リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる 「PREDICTION OF JOINT DEFORMATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE INTERIOR BEAM COLUMN JOINTS」の論文概要。リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。

コピーが完了しました

URLをコピーしました

論文の公開元へ論文の公開元へ
書き出し

PREDICTION OF JOINT DEFORMATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE INTERIOR BEAM COLUMN JOINTS

DAGVABAZAR GOMBOSUREN 埼玉大学 DOI:info:doi/10.24561/00019573

2021

概要

Beam-column joints play an essential role in the seismic performance of RC frame structures since the collapse risk of RC moment frames can be considerably increased by joint failure. Thus, the integrity of beam-column joints is essential for structural integrity due to the transfer of loads effectively between beams and columns in moment frames during earthquakes. To ensure joint integrity, the most modern seismic design codes such as ACI (USA), AIJ (Japan), EC8 (Europe), and NZS (New Zealand) have provisions for the seismic design of beam-column joints in RC moment frames based on extensive laboratory test results. These provisions were primarily based on the joint shear strength, regardless of joint deformation. This could be related to the fact that numerous experimental and analytical studies focused on the basic shear strength of beam-column joints over the past few decades. The results of these studies revealed that beam-column joints with high shear stress levels (i.e., heavily reinforced beams) tend to fail in shear, regardless of the amount of shear reinforcement within the joint. Therefore, it was more logical to limit shear stresses within the joint by comparing the shear demand to a nominal shear capacity to prevent the joint from failure.
Despite this significant achievement, detailed investigations on the deformation of beam-column joints and their effects on the lateral response of moment frames have been relatively limited. This could be because the joint failure mechanism was studied separately from the failure mechanisms of the frame members in the majority of the existing studies. In fact, the separation of the failure mechanisms is difficult in many cases since the design parameters of both the members and the joint influence the failure mechanisms. Thus, to address these issues neglected in the first generation of the analytical and experimental studies on RC joints, experimental and analytical investigations were conducted to supplement and refine the existing knowledge as well as to develop a practical approach to evaluate the effect of joint deformation on the seismic response of RC moment-resisting frames.
The first part of this research focused on the identification of main parameters that significantly affect joint behavior. To this end, an analytical study was carried out using the quadruple flexural resistance (QFR) model. According to the results of the analytical research, the column-to-beam flexural strength ratio and joint shear reinforcement ratio were found to be essential parameters apart from concrete strength and the amount of longitudinal reinforcement in the beam. They were selected as key test parameters. Moreover, the effect of joint shear reinforcement on joint behavior was found to be dependent on the quantity of beam longitudinal reinforcement and the flexural strength ratio.
A displacement-controlled cyclic loading test was conducted on eight half-scale interior joint specimens to investigate the combined effect of these two key parameters on the strength and deformation of RC interior beam-column joint connections. The cyclic performance of each test specimen was examined in terms of the lateral resistance, failure modes, strain distributions of the beam, column, and joint reinforcements, joint shear stresses, and deformation components. Some of the critical findings from the test are summarized below.
First, the test specimens with a larger flexural strength ratio of 1.5 exhibited better performance than those with a smaller strength ratio of 1.1, regardless of joint shear reinforcement ratio. Second, the increased amount of joint transverse reinforcement (steel percentage of 0.36% to 0.72%) gave less increase in the lateral strength and deformation capacity. Mainly, this phenomenon happened to the specimens with the largest amount of longitudinal reinforcement in the beam. The results were consistent with those of the analytical study. Third, all the test specimens exhibited joint failure. However, the failure was not caused by joint shear but joint moment because throughout the lateral loading, the shear stress-induced in the joint increased even if the width of the diagonal shear cracks on the beam-column connection increased. Fourth, the degradation of the lateral load resulted from not the degradation of the joint shear stress but the loss of anchorage capacity of the beam longitudinal reinforcement passing through the joint.
Although the experimental study provided valuable information on the behavior of the interior beam-column joints, no clear correlation was found between the test variables and the deformation of the beam-column joints. The final goal of this study is to develop a practical approach to evaluate the effect of joint deformation on the seismic response of RC moment-resisting frames. Therefore, a two-dimensional finite element investigation was carried out to examine the complex behavior of RC beam-column joints. The validation and calibration of the FE models were first done by simulating the test results. Subsequently, parametric investigations varying joint shear reinforcement ratio, strength ratio, joint aspect ratio, and area ratio of adjoining members were conducted on 39 full-scale FE models of the beam-column joint connection. Some of the important findings from the finite element investigation are summarized below.
The results of the FE analysis were consistent with the observations made from the experiment. First, the beam-column joint connections with a larger flexural strength ratio of above 2 exhibited good performance and a relatively full hysteretic loop, although the joint shear reinforcement ratio is 0.3%. Joints remained elastic throughout the lateral loading, and the plastic hinges formed at beam ends. Second, the joint shear strength was increased by 5 to 10% with respect to an increase in the shear reinforcement ratio (0.3% to 0.7%), but the joint shear deformation was reduced approximately three times due to an increase in the joint shear reinforcement ratio. Third, the reduction of joint shear deformation was dependent upon the column-to-beam flexural strength ratio and area ratio of the members framing into the joint. For instance, the largest decrease in the joint shear deformation took place in the specimens with the larger values of the strength ratio and area ratio, and vice versa.
Based on the results of the experimental and finite element studies, three simple equations were developed to predict the joint shear deformation index (SDI) of RC interior beam-column connections corresponding to three different types of failure (i.e., joint failure before beam yielding, joint failure after beam yielding, and beam flexural failure). These equations can be used for predicting the joint deformation contribution to the total story drift of beam-column joints under critical structural deformations. Compared with previously proposed models and theories, this method does not require complex nonlinear numerical analyses of the structure or sub-assemblage.
Finally, a nonlinear time history analysis was performed on three hypothetical RC perimeter frames in which interior joints were designed and detailed to exhibit three different failure modes, as mentioned above. The main purpose of this analysis was to ensure the reliability and effectiveness of the proposed approach in terms of multi-story RC moment-resisting frames under seismic excitation. Some of the important findings from the seismic response analysis are summarized below.
First, the column-to-beam flexural strength ratio of 1.45 or less was found to be insufficient to protect columns from yielding. Also, the joint shear deformation was observed to increase with a decrease in the flexural strength ratio. Second, there was no noticeable difference in the lateral response of the considered three frames for the seismic excitation with PGA of 0.25g and 0.4g corresponding to the serviceability limit state because they behaved elastically. However, as the seismic intensity was increased further, aiming at the ultimate limit state, the difference in the interstory drift existed. Third, Exterior beam-column joints performed much better than interior joints since the shear deformation was significantly smaller than that of interior joints. This better performance was attributed to a larger column-to-beam flexural strength ratio and lower shear stress level in the joint. Fourth, the shear deformation index (SDI) of interior joints of the first and second stories in three frames was predicted by the proposed three equations. A reasonable agreement was found. Despite some disagreement between the predicted and observed SDI values, the proposed simple approach can consider additional interstory drifts due to joint shear deformation. Therefore, the equations are deemed useful and practical to identify inelastic joints in RC moment resisting frames without doing nonlinear static and dynamic analysis.

この論文で使われている画像

参考文献

[1]

Jaiswal K, Wald DJ, Hearne M. Estimating casualties for large earthquakes worldwide using an

empirical approach: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1136. Tech Report U.S.

Geol Surv 2009; p. 78.

[2]

Hayes GP, Meyers EK, Dewey JW, Briggs RW, Earle PS, Benz HM, et al. Tectonic Summaries

of Magnitude 7 and Greater Earthquakes from 2000 to 2015. Open-File Rep 2017:91.

[3]

Sezen H, Elwood KJ, Whittaker AS, Mosalam KM, Wallace JW, Stanton JF. Structural

Engineering Reconnaissance of the August 17, 1999 Earthquake: Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey. Tech

Rep No, PEER 2000/09; September 2000.

[4]

Günay MS, Mosalam KM. Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of April 6, 2009, Abruzzo,

Italy, Earthquake, and Lessons Learned. Tech Rep No, PEER 2010/105; April 2010.

[5]

Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New

York: John Wiley & Sons; 1992.

[6]

Penelis G, Penelis G. Concrete Buildings in Seismic Regions. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis

Group; 2014.

[7]

Architectural Institute of Japan. AIJ Standard for structural calculation of Reinforced Concrete

Structures. Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan; 2010.

[8]

Standards New Zealand. Concrete Structures Standard-The Design of Concrete Structures; NZ

S3101-12006. Standards New Zealand: Wellington, New Zealand, 2006; Volume 1.

[9]

British Standards Institution. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part

1 : General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. British Standards Institution: London,

UK; 2005.

[10]

ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14)

Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14). American

Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA;2014; p. 443.

[11]

Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections

in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI-ASCE 352-02). American Concrete

Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA; 2002.

[12]

Paulay T, Park R, Priestley MJN. Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Under Seismic

Actions. ACI Struct J 1978;75:585–93.

[13]

Fuji S, Morita S. Comparison between Interior and Exterior R/C Beam-Column Joint Behavior,

Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance. ACI Struct J 1991;132:145–66.

199

[14]

Kamimura T, Takeda S, Tochio M. Influence of joint reinforcement on strength and deformation

of interior beam-column subassemblages. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, January 30 –4 February 2000; p. 2267.

[15]

Joh O, Goto Y. Beam-Column Joint Behavior After Beam Yielding in R/C Ductile. In

Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand,

January 30 –4 February 2000.

[16]

Kitayama K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Development of Design Criteria for Rc Interior Beam-Column

Joints. ACI Struct J SP-123, 1991:97–123.

[17]

Shiohara H, Kusuhara F. Joint Shear? or Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio? Which is a key

parameter for seismic design of RC Beam-column joints - Test Series on Interior Joints. In

Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24-28

September 2012; p. 1–9.

[18]

Nagae T, Ghannoum WM, Kwon J, Tahara K, Fukuyama K, Matsumori T, et al. Design

implications of large-scale shake-table test on four-story reinforced concrete building. ACI

Struct J 2015;112:135–46.

[19]

Shiohara H, Kobayashi F, Sato Y, Kusuhara F. Earthquake response of multi-story reinforced

concrete plane frame structures and seismic design of beam-column joints. J Struct Constr Eng

2017;82:1437–47.

[20]

Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H. Effect of deterioration of bond of beam bars passing through

interior beam-column joints on flexural strength and ductility. ACI Struct J 1999;96:858–64.

[21]

Hwang HJ, Eom TS, Park HG. Shear strength degradation model for performance-based design

of interior beam-column joints. ACI Struct J 2017;114:1143–54.

[22]

Bonacci J, Pantazopoulou S. Parametric investigation of joint mechanics. ACI Struct J

1993;90:61–71.

[23]

Shiohara H. New model for shear failure of R.C. interior beam-column connections. J Struct

Eng 2001;127:152–60.

[24]

Shiohara H. Reinforced concrete beam-column joints: An overlooked failure mechanism. ACI

Struct J 2012;109:65–74.

[25]

Tajiri S, Fukuyama H, Suwada H, Kusuhara F, Shiohara H. Energy Dissipation of R.C. Interior

Beam-column Connection Confined by Lateral Reinforcements, Axial Force, and Column

Longitudinal Reinforcements. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24-28 September 2012.

200

[26]

ASCE/SEI Committee 41. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures (ASCE/SEI

41-13). American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA; 2014; p. 554.

[27]

Mitra N, Lowes LN. Evaluation, Calibration, and Verification of a Reinforced Concrete BeamColumn Joint Model. J Struct Eng 2007;133(1):105–20.

[28]

Tran XH, Kai Y. Modeling of interior reinforced concrete beam‐column joint based on an

innovative theory of joint shear failure. Japan Archit Rev 2019;2:287–301.

[29]

Tajiri S, Shiohara H, Kusuhara F. A new macro element of reinforced concrete beam-column

joint for elasto-plastic plane frame analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California, USA, 18-22 April 2006.

[30]

Park R, Paulay T.Reinforced Concrete Structures. New York: John Wiley; 1975.

[31]

Pantazopoulou S, Bonacci J. Consideration of questions about beam-column joints. ACI Struct

J 1992;89.

[32]

Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H. Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beam-column joints with

substandard reinforcing details. ACI Struct J 2000;97:11–25.

[33]

Hwang SJ, Lee HJ. Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of interior reinforced

concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance. ACI Struct J 2000;97:35–44.

[34]

Zang LXB, Hsu TTC. Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements. J

Struct Eng 1998;124(1):24-34.

[35]

Hwang SJ, Tsai RJ, Lam WK, Moehle JP. Simplification of softened strut-and-tie model for

strength prediction of discontinuity regions. ACI Struct J 2017;114:1239–48.

[36]

Kim J, LaFave J.M. Probabilistic joint shear strength models for design of R.C. beam-column

connections. ACI Struct J 2008;105:770–80.

[37]

Kim J, LaFave J.M. Key influence parameters for the joint shear behaviour of reinforced

concrete (R.C.) beam-column connections. Eng Struct 2007;29:2523–39.

[38]

Kusuhara F, Shiohara H. Moment capacity of reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints

based on a theory of flexural resistance of joints. In Proceedings of the 10th National Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, Alaska, 2125 July 2014.

[39]

Hong SG, Lee SG, Kang THK. Deformation-based strut-and-tie model for interior joints of

frames subject to load reversal. ACI Struct J 2011;108(4):423–33.

[40]

Eom TS, Hwang HJ, Park HG. Energy-based hysteresis model for reinforced concrete beamcolumn connections. ACI Struct J 2015;112(2):157–66.

201

[41]

Kang SB, Tan KH. A simplified model for reinforced concrete beam-column joints under

seismic loads. Mag Concr Res 2018;70:138–53.

[42]

Lee J-Y, Park J, Kim C. Deformations of reinforced-concrete beam-column joint assemblies.

Mag Concr Res 2020;72:649–69.

[43]

Kaku T, Asakusa H. Bond and anchorage of bars in reinforced concrete beam-column joints.

ACI Struct J 1991;123:401–24.

[44]

Shiohara H, Kusuhara F. The next generation seismic design for reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints In Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, Alaska, 21-25 July 2014.

[45]

Shiohara H. Strength model of reinforced concrete beam-column joint with insufficient

transverse reinforcement. In Proceedings of the 17th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Sendai, Japan, 13-18 September 2020.

[46]

Wang YC, Hsu K. Shear strength of R.C. jacketed interior beam-column joints without

horizontal shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2009;106:222–32.

[47]

Joh O, Goto Y, Shibata T. Influence of Transverse Joint and Beam Reinforcement and

Relocation of Plastic Hinge Region on Beam-Column Joint Stiffness Deterioration. ACI Struct

J SP-123 1991;123:187–224.

[48]

Lu X, Urukap TH, Li S, Lin F. Seismic behavior of interior R.C. beam-column joints with

additional bars under cyclic loading. Earthq Struct 2012;3:37–57.

[49]

Pampanin S, Bolognini D, Pavese A. Performance-Based Seismic Retrofit Strategy for Existing

Reinforced Concrete Frame Systems Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites. J Compos

Constr 2007;11:211–26.

[50]

Pantelides CP, Okahashi Y, Reaveley LD. Seismic Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Frame

Interior Beam-Column Joints with FRP Composites. J Compos Constr 2008;12:435–45.

[51]

Hwang HJ, Park HG, Choi WS, Chung L, Kim JK. Cyclic loading test for beam-column

connections with 600 MPa (87 ksi) beam flexural reinforcing bars. ACI Struct J 2014;111:913–

24.

[52]

Park R. Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. In Proceedings of the 9th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 2-9 August 1988; p. 605–16.

[53]

ACI Committee 374. Commentary on Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on

Structural Testing (ACI 374.1-05). American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA,

2002.

202

[54]

Kusuhara F, Shiohara H. New instrumentation for damage and stress in reinforced concrete

beam-column joint. In Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, 18-22 April 2006, Volume 7, p. 4006-4015.

[55]

Ichinose T. Interaction Between Bond at Beam Bars and Shear Reinforcement in R/C Interior

Joints. ACI Struct J 1991;123:379–400.

[56]

Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open System for Earthquake Engineering

Simulation (OpenSEES) user command-language manual. Pacific Earthq Eng Res Cent

2006:465.

[57]

DIANA Version 10.3 [Computer sofware]. TNO Building and Construction Research: Delft, The

Netherlands DIANA, 2019.

[58]

Maekawa K, Okamura H, Pimanmas A. Non-Linear Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete. Spon

Press; 2003.

[59]

Hendriks MAN, de Boer A, Belletti B. Guidelines for nonlinear finite element analysis of

concrete structures. Rijkswaterstaat Tech Doc (RTD), Rijkswaterstaat Cent Infrastructure, RTD,

10162012 2020.

[60]

Deaton JB. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete exterior beam-column joints

with nonseismic detailing. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA,

2013:1–315.

[61]

Borst R De, Nauta P. Non-orthogonal cracks in a smeared finite element model. Eng Comput

1985;2.

[62]

Rots J.G. Computational modeling of concrete fracture. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of

Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1988.

[63]

Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Compression response of cracked reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng

1993;119:3590-3610.

[64]

Selby RG, Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Analysis of reinforced concrete members subject to shear

and axial compression. ACI Struct J 1996;93:306-315.

[65]

Hordijk DA. Local approach to fatigue of concrete. Ph.D.

Thesis, Delft University of

Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1991.

[66]

FIB. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. International Federation for Structural

Concrete, 2013.

[67]

Nakamura H, Higai T. Compressive fracture energy and fracture zone length of concrete,

Modelling of inelastic behavior of R.C. structures under seismic loads edited by Shing P, Tanabe

T. ASCE 1999;10:471-487.

203

[68]

Karsan I, Jirsa J. Behavior of Concrete Under Compressive Loadings. ASCE J Struct Div

1969;95:2543-2563.

[69]

Kwan W-P, Billington SL. Simulation of Structural Concrete under Cyclic Load. J Struct Eng

2001;127(12):1391-1401.

[70]

Tajima K, Mishima T, Shirai N. 3-D Finite Element cyclic analysis of reinforced concrete

beam/column joint using special bond model. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1-6 August 2004; p. 446.

[71]

Li B, Leong CL. Experimental and Numerical Investigations of the Seismic Behavior of HighStrength Concrete Beam-Column Joints with Column Axial Load. J Struct Eng

2015;141:04014220.

[72]

Li B. Analytical Investigations of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Constructed Using

High-Strength Materials. J Earthq Eng 2018;24(5):774-802.

[73]

Alaee P, Li B, Cheung PPC. Parametric investigation of 3D R.C. beam-column joint mechanics.

Mag Concr Res 2015;67:1054–69.

[74]

Li B, Tran CTN, Pan TC. Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic behavior of

lightly reinforced concrete beam-column joints. J Struct Eng 2009;135:1007–18.

[75]

Noguchi H, Kashiwazaki T. Experimental studies on shear performances of R.C. interior

column-beam joints with high-strength materials. In Proceedings of the 10th World Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 19-24 July 1992.

[76]

Oka J, Shiohara H. Tests of high-strength concrete interior beam-column-joint subassemblages.

In Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1924 July 1992.

[77]

Melo J, Varum H, Rossetto T. Cyclic behaviour of interior beam-column joints reinforced with

plain bars. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44:1351–71.

[78]

Alaee P, Li B. High-Strength Concrete Interior Beam-Column Joints with High-Yield-Strength

Steel Reinforcements. J Struct Eng 2017;143:04017038.

[79]

Yang H, Zhao W, Zhu Z, Fu J. Seismic behavior comparison of reinforced concrete interior

beam-column joints based on different loading methods. Eng Struct 2018;166:31-45.

[80]

ASCE/SEI Committee 7. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other

structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA; 2010; p.

63.

[81]

Saito T. STructural Earthquake Response Analysis 3D, User manual version 10.7. Toyohashi

University of Technology 2020:116.

204

APPENDIX

Table A lists the geometrical dimensions and other features of 23 existing beam-column joints that

were used to verify the accuracy of the quadruple flexural resistance (QFR) model. Also, from this

table, several beam-column joints were selected and used in the parametric analysis in chapter 2.

Table A. Geometrical and mechanical properties of the existing test specimens

Research team

Specimens

Concrete compressive

strength in MPa

Applied axial load in kN

Width×depth

in mm

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars

Beam

Top

reinforcement

ratio, %

Bottom

reinforcement

ratio, %

Width×depth

in mm

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars

Column

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars ratio, %

Tensile

reinforcement

ratio, %

Joint hoop

Hakuto et al. [32]

Wan and Hsu [46]

Unit

01

Unit 04

Unit

05

Ko-JI1

Ho-JI1

HL

MH

LH

41

53

33

32

27

27.4

28.1

26.9

355

355

355

300×500

300×400

200×350

300×500

6-D24

fy=32

MPa

8-D24

4-D32

8-D25

8-D19

6-D13

fy=308

MPa

fy=306

MPa

fy=533

MPa

fy=514

MPa

fy=404 MPa

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.5

1.1

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.67

1.3

1.2

1.5

1.1

0.6

0.6

0.6

460×460

300×300

400×400

300×300

6-D28

6-D25

8-D25

14-D13

fy=404 MPa

460×

300

6-D24

fy=32

MPa

fy=321

MPa

fy=321

MPa

fy=533

MPa

fy=541

MPa

0.65

0.77

0.77

0.66

0.75

0.79

0.79

0.79

1.188

0.99

0.99

2.032

1.088

0.629

0.629

0.629

□-D6

(fy=377

MPa) 2

legs.

@45

□-D6

(fy=377

MPa) 2

legs.

@87.5

□-D5

(fy=1320

MPa) 4

legs

@45.

spiral

1.27

0.55

0.3

0.69

1.02

1.12

0.45

1.78

2.31

2.31

2.31

Joint

Joint hoop

ratio, %

Column-to-beam

flexural strength ratio

Joh et al. [47]

205

Table A. (Continued)

Research team

Specimens

Concrete compressive

strength in MPa

Applied axial load in kN

Width×depth

in mm

Pampin et

al. [49]

Fujii and Morita [13]

A1

A2

A3

A4

C2

24-1

16-1

40.2

40.2

40.2

40.2

23.9

43

43

147

147

442

442

120

709

709

200×330

406×610

406×406

Top: 2D8+2D12

Bot: 2D8+D12

Top: 2D25+2D29

MidHeight:

2-D10

Bot: 3D13

Top: 2D29+D19

MidHeight:

2-D10

Bot: 2D13

160×250

Top: 8-D10 (2 layers)

Bot: 8-D10 (2 layers)

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars

Beam

Top

reinforcement

ratio, %

Bottom

reinforcement

ratio, %

Width ×depth

in mm

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars

Column

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars ratio, %

Tensile

reinforcement

ratio, %

Joint hoop

Joint

Joint hoop

ratio, %

Column-to-beam

flexural strength ratio

Pantelides and

Okahashi [50]

fy=451

MPa D8

fy=458

MPa D12

fy=1069

MPa

fy=409.1

MPa

1.68

1.68

1.68

1.68

0.527

0.99

1.1

1.68

1.68

1.68

1.68

0.527

0.16

0.17

fy=1069 MPa

220×220

16-D13 (symmetrically distributed on

sides)

fy=644

fy=388

fy=644

fy=644

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

fy=454 MPa

200×200

406×406

6-D8

4-D32 (in lap splice

zone 8-D32)

fy=451

MPa

fy=454 MPa

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.8

0.75

0.75

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

0.42

1.1 (2 for

lap splice

zone)

1.1 (2 for

lap splice

zone)

□-D6

(fy=291

MPa) 2

legs. 3

sets

□-D6

(fy=291

MPa) 4

legs. 4

sets

□-D6

(fy=291

MPa) 2

legs. 3

sets

□-D6

(fy=291

MPa) 2

legs. 3

sets

0.52

0.52

0.52

0.69

0.89

1.33

0.89

0.89

0.49

0.92

2.1

206

Table A. (Continued)

Research team

Specimens

Concrete compressive

strength in MPa

Applied axial load in kN

Width×depth

in mm

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars

Beam

Top

reinforcement

ratio %

Bottom

reinforcement

ratio %

Width×depth

in mm

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars

Column

Longitudinal

reinforcing

bars ratio

Tensile

reinforcement

ratio %

Joint hoop

Joint

Joint hoop

ratio, %

Column-to-beam flexural

strength ratio

Hwang et al. [51]

Xilin Lu et al. [48]

C1-400

C2-600

C3-600

C4-600

J1-1

J1-2

J1-3

J1-4

32

32

32

29.6

25

25

25

25

200

200

200

200

350×500

Top: 5D25+2D19

Bot: 4D22

fy=465

MPa for

D25;

fy=520

MPa for

D22

Top: 5-D22

Bot: 3-D22

250×400

Top: 4D25

Bot: 2D25

8D20

fy=710 MPa for D22;

fy=635 MPa for D25

6D20

6D22

6D25

fy=300 MPa

1.98

1.23

1.25

1.3

1.38

1.03

1.25

1.63

0.99

0.74

0.74

0.65

1.38

1.03

1.25

1.63

500×450

500×550

500×550

12-D29 (symmetrically distributed along

perimeter)

fy=510 MPa

400×400

12-D25 (symmetrically

distributed along

perimeter)

fy=300 MPa

0.77

0.77

0.73

0.77

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

1.07

1.07

1.34

1.07

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

□-D13

(fy=446

MPa) 4

sets with

4 legs

□-D13

(fy=446

MPa) 4

sets with

4 legs

□-D13

(fy=446

MPa) 4

sets with 4

legs

□-D13

(fy=446

MPa) 4

sets with 4

legs

1.34

1.34

1.34

1.34

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.67

1.69

1.22

2.0

1.53

2.05

1.7

1.33

207

□-D10

(fy=210 MPa) 4 legs @100

...

参考文献をもっと見る