Jiang Et Al-2017-The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2017; 26: e1304

Published online 4 August 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1304
Numerical simulation of mega steel reinforced concrete columns

with different steel sections
Huanjun Jiang1,2*,, Yinghui Li1,2 and Jianmei Zhu3

1
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
2
Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
3
PingAn Real Estate Group Limited Company, Shanghai, China
SUMMARY
In recent years, the mega steel reinforced concrete (SRC) columns have been applied in super-tall buildings.
The previous research on SRC columns mainly focuses on the components with simple arrangement of
encased steel, such as H-shaped steel and cross-shaped steel, with little attention paid to mega SRC columns
that always have complicated encased steel and large steel ratio. The cyclic loading tests were carried out on
scaled mega SRC column specimens with different cross-section type of encased steel and steel ratio. The
nonlinear three-dimensional nite element and ber element models were established respectively to
simulate the inelastic behavior of mega SRC columns. The equivalent plastic strain of concrete, steel and
rebar as well as the connement effect on the concrete caused by the rebar and the steel plate were analyzed
subsequently. By using the veried numerical model, the seismic behavior of specimens with different axial
compression ratio was also studied. The test and analysis results indicate that the steel ratio and axial
compression ratio have signicant effects on the seismic performance of mega SRC columns, while the
effect of cross-section type of encased steel is not signicant. Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 18 March 2016; Revised 04 May 2016; Accepted 30 June 2016
KEY WORDS: mega SRC columns; numerical simulation; cross-section type of steel; steel ratio
1. INTRODUCTION
Steel reinforced concrete (SRC) columns have the advantages of steel columns and RC columns, such
as high strength, stiffness, ductility and excellent performance of re resistance and durability, which
can reduce the space of columns in buildings effectively. During the past few decades, SRC columns
with H-shaped steel and cross-shaped steel have been used in many tall buildings all over the world
and many studies have been conducted for SRC columns to investigate the load-carrying capacity
(Wang, 1999; Mirza and Lacroix, 2004; Kim et al., 2013), behavior under uniaxial bending and axial
compressive load and its inuence factors (El-Tawil and Deierlein, 1999; Li and Matsui, 2000; Hsu
et al., 2004; Weng et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2014).
While with the increase of the height of the tall buildings in recent years, the size of the SRC col-
umns in the lower oor has been becoming huger to carry the heavy upper weight and resist the lateral
load. The section areas of SRC columns in super-tall buildings over 300 m in height are usually so
large that cross section of encased steel can be complicated, and there can be many choices to select
the type of the encased steel besides cross-shaped or H-shaped steel (Lu et al., 2013; Lu and Jiang,
2014). In addition, the steel ratios of mega SRC columns are usually higher than normal SRC columns.
The cross section of the mega SRC column with the area of nearly 20 m2 used in the 632-m high
Shanghai Tower and that of mega SRC column with steel ratio almost reaching 30% used in the
*Correspondence to: Huanjun Jiang, Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji Univer-
sity, Shanghai 200092, China.
E-mail: jhj73@tongji.edu.cn
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 15

2 of 15 H. JIANG, Y. LI AND J. ZHU
New CCTV Tower are shown in Figure 1. However, very limited experimental studies and numerical
analysis have been carried out on mega SRC columns with complicated steel section and high steel
ratio. Through the cyclic loading tests on ten specimens, Chen et al. (2005) studied the seismic behav-
ior of SRC columns with T-shaped steel section that may be used to achieve a ush face of the beams
and the columns in an exterior frame for the architectural reasons. Lu et al. (2013, 2014) conducted
cyclic loading tests on eight scaled SRC columns with cross-shaped steel and steel ratio of 13.12
and 15.04% and then proposed a restoring force model for SRC columns with high steel ratio.
Ellobody and Ben (2011) investigated the behavior of pin-ended axially loaded concrete encased steel
composite columns using nonlinear three-dimensional nite element models. Lu et al. (2013) con-
ducted the research on earthquake-induced collapse simulation for a super-tall mega-braced frame-core
tube building, in which the mega concretesteel composite columns were modeled using the ber
element.
The Jiang et al. (2015) have conducted the experimental investigation on scaled mega SRC column
specimens with different cross-section type of encased steel and steel ratio. This paper presents a
detailed numerical simulation using the nonlinear three-dimensional nite element and ber element
methods respectively. The three-dimensional nite element analyses were carried out to study the de-
formation mechanism of specimens and stress and strain states of concrete, steel and rebar with the aid
of ABAQUS. The connement effect caused by the encased steel and rebar was also analyzed. Consid-
ering the efciency and accuracy, ber element models were also constructed to simulate the seismic
behavior of mega SRC column specimens, which can be used in the further research to study the global
structural performance of super-tall buildings. Based on the veried numerical model, additional
parametric studies were conducted to investigate the inuence of cross-section type of encased steel,
axial load ratio and steel ratio on the seismic behavior of the specimens.
2. DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS
Five 1/8-scaled mega SRC column specimens with three types of cross section of encased steel and
three steel ratios were designed according to the prototype of the mega SRC columns used in Shanghai
Tower. These test specimens had a rectangular cross section of 535 660 mm. The main design param-
eters of the specimens are shown in Table 1, and steel reinforcement details of the specimens are
shown in Figure 2. Shear studs were attached on the encased steel in line with the current Chinese
specication (CMC (China Ministry of Construction), 2010) to ensure that the encased steel and the
Figure 1. Cross sections of mega SRC columns used in (unit: mm): (a) Shanghai Tower and (b) New
CCTV Tower.
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2017; 26: e1304
DOI: 10.1002/tal
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SRC COLUMNS 3 of 15
Table 1. Design parameters of specimens.

Specimen Type of ss (%) H (mm) Longitudinal s (%) Transverse v (%) n
number encased steel bars bars
JZ1 A 3.9 3000 42 12 1.35 6@60 0.85 0.60
JZ2 A 7.8 3000 42 12 1.35 6@60 0.85 0.60
JZ3 A 11.2 3000 42 12 1.35 6@60 0.85 0.60
JZ4 B 7.8 3000 8 16 + 42 10 1.38 6@60 0.92 0.60
JZ5 C 7.8 3000 44 12 1.40 6@60 0.80 0.60
H represents the distance from loading point to the pedestal; ss represents the steel ratio; s represents the ratio of
longitudinal steel bar; v represents the ratio of transverse steel bar, and n represents the design axial compressive
load ratio.
Figure 2. Steel reinforcement details (unit: mm): (a) type A, (b) type B and (c) type C.
concrete work together. The encased steel details are shown in Figure 3. The actual strengths of con-
crete, steel plate and steel bars were obtained via material property tests, and the properties of these
materials can be found in another article of Jiang et al. (2015).
All the specimens were loaded under a constant axial load and then subjected to a cyclic lateral
force. The overall test arrangement is shown in Figure 4. When testing, the target vertical load was
exerted on specimens by hydraulic jacks and kept constant throughout the entire testing process. Then,
the actuator attached to the top of the specimen through a connecting rod applied a lateral load. Strain
gauges attached to the ange of the encased steel were used to monitor the yielding of the extreme ber
of encased steel. When the compression strain reached the yielding strain of the steel, the lateral load
control mode was switched from load control to displacement control.
3. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
3.1. Model overview

The commercial nite element software ABAQUS was employed to simulate the behavior of mega
SRC column specimens. The three-dimensional eight-node linear brick and reduced integration with
hourglass control solid element (C3D8R) was used for the concrete and encased steel. The two-node
linear displacement truss element (T3D2) was used for reinforcing bars. The truss elements were
embedded in the concrete instance using the *EMBEDDED ELEMENT option. Considering the shear
studs attached on the encased steel shown in Figure 2 that ensure the encased steel and concrete work
together, the elements of encased steel were tied with the elements of concrete in the contact surfaces
using the *Tie option. In addition, the pedestal and loading connection hinge were also modeled using
the solid element. The contact surfaces of loading connection hinge, column and pedestal were tied
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 3. Encased steel plate details (unit: mm): (a) JZ1, (b) JZ2, (c) JZ3, (d) JZ4 and (e) JZ5.
Figure 4. Test setup and arrangement of instruments.
using the *Tie option. The bottom surface of the pedestal was xed against all degrees of freedom. A
reference point was modeled on the top of the loading connection hinge, which was constrained with
the top surface of the loading connection hinge using the *COUPLING option available in the
ABAQUS library. The axial load and the lateral displacement were applied to the reference point.
The nite element model of JZ3 is shown in Figure 5.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 5. Finite element model of JZ3: (a) concrete model, (b) steel model, (c) rebar model and (d)
whole model.
The idealized elasto-plastic stressstrain curves for the encased steel and the reinforcing bars were
adopted in this study with the measured values of the yielding stress. The material behavior provided
by ABAQUS (using the *PLASTIC option) allows a nonlinear stressstrain curve to be used. The rst
part of the stressstrain curve represents the elastic part up to the proportional limit stress with the
Youngs modulus of 200 000 N/mm2 and the Poissons ratio equal to 0.3 in the nite element. The Mises
yield surface was used to dene isotropic yielding for the steel material, and the model assumes associ-
ated plastic ow. The uniaxial stress strain relationship of 4-mm-thick steel is shown in Figure 6(a).
The concrete was modeled using the damaged plasticity model implemented in the ABAQUS library.
The model utilizes the concept of isotropic damaged elasticity, in combination with isotropic tensile
and compressive plasticity, to represent the inelastic behavior of the concrete. The damaged plasticity
model adopts a yield condition based on the yield function proposed by Lubliner et al. (1989) and in-
corporates the modications proposed by Lee and Fenves (1998) to account for the different evolution
of strength under the tension and compression, which assumes non-associated potential ow rule. This
model is applicable in the situation that concrete is subjected to an essentially monotonic straining at
low connement pressures (less than four to ve times the largest compressive stress that can be
carried by the concrete in uniaxial compression). It is well known that the level of connement in
the concrete of SRC column is relatively low, and so, this model is adequate for this research. Susantha
et al. (2001) and Moon et al. (2012) used this model to study the connement effect of steel tubes on
the inlled concrete. Fang et al. (2015) utilized this model to study the seismic behavior of cross-
shaped SRC columns. In the absence of uniaxial compressive stressstrain test data, the modied Kent
and Park model (Scott et al., 1982) was adopted here. The Youngs modulus of concrete is equal to
26 800 MPa. The tension stiffening considered in the damaged plasticity model of concrete can be
specied by means of a post failure stressstrain relation in ABAQUS. The softening stressstrain
Figure 6. Uniaxial constitutive relationships of steel and concrete: (a) steel and (b) concrete.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
relation is represented by a linear line, which assumes that the tensile stress reduces to zero at a total
strain of 0.001, as recommended by ABAQUS. The axial tensile strength (ft) is dened as 0.1fc. The
uniaxial stress strain relationship of concrete is shown in Figure 6(b).
3.2. Analysis results

3.2.1. Lateral forcedisplacement skeleton curves
The lateral forcetop displacement curves of ve specimens obtained from the nite element analysis
(FEA) are compared with the skeleton curves obtained from test, as shown in Figure 7. It shows that
good agreement is achieved between the experimental and FEA curves, except for the initial tangent
stiffness.
The ultimate limit state was dened by the point on the descending section of the skeleton curves
with 15% force degradation, and relevant displacement was dened as the ultimate displacement.
The results of each test specimen were computed for two opposite loading directions, and the mean
values were taken as the representation values of the test specimens. The maximum lateral loads and
ultimate displacements obtained from the test and FEA are listed in Table 2. The average relative error
of maximum lateral loads is 8.4%, and the average relative error of ultimate displacements is 13.0%. It
can be seen that good agreement has been achieved between the two sets of results for the maximum
lateral load and ultimate displacement.
Both the FEA and test results indicate that the steel ratio has a signicant effect on the lateral load
carrying and deformation capacity of the specimens, and specimen with the steel type B has the largest
ultimate strength and displacement. As the specimens JZ1, JZ2 and JZ3 with the same cross-section
type of encased steel but different steel ratios are concerned, the lateral load carrying capacity increases
by almost 55%, and the lateral deformation capacity increases by almost 50% when the steel ratio
increases from 3.9 to 11.2%, which indicates the signicant effect of the steel ratio on the lateral load
Figure 7. Lateral forcedisplacement skeleton curves: (a) JZ1, (b) JZ2, (c) JZ3, (d) JZ4 and (e) JZ5.
Table 2. Comparison of maximum lateral loads and ultimate displacements.

Specimen number Maximum lateral loads Ultimate displacements
Test (kN) FEA (kN) FEA/test Test (mm) FEA (mm) FEA/test
JZ1 442.2 497.3 1.12 65.0 48.0 0.74
JZ2 561.5 616.9 1.10 68.5 62.0 0.91
JZ3 685.1 766.5 1.12 91.2 80.0 0.88
JZ4 618.8 651.4 1.05 77.0 65.8 0.85
JZ5 588.5 604.0 1.03 57.0 58.7 1.03
DOI: 10.1002/tal
carrying and deformation capacities of the specimens. As the specimens JZ2, JZ4 and JZ5 with the
same steel ratio but different encased steel types are concerned, the lateral load-carrying capacity of
JZ4 with encased steel type B is almost 7.5% larger than that of JZ2 and 6.5% larger than that of
JZ5; in addition, the lateral deformation capacity of JZ4 with encased steel type B is almost 10% larger
than that of JZ2 and 23% larger than that of JZ5, which indicates that the effect of the cross-section
type of encased steel on the lateral load carrying and deformation capacities is not as signicant as steel
ratio. The specimen JZ4 with encased steel type B has the better lateral load carrying and deformation
capacities than that of specimens with the other two steel types.
3.2.2. Strain responses

In the platform of ABAQUS, the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) was used to judge the degree of ma-
terial deformation. And, it is the sum of direct plastic strain components, if PEEQ > 0, then the material
in the deformation zone yield. The PEEQs of ve specimens are similar at the same damage state.
Here, take JZ1 as an example to illustrate the strain responses obtained by simulation.
The PEEQ of concrete of JZ1 at the ultimate limit state and relevant damage observed in test are
shown in Figure 8. The range of the deformation concentration area of JZ1 obtained from simulation
matches well with the damaged zone in the test. The critical section, where the PEEQ of concrete is the
largest and damage is severe, is about 300 mm away from the bottom end of the column, which
indicates that the pedestal provides the additional constraint to the column and enhances the strength
and deformation capacity of the concrete at the bottom end of the column.
The PEEQ of encased steel and rebar at the ultimate limit state is shown in Figure 9. As the
PEEQ < 0.02, it reveals that in the ultimate state, the strain of steel and rebar is still in the yielding
plateau, so the idealized elasto-plastic stressstrain curves of uniaxial constitutive of steel and rebar
are suitable in this study.
The PEEQ of concrete in different zone of JZ1 at the peak lateral load state is shown in Figure 10.
The largest PEEQ of cover concrete is 0.0057 and larger than 0.004, which reveals that the cover con-
crete has crushed and even spalled. The largest PEEQ of steel-conned concrete is 0.0021 and smaller
than 0.003, which reveals that the concrete has not reached the axial compression strength. On the
other hand, the largest PEEQ of rebar-conned concrete in is 0.0036 that reveals that some of the
rebar-conned concrete has reached the axial compression strength.
3.2.3. Stress responses

Figures 1115 show the concrete axial stress distribution of critical section, where the PEEQ of con-
crete is largest, of ve specimens at the yielding, peak load and ultimate limit state, respectively. The
concrete near the encased steel corner and stiffener plates is conned by the steel tube much more ef-
fectively than other part of the concrete, so the stress concentration appeared in these places. From the
stress distribution in the compress area of specimens especially in the ultimate state, there are four parts
Figure 8. Deformation concentration range of JZ1: (a) the PEEQ of concrete in FEA and (b) damaged
zone observed in test.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 9. PEEQ of encased steel and rebar in JZ1 at the ultimate limit state: (a) rebar and (b) steel.
Figure 10. PEEQ of concrete in JZ1 at the peak load state: (a) cover concrete, (b) rebar-conned
concrete and (c) steel-conned concrete.
Figure 11. Stress distribution of concrete at critical section of JZ1: (a) yielding state, (b) peak load
state and (c) ultimate limit state.
that appear, namely, cover concrete, rebar-conned concretes 1 and 2 and steel-conned concrete, as
shown in Figure 16.
The axial compression stress of concrete in the critical section changes dramatically with the
increase of lateral displacement. From the yield state to peak lateral load state then to ultimate state,
the stress of steel-conned concrete increases, while the stress of the other three parts of concrete
decreases so the region of high stress switches from the column edge to the central. In addition, the
section of highest stress switches from the bottom to the critical section where about 300 mm away
from the column bottom.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
As shown in Figures 1115, the steel ratio and steel type inuence the stress distribution, which
means that the steel ratio and steel type inuence the connement of steel to the concrete and higher
stress value means higher connement. With the steel ratio increase, the maximum stress increases
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 16. Different parts of concrete divided by steel and rebar.
at these three states. With the same steel ratio, although JZ5 with steel type C have the biggest steel
connement than the other two specimens with steel types A and B, its steel conning area is smaller
than the other two specimens indicated in Figure 3 that results in the smallest ultimate strength and ul-
timate displacement, as shown in Table 2. Although JZ2 and JZ4 with steel types A and B respectively
almost have the same amount of steel conning area, JZ4 with type B has larger connement and steel
plastic modulus indicated in Figure 3 that results in the largest ultimate strength and ultimate displace-
ment, as shown in Table 2.
4. FIBER ELEMENT ANALYSIS
4.1. Model overview

Fiber element analysis has been widely used to understand and predict the behavior of steel (Liew and
Chen, 2004), reinforced concrete (Spacone and Filippou, 1995) and steelconcrete composite elements
(Kim and Kim, 2006). The well-known Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(OpenSees) (Mazzoni et al., 2006) developed by the Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center
was used to simulate the seismic behavior of the mega SRC column specimens using FEA. Tiziano and
Roberto (2008) calculated the strength of a large number of concrete-lled tube columns using
OpenSees, and the results matched well with the AISC (2005) specications. Tsai et al. (2003) simu-
lated the dynamic behavior of CFST column to steel beam composite frames using OpenSees, and the
predicted results matched well with the experimental curves.
FEA models a structural element by dividing it into a number of two-end frame elements and by
linking each boundary to a discrete cross section with a grid of bers. Because each ber is associated
to a given uniaxial stressstrain material response, higher accuracy and more realistic behavior effects
can be captured in a ber-based model than in a frame-based model and at less computing time than for
a three-dimensional nite-based model (Tiziano and Roberto, 2008). FEA is obviously sensitive to the
assumptions in the uniaxial stressstrain curves for it cannot automatically consider the connement
on the concrete caused by steel like the three-dimensional constitutive relationship used in ABAQUS.
Consequently, stressstrain curves of concrete in different part of section should be considered
carefully. As a result of strain and stress analysis in the former section, the concrete can be divided into
four parts considering the connement provided by rebar and steel, as shown in Figure 16. The
concrete was simulated by concrete 01 model in OpenSees, and the connement effect was modeled
by setting the compression and crushing strength (fc and cu), strain at the maximum strength and
crushing strength (0 and cu), as shown in Figure 17(a).
The connement caused by rebar was considered using the functions proposed by Scott et al. (1982)
shown as follows:
v f yh
K 1 (1)
f ck
f c Kf ck (2)
0 0:002K (3)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 17. Stress versus strain relationships of concrete in OpenSees: (a) concrete 01 and (b) stress
versus strain relationships of concrete in JZ1.
cu 0:2f c (4)
0:9v f yh
cu 0:004 (5)
300
in which v is the volume ratio of hoop reinforcement, fyh is the yield strength of hoops and fck is the
prismatic compression strength of concrete. And, the connement caused by steel was considered
using the functions proposed by Han (2007) shown as follows:
As f ys
(6)
Ac f ck
" #
24 0:45
f c 1 0:054 0:4
2
f ck (7)
fc

f ck
0 1300 12:5f ck 1400 800 1 0:2
106 (8)
24
cu 0:2f c (9)
in which As is the cross area of encased steel, Ac is the cross area of inner concrete and fys is the yield
strength of encased steel. cu is not calculated directly but to match the descending curve of stress
strain relation proposed by Han (2007) shown as follows:
=0
2 (10)
f c
0 1 0
0:250:57
2:36105 f ck 2 3:15104 (11)
The units for stress and strain are N/mm2 and , respectively.
The stress versus strain relationships for the four parts of the concrete in JZ1 in OpenSees are shown
in Figure 17(b). The loading and unloading rules used in this model were described in the user manual
of OpenSees (Mazzoni et al., 2006). The ve specimens were modeled using the exibility-based non-
linear beamcolumn elements with discrete ber section model in OpenSees, with ve elements along
column, and 720 bers along cross section were divided. Fiber element models were subjected to the
cyclic and monotonic lateral loads respectively.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
4.2. Analysis results

4.2.1. Lateral forcedisplacement curves
The lateral forcedisplacement curves of ve specimens under cyclic and monotonic lateral load cal-
culated by OpenSees are compared with experimental results and FEA results, as shown in Fig. 18.
The comparison indicates that reasonable accuracy has been achieved for OpenSees in predicting
the seismic behavior of the mega SRC column specimens. The lateral loads calculated using OpenSees
under cyclic loading are generally a little lower than the values obtained under monotonic loading in
the same displacement, because the strength and stiffness degradation of concrete is considered in
concrete 01 model under cyclic loading. The lateral load of FEAs and ber element analyses are both
larger than that of test, which may be caused by the ignorance of steel and rebar buckling in the ber
element analyses and concrete spalling in ber element analyses and FEAs.
With the increase of steel ratio, the hysteretic loop gets fatter, the hysteretic behavior becomes more
stable, and the deterioration of strength and stiffness is more insignicant. The hysteretic behavior of
JZ3 with high steel ratio is similar to that of the steel member rather than the RC member. The effect of
cross-section type of encased steel on the hysteretic behavior of the specimen is not signicant.
4.2.2. Parameter study
Considering the accuracy and efciency of ber element analysis, parameter study was conducted on
the ve specimens. The lateral loaddisplacement curves for specimens JZ1, JZ2 and JZ3 with steel
type A but different steel ratios and axial compression ratio are shown in Figure 19. With the increase
Figure 18. Lateral forcedisplacement curves obtained from test and OpenSees: (a) JZ1, (b) JZ2, (c)
JZ3, (d) JZ4 and (e) JZ5.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 19. Comparison of specimens with different steel ratios: (a) n = 0.3, (b) n = 0.6 and (c) n = 0.9.
Figure 20. Effects on the ultimate strength: (a) effect of axial compression ratio and (b) effect of steel
ratio.
Figure 21. Comparison of specimens with different encased steel type: (a) n = 0.3, (b) n = 0.6 and (c)
n = 0.9.
of steel ratio, the initial stiffness, the peak load and the corresponding displacement increase. The
effect of steel ratio becomes insignicant when the axial compression ratio is large. With the increase
of axial compression ratio, the lateral loaddisplacement curves become steeper which means that the
ductility of the specimens decreases.
The effects of axial compression ratio and steel ratio on the ultimate strength are shown in Figure 20.
The ultimate strength rises up slowly at rst and then drops down with the axial compression ratio
increasing. For the columns with high steel ratio, the rate of descending part is higher than the columns
with low steel ratio. With the increase of steel ratio, the ultimate strength rises up roughly linearly. In
addition, the effect of the steel ratio on the ultimate strength is more apparent when the axial compres-
sion ratio is small.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
The lateral loaddisplacement curves of specimens JZ2, JZ4 and JZ5 with different cross section of
encased steel are shown in Figure 21. For these columns with the same steel ratio, the difference is not
signicant. Generally, the columns with the steel cross-section type of B have the largest ultimate strength
and displacement, while the columns with the steel cross-section type of C have the smallest ultimate
strength and displacement, which is the same as the analysis results of FEA models indicated in Table 2.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Five scaled mega SRC column specimens with different parameters were tested under lateral cyclic
loading. Three-dimensional nite element models were built to simulate the seismic behavior of
specimens and study the strain and stress state of the concrete, steel and rebar in the critical section
of specimens and the connement on the concrete caused by the rebar and steel. Fiber element models
were also built to study the seismic behavior of specimens providing the conned uniaxial constitutive
models we chose carefully. In addition, the numerical analyses were conducted with the specimens
under different axial compression ratio. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The three-dimensional nite element and ber element both can simulate the seismic behavior of
mega SRC columns with complicated encased steel accurately. While the three-dimensional FEA
can provide more detailed information about stress and strain states over a three-dimensional
region, thus the connement effect on the concrete can be evaluated by the stress distribution on
the concrete. The connement effect on the concrete caused by the steel is larger than that of the
rebar, and the connement effect increases with the increase of steel ratio. The mechanisms of
connement on the concrete are different for the different encased steel type. But considering the
computation time, the ber element analysis is more effective that can be used in the further
research to study the global structural performance of super-tall buildings.
2. With the increase of the steel ratio, the lateral load carrying capacity of specimens rises up
effectively and the hysteretic behavior becomes more stable. Meanwhile, the specimens having
higher steel ratio tend to have larger ultimate displacement. The inuence of the steel ratio is more
signicant when the axial compression ratio is low.
3. The effect of the cross-section type of encased steel on the seismic behavior of the mega SRC
columns is not signicant as steel ratio. Both the test and numerical analysis results indicate that
specimen with steel type B has the largest ultimate strength and displacement while specimen with
steel type C has the worst deformation capacity.
4. With the increase of the axial compression ratio, the ductility decreases, and the ultimate strength
rises up slowly at rst and then drops down.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The nancial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant no.
51478354 and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China through grant no. SLDRCE14-B-
21 is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
AISC. 2005. Specications for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-05: Chicago, IL, USA.
Chen CC, Li JM, Weng CC. 2005. Experimental behavior and strength of concrete-encased composite beamcolumns with
T-shaped steel section under cyclic loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61(7): 86381.
Chen CH, Wang CK, Sun HZ. 2014. Experimental study on seismic behavior of full encased steel-concrete composite columns.
Journal of Structural Engineering 140(604014024).
CMC (China Ministry of Construction). 2010. Code for Design of Concrete Structures (GB50010-2010). China Architecture
&Building Press: Beijing, China (in Chinese).
Ellobody E, Ben Y. 2011. Numerical simulation of concrete encased steel composite columns. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 67: 21122.
El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. 1999. Strength and ductility of concrete encased composite columns. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing 125(9): 100919.
Fang L, Zhang B, Jin GF, Li KW, Wang ZL. 2015. Seismic behavior of concrete-encased steel cross-shaped columns. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 109(2015): 2433.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Han LH. 2007. Concrete-lled steel tubular structures: theory and practice, second edn. Science Press: Beijing (in Chinese).
Hsu HL, Hsieh JC, Juang JL. 2004. Seismic performance of steel-encased composite members with strengthening cross-inclined
bars. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60(11): 166379.
Jiang HJ, Li YH, Yang ZQ. 2015. Experimental study on seismic performance of mega steel-reinforced concrete columns
subjected to cyclic loads. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2015(24): 962972.
Kim CS, Park HG, Chung KS, Choi IR. 2013. Eccentric axial load capacity of high-strength steel-concrete composite columns of
various sectional shapes. Journal of Structural Engineering 140(404013091).
Kim J, Kim T. 2006. Seismic performance of in-lled steel-concrete composite columns using ber analysis method. Journal of
Key Engineering Materials 326: 182124.
Lee J, Fenves GL. 1998. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
124(8): 892900.
Li L, Matsui C. 2000. Effects of axial force on deformation capacity of steel encased reinforced concrete beamcolumns.
Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper no. 1075.
Liew R, Chen H. 2004. Explosion and re analysis of steel frames using ber element approach. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing 130(7): 9911000.
Lu XL, Jiang HJ. 2014. Recent progress of seismic research on tall buildings in China Mainland. Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration 13: 4761.
Lu XL, Yin XW, Jiang HJ. 2013. Restoring force model for steel reinforced concrete columns with high steel ratio. Structural
Concrete 14(4): 41522.
Lu XL, Yin XW, Jiang HJ. 2014. Experimental study on hysteretic properties of SRC columns with high steel ratio. Steel and
Composite Structures 17(3): 287303.
Lu XZ, Lu X, Guan H, Zhang WK, Ye LP. 2013. Earthquake-induced collapse simulation of a super-tall mega-braced frame-core
tube building. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 82: 5971.
Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oate E. 1989. A plastic-damage model for concrete. International Journal of Solids and Structures
25(3): 299326.
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Fenves GL. 2006. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation user manual (ver. 1.7.0). Pacic
Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER, Univ. of California: Berkeley.
Mirza SA, Lacroix EA. 2004. Comparative strength analyses of concrete-encased steel composite columns. Journal of Structural
Engineering 130(12): 194153.
Moon J, Roeder CW, Lehman DE, Lee HE. 2012. Analytical modeling of bending of circular concrete-lled steel tubes.
Engineering Structures 42: 34961.
Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. 1982. Stress-strain behavior of concrete conned by overlapping hoops at low and high strain
rates. ACI Journal Proceedings 79(1): 1327.
Spacone E, Filippou F. 1995. A ber beam element for nonlinear dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete structures. Proceedings
of the 10th Conference, Engineering Mechanics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado, 81821.
Susantha KAS, Ge HB, Usami T. 2001. Connement evolution of concrete-lled box-shaped steel columns. Steel and Composite
Structure 1(3): 31328.
Tiziano P, Roberto L. 2008. Behavior of composite CFT beam-columns based on nonlinear ber element analysis. Proceedings
of 2008 Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete Conference VI, Devils Thumb Ranch, Tabernash, Colorado, USA;
2008. 23751.
Tsai KC, Weng YT, Lin ML. 2003. Pseudo dynamic tests of a full-scale CFT/BRB composite frame: displacement based seismic
design and response evaluations. In Proceeding of the international workshop on steel and concrete composite constructions.
Wang YC. 1999. Tests on slender composite columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 49(1): 2541.
Weng CC, Yin YL, Wang JC, Liang CY. 2008. Seismic cyclic loading test of SRC columns conned with 5-spirals. Science in
China Series E: Technological Sciences 51(5): 52955.
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES
Huanjun Jiang is a professor in structural engineering and the director of Research Institute of Structural
Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji University. He received his PhD in Structural Engineering
from Tongji University in China in 1999. His research interests include reinforced concrete structures,
steel-concrete composite structures, and performance-based seismic design of building structures.
Yinghui Li is a PhD candidate of Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction,
Tongji University. His research interests include performance-based seismic design of tall buildings
and seismic performance assessment of steel-concrete composite structures.
Jianmei Zhu received his Master degree in Structural Engineering from Tongji University in China in
2014. His research interest includes seismic performance assessment of steel-concrete composite
structures.
DOI: 10.1002/tal

Jiang Et Al-2017-The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Jiang Et Al-2017-The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2017; 26: e1304

Numerical simulation of mega steel reinforced concrete columns

Huanjun Jiang1,2*,, Yinghui Li1,2 and Jianmei Zhu3

Received 18 March 2016; Revised 04 May 2016; Accepted 30 June 2016

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 15

2. DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS

Table 1. Design parameters of specimens.

3. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

3.1. Model overview

Figure 4. Test setup and arrangement of instruments.

3.2. Analysis results

Table 2. Comparison of maximum lateral loads and ultimate displacements.

3.2.2. Strain responses

3.2.3. Stress responses

Figure 16. Different parts of concrete divided by steel and rebar.

4. FIBER ELEMENT ANALYSIS

4.1. Model overview

4.2. Analysis results

Вам также может понравиться