Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plastic Hinge Relocation Methods For Emulative
Plastic Hinge Relocation Methods For Emulative
PC Beam–Column Connections
Tae-Sung Eom 1; Hong-Gun Park, A.M.ASCE 2; Hyeon-Jong Hwang 3; and Su-Min Kang 4
Abstract: Various plastic hinge relocation methods were studied to improve the earthquake resistance of emulative precast concrete (PC)
beam-column connections using PC U-shell beams. The present study used two strengthening methods (hooked bars and headed bars) and a
weakening method (reduced beam bar section), to relocate the plastic hinge zone of beams away from the weak beam-column joint. Five
full-scale test specimens including a conventional reinforced concrete (RC) specimen were tested to evaluate the earthquake resistance. The
test results showed that the used relocation methods significantly decreased that bond-slip of beam flexural bars and joint shear cracking. As a
result, the energy dissipation capacity significantly increased, compared to those of the conventional RC specimens and PC specimens
without relocation methods. On the basis of the test results, design recommendations are suggested for plastic hinge relocation design
of emulative PC beam-column connections. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001378. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
Author keywords: Precast concrete; Beam-column connection; Beam-column joint; Seismic test; Earthquake design; Concrete and
masonry structures.
Introduction hc =db ratio and shear strength decrease because of the reduced
column depth, hc -2s, in the joint. Thus, it is difficult to satisfy
Fig. 1(a) shows an emulative precast concrete (PC) beam-column the requirements.
connection using U-shell beams (Im et al. 2013; Park and Bull As an alternative method to enhance the seismic performance of
1986; Kim et al. 2004). The emulative PC beam-column connec- beam-column joints, strengthening methods can be used to relocate
tion enhances the integrity of the beam-column joint, by placing beam plastic hinge zones away from the column face (Joh et al.
cast-in-place concrete and beam flexural bars in the joint. However, 1991; Park and Milburn 1983; Galunic et al. 1977; Fenwick and
as shown in Fig. 1(b), because of the seating length s of the PC Irvine 1997; Abdel-Fattah and Wight 1987; Chutarat and Aboutaha
U-shells, the development length of beam bars and the effective 2003; Juette 1996; Yamamoto et al. 2008; Pimanmas and
shear area in the cast-in-place concrete joint are decreased [ACI Chaimahawan 2010; Pampanin et al. 2006; Ghobarah and Said
318 (ACI 2011); ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI 2002); NZS 3101 (Standards 2002; Pampanin et al. 2007; Niroomandi et al. 2010; Dalalbashi
New Zealand 2006)]. Further, the use of large diameter bars is pref- et al. 2012). Fig. 2 shows details of existing strengthening methods.
erable to avoid bar congestion in the reduced area of the cast-in-place Joh et al. (1991) and Park and Milburn (1983) used additional
core concrete of the beam. Thus, significant bar bond-slip and 90°-hooked bars in the joint to relocate the beam plastic hinge zone
diagonal concrete cracking are unavoidable in the beam-column to a distance of 0.5–1.0 times the beam depth from the column face.
joint (Im et al. 2013; Park and Bull 1986; Kim et al. 2004). Galunic et al. (1977) compared the effects of straight bars and 60°
To secure the bar bond resistance and shear strength in beam- bent bars on joint behavior. Fenwick and Irvine (1997) used bond
column joints, the current design codes [ACI 318 (ACI 2011); plates welded to the beam and column bars to reduce bar bond
ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI 2002); NZS 3101 (Standards New Zealand deterioration. Abdel-Fattah and Wight (1987), Chutarat and
2006)] specify minimum requirements for the column depth-to- Aboutaha (2003), and Juette (1996) used additional straight and
beam bar diameter ratio (hc =db ) and joint shear strength. In the case headed bars passing through the joint to reduce yield penetration
of emulative beam-column connections using U-shell beams, the of the beam flexural bars. Yamamoto et al. (2008) used U-shaped
bars to relocate the slab plastic hinge zone to a distance of 1.8 times
1 the slab depth from the wall face. Pimanmas and Chaimahawan
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Dankook
(2010) and Pampanin et al. (2006) used haunch systems, using
Univ., 152 Jukjeon-ro, Gyeonggi-do 448-701, Korea. E-mail: tseom@
dankook.ac.kr planar joint enlargement and threaded steel bars to relocate the
2
Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul beam plastic hinge zone to the edge of enlargement and to reduce
National Univ., 599 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 151-744, Korea. E-mail: parkhg@ shear stress in the joint. Ghobarah and Said (2002), Pampanin et al.
snu.ac.kr (2007), Niroomandi et al. (2010), and Dalalbashi et al. (2012) inves-
3
Assistant Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Yuelu tigated the effectiveness of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) laminates
Mountain, Changsha, Hunan 410082, China. E-mail: hwanggun85@naver retrofitting the joint. This method of repair relocated the plastic
.com hinge away from the column face and prevented joint shear failure.
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Chungbuk As a result, strength capacity increased and ductility improved.
National Univ., 52 Naesudong-ro, Chungbuk-do 361-763, Korea (corre-
Existing test results showed that by using strengthening meth-
sponding author). E-mail: ksm0626@paran.com; kangsm@cbnu.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 11, 2014; approved on
ods, inclined concrete cracking and bar bond-slip significantly de-
June 19, 2015; published online on July 30, 2015. Discussion period open creased. As a result, the earthquake resistance of the beam-column
until December 30, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for in- connections substantially improved. A limitation of existing studies
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer- is that they evaluated the use of strengthening methods only in RC
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04015111(13)/$25.00. beam-column joints.
J. Struct. Eng.
(a) (b)
In the case of the emulative PC beam-column connections in cyclic loading tests for the emulative PC connection specimens to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
Fig. 1(a), the use of plastic hinge relocation methods may be indis- investigate the effects of plastic hinge relocation methods on seis-
pensable because of the weak connection between the PC beam mic performance. Two strengthening methods using 90°-hooked
shell and the cast-in-place concrete. The present study performed bars and headed bars, and a weakening method using beam flexural
bars with reduced section area were studied. The strength, defor-
mation capacity, energy dissipation capacity, and failure mode of
the specimens were compared with those of conventional RC
specimens and PC specimens without plastic hinge relocation
methods.
M nj ≥ M uj 0 ≥ M0
and M nj ð1Þ
uj
J. Struct. Eng.
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
(b) (c)
J. Struct. Eng.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Shear demand and capacity of beam-column joints with plastic hinge relocation methods
J. Struct. Eng.
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
(b) (c)
(d) (e)
Fig. 5. Configurations and reinforcement details of test specimens (mm) (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm and 1 ksi ¼ 6.90 MPa)
of the top and bottom D22 bars decreased to 19 and 17.7 mm (0.748 strengthening bars, four 90°-hooked D22 bars were used for
and 0.697 in.), respectively [Fig. 5(b)]. The reduction of the bar PC S1, and four headed D25 bars were used for PC S2.
section area was greater in the bottom bars, because the D10 bars By using the strengthening bars, the beam critical sections of
in the PC U-shell might contribute to the positive moment capacity PC S1 and PC S2 were relocated to dj ¼ 235 mm
of the beam, although the contribution was not considered in the (9.25 in.) and 250 mm (9.84 in.) from the column faces, respec-
calculation of the design moment Mn . tively [Figs. 5(c and d)]. In order to avoid anchorage failure of
Figs. 5(c and d) show the reinforcement details of specimens the headed bars, the headed bars of PC S2 were placed at the
PC S1 and PC S2 with 90°-hooked bars and headed bars, re- center of the cross-section. Because of the reduced effective beam
spectively. The properties of the specimens were the same as those depth, greater diameter bars (i.e., D25 bars) were used for the
of specimen PC. However, to obtain the same load-carrying headed bars so that the moment capacity would be greater than
capacity as that of PC, the beam top and bottom bars were de- the moment demand at the column face. The lengths of the top
creased to six D19 bars and one D22 bars + two D19 bars, respec- and bottom headed bars differed to alleviate the anchorage force
tively, to account for the effect of the strengthening bars. For the concentration. Under cyclic loading, the bottom bars with smaller
J. Struct. Eng.
Table 1. Properties of Test Specimens (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm and 1 kip-ft ¼ 1.36 kN-m)
Beams Beam-column joint
Specimen Top | bottom bars dP jdN a (mm) M n b (kN-m) M nj b (kN-m) dj (mm) hj c (mm) hj =db d Plastic hinge relocation method
PC 2D22 þ 4D19j3D22 414|430 231|-383 — — 470 21.4 N/A
PC-W 6D22|4D22 402|433 192|-348 290|-457 250 1,050 47.7 Reduced bar section
PC-S1 6D19j1D22 þ 2D19 414|433 193|-349 312|-473 235 1,020 46.4 90°-hooked bars
PC-S2 6D19j1D22 þ 2D19 414|433 193|-349 314|-457 250 1,050 47.7 Headed bars
RC 2D22 þ 4D19j3D22 449|430 258|-391 — — 550 25.0 N/A
a
dP and dN = effective depths of beam cross sections for positive and negative moments [Fig. 2(a)].
b
Positive moment | negative moment.
c
hj ¼ hc − 2s ¼ ð550 − 80Þ mm for PC and hj ¼ hc ¼ 550 mm for RC. For PC W, PC S1, and PC S2, hj ¼ hc þ 2dj .
d
db ¼ 22 mm was used.
Table 2. Mix Proportion of Concrete (1 ksi ¼ 6.90 MPa and requirement in Eq. (2). Particularly, in PC W, PC S1, and
1 lb=ft3 ¼ 16.02 kg=m3 ) PC S2, use of the plastic hinge relocation methods significantly
Unit weight, kg=m3 ðlb=ft3 Þ
increased the bond parameter. Table 1 also presents the moment
Concrete W/Ca S/ab capacities at the beam critical section and at the end of the PC
Cementc ADd
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
(MPa) (%) (%) Water Sand Gravel U-shell, M n and M nj , respectively. For PC W, PC S1, and
32 49.9 48.3 185 371 837 895 1.86 PC S2, Mn and M nj were carefully chosen to satisfy Eq. (1),
41.1 & 43.9 33.3 45.2 161 425 749 956 4.10 so that yielding of the beams first occurred in the relocated plastic
50.3 29.0 40.5 180 620 625 935 8.06 hinge zone, rather than at the end of the PC U-shells (i.e., at the
a
W=C = water/cement (unit weight ratio). column interface).
b
S=a = sand/(sand + gravel) (unit weight ratio). The concrete strengths of the PC columns and U-shells were
c
Type 1, portland cement (Korean industrial standard). fc0 ¼ 50.3 MPa (7.29 ksi) and 41.1 MPa (5.96 ksi), respectively.
d
AD = water reducing agent (unit weight ratio). In PC, PC W, PC S1, and PC S2, the compressive strength
of the cast-in-place concrete was f c0 ¼ 32.0 MPa (4.64 ksi). The
concrete strength of RC was fc0 ¼ 43.9 MPa (6.36 ksi). Table 2
area are subjected to larger inelastic deformation because of the presents the mix proportions for the concrete with the compressive
force-equilibrium in the cross-section. Thus, the length of the bot- strength of 32 (4.64), 41.1 (5.96), 43.9 (6.36), and 50.3 MPa
tom headed bars was greater than that of the top headed bars. (7.29 ksi). Type I Portland Cement specified in the Korean Indus-
Fig. 5(e) shows reinforcement details of the conventional RC trial Standard was used in all mixtures. The maximum size of the
specimen. The column cross-section of RC was identical to that aggregates was less than 25 mm (1.0 in.). The mixed concrete air
of PC [refer to section C-C of Fig. 5(a)]. The dimensions of the content was 4.5%, and the slump was 150 mm (5.9 in.). The yield
beams and the area of the beam flexural bars were also the same strength f y and tensile strength f u of the reinforcement were 498
as those of PC. However, the effective beam depth dp for the bot- (72.2) and 599 MPa (86.8 ksi) for D10; 484 (70.2) and 591 MPa
tom bars in RC without PC U-shell was greater than that of PC. (85.7 ksi) for D13; 523 (75.8) and 642 MPa (93.0 ksi) for D19; 521
Table 1 shows a comparison of the bar bond parameters of the spec- (75.5) and 647 MPa (93.8 ksi) for D22; and 465 (67.4) and
imens. For the specimen PC, the bond parameter was estimated as 630 MPa (91.3 ksi) for D25, respectively.
ðhc − 2sÞ=db ¼ 21.4, using the greatest bar diameter and the effec- Fig. 6 shows the test set-up. The column was hinge-supported at
tive joint depth (hc − 2s) reduced by the left and right seating the bottom. The beams were roller supported at the right and left
lengths 2s. On the other hand, in the conventional RC specimen, ends, and were laterally supported. Cyclic loading was applied at
the bond parameter was estimated as hc =db ¼ 25.0. For PC W, the top of the column, and was controlled by the lateral displace-
PC S1, and PC S2, in which plastic hinge relocation methods ment of the loading point. Lateral displacement levels increased by
were used, the modified bond parameters were increased to 0.25 and 0.5% drift ratios before and after yielding of the speci-
hj =db ¼ 47.7, 46.4, and 47.7, respectively. In all specimens, the mens, respectively. Cyclic loading was repeated three times at each
bar bond parameters were greater than the ACI 318 (ACI 2011) lateral drift ratio. Axial load was not applied to the columns. As
J. Struct. Eng.
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Fig. 7. Lateral load-drift ratio relationships of test specimens (1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN): (a) RC; (b) PC; (c) PC-W; (d) PC-S1; (e) PC-S2; (f) envelope curves
shown in Fig. 6, linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) ðPu =ky Þ=h. The maximum drift ratio δ u was defined as the post-
were used to measure the translations and slips of the beam and peak drift ratio corresponding to 0.75Pu (Park 1988).
column supports. In Figs. 7(a and b), the overall cyclic behavior of PC, in which
the plastic hinge relocation method was not used, was similar to
that of the conventional RC specimen. After yielding, the load-
Test Results carrying capacities of RC and PC gradually decreased. The
maximum drift ratios of RC and PC were δ u ¼ 5.06% and
4.60%, respectively. The peak load of RC was 8.3% greater than
Lateral Load: Story Drift Ratio Relationships
that of PC. This is because the effective beam depth of RC without
Figs. 7(a–e) show the lateral load-drift ratio relationships of the test the PC U-shell was greater (see dp in Table 1). Both RC and
specimens. The lateral drift ratio was calculated by dividing the net PC showed significant pinching in the cyclic responses, which
lateral displacement at the loading point by the net column height indicates that significant bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete crack-
[h ¼ 2,100 mm (82.7 in.)]. Table 3 presents the maximum strength ing occurred in the beam-column joints.
Pu , yield drift ratios δ y , yield stiffness ky , and maximum drift ratios Figs. 7(c–e) show the cyclic responses of PC W, PC S1,
δ u . In Fig. 7(f), ky was defined as the pre-peak secant stiffness cor- and PC S2, which used plastic hinge relocation methods.
responding to 0.75Pu . The yield drift ratio δ y was calculated as Although different methods were used, PC W, PC S1, and
J. Struct. Eng.
Table 3. Summary of Test Results and Predictions (1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN and 1 kip=in: ¼ 0.175 kN=mm)
Load-carrying capacity Deformation capacity Stiffness (kN/mm)
Test result Prediction Yield drift Maximum drift
Specimen Pu (kN) Pn (kN) Pu =Pn ratio δ y (%) ratio δ u (%) Ductility μ ky ki ks ks =ki
PC 351 325 1.08 1.16 4.60 3.97 14.6 30.4 0.41 0.01
PC-W 336 330 1.02 1.24 3.76 3.03 13.0 30.8 3.97 0.13
PC-S1 370 331 1.12 1.35 3.88 2.87 13.1 25.0 3.88 0.16
PC-S2 378 335 1.13 1.26 3.80 3.02 14.4 27.4 3.78 0.14
RC 380 349 1.09 1.37 5.06 3.70 13.2 27.4 0.27 0.01
PC S2 exhibited similar cyclic responses, showing relatively column face). More importantly, significant concrete spalling oc-
large energy dissipation per cycle. Yielding of the specimens oc- curred in the joints [Fig. 8(b)]. Such damage in the joint may cause
curred at δ y ¼ 1.24 ∼ 1.35%. After the yielding, the load-carrying significant strength degradation if the column is subjected to a large
capacities were maintained. Ultimately, the specimens failed at compressive force. Note that even though the concrete strength of
δ u ¼ 3.76 ∼ 3.88%, which were less than those of RC and PC. RC was 37% greater than that of the cast-in-place concrete of PC,
However, in the case of RC and PC, the displacement increased, RC also experienced significant bar bond-slip and diagonal con-
because of the rigid body motion associated with the bar bond- crete cracking in the joint.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
slip in the joints. Despite the reduced deformation capacity, Figs. 8(c–e) show the concrete cracking and failure modes of
pinching significantly reduced in the cyclic responses of PC W, PC W, PC S1, and PC S2. Use of the plastic hinge reloca-
PC S1, and PC S2. Consequently, the hysteretic energy dis- tion methods restrained bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete crack-
sipation per cycle increased. ing in the joint, and the majority of the inelastic deformation of the
specimens occurred in the relocated plastic hinge zones. As shown
in Figs. 8(c–e), concrete crushing occurred at the beam bottom as a
Crack Patterns and Failure Modes result of flexural compression; and in the beam web as a result of
Fig. 8 shows the concrete cracking and failure modes of the spec- the anchorage force of the hooked bars and headed bars. Ultimately,
imens at the end of the test. For specimens RC and PC in which PC S1 and PC S2 failed because of low-cycle fatigue fracture
plastic hinge relocation methods were not used, although the beam- of the beam flexural bars (Higai et al. 2006).
column joints satisfied the hc =db requirement of ACI 318 (ACI As shown in Fig. 7, fracture of the rebars occurred after concrete
2011) (Table 1), the joints were severely damaged because of crushing. This result indicates that after the concrete crushing, bar-
bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete cracking [Figs. 8(a and b)]. buckling occurred because of the increased force, and under the
This was particularly the case for specimen PC, in which PC beam subsequent cyclic loading repeated bending and unfolding (attrib-
shells separated from the joint because of the excessive bar bond- utable to bar-buckling) occurred in the rebars, which resulted in
slip, and a gap occurred between the U-shell and the column face. fracture of the rebars. Thus, to restrain the fracture of the rebars,
During cyclic loading the gap repetitively opened and closed. As a concrete crushing should be restrained by using closely spaced
result, concrete crushing occurred at the PC beam ends (i.e., at the hoops in the plastic hinge zone.
Fig. 8. Cracking and failure modes of test specimens at the end of test: (a) RC; (b) PC; (c) PC-W; (d) PC-S1; (e) PC-S2
J. Struct. Eng.
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 9. Strains of beam reinforcements (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm and 1 kips ¼ 4.45 kN): (a) PC; (b) PC-W; (c) PC-S1; (d) PC-S2
Strains of Reinforcements bar strains in the joint and in the beam end were 0.046 (gauge A)
and 0.011 (gauge B), respectively. This result indicates that signifi-
Fig. 9 compares strains of the beam bars in PC and PC-W; S1; S2,
without and with strengthening bars, respectively. The strains were cant bar bond-slip occurred within the joint region. Such yield
measured at the bottom bars. Fig. 9 shows the locations of strain penetration also occurred in the conventional RC specimen.
gauges A and C, which were placed within the joint, and strain In specimen PC W with reduced bar section [Fig. 9(b)] large
gauges B and D, which were placed outside the joint. In specimen plastic strains occurred in the relocated beam plastic hinge zone
PC, without strengthening bars [Fig. 9(a)] yielding of the beam (gauge D), while the bar strains in the joint remained in the elastic
bars began at the column face (gauge B). As the load increased range (gauge C). This result indicates the prevention of bond-slip of
the bar yielding penetrated into the joint, and thus significant plastic the beam bars in the joint. The test results of specimens PC S1
strains developed within the joint region (gauge A). The maximum and PC S2 were similar to those of PC W [Figs. 9(c and d)].
J. Struct. Eng.
Evaluation of Structural Performance and 7.7% greater, respectively, than that of PC, because of the
relocation of the plastic hinge zones.
Load-Carrying Capacity
The theoretical load-carrying capacities of the PC and RC speci- Deformation Capacity
mens were calculated as follows, assuming flexural yielding in Fig. 7(f) shows the envelope curves of the specimens. Table 3
the beam critical sections (Fig. 6) presents the yield drift ratio δ y , maximum drift ratio δ u , and duc-
tility μ ð¼ δ u =δ y Þ, which were evaluated from the envelope curves.
l ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005) requires that the maximum drift ratio of
Pn ¼ ðPbp þ Pbn Þ ð6Þ
2h beam-column connections be greater than 3.5%. In Table 3, PC
specimens PC W, PC S1, and PC S2 exhibited maximum
where Pbp and Pbn = vertical reactions at the beam supports; drift ratios δ u of 3.76– 3.88%. The displacement ductility ranged
h = net column height between the top and bottom hinge supports from 2.87 to 3.02. On the other hand, the maximum drift ratios of
[= 2,100 mm (82.7 in.)]; and l = net beam length between the left PC and RC, in which plastic hinge relocation methods were not
and right beam supports [= 4,760 mm (187 in.)]. The vertical re- used, were 4.60 and 5.06%, respectively, which were greater than
actions, Pbp and Pbn were calculated by dividing the nominal those of PC W, PC S1, and PC S2. However, the greater
flexural strength M n of the beam critical section by the shear span displacements of PC and RC were attributed to bar bond-slip
length ls (i.e., the distance between the roller support and the criti- and diagonal concrete cracking in the joints [Figs. 8(a and b)].
cal section). Since specimens PC and RC have severe concrete cracking and
Table 3 and Fig. 7 show the theoretical load-carrying capacity spalling in the joints and the columns, the deformation capacity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
Pn of the specimens calculated by Eq. (6). The flexural strengths may be significantly degraded if the columns are subjected to high
M n of the beam critical sections were calculated using the actual axial load.
material strengths and the rectangular concrete stress block of ACI
318 (ACI 2011). The shear span length of specimen RC was ls ¼
Energy Dissipation Capacity and Secant Stiffness
2,105 mm (82.9 in.). In specimen PC, the shear span length in-
creased to ls ¼ ð2,105 þ 40Þmm (84.4 in.), considering the seating Fig. 10(a) shows the variation of the hysteretic energy dissipation
length 40 mm (1.57 in.) of the PC U-shell [Fig. 5(a)]. In the PC per cycle of the specimens, with respect to the lateral drift ratio δ.
specimens that used plastic hinge relocation methods, the shear The hysteretic energy dissipation ED per cycle was calculated as
span lengths were calculated as ls ¼ ð2,105 − 250Þmm (73.0 in.) the area enclosed by the third load cycle at each drift level. In
for PC W and PC S2 and (2,105−235) mm (73.6 in.) for Fig. 10(a), ED of PC W, PC S1, and PC S2, with plastic
PC S1, considering the distances dj from the column face to hinge relocation methods, were 28–128% greater than those of
the relocated plastic hinge (refer to Table 1). As presented in Table 3 PC and RC, particularly at δ ¼ 3.0 − 4.0%. This is because
and Fig. 7, the theoretical load-carrying capacities Pn were slightly RC and PC suffered from significant bar bond-slip and inclined
less than the test results Pu . The Pu =Pn ratios ranged from 1.02 to concrete cracking in the joint area at δ ≥ 3.0% [refer to Figs. 8
1.13. Such underestimation was attributed to the strain-hardening (a and b)]. On the other hand, RC and PC continued to dissipate
behavior of reinforcing steel bars and the PC U-shell that was ex- hysteretic energy until δ ¼ 5.0% while PC W, PC S1, and
cluded in the calculation of Pn . PC S2 failed at δ ¼ 4.0%.
Although the area of the beam bars (10- D22 bars) of specimen ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005) recommends that at a drift level of no
PC W was greater than that of PC (4-D19 þ 5-D22 bars), the less than 3.5%, the energy dissipation ratio κ (¼ ED =Eep ) by the
predicted load-carrying capacities of PC W and PC were equiv- third load cycle should be no less than 0.125. Eep denotes the en-
alent, because in PC W, the bar section area was reduced by ergy dissipation per cycle attributable to the idealized elastic-
25–35% at the critical section [Eq. (1) and Fig. 3]. This result perfectly plastic behavior [Fig. 10(b)]. As shown in Fig. 10(b),
indicates that the reduced bar section method is economically un- all specimens satisfied the ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005) requirement
favorable. On the other hand, in PC S1 and PC S2, with at the lateral drift ratio of 3.5%. However, in specimens PC and
strengthening bars, the area of the beam bars (8-D19 þ 1-D22 bars) RC, without the plastic hinge relocation method, the κ values
was 31% smaller than that of PC. Despite the reduced bar area, significantly degraded after δ ¼ 2.5%. In specimens PC W,
the load-carrying capacities of PC S1 and PC S2 were 5.4 PC S1, and PC S2, with the plastic hinge relocation method,
(a) (b)
J. Struct. Eng.
Table 4. Joint Shear Strength of Test Specimens (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm,
1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN, and 1 ksi ¼ 6.90 MPa)
Specimen f c0 (MPa) Aj (mm2 ) βγ V jn (kN) V ju (kN) V jn =V ju
PC 32.0 199,750 1.2 1,356 1,502 0.90
PC-W 32.0 199,750 1.7 1,921 1,534 1.25
PC-S1 32.0 199,750 1.7 1,921 1,465 1.31
PC-S2 32.0 199,750 1.7 1,921 1,472 1.31
RC 43.9 233,750 1.2 1,859 1,466 1.27
(a)
Shear Strength of Beam-Column Joints
The joint shear strength and demand, V jn and V ju , of the specimens
were evaluated using Eqs. (3)–(5). The results are presented in
Table 4. The joint shear strength V jn of the conventional RC speci-
men was calculated using γ ¼ 1.2, β ¼ 1.0, and the effective joint
shear area Aj ¼ 0.5ðbb þ bc Þ·hc . The joint shear demand V ju of
RC at the column face was calculated from Eq. (5) using α ¼
1.25; ðC þ T 0 Þ ¼ Ast fy (Ast = total area of beam flexural bars at
the critical section); and V c = the test strength Pu . On the other
hand, in the case of the emulative PC specimen without the plastic
hinge relocation method, V jn was calculated using γ ¼ 1.2; β ¼
1.0; and Aj ¼ 0.5ðbb þ bc Þ · ðhc -2 sÞ, considering the seating
length s ¼ 40 mm (1.57 in.) [refer to Fig. 1(b)]. The value for V ju
(b)
of PC at the end of the PC U-shell was calculated using α ¼ 1.25;
ðC þ T 0 Þ ¼ Ast fy ; and V c ¼ Pu . In PC W, PC S1, and
Fig. 12. Joint shear demand versus capacity of test specimens with
PC S2 with the plastic hinge relocation method, V jn was calcu-
plastic hinge relocation methods
lated using βγ ¼ 1.7 (Table 4) because the products of γð¼ 1.2Þ
J. Struct. Eng.
Table 5. Joint Shear Strength of Existing Cast-In-Place Connection critical section be not less than the greater of 0.5hb and
Specimens with Strengthening Bars (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm, 1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN, 500 mm (19.7 in.). However, in the test specimens the bar
and 1 ksi ¼ 6.90 MPa) bond-slip and diagonal concrete cracking were successfully re-
fc0 V jn V ju strained with dj ¼ 0.47hb − 0.5hb or 235–250 mm, which is
Specimen (MPa) hc =db hj =db βγ (kN) (Kn) V jn =V ju significantly smaller than 500 mm (19.7 in.).
Galunic et al. (1977) • ACI 318 (ACI 2011) requires the developmentplengths for
BC5 27.6 22.5 54.4 1.7 1,265 1,012 1.25 90°-hooked bars and headed bars ldh ¼ 0.24ðfpy = fc0 Þdb ð0.7Þ
Joh et al. (1991) (As required=As provided), and ldt ¼ 0.19ðfy = f c0 Þdb , respec-
B9 25.6 23.6 57.5 1.7 645 417 1.55 tively, but not less than 8db and 150 mm. Here, 0.7 and
B11 24.9 23.6 57.5 1.7 649 417 1.56 (As required=As provided) are the applicable modification fac-
Park and Milburn (1983) tors. However, in the test specimens, the development lengths of
Unit2 46.9 20.3 70.3 1.7 1,262 1,110 1.14 the 90°-hooked bars and headed bars (i.e., see dj or dj0 in Table 1)
Hwang et al., unpublished data, 2014 were only 82 and 64% of the required lengths, respectively.
S1 38.3 18.1 18.1 1.2 1,452 1,419 1.02
Nevertheless, the 90°-hooked bars and headed bars successfully
S2 32.0 18.1 26.1 1.7 1,880 1,807 1.04
S3 35.9 14.2 22.1 1.7 1,943 1,854 1.05
strengthened the beam-column joints.
S4 29.4 18.1 32.0 1.7 1,802 1,639 1.10
S5 37.5 18.1 26.5 1.7 2,035 1,677 1.21
Summary and Conclusions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
of the existing cast-in-place specimens, V jn =V ju . All specimens In the present study, various plastic hinge relocation methods for
were evaluated to be safe (V jn =V ju > 1.0), despite the small col- the emulative PC beam-column connections were studied. To study
umn depth-to-bar diameter ratios, which were less than 20 (see the effects and details of the methods, cyclic loading tests were per-
hc =db in Table 5). This evaluation result agrees with the test formed for four cruciform PC specimens and a conventional RC
results that showed that joint shear failure did not occur in the specimen. For the plastic hinge relocation methods, a weakening
existing test specimens. method using a reduced bar section area and two strengthening
However, the purpose of the existing tests, including this test, methods using 90°-hooked bars or headed bars were studied.
was not the investigation of the joint shear strength. None of the The results of the present study are summarized as follows:
specimens failed by joint shear. Thus, the peak test strengths do not • In RC and PC without plastic hinge relocation methods, sig-
necessarily indicate the joint shear strengths, and the test results are nificant bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete cracking occurred
not sufficient to validate the proposed joint shear strength. Further in the beam-column joints, even though the bar bond require-
studies are required to accurately define the joint shear strength. ment (hc =db ≥ 20) of ACI 318 (ACI 2011) was satisfied. How-
ever, in PC W, PC S1, and PC S2 with the plastic hinge
relocation methods, bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete crack-
Design Recommendations
ing significantly decreased in the joints; and as a result, the en-
As previously noted, the proposed methods successfully enhanced ergy dissipation at the third cycle was 28–128% greater than that
the earthquake resistance of the emulative PC beam-column con- of PC and RC. However, the maximum deformations were less
nections. On the basis of the test results, design recommendations than those of RC and PC, which showed large bond-slip de-
for the plastic hinge relocation methods are suggested as follows: formations.
• In order to prevent premature fracture of rebars in the plastic • Specimens RC and PC, without plastic hinge relocation meth-
hinge zone, concrete crushing should be restrained by using ods, did not satisfy the secant stiffness requirement of ACI 374.1
closely spaced hoops. (ACI 2005), although the bond requirement for beam reinforce-
• The areas of the 90°-hooked bars, headed bars, and the reduced ment was satisfied. This was because the actual yield strengths
beam bar section should be determined such that the beam flex- of beam reinforcements (= 521 and 523 MPa) that were 30%
ural strength at the end of the PC U-shell is not less than the greater than the design yield strength (= 400 MPa) significantly
demand corresponding to the flexural strength of the relocated increased the bond demand in the joint regions. On the other
critical section. hand, PC W, PC S1, and PC S2 with the plastic hinge
• When the development length of beam flexural bars is evaluated relocation methods satisfied the secant stiffness requirement.
using the current design codes, the development length can be The low stiffness and energy dissipation of RC and PC can
increased to the distance hj between the left and right beam significantly degrade the overall earthquake resistance by in-
critical sections: hj =db ≥ 20 for ACI 318 (ACI 2011). creasing earthquake load demand and deformation demand.
• For the cruciform beam-column connections in which plastic • In the specimens with plastic hinge relocation methods, when
hinge relocation methods are used, the joint shear demand at the bar bond requirement is evaluated using the current design
the end of the PC U-shell should be calculated using the beam codes, the bar bond resistance can increase by using the in-
moment capacity of the relocated critical sections. creased development length, hj , which is the distance between
• The joint shear strength can be enhanced by restraining the bar the left and right beam critical sections. Further, the joint shear
bond-slip and diagonal concrete cracking in the joint region strength can increase by the ratio of the increased distance to the
(Hong et al. 2011). In the present study, the
p enhanced joint shear original distance [i.e., hj =ðhc − sÞ]. The modified bar bond
strength can be evaluated as V jn ¼ βγ f c0 Aj , where β ¼ hj = parameter and joint shear strength correlated well with the ex-
ðhc − 2 sÞ; Aj ¼ bj · ðhc − 2 sÞ; and βγ ≤ 1.7. However, the isting test results, including this test. However, further experi-
existing tests are not sufficient to validate the proposed joint mental evidences are required to confirm this result.
shear strength equation. Thus, further study is required to accu- • Even with the short development lengths of the 90°-hooked bars
rately evaluate the joint shear strength. and headed bars, which were less than the minimum require-
• NZS3101:2006 (Standards New Zealand 2006) requires that the ments of ACI 318 (ACI 2011), the structural performance of
distance dj between the column face and the relocated beam the beam-column joints was successfully enhanced.
J. Struct. Eng.
In this study, a limited number of specimens were tested to in- Publication, SP237-4, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
vestigate the effect of each plastic hinge relocation method on the MI, 37–54.
seismic performance of emulative PC beam-column connections. Hong, S. G., Lee, S. G., and Kang, T. H. K. (2011). “Deformation-based
Thus, further studies are required to get more reliable and consis- strut-and-tie model for interior joints of frames subject to load reversal.”
ACI Struct. J., 108(4), 423–443.
tent test results.
Im, H. J., Park, H. G., and Eom, T. S. (2013). “Cyclic loading test for
reinforced-concrete-emulated beam-column connection of precast
concrete moment frame.” ACI Struct. J., 110(1), 115–126.
Acknowledgments Joh, O., Goto, Y., and Shibata, T. (1991). “Influence of transverse joint and
beam reinforcement and relocation of plastic hinge region on beam-
This research was financially supported by the Basic Science column joint stiffness deterioration.” ACI Special Publication, 123,
Research Program through the National Research Foundation of American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 187–224.
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Juette, B. K. (1996). “Moving beam plastic hinges in reinforced concrete
Technology (2012R1A1A1003282), and the Ministry of Construc- frames using headed reinforcement bars.” M.S. thesis, Univ. at
tion and Transportation of Korea (05 R&D D02-01). The authors Karlsruhe, Germany.
are grateful to these authorities for their support. Kim, S. H., Moon, J. H., and Lee, L. H. (2004). “An experimental study of
the structural behavior on the precast concrete beam-column interior
joint with splice type reinforcing bars.” J. Archit. Inst. Korea,
References 20(10), 53–61.
Niroomandi, A., Maheri, A., Maheri, M., and Mahini, S. (2010). “Seismic
Abdel-Fattah, B., and Wight, J. K. (1987). “Study of moving beam hinging performance of ordinary RC frame retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets.”
zones for earthquake resistant design of R/C buildings.” ACI Struct. J., Eng. Struct., 32(8), 2326–2336.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
84(1), 31–39. Pampanin, S., Bolognini, D., and Pavese, A. (2007). “Performance-based
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2002). “Recommendations for design seismic retrofit strategy for existing reinforced concrete frame systems
of beam-column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete struc- using fiber-reinforced polymer composites.” J. Compos. Constr.,
tures.” ACI-ASCE Committee 352R-02, Farmington Hills, MI. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(211), 211–226.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2005). “Acceptance criteria for Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C., and Chen, T. (2006). “Development and
moment frames based on structural testing and commentary.” ACI Com- validation of a metallic haunch seismic retrofit solution for existing
mittee 374.1-05, Farmington Hills, MI. under-designed RC frame buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2011). “Building code requirements 35(14), 1739–1766.
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI Committee 318, Park, R. (1988). “State of the art report: Ductility evaluation from
Farmington Hills, MI. laboratory and analytical testing.” Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earth-
Chutarat, N., and Aboutaha, R. S. (2003). “Cyclic response of exterior quake Engineering, Vol. 8, IAEE, Tokyo, 605–616.
reinforced concrete beam-column joints reinforced with headed Park, R., and Bull, D. K. (1986). “Seismic resistance of frames incor-
bars—Experimental investigation.” ACI Struct. J., 100(2), 259–264. porating precast prestressed concrete beam shells.” PCI J., 31(4),
Dalalbashi, A., Eslami, A., and Ronagh, H. R. (2012). “Plastic hinge re- 54–93.
location in RC joints as an alternative method of retrofitting using FRP.” Park, R., and Milburn, J. R. (1983). “Comparison of recent New Zealand
Compos. Struct., 94(8), 2433–2439. and United States seismic design provisions for reinforced concrete
Fenwick, R. C., and Irvine, H. M. (1997). “Reinforced concrete beam- beam-column joints and test results for four units designed according
column joints for seismic loading.” Research Rep. 142, Dept. of Civil to the New Zealand code.” Bull. New Zealand Natl. Soc. Earthquake
Engineering, Univ. of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 1–50. Eng., 16(1), 21–42.
Galunic, B., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1977). “An approach for im- Pimanmas, A., and Chaimahawan, P. (2010). “Shear strength of
proving seismic behavior of reinforced concrete interior joints.” Rep. beam-column joint with enlarged joint area.” Eng. Struct., 32(9),
UCB/EERC-70/30, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, 2529–2545.
CA, 1–94. Standards New Zealand. (2006). “The design of concrete structures.” NZS
Ghobarah, A., and Said, A. (2002). “Shear strengthening of beam-column 3101:2006, New Zealand, 698.
joints.” Eng. Struct., 24(7), 881–888. Yamamoto, Y. S., Nagai, O., and Maruta, M. (2008). “Structure perfor-
Higai, T., Nakamumra, H., and Saito, S. (2006). “Fatigue failure criterion mance of hinge relocated RC slab-wall frame.” Proc. Jpn. Concr. Inst.,
for deformed bars subjected to large deformation reversals.” Special 30(3), 397–402 (in Japanese).
J. Struct. Eng.