Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The assumptions made in estimating the stiffnesses of
structural members dominate the computed performance of
a building or bridge subjected to earthquake ground motions.
If these assumptions are used in a linear analysis, they control
predictions of the period of the structure, the distribution of
loads within the structure, and the deformation demands. The
member stiffnesses also control the yield displacement,
which in turn affects the displacement ductility demands
calculated as part of a nonlinear analysis.
The consequences of overestimating or underestimating
the actual stiffnesses of structural members depend on the
type of structural system and the response parameter of
interest. For example, a low estimate of the effective stiffnesses
of columns in a moment-resisting frame usually leads to a
conservative (high) estimate of the displacement demands.
In contrast, a low estimate of the effective stiffnesses for
columns in a shear-wall building would lead the designer to
unconservatively underestimate the elastic shear demands on
the columns. The need for an accurate estimate of effective
stiffnesses is even more crucial for time-history analyses, in
which the peaks and valleys of the ground-motion response
spectrum significantly influence the computed performance.
To assist engineers in developing numerical models for the
estimation of lateral deformation demands, most codes and
standards provide recommendations for member effective
stiffness. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) 356 seismic rehabilitation guidelines (ASCE 2000)
specify the most commonly used procedure for estimating
column stiffness in the U.S. This procedure has been adopted
into the Seismic Rehabilitation Standard, ASCE 41 (ASCE
2007a). It recently has been superseded by a new procedure
specified in ASCE 41 Supplement 1 (ASCE 2007b),
described in Elwood et al. (2007). A similar model is
included in the commentary to the New Zealand concrete
476
Rectangular columns
(221 specimens)
Mini- MaxiMini- MaxiParameter mum mum Mean Median mum mum Mean Median
a/D
fc, MPa
(ksi)
18.9
(2.7)
1.5
fy, MPa
(ksi)
240
565
420
446
318
587
456
453
(34.8) (82.0) (61.0) (64.7) (46.2) (85.2) (66.2) (65.7)
D/db
0.005
v f c ,
MPa (psi)
P/Agfc
0.05
(0.6)
12
0.1
10.0
4.0
90.0 37.9
(13.1) (5.5)
4.0
1.5
34.4
(5.0)
21.0
(3.0)
27
0.99 0.27
(11.9) (3.3)
0.58
0.15
0.010
7.6
3.6
118.0 52.3
(17.1) (7.6)
3.2
36.5
(5.3)
28
12
32
18
16
0.19
(2.3)
0.09
(1.1)
0.71
(8.6)
0.32
(3.9)
0.30
(3.6)
0.10
0.00
0.63
0.23
0.20
F 0.004 a
EI effmeas = -----------------3 y
(1)
Minimum Maximum
Mean
Median
Coefficient of
variation, %
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Coefficient of
variation, %
Gross section
FEMA 356
0.13
0.25
1.21
1.96
0.39
0.74
0.34
0.64
55.1
48.1
0.10
0.19
1.22
1.95
0.37
0.68
0.33
0.64
58.1
48.8
ASCE 41 Supplement 1
ACI 318-08 (a)
0.42
0.24
2.11
1.81
1.02
0.76
0.91
0.69
39.1
46.7
0.27
0.14
1.95
1.74
0.82
0.59
0.83
0.53
36.0
49.5
0.25
0.26
2.42
1.62
0.78
0.68
0.67
0.61
55.1
41.3
0.19
0.17
2.43
1.56
0.75
0.58
0.65
0.56
58.1
44.4
0.26
0.21
1.24
1.58
0.61
0.68
0.56
0.62
37.7
41.8
0.16
0.16
1.29
2.03
0.49
0.66
0.49
0.62
41.2
54.3
478
(2)
THREE-COMPONENT MODEL
OF YIELD DISPLACEMENT
Several researchers (Sozen 1974; Priestley et al. 1996;
Lehman and Moehle 1998; Berry and Eberhard 2007) have
proposed estimating the yield displacement of an equivalent
cantilever column of length a as the sum of the displacement
components due to flexure, shear, and bar slip
y = flex + shear + slip
(4)
(3)
a
a M 0.004
flex = ----- y = ----- ------------3
3 EI flex
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
-------------------- = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EI g
d
f
f
3 D
18 r 2 D 2 E c
1 + --- ----b- ---- ---s ---y + ------ ----v ---- -------8 D a f y u 5 D a G eff
(12)
Table 3Statistics for ratio of measured to calculated effective stiffness for proposed models
Circular columns (108 specimens)
Model
Minimum Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of
Median variation, % Minimum Maximum
Mean
Median
Coefficient of
variation, %
Equation (12)
Equation (16)
0.50
0.63
1.69
1.80
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.00
21.4
22.2
0.45
0.48
1.84
1.47
0.97
0.93
0.92
0.89
26.6
26.6
Equation (17)
Equation (18) with average bar size
0.64
0.57
1.76
1.59
1.04
1.02
0.99
1.00
23.5
22.0
0.48
0.46
1.68
1.63
0.92
0.95
0.91
0.94
26.9
25.5
481
primarily with the level of axial load, but also with the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement. Assuming a linear
stress-strain relationship for the concrete and steel, can be
expressed in terms of the normalized initial strain due to the
axial load, (P/AgEc)/o, and the relative stiffness of longitudinal
reinforcement, n. The normalized flexural rigidity can be
approximated as
P A g E c
approx = 0.2 + 1.3 ------------------+ n 1.0
o
(13)
(14)
(15)
d
D
b
1 + 110 ----- ---- -----------------------------------
D a f
y approx_Eq. 15
(16)
The two coefficients in Eq. (16) (1.5 and 110) were calibrated
to compensate for the elimination of the shear term and to
achieve a good match with the measured effective stiffness
for the rectangular and circular column databases. As shown
in Table 3, Eq. (16) provides similar levels of accuracy as
Eq. (12), without requiring moment-curvature analysis.
Using Eq. (14) (instead of Eq. (13)) to estimate , provides
a model that does not require knowledge of the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio without a significant decline in the
model accuracy (refer to Table 3).
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009
EI eff calc
1.5 approx_Eq. 14
--------------------- = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 and 0.2
EI g
fs
d b D
(17)
(18)
(18)
NOTATION
Ag
Asl
Av
a
aF0.004
aFfirst yield
b
c
D
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
db
Ec
Es
EIeff meas
EIflex
EIg
EIg,t
e/D
F0.004
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Ffirst yield
Fmax
fc
=
=
=
fs
fy
Geff
l
M0.004
=
=
=
=
=
Mfirst yield
n
P
Pb
Po
Rc
Rr
rv
Ts
u
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
483
slip
flex
shear
slip
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
y
first yield
slip
=
=
=
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 465 pp.
ACI Committee 408, 1979, Suggested Development, Splice, and Standard
Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars, Concrete International, V. 1, No. 7,
July, pp. 44-46.
Alsiwat, J. M., and Saatcioglu, M., 1992, Reinforcement Anchorage
Slip under Monotonic Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 118, No. 9, Sept., pp. 2421-2438.
ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC, Nov.
ASCE, 2007a, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
ASCE/SEI 41, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE, 2007b, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
ASCE/SEI 41, Supplement 1, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA.
Benzoni, G.; Ohtaki, T.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., 1996,
Seismic Performance of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns under
Varying Axial Load, SSRP 96/04, Structural Systems Research, University
of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
Berry, M. P., and Eberhard, M. O., 2007, Performance Modeling Strategies
484