American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2019, Vol. 7, No.

2, 67-114
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajcea/7/2/4
Published by Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/ajcea-7-2-4

Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joint

for Cyclic Earthquake Loading
Khalid Abdel Naser Abdel Rahim*

Researcher in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Received January 14, 2019; Revised March 22, 2019; Accepted April 11, 2019
Abstract This paper presents a reinforced concrete beam-column joint model that was carried out for cyclic
earthquake loading. The beam-column joint is the most important part of a building and modelling such an element
and determining its structural behavior under the effect of seismic citations is essential to avoid losing lives and
money. The non-linear analysis consisted of two types: (1) Non-linear static analysis that includes applying cyclic
earthquake loading and (2) Non-linear dynamic analysis that involves applying three real historic earthquakes with
different frequencies and magnitudes. The crack pattern analysis was established for non-linear static and non-linear
dynamic to determine the worst-case scenario in terms of crack size. Another beneficial analysis was seismic
analysis, which targeted the critical response time by which the maximum axial force, displacement and stress has
occurred for applied real earthquakes. It was found that the structure sustained all the applied real earthquakes,
however failure of the structure took place during the third cycle (50mm) of cyclic earthquake loading. After
comparing the results with previous published work it was observed that the size of the reinforcement bars plays a
major role in terms of load carrying capacity of the structure. It was observed that cracks occurred mostly under the
Friuli earthquake due to the highest magnitude among other earthquakes. There was a variation in the location of
cracks within the structure for each earthquake. Intermediate and major cracks occurred during the third cycle
(50mm) of cyclic earthquake loading within the joint. The cracks were developed and increased as the cycle was
increased leading to cracks across the joint after the forth and fifth cycles and failure of the structure. Although the
critical response time for the Friuli earthquake was lower than the other earthquakes it was the most active and had a
larger effect on the model. This is because the Friuli earthquake had the highest magnitude among applied
earthquakes. The results obtained from the author’s model were used to suggest some recommendations on
Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings
(2004) BS EN 1998-1: 2004 to improve the performance of beam-column joints during earthquakes. The main
reasons for beam-column joint failure are due to the transverse steel which crosses diagonal cracks and begins
yielding, anchorage failure of reinforcement, loss in moment carrying capacity of columns near joints and the
opening and closing of cracks due to cyclic loading.
Keywords: structural modelling, RC beam-column joint, cyclic earthquake loading, static analysis, dynamic
analysis
Cite This Article: Khalid Abdel Naser Abdel Rahim, “Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joint
for Cyclic Earthquake Loading.” American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, vol. 7, no. x (2019):
67-114. doi: 10.12691/ajcea-7-2-4.

and [5]. Experimental research is the most important tool

used for finding the parameters which both affect joint
1. Introduction performance and those that need to be improved in order
to enhance joint performance [6]. A large number of
1.1. Background: Modelling Beam-column publications giving detailed recommendations for the
design of reinforced concrete column joints were published
Joints in the USA and Europe in the last two or three decades.
Beam Column joints are an important part of any According to [7] a beam-column joint ought not to fail
construction and their behavior is a significant factor and in the event of an earthquake due to certain reasons which
plays an important role in the overall behavior of framed include: (1) gravity loads must be sustained at the joints;
structures (reinforced concrete) when confronted with (2) large energy dissipation and ductility cannot be
seismic waves or excitation [1,2,3]. The most important allowed in joints; and (3) joints are not easy to repair after
reason for failure and catastrophic collapse during a seismic event such as an earthquake. While some
earthquakes is inadequate availability of shear damage may be tolerable, this is as long as it does not have
reinforcement in joints of reinforced concrete structures [4] any unwanted impacts on the general structural behavior of a
68 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

building. Over the years, there has been significant interest main strut mechanism, which has to carry the complete
and progress in the modelling of beam-column joints due shear in its joint. Shear transfer method in the beam
to these reasons outlined above. A building in Japan failed column joint changes as a bond starts deteriorating with
under an earthquake due to the shear stress in the reinforcement in the beam. Tension force that is not
beam-column joint connection. The weak reinforced transferred to joint concrete must be resisted by
connection between beam and column were the main compression on the face of the joint. With an increase in
reason for failure. Thus, the beam-column joint is compression stress in the main strut the concrete is
considered to be the most essential part of the structure weakened as a result because of reversed cyclic loading,
and appropriate considerations should be maintained and overall compressive strength decreases by increasing
during the design stage for a safe structure against the tensile strain acting perpendicular to the direction of
earthquakes. the main strut. Shear capacity decreases and finally fails
under shear comparison. The main role of lateral
1.1.1. Performance Requirements of Beam-Column reinforcement is to confine the cracked joint. Truss
Joints mechanism is effective at this stage. An index defined as a
The design is automatically classed as satisfactory beam bar bond index is discussed, which corresponds to
when column reinforcement passes through the joint as the the chances of bond degradation, which occurs alongside
gravity load and flexure are considered. Nevertheless, beam reinforcement. The average bond over column for
there can be a difference in shear in a joint with that of a yielding beam reinforcement in compression and tension
column or a beam and the joint should be designed in a on both sides of the joint could be expressed as:
manner that can handle brittle shear failure. However, f y × Db
some cracking due to this shear is acceptable in the design. Ub = . (1)
At the same time anchorage of bars should be done so as 2 × Hc
to maintain and develop a weak beam strong column
In the above equation fy denotes strength of beam bars,
resistance method. Significant slippage of bars and shear
Db is diameter of beam bars, Hc is the width of the column.
failure of the panel in a joint must be prevented up to a
If bond strength varies with the square root of
limit of deformation defined for the structure. This is
compressive strength fC’, then the feasibility of bond
defined as beam ductility or a strong drift angle by which
degradation by bond index BI can be expressed as:
they should be considered in relation to the joint.
Ub
1.1.2. Shear Mechanism in Beam-column joint BI = . (2)
fc '
In Figure 1 shown below, the actions acting on an
interior joint from its connecting columns and beams is
shown: [8] have studied the shear transfer mechanism
acting in a joint. This is defined as “main strut mechanism”
and another is defined as “sub strut mechanism”. On the
main diagonal, the main strut occurs as a result of vertical
and horizontal compression that acts along the section of
column and beam. It is to be noted that the main strut
exists without consideration of bond situation of bars
present within the joint section. Diagonal compression
stress, which is uniformly distributed over the panel
regions, forms the sub strut mechanism. This diagonal
strut mechanism must equalize or balance the tensile
strength present in horizontal and vertical reinforcement
and bond stress, which acts along exterior column bars
and the beam. There may also exist a third kind of
mechanism that is called a transfer mechanism or truss
mechanism. This truss mechanism is produced due to
lateral reinforcement and column exterior reinforcement
along with diagonal concrete struts.
If bond is absolutely correct in the case beam
Figure 1. Beam Column Joint by [8]
reinforcement, the main strut mechanism takes part of the
shear that is nearly equal to tension force. As a result of The value of this index is high for beam bar strength.
this contribution of sub strut mechanism with shear Bars with narrow column width have a larger diameter of
resistance it is quite comparable to that of main strut beam bars and as a result have a weak concrete strength.
mechanism. The sub strut mechanism exists in joints when Bond deteriorates at a higher index value. In most
a good bond stress is maintained along column and beam common cases observed it is found that the size of beams
reinforcement. It is not feasible however to have a perfect is governed by drift or its design criteria, instead of
bond along the beam reinforcement and as a result beam depending upon flexural strength requirements. Ductile
deterioration starts because of tension on the side of strength of connections helps in the formation of beam
beam reinforcement. Once bond deteriorates sub strut hinging over global frame mechanism having large
mechanism looses shear transfer and as a result, the hysteretic energy capacity as a result reducing force on the
effectiveness of lateral reinforcement deteriorates. It is the columns. The behavior of structures discussed above
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 69

depends majorly on connection response and a major loading situations. By analyzing the modelling approaches
portion of study emphasizes what steel concrete frames found within contemporary literature, this research will
with strength (partial) has given to the development of not only present a summary of the status-quo, but also
systems with connections and relative study of behavior project a futuristic direction for such studies. Accordingly,
when put to seismic and cycle loading. the research will endeavor to provide an overview of
computational tools as well as aspects of the World Wide
1.2. Aims and Objectives Web through collaborative tools for beam-column
research and investigations.
The main aim of this research is to model a This research topic is worthy of consideration because
beam-column joint and subject it to cyclic earthquake it will firstly, provide a comprehensive and up to date
loading sequentially to examine the behavior of the joint review and analysis of literature in modelling RBC joints.
and its performance in the event of an earthquake. The It will essentially reveal the state-of-the art approaches
following objectives of the research should be achieved: used in tackling the problem of reinforced beam-column
- To conduct a thorough review of literature on (RBC) joints by looking at the techniques and tools
investigations of modelling approaches and applied in different parts of the world for modelling and
experimental tests used for reinforced beam-column investigating RBC’s. This will be beneficial for evaluating
joints in seismic studies including previous and the most effective modelling method or combination of
contemporary methods. methods to be used in the proposed non-linear model in
- To use the appropriate tools and methods from this aspect of seismic research.
the investigated published work in modelling a The proposed refined component model will aid in
beam-column joint under cyclic earthquake loading predicting the inelastic monotonic behavior of the exterior
using computer software. beam to column joints with partial strength composite
- To find the outcomes of final model subjected to steel having moment resisting frames of concrete. The
real earthquakes. cyclic earthquake loading results obtained from the
- To compare the investigated experimental results proposed model will be compared with the published
with the results obtained from the proposed model experimental results to suggest some changes in the
in terms of seismic cyclic loading. current design codes of beam-column joints. The research
- To come up with some recommendations for improving will also provide an objective method for evaluating the
current design codes for the design of beam-column features, benefits and challenges in different modelling
joints under cyclic earthquake loading and to produce approaches for RBC’s, which should be of benefit for
guidelines for future work and further study. future researchers, who may wish to quickly adopt a
modelling method.
1.3. Scope of the Research
1.5. Methodology
The period of the research did not allow a parametric
study to be conducted on the author’s proposed The previous published experimental studies on the
beam-column joint model in order to create a set of beam-column joint as presented in the literature review
statistical data on the seismic behavior of the joint with section of this report were an important part of the
different parameters. Therefore, the project focused on research. It has aided in finding out the most appropriate
studying the non-linear static and non-linear dynamic method and parameters by which the model was created.
behavior of the beam-column joint within the available The computer software (Lusas 14.4) was used to model
resources and time restrictions. and perform non-linear static, non-linear dynamic, seismic
- The author’s proposed beam-column joint was and cracking pattern analysis on the joint element. The
modelled and simulations were carried out using behavior of the structure and specially the joint under
Lusas Finite Element package. There was no possibility seismic loading and real earthquakes were analyzed.
to pursue or test the joint through experimental work. Moreover, the results obtained from each analysis in terms
- The column was fixed from both top and bottom to of displacements, stresses, strains, maximum shear force
represent a real life structural situation of the and bending moments were compared with previous
element during seismic loadings. published experimental work. Accordingly, the conclusion
- The testing of the joint was performed with is given and some recommendations for improving the
different loads being applied on the beam, which design of beam-column joints were produced based
represents the cyclic loading. on the comparison made between the model and experimental
- The dynamic analysis was carried out on three types results.
of real earthquakes. The UDL (floor load) of the
beam was included. Conversely, the effect of the 1.6. Potential Problems
loads created by stories above the column was not
included in the study. Problems that may be encountered by this research
include the following:
1.4. Significance of the Research - Time constraints: Depending on the findings from
the literature review, it may be desirable to pursue
The modelling of reinforced concrete beam-column or test some modelling through experimental work.
joints can be beneficial for many reasons but this research However, it is not possible due to the duration of
specifically reviews its application in cyclic earthquake the course.
70 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

- Availability of resources: The need for applying some recommendations for improvement in current
earthquake simulations on the proposed model designs of such an element under the dynamic effect of an
using an open-source, object-oriented software earthquake will be given with suggestions for future work
framework such as OpenSees is essential as on carrying out more types of seismic analysis.
reviewed in the literature (more details are given in
chapter 2 – literature review). Nevertheless, this
kind of software is not available or accessible. 2. Literature Review
- Required expertise: The required level of skill and
experience to successfully run modelling codes and [10] and [11] used a refined beam-column joint to
obtaining results may take time. minimize the computational time and effort needed for
modelling such elements and for obtaining more accurate
1.7. Structure of the Report results. Their research utilized 2D models of precast
structural elements and is an example of judicious use of
This report is structured according to the key research resources in seismic modelling of RBC’s. [12] applied a
findings arranged in a quasi-historical way but also microplane-based Finite Element (FE) to seismically
according to subject matter. It begins with a literature model and analyze a three-dimensional reinforced
review with a general background to modelling of beam- beam-column joint under cyclic loading. This was for the
columns starting with simple experimental scaled models purpose of investigating weaknesses in the structure of
of beam-columns done from the 1980s to an example of buildings with old frames. The FE tool they used was
seismic modelling work done in the 1990s. Afterwards, MASA, and their studies looked at the impact of variables
the review focuses on a more contemporary aspect of such as axial loading on columns and on bonding.
seismic beam-column modelling, through the review of [13] applied experimental methods to investigate the
research on fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) joints. In this strengthening characteristics that fiber-reinforced plastic
section, three aspects of seismic related studies were (FRP) materials have on beam-column joints. They
covered which are: (1) the use of FRP jacketing and near adopted three kinds of loads: gravity beam, axial column
surface mounted (NSM) rods; (2) the use of FRP for and reverse load to carry out their studies. Their findings
interior beam-column joints; and (3) the use of FRP for were used to produce guidelines for engineers who wish to
exterior joints. The report concludes with a brief insight strengthen existing structures with FRP. Similarly,
into prediction models used or applicable to seismic [14,15,16] used experiments to evaluate the performance
studies of beam-columns. This section covered issues such of as-built RC joints under seismic conditions, which they
as predicting shear failure and the use of OpenSees, which then compared with carbon fiber-reinforced polymers
is an open-source modelling environment. In addition, (CFRP’s). They had two sets of specimens: control
the literature review will go through an experimental specimens; repaired specimens and CFRP strengthened
study on the strengthening of reinforced concrete specimens. Their findings indicated that the bonding of
beam-column joints with steel fiber during earthquake CFRP externally to joints enhances shear strength and
loading done by the visiting researcher [9] at the ductility of the joints. [17] investigated the behavior of RC
University of Leeds. beam-column joints under seismic forces by using
The methodology section of this report will present the simulation of earthquakes specimens in a laboratory. The
computer software that has been used in modelling objective of their research was (1) to validate 3D
and the reason behind using this software with general nonlinear FE models; and (2) to investigate the effects that
information about it. Furthermore, the general properties seismic loading has on transverse beams. They concluded
of the model such as material, physical, structural and that as the transverse beam loses the torsional capacity its
geometrical properties will be identified along with mesh strength is maintained and the axial loads prejudice the
formation and the characteristics of the three members of seismic behavior of the beam-column.
the structure, for instance, joint, cantilever and column [18] used RC beam-column joints modelled to a
members. The method of using and assigning the types of small-scale and subjected them to a large cyclic
earthquakes including cyclic earthquake loading will be displacement under two different frequencies, for example,
discussed. Additionally, the four types of analysis and 2.5 x 10-3 and 1.0 Hz. The aim was to assess damage using
simulations that has been carried out will be examined free vibration tests. The modelling results they obtained
such as non-linear static analysis, non-linear dynamic, were subjected to reliability screening by comparing them
cracking pattern and seismic analysis. with results for slower rates of vibration and those
The results presentation section will include the obtained from full scale testing of prototype beam-column
findings from the analysis and simulations. This will be joints. Moreover, they used three identical beam-column
presented in terms of graphs, tables and contour maps joints where the first specimen used was for preliminary
showing the distribution of stresses and strains in the testing to define yield displacement and for checking of
model. This will be followed by results, analysis and the instrumentation. The second specimen was subjected
discussion of the results and comparing the results with to cyclic loading at a frequency of 2.5 x 10-3 Hz, which is
the previous published experimental work, for example, the slow rate. The third specimen was subjected to a
the findings from the literature review. Based on the frequency of 1.0 Hz, for instance, a fast rate. To illustrate
comparison made the conclusion will be drawn this, the scaled specimen and the experimental set up
summarizing the most important findings along with used by [18] are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3
general reasons for beam-column joint failures. Finally, respectively.
American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 71

Figure 2. Scaled model specimen design of [18]

Figure 3. Experimental set up used by [18]

Graph 1. Load vs. deflection graph obtained by [18]

72 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

They found that the faster loading rate was more on the structural response, but they also recommended the
damaging than the lower rate of vibration. Specifically, investigation of certain parameters on the structural
with the faster rate, the maximum load-bearing capacity of response. These included moments of inertia, yield
the specimen became higher, although it created a large moments, stiffness ratios between girders and joints and
quantity of dissipated energy. Furthermore, the faster rate strain-hardening ratios.
of vibration produced less but more localized cracks in the
specimen compared to the situation with a slower
vibration rate. This suggested that the vibration rate had an
effect, which is linked to the transfer of load between
reinforcement bars and the concrete itself. Graph 1
demonstrates the results obtained by [18] in terms of load
and deflection.
[19] investigated the inelastic behavior of RC frames,
which were under the influence of strong ground motions.
They focused on actual modelling of the elements and the
developing of an efficient numerical technique for
analyzing nonlinear dynamics. The authors then proposed
a new girder model based on Soleimani’s nonlinear beam
element. Besides this, the girder, which is revealed in
Figure 4 comprised of three main parts: a nonlinear
member which represented the beam; nonlinear rotational
springs which described fixed-end rotations at the
interface of beams and column; and rigid offset zones that
were meant to represent the beam-column panel zone.
Figure 5. Model used by [19] to determine stiffness matrix of girder
element with two DOFs

[11] identified some problems with finite element (FE)

modelling of frame structures including the inaccuracies
obtained when strain field is being approximated at zones
where shear forces are high. In addition, they inferred that
even though an approach like the fiber element model is
rather popular in concrete frame analysis. The authors
identified it as lacking the sort of generality for
application in zones of large shear forces within framed
structures. As a result, they introduced a continuum
modelling approach for dealing with the two-dimensional
(2D) state of stress and strain with the high shear zone of
beams and columns. Their study was based on the fact that
since continuum beam elements are actually 2D models of
the strain field in which the kinematic constraints are like
Figure 4. The proposed girder element by [19]
the Reissner-Mindling bending model and therefore, the
This girder element was then modelled in a computer displacement field along the beam’s thickness can be
programme (RCDYNA) which calculated the dynamic expressed according to rotation and displacement of the
response of the RC frames, which are moment resisting. cross section. Considering that refinement techniques had
The structural model’s nodes were located at the point of previously seen application in shell and plate structures,
intersection of the beam-column and each node had two and also because the majority of techniques available for
degrees of freedom (DOFs). Only one horizontal refinement are inapplicable to continuum elements, the
translation DOF was used to model the displacement of all model introduced by the authors sought to use refinement
nodes on the floor because it was assumed indefinitely to provide greater accuracy in approximation of strain and
rigid. The columns were modelled as being linearly elastic stress fields. The refined beam-column utilized in their
throughout the response time history and the effects of work was formulated using the total Langrarian approach,
P–Δ were represented with linear geometric stiffness. As which allowed for large deformations and by using the
the floor had only one DOF horizontally, the matrix of beam-column element represented in Figure 6 they were
geometric stiffness depended on summation of axial loads able to carry out a computerized analysis using the
on each floor. This sum is dependent on gravity loads, ABACUS programme.
which were left as constant throughout the response time The beam-column joint of Figure 6 above is shown as a
history. Figure 5 demonstrates the model used in refined solid FEM model in Figure 7 below.
determining the stiffness matrix of the girder element with [11] used three type of loading conditions for the
two DOFs. The authors tested their model on a six-storey analysis, which are Load Case A, Load Case B and Load
plane frame RC building that was designed according to Case C. In Load Case A, concentration (Fa) was applied
the 1982 Uniform Building Code and the ACI 318-83 at the end of the beams; representing simple idealized
standards. They then concluded at the end that the lateral loading in opposite directions within a frame
definition of the damping matrix had a significant impact system. Load Case B simulated the impacts of dead
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 73

loading on the joints in which two concentrated forces (Fb)

were applied at two sides of the model joint. In Load Case
C, the investigators wanted to account for effects of axial
loading on the joints and this was achieved by applying a
force (Fc) on the column. These loading conditions are
further described in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Loading conditions A, B and C in studies by [11]

The objective was to investigate the structural

weaknesses of inadequately detailed joints specifically in
older frame buildings. They conducted tests on such
Figure 6. Beam-column element used by [11] poorly detailed beam-column joints, which were basically
designed to support gravitational loads with the aim of
assessing their performance under seismic conditions.
With the aid of FE analysis software (MASA), which was
able to model and analyze quasi-brittle materials for
example, concrete in 3D, the authors carried out numerical
studies to meet their objectives. They investigated
different parameters such as variations in axial load on the
columns as well as the influence which modelling has on
concrete to reinforcement bonding. The test specimens
they used are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Properties of the test materials used by [12]
Test Specimen TDD1 TDP2 THR3
Steel Bar size R6 D10 R6 R10 R6 R10
Fy [MPa] 424 324 408 333 352 347
Fu [MPa] 495 457 482 467 436 474
Figure 7. Refined solid FEM beam-column model by [11] Es [GPa] 177 191 191 206 224 219
These studies by [11] emphasized that the importance Concrete Fcc [MPa] 22.9 25.0 26.8
of accuracy in high shear zones of reinforced concrete Ec [GPa] 28.7
(RC) structures is beneficial for determining the potential
behavior of the structure. Hence, by the application of the [12] then quantified the impacts of the parameters on
refined beam-column approach, the computational beam-column joint performance and also experimented
resources needed for analyzing concrete frames are with the joint behavior under reverse cyclic by comparing
reduced. For large frame systems, the accuracy of the model with experimental work. Their findings are
analysis is also enhanced. Additionally, the accuracy of included in Graph 2, which shows the variations in axial
approximating the strain field as well as the versatility load applied to the column in one of the specimens (TDP2)
possible in defining boundary conditions, the model was as well as Graph 3, which shows the numerical results that
expected to be useful for 2D modelling of other structural were compared with and without discrete bond model.
elements, such as, precast frame members and deep beams. The hysteretic behavior of test specimen TDP2 was also
Factors such as insufficient reinforcement ratio in reported by revealing the results obtained from both the
beam-column joints; the weak bonding properties of numerical and experimental results and this is illustrated
reinforcement in the longitudinal direction as well as the in Graph 4. In this result, it was deduced that the behavior
deficient anchorage of reinforcement bars with end-hooks was correspondent up to a top drift of 2.0% when a
leads to brittle failures, which can be aggravated under difference of approximately 10% in ultimate joint capacity
seismic loading. As such, [12] utilized microplane based is observed. After this 2.0% top drift (in the numerical
FE for modelling and analyses of a three-dimensional model) degradation in strength of the beam-column connection
RC beam-column joint under cyclic loading during due to slippage and buckling is pronounced. Conclusively,
earthquakes. both experimental and numerical models confirmed the
74 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

influence of axial load variation during cyclic push-pull 2.1. Seismic Studies on Fiber-reinforced
tests, although the FE model overestimated initial strength Plastic (FRP) Joints
and stiffness capacity of the joint. This drawback could
likely be overcome by a refinement of the model. This section overviews seismic studies on FRP joints by
focusing on its use through jacketing and near surface
mounted (NSM) rods of beam-column joints as well as
applications on interior and exterior joints.

2.1.1. FRP Jacketing and Near-surface Mounted (NSM)

Rods
[13] and [20] investigated the impact of FRP reinforcement
on the behavior of beam-column joints, the mechanisms of
failure as well as the ductility of such joints. They used
experimental models to demonstrate that by targeted
strengthening of joints, a strength hierarchy number could
be established. The hierarchy begins from column failure
(lowest level) with a ‘virgin joint’; and subsequently the
first upgrade with FRP goes to the failure panel, and with
more strengthening goes to the beam. The authors sought
to use their findings to produce design guidelines for
different circumstances allowing engineers to increase the
structural performance of existing structures with the aid
Graph 2. Variations in axial loading on columns in a specimen used by
[12]
of technology in an economical way. Three loading
applications were made using specimens modelled
specifically for these studies including an axial column
loading, gravity beam loading and reversed loading cycles.
A total of 12 experimental tests were done which were
planned in two series of six specimens each. In all instances,
the same axial load was applied on columns but there were
differences among the series regarding the extent of
upgrading that would define steps in the hierarchy described
earlier. The first specimen comprises of the ‘virgin joint’
named as either 1a or 2a, which modelled elements not
having seismic provisions in their design. The remaining
five specimens then had upgrades of FRP reinforcement in
a systematic way. Two specimens had wrappings (1b or 2b)
and wrapping in combination with near surface mounted
(NSM) rods in the column (1c or 2c). In others, columns
and panels are both strengthened (with sheets for 1d or 2d)
as well as sheets and rods (1e and 2e). The final specimens
had beam wrappings in addition to the strengthened
Graph 3. Numerical results with/without discrete bond model compared columns and panels (1f or 2f). Table 2 summarizes this
by [12] programme of test specimens and their characteristics.
Figure 9 shows the typical specimen being (a) prepared
for and (b) after casting.
In the first application, the specimen had a prefixed
load (P) applied on the column during which beam ends
were kept free to enable minor transverse displacements.
In the second application, when axial loads have attained a
specific value and are constant, beam loading is enabled
with two equal shear forces applied to beam ends in order
to simulate gravitational loading. In the third instance,
earthquake simulation commences and when the beam
shear forces become unequal at each end, shear forces and
flexural moment are created in the column for equilibrium
to take place.
Results obtained by [13] supported the combination of
FRP jacketing and FRP rods which are near surface
mounted (NSM) for retrofitting purposes. With the
possibility of modifying either the strength or ductility of
such joints using jacketing or NSM rods, the retrofitting
Graph 4. Hysteretic behavior of a specimen: experimental vs. numerical can be designed to produce a more desirable collapse
[12] if it occurs in the upgraded frame structure. Average
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 75

displacement recorded for the virgin joints and upgraded column moment-sheet strain at different locations are
joints are shown in Graph 5; while results of demonstrated in Graph 6.
Table 2. Summary of the experimental program used by [13]

Column Panel Beam

Axial load C Acol s FRP sheet s FRP NSMr upgraded by C D As As’ s’ FRP sheet s
SET Spec.
Kips in. bars in. layers rods number in. in. rods rods in. layers
1.a 56 8 2-#5 8 0 0 - 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
1.b 56 8 2-#5 8 2 0 - 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
1 1.c 56 8 2-#5 8 2 8-#3 - 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
1.d 56 8 2-#5 8 2 8-#3 sheets 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
1.e 56 8 2-#5 8 2 8-#3 sh.+NSMr 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
1.f 56 8 2-#5 8 2 8-#3 sh.+NSMr 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 2
2.a 28 8 2-#5 8 0 0 - 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
2.b 28 8 2-#5 8 2 0 - 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
2 2.c 28 8 2-#5 8 2 8-#3 - 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
2.d 28 8 2-#5 8 2 8-#3 sheets 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
2.e 28 8 2-#5 8 2 8-#3 sh.+NSMr 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 0
2.f 28 8 2-#5 8 2 8-#3 sh.+NSMr 8 14 3-#7 2-#6 4 2

Figure 9. Specimens being (a) prepared for and (b) after casting by [13]

Graph 5. Average displacement recorded for (a) virgin joints and (b) upgraded joints
76 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Graph 6. Results of column moment-sheet strain at different locations by [13]

Figure 10, which shows the initial reinforcement details.

2.1.2. FRP on Interior Joints Among these specimens there were two control specimens
[15] embarked on experimental work to evaluate the (IC1 and IC2), two repaired specimens (IR1 and IR2) and
seismic performance of as-built RC joint connections two strengthened specimens (IS1 and IS2). These gave
and then to further compare this performance with rise to two schemes (Figure 11) in which scheme 1 had
carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs). The CFRP CFRP sheets bonded with epoxy to the beams, joints and
performance was sought for two scenarios: when it is used some parts of the column. In scheme 2, the CFRP sheets
for repair such as, CFRP-repaired of joints and when the were only attached to the joint areas but had extra
CFRP is used for the strengthening of joints. Specimens preventive measures through anchorages to eliminate de-
were prepared for these studies and they are described in bonding.
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 77

Figure 10. Initial specimen reinforcement details

Figure 11. Scheme 1 and 2 for CFRP joints by [14] and [15]

The tests consisted of simulating seismic loading in a concrete floor and is schematically described in Figure 12.
cyclic manner on the specimens using a 500KN The displacement relationships for loads in the control,
servo-controlled hydraulic actuator. This actuator was strengthened and repaired specimens are revealed in
connected to a reaction steel frame that stood on a rigid Graph 7 where the hysteretic behavior is shown as curves.
78 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Figure 12. Schematics of the test set-up used by [14] and [15]

Graph 7. Hysteretic loops for (a) scheme 1 and (b) scheme 2 specimens by [14,15]

Results from these tests by [14,15] show that CFRP shear strength with regards to interior beam-columns that
when externally bonded to joints can improve the ductility were bonded externally with CFRP sheets. The results
and shear strengths. The extent of effectiveness is a factor obtained when compared to the experimental work were
of the way the sheets are bonded to the joint as well as the found to be in harmony. These added validity to the
presence of mechanical anchors. Scheme 1 was considered mathematical models utilized. Additionally, the formulations
efficient because of its impact on both joint and beam, but were also applied to computation of tensile diagonal stresses,
de-bonding took place as a result of lack of anchorage at within both the control and the FRP-strengthened joints. It
higher loading. Scheme 2 was more economical for joint was deduced that as the amount of FRP increased, there was
strengthening and any failures were attributed to the beams. a subsequent increase in confinement as well; which then
As a follow up on this investigation the authors [14,15,16] led to an increase in the shear strength of such joints. On
also presented an analytical prediction procedure for joint the other hand, there is a limit, after that it leads to brittle joints.
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 79

2.1.3. FRP on Exterior Joints represent two major strengthening schemes. The details of
Further to the work of [14,15,16] on interior beam-column the specimen reinforcement used by the authors are shown
joints, Alsayed et al. (2010) also used laboratory tests on in Figure 13 while a schematic of the exterior joint is
physical models to explore the seismic response of revealed in Figure 14.
fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP)-upgraded exterior RC A schematic representation of CFRP joints by the
beam-column joints. Their specific research objective was authors is shown in Figure 15a (scheme 1) and 15b
to investigate the efficiency and effectiveness of CFRPs (scheme 2). These images explain the different approaches
for improving the ductility and shear strength of exterior and extent of cover provided by the CFRP sheets as they
beam-column joints that are seismically deficient. Details were applied to the beam-column joints.
of the properties of their laboratory specimens are The testing apparatus and conditions are similar to those
demonstrated in Table 3 below. used previously by [14,15,16]. Eventually, Alsayed et al.
(2010) concluded that CFRP sheets that were externally
Table 3. Properties of specimen used by Alsayed, et al. (2010) bonded could improve the deformation capacity and shear
Parameter Properties
strength of beam-column joints. As part of their results,
they found that in scheme 1 when CFRP sheets were
Concrete and steel
bonded with epoxy to beams, joints and part of the
Concrete strength, f’c (MPa) 30 columns, the efficiency was increased due to impact on
Yield strength of steel, fy (MPa) 420 both joint and beam. Although without mechanical
CFRP composite system anchorage, when high loading occurred, de-bonding
Type of FRP Unidirectional (bulging) of such externally bonded sheets took place
CFRP sheet leading to cracks, which widened under the fiber sheets. In
Elastic modulus in primary fibers direction 61.5 X 10³ MPa
addition, they found that in scheme 2 when the sheets
were bonded with epoxy to the joint region only, this
Elastic modulus of CFRP 90º to primary fibers 34.5 MPa
presented a more economical and effective option for
Fracture strain 1.2%
strengthening of joints. In this case, however, the CFRP
Thickness, tf 1.0 mm sheets were fixed such that the de-bonding that took place
Shear modulus 2.51 X 10³ MPa in scheme 1 did not occur. Further interesting reading on
Poisson’s ration 0.25 modelling of exterior beam-column joints for seismic
analysis include [21] who incorporated rotational spring
Alsayed et al. (2010) had four as-built joints created elements in a programme for analysis of nonlinear static
using non-optimal design parameters. Specifically they and dynamic loads. [17] also studied seismic behavior of
had inadequate shear strength of joints without any RC beam-column joints by applying simulated earthquake
transverse reinforcement, which represented pre-seismic loads to laboratory specimens through quasi-static load
code design/construction procedures. Two of the model reversals. Their results were used in the validation of 3D
joints were left as baseline specimens (control) while the nonlinear FE models and other benefits came from findings
others were sheathed with the CFRP using epoxy to about the effects of seismic loads on transverse beams.

Figure 13. Details of the specimen reinforcement used by Alsayed et al. (2010)
80 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Figure 14. A schematic of the exterior joint constructed by Alsayed et al. (2010)

Figure 15. Schematic of CFRP joints for (a) scheme 1 and (b) scheme 2 by Alsayed et al. (2010)

2.2. Predicting Shear Failure strength in joints is summarized through the longitudinal
strain distribution, strength reduction of concrete structure
[22] proposed a technique for predicting shear failure in and the concrete shear contribution (Vc) including effective
the ductile capacity of RC beam-column joints sequel to compressive strength of concrete (Vf’ c) – deflection (Δ)
the development of plastic hinges at the extremes of relations are shown in Figure 16. Subsequently, they
adjacent beams. Their review of the degradation of shear developed a prediction method for shear failure.
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 81

Figure 16. Shear strength reduction in joints by [22]

reinforcement beam. The algorithm for this process is

represented in Figure 17. This method incorporates the
impact of longitudinal axial strain of beams in the region
of a plastic hinge on joints as well as the longitudinal
strain/strength deterioration of the joint. In developing this
prediction model, they carried out studies on five
specimens as revealed in Table 4. The five specimens of
the test programme were RC interior beam-column joints
introduced as J1, BJ1, BJ2, BJ3, and B1.
In the loading set up, the specimens were held in
vertical positions while servo-controlled hydraulic
actuators were used to apply quasi-static cyclic lateral load
from the top of the column. At the bottom of the columns,
beam ends were held by mechanical hinges and to further
prevent movement out-of-plane, four rollers were situated
within the set up.
The results obtained included cracking patterns
in each of the joint specimen and is illustrated in
Figure 18 (a to e) above. The variation in the amount
of beam bars was shown to have led to significant
differences in failure modes among the specimens.
In J1 for example, there was shear failure before
flexural yielding took place. For specimens BJ1, BJ2 and
BJ3 failure was observed to have occurred after yielding
of the beam bars. It was also observed that while the
quantity of beam bars decreased, so did damage to the
joints except in the plastic hinge areas in adjacent beams,
where the damaged actually increased. With these results,
Figure 17. Iterative step-by-step process for ductility of Type 2 joints
the authors came up with three kinds of predictions. These
are:
The deformability prediction method that was - Prediction of deformability
developed by [22] utilizes degradation of concrete, which - Prediction of axial strain in the beam direction
is diagonally compressed due to strain penetration of the - Prediction of strain in the diagonal direction
82 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Table 4. Properties of specimen used by [22]

Specimens Beam Column

Reinforcing bar Stirrup Reinforcing bar Hoop F’c Vjl Vj2 Vjby Vj1/Vj2 Vj2/Vjby

(Upper and lower each) (MPa) (kN) (kN) (kN)

fby Pbu’ Nb fsy Ps Sb Ns Fcy Pc Nc Fhy Ph Sh Nh

J1 509.9 0.0116 10-D16 510.4 0.0048 100 D10 514.4 0.0629 12-D29 510.4 0.0081 50 D10 40 1194 896 1231 0.97 0.73

BJ1 509.9 0.0099 6-D16 510.4 0.0048 100 D10 514.4 0.0629 12-D29 510.4 0.0081 50 D10 40 1194 896 802 1.49 1.12

BJ2 509.9 0.0083 5-D16 510.4 0.0024 200 D10 514.4 0.0629 12-D29 510.4 0.0054 75 D10 40 1194 896 614 1.95 1.46

BJ3 509.9 0.0066 4-D16 510.4 0.0024 200 D10 514.4 0.0629 12-D29 510.4 0.0054 75 D10 40 1194 896 500 2.39 1.79

B1 509.9 0.0050 3-D16 510.4 0.0024 200 D10 514.4 0.0629 12-D29 510.4 0.0054 75 D10 40 1194 896 382 3.13 2.35

Figure 18. The pattern of crack observed by [22]

Figure 19. The Open Sees framework of class structures and the beam-column element
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 83

2.2.1. Open Sees Framework – An open Source Model experimental and numerical investigations are summarized in
As part of the OpenSees initiative, [23] developed and Table 5, which shows peak lateral forces, peak top
implemented a joint model, which was designed to be moment and peak bottom moment.
used for 2D frame analysis to predict the inelastic [25] examined the seismic behavior of beam-column
response of RC beam-column joints under seismic loading. connections in bridges, which are made of pre-stressed
There were certain characteristics, which the proposed concrete. Their method of research involved having four
model had to posses including: compatibility with traditional pre-stressed concrete beam-column connections being
beam-column structural line elements; efficiency of tested under an axial force of 200KN constantly; and then
computation; transparency of model parameters; objective reversed cyclically for horizontal loading. Table 6 shows
specifications during calibration and robustness of the a summary of the material properties used in their
algorithm. The research and its role in the wider Open specimens.
Sees framework is shown in Figure 19. The Open Sees The four specimens were about a quarter-scale in size
is essentially an open-source, object-oriented software pre-stressed concrete beam-column connections that were
framework created for earthquake engineering simulations isolated from the frame of a bridge. Using the rationale of
through FE methods. Within the OpenSees framework, the a strong beam and weak column for bridge design, a
beam-column joint is an element that is categorized as a plastic hinge was modelled to occur in the column, which
child of the abstract base Element class, which was is near to the beam. The beams and columns were
introduced as the beam Column Joint class as shown in designed according to the seismic standards given by
Figure 19 above. This beam-column joint element needs AASHTO and New Zealand Codes. The specimens were
an internal solution to establish the internal displacement tested upside down as revealed in Figure 20 and mounted
of nodes, which meet the internal equilibrium of the with a bottom beam secured by two hinges. An actuator
element. Thus, the beam Column Joint class has many with a capacity of 500KN with an ability to displace the
methods that assist the internal solution algorithm. column 75 mm in positive and negative directions was
Essentially, the proposed model is capable of simulating employed. The specimens were all tested under forces of
inelastic responses made by most beam-column joints in 2D displacement according to a laid down history of
nonlinear analysis of RC frames. The mechanism used by displacement designed as column drift percentages. The
this model can resolve inelastic beam-column behavior via displacement history is shown in Figure 21 and comprises
combinational effects of shear-panel, interface components of 22 cycles having column drifts of up to 5.36%. Crack
and bar-slip. The responses simulated with this model development in this study was observed and recorded
were also observed and found to be in agreement with carefully through marks at the peaks of each cycle of
basic characteristics of joints, which are under moderate displacement. Crack patterns that appeared on all four
shear loads. specimens are shown in Figure 22 and it was noticed that
[24] did a comparative study of current computer analysis most of the damage due to cracks appeared to be
methods for seismic performance of RC members by concentrated in the column near the beams, which is the
utilizing many analysis methods to a benchmark problem. region of plastic hinge. [25] concluded that both
To validate and assist with comparisons, they obtained AASHTO and New Zealand Codes were adequate in
data from experimental tests, which involved flexural and terms of strength and ductility for earthquake-resistant
shear performance of the RC column. Furthermore, the designs. Their results also compared favorably with values
analysis of cyclic and monotonic forces was done with a obtained from theoretical studies, and included load-
degrading plastic hinge model, a fiber beam model as well displacement relationship, ductility factor as well as
as a 3D FE model. Part of the results obtained from both moment-curvature.

Table 5. Experimental and numerical results compared by [24] for the plastic hinge model
Experimental value analysis Value from present Ratio of results
Peak lateral force 8.10 (36.0) 8.45 (37.6) 1.04
(push) kips (kN)
Peak top moment 348 (39.3) 377 (42.6) 1.08
Kips in (kN m)
Peak bottom moment 326 (36.8) 379 (42.8) 1.16
Kips in (kN m)

Table 6. Specimen properties used by [25]

Plastic hinge transverse reinforcement at Transverse vertical reinforcement at
Specimen code fc’ (MPa)
region (mm) plastic hinge region reinforcement at joint joint
AN AASHTO 39.4 450 4-#5@80mm 4-#5@80mm 0
fyh = 356.5 MPa fyh = 356.5 MPa
AH AASHTO 45.0 450 5-#5@85mm 5-#5@85mm 0
fyh = 457.7 MPa fyh = 457.7 MPa
ZN New 43.0 400 4-#4@80mm 4-#4@100mm 2-#5@60mm
Zealand fyh = 416.1 MPa fyh = 416.1 MPa fyh = 356.5 MPa
ZH New 61.2 400 4-#5@80mm 4-#4@100mm 2-#5@60mm
Zealand fyh = 356.5 MPa fyh = 416.1 MPa fyh = 356.5 MPa
84 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Figure 20. Reinforcement details of a specimen used in [25]

2.2.2. Experimental Study on the Strengthening of

Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joint with
Steel Fiber during Earthquake Loading
The visiting researcher [9] applied experimental
methods to investigate the strengthening characteristics
that steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) materials have
on beam-column joints within a high-rise building under
the effect of cyclic loading. The main aim of his study was
to investigate how the usage of SFRC in frame buildings
improves and strengthens the performance of beam-column
Figure 21. Displacement history from [25] joints during the event of an earthquake. His experimental
study was done by applying quasi-static hysteretic
earthquake loading on the testing specimens. [9] used
six cycles to represent the quasi-static hysteretic
earthquake loading. Each cycle had a different maximum
displacement at the loading point. Figure 23 presents
the pattern of cyclic loading of the six cycles.
The maximum displacement at the loading point for
the first cycle was 12mm, which represents the slow
mode. The fast mode was set at the sixth cycle with a
maximum displacement at a loading point of 200mm. The
load was increased dramatically for each cycle until the
desired maximum displacement at load point was
achieved.

Figure 22. Crack patterns on specimens used by [25] Figure 23. Pattern of cyclic loading from [9]
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 85

The testing specimen that [9] used had column cross of a specimen with fibers. [9] concluded that using fibers
sectional dimensions of 500mm by 400mm with a in the joint has (1) increased its strength when compared
longitudinal reinforcement of 4 – 25mm (bars diameter). with a regular specimen without fibers, (2) can sustain
In addition, the cantilever/beam had a cross sectional loads with higher peak, and (3) improved the performance,
dimension of 400mm by 600mm with a longitudinal resistance and ductility of the joint during an earthquake
reinforcement of 8 – 20mm (bars diameter). The diameters by reducing cracks, thus, prevents an unexpected collapse.
of the stirrup bars were 8mm or number 3 at 100mm.
Figure 24 illustrates the experimental specimen and cyclic
loading set up.
During his experimental study [9] discovered minor
cracks starting to appear during the second cycle for all
the testing and obviously as the load was increased
cracking depth increased until the model failed. Figure 25
shows the minor cracks in the joint member of the element.

Graph 8. Load vs. Deflection graph without fibers by [9]

Figure 24. Failure of the joint at the 4th cycle [9]

Graph 9. Load vs. Deflection graph with fibers by [9]

2.3. Summary
Figure 25. Cracking pattern of specimen by [9]
In conclusion, it is evident that seismic modelling
[9] investigated the behavior of RC beam-column joints of beam-column joints is an essential tool in the safe
under cyclic earthquake loading by using the simulation of design of structures. The applicability and complexity of
earthquakes specimens in a laboratory. The simulations modelling approaches has advanced from mini-sizes to
were then used to plot load against deflection hysterises significantly large models. There are other approaches to
graph for specimens with fibers and without fibers. Graph 8 modelling as evident from this review. This includes
shows the load against deflection graph for the specimen use of numerical or theoretical processes in which
without fibers, while Graph 9 shows the hysterises graph formulations or mathematical models are applied to beam-
86 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

column problems; or the use of computational software. experimental study done by visiting researcher [9] in the
The popularity of such finite element computational tools University of Leeds. Although [9] carried out the testing
like LUSAS appears to be on the increase. Predictive on half scale (1.5m x 1.5m), the author has decided to
modelling of beam-columns is also an area that was conduct a full-scale model (3m x 3m) as presented in
covered in this chapter and it was shown to be capable of Figure 26.
producing results that are valid. Another interesting aspect Mild steel was used in the reinforcement bars as shown
of computational processes for beam-column modelling is in Figure 26 and the concrete of grade C30 was used on
the potential to work on a free open source framework (as rest of the structure. Furthermore, the concrete was
evident from Open Sees) will enable many more interested applied on all the surfaces and the lines of the model to
parties to participate in this research. This will bring a new achieve a strong bond connection between reinforcement
dimension to research collaboration especially with the bars and concrete and also to prevent the slippage of bars.
power of internet connectivity, which complements the This also helped in achieving satisfactory results after the
growing power of processors. Finally, more strength, and analysis phase. Table 7 and Table 8 show the elastic and
better performance of the structure can be maintained by plastic material properties recognized for steel, while
adding fibers to the concrete as proven by the experimental Table 9 and Table 10 show the elastic and plastic material
study conducted by [9]. The fibers give the structure more properties recognized for concrete.
resistance and ductility against earthquakes by absorbing
the loads, therefore, preventing an unexpected collapse of Table 7. The elastic properties identified for steel
the element. Material name: Mild Steel (Elastic properties)
Elastic properties Magnitude
Young’s Modulus 210 kN/mm2
3. Methodology and Programme Mass density 7.8 × 10-12 kN/mm3
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
3.1. Computer Software Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 11.0 × 10-6
Stiffness Rayleigh damping constant 0.314 × 10-3
The research has been carried out with the aid of Mass Rayleigh damping constant 0.453114
computer structural software LUSAS version 14.4 (Finite
Element Package). This software was chosen for many Table 8. The plastic properties identified for steel.
reasons such as its efficiency in conducting static analysis, Material name: Mild Steel (Plastic properties)
and it allows the conduct of various simulations and Plastic properties Magnitude
accuracy in carrying out non-linear analysis calculations. Initial uniaxial yield stress 0.4
Also the software allows the running of different loading Hardening Gradient (Slope) 0.21
magnitudes on the structure, which in this case will Hardening Gradient (Plastic strain) 1.0
represent the cyclic earthquake loading. Additionally, the
SMDN (Strong Motion Database Navigator) tool that is Table 9. The elastic properties identified for concrete
available with the software permits uploading the model, Material name: Concrete (Elastic properties)
searching historic earthquakes and determining its Elastic properties Magnitude
accelerations in x, y and z directions. The accelerations Young’s Modulus 42 kN/mm2
can then be used in non-linear dynamic and seismic Mass density 2.5 × 10-12 kN/mm3
analysis by which it gives an indication of behavior of the Poisson’s Ratio 0.2
joint under real earthquakes. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 11.0 × 10-6
Stiffness Rayleigh damping constant 0.314 × 10-3
3.2. General Properties of the Model Mass Rayleigh damping constant 0.453114
Concrete Grade C30
The structure consists of three parts: a joint, cantilever
and column members. The concrete cover depth was Table 10. The plastic properties identified for concrete
identified as 50mm, which is the distance between the Material name: Reinforced Concrete model 94 (Plastic properties)
concrete surface and the reinforcement bars. This value Plastic properties Magnitude
for the cover depth was extracted from specifying, Uniaxial compressive strength 0.03158
detailing and achieving cover to reinforcement done by Uniaxial tensile strength 3.158 × 10-3
[26], which is a document published by the concrete Constant in interlock state function 0.425
society. Additionally, the thickness of the model was Initial relative position of yield surface 0.6
recognized as 400mm, which represents the width of the
Strain at peak uniaxial compression 2.2 × 10-3
concrete. Furthermore, the support conditions of the
Strain at end of softening curve 3.5 × 10-3
structure were a fully fixed column from top and bottom
Biaxial to uniaxial stress ratio 1.15
and the beam was free at the end. The total cross sectional
Dilatancy factor -0.1
area of the model was 3.14m2. In terms of the cross
Contact multiplier on e0 0.5
sectional dimensions of the column it has been identified
Final contact multiplier on e0 5
as 500mm by 400mm and 400mm by 600mm for the
Shear intercept to tensile strength 1.25
beam. These cross sectional dimensions represent a
full-scale model. The cross sectional dimensions of the Slope of friction asymptote for damage 1
column and the beam that has been used in the proposed Angular limit between crack planes 1
beam-column joint model were extracted from the Concrete Grade C30
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 87

Figure 26. Dimensions and reinforcement bars within the structure

The reinforcement bars were divided in to three order. Additionally, the number of divisions identified for
sections according to the cross sectional area of each bar. steel was: (1) Four divisions assigned on horizontal and
The bars were divided into horizontal, transverse and longitudinal bars (cantilever and column main bars), (2)
stirrup/hoop bars. The horizontal bars had a cross two divisions assigned on joint edges and (3) four
sectional area of 400mm2, the transverse bars had a cross divisions applied on all hoops. On the other hand, the
sectional area of 500mm2 and the hoops had the lowest concrete had two types of divisions, for instance, two
cross sectional area of 160mm2. divisions and four divisions. Moreover, the two divisions
were assigned to the lines, which represent the concrete
3.2.1. Model Mesh Generation cover and the four divisions were applied on the top and
The mesh part of the model is considered to be an bottom lines of the column. Figure 27 shows the final
important part of modelling such a structural element. mesh arrangement of the model. Finally, the structural
This means the better and finer the mesh is the more properties of the mesh were as follows:
reliable the results obtained will be during the analysis - Plane stress for the structural element type
stage. Therefore, the mesh process went though many - Quadrilateral element shape
stages to come up with the finest and most appropriate - Interpolation order: Quadratic
form. This was achieved by identifying more nodes, lines
Table 11. The properties of the model.
and surfaces, by which divisions were applied on lines.
Table 11 presents the number of nodes, points, lines, Geometric properties Number
elements and surfaces that is available within the model. Nodes 145771
During this phase the structural types of the divisions were Points 411
divided into parts according to the material assigned to the Lines 916
line, for instance, the steel bars and concrete. For the steel Elements 5628
bars the structural element type was a 2D bar for the Surfaces 382
number of dimensions and quadratic for interpolation
88 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

analysis by which the cyclic loading will be applied on the

free end of the beam to record the displacement at
different applied loads. The beam consists of six main
horizontal bars (size 12mm), three top bars and three
bottom bars. These bars are joined together with hoops.
The number of hoops in the beam is 19 with a connecting
hoop at every 150mm. One extra hoop was included in the
design at the end of the beam near the joint. The
dimensions of the cantilever are illustrated in Figure 26.

Figure 29. The cantilever/beam member

3.2.4. Column Member Characteristics

Figure 27. The mesh arrangement of the author’s final proposed BC
joint model

3.2.2. Joint Member Characteristics

The joint member (Figure 28) is the most important part
of the structure. It works as a connection between the
cantilever bars and column bars as they intersect together
in the joint. Any failure of the structure during the analysis
will mostly occur at this part. Therefore, the author has
taken this into consideration by providing more
reinforcement bars/hoops during the design phase. By
doing this the structure will sustain high cyclic loads and
successfully handle real earthquakes. The joint member
has a cross sectional area of 0.3m2.

Figure 28. The joint member

3.2.3. Cantilever/beam Member Characteristics

The cantilever/beam member (Figure 29) is connected
to the column through the main joint of the structure. The
beam is free from the end. This is due to the cyclic loading Figure 30. The column member
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 89

The column member (Figure 30) is fixed from top and intervals. Two extra hoops were also included in the
bottom to represent a real life situation of the element design near the joint to provide more strength to the joint
during the event of an earthquake. During carrying out the during earthquake simulations. The dimensions of the
non-linear dynamic real earthquake analysis, the column are shown in Figure 26.
earthquake accelerations will be applied on the bottom
fixed end of the column, which is assumed to be the 3.3. Types of Earthquakes Applied on the
ground level. This gives a realistic indication of the
earthquake strike since they are generated from the
Author’s Proposed Model
ground/soil to the structure. The column has four main 3.3.1. Applied Historic Real Earthquake 1 – Athens,
bars (size 16mm) and hoops connect these bars at 100mm Greece (1999)

Graph 10. The acceleration (m/s2) path of x, y and z coordinates (Earthquake 1 – Athens)

Graph 11. The path of frequency of spectra’s for x, y and z coordinates (Earthquake 1 – Athens)
90 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

The first real earthquake that the model will be assiged displacements, bar forces in x-direction, stresses and
to is the Athens earthquake that took place in Greece in strains of the model under the effect of this earthquake.
1999. The magnitude of this earthquake on the richter The direction of highest acceleration is mostly
scale was not recorded with a depth of 9km and a normal considered during earthquakes. As shown in the frequency
source mechanism. Graph 10 above presents the frequency spectra (Graph 11), the highest acceleration of all
of the Athens earthquake and its accelerations in x, y and z frequency spectra’s existed in x and y direction with a
directions. As shown above the maximum acceleration value of 10.75 m/s2 at 3.8 Hertz and 4.2 Hertz respectively.
exists in the x direction with a magnitude of 2.9m/s2 and Moreover, the maximum acceleration in y-direction was
occurs at approximately 6.5 seconds. Moreover, the 7 m/s2 at 1.75 Hertz. Alternatively, the y direction had the
highest range of all acceleration magnitudes for x, y lowest acceleration 8 m/s2 occurring at 9 Hertz.
and z directions takes place between 4 and 10 seconds.
These accelerations will be used as a method for assigning 3.3.2. Applied historic real earthquake 2 - Friuli, Italy
them to the proposed model in order to achieve the (1976)

Graph 12. The acceleration (m/s2) path of x, y and z coordinates (Earthquake 2 – Friuli)

Graph 13. The path of frequency of spectra’s for x, y and z coordinates (Earthquake 2 – Friuli)
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 91

The second real earthquake that the model will be 3.3.3. Applied Historic Real Earthquake 3 – Izmir,
assiged to is the Friuli earthquake that took place in Italy Turkey (1977)
in 1976. The magnitude of this earthquake on the richter The third real earthquake which the model will be
scale was 6.3 with a depth of 6km and thrust source assiged to is Izmir earthquake that took place in Turkey in
mechanism. Moreover, the magnitude of this earthquake 1977. The magnitude of this earthquake on the richter
was the highest among the other applied earthquakes. scale was 5.1 with a depth of 5km and a normal source
Graph 12 above presents the frequency of the Friuli mechanism. Graph 14 presents the frequency of the Izmir
earthquake and its accelerations in x, y and z directions. earthquake and its accelerations in x, y and z directions.
This graph is obtained from the SMDN (Strong Motion As shown above the maximum acceleration exists in the x
Database Navigator). As shown above the maximum direction with a magnitude of 2m/s2 and occurs at
acceleration exists in the x direction and was 3.5m/s2 in approximately 0.5 seconds. Moreover, the highest range of
terms of magnitude and occurs at approximately 3 seconds. all acceleration magnitudes for x, y and z directions takes
Moreover, the highest range of all acceleration magnitudes place between 0.4 and 0.7 seconds. These accelerations
for x, y and z directions takes place between 3.5 and 7.5 will be used as a method for assigning them to the
seconds. These accelerations will be used as a method of proposed model in order to achieve the displacements, bar
assigning them to the proposed model in order to achieve forces, stresses and strains of the model under the effect of
the displacements, bar forces, stresses and strains of the this earthquake.
model under the effect of this earthquake. The direction of highest acceleration is mostly considered
The direction in x, y or z of the highest acceleration is during earthquakes. As shown in the frequency spectra
mostly considered during earthquakes. As shown in the (Graph 15), the highest acceleration of all frequency
frequency spectra (Graph 13), the highest accelerations spectra’s existed in the x and y direction with a value of
existed in the x direction with a value of 12.8 m/s2 at 3.8 7 m/s2 at 5 Hertz and 5.2 Hertz respectively. Moreover,
Hertz. Moreover, the maximum acceleration in the y the maximum acceleration in the y direction was 2.5 m/s2
direction was 10 m/s2 at 1.75 Hertz. Alternatively, the z at 4.75 Hertz. Alternatively, the y direction had the lowest
direction had the lowest acceleration with an 8 m/s2 taking acceleration of 1.5 m/s2 occurring at 7.5 Hertz.
place at 10 Hertz.

Graph 14. The acceleration (m/s2) path of x, y and z coordinates (Earthquake 3 – Izmir)
92 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Graph 15. The path of frequency of spectra’s for x, y and z coordinates (Earthquake 3 – Izmir)
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 93

3.3.4. Cyclic Earthquake Loading For each cycle the analysis consisted of 40 different
The cyclic earthquake loading consisted of five cycles. simulations adjusted on the model (20 simulations in stage
Each cycle had a different magnitude set in terms of 1 and 20 in stage 2). Therefore, the cyclic earthquake
maximum displacement at load points 7 and 8. The loading analysis will cover 200 simulations for the five
magnitude of maximum displacement at load points 7 and cycles. This will be maintained by running the analysis for
8 was increased for each cycle. Table 12 illustrates the a set of different loads. The applied loads (kN) represents
magnitude of the maximum displacements for each cycle. the cyclic earthquake loading as a result the displacements,
Moreover, the analysis of each cycle consisted of two bar forces in the x direction, cracking pattern, and stresses
stages. The first stage was applying the loads at point 8 of and strains will be determined. Additionally, the results
the beam edge downward (Figure 31), this represent half a will be plotted and presented in graphical form. Table 13
cycle. The second stage was applying the loads at point 7 illustrates the magnitudes of loads applied on the model at
of the beam edge upwards (Figure 31). Stage 1 and stage 2 load point 8 (Stage 1) and Table 14 shows the magnitudes
represents a full cycle. of loads applied on the model at load point 7 (Stage 2).
Although 40 simulations were carried out for each cycle
Table 12. The magnitudes of the maximum displacement set at load with a range between -200kN to 200kN, the range that has
points 7 and 8 for each cycle been taken for plotting displacement against deflection
Cycle No. Maximum displacement at load points 7 and 8 (mm) were between the loads -60kN to 60kN for the five cycles.
1 12 This has been decided for the sake of comparison with
other experimental results within this limitation.
2 25
3 50 Table 14. The magnitudes of the applied loads at load point 7 in y
4 100 direction (Stage 2)
5 150 Load No. Load (kN) Load No. Load (kN)
1 10 11 110
2 20 12 120
3 30 13 130
4 40 14 140
5 50 15 150
6 60 16 160
7 70 17 170
8 80 18 180
9 90 19 190
10 100 20 200

3.4. Analysis Procedures

3.4.1. Non-linear Static Analysis
The conduct of non-linear analysis will be established
which includes plastic analysis. This will be maintained
due to the expectation of a non-linear behavior of the
model under cyclic earthquake loading by which material
yields and becomes non-linear. Generally speaking, there
will be no linearity in terms of stress-strain curve. Another
reason for that would be the difference in the properties of
the materials used, for instance, reinforcement steel bars
Figure 31. Applying cyclic loading on point 8 at the beam edge (Stage 1) and concrete. Each of these two materials behaves in a
different way during the analysis. This supports the
Table 13. The magnitudes of the applied loads at load point 8 in y
direction (Stage 1) assumption made on the non-linear behavior of the
structure. Initially, the body force, which represents the
Load No. Load (kN) Load No. Load (kN)
self-weight of the structure, was assigned with a
1 -10 11 -110 magnitude of 9.81m/s2. This load was applied on all of the
2 -20 12 -120 structure including lines and surfaces in the y-direction to
3 -30 13 -130 make sure the model sustains its self-weight before the
4 -40 14 -140 conduct of further analysis. After running the model
5 -50 15 -150 including its applied self-weight successfully, the cyclic
6 -60 16 -160 loading was then applied on the structure as discussed
7 -70 17 -170
before. In addition, the deformations of the model from
the simulations carried out on the cyclic loading will be
8 -80 18 -180
plotted against loads applied to form an historic graph. It
9 -90 19 -190
is believed that this sort of analysis will aid in determining
10 -100 20 -200 the static response, the distribution of loading on the
94 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

model and gives an appropriate indication of the behavior displacement, and stress or strain within the joint. The
of the joint under cyclic earthquake loading testing. seismic analysis was only carried out on the applied
historic earthquakes and not on the cyclic earthquake
3.4.2. Non-linear Dynamic Analysis loading. This is due to the fact that the behavior of the
The dynamic analysis is an essential part of conducting cyclic earthquake load is not variable like the real
the research successfully. This is due to applied real earthquakes, which means the motion is known, as the
historic earthquakes input on joints, which makes the load is manually set. On the other hand, the historic
dynamic analysis an important tool. In this situation, the earthquakes act in a totally different way and are set
assigned real historic data have a variation in time, which automatically since it is not predicted in terms of its
makes the conduct of such an analysis necessary to motion. Therefore, the seismic analysis is essential to
understand the dynamic behavior of the structure under investigate the seismic motion of the joint element or node
real earthquakes. Furthermore, the dynamic analysis was within the structure. For each historic earthquake the
carried out on three real historic earthquakes with different response time will be plotted against displacements, plain
magnitudes and frequencies as discussed earlier. stresses and plain strains at specific elements and nodes
Moreover, the analysis included the self-weight of the within the joint member. This will give a valuable
structure with a magnitude of 9.81m/s2 and UDL (floor clearance of the seismic citations of the joint. Additionally,
load) on the beam. The UDL (floor load) consisted of two the results obtained from this analysis will be used for
loads, live and dead loads. The live load was recognized plotting a graph of deflection (mm) versus load (kN).
as 2.5 kN/m and the dead load had a magnitude of 5 kN/m. Finally, the results attained will be presented in graphical
For each earthquake the accelerations in the x and y form.
directions was taken from Strong Motion Database
Navigator (SMDN) and converted through the Seismic 3.5. Comparison of Results
Data file to time and factor data. Then the time and factor
data for each of the accelerations (x and y directions) were The results will include load against displacement
taken and inserted into the load curve. Therefore, two load graphs, stresses against strain graphs and bar forces in the
curves were identified for example, acceleration in x x direction. The presented results will be in the form of
direction and acceleration in y direction. Subsequently, graphs, tables and contour maps.
two new acceleration loadings were identified one The cyclic earthquake loading results will be compared
for acceleration in the x direction and the other for with previous experimental published results while the
acceleration in the y direction. For each of the acceleration results attained from the three historic real earthquakes
loadings the value was 1 in the intended direction either in will be compared with each other. The comparison
x or in y direction. This procedure was carried out on the between the three historic earthquakes will be established
real historic earthquakes. Finally, this kind of analysis to: (1) check if the model can sustain these earthquakes
allows the conduct of important dynamic calculations and and (2) to investigate under which earthquake the joint is
determination of the structures frequency. Then they can affected most.
both be used to give a clear indication of the dynamic The cyclic and seismic results obtained from LUSAS
behavior under each historic earthquake. will be tabulated and presented in graphical form to be
compared in the discussion stage of this study. The results
3.4.3. Cracking Pattern Analysis obtained will be compared with both published
The crack pattern tool, which is available in LUSAS experimental studies and real life situations (investigations
software, gives the opportunity to produce a crack pattern from the literature review). This will help in identifying
of the mode of failure in concrete. The design codes allow the reliability of the results achieved and the capabilities
some cracking in concrete but within certain limits and of the model in terms of handling historic earthquakes.
under a specific range. The acceptable range of the crack’s The comparison will include comparing the crack pattern,
depth and distance is given in millimeters. Thus, the crack displacements, stresses, strains and seismic citation.
pattern that will be obtained can provide adequate
knowledge of the capability of the proposed model in 3.6. The Production of Some
terms of checking if the cracks are within the acceptable Recommendations
range. The cracking pattern obtained can then be
compared with the pattern of crack observations done by The recommendations part of this study will be
[22] and [25]. Additionally, the cracking pattern will also considering Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
be compared with that obtained by [9] in his experimental earthquake resistance. General rules, seismic actions and
study on the strengthening of reinforced concrete beam- rules for buildings (2004) BS EN 1998-1: 2004 [27]. This
column joints with steel fiber during earthquake loading. comprises the improvement of some sections and
suggesting improvements including the designing of
3.4.4. Seismic Analysis beam-column joints by providing the designers with more
The seismic analysis was carried out on the applied real information to improve the resistance against seismic
earthquake model to examine the seismic behavior of the loading. The preparation of recommendations and
model at a specific node and element for different historic guidelines for the utilization of modelling for studying
earthquakes. The node and the element will be chosen RBC joints can then be of benefit to researchers and
according to the maximum magnitude it carries in terms of industry practitioners.
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 95

4. Results Presentation The yield point of the structure for each cycle is given in
Table 16.
Initially, the self weight of the model was analyzed to
make sure that the structure are capable and can sustain its
own weight before conducting further analysis, for
instance, static and dynamic. Appendix 7.1 presents
contour maps of non-linear static analysis of model’s self
weight. Figures 48, 49, 50 and 51 (contour maps) in
Appendix 7.1 illustrates displacement in x-direction,
displacement in y-direction, stress – plane stress and
force – bar (Fx) respectively. Moreover, the contour maps
showed symmetry within the structure in terms of
displacements, stresses with small magnitudes which
indicates that the structure is capable of handling its self
weight and ready to be seismically analyzed.

4.1. Non-linear Static Analysis Graph 16. Hysterises graph (Deflection vs. Load) for the five cycles
(Cyclic Earthquake Loading) Table 15. Hysterises graph summary of cyclic earthquake loading.
The deflection of the beam-column joint results under Cycle Maximum deflection (mm) Load (kN)
different loads for the full five cycles is shown below in 1 -38 -34
Graph 16 and maximum load-deflection observed in each 2 -48 -20
cycle is presented in Table 15. 3 -53 -58
The stress against strain graph for cycles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 4 -103 -22
is presented in Graphs 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 respectively. 5 -150 -7

Graph 17. Stress against strain graph for cycle 1 (12mm)

Graph 18. Stress against strain graph for cycle 2 (25mm)

96 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Graph 19. Stress against strain graph for cycle 3 (50mm)

Graph 20. Stress against strain graph for cycle 4 (100mm)

Graph 21. Stress against strain graph for cycle 5 (150mm)

 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 97

Table 16. Stress vs. strain graphs summary of cyclic earthquake historic earthquake is demonstrated in Figure 32 below.
loading
Cycle Yield point
Stress (m/m) Strain (kN/m2)
1 Not yielding at this cycle
2 Not yielding at this cycle
3 0.019 0.008
4 0.021 0.011
5 0.021 0.0115

The deformed mesh of the author’s model under cyclic

earthquake loading for the 5 cycles at stage 1 (downward)
are presented in Appendix 7.2.1 (Figure 52 to Figure 56).
While, the deformed mesh under cyclic earthquake
loading for the 5 cycles at stage 2 (upward) are shown in
Appendix 7.2.2 (Figure 57 to Figure 61).

4.2. Non-linear Dynamic Analysis (Historic

Figure 32. Loading (Fy) contour map of Athens’ historic earthquake
Earthquakes)
The contour map (Figure 32) of the loading (Fy) shows
The deformed meshes of the author’s model for that the maximum load occurs at node 1935. Accordingly,
the three applied real earthquakes are presented the load vs. displacement graph for the Athens earthquake
in Appendix 7.2.3 (Figure 62 to Figure 64), which shows was plotted at this node and presented in Graph 22.
haw the mesh behaving under each earthquake. In terms of stress and strain it has been discovered that
maximum magnitude occurs at node 5918. Therefore, the
4.2.1. Historic Earthquake 1 – Athens
stress against strain graph for the Athens earthquake at
The loading distribution of the BC joint under Athens’ this node is shown in Graph 23.

Graph 22. Load vs. displacement graph of Athens’ historic earthquake

Graph 23. Stress vs. strain graph of Athens’ historic earthquake

98 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Graph 24. Load vs. displacement graph of Friuli’s historic earthquake

4.2.2. Historic Earthquake 2 – Friuli stress against strain graph for the Friuli earthquake at this
The loading distribution of the BC joint under Friuli’s node is shown in Graph 25.
historic earthquake is demonstrated in Figure 33 below.
4.2.3. Historic Earthquake 3 – Izmir
The loading distribution of the BC joint under Izmir’s
historic earthquake is demonstrated in Figure 34 below.
The contour map (Figure 34) of the loading (Fy) shows
that the maximum load occurs at node 347. Accordingly,
the load vs. displacement graph for the Izmir earthquake
was plotted at this node and presented in Graph 26.

Figure 33. Loading (Fy) contour map of Friuli’s historic earthquake

The contour map (Figure 33) of the loading (Fy) shows

that the maximum load occurs at node 1935. Accordingly,
the load vs. displacement graph for the Friuli earthquake
was plotted at this node and presented in Graph 24.
In terms of stress and strain it has been discovered that
maximum magnitude occurs at node 5725. Therefore, the Figure 34. Loading (Fy) contour map of Izmir’s historic earthquake

Graph 25. Stress vs. strain graph of Friuli’s historic earthquake

 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 99

Graph 26. Load vs. displacement graph of Izmir’s historic earthquake

Graph 27. Strain vs. stress graph of Izmir’s historic earthquake

In terms of stress and strain it has been discovered that

maximum magnitude occurs at node 110. Therefore, the
stress against strain graph for the Izmir earthquake at this
node is shown in Graph 27.

4.3. Cracking Pattern Analysis

4.3.1. Cyclic Earthquake Loading
The crack pattern for cyclic earthquake loading is
shown below (Figure 35 – Figure 39) for the five
downward cycles, while Figure 40 presents the crack
pattern for upward cycle 5 (150mm).

Figure 36. Cracking pattern under cycle 2 downward (-25mm)

A summary of the cracking pattern for the five cycles is

presented in Table 17 below, which includes the level of
cracks, the location of cracks within the structure and
the assumption if the level of cracks is acceptable or
unacceptable by the design codes in terms of repairing the
cracks after the event of an earthquake. The cracking
pattern analysis was carried out for five downward cycles
and one upward cycle (150mm). As shown in Table 17,
the joint is affected during all the cycles with a variation
in level of cracks under a certain cycle. Downward cyclic
loading during cycles 4 and 5 also influenced the upper
Figure 35. Cracking pattern under cycle 1 downward (-12mm) part of the beam. On the other hand, the results achieved
100 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

for the crack pattern of the upward cycle (150mm)

demonstrated cracks across the joint and the lower part of
the beam next to the joint. In the case of a full cycle the
crack pattern of the joint is a combination of both the
downward and upward cycles. The author has decided
not to present the full cycle cracking pattern to avoid
confusion and to have a clear discussion of the results.
Table 17. Cracking pattern summary of cyclic earthquake loading
Level of
Cycle No. Location Summary
cracks
Joint, upper part of beam
1 Downward Minor Acceptable
next to joint
Joint, upper part of beam
2 Downward Intermediate Acceptable
next to joint
Joint, upper part of beam
Intermediate
3 Downward next to joint and some parts Un-accept.
And major
of column
Joint, half of Upper part of
4 Downward Major Un-accept.
beam next to joint
Joint, more than half of the Figure 39. Cracking pattern under cycle 5 downward (-150mm).
5 Downward Major upper part of beam next to Un-accept.
joint
Joint, more than half of the
6 Upward Major lower part of beam next to Un-accept.
joint

Figure 37. Cracking pattern under cycle 3 downward (-50mm)

Figure 40. Cracking pattern under cycle 5 upward (150mm)

4.3.2. Historic Earthquake 1 – Athens

Figure 38. Cracking pattern under cycle 4 downward (-100mm) Figure 41. Cracking pattern under Athens’ historic earthquake
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 101

Figure 42. Tension and compression contour map of Athen’s historic

earthquake

The cracking pattern that has been obtained after

applying the Athens earthquake is presented in Figure 41. Figure 44. Tension and compression contour map of Friuli’s historic
The tension and compression contour map of the structure earthquake
for the Athens earthquake is shown in Figure 42.

4.3.3. Historic Earthquake 2 – Friuli

The cracking pattern that has been obtained
after applying the Friuli earthquake is presented in
Figure 43. The tension and compression contour map of
the structure for the Friuli earthquake is shown in
Figure 44.

4.3.4. Historic Earthquake 3 – Izmir

The cracking pattern that has been obtained after
applying the Izmir earthquake is presented in Figure 45.
The tension and compression contour map of the
structure for the Izmir earthquake is shown in
Figure 46.

Figure 45. Cracking pattern under Izmir’s historic earthquake

The tension and compression within the model during

the Izmir historic earthquake is presented in Figure 46.
Where the red color represents the tension and the blue
color demonstrates compression. Table 18 below provides
a summary of the cracking pattern for the three applied
historic real earthquakes
Table 18. Cracking pattern summary of the applied real historic
earthquakes
Historic
Level of cracks Location Summary
earthquake
Athens Minor Joint Acceptable
Middle and lower parts
Friuli Intermediate Acceptable
of the beam
Minor and Joint, Upper, lower and
Izmir Acceptable
Figure 43. Cracking pattern under Friuli’s historic earthquake Intermediate middle parts of the beam
102 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

The maximum displacement for the Athens earthquake

occurred at the node location 1935. The critical time
of the Athens earthquake by which the displacement
is the most at this node will be discussed further
in the next chapter and comparisons with the other two
real earthquakes will be drawn, for instance, Friuli and
Izmir.
The distributed stress for the response time of the
Athens earthquake is presented in Graph 30. Table 21
summarizes the response time by which the maximum
peaks occurred under the Athens earthquake.
The maximum stress for the Athens earthquake
occurred at the node location 5918. The critical time of the
Athens earthquake by which the stress is the most at this
node will be discussed further in the next chapter and
comparisons with the other two real earthquakes will be
drawn, for instance, Friuli and Izmir.
Table 19. Summary of Maximum Peaks with Respect to Time and
Axial Force (Earthquake 1 – Athens)
Unit Time (Seconds) Axial Force (kN)
Figure 46. Tension and compression contour map of Izmir’s historic
earthquake Maximum positive peak 3.6 0.002
Maximum negative peak 3 0.003
4.4. Seismic Analysis (Historic Earthquakes) Absolute Peak 3 0.003

4.4.1. Historic Earthquake 1 – Athens Table 20. Summary of maximum peaks with respect to time and
displacement (Earthquake 1 – Athens)
The distributed axial force for the response time of the
Athens earthquake is presented in Graph 28. Table 19 Unit Time (Seconds) Displacement (M)
summarizes the response time by which the maximum Maximum positive peak 4.58 0.006
peaks occurred under the Athens earthquake. Maximum negative peak 3.58 -0.0057
The maximum axial force for the Athens earthquake Absolute Peak 4.58 0.006
occurred at the node location 1935. The critical time of the
Athens earthquake by which the axial force is the most at Table 21. Summary of maximum peaks with respect to time and
this node will be discussed further in the next chapter and stress (Earthquake 1 – Athens)
comparisons with the other two real earthquakes will be Unit Time (Seconds) Stress (kN/m2)
drawn, for instance, Friuli and Izmir.
Maximum peak 1 3.75 0.00135
The distributed displacement for the response time of
the Athens earthquake is presented in Graph 29. Table 20 Maximum peak 2 7.3 0.0015
summarizes the response time by which the maximum Absolute Peak 7.3 0.0015
peaks occurred under the Athens earthquake.

Graph 28. Response time vs. axial force (Fy) graph of Athens’ historic earthquake
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 103

Graph 29. Response time vs. displacement graph of Athens’ historic earthquake

Graph 30. Response time vs. stress graph of Athens’ historic earthquake

4.4.2. Historic Earthquake 2 – Friuli Table 23. Summary of maximum peaks with respect to time and
displacement (Earthquake 2 – Friuli)
The distributed axial force for the response time of the
Friuli earthquake is presented in Graph 31. Table 22 Unit Time (Seconds) Displacement (M)
summarizes the response time by which the maximum Maximum positive peak 4.2 0.046
peaks occurred under the Friuli earthquake.
Maximum negative peak 2.75 -0.045
The maximum axial force for Friuli earthquake
occurred at the node location 1935. The critical time of the Absolute Peak 4.2 0.046
Friuli earthquake by which the axial force is the most at
this node will be discussed further in the next chapter. The distributed stress for the response time of the Friuli
earthquake is presented in Graph 33. Table 24 summarizes
Table 22. Summary of maximum peaks with respect to time and
axial force (Earthquake 2 – Friuli) the response time by which the maximum peaks occurred
under the Friuli earthquake.
Unit Time (Seconds) Axial Force (kN)
Maximum positive peak 2.75 0.00042 Table 24. Summary of maximum peaks with respect to time and
stress (Earthquake 2 – Friuli)
Maximum negative peak 3 -0.0004
Unit Time (Seconds) Stress (kN/m2)
Absolute Peak 2.75 0.00042
Maximum peak 1 1.15 0.0042
The distributed displacement for the response time of Maximum peak 2 4.35 0.0041
the Friuli earthquake is presented in Graph 32. Table 23
Absolute Peak 1.15 0.0042
summarizes the response time by which the maximum
peaks occurred under the Friuli earthquake.
The maximum displacement for the Friuli earthquake The maximum stress for the Friuli earthquake occurred
occurred at the node location 1935. The critical time of the at the node location 5725. The critical time of the Friuli
Friuli earthquake by which the displacement is the most at earthquake by which the stress is the most at this node will
this node will be discussed further in the next chapter. be discussed further in the next chapter.
104 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Graph 31. Response time vs. axial force (Fy) graph of Friuli’s historic earthquake

Graph 32. Response time vs. displacement graph of Friuli’s historic earthquake

Graph 33. Response time vs. stress graph of Friuli’s historic earthquake

4.4.3. Historic Earthquake 3 – Izmir

Table 25. Summary of maximum peaks with respect to time and
The distributed axial force for the response time of the axial force (Earthquake 3 – Izmir)
Izmir earthquake is presented in Graph 34. Table 25
Unit Time (Seconds) Axial Force (kN)
summarizes the response time by which the maximum
peaks occurred under the Izmir earthquake. Maximum positive peak 0.62 0.06
The maximum axial force for the Izmir earthquake Maximum negative peak 0.57 -0.082
occurred at the node location 347. The critical time of the Absolute Peak 0.57 0.082
Izmir earthquake by which the axial force is the most at
this node will be discussed further in the next chapter.
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 105

Graph 34. Response time vs. axial force (Fy) graph of Izmir’s historic earthquake

Graph 35. Response time vs. displacement graph of Izmir’s historic earthquake

Graph 36. Response time vs. stress graph of Izmir’s historic earthquake

The distributed displacement for the response time of The distributed stress for the response time of the Izmir
the Izmir earthquake is presented in Graph 35. Table 26 earthquake is presented in Graph 36. Table 27 summarizes
summarizes the response time by which the maximum the response time by which the maximum peaks occurred
peaks occurred under the Izmir earthquake. under the Izmir earthquake.
The maximum displacement for the Izmir earthquake The maximum stress for the Izmir earthquake occurred
occurred at the node location 347. The critical time of the at the node location 110. The critical time of the Izmir
Izmir earthquake by which the displacement is the most at earthquake by which the stress is the most at this node will
this node will be discussed further in the next chapter. be discussed further in the next chapter.
106 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Table 26. Summary of maximum peaks with respect to time and It has been confirmed by the stress strain graphs that the
displacement (Earthquake 3 – Izmir)
failure in the author’s proposed model started to occur in
Unit Time (Seconds) Displacement (M) the third cycle (50mm). During the first and second cycles
Maximum positive peak 4.8 0.027 the stress strain relationship was behaving non-linearly
Maximum negative peak - - with an increase in stress with respect to strain. Although
Absolute Peak 4.8 0.027 the stress value was higher in the first cycle than the
second and third cycles due to the shear transfer
Table 27. Summary of maximum peaks with respect to time and mechanism within the beam bars, the failure of the joint
stress (Earthquake 3 – Izmir)
took place during the third cycle at a yield point of
Unit Time (Seconds) Stress (kN/m2) 0.008m/m and 0.019kN/m2. Similarly, the stress strain
Maximum peak 1 0.8 0.0038 graphs for the fourth and fifth cycle showed yield point
Maximum peak 2 2.05 0.0034 failure. This can be expressed as the bond between the
Absolute Peak 0.8 0.0038 reinforced bars and concrete disconnect (bond failure) and
as a result the beam column joint loses its resistance. As
shown in Figure 47, the maximum bar force (Fx) was in
5. Results Analysis and Discussion the joint member reinforcement bars (node 10981). The
bar force is accumulated within the joint beam
5.1. Non-linear Static Analysis (Cyclic reinforcement bars leading to tension and stress coming
from this part of the structure to the column zone and by
Earthquake Loading) the time the load is increased cracks start to occur. After
According to the comparison Graph 37, the failure of applying the third cycle the tension increases at this point
the model started to occur in the third cycle with a forcing the beam upper reinforcement at node 10981 to
maximum deflection of 50mm under 58kN load. Similarly, come out in an opposite direction of the applied load. As a
the results obtained by [9] shows that the beam-column result, the steel yield and anchorage failure of the
joint fails in the third cycle with a deflection exceeding longitudinal embedded reinforcement of the beam-column
50mm under a load between 50kN to 60kN. Alternatively, joint starts to take place.
the model created by [12] demonstrates failure in the
fourth cycle under a 12kN load with a deflection of 46mm.
The author’s model results and those of [9] show a
non-linear relationship between deflection and load, while
[12] showed a linear relationship between cycles with a
decrease in load results and an increase in the deflection. It
is clear that there is variation in the amount of load carried by
each model; for instance, the experimental model created
by [9] can handle more load during the first cycle than the
model created by [12] and the author’s model. Conversely,
the author’s model can handle up to 58kN load during the
third cycle before the joint fails, while [9] experimental
model carried a load up to 30kN and [12] had a 12.5kN
load. This indicates that during the third cycle the author’s
proposed model performed better in terms of taking more
load before failure of the joint than [12] model and [9]
experimental model. The variation in the load carrying Figure 47. Maximum Force-Bar (Fx) during stage 1 and stage 2 of cyclic
earthquake loading (upward and downward loads).
capacity of different models is due to the difference in the
size of the reinforcement bar as a result some models have
higher load carrying capacity than others. 5.2. Non-linear Dynamic Analysis
(Real Earthquakes)
The results that have been obtained for the applied real
earthquakes demonstrated different behavior of the
structure under each earthquake. It is believed that this is
normal due to the fact that each earthquake has a different
frequency, magnitude and source mechanism. According
to the results the earthquakes had minor effects on the
structure.
As evident from the displacement against load graph for
the Athens earthquake there is a cyclic behavior of the
structure at node 1935 (joint zone). The maximum
displacement that has been recorded for the Athens
earthquake was 0.006m and the maximum load was
0.0022kN. Similarly, the relationship between displacement
Graph 37. Comparison between author’s model results and experimental and load graph for Friuli earthquake showed cyclic behavior
published results for five cycles with a maximum load of 0.0004kN and maximum
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 107

displacement of 0.045m. In opposition, the maximum increases and develop until they spread across the joint
displacement recorded under the Izmir earthquake was and lead to the failure of the structure.
0.13m at 0.06kN load. This means that the highest
displacement recorded among all three earthquakes was 5.3.2. Real Earthquakes
Izmir. It is believed that Izmir earthquake had the highest After analyzing the cracking pattern of the real
displacement due to high acceleration produced by this earthquakes it has been discovered that the Friuli
earthquake in a short time (0.5 seconds) causing irregular earthquake had the major effect on the structure in terms
cyclic behavior between displacement and load. of the cracks. The cracks were intermediate in size and
In terms of stress against strain graphs for the three this is due to the thrust source mechanism, while the other
earthquakes both the Athens and Friuli earthquakes two earthquakes had normal sources mechanism and
showed cyclic stress strain relationships, while the stress minor cracks mainly within the joint and some parts of the
against strain graph for the Izmir earthquake was totally beam. The source mechanism indicates the way the
different from the others. This is because less acceleration earthquake strikes and it is evident from the results the
peaks generated by the Izmir earthquake than other thrust source mechanism had more effect on the joint than
earthquakes showed a non-linear relation stress strain normal sources mechanism. The thrust sources mechanism
graph similar to that of cyclic earthquake loading. This is has a different shaking behavior than normal. It’s pushing
due to the small response time of the Izmir earthquake, force acts reverse to that of the normal sources mechanism
for instance, the maximum acceleration occurring at producing more stress in the joint which means more
approximately 0.5 seconds. Generally speaking, the cracks.
author’s proposed model sustained the three earthquakes The distribution of tension and compression with the
with minor effects in terms of displacements and loads. model under the Athens earthquake illustrates that the
tension is accumulated within the upper part of the joint
5.3. Cracking Pattern Analysis and the compression is concentrated in the lower part of
the joint. As the earthquake accelerations transferred from
5.3.1. Cyclic Earthquake Loading the bottom of the column to joint, the tension force is
carried by column longitudinal reinforcement and once it
The cracking pattern for the cyclic earthquake loading
reaches the upper beam reinforcement in the joint and acts
was analyzed for downward cycle. This has been decided
in tension it produces some cracks in the concrete.
due to the fact that the cracking pattern for upward cycle
Moreover, the shear forces are carried by the concrete and
will be similar to that of downward cycle but the effect
transferred to the joint and initiating the lower part of the
will be at the lower part of the joint and cantilever instead
beam next to the joint to act in compression. On the other
of the upper part. Thus, the cracking pattern for a
hand, the cracking analysis of the Friuli earthquake
full/complete cycle will be a combination of cracks
showed an extension in both tension and compression
obtained from downward and upward cycles by which
through the joint, upper and lower parts of the beam.
each represents half a cycle.
Furthermore, the bottom part of the column was acting in
The results demonstrate that the level of cracks for
tension due to being fixed to the ground and stopped the
cycle 1 were minor as they appear within the joint and
column from moving freely and producing tension at this
upper part of the beam next to the joint. It is believed that
part of the structure. Thus, the cracks occurred within the
these cracks are within the acceptable range of the design.
beam and bottom of the column. It is believed that the
After cycle 2 and as the load was increased the structure
thrust mechanism of the Friuli earthquake played a major
had intermediate cracks at the same location as that in
role in having a different cracking pattern from Athens
cycle 1. During the third cycle major cracks occurred and
and Izmir. Finally, the cracks results obtained after applying
the model failed. This is due to the push and pull of the
the Izmir earthquake showed symmetry in the distribution
loading by which friction occurs between the reinforcement
of tension and compression within the joint and beam with
bars and concrete at the joint. This friction initiates the
some tension in the bottom part of the column.
outer surface of the concrete, thus, cracks starts to appear.
Generally speaking, the model has passed all the three
After analyzing the fourth cycle the bond between steel
applied real earthquakes with variation in distribution of
bars and concrete are separated and the connection
tension and compression, level and location of cracks. It is
between beam and column joint loses its strength. As the
believed that the level of cracks is acceptable in terms of
beam-column joint loses its resistance damage occurs and
their size with respect to design codes for safe measures.
cracks take place with a loss in strength and stiffness, and
this was the case during the fifth cycle with cracks across
the entire joint. Similarly, the experimental half scale
5.4. Seismic Analysis
model done by [9] showed major cracks started to appear It is to be noted that nodes 1 to 15000 are situated
during the third cycle within the column, beam and joint within the joint. The nodes that have been considered in
and by the time the load was increased the cracks became the seismic analysis were taken based on the maximum
denser until the model failed. In opposition, the model magnitude in the structure and they are all located in the
conducted by [22] demonstrated significant differences in joint part of the structure.
failure modes with major cracks and failure of the model
in the last cycle. The shear failure and flexural yielding 5.4.1. Comparison of the Critical Axial Force With
were responsible for the occurrence of the cracks within Respect to Response Time
the joints in all three cases. As evident from the The Athens earthquake had the highest response time
comparison made as the cycle increases the crack size (3 seconds) with respect to the occurrence of the highest
108 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

axial force at node 1935. Moreover, the maximum axial magnitude of 5.1. Although Izmir had more time in
force for the Friuli earthquake takes place at 2.75 seconds producing action on the structure, the critical maximum
(node 1935). Conversely, the highest axial force for the displacement among all applied earthquakes was recorded
Izmir earthquake arises only at 0.57seconds (node 347). in the Friuli earthquake which was found to have two
Graph 38 shows the comparison made between the three times the effect on the model than the Izmir earthquake
real earthquakes in terms of the response time by which and approximately eight times the effect compared to the
the axial force has the highest effect on the structure. Athens earthquake. Even though Friuli had the lowest
response time it was the most vigorous in terms of
maximum displacement within the structure. This is due to
the fact that the Friuli earthquake had the highest Richter
scale reading between the other two earthquakes with a
magnitude of 6.1. The maximum displacement of each
earthquake has been tabulated and shown in Table 29.

Graph 38. Comparison between the three applied real earthquakes in

terms of critical maximum axial force with respect to response time

Although the Richter scale reading was not recorded for

the Athens earthquake it takes a longer time to affect the
structure than in Friuli and Izmir. This is due to the fact
that each earthquake varies in the magnitude of frequency.
The critical maximum axial force among all applied Graph 39. Comparison between the three applied real earthquakes in
earthquakes was recorded in the Izmir earthquake, which terms of critical maximum displacement with respect to response time
was found to have 27 times the effect on the model
compared to the Athens earthquake and 105 times the Table 29. Summary of maximum displacement at critical response
time of each earthquake
effect compared to the Friuli earthquake. Even though
Izmir had the lowest response time it was the most Critical Response Maximum
Earthquake
Time (Seconds) Displacement (M)
vigorous in terms of maximum axial force. The maximum
Athens 4.58 0.006
axial force of each earthquake has been tabulated and
presented in Table 28. Fruili 4.2 0.046
Izmir 4.8 0.027
Table 28. Summary of maximum axial force at critical response time
of each earthquake
5.4.3. Comparison of the Critical Stress with Respect
Critical Response Maximum
Earthquake to Response Time
Time (Seconds) AxialForce (kN)
Athens 3 0.003 The Athens earthquake had the highest response time
Fruili 2.75 0.00042
(7.3 seconds) with respect to the occurrence of the highest
stress at node 2559. Furthermore, the maximum stress for
Izmir 0.57 0.082 the Friuli and Izmir earthquakes took place at 1.15
seconds and 0.8 and the location of the node was 637
5.4.2. Comparison of the Critical Displacement with under both earthquakes. Graph 40 shows the comparison
Respect to Response time made between the three real earthquakes in terms of the
The Izmir earthquake had the highest response time response time by which the stress has the highest affect on
(4.8 seconds) with respect to the occurrence of the highest the structure.
displacement at node 1505. Moreover, the maximum Although the Athens earthquake had the longest time in
displacement for the Athens earthquake takes place affecting the structure compared to Friuli and Izmir with
at 4.58 seconds (node 13765). Conversely, the highest respect to stress magnitude, the lowest stress value was
displacement for the Friuli earthquake arises at 4.2seconds found to be at this earthquake. The critical maximum
(node 1744). Graph 39 shows the comparison made stress among all applied earthquakes was recorded in the
between the three real earthquakes in terms of the Friuli earthquake, which was found to have 3 times the
response time by which the displacement has the highest effect on the model compared to the Athens earthquake
effect on the structure. and slightly higher magnitude than the Izmir earthquake.
The Izmir earthquake had the longest time in affecting Even though Friuli had the second lowest response time
the structure than in Athens and Izmir with respect to after Izmir it was the most vigorous in terms of maximum
displacement magnitude. The Izmir earthquake had the stress occurring within the structure. This is due to the fact
second largest Richter scale reading after Friuli with a that the Friuli earthquake had the highest Richter scale
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 109

reading between the other two earthquakes with a - The occurrences of the cracks are due to many
magnitude of 6.1. The maximum stress of each earthquake reasons such as push and pull of the loading which
has been tabulated and illustrated in Table 30. initiates friction between reinforcement bars.
- As evident from the comparison made as the cycle
increases the crack size increases and develop until
they spread across the joint and lead to the failure of
the structure.
- The level, size and position of the cracks appear
according to the distribution of tension and
compression within the model.
- The thrust source mechanism behavior of Friuli
earthquake affected the joint more than normal
source mechanism. This was found to be due to the
reverse pushing force to that of the normal sources
mechanism producing more stress in the joint which
means more cracks.
- The Friuli earthquake was the most active
earthquake in terms of affecting the structure. This
Graph 40. Comparison between the three applied real earthquakes in was found to be due to the fact that the Friuli
terms of critical maximum stress with respect to response time earthquake had the highest Richter scale reading
between the other two earthquakes with a
Table 30. Summary of maximum stress at critical response time of magnitude of 6.1.
each earthquake
Generally speaking, the model has passed all the three
Critical Response Maximum Stress applied real earthquakes with variation in distribution of
Earthquake
Time (Seconds) (kN/m2)
tension and compression, level and location of cracks.
Athens 7.3 0.0015
Alternatively, the model failed during the third cycle with
Fruili 1.15 0.0042 maximum displacement of 50mm. The failure of the
Izmir 0.8 0.0038 model continued to develop as the cycle was increased
until the structure totally collapsed under the fifth cycle
(150mm).
6. Conclusion
6.2. General Reasons for Beam-column Joint
6.1. Summary Failures
A beam-column joint was modelled using Lusas 14.4 to - Disintegration of concrete joint occurs due to
determine its behavior under cyclic earthquake loading. repeated opening and closing of cracks, this is when
Since the structure is composite the conduct of non-linear transverse steel crosses diagonal cracks and begins
analysis was necessary due to the assumption that there yielding.
will be no relationship between stress and strain. To achieve - Distortion of panel zone occurs in each direction and
these four types of analysis were conducted, for example, contributes considerably towards lateral displacement
non-linear static, non-linear dynamic, cracking pattern and of the structure. This source of deformation is not
seismic. The findings from these analyses were as follow: allowed in response of building frame.
- During the comparison stage it has been found that - Anchorage features at the top and bottom of
different model’s have different load carrying bars result in anchorage failure and is inferior
capacity due to difference in size of reinforcement in comparison to separate anchorage at the top
bars. and the bottom of bars; the same may not be the
- The failure of the joint took place during the third case where the column has considerable length.
cycle at a maximum displacement of 50mm and a - Considerable bowing of transverse steel occurring
yield point of 0.008m/m and 0.019kN/m2. in joints demonstrates that rectangular stirrups of
- The behavior of the structure was different usual diameter are effective in confining pressure.
under each earthquake due to different frequency, This pressure is applicable at the corners of the test
magnitude and source mechanism. directions.
- The highest displacement recorded among all three - Failure of beam column specimens occur due to a
earthquakes was Izmir due to high acceleration serious condition that leads to loss in moment
produced by this earthquake in a short time (0.5 carrying capacity of columns near joints, even in
seconds) causing irregular cyclic behavior between cases where plastic hinges are designed especially
displacement and load. for beams rather than columns.
- The cracks started in the first cycle and were - Lack of substantial axial compression on columns
improved by the time the cycle is increased. It was can result in cracked joints under cyclic loading for
observed that after the third cycle major cracks resisting against shear forces.
appeared in the joint and after conducting the fourth - Cyclic loading results in repeated opening and
and fifth cycles the major cracks spread across the closing of cracks that go in each direction as the
entire joint. direction of tension and concrete changes alternately.
110 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

6.3. Recommendations on Eurocode 8: Design 7. Appendices

of Structures for Earthquake Resistance.
General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules 7.1. Appendix 1 – Contour Maps of
for Buildings (2004) BS EN 1998-1: 2004 Non – linear Static Analysis Including
[27] Self Weight (without any Cyclic Loading)
- Eurocode 8 should include section for adding fibers
to the concrete to have better performance of the
structure during seismic citations.
- The force deformation demand on various components
while measuring lateral force and displacements by
using the latest Eurocode references. Additional work
could be done to further improve the constitutive
models used for the component and materials.
- More study on seismic performance of exterior
partial-strength composite beam-column joints can
be done using monotonic and quasi-static cyclic
full-scale sub assemblage tests.
- Inelastic response developed in a ductile and
stable manner in the column web panel zone and
the beam could be further reduced on the basis of
the type of connection which is used in seismic
design.
- Work on bearing failure of the concrete beam against Figure 48. Displacement contour map in the x-direction
the column flange can be on the basis of Eurocode 8
methodology for determining the capacity of the
compression force transfer mechanisms.

6.4. Future Work

The conduct of further analysis on the model such as
eigenvalue analysis could’ve given a clear indication of
the dynamic behavior by calculating and determining the
structures frequency and eigenvalues. The model results
that were achieved had limitations in terms of the concrete
cover depth which was fixed at 50mm. In the author’s
point of view by carrying out simulations on different
cover depths the results will have a wide range of
data which are capable of determining the effect of the
models behavior during earthquakes with respect to cover
depth.
Further work should be carried out such as conducting a Figure 49. Displacement contour map in the y-direction
parametric study. This can be achieved by changing the
model’s parameters and conducting necessary analysis.
This helps in achieving a set of statistical data which can
give the most beneficial model’s parameter that can
sustain earthquakes.
The boundary conditions of the model can be changed
to investigate if the seismic behavior of the structure can
be improved under certain boundary conditions. For
instance, the force created by the earthquake citations can
be absorbed by adding special spring which can be
included in the design of beam-column joints at the top
and bottom of the column. In addition, the boundary
conditions for beam can be roller rather than free or fixed.
As evident from the comparison part of this study that the
bar size is essential in identifying the load carrying
capacity of the model. Thus, by carrying out simulation on
changing the reinforcement bar size will give better
representation of the model’s load carrying capacity for
Figure 50. Stress – Plane stress contour map (SE)
different bar sizes.
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 111

Figure 51. Force – Bar contour map (Fx)

7.2. Appendix 2 – Deformed mesh

7.2.1. Cyclic Earthquake Loading for the 5 Cycle’s Figure 54. Cycle 3 (-50mm)
at Stage 1 (Downward)

Figure 55. Cycle 4 (-100mm)

Figure 52. Cycle 1 (-12mm).

Figure 53. Cycle 2 (-25mm) Figure 56. Cycle 5 (-150mm)

112 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

7.2.2. Cyclic Earthquake Loading for the 5 Cycle’s at

Stage 2 (Upward)

Figure 60. Cycle 4 (100mm)

Figure 57. Cycle 1 (12mm).

Figure 61. Cycle 5 (150mm)

7.2.3. Applied real earthquakes

Figure 58. Cycle 2 (25mm)

Figure 59. Cycle 3 (50mm) Figure 62. Applied Real Earthquake 1 (Athens).
 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 113

FRP Fibre-reinforced plastic

NSM Near surface mounted
FE Finite Element
CFRP Carbon fibre-reinforced polymers
Open Sees an open-source, object-oriented software
framework created for earthquake engineering simulations
through FE methods.

Acknowledgements
This research project is not considered completed
without the acknowledgements of the people and institutes
who contributed directly and indirectly towards the
completion of the research.
Firstly, I would like to thank my family, my mother, my
father and my brothers who have really supported me
morally.
I would like to thank University of Dundee for giving
me the opportunity to conduct such an informative and
interesting study, for making the computers, software and
Figure 63. Applied Real Earthquake 2 (Friuli). other research resources available. I would like to thank
the librarians and Information and communication
services (ICS) for their advice, help and assistance
rendered during my research.
I would like to record my grateful thanks to Dr. Sana
Balouch, Lecturer in University of Dundee, Faculty of
Engineering, Physics and Mathematics. My thanks also
extended to Dr. Ian Mackie, Structural Engineering/Course
Leader, University of Dundee, for his invaluable advice at
the crucial start point. Many thanks to Mr. David Husband,
Computer Technician, Engineering Department, for his
help with downloading the computer software and for
providing support with issues related to such a matter.
Lastly but not the least, I would like to thank all
my dear relatives and friends for their patience and moral
support.

References
[1] Baptie, B., Ottemoller, L., Sargeant, S., Ford, G. and O'Mongain,
A. (2005). The Dudley earthquake of 2002: A moderate sized
earthquake in the UK, Tectonophysics Volume 401, Issues 1-2,
25, pp. 1-22.
Figure 64. Applied Real Earthquake 3 (Izmir)
[2] Elnasha, A. S. (2002). A very brief history of earthquake
engineering with emphasis on developments in and from the
British Isles. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 13, Issue 5, April
Notations 2002, pp. 967-972.
[3] Musson, R.M.W. (2007) British earthquakes, In Proceedings of
the Geologists Association, Volume 118, Issue 4, pp. 305-337.
Ub Average bond over column for yielding beam [4] Pagni CA, Lowes LN. (2006), Fragility functions for older
reinforcement in compression and tension on both sides of reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Earthquake Spectra 2006;
joint 22(1): 215-238.
fy Strength of beam bars [5] Pantelides CP, Clyde C, Reaveley LD. (2002), Performance-based
evaluation of reinforced concrete building exterior joints for
Db Diameter of beam bars seismic excitation. Earthquake Spectra 2002; 18(3): 449-480.
Hc The width of column [6] Sirkelis GM ,Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE. (2006), Seismic
fC: Compressive strength performance of RC beam–column joints retrofitted using light RC
BI: Bond Index between concrete and steel reinforcement jacket-experimental study. Proceedings of the 1st European
bars Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2006; PN 136.
Vc: The concrete shear contribution [7] Kitayama, K., Otani, S. and Aoyama, H. (1987). Earthquake
Vf’ c Effective compressive strength of concrete resistant design criteria for reinforced concrete interior
Δ Deflection beam-column joints. Proceedings, Pacific Conference on
RBC Reinforced beam-column Earthquake Engineering, Wairakei, New Zealand, August 5-8,
1987, Vol. 1, pp. 315-326.
DoF Degree of Freedom
114 American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture

[8] Paulay, T., R. Park and M. J. N. Priestley (1999), Reinforced [18] Shah, S.P., Wang, M-L and Chung, L. (1987). Model concrete
Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Seismic Actions, American beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading at two rates.
Concrete Institute Journal, November 1999, pp. 585-593. Materials and Structures/MatOriaux et Construction, Vol. 20,
[9] Balouch, S., (2009), Strengthening of reinforced concrete pp. 85-95.
beam-column joint with steel fibre during earthquake [19] Mulas, M.G. and Filippou, F.C. (1990). Analytical procedures in
loading – experimental study, University of Leeds. the study of seismic response of reinforced concrete frames. Eng.
[10] Youssef, M. and Ghobarah, A. (2001). Modelling of RC Beam- Strut. Vol. 12.
Column joints and structural walls. Journal of Earthquake [20] Liu, J.L. (2010). Preventing progressive collapse through
Engineering, Vol. 5: No. 1, pp. 93-111. strengthening beam-to-column connection, Part 1: Theoretical
[11] Ziyaeifar, M. and Noguchi, H. (2000). A refined model for beam analysis. Journal of Constructional Steel Research Vol. 66;
elements and beam-column joints. Computers and Structures Vol. pp. 229-237.
76 pp. 551-564. [21] Favvata, M.J., Izzuddin, B.A., and Karayannis, C.G. (2008).
[12] Eligehausen, R., Genesio, G., Ožbolt, J and Pampanin, S. (2009). Modelling exterior beam–column joints for seismic analysis
3D analysis of seismic response of RC beam-column exterior of RC frame structures; Earthquake Engineering Structures and
joints before and after retrofit. In: Alexander et al (eds) Concrete Dynamics. Vol. 37; pp. 1527-1548.
Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting II, Taylor & Francis Group, [22] Lee, J-Y., Kim, J-Y and Oh, G-J (2009). Strength deterioration of
London. reinforced concrete beam-column joints subjected to cyclic
[13] Prota, A., Nanni, A., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. (2000). loading, Engineering Structures Vol. 31 pp. 2070-2085.
Seismic upgrade of beam-column joints with FRP reinforcement. [23] Lowes, L. N., N. Mitra and A. Altoontash (2004). A
Industria Italiana del Cemento, August 2000. Beam-Column Joint Model for Simulating the Earthquake
[14] Almusallam, T.H. and Al-Salloum, Y. A. (2007). Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames, PEER.
Response of Interior RC Beam-Column Joints Upgraded with FRP [24] Cofer, W.F., Zhang, Y. And. McLean, D.I. (2002). A comparison
Sheets. II: Analysis and Parametric Study, Journal of Composites of current computer analysis methods for seismic performance of
for Construction, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 590-600. reinforced concrete members. Finite Elements in Analysis and
[15] Al-Salloum, Y. A. and Almusallam, T.H. (2007). Seismic Design Vol. 38 pp. 835-861.
Response of Interior RC Beam-Column Joints Upgraded with FRP [25] Mo, Y.L., Tsai, S. P. and Led, L. S. (1998). Seismic performance
Sheets. I: Experimental Study, Journal of Composites for behavior of beam-column connections in prestressed concrete
Construction, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 575-589. bridges; Materials and Structures, Vol. 31, pp. 411-417.
[16] Alsayed, S.H., Al-Salloum, Y.A., Almusallam, T.H. and Siddiqui, [26] King ES., Dakin JM (2001). Specifying detailing and achieving
N.A. (2010). Seismic Response of FRP-Upgraded Exterior RC cover to reinforcement, Construction Industry Research and
Beam-Column Joints. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. Information Association, London, 2001; CIRIA (C568).
14, No. 2, pp. 195-208. [27] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance.
[17] Li, B. and. Kulkarni, S.A. (2009). Seismic Behavior of Reinforced General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (2004), BS
Concrete Exterior Wide Beam-Column Joints; Journal of EN 1998-1: 2004.
Structural Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 1, pp. 26-36.

© The Author(s) 2019. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).