Seismic Behaviour of Exterior Beam-Column Joints Reinforced with FRP Bars and Stirrups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforced concrete beam-column joints (BCJs) are commonly used in structures such as parking garages, multi-storey industrial buildings and road overpasses, which might be exposed to extreme weathering conditions and the application of de-icing salts. The use of the non-corrodible fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcing bars in such structures is beneficial to overcome the steel-corrosion problems. However, FRP materials exhibit linear-elastic stress-strain characteristics up to failure, which raises concerns on their performance in BCJs where energy dissipation, through plastic behaviour, is required. The objective of this research project is to assess the seismic behaviour of concrete BCJs reinforced with FRP bars and stirrups. An experimental program was conducted at the University of Manitoba to participate in achieving this objective. Eight full-scale exterior T-shaped BCJs prototypes were constructed and tested under simulated seismic load conditions. The longitudinal and transversal reinforcement types and ratios for the beam and the columns were the main investigated parameters. The experimental results showed that the GFRP reinforced joints can successfully sustain a 4.0% drift ratio without any significant residual deformation. This indicates the feasibility of using GFRP bars and stirrups as reinforcement in the BCJs subjected to seismic-type loading. It was also concluded that, increasing the beam reinforcement ratio, while satisfying the strong column-weak beam concept, can enhance the ability of the joint to dissipate seismic energy. An analytical investigation was conducted through constructing a finite element model using ANSYS-software. The model was verified against the experimental results in this research. Then, a parametric study was performed on number of different parameters known to affect such joints including column axial load, concrete compressive strength, flexural strength ratio and joint transverse reinforcement. It was concluded that 70% of the column axial load capacity can be recommended as an upper limit to the applied axial loads on the column to avoid damage occurrence within the joint. It was also concluded that a minimum flexural strength ratio of 1.50 is recommended to ensure the strong-column weak-beam mechanism. In addition, a minimum joint transverse reinforcement ratio of 0.60% is recommended to insure that the failure will not occur in the joint zone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".