, 2 ,1
4 ,3



 
 
 



 




  






(CB1, CB2&CB3) 
 (CB8, CB9 and CB10)






 























 
  
Group A
 
  
 GroupD


Group

Parametric study

A

Type of column reinforcement

Specimen
CB1,CB2&CB3
CB8,CB9&CB10

Size of column

CB1&CB8

(IDARC-4& ANSYS-10) 





CB2&CB9
CB3&CB10








  
A
   D

ACI 318-95 





A





D


Cement

Fine Aggregate

Coarse Aggregate

(Sand)

Water/Cement

(Gravel)

Ratio

All
dimensions
mm.

in
Fusion Bonded Steel Bars
Epoxy Coated Steel Bars
Normal High Grade Steel Bars




(FS).
(ES).
(NS).





COLUMN

Type of coat
Stirrups

Stirrups

Type of coat
Longitudinal

FS

NS

ES
NS
FS
ES

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

8

NS

8mm

16mm

Longitudinal

Reinforcements

16mm

Depth

300mm
200 mm

Width
200mm
200 mm

8mm

Stirrups

Type of coat

NS

Bottom

16mm

3
CB10

Top

Reinforcements Cross-section

16mm

CB2
CB3
CB8
CB9

Depth

2
3
4
5

400mm

CB1

Width

SPECIMEN

Crosssection

200mm

SERIAL

BEAM




1.75

3.5

0.55









 












 Strain Gauges 
Linear Variable Displacement Transducer (L V D T) 
Data Acquisition 







80

Displacement (cm)

60
40
20
0
-20

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-40
-60
-80

Cycle No.



Fig (5): Theoritical Displacement History,








(CB3)

Yield Displacement

Displacement

Specimens
y (cm)

y (cm)

y (cm)

at Failure

Compression

Tension

Considered

f(cm)

Groups

CB1

1.15

1.2

1.175

CB2

1.0

0.9

0.95

Load(tons)

Group

(A)
CB3

1.2

1.0

1.0

CB8

1.5

1.1

1.1

3.5

4
2

3.8
-60

-40

0
-2 0

-20

20

40

60

-4

3.6

-6
-8

Group

4.5

Displacement(mm)



Load versus 

Displacement Hysteresis loop
,(CB2)

1200

Energy Dissipation (ton.mm)

1.2

Stiffness

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

1000

800

600

400

200

0
1

11

13

15

17

Cycle No.

0
1

11

13

15

Cycle No.

Stiffness Degradation, (C B 1)

Energy Dissipation Capacity, (CB1)



Stiffness Degradation & Energy Capacity , (CB1)

17

(D)

CB9

1.1

1.23

CB10

1.1

1.0

5
4

1.1

4.5

1.05

5.2

CB1

Displacement
Ductility
Factor
( f / y )
2.98

CB2

4.0

Load (tons)

Groups

Specimens

1
0
-0.01

-0.005

-1 0

0.005

-2

0.01

Group
(A)

0.015

Maximum
Drift Ratio
( f/L)
2.8
3.04

-3
-4
-5

Joint Shear Deformation (Rad)



Applied Load Versus Joint Shear Deformation, (CB10)

8
8

6
6

0
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

-2

Load, (tons)

Load, (tons)

0
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

-2

-4
-4

-6

-6

-8

-8

Steel Strain,(



Steel Strain,(

Strain in Beam Top Rft. of (CB1)

Strain in Beam Transverse Rft. of (CB1)



Strain

in Beam Reinforcement, (CB1)







, 






(Displacement Ductility Factor and 

Drift Ratios.)


Group
(D)



CB3

3.6

2.88

CB8

4.09

3.6

CB9

4.09

3.6

CB10

4.95

4.16

(Yield and Ultimate Displacements.)

7
6

Crack Load
5

Load(tans)

Ultimat load
4
3
2
1
0
1

10

Number of Specimens (CBN)

Fig.(13):Comparison between Ultimate Load and crack load for Different Specimens.

(Comparison between Ultimate 

Load and Crack Load).

Ultimate Lateral Load for Compression and Tension.

Ultimate Lateral










CB1,CB2&CB3
(CB8,CB9&CB10
(ACB3)

Load(ton)
Groups

Specime
ns

Compress
ion
side

Group
(A)

Tensio

Failure

Failure

cycle

Load(ton)

n side

CB1

6.557

6.846

15

4.338

CB2

5.717

5.558

15

3.512

CB3

6.56

6.85

15

3.204

CB8

4.323

4.07

15

2.95

CB9

4.087

4.024

15

3.022

CB10

3.812

4.027

17

3.153

Group
(D)


 

CB8 (F.S. Reinf.)

CB1 (F.S. Reinf.)

CB9 (E. S. Reinf.)

CB2 (E.S. Reinf.)

CB10 (N. S. Reinf.)

CB3 (N.S. Reinf.)

Load (tons)

Load (tons)

5
8

0
-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

-2

2
1
0

-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

-1
-2

-4

-3
-6

-4
-8

-5

Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

Hysteresis Loop Envelope Of Load

Versus Displacement,
for (Group-A),(CB1,CB2,CB3).

Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load

Versus Displacement,
for(Group-A),(CB8,CB9,CB10)

(Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Displacement, for (Group-A)).

1.2
1.2

CB1(F. S. Reinf.)

CB8 (F. S. Reinf. )

CB2 (E. S. Reinf.)

Stiffness

CB9 (E. S. Reinf. )

Stiffness

0.8

CB3 (N. S. Reinf.)

0.6

0.4

0.8

CB10 (N. S. Reinf.)

0.6

0.4

0.2
0.2
0
1

0
1

11

13

15

11

13

15

17

Cycle No.

17

Cycle No.

Stiffness Degradation for Different

Specimens,
for (Group-A), (CB1,CB2,CB3)



Stiffness Degradation for Different

Specimens,
for(Group-A),(CB8,CB9,CB10)

(Stiffness Degradation for Different Specimens, for (Group-A))

1200

CB8 (F. S. Reinf. )

CB9 (E. S. Reinf. )
CB10 (N. S. Reinf. )

800

Energy Dissipation
(ton.mm)

Energy Dissipation
(ton.mm)

900

CB1 (F. S. Reinf.)

CB2(E. S. Reinf.)
CB3(N. S. Reinf.)

1000

800

600

400

200

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1

0
1

11

13

15

17

11

13

15

17

19

Cycle No.

Cycle No.



Energy Dissipation Capacity for Different

Specimens,
for(Group-A),(CB1,CB2,CB3).

Energy Dissipation Capacity for Different

Specimens,
for(Group-A),(CB8,CB9,CB10)

(Energy Dissipation Capacity for Different Specimens, for (Group-A)) 



(CB2&CB9)CB1&CB8

 (CB3&CB10
(D

CB1(F.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)
6

CB8(F.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)
CB2(E.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)

Load (ton)

CB9(E.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)
CB3(N.S.Reinf.)(col30*30)

CB10(N.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)
0
-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

-2

-4

-6

-8

Displacement (mm)

Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Versus

Displacement, (Group-D),
(CB1,CB2,CB3,CB8,CB9 & CB10)



280

1200

CB1(F.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)
0.9

CB8(F.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)
CB2(E.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)

0.8

CB9(E.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)

CB1(F.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)

CB8(F.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)

CB2(E.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)

CB9(E.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)

CB3(N.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)

CB10(N.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)

0.7

CB3(N.S.Reinf)(col.30*30)

800

Stiffness

Energy Dissipation
(ton.mm)

1000

CB10(N.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)
600

0.6
0.5
0.4

400

0.3
0.2
200

0.1
0

0
1

11

13

15

17

19

Cycle No.

11

13

15

17

Cycle No.

Energy Dissipation Capacity for Different

Specimens, (Group-D).

Stiffness Degradation for Different

Specimens, ( Group-D)

(Comparison between Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Displacement, Stiffness 

Degradation, and Energy Dissipation Capacity for Different Specimens, for (Group-D))




IDARC
IDARC



325
60

40
8

Load (tons)

Load (tonS)

6
4
2
0
-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

100

-2
-4

20

0
-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

-20

Theoritical
-6

Experimental
-40

-8

Displacement (mm)
-60

Theoritical Hysteresis Loop Envelope

of Load VersusDisplacement,(CB10)(by
IDARC)

Disblacement(mm)

Theoritical Vertical Load-Displacement

Hysteresis Loop,(CB10)(by IDARC).



(Analytical Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Versus Displacement, and 

Comparison between Experimental and Analytical Results).

  



(ANSYS)
ANSYS10









(Finite Element Mesh , and Overall Load of Specimens).



  

  



Experimental

Analytical

Results

Results

Specimens


Column
(20x20)

Pult (Ton)

Ana./Exp.

Pult (Ton)

ve

4.03

3.225

0.80

ve

3.81

3.125

0.82

(CB10)

(Comparison

between Experimental and Analytical Results)



Specimens

Analytical

Analytical

(ANSYS) /

Column
(20x20)

(CB10)

Results

Results

(IDARC)

(ANSYS)

Pult

Pult

(Ton)

( IDARC)

(Ton)

ve

5.75

3.225

0.56

ve

5.62

3.125

0.556

( Comparison between Analytical Results (ANSYS and IDARC))

36
5
4
4

Experimental

Theoritical

2
1
0
-60

-40

-20

20

40

-1
-2
-3
-4

Displacement(mm)

60

Load(tons)

Load(tons)

-80

1
-60

-40

-20

0
-1 0

20

40

60

80

-2
-3

Analytical Load Versus Displacement

Hysteresis Loop(CB10) (by ANSYS).

-4
-5

Displacement(mm)
(Analytical Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Versus Displacement, and 
Comparison between Experimental and Analytical Results).


 (IDARC) (ANSYS)





(Plastic 
Hinge
slippage
Fusion Bonded Steel Bars 

Epoxy Coated Steel Bars 





(ANSYS)



















6. References:
1- ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Recommendations for Design of Beam- Column
Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures.", ACI Journal, Vol.82, No.3, MayJune 1995
2- A. J. Kappos, "Dynamic Loading and Design of Structures" Published by Spon
Press , London, 2003.
3- ASTM (1989),"Standard Specification for Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Steel
Bars,"(ASTM A 775M-89a) 1989 Annual

Book

for ASTM

Standards, Vol. 1.04,

ASTM, Philadelphia , pp. 555-559.

4- Belong, Z. and Yuzhou, C., "Behavior of Exterior Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Joints Subjected to Bi-Directional Cyclic Loading" , ACI SP-123(3) : Design of
Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, Special Publication of the American
Concrete Institute Detroit, Michigan, 1991, pp. 69-96.
5- ECP-1995 "Egyptian Code of Practice for Reinforced Concrete Structure",
Housing and Building Research Center, Egypt 2006.

6- Park, Y. J., Ang, A.-S., and Wen, Y.K., "Seismic Damage Analysis and DamageLimiting Design of R/C Building" Civil Engineering Studies, Technical Report No. SRS
516, University of Illinois, Urbana 1995.
7- Park, Y. J., Reinhorn A. M., Kunnath S. k., "IDARC: Inelastic Damage Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Frame-Shear-Wall Structures" Technical Report NCEER-870008, State University of New York at Buffalo1998.

"Effect of Column Characteristic on Seismic Behavior

of Beam-Column Connection with Different
Types of Coated Steel Bars"
M. TALAT MOSTAFA1, SHADIA NAGA ELIBIARI2 ,
AHMED MOHAMED FARAHAT3
AND HOSSAM EL-DIN HASSAN FOUAD AHMED ADBELWAHID4

Professor of Concrete Structures Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.

Professor of Concrete Structures National Center of Housing and Building Research.
3
Professor of Concrete Structures Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.
4
Doctor in civil Engineering, Housing and Development Bank, E- mail
hossabdwahid@yahoo.com
Abstract :
During the past few years the attention had increased to real estate
wealth due to not doing the needed maintenance to reserve the
hypothetical age of the structure .
One of the most effective factors on the age of the structure and its
safety is corrosion of reinforcing steel . Therefore, the is a need to
resist this destructive factor. There are many factors to resist corrosion
of reinforcing steel but the economic way that is recommended to used
in codes but under special conditions which is covering the reinforcing
steel through epoxy-coated bars between it and the factors causing the
corrosion. Using the epoxy materials as a prevention between the
reinforcing steel and concrete affects connection and to reduce this
effect, the connection is increasing between them by mechanic
connection by increasing the length of the skewers. It was common
that before 1992 Earthquake , the lower-mid buildings highness are
designed based on bearing the vertical loads regardless the horizontal
loads. In the situation of Earthquake , cracks and collapses occur in
many buildings and many of these cracks occur according to defects in
the joints between the column and the beam whether design defects or
details defects , so its necessary to take the loads into consideration .
Keywords : Corrosion of reinforcing steel , Beam-Column Connection
, Seismic , Coated Steel Bars.