The Prefabricated Cage System (PCS) has the advantages of high bearing capacity and good ductility. Meanwhile, it is convenient for factory production and it is beneficial to the cost savings, construction period shortening. Side joint is the weak region of PCS concrete frame and has great influence on seismic behavior of the whole structure. Thus systematically study on the seismic behavior of PCS concrete side joint is necessary. This paper presents a finite element study on behavior of the side joint under seismic loading. In the finite element model, PCS concrete and the reinforced concrete (RC) is modeled by the solid element and fiber-beam element, respectively. The numerical results is compared with the experimental results and it is found that the results of model based on fiber-beam element is in better agreement with the experimental results than solid element model. In addition, the overall seismic behavior of the side joints in PCS concrete is better than that of the RC with the same strength.
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(5): 1095-1104.
Yunlin LIU, Shitao ZHU. Finite element analysis on the seismic behavior of side joint of Prefabricated Cage System in prefabricated concrete frame. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1095-1104.
longitudinal reinforcement of beam section (top+ bottom)
3ϕ9.5+ 3ϕ9.5
3ϕ9.5+ 3ϕ9.5
stirrup
ϕ6.35@38.1
φ6.35@38.1
axial pressure
142.4
142.4
load point at the end of beam
distance cylinder edge 457.2
distance cylinder edge 457.2
Tab.1
steel type
ϕ9.5
ϕ12.7
ϕ6.35
steel plate
thickness
–
–
–
6.35
yield strength fy
504.947
429.238
340.220
390.776
tensile strength fu
900.321
773.094
503.788
472.482
elastic modulus E
231608.301
155813.312
137958.982
69814.447
Tab.2
compressive strength (MPa)
inelastic strain (10−3)
compression damage factor dc
tensile strength (MPa)
cracking strain (10−3)
tensile damage factor dt
15.358
0.000
0.000
1.872
0.000
0.000
17.195
0.164
0.072
1.323
0.100
0.134
18.005
0.410
0.158
1.116
0.146
0.212
17.726
0.852
0.283
0.754
0.282
0.435
14.849
1.849
0.506
0.549
0.447
0.626
11.653
3.003
0.679
0.396
0.710
0.787
8.636
4.575
0.813
0.286
1.125
0.890
5.563
7.568
0.918
0.291
1.098
0.886
4.078
10.476
0.955
0.253
1.336
0.948
3.596
11.914
0.965
0.205
1.812
0.948
3.117
13.774
0.973
0.127
3.635
0.983
Tab.3
diameter
elastic modulus E0
yield strength fy
hardening stiffness coefficient α
ultimate plastic deformation rate β
9.5
231608.3
504.95
0.01
99
12.7
155813.3
429.24
0.01
79
6.35
137959
340.22
0.01
88
Tab.4
Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig.3
Fig.4
Fig.5
Fig.6
Fig.7
Fig.8
Fig.9
Fig.10
K
mL
fc
fpc
Zm
cu
1.49
0.00298
26.95
18.06
13.20
0.03067
Tab.5
fc0
c0
fu
cu
dcu
ft
rsE0
εt
26.95
0.00298
17.102
0.03067
0.18
1.872
2529.51
0.00218
Tab.6
E0
fy1
αa
β
1330.167
15.124
0.001
19.55
Tab.7
fc0
c0
fu
cu
dcu
ft
rsE0
εt
33.682
0.00373
17.102
0.05087
0.18
1.872
2529.51
0.00218
Tab.8
E0
fy1
αa
β
1185.059
18.905
0.001
19.55
Tab.9
Fig.11
Fig.12
Fig.13
Fig.14
Fig.15
1
Y Li, M Li, H Su. Experimental analysis of seismic behavior of interior joints with high-strength reinforcement and high-toughness concrete. Journal of Civil Architectural & Environmental Engineering, 2017, 39(1): 86–92
2
H Sezen, M Shamsai. Behavior of normal strength concrete columns reinforced with prefabricated cage system. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006, 44(201): 89–100
3
M J Fisher. Experimental evaluation of reinforcement methods for concrete beam-column Joints. Thesis for the Master’s Degree. Ohio: Ohio state University, 2009
4
Z Zeng, L Fei, Y Liang. Experimenta research on concrete columns reinforced with prefabricated cage system under axial compression. Industrial Construction, 2014, 44(9): 51–55
5
Y Liang. Experimental Study on Flexural Performance of Prefabricated Cage System Reinforced Concrete Beam. Quanzhou: HuaQiao University, 2014
6
American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318RM-05). American Concrete Institute, 2005
7
T Rabczuk, J Akkermann, J Eibl. A numerical model for reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2005, 42(5–6): 1327–1354 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.07.019
8
T Rabczuk, G Zi, S Bordas, H Nguyen-Xuan. A geometrically non-linear three-dimensional cohesive crack method for reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75(16): 4740–4758 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.019
9
T Rabczuk, T Belytschko. Application of particle methods to static fracture of reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Fracture, 2006, 137(1–4): 19–49 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-005-3075-z
10
B D Scott. Stress-strain behavior of concrete by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI Journal, 1982, 79(1): 13–27
11
S Song, L Ye. A Comparison of design methods for flexure strength of RC beams between Chinese and American design codes for RC structures. Building Science, 2007, 23(7): 28–33
12
Standards Press of China. Code for Design of Concrete Structures (GB 50010-2010). China Architecture & Building Press, 2010
13
Song M C. Study on Modeling Method of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joint Core. Chongqing: Chongqing University, 2009
14
J A B, Mander M J N Priestley. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of the Structural Division, 1988, 114(8): 1804–1826
