Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1495

A Practical Model for Beam-Column Connection Behavior in Reinforced Concrete Frames

Authors: Anna Birely, Research Assistant, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, birely@u.washington.edu Dawn Lehman, Assistant Professor, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, delehman@u.washington.edu Laura Lowes, Associate Professor, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, lowes@u.washington.edu

ABSTRACT
Traditional as well as performance-based seismic design requires accurate simulation of building response to determine component deformation and load demands. This is particularly challenging for reinforced concrete structures in which concrete cracking prior to yield may change component stiffnesses substantially and for existing concrete structures in which inadequate design details may result in component strength loss prior to yield. In this study analytical models, which are practical for use in design and compatible with commercial software such as SAP2000, are developed for one type of concrete component: planar interior beam-column joints. A dataset comprising 45 joint sub-assemblage tests is used for model development. First, a simple, center-line model is proposed for elastic analysis in which the beam-column joint region is modeled as semi-rigid. Experimental data are used to determine the joint stiffness that minimizes the error in predicted inter-story drift and the new ASCE 41 recommendations are evaluated. A second model is developed for use in a nonlinear pushovertype analysis. For this model, joint flexibility and beam flexural response are represented by plastic hinges at beam ends. A simple empirically-based model is used to determine, on the basis of joint shear stress demand and bond stress demand within the joint, if system response will be ductile or brittle. A joint shear strain limit determines when strength loss will occur in brittle joints. For ductile joints, the behavior of the sub-assemblage is dominated by the nonlinear response of the beams.

INTRODUCTION
Beam-column joints in reinforced concrete moment frames can contribute significantly to frame flexibility and strength loss during an earthquake. Thus, practical models are required to enable engineers to simulate joint response and the consequent impact on overall frame response A wide range of models for RC beam-column joints are found in the literature. One of the simplest, found in the ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 [2006], includes rigid offsets at the ends of beam and column elements that are varied in length to alter flexibility of the joint region. Other recent models include those presented by Anderson [2003] in which empirically calibrated nonlinear rotational springs connect beam and column centerline elements. Nonlinear models in

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1496

which finite-volume joint macro-elements have been proposed [Shin and Lafave 2004, Mitra and Lowes 2007, Lowes et al., 2003] to account for flexibility due to slip of beam longitudinal reinforcement and shear action within the joint core. However, few of these models meet requirements for widespread use in practice: 1) compatibility with commonly employed commercial software packages, 2) support for rapid model building, 3) computational efficiency and robustness, and 4) acceptable accuracy over a range of design configurations. In this study, two practical methods for modeling joint response are presented: a modification to the ASCE/SEI 41-06 Standard acceptable for elastic analysis and a nonlinear model in which beam plastic hinges are modified to account for joint flexibility. Models are validated using an extensive, wide-ranging experimental data set.

EXPERIMENTAL DATA SET

For evaluation of existing models and calibration of proposed models, a data set of planar interior beam-column joint sub-assemblages was developed from that presented by Mitra and Lowes [2007]. The data set consists only of subassemblages without i) slabs or transverse beams, ii) failure modes of beam shear, column flexure or column splice failure, and iii) smooth reinforcing bars. All specimens were subject to reversed cyclic lateral loading, to represent earthquake loading. Specifically, the specimens include in the data set are DWX1, DWX2, DWX3 [Durrani & Wight, 1985]; OKAJ1, OKAJ2, OKAJ3, OKAJ4, OKAJ5 [Otani, Kobayashi, & Aoyama, 1984]; MJ1, MJ2, MJ3, MJ5, MJ6, MJ12, MJ13 [Meinheit & Jirsa, 1984]; PEER14, PEER22, PEER0850, PEER0995, PEER4150 [Alire, 2002 and Walker, 2001]; PR1, PR2, PR3, PR4 [Park & Ruitong, 1988]; NKOKJ1, NKOKJ3, NKOKJ4, NKOKJ5, NKOKJ6 [Noguchi & Kashawazaki, 1992]; OSJ1, OSJ2, OSJ4, OSJ5, OSJ6, OSJ7, OSJ8, OSJ10, OSJ11 [Oka & Shiohara, 1992]; KOAC1, KOAC3 [Kitayama, Otani, & Aoyama]; PM1 [Park & Milburn, 1983]; HC, A1 [Endoh, Kamura, Otani, & Aoyama, 1991]; B11, B12 [Beckingsale, 1980]. For the current study, test specimens were evaluated to determine if the joint designs met the criteria specified for categorizing joint design, and thus expected seismic performance in the ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 and the ACI Building Code [2008]. ACI compliance was determined on the basis of joints meeting the requirements for 1) concrete compressive strength and reinforcement yield strength, 2) the ratio of the sum of the column flexural strengths to the sum of the beam flexural strengths 3) presense of lap splices or termination of beam reinforcement in the joint 4) ratio of column height to beam longitudinal reinforcement diameter 5) amount and spacing of joint transverse reinforcement and 6) maximum nominal shear strength of joint. Eleven joints were found to be ACI Compliant and 34 were ACI Non-Compliant, having failed to meet at least one of the above requirements.

RIGID OFFSET MODELS

Rigid offset models, easily incorporated in commerical structural analysis software, are of great practical use to structural engineers as a tool for accounting for joint flexibility in linear elastic models of a structure. In such a model, a centerline model of the frame is created, accounting for flexural, shear and torsional stiffness on the basis of frame dimensions and material properties. Rigid offsets are introduced at beam and column ends, within the beam-column joint. By adjusting the offset length, the joint can be made more or less flexible. FEMA 356 [2000] recommends offset lengths such that the full joint region as rigid. The ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1497

recommends lengths of the beam and column rigid offsets based on the relative flexural strength of these elements. In this study, new rigid offset models were developed to improve the accuracy of this modeling approach. A model of each subassemblage was created in which beams and columns were modeled using frame elements with effective elastic stiffness values recommended by the ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06. Offsets were included in both the beams and columns, with the lengths defined as a percentage, , of the joint dimensions. This value was determined for the full data set as well as for subsets of the data based upon compliance with the ACI Code. Two approaches were used. The first found opt by minimizing the error measure:
N 2 i 1 yield exp i i yield sim yield exp i 2

(3)

yield yield where exp and sim are the measured and simulated displacements of the specimen at the computed yield strength of the beam. Next, the offset length minimizing the normalized displacement error at first yield for each joint was found and averaged, excluding those joints for with a physically unrealistic optimal length, to produce avg. Results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 also presents an evaluation of the ability of the existing (FEMA 356 and ASCE 41) and proposed (opt and avg) models to predict the story drift under an applied column shear corresponding to theoretical first yield of the beams. Review of the error measures indicates that the FEMA 356 recommendations simulate a joint response significantly stiffer than the real systems. The ASCE 41 model is more flexible than the real system. The proposed models offer an improvement, although minimal, in the error prediction at first yield.

2 Data Set Effective Stiffness Model FEMA 356 ASCE 41 Rigid Offset Model FEMA 356 ASCE 41 opt avg FEMA 356 ASCE 41 opt avg FEMA 356 ASCE 41 opt avg 0.44 0.38 0.62 0.56 0.39 0.34 0 7.46 0.56 0.54 0.56 1.26 0.13 0.11 0.11 6.20 0.43 0.39 0.40 All 15.97 3.19 2.97 2.80 3.90 0.76 0.89 0.81 12.07 2.42 2.13 2.04 0 0.53 0.04 0.02 -0.01 0.5 -0.04 0.02 -0.01 0.54 0.06 0.01 -0.01

avg All 0.59 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.59 0.15 0.2 0.18 0.59 0.18 0.14 0.12

All

ACI Compliant

FEMA 356 ASCE 41

ACI NonCompliant

FEMA 356 ASCE 41

TABLE 1 EVALUATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED OFFSET MODELS

NONLINEAR MODEL
Rigid offset models fail to capture changes in joint stiffness associated with beam yielding and strength loss due to joint damage. To facilitate nonlinear modeling of joint response using commercial software, a nonlinear joint model is proposed that can be implemented by modifying

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1498

the moment-rotation history for a plastic-hinge in the lumped-plasticity elements typically used in nonlinear frame analysis. Model Definition Models proposed by previous researchers [Anderson, 2003] using nonlinear moment-rotation springs to represent joint flexibility place the spring at the beam-column intersection. This is shown in Figue 1 for the model of a beam-column joint subassemblage, along with plastic hinges in the beams to account for beam nonlinearity. In this study, this concept is modified by moving the joint moment-rotation representation of the joint to the beam plastic hinges and using rigid offsets to define the joint zone as fully rigid (see Figure 2). Although a moment-rotation relationship is not the natural way to describe the behavior of a joint, geometry can be used to easily establish a connection to the shear stress () shear strain () relationship of a joint. The moment-rotation stiffness, k, of the joint spring can be written as: M (4) k
gamma

where geometry determines the modifiers: A j Lc

Lc h 1 c jd Lb
1 hc Lb hb Lc

(5)

(6)

and hb, Lb, hc, and Lc are the height and length of the beams and columns, Aj is the cross-sectional area of the joint, and jd is the lever arm of the beam moment. Introducing the concrete shear modulus
G

(7)

The joint stiffness in the proposed model is defined as

ki
i

(8)

for each segment, i, of spring. A bilinear spring is considered, thus requiring calibration of stiffnes parameters 1 and 2. The joint spring is placed in the plastic hinge in series with a moment-rotation spring representing the beam nonlinear behavior, developed from a moment-curvature analysis of the beam (performed in OpenSees [McKenna, et. al., 2007]) and an assumed plastic hinge length of one-half the depth of the beam. Together, these springs combine to produce a modified plastichinge model that accounts for joint flexibility. To represent strength loss, rotational limits are placed on the beam and joint springs. These limits are calibrated to accurately simulate measured displacement capacity.

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1499

Mbm

Mbm
bm Mj

bm

Mj
k1

k2

k2 k1

FIGURE 1 MODEL OF JOINT WITH JOINT SPRING CONNECTING BEAM AND COLUMN
Mbm

Mbm
bm

bm

FIGURE 2 MODEL OF JOINT WITH MODIFIED PLASTIC HINGES TO ACCOUNT FOR JOINT
NONLINEARITY

Model Calibration Initial Stiffness The initial joint stiffness was calibrated by optimizing the secant stiffness of the plastic hinge at the column shear corresponding to initial yielding of the beams, where the joint initial stiffness is defined as
k1
1

(9)

and the calibrated stiffness parameter is: 0.0415 1 Post-Yield Stiffness The post-yield stiffness of the joint spring, defined as
k2
2

(10)

(11)

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1500

was established using data for joints in which both beams yielded to accurately simulate postyield response and to enable calibration of rotation limits for the joint shear beam springs to achieve simulation of displacement ductility. The resulting stiffness parameter is: (12) 0.0111 2 Rotational Limits When calibrating rotational limits, a methods for classifying and predicting the failure mode of the joints were desired, as joints failing in a brittle manner were expected to require different limits than those failing in a ductile manner. Classification of the joints was done using the experimental displacement ductility, , at which a 10% loss in the maximum strength occured. Displacement ductility was defined such that the unity value occured at the column shear associated with theoretical beam yielding. Joints were identified as "Brittle" if they did not reach this column shear. For those joints reaching or exceeding this load, those with a displacement ductility of at least 4.0 were identified as "Ductile". All other joints were identified as "Limited Ductility". Eighteen joints were identified as "Brittle", twenty as "Ductile", and seven as "Limited Ductility". The rotational limit for beam response was calibrated by minimizing the average drift error at fail defined as a function of the beam curvature and plastic strength loss of ductile joints, with bm hinge length. fail fail l p bm (15) bm where lp is the plastic hinge length and fail 0.0056 (16) bm Joint rotational limits, calibrated by minimizing the average drift error of brittle joints at strength loss, are defined as a function of joint shear strains and system geometry. fail fail (17) joint joint
fail joint

0.0071

(18)

Model Validation To evaluate the proposed nonlinear model, pushover analyses were performed on models of the joint subassemblages. The analytical load-drift envelopes are compared with the experimental envelopes using the error measure in (23) at key points in the load-drift histories: 1st yield, 2nd yield, peak strength and 10% loss of lateral load carrying capacity. The average and standard deviations are provided for the load and drift at these points in Table 2. At the column shear corresponding to first yield, the displacement is predicted very well, indicating the ability of the proposed model to adequately capture the initial stiffness of the assemblages. The behavior following this point is also well predicted. Brittle joints have a low error for displacement and load at the peak. Although there is significant scatter in this error for the displacement, the peak load has a low standard deviation, indicating the accuracy of the model in predicting the strength capacity of brittle joints. For ductile and limited ductility joints, the error in displacement prediction of the peak load provides limited information on model accuracy, as the moment capacity of the beam, determined through moment-curvature analysis, controls this aspect of the model.

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1501

experimental

analytical

(23)

experimental

For all Ductile joints, strength loss was simulated to occur when the beam rotation limit was reached; For all Brittle joints, strength loss was simulated to occur when the joint spring rotation limit was reached. Thus, the model accurately predicts the failure mechanism for these joints. Of the seven "Limited Ductility" joints, six exhibited strenght loss when the joint rotation limit was reached, and thus exhibited brittle failure in the simulation. Only specimen PEER14 reached the beam rotational limit prior to reaching the joint rotation limit, and thus exhibited ductile response in the simulation. Figures 3a and 3b show the best simulation of experimental response for brittle and ductile joints respectively. The worst simulations of brittle and ductile joint behavior are shown in Figures 3c and 3d, respectively.
1 Yield Data Sub-sets All
2 st

2 Yield Disp 13.89 24.74 17.46 24.76 -1.18 22.29 Disp -27.01 77.08 -60.88 91.17 -3.29 59.31 1.40 49.11

nd

Peak Load 5.89 9.55 7.48 7.59 13.32 9.15 1.24 9.67

Ductile Limited Ductility Brittle

1 2

Error Average Stand. Dev. Average Stand. Dev. Average Stand. Dev. Average Stand. Dev.

Disp 5.59 22.75 7.09 25.06 -4.45 22.54 -

10% Loss Disp Load 27.05 6.98 36.07 11.64 8.74 1.34 37.15 9.64 46.73 11.09 48.95 12.96 -

All errors are given as percents For 1st and 2nd yield, excludes joints not reaching yield load

TABLE 2 ERROR OF PROPOSED NONLINEAR JOINT MODEL AT KEY POINTS IN LOAD DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPE

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1502

40

15

Load [kips]

30 20 10 0 0 Experimental Analytical 2 Drift[%] (a) 4

Load [kips]

10 5 0 0 Experimental Analytical 2 Drift[%] (b) 4

100

30

Load [kips]

Load [kips]

20 10 0 Experimental Analytical 0 2 4 Drift[%] (d) 6 8

50 Experimental Analytical 0 0 2 Drift[%] (c) 4

FIGURE 4 ENVELOPES FOR (A) BEST BRITTLE PREDICTION, MJ3, (B) BEST DUCTILE PREDICTION, PR3, (C) WORST BRITTLE PREDICTION, PEER22, AND (D) WORST DUCTILE PREDICTION, HC

CONCLUSIONS
The rigid offset approach for modeling beam-column joint behavior, recommended by ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 for evaluation of existing structures and easily implemented in commercial software, produced accurate predictions of experimental joint stiffness prior to beam yielding. Proposed modifications to the recommended offset lengths refined the accuracy of the ASCE 41 recommendations, particularly for joints classified as "non-compliant" by ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 or joints that fail to meet the special moment frame design criteria of ACI 318. To provide an easily implemented model capable of capturing post-yield behavior of joints, including loss of lateral load carrying capacity, a nonlinear model was developed that modified lumped-plasticity beam elements to account for joint behavior. The joint was modeled using bilinear moment-rotation springs, with stiffnesses defined as a function of specimen geometry and the concrete shear modulus. Loss of lateral load carrying capacity was accounted for through rotational limits in the plastic hinge. Separate limits for the beam and joint behavior within the plastic hinge allows the model to account for both brittle and ductile failure modes independent of prior knowledge of the failure mode.

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

1503

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Support of this work was provided primarily by the Earthquake Engineering Resarch Centers Program of the National Science Foundation, under award number EEC-9701568 through the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.

REFERENCES
[1] ACI Committee 318, "Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary(ACI 318R-08)", American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2008 [2] ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 352, "Recommendations for design of beam-column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures" , American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2005 [3] Alire, D., "Seismic evaluation of existing unconfined reinforced concrete beam-column joint", M.S.C.E, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 2002. [4] Anderson, M., "Analytical modeling of existing reinforced concrete beam-column joints", M.S.C.E, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 2003. [5] ASCE, "Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA-356)", American Society of Civil Engineers prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Reston, Virginia, 2000. [6] ASCE, "Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06)". American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007. [7] Berry, M., and Eberhard, M., "Performance Models for Flexural Damage in Reinforced Concrete Columns". Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, 2003. [8] Birely, A., Lowes, L.N. and Lehman, D., 2009, Modeling the response of reinforced concrete beam-column joints, Journal of Structural Engineering, Submitted 2009 [9] Durrani, A.J., and Wight, J.K., "Experimental and analytical study of beam to column connections subjected to reverse cyclic loading". Technical Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, 1982. [10] Endoh, Y., Kamura, T., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H., "Behavior of RC beam-column connections using lightweight concrete". Transactions of Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 13, 1991, pp. 319-326. [11] Higashi, Y., and Ohwada, Y., "Failing behaviors of reinforced concrete beam-column connections subjected to lateral loads," Memoris of Faculty of Technology Tokyo Metropolitan University , Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 19, 1969, pp. 91-100. [12] Kitayama, K., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H., "Earthquake resistant design criteria for reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints," In Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Wairakei, New Zealand, 1987, pp. 315-326. [13] Kunnath, S.K., "Macromodel-Based Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures," Structural Engineering Worldwide, Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford, England, 1998, paper no. T101-5. [14] Lowes, L.N. and Altoontash, A., "Modeling the response of reinforced concrete beam-column joints", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE Vol. 129, No. 12, 2003, pp. 1686-1697. [15] Lowes, L.N., Mitra, N., and Altoontash, A., "A beam-column joint model for simulating the earthquake response of reinforced response of reinforced concrete frames", Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, 2004. [16] MacGregor, J.G. and Wight, J., K., Reinforced concrete: mechanics and design, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1997.

Structures 2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers 2009 ASCE

[17] Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., and Fenves, G., "OpenSees Examples http://opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/usermanual/index.html, 2007. Manual Version 1.7.3",

1504

[18] Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., and Fenves, G., " OpenSees User Manual for OpenSees Version 1.7.3", http://opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/usermanual/index.html, 2007. [19] McKenna, F., Fenves, G.L., et al, "Open Systems for Earthquake Engineering Version 1.7.3", http://opensees.berkeley.edu , 2007. [20] Meinheit, D.F., and Jirsa, J.O., "The shear strength of reinforced concrete beam-column joints", Technical Report, University of Texas at Austin, 1977. [21] Mitra, N., "An analytical study of reinforced concrete beam-column joint behavior under seismic loading, Dissertation", Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 2007. [22] Mitra, N., and Lowes, L.N., "Evaluation, calibration, and verification of a reinforced concrete beam-column joint," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 1, 2007, pp. 105. [23] Noguchi, N., and Kashiwazaki, T., "Experimental studies on shear performances of RC interior column-beam joints," In Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp. 3163-3168. [24] Oka, H., and Shiohara, H., "Tests on high-strength concrete interior beam-column joints sub-assemblages," In Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp. 3211-3217. [25] Otani, S., Kobayashi, Y., and Aoyama, H., "Reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints under simulated earthquake loading," In US-New Zealand-Japan seminar on design of reinforced concrete beam-column joints, Monterey, California, 1984. [26] Park, R., and Ruitong, D., "A comparison of the behavior of reinfroced concrete beam column joints designed for ductility and limited ductility," Bulletin of the New-Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1998, pp. 255-278. [27] Shin, M., and Lafave, J.M., "Modeling of cyclic joint shear deformation contributions in RC beam-column connections to overall frame behavior", Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 18, Issue 5, Nov. 2004, pp. 645-669. [28] Walker, S., "Seismic performance of existing reinforced concrete beam-column joints", M.S.C.E, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 2001.