Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 January 2011
Revised 1 September 2011
Accepted 1 September 2011
Available online 11 November 2011
Keywords:
Beamcolumn joints
Analytical models
Rotational springs
Ductility
a b s t r a c t
A model is developed to simulate the nonlinear response of planar reinforced-concrete frames including
all sources of exibility. Conventional modeling approaches consider only beam and column exibility
using concentrated plasticity or springs to model this response. Although the joint may contribute the
majority of the deformation, its deformability is typically not included in practice. In part, this is because
few reliable, practical approaches for modeling all sources of frame nonlinearity are available. The
research presented herein was undertaken to develop a practical, accurate nonlinear model for reinforced
concrete frames. The model is appropriate for predicting the earthquake response of planar frames for
which the nonlinearity is controlled by yielding of beams and/or non-ductile response of joints and is
compatible with the ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 nonlinear static procedure. The model was developed to
facilitate implementation in commercial software packages commonly used for this type of nonlinear
analysis. The nonlinearity is simulated by introducing a dual-hinge lumped-plasticity beam element to
model the beams framing into the joint. The dual-hinge comprises two rotational springs in series;
one spring simulates beam exural response and one spring simulates joint response. Hinge parameters
were determined using data from 45 planar frame sub-assemblage tests. Application of the model to simulate the response of these sub-assemblages shows that the model provides accurate simulation of stiffness, strength, drift capacity and response mechanism for frames with a wide range of design parameters.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Under seismic loading, the beams and columns in a concrete
moment frame typically experience moment reversals at the
beamcolumn joint. To ensure that strength is maintained under
multiple large drift cycles, design guidelines for frames in regions
of high seismicity are intended to result in exural yielding in
the beams at the face of the joint and essentially elastic response
in the columns above the base (e.g., ACI 318-08 [1]). This can result
in high joint shear demand and high bond stress demand for beam
longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint; design guidelines
seek to limit both to ensure that joint damage does not reduce
frame toughness. The results of experimental tests on frame
subassmblages [213] show that joint damage can reduce frame
strength and stiffness and, in some cases, result in premature loss
of load-carrying capacity.
Prediction of frame response, as part of a performance-based
seismic design of a new structure or evaluation of an existing
structure, requires modeling of all sources of exibility in the
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: birely@uw.edu (A.C. Birely).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.09.003
frame as well as stiffness and strength loss under earthquake loading. Thus, to conduct a nonlinear analysis of a reinforced concrete
moment-resisting frame, engineers require not only accurate models for beams and columns but also models that simulate joint response. For these models to be practical for use in the design ofce,
they must (1) be compatible with commonly employed commercial software packages, (2) support rapid model building, (3) be
computationally efcient and robust, and (4) provide acceptable
accuracy over a range of design congurations. Several practical
nonlinear modeling approaches are available for beams and columns (e.g., [14,15]). These models, which have been validated by
others, are incorporated into the fame model proposed herein.
However, these models do not simulate the response of the
beamcolumn joint. Here, the focus is on developing an appropriate approach for simulating joint exibility and degradation in
frame strength due to joint response mechanisms. Although nonlinear joint models are found in the literature, few of these models
meet the requirements for widespread use by practicing structural
engineers. A model is proposed which uses conventional nonlinear
frame elements and is easily implemented in commercial structural analysis software. The model is developed and validated
using experimental data to simulate the full frame response,
including the joint.
456
deformation. However, these models require the addition of a separate element, typically concentrated springs or macro-elements,
for every joint, making their use in commercial nonlinear structural analysis software packages time consuming and cumbersome. However, modeling a frame using only standard nonlinear
beamcolumn elements neglects simulation of joint response and
typically produces inaccurate results. The proposed model seeks
to provide an intermediate modeling alternative between the simple use of frame elements without joint representation and the
more time consuming use of detailed joint elements.
One of the most common approaches to modeling nonlinear response of reinforced concrete frames is to use lumped-plasticity
elements for the beams and columns. This approach is used here,
with the moment-rotation history of the beam plastic hinges (for
the system considered in this study, columns do not exhibit significant nonlinearity) modied to include simulation of not only the
beam response, but also the joint response. In the modied element, the conventional single-hinge representation is replaced by
a dual-hinge, which comprises two rotational springs in series.
One of the springs simulates the nonlinear exural response of
the beam and is referred to as the beam spring. The second spring
simulates the response of the joint, and is referred to as the joint
spring. Rotation limits are provided for each spring to simulate
the onset of loss of load carrying capacity. Rigid offsets are included in the beams and columns that frame into the joint to ensure that joint exibility is dened entirely by the joint spring in
the dual hinge.
The model was developed with the objective of satisfying practical nonlinear modeling needs. The proposed model can be used in
existing commercial software with an effort that is equivalent to
using a conventional nonlinear beamcolumn element. By modifying a traditional method for modeling frames, the intent of the
model is to provide increased accuracy over models commonly
used in practice. Consequently, the model should not be used to
extract local response of a joint. If such information is needed,
other models, such as those identied above, are more appropriate.
2. Experimental data set
The proposed joint model was developed using data from 45 planar frame sub-assemblages, tested by 11 research groups [213], as
listed in Table 1. The data set used in this study is a subset of that
assembled by Mitra and Lowes [22], where a detailed description
of the individual specimens can be found. Specimens are bare-frame
sub-assemblages without slabs. The data set does not include specimens constructed of light-weight concrete, very high-strength concrete (over 16 ksi, or 110 MPa), or plain reinforcing bars. For the
specimens included in the data set, the lateral capacity was limited
by exural yielding of beams and/or damage in the joint. The proposed model is appropriate for use in simulating the response of
frames with these characteristics and failure modes.
The data set spans a wide range of design parameters and includes specimens that are representative of new construction in regions of high seismic hazard as well as construction that pre-date
modern seismic detailing requirements. Fig. 1 shows histograms
for select design parameters, including concrete compressive
strength (fc0 ), beam steel yield strength (fy), ratio of the sum of column exural strengths to the sum of the beam exural strengths
(RMnc/RMnb), as well as bond demand (l) computed
la
fy db
p
fc0
2hc
where db is the maximum diameter of the beam longitudinal reinforcement and all other variables are previously dened, joint reinforcement ratios (qj) computed
457
Test specimen
sdesign
p0
fc
(MPa/ MPa)
a
b
model
sp
max
lD
p
(MPa/ MPa)a
p
(MPa/ MPa)a
meas
sp
max
fc0
fc0
Ductility
Test
Model
DWX1
DWX2
DWX3
11.10
1.12
0.87
1.27
1.35
1.12
1.06
1.07
0.85
4.7
5.5
6.4
D
D
D
D
D
D
OKAJ1
OKAJ2
OKAJ3
OKAJ4
OKAJ5
1.22
1.26
1.26
1.22
1.15
0.97
1.03
1.15
0.95
0.90
1.01
1.04
1.04
1.01
0.96
5.3
5.6
6.7
5.1
4.4
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
MJ1
MJ2
MJ3
MJ5
MJ6
MJ12
MJ13
2.24
1.78
2.23
1.92
1.89
1.93
1.79
1.32
1.52
1.47
1.57
1.69
2.04
1.49
1.70
1.57
1.70
1.60
1.59
1.62
1.57
3.5
B
B
B
B
B
LD
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
PEER14
PEER22
PEER0850
PEER0995
PEER4150
0.87
1.55
0.61
0.93
3.40
0.94
1.17
0.70
1.04
1.90
0.89
1.49
0.64
0.95
1.97
3.6
4.3 (E)
5.3
LD
B
D
D
B
D
B
D
D
B
PR1
PR2
PR3
PR4
0.46
0.72
0.51
0.69
0.51
0.81
0.53
0.73
0.47
0.72
0.52
0.69
29.5 (E)
6.8
13.2 (E)
7.1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
NKOKJ1
NKOKJ3
NKOKJ4
NKOKJ5
NKOKJ6
1.88
1.90
1.88
2.37
2.02
1.52
1.54
1.60
1.59
1.61
1.67
1.63
1.67
1.88
1.75
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
OSJ1
OSJ2
OSJ4
OSJ5
OSJ6
OSJ7
OSJ8
OSJ10
OSJ11
1.45
3.60
1.55
2.05
1.57
1.16
1.95
2.35
2.83
1.44
1.55
1.55
1.75
1.55
1.24
1.76
1.60
1.84
1.34
1.84
1.39
1.72
1.41
1.17
1.59
1.80
1.87
3.0
3.8
3.0
5.0 (E)
2.9
LD
B
LD
B
LD
D
LD
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
B
B
KOAC1
KOAC3
0.91
0.91
1.01
0.97
0.87
0.87
116 (E)
42.3 (E)
D
D
D
D
PM1
1.25
1.15
1.22
3.1 (E)
LD
HC
A1
1.02
2.24
1.10
1.45
0.96
1.64
8.2 (E)
D
B
D
B
Beckingsale [2]
B11
B12
0.76
0.76
0.83
0.86
0.78
0.79
No Loss
No Loss
D
D
D
D
p
p
Conversion factor: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 MPa/ MPa = 12.04 psi/ psi.
(E): Displacement ductility at 10% strength loss extrapolated; (): brittle joint, no displacement ductility.
qj
At
st b j
P
Ag fc0
where P is the applied column axial load, Ag is the gross area of the
column, and fc0 is the measured concrete compressive strength.
Additionally, Table 1 lists for each specimen, the following shear
stress values used in the current study:
Design shear stress demand, sdesign, computed using an approach
that is consistent with ACI Com 352 [31] recommendations:
sdesign
1
bottom
afy Atop
V n
s As
hc bj
smax
1 ML MR
V max
hc b j
jd
458
20
10
0
20
40
10
15
# Specimen
# Specimen
20
0
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
(b) fy (MPa)
60 80 100 120
(a) f c (MPa)
20
15
10
5
0
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25
(c) Mnc/ Mnb
10
5
0
10
20
0.1
30 40
(d)
50
60
0.5
20
# Specimen
15
# Specimen
30
# Specimen
# Specimen
30
10
5
0
15
10
5
0
lD
D90%
Dy
450
Vmax
(V90%, 90%Vmax)
V80%
(Vfy, fy)
The primary data used from the experimental tests were the
column shear versus lateral displacement envelope for each specimen. In some cases, data characterizing the response of the individual frame components (beams, columns and joints) were
available, in other cases they were not. Therefore individual component responses were not directly considered; instead, the overall
sub-assemblage response was used. This is consistent with previous research addressing performance-based seismic design of reinforced concrete frames that has shown frame drift to be the most
practical engineering demand parameter [33].
The response envelope for each specimen was determined from
the experimental cyclic loaddisplacement history. Points on the
envelope correspond to the following loaddisplacement pairs:
(i) theoretical initial exural yielding of beams, (Vy, Dy), (ii) maximum column shear, (Vmax, DVmax), (iii) 20% loss of strength following maximum load, (V80%, D80%V), and (iv) any additional points
required to accurately represent the shape of the loaddisplacement envelope. The theoretical yield load, Vy, was computed using
a momentcurvature analysis of a ber cross-section of the beams
with exural yield strength of the beams dened by initial tensile
yielding of the beam longitudinal reinforcement. Fig. 3 shows an
example of the cyclic response and the response envelope for Specimen PEER0995 [56].
300
VY
150
Experimental
Envelope
Second Beam Yield
90% Maximum Shear
0
0
40
Vmax 80 80%Vmax
120
Displacement, [mm]
Fig. 2. Experimental set-up for Park and Milburn [4] and Alire [5] sub-assemblages
(equal and opposite forces applied to beams).
Fig. 3. Positive forcedisplacement history for specimen PEER 0995 with envelope.
459
M hinge
pos
yield
fail
beam
beam
fail
beam
3. Model denition
The proposed dual-hinge model is incorporated in a lumpedplasticity beamcolumn element, where two rotational springs
are combined in series to form the dual-hinge that represents the
inelastic deformations of the beam and the joint. One of the rotational springs simulates the beam response. The second spring
simulates the joint response, including that caused by joint shear
deformation and bond slip.
Fig. 4 shows a model of a typical frame sub-assemblage in
which the proposed dual-hinge beamcolumn element is used to
model the beams. Beams are modeled as elastic outside the hinge
region. Columns are modeled using elastic beamcolumn elements; elastic elements were considered adequate because, for
the sub-assemblages in the data set, columns did not yield. The
effective elastic stiffness values recommended in ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 [34] were used for beams and columns. Rigid offsets
equal to the joint dimensions were included at the ends of the
beam and column elements to dene the joint volume and ensure
that the joint spring was the only source of joint deformation.
Fig. 5 shows the momentcurvature response of the two components of the dual-hinge. The beam response is similar to a traditional nonlinear beamcolumn hinge, but has a rotation limit,
hfail
beam , beyond which a loss of strength occurs. The joint spring
has a bilinear response, with stiffness K1, to the yield moment of
the beam, and K2 beyond yield. For the joint spring, strength loss
initiates at a rotation demand of hfail
joint . The following sections discuss the calibration of these values.
3.1. Rotational spring simulating nonlinear beam exural response
Typically, the moment-rotation response for a lumped-plasticity
beam or column element is determined from the moment
curvature response of the member cross section and a plastichinge length. As described previously, the proposed dual-hinge
model uses two springs in series. The rotational spring representing the nonlinear exural response of the beam was calibrated to
Lb
hc
Lc
Rigid Offsets
Lumped-plasticity
beam element
hb
Beam Spring
Joint Spring
Dual-hinge
Fig. 4. Proposed model of sub-assemblage using rigid offsets and dual-hinge at
beam-joint interface.
neg
yield
(a)
M hinge
min
M yield
K2
K1
fail
joint
joint
fail
joint
K1
K2
M min
yield
(b)
Fig. 5. Dual-hinge components: (a) beam spring and (b) joint spring.
460
hjs vc cj
Mhinge
v
jG s
hjs
vc
A bilinear shear stressshear strain response, with a change in stiffness occurring at initial beam yielding, was used. Prior research
shows that this is an approximate yet accurate model of the nonlinear response of the joint [5]. The initial joint spring stiffness, K1, was
established using the relationship (Eq. (13)) to j1, the effective
shear stressstrain stiffness parameter.
v
K 1 j1 s G
vc 1
Lc 1 hL c
13
vc
where
hb
12
eyield
N
X
Dy Danalytical
y
Dy
i1
!2
14
i
Lc and Lb are the lengths of the column and beam (Fig. 4), respectively, and hc and hb are the depth of the column and beam, respectively. Similarly, a relationship between joint shear stress, sj, and
moment in the hinge, Mhinge, was determined by relating the beam
moment at the joint face for a particular column shear to the joint
shear stress for the same column shear. For a particular column
shear load, the moment at the beam-joint interface is assumed to
transfer into the joint as a tensioncompression couple, with tension and compression forces determined assuming a moment arm
of jd, where d is the depth in the beam cross-section from the extreme compression ber to the tension reinforcement (assumed
to be 0.9hb if unknown) and j is an empirically derived parameter
taken equal to 0.85 [32]. The joint shear, Vj, is dened equal to
the sum of the couple forces (one tension and one compression) less
the column shear acting on the top half of the joint. The joint shear
stress is the joint shear force divided by the cross-sectional area of
the joint, Aj. The resulting relationship between joint moment and
shear stress is
M hinge vs sj
where
Aj 1 hL c jd
vs jd b
2 1 Lc hL c
10
jG
s
c
11
Table 2
Summary of model parameters.
Parameter
Calibrated value
j1
j2
cfail
joint
0.14
0.038
0.0069
/fail
beam
0.0056
where Danalytical
is the simulated initial yield displacement correy
sponding to the initial yield load, Vy, Dy is the measured yield displacement, and only specimens that reached the yield load, Vy,
were included in the summation. The optimum effective shear stiffness factor, j1, is listed in Table 2.
The post-yield tangent stiffness of the joint spring was dened
as:
v
K 2 j2 s G
vc
15
461
eipost-yield
Dify Dify
!
analytical
Dify
16
where Dify and Difyanalytical are as dened previously. The optimal value
for j2 is listed in Table 2.
0.015
Brittle
Ductile
Limited Ductility
0.01
pos
joint
Ultimately, j2 was determined by averaging the ji2 values computed for each sub-assemblage, i, with an imposed upper-bound
limit on ji2 equal to the initial stiffness coefcient j1. The following
error function was minimized for each specimen to nd the ji2
values
0.005
0
0
fail
hfail
beam /beam lp
17
hfail
joint
18
fail
joint
vc
20
30
Joint Number
40
50
40
50
(a)
0.015
0.01
pos
beam
10
0.005
0
0
10
20
30
Joint Number
(b)
Fig. 6. Engineering parameter values corresponding to strength drop for all data:
(a) joint spring shear strain limits and (b) beam spring curvature limits for all data.
462
250
200
150
100
Experimental
Conventional Hinge
DualHinge
DualHinge Limit
50
0
0
3
% Drift
(a)
1000
800
600
400
Experimental
Conventional Hinge
DualHinge
DualHinge Limit
200
0
0
3
% Drift
(b)
Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental response to simulated response using a
conventional beam hinge and the proposed dual-hinge for specimens (a) PEER
0850 and (b) PEER 4150.
rotation limit but not the beam spring rotation limit. Brittle behavior was simulated for all 18 specimens experimentally classied as
brittle. Ductile behavior was simulated for all 20 specimens experimentally classied as ductile. Of the seven limited-ductility specimens, the simulated response of six was controlled by joint
failure; for these six specimens the rotation demand imposed on
the beam-exural spring was only 7% of the rotation limit. Of the
limited-ductility specimens, specimen PEER14 was the only specimen for which simulated strength loss was due to activation of the
beam spring rotation limit; this occurred at a joint spring rotation
demand equal to 45% of the rotation limit. Thus, the model was
considered to provide accurate simulation of specimen ductility.
To further quantify the accuracy and precision of the model, the
error in the simulated displacement/drift and load at critical points
of the response history was computed. The critical points considered were: initial yield of beam longitudinal steel (Dy, Vy), maximum strength (Dmax, Vmax), and 10% loss of lateral load carrying
capacity (D90%, V90%). For each specimen, the error in displacement/drift was computed
eD
Dmeasured Dsimulated
Dmeasured
19
eV
V measured V simulated
V measured
20
463
100
50
Experimental
DualHinge
DualHinge Limit
300
60
40
Experimental
DualHinge
DualHinge Limit
20
0
(a)
Experimental
DualHinge
DualHinge Limit
0
6
(c)
400
100
50
Experimental
DualHinge
DualHinge Limit
0
4
4
% Drift
300
(b)
400
Experimental
DualHinge
DualHinge Limit
0
150
100
100
% Drift
500
200
200
0
0
% Drift
80
Column Shear [kN]
150
300
200
Experimental
DualHinge
DualHinge Limit
100
0
% Drift
4
% Drift
(d)
(e)
% Drift
(f)
Fig. 8. Experimental (open circles) and model (thick line) envelopes for best and worst predictions. Best (a) brittle, MJ3, (b) ductile, PR3, and (c) limited-ductility, OSJ. Worst
(d) brittle, PEER22, (e) ductile, HC, and (f) limited-ductility, OSJ8.
Table 3
Error in proposed model for evaluation of experimental frame sub-assemblages.
Data subsets
Normalized error
Initial yield
Max. load
Ductile
Average
Stand. dev.
Limited ductility
Brittle
10% loss
Stiffness
Disp.
Load
Disp.
Load
8%
25%
8%
7%
8%
35%
2%
9%
Average
Stand. dev.
4%
24%
11%
9%
36%
41%
5%
11%
Average1
Stand. dev.1
8%
55%
8%
55%
5%
9%
For brittle joints, the stiffness at yield is the same as that at maximum load
2. The model provides an accurate and precise simulation of maximum strength (average error of 5%, standard deviation of 9%)
as well as accurate simulation of displacement at maximum
strength (average error of 8%).
3. The simulated displacement at maximum strength has a relatively high level of uncertainty, with a standard deviation of
53%; this was attributed to the simplicity of the model.
As previously discussed, the model provides accurate simulation of frame ductility and, thus, may be used in evaluation of
existing reinforced concrete frames to assess frame ductility under
seismic loading. To further explore the parameters that control
frame ductility, the computed joint shear stress demands for ductile and brittle joints were compared. The simulated maximum
joint shear stress, smodel
max , was computed as follows:
smodel
max
M max
M max
L
R
2vs
21
where Mmax
and M max
are the maximum moments developed in the
L
R
left and the right beams, respectively. Values are provided in Table 1. The simulated maximum shear stresses are similar to those
computed directly from experimental data using Eq. (5); the average difference between simulated and experimental stresses was
approximately 10%. Joint failure controlled the response of brittle
17.9 fc0 psi to 23.7 fc0 psi, with an average value of 20.5 fc0 psi
and a coefcient of variation of 7%. For ductile specimens, specimen
response was controlled by beam yielding and the joint shear demand, computed using Eq. (21), is less than the joint shear strength.
p
0
For ductile
p specimens, shear stress demand
p ranged from 5.7 fc psi
to 14.1 fc0 psi with an average of 10.6 fc0 psi and coefcient of variation of 22%. Because there is no overlap in the ranges of simulated
shear stress for the ductile and brittle specimens, and given the relative low coefcient of variation on shear strength for brittle specimen, a strength-based limit model for the joint spring could be
expected to provide reasonably accurate prediction of strength.
However, the strain-based model simulates the range of strengths
observed in the lab, provides accurate (5% error) and precise (9%
standard deviation) prediction of strength and provides accurate
prediction of the drop at maximum strength (8% error).
6. Summary and conclusions
A dual-hinge lumped-plasticity beam element was developed to
provide a practical model capable of simulating the nonlinear response of planar concrete frames. The dual-hinge consists of two
464
rotational springs in series to simulate the nonlinear exural response of the beam and the nonlinear response of the joint. The
beam spring response is determined from the momentcurvature
response of the beam cross section and an assumed plastic hinge
length. A rotation limit for the beam spring, which denes the onset of strength loss, was determined using laboratory data from
frame tests in which beams yielded in exure. The rotation limit
was represented as an equivalent curvature value. The joint spring
response is dened by a bilinear shear stressstrain relationship,
which is converted to a moment-rotation response using geometric transformations. Joint spring stiffnesses were determined using
laboratory data from frame sub-assemablage tests. Experimental
data from frame sub-assemblages exhibiting joint failure prior to
beam yielding were used to determine a joint spring rotation limit
at which strength loss initiates. This rotation limit was represented
as an equivalent shear strain value.
Frame models were constructed using standard beam column
elements and the dual-hinge spring model to simulate the response of 45 experimental sub-assemblages. The interaction of
the beam and joint springs and the introduction of rotation limits
in both springs resulted in a model that accurately simulated the
ductile (beam-controlled) or brittle (joint-controlled) response observed in the laboratory. Results show that the model provides
accurate simulation of initial stiffness, strength and displacement
at strength loss for ductile specimens as well as accurate simulation of stiffness and strength for brittle specimens.
Vc
Lc
M jf
Vb
Vb
1/2 (L b -h c )
Lb
Vc
Fig. A.1. Sub-assemblage forces and reactions.
Vc
T
M jf
Vj
jd
C
hb
M jf
hc
Acknowledgements
Support of this work was provided primarily by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science
Foundation, under Award Number EEC-97015668 through the
Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Any
opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reect those of the National Science Foundation.
Appendix A
Mjf vs s
0
vs
C
Aj B
1
C
B
2 @jd1 1 A
Lc
2Mjf
Vc
Lc 1 hL c
A:1
A:5
A:6
1hL c
b
Aj jd 1 hL c
vs jd b
2 1 Lc hL c
A:7
TC
M jf
jd
A:2
where jd is the beam moment arm with d equal to the distance from
the extreme compression ber to the extreme tension ber and j is
taken as 0.85. From the column shear and tension/compression couples, the joint shear force can be calculated as:
Vj C T Vc
A:3
Because the joint shear force Vj is equal to the shear stress times the
area of the joint, the shear stress can be written as a function of the
moment Mjf:
V j 2Mjf @ 1
1
A
jd Lc 1 hc
Aj
Aj
Lb
A:4
Db
c Lc
2
hb
2
c Lb
Dc
hc
2 2
A:8
A:9
hc
c
2
1
2hb
Lc
A:10
Dhbc hc
Lb c Lb hb Lb
2 2 2
Lc
A:11
The hinge at the beamjoint interface must account for the difference between the beam displacement of the physical system, Db,
and the beam displacement due to the column rotation of the modeled system, Dhc
c . This is represented in equation form as:
1
Db Dhbc Lb hc hb
2
A:12
Inserting Eqs. (A.9) and (A.11) into Eq. (A.12) and solving for hb provides a relationship between the spring rotation hb and the shear
strain c that will ensure that the boundary conditions of the model
are satised.
hb L b
1
hb c Lb
hc
Lb hc
Lc
0
1
h
b
hb c@1 A
Lc hL c
A:13
A:14
References
[1] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-08) and commentary (ACI 318R-08). Farmington Hills, Michigan:
American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[2] Beckingsale CW. Post elastic behavior of reinforced concrete beamcolumn
joints. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand; 1980.
[3] Otani S, Kobayashi Y, Aoyama H. Reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn
joints under simulated earthquake loading. USNew ZealandJapan seminar
on design of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. California: Monterey;
1984.
465
[4] Park R, Milburn JR. Comparison of recent New Zealand and United States
seismic design provisions for reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints and test
results from four units designed according to the New Zealand Code. New
Zealand Nat Soc Earthquake Eng Bull 1983;16(1):324.
[5] Alire D. Seismic evaluation of existing unconned reinforced concrete beam
column joint. MSCE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Washington; 2002.
[6] Walker S. Seismic performance of existing reinforced concrete beamcolumn
joints. MSCE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington;
2001.
[7] Durrani AJ, Wight JK. Experimental and analytical study of beam to column
connections subjected to reverse cyclic loading. Technical report, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan; 1982.
[8] Endoh Y, Kamura T, Otani S, Aoyama H. Behavior of RC beamcolumn
connections using light-weight concrete. Trans Jpn Concr Inst 1991;13:
31926.
[9] Kitayama K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Earthquake resistant design criteria for
reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn joints. In: Pacic conference on
earthquake engineering, Wairakei, New Zealand; 1987. p. 31526.
[10] Meinheit DF, Jirsa JO. The shear strength of reinforced concrete beamcolumn
joints. Technical report, University of Texas at Austin; 1977.
[11] Noguchi H, Kashiwazaki T. Experimental studies on shear performances of RC
interior columnbeam joints. In: Tenth world conference on earthquake
engineering, Madrid, Spain; 1992. p. 31638.
[12] Park R, Ruitong D. A comparison of the behavior of reinforced concrete beam
column joints designed for ductility and limited ductility. Bull New-Zealand
Nat Soc Earthquake Eng 1998;21(4):25578.
[13] Oka H, Shiohara H. Tests on high-strength concrete interior beamcolumn
joints sub-assemblages. In: Tenth world conference on earthquake
engineering, Madrid, Spain; 1992. p. 32117.
[14] Scott M, Fenves G. Plastichinge integration methods for force-based beam
column elements. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2006;132(2):24452.
[15] Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC. Geometrically nonlinear exibility-based frame
nite element. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1998;124(6):70411.
[16] El-Metwally S, Chen WF. Moment-rotation modeling of reinforced concrete
beamcolumn connections. ACI Struct J 1988;85(4):38494.
[17] Kunnath SK. Macromodel-based nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
structures. Structural engineering worldwide. Paper no. T101-5. Oxford,
England: Elsevier Science, Ltd.; 1998.
[18] Ghobarah A, Biddah A. Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frames
including joint shear deformation. Eng Struct 1999;21(11):97187.
[19] Anderson M, Lehman D, Stanton J. A cyclic shear stressstrain model for joints
without transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct 2007;30(4):94154.
[20] Altoontash A, Deierlein GD. A versatile model for beamcolumn joints. In:
ASCE structures congress, Seattle, WA; 2003.
[21] Lowes LN, Altoontash A. Modeling the response of reinforced concrete beam
column joints. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2003;129(12):168697.
[22] Mitra N, Lowes LN. Evaluation, calibration, and verication of a reinforced
concrete beamcolumn joint. J Struct Eng 2007;133(1):105.
[23] Youssef M, Ghobarah A. Strength deterioration due to bond slip and concrete
crushing in modeling of reinforced concrete members. ACI Struct J
1999;96(6):956.
[24] Elmorsi M, Kianoush MR, Tso WK. Modeling bond-slip deformations in
reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Can J Civil Eng 2000;27(3):490505.
[25] Shin M, Lafave JM. Modeling of cyclic joint shear deformation contributions in
RC beamcolumn connections to overall frame behavior. Struct Eng Mech
2004;18(5):64569.
[26] Uma SR, Prasad AM. Seismic evaluation of R/C moment resisting frame
structures considering joint exibility. In: 13th World conference on
earthquake engineering conference proceedings; 2004.
[27] Tajiri S, Shiohara H, Kusuhara F. A new macroelement of reinforced concrete
beamcolumn joint for elasto-plastic plane frame analysis. In: Eighth national
conference of earthquake engineering, San Francisco, California; 2006.
[28] Will GT, Uzumeri SM, Sinha SK. Application of nite element method to
analysis of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. In: Proceedings of
specialty conference of nite element method in civil engineering, Canada;
1972.
[29] Noguchi H. Nonlinear nite elements analysis of reinforced concrete beam
column joints. Final report of IABSE colloquium; 1981. p. 63953.
[30] Pantazoupoulou S, Bonacci J. On earthquake-resistant reinforced concrete
frame connections. Can J Civ Eng 1994;21(2):307.
[31] ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 352. Recommendations for design of beamcolumn
connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures. Farmington Hills,
Michigan: American Concrete Institute; 2005.
[32] Wight JK, MacGregor JG. Reinforced concrete: mechanics and design. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2005.
[33] Pagni CA, Lowes LN. Fragility functions for older reinforced concrete beam
column joints. Earthquake Spectra 2006;22(1):21538.
[34] ASCE, Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06). American
Society of Civil Engineers; 2007.
[35] Park R, Priestly MNJ, Gill WD. Ductility of square-conned concrete columns. J
Struct Div, ASCE 1982;108(ST4):1357.
[36] Corley GW. Rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Div,
ASCE 1966;92(ST5):12146.
[37] Berry MP, Lehman DE, Lowes LN. Lumped-plasticity models for performance
simulation of bridge columns. ACI Struct J 2008;105(3):2709.