Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ductile Reinforced-Concrete Beam-Column Joints With Alternative Detailing
Ductile Reinforced-Concrete Beam-Column Joints With Alternative Detailing
Ductile Reinforced-Concrete Beam-Column Joints With Alternative Detailing
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
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
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