Saman Abdullah-Thesis-2013 FINAL

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305653687
EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF NON-PLANAR

WALL-TO-BEAM CONNECTIONS UNDER CYCLIC
LOADING
Thesis January 2013
CITATIONS READS
0 17
1 author:
Saman Abdullah
University of California, Los Angeles
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Evaluation the Impact of Boundary Element Detailing On Flexure-Controlled Structural Walls

Deformation Capacity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Saman Abdullah on 26 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF NON-PLANAR WALL-TO-BEAM
CONNECTIONS UNDER CYCLIC LOADING
____________________________________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State University, Fullerton

____________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
In
Civil Engineering
____________________________________
By
Saman A. Abdullah
Approved by:
Dr. David Naish, Committee Chair Date

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Dr. Uksun Kim, Member Date

Dr. Pratanu Ghosh, Member Date

Dr. Nagi Abo-Shadi, Visiting Examiner Date

President, Structural Engineering Center, Inc.
Dr. Pinaki Chakrabarti, Visiting Examiner Date

ABSTRACT
Connections between gravity framing (non-participating in resisting seismic
forces) and the lateral force-resisting system need to be considered in building design.
Studies of seismic behavior of the non-planar wall-to-beam joints are limited in literature.
Furthermore, ACI 318 provisions with regard to seismic detailing of these joints are
incomprehensive. The common practice is to provide a concealed column and/or a
concealed beam where a gravity beam frames into the web of a structural wall. This
research has a twofold objective. First, it is meant to assess the performance of these
joints. Second, it will assess the impact of concealed columns on the overall performance
of these joint. To accomplish these objectives, three half-scale reinforced concrete
interior beam-wall joint specimens were tested under quasi-static cyclic loading. All test
specimens had the same level of axial load, 0.2Ag fc. The walls were designed to satisfy
ACI 318 seismic provisions for structural walls loaded in the in-plane direction. The
beams were designed as gravity members based on ACI 318-11 provisions. Test results
show that failure in the form of punching or a combination of punching and flexure in the
wall web is likely which could lead to a brittle behavior. Joint shear failure is unlikely.
Due to the relative flexibility of the wall web and bar slip within the wall web, energy
dissipation capacity is limited. Due to lack of anchorage within the wall web, slip cracks
are likely to form at the beam-to-wall interface. The test results also indicate that the
ii
concealed column approximately doubled the plastic capacity of the specimens but did
not appreciably affect the initial stiffness. Furthermore, the specimens with concealed
columns exhibited a modest improvement in lateral strength and energy dissipation
capacity.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. xi
Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
General ................................................................................................................................ 1
Research Objective and Scope ............................................................................................ 3
Review of Previous Research ............................................................................................. 4
Organization of Thesis ........................................................................................................ 5
2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ........................................................................ 7
General ................................................................................................................................ 7
Design of Test Specimens ................................................................................................... 7
Description of Test Specimens ........................................................................................... 8
Materials ........................................................................................................................... 16
Concrete .................................................................................................... 16
Reinforcing Bars ....................................................................................... 16
Strand ........................................................................................................ 17
Fabrication of Test Specimens .......................................................................................... 18
Test Setup.......................................................................................................................... 20
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 24
3. ASSESSMENT OF THEORETICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................. 27
General .............................................................................................................................. 27
Nominal Flexural Strength ................................................................................................ 27
Nominal Joint Shear Strength ........................................................................................... 33
iv
Demand Joint Shear Stress................................................................................................ 39
4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.................................................................................... 44
General .............................................................................................................................. 44
Specimen WB1 ......................................................................................... 46
Specimen WB2 ......................................................................................... 51
Specimen WB3 ......................................................................................... 57
5. DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ..................................................... 64
General .............................................................................................................................. 64
Global Behavior ........................................................................................ 65
Cracking Patterns ...................................................................................... 71
Energy Dissipation .................................................................................... 71
Beam and Wall Behavior .......................................................................... 72
Joint Shear Strength .................................................................................. 73
Bond Condition of Beam Longitudinal Bars ............................................ 74
6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 76
APPENDIX A: WALL DESIGN...................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX B: STRAIN GAGES .................................Error! Bookmark not defined.86
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 88
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Test Specimen Reinforcement Details ..................................................................... 15
2. Concrete Properties .................................................................................................. 16
3. Steel Properties ........................................................................................................ 17
4. Calculated Design Parameters ................................................................................. 33
5. Predicted Joint Shear Strength ................................................................................. 39
6. Test Results .............................................................................................................. 46
7. Average Crack Width [in.] ....................................................................................... 46
8. Joint Shear Stress Coefficients, ............................................................................. 74
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. A floor plan showing beams framing into shear walls. ............................................. 2
2. Typical framing detail for concealed column. ........................................................... 3
3. Typical test specimen subassembly : WB1, WB2, and WB3. ................................... 9
4. Beam Cross Section (A-A) and Reinforcement: WB1, WB2, and WB3................. 10
5. Wall sectional reinforcement for WB1. ................................................................... 12
8. Distribution of plastic tubes for strands. .................................................................. 18
9. Placement of reinforcement. .................................................................................... 19
10. Casting of concrete. ................................................................................................. 19
11. Constructed test specimens: WB1, WB2, and WB3. ............................................... 20
12. Test setup: Plan view. .............................................................................................. 22
13. Test setup: Elevation view. ...................................................................................... 23
14. Typical loading history. ........................................................................................... 24
15. Strain gage distribution in the wall. ......................................................................... 25
16. Typical strain gage distribution in beams (only beam reinforcement is shown). .... 25
17. Schematic illustration of string potentiometers and load cell. ................................. 26
vii
18. Stress-strain model for monotonic loading of confined and unconfined concrete in
compression (Mander et al., 1988b). ....................................................................... 28
19. Compression strength determination from lateral confining stresses for rectangular
sections (Mander et al., 1988b). ............................................................................... 30
20. Confinement layout of the wall sections. ................................................................. 32
21. Measured relationship between joint horizontal shear stress Vn and concrete
compressive strength, f'c (Hakuto et al., 2000). ....................................................... 36
22. Actions and failure mechanism of a beam-column joint (Wang et al., 2012). ........ 37
23. External and internal forces acting on the joint (Park and Tanaka, 2000; Paulay and
Priestley, 1992). ....................................................................................................... 40
24. Effective joint area (ACI 318-11). ........................................................................... 41
25. Assumptions of effective joint area (Paulay and Priestley, 1992). .......................... 42
26. Explanation of effective joint area. .......................................................................... 45
27. Cyclic wall load versus displacement response for WB1. ....................................... 47
28. Observed development of cracking patterns of specimen WB1. ............................. 49
29. Punching of the beam through the wall web of WB1 specimen. ............................. 50
30. Observed cracking and damage in specimen BW1 at second loading cycle of 6%
drift ratio. ................................................................................................................. 51
33. Observed damage on the second face of the wall during the last cycle of 5% drift. 55
34. Observed cracking and damage in specimen BW2 at second loading cycle of 6%
drift ratio. ................................................................................................................. 56
viii
37. Observed cracking and damage in WB3 at the end of second loading cycle of 4%
drift ratio. ................................................................................................................. 61
38. Observed cracking and damage in specimen BW3 at the end of second loading
cycle of 6% drift ratio. ............................................................................................. 62
39. Derivation of linearized backbone curve form actual backbone envelope: WB1
specimen. ................................................................................................................. 66
specimen. ................................................................................................................. 67
specimen. ................................................................................................................. 68
42. Comparison of linearized backbone curves of WB1, WB2, and WB3. ................... 69
ix
To Mother and Father
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my profound gratitude to my advisor Dr. David Naish for
his supervision and constant support and encouragement of this research and other
graduate studies. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Nagi Abo-Shadi for his invaluable
knowledge, guidance, and assistance throughout this work. His help is greatly
appreciated. My special thanks go to Dr. Uksun Kim and Dr. Pratanu Ghosh who served
on the authors thesis committee for reviewing and offering helpful suggestions. My
sincere thanks go to Dr. Pinaki Chakrabarti, who served as visiting examiner, for his
valuable comments.
My endless gratitude is for Professor John Wallace at the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, UCLA, for being so helpful and allowing me to perform my
tests at their laboratory. I am also highly thankful for all the assistance I was given by
Steve Keowen, Senior Development Engineer at nees@UCLA. His outstanding
experience and guidance was vital in facilitating and conducting the experimental work. I
also need to thank Alberto Salamanca, Staff Research Associate at nees@UCLA, for his
extensive knowledge and expertise in setting up the data acquisition system. Without the
generosity of the aforementioned people, it would have almost been impossible to get this
project done.
xi
I wish to extend my gratitude to my dear friend, Hassanein Radhi, for his
everlasting friendship and unlimited help during the entire work. I would also like to
express my appreciation to my other friends: Ahmed Adhadh, Ehab Ballu, Mohammed
Kamil, and Haider Rkabi for their assistance in the construction work. Without their aid,
this research, of course, could not have been done. I am also thankful to undergraduate
student John Francis. Johns excellent construction experience was very useful and
essential in building and leveling the formwork.
I also need to pass my special thanks to John Woodland, manager of the Machine
Shop, for helping me in building the test setup and letting me use their backyard for
casting and storing the specimens.
More importantly, I would like to show my sincere love and gratitude towards my
parents for their consistent prayers and motivations. They are instrumental in all aspects
of my life. It is not possible to me to express in word how grateful I am for having them
in my life.
Of course, I am genuinely thankful to Endersons family for letting me being a
part of their wonderful family, especially Dan and Barbara whom I will always fondly
remember. Knowing them is one of the best privileges my journey to the United States
offered me. Therefore, thank you very much.
Donation of providing 7-wire strands for this project by Gerdau Steel is greatly
acknowledged.
xii
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
General
Reinforced concrete frame-shear wall and frame-tube systems are commonly used
in high-rise buildings. Due to the regular layout of beams in a gravity system, it is
common for a beam to frame into a shear wall in its out-of-plane direction.
Understanding of this specific type of connection is limited however, as a cursory review
of literature with regards to reinforced concrete joints reveals that the focus of the vast
majority of research has been on the performance evaluation and design of beam-column
joints, slab-column joints, and coplanar beam-wall joints while very little attention is
given to the seismic performance of non-planar (out-of-plane) wall-beam joints,
especially in the United States. Furthermore, the ACI 318 seismic provisions are
incomprehensive with regards to detailing of these joints leaving no established method
for designing and detailing this type of joint. ACI 318 seismic provisions require
members not designated as part of the main seismic force-resisting system to be designed
and detailed for the demand imposed by the design displacement, which is the inelastic
displacement that the structure would experience during an earthquake. Therefore,
potential seismic hazard in these joints should not be overlooked and is worth
experimental investigation to better understand their seismic response. In addition, the

2
lack of experimental data regarding their seismic performance makes it necessary to
explore these joints.
Due to the lack of specific guidelines, many common practices have been
developed to design wall-beam joints. One such common practice is to provide a
concealed column, with width equal to the wall web thickness, where a beam frames into
a web of a special structural wall (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Structural engineers consider
that this addition would increase the wall axial load capacity and improve the overall
joint performance in terms of lateral strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, inelastic
deformation, shear strength, bond condition and so on. However, the effect of these
concealed columns has not been studied extensively and therefore needs further study.
Figure 1. A floor plan showing beams framing into shear walls.

3
Figure 2. Typical framing detail for concealed column.
Research Objective and Scope
The primary objective of this research is to experimentally investigate the overall
behavior of interior non-planar concrete wall-to-beam connections under lateral loading.
The principal objectives of this study are outlined below:
1. To experimentally evaluate the seismic response of bare (meaning there is no
additional reinforcement) wall-to-beam connections, in terms of strength,
stiffness, energy dissipation, drift capacity, and bond condition. In the in-plane
direction, the wall was designed to satisfy the seismic provisions of ACI 318-
11 for structural walls. The beams are intended to represent gravity beams
designed to ACI 318-11 standards.

4
2. To investigate the effect of a concealed column made out of the existing wall
web vertical reinforcement on the overall performance of the joint. The
concealed column is laterally reinforced to represent a gravity column.
3. To determine the impact of an added concealed column on the seismic
response of the joint. The concealed column is aimed to strengthen the joint in
case of moderate to severe earthquake excitations and is designed as a gravity
column.
4. To examine the applicability of a few existing shear strength models,
developed for beam-column joints, to non-planar wall-beam connections
using the experimental study results as the final stage of this research.
To accomplish these objectives, three half-scale interior reinforced concrete
cruciform out-of-plane wall-beam joint subassemblies were designed and constructed.
These test specimens were subjected to reverse cyclic loading to simulate earthquake
actions.
Review of Previous Research
As mentioned previously, there are very few experimental studies conducted on
non-planar beam-to-wall (or beam-wall like column) joints. Li et al. (2002) performed
quasi-static tests on four full-scale non-seismically and limited seismically detailed joints.
Two of the specimens were out-of-plane wall-like column-to-beam joints with column to
beam width ratio of 3. They studied the influence of joint transverse reinforcement and
lap splice of longitudinal beam and column reinforcements. Their test results showed that
due to presence of limited joint transverse reinforcement, displacement ductility

5
increased by nearly 50%. They also found that the joint shear stress in these interior joints
to be 0.15 .
Li et al. (2009) carried out experimental tests on six full-scale interior beam-to-
wall-like columns and beam-to-wall joints. They investigated the impact of compressive
axial load level on the overall performance of the joints. The results indicated that the
axial load did not greatly influence the energy dissipation capacity, stiffness, and nominal
shear in the joint but caused significant bond deterioration through the joint and,
consequently, reduced lateral load capacity. Their test results also showed that these
joints can withstand 2.0% drift ratio without significant strength and stiffness
degradation.
Even though there have been some studies conducted on performance evaluation
of non-ductile beam-column joints, the results may not reliably be considered and applied
for such joints since the joint stiffness and strength deterioration is greatly influenced in
relatively thin walls by bond slip phenomenon (Kurose et al., 1988).
Organization of Thesis
This manuscript presents a Masters Thesis and is organized into six chapters
and two appendices.
Chapter 2 provides the experimental program which includes details of the
description, design, and fabrication of the test specimens, as well as the material
properties, test setup, and instrumentation.
Chapter 3 is dedicated to theoretical determination of some design parameters
such as nominal moment capacity, lateral load strength, and joint shear strength.
6
Chapter 4 reports the test results containing the quantitatively and visually
observed behavior of each test specimen during throughout the testing.
Chapter 5 presents a detailed discussion of the test results and influence of the
variable parameter on the performance of the connection for each individual joint, as well
as a comparison of the performance of the three joint specimens
Chapter 6 concludes this study.

7
CHAPTER 2
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
General
This chapter is intended to discuss the experimental program which includes
design and description of test specimens, material properties, instruments, fabrication,
test setup, and instrumentation.
Design of Test Specimens
For this experimental investigation, three half-scale non-planar beam-to-wall
subassemblies were designed. The objective was to observe and document cracking and
damage in the joint and its vicinity. Thus, the beams were designed to ensure that the
majority of the cracking and damage would occur in the joint region and the wall near the
joint. That is, the beams were sized and reinforced to be flexurally stronger than the
walls. However, the beams represent gravity framing beams in structural wall building
systems, without any special detailing or confinement. The walls were designed and
detailed, in the in-plane direction, to satisfy the ACI 318-11 seismic provisions for
structural walls as shown in Appendix A, except that the wall web horizontal bars are not
bent within the boundary elements. The concealed columns provided in the walls were
treated as gravity columns. All the test specimens were designed to the same level of
axial compressive load, 0.2Agfc.

8
Description of Test Specimens
Three half-scale interior non-planar RC wall-to-beam subassemblies, hereafter
referred to as WB1, WB2, and WB3, were constructed and tested under quasi-static
cyclic loading. All the specimens generally have the same geometry but different wall
sectional reinforcement. The length of the wall was governed by test setup space limits.
The ratio of wall length to beam width is 3 for all three test specimens. Each test
specimen is a part of a structural shear-wall system, where structural walls (shear walls)
are used as lateral load resistant system to resist earthquake induced lateral loads in the
in-plane direction of the wall, with story height of 6 and beam span length of 10 (Figure
3) to represent half-scale wall-beam subassemblages of a building having 12 story height
and 20 beam span length. Each test specimen consists of a 6 thick, 24 long, and 72
tall wall and 813 beams framing into the web of the walls. Figure 3 through Figure 7
show the schematic illustration of the specimens.
The first specimen, WB1, represents a baseline or reference specimen as it is a
bare wall-beam connection, meaning that the joint is not strengthened with a concealed
column. Furthermore, the joint has no lateral reinforcement except the wall horizontal
reinforcement (Figure 5). The second test specimen, WB2, is similar to WB1, except that
a concealed column is made out of the web vertical bars and passes through the joint core
(Figure 6). The concealed column has a cross sectional dimension of 67.125. The
third test specimen (WB3) has, in addition to the reinforcement provided in WB1, a
concealed column in the wall passing through the joint core.

9
Figure 3. Typical test specimen subassembly : WB1, WB2, and WB3.
Generally, the varied parameters in the test specimens are location of the web
vertical reinforcement and presence of a concealed column. All the test specimens have
the same boundary elements (BEs) in terms of both geometry and reinforcement. The
10
BEs are 67 in size and are reinforced with 4-#5 longitudinal bars each and are
confined using #3 seismic hoops 3 hook leg length at 3 on center, as shown in
Figure 5 through Figure 7.
All the specimens have the same beam longitudinal and transverse reinforcement,
4-#5 bars at top and bottom and #3 closed ties spaced at 5.5 on center. The first tie is
placed at 2.5 from the face of the wall on each side. The ratio of beam longitudinal bar
diameter to wall thickness is 0.104 which is twice that required by ACI 318-11 for beam-
column connections in special moment resisting frames. The beam cross section and
reinforcement details are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Beam Cross Section (A-A) and Reinforcement: WB1, WB2, and WB3.
The wall of WB1 is a regular structural wall without any concealed column. Its
web is reinforced horizontally and vertically using two curtains of #3 bars. Horizontal
reinforcement is provided at 4.5 on center, resulting in a reinforcement ratio of 0.0081;
two bars are provided as vertical reinforcement per curtain, yielding a reinforcement ratio
of 0.0073. The web horizontal bars are not bent or hooked within the boundary elements.
11
The web vertical bars are located outside the beam cage, as can be seen in Figure 5. Two
horizontal web bars pass through the joint core on each face of the wall Figure 5.
In WB2 wall, the wall web vertical bars (4-#3) are used to create a concealed
column passing through the joint core. Thus, there is apparently no vertical reinforcement
in the wall web besides the concealed column bars. The concealed column longitudinal
bars pass through the cage of the beam (Figure 6). The concealed column is also
transversely reinforced with #3 bars at 5 on center throughout the height of the wall.
WB2 has the same exact horizontal web reinforcement as WB1 (Figure 6).
Wall reinforcement in WB3 is identical to WB1 with two differences. First, a
67.25 concealed column, reinforced with 4-#4 longitudinal bars and #3 ties at 5 on
center, is incorporated into the wall. Second, the two web vertical bars on each side are
displaced slightly towards the boundary elements, as seen in Figure 7. The concealed
column longitudinal bars pass through the beam cage. WB3 has the same exact horizontal
web reinforcement as WB1.
WB1 does not have any particular lateral shear reinforcement in the joint in the
form of hoops or ties. However, WB2 and WB3 have the same amount of joint shear
reinforcement, which is provided by the concealed column lateral reinforcement passing
through the joint. Both WB2 and WB3 have two hoops located at 2.5 above and below
the joint centerline. Wall reinforcement details of the test specimens are shown in Figure
5 through Figure 7 and a summary is provided in Table 1.

12
Figure 5. Wall sectional reinforcement for WB1.

13

14

15
Table 1. Test Specimen Reinforcement Details

Test specimen WB1 WB2 WB3
Size, b h 813 8 13 8 13
Top reinforcement 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5
Top reinf. ratio, 0.01183 0.01183 0.01183
Bottom
4-#5 4-#5 4-#5
Beam reinforcement
Bottom
0.01183 0.01183 0.01183
reinforcement ratio
Transverse
#3@5.5 o.c. #3@5.5 o.c. #3@5.5 o.c.
reinforcement
Size hlt 72 24 6 72 24 6 72 24 6
Vertical
2-#3 E.F. - 2-#3 E.F.
reinforcement
Wall web v 0.0073 - 0.0073

Horizontal
#3@4.5 o.c. #3@4.5 o.c. #3@4.5 o.c.
reinforcement
h 0.0081 0.0081 0.0081
Longitudinal
4-#5 Each 4-#5 Each 4-#5 Each
Boundary reinforcement
element Transverse #3 hoops @3 #3 hoops @3 #3 hoops @3
Wall
reinforcement o.c. o.c. o.c.
Size, b h - 6 7.25 6 7.25
Longitudinal
Concealed - 4-#3 4-#4
reinforcement
column
Transverse
- #3 @ 5 o.c. #3 @ 5 o.c.
reinforcement
Size, b h 11 6 11 6 11 6
Joint Lateral 2-#3@2.5 2-#3@2.5

reinforcement - below and below and
(hoops) above J. above J.
Note: 1in. = 24.5 mm; #3 bar = 10 mm dia. bar; #4 bar = 12 mm dia. bar; #5 bar = 16 mm dia.
bar.
E.F. = each face, J. = joint centerline.
16
Materials
In this section, material properties for concrete, deformed steel reinforcing bars,
and 7-wire strands are discussed.
Concrete
A concrete compressive strength of 4,000 psi and a 3/8 maximum aggregate size
were specified. All three test specimens were cast using ready-mixed normal weight
concrete of the same batch. To facilitate concrete placement and consolidation process, a
slump of 6 was specified.
A total of 12 standard 6 12 cylinders were cast according to standards of
ASTM C31 to evaluate concrete compressive strength at both 28 days and the time of
specimen testing. Average concrete compressive strength and concrete modulus of
elasticity are given in Table 2 for all specimens. Note that concrete modulus of elasticity
is calculated based on the ACI 318-11 equation (Eq. 7 in this text)
Table 2. Concrete Properties

28-Day Age Testing-Day Age
Specimen
, [ksi] , [ksi] , [ksi] , [ksi]
WB1 3.612 3426 5.493 4225

WB2 3.612 3426 5.576 4256
WB3 3.612 3426 5.576 4256
Note: 1 ksi = 6.9 MPa.
Reinforcing Bars
All the steel bars used for longitudinal and transverse reinforcements were ASTM
A615 Grade 60 deformed bars. No. 3 bars were used for all ties and wall web
17
reinforcement, both vertical and horizontal. Beam and boundary element longitudinal
bars were fabricated with No. 5 bars. Concealed column longitudinal bars in the third
specimen, WB3, consisted of No. 4 bars.
To determine the reinforcing steel mechanical properties, tensile tests were
performed on three representative coupons for each bar size. All bars at a given size were
cast from the same heat. Reinforcing steel properties are given in Table 3. These
deformed bars are permitted to be used for special structural walls because: 1. The actual
yield strengths do not exceed specified yield strength, , by more than 18 ksi; and 2. The
ratios of the actual tensile strengths to the actual yield strengths are not less than 1.25 for
any bars.
Table 3. Steel Properties

db As fy fu Es
Bar No. 2
y
[in.] [in ] [ksi] [ksi] [ksi]
No. 3 3/8 0.11 74.3 0.00256 101 29000

No. 4 1/2 0.2 76 0.00262 110 29000
No. 5 5/8 0.31 77 0.00266 113 29000
2 2
Note: 1 ksi = 6.9 MPa; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 in = 645.2 mm .
Strand
To simulate the axial load on the wall, five - 7-wire strands ( = 270 ksi)
were used internally to apply the axial load. The strands are unbonded post-tensioned. For
this purpose, plastic tubes were installed in the wall cage prior to installing the cage in the
formwork. The strands are located and distributed in such a way that generates uniform
axial load on the wall centerline, as shown in Figure 8. To prevent stress concentration at
the anchorage zones, metal plates were used.

18
Figure 8. Distribution of plastic tubes for strands.
Fabrication of Test Specimens
The formworks were erected in a horizontal position to facilitate construction and
concrete placement (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Wall and beam reinforcement cages were
built separately, and then, after installing the strain gages on the reinforcing bars, they
were assembled in the formwork. Handling inserts were placed in appropriate locations
for lifting and transporting. All the specimens were cast at the same time one after
another using ready-mix concrete. During casting, the freshly poured concrete was
consolidated using electric vibrators to release trapped air and excess water and to ensure
that the concrete settles firmly in the formwork. The formworks were left in place for
about two weeks during which the specimens were cured once a day because it was
during winter time. Figure 11 shows the constructed test specimens.

19
Figure 9. Placement of reinforcement.
Figure 10. Casting of concrete.

20
Figure 11. Constructed test specimens: WB1, WB2, and WB3.
Test Setup
The test specimens were loaded in a horizontal position using the setup shown
schematically in Figure 12 and Figure 13. Lateral braces served to react against the
specimen at key points. The cyclic loading was applied to the wall web of each specimen
by one 50-Kip horizontal hydraulic actuator (Figure 12). The actuator was attached to the
strong floor using a lateral supporting brace and connected to the wall using a pin
connection to allow free rotation. The other end of the wall and the beam ends were
restrained using roller-like supports to allow rotation and horizontal movement. However,
the test setup was not flawless; there was friction at the end supports which consequently
caused asymmetric loading in the specimen. The loading protocol was controlled by
displacement. Two complete reversed load cycles were applied at each drift ratio, as
21
shown in Figure 14. Inter-story drift ratio of the component is defined as the angular
rotation of the wall and is calculated as

Drift ratio (%)= 100 (1)

where
= The imposed displacement at the point of application of the load at the wall tip.
hw = The height of the wall between its support and point of application of the load (6 for
this experiment).
The axial load was applied internally using five post tensioned strands passing
through the wall section and was not controlled during the testing.
22
Figure 12. Test setup: Plan view.

23
Figure 13. Test setup: Elevation view.

24
7
6
5
4
3
2
Drift Ratio (%)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Number of Cycles
Figure 14. Typical loading history.
Instrumentation
To record quantitative results such as applied lateral load, total subassembly
deformation, and strains in the reinforcing bars, the test specimens were instrumented
with a built-in load cell, string potentiometers, and strain gages, as illustrated in
Figure 15 through Figure 17. A computer-based data acquisition system was used to
collect data from these instruments simultaneously. The lateral load was applied to
the wall and recorded using a built-in load cell on the hydraulic actuator. A string
potentiometer was attached to the point of application of load to record the wall-tip
displacement.
25
Figure 15. Strain gage distribution in the wall.
Figure 16. Typical strain gage distribution in beams (only beam reinforcement is shown).
Strains in the reinforcing bars were being monitored in each specimen using a
minimum of 27 strain gages (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Three more string potentiometers
were used to measure any flexibility in the reaction at the beam and wall supports. In
26
addition to using the above electronic instrumentation, visual observations of
cracking patterns and overall specimen behavior were recorded using photographs
and manually taken data.
Figure 17. Schematic illustration of string potentiometers and load cell.

27
CHAPTER 3
ASSESSMENT OF THEORETICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
General
This chapter is dedicated to determine theoretical estimation of few design
parameters such as nominal flexural strength (Mn), lateral load capacity (H), and nominal
joint shear strength (Vn) using models available in literature and codes of practice. These
predictions will later be used to make comparisons with the experimental results
presented in chapter 4. This chapter also includes the approach used to determine the
demand shear force (Vjh) on the joints.
Nominal Flexural Strength
To obtain a reasonable estimate of the flexural strength of any RC member,
models to represent the stress-strain behavior of concrete both confined and unconfined
and of steel reinforcement are necessary. Numerous models have been proposed to
predict the stress-strain behavior of unconfined concrete (Kent and Park, 1971; Popovics,
1973; Thorenfeldt et al., 1987; Mander et al., 1988b) and confined concrete (Kent and
Park, 1971; Scott et al., 1982; Mander et al., 1988b; Saatcioglu and Razvi, 1992). For this
study, the method proposed by Mander et al., (1988b) is employed to model the behavior
of both unconfined and confined concrete (Figure 18).

28
Figure 18. Stress-strain model for monotonic loading of confined and unconfined concrete in
compression (Mander et al., 1988b).
Based on their experimental results (Mander et al., 1988a), Mander et al., (1988b)
developed a unified model for concrete confined by any general type of confining
reinforcement under uniaxial monotonic and cyclic compressive loading. The model uses
a single equation to construct the entire stress-strain relation. Because of its generality,
this approach has been widely used in both design and research (Reddiar, 2009). The
equation for slow rate quasi-static and monotonic loading is as given by
f'cc xr
fc = (2)
(r - 1) + xr
in which
c
x= (3)
cc
Ec
r= (4)
Ec - Esec
f'
cc = co [1+5 (f'cc - 1)] (5)
co
29
f'cc
Esec = (6)
cc
Ec = 5000f ' c [MPa]
= 57000f ' c [psi] (7)
f'lx = ke x fyh (8)
f'ly = ke y fyh (9)
where
f' cc = Confined compressive strength of concrete.
cc = Longitudinal confined compressive concrete strain.
c = Longitudinal compressive concrete strain.
f' co = Unconfined concrete compressive strength.
co = Unconfined concrete compressive strain (generally assumed to be 0.002).
Ec = Tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete in MPa (1 MPa = 145 psi).
f'lx and f'ly = Effective lateral confining stresses in the x and y directions, respectively.
x and y = Effective section area ratios of transverse reinforcement to concrete confined.
ke = Confinement effectiveness coefficient (typical value is 0.75 for rectangular sections
(Paulay and Priestley, 1992)).
To determine the peak confined concrete stress, f'cc , Mander et al., (1988b)
presented a chart (Figure 19) which is relatively easy to use and applicable to sections
with different amount of confinement in x and y directions.

30
Figure 19. Compression strength determination from lateral confining stresses for rectangular
sections (Mander et al., 1988b).
The ultimate concrete strain can be several times larger than the stain at peak
concrete strength given by Eq. 5 (Paulay and Priestley, 1992), as illustrated in Figure 18.
Test results by Scott et al., (1982) suggest that ultimate confined concrete strain be
estimated as the strain corresponding to the first fracture of the confining transverse
reinforcement. Though this limit is conservative, it can be used for design and ductility
calculations (Scott et al., 1982). Based on the above limit, Paulay and Priestley, (1992)
developed a conservative expression to estimate the ultimate compression strain, which is
given by
1.4s fyh sm
cu = 0.004 + (10)
f'cc
where
s = The volumetric ratio of confining steel, s = x + y .
fyh = Yield strength of the transverse reinforcement.

31
sm = Steel strain at maximum tensile stress (assumed to be 0.15).
Typical values of cu ranges from 0.012 to 0.05 (Paulay and Priestley, 1992). Note
that the maximum unconfined concrete compressive strain was assumed to be 0.004
(Scott et al., 1982). That is, when the strain of the concrete cover and unconfined
concrete in the web of the walls reaches this limit, the concrete is considered ineffective.
In regards to modeling the behavior of the longitudinal steel reinforcement, a
constitutive model is used which incorporates strain-hardening (Selby and Vecchio,
1997). In this formulation, a perfect bond between steel and concrete is assumed. This
elastic-plastic relation can be formulated as follows:
fs = Es s when 0 s y (11)
fs = fy when y s sh (12)
fs = fy +(s - sh ) Esh when sh s f (13)
where
fs = Stress in steel reinforcement.
Es = Modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement (typical value is 29000 ksi).
s = Strain in steel reinforcement corresponding to fs .
y = Yield strain which is equal to yield stress divided by young modulus.
fy = Yield stress of steel reinforcement.
sh = Strain at the initiation of strain-hardening (assumed to be 0.005).
Esh = Strain-hardening young modulus (assumed to be 1200 ksi).
f = Maximum strain in the steel reinforcement.

32
Because of the fact that the beams are all gravity framing beams with light lateral
reinforcement, the entire beam section is assumed to be unconfined. However, the walls
are modeled in such a way that the concrete in the wall web and cover is considered
unconfined whereas the concrete in the boundary element cores and concealed columns is
considered to be confined to different degrees based on the provided volumetric
reinforcement ratio, as shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20. Confinement layout of the wall sections.
The nominal flexural strengths, given in Table 4, are computed using actual
material strengths and a strength reduction factor, of 1.0.
Using the principles of static equilibrium of the entire subassembly, the lateral
load capacity, H, is calculated, which is equal to the load associated with the least
nominal flexural moment capacity of the wall and the beam at the critical section at the
face of the beam. Since the main goal of this investigation is to focus on the behavior of
the joint and the out-of-plane behavior of the wall rather than the beams, the beams are
33
purposefully designed to be stronger than the walls to shift the majority of the damage
into these regions. Hence, the lateral load strength is calculated based on the wall nominal
flexural strength. The nominal moment strengths, lateral load strengths, and wall
thickness to beam bar diameter ratios are given in Table 4.
Table 4. Calculated Design Parameters
Mn,wall Mn,beam H tw
Specimen d
[k-in] [k-in] [k] b
WB1 577 1098 19.5 9.6

WB2 601 1100 20.3 9.6
WB3 689 1100 23.2 9.6
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 k = 4.448 kN.
Nominal Joint Shear Strength
Nominal joint shear strength is another parameter investigated theoretically in this
section. There have been numerous approaches and models for assessment of interior
beam-column joint shear strength, with and without joint shear reinforcement. Some of
these models are simplified and incorporated in building codes of practice such as ACI
318, NZS-3101, etc. Most of these building codes attribute joint shear strength failure to
the failure of diagonal concrete strut. However, the shear strength of joints can be very
complicated as it is influenced by many factors such as concrete compressive strength,
column axial load, amount of transverse reinforcement in the joint, joint dimensions,
confinement provided by transverse members (beams and slabs) framing into the joint,
and beam-column strength ratio (Wang et al., 2012). In this study, four existing models
for interior beam-column joints are examined and will be compared to experimental
34
results to evaluate their applicability to joints under investigation. This is of particular
interest because these models are specifically developed for beam-column joints, but not
necessarily wall-beam joints.
ACI 318. ACI 318-11 limits the nominal joint shear strength for beam-column
joint in special moment frames as
a) Vn = 20 f'c Aj Joints confined on all four sides by beams.
b) Vn = 15 f'c Aj Joints confined on three sides or two opposite sides by
beams.
c) Vn = 12 f'c Aj Other cases.
Since the joints tested in this study were interior joints and were confined from
the transverse sides by the concrete in the web and boundary elements, the first case
might be applicable to assess the nominal shear strength of the joints. As it is evident
from the above equations, the ACI 318-11 model is a function of concrete compressive
strength, f'c , and is independent of the joint transverse reinforcement and column axial
load. This is based on tests reviewed by ACI-ASCE 352-02. Furthermore, Li et al.,
(2009) tested beam-wide column and beam-wall connections subjected to different axial
load levels (0.0 f'c Ag , 0.1 f'c Ag , and 0.35 f'c Ag ). Their test results exhibited that axial load
level did not have significant effect on the nominal joint shear strength. They, however,
assumed that the insignificant effect of the axial load could have been because of the
combination of strong columns-weak beams. Park and Mosalam, (2009) investigated the
effect of column axial load form their constructed database for exterior beam-column
joints without joint shear reinforcement. They observed little and unclear influence of the
35
column axial load on the joint shear strength when the column axial load is less
than 0.2f'c Ag . All test specimens in this study were subjected to axial loads lower than
0.2f'c Ag .
Li et al. (2002) performed quasi-static cyclic loading tests on oblong beam-wide
column joints with beam to column width ratio of 3. They found that joints without
transverse reinforcement and those with limited joint transverse reinforcement had the
same maximum nominal joint shear stress. However, they observed that connections with
limited lateral reinforcement obtained higher ductility by 50%.
NZS-3101. NZS-3101 specifies maximum joint shear strength for interior beam-
column joints with non-seismic detailing to be between (0.11f'c to 0.17f'c ). Li et al.,
(2009) and Li et al., (2002) found their test results of specimens with column to beam
width ratio of 3.56 and 3.0, respectively, to be correlated well with these limits.
Hakuto et al. (2000). They developed a relation between nominal joint shear
strength and concrete compressive strength, f'c , based on analyzing a limited test data of
interior beam-column joints without joint transverse reinforcement. According to their
model, nominal joint shear strength is in direct relation with the concrete compressive
strength as shown in Figure 21.
Wang et al. (2012). Recently, Wang et al. (2012) proposed a model to predict the
nominal joint shear strength of both exterior and interior beam-column joints subjected to
cyclic lateral loading. Their model incorporates the contribution of the joint
reinforcement (both horizontal joint shear reinforcement and intermediate vertical
column reinforcement) through increasing the nominal tensile strength of concrete.

36
Figure 21. Measured relationship between joint horizontal shear stress Vn and concrete
compressive strength, f'c (Hakuto et al., 2000).
They calibrated their model by comparing with a broad available experimental
database of 106 tests on both exterior and interior beam-column joints. They also
performed a parametric study to appropriately consider the influence of key factors on the
joint shear strength. The expression for the maximum joints shear strength is formulated
as

1.0 - (sin2 - 0.8 cos2 ) y
ft,n f'c
Vjh, max = 1 0.8
bj hc (14)
( + ) sin 2
ft,n f'c
in which
Ash fyh cos Asv fyv sin

ft,n = ftc + bj hc + bj hc
sin sin
= ftc + sh fyh cos2 + sv fyv sin2 (15)
in which
ftc = 6.5 f' c [psi] (ACI 318-11)

37
= 0.556f'c [MPa] (16)
where
Figure 22. Actions and failure mechanism of a beam-column joint (Wang et al., 2012).
= Angle between strut AB and vertical axis of the column (Figure 22).
ft,n = Nominal tensile strength of concrete with contributions from steel shear
reinforcements taken into account.
f'c = Concrete compressive strength.
Nc
y = Column axial stress, y = .
bc hc
Nc = Column axial force.
bj = Effective joint width (It is defined later in this chapter).

38
hb ,hc = Section depths of the in-plane beam and the column, respectively.
ftc = Contribution of concrete to the nominal tensile strength.
Ash = Total area of horizontal steel shear reinforcement of the joint (i.e. between the top
and bottom longitudinal steel bars of adjacent beams), Ash = Ash,i (Figure 22).
Asv = Total area of vertical joint steel shear reinforcement, Asv = Asv,i (Figure 22).
fy = Yield stress of tension bars in adjacent beams.
fyh and fyv = Yield stresses of horizontal and vertical steel shear reinforcements,
respectively.
Ash
sh = Ratio of horizontal joint shear reinforcement, sh = .
bj hb
Asv
sv = Ratio of vertical shear reinforcement, sv = .
bj hc
It should be noted that the joints tested in this investigation did not have
intermediate vertical reinforcement passing through the joint core. However, specimens
WB2 and WB3 had horizontal joint shear reinforcement.
The joint horizontal shear reinforcement ratio was 0.0067 in both specimens with
concealed column. Therefore, contribution to the nominal tensile strength of concrete
from horizontal shear reinforcement is considered. That is,
ft,n = ftc + sh fyh cos2 (17)
The last two models (Hakuto et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2012) were developed for
two dimensional beam-column subassemblages where there are no transverse beams
framing into the joint; that is, the joint is not confined laterally. Thus, results from these
two models are multiplied by an amplification factor 1.33, as specified by ACI 318 and
ACI-ASCE 352 for joints confined on all four sides by beams.

39
Table 5 presents the predicted joint shear strengths for each test specimen using
the aforementioned models.
Table 5. Predicted Joint Shear Strength

ACI 318- NZS-3101- Hakuto et al., Wang et al.,
f'c
Joint 11 06 (2000) (2012)
[psi]
[psi] [psi] [psi] [psi]
WB1 5493 1482 544 839 1186 689
WB2 5576 1493 548 845 1195 1072
WB3 5576 1493 548 845 1195 1063
Note: 1 psi = 0.0069 MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 lb. = 4.448 N.
Demand Joint Shear Stress
Figure 23 shows external and internal actions on the joint. The demand joint shear
force at mid-depth of the joint was computed using Eq. 18.
Vjh = Cs2 + Cc2 + T1 Vc (18)
Due to equilibrium of the beam section at the face of the column,
Cc2 + Cs2 = T2 (19)
Substituting Eq. (19) in Eq. (18) leads to
Vjh = T2 + T1 - Vc (20)
in which
fs1 fs2
T1 = and T2 =
As1 As2
The horizontal shear stress at mid-depth of the joint can be calculated as
Vjh
vjh = (21)
Aj
40
in which
Aj = bj hc (22)
where
Figure 23. External and internal forces acting on the joint (Park and Tanaka, 2000; Paulay and
Priestley, 1992).
Vjh = Demand shear force induced in the joint
Vc = Maximum lateral load capacity.
fs1 and fs2 = Stress in top and bottom beam longitudinal reinforcement, respectively.
As1 and As2 = Area of top and bottom beam longitudinal reinforcement, respectively.
Aj = Effective cross-sectional joint shear area as defined in the following section.

41
The effective joint shear area over which the above forces can be transferred
might be difficult to find definitely. ACI 318 specifies effective joint shear area for beam-
columns for two cases. When the beam width is equal to or larger than the column width,
the effective joint area, Aj , is the column cross-sectional area, whereas when a beam
frames into a wider column (Figure 24), the effective joint area is calculated as the
smaller of:
a) Beam width plus joint depth.
b) Beam width plus twice the smaller perpendicular distance from longitudinal
axis of beam to column side, as illustrated in Figure 24.
Figure 24. Effective joint area (ACI 318-11).
The specimens tested in this research are wall-beam subassemblages in which the
wall length is three times the beams width. Therefore, one might be able to infer that the
42
latter case may fit this situation. However, these provisions are particularly stipulated for
joints in special moment frames and might not reasonably be applicable for wall-beam
joints as the test results suggest (see Chapter Four).
Figure 25. Assumptions of effective joint area (Paulay and Priestley, 1992).
Paulay and Priestley (1992) give another apparently more reasonable assumption
to define the effective joint shear area. For the case where a narrower beam frames into a
wider column, Paulay and Priestley (1992) suggest that the effective joint area be taken
as the product of the overall depth of the column and the joint width. The joint width is
taken as the sum of the narrower member width and the distance between lines of an
angle of 26.5 (slope of 1 in 2), as schematically explained in Figure 25. This method of
defining the joint width has been incorporated into NZS 3101-06, as it stipulates the joint
width for beam-column joints as:
a) Where bc bw :
43
either bj = bc, or bj = bw + 0.5hc, whichever is the smaller;
b) Where bc < bw
either bj = bw, or bj = bc + 0.5hc, whichever is the smaller.
Hakuto et al. (2000), Li et al. (2002), and Li et al. (2009) used this method to
calculate the maximum joint shear stress. Some of their test specimens had ratio of
column to beam width of 3 or more. Furthermore, experimental observations in this study
would suggest that the method presented by Paulay and Priestley (1992) is a more
realistic assumption for specimens under investigation, as explained in Chapter Four.
Thus, this method is used to calculate the joint shear stresses.

44
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
General
This chapter is intended to present the data collected during testing of each
specimen. Specifically, the load versus deflection history response provides detailed
information about the strength, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity of each
specimen. Additionally, crack distributions are presented in the form of drawings and
photographs both at the peak drift levels and at zero displacement following the peak
(residual).
In addition, the joint shear force associated with peak lateral load was computed
from the measured data. As previously mentioned in Chapter Three, the effective joint
area was defined based on the assumption suggested by Paulay and Priestley (1992) and
requirements of NZS 3101-2006 rather than the definition given in ACI 318-11, which
applies particularly to beam-column joints in special moment frames. From the failure
mode of the test specimens, it was evident that the former is a more reasonable
assumption. The boundary elements were not effective, as can be seen from Figure 26, in
contributing to the joint shear strength. This might be because the web of the wall was
relatively weak and incapable of linking the joint core and the boundary elements so as to
expand the joint shear area. A concealed beam running through the joint to the boundary
elements might serve this purpose.

45
Figure 26. Explanation of effective joint area.

46
The numerical key test results and average crack widths up to drift ratio 5% are
given in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively.
Table 6. Test Results

Peak lateral Max. story Initial Residual Max. joint Effective
load drift ratio stiffness strength Joint shear
shear joint
Test [kips] [%] [kips/in] [kips] stress,
force, area,
unit

[ksi]
+ve -ve +ve -ve +ve -ve +ve -ve [kips] [in2]
WB1 15.7 14.73 3.125 3.125 12.3 10.3 7.1 7.8 69.82 66 1079
WB2 17.36 17.89 3 3 11.41 12.22 7.5 11 85.37 66 1293
WB3 17.82 17.28 3 3 11.13 11.71 9.34 9.53 90.07 66 1365
Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN, 1in. = 25.4 mm
Table 7. Average Crack Width [in.]

WB1 WB2 WB3
Joint interface 0.05 0.04 0.025

Drift 1%
Wall web 0.01 0.009 0.007
Drift 2%
Wall web 0.05 0.06 0.02
Drift 3%
Wall web 0.125 0.125 0.07
Joint interface - 0.1875 0.15
Drift 4%
Wall web 0.5 - -
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Specimen WB1
Cyclic wall lateral load versus displacement at point of loading is shown in Figure
27, and cracking patterns on the wall face at successive drift ratios are illustrated in
47
Figure 28. The specimen was loaded through sixteen cycles with a maximum drift ratio
of +6% and -6.9% in the positive and negative directions, respectively.
At 0.5% drift, cracking initiated at the wall-beam interface in both positive and
negative loading directions. Hairline flexural cracks of varying length were also detected
across the length of the wall, though no crack was observed in the beams. At a drift ratio
of 1%, cracking at the joint interface widened and diagonal cracks appeared in the wall
web starting from the beam corners (Figure 28). Again no cracks were observed in the
beams.
Theoretical Strength = 19.5 k
Figure 27. Cyclic wall load versus displacement response for WB1.
48
In the first cycle of loading at 2% drift, several new cracks initiated while existing
cracks continued to propagate while increasing in width. Specifically, typical crack
widths at the joint interface were 0.125, and the first sign of joint interface deterioration
was perceived. This deterioration increased in the second cycle at 2% drift. It is to be
noted that due to unsymmetrical loading distribution in both ends of the wall caused by
friction at the beam supporting braces, cracks were concentrated on the side where the
load was applied (Figure 28). At a drift ratio of 3.125%, signs of punching of one side of
the beam through the wall web were observed with a 50% increase in average crack
width at the joint interface in the first positive cycle. The subassemblage, however,
developed its maximum lateral load capacity (+14.73 kips and -15.7 kips) during the first
cycle. Strength then suddenly dropped by almost half (49%), as shown in Figure 27,
caused by drastic punching of the beam through the wall web (Figure 29). The average
crack width was 0.125 in the wall web around the joint.
The joint shear force acting on a horizontal section at mid-depth of the joint at the
measured maximum lateral load was determined, based on the method described in
Chapter Three, to be 69.82 kips. In the subsequent cycle of the same drift ratio (3.125%),
substantial strength and stiffness degradation was observed (Figure 27) due to
considerable punching deterioration (Figure 29). Furthermore, the beam longitudinal bars
did not yield. This was in agreement with the presence of few minor flexural cracks in the
beams and the fact that the beams were purposefully designed to be flexurally stronger
than the wall. With distance away from the joint, the width of the cracks continuously
decreased. Some concrete in the joint interface crumbled whereas the boundary elements
stayed intact.
49
At 4% drift, slight pinching was observed in the load-deformation response due to
severe deterioration of the wall web. Notably, crack widths reached 0.5 in the wall web.
The residual lateral load capacity was less than 60% of the peak strength. The specimen
maintained this residual capacity throughout the rest of the testing.
Drift Ratio = 1% Drift Ratio = 2% Drift Ratio = 3%
Drift Ratio = 4% Drift Ratio = 5%
Figure 28. Observed development of cracking patterns of specimen WB1.

50
Figure 29. Punching of the beam through the wall web of WB1 specimen.
At 5% drift, the concrete in the web fell apart in large pieces and the concrete
cover of the boundary elements began to spall, while the confined concrete in the
boundary elements remained intact due to sufficient confining reinforcement provided
per ACI 318-11. During loading to 6% drift, the web of the specimen experienced severe
damage and concrete falling while the concrete inside the boundary elements core was
still sound, as seen in Figure 30. Moreover, large bond-splitting cracks initiated along
one side of the beam longitudinal bars as a sign of bar slip through the joint core (Figure
30). The boundary elements longitudinal bars yielded at high drift ratios (6% drift) at a
location close to the beam face. However, the specimen maintained the strength of the
previous stage. It should be mentioned that the residual strength could be attributed in
part to the resistance provided by one of the strands running through the joint core. In
essence, the failure mode of WB1 involved punching of the beam through the web of the
wall (Figure 30) which can be termed as sudden failure-or brittle failure- because it
suffered significant and rapid strength degradation after attaining maximum strength.
Furthermore, WB1 generally exhibited limited energy dissipation especially at high drift
51
ratios, as its energy dissipation - area within the loop of the cycle - was the greatest at
drift ratio of 3.125%, as shown in Figure 27. The specimen carried less load during the
second cycle of almost every set of two cycles. No joint shear cracks were noticed
throughout the test.
Figure 30. Observed cracking and damage in specimen BW1 at second loading cycle of 6% drift
ratio.
Specimen WB2
The recorded wall lateral load versus displacement response is plotted in Figure
31, and progressive development of crack patterns at the face of the wall is illustrated in
Figure 32. The specimen was loaded through eighteen cycles with a maximum drift ratio
of +6% and -6.9% in the positive and negative directions, respectively. Specimen WB2
had relatively similar response to WB1 at early drift ratios, that is, prior to the peak
lateral load.
52
At a drift ratio of 0.5%, cracking at the wall-beam interface initiated in both
positive and negative loading directions. Hairline flexural cracks of varying length were
also seen across the wall web face. No cracking was observed in the beams. At a drift
ratio of 1%, cracks at the joint interface widened to 0.04. In addition to diagonal cracks
in the wall web starting from the beam corners (Figure 32), a couple of flexural cracks,
across the entire wall length at roughly 7 from the face of the beam and nearly parallel
to each other, appeared in the loading side of the wall. Again no cracking was detected in
the beams.
53
In the first cycle to 2% drift, new cracks initiated, and existing cracks continued to
propagate. Furthermore, average crack width at both the joint interface and wall web face
was 0.06, and no signs of joint interface deterioration were perceived. Joint interface
crack width increased to 0.075 in the subsequent cycle of the same drift ratio.

54
As with specimen WB1, due to unsymmetrical loading distribution in both ends
of the wall caused by friction at the beam supporting braces, most of the cracking
occurred on the side where the load was being applied (Figure 32). In the next imposed
drift level, 3%, crack widths at both the joint interface and wall face widened to 0.125
on average. This was accompanied by crumbling of concrete at the joint interface on the
compression side in both loading directions, which marked the beginning of joint
deterioration. It was also in the first cycle of this drift that the subassemblage attained its
maximum lateral load capacity (+17.36 kips and -17.89 kips). In the second cycle,
strength degraded in both positive and negative directions by 7% and 10%, respectively.
Stiffness was also degraded slightly. It is noteworthy that the beam longitudinal bars did
not yield; this fact was supported by minimal flexural cracking in the beam. This is
because the beams were purposefully designed to be flexurally stronger than the wall.
With distance away from the joint, the width of the cracks continuously decreased. The
joint shear force acting on a horizontal section at mid-depth of the joint at the measured
maximum lateral load was determined to be 85.37 kips, based on the imposed moments
on the beam sections at the face of the column and wall shear lateral forces.
In contrast to specimen WB1, during the first cycle to 4% drift, specimen WB2
experienced no strength loss from the previous cycle; it continued to increase in strength
in the negative direction of loading despite the fact that concrete began to crush across
the length of the wall close to the face of the beam and average crack width increased by
50% (0.1875). The specimen, however, experienced a slight stiffness decay. During the
second cycle of the same drift ratio, the subassembly exhibited an approximately 12%
loss of strength in both loading directions and a little pinching in the overall load-
55
deformation behavior as a result of joint degeneration and softening. Moreover, the
boundary element longitudinal bars yielded at a region close to the beam face; the
measured strain was 0.0028. Note that in this stage of loading and hereafter the wall acted
more like a cantilever member with a concentration of cracks and damage along the beam
face (Figure 33). That is, most of the inelastic action occurred in the loading side of the
wall, creating some kind of plastic hinge close to the face of the beam.
Figure 33. Observed damage on the second face of the wall during the last cycle of 5% drift.
At 5% drift ratio, the specimen generally suffered a substantial amount of
damage; concrete crushed considerably and large cracks opened up. Stiffness and
strength continued to gradually decay, as seen in Figure 31. During the first cycle, the
specimen, however, exhibited the fattest hysteresis loop, and thus its energy dissipation
capacity - area within the loop-was the largest, particularly in the negative direction. The
specimen also demonstrated good energy dissipation capacity in the subsequent cycle,
even though concrete cover of the boundary elements and concrete in the wall web
56
spalled on one face of the wall. Due to proper confinement provided per ACI 318-11, no
sign of concrete crushing was observed in the boundary element cores (Figure 34).
Figure 34. Observed cracking and damage in specimen BW2 at second loading cycle of 6% drift
ratio.
During loading to 6% drift ratio, the specimen experienced a severe level of
damage and concrete crushing which led to significant strength and stiffness degradation,
as shown in Figure 34. At the end of the first cycle, residual strengths in the negative and
positive directions were 59% and 62% of the peak lateral load in each direction,
respectively. The specimen maintained its lateral load carrying capacity in the negative
loading direction whereas it continued to steadily decay its strength in the opposite
direction. It should be mentioned that the residual strength could be attributed partly to
the resistance provided by one of the strands running through the joint core. Because of
improper confining reinforcement, buckling of the concealed column longitudinal bars

57
was observed during the subsequent cycle, as shown in Figure 34. The concrete in the
boundary element cores was still sound, however.
Note that the failure mode of WB2 specimen involved a combination of punching
of the beam through the web of the wall and flexural failure of the wall as a cantilever
member (Figure 34). That is, the specimen did not experience any significant rapid
strength degradation after attaining maximum strength. The load carrying capacity of the
specimen lowered during the second cycle of almost every set of two cycles. No joint
shear cracks were noticed throughout the test.
Specimen WB3
The recorded wall lateral load versus displacement at point of loading is plotted in
Figure 35, and successive development of crack patterns at the face of the wall is
illustrated in Figure 36. The specimen was loaded through sixteen cycles with a
maximum drift ratio of 6% in both positive and negative directions. In general, the
response of WB3 was comparable to that of WB2.
At drift ratio 0.5%, a minor crack (0.011 wide) at the wall-beam interface
initiated in both positive and negative loading directions. No flexural cracks were
observed across the wall web face or in the beams. At a drift ratio of 1%, the crack at the
joint interface widened to a width of 0.02. In addition to cracks spreading out from the
joint interface into the wall web, hairline flexural cracks of varying length appeared in the
face of the wall (Figure 36). Again no crack was detected in the beams.
58
In the first cycle at 2% drift, several new cracks appeared on the wall face around
the joint region and existing cracks continued to propagate (Figure 36). Furthermore,
average crack widths at the joint interface and wall web face were 0.06 and 0.02,
respectively. No sign of joint interface deterioration was perceived, however. As with the
other specimens, due to unsymmetrical loading distribution in both ends of the wall
caused by friction at the beam supporting braces, most of the cracking was focused on the
side where the load was being applied (Figure 36). At this stage of loading none of the
longitudinal bars in the beams, boundary elements, or concealed column yielded.

59
As the imposed drift reached 3%, crack widths at both the joint interface and wall
face widened to 0.125 and 0.07 on average, respectively. This was accompanied by
crumbling of concrete at the joint interface on the compression side in both loading
directions (Figure 36). This could be considered as the beginning of joint deterioration.
During the first cycle, the subassemblage reached its peak lateral load capacity (+17.82
kips and -17.28 kips). In the subsequent cycle, strength degraded in both positive and
negative directions by 11% and 12%, respectively. Stiffness (secant) degraded slightly as
well. It should be noted that the beam longitudinal bars yielded at the center of the joint
core, though no large flexural cracks in the beam were observed. This provides proof of
beam bar slip through the joint. Similar to the other subassemblages, the width of the
cracks continuously decreased with distance away from the joint. The joint shear force
acting on a horizontal section at mid-depth of the joint at the measured peak lateral load
was determined to be 90.07 kips, based on the method presented in Chapter Three.
During the first cycle of 4% drift ratio specimen WB3 underwent no substantial
strength reduction from the previous cycle; it even increased in strength by 6% in the
positive direction of loading. Concrete crushing at the joint interface was accompanied by
large cracks on the wall face near to the joint area. The specimen experienced slight
stiffness degradation. During the second cycle of the same drift ratio, the subassembly
exhibited a quite significant decay of strength in both loading directions and some
pinching in the hysteresis loop (Figure 35) as a result of extensive concrete cracking and
spalling, bar slipping, and joint softening. Large cracks opened up at the joint interface
leading to beam bar slip through the joint core.

60
It was also during this drift ratio that minor bond-splitting cracks were detected
along the beam longitudinal bars. Moreover, the concealed column longitudinal bars
yielded close to the beam face. Note that, as with WB2, in this stage of loading and
hereafter the wall behaved as a cantilever member with a concentration of cracks and
61
damage in a region close to the joint interface (Figure 36). That is, most of the inelastic
deformation occurred in the loading side of the wall (Figure 37).
Figure 37. Observed cracking and damage in WB3 at the end of second loading cycle of 4% drift
ratio.
At 5% drift ratio, the specimen generally suffered an extensive amount of
damage; concrete crushed considerably and large cracks opened. Stiffness and strength
continued to gradually decay, as seen in Figure 35. During the first cycle, the specimen
exhibited significant energy dissipation capacity, indicated by the area within the loop,
particularly in the negative direction. The specimen was also demonstrated good energy
dissipation in the second cycle, even though concrete cover of the boundary elements and
concrete in the wall web had spalled. Due to the sufficient confinement provided per ACI
318-11, the concrete in the boundary elements core did not show any sign of
disintegration (Figure 38). Concrete crushing occurred inside the concealed column core
due to insufficient confining reinforcement, causing the longitudinal bars to buckle.

62
Figure 38. Observed cracking and damage in specimen BW3 at the end of second loading cycle
of 6% drift ratio.
During the last drift ratio increment (6%), the concrete in the wall web continued
to crumble as shown in Figure 38. At the end of the first cycle, residual strengths in the
negative and positive direction dropped to 48% and 53% of the peak lateral load in each
direction, respectively. During the subsequent cycle, the specimen maintained at least 8
kips in each direction. It should be mentioned that a big part of this residual strength
could be due to the resistance provided by one of the strands running through the joint
core. It was also during the second cycle that the concealed column longitudinal bars
buckled. The concrete in the boundary element cores was still intact, however.
Similar to that of WB2, the failure mode of WB3 specimen involved a flexural
failure of the wall as a cantilever member (Figure 38) in combination with punching of
the beam through the web of the wall. The specimen experienced a gradual decay of
strength after attaining the peak strength. Briefly, WB3 demonstrated relatively good
63
energy dissipation capacity, as seen in Figure 35. The load carrying capacity of the
specimen lowered during the second cycle of almost every set of two load cycles. No
joint shear cracks were observed throughout the testing.

64
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
General
In this chapter the test results of all three specimens given in the previous chapter
are discussed and compared with one another. The comparisons made between the test
specimens behavior include the global behavior, cracking patterns, energy dissipation,
beam and wall behavior, joint shear strength, and bond condition of longitudinal beam
bars.
The main varying parameter in this investigation is the presence and absence of a
concealed column passing through the joint core whether it is added or made out of the
wall vertical reinforcement. In other words, one possibility is to add a new concealed
column; another is to create a concealed column using the wall web vertical
reinforcement. Additionally, the concealed column introduced another parameter which
is the joint horizontal shear reinforcement. The concealed columns in specimens WB2
and WB3 were laterally reinforced as gravity columns, consistently throughout the height
of the wall. Consequently, in both specimens, two of the concealed column hoops were
located within the joint depth, as shown in Chapter Two (Figure 6 and Figure 7).
In addition to the above predefined parameters, another varying parameter
unintentionally introduced during performing the experiments which was the level of
axial compression load on the wall. The intent originally was to subject all the test units
65
to comparable level of axial load. However, it was not possible to control the amount of
stress loss in the strands caused by slippage of the strands at the end anchorages.
Therefore, each specimen had different amount of stress loss and thus different axial
load. The fact that there are different levels of axial load in each test specimen adds a new
variable to the test and thus makes direct comparison of specific variables difficult.
To make the comparisons between the test specimens a little easier, linearized
backbone curves are created for each individual specimen. Idealized backbone curves
provide a straightforward explanation for certain aspects of the specimen behavior such
as initial stiffness, inelastic deformation, rate of strength degradation, residual strength,
and so on. Figure 39 through Figure 41 show the derivation of the linearized (idealized)
backbone curves form the actual backbone envelops following the procedure used by
(Naish, 2010; Naish et al., 2013). The actual backbone curves represent the peak point of
every drift ratio. Figure 42 shows the comparison of the linearized backbone curves for
all three test units.
Global Behavior
Initial Stiffness and Stiffness Degradation. As shown in Figure 42 and Table 6, all
three test specimens had the same initial stiffness in both directions of response. The
modification made in reinforcement details of WB2 web and presence of the concealed
column in WB3 did not have a noticeable effect on the initial stiffness of the specimens.
This is because initial stiffness is mostly based on the sectional properties of the beam
and the wall, which were kept constant. Furthermore, the above modification and
improvement did not result in an appreciable effect on the stiffness degradation of the
66
specimens, as can be noticed from the load-displacement response of the specimens
(Figure 27, Figure 31, and Figure 35).
Figure 39. Derivation of linearized backbone curve form actual backbone envelope: WB1
specimen.
67
specimen.
68
specimen.
69
Figure 42. Comparison of linearized backbone curves of WB1, WB2, and WB3.
Strength and Strength Degradation. All three test specimens, WB1, WB2, and
WB3, developed their peak lateral load strength at approximately the same interstory drift
ratio (3%) in both directions of response. The modifications made in specimen WB2
resulted in an increase in lateral load strength (10% and 21% in positive and negative
direction, respectively, compared to WB1). Apparently, this improvement in strength
could, to some small extent, be attributed to the increase in concrete strength and higher
level of wall axial compressive load. Despite the fact that WB3 specimen had more
reinforcement, no increase in lateral strength was observed. This is likely due to a high
reinforcement ratio which led to concrete crushing prior to bar yielding. Moreover, at a
drift ratio of 3.125%, specimen WB1 failed whereas specimens WB2 and WB3 showed a
70
rather stable hysteretic behavior with a slight decay in strength at drift ratio of 4% and
failure in the subsequent cycles. Note that none of the specimens reached its theoretical
lateral load strength. This could be ascribed to their modes of failure which did not allow
the walls to develop their full flexural strength.
In regards to strength decay, WB1specimen experienced a rapid strength
degradation compared to the other two specimens (Figure 39 and Figure 42). This could
be attributed to the mode of failure observed in WB1; it failed in punching of the beam
through the wall web. On the other hand, specimens WB2 and WB3 failed in a
combination of punching of the beam through the wall web and flexure of the wall at the
face of the beam which led to a lower rate of strength decay, especially in the negative
direction of loading, as seen in Figure 42. The concealed columns longitudinal bars
provided in WB2 and WB3 acted as shear reinforcement to prevent a sudden punching
failure. Additionally, the strength of each specimen dropped during the second cycle of
each drift level post-yield.
Inelastic Deformation. As mentioned previously, specimen WB1 failed
immediately after attaining its maximum lateral strength and, therefore, did not exhibit
much plastic deformation. This low attainment of inelastic deformation capacity can be
attributed to its mode of failure, which was punching failure. This type of failure is a
sudden failure. On the contrary, specimen WB2 showed a more favorable inelastic
deformation capacity, as shown in Figure 42; it deformed inelastically in the positive and
negative directions by 59% and 79%, respectively, more than WB1. Specimen WB3 also
exhibited a better inelastic deformation capacity than WB1. However, in spite of more
improvement made in WB3 than WB2, lower inelastic deformation was observed in
71
WB3. This could be ascribed to two factors. First, the higher level of axial compressive
load on WB3 caused a reduction in the wall flexural deformation. Li et al., (2009)
observed that presence of axial compressive load led to lower column flexural
deformation. Second, higher reinforcement ratio in the wall led to a less ductile behavior.
Cracking Patterns
As soon as the specimens were loaded, cracks at the joint interface were observed
in all three specimens. With increase in the imposed drift ratio, joint interface crack width
increased gradually. This might be attributed to the fact that the wall was relatively thin
and could not provide sufficient anchorage for the beam longitudinal bars, and they,
consequently, slipped through the wall. As shown in Table 7, at each drift ratio, the width
of joint interface cracks was largest in specimen WB1 and smallest in specimen WB3.
This could be because of the strengthening provided by the concealed column through the
joint. Cracking patterns in the face of the wall was slightly different in specimen WB1
from the other two. As was shown in the previous chapter, fewer but wider cracks were
observed in the web of WB1. In the case of specimens WB2 and WB3, cracks fanning
out from the joint were larger in number but smaller in width. This might also be
attributed to the enhancement (concealed column) made in these specimens which
prevented large cracks to develop during early stages of loading.
Energy Dissipation
All three specimens exhibited similar energy characteristics during early stages of
loading. In other words, during the elastic range of response (nearly up to 2% drift ratio)
the energy dissipated, area enclosed by the hysteretic loops during each loading cycle, by
each specimen was relatively equal. Furthermore, the energy dissipated by WB1, WB2,
72
and WB3, was the greatest during the first cycle of drift ratio 3.125%, 5%, and 4%,
respectively. Though, in general, all the three test specimens showed a rather limited
energy dissipation capacity, it was more favorable in specimens WB2 and WB3. The
effect of the axial compressive load was not clear. Approximately 70% to 80% of the
energy dissipated in the first cycle was dissipated during the second cycle of the same
drift ratio for all test specimens. The main reasons for pinching of the hysteresis loops are
beam longitudinal bars slippage through the joint and some looseness and slippage in the
test setup.
Beam and Wall Behavior
Throughout the loading history of all the specimens, very few flexural cracks
were seen in the beams. Moreover, except for WB3, the beam longitudinal bars did not
yield at any time. The fact that the longitudinal bars in the beams did not yield can be
attributed to high reinforcement ratio and bond deterioration in the joint. This explains
that the beams contributed very slightly to the total drift ratio. However, in actual
practice, this might not always be the case.
On the other hand, due to thinness of the wall, the flexural deformation of the wall
was predominant. Thus, the cracking and concrete spalling were mostly observed in the
wall web and the joint vicinity. Plastic hinges were formed in the boundary elements of
WB2 and WB3 specimens. Due to unsymmetrical loading distribution in both ends of the
wall caused by friction at the beam supporting braces, the loading side of the wall
contributed the most to the total drift ratio from wall flexural deformation.
73
Joint Shear Strength
The maximum joint shear stresses associated with peak lateral load strengths are
calculated for each individual test specimen, based on the procedure presented in Chapter
Three. Additionally, predicted nominal joint shear strengths are determined using four
models available in literature and codes of practice, as explained in Chapter Three.
Applicability of these models to joints tested in the present study is examined by
comparing the predicted values with experimental results. This is of special interest
because these models are particularly developed for beam-column joints which are
different in dimensions and, sometimes, shear strength mechanism due to different
reinforcement layout in the joint. From the experimental observations, it was evident that
none of the specimens failed in joint shear. This indicates that the joint shear strengths of
the test specimens were sufficient of resist the applied shear on the joint. This might be
attributed to the weakness of the wall web; its failure took place prior to development of
full strength of the diagonal compression strut. The joints shear stress coefficients, , are
calculated as follows
v
= (23)
f'c
Where v is the joint shear stress, and f'c is the concrete compressive strength.
Table 8 presents the joint shear coefficients for both experimental and predicted
joint shear strengths. It can be observed from Table 8 that the experimental joint shear
stress coefficients for all test specimens are larger than that predicted by both NZS-3101
and Wang et al., (2012). They also exceeded that of Hakuto et al., (2000) for specimens
WB2 and WB3. These results suggest that joint shear strengths predicted by NZS-3101;
Wang et al., (2012); Hakuto et al., (2000) are quite conservative for joints under
74
investigation. However, the limits of ACI 318-11 for the maximum allowed shear stress
coefficients are higher than the experimental ones. Although it is not clear how much
more shear force these joints can take before they fail, the ACI 318-11 limits seem
reasonable when applied to joints discussed herein. Since none of the joints encountered
joint shear failure, it is not clear whether the effect of the wall axial load was beneficial or
detrimental to the joint shear strengths. Note that in reality there would almost always be
a slab framing into the joint, thereby providing some more confinement to the joint.
Therefore, it can be reasonably extrapolated that such joints might be able to attain higher
shear strengths than isolated test subassemblages (Elsouri and Harajli, 2013).
Table 8. Joint Shear Stress Coefficients,

Hakuto et al., Wang et al.,
Joint Experimental ACI 318-11 NZS-3101
2000 2012
WB1 14.56 20 7.34 to 11.32 16 9.3
WB2 17.32 20 7.34 to 11.32 16 14.35
WB3 18.28 20 7.34 to 11.32 16 14.23
Bond Condition of Beam Longitudinal Bars
Response of each test specimen was, more or less, influenced by bond condition
of the beam longitudinal bars in the joint. Normally, the bond condition of beam
longitudinal bars is determined by the ratio of wall thickness to beam bar diameter. As
shown in table 4, all the specimens had the same ratio of wall thickness to beam bar
t
diameter, that is, dw was 9.6. This ratio violates the limit regulated by ACI-ASCE 325 for
b
beam and column longitudinal bars of beam-column joints, which is 20. The limit is
meant to make certain that beam and column longitudinal bars have sufficient anchorage
75
length to help limit premature slip of the bars through the joint core. Hence, it is not
surprising that all test specimens experienced bond deterioration from the early stages of
loading. This bond deterioration differed from one specimen to another. In contrast to
WB1, WB3 experienced the most severe bond deterioration; the beam bars yielded inside
the joint core. This is because WB3 did not fail in pure punching. The effect of the wall
compressive axial load on bond condition was not clear. This might be because the axial
load was uniformly distributed on the entire wall section which led to less transverse
compression load acting on the beam longitudinal bars in the joint core (Hakuto et al.,
1999). However, it is believed that in beam-column connections, axial load enhances the
bond condition of beam longitudinal bars (Quintero-Febres and Wight, 2000).

76
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The principal objective of this study was to experimentally evaluate the behavior
of non-planar wall-to-beam connections under earthquake-type loading. These
connections are commonly encountered in RC frame-shear wall and frame-tube structural
systems used in high-rise buildings. The following general conclusions regarding overall
behavior can be made:
1. Failure in the form of punching or a combination of punching and flexure in
the wall web is likely which could lead to a brittle behavior. Joint shear failure
is unlikely.
2. Due to the relative flexibility of the wall web and bar slip within the wall web,
energy dissipation capacity is limited.
3. Due to lack of anchorage within the wall web, slip cracks are likely to form at
the beam-to-wall interface.
The present research is also concerned with assessment of potential improvement
in the seismic performance of these joints by providing a concealed column within the
wall web. From the experimental results, the following conclusions regarding the impact
of the concealed column can be drawn:
1. Inclusion of a concealed column did not appreciably affect the initial stiffness
and stiffness degradation.

77
2. The concealed column had the effect of providing a modest (around 20%)
increase in strength. More importantly, the reference specimen (no concealed
column) experienced a sudden punching failure within the wall web, whereas
the other two specimens failed in a combination of punching and flexure.
Specifically, the strength loss was much more gradual in the specimens with
concealed columns.
3. The plastic deformation capacity of the specimen with a concealed column
was approximately double that of the specimen with no concealed column.
However, improvements to the plastic deformation capacity are limited as
providing too much reinforcement can have the effect of reducing ductility.
4. The concealed column had the effect of reducing crack widths at the joint
interface.
5. Though, as discussed above, all the three test specimens showed a rather
limited energy dissipation capacity, the concealed column did have the effect
of improving energy dissipation of the test specimens.
Finally, in the light of the test results, the following recommendation may be
made regarding design and detailing of non-planar wall-to-beam connections:
1. A concealed column designed as gravity column can relatively enhance the
behavior of non-planar wall-to-beam connections.
2. If possible, smaller diameter bars are recommended for beam longitudinal
bars to help with bar slippage through the joint.

78
3. In addition to a concealed column, a concealed beam bridging the boundary
elements might help improve the joint performance. Further study needs to
explain that.
4. Effective joint width might be best approximated as the sum of the beam
width and the distance between lines of an angle of 26.5 (slope of 1 in 2).
79
APPENDIX A
WALL DESIGN
Design of Structural Wall in the In-plane Direction on the Basis of ACI 318-11
= 4000 psi (Normal weight concrete)
ASTM A615 Grade 60 steel
( = 60000 psi)
Half-scale wall
The vertical and horizontal loads are shown in
Figure A1.
= 0.9 + 1.0 ACI 318-11 Eq. 9-7
= 0.9(28 + 45 + 55) = 115
= 1.0(3 18 + 2.5 12 + 2.25 6)
= 97.5 = 1170 k-in
Assumed wall sectional reinforcement detailing is
shown in the Figure A2.
Note that contribution from the web vertical
reinforcement to the flexural strength of the wall is
neglected.
Figure A1. Wall elevation and loading.

80
Figure A2. Assumed wall sectional reinforcement and detailing.
Flexural Design:
= = 4 0.31 60 = 74.4
= 0.85
+ 74.4+115
= = 0.85 4 6 = 9.25"
0.85
9.25
= = 0.85 = 10.93"
1
= 24 1.5 2.0 = 20.5
0.375 = 7.7
0.6 = 12.3
The section is neither a tension controlled member nor a compression member controlled,
but transition.
0.003
= 10.93 (20.5 10.93) = 0.0026
250
= 0.65 + (0.0026 0.00207) = 0.7
3

= [ ( 2) + ( 2 )]
81
9.25 24 9.25
= 0.7[74.4 (20.25 ) + 115 ( )]
2 2
= 1408 k-in > = 1170 k-in OK
Capacity Shear Design:
is based on probable flexural strength.
= Unfetored NDL + Unfaetored NLL (Recommended)
= 128 + 105 = 233

+
= 0.85 = 15.1"

= ( 2 ) + ( 2 ) = 2000 k-in
2000
() = =1 = 18.52 k
0.5 1812
2
@ > = 7.75 k
Check Shear Strength:
= ( + ) ACI 318-11 Eq. 21.7
= 24 6 = 144 in2
18
= = 9 >> 2
2
= 2.0
= 1.0 (NWC)
() 2 0.11
= = = 0.0046
2 68
= 144 (2 1.0 4000 + 0.0046 60000) = 57959 lbs. = 58 k
, = 8 = 73 > OK
= 0.75 58 = 43.5
82
> V. = 18.52 k OK
Check Minimum Horizontal and Vertical Web Reinforcement:
= 0.0046
= 0.0025 ACI 318-11 S 11.9.9.2
Maximum spacing of the horizontal reinforcement is the smallest of the following:
24
1) = = 4.8" (govern)
5 5
2) 3 = 18"
3) 18"
Use #3 @ 4.5 . . for horizontal web reinforcement
2 211
= = = 0.0046
1 68

, = 0.0025 + 0.5(2.5 )( 0.0025) 0.002 ACI 318-11 Eq. 11.30

, = 0.0025 < 0.0046 OK
Maximum spacing of the vertical reinforcement is the smallest of the following:
24
1) = = 8" (govern)
3 3
2) 3 = 18"
3) 18"
2 = 3.04 < = 7.75
Tow curtains are required ACI 318-11 S 21.9.2.2
Check Need for Boundary Elements:
1) Displacement Based Method:
B.E. is required if
83

> ACI 318-11 Eq. 21.8
600( )

= 10.93"

Use = 0.007 (ACI minimum value)

= 5.71" < = 10.93"
6000.007
Boundary elements are required.
Height of boundary element shall be the large of the following:
a) = 24"
1170
b) = 47.75 = 38" (Govern)
4
2) Stress Based Method:
B.E. is required if

= + > 0.2

6243
= = 69 4
12
= 1.2 + 1.6 = 206 (Recommended)

206 117012
= 246 + 6912
= 3.46 > 0.2 = 0.8
Boundary elements are required.
Boundary elements must be extended till a height where 0.15 = 0.6
At the base of second floor:

58.8 61212
= 246 + = 1.47 > 0.15 = 0.6
6912
At the base of third floor:

46.1 21612
= 246 + 6912
= 0.7 > 0.15 = 0.6
84
Boundary elements must be extended along the entire height of the wall.
Extension of Boundary Elements:
Boundary elements must be extended horizontally by the largest of the following
1. 0.1 = 8.53" This seems unreasonable for half scaled and very slender
wall. Therefore, it is ignored.

2. = 3.8"
2
Note that the web horizontal bars are not anchored in the boundary elements using
standard hooks or heads to ease construction, which is in violation of ACI 318-11 section
21.9.6.4.e.
Confinement of Boundary Elements:
Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement is the smallest of the following:
1 12" ( )
1) . . = = 3" (govern)
4 4
2) 6 = 6 0.5 = 3"
14
3) = 4 + 3
Use = 3"

= 0.09

5 3
= 3 + 8 + 8 = 4"
5 3
1 = 3 + 8 + 8 2 = 4.325"
5 3
2 = 4 + 8 + 8 2 = 5.325"
Long Direction
, = 2 0.11 = 0.22 2
85
4
, = 0.092 = 0.09 3 5.325 60 = 0.12

, < , OK
Short Direction
4
, = 0.09 3 4.325 60 = 0.078 2
, = 2 0.11 = 0.22 2 > , OK
Provide #3 @ 3 o. c. full length of B.E.

86
APPENDIX B
STRAIN GAGES
To measure strain in the reinforcing bars at locations of interest, CEA-13-240UZ-
120 strain gages manufactured by Vishay MICRO-MASUREMENTS were used. The
strain gage locations on the rebar, were grinded and smoothed. The prepared surfaces
then were cleaned and degreased using suitable chemicals (M-Prep conditioner A and M-
Prep Neutralizer 5A) and a procedure recommended by the manufacturer.
The strain gages were installed carefully in the right locations using appropriate
adhesive materials and a procedure recommended by the manufacturer. After the strain
gages were attached to the rebars, lead wires were soldered to the terminals in order to be
able to connect it to the data acquisition system. Then, the strain gages were protected
and secured using electrical tape to prevent the gage from damaging during cage and
concrete placement, Figure B1. It should be mentioned that the strain gages were tested
twice before and after pouring the concrete to ensure they meet the requirements given by
the manufacturer. Finally, the strain gages were labeled properly to prevent confusion
when reading data.

87
Figure B1. Wrapped strain gages on beam longitudinal bars.

88
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318. 2011. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-11) and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
ACI-ASCE Committee 352. 2002. Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column

Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02).
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
ASTM C 31. 2000. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens
in the Field. West Conshohocken, PA: Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Elsouri, A. M., and Harajli, M. H. 2013. Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Wide

Concealed-Beam/Narrow-Column Joints under Lateral Earthquake Loading. ACI
Structural Journal, 110, no. 2: 205215.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 1999. Effect of deterioration of Bond of Beam Bars
Passing through Interior Beam-Column Joints on Flexural Strength and
Ductility. ACI Structural Journal, 96, no. 5: 858-864.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 2000. Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior
Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details. ACI Structural
Journal, 97, no. 1: 11-25.
Kent, D.C., and Park, R. 1971. "Flexural Members with Confined Concrete." Journal of
the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
97, no. ST7: 1969-1990.
Kurose, Y., Guimaraes, G. N., Liu, Z., Kreger, M. E., and Jirsa, J. O. 1988. Study of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Uniaxial and Biaxial Loading
PMFSEL Report No. 88-2. Austin, TX: Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin.
Li, B., Wu, Y. N., and Pan, T.-C. 2002. Seismic Behavior of Non-seismically Detailed
Interior Beam-Wide Column JointsPart I: Experimental Results and Observed
Behavior. ACI Structural Journal, 99, no. 6: 791-802.
Li, B., Pan, T-C., and Tran, C. 2009. Seismic Behavior of Non-seismically Detailed
Interior Beam-Wide Column and Beam-Wall Connections. ACI Structural
Journal, 106, no. 5: 591-599.
89
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J., and Park, R. 1988a. "Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of
Confined Concrete." Journal of Structural Engineering, 114, no. 8: 1827-1849.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. 1988b. "Theoretical Stress-Strain Model of
Confined Concrete." Journal of Structural Engineering, 114, no. 8: 1804-1826.
Naish, D. 2010. Testing and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams. Ph.D.
Dissertation, UCLA.
Naish, D., Wallace, J., Fry, J.A., Klemencic, R. 2013. Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Coupling Beams: Part II. ACI Structural Journal, 110, no. 6: 1067-1075.
NZS 3101. 2006. New Zealand Standard-Concrete structures standard: Part 1- The
Design of Concrete Structures. Wellington, NZ: Standards New Zealand.
Park, S., and Mosalam, K. M. 2009. Shear Strength Models of Exterior Beam-Column
Joints without Transverse Reinforcement PEER Report 2009/106. Berkeley, CA:
University of California, Berkeley.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Popovics, S. 1973. "A Numerical Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain Curves of

Concrete." Cement and Concrete Research, 3, no. 5: 583-599.
Reddiar, M.K.M. 2009. Stress-Strsin Model of Unconfined and Confined Concrete and
Stress-Block Parameters. Masters Thesis. College Station, TX: Texas A&M
University.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. 1992. Strength and Ductility of Confined Concrete.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 118: 1590-1607.
Scott, B.D., Park, R., and Priestley, M.J.N. 1982. "Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete
Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates." Journal of
American Concrete Institute, 79: 13-27.
Selby, R.G. and Vecchio, F.J. 1997. A Constitutive Model for Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Solids. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 24, no. 3: 460-470.
Thorenfeldt, E., Tomaszewicz, A., and Jensen, J.J. 1987. "Mechanical Properties of High-
Strength Concrete and Application in Design." Proceedings of the Symposium on
Utilization of High-Strength Concrete. Stavanger, Norway: 149-159.
Wang, G., Dai, J., and Teng J.G., 2012. Shear Strength Model for RC BeamColumn
Joints under Seismic Loading. Engineering Structures, 40: 350360.
View publication stats

Saman Abdullah-Thesis-2013 FINAL

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Saman Abdullah-Thesis-2013 FINAL

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF NON-PLANAR

Thesis January 2013

Evaluation the Impact of Boundary Element Detailing On Flexure-Controlled Structural Walls

California State University, Fullerton

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Dr. David Naish, Committee Chair Date

Dr. Uksun Kim, Member Date

Dr. Pratanu Ghosh, Member Date

Dr. Nagi Abo-Shadi, Visiting Examiner Date

Dr. Pinaki Chakrabarti, Visiting Examiner Date

Connections between gravity framing (non-participating in resisting seismic

incomprehensive. The common practice is to provide a concealed column and/or a

of these joint. To accomplish these objectives, three half-scale reinforced concrete

columns exhibited a modest improvement in lateral strength and energy dissipation

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii

2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ........................................................................ 7

3. ASSESSMENT OF THEORETICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................. 27

5. DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ..................................................... 64

APPENDIX A: WALL DESIGN...................................................................................... 79

APPENDIX B: STRAIN GAGES .................................Error! Bookmark not defined.86

1. Test Specimen Reinforcement Details ..................................................................... 15

2. Concrete Properties .................................................................................................. 16

3. Steel Properties ........................................................................................................ 17

4. Calculated Design Parameters ................................................................................. 33

5. Predicted Joint Shear Strength ................................................................................. 39

6. Test Results .............................................................................................................. 46

7. Average Crack Width [in.] ....................................................................................... 46

8. Joint Shear Stress Coefficients, ............................................................................. 74

1. A floor plan showing beams framing into shear walls. ............................................. 2

2. Typical framing detail for concealed column. ........................................................... 3

3. Typical test specimen subassembly : WB1, WB2, and WB3. ................................... 9

5. Wall sectional reinforcement for WB1. ................................................................... 12

6. Wall sectional reinforcement for WB2. ................................................................... 13

7. Wall sectional reinforcement for WB3. ................................................................... 14

8. Distribution of plastic tubes for strands. .................................................................. 18

9. Placement of reinforcement. .................................................................................... 19

10. Casting of concrete. ................................................................................................. 19

11. Constructed test specimens: WB1, WB2, and WB3. ............................................... 20

12. Test setup: Plan view. .............................................................................................. 22

13. Test setup: Elevation view. ...................................................................................... 23

14. Typical loading history. ........................................................................................... 24

15. Strain gage distribution in the wall. ......................................................................... 25

17. Schematic illustration of string potentiometers and load cell. ................................. 26

20. Confinement layout of the wall sections. ................................................................. 32

24. Effective joint area (ACI 318-11). ........................................................................... 41

26. Explanation of effective joint area. .......................................................................... 45

28. Observed development of cracking patterns of specimen WB1. ............................. 49

32. Observed development of cracking patterns of specimen WB2. ............................. 53

Environmental Engineering, UCLA, for being so helpful and allowing me to perform my

Steve Keowen, Senior Development Engineer at nees@UCLA. His outstanding

express my appreciation to my other friends: Ahmed Adhadh, Ehab Ballu, Mohammed

essential in building and leveling the formwork.

casting and storing the specimens.

Of course, I am genuinely thankful to Endersons family for letting me being a

offered me. Therefore, thank you very much.

in high-rise buildings. Due to the regular layout of beams in a gravity system, it is

Understanding of this specific type of connection is limited however, as a cursory review

given to the seismic performance of non-planar (out-of-plane) wall-beam joints,

incomprehensive with regards to detailing of these joints leaving no established method

displacement that the structure would experience during an earthquake. Therefore,