3

.._.._..._.._

-------

1i
I

j
...........................
I

100,v

Ductility Ratio
Figure 17. Ductility ratios vs. percentage of yield strength, specimen SA3

obtained. It should be noted that the experimentally acquired capacity represents a pure shear failure case, where all the possibilities of a mixed failure mechanism were eliminated. The acquired capacities were obtained from the recorded column shear along with the corresponding measured strains in the beam longitudinal reinforcement. The influence of axial column compression was controlled through the imposed strain level in the column reinforcement. On the other hand, the analytical capacities were obtained from a proposed simple mechanical model. This is based on the two basic mechanisms contributing to the shear transfer through the panel zone, namely, the diagonal strut mechanism and the joint truss mechanism. The model formulation considers the ultimate capacity of the PZ transverse reinforcement to be the contribution of the joint steel to the overall shear capacity, whilst the concrete contribution is represented by its resistance to the panel zone diagonal compression. Finally, the influence of the axial column compression is accounted for by evaluating the dimensions of the resisting concrete strut as a function of the level of the column normal stress. The analytical model formulation and verification are given elsewherel . Values of the acquired and analytical joint shear capacities along with the column axial compression are given in Table 11. The effect of the column compression on the joint shear capacity is manifested in the difference of more than 19 per cent in the capacities. The corresponding analytical difference is 14 per cent for the same variation

874

M. S. AGBABIAN ET AL.

Table 11. Recorded and calculated shear capacity Axial column compression (YoPu)
0 5 10

Joint shear capacity Experimental-kips (kN)

22.07 (98.17) 24.16 ( 107.45) 27.23 (1 2 1.1 1)

Analytical-kips (kN)
20.74 (92.25) 21.53 (95-77) 23.92 (106.40)

in the axial load. A difference of about 6-10 per cent (well within experimental error margins) between the experimentally acquired strength and the analytical strength is observed which shows that the model used is capable of predicting reasonably representative strength estimates.
Shear deformation analysis A key parameter in the analysis of PZ performance is the joint (PZ) shear deformation. Figure 10 shows the relationship between the column shear and the corresponding shear deformation at different levels of column compression. It is shown that a slight increase in column compression results in a relatively high increase in the resistance of the panel zone to shear deformation. Hence, a lower interstorey drift would be experienced and there would be higher chances of maintaining the structural integrity. This will also have a beneficial effect on non-structural components. Conversely, the absence of column compression increases substantially the PZ shear deformation with a factor of 50 per cent or more, thus increasing overall displacements of the structure. Moreover, Figure 10 shows that specimens with 5 and 10 per cent axial column compression followed the same pattern of progress with respect to shear deformation up to the peak load of the former. During subsequent loading stages, and due to the role of the relatively high compression in crack closure, the latter showed a better shear deformation resistance. Such behaviour is attributed to differences in the extent of PZ cracking in the models during post peak load cycles. The same argument holds for the shear deformation of specimens with no axial column compression and that with 5 per cent compressive load. Considerable differences in the behaviour are observed from Figure 10 up to the level of complete development of cracks in both specimens. Afterwards, the role of axial load in crack control diminished and the two specimens deformed identically up to failure. Table I11 gives the values of the PZ shear deformation corresponding to first yield and failure, respectively, along with the PZ shear deformation ductility Rpz. It is observed from Table I11 that a 53 per cent decrease in the local shear deformation ductility is caused by a 10 per cent axial column load reduction. This is attributable to the significant effect of the column compression on the yield shear deformation.
Ductility analysis

In the present analysis, two different overall ductility ratios are presented. These are based on (i) the local shear deformation ( R , ) and (ii) the global displacement ( R 2 ) .It is worth noting that the former ductility ratio
Table 111. PZ shear deformations Axial column compression (% Pu)
0 5 10

PZ shear deformation (radians)

At yield
0.056 0-039 0025

At failure
0-121
0.1 19

R,,
2.16 3.05 4.64

0.1 16

BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTIONS

875

Table IV. Ductility and energy absorption capacity Axial column compression
(YoPu)
0 5 10

Energy absorption capacity Ib in (Nm)

2775.0(313*5) 4345.0 (490.89) 4537.5 (512.64)

Ductility ratios
R,
3.95 4.10 5.40
R2
~~

498 5.19 5.75

is based on the cumulative shear deformation plot while the latter is based on the overall load-displacement curve. For a better understanding of strength degradation, the percentage of yield strength versus the local and global displacement ductility is depicted in Figures 11, 14 and 17. The yield point was estimated from a proposed mechanical model based on the joint shear resistance mechanisms, namely, the truss and the diagonal strut mechanism along with the internal force diagrams of the joints." In Reference 8, it was observed that a strength reduction is recorded corresponding to the maximum ductility attained. This is at variance with the current results, where no such clear reduction is observed. This emphasizes the exactitude of the current approach, where the failure mode is that of shear in the PZ. A clear drop in load-carrying capacity would only be recorded if and when the horizontal steel exceeds its ultimate stress. In the current test series, the steel strain was well below the strain at ultimate stress. Being more contentious to estimate, the failure point was determined using two different approaches. The first is the displacement corresponding to a fixed percentage reduction of the ultimate strength whilst the second is the failure point corresponding to a given local ductility. It should be noted that in all cases, the local criterion is mapped onto the overall load versus displacement curve of the subassemblage in order to evaluate the overall ductility. Ductility ratios R , and R , for the tested specimens along with the energy absorption capacities are given in Table IV. It is clearly demonstrated in Table IV that a decrease of 10 per cent in the column axial compression results in a loss of displacement ductility in the range 14-26 per cent based on the first and second approaches to ductility, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Current seismic design practice recommends that the vertical components of earthquake ground motion may be represented by the horizontal spectral values scaled by about 70 per cent. This ignores the existing databank of earthquake records where vertical peak ground accelerations may be well in excess of the corresponding horizontal values." It also ignores the fact that the frequency content of the vertical component is invariably different from that of the horizontal component. In recognition of the above, recent analytical studies have focused attention on the possible consequences of high over-turning moments and co-existing vertical excitation. It was shown that reduced compression, or even tension, may be experienced by intermediate stories of medium to high-rise RC structures. Consequently, the shear resistance mechanisms of beam-column connections, usually considered as concrete and steel contributions, should be re-examined. This is the motivation behind this work. Results from the first three tests of an ongoing research programme at the University of Southern California are reported in this paper. The models were designed to exhibit a failure mode entirely controlled by the panel zone. The models were tested under variable amplitude cyclic displacement-controlled loading. Axial load levels of 10, 5 and 0 per cent of the squash capacity were applied to thc identically reinforced specimens which were manufactured under very strict quality control. The results presented in the paper indicate that the behaviour of the panel zone is clearly and significantly affected by the axial column load. The overall displacement response of the sub-assemblage decreased by 22 per cent for a decrease in the axial load from 10 to 5 per cent of the squash load. Moreover, the displacement

876

M.S. AGBABIAN ET

AL.

Table V. Summary of test results Axial column compression PZ shear capacity kips (kN)
22.07 (98.17) 24.16(107.46) 27.23(121.11)

Ductility ratios
R, R, R,,

(/.I
0 5 10

3.95 4.1

5-4

4,975 5.19 5.75

216 3.05 4.64

ductility ratios (calculated by two approaches) have shown a decrease of 21.5 per cent for the same range of variation in axial column load. The local shear distortion ductility ratio also decreases by a wide margin corresponding to a decrease in axial load. Finally, the overall capacity of the subassemblagedecreased by 19 per cent from the 0 per cent axial load specimen to the 10 per cent case. The results obtained are summarized in Table V. The implications of the above results are that the concrete contribution to the shear resistance of panel zones of RC beam-to-column connections is sensitive to the level of axial column load, which is in turn a function of the overturning moment and the vertical component of earthquake ground motion. In areas of potentially high vertical component, the concrete contributim cannot be relied upon, and modified design procedures are warranted. For reasons of economy, and to avoid steel congestion in the panel zone, wellcontrolled overstrength margins are required. These can only be evaluated if a pure panel zone failure mode is imposed, as in this test series.
REFERENCES
1. N. N. Ambraseys, Private communication, 1990. 2. 0. Papadopoulou, Effect of vertical ground motion on the response of multistorey reinforced concrete structures, M.Sc.

Dissertation, Imperial College, University of London, September 1988. 3. S. N. Koukleri, The effect of vertical ground excitation on the response of R.C. structures, M.Sc. Dissertation, Imperial College, University of London, August 1992. 4. V. V. Bertero and E. P. Popov. Hysteretic behavior of ductile moment-resisting reinforced concrete frame components, Report No. EERC 75-16, University of California at Berkeley, California, April 1975. 5. C. F. Scriber and J. K. Wight, Delaying shear strength decay in R/C flexural members under large load reversals, Proc. 7th WCEE. Vol. 7, Istanbul, 1980, pp. 31-39. 6. K. Minami and Y.Nishimura, Hysteretic characteristics of beam to column connections in steel reinforced concrete structures, Proc. 7th WCEE, Vol. 7 , Istanbul, 1980, pp. 305-309. 7. Y. Goto, 0. Joh and T. Shibata, Influence of transverse reinforcement in beam ends and joints on the behavior of R/C beam-column subassemblages, Proc. 9th WCEE, Vol. 4, Tokyo/Kyoto, 1988, pp. 585-591. 8. A. Tsonos, I. Tegos and G. Penelis, Seismic resistance of type 2 exterior beam-column joints reinforced with inclined bars, A C I strucf. i. 89. 3-12 (1992). 9. A. Y.Elghazouli, A. S.Elnashai and P. J. Dowling, Experimental behavior of ductile partially encased composite beam-columns, Proc. earthquake, blast and impact: measurement and effects of vibration conj, Manchester, Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics, September 1991, pp. 21 1-220. 10. G. Ballio and F. Perotti, Cyclicbehavior of axially-loaded member; numerical simulator and experimental verification, J. construcr. steel res. 7 , 3-41 (1987). 11. E. M. Higazy, Seismic shear performance of beam-column subassemblages in multistory RC structures, Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA., April 1993. 12. N. A. Abrahamson and J. J. Lithehiser, Attenuation of vertical peak acceleration, Bull. seism. soc. Am. 79, 549-580 (1989).