170685_1

7/30/2019 170685_1

1/17

1,2,3,4

(CB1, CB2&CB3)

(CB8, CB9 and CB10)

7/30/2019 170685_1

2/17

Group A

DGroup

(IDARC-4& ANSYS-10)

Group Parametric study Specimen

A Type of column reinforcement CB1,CB2&CB3CB8,CB9&CB10

Size of column CB1&CB8

7/30/2019 170685_1

3/17

AD

ACI 318-95

A

CB2&CB9CB3&CB10

7/30/2019 170685_1

4/17

D

7/30/2019 170685_1

5/17

All

in dimensions

mm.Fusion Bonded Steel Bars (FS).

Epoxy Coated Steel Bars (ES).

Normal High Grade Steel Bars (NS).

COLUMNBEAM

SPECIMEN

SERIAL

ReinforcementsCross-sectionReinforcementsCross-

section

Typeofcoat

Stir

rups

Stir

rups

Typeofcoat

Longitudinal

Longitudinal

De

pth

Width

Stirrups

Typeofcoat

Bottom

Top

De

pth

Width

NS

8mm

FS

4

16mm

300mm

200mm

8mm

NS

3

16mm

3

16mm

400mm

200mm

CB11

NSESCB22

NSNSCB33

NSFS

8

16mm

200

mm

200

mm

CB84

NSESCB95

NSNSCB106

Cement Fine Aggregate

(Sand)

Coarse Aggregate

(Gravel)

Water/Cement

Ratio

7/30/2019 170685_1

6/17

Strain GaugesLinear Variable Displacement Transducer (L V D T)Data Acquisition

1 1.75 3.5 0.55

7/30/2019 170685_1

7/17

Fig (5): Theoritical Displacement History,

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cycle No.

Displacement(cm)

(CB3)

7/30/2019 170685_1

8/17

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement(mm)

Load(tons)

Load versus

Displacement Hysteresis loop,(CB2)

Stiffness Degradation, (C B 1)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Cycle No.

Stiffness

Energy Dissipation Capacity, (CB1)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Cycle No.

EnergyDissipation(ton.mm)

Stiffness Degradation & Energy Capacity , (CB1)

Specimens

Groups

Yield Displacement Displacement

at Failure

f(cm)

y (cm)

Compression

y (cm)

Tension

y (cm)

Considered

Group

(A)

CB1 1.15 1.2 1.175 3.5

CB2 1.0 0.9 0.95 3.8

CB3 1.2 1.0 1.0 3.6

Group CB8 1.5 1.1 1.1 4.5

7/30/2019 170685_1

9/17

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

Joint Shear Deformation (Rad)

Load(tons)

*

, (CB10)Applied Load Versus Joint Shear Deformation

Strain in Beam Top Rft. of (CB1)

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Steel Strain,( )

Load,

(tons)

Strain in Beam Transverse Rft. of (CB1)

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Steel Strain,( )

Load,

(tons)

, (CB1)Strain in Beam Reinforcement

,

(D) CB9 1.1 1.23 1.1 4.5

CB10 1.1 1.0 1.05 5.2

Groups Specimens

DisplacementDuctility

Factor

( f /y)

Maximum

Drift Ratio

(f/L)

Group

(A)

CB1 2.98 2.8

CB2 4.0 3.04

7/30/2019 170685_1

10/17

(Displacement Ductility Factor andDrift Ratios.)

)(Yield and Ultimate Displacements.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Load(tans)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

Number of Specimens (CBN)

Fig.(13):Comparison betwe en Ultimate Load and crack load for Different Specimens.

Crack Load

Ultimat load

(Comparison between UltimateLoad and Crack Load).

Ultimate Lateral Load for Compression and Tension.

CB1,CB2&CB3

(CB8,CB9&CB10CB3)(A

CB3 3.6 2.88

Group

(D)

CB8 4.09 3.6

CB9 4.09 3.6

CB10 4.95 4.16

GroupsSpecime

ns

Ultimate Lateral

Load(ton)Failure

cycle

Failure

Load(ton)Compress

ion

side

Tensio

n side

Group

(A)

CB1 6.557 6.846 15 4.338

CB2 5.717 5.558 15 3.512

CB3 6.56 6.85 15 3.204

Group

(D)

CB8 4.323 4.07 15 2.95

CB9 4.087 4.024 15 3.022

CB10 3.812 4.027 17 3.153

7/30/2019 170685_1

11/17

Hysteresis Loop Envelope Of Load

Versus Displacement,

for (Group-A),(CB1,CB2,CB3).

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm)

Load(tons)

CB1 (F.S. Reinf.)

CB2 (E.S. Reinf.)

CB3 (N.S. Reinf.)

Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load

Versus Displacement,

for(Group-A),(CB8,CB9,CB10)

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Displacement (mm)

Load(tons)

CB8 (F.S. Reinf.)

CB9 (E. S. Reinf.)

CB10 (N. S. Reinf.)

(Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Displacement, for (Group-A)).

Stiffness Degradation for Different

Specimens,

for (Group-A), (CB1,CB2,CB3)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Cycle No.

Stiffness

CB1(F. S. Reinf.)

CB2 (E. S. Reinf.)

CB3 (N. S. Reinf.)


Specimens,


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Cycle No.

Stiffness

CB8 (F. S. Reinf. )

CB9 (E. S. Reinf. )

CB10 (N. S. Reinf.)

(Stiffness Degradation for Different Specimens, for (Group-A))

Energy Dissipation Capacity for Different

Specimens,

for(Group-A),(CB1,CB2,CB3).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Cycle No.

EnergyDissipation

(ton.mm)

CB1 (F. S. Reinf.)CB2(E. S. Reinf.)CB3(N. S. Reinf.)


Specimens,


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Cycle No.

EnergyDissipation

(ton.mm)

CB8 (F. S. Reinf. )

CB9 (E. S. Reinf. )CB10 (N. S. Reinf. )

(Energy Dissipation Capacity for Different Specimens, for (Group-A))

CB1&CB8(CB2&CB9)

(CB3&CB10(D

7/30/2019 170685_1

12/17

Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Versus

Displacement, (Group-D),

(CB1,CB2,CB3,CB8,CB9 & CB10)

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Displacement (mm)

Load(ton)

CB1(F.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)


CB2(E.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30)


CB3(N.S.Reinf.)(col30*30)

CB10(N.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)


Specimens, (Group-D).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Cycle No.

EnergyDissipation

(ton.mm)





CB3(N.S.Reinf)(col.30*30)

CB10(N.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)280


Specimens, ( Group-D)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Cycle No.

Stiffness

CB1(F.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30) CB8(F.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)

CB2(E.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30) CB9(E.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)

CB3(N.S.Reinf.)(col.30*30) CB10(N.S.Reinf.)(col.20*20)

(Comparison between Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Displacement, StiffnessDegradation, and Energy Dissipation Capacity for Different Specimens, for (Group-D))

IDARC

IDARC

Theoritical Hysteresis Loop Envelope

of Load VersusDisplacement,(CB10)(by

IDARC)

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Displacement (mm)

Load(tonS)

Theoritical

Experimental

Theoritical Vertical Load-Displacement

Hysteresis Loop,(CB10)(by IDARC).

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Disblacement(mm)

Load(tons)

3

2

5

7/30/2019 170685_1

13/17

(Analytical Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Versus Displacement, andComparison between Experimental and Analytical Results).

(ANSYS)ANSYS10

(Finite Element Mesh , and Overall Load of Specimens).

(Comparison between Experimental and Analytical Results)

Ana./Exp.

Analytical

Results

Experimental

ResultsSpecimens

Pult (Ton)Pult (Ton)

0.803.2254.03ve(CB10)

Column

(20x20) 0.823.1253.81ve

(ANSYS) /AnalyticalAnalyticalSpecimens

7/30/2019 170685_1

14/17

Analytical Load Versus Displacement

Hysteresis Loop(CB10) (by ANSYS).

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement(mm)

Load(tons)

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Displacement(mm)

Load(tons)

Experimental

Theoritical

3

3

6

(Analytical Hysteresis Loop Envelope of Load Versus Displacement, and

Comparison between Experimental and Analytical Results).

(ANSYS)(IDARC)

(Plastic

Hingeslippage

Fusion Bonded Steel Bars

Epoxy Coated Steel Bars

( IDARC)

Results

(ANSYS)Results

(IDARC)

Pult (Ton)Pult (Ton)

0.563.2255.75ve(CB10)

Column

(20x20) 0.5563.1255.62ve

( Comparison between Analytical Results (ANSYS and IDARC))

7/30/2019 170685_1

15/17

(ANSYS)

6. References:

1- ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Recommendations for Design of Beam- ColumnJoints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures.", ACI Journal, Vol.82, No.3, May-June 1995

2- A. J. Kappos, "Dynamic Loading and Design of Structures" Published by SponPress , London, 2003.

3- ASTM (1989),"Standard Specification for Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing SteelBars,"(ASTM A 775M-89a) 1989 Annual Book for ASTM Standards, Vol. 1.04,

ASTM, Philadelphia , pp. 555-559.

4-

Belong, Z. and Yuzhou, C., "Behavior of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Bi-Directional Cyclic Loading" , ACI SP-123(3) : Design of

Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, Special Publication of the American

Concrete Institute Detroit, Michigan, 1991, pp. 69-96.

5- ECP-1995 "Egyptian Code of Practice for Reinforced Concrete Structure",Housing and Building Research Center, Egypt 2006.

7/30/2019 170685_1

16/17

6- Park, Y. J., Ang, A.-S., and Wen, Y.K., "Seismic Damage Analysis and Damage-Limiting Design of R/C Building" Civil Engineering Studies, Technical Report No. SRS

516, University of Illinois, Urbana 1995.

7- Park, Y. J., Reinhorn A. M., Kunnath S. k., "IDARC: Inelastic Damage Analysisof Reinforced Concrete Frame-Shear-Wall Structures" Technical Report NCEER-87-

0008, State University of New York at Buffalo1998.

"Effect of Column Characteristic on Seismic Behaviorof Beam-Column Connection with Different

Types of Coated Steel Bars"

M. TALAT MOSTAFA1, SHADIA NAGA ELIBIARI

2,

AHMED MOHAMED FARAHAT3ANDHOSSAM EL-DIN HASSAN FOUAD AHMED ADBEL-

WAHID4

7/30/2019 170685_1

17/17

1 Professor of Concrete Structures Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.2

Professor of Concrete Structures National Center of Housing and Building Research.3

Professor of Concrete Structures Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.

4Doctor in civil Engineering, Housing and Development Bank, E- mail

[email protected] :During the past few years the attention had increased to real estate

wealth due to not doing the needed maintenance to reserve the

hypothetical age of the structure .

One of the most effective factors on the age of the structure and its

safety is corrosion of reinforcing steel . Therefore, the is a need toresist this destructive factor. There are many factors to resist corrosion

of reinforcing steel but the economic way that is recommended to used

in codes but under special conditions which is covering the reinforcing

steel through epoxy-coated bars between it and the factors causing the

corrosion. Using the epoxy materials as a prevention between the

reinforcing steel and concrete affects connection and to reduce this

effect, the connection is increasing between them by mechanic

connection by increasing the length of the skewers. It was common

that before 1992 Earthquake , the lower-mid buildings highness are

designed based on bearing the vertical loads regardless the horizontal

loads. In the situation of Earthquake , cracks and collapses occur in

many buildings and many of these cracks occur according to defects inthe joints between the column and the beam whether design defects or

details defects , so its necessary to take the loads into consideration .

Keywords : Corrosion of reinforcing steel , Beam-Column Connection

, Seismic , Coated Steel Bars.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

170685_1

Documents