Reinforced Concrete Columns with High-Strength Concrete and Steel Reinforcement, Part 1 ACI Fall 2012 Convention October 21 24, Toronto, ON ACI WEB SESSIONS
Dr. Hassan Aoude, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa. He is a Ph.D. graduate from McGill University and has a Masters degree from cole de Technologie Suprieure (Montreal, Canada). Dr. Aoudes main research interests relate to the structural use of high performance and fibre reinforced concretes. In addition to research, Dr. Aoude teaches courses in both official languages at the University of Ottawa.
ACI WEB SESSIONS
Outline of Presentation Blast Behaviour of Ultra High Strength CRC Columns
Russell Burrell (MASc. Candidate) Hassan Aoude (PhD, Asst. Professor) Murat Saatcioglu (PhD, Professor)
1. Introduction UHPC and CRC 2. Why use CRC in blast resistant design ? 3. Literature Review 4. Blast Loading & UOttawa Shocktube 5. Experimental Program 6. Results / Discussion 7. Analysis
October 22nd, 2012
8. Conclusions
Outline of Presentation 1. Introduction UHPC and CRC 2. Why use CRC in blast resistant design ? 3. Literature Review 4. Blast Loading & UOttawa Shocktube 5. Experimental Program 6. Results / Discussion 7. Analysis 8. Conclusions
Concrete, a versatile material but
Plain Concrete : weak and brittle in tension/flexure
High strength Concrete : brittle in compression
Reinforced concrete: susceptible to deterioration
12/27/2012
What is UHPC ? Ultra High Performance Concrete is innovative class of concrete material. a new and
Compact Reinforced Composite (CRC)
UHPC developed by Cement and Concrete Laboratory of Aalborg Portland in 1986, now marketed by CRC Technology (Denmark) High compressive strength (140 MPa 400 MPa) Good Flexural strength (10 30 Mpa) Steel Fibers: 2-6% fibers ... Toughness, Ductility
When compared to traditional concretes : High compressive strength Good flexural / tensile strength Superior ductility Excellent durability hence the term Ultra-High Performance.
Compact Reinforced Composite (CRC)
Behaviour in compression
Compact Reinforced Composite (CRC)
Behaviour in direct tension
(Adapted from Nielson (1995))
(Adapted from Nielson (1995))
Compact Reinforced Composite (CRC)
Behaviour in fresh state (without fibers)
Compact Reinforced Composite (CRC)
Some current applications: staircases, balcony slabs ...
12/27/2012
Compact Reinforced Composite (CRC)
Potential for use in heavily loaded structures
Outline of Presentation 1. Introduction UHPC and CRC 2. Why use CRC in blast resistant design ? 3. Literature Review 4. Blast Loading & UOttawa Shocktube 5. Experimental Program 6. Results / Discussion 7. Analysis 8. Conclusions
Why CRC in blast resistant design?
Increasingly important to ensure that strategic buildings are blast resistant. Failure of ground-storey columns in buildings can lead to progressive collapse.
Why CRC in blast resistant design?
Columns need to be properly detailed Ductility Highly congested sections Use of CRC: Improve performance ? Improve constructability ?
(source: FEMA) (source: FEMA)
Outline of Presentation 1. Introduction UHPC and CRC 2. Why use CRC in blast resistant design ? 3. Literature Review 4. Blast Loading & UOttawa Shocktube 5. Experimental Program 6. Results / Discussion 7. Analysis 8. Conclusions
SFRC and UHPFRC at high stress rates:
SFRC Research data is conflicting Performance improvements absent at high stress rates ??? CRC & other UHPFRC Limited research shows improved performance when compared to traditional concrete and SFRC
Limited research on Blast performance of SFRC and UHPC structural components
12/27/2012
Bindiganavile et al. (2002)
Bindiganavile et al. (2002)
SFRC
(Adapted from Bindiganavile et al. (2002))
(Adapted from Bindiganavile et al. (2002))
Bindiganavile et al. (2002)
Bindiganavile et al. (2002) CRC specimens at different drop-heights
CRC
200 mm
(Adapted from Bindiganavile et al. (2002))
700 mm
1000 mm (Adapted from Bindiganavile et al. (2002))
CRC impact (Projectile test)
CRC impact (Projectile test)
Concrete after impact (total thickness 100 cm)
12/27/2012
CRC impact (Projectile test)
Outline of Presentation 1. Introduction UHPC & CRC 2. Why use CRC in blast resistant design ? 3. Literature Review 4. Blast Loading & UOttawa Shocktube 5. Experimental Program 6. Results / Discussion 7. Analysis 8. Conclusions
CRC Concrete CRC: Strength:140 Mpa + Densit Binder cement and microsilica Water-Binder ratio 0.18 Prepackaged bags (add water, fibers)
Fibers: Stratec OL 12/0.40 Smooth/straight 12mm Length, 0.40mm Diameter Content : 2% to 6% by volume
Test Procedure and Instrumentation
Fixed Support Load Transfer Device
Test Procedure Average Driver Name Pressure Psi (kPa) kPa kPa*msec 125 387 748 893 1355 msec 21.36 22.95 26.21 25.09 33.04 Driver Length ft (mm) Reflected Pressure Average Reflected Impulse Average Positive Phase Duration
Column LVDTs
Blast 1 Blast 2 Blast 3 Fixed Support Hydraulic jack Blast 4 Blast 5
10 (69) 30 (207) 80 (552) 100 (689) 100 (689)
9 (2743) 9 (2743) 9 (2743) 9 (2743) 14 (4267)
13.28 42.75 78.90 96.28 81.54
Test Procedure
Test Procedure Blast 3,4,5 Ultimate
Blast 2 Yield Blast 1 Elastic
12/27/2012
Outline of Presentation 1. Introduction UHPC and CRC 2. Why use CRC in blast resistant design ? 3. Literature Review 4. Blast Loading & UOttawa Shocktube 5. Experimental Program 6. Results / Discussion 7. Analysis 8. Conclusions
Effect on: Mid-Span Displacements (Maximum and Residual)
Mid-span displacements Blast 1 (elastic shot) no trend emerges Blast 2 (just to yield) no trend emerges Blast 3 can be used to study effect of test parameters
CRC-4%-75 Non-seismic -Buckling of rebar -Fails at Blast 3 Seismic -Prevents Buckling -Fails at Blast 4 Damage tolerance Prevents buckling
SCC-0%-75
CRC-4%-75
SCC/Seismic vs. CRC-4% Blast 3
SCC/Seismic vs. CRC-4% Blast 4
SCC-0%-38 CRC-4%-75
SCC-0%-38 CRC-4%-75
12/27/2012
CRC - Failure Blasts
2% fibers 4% fibers 2% fibers +seismic
CRC Failure mode
Blast 4
Blast 5
Blast 4 2nd application
Rupture of tensile steel Fibers pullout at single crack
Secondary fragments: SCC vs.
CRC
Secondary fragments: SCC/seismic vs.
CRC@2%
Blast 3
Blast 4
Blast 3 SCC-0%-75
Blast 3 SCC-0%-38 (seismic)
10
12/27/2012
Blast 3 CRC-4%-75
Blast 4 SCC-0%-38 (seismic)
Blast 4 CRC-2%-38 (seismic)
Side-note: SCC vs. SCC + fibers
Blast 3 0%
0.5% 1.0% 1.5%
Side-note: SCC/Seismic vs. SCC+ Fibers
Blast 3 seismic 1%
Side-note: SCC vs. SCC + Fibers
SCC-75-0% SCC-75-1.5%
1.5%
Improved damage tolerance Does not prevent rebar buckling (fails at Blast 3)
11
12/27/2012
Outline of Presentation 1. Introduction UHPC and CRC 2. Why use CRC in blast resistant design ? 3. Literature Review 4. Blast Loading & UOttawa Shocktube 5. Experimental Program 6. Results / Discussion 7. Analysis 8. Conclusions
SDOF Analysis SDOF analysis used to determine the maximum mid-span displacement of the columns subjected to triangular pulse load
(a) P
(b)
SDOF Analysis x
Lpl
L/2
Uniforml y distribut ed blast load , w
Lpl Lpl
Plane of symmetry
Linear elastic beam L/2 Non-linear rotational springs at support and mid-span y Real structure Lumped inelasticity analogy
RCBlast (Jacques et al., 2011) 1. User inputs include material and cross sectional properties, axial load 2. Generates moment-curvature diagrams 3. Computes hinge rotation and rotational spring stiffness 4. Generate Resistance Function and Load-Mass Factors 5. SDOF analysis using idealized Blast load
Lpl
RCBlast SDOF Analysis
RCBlast SDOF Analysis
12
12/27/2012
RCBlast SDOF Analysis
Material Modeling CONCRETE SCC Unconfined Hognestad (1951) Based on cylinder tests Confined Lgeron & Paultre (2003) Paultre et al. (2010) Tension DIF 1.19
CRC
Lok and Pei (1998)
STEEL -
Tension Based on coupon tests
Compression Yalcin & Saatcioglu
DIF 1.17 (upto ultimate) 1.05 (after)
Tension Model Lok and Pei
Concrete
CRC
Steel
13
12/27/2012
Analytical Results SCC-0%-75
Blast 3 150
Analytical Results CRC-2%-75
Blast 3 100
Experimental Analysis 125
Experimental Analysis 80
Mid-Span Displacement (mm)
100
Mid-Span Displacement (mm) Dexp = 126.23 mm Danls = 124.79 mm
60
75
40
50
25
20
-25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Dexp = 67.76 mm Danls = 57.88 mm
-20 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Time (msec)
Time (msec)
Conclusions
Seismic detailing provides increased confinement and ductility: reduces max. & resid. displacements to structural members subjected to blast loading Use of CRC: reduces max. & resid. displacements to structural members subjected to blast loading increases damage tolerance reduces amount of secondary blast fragments improves blast performance SDOF analysis can predict the maximum displacement of structural members constructed of SCC and CRC
