See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273202458

Classification of reinforced concrete beam-to-column joints

Conference Paper · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

4 2,871

3 authors:

Fernando C T Gomes Ricardo Joel Teixeira Costa

Universidade Metodista de Angola, Luanda, Angola University of Coimbra
17 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paulo Providencia
University of Coimbra
62 PUBLICATIONS   285 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Non linear finite element analysis of composite beams View project

3DJOINTS (2012-2015): Comportamento tridimensional de ligações metálicas. Ref. PTDC/ECM/116904/2010 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando C T Gomes on 31 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Conference on Recent Advances in Nonlinear Models – Structural Concrete Applications
CoRAN 2011
H. Barros, R. Faria, C. Pina and C. Ferreira (Eds)

CLASSIFICATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN

JOINTS

FERNANDO C.T. GOMES*, PAULO PROVIDÊNCIA† AND RICARDO COSTA‡

*Technology and Management High School of Oliveira do Hospital

Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra
Rua General Santos Costa, P-3400-124 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal
E-mail: fernando.t.gomes@gmail.com; webpage: http://www.estgoh.ipc.pt
†
Department of Civil Engineering
INESC Coimbra, University of Coimbra
FCTUC-Pólo II, Rua Luís Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
E-mail: provid@dec.uc.pt; webpage: http://www.dec.uc.pt
‡
Department of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Sciences and Technology University of Coimbra
Rua Luís Reis Santos - Pólo II da Universidade, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
E-mail: rjcosta@dec.uc.pt; webpage: http://www.dec.uc.pt

Key words: RC beam-column joints, joint deformation, classification of joints, non-linear

frame analysis, second order effects.
Summary. It has been recently demonstrated1, that the overall behavior of reinforced
concrete frames can be significantly affected by the shear deformation of beam-column joints.
Actually, this type of joints has a nonlinear moment-rotation relationship. Therefore, the
semi-rigid label put forward in Eurocode 32 for steel joints is also appropriate for reinforced
concrete joints.
Pursuing Eurocode 3 classification approach for steel joints, quantitative criteria are
required for classifying reinforced concrete joints as rigid or semi-rigid for design purposes.
Such criteria should be based upon the following principle: a beam-column joint can be
classified as rigid for design purposes only if the reduction of the frame load capacity caused
by joint overall deformation is under 5%. Eurocode 23 lacks such type of criteria. In the
present paper, the joint classification specified in Eurocode 3 is analyzed and its application
to reinforced concrete beam-column joints investigated.

1 INTRODUCTION
Beam-column joints in reinforced concrete frames suffer deformations which may affect
both the load capacity and the overall displacement pattern of those frames1. Joint shear
deformation is particularly significant for laterally loaded frames, see Figure 1. Common
analysis and design of reinforced concrete frames fully disregards joint deformation,
particularly shear deformation  , and admit that they suffer a rigid body rotation  , Figure 1.
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa




a  b c

Figure 1: (a) Deformed configuration of laterally loaded frame; beam-column joint (b) rotation  and (c) shear
deformation  .

M1 M  M1  M 2


M
Sj

Sj
1


M2 a  b
Figure 2: (a) Scissors model of beam-column joints. (b) Non-linear M   relationship.

When a frame is modeled as a skeletal structure, which is a common simplifying

assumption, its linear elements, such as beams and columns, are represented by their axes. In
this case, beam-column joints can be modeled as pairs of scissors, Figure 2, with a nonlinear
relation between bending moment M and relative rotation  , defined by the secant stiffness
M (1)
Sj 


This rotation  represents the shear deformation of the beam-column joint, Figure 1c. Note
that this is a point joint model; a finite joint model could have been used instead1. For steel
frames, Charney and Downs4 show that the scissors model gives accurate predictions, if
properly used. In RC frames, an accurate model of the joint shear behavior is particularly
important, because shear deformation is the most relevant contribution to the deformation of
RC beam-column joints.

2 EFFECT OF SHEAR DEFORMATION OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS ON FRAME

BEAHAVIOUR
Figure 3 illustrates the displacement behaviour of a common frame whose beam-column

2
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa

(a) Frame with rigid joints (b) Frame with shear deformable joints
Figure 3: Influence of joint shear deformation on frame behaviour.

joints are (a) rigid, i.e. with stiffness S j   , or (b) shear deformable, i.e., semi-rigid.
Subscript  will denote parameters and variables (such as the ultimate load multiplier,
displacements, etc.) for the rigid joints case, even if this is an implicitly deformable joint
model1. When compared to case (a), the more realistic joint model given by case (b) causes:
 a larger frame drift (     );
 a smaller frame resistance (  ult   ult. );
 a smaller frame Euler critical load (  cr   cr. );
 an equal frame plastic load multiplier  pl , for a first order plastic analysis.
The value of the linear plastic load multiplier is not affected by the joint stiffness; it
depends only on the joint strength, which is the same for the two cases. It can be concluded
that the reduction of the frame resistance is due to second order effects only.
In this paper we adopt the following joint classification criterion, similar to the rule in a
former version (voluntary) of Eurocode 35: a joint is deemed rigid if its shear deformation
causes a frame resistance reduction not greater than 5%. In terms of the frame ultimate load
multiplier, this is expressed by
 ult  0.95 ult. (2)

where  ult ( ult. ) is the ultimate load multiplier, with (without) joint shear deformation.

3
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa

V
H 

0.5 Lc

Sj

0.5 Lc

0.5 Lb 0.5 Lb

Figure 4: Sub-frame with shear deformable point beam-column joint.

3 EFFECT OF SHEAR DEFORMATION OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS ON FRAME

LATERAL DRIFT
In order to evaluate the effect of the shear deformation of the beam-column joint on the
lateral drift of frames, we consider the sub-frame in Figure 4, which represents the behavior of
an internal beam-column joint (such as joint 2 in Figure 8). The lateral drift (horizontal
displacement)  is given by
 1 1 1  (3)
  HL2c   
 12 K c 12 K b S j 
 

where K c  EI c Lc ( Kb  EI b Lb ) is the column (beam) secant stiffness. For the rigid beam-
column joint ( S j   ) we get
 1 1  (4)
   lim   HL2c   
S j 
 12 Kc 12 Kb 
Therefore, when the joint shear deformation is neglected the error in the displacement
evaluation is
   (5)
 


Replacing expressions (3) e (4), this can be rewritten as

4
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa

Figure 5: Effect of joint shear deformation on sub-frame lateral drift for K b  const .

12 K b 1 (7)
(6)
 
S j 1 

where  is the beam-column stiffness ratio given by

K b EI L b
 
K c EI L c

Figure 5 depicts the variation of the error   with the stiffness ratio  , showing that, for
constant K b ,   is maximum when   0 , i.e.,
12 K b (8)
  . max  lim   
 0 Sj

Common frames can exhibit parameter  values rather close to zero. For instance, in the
first floor of unbraced frames, for which generally K c  K b , the values of  usually fall in
the interval 0, 0.5.

4 EFFECT OF SHEAR DEFORMATION OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS ON FRAME

CRITICAL LOAD
When the joint shear deformation is neglected the error in the critical load multiplier is
 cr .   cr (9)
 cr 
 cr

where  cr (  cr. ) is the critical load multiplier, with (without) joint shear deformation. The
errors  cr and   , given by (9) and (5), are approximately equal in virtue of the relation

5
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa

Figure 6: Effect of joint shear deformation on sub-frame critical load for K b  const .

 cr  (10)
 
 cr . 

which can be deduced from Horne’s method6 or from Eurocode 32 approximate expression for
the value of  cr associated to the sidesway buckling mode of a regular frame,
Vcr H Lc (11)
 cr  
V V

where H and V are design loads and the lateral drift  is computed for H and the joint secant
stiffness S j , which is usually smaller than the initial stiffness. This means that the
corresponding critical load is usually smaller than the standard elastic critical buckling load of
linear stability, since the joint shear behavior is nonlinear. Using the approximation (11) the
error  cr becomes
12 K b 1 (12)
 cr    
S j 1 

Figure 6 (which is, actually, a copy of Figure 5) showing the variation of error  cr with 
for constant K b , reveals that the most critical situation occurs for   0 , as expected, when  cr
reaches its maximum value, equal to that given by (8)
12 K b (13)
 cr. max  lim  cr 
 0 Sj

Even though we followed an approximate method, the last expression gives the exact
maximum error  cr. max , as can be concluded from the stability analysis of the sub-frame in
Figure 4 for an infinite column bending stiffness (i.e. for K c      0 ).

6
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa

5 EFFECT OF SHEAR DEFORMATION OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS ON FRAME

ULTIMATE LOAD
According to Merchant-Rankine method, the estimative of the ultimate load multiplier  ult is
1 1 1 (14)
 
 ult  pl  cr

where  pl and  cr are the plastic and the critical load multiplier, respectively. For rigid joints,
i.e. excluding the shear deformation, the ultimate load parameter is given by
1 1 1 (15)
 
 ult.  pl  cr .

Subtracting the two last expressions gives

1 1 1 1  ult  (16)
     cr
 ult  ult.  cr  cr.  ult  cr.

where the critical load error  cr is given by (9) and the ultimate load error  ult is defined by
 ult.   ult (17)
 ult 
 ult.

If we write the last equation in (16) as

 ult (18)
 ult   cr
 cr .

and introduce the approximation (12), we get  ult as a function of the joint secant stiffness S j ,
12 K b ult (19)
 ult 
S j 1    cr .

6 JOINT CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO JOINT STIFFNESS

If we adopt the criterion given by condition (2), which according to (17) is equivalent to
 ult  5% , and select ult.  1 , we get from expression (19) the stiffness value S j ,rb which
defines the classification boundary which separates nominally rigid and semi-rigid joints
228K b (20)
S j ,rb 
1    cr.
Figure 7 represents this boundary for constant K b , showing that for values of the critical
multiplier  cr slightly above 4, it can be safely replaced by the simpler
S j ,rb  50K b (21)

We conclude that a frame with beam-column joints whose secant stiffness is above this
limit satisfies criterion (2) of Eurocode 3 if  cr.  4 . Substituting the approximate value for

7
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa

Figure 7: Minimum required beam-column joint secant stiffness for K b  const .

I b1 I b2

joint 1 joint 2

Lb1 Lb2

Figure 8: Exterior and interior beam-column joints.

S j ,rb given by (21) in expressions (8) and (13) we get the maximum admissible errors for the
lateral drift   ,rb and the critical multiplier  cr, rb ,
  ,rb   cr ,rb  24% (22)

Notice that our sub-frame represents an interior joint of a frame, linking two beams with
equal stiffness, K b1  K b2 . Since, more often than not, K b1  K b2 , due, for instance, to different
length of the beams, see beam-column joint 2 in Figure 8, we can approximate
expression (22) by the more general
S j ,rb  25K b1  K b2  (23)

Finally, for an external joint, such as joint 1 in Figure 8, the approximate boundary becomes

8
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa

S j ,rb  25K b1 (24)

This expression is similar to the one in Eurocode 3 Part 1-87 for the classification of beam-
to-column steel connections. This convergence of results for steel and RC joints should not
come as a surprise, since the mechanics of joint panel deformation are not material dependent.
In the case of an interior joint, expression (23) would correspond in Eurocode 3 to the
minimum value of the sum of the stiffness of the two beam-to-column steel connections, at
both sides of the column, required to classify them as rigid. Notice that the classification
boundary for beam-to-column connections in unbraced frames in section 5.2.2.5 of
Eurocode 3, Part 1-87 employs the initial joint stiffness, while, according to expressions (23)
and (24), the classification boundary for joints proposed in the present document uses a secant
stiffness. Moreover, Eurocode 3 imposes the condition
Kb Kc  0.1 (25)

in every storey, where K b is the mean value of I b Lb for all the beams at the top of that
storey and K c is the mean value of I c Lc for all the columns in that storey. In the present
analysis the additional condition (25), which can be roughly translated by   0.1 , is not
required. On the other hand, expressions (23) and (24) should be restricted to those frames
which satisfy the condition
 cr.  4 (26)

The value of  cr. can be estimated by simplified methods, such as expression (11).

7 CONCLUSIONS
Assuming shear deformation as the main source of joint deformation, a beam-column joint
of an unbraced reinforced concrete frame can be classified as rigid if its secant stiffness,
associated to the relationship between moment M and shear deformation  at the joint,
satisfies conditions (24) or (23):
 S j  25K b1 , for an exterior beam-column joint, see joint 1 in Figure 8,
 S j  25K b1  K b2  , for an interior beam-column joint, see joint 2 in Figure 8.
where Kb1  EI b1 Lb1 and Kb2  EI b2 Lb2 are the secant stiffness of the beams connected to the
joint. This criterion should be applied only if the frame critical load multiplier, assuming rigid
joints, satisfies condition
 cr.  4.

The conditions above only offer a means to classify RC joints with respect to their
stiffness. In practical terms, this paper confirms that, when the magnitude of joint shear
deformation is large1,8, this deformation should not be disregarded in the analysis of RC
moment resisting frames. More specifically, it is clearly shown how the frame’s load carrying
capacity decreases with the joint shear flexibility. This means that an unchecked assumption
of rigid joints can be unsafe. This leads to classify joints according to their stiffness, just like

9
 Fernando C.T. Gomes, Paulo Providência and Ricardo Costa

steel joints are classified in Eurocode 3. But the evaluation of the joint stiffness of a
specifically designed and detailed RC joint is far beyond the scope of this paper. Until that
type of information becomes available in a systematic fashion, the designer can go the other
way around – i.e. he can include in the frame model deformable joints, whose deformation
properties should be based on the few laboratorial results already published8 or, possibly, in
the analytical models developed for seismic envelope9.

REFERENCES
[1] R. Costa, P. Providência and A. Dias, “Influence of beam-column joint deformation on
the behaviour of reinforced concrete frames”, Proc. CoRAN 2011 – International
Conference on Recent Advances in Nonlinear Models, Structural Concrete Applications,
Coimbra, Portugal (2011).
[2] EN 1993-1-1: 2005, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels (2005).
[3] EN 1992-1-1: 2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels (2004).
[4] F.A. Charney and W.M. Downs, “Modeling Procedures For Panel Zone Deformations in
Moment Resisting Frames”, Proc., Connections is Steel Structures V: Innovative Steel
Connections, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2004).
[5] ENV 1993-1-1: 1992, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels (1992).
[6] M.R. Horne, “An approximate method for calculating the elastic critical loads of multi-
storey plane frames”, The Structural Engineer, 53:6, 242-248 (1975).
[7] EN 1993-1-8: 2005, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-8: Design of joints,
CEN, Brussels (2005).
[8] K.F. Sarsam and M.E. Phipps, "The shear design of in situ reinforced-concrete beam-
column joints subjected to monotonic loading", Magazine of Concrete Research, 37(130),
16-28 (1985).
[9] J. M. LaFave, and J. Kim, "Joint shear behavior prediction for rc beam-column
connections." International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 5(1), 57-64
(2011).

10

View publication stats