Seismic resistance of exterior beam-column joints with non-conventional confinement reinforcement detailing

Bindhu, K. R.; Jaya, K. P.; Selvam, V.

doi:10.12989/sem.2008.30.6.733

Cited by 29 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They reported that cyclic behaviour of exterior beam-column joints can be significantly improved by attaching double mechanical device on each beam bar within the joint. Bindhu et al (2008) in their experimental investigations validated with analytical studies carried out by finite element model indicate that additional inclined reinforcement bar improves the seismic performance of the exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joints. The use of headed bars has become increasingly popular for relatively large reinforced concrete (RC) structures that are exposed to extreme loads such as strong earthquakes or blasts, often providing an adequate solution to steel congestion (Chun et al 2007;Kang et al 2009Kang et al , 2010.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Exterior beam-column joint study with non-conventional reinforcement detailing using mechanical anchorage under reversal loading

Rajagopal¹,

Prabavathy²

2014

Sadhana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinforced concrete structures beam-column joints are the most critical regions in seismic prone areas. Proper reinforcement anchorage is essential to enhance the performance of the joints. An attempt has been made to appraise the performance of the anchorages and joints. The anchorages are detailed as per ACI-352 (mechanical anchorages), ACI-318 (conventional bent hooks) and IS-456 (conventional full anchorage). The joints are detailed without confinement in group-I and with additional X-cross bar in group-II. To assess the seismic performance, the specimens are assembled into two groups of three specimens each and were tested under reversal loading, The specimen with T-type mechanical anchorage (Headed bar) and T-type mechanical anchorage combination with X-cross bar exhibited significant improvement in seismic performance: load-displacement capacity, displacement ductility, stiffness degradation, controlled crack capacity in the joint shear panel and also reduced congestion of reinforcement in joint core.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Exterior beam-column joint study with non-conventional reinforcement detailing using mechanical anchorage under reversal loading

Rajagopal¹,

Prabavathy²

2014

Sadhana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bindhu et al [4] in their experimental investigations validated with analytical studies and concluded that additional cross…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Seismic performance study on exterior beam-column joint with mechanical anchorage for different joint core details

Saminathan¹,

Shamugasundaram²

2013

J Eng Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Few authors have tested such BCJ with diagonal cross bar joint shear reinforcements. 26,[33][34][35][36][37] Rajagopal and Prabavathy 26 different type of joint reinforcement ranging from type T anchorage (headed bar) to X-cross bar. The X-cross bar is in addition to conventional joint reinforcement as shown in Figure 3.…”

Section: Diagonal Cross Bar Joint Shear Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of diagonal cross bar reinforcement with sufficient lap length has been suggested by some design codes to preclude shear failure in monolithic reinforced BCJ sections. Few authors have tested such BCJ with diagonal cross bar joint shear reinforcements 26,33–37 . Rajagopal and Prabavathy 26 tested six BCJ specimens having different type of joint reinforcement ranging from type T anchorage (headed bar) to X‐cross bar.…”

Section: Current Approaches For Designing and Detailing Beam–column Jmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plastic hinge relocation in exterior reinforced beam–column joint and compliance issues to seismic design guidelines—A review

Arowojolu

Ibrahim

2019

Structural Concrete

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current recommendations for the design of monolithic reinforced concrete beam-column joints allowed for the provision of transverse reinforcements at the joint to avoid brittle shear failure of the joint during seismic events but neglected the effect of plastic hinge penetration in the joint leading to bond deterioration and shear failure, especially for external frames. In this paper, previous studies conducted by different authors using the seismic design recommendations are reviewed for failure modes and the effectiveness of the code recommendations to avoid joint failure. Various retrofitting strategies to upgrade nonseismically designed beam-column joints are also reviewed. Methods of plastic hinge relocation in beam-column joints of new construction were proposed and verified with numerical simulation. This study contributes to knowledge by highlighting areas of concern in current design guidelines and a call for further research on code compliant exterior beamcolumn joint for better seismic performance.

show abstract

Seismic resistance of exterior beam-column joints with non-conventional confinement reinforcement detailing

Cited by 29 publications

References 9 publications

Exterior beam-column joint study with non-conventional reinforcement detailing using mechanical anchorage under reversal loading

Exterior beam-column joint study with non-conventional reinforcement detailing using mechanical anchorage under reversal loading

Seismic performance study on exterior beam-column joint with mechanical anchorage for different joint core details

Plastic hinge relocation in exterior reinforced beam–column joint and compliance issues to seismic design guidelines—A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About