The behaviour of reinforced concrete beam‐column (RCBC) joints may have an important influence on the structural behaviour of unbraced framed structures—this explains why current technical specifications require accounting for their deformation. However, the available numerical models for RCBC joints are rather complex, so that, at the end of the day, these joints are commonly modeled using one of two alternative simplified models: the rigid joint model and the centerline joint model. This calls for the development of “Simplified Classification Criteria”, which are simplified procedures to assess the influence of RCBC joints on the structural behaviour, that is, to determine whether a simplified joint model can be employed in the numerical model of the overall structure without leading to major errors in the analysis. This paper focuses on the possibility of using the rigid joint model. As a starting point for the step‐by‐step development of general classification criteria for RCBC joints we employ the basic simplified classification criterion already existing for steel beam‐column joints.

A reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column (RCBC) joint model for the quasi-static monotonic analysis of cast in situ RC frames is developed and implemented in a finite element analysis program for framed structures. The joint model was developed in the framework of the component method, a method originally developed for steel joints, which consists of three steps: (a) identification of the joint relevant basic components, their interaction, and contribution to overall joint behavior; (b) characterization of the mechanical behavior of each component; and (c) assembling of the components. With regard to the model implementation, the material nonlinear analysis is performed by the fictitious forces method-all the required steps are presented and explained-while the P-Δ method for the geometrical nonlinear analysis of frames is extended to include the beam-column joint model. The paper closes with illustrative and validation examples; while some of these are fully analytical, the others simulate lab-tested subframes subjected to quasi-static monotonic loads.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract