Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architecture, School of Engineering, The Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Associate Professor, Dept. of Architecture, School of Engineering, The Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Email: kusuhara@rcs.arch.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, shiohara@rcs.arch.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
ABSTRACT :
Ten half-scale reinforced concrete beam-column joint sub-assemblages were loaded to failure by statically
cyclic loading simulating earthquake loading, to obtain fundamental data including stress in bars after yielding
and joint deformation. The test parameters were (1) boundary conditions and loading types for specimens with
identical form, section and bar arrangement, (2) the forms of specimens with identical boundary condition and
loading type, (3) with or without transverse beams and (4) details on anchorage of beam bars in interior and
exterior joints. The test results indicated that (1) in some case of damage of joints were severe, maximum story
shear were lower than predicted story shear at ultimate strength of beam in spite of beam bars were yielded, (2)
the rotations of four parts of the joint divided with diagonal cracks were dominant in story drift deformation in
case of joint failure after yielding of beams, (3) in case of damage of joints were severe, bond actions of beam
bars or column bars passing through the joints kept low level and (4) poor anchorage length of beam bars in
exterior joints led lower story shear capacity, yielding of column bars and severe damage in the joints.
KEYWORDS:
1. INTRODUCTION
The major problem in the seismic design of RC beam-column joint is the lack of theory, which can explain the
effect of the parameters which affect the strength, ductility and failure mode, of the beam-column joint
subjected to high seismic force demand. Several theories have been recently proposed by researchers including
one of the authors. For development and experimental verification of the theory, we have carried out series of
tests on reinforced concrete beam-column sub-assemblages.
2. TEST PROGRAM
2.1. Specimens and Design Parameter
Ten half-scale reinforced concrete beam-column joint sub-assemblages were constructed. They were loaded by
displacement control to failure under quasi-statically reversed cyclic load with increasing amplitudes simulating
seismic loading condition. The specimens are beam-column joint sub-assemblages virtually isolated in moment
resisting frame at contra-flexure point by substituting them by pin joints or pin-roller joints to simulate the stress
condition in typical moment resisting frames.
The test program consists of five series of tests. Table 1 lists the specimens and their test parameters and Fig. 1
shows the geometry and the reinforcing details of the specimens. The cross sections of the beams are 300 x 300
mm and that of the columns are 300 x 300 mm in all the specimens. The width of the beams and the columns is
identical so that the test result should not be affected by the effects of three-dimensional geometry. Three sets of
hoops of D6 were placed in the beam-column joints in all the specimens; the amount of joint shear
reinforcement is 0.3 %, which is the minimum requirement of the AIJ Guidelines.
th
A1
A2
A3
C1
I
II
III
I
28.3 MPa
300 x 300 mm
2700 mm
8+8-D13 (SD390)
at = 868 mm2
N/A
D6 stirrup @ 50 mm (SD295)
300 x 300 mm
1470 mm
16-D13 (SD345)
ag = 2032 mm2
D6 hoop @ 50 mm (SD295)
D6 square hoops x 3 sets (SD295)
N/A
300 x 300
mm
16-D13
216 kN
D1
I
30.4 MPa
D2
B1
II
28.3 MPa
B2
II
E1
II
30.4 MPa
E2
II
6+6-D16 (SD345)
at=902 mm2
14-D13 (SD345)
ag=1778 mm2
8-D13 (SD345)
ag =954 mm2
N/A
6-D13 (SD345)
ag =696 mm2
th
5-D13
5-D13
D6@50
D6@50
8-D13
B series
grooved bar
300
35 115 115 35
D6@50
14-D13
D6@50
6-D13
D series
E series
column section
50 50
50 50
50 50
50 50
300
35 75 80 75 35
35
300
35 115 115 35
A, C series
plate t=19
D, E series
beam section
300
35 100 130 35
1
50
300
35 50 65 65 50 35
300
35 50 65 65 50 35 grooved bar
2-D16
4-D16
B series
A, C series
16-D13
4-D16
2-D16
D6@50
300
260
4-D13
4-D13
5-D13
5-D13
D6@50
35
4-D13
4-D13
D6@50
grooved bar
50 50
transverse beam
(specimen C1)
300
grooved bar 52 65 66 65 52
300
35 40 160 40 35
east
300
50 50 50 50 50 50
300
35 50 65 65 50 35
north
grooved bar
300
35 35 160 35 35
300
35 35 160 35 35
300
50 66 68 66 50
258
159
plate t=19
specimen D2
specimen A1,A2,A3,C1,B1,D1
specimen B2
specimen E2
specimen E1
elevation of joint
unit in mm
compressive
strength,
MPa
Young's
modulus,
GPa
A, B, C
D, E
28.3
30.4
25.9
30.0
tensile
splitting
strength,
MPa
2.67
2.90
Reinforcing Bars
A,B,C
beams
columns
hoops and
stirrups
beams
columns
hoops and
stirrups
D,E
D13(SD390)
D13(SD345)
D6(SD295)
Young's
modulus,
GPa
176
176
151
yield
strength,
MPa
456
357
326
tensile
strength,
MPa
582
493
488
D16(SD345)
D13(SD345)
D6(SD295)
187
187
191
379
375
366
558
538
504
th
north beam
load cell
pin
pin
moment distribution
load cell
lateral load
specime
specimen
i en
e
load cell
pin
strong floor
1,350
1,350
pin
735
990
735
pin
moment distribution
specimen
i
-
north
o
lower column
load cell
pin
pin
pin
735
moment distribution
+
990
upper column
south beam
735
i
990
universal pin
lateral load
735
pin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
cycle no.
universal pin
load cell
lateral load
0.0625
4.0 x2
3.0 x2
0.125
2.0
x2
0.25
1.0 x2
0.5 x2
0.5
0.5
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
west
north
south
east
load cell
pin
735
8.0
story drift ,%
force is acted in the free beam and only axial load acted in the upper
column.
In the case of loading type I and II, statically cyclic lateral load was
applied at the top of the column by displacement control with a
horizontal servo controlled actuator with capacity of 200 kN. In the test
of specimen A3, in which the loading type III is used, a 500 kN
horizontal hydraulic jack connecting a reaction frame and the end of the
beam is used to apply a horizontal load. The load history is shown in Fig.
3. In all the specimens, constant compressive axial load of 216kN is
applied before lateral loading by a 500kN vertical servo controlled
hydraulic actuator.
pin
strong floor
strong floor
unit in mm
1,350
1,350
grooved
strain gauge
groove
th
A1
A2
A1
A2
C1
A3
D1
E1
D2
B2
Figure 4 Observed crack pattern at 4% story drift
E2
B1
story shear, kN
0
yielding of beam bar
-50
yielding of beam bar
-100
A1
100
150
story shear, kN
50
-150
D1
50
0
-50
150
-100
-150
story shear, kN
A2
B1
D2
-4
-2
0
2
story drift, %
0
-50
yielding of beam bar
-100
-150
-4
-2
0
2
story drift, %
A3
6
-4
-2
0
2
story drift, %
B2
6
-4
-2
0
2
story drift, %
E2
6
th
A1
120.7
C1
calculated
observed
118.6
117.8
63.3
0.98
0.98
1.05
126.6
132.7
169.3
-143.0
-
0.82
0.86
N/A
154.5
A2
60.4
136.3
68.1
179.8
194.2
-166.8
77.9
-77.1
1.14
1.13
126.6
-122.8
0.93
0.91
150.3
-139.0
1.10
1.02
A3
142.2
-104.1
158.3
-93.4
1.11
0.90
168.4
142.2
156.1
-123.6
0.93
0.87
159.1
-118.6
195.0
-166.0
176.4
-124.5
1.11
1.05
B1
76.4
B2
D1
113.2
D2
E1
56.6
E2
73.6
74.5
89.7
99.7
54.9
48.6
0.96
0.97
0.79
0.88
0.97
0.86
110.4
-91.7
88.9
-85.4
0.81
0.93
85.6
127.9
-106.2
98.4
-92.6
1.15
1.08
151.5
87.2
-84.2
0.79
0.92
129.4
123.4
0.78
0.81
125.3
175.2
92.2
-91.1
1.08
1.06
133.9
-130.5
1.07
1.04
140.2
-130.5
1.12
1.04
95.0
-78.4
63.1
-56.1
0.66
0.72
62.7
49.4
-41.7
0.52
0.53
112.8
-92.8
73.2
-64.8
1.17
1.03
65.0
-55.0
1.04
0.88
upper column
Lc : span of column
Rc
ds : story drift
Rs = ds / Lc
es
p u
north beam
p
ps
Rbs
pl
south beam
Rbn
pn
en
lower column
Rc
th
story shear, kN
150
10
0
50
-100
-150
150
story shear, kN
A1
50
10
Rbs
Rbn
Rcu
Rcl
e s
e n
ps
pn
pu
p l
A2
50
0
50
-100
-150
-0.02
0
0.02 0.04
-0.02
0
0.02 0.04
-0.02
0
0.02 0.04
chord rotation of beam, rad chord rotation of column, rad
rigid rotation
at beam end, rad
-0.02
0
0.02 0.04
face rotation of joint
at beam side, rad
-0.02
0
0.02 0.04
face rotation of joint
at column side, rad
-0.02
0
0.02 0.04
joint shear strain, rad
th
8
1
2
100
A1
D1
A2
Rs=0.25%
Rs=0.5%
Rs=1.0%
Rs=2.0%
Rs=4.0%
Rs=6.0%
50
0
-50
-100
-150
150
100
C1
D2
E1
south
beam
first layer
second layer
1
2
-50
A1
bond strength (AIJ): 7.2MPa
600 400 200 0 -200 -400 600 400 200 0 -200 -400 600 400 200 0 -200 -400
stress, MPa
stress, MPa
stress, MPa
D1
4
2
0
A2
-2
-150
-2
8
50
-100
150
layer is smaller because the diagonal cracks open widely at the center of the joints.
2
4
story drift, %
D2
0
2
4
story drift, %
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The followings are brief summaries of the test results.
(1)
In some case of damage of the joints were severe, maximum story shear was lower than predicted story
shear at ultimate strength of beam in spite of beam bars yielded.
(2)
The test results indicated that the rotations of the four parts of the joint divided with diagonal cracks were
dominant in the story drift deformation in case of the joint failed after yielding of the beams.
(3)
The deflection of the beams and the rotations at the beam ends were dominant in case of damage on the
joints were minor and showed relatively stable and fat hysteresis loop of the story shear vs. story drift relation.
(4)
The story shear capacity of the specimen with transverse beams, in which the damage of the joint was
severe, was improved.
(5)
In case of damage of joints were severe, bond actions of beam bars passing through the joints kept lower
level than the bond strength specified in the AIJ Guideline.
(6)
Poor anchorage length of beam bars in exterior joints led lower story shear capacity, yielding of column
bars and severe damage in the joint.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The tests were partially supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), FY 2003-2004, Grant No.
15360291, Principal Investigator: Hitoshi Shiohara, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
REFERENCES
Architectural Institute of Japan (1999), Design Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete
Building Based on Inelastic Displacement Concept, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 440 pp. (in
Japanese)
Kusuhara, F. and H. Shiohara (2006), New Instrumentation for Damage and Stress in Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joint, Proc. of the 8NCEE, April 18-22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA, Paper No. 1214
(CD-ROM).