Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.382

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING


REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS AND COMPARISONS
WITH FEMA 356 CRITERIA
KENNETH J. ELWOOD1* AND JACK P. MOEHLE2
1

Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada


2
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA

SUMMARY
An idealized backbone model defining the key damage states of an existing reinforced concrete column (flexural
yielding, shear failure, and axial load failure) is developed using drift capacity models. Assumptions and limitations of the drift capacity models are discussed. To demonstrate the application of the idealized backbone model
to the evaluation of existing reinforced concrete columns, the model is compared to data from shake table tests
and measured drifts from an instrumented building damaged during the Northridge earthquake. The results from
the backbone model are also compared with modeling parameters recommended in current seismic rehabilitation
guidelines. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Experimental research and post-earthquake reconnaissance have demonstrated that reinforced concrete
columns with light or widely spaced transverse reinforcement are vulnerable to shear failure during
earthquakes. Such damage can also lead to a reduction in axial load capacity, although this process is
not well understood. As the axial capacity diminishes, the gravity loads carried by the column must
be transferred to neighboring elements, possibly leading to a progression of damage, and in turn, collapse of the building.
To assess the collapse potential of a building structure, engineers require models capturing the key
damage states of a column during seismic response, namely: flexural yielding; shear failure; and axial
load failure. Models have been proposed by Elwood and Moehle (2005a, 2005b) to estimate the drifts
at shear and axial load failure for existing reinforced concrete columns. This paper will summarize
these models and discuss how they can be incorporated into an idealized backbone response for existing reinforced concrete columns. This idealized backbone response has been implemented in an analytical model (Elwood, 2004), enabling the nonlinear analysis of existing building frames including
the influence of shear and axial load failures. Given that the drift capacity models provide a good estimate of the mean drifts observed in laboratory tests, the models can be used to assess the adequacy
of the recommended modeling parameters from FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE, 2000).
The models for shear and axial load failure have been developed for columns which are expected
to experience flexural yielding prior to shear failure. As such, the idealized backbone model presented
here should only be applied to columns with similar characteristics. To demonstrate its application,
* Correspondence to: Kenneth J. Elwood, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, 6250 Applied
Science Lane, Vancouver, BC V6T 124, Canada. E-mail: elwood@civil.ubc.ca

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

554

K. J. ELWOOD AND J. P. MOEHLE

the backbone model has been applied to two columns: one from dynamic laboratory tests, and a second
from an instrumented building damaged during the Northridge earthquake.
2.

IDEALIZED BACKBONE RESPONSE

The idealized backbone captures significant changes in the sheardrift response of a column subjected
to cyclic lateral loads; namely, flexural yielding, shear failure (defined by a 20% loss of shear strength),
and axial load failure (defined by the initial redistribution of axial load supported by the column). The
backbone presented herein is developed for a column which is assumed to be fixed against rotation at
both ends and deforming in double curvature, as illustrated in Figure 1. The shear, V, is constant over
the height of the column, and the drift ratio, d, is defined as the displacement of the top of the column
divided by the clear height of the column, L.
Figure 2 shows an example of the idealized backbone response compared with pseudo-static test
data from Sezen (2002). The backbone is defined by the following coordinates approximating the critical damage states during cyclic response:
V

Drift Ratio, = /L
L

Figure 1. Fixedfixed column subjected to lateral loads


400
300

Vp

Shear (kN)

200
100
0

s y
y

100
200

-Vp

300
400
0.06

0.04

0.02

0.02

0.04

0.06

Drift Ratio

Figure 2. Calculated idealized backbone plotted with column test data (column data from Sezen, 2002)
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING RC COLUMNS

555

Flexural yielding at (d , V )
Shear failure at (d , V );
Axial load failure at (d , 00)
y

where Vp is the calculated plastic shear capacity, and dy, ds, and da are the calculated drift ratios at
yielding, shear failure, and axial load failure, respectively. Figure 2 illustrates the application of the
idealized backbone for a column with approximately constant axial load, and hence the backbone is
assumed to be symmetric about the origin. For columns with varying axial load, the cyclic response
will not be symmetric about the origin and the coordinates of each damage state must be determined
using the appropriate axial load. The following sections describe how the coordinates for each of the
damages states can be calculated.
2.1

Flexural yielding

The idealized backbone approximates the gradual yielding of the column with an elasticperfectly
plastic response. Yielding is assumed to occur once the shear demand reaches the plastic shear capacity, Vp. For the assumed boundary conditions shown in Figure 1, the column plastic shear capacity can
be determined as follows:
Vp =

2 Mp
L

(1)

where Mp is the plastic moment capacity based on standard section analysis (assuming plane sections
remain plane).
The effective yield drift ratio can be considered as the sum of the drifts due to flexure, bar slip, and
shear:
d y = d flex + d slip + d shear

(2)

Assuming the column is fixed against rotation at both ends and assuming a linear variation in curvature over the height of the column, the drift ratio at yield due to flexure can be estimated as follows:
d flex =

L
fy
6

(3)

where fy is the yield curvature determined from a bilinear idealization of the momentcurvature
response (Elwood and Eberhard 2006).
Elwood and Eberhard (2006) have shown that the drift ratio at yield due to bar slip depends on the
column axial load and can be estimated as follows:
d slip =

db fsf y
8u

(4)

where db is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, fs is the stress in the tension reinforcement,
and u is the average bond stress between the longitudinal reinforcement and the beamcolumn joint
concrete. A bond stress of 0 5 fc (MPa units) ( 6 fc in psi units) can be assumed for the calculation of slip (Sozen et al., 1992). The stress in the tension reinforcement at the point of effective yield
can be taken equal to the yield stress for columns with axial load below P/Ag f c = 02 and equal to zero
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

556

K. J. ELWOOD AND J. P. MOEHLE

for axial loads above P/Agfc = 05, with a linear interpolation between these points (Elwood and Eberhard, 2006).
Finally, assuming the column is fixed against rotation at both ends, the drift ratio at yield due to
shear deformations can be estimated by idealizing the column as consisting of a homogeneous material with a shear modulus G:
d shear =

2 Mp
(5/6) Ag GL

(5)

where Ag is the gross area of the column section.


The three drift components described above can be estimated using the column cross-sectional
dimensions and material properties. Given the drift components, Equations (1) and (2) can be used to
estimate the point of flexural yielding for the idealized backbone, (dy, Vp).
The drift ratio at yield can also be used to determine effective stiffness of the column:
EIeff =

Mp L
6d y

(6)

Based on a database of 120 rectangular columns, Elwood and Eberhard (2006) have shown that the
effective stiffness values recommended in FEMA 356 can overestimate the stiffness of a column with
low axial loads by more than 250%. Equation (7) is provided as an alternative to the FEMA 356 recommendations:
EIeff /EIg = 0 2
=

5 P
4

3 Ag fc 30

= 07

P
02
Ag fc
02 <

P
05
Ag fc

05 <

P
Ag fc

(7)

Based on the 120-column database, the mean ratio of the measured effective stiffness to the calculated effective stiffness based on Equation (7) is 099, with a coefficient of variation of 035 (Elwood
and Eberhard, 2006).
2.2

Shear failure

Since the idealized backbone has been developed for columns which are expected to yield prior to
shear failure, some limited ductility can be expected in the cyclic response prior to a significant degradation in shear strength. To capture this limited ductile response prior to shear failure, the idealized
backbone is given a horizontal slope between the drift at flexural yielding and the drift at shear failure,
and hence Vp is used to approximate the shear demand at shear failure. The following paragraphs
describe the evaluation of the drift at shear failure, ds.
Several models have been developed to represent the degradation of shear strength with increasing
inelastic deformations (Aschheim and Moehle, 1992; Watanabe and Ichinose, 1992; Priestley et al.,
1994; Sezen and Moehle, 2004). While these shear strength models are useful for estimating the
column strength as function of deformation demand, they are less useful for estimating displacement
at shear failure. For example, the model by Sezen and Moehle (2004) represents shear strength as a
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING RC COLUMNS

557

function of displacement ductility, md, using the relation shown in Figure 3, where Vo = initial shear
strength. A small variation in shear strength (shown by mean plus or minus one standard deviation
bounds) or similar variation in flexural strength (not shown) can result in large variation in estimated
displacement capacity, md. These models also suggest misleading trends in the relation between some
critical parameters (such as axial load) and displacement capacity at shear failure.
Pujol et al. (1999, 2000, 2006) have proposed drift capacity models for columns failing in shear.
These models make an important contribution by focusing attention directly on displacement capacity and by analyzing data for model development. The database of Pujol et al. includes columns with
transverse reinforcement ratios exceeding 001, which is larger than that which is of interest in the
present study.
To evaluate the response of columns with low transverse reinforcement ratios, a database of
50 column tests with observed shear distress at failure and tested in single or double curvature was
compiled (Sezen and Moehle, 2004). Columns in the database had the following range of properties:

Shear span to depth ratio: 20 a/d 40


Concrete compressive strength: 13 f 45 MPa (1900 f 6500 psi)
Longitudinal reinforcement yield stress: 324 f 524 MPa (47 f 76 ksi)
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio: 001 r 004
Transverse reinforcement yield stress: 317 f 648 MPa (46 f 94 ksi)
Transverse reinforcement ratio: 00010 r 00065
Maximum shear stress: 0 23 f n, MPa 0 72 (0 28 f n, psi 8 6)
c

yl

yl

yt

yt

Axial load ratio: 0 0 A f

06

g c

The model of Sezen and Moehle (2004) can be used to estimate mean shear strength as a function
of displacement ductility. As suggested by Figure 3, the intersection of the shear corresponding to flexural strength with mean shear strength can be interpreted to indicate the expected displacement at shear
failure. Figure 4 compares results obtained by this procedure with those actually observed during
the tests included in the database. The results show relatively high bias and dispersion (mean of the

V
Sezen shear strength model

Vo

slope = 3/40
1.0

0.7

1.0

Figure 3. Displacement at shear failure as function of model variability (Elwood and Moehle, 2005a)
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

558

K. J. ELWOOD AND J. P. MOEHLE


0.07

drift ratio calculated

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

drift ratio measured

Figure 4. Measured versus calculated drift at shear failure, interpreted from Sezen shear strength model (Elwood
and Moehle, 2005a)

0.06

drift ratio calculated

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02
0 < 0.0011
0.0011 < 0.002
0.002 < 0.004
0.004 < 0.0055
0.0055 < 0.008

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

drift ratio measured

Figure 5. Measured versus calculated drift at shear failure, Equation (8) (Elwood and Moehle, 2005a)

measured drift ratio at shear failure divided by the calculated drift ratio is 178 and the coefficient of
variation is 063).
Elwood and Moehle (2005a) re-evaluated the database test results from a displacement-capacity
perspective, and proposed the following relationship to estimate drift ratio at shear failure:
3
1 n
1 P
1
+ 4r

(MPa units)
100
40 fc 40 Ag fc 100
3
1 n
1 P
1
ds =
+ 4r

( psi units)
500 fc 40 Ag fc 100
100
ds =

(8)

where r = transverse steel ratio, v = nominal shear stress, f c = concrete compressive strength, P is
the axial load on the column, and Ag is the gross cross-sectional area. Figure 5 compares Equation (8)
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING RC COLUMNS

559

with the results from the database. The mean of the measured drift ratio divided by the calculated drift
ratio is 097, and the coefficient of variation is 034. The correlation is improved compared with that
shown in Figure 4.
Equations (1) and (8) can be used to determine the point of shear failure for the idealized backbone
response. When computing the drift ratio at shear failure using Equation (8), the shear stress, v, can
be estimated based on the plastic shear capacity, i.e. v = Vp /(bd).
2.3

Axial load failure

Experimental studies have shown that axial load failure tends to occur when the shear strength
degrades to approximately zero (Yoshimura and Yamanaka, 2000). Hence, the final point on the idealized backbone assumes a shear strength of zero and therefore only requires the calculation of the
drift ratio at axial load failure, da.
Elwood and Moehle (2005b) have proposed a shear-friction model to represent the general observation from experimental tests that the drift ratio at axial failure of a shear-damaged column is
inversely proportional to the magnitude of the axial load. Figure 6 shows a free-body diagram for the
upper portion of a column under shear and axial load. The inclined free surface at the bottom of
the free-body diagram is assumed to follow a critical inclined crack associated with shear damage.
The critical crack is one that, according to the idealized model, results in axial load failure as shearfriction demand exceeds the shear-friction resistance along the crack.
Several assumptions are made to simplify the problem. Dowel forces from the transverse reinforcement crossing the inclined crack are not shown; instead, the dowel forces are assumed to be
included implicitly in the shear-friction force along the inclined plane. Shear resistance due to dowel
action of the longitudinal bars depends on the spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and reasonably
can be ignored for the columns considered in this study. Relative movement across the shear failure
plane tends to compress the longitudinal reinforcement. Given the tendency for buckling, especially
in the limit, the axial force capacity of the longitudinal reinforcement will be assumed equal to zero.
Finally, the horizontal shear force is assumed to have dropped to zero in the limit following shear
failure as noted above from experimental evidence.

Figure 6. Free-body diagram of column after shear failure (Elwood and Moehle, 2005b)
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

560

K. J. ELWOOD AND J. P. MOEHLE

Equilibrium of the forces shown in Figure 6 results in the following expression for the axial capacity of the column:
P=

Ast fyt dc
1 + m tan q
tan q
tan q m
s

(9)

in which all variables are shown in Figure 6 except m = effective shear-friction coefficient. An empirical approach was used to define the crack angle q and effective shear-friction coefficient m, with data
from 12 columns tested at the University of California, Berkeley (Sezen, 2002; Lynn, 2001). These
full-scale shear-critical reinforced concrete columns were subjected to constant or varying axial load
with cyclic lateral load reversals in one plane only. Tests were continued past shear failure to the point
where axial load could no longer be sustained.
From these relations, Elwood and Moehle (2005b) developed relations among axial load, transverse
reinforcement, and drift ratio at axial load failure as follows:
da =

4
100

1 + tan 2 65
s

tan 65 + P
Ast fyt dc tan 65

(10)

in which P = axial load, Ast = area of transverse reinforcement parallel to the applied shear and having
longitudinal spacing s, fyt = transverse reinforcement yield stress, and dc = depth of the column core
measured parallel to the applied shear. Results of 28 unidirectional tests on columns experiencing
flexure-shear failures are compared with Equation (10) in Figure 7. The mean ratio of the measure
drift at axial failure to the calculated drift at axial failure (Equation (8)) is 101, with a coefficient of
variation of 039.
While useful as a design chart for determining drift capacities, Figure 7 must only be used with a
full appreciation for the inherent scatter in the results and the limitation that the results are based on
unidirectional, pseudo-static tests.

35
equation 10
test data

30

P/(A st f ytd c/s)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

drift ratio at axial failure

Figure 7. Drift capacity curve based on shear-friction model


Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING RC COLUMNS

2.4

561

Discussion of idealized backbone model

Given column details and the axial load demand, Equations (1), (2), (8), and (10) can be used to calculate the idealized backbone response shown in Figure 2 for a reinforced concrete column experiencing shear and axial load failure after flexural yielding. However, before the idealized backbone
model can be used to assess the capacity of an existing reinforced concrete column, it must be determined whether the column is expected to experience shear failure after yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement, a common characteristic of all the column tests used to develop the drift capacity
models described above.
To determine whether a column is likely to experience shear failure after flexural yielding, the plastic
shear capacity, Vp, should be compared with an appropriate shear strength model, such as that proposed by Sezen and Moehle (2004). As shown in Figure 8, the plastic shear capacity should fall in
the range between the initial shear strength, Vo, and the final shear strength, 07Vo. Because there is
some dispersion between actual and calculated shear strength, some columns with shear demand less
than the calculated shear, or plastic shear capacity greater than Vo, may still experience shear failure
after flexural yielding. Currently, engineering judgment is required to select which columns with Vp
outside the Vo to 07Vo range are still expected to experience shear failure after flexural yielding, and
hence can be evaluated using the proposed idealized backbone model. To reduce the reliance on judgment alone, there is a need to develop probabilistic capacity models accounting for the variability in
the test results relative to the mean response captured by the model.
During earthquake excitation columns can experience bidirectional loading and a wide variety of
loading histories, which may consist of a single large pulse or many smaller cycles prior to shear and
axial load failure. It has been demonstrated that an increase in the number of cycles past the yield displacement can result in a decrease in the drift capacity at shear failure (Pujol et al., 2006). Equation
(8) for the drift ratio at shear failure does not account for the influence of the number of significant
loading cycles. It is also anticipated that an increased number of cycles will reduce the drift capacity
at axial failure, although not enough test data is available to support or refute this hypothesis. Further
testing of reinforced concrete columns to the stage of axial failure is needed to supplement the current
database.
The proposed models for the drift ratios at shear and axial load failure (Equations (8) and (10))
provide estimates of the mean drift ratio at failure for the columns included in the respective

V
Equation 6
Idealized flexural
response

Vo
Vp

Sezen shear
strength model

0.7Vo

Figure 8. Comparison of Sezen shear strength model and model for drift ratio at shear failure (Equation (8))
(Elwood and Moehle 2005a)
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

562

K. J. ELWOOD AND J. P. MOEHLE

databases. As such, approximately half of the columns from the databases used to develop the models
experienced failure at drifts less than those predicted by the models. Furthermore, actual columns have
configurations and loadings that differ from those used in the tests, so that some additional scatter in
results seems likely. A model used for design or assessment might be adjusted accordingly to provide
additional conservatism as may be appropriate. Probabilistic capacity models, described later in this
paper, may assist in selecting an appropriate degree of conservatism.
3.

APPLICATIONS OF THE IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL

Two applications of the idealized backbone model developed above will be discussed. First, the idealized backbone model will be compared with shake table test results (Elwood and Moehle, 2003);
and second, the backbone model will be used to assess the capacity of a column from an instrumented
building damaged during the Northridge earthquake.
3.1

Comparison with shake table test results

Shake table tests were designed to observe the process of dynamic shear and axial load failures in
reinforced concrete columns when an alternative load path is provided for load redistribution. The test
specimens were composed of three columns fixed at their base and interconnected by a beam at the
upper level (Figure 9). The center column had wide spacing of transverse reinforcement, making it
vulnerable to shear failure, and subsequent axial load failure, during testing. As the center column
failed, shear and axial load would be redistributed to the adjacent ductile columns.
Two test specimens were constructed and tested. The first specimen supported a mass of 300 kN,
producing column axial load stresses roughly equivalent to those expected for a seven-story building.
The second specimen also supported a mass of 300 kN, but pneumatic jacks were added to increase
the axial load carried by the center column from 128 kN (010 f c Ag) to 303 kN (024 f cAg), thereby
amplifying the demands for redistribution of axial load when the center column began to fail.
The shear-critical center column was designed as a one-half scale reproduction of the 295 m tall,
457 mm 457 mm square cross-section columns reported in Sezen (2002) and Lynn (2001). From
Transverse
torsional beam

1.5 m wide beam designed to model


bending stiffness of typical spandrel beam
(masses not shown for clarity)

1830

#4 corner bars
#5 center bars
230

1475

Designed to
support gravity
loads after failure
of center column

Shear-Critical
Column

230

W2.9 wire
@ 152 o.c.

Section A
A

255

#4
#3 spiral @ 50

Section B
Force transducers to measure
reactions at base of columns

Figure 9. Shake table test specimen (units in mm) (Elwood, 2004)


Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

563

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING RC COLUMNS

those previous tests, it was expected that the center column would sustain flexural yielding prior to
shear failure. Axial load failure was expected to be more gradual for the column with low axial load
and more sudden for the column with higher axial load. The remaining frame elements (i.e., the beams,
outside columns, and footings) were not scaled from prototype designs, but instead were designed to
achieve the desired response. Both specimens were subjected to one horizontal component from a
scaled ground motion recorded at Via del Mar during the 1985 Chile earthquake.
The first specimen with lower axial load sustained severe diagonal cracking; a loss of lateral load
capacity, however, was able to maintain most of its axial load demand. The center column from the
second specimen with moderate axial load, also failed in shear, however, was unable to support most
of its axial load demand, resulting in shortening of the center column. Further results from the shake
table tests are reported elsewhere (Elwood and Moehle, 2003).
Figure 10 indicates that the idealized backbones, calculated using Equations (1), (2), (8), and (10),
provide a reasonable estimate of the measured hysteretic response of the center columns. The model
underestimates the drift ratio at shear failure for the specimen with low axial load, but provides a good
estimate of the drift ratio at shear failure for the specimen with moderate axial load. These results
suggest that the model for the drift ratio at shear failure (Equation (8)) may underestimate the influence of the axial load on the drift ratio at shear failure, particularly for low axial loads. Figure 10 also
indicates that the observed response of the test specimens was consistent with the calculated drifts at
axial failure based on Equation (10). The measured drifts for the specimen with low axial load (and
no axial failure) remain below the calculated drift ratio at axial load failure, while the measured drifts
for the specimen with moderate axial load (and experiencing axial failure) exceed the calculated drift
ratio at axial load failure. Figure 10 also includes the backbone determined based on the modeling
parameters from FEMA 356. The results clearly indicate that FEMA 356 overestimates the stiffness
and underestimate the drift capacities for both columns.
3.2

Column damaged during the Northridge earthquake

In this section the idealized backbone model will be used to assess the capacity of a column from a
building damaged during the Northridge earthquake. The seven-story moment frame building, shown
in Figure 11 and located in Van Nuys, California, experienced significant ground shaking during both
the San Fernando earthquake and the Northridge earthquake. Instrumentation distributed throughout

100

P = 0.10fcAg

Center Column Shear (kN)

Center Column Shear (kN)

100

50

FEMA 356

50

P = 0.24fcAg
50

50

Idealized backbone
100
0.08

0.04

Drift Ratio

0.04

0.08

100
0.08

0.04

0.04

0.08

Drift Ratio

Figure 10. Center column hysteretic response compared with idealized backbone and FEMA 356 backbone
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

564

K. J. ELWOOD AND J. P. MOEHLE

the structure prior to both earthquakes has provided very valuable data on the inelastic response of
moment frame buildings. Extensive literature on the structure is available elsewhere (e.g., Browning
et al., 2000; Trifunac et al., 1999). Only details on the damaged fourth-story exterior columns
will be discussed here. An exterior column from the fourth story of the building (C4, circled in
Figure 11) will be evaluated using the idealized backbone model. Typical details for this column are
shown in Figure 12. The axial load was estimated based on the dead load from a three-dimensional
static analysis.
Significant shear distress at the top of the column was observed after the Northridge earthquake
(Figure 13). Based on this damaged state, it is reasonable to expect that the column has lost the

Figure 11. Building frame with columns damaged during Northridge earthquake

Figure 12. Details and assumed properties for fourth-story column


Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING RC COLUMNS

565

majority of its lateral load capacity due to shear failure. However, it is unclear whether the column
experienced loss of axial load capacity resulting in gravity load redistribution to neighboring elements.
Based on interpolation of the recorded motions on the third and sixth floors, the maximum drift ratio
at the fourth story during the Northridge earthquake was estimated to be 0018. Note that 0018 is
expected to be a lower-bound value since the drifts were likely higher at the fourth story due to the
concentration of damage at this level.
As emphasized earlier, the idealized backbone model has been developed for columns which are
expected to experience shear failure after flexural yielding. To determine whether column C4 experienced shear failure after flexural yielding, the plastic shear capacity (assuming the column is fixed
against rotation at both ends), Vp, is compared with the shear strength according to the Sezen model,
Vo, as illustrated in Figure 8.
The ratio Vp/Vo is found to be 104, indicating that the Sezen shear strength model suggests that the
column may have failed in shear prior to flexural yielding. Currently no model exists to determine
the drift at axial load failure for columns experiencing this mode of failure. As will be discussed in
subsequently, due to the variability in the column shear strength (and, indeed, in the flexural strength)
finding Vp/Vo greater than unity does not preclude the possibility of shear failure occurring after flexural yielding. To illustrate the application of the idealized backbone model to column C4, it will be
assumed that there exists sufficient probability that shear failure occurred after flexural yielding to
warrant the investigation of this failure mode. This case highlights the importance of developing drift
capacity models for columns expected to fail in shear prior to flexural yielding.
Applying Equations (2), (8), and (10), the following drift capacities were determined for
column C4:

d = 0010
d = 0023
d = 0022
y
s

Note that the calculated drift at shear failure is slightly larger than the drift at axial load failure.
This result is inconsistent with the expected behavior, since Equation (10) assumes shear failure has
already occurred. Due to the lack of coupling between the models for the drift at shear failure (Equation (8)) and the drift at axial failure (Equation (10)), there is nothing requiring ds < da when the drift
ratios are calculated. Due to the variability associated with both drift capacity models, the results can

Figure 13. Damage to column C4 after Northridge earthquake (Trifunac et al., 1999)
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

566

K. J. ELWOOD AND J. P. MOEHLE

be interpreted to imply that axial load failure is expected to occur almost immediately after shear
failure at a drift ratio of approximately 0023.
The idealized backbone response and the estimated maximum drift ratio during the Northridge earthquake are shown in Figure 14. Given that the maximum drift ratio of 0018 is a lower-bound value,
and the variability in the drift capacities, these results suggest that column C4 may have experienced
axial load failure and redistributed some load to neighboring elements. The results also reinforce the
need to directly account for the variability in the capacity models during the evaluation of existing
reinforced concrete columns.
Modeling parameters from FEMA 356 can also be used to estimate the backbone response for
column C4. Figure 14 includes the FEMA 356 backbone considering the column to be controlled by
flexure, since Vp/Vo 10. Note that if the column was considered to be controlled by shear, then
FEMA 356 would regard the column as a force-controlled element with no ductility after reaching the
maximum force of 220 kN. The FEMA backbone suggests that the column is three times stiffer than
predicted by the idealized backbone model described in this paper. The FEMA backbone also
suggests that shear failure occurs at less than one half of the lower-bound estimate of the maximum
drift. Furthermore, the measured drift exceeds the collapse prevention (CP) acceptance criteria, indicating that the building would not satisfy the CP performance level for the Northridge earthquake.
4.

PROBABILISTIC CAPACITY MODELS

The capacity models described above only represent the mean response from the tests used to develop
the models. Probabilistic capacity models, defining not just the mean response but also the variation
in capacity about the mean value, are required to assess the probability of exceeding the column
capacity. Given such a probability, an engineer will be better equipped to make an informed decision
regarding the need for seismic retrofit.
The application of a probabilistic capacity model for the drift at shear failure is schematically represented in Figure 15. As discussed above, Equation (8) can be used to estimate the mean drift capacity at shear failure, ds. If the drift demand on the column, ddem, is less than ds, as shown in Figure 15,
then, without a probabilistic drift capacity model it is be left to the engineers judgment to determine

max=0.018

300

idealized backbone
FEMA backbone

Shear (kN)

250

CP acceptance criteria
(primary component)

200
150

CP acceptance criteria
(secondary component)

100
50
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

Drift Ratio

Figure 14. Comparison of idealized backbone model and FEMA 356 backbone for column C4
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING RC COLUMNS

567

whether the column has sufficient safety against shear failure. With the development of a probabilistic drift capacity model (shown schematically in Figure 15 as a probability density function, f(d), with
a mean ds and standard deviation s), it is possible to determine the probability of shear failure, Pf, by
finding the shaded area under the probability density function:
ddem

Pf =

f (d )dd

(11)

(Note that for illustration purposes Figure 15 ignores variability in the drift demand or plastic shear
capacity.)
Zhu (2005) has developed probabilistic drift capacity models for the drift at shear and axial load
failure based in a Bayesian methodology introduced by Gardoni et al. (2002). Based on the probabilistic model for the drift at axial failure, Zhu (2005) assessed the probability of failure given drift
demands equal to the drifts limits specified in FEMA 356 for the CP performance level for secondary
components. Figure 16 compares the probability of failure for the FEMA 356 limits for 28 columns
tested to axial failure with the transverse reinforcement ratio. The maximum failure probability is 37%,
occurring for a column with a transverse reinforcement ratio of 007%. Figure 16 indicates that the
level of safety provided by the FEMA 356 limits is not consistent for all the columns considered. In
particular, for columns with transverse reinforcement ratios less than 02% the failure probabilities
range from 007% to 37%. Furthermore, the FEMA 356 limits appear very conservative. For 89% of
the columns considered, the failure probability is less than 5%. Bearing in mind that the variability in
demand has not been considered, this level of safety may be considered too restrictive for the assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings.
5.

CONCLUSIONS

An idealized backbone model to assess the capacity of existing reinforced concrete columns with
light transverse reinforcement has been presented. The model approximates the envelope response
s

s+

V
f()

Vp
Equation 8

dem

Figure 15. Illustration of the application of a probabilistic capacity model for the drift at shear failure
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

568

K. J. ELWOOD AND J. P. MOEHLE


0

10

Failure probability

10

10

10

10

10

10

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

Figure 16. Failure probabilities for 28 columns according to numerical acceptance criteria for the collapse
prevention performance level in FEMA 356 (Zhu, 2005)

from experimental data by capturing only the key damage states during cyclic response, namely,
flexural yielding, shear failure, and axial load failure. Comparison of the model with shake table
test data indicates that the idealized backbone adequately represents the observed behavior and
accounts for the change in response with a change in axial load. Application of the model to a column
damaged during the Northridge earthquake highlights the need to account for the variability in the
capacity models when evaluating the response of reinforced concrete columns. Comparison of the
backbone model with drift limits from FEMA 356 indicates that the FEMA 356 limits can significantly underestimate the drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns. This conclusion is further supported based on the results from a probabilistic drift capacity model suggesting that the failure
probability at a drift demand equal to the FEMA 356 drift criteria for the CP performance level are
generally less than 5%.
REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington DC.
Aschheim M, Moehle JP. 1992. Shear strength and deformability of RC bridge columns subjected to inelastic
displacements, UCB/EERC 92/04. University of California: Berkeley, CA.
Browning J, Li YR, Lynn AC, Moehle JP. 2000. Performance assessment of a reinforced concrete frame building. Earthquake Spectra 16(3): 541555.
Elwood KJ. 2004. Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 31(5): 846859.
Elwood KJ, Eberhard MO. 2006. Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete columns. PEER Research Digest
2006/01.
Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. 2003. Shake table tests and analytical studies on the gravity load collapse of reinforced
concrete frames. PEER report 2003/01. Berkeley, CA. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California.
Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. 2005a. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement.
Earthquake Spectra 21(1): 7189.
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDEALIZED BACKBONE MODEL FOR EXISTING RC COLUMNS

569

Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. 2005b. Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI Structural Journal 102(4):
578587.
Gardoni P, Der Kiureghian A, Mosalam KM. 2002. Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 128(10):
10241038.
Lynn AC. 2001. Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building columns. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California: Berkeley, CA.
Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. 1994. Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. Journal of
Structural Engineering 120(8): 23102329.
Pujol S, Ramirez JA, Sozen MA. 1999. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns subjected to cyclic shear
reversals. Seismic Response of Concrete Bridges, SP-187, American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI;
255274.
Pujol S, Sozen MA, Ramirez JA. 2000. Transverse reinforcement for columns of RC frames to resist earthquakes.
Journal of Structural Engineering 126(4): 461466.
Pujol S, Sozen MA, Ramirez JA. 2006. Displacement history effects on drift capacity of reinforced concrete
columns. ACI Structural Journal 103(2): 253262.
Sezen H. 2002. Seismic response and modeling of lightly reinforced concrete building columns. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California: Berkeley, CA.
Sezen H, Moehle JP. 2004. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural
Engineering 130(11): 16921703.
Sozen MA, Monteiro P, Moehle JP, Tang HT. 1992. Effects of cracking and age on stiffness of reinforced concrete walls resisting in-plane shear. In Proceedings, 4th Symposium on Current Issues Related to Nuclear Power
Plant Structures, Equipment and Piping, Orlando, FL.
Trifunac MD, Ivanovic SS, Todorovska MJ. 1999. Seven storey reinforced concrete building in Van Nuys,
California: strong motion data recorded between 7 February 1971 and 9 December 1994, and description of
damage following Northridge 17 January 1994 earthquake. Dept. of Civil Eng., Report CE 99-02 University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Watanabe F, Ichinose T. 1992. Strength and ductility of RC members subjected to combined bending and shear.
In Concrete Shear in Earthquake T.C.C. Hsu and S.T. Mau (eds.). Elsevier Applied Science: New York;
429438.
Yoshimura M, Yamanaka N. 2000. Ultimate limit state of RC columns. In Second USJapan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo,
Japan, PEER report 2000/10. Berkeley, CA. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California; 313326.
Zhu L. 2005. Probabilistic drift capacity models for reinforced concrete columns. MASc thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia.

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 553569 (2006)


DOI: 10.1002/tal

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi