Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2012, 2(4): 12-17
DOI: 10.5923/j.jce.20120204.01
Comparative Study on Behaviour of Reinforced
Beam-Column Joints with Reference to Anchorage
Detailing
Siva Chidambaram.K.R*, Thirugnanam.G.S
Dept of Civil Engineering, Institute of Road and Transport Technology, Erode-638316, India
Abstract The ductility capacity, energy dissiaption capapcity and load – deformation behaviour of the exterior beam
column joints constructed with an external anchorage system by providing a small projection beyond the column face is
evaluated. The evaluation is based on the experimental results of two one fifthe scale exterior bam column joint specimens
tested as part of an extensive experimental program. The control specimen (CS) constructued and detailed as per IS
13920:1993 codal provisions and externally anchoraged specimen (EAS) cast with small projecttion beyond the column
face. A small axial load was applied to the column portion of the subasembly and held constant during the test. The free end
of the beam was subjected to cyclic load representing a wide range from elastic to inelastic loading.By providing an
external anchorage system, the reinforcement detailing and concrete placement in the joint region become eased and the
behavior was better than conventional method of construction. The test results indicate that external anhorage system
exhibits excellent behavior in energy dissipation , ductility and load – deformation parameter than for specimens
constructed to current design recommendations.
Keywords Exterior Beam-Column Joint,Anchorage,Ductility Factor
While for the same maximum displacement in a structural
1. Introduction frame system, the rotation demand in the plastic hinges
In seismic design, reinforced concrete structures must would be much smaller if they developed in the beams. For
perform satisfactorily under severe load conditions. To getting an efficient performance of beam at beam column
withstand large lateral loads without severe damage, struc- joint we need to give proper anchorage which will provide
tures need strength and energy dissipation capacity. It is proper dissipation of energy and ductility to the structure.
commonly accepted that it is uneconomical to design rein- Otherwise the failure may occur due to the poor anchorage at
forced concrete structures for the greatest possible earth- the joint by pulling out of the beam longitudinal bars from
quake ground motion without damage. Therefore, the need the joint.
for strength and ductility has to be weighed against economic
constraints. Ductility is an essential property of structures
responding inelastically during severe earthquakes. Ductility
is defined as the ability of sections, members and structures
to deform inelastically without excessive degradation in
strength or stiffness. The most common and desirable
sources of inelastic structural deformations are rotations in
potential plastic hinge regions. An energy dissipation
mechanism should be chosen so that the desirable dis-
placement ductility is achieved with smallest rotation de-
mands in the plastic hinges. Development of plastic hinges in
frame columns is usually associated with very high rotation
demand and may result in total structural instability (glob-
alised failure).
* Corresponding author: Figure1. Force acting on the joints[12]
[email protected] (Siva Chidambaram.K.R)
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/jce Current design philosophy requires that beam column
Copyright © 2012 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved joints have sufficient capacity to sustain the maximum
13 Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2012, 2(4): 12-17
flexural resistance of all the attached members. The mecha- using headed[4,5]reinforcement, fibers[21] in the joint re-
nism of force transfer within beam column joint of a rigid gion.
frame during seismic events is known to be complex[13,5] In this paper, in order to increase the ductility capacity of
involving bending in beams and columns , shear and bond the joint without increasing the conventional reinforcement
stress transfer in the joint core . To provide proper anchorage and to avoid the practical construction difficulty in the joint
of beam at the joint , various countries like India[8],USA[1] area reinforcement detailing, it is proposed to provide a small
provides special detailing on and near hinged zones. Figure 1 projection beyond the exterior face of the column so as to
shows the forces acting on joint core under lateral load. accumulate the compression bars of the beams has to go
Indian Standard code[8] recommends continuing the trans- inside the column with a minimum development length. An
verse loops around the column bars through the joint region. attempt has been made over the conventional IS code de-
The length of anchorage is about Ld +10db inside the joint. tailing procedure at the beam column joint by an external
The primary aim of joint design must be to suppress a shear anchorage system which will provide good anchorage and
failure. This often necessitates a considerable amount of efficient energy dissipation in comparison with conventional
joint shear reinforcement, which may result in construction type of detailing procedure.
difficulties[14].Current seismic code details for reinforced
concrete structures are often considered impracticable by
construction and structural engineers because of its installa- 2. Experimental Investigation
tion and the difficulties in placing and consolidating the
concrete in the beam column joint regions For high seismic The experimental study of two exterior beam-column joint
zones, load reversals in the joint can lead to significant bond namely control specimen (CS), and externally anchorage
deterioration along straight bar anchorages; therefore, specimen (EAS). Figure 2 and 3 shows the size and rein-
American Concrete Institute (ACI) and Indian Standard(IS) forcements details of specimen CS and EAS. The specimens
requires that standard hooks be used to anchor longitudi- were designed for seismic load according to Indian stan-
nalreinforcement terminated within an exterior joint. The use dard[6,14].The dimension of column and beam sections are
of standard hooks results in steel congestion, making the 120mm X 230mm and 170mm X 120mm, respectively. All
fabrication and construction difficult. So Wallace, et.al[20] specimens were one fifth scale of a multistorey reinforced
have studied the use of headed reinforcement in the joint concrete building designed under the seismic Zone – III has
region to rectify the construction difficulty. Andre et.al[3] been analysed using STADD.pro.[16].The scaling was
have studied the use of steel fiber in the joint region to in- conducted such that the specimen had geometrical and
crease the ductility capacity and also to reduced the con- structural indices closes to the average of the actual connec-
struction difficulty in the conventional type of reinforcement tion. The structure is five storey two bay frames including
detailing in the joint region. Ganesan et.al[11] have studied 1.5 m foundation depth. The maximum moment is occurred
the use of Steel fiber reinforced high performance concrete at the ground floor roof level we therefore considered that
(SFRHPC) in beam-column joints and concluded that it particular joint for the experimental study.
enhances the strength, ductility and stiffness, and is one of
the possible alternative solutions for reducing the congestion 2.1. Reinforcement details
of transverse reinforcement in beam column joints. Gustavo
et.al[6] evaluated the feasibility of using high-performance
fiber-reinforced cement composites (HPFRCCs) as a means
to eliminate the need for confinement (transverse) rein-
forcement and the associated construction problems in
beam-column connections subjected to earthquake-induced
loading .Liu et.al[22] studied the use of steel fiber in the joint
region and concluded that steel fibres in joints is an effec-
tive method for improving joint behaviour and energy ab-
sorption capacity as well as enhancing the damage tolerance
of joints and reducing the number of stirrups in seismic joints
to reduce its construction difficulty. Perumal et.al[15] have
used the special fibre cocktails in the joint region to increase
its ductility and to reduce the construction difficulty in the
joint region. Various researchers have identified some prac-
tical difficulties in the joint detailing provided by various
countries code procedures. Several experimental investiga-
tions has been made by several researchers[8-12] in exterior
beam column joint to investigate its behaviour under cyclic Figure 2. Reinforcement detailing of the conventional Beam Column Joint
loading by changing the reinforcement detailing and by as per IS 13920: 1993
Siva Chidambaram.K.R et al.: Comparative Study on Behaviour of Reinforced 14
Beam-Column Joints with Reference to Anchorage Detailing
The reinforcement details of the beam column joint The exterior beam-column joint specimen was subjected to
specimens are shown in Fig.2 & 3. The main reinforcement quasi-static cyclic loading simulating earthquake loads. The
provided in the beam are 10 mm diameter bars, 3 No’s at top test set up and history of load sequence for the test was
and 3 No’s at bottom. The stirrups are of 6 mm diameter presented in figure 4and 5.
spaced at 30 mm c/c for a distance of 2d, i.e. 300 mm from
the face of the column and at 60 mm c/c for remaining length
of the beam. The longitudinal reinforcement provided in the
column was 8 No’s of 8 mm diameter bars equally distrib-
uted along four sides of column. The column confinements
are of 6 mm diameter bars spaced at 30 mm c/c for a distance
of 150 mm from the face of the column and at 60 mm c/c for
the remaining length of the column.
Figure 5. Load Sequence Diagram
2.3. Load and Deflection Measurements
At a distance of 450mm from the column face, the load
was applied at the beam through hand operated screw jack.
To avoid local stress failure, bearing plate of 6mm thickness
was provided at the point of loading. By changing the screw
jack on either side of the beam end apply positive (downward)
and negative (upward) loads. The proving ring was placed
between loading point and screw jack and used to measure
the applied beam forces. LVDTs are used to measure the
Figure 3. Ductile Detailing of Special Anchorage Beam Column Joint vertical deflection of the free end of the beam under the
loading point.
2.2. Test setup, load history and instrumentation.
Each beam column joint specimen was tested under cyclic
loading in the predetermined load sequence. The column was
3. Experimental Results and Discussions
centred accurately using plumb bob to avoid eccentricity. An 3.1. Development of Cracks
axial load of 0.1fck strength of the column was applied on the
column by means of a 50 tones hydraulic jack. Screw jacks The first crack was witnessed at the load level of 9.0kN for
of 20 tones capacity were used to apply the forward and CS and 16.8kN for EAS. As the load level was increased,
reverse loading over the beam portion. Linear Variable further cracks were developed in other portions of the beam
Differential Transformer (LVDT) and dial gauges were used in both the specimens, while the CS was reaching the ulti-
to measure the downward and upward displacements in the mate load the concrete has spalled in interior side of the
beam and fixed at a distance of 450mm clear of the column. bottom column but there is no such failure in EAS. The crack
patterns in the joint of each specimen are shown in fig 6 and
7. The joint failure modes shows the specimens failed in
flexure.
Figure 4. a: Test Setup for Cyclic Loading for CS Figure 6. Failure pattern in CS
15 Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2012, 2(4): 12-17
Figure 7. Failure pattern in EAS
Table 1. Experimental Results of CS
Max Max Deflection mm Max Deflection mm
Load
forward cycle reverse cycle Figure 9. Load deformation (hysteresis) curve of specimen EAS
in kN
20 3.15 2.14
23 3.48 2.77 3.3. Relative and Cumulative Energy absorption capacity
29 7.237 6.029 When the beam-column joint is subjected to reverse cyclic
29 7.405 6.147
loading, such as those experienced during heavy wind or
Table 2. Experimental Results of EAS earthquake, some energy is absorbed in each cycle. It is equal
to the work in straining or deforming the structure to the limit
Max Deflection in Max Deflection .in
Max Load
mm mm of deflection. The relative energy absorption capacities
in kN during various load cycles were calculated as the area under
forward cycle reverse cycle
20 1.371 2.566 the hysteric loops from the versus load-deflection diagram
30 2.214 9.436 and the cumulative energy absorption capacity of the beam
35 15.045 column joint was obtained by adding the energy absorption
36 8.222 capacity of the joint during each cycle considered and the
values are presented in Tables 3 and 4
3.2. Load - Deflection behaviour.
The ultimate load carrying capacity of the Conventional Table 3. Experimental Results of CS
RC beam-column joint and externally anchorage specimen Max Load in Relative Energy Ab- Cumulative Energy
are listed in table 1 and 2. An increase in the length of an- kN sorption in kN mm Absorption in kN mm
chorage bars leads to an increase in the maximum load car- Forward Reverse Forward Reverse
rying capacity and displacement. The ultimate load carrying 20 10.495 11.215 10.495 11.215
capacity for specimen CS is 30kN and for specimen EAS
is36kN.The deflection of specimen CS is more than 12mm in 23 6.261 14.88 16.756 26.095
the ultimate load but for specimen EAS the deflection in 29 83.718 35.604 100.474 61.699
ultimate load is less than 9mm. The hysteresis curve for the
Specimens CS and EAS has shown in figure 8 and 9.It shows 29 38.24 32.19 138.714 93.889
the better performance of specimen EAS than the specimen
Table 4. Experimental Results of EAS
CS.
Forward Cycle Reverse Cycle
Max Max
Load Relative Cum Load Relative Cum
in Energy Energy in Energy Energy
kN Absorption Absorption kN Absorption Absorption
in kN mm in kN mm in kN mm in kN mm
20 7.4561 7.4561 20 20.805 20.805
30 35.895 43.351 30 158.902 179.71
36 249.45 292.8 35 282.276 461.98
36 421.79 714.6
Figure 10 and 11 shows the comparison of cumulative
energy absorption capacities of CS and EAS for forward and
Figure 8. Load deformation (hysteresis) curve of specimen CS reverse cycles.
Siva Chidambaram.K.R et al.: Comparative Study on Behaviour of Reinforced 16
Beam-Column Joints with Reference to Anchorage Detailing
which gives the stiffness of that cycle.
Table 6. Experimental Results of specimen EAS
Max Load in Stiffness factor Max Load in Stiffness factor
kN in kN/mm kN in kN/mm
Forward Reverse
20 11.64 20 5.15
30 4.5 30 3.17
36 2.46 35 1.17
36 1.15
3.5. Ductility Behaviour
It is essential that an earthquake resistant structure should
Figure 10. Comparision of forward cycle cumulative energy absorption be capable of deforming in a ductile manner when subjected
capacities
to lateral loads in several cycles in the elastic range. Ductility
of a structure is its ability to undergo deformation beyond the
initial yield deformation, while still sustaining load. In this
investigation ductility factor is defined as the ratio of
maximum deflection obtained in each cycle to the yield
deflection. The yield deflection was determined from the
assumed bi-linear load deflection curve. The ductility factor
µ, a measure of ductility of a structure, is defined as the ratio
of ∆u and ∆y, where ∆u and ∆y are the respective lateral de-
flections at the end of the post elastic range and when the
yield is first reached. Thus we have
µ = ∆u / ∆y Eq(1)
The ductility values are tabulated in table 1 to 4, and figure
12 and 13 shows the comparison of ductility values for both
Figure 11. Comparision of reverse cycle cumulative energy absorption
capacities forward and reverse load cycles.
Table 7. Experimental Results of specimen CS
3.4. Stiffness Behaviour
Max Load in kN Ductility factor
Structural stiffness controls natural period and hence Forward Reverse
seismic forces. The latter are lower for longer periods, that is, 20 1.681 1.621
for small stiffness, but then displacements and deformations 23 1.857 2.098
may become excessive. In addition ensuring adequate safety 29 3.862 4.567
factors against collapse, seismic criteria should aim at con- 29 3.738 4.657
trolling deformations, because they are directly responsible
for damage to non-structural elements, impact with adjacent
7
structures, panic and discomfort. Stiffness is also the main 6
variable controlling safety against instability. Lateral dis-
Ductility Factor
placements and internal forces produced by horizontal 4
CS
ground motion are amplified by interaction between gravity 3 EAS
loads and the displacements mentioned. 2
Table 5. Experimental Results of specimen CS 1
Max Load in kN Stiffness factor in kN/mm 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Forward Reverse
No of Cycles
20 11.05 9.23
23 7.21 6.285
Figure 12. Comparison of Ductility factor (Forward Cycle)
29 6.57 5.885
Table 8. Experimental Results of specimen EAS
Stiffness is defined as the load required to causing unit
Max Load Ductility Max Load in Ductility
deflection of the beam-column joint. The procedure for
in kN factor kN factor
calculating stiffness was as follows: Forward Reverse
a) A tangent was drawn for each cycle of the hysteric 20 1.0968 20 2.0528
curves at a load of P=0.75 Pu where Pu-was the maximum 30 1.7712 30 7.5488
load of that cycle. 36 4.8592 35 12.036
b) Determine the slope of the tangent drawn to each cycle, 36 6.5776
17 Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2012, 2(4): 12-17
Joints Through Use of High-performance Fiber-Reinforced
14 Cement Composites" ACI structural journal, vol.102, no. 3,
12 pp.487-495, 2005.
Ductility Factor
10
8
[7] IS 1983(Part 1):2002 criteria for earthquake resistant design
CS
EAS
of structures.
6
4 [8] IS 13920:1993 ductile detailing of reinforced concrete
2 structures subjected to seismic forces — code of practice.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 [9] M. K. Thompson,et.al., “Anchorage Behavior of Headed
No of Cycles Reinforcement: Literature Review” Technical report may
Figure 13. Comparison of Ductility factor (Reverse Cycle) 2002.
[10] Murthy C.V.R, et.al., "Anchorage Details and Joint Design in
4. Conclusions Seismic RC Frames", The Indian Concrete Journal, April , pp
274 – 280,2001.
1. The first crack load of the externally anchorage [11] N. Ganesan, P.v. Indira , Ruby Abraham "Steel Fibre Rein-
Specimen is 45% more than the conventional joint specimen. forced High Performance Concrete Beam-Column Joints
2. Spindle – shaped hysteresis loops and better load car- Subjected To Cyclic Loading" , ISET Journal of Earthquake
rying capacities were observed in EAS. Technology, vol. 44, no. 3-4, pp. 445–456, 2007.
3. EAS cumulative energy absorption capacity is about 4 [12] Park, R and Paulay.T., "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
times that of conventional beam column joint... Beam-Column Joints Under Cyclic Loading", Proceedings
4. The beam main bar of EAS possessed better anchorage Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome,
with reduced bond detoriation than CS. Paper 88, pp.10, 1973.
5. The ductility of the externally anchorage beam column [13] Paulay T, Park R, Priesley MJN., "Reinforced concrete
joint specimen is about 2 times that of conventional beam beam–column joints under seismic actions". ACI Struct J
column joint. Vol.75,pp585–593,1978.
In general it is concluded that the externally anchorage
[14] Paulay, T., Park, R. and Birss, G.R., "Elastic Beam-Column
beam column joint is having superior properties than that of Joints for Ductile Frames, Proceedings 7th World Confe-
the conventional beam column joint and hence this type of rence on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Vol.6,
construction may be recommended for the structures located pp.331-338,1980.
in seismic prone areas to rectify the construction difficulty in
[15] P. Perumal, b. Thanukumari, "Behaviour of M60 Concrete
Indian standard code detailing. Using Fibre Cocktail In Exterior Beam-Column Joint Under
Reversed Cyclic Loading" Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
vol. 11, no. 2 pp 263-273, 2010.
[16] Sathiskumar.S.R, et.al., "Hysteretic behaviour of lightly
REFERENCES Reinforced Concrete exterior Beam-column joint
sub-assemblages", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.29,
[1] ACI committee 352:1991 Recommendations for design of No.1, pp31-36,2002.
beam column joints in monolithic reinforced concrete struc-
[17] Saleh H et.al.,2010, "Seismic Response of FRP-Upgraded
tures.ACI report 352R-91.
Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints" Journal of Composites for
[2] A.G.Tsonos, et.al., "Seismic resistance of Type 2 Exterior Construction vol.14, no.195,pp 195-208, 2010.
Beam column joints reinforced with inclined bars" The ACI
[18] STAAD Pro 2007software from Bentley .
structural Journal, Title No.89-S1. 1992.
[19] Thirugnanam.G.S.,2001, "Ductile behavior of SIFCON
[3] Andre et.al., " Seismic performance of code designed fiber
Structural member" Journals of Structural engineering, Vo-
reinforced concrete joints" ACI structural journal vol:91(5),
lume 28, No.1, pp 27-32,2001.
pp 564-571,1994.
[20] Wallace, et.al., 1998, "Use of Headed Reinforcement in
[4] A.Murugesan et.al., "Ductile Behavior of Steel Fiber Rein-
Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Earthquake Loads" ACI
forced Concrete beam-column joints subjected to Cyclic
Structural Journal,1998,Vol 95pp590-602,1998.
loading", National Conference on Advances and Innovations
in civil Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering Col- [21] Yosio kaneko , Hiroso mihasi,Kazuki kirikoshi , "Beam
lege,Sivakasi ,pp 27-33. ,2009. Column Joints With Steel Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Composite in Steel Structures",Journal of Advanced Concrete
[5] Bonacci J, Pantazoupoulou S ., "Parametric investigation
Technology,vol.3, no.2,pp.321-330,2005.
of joint mechanics". ACI Struct J Vol.90 ,no.1 ,pp.61–71,19
93. [22] Liu, cong "Seismic Behaviour of Beam-Column Joint Sub-
assemblies Reinforced with Steel Fibres", M.E thesis, uni-
[6] Gustavo j. Parra-montesinos, sean w. Peterfreund, and
versity of Canterbury ,2006
shih-ho chao , "Highly Damage-Tolerant Beam-Column
