1 CONCRETE-COMPOSITE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS-

2 I. PERFORMANCE OF FRESH SPECIMENS

3 A. Mukherjeea *, G. L. Raib
a
4 Director, Thapar University

5 Patiala 147004, India

6 Tel: +91 175 2393001, 2363007 Fax: +91 175 2364498, 2393005
b
7 Research scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,

8 Mumbai 400076, India

9 Tel: +91 9322597149, 22 32610117

10 E-mail: a abhijit@thapar.edu, b gopalrai@iitb.ac.in

11

12 ABSTRACT

13The present paper discusses the performance of reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column joints

14under cyclic excitation. Two types of beam-column joints, with ductile and brittle reinforcement

15detailing, have been cast. The joints are subjected to cyclic displacements of monotonically

16increasing amplitude until failure. Post failure, the joints have been rehabilitated using reinforced

17polymer composites (FRPC). The rehabbed joints have been subjected to the same load regime.

18The performance of rehabbed joints has been compared with that of the fresh joints. The

19investigation highlights the efficiency of the proposed rehabilitation scheme in enhancement of

20strength and deformability of joints. In this part of the paper the performance of the fresh joints

21has been discussed.

22

23Keywords: Reinforced concrete, beam-column Joints, cyclic-loading, ductility, failure

24patterns, energy dissipation.

1 1
2
 1

2 INTRODUCTION

3Although hundreds of thousands of successful RC framed structures are annually constructed

4worldwide, there are large numbers of them that deteriorate, or become unsafe due to changes in

5loading, changes in use, or changes in configuration. Occurrence of natural calamities may also

6render a large number of structures unusable. Failure of structures at the beam-column joints in

7the recent earthquakes has exposed the lacuna in the building codes in recommending adequate

8reinforcements and their proper detailing at the joints. The lack of confinement of concrete due

9to sparse spacing of links has caused crushing of concrete (Fig. 1a). The lack of adequate links

10has also led to shear failure at the joints (Fig. 1b). The inadequate bond length of reinforcements

11and improper lapping has been the cause of local weakness and failure (Fig. 1c).

12The pitfalls of improper reinforcement detailing have been highlighted by many researchers. In

13the following discussion only key observations relevant to the present objectives have been

14included. The provision of adequate spirals or hoop reinforcements at critical sections was

15suggested for resisting the bursting pressure due to compression in concrete as well as the

16tension from the beam reinforcements [1-3] Importance of bond between the longitudinal bars

17and concrete for dissipation of energy has been highlighted.[4-5] The combined effect of joint

18shear and the compressive load on the column has been studied and it was observed that higher

19column compression delays shear cracking [6-7] Based on the experiments of a wide range of

20scales of joints it is observed that the small scale samples had faster deterioration of stiffness due

21to early loss of bond [8]

22Although the importance of joint reinforcements to improve the joint ductility has been

23emphasized in research and design codes there are a large number of structures where the ductile

24detailing has not been followed. Therefore, it is important to develop strategies of retrofitting and
1 2
2
 1rehabilitation of such joints. Retrofitting deficient joints that have not been damaged has been

2investigated [9-11]. Recently, rehabilitation technique for complete recovery of joints that have

3damaged to the extent that they have exhausted their moment resistance has been reported [12].

4The work was restricted to small scale joints. The objective of this paper is to develop a

5rehabilitation strategy of damaged beam-column joints of representative size. The performance

6of RC beam-column joints, both ductile and brittle, has been reported. Fresh specimens have

7been subjected to cyclic deformation of monotonically increasing amplitude until the load

8resistance of the joint is completely exhausted. The joints have then been rehabbed with the

9proposed technique. The rehabbed specimens have been subjected to the same load regime. The

10part I of the paper reports the performance of the fresh joints. The performance of the proposed

11rehabilitation technique is discussed in the second part of the paper.

12

13 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

14The present experiment has four stages- specimen preparation, infliction of damage,

15rehabilitation and final tests. In the first part of the paper the first two phases have been

16described.

17 Material System

18The material system consists of concrete, steel reinforcements and CFRP sheets and strips. The

19concrete mix was designed for target strength of 30MPa on 150-mm cubes. The cubes have been

20cast from each batch of concrete and a record of their strength after 28 days of curing has been

21kept. The average strength of the cubes was 32MPa the standard deviation was ± 1.2 and stress-

22strain curve is shown in Fig.2.

23

1 3
2
 1The reinforcement steel for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement was tested for tensile

2capacity. The longitudinal steel had average yield strength of 650MPa and the steel for stirrups

3had yielded at an average stress of 500MPa. Table 1 presents the details of the reinforcements.

5Test Specimens

6The configuration and dimensions of the joints are shown in Fig. 3. All the specimens had

7identical dimensions. They had the same longitudinal reinforcements in the beams and columns.

8However, the spacing and the position of stirrups differed in the two sets. One set had closely

9spaced stirrups (75mm) to provide adequate confinement and shear capacity. The stirrups were

10provided in the core joint region as per the contemporary ductile detailing practice (D-type). In

11the other set of specimens the spacing of stirrups is relatively sparse (150mm) as per the past

12practice that would lead to brittle failure (B-type). In this case, there is no stirrup in the core joint

13region. There is a large stock of facilities built according to the old codes and the objective of

14this test is to examine the proposed rehabilitation technique for those structures. While the first

15group of specimens should not fail in shear the second group is deficient in shear capacity.

16

17The reinforcement cages were prepared taking care of the precise position of the longitudinal

18bars and stirrups. They were placed in steel molds and a cover of 20mm was provided. The

19position of the reinforcement cage was maintained by means of spacers. The standard M30 grade

20concrete mix was used. The specimens are demolded after 24 hours and kept in the curing tank

21for 28 days. The surface dried specimens were used in testing.

22

23 Damage Infliction

1 4
2
 1The experimental setup is shown in figure 4a. The specimen was fixed at the ends of columns

2and the columns were subjected to a constant axial load by means of hydraulic jacks. The

3magnitude of load was monitored through a load cell (Fig. 4a). To observe the effect of column

4axial load on the behavior of the joint the samples had different column axial forces. The

5columns of the ductile specimens were loaded with 10% of their axial capacity. It has been

6reported earlier that the behavior of shear deficient specimens alters appreciably with the

7variation of axial force in the column. Therefore, the brittle specimens were tested with 10%,

825% and 37.5% column axial force (Table 2).

9To inflict damage the joints were subjected through a predetermined displacement regime. The

10displacement is applied by attaching a dynamic load actuator of 500kN capacity. The initial

11displacement amplitude was 2mm and it was incremented with a step of 2mm in each epoch until

1240mm displacement was reached(Fig. 5). Three identical displacement cycles consisted of one

13epoch of displacement. The accuracy of the displacement measurement was ±0.01mm. The

14frequencny of load was maintained at 1 cycle in four minutes.

15Several displacements and strains have been recorded during the experiment (Fig. 4b). The

16displacements have been recorded by means of linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT)

17of travel ±150mm. LVDT1 measures the tip dispalcement of the loaded beam. LVDT2 and

18LVDT4 measure the horizontal deformation of the centres of the columns. From these readings

19we can estimate the rotation of the column at the joint. LVDT3 measures the horizontal

20displacement of the center of the joint. If all the loads are applied vertically and the ends are

21restrained properly there should not be any displacement of the center in the horizontal direction.

22There was no appreciable displacement recorded by LVDT3. LVDT5 was placed perpendicular

23to the plane of the joint. This was done to ensure absence of any out-of-plane displacement of the

24specimen at the time of loading. The strains have been measured at the critical locations on steel
1 5
2
1bars and CFRP strips. The responses have been recorded online using a data acquisition system.

2However, the strain gages were affected at the onset of damage in the specimen. Therefore, only

3limited results could be recorded by the strain gages. The cracks on the surface of the specimens

4were marked at the completion of each load cycle and they were traced on a grid paper. Widths

5and paths of the cracks were noted after each cycle.

6It may be noted that the specimens had two arms. The arms were loaded sequentially; i.e. after

7one arm is subjected to the entire load regime the other arm was loaded. The test on the second

8arm yielded the data on the performance of partially damaged joints.

1 6
2
 1 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

2The parameters that have been monitored in the present investigation are the load-deflection

3hysteresis of the tip of the beam, the history of cracks, and the failure modes.

5Ductile vs Brittle Joints

6The hysteresis of Arm1 of the ductile and the brittle joints for 10% column compression is

7presented in Fig. 6. It is clear from the hysteretic loops that although the peak load in both the

8specimens was comparable, D specimens show gradual decrease in stiffness, while B specimens

9show sudden decrease in stiffness after reaching the peak value. To compare the performance of

10the two specimen types the envelopes of the two load-displacement graphs are plotted in Fig. 7.

11The ductile and the brittle specimens behave quite similarly until the yield. Postyield, while the

12brittle specimen degrades rapidly the ductile specimen retains a large proportion of its strength

13leading to a graceful failure.

14

15To understand the improved postyield behavior the history of appearance of cracks in the two

16specimens is studied (Fig. 8). The position of reinforcements is marked in dotted lines. The first

17link in the beam in the D specimens was at 50mm from the column longitudinal reinforcement

18and at 75mm spacing thereafter. In B specimens the first link was at the face of the column and

19the spacing was 150mm. Another notable difference is that in the D joint there is one column

20link at the center of the joint while it is absent in the B joint. These details are according to the

21ductile [13] and non-ductile [14] joints of Indian Standards. In Fig. 8 the locations of the links

22serve as reference lines for mapping the cracks. The differently colored solid lines indicate the

23paths of the cracks and the associated number indicates the level of tip displacement at which the

24crack appeared. It may be noted that the first crack appeared at the face of the column at 2mm tip
1 7
2
 1displacement in both samples. This is the tension crack in concrete. Therefore, at this

2displacement level the concrete under tension transferred the entire force on to the tensile

3reinforcement. Thereafter, the main difference in the two specimens was the number and

4inclination of the cracks. The cracks were mainly confined in the compartments formed by the

5successive links. In the D samples the shear cracks formed at 45º. However, they got deflected

6along the reinforcement after reaching the links. There was little bridging of the cracks by the

7links. The links, in all probability, wouldn’t have yielded at that time. As a result, the length and

8density of cracks were much higher in D specimens. The crack deflection mechanism renders

9toughness to the joint. Understandably, the dissipation of energy in the D specimens would be

10higher. In the B specimens the angle of cracks was approximately 45°. Due to the absence of

11shear links in the path of the crack it split the space between the two links diagonally. This

12demonstrates the paramount importance of spacing of stirrups in the joint behavior.

13

14The initial cracking was restricted in the arm of the beam outside the joint area. At 12mm tip

15deflection the cracks started developing inside the joint area. Therefore, only the post yield

16behavior was influenced by the joint cracks. There was a major difference between the D and B

17specimens in the cracking inside the joint area. In D specimens the cracks developed diagonally

18indicating shear deformation in the joint. In B specimens, on the other hand, vertical tension

19cracks started developing both at the center of the joint and at the distant face of the column.

20This indicates the reduction in bond between the reinforcement and concrete. The presence of the

21central link in the D column made a major difference at this phase. The central link ensured a

22negligible strain along itself and therefore, it impeded tension cracks. The tension cracks on the

23junction between Arm2 and column also affected the performance of arm 2 adversely. The loss

24of bond in the B specimens resulted in rapid stiffness degradation. This is borne out by the
1 8
2
 1remarkably narrower waistline of the hysteresis plot of the B specimen (Fig. 6b). The pinching of

2the hysteresis graph is a testimony of bond slip in the joint.

4The difference in the crack patterns in the D and the B specimens is illustrated in Fig. 9. While

5the B specimens had suffered large scale spalling of concrete in the joint region the D specimens

6did not undergo large spalling and therefore, retained their strengths even after a large

7deformation.

8Ability of the structure to survive an earthquake depends to a large extent on its capability to

9dissipate the input energy. An estimate of the hysteretic damping can be found by the area

10enclosed in the load-displacement hysteresis loops (Fig. 10). It may be noted that a wider loop

11(i.e. a large difference in ordinates in the ascending and the descending paths) would signify

12higher hysteretic damping. Cumulative energy dissipated was calculated by summing up the

13energy dissipated in consecutive loops through out the test. The energy dissipation curves for D

14and B specimens are shown in figure 10. The stepped nature of the curves is due to the repetition

15of the same displacement level three times in each load epoch. It indicates that the incremental

16damage, and therefore energy dissipation of energy, takes place in the first cycle of the epoch.

17There is no significant energy dissipation in the following cycles of the same epoch. The D joint

18exhibits much higher dissipation of energy than the B joint. A quantitative analysis of their

19performance is included later.

20

21Brittle Specimens at Different Axial Loads

22To understand the effect of column compression on joint behavior the brittle specimens are

23tested at 10, 25 and 37% of axial compression capacity of the columns. The Load deflection

24envelopes have been presented in Fig. 11. The peak load increases with increase in the axial load
1 9
2
 1as shown in figure 11. However, the stiffness degradation after the peak load was much more

2sudden in the columns with higher axial compression. As a result, contrary to expectation, the

3energy dissipation did not go up with the increase in the column compression.

4To understand the anomaly of the joints with heavily loaded columns we shall compare the crack

5histories in Figs.8b and 12. The joint tension crack appeared later in B25 than in B10. The joint

6remained unaffected in case of B37. As a result, the loss of bond of the beam tensile bars

7developed later in B25 and the bond was not lost at all in B37. Hence, the prepeak stiffness and

8the peak load are higher in the heavily compressed columns. However, the bond slip also leads to

9postpeak dissipation of energy through friction. Therefore, the postpeak slope of the envelope is

10more gradual in B10 than B25 and B37. As we increase the axial load on columns we would

11expect the failure to shift from the beam to the column.

12Fig. 13 shows the joints B25 and B37 at severely damaged state. Both specimens had major

13damage due to shear outside the joint core area. The shear capacity of the beam was reached in

14this case due to higher peak loads. The diagonal shear cracks coalesced forming triangular

15wedges that spalled and exposed the reinforcements almost entirely. The shear failure was

16sudden and the samples lost strength rapidly once the triangular wedges started spalling. In one

17case a large portion of the column cover concrete had spalled (B37). The spall was due to the

18higher bursting pressure as a result of higher compressive stress in column, as well as the tension

19in the beam longitudinal reinforcements. Fig. 14 illustrates the energy curves for the specimens

20with varying axial compression. The dissipated energy reduces with the increase in the column

21compression. The spall in specimen B37 has reduced the energy dissipation severely. This

22highlights the importance of confining concrete both in beams and columns in the vicinity of the

23joint.

24
1 10
2
 1Comparison of Arm 1 and Arm 2

2The joints were cast with two arms. The arms were tested sequentially. The objective of the test

3was to estimate the performance of a heavily damaged joint. Fig. 15 shows the load-deflection

4hysteresis of all the joints. It can be seen that the peak load level in case of Arm-2 has reduced

5for all the joints. The pinching of the hysteresis curves is also more evident in Arm2. This

6indicates that the bond slip is more in that arm. The difference in behavior of the two arms is

7much more in the D specimen than the B specimens. The Damaged ductile specimens behave

8quite similar to the brittle specimens.

9Table 3 presents the loads and displacements at the yield point and peak load point for all the

10specimens. Arm2 of all the specimens had lower peak yield load and peak load. As a result, the

11energy dissipation in Arm2 was much lower than in Arm1. There is a more prominent reduction

12in energy dissipation in the D specimen than the B specimens.

13 CONCLUSION

14Following major conclusions are made from the present investigation:

15 • The beam-column joints with closely spaced shear links (ductile) have superior postyield

16 behavior than the joints sparse links (brittle) due to better confinement of concrete and

17 crack deflection mechanism. The longer and denser shear cracks in the ductile joints lead

18 to higher energy dissipation.

19 • The links in the core area of ductile joints prevents bond slip and therefore, increases the

20 hysteretic damping. The pattern of cracking in the core area of the joints is different for

21 the ductile and the brittle joints.

22 • The peak load goes up with the increase in the column compression due to the

23 prevention of bond slip by the higher compressive force. However, the failure is much

1 11
2
 1 more sudden in joints with high column compression. The energy dissipation of joints

2 with high column compression is markedly lower.

3 • The loss of capacity in strength and energy dissipation in the damaged ductile specimens

4 is much higher than that in the damaged brittle specimens. This is due to more

5 pronounced bond slip in the damaged ductile specimens than the fresh ones.

7 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

8 The present work is financially supported by the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences. Dr.

9 G. Rami Reddy has helped with the instrumentation for the experiments. The experiments are

10 carried out at the Structural Integrity Testing and Analysis Centre of Indian Institute of

11 Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India. The authors would also like to thank M/s Fyfe India

12 for supplying the composite material system.

13

14 REFERENCE

15

161. Hanson NW, Connor HW. Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints.

17 J Structural Division Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers 1967;93:533-

18 560.

192. Hanson NW. Seismic Resistance of Concrete Frames with Grade 60 Reinforcement. J

20 Structural Division Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers 1971;97:1685-

21 1700.

223. Lee DL., Wight JK. Hanson RD. RC Beam-Column Joints under Large Load Reversals, J

23 Structural Division, proceedings of the ASCE 1977;103:2337-2350.

1 12
2
 14. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Analytical Studies of Hysteretic Behavior of R/C

2 Joints. J Structural Division ASCE 1986;112:1605-1622.

35. Durrani AJ, Wight JK. Behavior of Interior Beam-to-column connections under Earthquake-

4 Type Loading. ACI J 1985;82:343-349.

56. Meinheit DF, Jirsa JO. Shear Strength of R/C Beam-Column Connections. J Structural

6 Division AMCE 1981;107:2227-2244.

77. Clyde C, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD. Performance-Based Evaluation of Exterior Reinforced

8 Concrete Building Joints for Seismic Excitation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research

9 Report :Berkeley: University of California; 2000/05, 2000.

108. Abrams DP. Scale Relations for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column joints. ACI Structural J

11 1988;84:502-512.

129. Park R, Ruitong D. A Comparison of the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam- Column

13 Joints Designed for Ductility and Limited Ductility. Bulletin of the New Zealand National

14 Society of Earthquake Engineering, 1998;21(4),1998:255-278

1510. Lowes LN, Moehle JP. Evaluation and Retrofit of Beam-column T-Joints in older Reinforced

16 Concrete Bridge Structure. ACI Structural J 1998;96:519-532.

1711. Dhakal RP, Pan TC, Irawan P, Tsai KC, Lin KC; Chen CH.. Experimental Study on

18 Dynamic Response of Gravity Designed RC Connections. Engineering Structures 2005;

19 27(1):75 – 87.

2012. Mukherjee A, Joshi M. FRPC Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints under Cyclic

21 Excitation. Composite Structures 2005;70:185-199.

2213. IS: 13920. Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures. New

23 Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standard; 1993.

1 13
2
114. IS: 456. Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian

2 Standards; 2000.

1 14
2
 1

2 TABLES AND FIGURES

3List of Tables:

4Table 1— Properties of Reinforcing Materials

5Table 2— Test Matrix

6Table 3— Percentage increase and comparison in arms

8List of Figures:

9
10Fig. 1— Failure of RC Joints in Kutch Earthquake

11Fig. 2— Stress- Strain Behavior of Concrete

12Fig. 3— Details of test specimens

13Fig. 4— Experimental setup

14Fig. 5— Displacement Cycle

15Fig. 6— Load-displacement curves for D and B-Type specimens

16
17Fig. 7— Envelope Curves for D-Type and B-Type Specimens

18Fig. 8— Damage history of D and B –Type specimens

19Fig. 9— Cracks in ductile and brittle specimens

20Fig. 10— Energy curves (D-10 and B-10)

21Fig. 11— Combine Envelope Curve (B-Type arm-1)

22Fig. 12— Damage history (B-25 and B-37)

23Fig. 13— Damage in specimens with higher column compression

24Fig. 14— Energy curves (B-10, B-25 and B-37 specimens)

25
26Fig. 15: Load versus displacement curves for D and B specimens
27
1 15
2
 1
2 Table 1— Properties of Reinforcing Materials

4 Material Diameter Tensile Tensile Ultimate

(mm) Strength Modulus Strain
5 (GPa) (GPa)
Steel bar 16 and 12 0.65 154 0.062
6 longitudinal
reinforcement
7
Steel bar 8 mm 0.5 193 0.043
transverse
8
Reinforcement
9

10
11 Table 2— Test Matrix

12
13 Specimen Axial force to column
14 (% of column capacity)
15
16 D-10 10 %
17 D-10-2 10 %
18 B-10 10 %
19
B-25 25 %
20
21 B-37 37 %
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1 16
2
1
2 Table 3— Percentage increase and comparison in arms

Specimens Arms Direction Yield point Peak load point Energy

Load Deflection Load Deflection Dissipation
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN-m)
Up 32.01 5.339 35.05 17.49
Arm 1 23.89
Down -28.68 -5.32 -34.02 -16.74
D-10
Up 23.80 9.1 32.74 25
Arm 2 9.22
Down -24.32 -9.6 -33 -24
Up 27.05 5.97 30.94 10.89
Arm 1 8.45
Down -22.97 -6.35 -31.94 -16.02
B-10
Up 20.71 6.82 25.12 12.61
Arm 2 6.19
Down -19.17 -7.05 -24.45 -12.82
Up 30.23 9.01 36.88 19.78
Arm 1 8.16
Down -32.05 -7.58 -36.66 -13.45
B-25
Up 28.16 6.19 34.48 12.19
Arm 2 7.41
Down -28.07 5.93 -36.12 -13.93
Up 34.56 5.4 38.11 11.45
Arm 1 4.87
B-37 Down -30 -5.76 -35.14 -8.56
Up 31.94 11.09 36.8 21.85
Arm 2 4.21
Down -33.97 10.78 -35.88 22.3
4

5
6

1 17
2
 1

(a) Confinement failure (b) Shear failure (c) Combined lap and shear failure

Fig.1— Failure of RC Joints in Kutch Earthquake

2
3
4
5

24

20

16
2
Stress N/mm

12

0
0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012
Strain
6

7 Fig. 2— Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete

8

10

11

12
1 18
2
 1
2

800
800
650 150

650
..
150
..
200
50 .. 200
..
Stirrup 8 Dia 75
mm c/c 12 Dia bar
12 Dia bar
Stirrup 8 dia 150 mm c/c
Stirrup 8 Dia 150 mm c/c

16 Dia bar
200 16 Dia bar 200

4 (a) D-Type (b) B-Type

5Note: All dimensions are in mm

Fig. 3— Details of test specimens

6.

7
Load cell (Column axial load)
8

Actuator

Load cell (Cyclic loading) LVDT 5

LVDT 2 200 Actuator

160
LVDT 100
LVDT 3
Hydraulic Jack 430 LVDT 1
640
LVDT 4

10 (a) Test setup (b) Instrumentation

11 Fig. 4— Experimental setup

12
13

1 19
2
 60

40

Displacement (mm)
20

-20

-40

-60

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Time (s)
1

2 Fig.5— Displacement Cycle

4 40
40
30
30
5 20
20

10
load (kN)

10
0
6
load (kN)

-10 -10

-20 -20
7 -30 -30

-40 -40
8 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Displacement (mm)
20 30 40

Displacement (mm)

10 (a) D-10 (arm-1) (b) B-10 (Arm-1)

11

12 Fig. 6— Load-displacement curves for D and B-Type specimens

13
14
15
16
17
18

1 20
2
 40

30
D-10
20

10 B-10

Load KN
0

-10

-20

-30

-40
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement (mm)

2 Fig. 7— Envelope Curves for D-Type and B-Type Specimens

3
4
5
6
78 4
mm
20 8 6
mm mm mm 10
mm

8
mm
14 mm

2 4
12 6
14 2 mm m
mm mm m
12
mm

9 (a) D-10 (arm-1) (b) B-10 (arm-1)

10 Fig. 8— Damage history of D and B –Type specimens

11

12

1 21
2
 1

2 (a) D-10 (arm-1) (b) B-10 (arm-1)

3 Fig. 9— Cracks in ductile and brittle specimens

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1 22
2
 1

3 25 D-10-Arm-1

4 20

Energy (kN-M)
5
15

6
10
B-10-arm-1
7
5
8
0
9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Displacment (mm)
10 Fig. 10— Energy curves (D-10 and B-10)

11

12

13

14
B-25
15 40

30 B-37
16 20

10 B-10
Load (KN)

17
0

18 -10

-20

19 -30

-40

20 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Displacement (mm)

21

22 Fig. 11— Combine Envelope Curve (B-Type arm-1)

23

24
1 23
2
1 16
mm 8 6
10
mm m
mm 14
14
m mm

4 2 12 12
mm mm mm 2 4 mm
mmm mm m mmm
m 134 m m

2 (a) B-25(arm-1) (b) B-37(arm-1)

3 Fig. 12— Damage history (B-25 and B-37)

7 (a) B-25 (b) B-37

8 Fig. 13— Damage in specimens with higher column compression

1 24
2
 1

3
10 B-25

4 B-10
8

5 Energy (kN-M)
6

6
B-37
4

7
2

8
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
9 Displacement (mm)
10
11
12 Fig. 14— Energy curves (B-10, B-25 and B-37 specimens)
13

1 25
2
 1
40
Arm-1
40

30
2 Arm-2
30

20
20

3 load (kN) 10
10
0

Load (KN)
4 -10
0

5
-10
-20
-20

6
-30
-30
-40

7 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 (a) D-10 -40

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
40 30

9 30 20

10
20
10
10
11

Load (KN)
load (kN)

0
0

12 -10 -10

13 -20
(b) B-10 -20

-30
14 -40
-30
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

15 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

Displacement (mm)
10 20 30 40
40 Displacemnt (mm)

16 40 30

30 20
17 20 10

Load (KN)
18 10 0
Load (KN)

19 0

-10
-10

20 -20 (c)B-25
-20

-30
21 -30
-40
22 -40

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

23 Displacement (mm) Displacment (mm)

24 40 40

30
30
25 20 20

26 (d) B-37 10
Load (KN)

10
Load (KN)

0 0

-10 -10
27 -20 -20

-30 -30

28 -40 -40

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
29 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
10 20 30
Displacement (mm)

30
31
32
33 Fig. 15: Load verses displacement curves for D and B specimens
34

35

36

37

38

39
1 26
2