Está en la página 1de 24

Reinforced Concrete Beam-

Column Joint: Macroscopic


Super-element models

-Nilanjan Mitra
(work performed as a PhD student while at University of Washington between 2001-2006)
Need for the study
Reinforced concrete beam column joints
subjected to earthquake loading
Experimental
Investigation
@ UW
I-280 Freeway, San Francisco, CA
following Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989
Courtesy: NISEE, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Loading in a joint region
Earthquake Loading of Beam-Column Joint
compression resultant
(concrete and steel)
shear resultant
(concrete)
Earthquake Loading of Beam-Column Joint
compression resultant
(concrete and steel)
compression resultant
(concrete and steel)
shear resultant
(concrete)
shear resultant
(concrete)
tension resultant (steel)
anchorage bond stress acting on
joint core concrete
compression force carried by
joint core concrete
Internal load distribution in a joint
Macroscopic beam-column joint element models
Macroscopic beam-column joint element models
Macroscopic beam-column joint element models
shear
panel
external node
internal node
rigid external
interface plane
shown with finite width
to facilitate discussion
beam
element
zero-width region
interface-shear spring
bar-slip spring
zero-length
zero-length
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
l
u
m
n

Proposed Beam-column super-element model
4-noded 12-dof element
8 bar-slip springs to simulate
anchorage failure
4 interface-shear springs to simulate
shear transfer failure at joint interface
1 shear-panel to simulate inelastic
action of shear within joint core
Note: The location of the bar-slip
springs is at the centroid of the
tension-compression couple at nominal
strength of the beams.
[Mitra & Lowes; J. Structural Eng. ASCE, 2007: 133 (1): 105-20 ]
Joint element formulation: Kinematics
External, Internal and Component deformation
Joint element formulation: Equilibrium
External, Internal and Component forces
Solution of element state achieved by an iterative procedure and requires
solving for zero reaction in the 4 internal degrees of freedom
Characterized by
Response envelope
Unload reload path
Damage rules
Hysteretic one dimensional material model
deformation
load
(ePd
1
,ePf
1
)
(ePd
4
,ePf
4
)
(ePd
3
,ePf
3
)
(ePd
2
,ePf
2
)
(eNd
3
,eNf
3
)
(eNd
2
,eNf
2
)
(*,uForceP.ePf
3
)
(d
min
,f(d
min
))
(d
max
,f(d
max
))
(rDispP.d
max
,rForceP.f(d
max
))
(rDispN.d
min
,rForceN.f(d
min
))
(*,uForceN.eNf
3
)
(eNd
1
,eNf
1
)
(eNd
4
,eNf
4
)
Damage simulation in material model
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
deformation
l
o
a
d


without damage
with unloading stiffness damage
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
deformation
l
o
a
d


without damage
with reloading stiffness damage
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
deformation
l
o
a
d


without damage
with strength damage
( )
()
( )
3
4
1 max 2 i
d
o
o
o o o_ = +
max min
max
max min
max. ,
i i
d d
d
def def
(
=
(

( )
. fNoofloadcycles _=
( )
fAccumulatedEnergy _=
( )
0
1
k
i i
k k o =
( ) ( )( )
max max
0
1
f
i
i
f f o =
( ) ( )( )
max max
0
1
d
i
i
d d o = +
Damage simulation in material model
loadhistory
i
monotonic
monotonicloadhistory
dE
E
E
gE dE
_= =
| |
|
|
\ .
}
}
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
deformation
l
o
a
d


without damage
with all 3 damage rules
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
deformation
l
o
a
d


with all 3 damages (Energy)
with all 3 damages (Cyclic)
max
4
du
u
_=

Energy criterion
No. of load cycle criterion:
rain-flow-counting algorithm
Shear-panel calibration
column
shear
panel
Shear panel envelope calibration
MCFT
Diagonal compression strut

Compression envelope reduction

Determination of hysteretic model
parameters

Typical response envelope
Observed Simulated
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

S
E
8

(
S
t
e
v
e
n
s

e
t

a
l
.

1
9
8
7
)

-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Shear strain
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Shear panel envelope calibration using proposed
Diagonal compression strut mechanism
_
cos
cstrut strut strut
strut
jnt
f w
w
o
t

=
Mander et al. (1988) concrete
Column longitudinal and joint hoop
steel confine the strut.
Reduction in concrete to account for
perpendicular tensile stress to the strut
cyclic loading.
Strut force is converted to panel shear
stress as
2
_
_
3.62 2.82 1 0.39
0.45 0.39
cstrut
t t t
cMander cc cc cc
t
cc
f
f
c c c
c c c
c
c
= + <
= >
Proposed concrete compression envelope reduction
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
c
t
/ c
cc
f
c
_
o
b
s

/

f
c
_
M
a
n
d
e
r


Data with
j
> 0
Data with
j
= 0
Vecchio 1986
Stevens 1991
Hsu 1995
Noguchi 1992
Proposed eq. for
j
> 0
Proposed eq. for
j
= 0
2
_
_
0.36 0.60 1 0.83
0.75 0.83
cstrut
t t t
cMander cc cc cc
t
cc
f
f
c c c
c c c
c
c
= + <
= >
0
j
=
0
j
>
Eq. for
Eq. for
Comparison of MCFT and Diagonal Compression
Strut model in shear-panel envelope calibration
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
|
t
m
c
f
t
_
c
y
c
l
i
c

/

t
m
a
x

0.55
JF
BYJF
BY
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
|
t
d
i
a
g
o
n
a
l
_
s
t
r
u
t

/


t
m
a
x

JF
BYJF
BY
[J. Structural Eng. ASCE, 2005: 131 (6) ]
Transverse steel contribution to shear stress
Bar slip material model calibration
column
Bar-slip spring
Mechanistic model :- envelope

Hysteretic model calibration

Strength deterioration model
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
slip (mm)
b
a
r
-
s
p
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Typical response envelope
Bar slip mechanistic model
Assumptions for anchorage response of bond within the joint region:
Bond stress uniform for elastic reinforcement, piecewise uniform for reinforcement
loaded beyond yield
Slip is the relative movement of reinforcement bar with respect to the joint perimeter
Slip is a function of strain distribution in the joint
Bar exhibits zero slip at zero bar stress
2
0
2
fs
l
fs
Eb E
slip s y
b b
l
d
d xdx ff
AE Ed
tt t
= = <

}
()
0
ey
e
e
ll
l
y
Eb Yb
slip e
b bh l
f
d d
d xdx xldx
AE EAE
tt tt
+
| |
= ++
|

\ .
} }
2
2
2 2
yy y
e E Y
s y
b b
fl l
l
ff
EdEEd
t t
= ++ >
Mechanistic model
Strength deterioration
Is activated once slip exceeds the slip level corresponding to ultimate stress
in the reinforcing bars.
Is observed upon reloading, with the result that bar-slip springs always
exhibit positive tangent stiffness.
0 5 10 15 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
specimen number
m
a
x
i
m
u
m

s
l
i
p

/

































s
l
i
p

w
i
t
h

a
n
c
h
o
r
a
g
e

l
e
n
g
t
h

e
q
u
a
l

t
o

j
o
i
n
t

w
i
d
t
h


BYJF
BY
0 5 10 15 20
0
5
10
15
20
specimen number
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

b
a
r
-
s
l
i
p


BYJF
BY
( )
max, lim max,
f f
i i ult i ult
dd dd oo o = s>
Strength deterioration calibration for bar-slip spring
Steps for calibrating the joint model
Calculate moment curvature of beams and columns
From moment curvature analysis determine
moment associated with first yield of the reinforcing bar
tension-compression couple distance at nominal yield strength
neutral axis depth at nominal yield strength
Define joint elements parameters using joint geometry and tension-compression
couple distance
Determine concrete compression strut response
Mander model for concrete
Concrete strength reduction eq. proposed to account for perpendicular cracks
and cyclic loading
Hysteretic parameters defined for shear panel
Determine bar-slip response
Mechanistic model for bond
Hysteretic parameters defined for bar-slip model
Interface slip-springs are defined to be stiff and elastic
Concrete Stress-Strain
(Compressive only,
no tensile strength)
Reinforcing Steel Stress-Strain
Beam-Column Elements:
Force based lumped plasticity element
Plastic Hinge region
Elastic region
Fiber discretisation
joint element
plastic hinge length
column axial load
applied under load control
beam-column element
lateral load applied
under displacement
control
Model simulation
L
a
b

t
e
s
t

OpenSees Model

Validation study
-6
-4 -2
0 2 4 6
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Drift (%)
C
o
l
u
m
n

s
h
e
a
r

(
k
N
)
-6
-4 -2
0 2 4 6
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Drift (%)
C
o
l
u
m
n

s
h
e
a
r

(
k
N
)
-6
-4 -2
0 2 4 6
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Drift (%)
C
o
l
u
m
n

s
h
e
a
r

(
k
N
)
Specimen OSJ10:
Validation study discussion & conclusion
Failure mechanism
For joints exhibiting JF (joint failure prior to beam yielding), 82%
accurate.
For joints exhibiting BYJF (beam yielding followed by joint failure),
89% accurate.
For joints exhibiting BY (beam yielding), 94% accurate.
Initial and unloading stiffness
For all joints, mean of simulated to observed ranges from 1.03 to 1.06
with an average C.O.V. = 0.15.
Post-yield tangent stiffness
For joints that exhibit BYJF, mean ratio of simulated to observed is 1.0
with a C.O.V. = 0.22.
Maximum strength
For all joints, mean of simulated to observed is 1.03 with a C.O.V. =
0.17.
Drift at maximum strength
For all joints, mean of simulated to observed is 1.12 with a C.O.V. =
0.27.
Strength at final drift level
For all joints, strength for final drift cycle is 1.04 with a C.O.V = 0.2.
Pinching ratio (ratio of strength at zero drift to maximum strength)
For all joints, pinching ratio is 1.04 with a C.O.V = 0.12.