Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Anchorage Details and Joint Design in Seismic RC Frames

    Enviado por

    Nimish Prabhukhanolkar
    69 visualizações7 páginas
    Anchorage Details and Joint Design

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Anchorage Details and Joint Design

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    69 visualizações7 páginas

    Anchorage Details and Joint Design in Seismic RC Frames

    Enviado por

    Nimish Prabhukhanolkar
    Anchorage Details and Joint Design

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 7
    SS _ Anchorage details and joint design in seismic RC frames |c. V. R. Murty, The Indian design codes do not have any provisions for the design of beam-column joints in reinforced concrete (RC) frames. Also, theanchorage detail for anchoring the beam bars into the columns is very poor particularly from the seismic performance point of view. This paper highlights the ‘importance of carefully designing the beam-colwnan joints for satisfactory performance during strong seismic shaking of RC frame buildings, Results of an experimental investigation of ‘four RC frame sub-assemblages of an exterior joint with diferent detailing schemes and beam bar anchorages, subjected to pseudo-static cyclic loading, are used to support this need. The experiments reveal that practical joint detailing using hairpin-type reinforcement is a competitive alternative to providing closed ties in the joint region. Further, the experiments demonstrate that anchoring the beam bars into the columns by ensuring a strong colum-weak beam design ‘ofthe frame is essential in developing a good hysteretic response in the frame A good seismic performance of RC frames depends on their ability to absorb seismic energy through inelastic deformations and to avoid a sudden development of collapse mechanism in the event of a strong earthquake shaking. ‘These objectives lead to two different requirements that are ‘met at global and local levels while designing a RC frame system. At the global level, a suitable collapse mechanism is chosen which distributes the inelasticity uniformly throughout the structure at many different locations, enhancing overall {energy dissipation potential and limiting the inelastic demand at each of these locations to a low level. At the local level, these zones of inelastic activities are so detailed that they can tundergo large deformations before losing strength and stiffness, which can severely undermine the assumed global behaviour. For typical RC frames, a strong column-weak beam (SCWB), collapse mechanism, Fig 1(a), satisfies the global ‘titerion much better than implied by a strong beam-weak gesh C. Rai, K. K. Bajpai and Sudhir K. Jain | column (SBWC), system, Fig (0). In ether ofthese systems, itis important that flexural capacities of beams columns are developed before their shear capacities and also before the joint reaches its shear or flexural capacities. The flexural member sections need to be suitably detailed so that the ‘expected strength is reached and the required failure modes achieved This paper reports an experimental study, and discusses the issues that are important at the member level in the seismic design of RC frames. They govern the sequence in ‘Which member capacities willbe attained, nature of the failure mode, and the overall energy dissipation potential af the system Member design requirements At the member level, the objective of seismic design is two- fold: to attain section capacity in a particular mode required by overall collapse mechanism and to provide an inelastic deformation capacity as dictated by the chosen collapse mode. For example, the SCWB collapse mechanism requires that beam sections adjacent to joints reach flexural capacities before the shear capacity, because the moment hinging is more dluctle inelastic activity than a shear “yielding” which is associated with sudden decrease in strength and stiffness, |; = ” » »* »* ie ° Fig 1 Collapse mechanisme of trames (a) Overs ‘mechanism owing to strong-column weak-be (b) Storey sway mechanism owing to weak-colut Strong-beam design ee that is, brittle. However, the amount of inelastic deformations expected at these hinge locations depends heavily on the geometric configuration of the frame and severity of the ground motions, which vary widely. Typically, a design is considered adequate if section capacities are realised in the chosen mode. That is, in case of moment hinging, the longitudinal bars must yield before the web concrete disintegrates under the action of associated shear stresses. Sufficient amount of transverse reinforcement in a suitable manner needs to be provided not only to delay the onset of shear yielding but also to restrict its damaging effect on the web concrete. Further, seismic forces produce stresses that are cyclic and reversible in nature, unlike the gravity-induced forces ‘which predominately act in one direction. Various detailing requirements for the section must account for this difference. In gravity design, longituclinal reinforcements are distributed ‘unequally on both faces of the beam; however, reversal of stresses tunder seismic loads requires that such a design will not be adequate. Similarly, the requirements of anchorage ‘will be more stringent when reinforcing bars will be subjected to stresses in excess of the yield stress in a hardened plastic ‘hinge and when the surrounding concrete is cracked due to diagonal shear, ec Joint design requirements Significant experimental research has been conducted over the past three decades on hysteretic behaviour of beam- column joints of RC frames under cyclic displacement loading. ‘The various research studies focussed. on overall response, bbond and anchorage of beam bars, shear strength of joints, detailing of reinforcement in joints, type of rebars, retrofit of frames, and joints of precast frame joints’. ‘The design requirement for a beam-column joint in earthquake resistant RC frames is rather simple, that is, it must not yield before the joining members reach their capacities and also must not deform excessively. Joint region is subjected to excessive shear stresses when either joining ‘member (beam or column) reaches its over-strength capacity associated with the hardened plastic hinge. For example, ‘consider a frame sub-assemblage including an exterior beam ‘column joint of a typical RC frame, Fig 2. For this exterior beam-column joint, Fig 3 (a), the horizontal and vertical joint shear stresses, ),£, can be given as st 7 ey Fig 2 Typical exterior frame eub assemblage from a und the forces on it during ground F[, (t+050, 1 -{050, wa“ | o ate y= width ofthe join DrandD. = total depths of the beam and column, octal dhand = effective depths ofthe beam and column, capes and Iyand Ly = lengths of the beam and column, seopectvely ‘The joint must have sufficient shear strength eapacity to ‘resist these shear stresses. The int shear strength comprises of three components: ‘= shear strength of plain concrete, ‘+ shear strength due to longitudinal steel of framing ‘members, and ‘+ shear strength due to web steel provided in the joint in the form of transverse steel. In designs for gravity loads, the shear strength provided by the plain concrete and longitudinal steel is adequate in ‘most cases. However, the shear strength demand imposed by hardened plastic hinges developed under seismic conditions is too large and additional steel in form of transverse reinforcement is often required in the joint region, Fig 4 shows that a system of diagonal compression strut and tension tie is developed in the concrete core to transmit o. - hotell aisot ceeeeetieeeee®| 106 and design Fig 9 Frame sub-assembly, joint str reinforcement Icy COMPILATION Fig 4 Diagonal compression and tension fields in an exterior RC beam-column joint the joint shear forces. The strength of this diagonal strut controls the joint strength when joint shear forces are large and diagonal cracking has occurred in the joint core. The joint reinforcement does not play a major role in such situations. I is therefore necessary to limit the magnitude of horizontal joint shear stress to protect the joint against diagonal crushing". Further, the diagonal crushing reduces the compressive strength of the core concrete. Its therefore suggested that the nominal horizontal shear stress given by Er (1) be limited to the maximum shear stress, t,, that can be carried by the joint core conerete, given by 0.2647, MPa 0.365, MPa for one-way ames fortwo -way frames In case, the nominal joint shear stress ty oF tp, exceeds, given by Eqn (2), then the joint core concrete will erack. The joint shear can still be carried with the help of joint core reinforcement designed to carry the full joint shear forces. But, for levels of joint shear stress beyond those given by Eqn (2), the hysteretic response of the joint core will show severe pinching. However, it is also observed that the maximum shear stress,ten that the joint core should be limited to is" Ll MPa for one - way frames = e ® 1.48), MPa fortwo -way frames ‘This serves to avoid excessive deterioration of the joint. When the frame has deep columns, for example, in SCWB designs, the joint shear stresses become small, and as a result, the problem of diagonal cracking in the joint core is considerably minimised, if not completely eliminated, Thus, the physical size or the volume of the joint becomes, the most important parameter because it not only directly ‘controls the level of stress in compressed diagonal concrete but also dictates how much transverse steel in each direction can be provided. Further, the stiffness of the joint, which determines the contribution ofthe joint deformation to overall frame deformation, is also proportional to the volume of the joint. Small volume joints resulting in frames based on SBWC collapse mechanism deform excessively and contribute Fig 5 Test set-up for cyclle displacement loading of frame sub-assembly in 90° rotated position significantly towards the overall frame deformation in comparison to large volume joints in RC frames with SCWB collapse mechanism, Experimental test programme ‘An experimental programme was carried out at the IIT Kanpur that involved slow cyclic testing of half-scale RC beam-column sub-assemblages. These sub-assemblages were designed to study the effect of detailing of reinforcement (ongitudinal and transverse), relative sizes of the beam and column, and detailing of joint on the overall effect of the load-deformation behaviour and the failure mechanism. The sub-assemblages represent exterior beam-column joints of a typical RC frame, Fig 2, This isolation of sub-assemblages from the frame structure requires that proper boundary conditions be simulated in the test set-up for faithful reproduction of stresses inside the test specimen akin to the prototype. A schematic diagram ofthe test-setup used in the study is shown in Fig 5. The sub-assemblage was rotated 90° such that the column member is in horizontal position and the beam member is in vertical position, A250kN MTS hydraulic actuator was used to apply cyclic displacements at the beam end. The column ends are held against the reaction floor through an arrangement, which not only restricts the horizontal movement but also provides ‘moment-free rotation through an external hinge fixture, Fig 5. The loading programme consisted of a simple history ‘of reversed symmetric cycles of increasing displacement amplitudes in predetermined steps, Fig 6. At each step of loading, three cycles were performed. This simplified history permits the evaluation of parameters such as cyclic strength and stiffness degradation, ductility and energy dissipation oysenuntee | placement loading history applied on RC frame sub-assemblages —o PARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ee ‘Table 1: Details of specimens studied eee ee a anchorage ‘Sen LongiadinalTronverse ‘Sze, ——onltuinal—Transyerse_—detalls. reinforcement nm zim reinforcement _renfrcement _mimxiam reinforcement reinforcement decals A 200x400 2¥a0p YRC) WIS «YTS 2va0 boom 270mm ‘ype al Types! Ream up detalng Bb twxam 22010 Y8GL) ORM 6G YBAL) ACL anchore ayR0 haem Ome Emme Type AZ Type des 1S 19900 Beam Sirop eating © 200x400 2200p = YEAL) 200228) vs BL) 15 13920 sam D—.2x4o02¥20ep = YEAL) 0x29 ere 15 13920 beam savin baton 0mm et e'imncle Tye AS Type trp detalig potential, and failure mode, which are important for seismic performance of the system. The load cell in the actuator arm measured the applied horizontal force and de type linear variable differential transducers (LVDTS) were mounted on the specimen to monitor displacements. Strain gauges were also employed to measure strains in rebars at certain critical locations. Details of specimens Four specimens of RC beam-column joint sub-assemblages were tested which represented different member capacities {and reinforcement detailing for ductility, Fig7-Asummary of, all specimens with respect to physical dimensions and reinforcing details is given in Table 1.For gravity loads, beams are provided with unequal amount of longitudinal reinforcement at the top and bottom face, whereas reversal of loads under seismic loads requires that equal amount of steel is provided on each face. Also, requirements for transverse reinforcements are more stringent in order to ‘confine the concrete and enhance the ductility of potential hinges in beams for seismic loads. IS 13920 : 1993 provisions require tighter spacing for ductility in beams near columns, ‘which is 75 mm in the specimens studied, Three different arrangements for anchorage of beam longitudinal bars, Fig 7(b), were used. Type AL anchorage is typical for non-seismic (gravity) frames where only tension rebars are anchored". Type A2 has the standard ACI 90" hook for anchorage while Type A3 has continuous longitudinal C-shaped bars”. Similarly, three different arrangements of reinforcement in joint regions were investigated, Fig 7c). Type J1 has no joint reinforcement as practiced for norseismic details, which isin contrast to Types J2and J3. Type J2isas per the requirements of IS 13920: 1993. In Type J3, the amount of transverse ste! (confining ste) is the same as in J2, but itis provided in form of open “hairpin” bends that extend into the beam for the development from the face of the column". These hairpins are in contrast to closed stirrups provided in Type J2. The member capacities in Fexure and shear are shown in Tables 2and 3, where itcan be seen that beam moment hinging is more likely than shear cracking at yield lateral loads. Results and discussions In the following, overall force-deformation behaviour of specimens are discussed and their responses are compared with each other to bring out the effect of various design parameters that differentiate them, Fig 8(a) shows the asymmetrical force-deformation behaviour of the specimen A that is due to asymmetrical detailing of the anchorage (Type Al). The ultimate loads reached were 76.1 kN and 45.8 kN, respectively. The lateral load capacity was reduced by 40 percent because the Tongitudinal steel on one of the faces could not develop its yield capacity due to inaclequate anchorage. Further, as shown in Table 4, the joint shear stress in specimen A is over three execemcares | a0 pal ene =o Se a \ (ane | Fe a ton jody a | (0) Fame geomet, Fig 7 Specimen geometry and reinforcement details Icy ComPILATION Brain aR Fig 8 Lateral load-displacement hysteresis loops of the four times the preferred shear stress of 1.79 MPa. This implies that the specimen is likely to experience severe damage in the joint under shear. The damage observed in the specimen at the end of 25 mm excursion indicated that all the damage is, concentrated in the joint region only, which is attributed to the longitudinal beam bar pullout from the joint core due to insufficient anchorage. The specimen B has a SCWB design that demonstrated a good hysteretic behaviour as shown in Fig 8(b). The ACI standard hook provided adequate anchorage to longitudinal rebars and large column size resulted in a greater joint dimensions, reducing nominal horizontal shear stresses. As shown in Table 4, horizontal joint shear stress is only 3.8 MPa, which is up to 68 percent lower than those in the other specimens and is also closer to the preferred shear stress of 1.76MPa. Asa result, the cracking inthe joint area is minimal ‘even when the plastic hinge is not only fully developed in the beam but also hardened to reach a moment capacity 42 @ Ir sub-assomblages studied percent in excess of its yield capacity, that is, overstrengith, On the other hand, specimens A, C-and D developed significant cracking in the joint core, because horizontal joint shear stresses were about 3-4 times larger than the corresponding preferred value of shear stress for keeping Intact the compressed concrete in the diagonal strut. These specimens also have small joint volume due to SBWC design ‘concept. ‘Specimens C and D differ in detailing of horizontal joint reinforcement only, that is, open haiepin bends versus closed stirrups, but their effect is not obvious in hysteretic response ‘as shown in Fig 8(€) and (d). However, the damage pattern at, large displacement is slightly altered: Hairpin bends of ‘specimen C helped transfer forces in the beam after extensive cracking of the joint core. A relative comparison of overall force-deformation behaviour of all four specimens is presented in Fig 9. It is, clear that the SCWBdesign of specimen B not only attains ‘Table 2: Member flexural strengths the maximum — load Tpecinen Hen memes arene i oe are corresponding to —s — EM foverstrength but also shows EM ae the least strength — —- degradation. Poorest Design ell _Overrenh Design Ye Oversvensth Weld Oversreneih_ bef aviour ig observed in =o 2914s MS 410 OO «tA gpacsniell'A whist eld aot mo 914s 99 710 10m 155 490—_-have proper anchorage for suman no 406 old ose 197 beamlongitudinal bars unlike siya tua mes 613 mi ig) meta Cond ae of hairpin bends over the EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING Fig 9 Backbone load-displacement curves of four specimen considered in this study ‘Table 3: Member shear strengths Specimen Bea shear urn RN Chen shear vas 18 Design Maximam expcied Design Maina especed ® 4 ae m0 34 > ws 287 260 as conventional close stirrups for transverse reinforcement is hot obvious from their load-deformation response. Small ‘volume joints of specimens C and D prevented them to reach the force level attained by specimen B. ‘The effectiveness of any detailing schemes in the amount of energy dissipated by the structure provided with such a detailing scheme. Fig 10 shows the variation of the total energy dissipated by the four sub-assemblages upto any given level of displacement excursion (expressed in terms of the cumulative displacement excursions experienced by the specimen) till failure. Specimen B stands out in its overall performance, though the maximum displacement sustained by it is lesser. Specimen C and D show almost identical performance; this suggests that the hairpins are as effective as the horizontal stirrups in the joint region. However, in these specimens the overall energy dissipation issmaller since the joint volume is smaller than in specimen B. The expected ‘Table 4 + Shear demand on joints = soncinan 8 sie aus Fig 10 Performance of different joints detailing scheme: from energy dissipation point of view poor performance of specimen A oving to lack of anchorage Of the bottom bar is also indicated by its energy dissipation potential In the above experimental study, the longitudinal reinforcement bars inthe beam have a small radius of bend at the 9° comers when anchored into the column. Such a detailing is being commonly adopted in practice in India ‘This detailing isin contrast to the one thatthe IS 456 : 2000 specifies”, The code requires the radius of bends to be provided in accordance with clause 26.2.2.5 to reduce the bearing stresses atthe bends. The need for such detailing even in RC frames subjected to seismic forces has already been highlighted elsewhere" Conclusions Slow cyclic testing of RC beam-column joint assemblages, clearly indicates that for satisfactory seismic response of RC frames, it is essential that joints are so designed that longitudinal bars are properly anchored in the joint core and horizontal joint shear stress is kept below a limiting stress corresponding to the compression capacity of cracked joint core concrete ACI standard 90° hooks and continuous longitudinal bars bent in C-shape details provide adequate anchorage; however, ACI hooks are relatively easy to construct. Transverse stecl in the joint core resists joint shear and confines the concrete core. However, at large deformations, ‘when the concrete is cracked, its effects considerably reduced. Specimen ea = Ta ear ve Ohiened aximan vera VercalWoriontal—‘Profered ‘Maximum —Obrerved snbotanced Mace ‘eur force shear — shear shear set permisble shear file ww MPa MPa Me MP a Paras! sa CSSC*SSSSC palo © Joie shee Boss ta La ms a0 as 136 a1 Join ster + © m3 tos haa ox oo 4s tet 636 Joi she pelea D2 oss 104 sa sor sz ue oat Join shear v2 480 Icy COMPILATION ____ ‘The diagonal compression strut will carry shear force in the joint core, only when the horizontal shear stress is limited to value less than the compressive strength of the concrete core when itis extensively cracked tunder load reversals. In large joints of SCWB designs, itis relatively easy to keep the horizontal joint shear stress below this limiting value. As a result, the cracking of joint core will be minimal even when the beam plastic hinges have reached the overstrength ‘capacity. This behaviour is in contrast with that of joints of ‘small dimensions of SBWC designs, where horizontal shear stress in excess of the limiting value will cause extensive cracking in joint cores and premature failure of joints before ‘member capacities are realised. These observations are confirmed by the energy dissipated by the sub-assemblages with different schemes of bar anchorages and joint designs. The study underlines the need for significant improvements of joint provisions in Indian codes. Acknowledgments The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai, supported the experimental work reported in this paper. The authors ‘gratefully acknowledge the same. References 1 asia of Ban Cale Joints fr Sco Resistanse SP-123, (190, Special Publication SP.128, American Conrete nett, Farmington Hil 2 Nason, LHLE, and Lenn A. Renfiorcs concrete comers and joins subjected tolending moment una fh Suture Dison ASCE, une 1975, Nol 102, NoSTS, pp 129-1284, 3. Us DIN, Wor LK and Hasson, RD RC beamcomn intcunder lange loaders, rl of te Sct Dison, ASCE, Decent 17, VL, [NoST2, pp. 230-2390. 4 Prous, Teand Pass MX Rnorasconcr beam-okumajoint under seismic actions ACI Journal, November 1978, Paper No.4, pp 585553, 5. Dornan, AAA, and Wis |. Behaviour of intrioe Beam -to-olumn ‘nnection under earthguske ype lading, AC oral, 1985, Mayne, Paper No pp. 3358 6, Pov, EP Bondand anchorage reinforcing bars under jlic ing ACI Jour aly Asgst 184, Papes No, pp 0-8. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7 Lis RU ntero nts wih variable anchorage lengths Jornal Stra Engin, ASCE Sopomber 1989, VLIIS. Ro, pp 261-2888. Linn, RI Shear strength nd hysteretic behaviurfnteror bm column Joint, ACI Structural Journal, Tanwary February 1990, VoL87, No, peat 9. Taxes, AG. Shea strength of dace reinforsd concrete benmt-coumn ‘connecions forse ressant structure Eure arpa Egierng, 1987, Vo, pp. 54-64 10.Scorr, RI. Intrinsic mechanisms in reaforced concrete beam-

    Você também pode gostar