8 tayangan

Diunggah oleh undf25

Beam Column Joint EC2

Beam Column Joint EC2

© All Rights Reserved

- ACI-318-02
- IS code 13920
- CFD-ACI-318-11
- External Beam–Column Joint-Design to Eurocode 2
- Researchpaper Novel Flowchart for Design of Concrete Rectangular Beams
- CFD-ACI-318-02
- CFD-ACI-318-08
- Reinforced_Concrete_Deep_Beams.pdf
- CFD-ACI-318-14
- CFD-TS-500-2000
- EC Geotechnical Aspects
- CFD-ACI-318-02.pdf
- CFD-EC-2-2004.pdf
- CFD-EC-2-2004
- Chapter 2 - SHEAR DESIGN SP-17 - 09-07.pdf
- CFD-ACI-318-11
- Ext_09584
- Design of Compression Member BS
- 14191_2.pdf
- CH7 SHEAR－Reinforced Concrete Structures by R. Park & T.paulay

Anda di halaman 1dari 11

7, September, 511521

doi: 10.1680/macr.2007.00126

Eurocode 2

R. Vollum* and D. Parker*

Imperial College

In practice external beamcolumn joints are seldom designed for monotonic loading. The current authors believe

that this is an oversight which should be addressed. This paper presents a simple strut and tie model for the

analysis and design of external reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. The strut and tie model is developed from

first principles using the concrete design strengths given in Eurocode 2. The main difficulty in developing strut and

tie models for beamcolumn joints is in determining the node dimensions. The novel feature of the authors analysis

is that the joint strength is related to the flexural capacity of the beam at the face of the column which is defined in

terms of the maximum moment which can be transferred through the joint into the upper and lower columns. The

model is shown to give better predictions of joint shear strength than existing simple design models. A case study is

presented which shows that it is often sufficient to provide only minimum shear reinforcement in beam column

joints.

of the column

Asw area of links in one plane within Mcol moment in the column resisted

the top 5/8ths of the beam depth by concrete at the top and

below the tensile beam bottom of the beam

reinforcement s spacing of the links within the

bc column width joint

be effective joint width which is SI As fyd /(fcd be hc ) the stirrup index

assumed to equal the average STM strut and tie model

width of the beam and column Tb design force in the beam tension

as commonly assumed < 0.85/ reinforcement at the face of the

0.6bb column

db beam effective depth Tsyd Asw fyd design yield capacity of the joint

dc effective depth of the column shear reinforcement within the

fywd design strength of the links top 5/8ths of the beam depth

hc column depth below the tensile beam

hb beam depth reinforcement

Lb distance to the point of Vb shear force in the beam

contraflexure in the beam from Vcol shear force in the column

the column face Vj shear force in the joint

Lc distance between the points of

contraflexure in the upper and

lower columns Introduction

The joint of a beamcolumn assembly sometimes

* Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial Col- limits the strength of a structure, with failures in shear

lege London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

observed in tests and earthquakes even when the mem-

Formerly of the Bolton Institute

bers are adequately designed and the member reinfor-

MACR-D-07-00126. Paper received 12 October 2007; last revised 29 cement is detailed to pass right through the joint.1

January 2008; accepted 2 April 2008 Therefore, the current authors believe that all beam

511

External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2

column joints should be checked for shear. Links Vcol is the design shear force in the column above the

should normally be provided within beamcolumn joint

joints in reinforced concrete structures to restrain the

column bars against buckling. Links may also be occa-

sionally required to increase the joint shear strength. Strut and tie model for external beam

Even if the joint shear strength is not critical, nominal

column joints

links are advisable to increase the ductility of the joint

and to provide crack control. EC23 includes general recommendations on concrete

In practice external beamcolumn joints are seldom strength in strut and tie models which are applicable to

designed unless subject to seismic loading. This is no the design of beamcolumn joints. Fig. 1 shows an

doubt the result of the lack of design guidance in Codes idealised strut and tie model for a beamcolumn joint

of Practice such as British Standard (BS) 81102 and without stirrups in which the stresses in the concrete

Eurocode (EC)2.3 American Concrete Institute (ACI) are assumed to be equal on all faces of the nodes (i.e.

standard ACI 318-054 specifies a minimum area of hydrostatic). The STM is applicable to beamcolumn

stirrups to be provided in external beamcolumn joints joints with aspect ratios hb /hc between 1 and 2. This

but gives no limits on the joint shear stress. More restriction is of no consequence in practice since joints

detailed design guidelines are given by ACI/American with hb /hc , 1 are likely to fail in flexure and joints

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Committee 352.5 with hb /hc . 2 can be designed using the variable truss

The current paper presents a rational strut and tie method given in EC2 since the contribution of the

model for the design of external beamcolumn joints direct strut disappears as hb /hc is increased above 2 to

which is consistent with the recommendations of EC2.3 2.5. The tensile force in the beam reinforcement is

The model is a considerable improvement on Vollum assumed to be transferred into the back of the column

and Newmans6 earlier stut and tie model (STM) for through a rigid plate whereas, in reality, the beam

external beam column joints which dimensioned the reinforcement is usually anchored with an L or U bar.

struts using non-rational calibration factors derived The consequences of this assumption, which simplifies

from back analysis of test data. The method is validated the analysis of the top node, are examined later but are

with test data and is shown to give consistent and safe not believed to be significant providing the beam re-

designs. It is shown that the proposed STM gives sig- inforcement is bent down into the column with an

nificantly better estimates of joint shear strength than adequate radius to avoid bearing failure and it is fully

the design methods given by ACI/ASCE Committee anchored past the beginning of the bend. The joint

3525 and in EC23 for shear in beams. shear strength can be expressed in terms of the node

dimensions in Fig. 1 as follows

Vj be k9 f cd (x y) (2)

General principles

where

The member forces are usually determined from an k9fcd is the concrete design strength given in EC23

elastic analysis of the frame using factored loads. In a which is given by

braced frame, moment redistribution may be used to k9 f cd k(1 f ck =250) f ck =c (3)

reduce the design hogging bending moments in the

beams providing the span bending moments are also c is the material factor of safety for concrete which is

appropriately adjusted. The area of reinforcement re- taken as 1.5 in EC23

quired in the top of the beam should be based on the EC2 gives k 0.6 for concrete struts in cracked

bending moment at the face of the column. It is not compression zones, k 0.85 for compressiontension

good practice, or necessary, to design the beam tension nodes with anchored ties in one direction and k 0.75

steel for the moments at the centre of the column. for compression-tension nodes with anchored ties in

more than one direction. In this paper, k is taken as 0.6

Design shear force within a joint throughout for reasons discussed below and k9 is re-

The shear force within a joint may be calculated placed by 0.6(1fck /250).

from the resultant forces acting on it at the joint bound- The effective joint width, be , is assumed to equal the

aries. For an edge column, this is the design force in average width of the beam and column as commonly

the beam flexural reinforcement minus the column assumed5,7 but < 0.85/0.6bb to limit compressive stresses

shear above the joint. in the beam to 0.85(1fck /250)fck /c as required in EC2.3

Vj Tb Vcol (1) The main difficulty in determining the joint shear

strength is in determining the node dimensions and

where appropriate design concrete strengths at the node bound-

Vj is the shear force in the joint aries. The coefficient k in equation (3) is taken as 0.6 in

Tb is the design force in the beam tension reinforcement the analysis of the STM to limit the stress in the direct

at the face of the column strut to 0.6(1fck /250)fcd in accordance with EC2.3 The

512 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7

Vollum and Parker

N

M

Vcol

Critical section for the design

of the beam reinforcement is

at the face of the column

x

Tb

db 05x db

xc 05hc

hc

Fig. 1. Strut and tie model for external beamcolumn joint without joint stirrups

novel feature of the present authors analysis is that the transferred into the lower node at the face of the col-

joint shear strength is related to the maximum moment umn as shown in Fig. 2. The eccentricity of Vb with

that can develop in the beam at the face of the column, respect to the column centreline gives rise to an out-of-

which is defined in terms of the maximum moment balance moment which is equilibrated by equal and

which can be transferred through the joint into the upper opposite shear forces in the upper and lower columns

and lower columns. In the model presented, the width of equal to 0.5Vb hc /Lc (where Lc is the column length

the node (xc in Fig. 1) is taken as half the column width between the points of contra-flexure). The column

to maximise the moment transferred into the columns shear forces of magnitude 0.5Vb hc /Lc are balanced by

through the concrete at the joint boundaries. It is also horizontal forces, resulting from flexure in the beam, at

assumed that any transfer of vertical force between the the top and bottom of the joint. It follows that the out-

column bars and the direct strut occurs behind the nodes of-balance moment 0.5Vb hc /Lc only introduces vertical

within the column. This assumption is shown to be forces within the joint, which are assumed to act at the

broadly in line with the available test data in the discus- centroid of the column bars as shown in Fig. 2. The

sion of column bar forces later in this paper. It is geometry of the strut and tie model is independent of

assumed for simplicity in the development of the model the axial load in the column since axial equilibrium is

below that the moments in the upper and lower columns maintained by adjusting the forces in the column bars.

are equal at the joint boundaries. It follows that in the This assumption is consistent with the experimental

absence of joint shear reinforcement, the maximum mo- data, which show no consistent relationship between

ment that can be transferred through the joint into the joint shear strength and column axial load.7 The depth

columns above and below the beam is given by of the node, which determines the joint shear strength,

is determined by considering the geometry and equili-

M col 0:125be h2c f cd (4)

brium of the joint.

The shear force in the beam Vb is assumed to be The STM is modified by the presence of joint shear

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7 513

External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2

M

Vcol 05Vbhc/Lc

Cse 025Vbhc/(2dc hc)

05Vbhc/Lc

05yhc/(Lc 05hc)

db 05x

Vb

05yhc/(Lc 05hc)

05Vbhc/Lc

Csi 05Vb(2dc 05hc)/(2dc hc)

05hc

Vcol 05Vbhc/Lc

hc

w

reinforcement as shown in Fig. 3. Theoretically, stirrups

increase joint shear strength in the STM if positioned

within the central zone shown in Fig. 3 between the y

experimental work of Hamil8 and Reys de Ortiz9 sug-

z

gests this is too onerous a restriction and that that

stirrups are effective in increasing joint shear strength Tsyd Stirrup

if positioned between the tensile reinforcement and the zone

db

top of the flexural compressive zone in the beam.

Therefore, joint stirrups are considered to be effective

x

in increasing joint shear strength if placed within the

top 5/8ths of the beam depth below the tensile beam

reinforcement as previously recommended by Vollum y

and Newman.6,7 This assumption is justified in the con- xc

text of the STM as

hc

(a) the stirrup force is transferred into the joint

through the column bars which allow stirrups to be

mobilised even if not within the central region Fig. 3. Strut and tie model of idealised external beam

shown in Fig. 3 column joint with stirrups

514 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7

Vollum and Parker

enhanced by the provision of stirrups within the Analysis to determine joint moment capacity

depth of the radius of the bend in the beam reinfor- If the stirrup force Tsy is known, equation (6) can be

cement. expressed in the form

p

T 0:5(b (b2 4c)) (13)

Joint stirrups increase joint shear capacity in the STM

by increasing the maximum moment that can be trans-

ferred into the columns through the mobilisation of the where

column bars. The depth of the stress block in the beam b 0:5(2d c hc ) f cd be (14)

is assumed to increase proportionately to maintain the

c 0:25T (h z) f b

syd cd e (15)

hydrostatic state of stress in the nodes. Analysis shows

that the predicted joint shear strength is almost insensi-

tive to the position of the centroid of the stirrup force. where

Therefore, it is assumed for simplicity, in equation (5), h d b 0:5x 2 y (16)

that the centroid of the joint stirrups is at the mid-

height of the beam. Joint stirrups increase the moment The maximum moment which can be transferred into

capacity of the column at the top and bottom of the the joint at the beam face Mb is given by

beam by M b 2(M col M)=

M (2d c hc )T (5) (17a)

(1 (1 0:5hc =Lb )(d b 0:5x y)=Lc )

where T (see Fig. 3) is half the vertical force trans- 2(M col M)=(1 (1 0:5hc =Lb )d b =Lc ) (17b)

ferred from the inclined strut into the internal and

external column bars. This assumes a symmetrical joint

where Mcol is given by equation (4), M by equation

in which the column geometry does not change through

(5) and Lc is the distance between the points of contra-

the joint. The force T is given by

flexure in the upper and lower columns. Mb can be

T 0:5Tsyd cot (6) calculated iteratively as follows.

h*z db in equation (15).

Tsyd Asw f yd Step 2: calculate Mcol + M with equations (4) and (5)

respectively.

where Asw is the area of joint shear reinforcement with- Step 3: calculate Mb with equation (17b) in the first

in the top 5/8ths of the beam depth below the tensile iteration and with equation (17a) subsequently.

beam reinforcement and Step 4: calculate the node dimensions x and y with

cot (d b 0:5x 2 y z)=(2d c hc w) (7) equations (8) and (9) respectively in terms of Mb from

step 3.

where Step 5: recalculate T with equation (13) and the cur-

q rent value of h*.

x d b (1 (1 2M b =(be d 2b f cd ))) < 0:5hb (8) Step 6: repeat steps 25 until values of Mb from suc-

y M b (1 0:5hc =Lb )=(Lc be f cd ) (9) cessive iterations converge.

w 2T =(be f cd ) < 0:5hcol (10) Step 1 gives a reasonably accurate estimate of the joint

moment capacity unless the joint is heavily reinforced

z Tsyd =(be f cd ) (11)

in shear.

where Lc is the distance between the points of contra- Design procedure for beamcolumn joints

flexure in the upper and lower columns, Lb is the Design joint shear reinforcement is required if

distance to the point of contraflexure in the beam from

the column face and Mb is the moment in the beam at M design 0:5M b design (1 (1 0:5hc =Lb )d b =Lc )

the column face. In accordance with clause 6.2.3 (8) of

EC23 (which is concerned with the shear strength of 0:125be h2c f cd be > 0

beams with concentrated loads close to supports), the (18)

maximum permissible joint shear force is limited to

Vjdmax < 0:45 f cd bc d c =m (12) where Mdesign is the required increment in column

moment capacity and Mbdesign is the design moment in

where bc is the full width of the column through the the beam at the column face. The required increment in

joint and d c is the effective depth of the column within column bar force T is found by equating Mdesign to

the joint. M which is defined in terms of T in equation (5).

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7 515

External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2

The design joint stirrup force can be calculated with Details of the additional five specimens (C4PLN0,

equation (6), which relates the stirrup force to T and C7LN0, C7LN1, C7LN3 and C7LN5) are given by

cot. Substituting into equation (6) for cot from equa- Hamil.8 The geometry of Hamils8 C4 and C7 series

tion (7) and rearranging gives of specimens, which was identical with that of

q Scotts11 C4 and C7 series, is also given in Table 1 of

Tsyd 0 5(b (b2 4c))

: (19) Vollum and Newman.7 The notation N0, N1 and so on

defines the number of joint stirrups provided over the

where full depth of the beam. The joint aspect ratio hb /hc

was 1.4 in the C4 series and 2 in the C7 series. The

b h f cd be (20)

partial material factors of safety for steel and concrete

c 2M design (2d c hc w) f cd be =(2d c hc ) (21) were taken as 1 throughout. Experimental joint shear

strengths were calculated for the test specimens from

where w and h* can be calculated directly with equa- reinforcement bar forces derived with a parabolic

tions (10) and (16) respectively. stress block.

It is assumed in equation (18) that the distances to Theoretical failure loads were calculated for all the

the points of contra-flexure in the upper and lower specimens in the data base using the authors STM, the

columns from the centreline of the beam are equal and recommendations of ACI/ASCE Committee 352,5 the

that the axial force in the beam is zero. If this is not empirical design method of Vollum and Newman,7 the

the case, the maximum column moment at the top or minimum energy model of Parker and Bullman12 and

bottom of the beam should not exceed Mcol + M the design methods for shear given in EC23 for beams

where Mcol and M are given by equations (4) and (5) with and without stirrups. Theoretical joint shear

respectively. This can be achieved by replacing Lc by strengths were calculated for specimens without joint

2Lc * where Lc * is the minimum distance to the point of shear reinforcement using equation 6.2(a) in EC23 with

contraflexure in upper or lower column from the col- a material factor of safety of 1 for concrete. The joint

umn centreline. shear strength was increased by a factor 2d/av (where

If the design joint shear force exceeds Vjdmax (see d dc and av 0.8db ) in accordance with clause 6.2.2

equation (12)), it can be reduced by moment redistribu- (6) in EC2. Joint shear strengths were calculated for

tion. Alternatively, the column size or the concrete specimens with joint shear reinforcement using the

strength can be increased. variable strut inclination method (VSI) in EC2 (equa-

tions (6.8) and (6.9)) with the largest permissible value

Vertical equilibrium of cot. The stirrup spacing was defined as s 0.9db /n

The design tensile force in the internal column bars where n is the number of stirrups in the column within

immediately above the joint (see Fig. 2) is given by the depth of the beam. The effective width of the joint

was taken as the column width in all the analyses with

Tsi 0:5(N 0:5be hc f cd )

(22) EC2.

0:25Vb hc =(2d c hc ) T A statistical analysis of all the results is presented

in Table 1, which compares the predictions of the

where T is found by rearranging equation (5), N is the current authors STM with the predictions of ACI/

compressive force (positive) in the upper column and ASCE Committee 352,5 EC23 and the earlier models

Vb is the shear force in the beam. of Parker and Bullman12 and Vollum and Newman.7

All the models, tend on average to overestimate the

strength of Parker and Bullmans12 specimens 4b to 4f,

Comparison with test data and other which failed at comparatively low joint shear for-

ces,6,7,14 probably influenced by the high bearing stres-

design methods

ses inside the bends. Separate statistical analyses are

The current authors STM was validated with a data given in Table 1 for joints with joint stirrups and in

base of 38 beamcolumn joint specimens,3 that are Table 1 for joints without shear reinforcement exclud-

believed to have failed in joint shear, tested by Ortiz,9 ing the specimens of Parker and Bullman,12 which

Taylor,10 Scott,11 Hamil,8 Parker and Bullman12 and failed at comparatively low joint shear strengths. Table

Kordina13 in which the beam reinforcement was an- 1 shows that the accuracy of the STM proposed in the

chored with L bars. All the specimens were similar in present paper is better than the authors previous sim-

geometry to Fig. 1. Specimens with U bars were ple models7,10 and considerably superior to the recom-

omitted from the data base since previous research7 mendations of EC23 for shear in beams and the

indicated that their joint shear strength was around recommendations of ACI/ASCE Committee 352.5 The

20% less than that of similar specimens with L bars. most significant feature of the STM proposed in this

Twenty six of the specimens were reinforced with joint paper is that it was derived from first principals using

stirrups. Details of all the specimens except five tested the recommendations for strut and tie models given in

by Hamil8 are given in Table 1 of Vollum et al.7 EC2.3

516 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7

Vollum and Parker

Newman 7 Bullman 12 352 5

SD* 0.13 0.26 0.16 0.41 0.21

COVy 0.14 0.26 0.20 0.36 0.40

Bullman 12 352 5

SD 0.08 0.17 0.12 0.19 0.24

COV 0.08 0.19 0.15 0.20 0.46

Newman 7 Bullman 11 352 5

SD 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.12

COV 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.10 0.27

*Standard deviation

Coefficient of variation

Discussion 140

120

Treatment of nodes

100

The most questionable assumption in the STM is the

Ppred/Ptest

080

treatment of the top node where the tensile force in the

060

beam reinforcement is treated as if it were transferred

Reys de Ortiz9 Taylor10

into the rear face of the column through a rigid plate. 040

Parker and Bullman12 Scott11 and Hamil8

Despite this Table 1 shows that the STM gives reason- 020

able predictions of joint shear strength. Hamils8 speci- 000

mens C4PLN0 and C4ALN0 are particularly interesting 040 050 060 070 080

Influence of bend radius: (dc R)/hc

in this regard. Both specimens were notionally identical

except the beam reinforcement was anchored with a Fig. 4. Influence of radius of bend on accuracy of predicted

plate bearing onto the back face of the column in speci- failure loads given by STM

men C4PLN0 as assumed in the STM. Specimen

C4PLN0 in which the reinforcement was anchored with

a plate failed at a load 20% greater than specimen Analysis of the test data showed that the width of the

C4ALN0. The ratio of the measured and predicted fail- indirect strut (i.e. for joints with stirrups) can be under-

ure loads was 0.75 for C4PLN0 and 0.89 for C4ALN0. estimated at the column reinforcement if the limiting

It appears that adopting a relatively low concrete design concrete strength is assumed to be 0.6(1fck /250)fcd on

strength of 0.6(1fck /250)fcd compensates for the poor the vertical node boundaries. In these cases, the geome-

anchorage of the beam reinforcement at the top node. try of the STM is improved within the joint by increasing

The influence of the radius of the bend on the joint the limiting stress on the vertical node boundaries to

shear strength was assessed by plotting the ratio of the 0.85(1fck /250)fcd in which case the stress distribution

straight length of reinforcement between the column within the nodes is no longer hydrostatic. In practice, this

face and the start of the bend to the column depth. The refinement is unnecessary if the joint shear strength is

results are shown in Fig. 4, which does not show any limited by equation (12) since increasing the permissible

evidence that the joint shear is influenced by the ratio stress on the vertical node boundaries from 0.6(1fck /

of the radius of the bend to the column depth provided 250)fcd to 0.85(1fck /250)fcd has almost no effect on the

bearing failure does not occur as may have been the predicted failure load. Therefore, it is proposed that k is

case in the specimens of Parker and Bullman.12 taken as 0.6 throughout in equation (3).

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7 517

External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2

Vertical equilibrium joint shear strength which are the stirrup index

A comparison was made between the measured and SI Asw fy /(be hc fck ), the concrete strength and the joint

predicted tensile forces in the internal column bars aspect ratio hb /hc . The STM is shown to give realistic

immediately above the joint for the test data of Ortiz,9 and consistent predictions of joint strength in Figs 79

Scott11 and Hamil.8 The measured forces were derived in which the ratio Ppred /Ptest is plotted against

from strain measurements at or near joint failure.

Analysis showed that the measured tensile strains in the (a) the stirrup index SI,

internal column bars above the joint were significantly (b) the concrete strength and

greater than predicted assuming plane sections remain (c) the joint aspect ratio.

plane. Figs 5 and 6 show that the proposed STM gives

more realistic predictions of the tensile forces in the The specimens of Parker and Bullman12 which failed

column bars above the joint, which are critical for de- in flexure in the upper column are included in Fig. 7 to

sign, than flexural analysis assuming plane sections demonstrate the adequacy of equation (22) for calculat-

remain plane. The STM does not provide any informa- ing Tsi. Fig. 10 shows that the STM gives good predic-

tion on the compressive forces in the column bars at tions of the influence of stirrups on the shear force

the nodes since the distribution of compressive force carried by the direct strut in the tests of Scott11 and

between the concrete and the reinforcement is indeter- 140

minate. However, the good correspondence between the 120

measured and predicted tensile forces supports the as-

100

sumption that no vertical force is transferred into the

Ppred/Ptest

080

direct strut from the column bars within the joint depth.

060

Parker and Bullman12 Scott11 and Hamil8 hb/hc 14

The STM has been examined for consistency by 020 Scott11 and Hamil8 hb/hc 2

plotting the ratio of the measured and predicted failure 000

000 005 010 015 020 025 030

12 Stirrup index SI

failure loads given by STM

08

Tsi plane/Tsimeas

120

06

100

04

080

Ppred/Ptest

Reys de Ortiz9

02 060

Scott11 and Hamil8

00 040

Reys de Ortiz9

000 005 010 015 020 Taylor10

020

N/bchcfc Scott11 and Hamil8 hb/hc 14

000

Fig 5. Comparison between measured column bar forces and 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

forces calculated assuming plane sections remain plane Concrete strength: MPa

16 predicted failure loads given by STM

14

12 140

10 120

Tsipred/Tsimeas

100

08

Ppred/Ptest

080

06

060

04 Reys de Ortiz9 040 Reys de Ortiz9 Taylor10

02 Scott11 and Hamil8 020 12

Parker and Bullman Scott11 and Hamil8

00 000

000 005 010 015 020 025 030 100 120 140 160 180 200

N/bchcfc Joint aspect ratio hb/hc

Fig 6. Comparison between measured column bar forces and Fig. 9. Influence of joint aspect ratio on accuracy of

forces calculated with STM predicted failure loads given by STM

518 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7

Vollum and Parker

030 120

025 100

(Vj Tsy)/(behcfck)

080

Ppred/Ptest

020

Test

060

STM

015

040 Reys de Ortiz9 Taylor10

010 Parker and Bullman12 Scott11 and Hamil8 hb/hc 14

020

Scott11 and Hamil8 hb/hc 2

005 000

000 005 010 015 020 025 030

000 Stirrup index SI

000 002 004 006 008 010 012 014 016

Stirrup index SI Fig. 11. Comparison of measured and design failure loads

given by STM

Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and predicted contributions

of direct strut for STM for specimens tested by Scott 11 and

Hamil 8

Influence of transverse beams

Hamil,8 which were typical. It is concluded that the None of the specimens analysed in this paper had

STM provides a good description of the mechanics of transverse beams. Many tests have been carried out on

the joint in addition to giving reasonable estimates of cyclically loaded joints which indicate that joint shear

joint strength. strength is increased by the presence of transverse edge

beams framing into each side of the joint. This effect is

included in the design recommendations of ACI/ASCE

Committee 3525 which increases the strength by 4/3 if

Safety of STM for design of beam transverse beams are present. Research15 shows that the

column joints potential increase in joint strength owing to transverse

beams depends on the beam cross-sectional area, area

The analysis of the test data was repeated, for the of longitudinal reinforcement and loading. The increase

specimens that failed in joint shear, with the STM, the in joint shear strength arises through the combined

method of Parker and Bullman12 and EC23 methods effects of torsion and confinement of the concrete with-

with material factors of safety of 1.5 for concrete and in the joint zone. The current authors believe that the

1.15 for reinforcement. A statistical analysis of the effect of torsion is likely to be most significant in

results is given in Table 2 for all the specimens and for monotonically loaded joints where limited lateral ex-

specimens with joint shear reinforcement. The ratio pansion arises within the joint at failure. Vollum and

Pdesign /Ptest is plotted against the stirrup index SI in Fig. Newman16 carried out some tests on beamcolumn

11 for all the specimens including those of Parker and connections in which one of the beams was eccentric to

Bullman,12 which failed in flexure within the column the column. These tests showed that a lower bound to

or beam. It can be seen that the authors STM safely the maximum torque that can be transferred into the

predicts the failure load of all the specimens with an joint is given by

adequate factor of safety. The factor of safety is less

2 f cd AAk

for specimens that fail in flexure since their strength is Tmax (23)

less dependent on the concrete strength. U (cot tan )

where A is the cross-sectional area of the transverse

beam, U is its perimeter and Ak is the area enclosed

Table 2. Statistical analysis of design strengths within the centreline of an equivalent thin walled tube

with wall thickness t A/U and cot 1. The reduc-

For all specimens

tion in torsional strength owing to shear can be esti-

Vjpred /Vjtest STM Parker and Bullman 12 EC2 3 mated using the linear interaction equation in EC2.

Torsion is transferred into the side face of the joint due

Mean 0.71 0.60 0.43 to horizontal and vertical couples. It seems reasonable

SD 0.12 0.12 0.16 to assume that the maximum moment that can be

COV 0.17 0.20 0.37

transferred into the joint is increased by the couple

For all specimens with stirrups corresponding to the vertical forces. It is follows that

the maximum possible factor C by which the moment

Vjdesign /Vjtest STM Parker and Bullman 12 EC2 3 capacity of the joint can be increased by beams framing

into each side of the joint is given by

Mean 0.71 0.58 0.43

SD 0.09 0.09 0.17 C 1 (1 V =Vmax )Tmax =M b (24)

COV 0.13 0.16 0.39

where Mb is given by equation (17), V is the shear force

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7 519

External beamcolumn joints: design to Eurocode 2

Case study

possible shear capacity given by EC2.3 The same value

of cot is used to calculate Vmax and Tmax. A series of parametric studies were carried out to

Equation (24) was evaluated for all the test speci- illustrate the impact of the proposed design recommen-

mens with L bars assuming cot was the maximum dations on the design of the framed structure shown in

permissible value of 2.5 and V/Vmax was equal to 0.5. Fig. 12, which is considered an onerous case. The

All the beams framing into the column were assumed structure consists of a one-way spanning slab supported

to have the same depth and the width of the transverse on beams. The spans of the slab and beams were taken

beam was assumed to be the same as the column. The as 9 m and 8 m respectively. The design imposed load

value of C varied between 1.32 and 1.49, which is of was taken as 4 kN/m2 . The slab thickness was taken as

the same order as allowed by ACI/ASCE Committee 275 mm, which is the minimum permissible thickness

352.5 The area of longitudinal reinforcement in the allowed by the EC23 span-to-depth rules with grade 30

transverse beam should be increased for torsion as concrete and 50% surplus flexural reinforcement in the

described in EC2.3 Advantage can be taken of reinfor- span to control deflection. The beam was assumed to

cement already provided in the slab within the width of be 600 mm wide and its depth was chosen to be the

the effective flange defined in EC2.3 minimum possible for a continuous beam over simple

supports assuming either 0, 0.5% or 1.38% compres-

sion reinforcement at the first internal support. The

resulting beam depths were 685, 582 and 484 mm re-

Detailing spectively. The 484 mm deep beam just satisfies the

span-to-depth rules in EC2 without the need for surplus

In practice, the moment transferred into the joint at

flexural reinforcement to control deflections. The inter-

the column face is frequently less than that given by

nal columns were assumed to be 600 mm square. The

equation (17) with M 0 and minimum joint stirrups

external columns were taken as 600 mm wide and their

are sufficient. Occasionally, it will be necessary to

depth hc was varied between 200 and 600 mm.

design shear reinforcement to increase the joint shear

The design joint shear force was calculated at joint

strength. The design stirrups required in the joint region

A (see Fig. 12) for external column depths between

should be provided between the beam tensile reinforce-

200 mm and 600 mm. The required areas of joint shear

ment and the top of the flexural compression zone in

reinforcement were found with equation (19) using

the beam which can be assumed to equal 3/8ths of the

material factors of safety of 1.5 for concrete and 1.15

beam depth. It is suggested12 that when the design joint

for reinforcement as in EC2.3 No increases were made

shear force exceeds 2/3 of Vjdmax from equation (12),

to the joint shear strengths to take account of the

the link spacing should not exceed 0.3dc . It is recom-

presence of transverse beams. The resulting stirrup

mended that a minimum area of joint shear reinforce-

indices SI are plotted against the corresponding column

ment should be provided in all external beam column

depths in Fig. 13. Only minimum joint stirrups are

joints as recommended in ACI 318-05.4 It is suggested

required for the 685 mm deep beam which is the shal-

that the area of reinforcement should be taken as the

lowest permissible beam without compression reinfor-

minimum area of shear reinforcement required in

cement at the first internal support. It can be seen that

beams in EC2,3 which equals

the required joint stirrup index SI increases signifi-

cantly as the beam depth is reduced by the provision of

:

Asw =(bc s) 0:08 f 0ck5 = f yk (25) compression reinforcement at the internal supports. Re-

sults are presented for the 484 mm deep beam even

In practice, it can be physically difficult to position though the maximum joint shear strength given by

stirrups within the depth of the joint. A more practical equation (12) was generally exceeded. Fig. 14 shows

alternative for monotonically loaded joints is to use that the demand for joint shear reinforcement is re-

horizontal U bars anchored in the beam instead of

stirrups for joint shear reinforcement.

The beam reinforcement should be bent down into

the column with an adequate radius to avoid bearing

failure and should be fully anchored in the column past

Direction of span of slab

the beginning of the bend. In practice, it is often more 3 9 27 m

convenient to anchor the beam reinforcement with U

bars rather than L bars. Vollum and Newman7 pre- Joint A 275 mm slab

viously found that the joint shear strength of specimens

with U bars was around 20% less than that of speci-

mens with L bars probably owing to the U bars having (5 equal spans of 8 m)

an inadequate lap with the column bars in the tests

considered. Fig. 12. Floor plate considered in case study

520 Magazine of Concrete Research, 2008, 60, No. 7

Vollum and Parker

050 SI req hb 685 mm moment redistribution, unless beam depths are particu-

SI req hb 582 mm

SI req hb 484 mm

larly shallow due to the provision of compression re-

040

inforcement. It is also shown that premature flexural

SI Tsyd/(behcfcd)

Min SI hb 685 mm

030 Min SI hb 582 mm failure can occur in the column above the joint in

Min SI hb 484 mm lightly loaded columns unless the flexural reinforce-

020 ment is designed as described in the paper.

010

References

000

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 1. Park R. and Paulay T. Reinforced Concrete Structures. Wiley,

hcol: mm New York, 1975.

2. British Standards Institution. BS 8110. Part 1:1997: Struc-

Fig. 13. Required joint shear stirrups with no moment

tural use of concrete: Code of practice for design and construc-

redistribution tion. BSI, London, 2005.

3. British Standards Institution. BS EN 1992-1-1:2004. Euro-

code 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules

020

SI req hb 685 mm and rules for buildings. BSI, London, 2004.

4. American Concrete Institute. ACI 318-5. Building Code

SI req hb 582 mm

016 Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. ACI,

SI req hb 484 mm

SI Tsyd/(behcfcd)

Min SI hb 685 mm

012 5. ACI-ASCE Committee 352R-91. Recommendations for the De-

Min SI hb 582 mm sign of Beamcolumn Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete

Min SI hb 484 mm Structures. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1998. ACI

008

Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 3.

6. Vollum R. L. and Newman J. B. Strut and tie models for the

004 analysis/design of external beam column joints. Magazine of

Concrete Research, 1999, 51, No. 6, 415425.

000 7. Vollum R. L and Newman J. B. The design of external

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. The Structural Engi-

hcol: mm neer, 1999, 77, Nos 23 and 24, 2127.

8. Hamil S. J. Reinforced Concrete Beamcolumn Connection Be-

Fig. 14. Required joint shear stirrups with 20% moment haviour. PhD Thesis, University of Durham, 2000.

redistribution at external column 9. Reys de Ortiz I. Strut and Tie Modelling of Reinforced Con-

crete Short Beams and Beamcolumn Joints. PhD Thesis, Uni-

versity of Westminster, 1993.

10. Taylor H. P. J. The Behaviour of insitu Concrete Beamcolumn

duced significantly if the design bending moments Joints. Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs,

1974, Technical Report 42.492.

are redistributed by 20% at the face of the external 11. Scott R. H. The effects of detailing on RC beam/column

column. connection behaviour. The Structural Engineer, 1992, 70, No.

18, 318324.

12. Parker D. E. and Bullman P. J. M. Shear strength within

reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. The Structural Engi-

Conclusions neer, 1997, 75, No. 4, 5357.

13. Kordina K. Bewehrungsfuhrung in Ecken und Rahmenendkno-

An improved STM is presented for the design of ten. Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Berlin, Germany,

external beamcolumn joints, which is shown to give 1984, Part 354, 93pp.

better predictions of joint shear strength than existing 14. Bakir P. G. and Boduroglu H. M. Nonlinear analysis of

simple design methods. The most significant aspect of beamcolumn joints using softened truss model. Mechanics

Research Communications, 2006, 33, No. 2, 134147.

the model is that it was developed from first principles 15. Eshani M. R. and Wight J. K. Effect of transverse beams and

using the design guidance given in EC23 for STM. The slab on behaviour of reinforced concrete beam-to-column con-

novel feature of the analysis presented is that the joint nections. ACI Structural Journal, 1985, 82, MarchApril, 188

shear strength is limited by the maximum moment that 195.

can be transferred through the joint into the upper and 16. Vollum R. L. and Newman J. B. Towards the design of

eccentric beamcolumn joints. Magazine of Concrete Research,

lower columns. The STM is shown to predict many of 1999, 51, No. 6, 397407.

the trends in behavior observed in laboratory tests. It is

shown that minimum joint shear reinforcement will

often be all that is required in framed structures, parti- Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by

cularly if the design joint shear force is reduced by 1 March 2009

- ACI-318-02Diunggah olehsoroware
- IS code 13920Diunggah olehruhul72
- CFD-ACI-318-11Diunggah olehVan Du
- External Beam–Column Joint-Design to Eurocode 2Diunggah olehjs kalyana rama
- Researchpaper Novel Flowchart for Design of Concrete Rectangular BeamsDiunggah olehmorphie_black
- CFD-ACI-318-02Diunggah olehFranco Quispe
- CFD-ACI-318-08Diunggah olehAbu Vulkanik Al-Jawiy
- Reinforced_Concrete_Deep_Beams.pdfDiunggah olehRommel Hidalgo Diaz
- CFD-ACI-318-14Diunggah olehMuhammad Rizwan
- CFD-TS-500-2000Diunggah olehHüseyin Özalp
- EC Geotechnical AspectsDiunggah olehAnonymous AV90SAXa5V
- CFD-ACI-318-02.pdfDiunggah olehVishnu Pothuru
- CFD-EC-2-2004.pdfDiunggah olehmkhn2011
- CFD-EC-2-2004Diunggah olehBishowkumar Shrestha
- Chapter 2 - SHEAR DESIGN SP-17 - 09-07.pdfDiunggah olehYel DG
- CFD-ACI-318-11Diunggah olehLy Piseth
- Ext_09584Diunggah olehchirag mulchandani
- Design of Compression Member BSDiunggah olehVeenoy
- 14191_2.pdfDiunggah olehlazem.360
- CH7 SHEAR－Reinforced Concrete Structures by R. Park & T.paulayDiunggah olehbeitw
- CFD-ACI-318-08.pdfDiunggah olehMarcelo Vargas Flores
- 3 Flexural Design 1Diunggah olehbrayan
- BantonDiunggah olehAlexandre Gomes
- Primera ParteDiunggah olehF̳̿r̳̿a̳̿n̳̿c̳̿k̳̿ S̳̿o̳̿d̳̿e̳̿r̳̿ Q̳̿u̳̿i̳̿s̳̿p̳̿e̳̿
- 98Diunggah olehHuda Jawad
- Design of Timber BeamsDiunggah olehPaula Ho
- CIB8138.pdfDiunggah olehChee Fong Make
- DiscussionsDiunggah olehg_jathu
- Mat Chapter 31Diunggah olehhemant_durgawale
- D198Diunggah olehAnonymous 4GNAkbVRT

- PT EUrocodeDiunggah olehKilaru Hareesh
- ETABS-Example-RC Building Seismic Load _Time HistoryDiunggah olehMauricio_Vera_5259
- 4 - Beam on Continuous Column.pdfDiunggah olehundf25
- ECM CalcsDiunggah olehundf25
- Pile Cap Design Guide - Part 1Diunggah olehZafar
- EOTA TR29 Design of Bonded AnchorsDiunggah olehl282
- 275138653-07-Cp4-vs-Ec7-Dr-t-g-Ng (2).pdfDiunggah olehgks6043
- RaptHelp.pdfDiunggah olehtotololomomo
- EC8 Seismic Design of Buildings - Worked examplesDiunggah olehMarco Fasan
- ijsrp-p0880Diunggah olehSeifeldin Ali Marzouk
- Structural Stability of Hollow Sections-J.RondalDiunggah olehundf25
- Triaxial Tests on SandDiunggah olehKrusovice15
- Calculation Op Ofc (Wind)Diunggah olehundf25
- 45 Degree Cone MethodDiunggah olehundf25
- Handbook to BC1 2012Diunggah olehundf25
- Euro Code ListDiunggah olehvinothsubbuarj
- Pile Cap Design Guide - TMDiunggah olehundf25
- How to Design Concrete Structures Using Eurocode 2Diunggah olehundf25
- 06 Eurocodes Steel Workshop WALDDiunggah olehIonut Sava
- Design of Pile Foundations Following Eurocode 7Diunggah oleh정진교
- Pres 230Diunggah olehRunner09
- STRAP EurocodeDiunggah olehundf25
- Strap Codes EuDiunggah olehundf25
- Pile Settlement - EnCE 4610Diunggah olehundf25
- piled raft foundationDiunggah olehundf25
- 012011 Jan11 Direct Analysis WebDiunggah olehjfonfria
- Ram SBeamDiunggah olehundf25

- Varahamihira_ Aprakash GrahaDiunggah olehAnonymous W7lVR9qs25
- City Multi Branch JointDiunggah olehDaniel Lucas Djasibani
- NTA Introduction2004Diunggah olehDipendra Ghimire
- OFW11 BC TrainingDiunggah olehPatricio Pedreira
- Deviance and Group CohesionDiunggah olehMarcadeagua Bijuteria Artesanal
- intertuf_262-kh_series-kha062.pdfDiunggah olehERIC RICKS
- bergmann.pptDiunggah olehSurendhartc
- VDA Volume Field Failure AnalysisDiunggah olehchongsa
- Nsk Cat e728g 7Diunggah olehAnuj Jha
- Arts1240 - NatureDiunggah olehJoanne
- Calibration ModuleDiunggah olehRajesh Barkur
- Utilization of Pulverized Plastic in Cement Concrete as Fine AggregateDiunggah olehesatjournals
- Master Workshop - Construction Claims & Forensic Delay Analysis - BrochureDiunggah olehAjay Dev
- MP3398A_r1.05 Driver Les Board Flaco BellohorizonteDiunggah olehAndres Alegria
- ECE Board Exam Results April 2010Diunggah olehMack Darrel Bacuyag
- CMP Controls Catalogue 2014Diunggah olehJohn Evangelista
- 156387756 Change Management Research Paper (1)Diunggah olehAnonymous K0K0FIZ
- 242040113-Richard-Dawkins.pdfDiunggah olehpradoderosas
- Ash Taka Varga Part 40 rDiunggah olehArjunvanneri Ashok
- Steve and JohnDiunggah olehThameemul Buhari
- Canon PC 330 E16 E31 Toner Summit WebDiunggah olehpudgi300
- CA-Scheduler® Online GuideDiunggah olehHimanshu Kakar
- Shiv Nadar the Role ModelDiunggah olehkhushi_thacker
- Gprs PosterDiunggah olehmathcuei
- Decision MakingDiunggah olehdeepajd
- SurfaceDiunggah olehMuhammad Irfan Siregar
- Design.language.apdlDiunggah olehpaaablo_o
- Reology and TemperatureDiunggah olehazeazeaze
- ASTM A29 Standard Specification Steel Bars Carbon and Alloy Hot Wrought General RequirementsDiunggah olehAndres Molina
- Field Equations in the Complex Quaternion SpacesDiunggah oleheresek