Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

4-3: Fardis

Otani Symposium 2003

DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF RC MEMBERS, AS CONTROLLED BY FLEXURE OR SHEAR

Michael N. Fardis and Dionysis E. Biskinis

Structures Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Greece E-mail: fardis@upatras.gr

SUMMARY

A large database of monotonic and cyclic uniaxial test results is utilised to develop models for the deformation capacity of R/C members. The database covers beams, columns with rectangular or circular section, walls with rectangular, T- or barbelled section, and hollow rectangular piers. Most of the tests in the database are up to specimen to failure, conventionally defined as a post-peak drop in lateral load resistance by at least 20%. One type of models developed for the chord rotation (or drift) capacity for flexure-controlled failure is based on curvatures in the plastic hinge - at yielding and ultimate, calculated on the basis of first principles and of different confinement models at ultimate - and on expressions for the plastic hinge length empirically fitted to the data. Except for columns with circular section, the predictions of this type of models are characterised by unacceptably large scatter and, often, by significant bias. Purely empirical models, statistically fitted to the data, are found to offer better predictive capability for the flexure- controlled chord rotation capacity of all types of members in the database with rectangular or quasi-rectangular section. For members under cyclic loading ultimately failing in shear after yielding in flexure, expressions of the familiar type are developed for the reduction of shear resistance with the chord rotation ductility ratio. These expressions, applicable over all types of members in the database, are characterised by low scatter for the prediction of shear resistance in terms of the post-elastic cyclic displacements, but cannot be meaningfully inverted to give a shear-controlled ductile deformation capacity. A model based on first principles with empirical corrections is also developed for the chord rotation (drift) at member yielding, as a tool for the models of deformation capacity as controlled by flexure or shear, as well as for the calculation of the secant stiffness of members at yielding.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have seen a large interest of the international earthquake engineering community in the quantification of the deformation capacity of R/C members. The emergence of procedures for seismic assessment of existing structures which entail member verifications explicitly in terms of deformations [ASCE, 2000 and 2001, Comité Européen de Normalisation, 2003a] and the forthcoming codification of the design of new structures directly on the basis of nonlinear analysis with explicit checks of member deformations [Comité Européen de Normalisation, 2003b], provide strong motivation for this interest. To support the effort of quantification of the deformation capacity of R/C members, the senior author of the paper and his co-workers have been assembling at the University of Patras over a period of almost ten years a databank of tests on R/C members. Early models for the deformations of R/C members at yielding and at flexure-controlled failure under monotonic or cyclic loading have been developed on the basis of the databank and reported in [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001]. The results of more recent efforts, still on flexure-controlled members, are included in [Federation Internationale du Beton, 2003a, 2003b]. The present paper represents a major stride in this on-going effort, not only because the database has recently been re-evaluated and increased in size by almost 50%, but mainly because it has been used also for the quantification of the resistance and deformation capacity of members which are controlled by shear.

511

Table 1 Database of member tests with measurement of deflection of shear span with respect to member axis at fixed end (chord rotation).

 

slip of long. bars from anchorage

 

All tests

All

 

Load history and mode of failure

 

beyond

flexural

 

flexural

failures

     

monotonic beyond

 

cyclic beyond flexural yielding

 

cyclic beyond

yielding

member type and cross-section

flexural yielding

shear yielding

(16)=(6)+

yes

no

all

       

flexural failures

 

shear failures

failure

failure by

web com-

pression

(7)+

no

flexural

all

no

conforming

detailing

non-conform.

detailing:

 

web

tension

web com-

pression

 

by web

tension

(10)+(11)

 

failure

failures

failure

all

sliding

+(12)+

(13)

(17)=

(5)+(10)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(a)

Column - Circular

 

160

0

160

3

0

3

39

76

0

76

44

0

0

19

0

162

76

 

Column - Rectangular,

                                 

(b)

conventional reinf/ment (ρ=ρ΄, ρ v 0, ρ d =0, ν≥0)

1080

77

1157

4

56

60

102

727

33

760

146

0

0

47

0

1068

816

 

Column - Rectangular,

                                 

(c)

diagonally reinforced (ρ=ρ΄, ρ v 0, ρ d >0, ν≥0)

59

0

59

0

4

4

3

52

0

52

0

0

0

0

0

59

56

(d)

Beam - Rectangular or T

132

149

281

0

215

215

0

52

1

53

0

0

0

0

0

268

268

(e)=(b)+

All beams or columns w/ rectang. web

1271

226

1497

4

275

279

105

831

34

865

146

0

0

47

0

1395

1140

(c)+(d)

(f)

Wall - Rectangular

 

63

0

63

0

1

1

9

46

2

48

1

1

5

0

0

65

49

(g)

Wall - T or barbelled

46

0

46

2

3

5

3

9

0

9

5

26

2

0

10

50

12

(h)=

Wall - All

 

109

0

109

2

4

6

12

57

0

57

6

27

7

0

10

115

61

(f)+(g)

(i)=

All columns, beams or walls w/ rectang. web

1380

226

1606

6

279

285

117

888

34

922

152

27

7

47

10

1510

1201

(e)+(h)

(j)

Pier - hollow rectangular

36

0

36

0

0

0

8

23

3

26

11

0

0

7

0

45

26

(k)=

All

members

with

1416

226

1642

6

279

285

125

911

37

948

163

27

7

54

10

1555

1227

(i)+(j)

rectangular web(s)

(l)

All tests

1576

226

1802

9

279

288

164

987

37

1024

207

27

7

73

10

1717

1303

4-3: Fardis

Otani Symposium 2003

2. THE DATABASE OF TEST RESULTS ON R/C MEMBERS

The databank of tests used in this paper comprises mainly specimens subjected to uniaxial transverse (i.e. lateral) loading with or without axial load - constant or varying. Of interest here are only specimens of that type. The main reason for assembling the database has been the development of models for the deformations that develop over the shear span, L s , of R/C members fixed at the section of maximum moment. Therefore, the databank is limited mainly to tests which report the transverse deflection at, or near, the point of zero-moment with respect to the specimen axis at the section of maximum moment. Such tests are on simple- or double-cantilever specimens, or on simply-supported beams loaded only at mid-span. This deflection is used here in the form of drift (ratio or angle), θ, i.e. deflection divided by the distance from the point of measurement to the section of maximum moment. Normally this distance is equal to the shear span or a multiple of it, and then θ is also the chord rotation at the section of maximum moment. Table 1 gives the breakdown of this type of specimens in the databank, depending on the specimen geometry (beams, columns - with conventional or diagonal reinforcement -, walls, or piers), type of loading (monotonic or cyclic), the mode of yielding or failure (due to flexure or shear, by web crushing or interface shear, etc.), and the occurrence or not of (bond-) slippage of longitudinal bars from their anchorage zone beyond the section of maximum moment. Normally, in simple- or double-cantilever specimens a certain amount of such slippage (pull-out) takes place, producing a fixed-end rotation that contributes to the deflection of the shear span. Due to symmetry, there is no such slippage in simply- supported beam specimens loaded only at mid-span, except when the load is applied through a bulky stub, long enough for rebar slippage to develop on both sides of the mid-span.

Table 2 Database of member tests with measurements of curvatures

   

slip of

load history and mode of failure

 

All tests

All

longitudinal.

monotonic

cyclic beyond flexural yielding

beyond

flexural

bars from

beyond

 

flexural failures

 

flexural

failures

anchorage

flexural

 

yielding

           

member type and cross- section

   

All

yielding -

non-

 

non-

All

 

yes

no

(3)=

(1)+(2)

all flexural

failure

failure

conforming

detailing

conforming

detailing

(8)=

(6)+(7)

(9)=

(4)+(5)

+(8)

(10)=

(4)+(8)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

 

Column - Rectang-

                   

(a)

ular, conventional- ly reinforced

138

36

174

49

1

70

6

76

126

125

(b)

Beam - Rectangular or T

37

162

199

181

0

6

0

6

187

187

 

All

beams

or

                   

(c)=

(a)+(b)

columns

rectangular web

with

175

198

373

230

1

76

6

82

313

312

(d)

Wall - Rectangular

5

0

5

0

0

3

2

5

5

5

 

Wall

-

T-

or

                   

(e)

barbelled

7

0

7

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

(f)=

Walls - All

 

12

0

12

0

0

4

2

6

6

6

(d)+(e)

(g)=

All columns, beams and walls

187

198

385

230

1

80

8

88

319

318

(c)+(f)

 

Pier

-

Hollow

                   

(h)

rectangular

 

14

0

14

0

0

8

0

8

8

8

(j)=

All members

 

201

198

399

230

1

88

8

96

327

326

(g)+(h)

In some tests of the databank the relative rotation between the section of maximum moment and a nearby section within the plastic hinge region has been measured and translated into an average curvature, φ, of the plastic hinge region, including or not effects of reinforcement slippage from its anchorage beyond the

513

4-3: Fardis

Otani Symposium 2003

section of maximum moment (Table 2). Some of these tests are not included in Table 1, because deflections with respect to the specimen axis at the section of maximum moment were either not reported, or could not be derived from the measurements (e.g. in beams with loading other than at mid-span alone).

Most of the tests in the databank were continued up to specimen ultimate conditions (failure), identified with a distinct change in the measured lateral force-deformation response: in monotonic loading, with a noticeable drop of lateral force after the peak (at least 20% of the maximum resistance); in cycling loading, with a distinct reduction of the reloading slope, or of the area of the hysteresis loops, or of the peak force, compared to those of the preceding cycle(s), typically associated with a drop in resisting force greater than 20% of the maximum resistance.

Reinforcing steel in the tests has been classified into three grades. Most specimens have ductile hot-rolled steel with hardening ratio, f t /f y , in the order of 1.5 and strain at peak stress, ε su , around 15%. In European tests heat-treated tempcore steel has been used after the early ‘90s, with a value of f t /f y around 1.2 and of ε su of the order of 8%. In about 60 monotonically tested European specimens, brittle cold-worked steel has been used, with a value of f t /f y about 1.1 and of ε su around 4%.

Table 3 Mean*, median* and coef. of variation of ratio experimental-to-predicted values at yielding

 

# of

   

coefficient

Quantity

data

mean*

median*

of variation

θ y,exp /θ y,Eq.(2) Beams, columns w/ rectangular section - w/o slip θ y,exp /θ y,Eq.(2) Beams, columns w/ rectangular section - w/ slip θ y,exp /θ y,Eq.(2) Beams, columns w/ rectangular section - All θ y,exp /θ y,Eq.(3) Walls (all w/ slip) θ y,exp /θ y,Eq.(4) Columns w/ circular section (all w/ slip)

198

1.05

1.00

29.5%

1151

1.05

0.995

40.0%

1349

1.05

0.995

38.6%

145

1.015

0.99

32.5%

160

1.05

0.99

33.4%

ϕ y,exp /ϕ y,pred.-1st-principles Beams, columns w/ rect. section - w/o slip ϕ y,exp /ϕ y,pred.-1st-principles Beams, columns w/ rect. section - w/ slip ϕ y,exp /ϕ y,pred.-1st-principles Beams, columns w/ rect. section - All

198

1.325

1.275

29.3%

175

1.205

1.06

37.6%

373

1.27

1.205

33.4%

M y,exp /M y,pred.-1st-principles Beams, columns & walls w/ rectangular section M y,exp /M y,pred.-1st-principles Columns w/ circular section

1513

1.025

1.015

16.2%

181

1.015

1.005

16.7%

(M y L s /3θ y ) exp /(M y L s /3θ y ) pred Beams, columns & walls w/ rectan. section

1412

1.10

1.035

40.9%

(M y L s /3θ y ) exp /(M y L s /3θ y ) pred Columns w/ circular section

152

1.07

1.035

31.2%

*

       

If the coefficient of variation is high, the median is more representative of the average trend than the mean, as the median of the ratio predicted-to-experimental value is always the inverse of the median of the ratio experimental-to- predicted value, whereas the mean of both ratios is typically greater than the median.

3. DRIFT (OR CHORD ROTATION) AT MEMBER YIELDING

The value of the chord rotation at yielding at the corresponding end of the member, θ y , is important as the baseline for the plastic component of the ultimate chord rotation (plastic rotation capacity), as well as the normalizing factor of chord rotation (total or plastic component), whenever this latter is expressed as ductility ratio, µ θ . More importantly, θ y determines, through Eq.(1), the value of the secant stiffness of the shear span, L s , at member yielding, often taken as the effective elastic stiffness in a bilinear force- deformation model of the shear span under monotonic loading:

EI

eff

=

M L

y

s

3θ

y

(1)

where M y is the yield moment in the bilinear M-θ model of the shear span.

The following expressions were derived from those tests in the databank with yielding in flexure:

For beams or columns with rectangular section:

514

4-3: Fardis

θ

y

=

φ

y

L

s

0.00275

ε

y

0.2 d

b

3

+

+ a

sl

(

d

d

')

 

f

y

f c
f
c

Otani Symposium 2003

(2)

For walls with rectangular, T-shaped, or H-shaped section, or for barbelled walls:

θ φ

y

=

y

L

ε

y

0.2 d

b

f

y

s

3

+

0.0025 + a

sl

(

d

d

')

f c
f
c

For columns with circular cross-section:

(3)

θ =φ

y

y

L

s

0.002

0.2 d

b

f

y

3

+

+ φ

a

sl

y

   
f c
f
c

(4)

If φ

over the shear span, the 1 st term in Eqs.(2)-(4) is the contribution of flexural deformations to θ y . The 2 nd term represents the magnitude of shear deformations within the shear span at flexural yielding and has been found to be practically independent of any factor other than the type of member in Eqs.(2)-(4). The 3 rd term is the fixed-end rotation due to bar pull-out from the anchorage zone and does not appear in Eqs. (2)-(4) when such pull-out is not physically possible. In that case a sl =0 is used in Eqs. (2)-(4) for the zero- one variable a sl , whereas a sl =1 applies if such pull-out is considered as possible. In the 3 rd term, ε y is the yield strain of the tension reinforcement, d or d’ denote the effective depth to the tension or to the compression reinforcement, respectively, d b is the diameter of the tension reinforcement and f y , f c the yield stress of tension reinforcement and the compressive strength of concrete (both in MPa). The 3 rd term

corresponds to a linear reduction of steel stress from f y to zero over a development length deriving from a

or

denotes the yield curvature at the section of maximum moment and if the moment diagram is linear

y

mean bond stress of 0.625

f c
f
c

(which is low in comparison to the ultimate bond stress of about 2

f c
f
c
2.5 f in unconfined or confined concrete respectively, but gives the best fit of Eqs.(2)-(4)
2.5
f
in unconfined or confined concrete respectively, but gives the best fit of Eqs.(2)-(4) to the data).
c
3.5
median:
1.4
2.4
θ y,exp =θ y,pred
median: θ y,exp =θ y,pr ed
3
1.2
median: θ y,exp =0.99θ y,pred
2
2.5
1
1.6
2
0.8
1.2
1.5
0.6
0.8
1
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3 .5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
Θ y,exp (%)

Θ y,pred (%)

(a) beams or columns; rectangular section, Eq.(2)

Θ y,pred (%)

(b) walls; rectangular, T- or H- section, Eq.(3)

Θ y,pred (%)

(c) columns; circular section, Eq.(4)

Figure 1 Comparison of experimental chord rotations at yielding to values from Eqs.(2)-(4)

The fit of Eqs.(2)-(4) to the data is shown in Figure 1, while the statistics of the ratio of experimental to predicted values are given in Table 3. This fit corresponds to a yield curvature, φ y , derived from first principles. More specifically, for rectangular or T-sections, φ y is derived on the basis of the plane-section hypothesis, of equilibrium, and of linear σ-ε laws up to a steel strain of ε y if section yielding is controlled by the tension reinforcement, or up to a concrete strain of 0.9f c /E c if it is controlled by the concrete in compression (see [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001] for expressions for φ y ). Similar assumptions are employed for circular sections, except that the concrete σ-ε law is taken parabolic up to a strain of 0.002 and recourse has to be made to an iterative algorithm [Biskinis et al, 2002].

Possibly due to the way in which experimental curvatures are derived from the relative rotations of two sections within the plastic hinge, the expressions developed for φ y from first principles do not provide unbiased estimates of the yield curvature in the 373 tests where such curvatures were measured. This is clear from Figure 2 and from the fact that median ratios of experimental-to-predicted φ y , listed in Table 3,

515

4-3: Fardis

Otani Symposium 2003

are well above 1.0 (interestingly, they are greater in the 198 tests in which measured curvatures were not affected by slippage of the rebars from the anchorage zone, than in the 175 tests where they were affected). Despite this discrepancy between measured values of φ y and the ones calculated from first principles, a closer fit to the data is possible through expressions of the type Eqs.(2)-(4) if these latter values are used instead of the empirical expressions: φ y = 2.1ε y /d or φ y = 1.9ε y /h which were found to provide an unbiased fit to the measured values of φ y in the 373 tests, without a significantly increased scatter over that of the fundamental expressions for φ y .

0.06 0.05 median: φ y,exp =1.28φ y,pred 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.02
0.06
0.05
median: φ y,exp =1.28φ y,pred
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
φ y,exp (1/m)

φ y,pred (1/m)

(a) beams and columns with rectangular section; no slip of longitudinal bars

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

median: φ y,exp =1.06φ y,pred walls 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
median: φ y,exp =1.06φ y,pred
walls
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05

φ y,pred (1/m)

(b) beams and columns with rectangular section; slip of longitudinal bars

Figure 2 Comparison of experimental curvatures at yielding to values calculated from 1 st principles

10000 median: M y,exp =1.02M y,pred 8000 6000 4000 2000 rectangular w alls&hollow 0 0
10000
median: M y,exp =1.02M y,pred
8000
6000
4000
2000
rectangular
w alls&hollow
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
M y,exp (kNm)

M y,pred (kNm)

(a) rectangular sections

1200 1000 median: M y,exp =M y, pr ed 800 600 400 200 0 0
1200
1000
median: M y,exp =M y,
pr ed
800
600
400
200
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
M y,exp (kNm)

M y,pred (kNm)

(b) columns with circular section

Figure 3 Comparison of experimental yield moments to values calculated from 1 st principles

To complete the picture regarding the application of Eq.(1) to estimate the secant stiffness of the shear span, L s , at member yielding, the yield moment M y calculated from first principles (with same assumptions and references mentioned above for the calculation of the yield curvature, φ y ) is compared in Figure 3 to the experimental “yield moment”, taken as the moment at the corner of a bilinear M-θ curve fitted to the envelope of the measured M-θ response of the shear span. Statistics of the ratio of the experimental yield moment to the calculated value are listed in Table 3. The median value of this ratio exceeds 1.0, as the corner of the bilinear approximation to the experimental M-θ curve lags behind first

516

4-3: Fardis

Otani Symposium 2003

yielding of the tension reinforcement or strong nonlinearity of the extreme compression fibers. The difference is greater in circular sections, as there the experimental M-θ response curves down more gradually. So, for such sections the experimental value of M y is compared in Figure 3 and in Table 3 to the average of M y and of the theoretical ultimate moment, M u , of the section, both computed (through iterations) on the basis of first principles as described in [Biskinis et al, 2002]. Statistics of the ratio of the experimental secant stiffness at member yielding to the value calculated from Eq.(1) on the basis of the yield moment M y from first principles and the values of θ y from Eqs.(2)-(4) are also listed in Table 3. For members with rectangular or circular section, the experimental secant stiffness at member yielding is on average 25% or 30%, respectively, of that of the uncracked gross section; but its scatter about this latter values is far greater (around 70%) than about the value given by Eq.(1).

Table 4 Mean, median, coefficient of variation of ratio experimental-to-predicted values at ultimate

Quantity

# of

mean

median

coefficient

data

of variation

ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.-1st-principles-Mander-Eq.(6) Monotonic loading - Rect. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.-1st-principles-Priestley-Eq.(7) Monotonic loading - Rect. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.-1st-principles-CEB/FIP-Eq.(8) Monotonic loading - Rect. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.-1st-principles-proposed Eq.(11) Monotonic loading - Rect. sections

230

1.12

0.995

64.1%

230

1.055

0.715

97.7%

230

2.36

1.97

69%

230

1.09

0.995

56.5%

ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.-1st-principles-Mander-Eq.(6) Cyclic loading - Rectangular sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.-1st-principles-Priestley-Eq.(7) Cyclic loading - Rectang. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.-1st-principles-CEB/FIP-Eq.(8) Cyclic loading - Rectang. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.-1st-principles-proposed Eq.(12) Cyclic loading - Rectang. sections

89

1.35

1.13

77.5%

89

0.955

0.545

130.5%

89

1.905

1.53

66.8%

89

1.28

0.995

69.5%

θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Cyclic. Conforming members w/ rect. web. Eq.(10),(12),(13) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Cyclic. Conforming beams, rect. columns. Eqs.(10),(12),(14) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Cyclic. Conforming circular columns. Eqs.(10),(12),(15) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Cyclic. Nonconform. rect. columns, walls Eqs.(10),(12),(16)

888

1.125

1.005

54.9%

823

1.10

1.00

53.7%

76

1.035

1.00

30.5%

36

0.995

0.995

39.4%

θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Monotonic. Beams, rectangular columns. Eqs.(10),(11),(17) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Monotonic. Beams, rectangular columns. Eqs.(10),(11),(18)

276

1.35

1.005

93%

276

1.36

1.00

94.1%

θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Cyclic. Conforming beams, rect. columns, walls. Eq.(8),(19) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Cyclic. Conforming beams, rectangular columns. Eq.(8),(20) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Cyclic. Conforming circular columns. Eqs.(8),(21) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(5) Cyclic. Non-conforming rectang. columns, walls. Eq.(8),(22)

888

1.10

0.995

56.4%

823

1.09

1.00

52.5%

76

1.10

0.995

33.8%

36

1.12

1.10

41.4%

θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(23) Cyclic. Conforming beams, rectan. columns, walls. Eq.(23) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(23) Monotonic. Conform. beams, rect. columns, walls. Eq.(23) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(23) Monotonic or cyclic. Conforming walls. Eq.(23) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(23) Monotonic or cyclic. Conf. beams, columns, walls Eq.(23) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(23) Cyclic. Non-conforming rectang. columns, walls. Eq.(23)

880

1.025

0.995

39.0%

279

1.095

1.005

55.4%

59

0.98

0.995

30.9%

1159

1.045

1.00

43.9%

36

0.855

0.835

34.8%

θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(24) Cyclic. Conforming beams, rectan. columns, walls. Eq.(24) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(24) Monotonic. Conform. beams, rect. columns, walls. Eq.(24) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(24) Monotonic or cyclic. Conforming walls. Eq.(24) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(24) Monotonic or cyclic. Conf. beams, columns, walls. Eq.(24) θ u,exp /θ u,Eq.(24) Cyclic. Non-conforming rectang. columns, walls. Eq.(24)

880

1.05

1.00

39.6%

279

1.135

1.025

54.4%

59

1.02

1.005

28.9%

1159

1.075

1.00

44.7%

36

0.875

0.865

34.2%

V R,exp /V R,Eq.(25) Ductile shear. Columns with rectangular section. Eq.(25) V R,exp /V R,Eq.(25) Ductile shear. Columns with circular section. Eq.(25) V R,exp /V R,Eq.(25) Ductile shear. Walls with rectangular or T-section. Eq.(25) V R,exp /V R,Eq.(25) Ductile shear. Piers with hollow rectang. section. Eq.(25) V R,exp /V R,Eq.(25) Ductile shear. Columns, walls or piers. Eq.(25)

146

0.995

0.99

15%

45

1.045

1.005

17.0%

6

0.99

0.99

5.7%

11

1.10

0.995

16.2%

208

1.01

0.995

15.6%

V R,exp /V R,Eq.(26) Ductile shear. Columns with rectangular section. Eq.(26) V R,exp /V R,Eq.(26) Ductile shear. Columns with circular section. Eq.(26) V R,exp /V R,Eq.(26) Ductile shear. Walls with rectangular or T-section, Eq.(26) V R,exp /V R,Eq.(26) Ductile shear. Piers with hollow rectang. section, Eq.(26) V R,exp /V R,Eq.(26) Ductile shear. Columns, walls or piers, Eq.(26)

146

1.00

1.00

13.5%

45

1.015

0.975

16.2%

6

1.08

1.06

12%

11

1.155

1.05

15.3%

208

1.015

1.00

14.6%

V R,exp /V R,Eq.(29) Web crushing. Walls with rectangular or T-section, Eq.(29)

37

1.02

1.00

12.9%

517

 

4-3: Fardis

Otani Symposium 2003

4.

ULTIMATE DRIFT (OR CHORD ROTATION) FOR FLEXURE-CONTROLLED FAILURE

4.1

Introduction

Specimens that failed after yielding in flexure were distinguished from those failing in shear before flexural yielding, on the basis of the following two criteria: (a) the reported behaviour before and at failure and (b) a comparison of the measured lateral resistance with the resistance derived from the value of the yield moment, M y , calculated from first principles (taking into account the scatter exhibited in Figure 3). Specimens characterised in this way as yielding in flexure, were further categorised as ultimately failing in flexure or in shear on the basis of the reported experimental behaviour at failure. When the available information was incomplete, unclear or unconvincing, recourse was also made to comparisons of the measured ultimate deformation with the predictions of models such as those described in the rest of this paper for flexure- or shear-controlled ultimate behaviour.

4.2 Formulations based on curvatures and plastic-hinge length

If inelastic behaviour and failure is controlled by flexure, the familiar description of the plastic component of drift ratio (or chord rotation) over the shear span L s as the product of the plastic component of (the ultimate) curvature, ϕ u -ϕ y , and a plastic-hinge length, L pl , is very appealing:

θ

u

=

pl

θ θ

y

+

u

=

θ

y

+

(φ

u

φ

y

)

L pl

 

1

0.5

L

pl

L

s

 

(5)

Notwithstanding its mechanical and physical appeal, the real criterion for the value of Eq.(5) is its ability to predict the experimental ultimate drift ratio or chord rotation, θ u . Empirical expressions for L pl needed to this end cannot be developed independently of the models used for the other variables entering into Eq.(5), namely for θ y , ϕ u andϕ y . To maintain the apparent rationality of Eq.(5), priority should be given to models based on rational mechanics. For ϕ y , the model based on first principles and outlined in Section 3 is a natural choice, despite the unsatisfactory agreement with “measured” values displayed in Figure 2.

The natural choice for ϕ u is a model with similar basis as that for ϕ y , namely the plane sections hypothesis and equilibrium, but with nonlinear σ-ε laws. [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001] presented analytical expressions for ϕ u for sections with rectangular compression zone, unsymmetric reinforcement concentrated at the two flanges and uniformly distributed (web) reinforcement in-between. These expressions are based on: (a) a σ-ε law for steel taken as elastic-perfectly plastic for relatively low steel strains, such as those associated with section ultimate conditions due to crushing of the concrete, or elastic-linearly strain-hardening from f y at ε y to the ultimate strength f t at strain ε su , for the large steel strains typical of section failure due to steel rupture; (b) a σ-ε law for concrete which is parabolic up to ultimate strength and horizontal thereafter up to the ultimate concrete strain. The expressions for ϕ u take into account spalling of the unconfined concrete cover and confinement of the concrete inside the hoops thereafter. The only important open parameter is the model to be used for the ultimate strength, f cc , the associated strain, ε co,c and the ultimate strain of concrete, ε cu,c , as these are affected by confinement. The value of ϕ u is sensitive mainly - if not only - to the ultimate strain of confined concrete, ε cu,c . The options considered for the confinement model are:

a) The original Mander model [Mander et al, 1988]. It comprises: (a) an increase of f c and ε co with confining pressure p, which is in good agreement with triaxial test results on confined concrete in concentric compression and (b) a concrete ultimate strain derived from a postulated conservation of strain energy, giving, if the σ-ε law of concrete (confined or not) is taken as horizontal after ultimate strength:

ε =ε +ε

cu c

,

cu

su w

,

(

2

ρ

s

f

yw

/ f

cc

)

(6)

where ε cu may be taken equal to 0.004 and ε su,w is the ultimate strain of transverse reinforcement.

b) The Mander model, with Eq.(6) as modified by Priestley [Paulay and Priestley, 1992]:

518

4-3: Fardis

ε =

cu c

,

0.004

+

1.4

ε

su w

,

(

2

ρ

s

f

yw

/ f

cc

)

Otani Symposium 2003

(7)

c) The model in CEB/FIP Model Code 90 [Comité Eurointernational du Beton, 1993]. This is the reference model in Europe for confinement, as it has been adopted in the 2003 version of Eurocode 2 (the European concrete design standard) and, therefore, by Eurocode 8 (the European seismic design standard) as well. This model provides for a more modest increase of f c and ε co with p, and for an ultimate strain ε cu,c of:

ε

cu c

,

= ε +

cu

0.2 p / f

c

=

0.0035

0.2

+ αρ

s

f

yw

/ f

c

(8)

where ρ s is the transverse reinforcement ratio (minimum among the two transverse directions), f yw its yield stress and α the confinement effectiveness factor according to [Sheikh and Uzumeri, 1982]:

α

 =  1

s  

h

s  

h

     1

c

    1

b

2

i

2 b

2 h

c

6 b h

c

c

(9)

with s h the centerline spacing of stirrups, b c and h c the dimensions of the confined core to the inside of the hoop and b i the centerline spacing along the perimeter of the cross-section of those longitudinal bars (indexed by i) which are laterally restrained by a stirrup corner or by a cross-tie.

d) The following expression for the strength of confined concrete, giving slightly lower strength enhancement than the Mander model:

f cc

= f 1 +

c

3.7

αρ

s

f

yw

f

c

0.87

along with the following variations of Eqs.(6) or (7):

ε

cu c

,

or

ε

cu c

,

=

=

0.004

0.004

+

+

0.6

1.5

ε

su w

,

ε

su w

,

(

2

(

2

ρ

s

f

yw

/ f

cc

)

αρ

s

f

yw

/ f

cc

)

(10)

(11)

(12)

As shown in Figure 4 and 5 and by the statistics of the ratio of experimental to predicted values in Table 4, in members with rectangular section confinement model option (d) and Eqs.(11) and (12) provide a better average fit to the measured values of ϕ u in monotonic or cyclic tests, respectively, than the other three alternatives, and with less scatter. Alternative (a), with Eq.(6) derived from the original Mander model, provides almost the same average agreement as confinement model option (d), especially with monotonic data, albeit with significantly larger scatter.

Considering the comparison with test results as a vindication of confinement model (d) and of Eqs.(11) and (12) (whatever the value of the measured data may be, in view of the scatter and the uncertainty introduced by the gauge length), empirical expressions are derived for the plastic hinge length, L pl , to fit Eq.(5) to the data on ultimate chord rotation, θ u , of all members failing in flexure, using the value of ϕ u derived from first principles and confinement model option (d) above. The value of ϕ y used in Eq.(5) is also the one derived from first principles. It was found that a better overall fit of Eq.(5) to the data on θ u , is possible, if Eqs.(2)-(4) are used for the chord at yielding, θ y , instead of their 1 st (flexural) term alone. It was also found that the same expression for L pl cannot fit both the monotonic and the cyclic data. Moreover, for cyclic loading different expressions are appropriate for members with or without detailing for earthquake resistance (often called “conforming” vs. “non-conforming” detailing, also in Tables 1 and 2). Expressions tried for L pl are linear combinations of the shear span, L s , and/or of the section depth, h (or D in circular sections). A term proportional to the product of the diameter of the tension reinforcement, d b , and its yield stress, f y , is added, to account for the effect of slippage of the longitudinal reinforcement from its anchorage zone beyond the section of maximum moment. This term is multiplied with a sl , where a sl = 0 if such slippage is not physically possible, while a sl = 1 if it is. A term inversely proportional to

f c
f
c

, as in the 3 rd term of Eqs.(2)-(4) for dependence on ultimate bond stress, is not to advantage.

519

4-3: Fardis

0.8 median: φ u,exp =1.04φ u,pred Mander 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0.8
median: φ u,exp =1.04φ u,pred
Mander
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
φ u,exp (1/m)

φ u,pred (1/m)

0.8 0.7 median: φ u,exp =1.84φ u,pred 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 CEB/FIP, EC2
0.8
0.7
median: φ u,exp =1.84φ u,pred
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
CEB/FIP,
EC2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
φ u,exp (1/m)

φ u,pred (1/m)

Otani Symposium 2003

0.8 Prie stley 0.7 median: φ u,exp =0.64φ u,pr ed 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
0.8
Prie
stley
0.7
median: φ u,exp =0.64φ u,pr ed
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
φ u,exp (1/m)
φ u,pred (1/m) (a) (b) 0.8 median: φ u,exp =φ u,pr ed 0.7 0.6 0.5
φ u,pred (1/m)
(a)
(b)
0.8
median: φ u,exp =φ u,pr ed
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Proposed m
odel
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
φ u,pred (1/m)
(c)
(d)
φ u,exp (1/m)

Figure 4 Measured ultimate curvatures in monotonic or cyclic tests of members with rectangular section, compared to predictions derived from 1 st principles using various confinement models: (a) Mander model, Eq.(6); (b) Priestley model, Eq.(7); (c) CEB/FIP MC90, Eqs.(8),(9); (d) Eqs. (10)-(12)

The expressions found to provide the best overall fit to θ u for members failing in flexure are:

For “conforming” beams, columns and walls with rectangular web, under cyclic loading (see Figure 5(a)):

L

pl cy Lh

,

,

=

0.026

L

s

+

0.13

h

+

a

sl

f

y

(

MPa

)

50

d

b

(13)

Alternative expression for “conforming” beams and columns with rectangular section (not for walls), under cyclic loading (see Figure 5(b)):

L

pl cy h

,

,

=

0.3

h

+

a

sl

y

MPa

60

f

(

)

d

b

(14)

For “conforming” columns with circular section, under cyclic loading (see Figure 6(a)):

L

pl cir cy

,

,

=

0.175

L

s

+

a

sl

f

y

(

MPa

)

80

d

b

520

(15)

4-3: Fardis

Otani Symposium 2003

20 beams&columns walls median: θ u,exp =θ u,pred 15 10 5 5% fractile: 0 θ
20
beams&columns
walls
median: θ u,exp =θ u,pred
15
10
5
5% fractile:
0
θ u,exp =0.37θ u,p
0
5
10
15
20
Θ u,exp (%)
20 median: θ u,exp =θ u,pr ed 15 10 5 5% fractile: 0 θ u,exp
20
median: θ u,exp =θ u,pr ed
15
10
5
5% fractile:
0
θ u,exp =0.37θ u,pred
0
5
10
15
20
Θ u,exp (%)

Θ u,pred (%)

(b)

Figure 5 Comparison of experimental ultimate chord rotations in cyclic tests to the predictions of Eq.(5) for confinement according to Eqs.(10),(12):

(a) “conforming” beams, columns or walls with rectangular section, plastic hinge length per Eq.(13); (b) “conforming” beams and columns with rectangular section, plastic hinge length from Eq.(14).

(a)

Θ u,pred (%)

16 14 median: θ u,exp =θ u,pred 12 10 8 6 4 5% fractile: θ
16
14
median: θ u,exp =θ u,pred
12
10
8
6
4
5% fractile:
θ
u,exp =0.525
θ u,median
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 6
Θ u,exp (%)

Θ u,pred (%)

16 14 median: θ u,exp =θ u,pred 12 10 8 6 5% fractile: 4 θ
16
14
median: θ u,exp =θ u,pred
12
10
8
6
5%
fractile:
4
θ u,exp =0.6θ u,median
2
0
0246
8
10
12
14
1 6
Θ u,pred (%)
(a)
(b)
Θ u,exp (%)

Figure 6 Comparison of experimental ultimate chord rotation in cyclic tests of columns with circular section, with the predictions of Eq.(5):(a) for confinement according to Eqs.(10),(12) and plastic hinge length from Eq.(15); or (b) for confinement according to Eq.(8) and plastic hinge length from Eq.(21)

For “non-conforming” columns and walls with rectangular section, under cyclic loading (see Figure 7(a)):

L

pl old

,

=

0.025

L

s

+

0.125

h

+

a

sl

y

MPa

100

f

(

)

d

b

(16)

For beams and columns with rectangular section (not walls), “conforming” or not, under monotonic loading (see Figure 8(a)):

L

pl mo Lh

,

,

=

0.07

L

s

+

0.5

h

+

a

sl

f

y

(

MPa

)

40

d

b

or, as an almost equivalent alternative (see Figure 8(b)):

L

pl mo h

,

,

=

0.8

h

+

a

sl

f

y

(

MPa

)

32

d

b

521

(17)

(18)

4-3: Fardis

16 14 12 median θ u,exp =θ u,pr ed 10 8 6 4 5% fractile
16
14
12
median θ u,exp =θ u,pr ed
10
8
6
4
5% fractile
2
θ u,exp =0
.4θ u,media
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Θ u,exp (%)

Θ u,pred (%)

Otani Symposium 2003

16 CEB 14 12 median θ u,exp =1.1θ u,pr ed 10 8 6 4 5%
16
CEB
14
12
median θ u,exp =1.1θ u,pr ed
10
8
6
4
5% fractile
2
θ u,exp =0
.4θ u,median
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Θ u,pred (%)
(a)
(b)
Θ u,exp (%)

Figure 7 Comparison of experimental ultimate chord rotation in cyclic tests of columns or walls with rectangular section and “non-conforming” detailing, with the predictions of Eq.(5):

(a) for confinement according to Eqs.(10),(12) and plastic hinge length from Eq.(16); (b) for confinement according to Eq.(8) and plastic hinge length from Eq.(22)

30 25 20 median: θ u,exp =θ u,pr ed 15 10 5 5% fractile: θ
30
25
20
median: θ u,exp =θ u,pr ed
15
10
5
5% fractile:
θ u,exp =0.32θ u,pred
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Θ u,exp (%)

Θ u,pred (%)

30 25 20 median: θ u,exp =θ u,pred 15 10 5 5% fractile: θ u,exp
30
25
20
median: θ u,exp =θ u,pred
15
10
5
5% fractile:
θ u,exp =0.32θ u,pred
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Θ u,pred (%)
(a)
(b)
Θ u,exp (%)

Figure 8 Comparison of experimental ultimate chord rotations in monotonic tests of beams or columns with rectangular section, “conforming” or not, to the predictions of Eq.(5) for confinement according to Eqs.(10),(11) and plastic hinge length from: (a) Eq.(17); or (b) Eq.(18).

Because option (c) (i.e. the model in CEB/FIP Model Code 90) is now the reference model in Europe for confinement - as it has been adopted in Eurocode 2 and, therefore, is the basis for Eurocode 8 as well - expressions parallel to the ones above are developed for L pl , for use in Eq.(5) along with the value of ϕ u derived from first principles and confinement option (c), including Eq.(8) for the ultimate strain.

For “conforming” beams, columns and walls with rectangular web, under cyclic loading (see Figure 9(a)):

L

pl CEB cy Lh

,

,

,

=

0.06

L

s

+

0.035

h

+

a

sl

f

y

(

MPa

)

25

d

b

(19)

Alternative for “conforming” beams and columns with rectangular section (not for walls), under cyclic

loading (see Figure 9(b)):

f

=

y

MPa<