Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Model for the Lateral Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Including Shear Deformations

Eric J. Setzlera) and Halil Sezena)

This research is focused on modeling the behavior of reinforced concrete columns subjected to lateral loads. Deformations due to exure, reinforcement slip, and shear are modeled individually using existing and new models. Columns are classied into ve categories based on a comparison of their predicted shear and exural strengths, and rules for combining the three deformation components are established based on the expected behavior of columns in each category. Shear failure in columns initially dominated by exural response is considered through the use of a shear capacity model. The proposed model was tested on 37 columns from various experimental studies. In general, the model predicted the lateral deformation response envelope reasonably well. DOI: 10.1193/1.2932078 INTRODUCTION Numerous reinforced concrete buildings exist in the United States and around the world that do not have sufcient detailing to ensure satisfactory performance in earthquakes. Past earthquakes have caused widespread damage to reinforced concrete structures that were not designed according to modern seismic design codes. Many of these structures still exist in seismically active areas, and they may be susceptible to major damage or collapse within their expected lifetimes. It is possible to retrot an existing structure to improve its shear strength and exural deformation capacity, allowing it to perform satisfactorily in an earthquake. This requires the ability to model the as-built capacity of the structure, so that additional strength and/or deformation capacity requirements can be determined. Columns are often the most critical components of earthquake damage-prone structures. The goal of the research reported here is to develop a model that can serve as a response envelope for the behavior of a reinforced concrete column subjected to axial and cyclic lateral loading. While the primary motivation and focus of this research is the modeling of lightly reinforced columns that experience exural yielding followed by shear failure such as those described above, the model is general enough such that it is also applicable for columns failing in shear (e.g., very short columns) or columns developing plastic hinges and failing in exure (e.g., well-reinforced long columns).

a)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The Ohio State University, 470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210

493

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 2, pages 493511, May 2008; 2008, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

494

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

Figure 1. Components of lateral deformation in a reinforced concrete column.

LATERAL DEFORMATION COMPONENTS The total lateral deformation of a column subjected to lateral loads at its ends is comprised of deformations due to three response mechanisms: exure, reinforcement slip at the column end(s), and shear. The interaction of these components determines the overall behavior of a column. These deformations are depicted schematically in Figure 1. Each deformation component can be modeled individually.
FLEXURAL DEFORMATIONS

The exural response of a reinforced concrete section can be calculated through a moment-curvature analysis. The moment-curvature analysis uses constitutive models for the concrete and reinforcing steel that can capture the nonlinear behavior of each material accurately. Moment-curvature analysis is used to calculate sectional response in this research. A steel constitutive model with a yield plateau and nonlinear strain-hardening region is specied to match the experimentally observed behavior of the reinforcing steel. Concrete connement is considered by using the constitutive model by Mander et al. (1988) to model the core and cover concrete separately. The full strain capacity of the conned and unconned concrete was used, as calculated by the Mander et al. model. The specied maximum unconned concrete strain was 0.006. For an applied lateral load at the column end, the moment can be determined at any point in the column. Then, the moment-curvature relationship can be used to determine the curvature distribution over the column height. The lateral displacement of a column due to exural deformations, f, can be calculated by integrating the curvature distribution over the height of the column as follows:

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

495

L f

=
0

x xdx

where x is the curvature distribution, x is measured along the axis of the column, and L is the height of the column. In this research, Equation 1 is used to compute the exural deformations for lateral loads up to the load that initiates yielding in the longitudinal steel. After yielding has occurred, the exural deformations are calculated from a plastic hinge model as
f

f,y

Lp a

Lp 2

where f,y is the exural deformation at yield, calculated using the integration method (Equation 1), is the curvature at the column end, and y is the curvature at yield. a is the shear span, and is equal to L for a cantilever column or L / 2 for a column with xed supports at both ends. For columns with xed supports at both ends, the second term on the right side of Equation 2 must be multiplied by 2. The plastic hinge length, Lp, is taken as one half of the total section depth per the recommendations of Moehle (1992). Complete details of this exural deformation model, including the constitutive models and moment-curvature analysis, are given in Setzler (2005).
REINFORCEMENT SLIP

When a reinforcing bar embedded in concrete is subjected to a tensile force, strain accumulates over the embedded length of the bar. This strain causes the reinforcing bar to slip relative to the concrete in which it is embedded. Slip of a columns reinforcing bars in the anchoring concrete (i.e., the footing or beam-column joint) will cause rigidbody rotation of the column, as shown in Figure 1. This rotation is not accounted for in a exural analysis, where the column ends are assumed to be xed. The bar slip model used in this study was originally developed by Sezen and Moehle (2003), and includes further developments by Sezen and Setzler (2008). It is illustrated in Figure 2. This model assumes a stepped function for bond stress between the concrete and reinforcing steel over the embedment length of the bar. Based on experimental observations (Sezen 2002), the bond stress is taken as 12 fc psi for elastic steel strains (ub in Figure 2) and 6 fc psi for inelastic steel strains ub , where fc is the concrete compressive strength. The rotation due to slip, s, is calculated as
s

slip dc

where slip is the extension of the outermost tension bar from the column end (Figure 2), and d and c are the distances from the extreme compression ber to the centroid of the tension steel and the neutral axis, respectively. The column lateral displacement is equal to the product of the slip rotation and the column length.

496

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

Figure 2. Proposed slip rotation model. SHEAR DEFORMATIONS

Shear displacements are calculated in the proposed model using a combination of two existing models. The computer program Response-2000 (Bentz 2000) uses Modied Compression Field Theory (Vecchio and Collins 1986) to compute the monotonic shear behavior of cracked concrete. It is used in the proposed model to compute the shear force-deformation relationship up to the attainment of peak strength. After this point, a shear model by Patwardhan (2005) is adopted. The proposed shear model is shown in Figure 3. The peak strength, Vpeak, is the maximum strength from Response-2000. The

Figure 3. Proposed shear model.

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

497

drift at the onset of shear failure, calculated as

v,u,

is adopted from Gerin and Adebar (2004), and is

v,u

= 4 12

vn fc

v,n

where vn is the shear stress at peak strength (vn = Vpeak / bd, where b is the column width) and v,n is the maximum drift at peak strength computed by Response-2000. The drift at axial load failure, v,f, is calculated as
v,f

ALF

f,f

s,f

v,u

where ALF is the total drift at axial load failure, and f,f and s,f are the exural and slip deformations, respectively, at the point of axial load failure. The total drift at axial load failure under cyclic loading is calculated using the axial capacity model by Elwood and Moehle (2005a):
ALF

4 100

1 + tan2 s tan + P Asvfyvdc tan

where is the angle of the shear crack, P is the axial load, Asv is the area of transverse steel with yield strength fyv at spacing s, and dc is the depth of the core concrete, measured to the centerlines of the transverse reinforcement. In the derivation, was assumed to be 65 degrees. The rules governing the post-peak column behavior, given in the next section, dene the values for f,f and s,f. Complete details of the proposed shear model are available in Setzler (2005). TOTAL LATERAL RESPONSE The total lateral response of a reinforced concrete column can be modeled using a set of springs in series. The exure, bar slip, and shear deformation models discussed above are each modeled by a spring. Each spring is subjected to the same force, and the total displacement response is the sum of the responses of each spring. Figure 4 illustrates the spring model schematically. Up to the peak strength of the column, the three deformation components are simply added together to predict the total response. Rules are established for the post-peak behavior of the springs based on a comparison of the shear strength Vn , the yield strength Vy , and the exural strength Vp . The yield strength is dened as the lateral load corresponding to the rst yielding of the tension bars in the column during exural analysis. The exural strength is the lateral load corresponding to the maximum moment sustainable by the column cross section. Both values are obtained from the moment-curvature analysis. The shear strength is calculated from the equation proposed by Sezen and Moehle (2004):

498

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

Figure 4. Spring representation of the proposed model for a column with xed ends.

Vn = k

6 fc a/d

1+

P 6 fc Ag

0.80Ag +

Asvfyvd s

where Ag is the gross cross sectional area and a / d is the aspect ratio. k is a factor related to the displacement ductility, which is the ratio of the maximum displacement to the yield displacement. k is equal to 1.0 for displacement ductilities less than 2, it is equal to 0.7 for displacement ductilities greater than 6, and it varies linearly for intermediate displacement ductilities. k is taken as 1.0 in the proposed model for classication purposes, because the classication system outlined below is based on the initial, or low-ductility shear and exural strengths. Figure 5 plots the exural response and shear strength for ve ctitious columns. These columns all have the same shear strength, but different exural and yield strengths. By comparing Vn, Vy, and Vp, these columns can be classied into one of the following ve categories. Category I: Vn

Vy The shear strength is less than the lateral load causing yielding

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

499

Figure 5. Lateral load-displacement ductility relationship for columns in each category.

in the tension steel. The column fails in shear while the exural behavior remains elastic. Category II: Vy Vn 0.95Vp The shear strength is greater than the yield strength, but less than the exural strength of the column. The column fails in shear, but inelastic exural deformation occurring prior to shear failure affects the post-peak behavior. Category III: 0.95Vp Vn 1.05Vp The shear and exural strengths are essentially identical. Due to the inherent variability in the models used to predict the strengths, it is not possible to predict conclusively which mechanism will govern the peak response. Shear and exural failure are assumed to occur simultaneously, and both mechanisms contribute to the post-peak behavior. Category IV: 1.05Vp Vn 1.4Vp The shear strength is greater than the exural strength of the column. The column experiences large exural deformations potentially leading to a exural failure. Inelastic shear deformations affect the post-peak behavior, and shear failure may occur as displacements increase. Category V: Vn 1.4Vp The shear strength is much greater than the exural strength of the column. The column fails in exure while the shear behavior remains elastic. Category IV and V specimens are those that are expected to fail in exure, because their exural strength is lower than their initial shear strength. However, the shear strength of a column decreases as displacements increase (Sezen and Moehle 2004). If the initial shear strength is greater than the exural strength, but shear degradation causes the shear strength to become less than the exural strength, shear failure could occur in the column after the exural strength has been reached. Category IV specimens are those where shear failure could occur at high displacements, while Category V specimens are those whose shear strength is high enough that shear failure is not expected

500

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

Figure 6. Behavior of (a) shear spring and (b) exure and slip springs for each category.

even as the shear strength decreases. The factor k in the Sezen-Moehle shear strength model (Equation 7) can take a minimum value of 0.7. Therefore, if the shear strength is less than 1 / 0.7 1.4 times the exural strength, shear failure is possible and the column will be in Category IV. It is noted that these response categories are dened for the proposed macro-scale model shown in Figure 4, and are not intended for nite element analysis. The classication system given above describes the expected column behavior based on a comparison of the shear and exural strengths. From these descriptions, rules governing the exure, slip, and shear springs are dened. These rules are described below, and are illustrated in Figure 6. As stated above, the total deformation is calculated by summing the three deformation components for the initial response, up to the peak strength of the column, for columns in all categories. Category I: The peak strength of the column is the shear strength, as calculated in the proposed shear model. After the peak strength is reached, the shear behavior dominates the response. As the column strength decreases, shear deformations continue to increase according to the shear model (solid line in Figure 6a), while the exure and slip springs unload along their initial responses (dashed line in Figure 6b). The post-peak deformation at any lateral load level is the sum of the post-peak shear deformation and the pre-peak exural and slip deformations corresponding to that load. Category II: The peak strength of the column is the shear strength calculated from the proposed shear model. As the column strength decreases, shear deformations continue to increase according to the shear model (solid line in Figure 6a), but the exure and slip springs are locked at their values at peak strength (dot-dashed line in Figure 6b). The post-peak deformation at any lateral load level is the sum of the exural and slip deformations at peak strength and the post-peak shear deformation corresponding to that load. Category III: The peak strength is the smaller of the shear strength and the exural strength. As the column strength decreases, all deformations continue to increase ac-

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

501

cording to their individual models (solid line in Figures 6a and 6b). The post-peak deformation at any lateral load level is the sum of the post-peak exure, slip, and shear deformations corresponding to that load. Category IV: The peak strength of the column is the exural strength, calculated in the exure model. As the column strength decreases, exural and slip deformations continue to increase according to their models (solid line in Figure 6b), but the shear spring is locked at its value at peak strength (dot-dashed line in Figure 6a). The post-peak deformation at any lateral load level is the sum of the post peak exural and slip deformations corresponding to that load and the shear deformation at peak strength. The column may experience a shear failure after being subjected to large deformations. Shear failure is predicted through the use of a shear capacity model described below. Category V: The peak strength of the column is the exural strength calculated from the exure model. If the column strength decreases, exural and slip deformations continue to increase according to their models (solid line in Figure 6b), while the shear spring unloads with an unloading stiffness equal to its initial stiffness (dashed line in Figure 6a). The post-peak deformation at any lateral load level is the sum of the postpeak exural and slip deformations and the pre-peak shear deformation corresponding to that load. SHEAR FAILURE DUE TO HIGH DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY It has been established that shear strength decreases as displacement ductility increases, potentially leading to shear failure in columns initially dominated by exure (Sezen and Moehle 2004). However, this possibility cannot be accounted for in a simple combination of the three component models, as outlined above. Elwood (2004) proposed the idea of imposing a shear failure surface on the lateral load-total displacement diagram, as shown in Figure 7. In this proposal, if the response of the column intersects the shear failure surface, shear failure will occur. This model is intended for the prediction of shear failure after the occurrence of exural yielding. The shear failure surface is dened by the empirical drift capacity model proposed by Elwood and Moehle (2005b):
SF

3 +4 100

1 v 1 P 500 fc 40 Agfc

1 100

where SF is the drift at shear failure, v is the transverse reinforcement ratio, and v is the nominal shear stress. fc and v have units of psi. The shear failure surface proposed by Elwood is implemented in the proposed model to account for delayed shear failure following inelastic exural response for Category IV specimens. The drift at shear failure is calculated from Equation 8 using the peak model strength to calculate the shear stress (i.e., v = Vp / bd). If the predicted drift in the unmodied model exceeds the calculated drift at shear failure, shear failure is assumed to have occurred. The model is modied to decrease linearly from the point of shear failure to zero strength at the drift at axial load failure, calculated from Equation 6.

502

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

Figure 7. Shear failure surface model developed by Elwood (2004).

Equation 7 should not be used to predict the displacement at shear failure as it is intended for calculation of Vn using displacement ductility, because the result is overly sensitive to small variations in the input parameters. In other words, if there is an error in prediction of displacement ductility in Equation 7, its effect on the predicted shear strength will be relatively small. However, small changes in Vn may result in large variations in the corresponding displacement ductility. COMPARISON OF MODEL AND TEST DATA Thirty-seven column tests from eight different researchers were assembled from the Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Structural Performance Database (Eberhard 2003). These were selected to cover a wide range of shear and exural strengths, aspect ratios, and transverse reinforcement ratios. Table 1 lists key properties for the test columns. (In Table 1, fy is the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement and l is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio.) Each column was modeled using the component and overall models proposed in this research. Table 2 lists the calculated shear strength, yield strength, and exural strength for each column. Each column was assigned a category from I to V based on the rules outlined previously. The columns are sorted in order of increasing Vn / Vp ratio, and hence from Category I to Category V, in Table 2. The rst twelve columns in Table 1 were part of a test matrix and research program at the University of California, Berkeley, to investigate the effect certain parameters on the seismic response of older building columns. As shown in Table 2, these columns had failures marked by shear effects. Similarly, the next set of six specimens, or twelve columns on each side of six stubs, tested by Wight and Sozen (1975) was also selected

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

503

Table 1. Properties of test columns


Column 2CLD12 2CHD12 2CVD12 2CLD12M 2CLH18 2SLH18 3CLH18 3SLH18 2CMH18 3CMH18 3CMD12 3SMD12 25.033E 25.033W 40.033AE 40.033AW 40.033E 40.033W 40.048E 40.048W 40.067E 40.067W 40.092E 40.092W CUS CUW U1 U3 U4 U6 A1 A2 C1-1 C1-2 C1-3 SC3 SC9
a

Ref.a Typeb 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DC DC C C C C C C C C C C C

L in.
116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 36 36 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 91.9 91.9 55.1 55.1 55.1 48 48

b in.
18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 16 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 15 15 15.7 15.7 15.7 36 18

d in.
15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.6 15.6 15.5 15.5 15.6 15.5 15.5 15.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 14.4 7.4 12 12 12 12 22.3 22.3 13.8 13.8 13.8 15.6 33.6

a/d
3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 1.23 2.40 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 4.12 4.12 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.07 1.43

fc psi
3060 3060 3030 3160 4800 4800 3710 3710 3730 4010 4010 3730 4880 4880 5030 5030 4870 4870 3780 3780 4840 4840 5150 5150 5060 5060 6320 5050 4640 5410 3950 3950 3610 3870 3780 3180 2320

fy fyv ksi ksi


63 63 63 63 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 64 64 62 62 64 64 65 65 72 72 72 63 63 69 69 69 69 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 46 46 60 60 68 68 68 62 62 62 67 67 67 58 58

% 2.88 2.88 2.88 2.88 2.23 2.23 3.63 3.63 2.23 3.63 3.63 3.63 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 3.34 3.65 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 2.38 2.38 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.23 2.08

% 0.175 0.175 0.175 0.175 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.175 0.175 0.327 0.327 0.327 0.327 0.327 0.327 0.467 0.467 0.654 0.654 0.920 0.920 0.324 0.364 0.272 0.544 0.814 0.835 0.308 0.308 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.096 0.077

s/d in.
0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.16 0.77 0.77 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.24 0.47 0.49 0.25 0.17 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.14 1.03 0.48

P kip
150 600
c

P / A gf c
0.151 0.605
c

150 113 113 113 113 340 340 340 340 25 25 42.5 42.5 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 120 120 0 135 135 135 138 338 101 152 202 0 0

0.147 0.073 0.073 0.094 0.094 0.281 0.262 0.262 0.281 0.071 0.071 0.117 0.117 0.114 0.114 0.147 0.147 0.115 0.115 0.108 0.108 0.162 0.162 0 0.141 0.153 0.131 0.098 0.239 0.113 0.158 0.216 0 0

1: Sezen (2002); 2: Lynn (2001); 3: Wight and Sozen (1975); 4: Umehara and Jirsa (1984); 5: Saatcioglu and Ozcebe (1989); 6: Wehbe et al. (1999); 7: Mo and Wang (2000); 8: Aboutaha et al. (1999) b C = cantilever, DC= double curvature, DE= double-ended c Axial load varied from 60 kip to 600 kip

504

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

Table 2. Shear and exural strengths of test columns


Column SC3 SC9 3CLH18 3SLH18 3CMH18 CUS CUW U1 25.033E 25.033W 2CMH18 2CVD12(T)d 3CMD12 40.033E 40.033W 40.033AE 40.033AW 2CLH18 2SLH18 2CLD12 2CLD12M 3SMD12 40.048E 40.048W 40.067E 40.067W 2CVD12(C)d 2CHD12 U3 A1 U6 40.092E 40.092W U4 A2 C1-3 C1-2 C1-1
a b

Vna,b
88.6 132.3 46.4 46.4 62.1 91.7 59.4 52.7 19.3 19.3 61.4 56.5 79.2 20.5 20.5 20.8 20.8 50.5 50.5 69.0 69.0 78.1 23.9 23.9 30.3 30.3 92.3 92.3 93.6 97.0 118.3 36.3 36.3 123.2 128.2 124.5 121.8 117.8

V yb
108.7 143.0 54.7 54.7 73.9 93.1 65.6 42.7 18.2 18.2 59.2 39.3 73.9 19.8 19.8 20.1 20.1 40.9 40.9 58.3 58.3 73.1 19.3 19.3 19.8 19.8 66.7 66.7 56.4 49.1 57.4 19.9 19.9 56.4 62.8 51.1 47.3 43.0

V pb
168.2 236.2 68.6 68.6 80.4 115.1 72.2 65.2 20.9 20.9 63.6 58.2 81.4 21.0 21.0 21.3 21.3 51.7 51.7 70.4 70.4 79.4 22.1 22.1 24.3 24.3 71.7 71.7 67.7 67.8 81.3 24.3 24.3 80.5 74.7 59.5 57.6 55.2

Vn / Vp
0.53 0.56 0.68 0.68 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.81 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.08 1.08 1.25 1.25 1.29 1.29 1.38 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.49 1.53 1.72 2.09 2.11 2.13

Category I I I I I I I II II II III III III III III III III III III III III III IV IV IV IV IV IV IV V V V V V V V V V

SPDc
S S S S S S S F S S F-S F-S S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F-S F F F F-S F-S F F F F F

Vmodelb
103.9 109.8 46.8 46.8 57.7 62.7 65.8 55.2 20.0 20.0 59.2 53.5 81.3 21.0 21.0 21.3 21.3 46.5 46.5 70.4 70.4 79.4 20.8 20.8 21.5 21.5 71.7 71.7 67.7 67.8 81.3 24.3 24.3 80.5 74.7 59.5 57.6 55.2

Vtestb
101.2 144.5 62.3 60.7 73.7 73.3 60.1 62.1 19.1 20.3 68.8 55.4 80.0 20.4 22.8 22.2 22.6 54.1 52.4 70.8 66.2 82.5 22.6 21.3 20.7 20.6 67.6 80.7 60.9 75.7 77.1 25.4 25.4 73.3 81.7 68.6 60.2 56.2

Vmodel / Vtest
1.03 0.76 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.86 1.09 0.89 1.05 0.99 0.86 0.97 1.02 1.03 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.86 0.89 0.99 1.06 0.96 0.92 0.98 1.04 1.04 1.06 0.89 1.11 0.90 1.05 0.96 0.96 1.10 0.91 0.87 0.96 0.98

Shear strength calculated from Equation 7, assuming k = 1.0 All strengths are given in kips c Failure classication reported in Structural Performance F-S = flexure-shear) d T = axial tension portion of cycle, C = axial compression

Database

mean: 0.95 standard deviation: 0.10 (F = flexure, S = shear, and

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

505

because the failure modes varied widely (Category II through V in Table 2). These specimens were very appropriate to study the effect of shear on column behavior. Four columns tested by Saatcioglu and Ozcebe (1989) also covered a wide range of response (Categories II, IV, and V). In addition, these specimens were unique because both the lateral load-shear displacement and lateral load-slip displacement relations were reported. For this study, such cyclic experimental data were valuable in understanding the deformation components and their contribution to the total deformations. To the authors knowledge, except for Reference 1, no such data are available for columns included in the University of Washington database. The remaining nine columns had to be selected to verify and populate certain failure categories. CUS and CUW (Umehara and Jirsa 1984) and SC3 and SC9 (Aboutaha et al. 1999) were tested by the same research group at the University of Texas, Austin. These specimens had clear shear failure with very limited or no exural effects at failure. Thus, they were perfect candidates to include in Category I. One of the factors affecting the selection of last ve columns was their relatively large aspect ratios (Wehbe et al. 1999; Mo and Wang 2000). Some trends can be observed over the range of data. All columns with aspect ratios, a / d, less than 2.5 are in Category I, and all those with aspect ratios of 4 or greater are in Category V. All columns in the intermediate categories have aspect ratios between 2.5 and 4, although there is not an increasing trend from Category II to III to IV. Columns U4, U6, and 40.092E/W are all in Category V despite having aspect ratios less than 4. These columns have high transverse reinforcement ratios, which appears to prevent shear failure and allow high levels of ductility to develop. Conversely, Columns SC3, 3CLH18, 3SLH18, and 3CMH18 have widely spaced transverse reinforcement s / d 1.0 . This causes them to fail in shear despite aspect ratios greater than 3, and pushes them into Category I. The failure mode given in the Structural Performance Database (Eberhard 2003) is listed in Table 2 for each column. There is generally good agreement between these reported failure modes and the category assigned to the columns in the proposed model. It should be noted that the placement of a column into Category V does not absolutely preclude the possibility of shear failure under high ductility demand. The division between these categories of Vn 1.4Vp was based on Equation 7 in this study. If the proposed model is used in an engineering design application, it may be advisable to increase this limit in order to achieve an acceptable factor of safety against shear failure. Table 2 gives the maximum lateral strengths from the proposed model and the test data. Vmodel is the peak lateral strength in the proposed model. It is the lesser of the strength predicted by the exure component model Vp and the strength predicted by the shear component model (Vpeak, as shown in Figure 3). For shear-dominant columns or columns failing in shear without signicant exural damage, Vpeak should theoretically match Vn from Equation 7. Since Equation 7 and the shear component model use different methods for predicting the shear strength, they do not agree exactly. The difference is generally small for the test columns; the mean of Vpeak / Vn is 1.02 with a standard deviation of 0.12. The ratio of predicted strength to observed strength is given for each column, and the model predictions generally agree quite well with the test data. The mean of Vmodel / Vtest is 0.95, and the standard deviation is 0.10.

506

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

Experimental and predicted displacement capacities are given in Table 3 for the test columns. The displacement ductilities, test, given in Table 3 were taken from the literature when available, and were calculated graphically for the remaining columns according to the procedure suggested by Sezen and Moehle (2004). For the yield and ultimate displacements and the associated displacement ductilities calculated using the graphical procedure, the reported values are the average of the two displacements or displacement ductilities corresponding to positive and negative load cycles. The mean ratio of predicted displacement ductility to observed displacement ductility, model / test is 1.90, and the standard deviation is 1.14. This indicates that the model does not predict the displacements as well as strengths. A trend is noticeable in the ductility values, with higher values typically corresponding to higher categories. However, columns tested under high axial load (i.e., 2CHD12, 2CVD12, and 2CMH18) did not follow this trend. The decrease in displacement ductility caused by high axial load has been documented in the literature (e.g., Elwood and Moehle 2005b; Patwardhan 2005). Lateral force-displacement relationships are shown in Figures 8 and 9 for eight of the 37 test columns modeled in this study. Comparisons for the other columns can be found in Setzler (2005). The plots compare the response envelopes predicted by the proposed model to cyclic test data reported in the literature for each column. At least one column from each of the ve categories is included in the gures. The model predicts reasonable response envelopes for the columns examined in the study. For columns in Category IV (Figure 9, plots (a) and (b)), the dashed lines show the proposed model before modication for delayed shear failure. The solid line is the nal model prediction, after consideration of the Elwood shear failure surface (Equation 8). The shear failure surface was used successfully in predicting the lateral response of Category IV columns. From moment-curvature analysis, a sudden drop in lateral resistance was calculated for the Category IV column, 2CHD12 which was subjected to very high axial load. Using the shear failure surface model, a smoother response beyond shear failure was obtained in Figure 9a. As discussed previously, Category V columns are those whose shear strengths are high enough such that they are not expected to experience shear failure even at large displacements. However, the Elwood shear failure surface and point of axial load failure were computed for these columns for comparison purposes. As shown in Figure 9, plots (c) and (d), it is not appropriate to modify the model using the Elwood shear failure surface for Category V columns. The proposed model predicts the behavior of these columns well without any shear failure modications. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The focus of this research was the creation of a model that can predict the monotonic lateral force-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete columns subjected to lateral loading. The research concentrated on lightly reinforced columns that experience exure-shear failures. However, the model can be applied to columns with any ratio of shear and exural strengths. Therefore, it is applicable to columns that experience shear, exure, or exure-shear failures. The overall lateral deformation of a reinforced concrete column was modeled as three springs in series, one for each of the deformation components. Column shear

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

507

Table 3. Experimental and predicted displacement capacities of test columns


Column SC3 SC9 3CLH18 3SLH18 3CMH18 CUS CUW U1 25.033E 25.033W 2CMH18 2CVD12(T)c 3CMD12 40.033E 40.033W 40.033AE 40.033AW 2CLH18 2SLH18 2CLD12 2CLD12M 3SMD12 40.048E 40.048W 40.067E 40.067W 2CVD12(C)c 2CHD12 U3 A1 U6 40.092E 40.092W U4 A2 C1-3 C1-2 C1-1
a b

Category I I I I I I I II II II III III III III III III III III III III III III IV IV IV IV IV IV IV V V V V V V V V V

b y,test

b u,test

test
3.50 1.27 1.58a 1.69a 2.14a 1.95 2.40 3.12 2.77 2.82 1.94a 3.01a 2.50a 2.65 3.55 5.04 5.46 4.17a 2.65a 2.88a 3.14a 2.73a 3.55 4.44 5.64 6.55 2.72a 1.29a 2.81 5.3a 7.37 5.36 5.59 7.43 5.2a 5.26a 5.38a 5.50a

b y,model u,model

model
3.90 8.46 2.26 2.26 3.40 4.50 2.15 5.43 5.48 5.48 3.40 7.04 2.60 7.10 7.10 7.17 7.17 4.75 4.75 3.59 3.59 2.67 4.06 4.06 5.43 5.43 2.32 2.47 5.38 8.24 14.08 22.07 22.07 14.14 5.67 15.63 16.66 17.18

model / test
1.11 6.66 1.43 1.34 1.59 2.31 0.90 1.74 1.98 1.94 1.75 2.34 1.04 2.68 2.00 1.42 1.31 1.14 1.79 1.25 1.14 0.98 1.14 0.91 0.96 0.83 0.85 1.91 1.91 1.55 1.91 4.12 3.95 1.90 1.09 2.97 3.10 3.12

0.27 0.30 0.75 0.62 0.89 0.20 0.26 0.67 0.44 0.42 0.65 1.13 0.77 0.48 0.44 0.25 0.24 0.59 0.51 1.03 1.06 0.89 0.47 0.45 0.42 0.36 0.82 0.79 0.63 0.92 0.49 0.38 0.39 0.47 0.75 0.70 0.69 0.63

0.96 0.38 1.20 1.15 1.20 0.38 0.62 2.09 1.23 1.18 1.20 3.41 1.80 1.27 1.58 1.20 1.23 3.00 2.40 2.97 3.33 1.80 1.68 1.90 2.34 2.35 2.23 1.02 1.77 4.76 3.47 2.05 2.05 3.44 3.93 3.67 3.72 3.47

0.42 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.12 0.47 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.90 0.70 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.48 0.48 0.93 0.93 0.72 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.73 0.62 0.29 0.53 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.53 0.45 0.44 0.44

1.64 1.20 1.13 1.13 0.57 0.54 1.01 1.37 1.59 1.59 1.80 6.34 1.82 2.13 2.13 2.08 2.08 2.28 2.28 3.34 3.34 1.92 1.34 1.34 1.63 1.63 1.69 1.53 1.56 4.36 4.01 6.18 6.18 4.30 3.22 7.03 7.33 7.56

Ductilities reported in literature mean: 1.90 All displacements are given in inches standard deviation: 1.14 c T = axial tension portion of cycle, C = axial compression

508

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

Figure 8. Model predictions and test data for the lateral displacement of (a) SC3, (b) 25.033W, (c) 3CMD12, and (d) 2CLD12.

strength was calculated using the shear strength equation proposed by Sezen and Moehle (2004), taking the displacement ductility parameter k as 1.0. This shear strength was compared to the yield and exural strengths determined from the exural analysis to classify columns into one of ve categories. Category I columns experience a pure shear failure. Category II columns also fail in shear, but with exural effects. Columns in Category III fail in shear and exure at nearly the same time. Category IV columns initially fail in exure or develop plastic hinges, but may experience shear failure as displacement increases. Columns that experience pure exural failures are in Category V. For each category, expected behavior and rules for the combination of the deformation components were presented. Category IV specimens are those which are susceptible to shear failure after exural capacity is reached. A shear capacity model (Elwood 2004; Elwood and Moehle 2005b) was used to predict the onset of delayed shear failure for these columns. If shear failure was predicted, the model was modied and the strength is reduced linearly to the point of axial load failure. A database of 37 test columns was assembled, which covered a wide range of col-

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

509

Figure 9. Model predictions and test data for the lateral displacement of (a) 40.048W, (b) 2CHD12, (c) A1, and (d) U6.

umn geometries, properties, and shear to exural strength ratios. Each of these specimens was analyzed using the model proposed in this research. In general, the proposed model did an acceptable job of predicting the response envelope for the cyclic test data. There were several instances where the model predictions were poor, but the behavior of most columns was represented well. The model also predicted the maximum strength of the columns well overall. The average of the ratio of predicted strength to experimental strength was 0.95, with a standard deviation of 0.10. The classication system used in the combined lateral response model appeared to represent the shear and exural behaviors well. The shear capacity model proposed by Elwood (2004) was used successfully to predict delayed shear failure in Category IV columns. The proposed model was able to predict the experimental behavior best in the exure-shear failure range (Categories II through IV), the range for which it was intended. Predicted and experimental lateral deformation plots were given for eight of the 37 columns examined in this study. The experimental data was modeled reasonably well for these columns.

510

E. J. SETZLER AND H. SEZEN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was partially supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. REFERENCES
Aboutaha, R. S., Engelhardt, M. D., Jirsa, J. O., and Kreger, M. E., 1999. Rehabilitation of shear critical concrete columns by use of rectangular steel jackets, ACI Struct. J. 96, 6878. Bentz, E., 2000. Response-2000, available at http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/home.shtml. Eberhard, M., 2003. Structural Performance Database, Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle. Accessed 1 Nov. 2005. Elwood, K. J., 2004. Modeling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns Can. J. Civ. Eng. 31, 846859. Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P., 2005a. Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns, ACI Struct. J. 102, 578587. , 2005b. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement, Earthquake Spectra 21, 7189. Gerin, M., and Adebar, P., 2004. Accounting for shear in seismic analysis of concrete structures, in Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper 1747. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Aug. 2004. Lynn, A. C., 2001. Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building columns, Ph.D. thesis. University of California, Berkeley. Mander, J. B., Priestley, J. N., and Park, R., 1988. Theoretical stress-strain model for conned concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 114, 18041825. Mo, Y. L., and Wang, S. J., 2000. Seismic behavior of RC columns with various tie congurations, J. Struct. Eng. 126, 11221130. Moehle, J. P., 1992. Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earthquakes Earthquake Spectra 8, 403428. Patwardhan, C., 2005. Strength and deformation modeling of reinforced concrete columns, M.S. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Saatcioglu, M., and Ozcebe, G., 1989. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated seismic loading, ACI Struct. J. 86, 312. Setzler, E. J., 2005. Modeling the behavior of lightly reinforced concrete columns subjected to lateral loads, M.S. thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 2005. Sezen, H., 2002. Seismic behavior and modeling of reinforced concrete building columns, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Sezen, H., and Moehle, J. P., 2003. Bond-slip behavior of reinforced concrete members, bSymposium: Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions, CEB-FIP, Athens, Greece. , 2004. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns, J. Struct. Eng. 11, 16921703. Sezen, H., and Setzler, E. J., 2008. Reinforcement slip in reinforced concrete columns, ACI Struct. J. 105, 280289.

MODEL FOR THE LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

511

Umehara, H., and Jirsa, J. O., 1984. Short rectangular RC columns under bidirectional loadings, J. Struct. Eng. 110, 605618. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986. The modied compression-eld theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI J. 83, 219231. Wehbe, N. I., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H., 1999. Seismic performance of rectangular bridge columns with moderate connement, ACI Struct. J. 96, 248258. Wight, J. K., and Sozen, M. A., 1975. Strength decay of RC columns under shear reversals, J. Struct. Div. 101, 10531065.

(Received 15 July 2006; accepted 22 December 2007

Вам также может понравиться