Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/255483341
CITATIONS READS
15 186
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Virtual Earthquake Reconnaissance Team (VERT): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Burcu Burak on 06 October 2017.
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Previous experimental research indicated that beam-to-column connections of reinforced concrete (RC)
Received 21 February 2012 moment resisting frame structures experience considerable deformations under earthquake loading and
Revised 20 February 2013 these deformations have a major contribution to the story drift of the building. In current analysis and
Accepted 23 February 2013
design applications, however, the connection regions are generally modeled as rigid zones and the inelas-
tic behavior of the joint is not considered. This assumption gives rise to an underestimation of the story
drifts and hence to an improper assessment of the seismic performance of the structure. In order to
Keywords:
implement the effect of shear distortions observed in these regions into the seismic design and analysis
Beam-to-column connections
Seismic loading
of buildings, a model that represents their inelastic behavior needs to be developed. In this study, a para-
Joint model metric model that predicts the joint shear strength versus strain relationship is developed by investigat-
Joint shear ing several previous experimental studies on RC beam-to-column connection subassemblies subjected to
Joint distortion cyclic loading and establishing an extensive database. Based on this experimental database, parameters
that significantly influence the joint behavior are determined by employing statistical correlation method
and these key parameters are assembled to form a joint model. This model is then verified by comparing
the results obtained from the dynamic earthquake analysis carried out by using Perform 3D with the
experimental ones. Based on the verification results, it is observed that the analysis including the devel-
oped joint model improves the prediction of the seismic behavior.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.02.032
M. Unal, B. Burak / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 284–294 285
Nomenclature
Based on experimental results, numerous analytical studies model. It was concluded that if the joint model was not included
have been conducted to investigate the effect of different param- in the analysis the roof drifts could be underestimated up to 25%.
eters on the seismic behavior of the connection region and pre- Canbolat [2] developed a parametric joint model that takes into ac-
dict the load–deformation relationships. Consequently, analytical count the material properties, geometric properties and confine-
models representing the joint shear stress versus strain response ment provided by the joint hoop reinforcement. The model was
have been proposed. Parra-Montesinos and Wight [7] proposed used in the dynamic time history analysis of a five-story RC build-
an analytical model for estimating shear strength versus strain re- ing. The results showed that the roof drifts increased up to 25%
sponse of reinforced concrete beam-to-column connections. when the analytical joint model was utilized.
Experimental results of cyclic connection tests were utilized to More recently, Kim and LaFave [12] used statistical methods to
develop a factor for defining principle tensile and compressive evaluate the effect of key parameters such as concrete compressive
stress versus shear distortion response. The development of this strength, panel geometry, confinement due to joint reinforcement,
model was based on the state of plane strains in the joint. This column axial compression, and bond characteristics of the longitu-
analytical model also included a coefficient that takes into ac- dinal reinforcement on the joint behavior. It was concluded that
count the effect of eccentricity. joint shear capacity mostly depends on concrete compressive
Lowes and Altoontash [8] developed a joint model that provides strength, however, joint panel geometry has only a slight effect
a representation of the nonlinear mechanism of the joint behavior on the seismic performance. After having determined the most
by developing constitutive relationships of material, geometric and influential parameters on joint shear stress–strain behavior, an
design parameters and implementing a four-node 12 degree-of- equation representing joint shear strength was developed by using
freedom element. Mitra and Lowes [9] improved this model by Bayesian parameter estimation approach.
changing the element definition. A numerical simulation of the In this paper, a database of specimens is presented and the
parameters in conjunction with finite element analysis to predict outputs of experimental and analytical studies on beam-to-col-
the joint shear strength was utilized in this study. A compres- umn connections are synthesized to develop a joint model. The
sion-strut model was used to simulate the joint core and bond–slip shear strength prediction equation developed by the authors,
response was also considered in addition to nonlinear joint core re- the details of which are explained in a prior article [13], is used
sponse to simulate the joint stiffness. An extensive experimental as the ultimate shear strength of beam-to-column connections
database of beam-to-column subassemblies was used in order to in this model. The shear distortion value corresponding to the
evaluate the accuracy of the model. ultimate strength and two other key points are defined and a
Shin and LaFave [10], Kim and LaFave [11] investigated the ef- backbone curve for the joint model is developed, then the subas-
fects of some key parameters such as concrete compressive semblies in the database are analyzed utilizing the developed
strength, joint reinforcement and axial load effect using the data model. When the joint model is included in the analysis, not only
from 26 beam-to-column connection tests. Afterwards, an analyti- the prediction of the lateral load versus story drift response of the
cal model was proposed to estimate the hysteretic joint shear structure, but also the inelastic behavior of members such as the
stress versus strain behavior by employing modified compression connection region and the beams are improved significantly. The
field theory. Burak [1] also used experimental results and devel- main objective of this study is to develop a joint model that can
oped a joint model that takes into account the joint shear strain be incorporated into a commercial software program that can be
and predicts the joint shear behavior. The model presents an opti- of practical use to the engineering practice. Therefore, the enve-
mized equation including concrete compressive strength, geome- lope curves are obtained and conservative values for the lateral
try and eccentricity parameters. A five story building was load, story drift, beam end rotation, joint shear stress and distor-
analyzed by using both rigid connections and the developed joint tion are estimated.
286 M. Unal, B. Burak / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 284–294
Table 1
Database of beam-to-column connection specimens.
Research team Specimen Joint fc0 fy bc hc bb hb N=ðAg fc0 Þ e qonelayer (%) bj, ACI 352
type, JT (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Eq. (1) (mm)
Burak and Wight [1] 1-S D 1.25 29.0 441 356 356 203 381 0.053 76 1.251 256
2-S D 1.25 39.0 441 534 356 254 457 0.039 140 0.815 307
3-S D 1.25 29.0 441 534 356 254 457 0.042 140 0.815 307
2-N A 1 39.0 441 356 534 305 457 0.031 0 1.314 439
3-N A 1 29.0 441 356 534 762 305 0.031 0 1.314 458
Chen and Chen [16] JC A 1 19.9 399 500 500 300 500 0 0 1.141 425
JE A 1 19.9 399 500 500 300 500 0 100 1.141 375
Durrani and Wight [17] X1 C 1.25 34.3 352 362 362 279 419 0.054 0 0.847 321
X2 C 1.25 33.6 352 362 362 279 419 0.056 0 1.270 321
X3 C 1.25 31.0 352 362 362 279 419 0.053 0 0.847 321
Ehsani and Alameddine LL8 A 1 55.1 446 356 356 311 508 0.042 0 1.217 333
[18] LH8 A 1 55.1 446 356 356 311 508 0.042 0 2.130 333
HL8 A 1 55.1 446 356 356 311 508 0.073 0 1.278 333
HH8 A 1 55.1 446 356 356 311 508 0.073 0 2.130 333
LL11 A 1 75.8 446 356 356 311 508 0.030 0 1.278 333
LH11 A 1 75.8 446 356 356 311 508 0.029 0 2.130 333
HL11 A 1 75.8 446 356 356 311 508 0.061 0 1.278 333
HH11 A 1 75.8 446 356 356 311 508 0.063 0 2.130 333
LL14 A 1 96.5 446 356 356 311 508 0.019 0 1.278 333
LH14 A 1 96.5 446 356 356 311 508 0.018 0 2.130 333
HH14 A 1 96.5 446 356 356 311 508 0.040 0 2.130 333
Ehsani and Wight [19] 1B A 1 33.6 437 300 300 259 480 0.059 0 1.320 279
2B A 1 34.9 437 300 300 259 439 0.071 0 1.489 279
3B A 1 40.9 437 300 300 259 480 0.060 0 1.759 279
4B A 1 44.6 437 300 300 259 439 0.055 0 1.935 279
5B A 1 24.3 437 340 340 300 480 0.126 0 1.167 320
6B A 1 39.8 437 340 340 300 480 0.066 0 1.090 320
Fujii and Morita [20] A1 C 1.25 40.2 297 220 220 160 250 0.076 0 0.592 190
A2 C 1.25 40.2 297 220 220 160 250 0.076 0 0.592 190
A3 C 1.25 40.2 297 220 220 160 250 0.227 0 0.592 190
A4 C 1.25 40.2 297 220 220 160 250 0.227 0 1.690 190
B1 A 1 30.0 297 220 220 160 250 0.068 0 0.592 190
B2 A 1 30.0 297 220 220 160 250 0.068 0 0.592 190
B3 A 1 30.0 297 220 220 160 250 0.236 0 0.592 190
B4 A 1 30.0 297 220 220 160 250 0.236 0 1.690 190
Gentry and Wight [21] 1 B 1.25 27.6 441 356 356 864 305 0.026 0 0.676 483
2 B 1.25 27.6 441 356 356 762 305 0.026 0 0.676 457
3 B 1.25 27.6 441 356 356 864 305 0.026 0 0.676 483
4 B 1.25 27.6 441 356 356 864 305 0.026 0 0.676 483
Guimaraes et al. [22] J2 E 1.67 27.6 549 508 508 406 508 0 0 0.841 457
J4 E 1.67 31.6 549 508 508 406 508 0 0 0.841 457
J5 E 1.67 77.9 511 508 508 406 508 0 0 2.484 457
J6 E 1.67 92.1 511 508 508 406 508 0 0 2.484 457
Kaku and Asakusa [23] Specimen 1 A 1 31.1 250 220 220 160 220 0.171 0 0.503 190
Specimen 2 A 1 41.7 250 220 220 160 220 0.099 0 0.503 190
Specimen 3 A 1 41.7 250 220 220 160 220 0 0 0.503 190
Specimen 4 A 1 44.7 281 220 220 160 220 0.166 0 0.131 190
Specimen 5 A 1 36.7 281 220 220 160 220 0.090 0 0.131 190
Specimen 6 A 1 40.4 281 220 220 160 220 0 0 0.131 190
Specimen 7 A 1 32.2 250 220 220 160 220 0.124 0 0.503 190
Specimen 8 A 1 41.2 250 220 220 160 220 0.080 0 0.503 190
Specimen 9 A 1 40.6 250 220 220 160 220 0 0 0.503 190
Specimen 10 A 1 44.4 281 220 220 160 220 0.168 0 0.131 190
Specimen 11 A 1 41.9 281 220 220 160 220 0.079 0 0.131 190
Specimen 12 A 1 35.1 281 220 220 160 220 0 0 0.131 190
Specimen 13 A 1 46.4 250 220 220 160 220 0.045 0 0.503 190
Specimen 14 A 1 41.0 281 220 220 160 220 0.081 0 0.129 190
Specimen 15 A 1 39.7 281 220 220 160 220 0.083 0 0.129 190
Specimen 16 A 1 37.4 250 220 220 160 220 0 0 0.496 190
Specimen 17 A 1 39.7 250 220 220 160 220 0 0 0.503 190
Specimen 18 A 1 40.7 250 220 220 160 220 0 0 0.498 190
Kitayama et al. [24] A1 C 1.25 30.6 326 300 300 200 300 0.064 0 0.708 250
A2 E 1.67 30.6 326 300 300 200 300 0.064 0 0.708 250
A3 E 1.67 30.6 326 300 300 200 300 0.064 0 0.708 250
A4 C 1.25 30.6 326 300 300 200 300 0.064 0 0.708 250
LaFave and Wight [25] EWB 1 B 1.25 28.9 482 356 356 864 305 0 0 0.772 483
EWB 2 B 1.25 30.3 482 356 356 864 305 0 0 0.772 483
EWB 3 B 1.25 34.5 482 305 508 940 305 0 0 1.081 464
ENB 1 B 1.25 24.8 482 305 508 305 559 0 0 1.081 432
M. Unal, B. Burak / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 284–294 287
Table 1 (continued)
Research team Specimen Joint fc0 fy bc hc bb hb N=ðAg fc0 Þ e qonelayer (%) bj, ACI 352
type, JT (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Eq. (1) (mm)
Lee and Ko [26] S0 A 1 32.6 471 400 600 300 450 0.089 0 0.423 350
S50 A 1 34.2 471 400 600 300 450 0.085 50 0.423 350
W0 A 1 28.9 471 600 400 300 450 0.101 0 1.134 450
W75 A 1 30.4 471 600 400 300 450 0.096 75 1.134 450
W150 A 1 29.1 471 600 400 300 450 0.100 150 1.134 450
Shiohara [27] J-7 C 1.25 79.2 857 300 300 240 300 0.117 0 0.689 270
J-10 C 1.25 39.2 598 300 300 240 300 0.236 0 0.689 270
Quintero-Febres and IWB1 E 1.67 27.6 503 356 356 889 305 0 0 1.097 489
Wight [28] IWB2 E 1.67 27.6 503 356 356 660 305 0 0 1.097 432
IWB3 E 1.67 27.6 503 330 508 838 305 0 0 0.908 457
Raffaelle and Wight [29] 1 C 1.25 28.6 441 356 356 254 381 0.025 51 0.772 307
2 C 1.25 26.8 441 356 356 178 381 0.026 89 0.772 231
3 C 1.25 37.7 441 356 356 191 381 0.019 83 0.772 244
4 C 1.25 19.3 441 356 356 191 559 0.036 83 0.772 244
Shin and LaFave [30,31] SL 1 D 1.25 29.9 468 457 330 279 406 0 89 0.615 329
SL 2 D 1.25 36.1 468 457 330 178 406 0 140 0.615 227
SL 3 D 1.25 47.4 551 457 330 279 406 0 0 0.615 362
SL 4 D 1.25 31.1 579 279 368 279 406 0 0 1.099 279
Teng and Zhou [32] S1 C 1.25 33.0 440 400 300 200 400 0.111 0 0.885 275
S2 C 1.25 34.0 440 400 300 200 400 0.108 50 0.885 275
S3 C 1.25 35.0 440 400 300 200 400 0.105 100 0.885 245
S5 C 1.25 39.0 440 400 200 200 400 0.110 50 1.287 250
S6 C 1.25 38.0 440 400 200 200 400 0.113 100 1.287 230
Table 2
Correlation of key parameters with maximum experimental joint shear strength.
Exterior joints 0.6693 0.0790 0.4512 0.3101 0.5356 0.1393 0.3189 0.2319 0.2963 0.3292 0.2471
Interior joints 0.6929 0.0850 0.3608 0.3546 0.5604 0.0996 0.1996 0.1032 0.0353 0.1564 0.3349
P
ðx xÞðyy Þ
where, CorrelationðX; YÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P 2
P 2
.
ðx
xÞ Þ
ðyy
288 M. Unal, B. Burak / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 284–294
JT is a parameter that takes into account the effect of the con- account the effective beam width defined in ACI Committee 318
finement provided by the surrounding beams as defined in Fig. 2. Building Code Requirements [14] and the reinforcement placed
This parameter is based on the ACI-ASCE Committee 352 [15] joint in the flange are considered. The nominal moment strength for
classification for Type 2 connections and the arrangement of beams the flanged section is calculated and divided to that of the rectan-
in the test setup. gular beam section having same depth and web width:
The joint shear p
resistance
ffiffiffiffi is based on (fcfy)1/6, which gives sim-
M n ðFlanged SectionÞ
ilar results to the fc approach of ACI-ASCE Committee 352 Rec-
0
Mn ðRectangular SectionÞ
; when slab is present
Slab Index ðSIÞ ¼
ommendations [15] for regular strength concrete and joint 1; when slab is not present
transverse reinforcement, but more improved results for connec-
ð8Þ
tion regions with lower yield strength transverse reinforcement.
G is the elastic shear modulus defined by the following
equation:
3. Analytical verification of the joint model
E
G¼ ð2Þ
2ð1 þ mÞ After the parametric joint model that predicts the experimental
behavior is generated and calibrated, the specimens are analyzed
qjoint is a parameter that depends on the volumetric joint transverse
using Perform 3D v4.0 [33] which is a commercially available non-
reinforcement ratio for one layer of confinement reinforcement:
linear dynamic analysis program. Beams, columns and connection
regions are modeled individually and cyclic loading that was ap-
b
1 hbb b j ; when wide beams are present in the loading direction
Wide Beam Effect ðWBÞ ¼ b b ð7Þ
1; when wide beams are not present in the loading direction
qjoint ð%Þ ¼ 1:0 if qonelayer < 1:0 Ao leff plied in the experiment is imposed to the specimen models by cre-
and qonelayer ¼
qjoint ð%Þ ¼ ðqonelayer Þ0:5 if qonelayer P 1:0 hc;core bc;cores ating a ground acceleration record. Finally, the analytical results
ð3Þ and the experimental results are compared for the verification of
the joint model.
EE shows the reduction in joint strength due to the presence of The model for interior connection regions consists of two col-
eccentricity: umns, two beams and a joint panel zone element; whereas for
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the exterior connections, two columns, one beam and a joint panel
1 zone element are used (Fig. 3). Majority of the selected experi-
Eccentricity Effect ðEEÞ ¼ ð4Þ
1 þ e=bc ments had a test set-up similar to the one shown in Fig. 3a, where
the lateral load was applied to the top of the column. However, for
CI is the column index based on column aspect ratio that is used
some experiments on exterior connections, the beams were
to account for the reduction of effective joint area in rectangular
aligned vertically as in Fig. 3b and the load was applied at the beam
columns:
end. The details of each individual subassembly model are given
qffiffiffiffi
bc
when bc
< 1:0 below:
hc hc
Column Index ðCIÞ ¼ ð5Þ
bc
1:0 when hc
P 1:0
3.1. Beam element
NE defines the confinement effect due to axial load:
N The beam element is defined as a frame compound component
Axial Load Effect ðNEÞ ¼ 1 þ ð6Þ including three basic components which are rigid end zone at the
Ag fc
beam end, semi-rigid moment connection hinge next to the rigid
WB gives the reduction in strength when wide beams are pres- end zone and a uniform elastic cross-section. For the elastic sec-
ent in the loading direction: tion, cracked stiffness, that is taken as 35% of the gross stiffness
SI defines the confinement of the connection region due to the [14], is considered (Fig. 4a) and the rigid end zone length is se-
presence of a floor system. In order to take the presence of slab into lected as half of the column width.
A B C D E
Fig. 2. Joint types and joint type index (JT) values for computations in SI units.
M. Unal, B. Burak / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 284–294 289
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Details of the subassembly components.
Fig. 7. Lateral load versus story drift responses – specimens of Burak and Wight [1].
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Joint shear stress versus joint shear distortion responses – specimens of Burak and Wight [1].
3.3. Joint element (Fig. 4b). This element has only one node that is taken at the inter-
section of beam and column axes. The rigid end zones of beam and
In order to represent the inelastic activity in the joint region, column elements are connected to rigid links of the panel zone
connection panel zone element in Perform 3D is utilized (Fig. 4a). A rotational spring attached to the panel zone has a non-
M. Unal, B. Burak / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 284–294 291
Fig. 9. Beam moment versus beam plastic hinge rotation responses – specimens of Burak and Wight [1].
Fig. 10. Story shear versus story drift responses – specimens of Raffaelle and Wight [29].
linear moment–rotation relationship that enables the definition of connection regions. However, since the connection element re-
the inelastic behavior. quires the joint moment versus shear strain relationship of the
As described before, the inelastic behavior of the joint is defined connection region in Perform 3D, shear stress values are converted
by parametric equations. Using these equations, inelastic joint to moment values by multiplying them by the effective joint width
shear strength versus shear strain relationships are generated for (bj) and the column depth (hc) to obtain the joint shear force and
292 M. Unal, B. Burak / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 284–294
Fig. 11. Joint shear versus joint deformation responses – specimen 2 of Raffaelle and Wight [29].
Table 3
Displacements due to joint shear distortions and their contribution to total story drift at 2% drift level.
Specimen Displacement due to joint shear distortion (mm) Total displacement (mm) Contribution of joint shear distortion (%)
Burak and Wight [1] 2-S 20.84 51.80 40.24
3-S 14.07 51.80 27.17
2-N 6.12 51.80 11.82
3-N 21.83 51.80 42.13
Kaku and Asakusa [23] Specimen 1 3.94 30.80 12.80
Specimen 2 2.93 30.80 9.52
Specimen 3 5.70 30.80 18.52
Specimen 6 6.29 30.80 20.42
Specimen 9 6.10 30.80 19.81
Specimen 12 6.43 30.80 20.88
Raffaelle and Wight [29] 1 7.49 44.72 16.75
2 8.62 44.72 19.28
3 6.46 44.72 14.44
4 6.56 44.72 14.66
Shin and LaFave [30,31] SL1 22.95 58.94 38.94
SL3 6.58 58.94 11.16
LaFave and Wight [25] EWB1 2.65 44.72 5.92
EWB2 2.48 44.72 5.55
EWB3 5.45 44.72 12.18
ENB1 1.48 44.72 3.31
Average 11.40 44.80 23.24
4.2. Specimens of Raffaelle and Wight [29] blies, all specimens are also modeled by assuming the connection
regions as rigid zones. In other words, the specimens are analyzed
The main variable of the experimental study by Raffaelle and once again by removing the joint model. Fig. 12 shows the moment
Wight [29] is the eccentricity between beam and column center- versus rotation response for the beams of Specimen 2-S by Burak
lines. Besides eccentricity, member dimensions and the reinforce- and Wight [1]. When the story drift values are kept the same, the
ment detailing of beams varies in different specimens. Although beam rotations are significantly overestimated with the use of rigid
the column dimensions are the same in all specimens, the effective connections, which could lead to improper seismic assessment of
joint width differs due to changes in eccentricity and the beam these members.
depth. The story shear versus story drift curves for the four eccen- The influence of joint shear distortion on total story drift is com-
tric specimens of Rafaelle and Wight are given in Fig. 10. The enve- puted at 2% drift level, using analytical shear strains in Eq. (10) [1]
lopes of the analytical results match the experimental ones with and is presented in Table 3. It can be observed from this table that
significant accuracy, therefore the analytical joint model is verified the average contribution of the joint shear distortion to the total
one more time for the eccentric interior connections. It is observed story drift is 18%. This clearly indicates the need for considering
that as the eccentricity increases, the ultimate story shear force de- a joint model in nonlinear analysis.
creases. Moreover, Specimen 4 attains the highest strength since it
hb hc
has the deepest beam and thus the highest flexural strength. Up to Dj ¼ H c 1 ð10Þ
H l
3% story drift, the ductility characteristics of all four specimens are
similar. After that point, the beam width and the eccentricity influ-
enced the energy dissipation capacity. For instance the beam width 5. Summary and conclusions
of Specimen 2 is smaller; therefore it has smoother stiffness degra-
dation as captured by the model. The main objective of this study is to develop an analytical joint
The joint shear versus joint deformation behavior comparison model to predict the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete
for Specimen 2 is presented in Fig. 11. In this figure, the joint shear beam-to-column connections subjected to earthquake loading that
stress versus strain relationship of the connection panel element can be incorporated into commercial software programs. For this
was compared with the experimental joint response measured purpose, first, an experimental database of reinforced concrete
both at the flush (outer) and offset (inner) joint faces. In order to connection subassemblies is generated which includes material
make a comparison, the average of both figures should be consid- properties, geometric characteristics and the test results under
ered since the panel zone element in the analytical model gives an cyclic loading [13]. Then, a set of equations are developed to esti-
average response. It is observed that the maximum joint shear mate the critical joint strength and strain values which give mini-
capacity is predicted successfully by the analytical model. Besides, mum average error and the highest correlation with the
the maximum joint strain values also closely match with the aver- experimental values. While carrying out these steps, the guidelines
age shear deformation response obtained in the experiments. It given in ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for
should also be noted that with the presence of a slab the difference Structural Concrete [14], and ACI-ASCE Committee 352 Recom-
in the joint shear distortions will not be this significant on two mendations for Design of Beam–Column Connections in Mono-
opposite faces of the specimen as in the case of Canbolat [3] and lithic Reinforced Concrete Structures [15] are followed. The
Shin and LaFave [30]. connection subassemblies are modeled and the cyclic loading his-
tories followed in the experiments are applied analytically using
4.3. Comparison of the joint model with rigid connections Perform 3D [33]. Finally, the analytical results obtained by consid-
ering the joint model and rigid connections are compared with the
In order to examine the effect of including the joint model in the experimental ones. Based on the results of the analytical study, the
nonlinear analysis of RC beam-to-column connection subassem- following conclusions can be drawn:
294 M. Unal, B. Burak / Engineering Structures 52 (2013) 284–294
1. The envelope of the nonlinear hysteretic behavior of the joint [9] Mitra N, Lowes NL. Evaluation, calibration, and verification of a
reinforced concrete beam–column joint model. J Struct Eng 2007;133(1):
can be predicted by considering three critical points at which
105–20.
significant slope changes are observed. A simple and conserva- [10] Shin M, LaFave JM. Modeling of cyclic joint shear deformation contributions in
tive trilinear joint model is developed, which represents this RC beam–column connections to overall frame behavior. Struct Eng Mech
nonlinear behavior, to be used in inelastic analysis and design 2004;18(5):645–69.
[11] Kim J, LaFave JM. Key influence parameters for the joint shear behaviour of
applications. The nonlinear analysis is performed using com- reinforced concrete (RC) beam–column connections. Eng Struct
mercially available software, so that this joint model can also 2007;29(10):2523–39.
be utilized in practical engineering applications. By slightly [12] Kim J, LaFave JM. Probabilistic joint shear strength models for design of
RC beam–column connections. ACI Struct J 2008:770–80 [Title no. 105-
increasing the computational time, more conservative esti- S71].
mates of drift can be obtained, as well as the inelastic responses [13] Unal M, Burak B. Joint shear strength prediction for reinforced concrete beam-
of the connection regions. to-column connections. Struct Eng Mech 2012;41(3).
[14] ACI Committee 318, 2011. Building code requirements for structural
2. The proposed joint model is integrated to the subassembly concrete, ACI 318-11. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
model as a panel zone element. Beams are modeled by consid- Michigan; 2011.
ering their moment versus rotation relationships, and for col- [15] ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 2002. Recommendations for design of beam–
column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures. ACI 352R-
umns, in addition to moment versus rotation curves, the 02. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan; 2002.
interaction diagrams are obtained. The joint model is verified [16] Chen CC, Chen G. Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete eccentric beam–
by comparing the experimental results with the analytical column corner joints connecting spread-ended beams. Technical paper.. ACI
Struct J 1999:443–50 [Title no. 96-S50].
response in terms of overall lateral load–story drift relationship,
[17] Durrani AJ, Wight JK. Behavior of interior beam-to-column connections under
joint element response, and beam plastic hinge response. It is earthquake-type loading. ACI Struct J 1985:343–9 [Title 82-30].
observed that, in general, the seismic behavior of beam-to-col- [18] Ehsani MR, Alameddine F. Design recommendations for type 2 high-strength
umn connection subassemblies is reasonably predicted not only reinforced concrete connections. Technical paper. ACI Struct J 1991:277–90
[Title no. 88-S30].
for the overall lateral load–story drift response, but also for the [19] Ehsani MR, Wight JK. Exterior reinforced concrete beam-to-column
element responses. connections subjected to earthquake-type loading. Technical paper. ACI
3. The significance of concrete compressive strength, axial load Struct J 1985:492–9 [Title no. 82-43].
[20] Fujii S, Morita S. Comparison between interior and exterior RC beam–column
and volumetric joint transverse reinforcement ratio on the joint joint behavior. Design of beam–column joints for seismic resistance – ACI
shear response is also verified by this analytical study. 1991. p. 145–65.
4. When analytical results considering the joint model and rigid [21] Gentry TR, Wight JK. Wide beam–column connections under earthquake-type
loading. Earthq Spectra 1994;10(4):675–702.
connections are compared, it is concluded that assuming a rigid [22] Guimaraes GN, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO. Evaluation of joint-shear provisions for
connection region in modeling results in underestimation of the interior beam–column–slab connections using high-strength materials.
story drifts and overestimation of the beam plastic hinge rota- Technical paper. ACI Struct J 1992:89–98 [Title no. 89-S10].
[23] Kaku T, Asakusa H. Ductility estimation of exterior beam-column
tions, which leads to improper assessment of the seismic per- subassemblages in reinforced concrete frames. Design of beam-column
formance of the overall structure and the structural members. joints for seismic resistance. ACI SP-123; 1991. p. 167–85.
5. The contribution of joint shear distortions to the total story drift [24] Kitayama K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Development of design criteria for RC
interior beam–column joints. ACI SP-123 design of beam–column joints
are computed and it is observed that in average 18% of the story
for seismic resistance. American Concrete Institute, Michigan; 1991. p. 97–
drift is due to joint shear deformations. 123.
[25] LaFave JM, Wight JK. Reinforced concrete exterior wide beam–column–slab
connections subjected to lateral earthquake loading. ACI Struct J 1999:577–86
[Title no. 96-S64].
[26] Lee HJ, Ko J. Eccentric reinforced concrete beam–column connections
References subjected to cyclic loading in principal directions. ACI Struct J 2007:459–67
[Title no. 104-S44].
[1] Burak B. Seismic behavior of eccentric reinforced concrete beam–column–slab [27] Shiohara H. New model for shear failure of RC interior beam–column
connections. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 2005. connections. J Struct Eng 2001;127(2):152–60.
[2] Canbolat BB. Structural applications of a reinforced concrete beam–column– [28] Quintero-Febres CG, Wight JK. Experimental study of reinforced concrete
slab connection model for earthquake loading. In: The 14th world conference interior wide beam–column connections subjected to lateral loading. ACI
on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China; October 12–17, 2008. Struct J 2001:572–81 [Title no. 98-S55].
[3] Canbolat BB, Wight JK. Experimental investigation on seismic behavior of [29] Raffaelle SG, Wight JK. Reinforced concrete eccentric beam–column
eccentric reinforced concrete beam–column–slab connections. ACI Struct J connections subjected to earthquake-type loading. ACI Struct J 1995:45–55
2008:154–62 [Title no. 105-S16]. [Title no. 92-S6].
[4] Ghobarah A, Biddah A. Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frames [30] Shin M, LaFave JM. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete eccentric
including joint shear deformation. Eng Struct 1999;21(11):971–87. beam–column connections with floor slabs. ACI Struct J 2004:403–12 [Title no.
[5] Dhakal RP, Pan T, Irawan P, Tsai K, Chen C. Experimental study on the dynamic 101-S41].
response of gravity-designed reinforced concrete connections. Eng Struct [31] Shin M. Performance of reinforced concrete edge beam–column–slab
2005;27(1):75–87. connections subjected to earthquake loading. PhD thesis, University of
[6] Lee J, Kim J, Oh G. Strength deterioration of reinforced concrete beam–column Illinois at Urbana – Champaign, Urbana – Illinois; 2004.
joints subjected to cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):2070–85. [32] Teng S, Zhou H. Eccentric reinforced concrete beam–column joints subjected
[7] Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK. Prediction of shear strength and shear to cyclic loading. ACI Struct J 2008:139–48 [Title no. 100-S15].
distortion in R/C beam–column joints SP197-10; 2002. [33] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). User manual for PERFORM-3D v4.0,
[8] Lowes NL, Altoontash A. Modeling of reinforced-concrete beam–column joints Berkeley, California, USA; August 2006.
subjected to cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2003;129(12):1686–97. [34] Bentz EC. Version 1.1, user manual, response 2000; 2001.