21 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Bah Ram

ghanoum

- Soft Rock Pillars
- On Finite Element Analysis of Pipe Whip Problems
- Ultimate strength of fillet welded connections loaded in plane
- Slab Punching Shear Spreadsheet
- Seal Ultrasonic Cleaner Modify-Frequency 5547 x 10
- 856201201 b 04
- Concrete Aggregate and Mortar Cracking
- 2nd IAHR 1972 Leningrad-All
- Aci Structural Journal January-february 2013 v. 110 No. 1 Complete
- Quadri3 Frequency 1 1
- MatLib
- 4
- 13_64
- Application of Steel Channels as Stiffeners
- 6.Eng-behaviour of Reinforced -Shivani Sridhar
- Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments FEMA.pdf
- Defi Nation
- Vessel
- Rotational Stiffness of Continuous Composite Beams With Sinusoidal Web Profiles for Lateral Torsional Bucklinguckling 2012 Journal of Constructional Steel Re
- 98-s76

Anda di halaman 1dari 10

TECHNICAL PAPER

Sustaining Column Axial Failures

by Wassim M. Ghannoum and Jack P. Moehle

A one-third-scale, three-bay, three-story reinforced concrete (RC)

planar frame with lightly reinforced columns was subjected to base

motions that simulated earthquake shaking. Dynamic responses

ranged from essentially linear-elastic response through column flexural yielding to column shear and axial failure. A structural analysis

model was implemented in computer software to demonstrate the

modeling and analysis requirements necessary to achieve accurate response simulation. A new bond-slip model is developed and

implemented to represent effects of longitudinal bar slip from joint

and footing anchorage regions. Existing models for column shear

strength and failure are assessed based on the measured and calculated dynamic responses. Recommendations for dynamic response

simulation and column shear-failure assessment are given.

Keywords: axial; collapse; column; earthquake; failure; frame; laboratory

testing; reinforced concrete; shear.

INTRODUCTION

Shear failure of inadequately proportioned and detailed

columns is a leading cause of the damage and collapse of

older concrete buildings subjected to earthquakes. Assessment of the potential for shear failure requires an estimate

of expected earthquake ground shaking, expected dynamic

response of the building frame, and expected column capacity.

This study focused on the estimation of the building frame

dynamic response and column capacity. Analytical models

are developed, calibrated, and assessed by comparison with

the observed performance of a one-third-scale reinforced

concrete (RC) frame tested on an earthquake simulator. The

companion paper (Ghannoum and Moehle 2012) presents the

details of the experimental program and experimental results.

This study builds on important developments in analytical modeling and dynamic response simulation of RC in

recent years. The modeling and simulation are implemented

using OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2000), a software framework for developing applications to simulate the performance of structural and geotechnical systems subjected to

earthquakes. The software includes various types of finite

elements for modeling the nonlinear behavior of RC frame

elements subjected to earthquake loading, including the

force formulation fiber-section elements originally proposed

by Spacone et al. (1996). This element model takes advantage of nonlinear concrete and steel material properties also

incorporated in OpenSees.

More recently, Elwood (2004) introduced the limit state

material model for shear and axial failures of RC columns

with light transverse reinforcement. This model introduces

shear and axial springs attached in series with the fibersection elements, with limiting drifts associated with shear

and axial failure defining when these springs are activated.

It was of interest in this study to examine the efficacy of the

limit state model for a multi-story, multi-bay frame.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

joints and foundation elements results in additional flexibility that should be modeled (Sezen and Setzler 2008).

Several practical methods to estimate increased flexibility due to bar slip have been proposed. Elwood and

Eberhard (2009) proposed a stiffness reduction for the

framing member that is a function of axial load. Several

researchers (Otani 1974; Ibarra et al. 2005) have proposed

adding rotational springs at the frame member ends; the

absence of slip-axial-load interaction is a common shortcoming of this approach. Monti and Spacone (2000) used

fiber elements to represent the flexibility of frame elements

as a function of axial load, increasing the flexibility of the

end fibers to indirectly account for added flexibility due to

bar slip. Berry (2006) and Zhao and Sritharan (2007) introduced a zero-length fiber-section element placed in series

with the framing element. This paper introduces a new zerolength fiber-section element that is intended as an improvement of the aforementioned models.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Engineers routinely use structural analysis models implemented in computer software to conduct performance assessments of existing buildings subjected to earthquake shaking.

The opportunity to develop and calibrate such models using

measured test data from physical structures tested to collapse

is rare. The observations and conclusions from this study

can be used to improve the accuracy of analytical simulation of RC structures subjected to high-intensity earthquake

shaking, from which improved estimates of structural deformations and related damage can be obtained. More accurate

performance assessments of existing buildings ensue.

TEST STRUCTURE

The test structure is a three-story, three-bay, planar frame

dimensioned to partially represent typical 1960s office

building construction in California (Ghannoum and Moehle

2012). Two of the columns (at Axes A and B; Fig. 2 in the

companion paper [Ghannoum and Moehle 2012]) had a

longitudinal reinforcement ratio rl of 0.0245 and widely

spaced ties closed with 90-degree hooks, which is typical

of older construction. These columns had a transverse

reinforcement ratio rt of 0.0015 (rt = Av/bs, where Av is the

total area of transverse reinforcement parallel to the framing

direction with spacing s; and b is the column width). The

ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 3, May-June 2012.

MS No. S-2010-209.R2 received June 2, 2011, and reviewed under Institute

publication policies. Copyright 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights

reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the

copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be

published in the March-April 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received

by November 1, 2012.

403

Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. He is a member of ACI Committee 369, Seismic Repair and

Rehabilitation, and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns.

His research interests include shear in reinforced concrete, large deformation behavior

of reinforced concrete members, and collapse of structures.

Jack P. Moehle, FACI, is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the

University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. He is Chair of ACI Subcommittee

318-H, Seismic Provisions, a member of the ACI Board of Direction, and a member of

ACI Committees 318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 369, Seismic Repair and

Rehabilitation; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic

Concrete Structures. He is also a past member of the Technical Activities Committee.

paper [Ghannoum and Moehle 2012]) had a longitudinal

reinforcement ratio rl of 0.0109 and hoops that were welldetailed and closely spaced, as required for columns of

special moment frames (ACI Committee 318 2008). These

columns had a maximum transverse reinforcement ratio rt

of 0.011 at their ends. All longitudinal reinforcement was

continuous. Columns with wide hoop spacing were intended

to yield in flexure initially and then sustain shear and axial

failures. In contrast, columns with close hoop spacing were

intended to respond primarily in flexure and thereby slow

the progression of collapse once it initiated in the other

columns. Beams and beam-column joints were dimensioned

and detailed to produce a strong-beam, strong-joint, weakcolumn system. The concrete cylinder compressive strength

f c at the time of testing was 3.56 ksi (24.6 MPa) and the

Youngs modulus Ec was 2800 ksi (19,000 MPa). The longitudinal reinforcing steel had a measured yield stress fy of

64.5 ksi (445 MPa). Additional information about the test

frame can be found in the companion paper (Ghannoum and

Moehle 2012) and in Ghannoum (2007).

Columns, beams, and joints are identified by the

column line, level, and bay in which they are located

(Fig. 1). For example, Column A1 refers to the column along

Column Line A in Story 1, Beam AB1 refers to the beam

bounded by Column Lines A and B and situated at the first

level, and Joint A1 refers to the joint along Column Line A

at Level 1.

404

SHAKE-TABLE TESTS

The test structure was bolted atop load cells fixed to the

earthquake simulator at the Richmond Field Station of the

University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. The test

structure was braced out of plane, and then lead weights

were attached to the beams to increase inertial effects and

column axial stresses. The resulting gravity axial load was

approximately 0.16Ag f c on the first-story interior columns

and 0.08Ag f c on the first-story exterior columns (Ag is the

column gross section area). Horizontal base motions representative of earthquake shaking were then imparted horizontally within the plane of the test structure. One shaking test

(designated the half-yield test) produced approximately

half the yield stress in the longitudinal steel of the first-story

columns. This test was followed by three high-intensity tests

that caused the partial collapse of the test frame. Only the

half-yield test and the first of the three high-intensity tests

(Test 1) are described in this paper. Additional details about

frame behavior during the strong shaking can be found in the

companion paper (Ghannoum and Moehle 2012).

ANALYTICAL MODEL

Beam and column elements

Force formulation fiber-section elements (Spacone et al.

1996) were used to model columns and beams with secondorder P-D effects included for columns. The fiber-section

force formulation is relatively simple to implement, as it

only requires section geometry and material properties as

input variables. These elements can account for axial load

variations while simulating the full range of cyclic flexural

behavior, including concrete cracking, steel yielding, and

concrete crushing.

Three sub-elements were used per column (Fig. 1). The

sub-elements at column ends had length h, where h is the

column section depth in the direction of loading. These

elements consisted of two fiber sectionsone at each

endwhich correspond to the two integration points of the

elements. The middle column elements were discretized

into five fiber sections. This configuration results in most,

if not all, of the inelastic rotations occurring within the

sub-elements at the column ends and produces an effective

analytical plastic hinge length of approximately h/2. Because

the underlying goal is to develop an analytical model that

requires the least amount of user calibration possible while

providing a high degree of accuracy, a more elaborate evaluation of the plastic hinge length was not deemed necessary,

and the simpler choice of h/2 was selected.

The beams were discretized into six force formulation

sub-elements containing two fiber sections each. These

sub-elements spanned between discrete loading points at

lead-weight attachment locations and out-of-plane bracing

connections. This approach produced sub-elements at the

ends of beams 12 in. (305 mm) long. The effects of beam

end element lengths on the model response were found to

be minimal.

Elastic shear deformations of frame elements were

introduced into the analytical model using zero-length

elastic spring elements at both ends of the columns and

beams (Fig. 1). The stiffness of these springs was given by

(5/6GAg)/(L/2), where G is the shear modulus, Ag is the gross

section area, and L is the element clear length. Shear deformations were minimal compared with flexural ones.

Zero-length springs (Elwood 2004) were introduced

at the base of the columns with wide hoop spacing

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

(Column Lines A and B) to model possible shear and axial

failure in those columns (Fig. 1); the springs were not used

for columns with close hoop spacing (Column Lines C and

D). A rigid rotational spring was added in parallel with the

shear and axial elements to lock rotational motion. The accuracy

of the shear failure model predictions will be discussed in

the following.

Bar slip

The fiber-section elements described previously account for

the elongation of longitudinal reinforcement along the beam

and column lengths, but not elongation associated with the

slip of longitudinal reinforcement from beam-column joints

and foundation elements (Fig. 2). Bar slip generates rigidbody rotations at the ends of frame elements that can substantially increase member flexibility (Sezen and Moehle 2006).

The following text introduces a new model for this effect.

The proposed bar-slip model uses a zero-length fiber

section (Fig. 1). Fiber models have the advantage of

adjusting the neutral axis location as a function of axial load

and loading direction, thereby fostering a more accurate

representation of bar slip as affected by these loading parameters. The proposed model is an extension of earlier work by

Berry (2006) and Zhao and Sritharan (2007). Those models

produce a discontinuity in steel stresses and neutral axis location between the bar slip and adjacent column fiber sections,

as they use material properties in the bar-slip fiber sections

that are not directly scaled from those of the adjacent column

fiber sections (Ghannoum 2007). The proposed model introduces modifications to avoid those discontinuities.

The bar-slip fiber section has the same geometry as the

fiber sections of the element it is attached to but different

uniaxial material properties for its steel and concrete fibers.

Figure 3 illustrates the two adjacent fiber sections with equal

shear force V, axial load P, and moment M applied. For

a given loading, the bar slip rotation is Obs = Ss/c, where

Ss is the bar slip of longitudinal bars and c is the distance

from the neutral axis to the longitudinal bars in tension. The

frame-element, fiber-section curvature is Kfe = es/c, where

es is the longitudinal bar strain. Thus, Obs = Kfe(Ss/es) for

any loading condition. This implies that concrete strains in

any fiber of the bar-slip fiber section ecbs must be related to

concrete strains in frame element fibers by the ratio r = (Ss/es)

to maintain compatibility of material stresses and neutral

axis location between the bar-slip and frame-element fiber

sections. The same applies to steel fibers. For fiber sections

with bilinear material models, the scaling ratio can be taken

as ry = (Sy/ey), where Sy is the bar slip at yield and ey is the bar

yield strain. Hence, compatibility of material stresses and

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

and materials.

neutral axial location can be achieved by selecting identical

steel and concrete material models in bar-slip and frameelement fiber sections and scaling bar-slip material strains

from frame-element material strains by the ratio ry.

The relation between bar slip and stress is evaluated by

integrating the strain profile within the anchorage region

(Fig. 4) under the assumption of bi-uniform bond stress

(based on Lehman and Moehle [2000]). For a bar with sufficient anchorage length, this approach gives

Ss =

s f s db

, s y

8ue

(1)

405

Ss =

y f y db

8ue

+ y

)( f

f y db

8u p

, s > y

(2)

where fy is the bar yield stress; fs is the bar stress at the interface; ey is the bar yield strain; es is the bar strain at the interface; db is the bar diameter; ue is the elastic bond stress; and

up is the plastic bond stress.

For a bilinear steel stress-strain relation, the bar stressversus-slip relation derived from Eq. (1) and (2) is parabolic

in both the elastic and plastic regions (Fig. 5). This relation

can be linearized in both regions without much loss in accuracy (Fig. 5). The bilinear stress-slip relation is then defined

by the yield stress fy, yield slip Sy, and hardening ratio (ratio

of plastic modulus to elastic modulus). From Eq. (1), the

longitudinal bar slip at yield is

Sy =

y f y db

(3)

8ue

fc

and Moehle (2000). Lowes et al. (2003) suggest a much

higher elastic bond stress value of 21 fc psi (1.74 fc MPa)

at joint interfaces; however, due to the short development

lengths in the test frame joints and the high levels of damage

and deformations observed in the joints, the lower elastic

bond stress value is adopted. The hardening ratio is taken

equal to the longitudinal steel hardening ratiothat is, 0.01.

Given the proposed uniform elastic bond stress and the hardening ratio, Eq. (2) imposes a plastic bond stress value of up

= 3.24 fc psi (0.27 fc MPa) (with linear approximation

matching the parabolic post-yield stress-slip relation at the

ultimate bar stress fu = 1.25 fy) (Fig. 5).

No. 3 (10 mm) bar.

Joints

Joints were modeled as rigid elements. This approach

produced reasonably accurate analytical results, as shown

in the following, which suggests that the bar-slip model

described previously accounted for much of the deformation

associated with the joints.

Material properties

The concrete material model was a Kent-Scott-Park

concrete material with degraded linear unloading/reloading

stiffness according to Karsan-Jirsa (Scott et al. 1982). The

envelope relation was calibrated to the stress-strain relation

obtained from the cylinder tests. Confinement effects on core

concrete were estimated from Mander et al. (1988). Other

input concrete properties were: 1) concrete tensile strength

of 7.5 fc psi (0.62 fc MPa); and 2) concrete tensile softening slope of E0/5, where E0 is the concrete material tangent

modulus at zero strain = (2f c/ec) (where ec is the strain at f c).

The longitudinal reinforcing steel material model was a

Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto (Menegotto and Pinto 1973) steel

material with isotropic strain hardening. Measured material

properties were used for the uniaxial behavior, except that

the yield strength was increased to account for strain-rate

effects. Maximum longitudinal reinforcement strain rates

recorded from strain gauges were found to be in the range

of 0.05 to 0.2 (1/s) in Test 1. Based on these rates and data

by Malvar (1998), the yield stress for longitudinal steel was

increased to 1.25 times the measured static yield stress.

The strain-rate-adjusted steel stresses produced calculated

sectional responses that more closely matched experimental

results than did calculations using the static properties. The

modulus of elasticity Es was not modified for strain-rate

effects (Malvar 1998). The strain-hardening ratio was 0.01.

Damping

Damping was introduced as stiffness and mass proportional

Rayleigh damping and was based on the first and second

modes of vibration of the structure. The lowest modes were

used to minimize the generation larger than defined mass

proportional damping. Modal frequencies used for damping

calculation were obtained from eigenvalue analysis updated

at each time increment. The tangent stiffness evaluated at

each time increment was also used in evaluating the damping

matrix. The damping ratio was taken as 2% of critical based

on laboratory test observations (Ghannoum 2007). Updated

tangent stiffness and modal properties were used to minimize the introduction of erroneous damping when the structure sustained large inelastic deformations (Charney 2008;

Petrini et al. 2008; Priestley and Grant 2005).

Experimental

Analytical

Initial uncracked

Initial uncracked

0.31

0.35

0.32

0.34

0.101

0.115

0.107

0.114

0.069

0.08

0.068

0.073

406

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Dynamic properties

Table 1 lists the first three modal periods of the test frame

obtained from low-amplitude snapback tests and from eigenvalue analysis of the analytical model. The test data were

is, for the essentially uncracked and partially cracked frame.

Analytical values were obtained before and after the analytical model was subjected to the measured base motion from

the half-yield test. The test and analytical data show a slight

lengthening of the period due to the half-yield test, with

excellent agreement between the test and analytical results.

The test structure was subjected to horizontal base motion

during the half-yield test and the analytical model was

subjected to the same base motion recorded on the shaketable platform. Figure 6 shows characteristic global response

results. The analytical model faithfully reproduces the main

characteristics of the top- and first-level drift and base shear

histories up to 22 seconds into the motion, after which some

discrepancy in phase and amplitude occurs. The analytical

model adequately represents first-story initial stiffness

and the softening that occurs at higher amplitude motions

(Fig. 7). The maximum first-story drift ratio was 0.46%

experimentally and 0.56% analytically (a 19% difference).

At the maximum analytical drift ratio of 0.46%, the base

shear was 12.3 kips (54.7 kN) experimentally and 13.0 kips

(57.8 kN) analytically (a 5.7% difference). Figure 8 compares

the measured and calculated axial load ratios at the base of

the first-story columns, showing generally excellent correlation. The axial load ratio is defined as the axial load divided

by the column gross section area and concrete compressive

strength. Small discrepancies between the experiment and

analysis in member stiffnessparticularly when flexural

cracking occurs (Fig. 8 and 9), combined with the long duration of the imposed motioncontributed to larger differences observed between the analysis and experiment beyond

the 22-second mark (Fig. 6).

At the column element level, good agreement between the

analysis and experiment is also achieved by the proposed

analytical model. Figure 9 shows that both initial tangent

and postcracking column stiffnesses are reasonably wellmodeled for first-story columns. Analytical and experimental column shears shown in Fig. 10 have less than a 5%

difference at the maximum analytical drift ratio and approximately a 25% difference at the minimum analytical drift

ratio. This plot suggests that the assumed elastic bond stress

of 12

fc psi (1

of 7.5

fc psi (0.62

Fig. 8First-story horizontal drift ratios versus axial loads: half-yield test.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

407

Fig. 9First-story critical column horizontal drift ratios versus shear: halfyield test.

failure initiation in column.

softening slope of E0/5 are appropriate parameters for use in

the analytical model.

Figure 11 compares measured and calculated column end

rotations. The rotations were measured over a height h in both

the test and analytical models and include rotations due to

longitudinal bar slip from adjacent anchorage regions (joints

or footings). The moments in Fig. 11 are below the calculated yield moments for all frame columns. Close correlation

between the measured and calculated results is noted.

Unique values of the effective flexural stiffness EI could

not be obtained from the tests because of varying end fixity

and varying axial loads during the dynamic tests. Instead,

the analytical model, which generally produced excellent

agreement with the measured column behavior, was used

to estimate the effective EI. For this purpose, a cantilever

column having length equal to half the column clear length

was subjected to the at-rest gravity loads and the maximum

interstory drift ratio measured during the test. The calculated effective EI was 0.30EIgross, 0.37EIgross, 0.24EIgross, and

0.21EIgross for Columns A1, B1, C1, and D1, respectively

(E = 2800 ksi [19,000 MPa] and Igross is the gross section

moment of inertia).

Large deformation levelsTest 1

To account for initial damage, the analytical model was

subjected to the recorded base motion for the half-yield test

408

and then the recorded base motion for Test 1. Figure 10 shows

characteristic global response results. The analytical model

reproduces with reasonable accuracy the main characteristics of the top- and first-level drift and base shear histories up

to the initiation of shear degradation in Column B1. Mainly

due to discrepancies between when shear failure occurred

in Column B1 and when it was triggered by the analytical

model, larger errors were observed in the analytical results

beyond that shear failure point. The analytical model also

adequately represents the observed first-story elastic stiffness and plastic shear levels (Fig. 12).

At the column element level, good agreement between the

analysis and experiment is achieved by the proposed analytical model up to the initiation of shear failure in Column B1

(Fig. 13). Both elastic stiffness and plastic shear levels are

reasonably estimated by the model, which supports the 25%

increase in the longitudinal steel yield strength for strainrate effects. Figure 14 compares the measured and calculated column end rotations. A close correlation between

the measured and calculated results is noted again up to the

initiation of shear failure in Column B1.

During Dynamic Test 1, Column B1 sustained severe shear

damage and strength degradation, along with gradual but

partial axial failure. Column A1 did not experience apparent

shear or axial degradations, although it did sustain minor

shear cracking. The analytical model, however, showed

shear failures of both Columns A1 and B1, with axial failure

initiation in Column B1. The analytical shear failures of

Columns A1 and B1 occurred a half cycle prior to the experimentally recorded shear failure initiation of Column B1

(Fig. 13). Columns A1 and B1 sustained shear failures in the

analytical model at drift ratios of 2.4% and 2.2%, respectively. These drifts are lower than the experimental drift ratio

at shear failure of Column B1 of 3.2%.

The shear spring attached to Column B1 appears to model

the shear degrading slope of that column fairly well, even

though the failure in the analysis occurred half a cycle prior

to the actual failure. After significant shear degradation, the

measured shear behavior of Column B1 appears to oscillate

randomly about a low residual value owing to the complex

geometry of the failed section and the continually varying

applied axial load. The shear failure model simulates that

behavior by limiting shear strength to a constant residual

shear value.

The axial failure model assumes that column axial failure

initiates when residual shear strength is reached. The

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

axial failure of Column B1 is thus initiated analytically in

Test 1 at the point where it reaches residual shear strength.

In the shake-table test, the initiation of axial failure of

Column B1 corresponded roughly to reaching the residual

shear strength (Ghannoum 2007; Ghannoum and Moehle

2012). Column A1 did not reach the residual shear strength

in the test and did not sustain axial failure.

COLUMN SHEAR CAPACITY MODELS

Strength-based shear capacity models

The shear strengths of the columns with widely spaced

hoops (Column Lines A and B) were evaluated using

equations from ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008)

and ASCE/SEI 41-06 (ASCE/SEI Committee 41 2007).

ACI 318-08 shear strength equations that account for the

shear-moment ratio and the effects of axial load were used

(ACI 318-08, Eq. (11-2), (11-5), (11-6), and (11-15)).

The following ASCE/SEI equation was used

Vn = Vs + Vc = k

Av f yt d

s

6[0.5] f

Nu

c

0.8 Ag

+ k

+ 1+

M

6[3.45e-3 ] fcAg

Vd

(4)

where k = 1.0 for displacement ductility less than or equal to 2;

k = 0.7 for displacement ductility greater than or equal to 6; k

varies linearly for displacement ductility between 2 and 6; Av

is the area of shear reinforcement in the direction of loading

placed at spacing s; fyt is the measured yield stress of transverse steel; d is the distance from the extreme compression

fiber to the centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement;

f c is the measured concrete compressive strength; M/Vd is

the largest ratio of moment to shear times effective depth;

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

Test 1 (plotted from time t = 14.5 to 23.5 seconds).

Nu is the axial force normal to the cross section (positive in

compression); and Ag is the gross section area.

Both the ACI and ASCE/SEI equations require the input

of applied shear, moment, and axial loadall of which

varied substantially during Test 1. Thus, the nominal shear

strength for Columns A1 and B1 needed to be evaluated

at each time increment and checked against the applied

shears. The times when Vu first exceeds Vn are indicated in

Fig. 15. The ACI equations produce Vn = 7.92 and 7.76 kips

(35.2 and 34.5 kN) for Columns B1 and A1, respectively,

whereas the ASCE/SEI equation produces Vn = 8.87 and

8.73 kips (39.4 and 38.8 kN). These values compare with

the maximum measured shear forces of 9.87 and 9.48 kips

(43.8 and 42.1 kN) for Columns B1 and A1, respectively.

Thus, both methods produced conservative estimates of

shear strength.

Deformation-based shear capacity models

Deformation-based models aim to estimate the drift at

which shear failure occurs. Drift estimates derived from

409

and B1.

indicates instrumentation failure).

models presented by Elwood and Moehle (2005), Kato and

Ohnishi (2002), Pujol et al. (1999), and Sasani (2007) are

compared with measured drifts in the following paragraphs.

Elwood and Moehle (2005) proposed an empirical, regression-based, shear-drift model based on results from 50 lightly

confined columns sustaining shear failure following flexural yielding. This same model was implemented in the

OpenSees simulations presented previously in this paper.

410

shear failure (Ds/L) is positively correlated with transverse

reinforcement ratio rt and negatively correlated with the

shear-stress ratio (u/ fc ) and axial load ratio (P/Ag f c).

Shear failure is defined when the shear resistance capacity

drops to 80% of the maximum shear. The model, which is

intended to produce a mean response estimate, is given by

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

s

3

1

1 P

1

=

+ 4t

L 100

500 [ 42 ] fc 40 Ag fc 100

Sasani (2007) used a Bayesian parameter estimation technique to develop a probabilistic drift capacity model for RC

columns failing in shear. Sasani (2007) observed that the

drift ratio DR at shear failure increased with an increasing

volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio rs and shear spansection height ratio a/h and decreased with an increasing

axial load ratio (ho = P/Ag f c). Sasani (2007) also differentiated between the case of single and double curvature column

deformations through the factor q, which equals 1.0 for

columns deformed in single curvature and 0.85 for columns

deformed in double curvature. Shear failure is defined when

the shear resistance capacity drops to 80% of the maximum

shear. The model, which is intended to produce a mean

response estimate, is given by

(5)

capacity can be estimated based on the maximum edge strain

in the core concrete, axial load ratio, and cross-sectional

dimensions. The total drift ratio is defined by summing the

drift ratio at yield of longitudinal reinforcement Dy/L and the

calculated plastic drift ratio Dp/L. Shear failure is defined

when the shear resistance capacity drops to 80% of the

maximum shear. The model, which is intended to produce a

mean response estimate, is given by

s y p

=

+

L

L

L

0.18

DR = 0.74

s o

(6)

(0 < e

<1

( 13 e

<2

(7)

depth of the core; ecp is the strain at the maximum stress for

the core; m is the ratio of the concrete strain at the edge of

the core concrete to ecp at shear or axial failure (determined

empirically for shear [m = 2.3] and axial [m = 3.6] failures);

and en is an equivalent axial load ratio as defined in Kato and

Ohnishi (2002).

Pujol et al. (1999) proposed an empirical model based on

results from 92 columns. The model is based on observations

that the maximum drift ratio at shear failure (DMAX/L) tended

to increase with an increasing aspect ratio (a/d, where a is a

column half-span) and increasing transverse reinforcement

index (rt fyt /vMAX, where vMAX is the column shear stress at

shear failure = shear force at failure/bwd). Shear failure is

defined when the shear resistance capacity drops to 80%

of the maximum shear. The model, which is intended to

produce a lower-bound response estimate, is given by

t f yt a a

MAX

100 =

,4

L

vMAX d d

(9)

Figure 15 overlays the various model shear failure initiation points on the test results of Columns A1 and B1 for

Test 1. Table 2 lists the measured and calculated drift ratios

at shear failure and the ratios of calculated-to-measured

drift ratios. The measured drift ratio at shear failure is

defined as the absolute value of the drift ratio at which shear

resistance drops to 80% of the maximum shear. Note that

Column A1 sustained shear cracking for the largest positive

displacement excursion, although reversal of deformations at

the peak apparently protected the column from shear failure.

In contrast, nominal shear failure for Column B1 occurred

during the subsequent negative drift excursion, resulting in

clearly visible shear distress in the column (refer to Ghannoum and Moehle [2012]).

All four models produced conservative estimates of drifts

at shear-failure initiation. The models of Kato and Ohnishi

(2002) and Sasani (2007) produced the most accurate estimates of the nominal shear-failure drifts. The Kato and

Ohnishi (2002) model requires the input of drift ratio at yield

which, for this study, was taken directly from data measured

during the test, whereas the results for the Sasani (2007)

model were based entirely on data external to the shaketable test.

where

m cp 2

D

je 3en

p

=

L m cp

4

D j 2 3 5en 3

e

a

h

CONCLUSIONS

A detailed analytical model was developed to simulate the

dynamic behavior of a three-story, three-bay, RC frame up

to the point of severe shear-strength degradation and axial

failure of critical columns. A new zero-length fiber-section

representation of longitudinal bar slip from anchorage

regions was introduced. Good correlation between measured

and calculated load-deformation behaviors was observed at

(8)

Column A1

Column B1

Measured or calculated

Calculated/measured

Measured or calculated

Calculated/measured

Measured

3.65

4.66

2.39

0.65

2.18

0.47

3.39

0.93

3.90

0.84

1.90

0.52

1.82

0.39

Sasani (2007)

3.89

1.07

4.00

0.86

Drift ratio at nominal shear failure is absolute value of drift ratio at which shear resistance capacity drops to 80% of maximum shear.

From Test 2.

411

the frame system and element levels. The model was capable

of simulating the important aspects of the measured dynamic

response from low deformation levels to well beyond flexural yielding. The following observations and recommendations are derived from this analytical exercise:

1. Force formulation fiber-section elements and zero-length

fiber-section bar-slip models can reproduce RC frame element

flexural behavior with high fidelity, as they are able to adapt

to variations in frame element boundary conditions (that is,

end restraints and axial loads). Such analytical models are

relatively simple to implement, as they only require section

geometry and material properties as input variables.

2. A bilinear longitudinal bar stress-versus-slip relation that

is based on a bi-uniform anchorage bond stress provided a

good basis for bar-slip-induced rotation modeling. An elastic

anchorage bond stress of 12

fc psi (1

produced adequate estimates of bar-slip-induced rigid body

rotations in frame elements.

3. A concrete material ultimate tension stress of 7.5 fc psi

(0.62 fc MPa) and linear tension-softening slope of E0/5

(where E0 is the concrete material tangent modulus at zero

strain) produced adequate estimates of column flexural

cracking moments and softening.

4. The longitudinal steel yield stress should be increased

appropriately in cases where high strain rates are anticipated.

5. Currently available column strength and deformationbased shear-failure models produced shear-failure estimates

with large scatter. The models studied herein produced

conservative estimates.

6. The test frame response could not be modeled with

high fidelity past shear-failure initiation of critical columns,

although the failure sequence of critical columns was

correctly modeled. Further refinement in available shearfailure models is required.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering

Research Center (PEER) through the Earthquake Engineering Research

Centers Program of the National Science Foundation under Award No.

EEC-9701568 and by NSF Award No. 0618804. The opinions, findings,

and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect those of NSF. The laboratory tests were

conducted in the research laboratories of PEER at the University of

California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, MI, 473 pp.

ASCE/SEI Committee 41, 2007, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing

Structures (ASCE/SEI 41/06), American Society of Civil Engineers,

Reston, VA, 428 pp.

Berry, M. P., 2006, Performance Modeling Strategies for Modern

Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns, PhD dissertation, University of

Washington, Seattle, WA.

Charney, F. A., 2008, Unintended Consequences of Modeling Damping

in Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 134, No. 4,

pp. 581-592.

Elwood, K. J., 2004, Modeling Failures in Existing Reinforced Concrete

Columns, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 31, pp. 846-859.

Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. O., 2009, Effective Stiffness of

Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 4,

July-Aug., pp. 476-484.

412

Concrete Columns with Light Transverse Reinforcement, Earthquake

Spectra, V. 21, No. 1, pp. 71-89.

Ghannoum, W. M., 2007, Experimental and Analytical Dynamic

Collapse Study of a Reinforced Concrete Frame with Light Transverse

Reinforcements, PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,

Berkeley, CA, 362 pp.

Ghannoum, W. M., and Moehle, J. P., 2012, Shake-Table Tests of

a Concrete Frame Sustaining Column Axial Failures, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 109, No. 3, May-June, pp. 393-402.

Ibarra, L. F.; Medina, R. A.; and Krawinkler, H., 2005, Hysteretic

Models that Incorporate Strength and Stiffness Deterioration, Earthquake

Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 34, No. 12, pp. 1489-1511.

Kato, D., and Ohnishi, K., 2002, Axial Load Carrying Capacity of R/C

Columns under Lateral Load Reversals, The Third U.S.-Japan Workshop on

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced

Concrete Building Structures, Seattle, WA, pp. 247-255.

Lehman, D., and Moehle, J. P., 2000, Seismic Performance of WellConfined Concrete Bridge Columns, 1998/01, UCB/PEER, University of

California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

Lowes, L. N.; Mitra, N.; and Altoontash, A., 2003, A Beam-Column

Joint Model for Simulating the Earthquake Response of Reinforced

Concrete Frames, 2003/10, UCB/PEER, University of California,

Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 59 pp.

Malvar, L. J., 1998, Review of Static and Dynamic Properties of

Steel Reinforcing Bars, ACI Materials Journal, V. 95, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.,

pp. 609-616.

Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., 1988, Theoretical StressStrain Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.

McKenna, F.; Fenves, G. L.; Scott, M. H.; and Jeremie, B., 2000, Open

System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, OpenSees, Berkeley, CA.

Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E., 1973, Method of Analysis for Cyclically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Plane Frames Including Changes in

Geometry and Nonelastic Behavior of Elements under Combined Normal

Force and Bending, Proceedings of IABSE Symposium on Resistance and

Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well-Defined Repeated

Loads, Lisbon, Portugal.

Monti, G., and Spacone, E., 2000, Reinforced Concrete Fiber Beam

Element with Bond-Slip, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

V. 126, No. 6, pp. 654-661.

Otani, S., 1974, Inelastic Analysis of R/C Frame Structures, Journal of

the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 100, pp. 1433-1449.

Petrini, L.; Maggi, C.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Calvi, G. M., 2008, Experimental Verification of Viscous Damping Modeling for Inelastic Time

History Analyzes, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 12, pp. 125-145.

Priestley, M. J. N., and Grant, D. N., 2005, Viscous Damping in Seismic

Design and Analysis, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 9, No. 2,

pp. 229-255.

Pujol, S.; Ramirez, J. A.; and Sozen, M. A., 1999, Drift Capacity of

Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Cyclic Shear Reversal, Seismic

Response of Concrete Bridges, SP-187, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 255-274.

Sasani, M., 2007, Life-Safety and Near-Collapse Capacity Models for

Seismic Shear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 104, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 30-38.

Scott, B. D.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., 1982, Stress-Strain

Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High

Strain Rates, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 13-27.

Sezen, H., and Moehle, J. P., 2006, Seismic Tests of Concrete Columns

with Light Transverse Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103,

No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 842-849.

Sezen, H., and Setzler, E. J., 2008, Reinforcement Slip in Reinforced

Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 3, May-June,

pp. 280-289.

Spacone, E.; Filippou, F. C.; and Taucer, F. F., 1996, Fibre Beam-Column

Model for Non-Linear Analysis of R/C Frames: Part I. Formulation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 25, No. 7, pp. 711-725.

Zhao, J., and Sritharan, S., 2007, Modeling of Strain Penetration Effects

in Fiber-Based Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 104, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 133-141.

- Soft Rock PillarsDiunggah olehvttrlc
- On Finite Element Analysis of Pipe Whip ProblemsDiunggah olehvijaynit
- Ultimate strength of fillet welded connections loaded in planeDiunggah olehPatrick Polujan
- Slab Punching Shear SpreadsheetDiunggah olehRaju Shrestha
- Seal Ultrasonic Cleaner Modify-Frequency 5547 x 10Diunggah olehSayyid Ridho
- 856201201 b 04Diunggah olehCarlosMartinez
- Concrete Aggregate and Mortar CrackingDiunggah olehErkan Şamhal
- 2nd IAHR 1972 Leningrad-AllDiunggah olehAnonymous ZO1piE3V
- Aci Structural Journal January-february 2013 v. 110 No. 1 CompleteDiunggah olehBaderul Hisham Ahmad
- Quadri3 Frequency 1 1Diunggah olehManoj Kumar
- MatLibDiunggah olehBoonme Chinnaboon
- 4Diunggah olehkrishnanunni
- 13_64Diunggah olehProfNDAcharya
- Application of Steel Channels as StiffenersDiunggah olehnareshpatil114
- 6.Eng-behaviour of Reinforced -Shivani SridharDiunggah olehImpact Journals
- Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments FEMA.pdfDiunggah olehMarius Hirtopanu
- Defi NationDiunggah olehkabardey46
- VesselDiunggah olehAnonymous xcFcOgMi
- Rotational Stiffness of Continuous Composite Beams With Sinusoidal Web Profiles for Lateral Torsional Bucklinguckling 2012 Journal of Constructional Steel ReDiunggah olehMarco Figueiredo
- 98-s76Diunggah olehTavio TavioTavio
- Tablet press modelDiunggah olehmarcelo
- Chapter 1 Stress and Strain Part ADiunggah olehWilson Lim
- 2 Section AnalysisDiunggah olehkhairulhakam
- Chapter 4 AllDiunggah olehRobel Metiku
- ME2303Diunggah olehGalih Pramudita
- 16 Table of NotationsDiunggah olehTooling ganesh
- Nonlinear Static Analysis of a Coker Support Structure.pdfDiunggah olehani_dat
- Blast Proof BuildingsDiunggah olehAnonymous I1tOPIZSk
- v080n01p037Diunggah olehdptchut
- boekenplankstandaard zr-100Diunggah olehapi-325242537

- Bridge Vulnerablity CurvesDiunggah olehnimish.aquamarine
- Influencer Marketer's Guide to B2B Influencer MarketingDiunggah olehBah Ram
- elastomeric bearings: background information and field studyDiunggah olehBah Ram
- Yevgeny Grinko - Vals - Piano Sheet MusicDiunggah olehIman
- 2 Pinching Limit State Material - OpenSeesWikiDiunggah olehBah Ram
- ch10mandDiunggah olehKuber Bogati
- Norrsken Harder Full Score 2 2Diunggah olehLiisa Õunmaa
- 14 (Failure Modes) Failure Mode Classification of Reinforced Concrete Column Using Fisher MethodDiunggah olehBah Ram
- Yevgeny Grinko - Vals - Piano Sheet MusicDiunggah olehIman
- Baker (2008) Pulse ID_ GEESD for DistributionDiunggah olehBah Ram
- LimitStateMaterialManualDiunggah olehBah Ram
- Magnitude Scaling of the Near Fault Rupture Directivity PulseDiunggah olehBah Ram
- larzeeye polhaDiunggah olehbehdad736
- Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete ColumnsDiunggah olehrjtcosta
- 14 (Failure Modes) Failure Mode Classification of Reinforced Concrete Column Using Fisher MethodDiunggah olehBah Ram

- Presentation - 21(Intermediate Columns)Diunggah olehChristopher Nazareno
- hw1Diunggah olehBon Traquena
- D- Internet Myiemorgmy Iemms Assets Doc Alldoc Document 987 Issues Related to EarthquakeDiunggah olehDennis Kueh
- Damage-free Seismic Response of Multi-story Timber-steel Hybrid Structures With Supplemental DampersDiunggah olehcontrerasc_sebastian988
- aci318-14Diunggah olehVinicio Cola
- Yellowstone.pdfDiunggah olehEdu Tadeu
- Main Point vs Purpose Com StudiesDiunggah olehAnissa Geddes
- UBC DiscussionsDiunggah olehSebastian Eron David
- research proposalDiunggah olehmeshca s
- Lowongan PT PLN 2 November 2018Diunggah olehfinah soeg
- Tdswm Equake Guidance DocumentDiunggah olehjokendallhouse
- Coastal Hazard Early Warning Systems in Pakistan: Tsunami and Cyclone Early Warning Dissemination: Gaps and Capacities in Coastal Areas of Balochistan and Sindh ProvincesDiunggah olehOxfam
- BSG 5 Gold TeamDiunggah olehChirag Shah
- AstroDiunggah olehVenkatramaiah Sudarsan
- Progressive Climate Change and DisastersDiunggah olehJose Francisco Sotelo Leyva
- sumatera basin.pdfDiunggah olehAbrian Ade Setiawan
- TomographyDiunggah olehAhmed Magdy
- Rio AntirionDiunggah olehHarun Al Rasyid Adnan
- 120th Anniversary Of SeismologyIn BulgariaDiunggah olehNestor Rodriguez
- The Translator. Volume 7, Number 2 (2001), 249-263 ISBN 1-900650-50-9Diunggah oleheverpassenger
- EW Resistant Coupling BeamsDiunggah olehcadel
- Decade in PicturesDiunggah olehDeepa H
- Eccentric Beam-column JointDiunggah olehsokamanty
- 3071 DGEN 5-14-0001 3 Technical Specification_QATAR PETROLEUMDiunggah olehisrar khan
- Pakistan Confined Masonry English Version 1.0Diunggah olehmlamour
- PIANC Seismic DesignDiunggah olehMMexp
- Behavior and design of single plate shear connectionsDiunggah olehMilmxmen
- Jiang Et Al-2017-The Structural Design of Tall and Special BuildingsDiunggah olehKepian Hussein Drabo
- PlanetX NewsLetter 2016 Issue 4Diunggah olehChrisThomasWakefield
- Part-1 Structural Geo-Lectures Dr.Z.hamimiDiunggah olehCesar Chavez