Ductile Reinforced-Concrete Beam-

Column Joints with Alternative Detailing

EERI Annual Meeting
February 13, 2009

by Barbara Chang
University of California, San Diego
 Acknowledgements
• EERI, FEMA, and NEHRP Graduate
Fellowship
• Charles Pankow Foundation,
Englekirk Partners, Dywidag
Systems International USA, Inc
(DSI), Morley Contractors, MMFX
Tech Corp, Baumann Eng, and Clark
Pacific.
• TC Hutchinson, RE Englekirk, R Chen
• Powell Laboratory Staff: A
Gundthardt, C Latham, R Parks
Seismic Design Philosophy
• Provide minimum standards to
maintain public safety in an extreme
earthquake
• Safeguard against major failures and
loss of life
– Do not necessarily limit damage, maintain
function, or provide for easy repair
• Design assumes significant amount of
inelastic behavior will occur in the
structure during a design earthquake
– Design forces much lower than if structure
assumed elastic
 Result!
Building survival in a large earthquake
depends on the ability of its lateral
resisting system to dissipate energy
hysteretically while undergoing large
inelastic deformations

Public misconception: Buildings will not

be damaged during earthquakes.
What does dissipated energy
look like in a structure?
Code-conforming joints
Joint Failures
 Use of ductile joints
Large
displacements
Foundation cause frame
High forces damage
cause shear yielding and
wall damage Δ , small rocking protects Δ, large
shear wall
Small
displacements
protect frame
from damage

Stiff and Strong Foundation Flexible and Weak Foundation

(ATC 40, 1996)

 Warcholik & Priestley, 1997
Comparable specimen
- Full scale
- Reduced joint reinforcing

γ = 6.7%
Warcholik & Priestley, 1997
 Test Program Design
• Four full-scale specimens
– Interior beam-column subassemblies
– Experimentally assess various innovative
alternatives
• Re-evaluate previous hybrid system @ full-scale
• Combine previously successful attributes of
hybrid and ductile connector subassembly
• High strength & strain capacity steels
• Extensive input & consultation from
Industry – what do they want/need!
• Performance, constructability, & cost
Test Set-up Design
Full-Scale
Building Beam-
Column
Subassembly

23’

Specimen #2
Slow reversed cyclic displacement loading
Controlled evaluation of physical damage
> 100 analog sensors internal/external monitoring
Ductile System – Enhancement (#2)

• Attributes
– Precast assembly
– Yielding within
column, minimal
damage to beam

– Recentering/elastic
restoring force

Dywidag Ductile Connector

 Details: #2

Beam stopped short (North) Flush beam (South)

= Precast
= Cast-in-Place
 = Precast
Precast Details = Cast-in-Place

Beam stopped short (North)

(dowels extended for slab)

Flush beam (South)

 Slab details

• South beam • North beam has no

has cut-out in cut-out in slab.
slab. Both DDRs Only DDRs with
and DDC used. Threadrod used.
P#2: Damage Observations
γ = 1.77%
P#2: Damage Observations
γ = 2.65%
P#2: Damage Observations
γ = 2.65%
(2nd cycle)
P#2: Damage Observations
γ = 5.25%
P#2: Damage Observations
γ = 5.25%
P#2: Damage Observations
γ = 7%
P#2: Damage Observations
γ = 7%
P#2: Damage Observations
γ = -7.1%
End of test
 Videos of #2
DDR, DDC, & post-tensioned subassembly

Overall View Joint Region

P#2: PT + DDC (‘super hybrid’)

γ = 7.0%

Salient features:
-Stable hysteresis
-Asymmetric behavior
-No post-yield degradation
Design versus experimental
Predicted Experimental
Δy (in) 0.87” 1.41”
Vy (kips) 113 110
My (kip-in) 13600 13560
Ky (kip/%) 157 92
EIeff (kip- 9.5*107 11.1*107
in2)
• Reasonable results from predicted
values.
Popov et al. (1972)

CIP, Cantilever
specimen, conv
reinforced
CIP vs Precast
 Secant Stiffness
250
Pankow 2
Stiffness (kip/%γ)

200 Popov

150

100

50

0
-8 -4 0 4 8
Average Drift Ratio γ (%)
Hysteretic energy/cycle
Equiv viscous damping/cycle
 Remarks
• Specimens exhibited stable hysteresis
response
– Little-no strength degradation post-yield
– Reasonably full hysteresis
– Fairly symmetric hysteresis
– Theoretical strengths & yield deformation
comparative
• Fracture of longitudinal beam rebar requires
consideration (but – for demands > 7% drift)
• Results are consistent with CIP specimen
behavior, support use of precast in practice