14 views

Uploaded by parth daxini

- THE RHT CONCRETE MODEL IN LS-DYNA
- D198.PDF
- Comparative Inelastic Pushover Analysis of Masonry Frames
- SOM Viva Questions in Options
- Al RingPlug Specimen
- Chapter 6 Part 2
- FTV 100
- Asme CCase 2010-3
- Nonlinear Behavior of Steel Coupling Beams
- Analysis of Structure Using CCM
- Pressure Vessel Design calc
- zap lok.pdf
- ch4
- Maximum Shear Stress Theory-Derivation
- Finite Element Study of the Effect of Interfacial Gaps on the in 2017 Struc
- An Analytical Model for the Strength Prediction of Hybrid (Boltedbonded) Composite Joints
- Response 2000 Introduction
- SandStat 4
- macr65-0970
- Linee_guida1

You are on page 1of 11

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

including joint exibility

Anna C. Birely , Laura N. Lowes, Dawn E. Lehman

Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 5 January 2011

Revised 1 September 2011

Accepted 1 September 2011

Available online 11 November 2011

Keywords:

Beamcolumn joints

Analytical models

Rotational springs

Ductility

a b s t r a c t

A model is developed to simulate the nonlinear response of planar reinforced-concrete frames including

all sources of exibility. Conventional modeling approaches consider only beam and column exibility

using concentrated plasticity or springs to model this response. Although the joint may contribute the

majority of the deformation, its deformability is typically not included in practice. In part, this is because

few reliable, practical approaches for modeling all sources of frame nonlinearity are available. The

research presented herein was undertaken to develop a practical, accurate nonlinear model for reinforced

concrete frames. The model is appropriate for predicting the earthquake response of planar frames for

which the nonlinearity is controlled by yielding of beams and/or non-ductile response of joints and is

compatible with the ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 nonlinear static procedure. The model was developed to

facilitate implementation in commercial software packages commonly used for this type of nonlinear

analysis. The nonlinearity is simulated by introducing a dual-hinge lumped-plasticity beam element to

model the beams framing into the joint. The dual-hinge comprises two rotational springs in series;

one spring simulates beam exural response and one spring simulates joint response. Hinge parameters

were determined using data from 45 planar frame sub-assemblage tests. Application of the model to simulate the response of these sub-assemblages shows that the model provides accurate simulation of stiffness, strength, drift capacity and response mechanism for frames with a wide range of design parameters.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Under seismic loading, the beams and columns in a concrete

moment frame typically experience moment reversals at the

beamcolumn joint. To ensure that strength is maintained under

multiple large drift cycles, design guidelines for frames in regions

of high seismicity are intended to result in exural yielding in

the beams at the face of the joint and essentially elastic response

in the columns above the base (e.g., ACI 318-08 [1]). This can result

in high joint shear demand and high bond stress demand for beam

longitudinal reinforcement anchored in the joint; design guidelines

seek to limit both to ensure that joint damage does not reduce

frame toughness. The results of experimental tests on frame

subassmblages [213] show that joint damage can reduce frame

strength and stiffness and, in some cases, result in premature loss

of load-carrying capacity.

Prediction of frame response, as part of a performance-based

seismic design of a new structure or evaluation of an existing

structure, requires modeling of all sources of exibility in the

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: birely@uw.edu (A.C. Birely).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.09.003

frame as well as stiffness and strength loss under earthquake loading. Thus, to conduct a nonlinear analysis of a reinforced concrete

moment-resisting frame, engineers require not only accurate models for beams and columns but also models that simulate joint response. For these models to be practical for use in the design ofce,

they must (1) be compatible with commonly employed commercial software packages, (2) support rapid model building, (3) be

computationally efcient and robust, and (4) provide acceptable

accuracy over a range of design congurations. Several practical

nonlinear modeling approaches are available for beams and columns (e.g., [14,15]). These models, which have been validated by

others, are incorporated into the fame model proposed herein.

However, these models do not simulate the response of the

beamcolumn joint. Here, the focus is on developing an appropriate approach for simulating joint exibility and degradation in

frame strength due to joint response mechanisms. Although nonlinear joint models are found in the literature, few of these models

meet the requirements for widespread use by practicing structural

engineers. A model is proposed which uses conventional nonlinear

frame elements and is easily implemented in commercial structural analysis software. The model is developed and validated

using experimental data to simulate the full frame response,

including the joint.

456

The simplest approach for modeling joint response within the

context of a nonlinear frame analysis is to introduce a spring at

the intersection of the beam and column line elements. Often rigid

offsets are included in the beam and column elements to dene the

physical size of the joint and ensure that the joint spring is the sole

source of simulated deformation in the joint region. The loaddeformation response of the joint spring is typically dened on

the basis of the expected shear stressstrain response of the joint

volume and/or the bond slip of longitudinal reinforcement within

the joint. Models of this type were developed by El-Metwally and

Chen [16], Kunnath [17], Ghobarah and Biddah [18], and Anderson

et al. [19]. The advantage of this type of model is its overall simplicity. One disadvantage of the model is the need to dene duplicate nodes at the center of the joint, a process that is typically not

well supported in commercial software and can hinder the modelbuilding process. The primary disadvantage of this type of model,

however, is the challenging and time-consuming process of calibrating the model to provide an accurate simulation of joint response. Often, model calibration is accomplished by simplifying

the assumed primary response of the joint. Specically, the model

parameters are specic to a limited set of design parameters, a limited set of data, or both. Typically the modeling assumptions depend on the design parameters, and applying these assumptions

to generate the model response history typically requires signicant computation by the engineer. In some cases, models are calibrated directly from experimental data characterizing the response

of joints in frames with design parameters and details that are similar to those in the structure of interest; in this case, the accuracy of

the simulations depends entirely on the similarity of the two

frames.

Macro-element joint models are a second approach for modeling

joint behavior. Altoontash and Deierlein [20], Lowes and Altoontash

[21], and Mitra and Lowes [22] have proposed models that connect

beam and column centerline elements to nite-volume joint macroelements. These models comprise a shear-panel component and

rotational springs or zero-length springs to represent bar slip and

interface shear. Other macro-models have been developed by

Youssef and Ghobarah [23], Elmorsi et al. [24], Shin and LaFave

[25], Uma and Prasad [26], and Tajiri et al. [27]. Relative to a single

concentrated spring, a macro-element model typically allows for a

simpler, more objective calibration and enables simulation of joints

with a wide range of design parameters. A primary drawback of this

modeling approach, however, is that macro-element models are not

easily implemented in commercial software.

Given the complexity of beamcolumn joint response, continuum modeling offers the greatest potential for accurately simulating the nonlinear response of joints with a range of design

parameters. Continuum modeling has been the focus of a number

of research studies [2830]. However, it has not been validated

using large data sets, is computationally demanding, requires signicant model-building effort on the part of the engineer, and cannot be accomplished using the analysis software employed

typically by practicing structural engineers.

1.2. Proposed model

The objective of this study was to develop a model to accurately

simulate the nonlinear response (including initial stiffness,

strength, and deformation capacity) of a reinforced concrete frame.

This requires simulation of all important sources of deformation

including the beam, column, and joint response mechanisms. Previously proposed joint models do provide accurate representation

of joint behavior, and some have been calibrated to explicitly account for specic response modes, such as bond slip and shear

deformation. However, these models require the addition of a separate element, typically concentrated springs or macro-elements,

for every joint, making their use in commercial nonlinear structural analysis software packages time consuming and cumbersome. However, modeling a frame using only standard nonlinear

beamcolumn elements neglects simulation of joint response and

typically produces inaccurate results. The proposed model seeks

to provide an intermediate modeling alternative between the simple use of frame elements without joint representation and the

more time consuming use of detailed joint elements.

One of the most common approaches to modeling nonlinear response of reinforced concrete frames is to use lumped-plasticity

elements for the beams and columns. This approach is used here,

with the moment-rotation history of the beam plastic hinges (for

the system considered in this study, columns do not exhibit significant nonlinearity) modied to include simulation of not only the

beam response, but also the joint response. In the modied element, the conventional single-hinge representation is replaced by

a dual-hinge, which comprises two rotational springs in series.

One of the springs simulates the nonlinear exural response of

the beam and is referred to as the beam spring. The second spring

simulates the response of the joint, and is referred to as the joint

spring. Rotation limits are provided for each spring to simulate

the onset of loss of load carrying capacity. Rigid offsets are included in the beams and columns that frame into the joint to ensure that joint exibility is dened entirely by the joint spring in

the dual hinge.

The model was developed with the objective of satisfying practical nonlinear modeling needs. The proposed model can be used in

existing commercial software with an effort that is equivalent to

using a conventional nonlinear beamcolumn element. By modifying a traditional method for modeling frames, the intent of the

model is to provide increased accuracy over models commonly

used in practice. Consequently, the model should not be used to

extract local response of a joint. If such information is needed,

other models, such as those identied above, are more appropriate.

2. Experimental data set

The proposed joint model was developed using data from 45 planar frame sub-assemblages, tested by 11 research groups [213], as

listed in Table 1. The data set used in this study is a subset of that

assembled by Mitra and Lowes [22], where a detailed description

of the individual specimens can be found. Specimens are bare-frame

sub-assemblages without slabs. The data set does not include specimens constructed of light-weight concrete, very high-strength concrete (over 16 ksi, or 110 MPa), or plain reinforcing bars. For the

specimens included in the data set, the lateral capacity was limited

by exural yielding of beams and/or damage in the joint. The proposed model is appropriate for use in simulating the response of

frames with these characteristics and failure modes.

The data set spans a wide range of design parameters and includes specimens that are representative of new construction in regions of high seismic hazard as well as construction that pre-date

modern seismic detailing requirements. Fig. 1 shows histograms

for select design parameters, including concrete compressive

strength (fc0 ), beam steel yield strength (fy), ratio of the sum of column exural strengths to the sum of the beam exural strengths

(RMnc/RMnb), as well as bond demand (l) computed

la

fy db

p

fc0

2hc

where db is the maximum diameter of the beam longitudinal reinforcement and all other variables are previously dened, joint reinforcement ratios (qj) computed

457

Table 1

Ductility classication data.

Test program

Test specimen

sdesign

p0

fc

(MPa/ MPa)

a

b

model

sp

max

lD

p

(MPa/ MPa)a

p

(MPa/ MPa)a

meas

sp

max

fc0

fc0

Ductility

Test

Model

DWX1

DWX2

DWX3

11.10

1.12

0.87

1.27

1.35

1.12

1.06

1.07

0.85

4.7

5.5

6.4

D

D

D

D

D

D

OKAJ1

OKAJ2

OKAJ3

OKAJ4

OKAJ5

1.22

1.26

1.26

1.22

1.15

0.97

1.03

1.15

0.95

0.90

1.01

1.04

1.04

1.01

0.96

5.3

5.6

6.7

5.1

4.4

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

MJ1

MJ2

MJ3

MJ5

MJ6

MJ12

MJ13

2.24

1.78

2.23

1.92

1.89

1.93

1.79

1.32

1.52

1.47

1.57

1.69

2.04

1.49

1.70

1.57

1.70

1.60

1.59

1.62

1.57

3.5

B

B

B

B

B

LD

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

PEER14

PEER22

PEER0850

PEER0995

PEER4150

0.87

1.55

0.61

0.93

3.40

0.94

1.17

0.70

1.04

1.90

0.89

1.49

0.64

0.95

1.97

3.6

4.3 (E)

5.3

LD

B

D

D

B

D

B

D

D

B

PR1

PR2

PR3

PR4

0.46

0.72

0.51

0.69

0.51

0.81

0.53

0.73

0.47

0.72

0.52

0.69

29.5 (E)

6.8

13.2 (E)

7.1

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

NKOKJ1

NKOKJ3

NKOKJ4

NKOKJ5

NKOKJ6

1.88

1.90

1.88

2.37

2.02

1.52

1.54

1.60

1.59

1.61

1.67

1.63

1.67

1.88

1.75

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

OSJ1

OSJ2

OSJ4

OSJ5

OSJ6

OSJ7

OSJ8

OSJ10

OSJ11

1.45

3.60

1.55

2.05

1.57

1.16

1.95

2.35

2.83

1.44

1.55

1.55

1.75

1.55

1.24

1.76

1.60

1.84

1.34

1.84

1.39

1.72

1.41

1.17

1.59

1.80

1.87

3.0

3.8

3.0

5.0 (E)

2.9

LD

B

LD

B

LD

D

LD

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

B

B

B

KOAC1

KOAC3

0.91

0.91

1.01

0.97

0.87

0.87

116 (E)

42.3 (E)

D

D

D

D

PM1

1.25

1.15

1.22

3.1 (E)

LD

HC

A1

1.02

2.24

1.10

1.45

0.96

1.64

8.2 (E)

D

B

D

B

Beckingsale [2]

B11

B12

0.76

0.76

0.83

0.86

0.78

0.79

No Loss

No Loss

D

D

D

D

p

p

Conversion factor: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 MPa/ MPa = 12.04 psi/ psi.

(E): Displacement ductility at 10% strength loss extrapolated; (): brittle joint, no displacement ductility.

qj

At

st b j

passing through a plane normal to the axis of the beams, st is the

vertical spacing of hoops in the joint region, and bj is the out-ofplane dimension of the joint, and axial load ratio (p) computed

P

Ag fc0

where P is the applied column axial load, Ag is the gross area of the

column, and fc0 is the measured concrete compressive strength.

Additionally, Table 1 lists for each specimen, the following shear

stress values used in the current study:

Design shear stress demand, sdesign, computed using an approach

that is consistent with ACI Com 352 [31] recommendations:

sdesign

1

bottom

afy Atop

V n

s As

hc bj

dimension of the joint. The column shear, Vn, corresponds to

the average nominal moment strength of the beam. The variables Atop

and Atop

are the areas of steel in the top and bottom

s

s

of the beam, respectively, and fy is the measured strength of

the reinforcement. To account for hardening of the steel under

earthquake loading and over-strength in the nominal value, fy

is typically multiplied by a factor of 1.25 [1]. However, as the actual strength of the steel was available for all specimens in the

data set, the 1.25 factor was reduced by 1.1 as recommended

by ACI Com. 352 [31]. Thus, a = 1.25/1.1 was used in Eq. (4).

Maximum measured

shear stress

demand, smax

smax

1 ML MR

V max

hc b j

jd

458

20

10

0

20

40

10

15

# Specimen

# Specimen

20

0

250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

(b) fy (MPa)

60 80 100 120

(a) f c (MPa)

20

15

10

5

0

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25

(c) Mnc/ Mnb

10

5

0

10

20

0.1

30 40

(d)

50

60

(f) P/(Agf c)

0.5

20

# Specimen

15

# Specimen

30

# Specimen

# Specimen

30

10

5

0

15

10

5

0

(e) j (%)

MR are the corresponding moments in the left and right beam at

the joint face, respectively. The term jd is the moment lever arm

for the beam, where d is the depth from the extreme compression ber to the tension reinforcement in the beam, assumed

to be 0.9hb if unknown, and j is an empirically derived parameter

typically taken equal to 0.85 [32].

To support the model calibration effort, specimens were classied as brittle, ductile or limited-ductility. Brittle specimens exhibit

a maximum strength that was less than that required to yield all

beam longitudinal reinforcement in tension. Ductile specimens

reach the yield shear force and exhibit displacement ductility,

lD, greater than four. Limited-ductility specimens are specimens

not classied as brittle or ductile. Displacement ductility, lD, was

dened as

lD

D90%

Dy

450

Vmax

(V90%, 90%Vmax)

V80%

(Vfy, fy)

represent a sub-assemblage from a two-dimensional building frame,

comprising a segment of a continuous beam extending from midspan of one frame bay to mid-span of the next, a segment of a continuous column extending from mid-height of one story to mid-height

of the next, and the beamcolumn joint at the intersection of these

two members. The mid-length points are assumed to approximate

points of inection in an actual frame and therefore are a suitable

location to apply the shear forces and sustain the reactions. Frame

sub-assemblages were subjected to reversed cyclic lateral loading

under displacement control in the laboratory, and load was applied

either as a shear load at the top of the column or as a pair of equaland-opposite shear loads at the beam ends. Some sub-assemblages

were also subjected to simulated gravity load applied as a constant

axial load to the top of the column.

The primary data used from the experimental tests were the

column shear versus lateral displacement envelope for each specimen. In some cases, data characterizing the response of the individual frame components (beams, columns and joints) were

available, in other cases they were not. Therefore individual component responses were not directly considered; instead, the overall

sub-assemblage response was used. This is consistent with previous research addressing performance-based seismic design of reinforced concrete frames that has shown frame drift to be the most

practical engineering demand parameter [33].

The response envelope for each specimen was determined from

the experimental cyclic loaddisplacement history. Points on the

envelope correspond to the following loaddisplacement pairs:

(i) theoretical initial exural yielding of beams, (Vy, Dy), (ii) maximum column shear, (Vmax, DVmax), (iii) 20% loss of strength following maximum load, (V80%, D80%V), and (iv) any additional points

required to accurately represent the shape of the loaddisplacement envelope. The theoretical yield load, Vy, was computed using

a momentcurvature analysis of a ber cross-section of the beams

with exural yield strength of the beams dened by initial tensile

yielding of the beam longitudinal reinforcement. Fig. 3 shows an

example of the cyclic response and the response envelope for Specimen PEER0995 [56].

300

VY

150

Experimental

Envelope

Second Beam Yield

90% Maximum Shear

0

0

40

Vmax 80 80%Vmax

120

Displacement, [mm]

Fig. 2. Experimental set-up for Park and Milburn [4] and Alire [5] sub-assemblages

(equal and opposite forces applied to beams).

Fig. 3. Positive forcedisplacement history for specimen PEER 0995 with envelope.

459

occurred, as determined from the column lateral loaddisplacement

envelope, and Dy is as dened previously. A solid circle in Fig. 3

shows D90% and the corresponding column shear force for Specimen

PEER0995. The ductility classication of each specimen is provided

in Table 1. For the complete data set, 18 specimens were classied

as brittle, 20 as ductile, and 7 as limited-ductility.

M hinge

pos

yield

fail

beam

beam

fail

beam

3. Model denition

The proposed dual-hinge model is incorporated in a lumpedplasticity beamcolumn element, where two rotational springs

are combined in series to form the dual-hinge that represents the

inelastic deformations of the beam and the joint. One of the rotational springs simulates the beam response. The second spring

simulates the joint response, including that caused by joint shear

deformation and bond slip.

Fig. 4 shows a model of a typical frame sub-assemblage in

which the proposed dual-hinge beamcolumn element is used to

model the beams. Beams are modeled as elastic outside the hinge

region. Columns are modeled using elastic beamcolumn elements; elastic elements were considered adequate because, for

the sub-assemblages in the data set, columns did not yield. The

effective elastic stiffness values recommended in ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 [34] were used for beams and columns. Rigid offsets

equal to the joint dimensions were included at the ends of the

beam and column elements to dene the joint volume and ensure

that the joint spring was the only source of joint deformation.

Fig. 5 shows the momentcurvature response of the two components of the dual-hinge. The beam response is similar to a traditional nonlinear beamcolumn hinge, but has a rotation limit,

hfail

beam , beyond which a loss of strength occurs. The joint spring

has a bilinear response, with stiffness K1, to the yield moment of

the beam, and K2 beyond yield. For the joint spring, strength loss

initiates at a rotation demand of hfail

joint . The following sections discuss the calibration of these values.

3.1. Rotational spring simulating nonlinear beam exural response

Typically, the moment-rotation response for a lumped-plasticity

beam or column element is determined from the moment

curvature response of the member cross section and a plastichinge length. As described previously, the proposed dual-hinge

model uses two springs in series. The rotational spring representing the nonlinear exural response of the beam was calibrated to

Lb

hc

Lc

Rigid Offsets

Lumped-plasticity

beam element

hb

Beam Spring

Joint Spring

Dual-hinge

Fig. 4. Proposed model of sub-assemblage using rigid offsets and dual-hinge at

beam-joint interface.

neg

yield

(a)

M hinge

min

M yield

K2

K1

fail

joint

joint

fail

joint

K1

K2

M min

yield

(b)

Fig. 5. Dual-hinge components: (a) beam spring and (b) joint spring.

including a rotation limit dened to simulate the onset of exural

strength degradation. The beam exural moment-rotation

response prior to strength loss was determined by performing a

momentcurvature analysis (for both positive and negative

bending) using a ber-type model of the beam section. The beam

depth was discretized into 32 concrete bers; ber thickness was

approximately one-half inch (13 mm). Concrete was assumed to

have no tensile strength. A parabolic compressive stressstrain

response was assumed for unconned concrete, with maximum

strength corresponded to a strain of 0.002 mm/mm. The modied

KentPark model [35] was used to dene the compressive

response of conned concrete. A bilinear stressstrain response

was assumed for reinforcing steel in tension and compression;

the hardening stiffness was dened to be 0.01% of the initial

stiffness, essentially creating an elasticplastic model.

The resulting momentcurvature response was transformed to

a moment-rotation response by multiplying curvatures by a plastic

hinge length equal to one-half the beam depth. This hinge-length

model was proposed by Corley [36] and has been found by several

research groups [1619] to provide good estimates of member displacement. Fig. 5a shows the moment-rotation relation for the

beam spring, including the proposed rotation limit. Calibration of

the rotation limit is discussed in Section 3.3.

3.2. Rotational spring simulating nonlinear joint response

In the proposed model, joint nonlinearity was explicitly modeled using a second rotational spring in series with the beam spring

discussed in Section 3.1. The properties of the joint spring were

460

shear stress versus shear strain model and related to a momentrotation response using frame geometry. This approach to model

calibration is similar to that used in previous studies [1619]

employing a single joint hinge. The joint spring in the dual-hinge

includes a rotation limit beyond which the strength drops signicantly. Discussion of the spring follows, with calibrated values

listed in Table 2. Calibration of the rotation limit is discussed in

Section 3.3.

To calibrate the spring stiffness, equations were derived relating

joint shear strain to rotation at the beam-joint interface and joint

shear stress to the moment at the beam-joint interface for a frame

sub-assemblage. Detailed derivations are provided in Appendix A.

To determine the relationship between joint shear strain and hinge

rotation, the story drift resulting from a joint shear strain of cj, was

constrained to be equal to that resulting from equal but opposite

rotations, hjs, in the hinges at the beam-joint interface. Imposing

this constraint results in

hjs vc cj

the stiffness of the joint rotational spring, K, can be written:

Mhinge

v

jG s

hjs

vc

A bilinear shear stressshear strain response, with a change in stiffness occurring at initial beam yielding, was used. Prior research

shows that this is an approximate yet accurate model of the nonlinear response of the joint [5]. The initial joint spring stiffness, K1, was

established using the relationship (Eq. (13)) to j1, the effective

shear stressstrain stiffness parameter.

v

K 1 j1 s G

vc 1

Lc 1 hL c

13

vc

cumulative error in the predicted initial yield displacement for

the data set. The Matlab (www.mathworks.com) fminbnd function

was used for the optimization, and the cumulative error was

dened

where

hb

12

eyield

N

X

Dy Danalytical

y

Dy

i1

!2

14

i

Lc and Lb are the lengths of the column and beam (Fig. 4), respectively, and hc and hb are the depth of the column and beam, respectively. Similarly, a relationship between joint shear stress, sj, and

moment in the hinge, Mhinge, was determined by relating the beam

moment at the joint face for a particular column shear to the joint

shear stress for the same column shear. For a particular column

shear load, the moment at the beam-joint interface is assumed to

transfer into the joint as a tensioncompression couple, with tension and compression forces determined assuming a moment arm

of jd, where d is the depth in the beam cross-section from the extreme compression ber to the tension reinforcement (assumed

to be 0.9hb if unknown) and j is an empirically derived parameter

taken equal to 0.85 [32]. The joint shear, Vj, is dened equal to

the sum of the couple forces (one tension and one compression) less

the column shear acting on the top half of the joint. The joint shear

stress is the joint shear force divided by the cross-sectional area of

the joint, Aj. The resulting relationship between joint moment and

shear stress is

M hinge vs sj

where

Aj 1 hL c jd

vs jd b

2 1 Lc hL c

10

The joint shear stress is related to the shear strain by an effective shear modulus, jG:

jG

s

c

11

Table 2

Summary of model parameters.

Parameter

Calibrated value

j1

j2

cfail

joint

0.14

0.038

0.0069

/fail

beam

0.0056

where Danalytical

is the simulated initial yield displacement correy

sponding to the initial yield load, Vy, Dy is the measured yield displacement, and only specimens that reached the yield load, Vy,

were included in the summation. The optimum effective shear stiffness factor, j1, is listed in Table 2.

The post-yield tangent stiffness of the joint spring was dened

as:

v

K 2 j2 s G

vc

15

,

fy

and measured, Dfy, displacements at the column shear corresponding to full yield, Vfy. Full yield was dened as the point at which both

beams had yielded, with yielding for a beam dened by initial yielding of longitudinal reinforcement as determined from the moment

curvature analysis of the beam section. The experimental displacement at full yield, Dfy, was taken from the sub-assemblage response

envelope. For most sub-assemblages, the full yield force is larger

than the initial yield force due to differences in conguration and

strength of the reinforcement in the top and bottom of the beams.

The full yield point, rather than the point of maximum load, was

used to determine j2 because the full yield point was found to provide a good representation of the post-yield stiffness while the low

tangent stiffness of sub-assemblages in the vicinity of maximum

load was found to result in a high level of variation and poor representation of the post-yield stiffness. Only tests in which the Vfy

shear force level was achieved or exceeded were used to calibrate

the post-yield stiffness ratio. Fig. 3 shows the full yield point for

specimen PEER0995.

Initially, post-yield stiffness parameter j2 was calibrated using

the same error-minimization approach that was used to calibrate

j1; however, this resulted in an unreasonable value for j2. The failure of this approach was attributed to two factors. First, the postyield response of the dual-hinge was dominated by the response of

the beam spring and, as a result, the simulated response was fairly

insensitive to changes in the post-yield stiffness of the joint hinge.

Second, because the calibrated initial stiffness of the joint spring

underestimated the stiffness of some of the specimens, application

of the model resulted in under-prediction of stiffness and overprediction of displacement at full yield of the beams for these

specimens.

461

eipost-yield

Dify Dify

!

analytical

Dify

16

where Dify and Difyanalytical are as dened previously. The optimal value

for j2 is listed in Table 2.

0.015

Brittle

Ductile

Limited Ductility

0.01

pos

joint

Ultimately, j2 was determined by averaging the ji2 values computed for each sub-assemblage, i, with an imposed upper-bound

limit on ji2 equal to the initial stiffness coefcient j1. The following

error function was minimized for each specimen to nd the ji2

values

0.005

0

0

fail

hfail

beam /beam lp

17

hfail

joint

18

fail

joint

vc

20

30

Joint Number

40

50

40

50

(a)

0.015

0.01

pos

beam

components of the dual-hinge; beyond the rotation limit, the

strength of the springs was reduced. The characteristics of strength

loss and simulation of post-peak response were not considered,

and post-peak response is shown in Fig. 5 as a dashed line. ASCE/

SEI Standard 41-06 [34] provides recommendations for simulation

of strength degradation. To determine appropriate rotation limits

for use in the model, a pushover analysis was performed for each

specimen using the dual-hinge model (without rotation limits).

The beam and joint spring rotations corresponding to the drift at

onset of degradation in lateral load-carrying capacity were recorded. Ductile and limited-ductility specimens were considered

to reach this limit state when 10% of the specimens peak strength

was lost, D90%; brittle specimens were considered to reach this limit state at maximum strength, DVmax. Joint spring rotations were

converted to equivalent shear strains using the relationship provided by Eq. (7). Beam spring rotations were converted to equivalent curvatures using an assumed hinge length (lp) equal to

one-half the beam depth.

To determine an appropriate approach for dening rotation limits for response prediction, the relationships between specimen design parameters and spring rotation limits were explored.

However, no signicant correlation was found. Comparing the

equivalent strains and curvatures at the onset of strength loss for

brittle, ductile and limited-ductility specimens did show correlation between these values and sub-assemblage ductility. Fig. 6

shows the equivalent shear strain and curvature values plotted

versus specimen number with different markers used to indicate

the ductility classication of each specimen. Fig. 6a shows that

the equivalent shear strains at strength loss were signicantly larger for brittle specimens than for ductile specimens; Fig. 6b shows

that the equivalent beam curvatures were signicantly larger for

ductile specimens than for brittle specimens. Thus, by dening

constant rotation limits for each spring in the dual-hinge model,

the onset of strength loss can be predicted without prior knowledge or prediction of the response mechanism. Strength degradation is triggered by the joint spring component of the dual-hinge

for a brittle specimen and by the beam spring for a ductile

specimen.

Beam and joint spring rotation limits were dened as the constant values that minimized the sum of the error squared in the

simulated drift at strength loss. Equivalent beam curvatures

fail

(/fail

beam ) and equivalent joint shear strains (cjoint ) at initiation of

strength loss were calibrated using data from ductile and brittle

specimens, respectively. These limits were incorporated into the

dual-hinge using the relationships dened by Eqs. (17) and (18).

A constant value for each parameter was found that minimized

the sum of the error squared in the simulated drift at strength loss.

The calibrated values are provided in Table 2.

10

0.005

0

0

10

20

30

Joint Number

(b)

Fig. 6. Engineering parameter values corresponding to strength drop for all data:

(a) joint spring shear strain limits and (b) beam spring curvature limits for all data.

The proposed model is intended for use with the commercial

structural analysis software used commonly in design ofces,

and can be implemented using the following procedure.

1. Determine the properties of the beam spring. Compute the

momentcurvature response for each beam cross section and

convert beam curvatures to rotations using a plastic hinge

length, lp, equal to one-half of the beam depth. Using the computed cross-sectional response, identify yield moments for use

in creating the joint spring moment-rotation history. Compute

the beam rotation limits (positive and negative bending) for

each section, using Eq. (17) with ufail

beam dened in Table 2.

2. Determine the joint spring response history. Determine the initial and post-yield stiffness values using Eqs. (13) and (15), with

j1 and j2 dened in Table 2. The joint shear stress at which

stiffness change occurs is the joint shear stress corresponding

to initial beam yielding. The strength of the joint spring

degrades at an absolute rotation demand given by Eq. (16), with

cfail

joint dened in Table 2.

3. Create a centerline model of the structure with elastic beam

column elements used for the columns, lumped-plasticity

beamcolumn elements used for the beams, rigid offsets in

the beam and column elements dening the physical volume

of the joint, and dual-hinges introduced in the lumped-plasticity

beam elements at the joint faces. The dual hinges consist of the

zero-length beam and joint springs placed in series.

4. Perform the desired analysis of the structure.

462

For each of the sub-assemblages in the data set, a nonlinear

model was created using the steps described above and a pushover analysis was performed.

Fig. 7 illustrates the impact the joint spring has on the simulated response by showing envelopes for (i) the experimental data,

(ii) an analytical model that includes a conventional beam hinge/

spring, and (iii) the proposed dual-hinge model, including termination when the rotation limits are reached. Envelopes are shown for

(a) PEER 0850, for which specimen drift is due primarily to beam

exure and (b) PEER 4150, for which specimen drift is due primarily to joint shear. The addition of the joint spring to the model has a

greater impact on the response of the sub-assemblage with greater

measured shear deformation (PEER 4150). The proposed rotation

limits for the beam and joint springs result in the model accurately

simulating (a) the drift capacity of the ductile PEER 0850 specimen

and (b) the peak strength of the brittle PEER 4150 specimen.

Table 1 presents the ductility classication for each specimen as

observed experimentally and as predicted using the model. Fig. 8

shows the best and worst simulated versus observed response histories for the ductile, limited-ductility and brittle specimens.

For the full data set, the model was evaluated rst by comparing

the simulated and experimentally determined ductility of each

specimen. Section 2.2 described classication of specimen ductility

using experimental data. The simulated response of the specimen

was considered ductile if beam rotation demand exceeded the

beam spring rotation limit but not the joint spring rotation limit

and brittle if joint rotation demand exceeded the joint spring

250

200

150

100

Experimental

Conventional Hinge

DualHinge

DualHinge Limit

50

0

0

3

% Drift

(a)

1000

800

600

400

Experimental

Conventional Hinge

DualHinge

DualHinge Limit

200

0

0

3

% Drift

(b)

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental response to simulated response using a

conventional beam hinge and the proposed dual-hinge for specimens (a) PEER

0850 and (b) PEER 4150.

rotation limit but not the beam spring rotation limit. Brittle behavior was simulated for all 18 specimens experimentally classied as

brittle. Ductile behavior was simulated for all 20 specimens experimentally classied as ductile. Of the seven limited-ductility specimens, the simulated response of six was controlled by joint

failure; for these six specimens the rotation demand imposed on

the beam-exural spring was only 7% of the rotation limit. Of the

limited-ductility specimens, specimen PEER14 was the only specimen for which simulated strength loss was due to activation of the

beam spring rotation limit; this occurred at a joint spring rotation

demand equal to 45% of the rotation limit. Thus, the model was

considered to provide accurate simulation of specimen ductility.

To further quantify the accuracy and precision of the model, the

error in the simulated displacement/drift and load at critical points

of the response history was computed. The critical points considered were: initial yield of beam longitudinal steel (Dy, Vy), maximum strength (Dmax, Vmax), and 10% loss of lateral load carrying

capacity (D90%, V90%). For each specimen, the error in displacement/drift was computed

eD

Dmeasured Dsimulated

Dmeasured

19

eV

V measured V simulated

V measured

20

The data in Fig. 8 and Table 3 indicate the following capabilities

of the model to simulate the ductile and limited-ductility

specimens.

1. Initial stiffness is simulated accurately for both the ductile specimens (average displacement error of 8% at initial yield) and the

limited-ductility specimens (average error of 4%).

2. The standard deviation of the error for simulation of initial stiffness for ductile and limited-ductility specimens is approximately 25%. This is considered to be acceptable for nonlinear

analysis of concrete components and is consistent with other

recently developed models for performance-based seismic

design and evaluation (e.g., Berry et al. [37]).

3. The strength of ductile specimens is accurately and precisely

simulated with an average error of 8% and a standard deviation

of 7%. It should be noted that strength is determined by the

computed momentcurvature response history for the beam

section.

4. Displacements at maximum strength are not reported for the

non-ductile specimens. Specimens typically exhibit very low

stiffness once beam(s) reach full yield strength; thus, the displacement at which maximum strength is achieved is not

meaningful.

5. For ductile specimens, the displacement at strength loss is simulated with a high level of accuracy and moderate precision

(average error of 8%; standard deviation of 35%). For limitedductility specimens, the accuracy of the model for simulation

of strength loss is much worse (average displacement error at

strength loss of 36%). This inaccuracy could be expected given

that the model is intended to simulate the onset of strength loss

in ductile specimens and was calibrated using data for these

specimens.

For brittle specimens, the data in Fig. 8 and Table 3 support the

following conclusions.

1. Initial stiffness (same as stiffness at maximum load) for brittle

joints is, on average, fairly accurate (8% average error) but

lacks precision (55% standard deviation).

463

100

50

Experimental

DualHinge

DualHinge Limit

300

60

40

Experimental

DualHinge

DualHinge Limit

20

0

(a)

Experimental

DualHinge

DualHinge Limit

0

6

(c)

400

100

50

Experimental

DualHinge

DualHinge Limit

0

4

4

% Drift

300

(b)

400

Experimental

DualHinge

DualHinge Limit

0

150

100

100

% Drift

500

200

200

0

0

% Drift

80

Column Shear [kN]

150

300

200

Experimental

DualHinge

DualHinge Limit

100

0

% Drift

4

% Drift

(d)

(e)

% Drift

(f)

Fig. 8. Experimental (open circles) and model (thick line) envelopes for best and worst predictions. Best (a) brittle, MJ3, (b) ductile, PR3, and (c) limited-ductility, OSJ. Worst

(d) brittle, PEER22, (e) ductile, HC, and (f) limited-ductility, OSJ8.

Table 3

Error in proposed model for evaluation of experimental frame sub-assemblages.

Data subsets

Normalized error

Initial yield

Max. load

Ductile

Average

Stand. dev.

Limited ductility

Brittle

10% loss

Stiffness

Disp.

Load

Disp.

Load

8%

25%

8%

7%

8%

35%

2%

9%

Average

Stand. dev.

4%

24%

11%

9%

36%

41%

5%

11%

Average1

Stand. dev.1

8%

55%

8%

55%

5%

9%

For brittle joints, the stiffness at yield is the same as that at maximum load

2. The model provides an accurate and precise simulation of maximum strength (average error of 5%, standard deviation of 9%)

as well as accurate simulation of displacement at maximum

strength (average error of 8%).

3. The simulated displacement at maximum strength has a relatively high level of uncertainty, with a standard deviation of

53%; this was attributed to the simplicity of the model.

As previously discussed, the model provides accurate simulation of frame ductility and, thus, may be used in evaluation of

existing reinforced concrete frames to assess frame ductility under

seismic loading. To further explore the parameters that control

frame ductility, the computed joint shear stress demands for ductile and brittle joints were compared. The simulated maximum

joint shear stress, smodel

max , was computed as follows:

smodel

max

M max

M max

L

R

2vs

21

where Mmax

and M max

are the maximum moments developed in the

L

R

left and the right beams, respectively. Values are provided in Table 1. The simulated maximum shear stresses are similar to those

computed directly from experimental data using Eq. (5); the average difference between simulated and experimental stresses was

approximately 10%. Joint failure controlled the response of brittle

Eq. (21) is the joint shear strength (capacity). For brittle specimens,

simulated

joint shear

from

p

p stress demands at failure rangedp

17.9 fc0 psi to 23.7 fc0 psi, with an average value of 20.5 fc0 psi

and a coefcient of variation of 7%. For ductile specimens, specimen

response was controlled by beam yielding and the joint shear demand, computed using Eq. (21), is less than the joint shear strength.

p

0

For ductile

p specimens, shear stress demand

p ranged from 5.7 fc psi

to 14.1 fc0 psi with an average of 10.6 fc0 psi and coefcient of variation of 22%. Because there is no overlap in the ranges of simulated

shear stress for the ductile and brittle specimens, and given the relative low coefcient of variation on shear strength for brittle specimen, a strength-based limit model for the joint spring could be

expected to provide reasonably accurate prediction of strength.

However, the strain-based model simulates the range of strengths

observed in the lab, provides accurate (5% error) and precise (9%

standard deviation) prediction of strength and provides accurate

prediction of the drop at maximum strength (8% error).

6. Summary and conclusions

A dual-hinge lumped-plasticity beam element was developed to

provide a practical model capable of simulating the nonlinear response of planar concrete frames. The dual-hinge consists of two

464

rotational springs in series to simulate the nonlinear exural response of the beam and the nonlinear response of the joint. The

beam spring response is determined from the momentcurvature

response of the beam cross section and an assumed plastic hinge

length. A rotation limit for the beam spring, which denes the onset of strength loss, was determined using laboratory data from

frame tests in which beams yielded in exure. The rotation limit

was represented as an equivalent curvature value. The joint spring

response is dened by a bilinear shear stressstrain relationship,

which is converted to a moment-rotation response using geometric transformations. Joint spring stiffnesses were determined using

laboratory data from frame sub-assemablage tests. Experimental

data from frame sub-assemblages exhibiting joint failure prior to

beam yielding were used to determine a joint spring rotation limit

at which strength loss initiates. This rotation limit was represented

as an equivalent shear strain value.

Frame models were constructed using standard beam column

elements and the dual-hinge spring model to simulate the response of 45 experimental sub-assemblages. The interaction of

the beam and joint springs and the introduction of rotation limits

in both springs resulted in a model that accurately simulated the

ductile (beam-controlled) or brittle (joint-controlled) response observed in the laboratory. Results show that the model provides

accurate simulation of initial stiffness, strength and displacement

at strength loss for ductile specimens as well as accurate simulation of stiffness and strength for brittle specimens.

Vc

Lc

M jf

Vb

Vb

1/2 (L b -h c )

Lb

Vc

Fig. A.1. Sub-assemblage forces and reactions.

Vc

T

M jf

Vj

jd

C

hb

M jf

hc

Acknowledgements

Support of this work was provided primarily by the Earthquake

Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science

Foundation, under Award Number EEC-97015668 through the

Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Any

opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed

in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reect those of the National Science Foundation.

the shear stress and joint geometry:

Appendix A

Mjf vs s

0

vs

C

Aj B

1

C

B

2 @jd1 1 A

Lc

subject to a column shear Vc. The forces acting on the joint are

shown in Fig. A.2. For a moment Mjf at the face of the joint, the column shear Vc is:

2Mjf

Vc

Lc 1 hL c

A:1

A:5

A:6

1hL c

b

Aj jd 1 hL c

vs jd b

2 1 Lc hL c

A:7

TC

M jf

jd

A:2

where jd is the beam moment arm with d equal to the distance from

the extreme compression ber to the extreme tension ber and j is

taken as 0.85. From the column shear and tension/compression couples, the joint shear force can be calculated as:

Vj C T Vc

A:3

Because the joint shear force Vj is equal to the shear stress times the

area of the joint, the shear stress can be written as a function of the

moment Mjf:

V j 2Mjf @ 1

1

A

jd Lc 1 hc

Aj

Aj

Lb

A:4

nite volume joint and centerline elements for the beams and columns framing into the joint. The joint is subject to a shear strain c,

resulting in displacements Db and Dc of the beams and columns,

respectively.

Db

c Lc

2

hb

2

c Lb

Dc

hc

2 2

A:8

A:9

such that the column extends to the center of the joint, rather than

the face of the joint. The displacement Dc can be replicated using a

rotation of hc, measured from the vertical axis, at the center of the

joint:

hc

c

2

1

2hb

Lc

A:10

Dhbc hc

Lb c Lb hb Lb

2 2 2

Lc

A:11

The hinge at the beamjoint interface must account for the difference between the beam displacement of the physical system, Db,

and the beam displacement due to the column rotation of the modeled system, Dhc

c . This is represented in equation form as:

1

Db Dhbc Lb hc hb

2

A:12

Inserting Eqs. (A.9) and (A.11) into Eq. (A.12) and solving for hb provides a relationship between the spring rotation hb and the shear

strain c that will ensure that the boundary conditions of the model

are satised.

hb L b

1

hb c Lb

hc

Lb hc

Lc

0

1

h

b

hb c@1 A

Lc hL c

A:13

A:14

References

[1] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI

318-08) and commentary (ACI 318R-08). Farmington Hills, Michigan:

American Concrete Institute; 2008.

[2] Beckingsale CW. Post elastic behavior of reinforced concrete beamcolumn

joints. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,

Christchurch, New Zealand; 1980.

[3] Otani S, Kobayashi Y, Aoyama H. Reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn

joints under simulated earthquake loading. USNew ZealandJapan seminar

on design of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. California: Monterey;

1984.

465

[4] Park R, Milburn JR. Comparison of recent New Zealand and United States

seismic design provisions for reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints and test

results from four units designed according to the New Zealand Code. New

Zealand Nat Soc Earthquake Eng Bull 1983;16(1):324.

[5] Alire D. Seismic evaluation of existing unconned reinforced concrete beam

column joint. MSCE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Washington; 2002.

[6] Walker S. Seismic performance of existing reinforced concrete beamcolumn

joints. MSCE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington;

2001.

[7] Durrani AJ, Wight JK. Experimental and analytical study of beam to column

connections subjected to reverse cyclic loading. Technical report, Department

of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan; 1982.

[8] Endoh Y, Kamura T, Otani S, Aoyama H. Behavior of RC beamcolumn

connections using light-weight concrete. Trans Jpn Concr Inst 1991;13:

31926.

[9] Kitayama K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Earthquake resistant design criteria for

reinforced concrete interior beamcolumn joints. In: Pacic conference on

earthquake engineering, Wairakei, New Zealand; 1987. p. 31526.

[10] Meinheit DF, Jirsa JO. The shear strength of reinforced concrete beamcolumn

joints. Technical report, University of Texas at Austin; 1977.

[11] Noguchi H, Kashiwazaki T. Experimental studies on shear performances of RC

interior columnbeam joints. In: Tenth world conference on earthquake

engineering, Madrid, Spain; 1992. p. 31638.

[12] Park R, Ruitong D. A comparison of the behavior of reinforced concrete beam

column joints designed for ductility and limited ductility. Bull New-Zealand

Nat Soc Earthquake Eng 1998;21(4):25578.

[13] Oka H, Shiohara H. Tests on high-strength concrete interior beamcolumn

joints sub-assemblages. In: Tenth world conference on earthquake

engineering, Madrid, Spain; 1992. p. 32117.

[14] Scott M, Fenves G. Plastichinge integration methods for force-based beam

column elements. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2006;132(2):24452.

[15] Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC. Geometrically nonlinear exibility-based frame

nite element. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1998;124(6):70411.

[16] El-Metwally S, Chen WF. Moment-rotation modeling of reinforced concrete

beamcolumn connections. ACI Struct J 1988;85(4):38494.

[17] Kunnath SK. Macromodel-based nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete

structures. Structural engineering worldwide. Paper no. T101-5. Oxford,

England: Elsevier Science, Ltd.; 1998.

[18] Ghobarah A, Biddah A. Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frames

including joint shear deformation. Eng Struct 1999;21(11):97187.

[19] Anderson M, Lehman D, Stanton J. A cyclic shear stressstrain model for joints

without transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct 2007;30(4):94154.

[20] Altoontash A, Deierlein GD. A versatile model for beamcolumn joints. In:

ASCE structures congress, Seattle, WA; 2003.

[21] Lowes LN, Altoontash A. Modeling the response of reinforced concrete beam

column joints. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2003;129(12):168697.

[22] Mitra N, Lowes LN. Evaluation, calibration, and verication of a reinforced

concrete beamcolumn joint. J Struct Eng 2007;133(1):105.

[23] Youssef M, Ghobarah A. Strength deterioration due to bond slip and concrete

crushing in modeling of reinforced concrete members. ACI Struct J

1999;96(6):956.

[24] Elmorsi M, Kianoush MR, Tso WK. Modeling bond-slip deformations in

reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Can J Civil Eng 2000;27(3):490505.

[25] Shin M, Lafave JM. Modeling of cyclic joint shear deformation contributions in

RC beamcolumn connections to overall frame behavior. Struct Eng Mech

2004;18(5):64569.

[26] Uma SR, Prasad AM. Seismic evaluation of R/C moment resisting frame

structures considering joint exibility. In: 13th World conference on

earthquake engineering conference proceedings; 2004.

[27] Tajiri S, Shiohara H, Kusuhara F. A new macroelement of reinforced concrete

beamcolumn joint for elasto-plastic plane frame analysis. In: Eighth national

conference of earthquake engineering, San Francisco, California; 2006.

[28] Will GT, Uzumeri SM, Sinha SK. Application of nite element method to

analysis of reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. In: Proceedings of

specialty conference of nite element method in civil engineering, Canada;

1972.

[29] Noguchi H. Nonlinear nite elements analysis of reinforced concrete beam

column joints. Final report of IABSE colloquium; 1981. p. 63953.

[30] Pantazoupoulou S, Bonacci J. On earthquake-resistant reinforced concrete

frame connections. Can J Civ Eng 1994;21(2):307.

[31] ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 352. Recommendations for design of beamcolumn

connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures. Farmington Hills,

Michigan: American Concrete Institute; 2005.

[32] Wight JK, MacGregor JG. Reinforced concrete: mechanics and design. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2005.

[33] Pagni CA, Lowes LN. Fragility functions for older reinforced concrete beam

column joints. Earthquake Spectra 2006;22(1):21538.

[34] ASCE, Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06). American

Society of Civil Engineers; 2007.

[35] Park R, Priestly MNJ, Gill WD. Ductility of square-conned concrete columns. J

Struct Div, ASCE 1982;108(ST4):1357.

[36] Corley GW. Rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Div,

ASCE 1966;92(ST5):12146.

[37] Berry MP, Lehman DE, Lowes LN. Lumped-plasticity models for performance

simulation of bridge columns. ACI Struct J 2008;105(3):2709.

- THE RHT CONCRETE MODEL IN LS-DYNAUploaded bymostafa1234567
- D198.PDFUploaded byArnold Rojas
- Comparative Inelastic Pushover Analysis of Masonry FramesUploaded byGeorge Varelis
- SOM Viva Questions in OptionsUploaded byamurugan_22
- Al RingPlug SpecimenUploaded bySwedish99
- Chapter 6 Part 2Uploaded byRuben Añez
- FTV 100Uploaded bySanja Tadic
- Asme CCase 2010-3Uploaded byADAMJSRAO
- Nonlinear Behavior of Steel Coupling BeamsUploaded byAndreea Pop
- Analysis of Structure Using CCMUploaded byAnh Do
- Pressure Vessel Design calcUploaded bySyed Zain Ali
- zap lok.pdfUploaded bysimon
- ch4Uploaded byFofer Fofe
- Maximum Shear Stress Theory-DerivationUploaded byMaria Elisa Lara
- Finite Element Study of the Effect of Interfacial Gaps on the in 2017 StrucUploaded bySeda
- An Analytical Model for the Strength Prediction of Hybrid (Boltedbonded) Composite JointsUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- Response 2000 IntroductionUploaded byRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- SandStat 4Uploaded byNedžadDžoko
- macr65-0970Uploaded byMaurício Ferreira
- Linee_guida1Uploaded byLucianoRoccoSalvatoreViggiani
- RCBeamDesign.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Junaid
- 6.0 Doubly Reinforced Concrete Beam (USD) (1)Uploaded byVinCEdemonteverde
- ERD UNIT VUploaded bysainath
- F13 CE470Ch5 Beam Shear DesignUploaded byzainabcom
- ReadMe!Uploaded byAndrew Donaire
- Chapter3_a.ppt (1).pptxUploaded byYuanjing Xu
- Herdiyanti, JihanUploaded byNaveen
- Pillar DesignUploaded byMichael David Altamirano Mackenzie
- 1-s2.0-S0965997808000525-mainUploaded byOmar Rosenblueth
- Drce q BankaUploaded byUmar Saba

- Is 4326 1993 - Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of BuildingsUploaded byAmit Singh
- LogonUploaded byparth daxini
- beam.pdfUploaded byparth daxini
- 275-279.pdfUploaded byparth daxini
- 09_Types of analysis.pdfUploaded byNazar Shafiq
- 13_2571Uploaded byAlam Mohammad Parvez Saifi
- 02 SapTutorUploaded byshimic32000
- ANSYSUploaded byparth daxini
- Block WorkUploaded bySanjeewa Warunakumara
- Business d.docxUploaded byparth daxini
- Business DevelopmentUploaded byparth daxini
- Foundation SettlementUploaded bynivarn
- Good Flat Slab Example Acc to EC2 (the Concrete Centre)Uploaded byNitish Ramdawor
- Bolted Moment ConnectionUploaded byprabhu81
- BeamUploaded byparth daxini
- 2742002Uploaded byparth daxini
- Important Details You Should Know About IndiaUploaded byparth daxini
- Minimum Steel 7 1Uploaded byparth daxini
- SwajitUploaded byparth daxini
- ME Thesis Guidelines & Format (2)Uploaded byAnonymous FHBYwjV
- Careers_Form.docUploaded byparth daxini
- 05052016.pdfUploaded byparth daxini
- Raft Foundation Bearing CapacityUploaded byLim Han Jian
- m10l27Uploaded byjritesh3736
- V3I8-IJERTV3IS080810Uploaded byparth daxini
- 560b56f808ae576ce6411453Uploaded byparth daxini

- Tm Vrv IV Edmt341410Uploaded byDesmond Kuek
- 3._DETERMINACYUploaded byAdron Lim
- Strength of MaterialUploaded byMuhammad Assim Baig
- 2017-Room-temperature Ferromagnetism in Fe-based Perovskite Solid Solution in Lead-free Ferroelectric Bi0.5Na0.5TiO3 Materials -Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic MaterialsUploaded byLương Hữu Bắc
- Ch4 Numerical Approaches for the NVH Study of Electric and Hybrid Electric VehiclesUploaded bysfhaider1
- Design and Development of Vibratory Bowl FeederUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Rowe LynUploaded byDarrel Q. Tangonan
- Aircraft Arrester FinalUploaded byAkos Brandecker
- Principi Base Della Liofilizzazione - Carlo VecchioUploaded byYana Cadiatan
- FireDos Applications and Comparision to Other Mixing SystemsUploaded byGuaspari
- Expansion process of a perfect gas.pdfUploaded byRaza Mutahir
- Motor Operations Handbook 2012Uploaded byezrawong
- graphene transistorUploaded byvivekpranavam
- 3 Light Propagation in Optical FibersUploaded bybrooks
- NDTS India (P) Limited - June 2012Uploaded bySachein Anand
- Cond WatertempUploaded byHaHuyLy
- Torsion Field Detector - Wilbert B SmithUploaded bycarlos_henriques
- sm-lab.pdfUploaded bymm
- Material Selection Distillation Column (Initial Findings)Uploaded byHelena Francis
- Nano MaterialsUploaded byv2brother
- Tutorial 1 In Compressible FlowUploaded bymohdrashdansaad
- Water ManagementUploaded byanon-699953
- 1-s2.0-S0011916412001142-mainUploaded byResearcherz
- Aimin 2004Uploaded byMilica Bebina
- 07-Radar and History AntheaUploaded byNick Numlk
- RPT_47Uploaded byBreno Ferreira
- Infrared & Mass Spectroscopy (A2)Uploaded byKevin The Chemistry Tutor
- B-111Uploaded bymanuel flores
- General Familiarity With Other NDT Methods Module 2Uploaded byWeld Bro Sandeep
- CH10Uploaded byAjay Kumar Sreerama