'13 Iisee

Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Joints :

by Hitoshi Shiohara, Ph. D, Fellow of ACI
Professor
Dept. of Architectural Engineering,
The University of Tokyo
1
Beam-column Joint & Collapse of RC Buildings
Turkey 2011
2
Turkey 2011
Turkey 2011 Turkey 2011
Beam-column Joint & Collapse of RC Buildings
Kobe 1995
Kobe 1995
112 H. Sezen et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 103114
Fig. 13. Building collapse due to failure of beam-column joints.
Fig. 14. Damage to new moment-frame beam-column joint.
observed by the team in a dual wall-frame building is
shown in Fig. 15. The wall and rst-storey exterior col-
Fig. 15. Collapsed dual wall-frame building in Adapazari, (a) view of collapsed 5-storey building, (b) failure of the shear wall and perimeter col-
umns.
umns shown (Fig. 15b) failed and shortened. These
components displaced out of the plane of the facade as
seen in Fig. 15b. Another example of damage to beams
and columns in a dual wall-frame building is shown in
Fig. 16. No cracks were observed in the shear wall, but
the right end settled approximately 500 mm due to bear-
ing failure of the supporting soils. Although the shear wall
was likely sufciently stiff to protect the nonductile
frame, the rotation at the base of the shear wall and the
settlement of the footings beneath the moment-frame col-
umns contributed to the failure of the rst-story columns.
Blade columns or narrow shear walls were often con-
structed near stairwells (Fig. 17). These walls or blade
columns were detailed similarly to regular moment-
frame columns with light transverse reinforcement with
90-degree hooks and no cross ties. The damage shown
in Fig. 17 is similar to that observed in moment-frame
columns.
Turkey 1999
Fig. 5. 3-storey building near Golcuk; (a) elevation, (b) oor plan.
vations, which were typical of most buildings in the
epicentral region, would suggest that the framing system
is much stiffer and stronger in the direction perpendicu-
lar to the street assuming that similar rebar are used in
all beams and all columns. Such framing likely possesses
limited strength and stiffness, which if coupled with non-
ductile reinforcement details, results in a vulnerable
building in the event of earthquake shaking.
6. Behavior of moment-resisting frame construction
Reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame buildings
behaved poorly during the Kocaeli earthquake. Accord-
ing to ofcial estimates, more than 20,000 moment-
frame buildings collapsed, and many more suffered
moderate to severe damage. Three- to seven-storey
apartment buildings were hard hit, although many had
been constructed in the past 20 years. These apartment
buildings were likely designed and detailed to comply
with the requirements of the building code [6] and 1975
earthquake code [4] for construction in a rst-degree
seismic zone. Many of the collapses are attributed to the
formation of soft rst storeys that formed as a result of
differences in framing and inll wall geometry between
the rst and upper stories, the use of nonductile details,
and poor quality construction in some cases.
Fig. 6 shows two six-storey nonductile moment-frame
Fig. 6. Variability of building response.
buildings in Golcuk. One of the buildings collapsed
completely, whereas the adjacent building exhibited
shear cracks in the rst storey. Careful inspection of the
rst storeys in both buildings showed that the buildings
had a similar plan footprint and construction details. It
is likely that the two buildings were nominally identical
and that both buildings were constructed by the same
contractor. Both buildings were likely subjected to simi-
lar levels of earthquake shaking, yet one building perfor-
med well, while the other collapsed. This raises many
questions regarding the limit state for nonductile
moment frames. Small differences in the strength of
these nonductile buildings possibly caused by the vari-
ation in material strength, construction practice, and
workmanship could account for the drastic difference
in performance.
7. Role of inll walls in response of moment-frame
buildings
Hollow clay tile and gasconcrete masonry inll walls
are widely used in the epicentral region. Many of the
buildings were constructed with hollow clay tile inll
walls in the frames perpendicular to the sidewalk.
Frames parallel to the sidewalk were often inlled with
hollow clay tile only above the rst storey to allow for
commercial space on the ground level. Such an arrange-
3
Turkey 1999
Beam-column Joint & Collapse of Structures
Loma Prieta II
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Close Up of Joint Failure: Embarcadero Freeway
The reasons for damage to the Embarcadero Freeway are likely the same as the reasons for the damage
to I-880, namely: 1) the structure was built prior to the adoption of modern seismic design criteria, and
2) both locations experienced large ground displacements. The damage correlated with that portion of the
Embarcadero Freeway where a transition in the bent configuration occurred.
Slide #14
Close Ups of Joint Failure: 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake Oct. 17
Loma Prieta II
Close Up of Joint Failure: I-280
This slide shows diagonal cracking of the east-side column of bent 51 (south face).
Slide #17
Loma Prieta II
Close Up of Joint Failure: I-280
Diagonal cracking of the east-side column of bent 52 (north face).
Slide #18
Beam-column Joint Failure
Royal Palm Hotel Damage at masonry in-ll stair enclosure.: 1993 Guam Earthquake Aug. 8
Guam I
Buildings
The Royal Palm Hotel, west elevation. The Royal Palm Resort was a 22-unit,
12 story hotel and condominium complex that opened for occupancy just 18
days before the earthquake. The main portion of the complex, that consisted of
three structurally separate but functionally interdependent structures, was post-
ed as hazardous by the building department following the earthquake and was
demolished by controlled explosion in December 1993.
Slide #11
Guam I
Buildings
Royal Palm Hotel. Damage at masonry in-fill stair enclosure.
Slide #12
Beam-column Joint & Collapse of Buildings
6
The Pyne Gould Corp. building collapsed when the magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck Christchurch, New Zealand
in 2011. It was built in the 1960s, before the adoption of modern seismic standards for concrete buildings
Background and
Introduction
7
Fig. 13. Building collapse due to failure of beam-column joints.
Fig. 14. Damage to new moment-frame beam-column joint.
observed by the team in a dual wall-frame building is
shown in Fig. 15. The wall and rst-storey exterior col-
Fig. 15. Collapsed dual wall-frame building in Adapazari, (a) view of collapsed 5-storey building, (b) failure of the shear wall and perimeter col-
umns.
umns shown (Fig. 15b) failed and shortened. These
components displaced out of the plane of the facade as
seen in Fig. 15b. Another example of damage to beams
and columns in a dual wall-frame building is shown in
Fig. 16. No cracks were observed in the shear wall, but
the right end settled approximately 500 mm due to bear-
ing failure of the supporting soils. Although the shear wall
was likely sufciently stiff to protect the nonductile
frame, the rotation at the base of the shear wall and the
settlement of the footings beneath the moment-frame col-
umns contributed to the failure of the rst-story columns.
Blade columns or narrow shear walls were often con-
structed near stairwells (Fig. 17). These walls or blade
columns were detailed similarly to regular moment-
frame columns with light transverse reinforcement with
90-degree hooks and no cross ties. The damage shown
in Fig. 17 is similar to that observed in moment-frame
columns.
Research and Development : RC Beam-Column joint
1955 The rst seismic tests of RC BC joints (Tsuboi and Tomii, Japan)
1965 The rst proposal of joint shear strength for RC B-C joints (Endo, Japan)
1967 The rst seismic tests of RC BC joints (Hanson et al., USA)
1971 Proposal of joint shear strength for RC BC joints (Koreishi, Japan)
1975 Proposal of joint shear strength for RC BC joints (Kamimura, Japan)
1976 ACI-ASCE352 proposed seismic provisions for BC joints
1976 Paulay (NZ) proposed BC joint mechanism of Strut action and Truss action
1981 Tests on RC BC joint (Meiheit, Jirsa et al. USA)
1982 NZS3101 adopted seismic provisions for RC BC joints
1985 ACI318-85 adopted seismic provisions for RC BC joints
1991
AIJ Guidelines for Seismic Design of RC Buildings adopted seismic provisions for RC BC
joints
8
History of the development of beam-column joint seismic design :
Joint Shear in Beam-column Joints
14

V
j
= Ts + Cs + Cc Vc = Ts + Ts Vc = a
t
s
+ a
t
s
V
c
V
j
Vc
Vj
T
s
D
c
T'
s
' C
c
C's
C
c
Cs
Vc
Vj
T
s
D
c
C
c
Cs
column
column
beam
interior beam-column joint exterior beam-column joint
beam
9
Vj < Joint shear Capacity : Joint shear
Design Requirement prevent from joint shear failure
Joint shear
Joint shear Joint shear
BC joint mechanism of Strut action and Truss action
T
c
V
col
V
col
h
c
h
c
V
b
V
b
C
c
C
s
C
c
C
s
T
h
b
Paulay (1976 ) Joint shear is resisted by strut action and truss action
Strut action Truss action
Model of statics : only equilibrium is considered
Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio

M
1

M
3

M
4

M
2

M
1

M
2

M
3
Interior
Column
Column
Beam
Beam
Exterior
Column
Beam
11
Column-to-beam strength ratio > 1.0 : Beam-hinge Mechanism
Column-to-beam strength ratio < 1.0 : Column-hinge Mechanism
Column-to-beam strength ratio Column-to-beam strength ratio
Introduction
Current seismic codes protect RC beam-column (BC) joints by
requiring that;
- Joint shear not exceeding joint shear capacity
- where, the design equation for the joint shear capacity are empirical.
But this requirement may have overlooked signicant deciency in
BC joint because;
- The experimental assessments of joint shear capacity have been over-
emphasized, thus tests were focused only to joints with excessive reinforcement
in both beam and column,
- Test dataset are biased in column-to-beam strength ratio
- Obvious lack of tests on BC joints particularly with low column-to-beam strength
ratio (1.0 - 1.5), which is obvious choice of structural engineer to optimize for
stress by seismic load and week beam mechanism,
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
1.0- 2.0- 3.0- 4.0-
Bias in Specimen Inventory
Interior
Failure Mode
Beam (or Column) 92
Beam and Joint 162
Joint 71
325 in total from Japan 288, US/Canada 28, NZ 5
No out-of-plane members
No joint eccentricity
No light weight concrete
No special joint detail
No prestressing
Constant axial load in column Exhaustive list of interior B-C joint specimens
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
1.0- 2.0- 3.0- 4.0-
Failure Mode
Beam (or Column) 92
Beam and Joint 162
Joint 71
- Most of the specimens have column-to-beam
strength ratio larger than 1.5
standard range
in practice
unrealistic
speicmens
14
Interior
- Few specimens are with strength ratio of near 1.0,
- Strength ratio of 1.8 or larger is necessary to get beam
yielding mechanism (B) for interior joint
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
1.0- 2.0- 3.0- 4.0<
Column-to-beam Strength Ratio
Exterior
Failure Mode
Beam (or Column) 104
Beam and Joint 112
Joint (or Anchorage) 88 (27)
331 in total; from Japan 260, US/Canada 35, NZ 15
No out-of-plane members No joint eccentricity
No light weight concrete
No special joint reinforcemnt
No prestressed concrete joint
Constant axial load in column
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
1.0- 2.0- 3.0- 4.0<
Column-to-beam Strength Ratio
Exterior
Failure Mode
Beam (or Column) 104
Beam and Joint 112
Joint (or Anchorage) 88 (27)
- Strength ratio of 2.0 or higher is necessary to get
beam yielding mechanism (B) for exterior joints
standard in practice
unrealistic
16
Excessive reinforcements? or Column-to-Beam
Strength ratio? Which is critical to joint failure :
Hanson et al (1967) USA
Column-to-beam strength ratio = 23
17 Column-to-beam strength ratio =1

U D C : 624,0 12.45 : 624.075.23 : 624.072

4 0 1 1 9 8 9 7
1) -
1.
,
,
,

R C
,
,
4)SJ
() ,
617)
,
,
(BY ) (JS )
,
(BY - JS )
(BY - ,JS )
8 )9

,
o),
(BY - JS ) , ,
,

, ,
1)- 3)
*
**
**
(1988 9 22 , 1989 5 8 )
*
**
***
, , ,
,
, ,
, , , ,
18 ,
,
,
,
2.
2.1
- 1 , - 1
20 m m ,

--1
--- 87 ------
Kaku et al (1989) Japan
(N o.2, 5, ,
3, 6) N o.13 ,
(N o.7, 8, 9) , n (N o.9, N o.16
S , 18) , N o.16
, N 0.9
- 90 -
- 5
(N o.2, 5, ,
3, 6) N o.13 ,
(N o.7, 8, 9) , n (N o.9, N o.16
S , 18) , N o.16
, N 0.9
- 90 -
- 5
Excessive reinforcements? or Column-to-Beam
Strength ratio? Which is critical to joint failure :
18
!"
"
!
J
90deg hook
Type of Anchorage
BJ
B
J
BJ
B
(a) Interior beam-column joints
Joint shear demand/Joint shear capacity
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
(b) Exterior beam-column joints
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
*
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
*
*Story shear at flexural capacity of critical section in beam
headed bar
Joint Shear Strength Margin and Performance
Joint failure
Beam failure
Joint failure after beam yielding
Joint shear demand < Joint shear capacity
!"
"
!
J
90deg hook
Type of Anchorage
BJ
B
J
BJ
B
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
*
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
*
headed bar
but its strength is less than expected
!"
"
!
J
90deg hook
Type of Anchorage
BJ
B
J
BJ
B
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
*
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
*
headed bar
!"
"
!
J
90deg hook
Type of Anchorage
BJ
B
J
BJ
B
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
*
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
*
headed bar
but its strength is less than expected
Topics and Road Map
Interior beam-column joint tests (2008)
Exterior beam-column joint tests (2009)
Failure mechanism of beam-column joint
Design Equations for Estimating Strength of Joint Hinging Failure
Full-scale four story RC frame structure shaking table tests (2010)
New macro element for beam-column joint and nonlinear dynamic
analyses on RC frames (2012)
New beam-column joint macro element and nonlinear earthquake
response analysis of 3D frame structure (2013)
Residential building damaged by Tohoku-chiho Taiheiyo-oki
Earthquake (2011)
Seismic Retrot of Beam-column joint with low column-to-beam
strength ratio
Summary and recommendations
23
Interior B-C Joint Tests
24
Program design;
! Geometrically common section for a series of specimens,
! Number of reinforcing bar in column are varied, while keeping those of the beams,
! 26 specimens in total.
Test Program on Interior B-C Joints in 2008
Test parameters;
! Joint shear demand / capacity,
! Column-to-beam strength ratio (0.7-2.7) ,
Material and others;
! Mild steel deformed bars,
! Normal concrete,
! Minimum joint shear reinforcement,
! Zero axial load in column.
Interior
25
Specimens : Interior BC Joints
2
However, it is revealed recently by a research (Shiohara 2008) that the flexural strength of beam
nor column could not be achieved in a crucial beam-column joint subassemblage if the flexural
strength of beam and flexural strength of column framing into a joint are identical or close to
each other by a series of algebraic equations derived theoretically using a model for a failure of
beam-column joint (Shiohara 2001). Hence, an experimental study have been carried out to get
validated the theory and to get test data for the development of performance based seismic
design used for evaluation of post-yielding behavior of beam-column joints for next generation.
This is a preliminary report on the experimental study, which investigates the effects of the three
major design parameters, including (1) longitudinal reinforcement ratio in beams, (2) ratio of
the flexural strength of the beams to the flexural strength of the columns framing into a joint, and
(3) ratio of the depth of the beam to the depth of the column. The effects of the combination of
three parameters on the maximum story shear and the post-yielding behavior are discussed.

TEST PROGRAM

Test result of twenty specimens are selected and reported here out of thirty one specimen of
planar reinforced concrete beam-column joints in an experimental project carried out at the
University of Tokyo. The specimens are 1/3 scale beam-column joint subassemblages of crucial
form. Table. 1 summarizes the arrangement of the reinforcements and other properties of the
specimens. The depth of the columns and the beams are 240 mm in common for Series B and
Series C, whereas the depths of column and beam are 340 mm and 170 mm for Series D. The
width of all the beams and the columns is 240 mm in common. Figure 1 shows the geometry and
dimensions of the specimens. The hoops and the stirrups of all the specimen are of rectangular
shape of D6 deformed bars at spacing of 50 mm. Two sets of rectangular hoops of D6
deformed bars are provided in horizontal direction in a joint of all the specimen. The joint shear
reinforcement ratio is approximately 0.3% and satisfies the minimum requirement of the AIJ
Guidelines (1999).

Test Parameters

Four test parameters are included in the selected specimens in this report. They are (1) ratio
of joint shear demand to joint shear capacity; 0.55-1.50, where joint shear capacity is calculated
by the AIJ Guidelines (1999), (2) ratio of flexural strength of beam and column evaluated at the
center of a joint; 0.72-2.24, (3) ratio of column depth to beam depth; 1.0 or 2.0, and (4)
longitudinal reinforcing bar distant ratio; 0.5-0.8, which is the ratio of distance of tensile and
compressive reinforcements to the full depth of a cross section.
Fig. 1. Geometry of Specimens
240
2
4
0
120 240
2
4
0
700 700
700 700
unit in mm unit in mm unit in mm
Hoops or Stirrups
-D6@50 (SD295A)
C01 C03
Joint Hoops
Two sets
-D6 (SD295A)
Joint Hoops
Two sets
-D6 (SD295A)
Joint Hoops
Two sets
-D6 (SD295A)
700
700
Hoops or Stirrups
-D6@50 (SD295A)
Column
240
3
4
0
Column
240
1
7
0
Beam
240
2
4
0
Column
240
2
4
0
Beam
Beam
(a) Series B (b) Series C (c) Series D
700 700
Loading point
700
700
700
700
13 specimens 2 specimens 11 specimens
Series B & E Series C Series D
26
Loading Setup : Interior BC Joints
4
Material Properties

The specimens are made of normal concrete and normal strength deformed steel bars. Concrete
compressive strengths were tested by a 100 mm by 200 mm cylinder. They are 29.0 MPa, 31.0
MPa and 32.4 MPa for Series A, B and C respectively. The yield points by tensile tests of
reinforcing steel are 399 MPa, 378 MPa, and 425 MPa for D6, D13 and D16 deformed bars
respectively.

Loading setups

The loading setup are shown in Fig. 2. A specimen is connected to a loading steel frame with a
set of horizontal and vertical PC bars. The distance of the loading points at the end of the beams
and the columns is 1400 mm. The upper horizontal loading beam is supported with two vertical
loading columns with a pinned joint at the both ends. The vertical loading columns are
connected to a lower horizontal loading beam with a pinned joint. The lower loading beam is
fixed to a testing floor. By applying a horizontal displacement by a oil jack to the upper loading
beam, a beam-column joint specimen is forced to deform like in a moment resisting frame.

Loading Cycles and Measurements

Statically cyclic lateral load reversals with an increasing amplitude were applied to the specimen
to get load-deformation relationships. The first cycle is load controlled before cracking. Then
two reversals with displacement control are applied at each story drift ratio of 0.25%, 0.5%,
1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% and 3.0%. In Series D, a loading cycle with 4.0% story drift ratio is added.
Zero axial force in the columns and beams are kept during the test in all specimens. Shear story
is measured from the force reading by load cells which are installed at the end of vertical PC bars.
Story drift ratio is measured as the difference of lateral displacement at the two inflection points
in the column divided by the distance of the inflection points (=1400 mm). The strain on the
longitudinal reinforcing bars in beams and columns as well as in joints are measured by strain
gauges. The strain at the column face as well as in the joint on the point of diagonal of the joint
are measured.

Fig. 2. Loading Setup
700 700
700
700
P spherical washer
spherical
bush
specimen
load cell
PC rod
reaction floor
reaction frame
oil jack
fixture
fixture
LoadingDirection
1/400 0.5Qc
1/200
1/100 2
1/50 2
1/33 2
3.0
2.0
1.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Loading
Cycles
Story Drift
Beam
Residual
Capacity
Test
3S: Simple, Speedy and Smart
27
Typical Test Result Interior BC Joints
! Both beam and column bars yielded
despite of column-to-strength ratio.
! Strength were overestimated by
flexural theory for those with
column-to-beam strength ratio of
0.7-1.5.
Specimen B01
Column-to-beam strength ratio =1
29
Test Results : Interior Joints
B
C
D
A
Yielding of joint
hoops
Concrete
crushing
Yielding of
longitudinal Bars
B01

B02 B05
B09 B06
D05 E02
1.0 1.4
1.8 1.0
1.0 1.4
high strength concrete
Column to beam
strength ratio
Story Drift = 3.0%
Story Drift = 3.0%
Story Drift = 3.0%
Story Drift = 3.0%
30
Test Results : Interior Joints

C03
Surface
cracks
Story Drift = 1.0%
31
B01
different

C03
Inner
cracks
After test
similar
-77.3 kN
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
D07
jcc
jdc
by
cy
jcc
jdc
by
cy
jy
83.8 kN
D05
59.3 kN
-52.8 kN
jcc
jcc
jdc
jdc
cy
cy
by
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
D06
67.4 kN
-66.3 kN
jcc
jcc
jdc
jdc
cy
cy
-80
-60
-40
-20
0 0
20
40
60
80
-80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
by
by
76.7 kN
-72.3 kN
jdc
jcc
jcc
jdc
B02
jy
by,cy
by,cy
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 4 -
79.3 kN
-77.7 kN
jdc
jcc
jcc
jdc
B05
jy
by
by
cy
cy
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-3 -4 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
84.0 kN
-80.5 kN
jdc
jcc
jcc
jdc
B06
jy
by
by -80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-3 -4 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Story shear-Story drift Relation

1.0 1.4 1.8
Column-to-beam strength ratio
J
o
i
n
t

p
a
n
e
l

a
s
p
e
c
t

r
a
t
i
o
1.0
0.5
Interior
Flexural Strength
Flexural Strength
Flexural Strength
Flexural Strength Flexural Strength
Flexural Strength
32
Specimen B02
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -4 4
Story drift angle in %
S
t
o
r
y

s
h
e
a
r

i
n

k
N
D
c
D
b
1.0
M
bu
M
cu
1.0
V
ju
V
j
1.03
Specimen H02
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -4 4
D
c
D
b
1.0
M
bu
M
cu
2.0
V
ju
V
j
1.03
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
B01 B04 B07 B08 B02 B05 B06 B03 B09 B10 D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D07 D08 D09 D10 D11 E01 E02 E03
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
,

k
N
Specimens
Test (+)
Test (-)
Full Flexulral Capacity of Section
Joint Shear Capacity (AIJ)
Evaluation of current code prediction
Interior
! Flexural theory of section overestimate the strength by 5% to 30% in specimens with
column-to-strength ratio less than 1.5
34
Exterior B-C Joint Tests
35
! Program design;
! Geometrically common section for a series of specimens,
! Number of reinforcing bar in column are varied, while keeping those of the beams,
! 28 specimens in total.
Test Program on Exterior B-C Joints in 2009
! Test parameters;
! Joint shear demand / capacity (0.8-1.5),
! Anchorage length of beam bars (0.8, 0.65 or 0.5 times the column depth),
! Column-to-beam strength ratio (1.0-3.5),
! Joint lateral reinforcement ratio (0.3-0.8 %),
! Joint aspect ratio (0.5, 1.0 and 2.0),
! Mechanical anchorage or bent bar anchorage
! Material and others;
! Mild steel deformed bars,
! Normal concrete,
! Zero axial load in column.
Exterior
36
Specimens : Exterior BC Joints
15 specimens 5 specimens 4 specimens
240
700
2 6 -D6
-D6 120 40
-D6 50
340
170
615
-D6 50
-D6@120
170 272
120 192
2 -D6
240
580
580
700 700
2 -D6
-D6 120
-D6 50
156 192
240
4 or 6-D13 2 6-D13
6-D13
2 5-D13
2
4
0
1
9
2
2
4
2
4
240
2
4
0
1
9
2
2
4
2
4
240
1
7
0
1
2
2
2
4
2
4
240
3
4
0
2
9
2
2
4
2
4
615
(a) Series L & M (b) Series N (c) Series O
Hoops
Hoops
Hoops
Anchorage depth
Anchorage depth
Anchorage depth
Stirrups
Joint hoops
Joint hoops
Stirrups
Stirrups
Joint hoops
(d) Series L M & O
(e) Series N
beam column
column beam
240
580
580
240
unit : in mm
Series L & M Series N Series O
37
Loading Setup : Exterior BC Joints
LoadingDirection
N
2
4
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
7
0
0
700 700
lateral loading
positive negative
500kN hydrauric jack
(connected to reaction frame)
loading beam load cell
spherical bush
pin
joint
PC rod
Steel rod
pin
joint
pin
joint
pin
joint
beam
specimen
spherical bush
100kN hydrauric jack
unit in mm
reaction floor
column
column
38
Typical Test Result Exterior BC Joints
Specimen L05
! Both beam and column bars of the
beam side yielded despite of column-
to-strength ratio.
! Strength were overestimated by
exural theory for those with column-
to-beam strength ratio of 1.0-2.0.
! Severe slip in hysteretic relation in all
specimens
Column-to-beam strength ratio =1.5
40
Test Results : Exterior Joints
Story Drift = 2.0%
Story Drift = 2.0%
Story Drift = 2.0%
1.01
1.82
1.43
Column to beam
strength ratio
!
Concrete
crushing
#
"
Yielding of
joint hoops
Yielding of
longitudinal Bars
!
L01
L02
L03
Typical Test Result Exterior BC Joints
41
Story shear-Story drift Relation

1.0 1.4 1.8
story drift ratio % story drift ratio % story drift ratio %
s
t
o
r
y

s
h
e
a
r

k
N
s
t
o
r
y

s
h
e
a
r

k
N
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
L01 L02 L03 L04 L05 L06 L07 L08 L09 L10 L11 M01 M02 M03 M04 N01 N02 N03 N04 N05 O01 O02 O03 O04
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
,

k
N
Specimens
Test (+)
Test (-)
Nominal Joint Shear Capacity (AIJ)
Evaluation of current code prediction
Exterior
! Flexural theory of section overestimate the strength by 5% to 35% in specimens with column-to-strength ratio
less than 2.0,
! Margin of the nominal joint shear strength of those joints are 10% to 50%.
43
What was found in the tests ?
There is overlooked failure which have not been identied
- All the specimens which satised the current code requirements including the
restriction of joint shear stress, minimum joint reinforcement, showed severe
cracking and crushing of concrete on beam-column joint.
- Both Horizontal and vertical longitudinal bars yielded in beam-column joint,
despite of column-to-strength ratio
They fail to meet performance expected by the current seismic
codes;
- Strength in terms of story shear fell short by 5% to 35% to the prediction of
exural theory in specimens with column-to-strength ratio less than 2.0,
- The decrease of strength is larger in case of small amount of lateral
reinforcement in the joint, or mechanical anchorage was used.
- They showed severe slip type hysteresis relation with little energy dissipation
44
Failure mechanism of beam-
column joint
45
Quadruple Flexural Resistance Model
!
" #
$
Tension yielding in rebars in two longitudinal directions
Resisting moment
from beam-column joint
Concrete compression on diagonal direction
(a) Kinematics at joint hinging failure (b) Statics at joint hinging failure
Model of statics and kinematics : equilibrium and constitutive relation
Shiohara (2006)
A
B
C
D
New Joint Theory :
Resultants acting on free-body in a B-C Joint
Moment resistance in a joint
Hitoshi Shiohara. (2012). Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints : An Overlooked Failure Mechanism. ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 109, No. 1, January-February, 2012, pp. 65-74.
47
C
1x
C
1y
C
2x
C
2y
O
T
b
T
c
T
b2
T
c2
C
1x
= T
b
C
1y
= T
c
C
2x
= T
b2
C
2y
= T
c2
Moment Resistance in a Joint
T
b
C
1x
T
c
C
1y
T
b2
C
2x
T
c2
C
2y
j
1y
j
1x
j
2x
j
2y
Moment resistance is given as the sum of the four couples
Stress in compressive reinforcement and compression at
corner:
The stress in longitudinal bars passing through the joint is
assumed that they redistribute such that moment resistance of
joint is maximized
A couple of tension in tensile reinforcement and
compression provide moment resistance in the joint
Tensile reinforcement yield; then
$ Ultimate Moment Capacity of Joint
Tensile reinforcement yield and concrete crush; then
$ Moment at Balanced Failure of Joint
g
c
D
c
/2
g
b
D
b
/2
C
1x
= T
b
C
1y
= T
c
C
2x
= T
b2
C
2y
= T
c2
Mj
Interior
48
Resistance only to couples
T
b
C
1x
T
c
C
1y
T
b2
C
2x
T
c2
C
2y
Moment Resistance in a Joint
Moment resistance is given as the sum of the four couples
Mj
Interior
V
c
/2
V
c
/2
V
b
/2
V
b
/2
Contribution of shear force V to enhance joint strength
V
b
N
b
/2
N
b
/2
N
c
/2
N
c
/2
Contribution of axial force N to enhance joint strength
N
c
49
So in the BC joint with large column-to-beam strength ratio,
axial force in the column and passive connement by non-
yielding column bar passing through the joint, increasing axial
force and enhances the moment resistance in the joint.
Resistance to the combination of Moment, Axial force and Shear force
Generalization: Column-to-beam Strength ratio
and lateral capacity of a frame
1.0 0.0
1.0
0.0
M system
M beam
beam hinge
mechanism
column-to-beam strength ratio 50
column hinge
mechanism
Generalization: Column-to-beam Strength ratio
and lateral capacity of a frame
1.0 0.0
1.0
0.0
M system
M beam
beam hinge
mechanism
column hinge
mechanism
joint
hinge
mechanism
column-to-beam strength ratio 51
Strength is lower than
expected
Specimen B02
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -4 4
S
t
o
r
y

s
h
e
a
r

i
n

k
N
D
c
D
b
1.0
M
bu
M
cu
1.0
V
ju
V
j
1.03
Specimen H02
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -4 4
D
c
D
b
1.0
M
bu
M
cu
2.0
V
ju
V
j
1.03
joint hinging failure beam hinging failure
! Deciency in strength is largest when column-to-strength ration is 1.0,
! Deciency in strength is smaller if geometry of joint is square,
53
Interior
! Deciency in strength is largest when column-to-strength ration is 1.0,
! Deciency in strength is smaller if geometry of joint is square,
! Deciency in strength is larger if development length of beam bars in
the joint is insu"cient.
54
Exterior
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
B01 B04 B07 B08 B02 B05 B06 B03 B09 B10 D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D07 D08 D09 D10 D11 E01 E02 E03
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
,

k
N
Specimens
Test (+)
Test ()
New Joint Model
Interior
Analysis by the New Joint Theory
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
L01 L02 L03 L04 L05 L06 L07 L08 L09 L10 L11 M01 M02 M03 M04 N01 N02 N03 N04 N05 O01 O02 O03 O04
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
o
r
y

S
h
e
a
r
,

k
N
Specimens
Test (+)
Test (-)
New Joint Model
Analysis by the New Joint Theory
Exterior
56
What was found in the tests ?
There is overlooked failure which have not been recognized
before;
- All the specimens which satised the current code requirements including the
restriction of joint shear stress, showed severe cracking and crushing of concrete.
- At the end of the tests both horizontal and vertical longitudinal rebars yielded
despite of column-to-strength ratio.
They fail to meet performance expected by current seismic
codes;
- Strength in terms of story shear fell short by 5% to 30% to the prediction of exural
theory in specimens with column-to-strength ratio less than 1.5,
- Severe slip behavior were observed for all specimens in story shear-story drift
relation.
Design Equations for Estimating Strength of
Joint Hinging Failure
58
H. Shiohara and F. Kusuhara (2014). The Next Generation Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Beam-
column Joints, Proc. of 10th National Conference for Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, AL, Jul 2014 (to be
presented)
Back Ground
Shear failure of BC joints is regulated by seismic provisions in
major concrete codes, such as ACI, EC8, NZS, and AIJ
Guidelines
the introduction of the BC joint seismic design was in 1990s
and it is coincident with the introduction of Capacity Design
Empirical joint strength equations have been adopted in those
codes to preclude BC joint failure
A new mechanism of joint hinging failure has been introduced,
which is adopted in new draft provisions of AIJ standard,
where new model for strength of joint hinging failure
60
1.0 0.0
1.0
0.0
beam hinge
failure
column hinge
failure
joint
hinge
failure
column-to-beam strength ratio
Strength is lower than
expected
Strength Reduction Ractor !j
!j
the ratio of the moment capacity of BC joint considering joint
hinging failure to the moment capacity at the node when
exural strength at critical section is attained
!j
Design Equations for Strength of Joint Hinging Failure
drift is larger for smaller column-to-beam strength ratio for any level of base motion and the base
input motion at collapse is also larger for larger column-to-beam strength ratio. It is concluded
that joint hinging failure not only increase of damage to BC joint but also hinder the formation of
beam sway mechanism and story drift concentrates to a particular story, as a result, collapse
prevention capacity decreases due to accumulation of residual story drift and resulting collapse
due to P-delta effect. It also affect the collapse prevention capability at aftershocks


To assess the seismic resistance of moment resisting frame, strength of the joint hinging failure
should be predicted with high precision, because flexural strength of beam overestimate the
actual strength. To predict the strength of joint hinging failure, new model is necessary.
Architectural Institute of Japan is going to propose the following equations, simplified based on
theoretical prediction [12, 14] the test results are used for calibration some factors. The equations
gives the strength reduction factor !
j
, which is defined as the ratio of the moment transferring
capacity at node from beam to column considering joint hinging failure to the moment at the
node when flexural strength at critical section is attained.

Three parameters have been employed as a major design factors relating to strength reduction
factor !
j
, which is (a) column-to-beam strength ratio, which also an intrinsic function of amount
of column longitudinal reinforcement and axial force in column, depth of column and beam, (b)
amount of longitudinal rebars in beam, and (c) amount of joint reinforcement. The concrete
compressive strength has been known to have relatively small effect on the strength of joint
hinging failure because strength is primarily defined by the yielding of longitudinal rebars.

The predicted strength reduction factor !
j
by the Eqns. 1and 2 are compared with the tests in
Fig. 4, which shows a good correlation with those of test results.

Interior BC joint: !
j
= "
r
1#
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
2
M
cu
+ $ M
cu
M
bu
+ $ M
bu
#1
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
1
4
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
-
/
0
-
1
-
(1)

Exterior BC joint: !
j
= "
r
0.85 #
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
4
"
a
M
cu
+ $ M
cu
M
bu
#1
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
1
2
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
-
/
0
-
1
-
(2)

Corner BC joint: !
j
= "
r
1#
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
2
"
a
M
cu
M
bu
#1
$
%
&
'
(
)
+
1
4
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
,
.
/
,
0
,
(3)

where, !
r
: reduction factor listed in Table 1; a function of aspect ratio ! , ! : aspect ratio =
D
jc
D
jb
, !
a
: ratio of effective column depth (= D
jc
D
c
) (shown in Fig. 11), D
jc
: effective
column depth , D
c
: full depth of column, M
cu
and ! M
cu
: nodal moment at flexural strength of
critical section of upper column (or lower column), M
bu
and ! M
bu
: nodal moment at flexural
strength of critical section of right beam (or left beam), D
b
: depth of beam, a
j
: total sectional


j

factor !
j

j

j
= "
r
1#
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
2
M
cu
+ $ M
cu
M
bu
+ $ M
bu
#1
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
1
4
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
-
/
0
-
1
-
(1)

j
= "
r
0.85 #
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
4
"
a
M
cu
+ $ M
cu
M
bu
#1
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
1
2
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
-
/
0
-
1
-
(2)

Corner BC joint: !
j
= "
r
1#
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
2
"
a
M
cu
M
bu
#1
$
%
&
'
(
)
+
1
4
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
,
.
/
,
0
,
(3)

where, !
r
D
jc
D
jb
, !
a
jc
D
c
jc
: effective
column depth , D
c
cu
and ! M
cu
bu
and ! M
bu
b
: depth of beam, a
j
: total sectional


j

factor !
j

j

j
= "
r
1#
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
2
M
cu
+ $ M
cu
M
bu
+ $ M
bu
#1
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
1
4
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.-
/
0
-
1-
(1)

j
= "
r
0.85 #
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
4
"
a
M
cu
+ $ M
cu
M
bu
#1
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
1
2
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.-
/
0
-
1-
(2)

Corner BC joint: !
j
= "
r
1#
a
t
f
y
b
j
D
b
F
c
+
1
2
"
a
M
cu
M
bu
#1
$
%
&
'
(
)
+
1
4
a
j
f
jy
a
t
f
y
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-,
.
/
,
0,
(3)

where, !
r
D
jc
D
jb
, !
a
jc
D
c
jc
: effective
column depth , D
c
cu
and ! M
cu
bu
and ! M
bu
b
: depth of beam, a
j
: total sectional
area of the horizontal reinforcement in the BC joint crossing the vertical plane, f
jy
: yield point
of the joint reinforcement steel, a
t
: sectional area of the effective tensile reinforcement in the
beam section, f
y
: yield point of longitudinal reinforcement steel.

Conclusions

This paper has discussed the key issues of the draft provisions of AIJ Standards with background,
test data, theory and analysis with emphasis on why new concept of joint hinging failure should
be necessary. Collapse simulation is made by non-linear time history analysis for moment
frames with BC joints failing in joint hinging failure mode, to demonstrate the challenge of
strength degradation and severe slip hysteretic relationships inherent to the joint hinging failure.
It is concluded that joint hinging failure not only increase of damage to BC joint but also hinder
the formation of beam sway mechanism and as a result, collapse prevention capacity decreases
due to accumulation of residual story and resulting collapse due to P-delta effect. Draft equations
giving the strength of joint hinging failure of BC joints are also introduced.

References

1. Architectural Institute of Japan: Guidelines for Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Building based on
Ultimate Strength Concept, 1990.
2. Architectural Institute of Japan: Guidelines for Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Building based on
Ductility Concept, 1999. (in Japanese)
3. Shiohara, H., New Model for Shear Failure of RC Interior Beam-Column Connections, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Volume 127, Issue 2, February 2001, pp. 152-160.
4. Hitoshi Shiohara: Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints: An Overlooked Failure Mechanism. ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 109, No. 1, January-February, 2012, pp. 65-74.
5. Shiohara, H., Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joint: Failure Mechanism Overlooked, Journal of
Construction and Structural Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 73, No. 631, Sept. 2008, pp.
16411648, (in Japanese)
6. Shiohara, H., Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joint: Interaction of Ultimate Strengths and Forces at Member
Ends, Journal of Construction and Structural Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 74, No. 635,
January 2009, pp. 121128. (in Japanese)
7. Shiohara, H., Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joint: Seismic Design of Joints Connecting Weak Beams and
Strong Columns, Journal of Construction and Structural Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 74,
No. 640, June 2009, pp. 11451154. (in Japanese)
8. Shiohara, H. and Kusuhara, F. Joint Shear? or Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio? Which is a key parameter for
seismic design of RC Beam-column joints - Test Series on Interior Joints. Proc. 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Sept. 2012.
9. Kusuhara, F. and Shiohara, H., Joint Shear? or Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio? Which is a key parameter for
seismic design of RC Beam-column joints - Test Series on Exterior Joints. Proc. 15th World Conference on
10. Kusuhara, F., Tazaki W. and Shiohara H., Failure Mechanism of Interior Beam-column Joint with Colum-to-
beam Strength Ratio of 1.0, Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 313318.
(in Japanese)
11. Kusuhara, F., Shiohara, H., Tazaki W., and Park Sunyong, "Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-column Joint under Low ratio of Column to Beam Moment Capacity," Journal of Construction and
Structural Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 75, No. 656, Oct. 2010, pp. 18731882. (in
Eq (1)
Eq (2)
longtitudinal reinforcement
ratio
beam-to-column
strength ratio
Joint hoop
beam-to-column
strength ratio
Joint hoop
longtitudinal reinforcement
ratio
aspect ratio of beam-column joint panel
Effective depth of Anchorage
aspect ratio of beam-column joint panel
(b)
Dc Dc
Djc Djc
Japanese)
12. Kusuhara, F. and Shiohara, H., Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Exterior Beam-column Joint
under Low ratio of Column to Beam Moment Capacity, Journal of Construction and Structural Engineering,
Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 78, No. 693, Nov. 2013, pp. 1939 . (in Japanese)
13. Kusuhara, F. and Shiohara H., Ultimate Moment of Interior Beam-column Joint, Journal of Construction and
Structural Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 75, No. 657, Nov. 2010, pp. 2027-2035. (in
Japanese)
14. Fujiwara K., Kusuhara F. and Shiohara H., Analysis on Ultimate Strength of Reinforced Concrete Exterior
Beam-column Joints by Experimental Database, Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 33, No. 2,
June 2011, pp. 367372. (in Japanese)
15. Kusuhara, F. and Shiohara H., Ultimate Moment of Exterior Beam-column Joint, Journal of Construction and
Structural Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 78, No. 693, Nov. 2013, pp. 1949-1959. (in
Japanese)
16. Tajiri, S., Fukuyama, H., Suwada, H., Kusuhara, F. and Shiohara, H., Energy Dissipation of RC Interior Beam-
column Connection Confined by Lateral Reinforcements, Axial Force, and Column Longitudinal
Reinforcements. Proc. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Sept. 2012.
17. Nagae, T., Tahara, K., Fukuyama, K., Matsumori, T., Shiohara H., Kabeyasawa, T., Kono, S., Nishiyama, M.
and Nishiyama, I., Large-scale Shaking Table Tests on a Four-story RC Buildings, Journal of Construction and
Structural Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 74, No. 640, June 2009, pp. 11451154. (in
Japanese)
18. Tajiri, S., Shiohara, H. and Kusuhara, F., A New Macro Element of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint
for Elasto-Plastic Plane Frame Analysis. Proc. of 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San
Francisco, April 2006, Paper No. 674 on the CD-ROM.
19. Kusuhara, F., Kim Suhee and Shiohara, H., Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting
Frames of Beam-column Joint Yielding, Journal of Construction and Structural Engineering, Architectural
Institute of Japan, Vol. 78, No. 686, Apr. 2013, pp. 847-855. (in Japanese)
20. T. Nagae, K. Tahara, K. Fukuyama & T. Matsumori, H. Shiohara & T. Kabeyasawa, S. Kono, M. Nishiyama, J.
Moehle, J. Wallace, R. Sause, W. Ghannoum, Test Results of Four-Story Reinforced Concrete and Post-
Tensioned Concrete Buildings: The 2010 E-Defense Shaking Table Test, Proc. 15th World Conference on

Table 1 Reduction factor due to aspect ratio

!

aspect ratio
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
!
r
reduction factor
0.900 0.941 0.970 0.988 0.997 1.000 0.992 0.973 0.949 0.925 0.900

!
a : Ratio of effective column depth (= D
jc/D
c )
!
a : Reduction factor due to aspect ratio
D
c
: Depth of column
D
jc
: Effective depth of
beam bar anchorage
Strength reduction of BC joint with column-to-beam
strength ratio near 1.0

Figure 3. Mechanical Model for Joint hinging failure [4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15]

Figure 4. Strength reduction of BC joint with column-to-beam strength ratio near 1.0 [8, 9]
Design Equations for
Strength of Joint
Hinging Failure
Full Scale RC Frame 3D Shaking Table Test
at E-Defense in December 2010
64
T. Nagae et al. (2012). Test Results of Four-Story Reinforced Concrete and Post-Tensioned Concrete
Buildings: The 2010 E-Defense Shaking Table Test. Proc. 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, Sept 23-29, 2012, paper No. 3870.
E-Defense test on RC Building in December 2010

93

22

15 m
20 m
X
Y
Figure 2.1 E-Defense shaking table
Figure 2.2 Overview of test setup on the shaking table
E-Defense 3D Shaking Table
Four Storied Wall-Frame
RC Structure
65
Design conformed to
Japanese & US seismic code
requirements

76
Table A.1 List of steel reinforcement
H bar Hoop
35d
400
2
5
0
400
List of Wall
10-D22 10-D22
500 x 500 500 x 500
3,4-D10@100 3,4-D10@100
2,2-D10@140 2,2-D10@140
B x D
Rebar
Hoop
Joint
RFl.
4Fl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
Location
3Fl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
2Fl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
Bottom
Section
8-D22
500 x 500
2,3-D10@100
2,2-D10@140
B x D
Hoop
Rebar
Joint
Top
Section
8-D22 10-D22
500 x 500 500 x 500
2,3-D10@100 2,4-D10@100
2,2-D10@140 2,2-D10@140
2Fl.
Hoop
B x D
Rebar
Joint
Section
8-D22
500 x 500
2,2-D10@100 2,2-D10@100
10-D22
500 x 500
2,2-D10@140 2,2-D10@140
4Fl.
3Fl.
Hoop
B x D
Rebar
Joint
Section
C2 C1
A
C
2,3-D10@80
2,3-D10@100
2 x 6-D19
2 x 6-D19
2,2-D10@100
A
C
D13@300 (W)
D10@125 (W)
D10@200 (W)
A
C
D13@300 (W)
D10@125 (W)
D10@200 (W)
Vertical
2,500 x 250
Wall
2,500 x 250
2,2-D10@150
Vertical
2,2-D10@150
2Fl.
3Fl.
4Fl.
Section
Hoop
B x D
Rebar
Hoop
Section
B x D
Rebar
Joint
Joint
S1
CS1
CS2
CS3
Top
Top
Top
Top
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom D10@200
D10@250
D10@250
D10@250
D10@250
D10,D13@200
D10@250
D10@250
Longer direction
D10@200
D10@200
D10@200
D10@200
D10@200
D10@200
D10,D13@200
D10,D13@200
Shorter direction
G1
4-D22 3-D22 4-D22
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22
4-D10
300 x 600
2-D10@200
Center End End
5-D22 3-D22 5-D22
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22
4-D10
300 x 600
2-D10@200
6-D22 3-D22 6-D22
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22
4-D10
300 x 600
2-D10@200
RFl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
Location
4Fl.
3Fl.
2Fl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
All
Location
Top
Section
B x D
Bottom
Stirrup
Web
G2
Center
3-D19 3-D19
2-D19 3-D19
300 x 300
End
-
3-D19 4-D19
3-D19 3-D19
300 x 300
-
B1
3-D19
4-D19 7-D19
3-D19
Center End
2-D10
2-D10@200
300 x 400
4Fl.
3Fl.
2Fl.
Section
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
B x D
Web
Location
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
G3
Center
3-D19 5-D19
3-D19 4-D19
2-D10
300 x 400
2-D10@200
End
4-D19 3-D19
3-D19 4-D19
2-D10
300 x 400
2-D10@200
List of Column
List of Girder List of Girder List of Girder
List of Slab
List of beam
Depth: 130mm
2-D10@100(KSS785)
2-D10@100(KSS785)
Horizontal
Horizontal
1Fl.
1Fl.
1Fl.

76
Table A.1 List of steel reinforcement
H bar Hoop
35d
400
2
5
0
400
List of Wall
10-D22 10-D22
500 x 500 500 x 500
3,4-D10@100 3,4-D10@100
2,2-D10@140 2,2-D10@140
B x D
Rebar
Hoop
Joint
RFl.
4Fl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
Location
3Fl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
2Fl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
Bottom
Section
8-D22
500 x 500
2,3-D10@100
2,2-D10@140
B x D
Hoop
Rebar
Joint
Top
Section
8-D22 10-D22
500 x 500 500 x 500
2,3-D10@100 2,4-D10@100
2,2-D10@140 2,2-D10@140
2Fl.
Hoop
B x D
Rebar
Joint
Section
8-D22
500 x 500
2,2-D10@100 2,2-D10@100
10-D22
500 x 500
2,2-D10@140 2,2-D10@140
4Fl.
3Fl.
Hoop
B x D
Rebar
Joint
Section
C2 C1
A
C
2,3-D10@80
2,3-D10@100
2 x 6-D19
2 x 6-D19
2,2-D10@100
A
C
D13@300 (W)
D10@125 (W)
D10@200 (W)
A
C
D13@300 (W)
D10@125 (W)
D10@200 (W)
Vertical
2,500 x 250
Wall
2,500 x 250
2,2-D10@150
Vertical
2,2-D10@150
2Fl.
3Fl.
4Fl.
Section
Hoop
B x D
Rebar
Hoop
Section
B x D
Rebar
Joint
Joint
S1
CS1
CS2
CS3
Top
Top
Top
Top
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom D10@200
D10@250
D10@250
D10@250
D10@250
D10,D13@200
D10@250
D10@250
Longer direction
D10@200
D10@200
D10@200
D10@200
D10@200
D10@200
D10,D13@200
D10,D13@200
Shorter direction
G1
4-D22 3-D22 4-D22
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22
4-D10
300 x 600
2-D10@200
Center End End
5-D22 3-D22 5-D22
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22
4-D10
300 x 600
2-D10@200
6-D22 3-D22 6-D22
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22
4-D10
300 x 600
2-D10@200
RFl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
Location
4Fl.
3Fl.
2Fl.
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
All
Location
Top
Section
B x D
Bottom
Stirrup
Web
G2
Center
3-D19 3-D19
2-D19 3-D19
300 x 300
End
-
3-D19 4-D19
3-D19 3-D19
300 x 300
-
B1
3-D19
4-D19 7-D19
3-D19
Center End
2-D10
2-D10@200
300 x 400
4Fl.
3Fl.
2Fl.
Section
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
B x D
Web
Location
Top
Bottom
Stirrup
Section
B x D
Web
G3
Center
3-D19 5-D19
3-D19 4-D19
2-D10
300 x 400
2-D10@200
End
4-D19 3-D19
3-D19 4-D19
2-D10
300 x 400
2-D10@200
List of Column
List of Girder List of Girder List of Girder
List of Slab
List of beam
Depth: 130mm
2-D10@100(KSS785)
2-D10@100(KSS785)
Horizontal
Horizontal
1Fl.
1Fl.
1Fl.
66
Joint shear / Nominal joint shear capacity
Margin of joint shear capacity
67
Column-to-beam strength ratios
68
JMA Kobe 50%
JMA Kobe 50%
JMA Kobe 100%
JMA Kobe 100%
72
3D Full Scale RC Frame Structure Shaking Table Test at
E-Defense in 2010
Four-story full scale RC frame structures were tested,
- The building structure was designed and constructed such that it conforms to
current seismic provisions in Japan and the US.
Shear failure of lightly reinforced beam-column joints were
conrmed,
- BC joints with column-to-beam strength ratio between 1.0 showed joint shear
failure.
- Vulnerabilities of frame structure with lightly BC joint has been demonstrated.
73
New beam-column joint macro element and
nonlinear earthquake response analysis of
plane frame structure
74
Members; beams or columns framing into the joints
- Full exural capacity of the members to be achieved
Life Safety Requirements to Beam-Column Joint
Not easy to meet
in practice
P
V
Collapse mechanism
by Joint hinging
Subsequent repetition due to
Cyclic loading
The 14
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

Figure 14 Total collapse of school building.
Figure 15 Severe diagonal shear cracks on the
gravity wall between window openings.
Figure 16 Severe damage of school building.
Figure 17 Pancake type of failure due to weak
columns.
Figure 18 Collapse of school buildings. Figure 19 Building collapse due to joint failure.
Figure 20 Column failure due to insufficient
transverse reinforcement.
Figure 21 Soft story collapse.
Collapsed Structure :
Wencheuan Earthquake (2008)
P
Skeleton
curve
P-delta
Effect
Slip
Control Joint hinging in seismic Design
- Performance to prevent collapse and instability of lateral resisting frame due to
subsequent repetitions of earthquake loading needs to be evaluated.

! |];|].])
Joint hinging
75
No suitable model has been developed before.
New Macro Element for Interior BC Joint
76
rigid panel
rigid panel
steel element bond link
bond link
steel
element
concrete spring
concrete element
concrete element
steel element
steel element axial stiffness is factored considering
pull-out of bars from member end
diagonal concrete
horizontal reinforcing bars vertical reinforcing bars
vertical & horizontal concrete

" "# $"#%&$"%

macro element of
beam-column joint
force-based
beam-column element
node
superimpose
Frame Structure
P-Delta e!ect is incorporated
to sti!ness matrix
Uniaxial Constitutive Models for Elements

!"#$
!"#$%&
!'()"#$
#*
!#*
'()+#*
*) *,
!"$ !-

concrete
Tension
Compression
Modied Kent & Park
!
"#$!
!
%!
%! &' &'
&'()

steel
Tension
Compression
Modied Bi-linear
!
!" !#!$ !% !&
"
#
$

bond-slip
Modied Eligehausen
77
Validation of the Macro Element by the Tests
-100
-50
0
50
100
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
Db/Dc=1
Mcu/Mbu=1.0
Vju/Vu=1.03
B02
-100
-50
0
50
100
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
Db/Dc=1
Mcu/Mbu=1.35
Vju/Vu=1.03
B05
Db/Dc=0.5
Mcu/Mbu=1.03
Vju/Vu=1.06
D05
Db/Dc=1
Mcu/Mbu=2.06
Vju/Vu=1.63
H01
s
t
o
r
y

s
h
e
a
r

i
n

k
N
story drift in kN
Test
Analysis
! The new model is
suitable to
simulates strength
and hysteresis
behavior of sub
structure with BC
joints
78
Moment
Curvature
Concrete Springs
Springs Ior hoop
Steel Springs
Bond-slip Springs
Integration
Point
10
!"##
"##
#
!$#
$#
s
t
o
r
y

s
h
e
a
r

i
n

k
N

!% !& # & %
story drift in rad
'#"
test
s
t
o
r
y

s
h
e
a
r

i
n

k
N

story drift in rad
!"##
"##
#
!$#
$#
!% !& # & %
'#"
calculation
Calibration of 2D Macro element : Test and Calculation
Kim
Kusuhara
Shiohara
(2013)
Test Calculation
Story drift = 1.0% Story drift = 3.0% Story drift = 5.0% Story drift = 7.0%
Monotonic loading Cyclic loading
Test results of a beam-column joint
Kim
Kusuhara
Shiohara
(2013)
Input Ground Acceleration Record
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
a

(
c
m
/
s
e
c
2
)

JMA Kobe 1995
JR Takatori 1995
SCT1 1985
T1 =0.46 sec
T2 =0.15 sec
Period in second
Spectra of Max. Response Acc. Damping = 5%
Artifcial (Required by Codej
! Four input ground motions are selected for dynamic analysis
81
Four Story Building Collapse Simulation
with non-linear BC Joint model with elastic BC Joint model
82
Unstable Limit ; beyond Ultimate Limit

Mcu/Mbu1.0
Mcu/Mbu1.5
Mcu/Mbu1.5
Mcu/Mbu1.0
0 0.05 0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4

0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0

S
a
(
T
1
0
.4
6
s
,5
)
, g
EQ 1.0
0 0.05 0.1
0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
S
a
(
T
1
0
.4
6
s
,5
)
, g
0 0.05 0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
S
a
(
T
1
0
.4
6
s
,5
)
, g
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
S
a
(
T
1
0
.4
6
s
,5
)
, g
EQ 1.0
EQ 1.0
EQ 1.0
JMA Kobe JR Takatori SCT1
story drift in rad
Artifcial
non-linear joint
non-linear joint
elastic joint
elastic joint
unstable limit
attained maximum story drift in rad
Static pushover analysis
Dynamic pushover analysis (lDAj
b
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

c
o
e
f
f
c
ie
n
t
83
= collapse limit
Column-to-beam Strength Ratio and Unstable Limit
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0

S
a
(T
1
0
.4
6
s
,5
), g
EQ 1.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Mcu/Mbu1.0
Mcu/Mbu1.1
Mcu/Mbu1.2
Mcu/Mbu1.3
Mcu/Mbu1.4
Mcu/Mbu1.5
Mcu/Mbu1.0
Mcu/Mbu1.1
Mcu/Mbu1.2
Mcu/Mbu1.3
Mcu/Mbu1.4
Mcu/Mbu1.5
Mcu/Mbu1.0
Mcu/Mbu1.1
Mcu/Mbu1.2
Mcu/Mbu1.3
Mcu/Mbu1.4
Mcu/Mbu1.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0

S
a
(T
1
0
.4
6
s
,5
), g
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

S
a
(T
1
0
.4
6
s
,5
), g
0 0.05 0.1 0.15

0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
S
a
(T
1
0
.4
6
s
,5
), g

EQ 1.0
EQ 1.0
EQ 1.0

Mcu/Mbu1.0
Mcu/Mbu1.1
Mcu/Mbu1.2
Mcu/Mbu1.3
Mcu/Mbu1.4
Mcu/Mbu1.5

Artifcial Artifcial
non-linear joint
non-linear joint non-linear joint
elastic joint
elastic joint
elastic joint
JR Takatori JR Takatori
JMA Kobe
Attained maximum story drift in rad
JMA Kobe SCT1
elastic joint
SCT1
! Frame with beam-column joint of C-to-B ratio of 1.0 become unstable at
smaller ground motion amplication factor
! The di#erence is due to concentration of story drift at particular story
84
New beam-column joint macro element and
nonlinear earthquake response analysis of 3D
frame structure
85
3D Macro element for
beam-column joint
Kurose, Y. and J. O. Jirsa, Study of Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joints Under Uniaxial and Biaxial Loading, PMFSEL Report
No. 88-2, The University of Texas at Austin, 1988, 146 pp.
References:
Kim
Kusuhara
Shiohara
(2014??)
3D Macro element for beam-column joint
Kim
Kusuhara
Shiohara
(2014?)
!"#
!"#$%
!&'("#
")
!")
&'(*")
"#$%
+&'&&*,#-&'.,#
Kim
Kusuhara
Shiohara
(2014?)
Concrete Steel Bond
Macro element for a beam-column joint
Kurose, Y. and J. O. Jirsa, Study of Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joints Under Uniaxial and Biaxial Loading, PMFSEL Report
No. 88-2, The University of Texas at Austin, 1988, 146 pp.
References:
Kim
Kusuhara
Shiohara
(2014?)
Test Calculation
Kim
Kusuhara
Shiohara
(2014?)
Test
Calculation
Test
Calculation
Kim
Kusuhara
Shiohara
JR Takatori (100%) JR Takatori (120%)
New beam-column joint macro model and nonlinear
dynamic analysis on RC frames
Instability of moment resisting frame occurs at extremely large excitation
- Inappropriateness of non-linear frame model without consideration of non-linear
beam-column joint is demonstrated,
- Performance of beam-column joint is essential to attain stable seismic response
at large displacement response level of ductility factor of 5 or more,
- Joint hinging causes local concentration of story drift at particular story,
- Then the frame becomes vulnerable to collapse due to P-Delta e#ect.
- Large column-to-beam strength ratio is necessary to to avoid collapse due to
instability
- Safety margin for extremely large earthquake is smaller if small column-to-beam
strength ratio is used for seismic design
92
Damaged building due to Tohoku-chiho
Taiheiyo-oki Earthquake in 2011
93
1
9
6
8
1
9
7
1
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
1
1
9
9
5
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
Revisions of Japanese seismic provisions in codes
2011 Tohoku-chiho
Taiheiyo-oki Earthquake
III
1981
*BSL : Building Standard Law
I
1971
( Prevention of column shear failure )
Amendment of BSL Enforcement Order
1968 Tokachi-oki Earthquake
II
1981
Amendment of BSL Enforcement Order
( The shin-taishin, new standard )
1978 Miyagiken-oki Earthquake
2000 Amendment of BSL Enforcement
Order
( Performance based criteria introduced )
1995 Hyogo-ken Nambu Earthquake
Act on Promotion of Seismic
Retrotting of Existing Buildings
( Effectiveness of the 1981 revision was conrmed )
( To urge building owners to retrot existing vulnerable buildings )
94
Nagano-machi Apartment Complex
95
Nagano-machi Apartment Building Complex
! in Sendai City
! RC/SRC 9 oors.
! Completed in 1969
! Survived major earthquakes in
1978, 2003 and 2005.
! Seismic vulnerability was
assessed in 2010
! No rehabilitation yet
! Fc 210 & 180
! Grade SD35 rebars
! to be demolished
96
Elevation of X1 frame in transverse direction
steel shape
in concrete
O
IIIs
Y0 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
4 500 4 500 6 000 6 000 6 000
O
III II
O I Is
Is
Is
IIs
III
III
III
O III IV V V
unit in mm
see Fig. 7
shear cracks on coupling beams
97
1st oor plan and damage rate
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X0
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y0
Y5
V
V V IV
IV
IVs
III
III
IVs
V
Vs
IIIs
III
IIIs IIIs
III
III IIIs IIIs IIIs
III
IIs
II
IIs
IIs
IIs
IIs
II
II
II II
IIs
IIs
II
Is Is
Is Is
I I Is
Is
Is
Is
I
I
O O O
O
O O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
see Fig. 7
Entrance
west
east
south north
Municipal ofces
Medical Service
Damage Grade
O: no damage
I : slight
II : minor
III : moderate
IV : major
V : severe
98
serious damage
2nd oor plan and damage rate
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y0
Y5
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X0
III
III IIIs
III
II
II
II
IIs IIs
IIs
I
I I
Is
Is
Vs
I
I
Is
I
I
Is
I
I
Is
I I
I Is Is Is Is
Is Is
Is I I
I I
I O O O O
O
O
O O O
O O O
O O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
west
east
south north
Municipal ofces
Damage Grade
O: no damage
I : slight
II : minor
III : moderate
IV : major
V : severe
99
serious damage
3rd oor plan and damage rate
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y0
Y5
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X0
III
III IIIs
III
II
II
II
IIs IIs
IIs
I
I I
Is
Is
Vs
I
I
Is
I
I
Is
I
I
Is
I I
I Is Is Is Is
Is Is
Is I I
I I
I O O O O
O
O
O O O
O O O
O O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
Y1
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8
Y2
Y3
Y4
Is Is
IIs IIs
IIIs
IVs
IVs IVs
IVs
Is Is Is Is Is
west
east
south
north
Apartment
units
Corridor
RC non-structural partition
Damage Grade
O: no damage
I : slight
II : minor
III : moderate
IV : major
V : severe
100
serious damage
Elevation of X1 frame in longitudinal direction
steel shape
in concrete
O
IIIs
Y0 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
4 500 4 500 6 000 6 000 6 000
O
III II
O I Is
Is
Is
IIs
III
III
III
O III IV V V
unit in mm
see Fig. 7
exural failure and
buckling of rebars at the
bottom of column
Damage grade : V
101
Elevation of Y4 frame in longitudinal direction
X8 X7 X6 X5 X4 X3 X0 X2 X1
1FL
GL
2FL
3FL
4FL
5FL
6FL
7FL
8FL
9FL
RFL
PHRFL 36,150
4,100
7,400
10,150
12,850
15,550
18,150
20,750
23,350
26,150
500
5 400 8 = 43 200
IVs
IVs
IVs
IVs
IVs IVs
shear crack on beam-column joint
Is O
O O O O
O O IIs Is
Is
I
I I
I IIs II II III
Is II
Unit in mm

see Fig. 10
Latice steel
Shear failure of
columns
Damage grade : V
102
Elevation of Y4 frame in longitudinal direction
X8 X7 X6 X5 X4 X3 X0 X2 X1
1FL
GL
2FL
3FL
4FL
5FL
6FL
7FL
8FL
9FL
RFL
PHRFL 36,150
4,100
7,400
10,150
12,850
15,550
18,150
20,750
23,350
26,150
500
5 400 8 = 43 200
IVs
IVs
IVs
IVs
IVs IVs
shear crack on beam-column joint
Is O
O O O O
O O IIs Is
Is
I
I I
I IIs II II III
Is II
Unit in mm

see Fig. 10
103
9FL
8FL
7FL
6FL
5FL
4FL
3FL
2FL
Close up
104
9FL
8FL
7FL
6FL
Shear Failure
Beam-column
joint
Shear Failure
of Column 105
Detailing : Beam-column Joints
(a) Beam-column joint at 7F (X5-Y4)
10-D19
hoop 9@250
750
450
450
220
220
1150
horizontal section
of column
vertical section
of beam
4-D19
3-D19
(b) Beam-column joint at 5F (X5-Y4)
4-D22+6-D19
hoop 9@250
750
600
600
220
220
1250
unit in mm
horizontal section
of column
vertical section
of beam
4-D22
4-D22
106
Joint Shear failure
in kN
Joint Shear failure
in kN
Joint Shear failure
in kN
Beam Flexural hinge
in kN
Beam Flexural hinge
in kN
Beam Flexural hinge
in kN
Column-to-beam
strength ratio
Column-to-beam
strength ratio
Joint
shear
strength
margin* column beam joint
column
case 1*
column
case 2*
beam
case 1
Wall+Column
case 2
Column
Joint
shear
strength
margin*
9FL 544.4 858.7 863.4 522.5 396.7 231.7 2.25 1.71 3.73
8FL 555.0 929.1 984.0 650.8 454.0 320.2 2.03 1.42 3.07
7FL 589.2 1043.2 1112.3 751.5 496.7 335.0 2.24 1.48 3.32
6FL 799.7 1148.5 1150.1 906.6 574.8 432.2 2.10 1.33 2.66
5FL 907.8 1162.5 1624.0 1082.9 664.0 528.3 2.05 1.26 3.07
Tributary area of gravity load
Column
Wall
floor plan
Performance
Evaluation of
Beam-column Joint
107
Damage building investigation due to Tohoku-chiho
Taiheiyo-oki Earthquake in 2011
Flexural failure of the rst story SRC column was severe,
- deciency of steel lattice not embedded into the foundation which just ends at
the rst oor level.
- abrupt change of section from RC to SRC at an inappropriate section caused
the concentration of the damage.
Shear failure of lightly reinforced beam-column joints were found,
- calculated margin of joint shear strength is 2.0 or more.
- column-to-beam strength ratio is in the range of 1.26 to 1.48.
- vulnerability of column-to-beam strength ratio between 1.0 and 1.5 are
conrmed
- problem in failure mode prediction
108
Seismic Retrot of Beam-column joint with
low column-to-beam strength ratio
109
H. Shiohara F. Kusuhara, S. Tajiri, and H. Fukuyama (2009). Seismic Retrot of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-column Joints with CFRP Composites, Proc. ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on
Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures.
Objective
to increase the story shear capacity with externally placed CFRP
composite to ensure a strength of beam-yielding mechanism by shifting
the critical section from the joints to the beam ends
Externally placed CFRP composite for seismic retrot of beam- column
joints has been considered as challenging because the presence of
transverse beams and oor slab that limit the accessibility to the joint in
actual three- dimensional frame
The method in this study overcomes the di!culty by placing only four
CFRP bundled strands vertically at the four corners of a column
110
Deformation and moment resisting mechanism in a
beam-column joint
column joint should be more strictly enforced than before. As a result, the existing
buildings should conform to the enforcement orders which adopts the seismic
provisions for beam-column joints in the newer AIJ Guidelines (AIJ 1999). New
building should conform to the seismic provisions, and existing beam-column joint
which do not necessary have enough safety margin for joint shear strength due to
negligent design of beam-column joint. Such decient beam-column joints need
seismic retrot.
The most straightforward method for a retrot is to increase the size of the
column with additional cast-in-place concrete cand additional longitudinal and
transverse reinforcements to decrease joint shear demand. But this method has a very
limited range of applicability due to the difculty of construction and architectural
restrictions. Moreover, the relation of seismic performance of such over reinforced
beam-column joints and the other design parameters which do not conform to current
seismic provisions have not necessary been well established. Application of
externally placed FRP composite is one of the simpler solutions for that purpose.
Several methods have been proposed and the performance have been investigated by
Pampanin et al. (2006), Silva et al. (2007), Karayanis et al. (2008) and Engindeniz et
al. (2008). Engindeniz et al. (2005) wrote that externally bonded FRP composites can
eliminate some of the important limitations (for example, difculties in construction
or increases in member sizes) of other strengthening techniques, and still improve the
joint shear capacity and shift the failure towards ductile beam hinging mechanisms.
However the FRP-strengthened joints mainly consists of simplied two-dimensional
test and the the detailing is not necessary applicable to three-dimensional joint with
transverse beams and oor slab.
The purpose of this study is to propose a new seismic retrotting method
with CFRP composite and to experimentally verify the effectiveness of the method
for a longitudinally over reinforced concrete beam-column joints and it could shift the
critical part of the structural system from the beam-column joints to the beam ends to
ensure a beam-hinging mechanism and increase the story shear capacity. This paper
reports the test results and compares the performance of beam-column joint with and
without the retrot.
A NEW METHOD OF JOINT RETROFITTING
Figure 1. Deformation and moment resisting mechanism in a beam-column joint
confining
spring
1450
ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic
Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures
four CFRP bundled strands placed vertically at the four corners of a column
CFRP layout and procedure for retroftting of beam-
column joint by CFRC
The idea of the new method for strengthening of beam-columns joint came
from a failure mechanism. It is based on the observation from tests by the author
(Shiohara 2001). The shear deformation of beam-column joint observed in the tests is
mainly represented by the rotational movement of triangular segments. The shear
failure of a joint is associated with the rotational movement accompanied by yielding
of longitudinal bars passing through a joint. Thus the vertical connement by elastic
elements with sufcient stiffness connecting the upper and lower part of a joint
enhances the strength of the joint. As shown in Fig. 1, vertical elements exert vertical
force as increasing of the joint deformation. For the elastic element for conning the
joint, carbon ber reinforcing plastic (CFRP) composite is used here.
To facilitate the method applicable to wide range of three dimensional beam-
column joints with oor slab and transverse beams, carbon ber composite strands
are bundled and are placed vertically at the four corners of a joint. The two ends of
the bundled carbon strands composite are spread out such that it should form a fan
shape to transfer the tensile force developed in the strands to the surface of concrete
by epoxy resin. This arrangement makes it possible to ease the application of the
CFRP. The bundled CFRP composite with fan shape anchor is a proprietary product
called CF Anchor available in Japan.
The procedure of the application of the CFRP composite are shown in Fig. 2.
TEST PROGRAM
Test Specimens. Four specimens of one third scale reinforced concrete beam-column
joints were constructed to be subjected to statically cyclic lateral loading simulating
earthquake. They were designed to show joint shear failure. The main parameter of
the test is with and without a retrot using CFRP composite. The other parameter of
the test is the width of the beam.
Figure 2. CFRP layout and procedure for retroftting of beam-column joint by CFRC

CF sheet reinforcing
in transverse direction CF sheet reinforcing
in longitudinal direction
CF strands
in plastics
tube
CF Anchor
Cover up CF sheet
1451
Geometry and reinforcing detail of the specimens
Table 1. Mechanical properties of Specimens (Series C)
Specimen Specimen Specimen C01 C02 C03 C04
Beam Width (mm) 240 240 120 120 Beam
Depth (mm) 240 240 240 240
Beam
Longitudinal reinforcement Longitudinal reinforcement 3+2D13 (SD345) 3+2D13 (SD345) 3+2-D13 (SD345) 3+2-D13 (SD345)
Beam
Tensile reinforcement ratio (%) 1.31 1.31 2.62 2.62
Beam
Stirrup -D6 (SD295A) @50 -D6 (SD295A) @50 -D6 (SD295A) @50 -D6 (SD295A) @50
Beam
Shear reinforcement ratio (%) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Column Width (mm) 240 240 240 240 Column
Depth (mm) 240 240 240 240
Column
Longitudinal reinforcement Longitudinal reinforcement 5-D13SD345 5-D13SD345 5-D13SD345 5-D13SD345
Column
Tensile reinforcement ratio (%) 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22
Column
Hoops -D6 (SD295A) @50 -D6 (SD295A) @50 -D6 (SD295A) @50 -D6 (SD295A) @50
Column
Shear reinforcement ratio (%) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Column
Carbon fiber sheet
(longitudinal direction)
Carbon fiber sheet
(longitudinal direction)

2 layers
300g/m
2

2 layers
300g/m
2
Joint Joint hoops Joint hoops 2 sets , -D6SD295A 2 sets , -D6SD295A 2 sets , -D6SD295A 2 sets , -D6SD295A Joint
transverse reinforcement ratio (%) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Joint
fiber strand retrofit
(vertical direction)
fiber strand retrofit
(vertical direction)

4 bundles
CF strands
96-24K

4 bundles
CF strands
96-24
Figure 3. Geometry and reinforcing detail of the specimens
5-D13 (SD345)
5-D13 (SD345)
240
1
9
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
0
120
1
2
0
2
4
2
4
3
6
3
6
240
2
4
0
700
700
700 700 unit in mm
Loading point
Hoops or Stirrups
-D6@50 (SD295A)
Beam sections
C01&C02 C03&C04
3-D13 (SD345)
2-D13 (SD345)
2-D13 (SD345)
3-D13 (SD345)
Joint Hoops
Two sets
-D6 (SD295A)
Column section
(in all specimens)
R20
chamfering the edge
1452
Joint shear strength margin = 0.91 column-to-beam strength ratio = 1.1
Retrotting Detail
Table 1 list the properties of the specimens. Figure 3 shows the geometry and
the dimension of the specimens. The specimens C02 and C04 are the strengthened
specimens while the specimens C01 and C03 are control specimens without
strengthening. The section of the column is 240 by 240 mm and is common to all the
specimen and the tensile reinforcement ratio is 1.22 percent. The section of the beam
230
500 CF Strands
24K strands x 96
Reinforcing sheet
in transverse direction:
One layer of 300g/m
2
Reinforcing sheet
in longitudinal direction:
Two layers of 300g/m
2
Figure 4. Retrotting detail
2
0
0
0
2850
Lb=1400
L
c
=
1
4
0
0
N
Pv4 Pv2
Pv3 Pv1
{(Pv1-Pv2)+(Pv4-Pv3)}Lb
Qs =
Lc
R=
dh1+dh2

Lc
dh2
dh1
dv2
dv1
L
c
Loading beam
Positive Negative
Lateral Loading
Load cell
Sphercial bushing
Pin
joints
Unit in mm Reaction floor
Sphercial
bushing
North
beam
South
beam
Specimen
500kN oil jack
connected to reaction frame
Instrumentation for story drift
Story shear
Story drift
Figure 5. Loading setup and instrumentation of story drift
1453
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
s
to
r
y
s
h
e
a
r
, k
N
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
story drift, %
67.4kN
-65.8kN

-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
s
to
r
y
s
h
e
a
r
, k
N
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
story drift, %
76.4kN
-74.2kN

Observed maximum
story shear
Observed maximum
story shear
Observed maximum
story shear
Observed maximum
story shear
Control specimen
Retrofitted with CFRP
Composite
Calculated story shear at
flexural capacity of beams
Calculated story shear at
flexural capacity of beams
CFRC
composite
at four courners
CFRC
strand
CFRP Composite
Retrot
Specimen
Control
Specimen
New Seismic Retrot Method with CFRP composite
The e!ectiveness of the new method was tested by interior beam-column joints
- Their original maximum story shears was 88 % of the calculated based on exural
theory sections.
- The maximum story shear increased 13 % by the retrot and attained the
calculated by exural theory
- Little improvement of the shape of the hysteresis loop
- The yield sti!ness increased 22 %
- No signicant e!ect to reduce the damage to the joint concrete is obtained due to
the retrot.
seismic retrot of the beam-column joint shown here is an e!ective and
practical seismic retrot of critical beam-column joints
116
Summary and Recommendations
117
Summary Part 1
Under-reinforced beam-column joints with column-to-beam strength in the
range of 1.0 to 2.0 were tested ;
- tests of interior joints 26; exterior joints 24;
- joints severely damaged and full strength of beams are not achieved
- hysteresis is severely slip and dissipate little hysteresis energy
Number of past tests on beam-column joint with column-to-beam strength
in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 is very limited.
Bias in a B-C joint specimen database should be carefully treated when they
are used for developing empirical design equations
118
Summary Part 2
Serious attention should be addressed to the test results
- Column-to-beam strength ratio in the range of 1.2 to 2.0 is common in practice in
Europe, North America and Japan.
- Test, Modeling, Analysis on impacts on seismic vulnerability of RC MRFS system
are necessary
Validity of current seismic code;
- Inappropriateness of the current seismic provisions are veried by the series of
tests. It overlooks the deciency in strength of moment resisting frames with
smaller column-to-beam strength ratio.
- Column-to-beam strength ratio is a key parameter of seismic design. Because
most of the existing RC moment resisting frame structures is designed with small
column-to-beam strength ratio and seismically vulnerable than we thought...
119
Summary Part 3
The New joint strength theory is reliable and robust for the above
comprehensive set of experimental results
Full scale four story RC frame structure was tested on 3D shaking table in
Japan and joint failure was demonstrated
Damage of beam-column joints were observed at some buildings after 2011
East Japan Great Eartquake Disaster
New macro element for RC beam-column joint has been developed to
simulate the non-linear earthquake response of frame building with decient
beam-column joint
It is revealed the frame with beam-to-column joints of column-to-beam
strength ratio of 1.0 has collapsed at lower level input acceleration.
120
Recommendations
Column-to-beam strength ratio should be larger than at least 1.5 for Interior
joints and 2.0 for exterior joints respectively if no deciency in strength is
admitted.
Moment resisting frames with BC joint of column-to-beam strength ratio less
2.0, should be carefully proportioned such that it has su!cient margin of
lateral resistant capacity to compensate the deciency of the strength and
the poor hysteretic energy dissipating capacity of BC joint, disregaring the
current codes provisions.
More e"orts on tests and theoretical development are necessary for the
revision of BC joint provisions of current seismic codes.
121
Suggested List for Further Readings
1. Hitoshi Shiohara., (2001), New Model for Shear Failure of RC Interior Beam-Column Connections, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Volume 127, Issue 2, February 2001, pp. 152-160.
2. Hitoshi Shiohara. (2012). Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints : An Overlooked Failure Mechanism. ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 109, No. 1, January-February, 2012, pp. 65-74.
3. Fumio Kusuhara and Hitoshi Shiohara. (2012). Joint Shear? or Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio? Which is a key
parameter for seismic design of RC Beam-column joints - Test Series on Interior Joints, Proc. 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Sept 23-29, 2012, paper No. 2014.
4. Hitoshi Shiohara and Fumio Kusuhara. (2012). Joint Shear? or Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio? Which is a key
parameter for seismic design of RC Beam-column joints - Test Series on Exterior Joints. Proc. 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Sept 23-29, 2012, paper No. 1988.
5. T. Nagae et al. (2012). Test Results of Four-Story Reinforced Concrete and Post-Tensioned Concrete Buildings: The 2010
E-Defense Shaking Table Test. Proc. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Sept 23-29, 2012, paper
No. 3870.
6. Hitoshi Shiohara, Tomoaki Akiyama, Kazuhiko Watanabe and Keisuke Okihara. (2012). Seismic Damage of a Nine-story
RC Residential Building in Sendai Designed by Old seismic codes, Proc. the International Symposium on Engineering
Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, Japan (http://www.jaee.gr.jp/event/
seminar2012/eqsympo/proceedings.html)
7. H. Shiohara F. Kusuhara, S. Tajiri, and H. Fukuyama (2009). Seismic Retrot of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints
with CFRP Composites, Proc. ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings
and Other Structures.
122

'13 Iisee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

'13 Iisee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Design of Reinforced

Concrete Beam-Column Joints :

You might also like