Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
HBRC Journal
http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj
KEYWORDS
Opening joints;
Closing joints;
Joints details;
Joints connement;
Joints size;
Joints angle
Abstract The variation of reinforcement details, connement and joints angle are considerable factors which affect the ultimate limit moment of joints and joints efciency. The variation of joint size
is another factor that signicantly affects the ultimate limit moment of joints and frame joints efciency. These previous factors were not considered in design. Corners may be subjected to closing
moments, which subject to tensile stresses in the outside of the corner, or to opening moments,
which cause tensile stresses in the inside of the corner. The last type of moments arise more detailing
problems. Opening joints may be found in retaining walls water tanks, open channels, bridge abutments, high rises due to wind effect, frame structures, etc. in the other hand the closing joint may be
found in two hinged and xed frames and underground water tanks. Hence two types of joints
should be compared.
The presented paper introduces an experimental and analytical study in order to investigate the
effect of reinforcement details, connement, joints size, joints angle on the frame joints efciency
and comparison between closing joints and opening joints. Experimentally, a total of eleven
specimens were tested under vertical load. All specimens were tested up to failure and the behaviour
was fully monitored. Moreover, a nonlinear 3D-nite element analysis was established using
ABAQUS program and veried with the experimental results in order to give design recommendations for those structural elements.
2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building National Research
Center. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
The principles of detailing and the structural behaviour of simple structural members such as beams and columns are well
* Corresponding author.
Peer review under responsibility of Housing and Building National
Research Center.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.11.009
1687-4048 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building National Research Center.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
148
M. Nabil et al.
fy
fx
fy
M
fx
Corner stresses.
149
transverse reinforcement in the joint region leading to nonductile behaviour in many exiting RC buildings. The experimental
study considered two design parameters: joint aspect ratio and
beam longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Four corner beam-column joint specimens were constructed with transverse beams
and oor slabs and tested under quasi-static cyclic loading.
The specimens experienced joint shear failure without beam
hinging mechanism as a result of the absence of transverse
reinforcement in the joint region.
Jawad and Assi [7] conducted an experimental and analytical study to investigate the behaviour of reinforced concrete
corner joints under monotonically increasing loads which tend
to increase the right angle between the two joint members. The
effect of reinforcement details at the corner joint was studied
for commonly used detailing systems, and the nonlinear
response was traced throughout the entire load range up to
failure. The results obtained were generally in good agreement
with the experiments, and show that the detailing system had a
signicant effect on corner joint behaviour, with efciencies
ranging from as low as 54% up to 147%.
Kaliluthin and Kothandaraman [8] carried out an experimental investigation on the reinforced concrete exterior
beam-column joint was subjected to static load to investigate
the existing RC beam column joints which are designed as
per BIS 456-2000, which must be strengthened, since they do
not meet the requirement given in the ductility code IS
13920-1993 are inadequate and it needs to be upgraded regarding the detailing of reinforcement an attempt has been made to
introduced an additional reinforcement called core reinforcements in the joint region to improve the reinforcement detailing pattern and strength behaviour to ensure good
performance of the joint as well. Test results showed that the
use of core reinforcement reduced the damages in the joint
region and is one of the most effective techniques to improve
the seismic resistance of RC structures.
The scope of this work can be summarized as follow:
(a) Studying the general deformational behaviour of this
type of structures.
(b) Studying the effect of using different types of reinforcement details inside the frame joint.
Table 1
Experimental work
The experimental work of the present study consists of testing
eleven triangular reinforced concrete frames in ve groups of
specimens with variable properties for each group. The rst
group consists of four specimens. The second, third and fourth
group consists of two specimens except the fth group has one
specimen only.
Details of tested specimens
Each group will be studied and analysed under the effect
of different previous variables. The frame F1 is the guide
specimen and its result compared with others specimens
results for each group. Hence, Table 1 makes a comparison between their reinforcement, joint angle and
dimensions.
Group I
All specimens of this group F1F4 had the same rectangular
cross-section dimensions with 150 mm width and 250 mm
thickness, with the same joint angle (90) and no stirrups in
joints except specimen F4 had joint stirrups. The variable
between these group specimens was the joint steel details by
Group
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
Specimen
No.
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
Dimensions
width
mm
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
Thick.
mm
250
250
250
250
250
250
350
450
250
250
250
Joint
Angle
degree
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
60
120
90
Main
RFT
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Stirrups
Hangers
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Joint
Stirrups
---------108/m'
108/m'
108/m'
----------------
150
M. Nabil et al.
10
16
0.25
0.15
10
16
0.96
2
10
Typical
Cross Section
10
16
10
16
16
8/m
10
10
8/m
1.85
Reinforcement details of frame F1.
10
16
0.25
Figure 2
0.15
16
2
10
10
16
10
16
16
16
8/m
10
10
8/m
0.96
10
Typical
Cross Section
1.85
Figure 3
changing the shape as loop shape detail, cross shape detail and
other details, as shown in Figs. 25.
Group II
All specimens of this group F1, F5 and F6 had the same rectangular cross-section dimensions with 150 mm width and
250 mm thickness, with the same joint angle (90) and steel
details. The variable between these group specimens was the
joint connement by means of stirrups and changing the shape
of stirrups as radial stirrups shape and crossing stirrups shape,
as shown in Figs. 6 and 7 respectively.
Group III
All specimens of this group F1, F7 and F8 had the same joint
angle (90), steel details and no stirrups in joints. The variable
between these group specimens was the joint size by changing
the thickness of specimens more than frame F1, as shown in
Figs. 8 and 9.
Group IV
All specimens of this group F1, F9 and F10 had the same rectangular cross-section dimensions with 150 mm width and
250 mm thickness, steel details and no stirrups in joints. The
151
10
10
16
16
0.96
2
10
10
16
16
10
8/m
10
8/m
1.85
Figure 4
10
2
16
16
16
10
8/m
10
8/m
Material properties
The concrete used was made of a mix of natural sand, natural
well graded gravel and ordinary Portland cement and tap
water. Mix properties (by weight) used for tested specimen
are shown in Table 2. The concrete used was a normal weight
concrete of 25 N/mm2 characteristic compressive strength.
The high tensile steel deformed round bars of 16 mm and
10 mm diameter were used as main reinforcement and stirrups
hangers respectively, while the mild steel smooth round bars of
1.85
10
16
0.25
Figure 5
10
2
10
16
2
10
10
0.15
Typical
Cross Section
0.96
10
10
All specimens of this group F1 and F11 had the same rectangular cross-section dimensions with 150 mm width and
250 mm thickness, with the same joint angle and no stirrups
in joints. The study of the fth group is to compare between
closing and opening joints, as shown in Fig. 12.
10
16
0.96
16
16
8/m
16
10
10
8/m
1.85
Figure 6
152
M. Nabil et al.
10
16
0.25
10
16
Typical
Cross Section
16
10
16
16
8/m
10
10
8/m
0.96
10
0.15
10
1.85
Figure 7
10
10
10
16
3
0.35
16
16
F7
Cross Section
1.01
2
0.15
10
10
16
8/m
10
10
8/m
16
1.85
Figure 8
153
10
2
10
16
10
16
0.45
16
10
8/m
10
10
16
8/m
1.05
2
10
0.15
F8
Cross Section
1.85
2
10
10
10
8/m
10
10
16
0.25
Figure 9
8/m
1.52
0.15
10
Typical
Cross Section
16
10
2
16
1.85
Reinforcement details of frame F9.
10
16
0.25
Figure 10
10
2
10
10
0.15
16
10
Typical
Cross Section
16
10
8/m
10
2
16
8/m
0.62
16
1.85
Figure 11
154
M. Nabil et al.
16
16
16
0.25
10
10
2
10
2
0.96
0.15
2
10
10
10
2
16
8/m
16
10
8/m
1.85
Figure 12
Table 2
Cement
Sand
Gravel
Water/cement
1.0
1.7
3.5
0.57
Table 3
these frames. Table 4 shows the cracking load at which the rst
crack appeared and the failure load at which the deection
increases although the load is constant for the tested frames.
Figs. 1727 show the general crack patterns for the tested
frames.
From Table 4 and Figs. 1727, the following remarks could
be concluded:
8
8
245
365
0.42
72%
10
10.5
363
521
0.37
65%
16
16.7
365
522
0.39
60%
Experimental results
Crack patterns, cracking loads and failure loads
For the tested eleven frames, the cracks started from the lower
surface of the frame joint (tension side). These cracks developed and propagated towards the upper surface of the frame
joint, (the compression side), except frame F11, the cracks
propagated towards the lower surface. At further load
increments, other cracks appeared at the inclined beams of
Loading Head of
Tested Machine
Load Cell
0.96
Hinge
Rigid Floor
0.20
Rollar
0.20
1.65
1.85
Figure 13a
155
0.96
Load Cell
Loading Head of
Tested Machine
Hinge
0.20
Rigid Floor
Rollar
0.20
1.65
1.85
Figure 13b
Figure 14a
Figure 14b
156
M. Nabil et al.
Co
nc
re
Co
nc
re
te
St
ra
in
St
ee
lS
tra
in
St
ee
l
8
te
St
ra
in
St
ra
in
0.
40
40
0.
08
1.
40
0.
0.
40
Figure 15
35
0.
0.
35
4
10
General arrangement for deectometer and electrical strain gauges for frames F1F10.
8
l
ra
St
St
in
Co
nc
re
te
St
ra
in
in
40
St
ra
0.
0.
40
ee
l
08
1.
Co
nc
re
te
St
ra
in
ee
St
2
6
0.
40
40
0.
25
0.
0.08
0.
10
10
0.
25
0.
0.
10
10
0.
Figure 16
10
0.08
0.
3
35
0.
General arrangement for deectometer and electrical strain gauges for frame F11.
Table 4
Frame
Pcr (kN)
Mcr (kN m)
R = failure moment/mult
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
14
15
14.2
13
14.5
14.3
30
50
14
14.2
7.25
6.48
6.94
6.57
6.01
6.71
6.61
13.88
23.13
6.48
6.57
6.69
62.12
78.50
72.57
35.97
75.21
73.03
125.50
185.14
71.20
55.60
41.35
28.73
36.31
33.56
16.64
34.78
33.78
58.04
85.63
32.93
25.72
38.17
29.04
29.04
29.04
29.04
29.04
29.04
63.87
112.74
29.34
28.64
29.04
0.99
1.25
1.16
0.57
1.20
1.16
0.91
0.76
1.12
0.90
1.31
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
157
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
(LVDT 10) were plotted for the eleven tested frames as shown
in Figs. 2837.
From Figs. 2837, the following remarks could be
concluded:
For the rst group, the different steel reinforcement details
of frames F1F4 affect the deection and horizontal
movement of roller support behaviour. The deection and
horizontal movement of roller support of frame F2 less
than other tested frames in the rst group. Due to the fact
that, the loop detail of steel and additional two horizontal
bars at the tension side of the frame F2; increase the exural
stiffness of the joint [9]. In the opposite, the steel detail of
frame F4 worse the joint behaviour and increase the deection and horizontal movement of roller support. This is due
the fact that, frame F4 had extremely poor detailing.
For the second group, the connement of frames F5 and F6
by means of stirrups improved the deection and horizontal
movement of roller support behaviour of these frames
compared with guide frame F1. This may be attributed
158
M. Nabil et al.
Figure 23
Figure 26
Figure 24
Figure 27
Load kN
80
70
60
F1
F2
F3
F4
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 25
to; the connement of the joint region improves the characteristics of concrete in compression and consequently,
resists the diagonal tension at this region.
For the third group, the increasing of joint size for frames F7
and F8 by increasing the thickness, worse the deection and
horizontal movement of roller support behaviour of these
frames compared with frame F1. Due to the fact that,
increasing of joint size increases the diagonal tension cracks
inside the joint region and consequently, decreases the joint
Deecon mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
strength factor (R) of joint [10], hence at the same percentage value of (R) the deection increase gradually from F1 to
F7 and to F8.
For the fourth group, the variation of joint angle for frames
F9 and F10 affects the deection behaviour of these frames
compared with frame F1, the deection of frame F9 less
than other frames in this group and the horizontal movement of frame F10 less than other frames in the group.
Due to the fact that, the decreasing of the joint angle for
frame F9 increasing horizontal movement and decreasing
100
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
Load kN
70
60
30
20
Deecom mm
10
20
30
40
60
Load kN
70
F1
30
40
50
20
0
HZ. Movement mm
0
20
40
60
80
Figure 33 Experimental results of factor (R)horizontal movement of roller support of the third group.
70
F6
F1
F7
F8
40
60
40
50
30
40
20
30
F1
F9
F10
20
10
0
20
60
80
F5
50
10
80
50
80
100
F6
10
Deecon mm
F5
40
F1
50
20
Precentage of R %
80
F8
40
50
F7
60
HZ.Movement mm
0
F1
80
Precentage of R %
70
F1
F2
F3
F4
Load kN
Load kN
80
159
HZ. Movement mm
0
20
40
60
80
100
10
0
Deecon mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
the same acting moment. Due to the fact that, the tension
steel is continuous around the corner of joint and the diagonal tension formed in opening joint. Hence, the horizontal
movement of roller support of frame F11 more than frame
F1 because that, the horizontal force acting at roller support of frame F11 more than that of frame F11 at the same
acting moment.
160
M. Nabil et al.
Load kN
80
70
60
F1
F9
50
F10
40
30
Methodology
20
10
0
HZ. Movement mm
0
20
40
60
80
40
30
F11
20
10
Absolute Deecon mm
0
20
40
60
40
F1
30
10
10
20
30
40
Figure 37 Experimental results of momenthorizontal movement of roller support of the fth group.
Figure 38
F11
20
Modelling of specimens
Model description
F1
The concrete was modelled using the concrete smeared cracking option available in the ABAQUS nite element program.
Concrete compression hardening, tension stiffening and elastic
options were modelled in an accurate way. This concrete material model depends on plasticity, so stress distribution can be
obtained visually, but cracks cannot be determined. Youngs
modulus for concrete Ec was dened using the ACI formulation and poisons ratio was taken 0.2. Elastic and plastic
material options are used for dening steel reinforcement as
elastic-perfectly plastic materials. The yield, ultimate strengths
and ultimate strain for the steel reinforcement were dened
according to the tension coupons test results. The elastic
161
80
80
70
Group I
60
60
50
50
40
F1
F2
F3
F4
30
20
10
0
Deecon mm
0
50
100
Load kN
Load kN
70
150
40
30
F1
20
F5
10
0
200
F6
Deecon mm
0
50
100
150
200
250
80
70
Group III
0.6
0.4
Deecon mm
0
50
100
50
40
30
F1
F7
20
F9
F8
10
F1
0.2
Group IV
60
Load kN
0.8
Group II
150
200
F10
Deecon mm
0
50
100
150
200
40
35
25
20
15
F1
10
5
0
Figure 39
Group V
30
50
100
200
80
35
70
30
60
25
F1 (FE)
20
F1 (EXP)
15
F11 (FE)
10
F11(EXP)
Absolute Deecon mm
0
20
40
60
Load kN
150
Loaddeection for rst, second, third, fourth and fth group (FE results).
40
F11
Absolute Deecon mm
50
40
F5 (FE)
30
F5 (EXP)
20
F9 (FE)
10
0
Deecon mm
0
20
40
F9 (EXP)
60
162
M. Nabil et al.
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
Analytical (Ana)
28.73
36.31
33.56
16.64
34.78
33.78
58.04
85.63
32.93
25.72
38.17
28.78
35.99
29.73
15.04
35.13
34.25
54.25
81.30
33.12
24.12
36.57
Ana/Exp
1.00
0.99
0.89
0.90
1.01
1.01
0.93
0.95
1.01
0.94
0.96