16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Paper N° 138 (Abstract ID)
Registration Code: S-Z1462849913

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE CORNER BEAM-

COLUMN JOINT SUBJECTED TO BI-DIRECTIONAL LATERAL CYCLIC
LOADING

K. Kitayama(1), H. Katae(2)
(1)
Professor, Tokyo Metropolitan University, [email protected]
(2)
Structural Engineer, PS Mitsubishi Co.Ltd., [email protected]

Abstract
Seismic performance of a corner beam-column joint in reinforced concrete frames was studied by testing two three-
dimensional corner beam-column subassemblage specimens without slabs under constant column axial load and bi-
directional lateral cyclic load reversals. A column-to-beam flexural strength ratio was varied from 1.4 to 2.3 by changing the
magnitude of column axial load. Although a sufficient margin to prevent shear failure was provided to a beam-column joint
in the test, subassemblage specimens failed in joint hinging after beam and column longitudinal bars and joint hoops
yielded. The ultimate joint hinging capacity of a corner joint under bi-directional lateral loading was enhanced by column
compressive axial load, and can be estimated based on the new mechanism proposed by Kusuhara and Shiohara.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete; Corner beam-column joint; Bi-directional loading; Joint failure; Seismic performance

1. Introduction
A new mechanism of joint hinging was proposed by Shiohara [1], a professor at the University of Tokyo, Japan,
for a beam-column joint in reinforced concrete (R/C) moment-resisting frames. The joint hinging mechanism is
observed in laboratory tests when an ultimate flexural capacity of a column section is close to that of a beam
section in a R/C unit frame. A joint hinging model proposed by Kusuhara and Shiohara [2] is shown in Fig.1 for
a plane exterior beam-column joint. An exterior beam-column subassemblage is divided into three elements; an
upper column, a lower column and a beam. Each element rotates like a rigid body as shown in Fig.1, forming a
principal diagonal crack along a diagonal compression strut in a joint and a short diagonal crack developing from
a reentrant corner in a tesion side.
Recent experimental studies to verify the joint hinging mechanism have been conducted using 2D plane
interior and exterior beam-column subassemblage specimens. There are, however, few tests which use 3D beam-
column-joint subassemblages with orthogonal beams to each other which frame into a column such as a corner
beam-column joint. For corner columns in actual R/C buildings, a loss of capacity to sustain column axial load
resulting from severe damage to a corner joint leaded to partial story collapse of the building by past
earthquakes, for example, Guam Island Earthquake in 1993 as shown in Photo.1. An ultimate flexural capacity
of a corner column frequently decreases during an earthquake because an axial load to a corner column
cyclically increases and decreases by change of direction of lateral loads induced by earthquake excitations.
Therefore, it is of great importance to investigate earthquake resistant performance of a corner beam-column
joint subjected to tri-directional earthquake loading.
Therefore seismic performance of a corner beam-column joint in R/C frames was studied by testing two
three-dimensional beam-column subassemblage specimens without slabs under both constant column axial load
and bi-directional lateral cyclic load reversals.
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Fig. 1 – Joint hinging model at exterior joint [2] Photo. 1 – Failure of corner beam-column joint
by Guam Island Earthquake in 1993

2. Outline of test
2.1 Specimens
Two half-scale 3D corner beam-column subassemblage specimens without slabs, removed from a 3D frame by
cutting off the beams and columns at arbitrarily assumed inflection points, were tested. A configuration of
specimens, section dimensions and reinforcement details are shown in Fig.2. Properties of specimens and
material properties of concrete and steel are listed in Table 1 and 2 respectively. The length from a center of the
column to a support of the beam end was 1600 mm. The height from a center of the beam to the loading point at
the top of the column or to the bottom support was 1200 mm respectively.

Fig. 2 – Details of specimens

2
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Table 1 – Properties of specimens

Specimen K2 K3
Width x Depth 250 x 400 mm
East and North beams Longitudinal bars Top and Bottom ; 4-D19
Stirrups 2-D13(SD345)@100
Width x Depth 350 x 350 mm
Column Longitudinal bars 8-D13(SD295A)
Hoops 2-D10@100
Joint hoops 2-D10, 2 sets
Column axial load (axial stress ratio) 260kN（0.04） 770kN（0.12）
Story shear force at ultimate beam Max. 74.9kN 75.9kN
flexural capacity (predicted) Min. 64.9kN 65.1kN
Story shear force at joint hinging Max. 70.4kN 88.7kN
capacity (predicted) Min. 60.0kN 82.0kN
Column-to-beam flexural strength Max. 1.4 2.3
ratio Min. 0.8 1.5
under uni-directional loading 1.6
Joint shear redundancy ratio
under bi-directional loading 1.1
* Ultimate capacities are varied depending on loading directions.

Table 2 – Properties of materials

Yield Tensile Yield Fracture Compressive Tensile Strain at Young's
strength strength strain strain (b) strength strength comp. str. modulus *
(a) Steel
Concrete
N/mm2 N/mm2 % % N/mm2 N/mm2 % ×103N/mm2
D10(SD345) 393 546 0.19 17.0 SpecimenK2 50.5 3.4 0.23 31.1
D13(SD295A) 379 530 0.18 18.2 SpecimenK3 52.2 4.1 0.23 31.8
D13(SD345) 375 565 0.18 16.7 * Secant modulus at one-third of compressive strength
D19(SD345) 394 568 0.19 18.2

The magnitude of column compressive axial load was chosen as a test parameter; e.g., 260 kN
corresponding to a column axial stress ratio of 0.04 for Specimen K2 and 770 kN corresponding to the ratio of
0.12 for Specimen K3. A column-to-beam flexural strength ratio was varied from 1.4 for Specimen K2 to 2.3 for
Specimen K3 by changing the magnitude of column compressive axial load.
Section dimensions and reinforcement arrangement for beams and columns were common for two
specimens. The column with a square cross section of 350 mm width had longitudinal bars of 8-D13(SD295A)
and hoops of 2-D10(SD345) at center-to-center spacing of 100 mm. The beam had width of 250 mm and depth
of 400 mm with longitudinal bars of 4-D19(SD345) at a top and a bottom respectively of the secion and stirrups
of 2-D13(SD345) at center-to-center spacing of 100 mm. A ratio of the total amount of column longitudinal bars
to a column gross sectional area was 0.83 % and a joint-hoop-ratio was 0.28 %, which almost correspond to the
lower bound required by Japanese Building Standard Law or seismic provisions. Beam longitudinal
reinforcement was mechanically anchored by an end plate within joint core concrete with a horizontally
projected length of 300 mm corresponding to 0.86 times the column depth. Concrete compressive strength was

3
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

approximately 50 N/mm2. A joint shear redundancy ratio of 1.6 to a joint shear strength estimated by
Architectural Institute of Japan provisions was provided to a corner beam-column joint in the test to prevent joint
shear failure.
2.2 Loading apparatus and instrumentation
A loading apparatus is shown in Fig.3. Beam ends were supported by horizontal rollers, while a bottom of the
column was supported by a universal joint. The reversed cyclic horizontal load and the constant axial load were
applied at a top of the column through a tri-directional joint by three oil jacks. Rotation around a vertical axis in
the column was prevented by a steel pantagraph placed in a horizontal plane. Specimens were controlled by a
story drift angle for a loading cycle of 0.25 %, 0.5 %, 1 %, 1.5 %, 2 %, 3 % and 4 %. The story drift angle was
defined as a story drift divided by a height of the column; 2400 mm.
Loading paths at a top of the column under bi-directional lateral load reversals are shown in Fig.4. The
column top moves on a square in the horizontal plane. For a first loading cycle, after a prescribed drift was given
to the top of the column from the origin point O to the point A in Fig.4 (a) to the west direction, a loading path
depicts a counterclockwise square from points A to I, and then the column top goes back to the origin point O.
For a second loading cycle, a loading path depicts a clockwise square from points J to R in Fig.4 (b). For all bi-
directional lateral loading cycles, at first the lateral force in one direction was applied and then that in the other
direction was applied while keeping the story drift in one direction constant.
Lateral forces, column axial load and beam shear forces were measured by load-cells. Story drift, beam
and column deflections, and local displacement of a beam-column joint were measured by displacement
transducers. Strains of beam and column longitudinal bars and joint hoops were measured by strain gauges.

H G F North
西(正)
West 東(負)
East

I
I
A O E

Oil jack
軸力加圧ジャッキ B D
C
2695

Reaction ロードセル
Loadcell (a) First loading cycle
反力壁
wall
水平力加圧
Oil jack
ジャッキ 3D joint
3軸1点クレビス
O' P Q
1200

Pin
ピン支持

R
2400

N O
J
1200

ロードセル
Load
1820

cell
鋼製ロッド

柱脚ピン
3D joint Pin M K
ピン支持 L
1600
(b) Second loading cycle

Fig. 3 – Loading apparatus Fig. 4 – Loading Paths at top of column

4
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

3. Test results
3.1 General observations
Crack patterns and damage conditions on the south surface are shown in Photo.2 at a story drift angle of 1 % and
2 %. Flexural cracks occurred at beam critical sections for two specimens at a story drift angle of 0.2 %.
Principal diagonal cracks occurred in a beam-column joint and beam longitudinal bars and joint lateral hoops
yielded during a loading cycle with a story drift angle of 1 % for two specimens. Column longitudinal bars
yielded at a story drift angle of 0.9 % for Specimen K2 with a column axial stress ratio of 0.04 and 1.5 % for
Specimen K3 with a column axial stress ratio of 0.12 respectively. Almost all longitudinal bars in beams and a
column yielded at both the vertical or horizontal critical section and a point crossing a short diagonal crack
which developed from a reentrant corner shown in Fig.1.
Damage in a joint panel for Specimen K3 with a column axial stress ratio of 0.12 was mitigated up to a
story drift angle of 1.5 % comparing with Specimen K2 with a column axial stress ratio of 0.04, but progressed
abruptly during a loading cycle with a story drift angle of 2 %. Core concrete in a joint region spalled off and
column longitudinal bars buckled within a joint at a story drift angle of 3 % for Specimen K2 and 2 % for
Specimen K3 respectively. Column bar buckling was caused by concrete crushing in beam-column joint core
and inferior confining action due to a little amount of joint lateral hoops and column longitudinal bars.
Judging from these observations and the fact that the peak lateral-load carrying capacity did not attain to
the ultimate shear capacity of a beam-column joint obtained by AIJ provisions, a joint failed eventually in not
joint shear but joint hinging for two specimens. Beam ultimate flexural capacity for Specimen K3 was, however,
at first developed at column faces as mentioned later.
Damage in a beam-column joint surface without framing beams was heavier than that with framing beams
as shown in Photo.3. This indicates that beams framing into a joint panel contributed to mitigating damage to the
joint due to its confining action.

(a-1) Specimen K2 (a-2) Specimen K3 (a) Outer surface

(a) Crack patterns at story drift angle of 1 %

(b-1) Specimen K2 (b-2) Specimen K3 (b) Inner surface

(b) Crack patterns at story drift angle of 2 % Photo. 3 – Damage conditions
Photo. 2 – Crack patterns and damage conditions for Specimen K3

5
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

3.2 Relationship between story shear and drift

The story shear force - story drift relations are shown in Fig.5 in the east-west and north-south directions. The
story shear force was computed from moment equilibrium between measured beam shear force and the
horizontal force at the loading point on a top of the column. Peak story shear forces and story drift angles when
reaching the peak story shear force obtained by the tests are summarized in Table 3 with predicted ultimate
capacities of a beam and a joint. The ultimate beam flexural capacity was computed by a section analysis
assuming that a plane section remains plane, indicated by a horizontal solid line in Fig.5. The joint hinging
capacity was evaluated according to a proposed method by Kusuhara and Shiohara [2] based on the failure
mechanics in a beam-column joint shown in Fig.1, indicated by a horizontal dotted line in Fig.5.
Hysteresis loops exhibited a little pinching shape for Specimen K2 with a column axial stress ratio of 0.04
(a column-to-beam flexural strength ratio of 1.4). In contrast, those showed a fat spindle shape for Specimen K3
with a column axial stress ratio of 0.12 (a column-to-beam strength ratio of 2.3), showing a more amount of
energy dissipation. This was caused by restraint of diagonal crack opening in a joint due to large column axial
load in Specimen K3.
Peak story shear capacity in uni-directional loading toward the west direction was 6 % lower than the
predicted ultimate beam flexural capacity, but reached the joint hinging capacity for Specimen K2. Peak story
shear capacity during bi-directional loading in the north-south direction, however, did not reach even the joint
hinging capacity, being 20 % or 26 % lower than the joint hinging capacity or the ultimate beam flexural
capacity respectively. This resulted from joint hinging failure under bi-directional loading, where the orbit of a
story shear resistance depicted a part of an ellipse on a coordinate surface of the EW-NS direction story shear
forces as mentioned later. The story shear capacity for Specimen K2 decreased by 25 % at a story drift angle of 3
% due to concrete crushing and column bar buckling within a joint region.

100 West dir. West dir.

力
80 Mbu 西方向加力 西方向加力
a) Specimen K2 c) Specimen K3 正 正
Story shear force, kN

Mju
60 K2東西方向 K3東西方向
East-West Dir.M j u Mbu
東西層せん断力(kN)

40 East-West Dir. East

North
20 beam beam
0 負
負
-20
北梁 東梁
-40 Beam bar yielding
梁主筋降伏
-60
04 -80 East dir. η=0.04 East dir. η=0.12 Column
柱主筋降伏 bar yielding
東方向加力 東方向加力
-100 接合部横補強筋降伏
Joint hoop yielding
5 --5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
梁曲げ終局耐力の計算値
Predicted ultimate(Mbeam
bu)
東西層間変形角(%) 東西層間変形角(%)
Story drift angle (EW dir.), % Story drift angle (EW dir.), % flexural capacity
接合部曲げ終局耐力の計算値 (M j u)
100 South dir.
南方向加力 南方向加力 Predicted joint hinging
80 b) Specimen K2 Mbu South dir. d) Specimen K3 capacity
Story shear force, kN

60 K2南北方向 K3南北方向
North-South Dir. Mju
North-South Dir.
南北層せん断力(kN)

40 Mju Mbu
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80 North dir. η=0.04 North dir. η=0.12
北方向加力 北方向加力
-100
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
南北層間変形角(%) 南北層間変形角(%)
Story drift angle (NS dir.), % Story drift angle (NS dir.), %

Fig. 5 – Story shear force - story drift angle relations

6
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Table 3 – Peak story shear forces and story drift angles at peak story shear force
Specimen K2 K3
Positive loading 70.3 (1.03%) 73.7 (2.00%)
EW direction
Peak story shear force Negative loading 56.6 (1.48%) 68.6 (1.52%)
obtained by tests, kN 48.0 (1.50%) 66.3 (1.52%)
Positive loading
NS direction
Negative loading 60.2 (1.01%) 73.1 (0.99%)
Positive loading 74.9 75.9
Story shear force at EW direction
predicted ultimate Negative loading 64.9 65.1
beam flexural capacity, Positive loading 64.9 65.1
kN NS direction
Negative loading 74.9 75.9
Positive loading 70.4 88.7
EW direction
Story shear force at 60.0 82.0
Negative loading
predicted joint hinging
capacity, kN Positive loading 60.0 82.0
NS direction
Negative loading 70.4 88.7
Story shear force at predicted ultimate joint shear capacity in
NS direction, kN
117.1 119.9
* A number in parentheses means a story drift angle in unit of % at peak story shear force.

Peak story shear capacity during uni- or bi-directional loading for Specimen K3 attained to 0.96 to 1.05
times the predicted ultimate beam flexural capacity. This indicates that beams developed almost fully its flexural
capacity even during bi-directional loading. Damage concentrated on a joint region after loading point B shown
in Fig.4 at a story drift angle of 2 %, resulting in severe cruching of joint core concrete and column bar buckling.
Vertical axial deformation in a joint begun to shorten during a loading cycle with a story drift angle of 3 %. This
shows symptom of a loss of axial load capacity. Thus the test for Specimen K3 was terminated.

4. Discussions
4.1 Diagonal crack width in joint
Widths of a principal diagonal crack along a main compression strut in a joint are shown in Fig.6. Those were
measured by a crack-gauge under bi-directional loading at a story drift angle of 2 % located at both loading point
F and point G at a EW directional story drift of zero as shown in Fig.4 (a). Note that a NS directional story drift
was kept constant during loading point F to G, sustaining some story shear force in the north-south direction.
Points where crack widths were measured are shown in Fig.7; a principal diagonal crack crosses a center axis of
the column at point “a” and crosses another diagonal crack generated by a reversed loading at point “b”.
Maximum crack width for Specimen K3 was 1.3 mm at a loading point F subjected to peak story shear
force in the east-west direction and 0.9 mm at loading point G at a EW directional story drift of zero, both at the
measurement point “b”, which were less than half those at the point “a” for Specimen K2. The tendency that
crack widths for Specimen K3 were smaller than that for Specimen K2 was observed in other loading points.
This confinement of crack opening is attributed to compressive axial load to the column in Specimen K3 which
was three times as large as that in Specimen K2.

7
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

3
Center 柱中心軸
Widths at loading point F
ピーク時（地点F） axis of column
2.5 東西変位0時（地点G）
width, mm
Widths at loading point G
ひび割れ幅(mm) 2
* No data at point G
※地点 G：データなし
1.5
East
b 東梁
Crack

1 beam
a
0.5

0
a b a※ * b
試験体 K2 試験体 K3
Specimen K2 Specimen K3

Fig. 6 – Principal diagonal crack widths in joint Fig. 7 – Measuring points of diagonal crack width

4.2 Biaxial interaction of story shear resistance

The orbit of a story shear resistance under bi-directional lateral loading in the first loading cycle is shown in
Fig.8 at a story drift angle of 0.5 % before the occurrence of diagonal cracks in a joint, 1 % at diagonal cracking
in a joint and 2 % at concrete crushing in a joint. The ultimate beam flexural capacity, the joint shear capacity
and the joint hinging capacity each predicted by an aforementioned manner are shown in Fig.8. The ultimate
flexural capacity surface of a beam shows two orthogonal lines and the biaxial interaction surface of the joint
shear capacity or the joint hinging capacity does a circle or an ellipse respectively in Fig.8.
All the orbits of a story shear resistance under bi-directional loading remained inside a circle of the
predicted joint shear capacity for two specimens. This indicates that a beam-column joint did not fail in shear.
The orbit of a story shear resistance for Specimen K2 depicted a rectangle under bi-directional loading at a
story drift angle of 0.5 % since little damage occurred in a beam-column joint. The orbit, however, changed to a
curved line at a story drift angle of 1 % because of joint damage. Then four peak points under bi-directional
loading, i.e., points B, D, F and H in Fig.8 (a), were located on the ellipse line of the predicted joint hinging
capacity.
The orbit of a story shear resistance for Specimen K3 with column axial load three times as large as
Specimen K2 depicted a rectangle under bi-directional loading up to a story drift angle of 1 % since joint
concrete suffered only slight damage. Peak story shear capacities especially at loading points B and D in Fig.8
(b) almost reached both the ultimate beam flexural capacity and the joint hinging capacity. Specimen K3
behaved dominantly in beam flexure and then reached the peak capacity because damage was slight in a beam-
column joint at a story drift angle of 1 %. Just before loading point F at a story drift angle of 1 %, however, the
story shear capacity in the east-west direction decreased due to the onset of joint hinging failure, which was
attributed to reduction of axial load in the lower column at loading point F induced by vertical shear forces in
both beams. After loading point F, damage to a joint grew remarkable with the increase in a story drift and a
story shear resistance descended. Thus the orbit of a story shear resistance at a story drift angle of 2 % depicted
curved lines and was located within the orbit at a story drift angle of 1 % for Specimen K3.
It is revealed that the ultimate capacity of corner beam-column joints under bi-directional lateral loading
can be estimated based on the new mechanism of joint hinging failure proposed by Kusuhara and Shiohara [2].

8
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

120 120
a)試験体K2
Specimen K2 b) Specimen
試験体K3 K3 Joint hinging Capacity
接合部曲げ終局耐力
接合部曲げ終局耐力
Joint hinging Capacity
90 90 F
地点 F
force in NS dir., kN

force in NS dir., kN
地点 FF 地点
60 HH 60

HH
地点
南北層せん断力(kN)

南北層せん断力(kN)
30 30
H G F

0 0
-120 地点
-90 A -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 -120 地点
-90A -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 II
A A A O E
Story shear

Story shear
-30 -30
地点 D
D B
地点 B 地点 D D
B -60 -60
D
C

地点 B
梁曲げ終局耐力
Beam flexural Capacity B R=0.5%
-90 -90 梁曲げ終局耐力
Beam flexural Capacity R=1.0%
Joint shear Capacity
接合部せん断終局耐力 Joint shear Capacity
接合部せん断終局耐力
R=2.0%
-120 -120
東西層せん断力(kN) 東西層せん断力(kN)
Story shear force in EW dir., kN Story shear force in EW dir., kN
Fig. 8 – Orbit of story shear resistance under bi-directional loading

4.3 Story shear resultant force under bi-directional lateral loading

Envelope curves of relationship between a story shear resultant force and a story drift resultant angle under bi-
directional loading from the origin point O to loading point C in a loading paths are shown in Fig.9. A story
shear resultant force or a story drift resultant angle was obtained by the square root of sum of squares of story
shear forces or story drift angles respectively in EW and NS directions.
A story shear force at loading point A reached the peak value of 70.6 kN at a story drift angle of 1 % for
Specimen K2. During bi-directional loading from loading point A to B, a story shear resultant force remained to
be almost constant; 70.6 kN at loading point B in Fig.9 (a). This was caused by a phenomenon that a beam-
column joint started to fail in joint hinging at loading point A and the orbit of a story shear resistance under bi-
directional loading depicted a part of an ellipse as shown in Fig.8 (a).
In contrast, flexural yielding for Specimen K3 occurred in an east beam at a story drift angle of 0.8 % and
stiffness was degraded shown in Fig.9 (b). Under bi-directional loading from loading point A to B, a north beam
yielded in flexure and a story shear resultant force increased to 89.0 kN at loading point B, which was 23 %
larger than that at loading point A; 72.3 kN.
A peak story shear resultant force obtained at loading point B exceeded the predicted joint hinging
capacity, shown by horizontal dashed lines in Fig.9, for two specimens; the former was 8 % or 4 % larger than
the latter for Specimen K2 or K3 respectively. A story shear resultant force for Specimen K3 declined heavily
due to progressive failure in a beam-column joint after a story drift resultant angle of 2.8 %, leading to axial
collapse of the subassemblage. This should be noted for seismic design to R/C buildings when a little amount of
column longitudinal bars and joint lateral hoops is provided accroding to the lower bound required by Japanese
law or seismic provisions.

5. Conclusions
General findings taken from the study are summarized as follows.
(1) Although a joint shear capacity margin of 1.6 estimated by AIJ seismic provisions was provided to a corner
beam-column joint in the test to prevent shear failure, all joints failed severely by joint hinging under bi-
directional lateral cyclic loading after beam and column longitudinal bars and joint hoops yielded.
(2) Peak story shear force in the transverse direction under bi-directional loading was 0.74 times the ultimate
beam flexural capacity computed by a section analysis for a corner beam–column subassemblage with a column

9
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

axial stress ratio of 0.04 (a column-to-beam flexural strength ratio of 1.4). Beams did not develop fully their
flexural performance due to joint hinging failure. In contrast, peak story shear force under bi-directional loading
almost attained to the ultimate beam flexural capacity for a subassemblage with a column axial stress ratio of
0.12 (a column-to-beam flexural strength ratio of 2.3), whereas lateral-load carrying capacity descended severely
after the peak capacity, attributed to severe damage in a joint region.
(3) When column compressive axial load was increased from an axial stress ratio of 0.04 to 0.12, the ultimate
joint hinging capacity for a corner joint computed as a resultant force of two orthogonal story shear forces under
bi-directional lateral loading was enhanced to 1.2 to 1.4 times by large column axial load. A joint hinging
capacity with an axial stress ratio of 0.12, however, decreased heavily after the peak capacity, leading to axial
collapse of the subassemblage. This should be noted for seismic design to R/C buildings when a little amount of
column longitudinal bars and joint lateral hoops is provided according to the lower bound required by Japanese
law or seismic provisions.
(4) The ultimate capacity of a corner beam-column joint under bi-directional lateral loading can be estimated
based on the new mechanism of joint hinging proposed by Kusuhara and Shiohara if it is assumed that the orbit
for two joint hinging capacities orthogonal to each other depicts an ellipse shape under bi-directional loading.
(5) Fatter hysteresis loops were observed under bi-directional lateral loading for a corner beam-column
subassemblage specimen with a column compressive axial stress ratio of 0.12 than that of 0.04, showing a more
amount of energy dissipation. This was caused by restraint of diagonal crack opening in a joint due to large
column axial load.

Loading cycle of R =1% : Point B (89.0kN)

Loading cycle of R =1% : Point A (70.6kN) 層間変形角 1% サイクル地点 B(89.0kN)
100 100
層間変形角 1% サイクル地点 A（70.6kN） Loading 2%
層間変形角 cycle of R =2% B（81.8kN）
サイクル地点 : Point B
Story shear resultant force, kN

Story shear resultant force, kN

90 Loading cycle
層間変形角 of R =1% : Point
1% サイクル地点 B (70.6kN)
B（70.6kN） 90
80 80 Joint hinging Capacity
層間変形角
Loading 2% サイクル地点
cycle of R =2% : Point B
B（57.4kN） 接合部曲げ終局耐力計算値
at point B 地点 B
70 70
Joint hinging Capacity Loading cycle of R B(48.9k
=3% : Point B
60 60 層間変形角 3% サイクル地点
at point B
接合部曲げ終局耐力計算値
(kN)
(kN)

50 地点 B 50
40 40
層間変形角 3% サイクル地点
Loading cycle of R =3% B（50.3kN）
: Point B 層間変形角 1% サイクル地点 A(72.3kN)
30 30 Loading cycle of R =1% :
20 20 Point A (72.3kN)
10 a) Specimen K2 10 b) Specimen K3
(b) 試験体 K3（軸力 770kN）
(a) 試験体 K2（軸力 260kN）
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
層間変形角 サイ 地点
Story drift resultant angle under bi-directional loading, % ベクトル和による層間変形角(%)
Story drift resultant angle under bi-directional loading, %
Fig. 9 – Story shear resultant force under bi-directional loading

6. Acknowledgements
The study described herein was sponsored by the Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research (B) of Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (Principal researcher : H. Shiohara, professor of the University of Tokyo, Japan).
Authors would like to express their gratitude to Prof. Shiohara for his valuable advice, Dr. T. Endo, former
assistant professor of Tokyo Metropolitan University, for his assistance in conducting the tests and Tokyo Tekko
Co. Ltd. for providing steel bars.

7. References
[1] Shiohara H (2001): New model for shear failure of RC interior beam-column connections. Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol.127, No.2, February 2001, ASCE, 152-160.
[2] Kusuhara F, Shiohara H (2013): Ultimate moment of reinforced concrete exterior beam-column joint. Journal of
Structural and Construction Engineering, Vol.78, No.693, November 2013, AIJ, 1949-1958.

10