Advertisement

RC Beam–Column Connections Retrofitted by Steel Prop: Experimental and Analytical Studies

  • Ali KheyroddinEmail author
  • Ebrahim Emami
  • Ali Khalili
Research paper
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

This paper studies the efficiency of a proposed retrofit technique to boost the seismic behavior of beam–column connections in existing deficient reinforced concrete (RC) moment frame systems with the consideration of constraint conditions such as the height of beams, using analytical, experimental, and numerical methods. The proposed retrofit method, called the “single steel prop and curbs”, consists of a diagonal steel prop element and two steel curbs that to the beam and column are laterally mounted. The internal force diagrams of the retrofitted exterior beam–column connections by analytical formulations are investigated and design strategies for promoting the efficiency of the single steel prop to achieve the expected efficiency proposed. To assay the validity and reliability of the proposed analytical procedure, experimental and numerical assessments were also conducted independently. Therefore, four deficient RC beam–column connections by single steel prop were retrofitted using three different cross-sectional areas and revival sheets and then accompanied by a control specimen subjected to cyclic loading. Next, numerical models were calibrated in ABAQUS software. Finally, by derivation of the props’ average axial force from experimental and numerical results, the beam shear coefficient, β, is calculated based on the analytical relations. These results confirmed good conformity between the experimental and numerical outputs as well as reliability of the analytical formulations. Also, the output results indicated that the retrofitted specimens had 53–78% bearing capacity and 146–217% dissipated energy more than the control specimen.

Keywords

RC beam–column connection Cyclic loading Retrofitting Single steel prop Steel curb 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the people who financially helped them to cast and test the specimens. This research was financially supported by the Research Bureau of Semnan University.

References

  1. 1.
    ATC-40 (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Completed by Applied Technology Council under project ATC 40, California Seismic Safety Commission, Report No. SSC 96-01, November 1996 (also available from ATC)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arzeytoon A, Hosseini A, Goudarzi A (2014) Seismic rehabilitation of exterior RC beam–column joints using steel plates, angles, and posttensioning rods. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE 30(1):04014200.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruiz-Pinilla JG, Pallarés FJ, Gimenez E, Calderón PA (2014) Experimental tests on retrofitted RC beam–column joints under designed to seismic loads: general approach. Eng Struct 59:702–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santarsiero G, Masi A (2015) Seismic performance of RC beam–column joints retrofitted with steel dissipation jackets. Eng Struct 85:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campione G, Cavaleri L, Papia M (2015) Flexural response of external R.C. beam–column joints externally strengthened with steel cages. Eng Struct 104:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shafaei J, Hosseini A, Marefat MS, Ingham JM (2017) Rehabilitation of earthquake damaged external RC beam–column joints by joint enlargement using pre stressed steel angles. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(2):291–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu QS, Uang CM, Gross J (2000) Seismic rehabilitation design of steel moment connection with welded haunch. ASCE J Struct Eng 126(1):69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen TH (2006) Retrofit strategy of non-seismically designed frame systems based on a metallic haunch system. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Chen T (2006) Development and validation of a metallic haunch seismic retrofit solution for existing under-designed RC frame buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(14):1739–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eligehausen R, Genesio G, Ožbolt J, Pampanin S (2008) 3D analysis of seismic response of RC beam–column exterior joints before and after retrofit. In: Alexander MG, Beushausen H-D, Dehn F, Moyo P (eds) Concrete repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting II. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genesio G, Akgüzel U (2009) Seismic retrofit for reinforced concrete exterior beam–column joints using a fully fastened metallic haunch solution. Part 1: feasibility study—Test report, No. WS 212/23-09/02; University of Stuttgart, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Genesio G, Sharma A (2010) Seismic retrofit solution for reinforced concrete exterior beam–column joints using a fully fastened haunch. Part 2-2: retrofitted Joints, Test Report No. WS 221/08-10/02, IWB, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, p 136Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Genesio G (2012) Seismic assessment of RC exterior beam–column joints and retrofit with haunches using post-installed anchors. PhD Thesis, University of Stuttgart, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma A (2013) Seismic behavior and retrofitting of RC frame structures with emphasis on beam–column joints—experiments and numerical modeling. PhD Thesis, Stuttgart UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharma A, Reddy GR, Eligehausen R, Genesio G, Pampanin S (2014) Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames with haunch retrofit solution. ACI Struct J 111(1–6):1–12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Said A, Nehdi M (2008) Rehabilitation of RC frame joints using local steel bracing. Struct Infrastruct Eng 4(6):431–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Appa Rao G, Gangaram M (2012) Non-invasive protection of shear critical non-seismically detailed RC beam–column joints against seismic loading. J Struct Eng (India) 39(3):309–317Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sharbatdar MK, Kheyroddin A, Emami E (2012) Cyclic performance of retrofitted reinforced concrete beam–column joints using steel prop. Constr Build Mater 36:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharbatdar MK, Kheyroddin A, Emami E (2012) Experimental seismic investigation of composite RC-diagonal steel prop joints. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kheyroddin A, Khalili A, Emami E, Sharbatdar MK (2016) An innovative experimental method to upgrade performance of external weak RC joints using fused steel prop plus sheets. Steel Compos Struct 21(2):443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khalili A, Kheyroddin A, Farahani A, Sharbatdar MK (2015) Nonlinear behavior of RC frames strengthened with steel curb and prop. Sci Iran Int J Sci Technol 22(5):1712–1722Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Truong GT, Dinh NH, Kim JC, Choi KK (2017) Seismic performance of exterior RC beam–column joints retrofitted using various retrofit solutions. Int J Concr Struct Mater 11(3):415–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanchana Devi AK, Karusala R, Tripathi M, Sasmal S (2018) Novel non-invasive seismic upgradation strategies for gravity load designed exterior beam–column joints. Arch Civ Mech Eng 18:479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsang HH, Zabihi A, Gad EF, Wilson JL (2017) Analytical model for seismic retrofit of concrete beam–column joint using diagonal metallic haunch. In: Proceedings of world conference on advanced in structural engineering and mechanics (ASEM17), IIsan (Seoul)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang B, Zhu S, Xu YL, Jiang H (2017) Seismic retrofitting of non-seismically designed RC beam–column joints using buckling restrained haunches: design and Analysis. J Earthq Eng 22(7):1188–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sasmal S, Nath D (2017) Seismic performance of non-invasive single brace made of steel and shape memory alloy for retrofit of gravity load designed sub-assemblages. Eng Struct 143:316–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sasmal S, Voggu S (2018) Strut-relieved single steel haunch bracing system for mitigating seismic damage of gravity load designed structures. J Struct Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A (2000) Non-invasive passive energy dissipating devices for the retrofit of steel structures. In: Proceedings of the international conference on the behaviour of steel structures in seismic areas-STESSA 2000, Montreal, pp 387–394Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    SIMULIA (2010) Abaqus analysis user’s manual. Version 6.10, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp. ABAQUS/STANDARD Software Help, Version 6.10.1Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    ACI 318 (2011) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Priestley MJN, Mac Rae GA (1996) Seismic tests of precast beam-to-column joint sub-assemblages with un-bonded tendons. PCI J 41:64–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringSemnan UniversitySemnanIslamic Republic of Iran
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineeringpayame noor university(pnu)TehranIran
  3. 3.International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and SeismologyTehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  4. 4.University of Texas at ArlingtonTexasUSA
  5. 5.Center of Excellence for Engineering and Management of Civil InfrastructuresUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations