Confined Column Analysis

Qingzhi Liu Dept. of Civil Engineering

1. Assumptions
(1) Program: BIAX2009 (2) Material models are described in Table 1, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Table 1 Description of material models Model description Compression branch: Modified Kent & Park model (parameters have been calibrated)

Material

Model parameters

Unconfined concrete (Fig. 1) Tension branch:

Modified Kent & Park model Confined Concrete (Fig. 1)

Priestley model: Steel (Fig. 2)

Note: concrete cover = 1.5

Material model of confined concrete

7000 6000

Unconfined Confined

Stress /psi

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Strain
Fig. 1(a) Material model for concrete

0.3 strength /ksi

Material model for concrete in tension

0.2

0.1

0 0 0.0005 Strain
Fig. 1(b) Material model for concrete in tension

0.001

0.0015

120 Strength /ksi 100 80

Material model for steel

60
40 20 0 0 0.03 0.06 Strain 0.09 0.12

Fig. 2 Material model for steel

Modified K&P model: Compressive yield strength of concrete, Width of concrete core measured to outside of hoops, Height of the concrete core measured to outside of the hoops, Diameter of the hoops, Center to center spacing of the hoops, Yield strength of transverse reinforcement, Cross sectional area of the hoops, Volume of hoop to volume of concrete core measured to outside of hoops Note: The effect of 1 additional tie is involved by adjusting

2. Problem (a)
(1) Two different models are built separately for i) before spalling; ii) at maximum compressive strain, as shown in Fig.3. i) An integral section with unconfined concrete material: assume that the confinement reinforcement will not take effect before the spalling of the cover concrete. The ultimate strain is chosen: cu=0.003. The result of this model is also utilized to compare the hand calculation in Problem (b) for four critical points. ii) Concrete core with confined concrete material. The cover concrete is assumed to have unconfined concrete material. The maximum compressive strain is chosen: cu=0.0088. In order to simulate the spalling of concrete cover, the unconfined concrete model is adjusted to decrease to zero after it reaches cu=0.0038, as shown in Fig. 4.

Model for unconfined cover concrete 6000 Stress /psi 4000 2000 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 Strain

Fig. 3 models for i) and ii)

Fig. 4 Model for unconfined cover concrete

(2) Results of problem (a) are shown in Fig. 4.

Axial load - Moment interaction curve

3500 3000 2500 2000 e=0.003 e=0.0088

D C

Force kips

1500 1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

B
1400

Moment k - ft

Fig. 5 Axial load Moment interaction curve for problem (a) (3) Discussion of the results 1) For point A (pure tension), the axial forces in the two models are the same. Explanation: ft = 0 after concrete cracks, therefore all the contribution is from reinforcement. y < s < sh=0.1, fs = fs = 60 ksi are the same for both models. 2) For point B (pure moment), moment at cu=0.0088 is bigger than that at cu=0.003. Explanation: due to the confinement, fs increases, the depth of neutral axis decreases, the moment arm of tension steel increases. Besides, the ultimate strain of concrete increases, the tension steel may begin to harden, the tension force also increases. Therefore, the moment is larger at cu=0.0088. 3) For point C (Balance point), the axial forces in the two models are nearly the same and the moment resistance at cu=0.003 is bigger than that at cu=0.0088. Explanation: in the hand calculation below, it is found that at balance point, both the tension steel and the compression steel yield. Therefore, the axial forces equal to the forces supplied by concrete (the force supplied by the compression steel equal to that supplied by the tension steel). . will be higher in confined model, but the height of the Whitney stress block will be smaller. Therefore, the axial forces in the two models are nearly the same. On the other hand, , because the cover concrete has spalling, the moment arm of the tension steel is smaller, the moment at cu=0.0088 is smaller than that at cu=0.003. 4) For point D The compression force in the model at cu=0.0088 is larger than that at cu=0.003.

Explanation: although the outer cover concrete has spalling, the strength of the confined concrete is much larger at cu=0.0088 than that of the unconfined concrete at cu=0.003.

3. Problem (b)
(1) The hand calculation is shown in the next page. (2) Discussion of the result 1) Assumptions As mentioned before, it is assumed that the confinement reinforcement will not take effect before the spalling of the cover concrete. The ultimate strain is chosen: cu=0.003. The result of model 1, whose whole section is of the unconfined concrete material, is utilized to compare the hand calculation for four critical points. 2) Results All the results from hand calculation are nearly the same as those from BIAX, except one case: pure tensile forces. The hand calculation is 1560 kips, while the result from BIAX model is 1450 kips. One reason may be that the stress-strain curve of the steel in BIAX has descending branch after peak stress, as shown in Fig.6.

Stress-strain curve for steel

120 100 Stress /ksi 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.05 Strain 0.1 0.15

Fig. 6 Stress- strain curve for steel in BIAX

4. Problem (c)
The assumptions are specified in the hand writing. Table 2 shows the curvature ductility calculated by model 1 and model 2. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show the curvature ductility at different axial load levels in model 1 and model 2. Discussion of the results: Both Model 1: cu=0.003 and Model 2: cu=0.0088 show that higher axial loads will result in a decreasing curvature ductility of the columns. The reason is present in the hand writing.

Table 2 Curvature ductility with respect to different axial loads in Model 1 and Model 2 Model 1: cu=0.003 Model 2: cu=0.0088 P (kips) y u = u/ y P (kips) y u = u/ y 0 0.148 1.750 11.8 0 0.148 2.669 18.0 0.25Pb=242 0.176 0.938 5.3 0.25Pb=265 0.172 1.737 10.1 0.5Pb=483 0.181 0.513 2.8 0.5Pb=530 0.193 1.277 6.6 0.75Pb=725 0.200 0.352 1.8 0.75Pb=795 0.207 1.022 4.9 Pb=967 0.220 0.270 1.2 Pb=1060 0.210 0.805 3.8

1400 1200

M - fi Curve @ different axial load level - ecu=0.003

Moment k - ft

1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.5 1 Curvature 1/10^3 in 1.5 2 N=0 N=242k N=483k N=725k N-967k

Fig. 7 M - fi Curve for Model 1

1600 1400 1200 Moment k - ft 1000 800 600 400 200 0

M - fi Curve @ different axial load level - ecu=0.0088

N=0 N=265k N=530k N=795k N=1060k

0.5

1.5 2 Curvature 1/10^3 in

2.5

Fig. 8 M - fi Curve for Model 2

5. Problem (d)
The result is shown in Fig. 9. When the slenderness ratio increases, the moment amplification coefficient increases. Therefore, the column is more prone to buckle at lower axial loads. When P=0, the columns will not buckle and all curves will converge at one point in the Moment-axis.

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500

Axial load - Moment interaction curve

e=0.003 e=0.0088 kL/r=40 kl/r=50

Force kips

1000 500 0 -500 0 -1000 -1500 -2000 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Moment k - ft Fig. 9 N M curve related to the buckling of columns

6. Problem (e)
The result is shown in Fig. 10. Discussion of the results: (1) Columns under tensile axial loads will encounter diagonal cracking early. (For pure tension, Nu = 240 kips is small). (2) With the increase of axial load N, Vc increases, so as Mvc. However, when N increases, the curvature ductility will reduce. Therefore, approximate axial load should be determined to increase Vc and at the same time not decrease curvature ductility too much. (3) For N < 1400 kips for H=12 ft and N < 1200 kips for H=24 ft, column will undergo diagonal cracking prior to flexure failure. (4) After diagonal cracking happens, the shear resistance from Vs will take effect with Vc. (5) When a column is higher, it is more prone to have flexure failure. (Mvc + Mvs is large) (6) Transverse reinforcement #4@4 in the case of H=24 ft can result in flexural failure even when the Vc part is ignored.

4000 3000 2000

Axial load - Moment interaction curve

e=0.003 e=0.0088 Mvc(H=12ft)

Force kips

Mvc(H=24ft) Mvs(H=12ft) Mvs(H=24ft)

1000 0 0 500 1000 1500

2000

2500

-1000 -2000

Moment k - ft Fig. 10 N M curve related to shear