12.07.2015 Views

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

3.6 Failure ModeBased on the calculated hierarchy <strong>of</strong> the strengths <strong>of</strong> J-mode and B-mode, type <strong>of</strong> failuremode <strong>of</strong> J, or B is determined by applying rules given in Table 1.Table 1. Prediction <strong>of</strong> failure mode <strong>of</strong> knee jointFailure type Condition ExplanationJ M j < M b Joint shear failureB M j > M b Beam yielding4. CORRELATION STUDYFigure 5 shows the result <strong>of</strong> calculating for four specimens from references whichshow typical types <strong>of</strong> failure, B: beam yielding, J: joint shear failure or T: prematureanchorage failure. To apply the theory the following rules were used. If the column haslarger capacity than beam, column reinforcing detail is neglected in estimating thestrength <strong>of</strong> knee joint. If the amount <strong>of</strong> joint shear reinforcement in vertical and horizontaldirection is different, average value was used to estimate the T 5 . The columnlongitudinal bars in mid-layer is included as vertical joint shear reinforcement. Iflength <strong>of</strong> column and beam is different, averaged length is used.Specimen L345-30-3 (Inoue et al.2003) shown in Fig. 5(a) exhibited joint beamyielding failure (B). The predicted maximum moment is very closed to the observedvalue. The specimen L-8 (Nakamura et al. 2003) in Fig. 5(b) showed yielding <strong>of</strong> longitudinalbar as well as joint shear failure accompanied with strength degradation. Thecalculated and observed strength show good agreement.Figure 5(c) shows specimen L-BH2 (Tabata 2001) which exhibited joint shearfailure (J). The J-mode strength at beam bar yielding is smaller than that <strong>of</strong> B-mode,hence the predicted failure mode was J. Figure 5(d) shows the specimen L-180-L(Okano 2003) in which premature anchorage failure (T) <strong>of</strong> beam bars in outside faceoccurred under closing loading. The observed strength is much smaller than predicted.This is because the analyses here assume perfect anchorage. So it is necessary to incorporatethe failure criteria <strong>of</strong> anchorage failure to enhance the accuracy <strong>of</strong> the modeltaking into account the anchorage detailing in beam-column joint.4.1 Correlation Study with Inventory <strong>of</strong> Knee Joint TestsTable 2 compares the calculated strength, failure mode with observed ones. All thespecimens in the list have aspect ratio <strong>of</strong> unity. The observed failure modes were basedon description in reference. If the information was not reported, the failure mode wasdetermined by considering the failure pattern and hysteresis loops.465

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!