Beam-Column Connections

Jack Moehle
University of California, Berkeley

with contributions from

Dawn Lehman and Laura Lowes
University of Washington, Seattle
Outline
design of new joints
existing joint details
failure of existing joints in earthquakes
general response characteristics
importance of including joint deformations
stiffness
strength
deformation capacity
axial failure
 Special Moment-Resisting Frames
- Design intent -
Vcol For seismic design,
beam yielding
defines demands

w
Mpr Mpr Mpr
lc Beam
Vp Vp
lnb
Vp

Mpr
Vcol Beam Section
 Vcol

Joint demands Ts1 =

C2 = Ts2
1.25Asfy

Vb1 Vb2

C1 = Ts2
Ts2 =
1.25Asfy
Vcol
(b) internal stress resultants
acting on joint
Vcol

(a) moments, shears, axial Ts1 C2

loads acting on joint

Vu =Vj = Ts1 + C1 - Vcol

(c) joint shear
 Joint geometry
(ACI Committee 352)

a) Interior b) Exterior c) Corner

A.1 A.2 A.3

d) Roof e) Roof f) Roof

Interior B.1 Exterior B.2 Corner B.3

ACI 352
 Joint shear strength
- code-conforming joints -

Vu  Vn   '
f bjh
c

 = 0.85
Values of  (ACI 352)
Classification interior exterior corner
/type
cont. column 20 15 12

Roof 15 12 8

ACI 352
 Joint Details - Interior

hcol  20db

ACI 352
 Joint Details - Corner
 ldh

ACI 352
Code-conforming joints
Older-type beam-column connections
 Survey of existing buildings
 

Mosier
Joint failures
 Studies of older-type joints

Lehman
 Damage progression
interior connections

80
Measurable Spalling of
Concrete Cover Longitudinal
residual cracks
Yield of Beam Column Bar
60 Exposed
Longitudinal
Reinforcement
40
Column Shear (K)

20

0
20% Reduction
in Envelope
-20

-40

-60

-80
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Drift %
Lehman
 Effect of load history
interior connections

Impulsive loading history

Envelope for standard

cyclic history
Column Shear (k)

Column Bar

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Story Drift

Lehman
 Damage at 5% drift
Standard Loading Impulsive Loading

Lehman
 Contributions to drift
interior connections

“Joints shall be modeled

as either stiff or rigid
Specimen CD15-14 components.” (FEMA 356)

Lehman
 Evaluation of FEMA-356 Model
interior connections
18
16
Joint Shear Factor

14
12
10
FEMA
8 PEER-14
CD15-14
6
CD30-14
4 PADH-14
PEER-22
2 CD30-22
PADH-22
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

Joint Shear Strain

Lehman
Joint panel deformations

Joint Deformation
 Joint shear stiffness
interior connections

Gc Gc /5 Gc /8
Joint shear stress (MPa)

12
20 f c' , psi
10
8
6 20 f c' , psi 10 f c' , psi
4
2
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Joint shear strain

Lehman
 Joint strength
effect of beam yielding

1600
Joint Stress (psi)

1200
Yield

800

400
Yield
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
• Joint strength closely linked to beam flexural strength
• Plastic deformation capacity higher for lower joint shear
Lehman
 Joint strength
interior connections - lower/upper bounds
Joint failure without
0.4 yielding near
25.5√f’c
0.3

Failure forced into

Joint
0.2 beams between
v /f
j c
’ Shear
8.5√f’c and 11√f’c
Failure

0.1
Beam Hinging/
Beam Bar Slip
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60


Lehman
 Joint strength
interior connections

3500

3000
Joint Stress (psi)

Joint Failures
2500

2000

1500

1000
10 f c' , psi
500
Beam Failures
0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000

Concrete Strength (psi)

Lehman
Joint deformability

1600
Joint Stress (psi)

1200 plastic drift capacity

vmax
800

envelope 0.2vmax
400

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)
Plastic drift capacity
interior connections

v jo int
, psi 30
f c' 25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

plastic drift angle

Note: the plastic drift angle includes inelastic deformations of the beams
 Damage progression
exterior connections

Pantelides, 2002
Joint behavior
exterior connections

15
v jo int 2 Clyde
, psi 6 Clyde
f c' 10 4 Clyde
5 Clyde
5 Pantelides
6 Pantelides
5 6 Hakuto
Priestley longitudinal
Priestley transverse
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bidirectional
loading
Drift, %
Plastic drift capacity

v jo int
, psi 30 Interior
'
f c 25 Exterior
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

plastic drift angle

Note: the plastic drift angle includes inelastic deformations of the beams
Exterior joint
hook detail

hook bent into joint

hook bent out of joint

 Interior joints with
discontinuous bars

40
Column
shear, 30
kips

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Beres, 1992
Drift ratio, %
Unreinforced Joint Strength
FEMA 356 specifies the following:

Vj   f c' bh • No new data. Probably still valid.

joint
geometry
 • Assuming bars are anchored in
joint, strength limited by strength of
4 framing members, with upper-
bound of   15. For 15 ≥  ≥ 4,
joint failure may occur after inelastic
6
response. For  ≤ 4, joint unlikely to
fail.
8
• Assuming bars are anchored in
joint, strength limited by strength of
10 framing members, with upper
bound of   25. For 25 ≥  ≥ 8,
joint failure may occur after inelastic
12 response. For  ≤ 8, joint unlikely to
fail.
Joint failure?

y
cr

cr

y
 cr  6 f c
'
1 , psi
'
6 f c
 Joint failure?

Lateral Deflection, mm
Lateral Load

Drift at “tensile failure”

Drift at “lateral failure”
Priestley, 1994 Drift at “axial failure”
Joint test summary
axial failures identified
Tests with axial load failure
0.1

v j  f c'
}
0.08

0.10 - 0.18
0.03 - 0.07

0.20 - 0.22
Drift ratio

Range of  values

0.36
0.06
Interior
0.04 Exterior, hooks bent in
Exterior, hooks bent out
0.02 Corner

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial load ratio
Suggested envelope relation
interior connections with continuous beam bars

stiffness based on effective

0.015 stiffness to yield
v jo int 25
, psi strength = beam strength
'
f c 20 but not to exceed 25 f c' , psi

15

10
8
5

0
0.04 0.02

Note: the plastic drift angle includes inelastic deformations of the beams
Suggested envelope relation
exterior connections with hooked beam bars

stiffness based on effective

v jo int stiffness to yield
25
, psi
f c' 20 strength = beam strength
'
0.010 but not to exceed 12 f c , psi
15
connections with demand less
10 '
than 4 f c have beam-yield
5 mechanisms and do not follow
this model
0
0.02 0.01
axial-load stability unknown,
especially under high axial loads

Note: the plastic drift angle includes inelastic deformations of the beams
Joint panel deformations

Joint Deformation
 Methods of Repair (MOR)
Method of Damage
Activities
Repair States
0. Cosmetic Replace and repair finishes 0-2
Repair
1. Epoxy Injection Inject cracks with epoxy and 3-5
replace finishes

2. Patching Patch spalled concrete, epoxy 6-8

inject cracks and replace
finishes
3. Replace Remove and replace damaged 9-11
concrete concrete, replace finishes

4. Replace joint Replace damaged reinforcing 12

steel, remove and replace
Pagni
concrete, and replace finishes
Interior joint fragility relations
1
0.9
Probability of Requiring a MOR

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 Cosmetic
Cosmeticrepair
repair
MOR 0 injection
Epoxy
Epoxy injection
0.3 MOR 1
Patching
Patching
MOR 2
0.2 Replace concrete
MOR 3
Replace concrete
0.1 MOR 4
Replace
Replace joint
joint
0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Drift (%)
Beam-Column Connections

Jack Moehle
University of California, Berkeley

with contributions from

Dawn Lehman and Laura Lowes
University of Washington, Seattle
References
• Clyde, C., C. Pantelides, and L. Reaveley (2000), “Performance-based evaluation of exterior reinforced
concrete building joints for seismic excitation,” Report No. PEER-2000/05, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 61 pp.
• Pantelides, C., J. Hansen, J. Nadauld, L Reaveley (2002, “Assessment of reinforced concrete building
exterior joints with substandard details,” Report No. PEER-2002/18, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 103 pp.
• Park, R. (2002), "A Summary of Results of Simulated Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joints, Beams and Columns with Substandard Reinforcing Details, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 147-174.
• Priestley, M., and G. Hart (1994), “Seismic Behavior of “As-Built” and “As-Designed” Corner Joints,”
SEQAD Report to Hart Consultant Group, Report #94-09, 93 pp. plus appendices.
• Walker, S., C. Yeargin, D. Lehman, and J. Stanton (2002), “Influence of Joint Shear Stress Demand and
Displacement History on the Seismic Performance of Beam-Column Joints,” Proceedings, The Third US-
Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete
Building Structures, Seattle, USA, 16-18 August 2001, Report No. PEER-2002/02, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, pp. 349-362.
• Hakuto, S., R. Park, and H. Tanaka, “Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-Column Joints
with Substandard Reinforcing Details,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 11-25.
• Beres, A., R.White, and P. Gergely, “Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures with
Nonductile Details: Part I – Summary of Experimental Findings of Full Scale Beam-Column Joint Tests,”
Report NCEER-92-0024, NCEER, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1992.
• Pessiki, S., C. Conley, P. Gergely, and R. White, “Seismic Behavior of Lightly-Reinforced Concrete
Column and Beam Column Joint Details,” Report NCEER-90-0014, NCEER, State University of New
York at Buffalo, 1990.
• ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic
Reinforced Concrete Structures,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, 2002.
References (continued)
• D. Lehman, University of Washington, personal communication, based on the following resources:
Fragility functions:
•Pagni, C.A. and L.N. Lowes (2006). “Empirical Models for Predicting Earthquake Damage and Repair
Requirements for Older Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints.” Earthquake Spectra. In press.
 Joint element:
•Lowes, L.N. and A. Altoontash. “Modeling the Response of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Joints.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. 129(12) (2003):1686-1697.
•Mitra, N. and L.N. Lowes. “Evaluation, Calibration and Verification of a Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joint Model.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. Submitted July 2005.
•Anderson, M.R. (2003). “Analytical Modeling of Existing Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints”
MSCE thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 308 p.
Analyses using joint model:
•Theiss, A.G. “Modeling the Response of Older Reinforced Concrete Building Joints.” M.S. Thesis.
Seattle: University of Washington (2005): 209 p.
Experimental Research
•Walker, S.*, Yeargin, C.*, Lehman, D.E., and Stanton, J. Seismic Performance of Non-Ductile
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, accepted
for publication.
•Walker, S.G. (2001). “Seismic Performance of Existing Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints”.
MSCE Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 308 p.
•Alire, D.A. (2002). "Seismic Evaluation of Existing Unconfined Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Joints", MSCE thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 250 p.
•Infrastructure Review
•Mosier, G. (2000). “Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints”. MSCE
thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 218 p.