Seismic Response of GFRP-RC Interior Beam-to-Column Joints under Cyclic Static Loads
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Investigation
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Concrete
2.1.2. Steel Reinforcement and GFRP Bar
2.2. Details of the Specimens
2.3. Testing Procedure
3. Test Results and Discussion
3.1. Crack Pattern and Failure Mode
3.2. Hysteretic Load–Displacement Loops
3.3. Energy Dissipation Capacity
3.4. Stress–Strain Relationship
4. Calculation of Load Carrying Capacity
4.1. Nodal Core Shear Bearing Capacity
4.2. Test Verification
5. Conclusions
- Under the cyclic displacement load, the damage of the GFRP-RC interior beam-to-column joints is mainly concentrated in the plastic hinge zone at the end of the beam, which is in line with the design concept of a “strong column and weak beam”. At a 5.5% displacement drift ratio, the GFRP-RC interior beam-to-column joints did not show brittle damage, indicating that the joints can withstand significantly large lateral drift ratios.
- Compared to RC beam-to-column joints, GFRP-RC interior beam-to-column joints have a slow increase in load capacity with increasing drift, while it can reach its design capacity. The use of GFRP bars instead of steel bars in concrete beam-to-column joints can significantly reduce the residual displacement of beam-to-column joints, but their energy dissipation capacity is also reduced.
- The energy dissipation capacity of the GFRP-RC joints increases with increasing the axial load ratio. However, a large axial load ration can lead to large residual displacement. Thus, a lower axial load ratio is recommended to improve the self-centering capacity of the GFRP-reinforced concrete frames.
- It is advisable to reduce the axial pressure ratio (less than 0.3) of GFRP-RC interior beam-to-column joints to improve the post-earthquake functionality of GFRP-reinforced concrete frames.
- A shear capacity calculation method for the core zone of GFRP-RC beam-to-column joints was proposed, which agreed well with the experimental results.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Aksoylu, C.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Madenci, E. Compressive Behavior of Pultruded GFRP Boxes with Concentric Openings Strengthened by Different Composite Wrappings. Polymers 2022, 14, 4095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Madenci, E.; Özkılıç, Y.O. Free vibration analysis of open-cell FG porous beams: Analytical, numerical and ANN approaches. Steel Compos. Struct. 2021, 40, 157–173. [Google Scholar]
- Vedernikov, A.; Gemi, L.; Madenci, E. Effects of high pulling speeds on mechanical properties and morphology of pultruded GFRP composite flat laminates. Compos. Struct. 2022, 301, 116216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavassoli, A.; Liu, J.; Sheikh, S. Glass fiber-reinforced polymer-reiforced circular columns under simulated seismic loads. ACI Struct. J. 2015, 112, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A.I.; Wu, G.; Sun, Z. Experimental study of cyclic behavior of concrete bridge columns reinforced by steel basalt-fiber composite bars and hybrid stirrups. J. Compos. Constr. 2017, 21, 4016091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.; Wu, G.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, M. Seismic behavior of concrete columns reinforced by steel-FRP composite bars. J. Compos. Constr. 2011, 15, 696–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fahmy, M.F.; Wu, Z.; Wu, G.; Sun, Z. Post-yield stiffnesses and residual deformations of RC bridge columns reinforced with ordinary rebars and steel fiber composite bars. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 2969–2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kun, D.; Zhipeng, J.; Song, Y.; Derun, D.; Yang, L. Experimental study on bearing capacity of FRP-concrete bonding interface with mechanical end anchorage. J. Build. Struct. 2020, 41 (Suppl. 1), 399–405. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ghomi, S.; El-Salakawy, E. Seismic performance of GFRP-RC exterior beam-column joints with lateral beams. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 20, 04015019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasaballa, M.H.; El-Salakawy, E. Shear capacity of Type-2 exterior beam-column joints reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 20, 04015047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mady, M.; El-Ragaby, A.; El-Salakawy, E. Seismic behavior of beam-column joints reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups. J. Compos. Constr. 2011, 15, 875–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safdar, M.; Sheikh, M.N.; Hadi, M.N. Cyclic Performance of GFRP-RC T-Connections with Different Anchorage and Connection Details. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gemi, L.; Madenci, E.; Özkılıç, Y.O. Effect of Fiber Wrapping on Bending Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Filled Pultruded GFRP Composite Hybrid Beams. Polymers 2022, 14, 3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Özkılıç, Y.O.; Aksoylu, C.; Yazman, Ş. Behavior of CFRP-strengthened RC beams with circular web openings in shear zones: Numerical study. Structures 2022, 41, 1369–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GB/T50081-2019; Standard for Test Methods of Concrete Physical and Mechanical Properties. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese)
- GB/T228.1-2021; Metallic Materials-Tensile Testing-Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2021. (In Chinese)
- Peng, F.; Hanlin, Q.; Lieping, Y. Discussion and definition on yield points of materials, members and structures. Eng. Mech. 2017, 34, 36–46. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Vaiana, N.; Sessa, S.; Marmo, F. A class of uniaxial phenomenological models for simulating hysteretic phenomena in rate-independent mechanical systems and materials. Nonlinear Dyn. 2018, 93, 1647–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tasligedik, A.S. Shear Capacity N-M Interaction Envelope for RC Beam-Column Joints with Transverse Reinforcement: A Concept Derived from Strength Hierarchy. J. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 26, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulay, T.; Park, R.; Priestley, M.J.N. Reinforced concrete beam-column joints under seismic actions. ACI Struct. J. 1978, 75, 585–593. [Google Scholar]
- Danying, G.; Ke, S.; Shunbo, Z. Calculation method for bearing capacity of steel fiber reinforced high-strength concrete beam-column joints. J. Build. Struct. 2014, 35, 71–79. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, S.J.; Lee, H.J. Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of interior reinforced concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance. ACI Struct. J. 2000, 97, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, S.J.; Lee, H.J. Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance. ACI Struct. J. 1999, 96, 846–857. [Google Scholar]
- Paulay, T.; Priestley, M.N.J. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 210–239. [Google Scholar]
- Ghomi, S.K.; El-Salakawy, E. Effect of joint shear stress on seismic behaviour of interior GFRP-RC beam-column joints. Eng. Struct. 2019, 191, 583–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasaballa, M.H.; El-Salakawy, E. Anchorage Performance of GFRP Headed and Bent Bars in Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Seismic Loading. J. Compos. Constr. 2018, 22, 04018060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaiana, N.; Sessa, S.; Rosati, L. A generalized class of uniaxial rate-independent models for simulating asymmetric mechanical hysteresis phenomena. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2021, 146, 106984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi-Kwei, W. Method for Random Vibration of Hysteretic Systems. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1976, 102, 249–263. [Google Scholar]
Grade | Gmax (mm) | Quantity (kg/m3) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water | Cement | Fine Aggregate | Coarse Aggregate | ||
C30 | 10 | 218.56 | 383.44 | 720.86 | 1177.15 |
C35 | 218.75 | 446.43 | 642.86 | 1191.96 | |
C40 | 218.94 | 509.17 | 621.18 | 1150.71 |
Grade | Design Strength fcd (MPa) | Compressive Strength fc (MPa) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measured Values | Mean Value | ||||
C30 | 30 | 32.04 | 31.14 | 32.78 | 31.98 |
C35 | 35 | 36.56 | 34.38 | 37.21 | 36.05 |
C40 | 40 | 39.02 | 42.12 | 38.45 | 40.86 |
Diameter (mm) | Yield Strength fy (MPa) | Ultimate Strength ftu, (MPa) | Elongation (%) |
---|---|---|---|
6 | 563.87 | 647.19 | 24.03 |
8 | 486.61 | 581.51 | 22.56 |
10 | 480.46 | 575.16 | 23.84 |
Diameter (mm) | Tensile Strength fgt (MPa) | Elastic Modules (MPa) |
---|---|---|
6 | 1481.11 | 5.67 × 104 |
8 | 1317.41 | 5.35 × 104 |
10 | 1153.71 | 5.03 × 104 |
Specimens | Concrete Strength | Axial Pressure Ratio | Beam | Column | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Longitudinal Bars | Stirrups | Longitudinal Bars | Stirrups | |||
BC-1 | C40 | 0.1 | 6 × Φ10 | Φ6@50 | 8 × Φ8 | Φ6@50 |
BC-2 | C40 | 0.1 | 6 × DGF10 | DGF6@50 | 8 × DGF8 | DGF6@50 |
BC-3 | C40 | 0.1 | DGF8@50 | |||
BC-4 | C40 | 0.1 | DGF10@50 | |||
BC-5 | C40 | 0.2 | DGF8@50 | |||
BC-6 | C40 | 0.25 | DGF8@50 | |||
BC-7 | C40 | 0.3 | DGF8@50 | |||
BC-8 | C30 | 0.1 | DGF8@50 | |||
BC-9 | C35 | 0.1 | DGF8@50 |
Specimens | Dy/mm | Fy/kN | Dmax (Drift Ratios)/mm | Fmax/kN | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive | BC-1 | 9.434 | 20.913 | 19.884 (2.34%) | 24.215 |
BC-2 | 7.664 | 15.240 | 69.944 (8.23%) | 24.190 | |
BC-3 | 7.743 | 15.975 | 67.910 (7.99%) | 25.288 | |
BC-4 | 7.103 | 15.831 | 79.998 (9.41%) | 26.899 | |
BC-5 | 6.119 | 14.775 | 51.990 (6.12%) | 19.020 | |
BC-6 | 7.378 | 13.328 | 31.754 (3.74%) | 14.840 | |
BC-7 | 3.992 | 11.506 | 21.428 (2.52%) | 12.458 | |
BC-8 | 11.972 | 17.326 | 67.164 (7.90%) | 27.024 | |
BC-9 | 8.046 | 16.747 | 75.584 (8.89%) | 27.011 | |
Negative | BC-1 | −12.028 | −19.718 | −19.882 (2.34%) | −23.475 |
BC-2 | −8.537 | −13.238 | −59.806 (7.04%) | −23.339 | |
BC-3 | −7.998 | −14.000 | −67.988 (8.00%) | −24.268 | |
BC-4 | −10.808 | −14.296 | −79.500 (9.35%) | −26.279 | |
BC-5 | −7.968 | −12.372 | −55.702 (6.55%) | −18.011 | |
BC-6 | −3.295 | −13.601 | −31.940 (3.76%) | −14.668 | |
BC-7 | −3.662 | −10.578 | −23.606 (2.78%) | −12.794 | |
BC-8 | −19.508 | −18.391 | −67.472 (7.94%) | −27.265 | |
BC-9 | −19.660 | −17.566 | −71.938 (8.46%) | −26.735 |
Specimens | Type | bc × hc /mm | bb × hb /mm | fc /MPa | fc′ /MPa | μ | ρsv/% | Vj/kN | Vj′/kN | Vj/Vj′ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BC-2 | Cross-shaped | 225 × 225 | 175 × 250 | 43.21 | 34.57 | 0.1 | 0.011 | 198.677 | 143.275 | 1.387 |
BC-3 | Cross-shaped | 225 × 225 | 175 × 250 | 43.21 | 34.57 | 0.1 | 0.020 | 202.909 | 201.938 | 1.005 |
BC-4 | Cross-shaped | 225 × 225 | 175 × 250 | 43.21 | 34.57 | 0.1 | 0.031 | 215.034 | 176.613 | 1.218 |
BC-5 | Cross-shaped | 225 × 225 | 175 × 250 | 43.21 | 34.57 | 0.2 | 0.020 | 228.932 | 201.712 | 1.135 |
BC-6 | Cross-shaped | 225 × 225 | 175 × 250 | 43.21 | 34.57 | 0.25 | 0.020 | 242.655 | 184.479 | 1.315 |
BC-7 | Cross-shaped | 225 × 225 | 175 × 250 | 43.21 | 34.57 | 0.3 | 0.020 | 256.732 | 180.252 | 1.424 |
BC-8 | Cross-shaped | 225 × 225 | 175 × 250 | 32.08 | 25.66 | 0.1 | 0.020 | 149.640 | 167.852 | 0.891 |
BC-9 | Cross-shaped | 225 × 225 | 175 × 250 | 35.41 | 28.33 | 0.1 | 0.020 | 165.577 | 176.671 | 0.937 |
G-1.3 [25] | Cross-shaped | 350 × 450 | 350 × 450 | 38 | 30.4 | 0.15 | 0.024 | 809.416 | 968.991 | 0.835 |
G-1.8 [25] | Cross-shaped | 350 × 450 | 350 × 450 | 58 | 46.4 | 0.15 | 0.024 | 1176.421 | 976.197 | 1.205 |
G-HT-1.0 [9] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 47.8 | 38.24 | 0.15 | 0.021 | 803.343 | 738.434 | 1.088 |
G-HT-1.1 [9] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 42.2 | 33.76 | 0.15 | 0.021 | 708.375 | 846.611 | 0.837 |
J30-0.70 [10] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 37.9 | 30.32 | 0.15 | 0.021 | 635.454 | 572.949 | 1.109 |
J30-0.85 [10] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 32.6 | 26.08 | 0.15 | 0.021 | 545.574 | 490.602 | 1.112 |
J30-1.0 [10] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 35.6 | 28.48 | 0.15 | 0.021 | 596.450 | 700.334 | 0.852 |
J60-0.70 [10] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 51.3 | 41.04 | 0.15 | 0.021 | 867.281 | 624.406 | 1.389 |
J60-0.85 [10] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 52.6 | 42.08 | 0.15 | 0.021 | 879.003 | 735.861 | 1.195 |
J60-1.0 [10] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 52.6 | 42.08 | 0.15 | 0.021 | 879.003 | 881.301 | 0.997 |
H-S [26] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 41 | 32.8 | 0.15 | 0.012 | 671.735 | 509.039 | 1.320 |
H-D [26] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 31 | 24.8 | 0.15 | 0.012 | 503.956 | 395.719 | 1.274 |
B-S [26] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 37 | 29.6 | 0.15 | 0.012 | 604.549 | 744.982 | 0.811 |
B-D [26] | T-shaped | 400 × 350 | 350 × 450 | 40 | 32 | 0.15 | 0.012 | 654.871 | 610.418 | 1.073 |
Mean | 1.109 | |||||||||
Standard deviation | 0.191 | |||||||||
Coefficient of variation | 0.172 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, R.; Yang, D.; Jia, B.; Tang, D. Seismic Response of GFRP-RC Interior Beam-to-Column Joints under Cyclic Static Loads. Buildings 2022, 12, 1987. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111987
Guo R, Yang D, Jia B, Tang D. Seismic Response of GFRP-RC Interior Beam-to-Column Joints under Cyclic Static Loads. Buildings. 2022; 12(11):1987. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111987
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Rui, Dan Yang, Bin Jia, and Deyun Tang. 2022. "Seismic Response of GFRP-RC Interior Beam-to-Column Joints under Cyclic Static Loads" Buildings 12, no. 11: 1987. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111987