Seismic Design of

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Structures

Prof. Dr. Ing. Stefano Pampanin

Design Example of a
Hybrid jointed ductile beam-column joint
according to Appendix B of the NZS3101:2006 Concrete Code

Acknowledgments to Mr. Dion Marriott (Ph.D. Candidate at UoC) for compiling this document
OBJECTIVE: Provide a preliminary design* of an exterior jointed beam column joint
(see below) with a moment demand in the beam of Mb=35kNm for an inter-storey drift
2% using two different arrangements:
a) unbonded post-tensioned only solution
b) hybrid solution with an appropriate moment ratio λ=1.15

*
Basic information should be given regarding the location and amount of the non-
prestressed steel (including unbonded length to provide fracturing of the mild steel) as
well as the of the post-tensioned reinforcement (including values for the initial
prestressing) A simple drawing showing the beam-column joint elevation view and
section at the interface should be also included.

Section 1: Monolithic Solution.

Design moment, M*=35kNm

M * ≤ φM n

M* 35kNm
As ≥ ≥ ≥ 443mm 2
φf y (d − d ) 0.85 ⋅ 300 MPa ⋅ (330mm − 20mm )
'

Supplying 4-D12 Reinforcing bars,

As , provided = 452mm 2

φM n = 36kNm
Section 2: Post-tensioned only Solution

Required design moment, M*=35kNm at drift of θ =2.0%.

φM n = φTPT jd

TPT = Post-tensioned force at design moment and target drift

In order to design the section, an estimate of the neutral axis depth and the initial post-
tensioning force is required.

First, assuming c / d = 0.15 and knowing, a = βc ,

jd = 0.5 ⋅ h − 0.5 ⋅ a ≈ 0.44h

Rearranging and solving for the post-tensioned force at the target drift,

35kNm
TPT = = 284kNm
0.85 ⋅ 0.44h

Recognising that due to geometry, the actual rotation of the beam is slightly greater than
the rotation (drift) of the frame.

θ 2.0%
θ imposed = = = 2.18%
h 250mm
1 − column 1−
lbeam 3000mm

An initial post-tensioned force can be calculated as both the total post-tensioned force
and the force increment, due to tendon elongation are known. The code places an upper
limit on the tendon stress at the target drift, through equation B-2.

fpt, initial ≤ 0.9 fpty – Eptεpt .........................................................................................................................(Eq. B–2)

i.e. The total stress in the tendon at the design rotation should not exceed 90%fy.

Calculating the allowable capacity of one tendon will determine the total number of
tendons required.

TPT = 90% APT f y = 0.9 ⋅ 99mm 2 ⋅ 1560 MPa = 139kN

3 tendons are required in order to achieve the desired tendon force of 284kN.
The additional force due to elongation of the tendon is as follows,

εpt,tot = εp,i + εpt (φ) .................................................................................................................................(Eq. B–4)

n∆pt
ε pt (θ ) = .......................................................................................................................................(Eq. B−3)
A ub

With reasonable accuracy, the 3 tendons can be assumed to be located directly at mid-
section of the beam and therefore through geometry the elongation of the tendon can be
calculated. Note: for this example, the tendon is subjected to a single gap opening, hence
n=1.

∆ PT = θ [0.5h − c ] ≈ θ [0.5h − 0.15d ] = 2.7mm

The tendon force due to gap opening is calculated knowing the additional tendon strain,
where the unbonded length of the tendon, in this example is as follows,

lub = lcolumn + 0.5 ⋅ hc = 1625mm

n ⋅ ∆ PT
∆TPT = E PT ε PT APT = E PT APT = 33kN
lub

Therefore, the initial post-tensioned force is the difference between the force at the target
drift and the additional tendon force due to elongation.

284kNm
TPT ,initial =
− 33kNm = 62kN
3 tendons
Preliminary design: 3 tendons stressed to 62kN each giving total initial pre-stress of
186kN and expecting a total tendon force of 284kN at 2.0% (inter-storey drift).

Now, confirm the design-accounting for actual c/d calculations,

θ Drift = 2.0%
θ imposed = 2.18%

∆ PT = θ [0.5h − c ]

The process requires iteration on the neutral axis depth. For illustrative purposes, the
first trial will correspond to the final neutral axis.

c = 45mm = 0.14d

Therefore the imposed tendon displacement,

 ∆ PT = 2.18%[0.5h − 45mm ] = 2.83mm

And the corresponding additional tendon strain, force and total tendon force at design
drift can be calculated. Note, the number of gap openings in this case is 1 (n=1).

εpt,tot = εp,i + εpt (θ) .................................................................................................................................(Eq. B–4)

n∆ PT
∆ε PT = = 1.74 × 10 −4
lub _ tendon
∆TPT = ∆ε PT ⋅ E PT ⋅ APT = 34.5kN

TPT = TPT ,initial + ∆TPT = 62kN ⋅ 3 + 34.5kN ⋅ 3 = 290kN

Solving for the neutral axis depth using force equilibrium,

TPT = Cc = αf c' βcb

TPT
c= = 46mm
αβf c' b
a = βc = 39mm

This agrees with the trial solution above of 45mm. Now the moment capacity can be
calculated about the centroid of compression block.

h a
φM n (θ ) = φTPT  −  = 0.85 ⋅ 290kN ⋅ (175mm − 19.5mm ) = 38kNm
2 2

Note: an alternative to using the equivalent Whitney stress block (α and β), is to directly
integrate the concrete stress block over the depth and width of the compression area, then
calculate moments about the centroid of the compression block (requiring further
integration). Integration will allow the contributions of both the confined core concrete
and the unconfined cover concrete (protected against spalling) to be included in the
analysis. While this requires significantly more computation the difference in results is
only minor. For this example, the result differed by only a few percent i.e.

c = 43.3mm
Cc = 289.4kN = TPT
φM n (θ ) = 38.3kNm
Section 3: Hybrid solution-General Concept

Calculated design moment, M*=35kNm

M * ≤ φM n

As both of the solutions above have similar moment capacities and recognising that for a
hybrid solution to have reasonable re-centring properties, the total moment capacity can
comprise of a solution having 50% the monolithic capacity (energy dissipation) and 50%
the unbonded post-tensioned capacity (re-centring)

i.e.
M total = 50% M monolithic + 50% M unbondedPT = M ms + M PT

And hence the re-centring ratio will be,

M PT
λ= = 1.0
M ms

However the code suggests an allowance for strain hardening should be accounted for
when calculating the re-centring ratio, allowing for a possible 15% increase in the mild
steel moment contribution, where α0=1.15.

M pt + MN
λ= ≥ α o ..............................................................................................................................(Eq. B–1)
Ms

In order to arrive at a quick solution, using the above Monolithic and Post-tensioned
solution, a hybrid solution having an equivalent strength can be generated through a
summation of 50% of each of the previous solutions;

1. Monolithic solution having only 2-D12 bars, plus

2. Post-tension only solution having initial pre-tensioned force of 93kN.

Note: the Mpt/Ms ratio varies (typically increases) with increasing level of drift. The post-
tensioned contribution is becoming more and more important when compared to the mild
steel (or dissipaters) contribution. An appropriate performance based design approach
(not requested at 3rd pro level) would require to check the behaviour at the structure at
different level of drift, which would imply that the behaviour of your “designed
solution” should then be checked for lower and higher level of drift. For lower intensity
(drift demand) level, re-centering can be a problem and should still be guaranteed
(however considering the “dynamic” residual displacement not the “static” residual
coming from the hysteresis). For higher intensity (drift) level, failure should be avoided.
Section 3-1: Hybrid Section Design: quick design method.

1. Mild steel (monolithic) contribution having 2-D12 reinforcing bars, c.f. 4-D12 bars
for monolithic solution above.

φM ms = φAs f y [d − d ' ] = 0.85 ⋅ 226mm 2 ⋅ 300 MPa ⋅ [330mm − 20mm ] = 17.9kNm

2. PT contribution having 2 tendons (total initial post-tension force of 93kN), c.f. 3

tendons giving total pre-stressing force of 186kN above.

Assuming c/d=0.15,

∆ PT = 2.18%[0.5h − 49.5mm ] = 2.73mm

∆ PT
∆ε PT = = 1.68 × 10 −4
lub _ tendon
∆TPT = ∆ε PT ⋅ E PT ⋅ APT = 33.3kN

TPT = TPT ,initial + ∆TPT = 46kN ⋅ 2 + 33.3kN ⋅ 2 = 159kN

Therefore the unbonded post-tensioned contribution,

h a
φM PT (θ ) = φTPT  −  = 0.85 ⋅ 159kN [175mm − 21mm] = 20.8kNm
2 2

The total moment capacity is a summation of the mild steel contribution and post-
tensioned contribution. Note: after first yield of the mild steel, the mild steel capacity will
be relatively independent of the beam rotation (elasto-plastic), however the unbonded
post-tension component will have a significant post-yield stiffness hence the strength is
relatively sensitive to the beam rotation (bi-linear elastic).

φM N (θ ) = φM PT (θ ) + φM ms (θ ) = 38.7kNm

Note: the preliminary calculation also satisfies the re-centring ratio suggested in the code,

M PT 20.8kNm
λ= = = 1.16 ≥ 1.15
MS 17.9kNm
Section 3-2: Hybrid Solution Design: Detailed Design Check

As for the post-tensioned only solution, the process requires iteration on the neutral axis
depth, however in the example below the final trial is shown.

Let c=30mm, c/d=0.09,

θ Drift = 2.0%
θ imposed = 2.18%

The load in the tendon is calculated using the equations B-3 and B-4 as before,

∆ PT = 2.18%[0.5h − 30mm ] = 3.16mm

n∆ PT
∆ε PT = = 1.95 × 10 −4
lub _ tendon
∆TPT = ∆ε PT ⋅ E PT ⋅ APT = 38.5kN

TPT = TPT ,initial + ∆TPT = 46kN ⋅ 2 + 38.5kN ⋅ 2 = 170kN

The strain in the mild steel is based upon the following formulas,

εs =
(∆s + 2 / 3A spε y ) ...........................................................................................................................(Eq. B–6)
(A'ub +2A sp )
where
Asp is the strain penetration taken as 0.022 fydbl (mm)
fy is the yield strength of reinforcement (MPa)
dbl is the diameter of the reinforcing bar (mm)

It should be recognised that this formula can be approximated to,

∆s
εs =
(A' ub +2A sp )
Where the displacement of the mild steel bar (∆s) is a ratio of its location within the
section,

∆ s = θ imposed ⋅ ( d i − c ) = 6.52mm
6.52mm
εs = = 0.0312
(50mm + 2 ⋅ 79.2mm )
Likewise the strain within the compression steel can be approximated using the above
equations,

∆' s = θ imposed ⋅ ( d i − c ) = −0.24mm

− 0.327mm
ε s' = = −0.00125
(50mm + 2 ⋅ 79.2mm )

Note that equation B-6 should only apply when the steel is yielding where significant
strain penetration would exist (expect a larger effective unbonded length (l’ub+2lsp)),
therefore using this equation to calculate the compression strain will result in lower than
expected strain levels (as in this case the compression strain is less than yield). This will
have only a very minor effect on the results through a slight increase in neutral axis depth
(more concrete contribution). For simplicity the compression steel can be neglected,
therefore altering the neutral axis depth further, however it is retained in this example.

Now, the tensile stress and steel force within the layer can be calculated. Recognising that
the tension strain has entered the strain hardening region of the stress-strain curve,
therefore the stress will be greater than yield. A rough approximation using a multi-linear
stress-strain curve can be used for design to deduce the stress in the steel.

fs = f y +
(f u − fy)
(ε s − ε sh ) = 300 MPa + (375 − 300) (0.0312 − 0.025) = 314 MPa
(ε su − ε sh ) (0.06 − 0.025)
Similarly for the compression steel,

f s' = E s ε s' = 250 MPa

fu

fs
fy
ε sh ≈ 2.5%
ε u ≈ 5 − 6%
f u ≈ 1.25 f y

εy εsh εs εsu

And the steel forces,

Ts = f s ⋅ As = 314 MPa ⋅ 226mm 2 = 71kN

 C s' = f s' ⋅ As' = 250 MPa ⋅ 226mm 2 = 56.5kN

Calculating the concrete compression force can be done through using the simplified
Whitney stress block. An accurate computation of the stress block parameters (α and β)
will require the concrete strain to be known. This is calculated from the following
formula, based upon a global displacement compatibility of an equivalently reinforced
monolithic section.

 
 

εc = 
(θ L cant ) + φ  c ................................................................................................................(Eq. B–7)
y
  L
Lp 
− L 
  cant 2  p 
 

where
c is the neutral axis depth
Lcant is the distance between the column interface and the point of contraflexure (length
of the beam cantilever), and
Lp is the plastic hinge length of an equivalent monolithic connection (including strain
penetration component)
φy is the yield curvature of the section in an equivalent monolithic connection

hcolumn
Lcant = 1500mm − = 1375mm
2
L p ≈ 0.08Lcant + l sp = 0.08 ⋅ 1375mm + 79.2mm = 190mm
εy 2 ⋅ 0.0015
φ y ≈ 2.0 = = 8.57 × 10 −6 mm −1
hbeam 350mm

Therefore the concrete strain is computed,

 
 (0.0218 ⋅ 1375mm ) 
εc =  + 8.57 × 10 −6 mm −1  31mm = 0.0004
 1375mm − 190mm 190mm 
  2 
 

In some cases the computed strain in the concrete can well exceed 0.003 or even 0.006.
This is still considered acceptable, as generally the concrete will be protected from
spalling using steel angles, using fibre reinforced concrete, or be highly confined using
spirals/transverse reinforcement. However, the α and β stress block coefficients may
need to be altered depending on the strain in the concrete and the concrete compressive
strength (possibly requiring further iteration). In this example α and β can be
approximated with 0.91 and 0.8 respectively (εt=0.004 and ε'c=0.003), with reasonable
accuracy-see Appendix 1.
Finally, the concrete compression force can be calculated from the equivalent stress block
as follows,

Cc = αf c' βcb = 0.91 ⋅ 35MPa ⋅ 0.80 ⋅ 31mm ⋅ 250mm = 197kN

Checking force equilibrium,

− Cc + C s' + Ts + TPT = 0

− 197kN − 56.5kN + 71kN + 170kN = 12kN

An out of balance force of 11kN is considered minor (for hand calculations iteration can
stop) and a moment capacity can be calculated about the centroid of the concrete
compression block.

Alternatively, solving for a new neutral axis depth and continuing on the iteration
procedure,

TPT + Ts − C s
c= = 29mm
αf c' βb

Moment Capacity,

h a  a a 
φM = φTPT  −  + φTs  d i −  + φC s'  − d '  = 23.2kNm + 19.1kNm − 0.3kNm
2 2  2 2 

φM = 42kNm

M PT 23.2kNm
λ= = = 1.23 ≥ 1.15
MS 18.8kNm

When comparing the above solution with a solution in which the concrete stress-strain
curve is directly integrated (accounting for confined and unconfined-protected cover
concrete), it can be shown that the neutral axis depth changes only slightly, giving the
following.
 c = 28.2mm
Cc = −185kN
T PT = 169kN
φM = 41kNm

It should be noted that the moment capacity can be expected to be slightly greater than
that expected from the quick design procedure in section 3-1 above. This is due to the
allowance in the mild steel stress equations to exceed yield, thereby directly altering the
capacity of the mild steel contribution.
 Appendix A: Equivalent stress block factors for
confined concrete (Mander et al).
1.6 1.2
1.4
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.0
α

0.8 0.6

β
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

εc/ε'c εc/ε'c

Figure 2: Alpha factor 30MPa unconfined Figure 1: Beta factor 30MPa unconfined compressive
compressive strength strength

1.6 1.2
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.0 0.8
α

0.8 0.6
β

0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

εc/ε'c εc/ε'c

Figure 3: Alpha factor 40MPa unconfined Figure 4: Beta factor 40MPa unconfined
compressive strength compressive strength

1.6 1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
α

0.8 0.8
β

0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

εc/ε'c εc/ε'c
Figure 5: Alpha factor 50MPa unconfined Figure 6: Beta factor 50MPa unconfined
compressive strength compressive strength