Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
N
-------c- = f ct + ρ t f st (1b)
bh c
16 – f c ′ 3
ζ h = 0.40 1 + ----------------
- ≤ 1 ( f c ′ in ksi ) (7b)
10
Reinforcement ratios
The contribution of the transverse reinforcement in the
joint can be calculated as follows (Attaalla 1997)
1
Fig. 4—Schematic distributions of horizontal shear stresses ρ t f yt = ρ jt f yjt + --- ρ b f yb (8)
3
in exterior joints.
where ρjt is the reinforcement ratio of joint ties and ρb is the
reinforcement ratio of beam flexural bars passing through
the joint (top and bottom) in the direction being investigated.
Note that different yield strengths are assumed for the joint
hoops and the beam flexural reinforcement. Typically, the yield
strength is identical for all column bars and, therefore, the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the joint can be calculated
using the following relation
1
ρ l = ρ jl + --- ρc (9)
3
where η is a geometry factor equal to 1.0 and 0.79 for interior v tb = 3.5 f c ′ b tb h tb ⁄ ( b c h c ) (psi) (11a)
and exterior joints, respectively. It is interesting to note that
shear strengths of interior and exterior joints computed
according to the current ACI Code differ by 25% compared v tb = 0.29 f c ′ b tb h tb ⁄ ( b c h c ) (MPa) (11b)
with the 21% difference suggested by the proposed model.
Transverse beams—As previously mentioned, test results
where btb and htb are the width and the height of the transverse
indicate that the presence of transverse beams enhance joint
beam, respectively. If more than one transverse beam exists,
shear resistance. The previous nonlinear model, which forms
the previous equation should be applied to each one and their
the basis of the suggested simplified design model, studied
contributions are added together. It should be noted that the
the joint as a two-dimensional case and did not consider the
dimensions of transverse beams relative to the joint play a
effects of transverse beams. The complex effects of transverse
major role in determining their effects. Thus, the requirements
beams may be simplified by investigating the joint shear
of the current ACI 318 Code with respect to the cross-
deformation under seismic loads. Attaalla and Agbabian (2003)
sectional dimensions of transverse beams relative to the joint
studied the shear deformation of the joint and analytically should be considered. The nominal shear stress of a beam-
quantified its components. These components are identified column joint with transverse beams can be calculated as follows
as joint expansions in horizontal and vertical directions and
a pure shear distortion as shown in Fig. 6. The second
component is similar to the shear distortion of an isotropic and v n = v nj + v tb (12)
a homogeneous panel (Fig. 6(c)).
The monolithic connection of a transverse beam to the where vnj is the shear strength of the joint alone obtained
joint face essentially restricts the growth of these deformation from Eq. (10) and vtb is the contribution of transverse beams
components as the seismic action builds up. Qualitatively, obtained from Eq. (11).
transverse beams connected to joint faces restrict the joint On the other hand, the effects of earthquake ground motions
from expanding freely in any direction provided that no exciting a building in various directions cannot be over-
cracks develop at their interfaces. Restricting the joint expansion looked. If the joint is located in a two-way frame and the
reduces the tensile strains inside the joint and enhances the beams are designed to develop plastic hinges at column faces,
confinement provided to the joint. This indirectly enhances the cracks will develop at beam-joint interfaces. In this case, the
joint shear strength by increasing the concrete compressive contribution of transverse beams to the joint shear resistance
strength in the diagonal direction fc2. Due to deformation will be dramatically reduced and may be ignored.
compatibility between a deformed joint and an unloaded
transverse beam with no interface cracks, the unloaded MODEL VERIFICATION
transverse beam should experience some strains and shear The ultimate shear strengths of 69 interior joints and 61
distortion in the region adjacent to the joint. Kitayama et al. exterior joints (total of 130 specimens) tested in different
(1991) reported that the reinforcement of the unloaded countries are computed using Eq. (12) and compared with
transverse beams experienced high strains in the region experimental results. Specimens with concrete compressive
close to the joint that augments the previous observation. strength range from about 18 MPa (2.6 ksi) to about 100 MPa
The higher the shear resistance of transverse beams, the lower (14 ksi) and the ratio of column axial load to column
the shear distortion of the joint will be. In other words, the cross-sectional area ranges from about –1.10 MPa (–0.16 ksi)
shear resistance of transverse beams will restrict the shear to approximately 18 MPa (2.60 ksi) are considered in this
distortion of the joint. It is, therefore, considered that the shear study. The specimens also covered a wide range of joint shear
resistance of transverse beams should be added to the joint reinforcement ratio, flexural reinforcement ratio in beam and
shear capacity to account for their effects. column, beam-to-column width, flexural strength ratio, bond
The current ACI Code restricts the maximum shear stress conditions for beam and column bars in the joint, existence of
in a reinforced concrete beam to a magnitude of 3.5√fc′ . transverse beams, and joint geometry. A few specimens had
Thus, the contribution of a transverse beam vtb to the joint no hoops or intermediate column reinforcement in the joints.
shear strength can be estimated from the following relation All selected specimens failed mostly in pure shear mechanism
Briss B1 0.78 27.9 346 288 427 0.00652 0.0252 0.0111 0.0194 1.40 0.4752 5.827 5.96 1.02 1.13 0.96
(1978) B2 0.78 31.5 398 288 427 0.00171 0.0252 0.0111 0.0194 13.86 0.3326 5.808 4.70 0.81 1.20 1.08
J1 0.67 25.6 367 374 374 0.00178 0.02822 0.0106 0.01568 2.05 0.4749 5.733 5.47 0.95 1.10 0.89
Otani,
Koba- J2 0.67 24.0 367 374 374 0.00356 0.02822 0.0106 0.01568 1.92 0.4856 5.956 5.24 0.88 1.02 0.81
yashi, and J3 0.67 24.0 367 374 374 0.00889 0.02822 0.0106 0.01568 1.92 0.4987 6.400 5.38 0.84 0.95 0.75
Aoyama
(1984) J4 0.67 25.7 367 374 374 0.00178 0.02822 0.0106 0.01568 5.91 0.4389 5.589 5.07 0.91 1.13 0.92
J5 0.67 28.7 367 374 374 0.00178 0.02822 0 0.01568 2.01 0.4998 5.456 6.45 1.18 1.22 1.05
Durani and X1 0.772 34.3 351 276 413 0.0076 0.0487 0.0117 0.0351 1.730 0.4866 6.41 7.03 1.10 1.14 1.07
Wight
(1985) X2 0.772 33.6 351 276 413 0.0115 0.0487 0.0117 0.0351 2.036 0.4937 6.51 7.10 1.09 1.11 1.03
Total 69 Average 0.98 1.13 0.98
Standard deviation 0.23 0.31 0.31
*Partof Eq. (10) between brackets.
†Two transverse beams exist.
‡
Reported in Zhang and Jirsa (1982).
§
One transverse beam exists.
Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
Fig. 7—Shear strength ratio versus concrete compressive Fig. 8—Shear strength ratio versus concrete compressive
strength (interior joints). strength (exterior joints).
of the joint or beam flexural failure associated with signifi- that the predictions of Eq. (12) match reasonably well the
cant deterioration inside the joint panel to ensure that the joint experimental shear strength for most joints with better
has closely attained its maximum shear strength. correlation for high-strength concrete joints.
Table 1 and 2 summarize the properties of each specimen To better understand the model performance with respect to
and give the analytical and the experimental shear stresses as different primary factors, specimens considered in this study
well as the ratio between them for interior and exterior are classified into seven different groups according to the
joint geometry, the concrete strength, and the existence of
connections, respectively. The tables also give the nominal
transverse beams. Each group was statistically investigated.
shear stresses of the joints calculated according to ACI 318-02 These groups are interior joints cast from normal-strength
and the NZS3101:1998 standards. It should be noted that the concrete, interior joints cast from high-strength concrete, all
experimental shear stresses are based on the gross area of interior joints, and the corresponding groups for exterior
column cross-section to facilitate the comparison between joints as well as specimens with transverse beams. Table 3
different methods. Figure 7 and 8 depict the ratio between compares the average ratio between the calculated shear
the nominal shear stresses obtained according to different strength using Eq. (12), ACI 318-02, and NZS3101:1998
methods and the experimental shear strength versus the concrete and the measured shear strength for each specimen group.
compressive strength for interior and exterior connections, The table indicates that the average shear strength ratios
respectively. In general, the tables and the figures indicate for interior and exterior joints cast from normal-strength
NN-28 0.8 33.4 434 495 463 0.00464 0.0353 0.00645 0.0172 0.000 0.4933 4.568 0.00 1.22 1.26 1.46
Hwang and
HL-28 0.889 33.4 434 495 463 0.00344 0.0353 0.00637 0.0148 0.000 0.4931 4.954 0.00 1.13 1.16 1.35
Lin (1996)
HL-70 0.8 70.3 542 495 463 0.00769 0.0462 0.01075 0.02764 0.000 0.4963 8.731 0.00 0.68 0.96 1.61
NZS-70 0.667 70 476 484 457 0.00641 0.0462 0.00898 0.02044 0.000 0.4913 6.467 0.00 0.91 1.29 2.16
Hwang and LHL-70 0.8 62.4 476 496 500 0.00769 0.0355 0.0085 0.02186 0.000 0.4978 6.825 0.00 0.86 1.15 1.83
Chen (1997)
LHL-70-
D 0.8 64.2 500 496 500 0.00496 0.0355 0.0085 0.02186 0.000 0.4998 6.644 0.00 0.89 1.20 1.93
1B 0.865 33.6 437 276 413 0.0087 0.0597 0.0132 0.0397 1.979 0.4933 6.35 0.00 0.88 0.91 1.06
2B 0.865 34.9 437 276 413 0.0098 0.0597 0.0132 0.0529 2.474 0.4879 6.48 0.00 0.86 0.91 1.08
Ehsani and
Wight 3B 0.865 40.9 437 276 413 0.013 0.0597 0.0132 0.0397 2.474 0.4979 6.37 0.00 0.92 1.00 1.28
(1985)
4B 0.865 44.6 437 276 413 0.0148 0.0597 0.0132 0.0529 2.474 0.4964 6.76 0.00 0.87 0.98 1.32
5B 0.881 24.3 437 276 413 0.0078 0.0556 0.0131 0.0524 3.070 0.4774 5.82 0.00 0.71 0.84 0.84
1 0.881 64.77 455 455 455 0.007 0.0182 0.0066 0.0245 1.293 0.4945 4.189 0.00 1.400 1.91 3.09
Ehsani, 2 0.881 67.25 455 455 455 0.007 0.0221 0.0066 0.0245 2.686 0.4918 5.250 0.00 1.113 1.56 2.56
Moussa, and
3 0.864 64.77 455 455 455 0.0087 0.0249 0.0093 0.0278 4.503 0.4838 6.029 0.00 0.952 1.33 2.15
Vallenilla
(1987) 4 0.864 67.25 455 455 455 0.0087 0.0310 0.0127 0.0359 3.365 0.4835 6.973 0.00 0.824 1.17 1.93
5 0.864 44.58 455 455 455 0.0087 0.0399 0.0093 0.0298 2.474 0.4992 6.945 0.00 0.850 0.96 1.28
LL8 0.893 55.12 448 427 427 0.012 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 2.320 0.500 6.80 0.00 0.87 1.09 1.62
LL11 0.893 75.79 448 427 427 0.012 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 2.250 0.500 6.08 0.00 1.00 1.43 2.49
LL14 0.893 96.46 448 427 427 0.012 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 1.863 0.500 6.94 0.00 1.00 1.41 2.78
LH8 0.893 55.12 448 427 427 0.018 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 2.320 0.498 6.63 0.00 0.89 1.12 1.66
LH11 0.893 75.79 448 427 427 0.018 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 2.179 0.498 7.38 0.00 0.82 1.18 2.05
Ehsani and
Alameddine LH14 0.893 96.46 448 427 427 0.018 0.0297 0.00952 0.0271 1.758 0.496 7.03 0.00 0.98 1.39 2.74
(1991)
HL8 0.893 55.12 448 427 427 0.012 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 4.007 0.497 7.80 0.00 0.75 0.95 1.41
HL11 0.893 75.79 448 427 427 0.012 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 4.640 0.495 7.65 0.00 0.79 1.13 1.98
HH8 0.893 55.12 448 427 427 0.018 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 4.007 0.500 7.79 0.00 0.76 0.95 1.42
HH11 0.893 75.79 448 427 427 0.018 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 4.781 0.500 8.07 0.00 0.75 1.07 1.88
HH14 0.893 96.46 448 427 427 0.018 0.0376 0.1252 0.0294 3.761 0.500 8.16 0.00 0.85 1.20 2.36
concrete are 0.99 and 1.16 using Eq. (12), 1.13 and 1.27 when compared against the other two codes. In addition,
using the ACI Code, and 0.91 and 1.36 using the New physical interpretations of different terms included in the
Zealand Code, respectively. The corresponding values for suggested model are unambiguous and justifiable. Nevertheless,
interior and exterior joints cast from high-strength concrete it can be observed that the three methods give results close to
are 0.94 and 0.98 for Eq. (12), 1.09 and 1.29 for the ACI each other for joints cast from normal-strength concrete. The
Code, and 1.14 and 1.95 for the New Zealand Code. The average New Zealand approach, however, does not correlate well
shear strength ratios for all interior and all exterior joints are with test results when high-strength concrete is used and,
0.98 and 1.07, respectively, compared with 1.13 and 1.26 for therefore, cannot be extended to deal with such cases.
the ACI Code and 0.98 and 1.64 for the New Zealand Code. On the other hand, the second part of Eq. (10), given between
The model estimations of the contributions of transverse brackets, reflects the effects of the joint reinforcement and axial
beams to the joint shear strength can be seen in Table 3. The forces. As given in the original nonlinear model, this part of the
average value of the shear strength ratio according to the equation is considered as a measure of the principal compressive
suggested model is 0.93 compared with 0.95 and 0.71 according stress direction. In other words, it may be considered as a
to the ACI and New Zealand Codes, respectively. Even measure of the inclination of the diagonal cracks in the joint. It
though the model prediction for joints with transverse beams can be seen from Table 1 and 2 (Column (13)) that this
is slightly less than the ACI prediction (0.93 versus 0.95), the part of Eq. (10) ranges between about 0.40 and 0.50. This
proposed model gives a justifiable reason for the contribution of means that the direct effect of the joint shear reinforcement and
transverse beams while the ACI Code is entirely based on axial forces does not exceed about 20% of the ultimate joint
empirical evaluations. It is clear that the current New shear strength. However, the greatest influence of the shear
Zealand standards poorly estimate the joint shear strength reinforcement and axial forces comes from the confinement
compared with test results when unloaded transverse beams they provide for the joint concrete and, hence, the diagonal
exist. Table 3 also shows that the average shear strength ratio, concrete compressive strength is affected accordingly.
according to Eq. (12) and considering all specimens, is 1.02
compared with 1.19 and 1.29 for the ACI and New Zealand CONCLUSIONS
Codes, respectively. An analytical design tool was developed to estimate the
It is evident from Table 3 that the proposed model, Eq. (12), shear strength of normal- and high-strength reinforced
gives the best correlation with test results in terms of average concrete beam-column joints in frame structures subjected
strength ratio and standard deviation for almost all groups to earthquake loading. The suggested shear equation reflects