A Parametric Study of R.C.

Slab in Beam-Column Connection under Cyclic Loading

Saddam M. Ahmed1, Umarani Gunasekaran2

1

Ph.D. Research Scholar, Chennai, India

Associate Professor, Anna University,

Gregory A. MacRae3
3

2012 NZSEE Conference

Associate Professor, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

ABSTRACT: The slab effect on the beam flexural strength at the beam ends in buildings subjected to lateral loading, such as earthquake, is not fully understood and therefore it is not explicitly addressed in some of the design codes. As a result, designers often ignore the contribution of floor slabs to the lateral load resistance, or include it in a very approximate way. A simple and rational model to assess the slab contribution to beam strength for analysis and design has recently been developed for analysis and design. The model considers the effect of beam growth, bending effects and also the slab effect. General expressions developed for the strength and stiffness contributions of the slab element depend on the reinforcement spacing, yield strength, and area, as well as the span length. In the present paper, the experimental results of four identical half-scaled beamcolumn joints are described. One is without a slab and remaining three have slabs of varied thickness and area of reinforcement. The slab-beam-column joints were tested under static displacement controlled cyclic loading and the experimental results are compared with the analytical results. It was found that the model is capable of capturing the key aspects of the experimental inelastic response of the beam-column connections very well. 1 INTRODUCTION A large number of tests have been conducted on beam-column-slab subassemblies considering the effects of slab reinforcement and transverse beams for both slab-in-compression and slab-in-tension cases. Durrani and Zerbe (1987, 1989) conducted a series of experiments on beam-column joints (interior and exterior) including slabs, and transverse beams on a sub-assembly. The work indicates that the columns do move apart during the lateral displacements, and that the slabs increase the frame strength. The outward movement of columns is referred to as beam-growth. Cheung et al. (1987) tested an approximately full-size beam-column-slab joint subassembly in a oneway reinforced concrete frame. The assembly was designed as per New Zealand standards. The joint zones were stronger than the adjoining members. It was observed that the strength enhancement of the beam in a beam-column-joint occurred due to the participation of the concrete slab in tension. A flange mechanism was postulated to describe this phenomenon. Spieth et al. (2004) used multi-spring elements to model the rocking of beams in precast connections. Kim, Stanton and MacRae (2002, and 2004) developed a joint model to consider gap opening in reinforced concrete or precast-concrete systems as shown in Figure 1. Fenwick et al. (2006) emphasized the fact that the presence of a floor diaphragms increase the beam strength and this may lead to a column mechanism. Umarani and MacRae (2007) and Ahmed et al. (2012) developed a relatively simple concept to consider the slab effects which can be used with either the gap opening, or non gap opening, beam elements. The model, which contains one extra strut element to consider slab effects, is shown Figure 2. The slab element models the portion of the slab which goes around the outside of the column, which is most dependent on slab parameters and crack patterns of the test specimen of Cheung et al. (1987).

Paper Number 058

Expressions to better approximate the experimental behaviour were developed were developed by Ahmed et al. (2012). In this paper four half-scale interior reinforced concrete beam-column joint reversed cyclic loading experimental tests were conducted for further verification of the ability of the model. The specimens were of three-dimensional and consisted of one column and two beams.

Figure 1: Kims beam-column joint model

Figure 2: Model Including Slab Effects

2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Fig. 1 Kims beam-column joint model [5] Fig. Kims beam-column joint seismic regions In the design of traditional reinforced, or precast, concrete1moment-frame structures inmodel [5] it is necessary to appropriately consider the effect of slabs on the beam capacities. These slabs can increase the beam strength and the demands that the beams impart to the columns. Also, particularly in reinforced concrete (RC) moment frames, the slab may be damaged as the columns tend to move apart during large lateral deformations. In many building codes, slab effects are not explicitly included in the design. However, some modern building codes around the world, such as the ACI code (2008) and the NZ concrete code (2005) state that beam flexural strength should be determined by considering the slab reinforcement within an effective flange width in addition to beam longitudinal tension reinforcement within the web. While this can be done by increasing the effect of the beam on one side of the joint, the actual equilibrium effects, including the possibility of yielding of the slab steel and fact that the flexural strength from the slab goes around the column, rather than directly into the column, as well as the cyclic effects on the behaviour, is not easily considered. The effect of the slab going around the column and pulling on the column is shown in Figure 3. This figure shows the additional forces on the column from the slab going around the column alone. These forces are in addition to the forces of the 2-D frame effect without a slab going around the column. If there were no slab, then the additional moment resistance and lateral force resistance is zero. Compression at the top of the beam on the right side of the column, as shown in Figure 3a, occurs because of the continuity of the slab around the joint. This is the same concept as that of a farmer using for climbing palm tree with his rope wrapped around to the far side of a tree as shown in Figure 3b. If the slab effect is ignored, the demands on the joint and the lateral force capacity will be underestimated. While research has been conducted considering these effects, many of the models are so complex and cannot be considered in design or evaluation. Other simpler models have been proposed, but these do not currently represent the full hysteretic behaviour of a joint well and methods for calibrating the slab effect are not readily available. There is therefore a need for a simple model which captures the behaviour of the slab and still represents the experimental hysteretic behaviour well.

(a) Subassembly

(b) Climbing Palm Tree Idealization

Figure 3: Additional forces on column due to slab

3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 3.1 Specimens Description The specimens were designed and detailed according to typical older construction practices, meeting the requirements of older building codes (ACI318-63, 1963, NZS95:1955, 1955,). Geometry and reinforcement details of the test units are shown in Figure 4. All the test units had 275mm x 300mm columns and 275mm deep x 200mm wide beams, with different slab parameters as given in Table 1. The average values of yield and ultimate strength for the longitudinal and stirrup reinforcements are given in Table 2. The values of concrete compressive strength at 28 and at the day of testing are listed in Table 3.

Figure 4: Reinforcement details of the units

Table 1: Slab thickness and reinforcement details of test units

Unit description Slab thickness (mm) Reinforcement SBCJ-1 No slab SBCJ-2 50 6@250mm c/c SBCJ-3 63 6@200mm c/c SBCJ-4 50 6@165mm c/c

Table 2: Yield and ultimate strength of reinforcement steel bars

Ave Actual area (mm2) Max. Strain elongation Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa)

6 8 10 12

34.889 52.645 79.201 112.345

23.0% 18.0% 19.1% 10.9%

469.28 459.03 451.08 477.19

604.33 578.39 539.14 603.19

Table 3: Concrete compressive strength

Unit description 28-days (MPa) At testing day (MPa) SBCJ-1 fc' 44.89 50.55 fcu 53.67 60.82 SBCJ-2 fc' 39.02 45.91 fcu 44.82 55.26 SBCJ-3 fc' 37.06 44.83 fcu 43.93 54.54 SBCJ-4 fc' 38.38 45.77 fcu 43.33 56.02

3.2 Test Setup: Details of the test units, as constructed, with the loading profile are shown in Figure 5. Beam and column elements were loaded at pins at locations corresponding to the points of inflection in an actual building. These points were assumed to be at the beam mid-span and column mid-height. Arrangements were made at the beam ends so that actuators could apply equal and opposite displacements at the same time. The top end of the column was restrained by a horizontal strut and axial load was applied on a steel cap there to represent the loadings from storeys above.

Slab thickness as given in Table 1

Axial load

Vc

P1

P2 Vc
Reaction

Figure 5: General arrangement of test specimen 4

4. ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF SLAB EFFECT The beamcolumn joint was modelled using frame element, multi-spring element and spring elements using RUAUMOKO (Carr 2004). The schematic representation of the model is as depicted in Figure 2. It is similar to that of Umarani et al. (2007) with the calibrated slab element. However, it differs in the following aspects. The compressive strength equations of confined concrete by Priestley (1996), rather than by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) were used. A simple Clough loop was used for the reinforcing bar axial tension-compression characteristics as this better represents the subassembly push-pull behaviour than a bilinear loop. Such an approximation may be reasonable for a high level consultant evaluating a structure. For comparison, two models were developed, one including beam growth and the slab effect (IBGS) and other one including beam growth without the slab effect (IBG). The analytical results obtained are also compared with the experimental results in Figures 6, 7 and 8. 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS All specimens performed in a ductile manner with plastic hinge formed at the beam end near the column face, while fine cracks in the column over the whole height were present. This indicated that the column remained essentially elastic. The desired strong column-weak beam behaviour of the ductile frame was therefore achieved in this test. Minor cracks observed at the beam-column intersection zone were seen in all specimens. During testing, slab cracks were observed to open and close at drift ratios up to 1.5% for all specimens with slab. After this, the slab started to yield and 45o cracks were observed at 2.0% drift for all specimens with a slab and the width of these cracks gradually increased until the tests ended. The bottom bars of the beam yielded first under loading cycle of 2% drift for all specimens. A drift greater than 3% was required for yielding of the beam top bare due to the floor slab as well as the extra main reinforcement at the top. Concrete crushing and spalling were noted in the plastic hinge regions and the 4-10 bars in the bottom of the left beam were exposed first, and then for the right beam for all specimens. In the beam column intersection zone, diagonal cracks formed generally at an angle close to 450. The joint cracks opened and closed on load reversals and the cover concrete remained intact until the end of the test. Between these diagonal cracks, diagonal concrete struts were mobilized to act as load paths within the panel zone. Figure 6 shows the hysteretic curve of column shear vs. drift ratio for all specimens. Figures 7 and 8 show envelope curves of beam load vs. displacement and column shear vs. displacement respectively. Based on these figures, comparison between the strength of the beam for each specimens as well as the different slab effect as compared to SBCJ-1, specimen without slab is made. It was found that the presence of slab increased the beam strength on average by 17.7%, 16.7% and 19.5% for the specimens SBCJ-2, SBCJ-3, and SBCJ-4 respectively in the positive direction of loading (slab in compression), while a more significant increase in slab strength occurred in the negative direction (slab in tension) and the average values observed were 52.8%, 67.1%, and 67.4% for the specimens SBCJ-2, SBCJ-3 and SBCJ-4, respectively. Moreover, there was increase in column shear resistance of 35.3%, 41.9%, and 43.5% for both directions of loading for specimens SBCJ-2, SBCJ-3 and SBCJ4, respectively due to increase of beam strength in tension and compression. These values are approximately the average values of beam strength increase in the different directions of loading. The corresponding average increase in strength from the analytical model was 42.7%, 49.5% and 56.1% for specimens SBCJ-2, SBCJ-3 and SBCJ-4 for the beam with the slab in tension and 30.2% 36.6% and 43.0% for the column shear. Since these values are similar, and the shapes of the loops are similar, it indicates that the analytical model predicts the behaviour well. It should be noted though that the analytical model does not reflect the change in stiffness well. This is because the flexural stiffness of the beam away from the joint was not modified to consider the slab effect in the analyses undertaken. The plastic hinges at the beam ends and the cracking at the beam column intersection zone is shown in Figure 9. 5

Column Shear Vc (kN)

Column Drift Ratio (%)

Column Shear Vc (kN)

Column Drift Ratio (%)

Column Shear Vc (kN)

Column Drift Ratio (%)

Column Shear Vc (kN)

Column Drift Ratio (%)

Column Shear Vc (kN)

Column Drift Ratio (%)

Column Shear Vc (kN)

Column Drift Ratio (%)

Column Shear Vc (kN)

Column Drift Ratio (%)

Column Shear Vc (kN)

Column Drift Ratio (%)

(a)

(b)

Figure 6: Hysteretic curves of column shear vs. drift ratio for all specimens (a) Experimental; (b) Analytical

Beam load P1 (kN)

Beam load P1 (kN)

Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

(a) Experimentally

(b) Analytically

Figure 7: Envelope curves of beam load vs. displacement

Column shear Vc (kN)

Column shear Vc (kN)

Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

(a) Experimentally

(b) Analytically

Figure 8: Envelope curves of column shear vs. displacement

Figure 9: Crack patterns in the beam-column intersection zone and slab

6. CONCLUSIONS This paper investigates the behaviour of slabs on reinforced concrete beam-column subassemblies subject to inelastic cyclic displacements such as those which may occur during an earthquake. Following conclusions have been drawn from this study: A simple model of a slab-beam-column joint subassembly was described. This model considers beam growth effects, provides a reasonably good estimate of the hysteresis loop shape, and the major slab effect can be clearly understood. The analytical model strengths compared well with that from experimental tests. And the strength value of experimental to analytical was close to one and the hysteretic loops were of similar shape. This indicates that the model developed is suitable for dynamic analysis of frames. The experimental result showed that there would be increase in beam stiffness when the slab was in tension. This was different from the behavior seen from the analytical model because the flexural stiffening effect of the slab along the beam length was not included in the analytical model used here. Study indicates that the slab increases beam resistance in tension and compression, this means that the column strength is increased between 35% and 45% in both directions of loading in average, therefore, the slab has a beneficial effect in providing a greater strength for the beam as well as the column and this can lead to a lower beam sizes for the same strength. This can be used to advantage in seismic design. However, the increased beam strength resulting from the slab effect causes greater demands on the column. These have to be considered if column non-linear behavior is to be avoided.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to express gratitude to the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, India (AICTE) for providing funding for this project, and to the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MOHEIRAQ) and University of Mosul for their financial support of the doctoral studies of the first author.

REFERENCES
ACI318-63, 1963. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. Detroit: American Concrete Institute. Ahmed, S. M., Umarani, C. and MacRae, G. A. 2012. A Parametric Study of the Reinforced Concrete Slab Subjected to Dynamic Excitation, Journal of Applied Mechanics and Materials, Volume 147: 277-278. Ahmed, S. M., Umarani, C. and MacRae, G. A. 2011. Effect of Slab and Transverse Beam on R.C. Beam Column Joint, International Conference on Earthquake Analysis and Design of Structures (EQADS 2011), December 1-3, 2011, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India. Carr, A.J. 2004. Ruaumoko 2D: User Manual, Computer Program Library, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Cheung, P., Paulay, T., and Park. R. 1987. A Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joint of a Prototype One-Way Frame with Floor Slab Designed for Earthquake Resistance. Research Report, 87-6, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Durrani, A. J. and Zerbe, E.Z, 1987. Seismic Resistance of R/C Exterior Connections with Floor Slabs. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 113(8): 1850-1864. Fenwick, R., Bull, D.K., Macpherson, C. and Lindsay, R. 2006. The Influence of Diaphragms on Strength of Beams. 2006-NZSEE Conference. Paper No. 21. Kim, J. 2002. Behaviour of Hybrid Frames under Seismic Loading. Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Washington. Kim, J., Stanton J., and MacRae, G. A. 2004. Effect of Beam Growth on Reinforced Concrete Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, 130(9): 1333-1342. Klemencic, R, Fry, J. A., Hurtado, G., and Moehle, J. P. 2006. Performance of Post-Tensioned Slab Core Wall Connections. PTI Journal, 4(2), pp. 7-23.

NZS95:1955. New Zealand Standard - Model Building By-Laws: Part IV and V. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Standard Institute. Park, R. and Pauley, T. 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Priestley, M. J. N. and MacRae G. A. 1996. Seismic Tests of Precast Beam-to-Column Joint Subassemblages with Unbounded Tendons. PCI Journal: 64-80. Saatcioglu, M. and Razvi, S.R. 1992. Strength and Ductility of Confined Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(6): 1590-1607. Spieth, H.A., Carr, A.J. Murahidy, A.G., Arnold, D., Davies, M., and Mander, J.B. 2004. Modelling of PostTensioned Precast Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures with Rocking Beam-Column Connections. 2004NZSEE Conference. Paper No. 32. Umarani, C., and MacRae, G.A. 2007. A New Concept for Consideration of Slab Effects on Building Seismic Performance. Journal of Structural Engineering, SERC, Vol. 34, No.1, pp. 25-32. Zerbe, H. E., and Durrani, A. J. 1989. Seismic Response of Connections in Two-Bay Reinforced Concrete Frame Subassemblies. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 115(11): 2829-2844.