Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Due to the difference in loading point, experimental researches on seismic behavior of beam-column joint can be
Beam-column joint generally divided into two types, namely loading at beam ends (BL method) and loading at column top end (CL
Loading method method). This paper presents an experimental investigation aimed at comparing the cyclic behavior of interior
Joint shear strength beam-column joints with different loading methods. Four groups of full-scale interior beam-column sub-
Longitudinal bar-slip
assemblages were tested under reversed cyclic loading. Two identical specimens were tested under two different
Joint shear deformation
loading methods in each group. On the basis of the experimental results, the paper discusses the distinctions of
cyclic behaviors under different loading methods in terms of crack pattern, joint shear strength, joint shear
transfer mechanism, joint shear deformation, longitudinal bar-slip, energy dissipation, and stiffness degradation.
In addition, a numerical simulation of these four groups of specimens is shown and discussed. The experimental
results and numerical analyses confirm that the loading method can have certain influence on the cyclic behavior
of the beam-column joints. The joint shear strength, joint shear deformation and longitudinal beam bar slip of
beam-ends loading specimens (BL specimens) are considerably larger than that of column-end loading specimens
(CL specimens), although the loading protocol used for CL method is more severe than BL method in terms of
number of loading cycles. In consequence, the influence of loading method should be considered when the
seismic behavior of the beam-column joint is evaluated according to a great number of existing beam-column
joint tests.
1. Introduction required in the joint region to sustain the joint strength. The diagonal
compression strut primarily depends on the compression stresses acting
Post-earthquake inspections indicate that the severe damage or on the concrete of beam and column critical sections and the concrete
failure of beam-column joints can result in excessive drift or global strength of strut. In this case, the requirement of joint transverse re-
collapse of the structure [1–3]. Under cyclic loading, high shear stress is inforcement reduces to just an amount required to confine the concrete
concentrated in the beam-column joint region. Significant bond slip and properly. Different crack patterns can be observed under different
strength degradation occur when the yielding of longitudinal bars of the transfer mechanisms [5–12].
beam penetrates into joint region and diagonal cracking develops. Bond A number of research teams in different parts of the world have
slip failure or shear failure of joint are considered undesirable as they studied the behavior of beam-column joints in order to improve its
lead to strength degradation and stiffness degradation of the RC frame response to seismic loads. In the experimental programs, cyclic loads of
[4]. Thus, joint shear deformation and bar slip deformation are con- the experiments can be introduced in two methods: loading on the
sidered as crucial parts in experimental research. column-end (CL method) or loading on the beam-ends (BL method), as
It is essential that beam-column joint can effectively transmit the shown in Fig. 1. Some research teams applied the cyclic loads by CL
necessary shear forces through joint region. The joint shear force can be method [6,9,10,12–14]. The deflected shape of the subassemblage
transferred across the joint by a combination of two mechanisms, under CL method is similar to the deflected shape of a subassemblage in
namely strut mechanism and truss mechanism [4–7]. The truss counts planar frame under earthquake motion, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The
on the forces transferred by bond of longitudinal bars, the horizontal cyclic loading applied at the column end was generally displacement-
transverse steel and the vertical column reinforcement to maintain the controlled with the increasing of story drift ratio [12–14]. However, it
truss action, so that a large amount of transverse reinforcement is is slightly difficult to control the boundary condition in this method.
⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing Univ., Chongqing 400044, China.
E-mail addresses: yangh@cqu.edu.cn (H. Yang), wentong21@163.com (W. Zhao), clocknine@sina.cn (Z. Zhu), fjp@cqu.edu.cn (J. Fu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.022
Received 17 October 2017; Received in revised form 10 March 2018; Accepted 11 March 2018
Available online 28 March 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
Thus, the other research teams applied cyclic loads by BL method evaluated. This study contributes to combine a large number of existing
[8,11,15–20]. The cyclic loading applied at the beam ends was gen- test results of BL specimens and CL specimens to make a comprehensive
erally load-controlled at first and displacement-controlled subsequently evaluation of the beam-column joint seismic behavior considering the
with the increasing of displacement ductility factor [8,11,15–18]. This effects of loading methods.
method is more complicated due to the requirement of two coordinated
actuators (Fig. 1(b)), but the boundary condition is easier to control. A 2. Test program
significant number of experimental studies have been performed on
beam-column subassemblages by different loading methods, but it was 2.1. Specimen and design parameter
evaluated together without dividing the loading methods, which may
lead to the misjudgment of the seismic behavior [21–23]. A total of eight specimens including four CL specimens (named CL-
The main objective of this research is to compare the difference in n, n = 1, 2, 3, 4) and four BL specimens (named BL-n, n = 1, 2, 3, 4)
the seismic behavior between the identical specimens with two loading were divided into four groups (Group-n included CL-n and BL-n). Two
methods, and to quantitatively evaluate their difference. Four groups of specimens in each group were designed with the same dimensional size
full-scale RC interior beam-column subassemblages were designed, and reinforcement details, but loads were applied in different ways. The
constructed and tested to compare the seismic behavior of the joint. specimens were designed based on the strong column-weak beam re-
There were two identical specimens (same geometry and design details) quirement and detailed requirements of Chinese Code [24]. The joint
in each group, one loaded by CL method and the other one loaded by BL transverse reinforcements were close to the lower limit value calculated
method to allow a performance comparison to be established. The according to the Chinese Code [24]. Fig. 2 shows the geometry, di-
conventional drift ratio based loading protocol and the conventional mensions, and reinforcement details of each group of specimens.
displacement ductility based loading protocol were used for CL and BL
specimens respectively, in order to keep consistent with the loading
2.2. Material specifications
protocols of these two kinds of loading methods previously used by
other researchers [11,13–17]. The investigation was focused on com-
The concrete compressive strength of all the specimens at the time
paring the difference of crack pattern, joint shear strength, joint shear
of testing is presented in Table 1, and the yield strength of the re-
transfer mechanism, joint shear deformation, longitudinal bar-slip,
inforcements is presented in Table 2. The specimens of different group
energy dissipation, and stiffness degradation, with the tested data
were prepared separately, and two specimens in the same group were
processed using the formulations extensively used by other research
tested in different days, thus, there were differences in the strength of
groups. Then, the four groups of specimens were simulated satisfacto-
reinforcements and concrete.
rily using non-linear finite element analysis, and the difference in the
simulated behavior between two loading methods was compared.
There are a large number of existing beam-column subassemblages 2.3. Test setup, instrumentation and loading sequence
experimental results that were tested using different loading methods.
Therefore, they should not be analyzed together before the effects of The loading apparatuses of two loading methods are shown in
loading method on the seismic behavior of beam-column sub- Fig. 3(a) and (b). A constant axial load was applied to the column of
assemblages are investigated thoroughly. The target of this study is to both CL and BL specimens through an actuator at the column top, which
compare the difference of the test results under two loading methods was maintained constant during the tests. The axial load ratio of Group
using their conventional loading protocol, but not to study how to I, II, III and IV are 0.25, 0.3, 0.25 and 0.25, respectively. For CL spe-
change the loading protocol of this two loading methods to obtain the cimens, the bottom of the column was hinge support, and both ends of
identical test results. Based on the research results of this paper, it is beams were roller supports. Loads applied at the top end of the column
clarified that loading methods affect the seismic behavior of beam- was measured with a load cell attached in series with an actuator that
column joint to different degrees, and the difference was quantitatively applied reversed cyclic lateral load, as shown in Fig. 3(a). The full
specimen under CL method in laboratory is shown in Fig. 3(c). The test
32
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
33
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
concrete cover spalling. the end of loading whiles some did not yield.
For the CL specimens, the diagonal cracks in the joint core surfaces For the BL specimens, the diagonal cracks in the joint region pro-
were first observed at a drift ratio (DR) of 0.75% and developed pagated rapidly. The top beam reinforcement at the west side of the
stronger and wider with the loading cycles repeated. The first yield of joint and the bottom beam reinforcement at the east side of the joint
the bottom beam reinforcement was developed at a DR close to 1.35%. yielded simultaneously at a displacement ductility factor μ = 1. The top
As the lateral drift increased, the lateral load resistance of the specimen beam reinforcement at the east side of the joint and the bottom beam
increased until reaching a peak load at an average DR of 2%. reinforcement at the west side of the joint yielded simultaneously at a
Subsequently, the joint core began to crush and spall off. displacement ductility factor μ = −1. Diagonal cracks densely and
Simultaneously, the CL specimens experienced strength and stiffness uniformly distributed in the whole joint core at this stage. Concrete
degradation as a result of the bond degradation of longitudinal beam crush and concrete cover spall off within the joint region initiated
reinforcements, widening of the diagonal shear cracks and the con- during the increase of μ from 1 to 2 and reached a peak load at μ = 2.
sequent shear strength degradation within the joint core. It is noted that Pinching behavior observed in the hysteresis response of BL specimens
some of the top beam reinforcement of the CL specimens yielded near was more severe than that of CL specimens. As presented in Fig. 6, the
34
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
average crack interval of the beam flexural cracks of BL specimens was horizontal joint shear force of the four groups of joints are presented in
smaller than that of their corresponding CL specimens. Table 3. The horizontal joint shear force can be calculated as follow [7],
As shown in Fig. 1, the beam ends of CL specimens were roller
supports so that the vertical deformations of beam ends were sig- MW + ME
Vjh = −Vc
nificantly smaller than that of BL specimens. When loaded by CL jhb (1)
method, the horizontal displacements at column top were symmetric in
positive and negative direction. In this condition, the upward and where MW and ME = moments at beam-joint interface on the west and
downward beam bending deflections were similar. Therefore, under CL east side of the joint, respectively; jhb = distance between the tension
method, the bottom beam bars in asymmetric reinforced beam (top and compression resultants in the beam section at the beam-joint in-
beam bars are more than bottom beam bars) always yielded much terface; Vc = column shear force. MW and ME are calculated according
earlier than top beam bars. When loaded by BL method, the external to the beam shear force VW and VE , as shown in Fig. 1. For CL specimens,
force was directly applied at beam ends that can enforce the top and VW and VE are measured directly with the two tension-compression
bottom beam bar yielded simultaneously. In this condition, because of sensors installed on the supports of the beams. For BL specimens, VW
the asymmetrical reinforcement in beam, the generated loads at beam and VE are measured with two load cells attached in series with the two
ends in downward direction were significantly larger than that in up- actuators that applied the reversed cyclic loads. Because of the varia-
ward direction, as shown in Fig. 5. This distinction between CL and BL tion of loading apparatuses between CL and BL method, CL specimens
method led to larger compression stress of diagonal strut in the joint were under the influence of P−Δ effect while BL specimens did not.
region of BL specimens. Therefore, in the calculation, the P−Δ effect is included in horizontal
It is noted that, when μ = 2 (see in Fig. 5), the west beam shear joint shear force of CL specimens.
force was significantly larger than east beam shear force in the BL As presented in Table 3, the joint shear strength of BL specimens
specimens, however the vertical deformations at east and west beam were relatively larger than that of their corresponding CL specimens.
ends were similar (except for the east side of BL-3). It can be deduced The horizontal joint shear force at the peak strength of BL specimens
that, if the loading protocol of BL specimens is consistent with that of were 8.0%, 9.0%, 9.4% and 9.6% larger than their corresponding CL
CL specimens, the top and bottom beam bars may not yield simulta- specimens in Group I, II, III and IV respectively. As previously men-
neously, but the yield displacements of the two directions should just tioned, the top and bottom beam bar of the BL specimens yielded si-
have little difference. In consequence, if both of the CL and BL speci- multaneously at the early stage of loading, the bottom beam bar of the
mens were loaded in the drift ratio based displacement-controlled CL specimens yielded at a DR of 1.35%, however some of the top beam
loading protocol, the discipline of test results and the comparison re- bar of the CL specimens yielded at the end of loading whiles some did
sults should be similar to that in this research. not yield. In other words, the tensile stresses of bottom beam bars in
each group were similar, while the tensile stresses of top beam bar of BL
specimens were larger than that of CL specimens, which is related to the
3.2. Joint shear strength and shear transfer mechanisms difference in loading method and testing apparatuses. The tensile
stresses of longitudinal beam bars contribute to the joint shear force.
As previously mentioned, the cyclic displacements of CL and BL Thus, the discrepancy of the joint shear force is primarily attributed to
specimens were loaded using their conventional loading protocols re- the variation of loading protocols and loading apparatuses, which led to
spectively. The longitudinal beam bars and the concrete in joint region the discrepancy of the tensile stresses between the top beam bar of CL
were subjected to different loading effects when loaded in different and BL specimens.
loading method, which will lead to different degrees of inelastic de- The crack patterns of specimens in the same loading method were
formations. Because of the difference in loading point, it is hard to common to one another. Under the condition shown in Fig. 6, the
compare the test results of CL and BL specimens with respect to dis- number of joint diagonal cracks of CL specimens was less than that of
placement of column top end for CL specimens and displacement of BL specimens, and the concrete spalling of CL specimens was only
beam end for BL specimens. concentrated in the joint center compared to BL specimens. The dif-
For the sake of comparison, two specimens in each group are ferent crack patterns of these two loading method can be attributed to
evaluated at the identical representative damage degrees. Four feature the contribution of different shear transfer mechanisms within joint.
points representing four representative damage degrees of the joint are Evidently, the CL and BL specimens are mainly governed by the diag-
selected: (1) the initial cracking of joint core, (2) the first yield of the onal strut and the truss mechanism respectively. This phenomenon,
longitudinal beam reinforcement, (3) the peak strength, and (4) 15% which is related to the stress state of beam longitudinal reinforcement,
strength degradation of the peak strength. The evaluation results of the the distribution of bond stress and the degradation characteristics, is
35
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
explained as below. beam reinforcement; h c = width of the joint; τc and τb = average bond
The equilibrium condition of top longitudinal beam bars in CL and stress of CL and BL specimens. At the first yield, the top and bottom
BL specimens at first yielding point mentioned previously are illustrated beam bar of the BL specimens yielded simultaneously, however, in CL
in Fig. 7. specimens, only the bottom beam bar yielded due to more steel bars
′ ′
For CL specimens were reinforced at the top. Therefore, f sc and f sb are similar, while fy is
′ significantly larger than f sc . Correspondingly, the average bond stress in
f sc Astop + τc h c πdb = f sc Astop (2a) BL specimens (τb ) are larger than that in CL specimens (τc ). The larger
distinction of top beam bar stress between CL and BL specimens re-
For BL specimens
inforcement leads to the larger distinction between τb and τc . This
′
f sb Astop + τb hc πdb = fy Astop phenomenon is primarily attributed to the variation of loading proto-
(2b)
cols and loading apparatuses between CL and BL method. The BL
′ ′ method enforces the top and bottom beam bar yielded simultaneously
where f sc , f sc , f sb and fy = stresses of the top reinforcements;
Astop = sectional area of top beam reinforcements; db = diameter of top while the CL method does not. In addition, the relatively more loading
36
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
37
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
38
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
shortening). The calculation of the horizontal shear force is mentioned protocols and loading apparatuses. The BL method enforces the top and
previously. The joint shear stress is expressed as follow, bottom beam bar yielding simultaneously, which lead to larger com-
pression stress of diagonal strut and larger bond stress of beam bar in
Vjh the joint region of BL specimens. It can be deduced that, if the number
τ=
bj h c (9) of loading cycles used in CL method is consistent with that adopted in
BL method for the specimens in Group I, II, III and IV of this paper, the
where bj is effective joint width defined by ACI 318 M-14 [25]. joint shear deformations of CL specimens should decrease, and the
The joint shear strain against joint shear stress of Group I and IV is discrepancy of joint shear deformations between CL and BL specimens
illustrated in Fig. 11. The joint shear stress was directly proportional to should be larger than that in Figs. 11 and 12.
the load applied at loading point. The measured joint shear deformation The joint shear strain of the four feature points mentioned pre-
increased after the maximum load recorded at 2.2% drift and μ = 2 for viously of each group are compared in Fig. 13. As shown in this figure,
CL-1/4 and BL-1/4, respectively, followed by significant degradation on shear strains at the initial cracking point were similar between two
strength and stiffness. Fig. 12 shows a comparison of the joint shear loading methods. Comparing the yield, peak, and 15% degradation
deformation envelopes for each group, with indication of the same point, the difference of joint shear strain between the specimens in
condition corresponding to a stress reduction of 15% with respect to the different loading methods increased with the increase of loading dis-
peak stress. Joint shear stresses were slightly greater in BL specimens placement. At the 15% degradation point, the average shear strain of
than in their corresponding CL specimens. These results, in accordance positive and negative direction of CL specimens were 68.3%, 49.8%,
with Table.3, are primarily attributed to the variation of loading pro- 36.5% and 64.6% lower than their corresponding BL specimens in
tocols and loading apparatuses. Joint shear strains were significantly Group I, II, III and IV respectively. The relatively small distinction of
greater in BL specimens than that in CL specimens, and the average Group III is partially assigned to the smaller relative beam width to
joint shear strains measured at the 15% degradation of the positive and column width ratio.
negative loadings are 0.025–0.03 rad for CL specimens, Concrete strut mechanism is beneficial to the control of joint dis-
0.045–0.075 rad for BL specimens. tortion. Under truss mechanism, a large amount of transverse steel is
Although the loading protocol used for CL method is more severe required in the joint area. On the contrary, under strut mechanism, the
than BL method in terms of number of cycles, the joint shear de- requirement of joint reinforcement reduces substantially. The joint
formation of CL specimens was significantly smaller than that of BL shear transfer of CL and BL specimens, with identical reinforcement
specimens. Accordingly, the different cyclic behavior between CL and details, are governed by strut mechanism and truss mechanism re-
BL specimens is primarily attributed to the variation of loading spectively, and the joint core of CL specimens is therefore better
Fig. 11. Joint shear stress-joint shear deformation hysteretic response of Group I and IV.
39
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
confined. In addition, the more diagonal cracks in the BL specimens (see is more severe than BL method in terms of number of cycles, the
in Fig. 6) makes the joint core more flexible. Consequently, BL speci- longitudinal bar slip of CL specimens was considerably smaller than
mens exert larger joint shear deformation. that of BL specimens. This fact effectively demonstrates that the larger
tensile force and bond stress is primarily attributed to the loading
3.5. Reinforcement slippage protocol and loading apparatuses, and the BL method enforces the top
and bottom beam bar yielding simultaneously. Therefore, according to
Fig. 14 shows a comparison of the longitudinal beam bar slip en- the test results of longitudinal bar slip, the relatively larger tensile force
velopes for each group at east beam side, with indication of 15% de- and bond stress of beam reinforcement results in relatively severe in-
gradation condition (‘‘+” for the pull out direction and ‘‘−” for the elastic deformations in BL specimens.
push in direction). It is noted that the stresses of tensile beam bars re- It confirms to the experimental observation that the beam plastic
lated to the beam shear force lead to different bending moment of CL zone was distributed with denser flexural cracks (Fig. 6) under BL
and BL method. According to Fig. 14, it indicates that the bar slips of BL method as a result of the larger tensile force of beam bar. The larger bar
specimens considerably exceeded their corresponding CL specimens in slips in the pull out direction for BL specimens are primarily attributed
the pull out direction, although the bar slips of CL and BL specimens in to the relatively larger tensile force. Within the width of the column, the
the push-in direction were generally closer to each other. bond degradation of the longitudinal beam bars in BL specimens are
The slippage of longitudinal reinforcement at four feature points more serious than in CL specimens, suggesting a more severe bond slip
mentioned previously are presented in Fig. 15. It can be seen that the (see Fig. 8). Simultaneously, the yield penetration of the beam long-
bar slips in the pull out direction at the yield, peak, and 15% de- itudinal reinforcement in BL specimens leads to relative small bar slip in
gradation point of the BL specimens were generally larger than that of the push in direction.
CL specimens, while in the push in direction CL and BL were similar. At
the 15% degradation point, the average bar slips in the pull out di- 4. Numerical simulation
rection of CL specimens were 53.0%, 48.4%, 49.5% and 32.7% lower
than their corresponding BL specimens in Group I, II, III and IV re- The numerical modeling was conducted on the OpenSees platform.
spectively. For the pull out direction, the discrepancy of bar slips be- The model adopted to simulate the response of the beam-column joint
tween the specimens in different loading methods increased with the subassemblages are presented in Fig. 16. The beam and column were
increase of loading displacement. represented by Nonlinear Beam Column Element (NBCE) with three and
It is well known that the cyclic loading affects the bond degradation four integration points (IP) respectively, and the cross-sections of which
of reinforcement [26–28], the bond slip increased with the increase of were discretized as Fiber Section (FS). The member sizes, cross-sectional
the number of cycles. Although the loading protocol used for CL method dimensions and steel reinforcement detailing were determined
40
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
according to those in Fig. 2. Concrete01 Material was used to model which lead to a relatively large initial stiffness.
confined and unconfined concrete behavior in beam and column, and To compare the local joint inelastic deformations of each test group,
Steel02 Material was used to model the uniaxial cyclic behavior of the simulated envelopes of the bottom longitudinal beam bar slips in
longitudinal reinforcement. The joint region was simulated by Beam pull out direction and the joint shear deformations are presented in
Column Joint Element (BCJE) proposed by Lowes and Altoontash [29], in Fig. 18. The simulated deformations in the condition corresponding to
which the PINCHING4 Material with main parameters calculated by 15% degradation of the test is also shown for comparison. Considering
bottle-shaped diagonal strut model and BARSLIP Material were used in the numerical stability of the global solution algorithm, the envelope
shear-panel and bar-slip springs, respectively [23,25,30]. curve of BARSLIP Material conducted by Mitra and Lowes [30] did not
The simulation model mentioned above was used to simulate the exhibit softening. As a result, decline of longitudinal bar slip occurred
four groups of specimens in CL and BL specimens. Fig. 17 shows the in the last few cycles, which is plotted in Fig. 18(b) by short dash line.
comparison between the numerical and experimental load-displace- As shown in Fig. 18, the deformation disciplines of the simulation re-
ment diagrams of beam-column joint specimens. The numerical model sults were consistent with the test result that both of the joint shear
was able to predict the experimental response of tested specimens. strains and the bar slips in BL specimens were considerably greater than
However, the tangent stiffness and the stiffness of both the unloading in CL specimens. At the peak strength, the average simulated joint shear
and reloading branches were relatively overestimated, and the pinching stress of positive and negative direction of BL specimens were 5.4%,
effect was less severe than that in experimental response. The dis- 7.3%, 8.9% and 5.6% larger than their corresponding CL specimens in
crepancy between the numerical and experimental results is primarily Group I, II, III and IV respectively. At the 15% strength degradation, the
attributed to the simplification of the BCJE model, including the sim- average simulated joint shear strain of positive and negative direction
plification of shear-panel and bar-slip spring. The joint core of BCJE of CL specimens were 56.6%, 53.6%, 35.0% and 55.7% lower than their
model is simulated by a simplified rectangle shear-panel with the corresponding BL specimens in Group I, II, III and IV respectively. At
constitutive relationship described by PINCHING4 Material. In this case, the 15% strength degradation, the average simulated bar slip at pull out
the reloading and unloading stiffness in each cycle are linear, which is direction of CL specimens were 48.6%, 54.3%, 26.6% and 49.9% lower
different from the experimental result. The compressive strength of than their corresponding BL specimens in Group I, II, III and IV re-
diagonal strut exists a certain degree of discreteness, therefore, the ef- spectively.
fective compression strength exists partial error when using diagonal
strut model to determine the parameters of shear-panel. In addition, 5. Conclusions
according to analysis of source routine of the BARSLIP Material, the slip
corresponding to yield strength of reinforcement is relatively small, Four groups of interior beam-column joints experiments were
41
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
conducted to investigate the effect of the loading methods on the joint shear strain reached a value between 0.025 and 0.03 rad for CL
seismic behavior. On the basis of the tested results, the following can be specimens and a value between 0.045 and 0.075 rad for BL speci-
inferred: mens. At the 15% degradation point, the shear strain of CL speci-
mens were 36.5–68.3% lower than that of BL specimens. This phe-
1. The damage of the four CL specimens under cyclic loading was nomenon is explained by the fact that the diagonal strut mechanism
concentrated in the center of the joint core with sparse and wider is dominant in CL specimens and the truss mechanism is dominant
diagonal cracks distributed in the joint region, while the damage of in BL specimens.
four BL specimens occurred in the entire joint region with dense and 3. The longitudinal beam bar slip response was considerably affected
narrow diagonal cracks. During the loading period, the shear force by the variation of loading method. The experimental results show
transfer capacity of longitudinal beam reinforcements in the BL that the bar slips at the pull out direction of BL specimens were
specimens was greater than that of CL specimens. The crack patterns significantly larger than that of CL specimens, while the bar slips at
observed from the four groups of specimens and the strain dis- the push in direction for CL and BL specimens were similar. At the
tribution of the longitudinal beam reinforcements indicate that the 15% degradation point, the bar slips in the pull out direction of CL
contribution of joint shear transfer mechanisms are significantly specimens were 32.7–53.0% lower than that in BL specimens. The
affected by loading methods. The comparison between CL and BL specimens in BL method were subjected to more severe bond de-
specimens was implemented by comparing the test results at iden- gradation and yield penetration after beam yielding.
tical feature points. 4. The bar slip and joint shear deformation characteristics of numerical
2. The yielding of top beam longitudinal reinforcement in the BL analysis results were consistent with the experimental results.
specimens occurred significantly earlier than that in CL specimens, Experimental results and numerical analysis show that the influence
causing the discrepancy of the tensile stresses of top beam bars in CL of loading method on the seismic behavior of beam-column joint
and BL specimens, which in turn led to the variation of the max- should be taken into account.
imum joint shear stress between CL and BL specimens. The max- 5. The discrepancy of the inelastic deformations of CL and BL speci-
imum joint shear stress of BL specimens were 8.0–9.6% larger than mens is primarily attributed to the loading protocol and loading
that of CL specimens. The joint shear strain response of interior apparatuses. The BL method enforces the top and bottom beam bar
joints was not significantly affected by the variation of the max- yielding simultaneously, which leads to larger compression stress of
imum joint shear stress, but was significantly affected by the var- diagonal strut and larger bond stress of top beam bar in the joint
iation of loading method. Based on the test results, the 15% de- region of BL specimens.
gradation of the joint shear strength was achieved when the joint 6. Although the loading protocol used for CL method is more severe
42
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
than BL method in terms of number of cycles, the joint shear de- divided into two groups based on loading methods, when the
formation and longitudinal bar slip of CL specimens were con- seismic behavior of the beam-column joint is evaluated according to
siderably smaller than that of BL specimens. In consequence, the a great number of prior beam-column joint tests.
accumulated damage caused by number of loading cycles is a sec- 8. The deflected shape of the subassemblage under CL method is more
ondary factor in this research. realistic, but BL method is easier to perform in laboratory.
7. The seismic behavior of two identical specimens loading in CL and Therefore, under the premise of ensuring the boundary condition in
BL method were considerably different. Thus, the influence of laboratory, CL method is recommended to investigate the seismic
loading method should be considered or the specimens should be behavior of beam-column subassemblage.
43
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
44
H. Yang et al. Engineering Structures 166 (2018) 31–45
Acknowledgements subassemblies with high strength steel reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2014;111(6):1329–38.
[12] Alaee P, Li B. High-strength concrete exterior beam-column joints with high-yield
strength steel reinforcements. Eng Struct 2017;145(7):305–21.
The authors would like to express their appreciation for the fi- [13] Ashtiani MS, Dhakal RP, Scott A. Seismic performance of high-strength self-compacting
nancial support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of concrete in reinforced concrete beam-column joints. J Struct Eng 2014;140(5):472–82.
[14] Li B, Leong CL. Experimental and numerical investigations of the seismic behavior of
China under Grant Nos. 51178487 and 51478063. high-strength concrete beam-column joints with column axial load. J Struct Eng 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001191.
Appendix A. Supplementary material [15] Meinheit DF, Jirsa JO. The shear strength of reinforced concrete beam–column joints. In:
Tech. Rep. CESRL Report no. 77-1, Univ. Texas at Austin; 1977.
[16] Yoshioka K, Sekine M. Experimental study of prefabricated beam-column sub-
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the assemblages. ACI SP-123; 1991. p. 465–92.
[17] Liu A, Park R. Seismic load tests on two concrete interior beam-column joints reinforced
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.022.
by plain round bars designed to pre-1970s codes. NZSEE Bull 1998;31(3):164–76.
[18] Li B, Yiming W, Pan T-C. Seismic behaviour of non-seismically detailed interior beam-
References wide column joints; Part I: experimental results. ACI Struct J 2002;99(6):791–802.
[19] Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, Prota A, Manfredi G, Dolce M. Experimental
investigation of exterior RC beam–column joints retrofitted with FRP systems. ASCE J
[1] Sezen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ, Mosalam KM. Performance of reinforced concrete Compos Constr 2014;18(4):1–13.
buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and [20] Ruiz-Pinilla JG, Pallarés FJ, Gimenez E, Calderón PA. Experimental tests on retrofitted RC
construction practise in Turkey. Eng Struct 2003;25(1):103–14. beam-column joints under designed to seismic loads. Eng Struct 2014;59:702–14.
[2] Zhao B, Taucer F, Rossetto T. Field investigation on the performance of building struc- [21] Park R. A summary of results of simulated seismic load tests on reinforced concrete beam-
tures during the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Eng Struct column joints, beams and columns with substandard reinforcing details. J Earthq Eng
2009;31(8):1707–23. 2002;6(2):147–74.
[3] Ghobarah A, Saatcioglu M, Nistor I. The impact of the 26 December 2004 earthquake and [22] Kim J, Lafave JM. Key influence parameters for the joint shear behaviour of reinforced
Tsunami on structures and infrastructure. Eng Struct 2006;28(2):312–26. concrete (RC) beam–column connections. Eng Struct 2008;29(10):2523–39.
[4] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John Wiley; 1975. [23] Mitra N. An analytical study of reinforced concrete beam–column joint behavior under
[5] Kitayama K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Earthquake resistant design criteria for reinforced seismic loading. [Ph.D. thesis]. Seattle, WA: Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. Washington; 2007.
concrete interior beam–column joints. In: Pacific conference on earthquake engineering, [24] GB 50010-2002, Code for design of concrete structures. Construction Ministry of China.
Wairakei, New Zealand; 1987. p. 315–326. [25] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
[6] Leon RT. Shear strength and hysteretic behavior of interior beam-column joints. ACI Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2014.
Struct J 1990;87(1):3–11. [26] Verderame GM, Ricci P, Carlo GD, Manfredi G. Cyclic bond behaviour of plain bars. Part I:
[7] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. experimental investigation. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:3499–511.
New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1992. [27] Ismail MAF, Jirsa JO. Bond deterioration in reinforced concrete subject to low cycle loads.
[8] Beckingsale CW. Post elastic behavior of reinforced concrete beam–column joints. [Ph.D. ACI Struct J 1972;69(6):334–43.
thesis]. Christchurch, New Zealand: Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. Canterbury; 1980. [28] Li J, Gao X, Zhang P. Experimental investigation on the bond of reinforcing bars in high
[9] Park R, Ruitong D. A comparison of the behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column performance concrete under cyclic loading. Mater Struct 2007;40(10):1027–44.
joints designed for ductility and limited ductility. NZSEE Bull 1988;21(4):255–78. [29] Lowes L, Altoontash A. Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-column joints subjected to
[10] Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H. Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beamcolumn cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2003;129(12):1686–97.
joints with substandard reinforcing details. ACI Struct J 2000;97(1):11–25. [30] Mitra N, Lowes LN. Evaluation, calibration and verification of a reinforced concrete
[11] Chang B, Hutchinson T, Wang X, Englekirk R. Seismic performance of beam-column beam-column joint model. J Struct Eng 2007;133(1):105–20.
45